Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Wiggly Wayne DDS
Sep 11, 2010



Chuu posted:

I've gone down a bit of a rabbit hole looking at direct contact CPU cooling. The gains are incredibly impressive for the cost, especially if you're likely already going to buy a contact frame.

Something I've been having trouble getting a good answer though is about what materials to use in the junction. I've seen people say that you absolutely have to use liquid metal and cannot use thermal paste for . . . well different reasons. Meanwhile I've also seen videos of people using graphine pads, but I thought graphine pads were a convenience thing and not as good as the best thermal paste?

What's the actual story here? What can and can you use in the thermal junction, and why?
graphene pads are more of a convenience thing, but they're more about producing reliably reproducible results and why they're used in a lot of benchmarks. i suspect the reason you're seeing people mentioning only using liquid metal is that you've already done most of the hard parts and why settle for second-best in thermal throughput at that point. you do need to design around no leaks there and build in contingencies, so i wouldn't begrudge anyone for going direct-die contact and then backing off with 'only' thermal paste

looking forward to what your gains are and the chip used

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply