Which HSF to use?

[SmakDaddy]

I recently decided to upgrade a few bits and pieces in my computer. its an older motherboard (ddr2, etc), but takes AM2, AM2+, and some AM3 cpus.

It had a Phenom 9750 x4 cpu in it, which I upgraded to a Phenom 2 1045t x6 cpu. The newer cpu runs at 95w, compared to 125w in the old one, and also runs faster.

My question is, is the stock HSF from the 9750 better than the stock HSF that came with the 1045t? It looks chunkier, but I figure theres a chance the new one is just more advanced, like the cpu. I bought a tube of Antec formula 6 nano diamond thermal compound to stick the old one on, if it turns out to be better.

I searched the web and found a few pics.
The stock 1045t HSF:
http://www.goldfries.com/images/hwre...2x2-250_02.jpg

The stock 9750 HSF (the squarer one on the left):
http://media.bestofmicro.com/phenom-...-206355-13.jpg

Thanks,

Dave

[SLATYE]

Use the old one. It should definitely be more effective.

[zero_velocity]

Yep, old one is defs better

[SmakDaddy]

Thanks guys, I thought it might be, but I wasn't sure if it was better, or just clunkier (it is quite a bit higher, bigger fan, bigger fins, and then it has the copper tube things in the sides and all.)

thanks again,

Dave

[Garido]

yeah AMD are under harder times and are trying to save money where they can, heatsink fans especially.

[.Radiant]

Mainly because it's a 1045t, you'll see those same copper pipe coolers if you had grabbed a 1090/1100t.

use the older one though, alu will never be as good a conductor as coppet

[SLATYE]

Originally Posted by Garido

yeah AMD are under harder times and are trying to save money where they can, heatsink fans especially.

Not really. Intel does exactly the same thing; that's why the cheap Intel CPUs get a heatsink like this while the expensive ones get this.

It's very simple logic: if you spend less on the heatsink, you can either (a) sell the heatsink + CPU bundle for less, or (b) make more profit on each CPU + heatsink bundle sold. Either is good from a business point of view.

[Garido]

Originally Posted by SLATYE

Not really. Intel does exactly the same thing; that's why the cheap Intel CPUs get a heatsink like this while the expensive ones get this.

It's very simple logic: if you spend less on the heatsink, you can either (a) sell the heatsink + CPU bundle for less, or (b) make more profit on each CPU + heatsink bundle sold. Either is good from a business point of view.

A Celeron is a low power CPU and a entry level pricepoint. Of course this is expected. The OP has a 6 core Phenom CPU, considered an AMD premium CPU. As such, a better cooler should be provided. Poor form from AMD.

[c_hegge]

^
Core i5 CPUs come with the same low profile stock coolers, and they are hopeless. I always use Coolermaster TX3s instead.

[.Radiant]

Originally Posted by SLATYE

Not really. Intel does exactly the same thing; that's why the cheap Intel CPUs get a heatsink like this while the expensive ones get this.

It's very simple logic: if you spend less on the heatsink, you can either (a) sell the heatsink + CPU bundle for less, or (b) make more profit on each CPU + heatsink bundle sold. Either is good from a business point of view.

They don't even provide coolers with their SB-E range IIRC. The SB/IB chips get a little pissy thing.

[Garido]

Originally Posted by c_hegge

^
Core i5 CPUs come with the same low profile stock coolers, and they are hopeless. I always use Coolermaster TX3s instead.

Good choice, the TX3 is a fantastic cooler. The core i5 CPU cooler is adequate for the job. I believe a core i5 runs cooler than a 6 core phenom (can only go by personal experience too).

[SLATYE]

Originally Posted by Garido

A Celeron is a low power CPU and a entry level pricepoint. Of course this is expected. The OP has a 6 core Phenom CPU, considered an AMD premium CPU. As such, a better cooler should be provided. Poor form from AMD.

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion.

The goal is to provide a cooler adequate for the CPU at the lowest possible cost. The cooler is adequate for the CPU, and presumably is as cheap as AMD can make it. Therefore they have achieved the goal.

[Raykay]

Originally Posted by SLATYE

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion.

The goal is to provide a cooler adequate for the CPU at the lowest possible cost. The cooler is adequate for the CPU, and presumably is as cheap as AMD can make it. Therefore they have achieved the goal.

Exactly. As far as I see it, if the CPU temperature is under the manufacturers specification at it's highest ambient operating temperature under any circumstances, it's adequate for the job.

I've personally never owned an AMD processor or build but I'm sure that the coolers do in fact do what they're advertised to do.

[Garido]

Originally Posted by SLATYE

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion.

The goal is to provide a cooler adequate for the CPU at the lowest possible cost. The cooler is adequate for the CPU, and presumably is as cheap as AMD can make it. Therefore they have achieved the goal.

That is the goal, yet AMD does it so poorly. My Phenom was poorly cooled by the stock heat sink fan yet my Intel is within safe limits. Can only speak from experience but AMD failed theirs with my sample. Having said this I'm referring the my 9950 BE (on stock settings, volts, clocks). Would hit 64+ under load. Intel one did fine.

Originally Posted by Raykay

Exactly. As far as I see it, if the CPU temperature is under the manufacturers specification at it's highest ambient operating temperature under any circumstances, it's adequate for the job.

I've personally never owned an AMD processor or build but I'm sure that the coolers do in fact do what they're advertised to do.

Just because they aim for the goal, does not mean they get it in every case.

[Raykay]

Originally Posted by Garido

That is the goal, yet AMD does it so poorly. My Phenom was poorly cooled by the stock heat sink fan yet my Intel is within safe limits. Can only speak from experience but AMD failed theirs with my sample. Having said this I'm referring the my 9950 BE (on stock settings, volts, clocks). Would hit 64+ under load. Intel one did fine.



Just because they aim for the goal, does not mean they get it in every case.

Is that within their tolerances? Happy to be proven wrong.