Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sandy Bridge-E CPUs Too Hot For Intel?

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the the-creams-do-nothing dept.

Intel 244

MrSeb writes "Intel's next consumer CPUs — the Sandy Bridge-E — will ship without a heatsink and fan. These new chips, which will feature up to 15MB of L3 cache and integrated four-channel DDR3 and 32x PCI 3.0 controllers will run very hot — potentially up to 180W TDP. Is Intel unable to cool these extreme chips, or is there another reason for the shift? Curiously, Intel will still offer 'sold separately' own-brand cooling solutions for the new chips — so is this merely Intel trying to cut costs for enthusiasts who don't need a stock cooler — or is this the beginnings of Intel branching out into the cooling business?"

cancel ×

244 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Warranty (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37093454)

It is so they can blame customers if the chip dies of overheating.
If they offer OEM solutions, and the chip overheats, they need to replace it under warranty, guess these chips may have a high chance of dying due to heat

Re:Warranty (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093578)

And how is that "blame" issue negated by selling the chips and coolers separately?
If Intel sells a cooler claiming to be sufficient to cool their CPU and it destroys the CPU in the process, are they not to blame?

Re:Warranty (5, Insightful)

Alex Zepeda (10955) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093606)

Two words: installation error.

Re:Warranty (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093718)

Two words: installation error.

Oh, you better fucking believe it. Let's see how many defective chips get replaced now...better keep your lawyer in the loop next time you build a machine.

This is some important shit right here yo! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37094070)

Damn, we gots some major-ass contro-versy up all in this shit!

Re:Warranty (3, Informative)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094122)

or just buy an AMD, you can still buy them with pretty nice OEM coolers and i have never in my live had an AMD CPU go tits up on me, even when i did fuck up the fan install and had heat alarm events and shutdowns, never damaged anything.

Re:Warranty (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094744)

Or just buy Intel, ignoring these people who inventing these warranty issues out of thin air and their own paranoia.

Re:Warranty (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093726)

Yep. Since Intel is no longer installing the heat sink, you'll have to prove proper installation to get your warranty replacement.

Re:Warranty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37093848)

Uh, when did they install the heat sink previously? How exactly do you install a heat sink when it's sold separately from the motherboard?

Re:Warranty (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094028)

They certainly didn't on the i7 I built. It came with a heatsink, but I had to install it myself.

And you install an sold-separately heat sink the same way you install a heatsink that comes with the item. Yeah, I'm sure you meant to ask something else, but that's the way it reads.

Re:Warranty (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094626)

well if the chips wont be coming with a official Intel brand approved OEM cooler, then where is it going to come from...

Re:Warranty (4, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093886)

Intel heatsinks NEVER DID come attached to the CPU. It was ALWAYS on the system builder to install the heatsink, even on Intel motherboards. The real issue is that 1) Intel makes really crappy heatsinks, and 2) including a decent (copper and/or heatpipe) cooler would move them out of the performance price-point they've been occupying for many years now.

Re:Warranty (2)

mossr (72445) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094128)

Not meaning to be ignorant here, but what performance price-point do they occupy? It's my understanding that AMD offers better bang-for-buck at the budget end of the scale, and Intel trumps their mid-to-high range offerings. So how would this affect customers who've chosen to buy Intel, since they're already committing themselves to the mid-range or higher?

Businesses still buy Intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37094188)

Businesses still buy Intel. Including a heatsink good enough will make the difference even bigger and at a certain point, businesses won't put up with it.

The alternative is that businesses getting a perk on the deal is cutting seriously into Intels profit margin.

Re:Businesses still buy Intel (1)

b0bby (201198) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094544)

Businesses buy Intel, but they buy them in machines assembled by Dell et al. Building your own business machine hasn't made sense for a long time now, IMHO.

Re:Businesses still buy Intel (2)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094756)

Building your own business General office machine machine hasn't made sense for a long time now, IMHO.

The powerhouse 8 core workstations here for the Graphics department and Video department are well worth it building them instead of buying Dell crap.

Their pricing on high end workstations are not competitive and their parts and BIOS are sub par in that realm.

Re:Warranty (1)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094238)

The difference between a $250 chip and a $270 or $280 chip is not insignificant, it would also be easy to argue that these chips would need a $50 heatsink/fan making that $250 chip a $300 chip. They aren't trying to stay at a price point to compete with AMD they're trying to stay at a price point to not compete with themselves.

Re:Warranty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37094426)

Yeah they did, it was called Slot 1.

Re:Warranty (4, Informative)

moonbender (547943) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093754)

Huh? Installation error also applies to the "boxed" coolers. It's not like they sold them already mounted on the mainboard. However, damaging a CPU when installing the HSF has been fairly rare for a while now, since the advent of improved mounting mechanisms, integrated heat spreaders and CPUs with thermal throttles.

Re:Warranty (0, Flamebait)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093862)

If purchase_timestamp_HS purchase_timestamp_CPU then your HS does not support that old of a CPU, sorry no refund.

If purchase_timestamp_HS = purchase_timestamp_CPU then sorry intel can not verify that is a supported combination of CPU and HS, sorry no refund.

It may be a precursor to DRM'd CPU and HS fan technology... Add another line to each fan, +5, gnd, and rotation, now add "drm" line. Oh, your 120 mm $5 case fan doesn't have a DRM line? Sorry, you'll have to buy a "special" $75 50 mm fan or that CPU won't boot. Whats "special" about it? Oh, it costs $70 more, nothing else.

Re:Warranty (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093876)

/. certainly does not like greater than or less than signs. Its AMSTEX from here on out, assuming that works.

Re:Warranty (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093958)

Or you could just use html entities, like the rest of us do...

>
<

Seems to work fine for me...

Re:Warranty (1)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094334)

And those would be &lt; and &gt; to be specific.

Re:Warranty (2)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094078)

Ha! I actually ran into something similar with a 80mm case fan that an old heatsink supported. The CPU fan power on the mobo wouldn't run it. So the CPU fan was plugged into a case fan plug on the mobo, and put a 50mm fan somewhere in the case, on the CPU fan plug.

You'd still have to buy the craptacular overpriced fan in your scenario, but nobody would know you weren't running it on the CPU cooler.

Re:Warranty (3, Interesting)

moonbender (547943) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094132)

Again, this is something they could have done already. I'm not sure what kind of refunds they're supposed to deny, though. Lots of people buy boxed CPUs and then use after market coolers (because the boxed HSF sucks). I have a few Intel HSFs lying around because I couldn't get a "bulk" CPU without a cooler; I'd prefer it if Intel stopped bundling a useless heat sink.

Getting into the desktop enthusiast heatsink/fan market right now would be a fairly bizarre move for Intel to make. Even if they used some sort of DRM to force people to use their stuff, I doubt there is a lot of money in it and it'll result in a lot of anger and hate among the people you're trying to sell to. If they're that sure of their own position, they could simply jack up prices for new CPUs.

Re:Warranty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37093822)

That's not any different than Intel's CPUs that come with the fan and heat-sink in the same box. You still have to install the HSF after inserting the CPU.

Re:Warranty (3, Insightful)

discord5 (798235) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093978)

And how is that "blame" issue negated by selling the chips and coolers separately?

First and foremost : the distributor/consumer now has to install the cooling device, which shifts the problem to "Did you install the cooler correctly? Because we don't cover improper assembly". That give enough leverage for them to claim that the problem lies with the installer in most cases. While this is less of an issue for the average consumer who will buy a computer from retail, it is for the retailers and distributors (think : Dell). If chips start overheating, clearly Dell isn't correctly installing the cooling fans and heatsinks.

Second : hobbyists still assemble their own gear and will most likely buy different cooling gear than Intel has to offer. There's been a wide variety in products for years now, going from Ultra-cool-but-noisy, to Cool-but-silent, to Ultra-Cool-And-Silent-But-Expensive. Again, these are most likely not the kind of people who will improperly their CPU, but accidents do happen and it's nice to be able to not have to refund that (relatively) rather expensive part.

A measure like this has two purposes :

  • Reduce costs in warranty claims
  • Increase revenue by selling a separate cooling part which most distributors will buy from Intel anyway. You don't think the chips will be cheaper without the cooler now, do you?

If Intel sells a cooler claiming to be sufficient to cool their CPU and it destroys the CPU in the process, are they not to blame?

You see, the cooler is quite up to spec. Are you sure you are installing it properly? Have you left enough ventilation area in your design? Did you apply the cooling paste properly? Did you actually read the instructions that came with the cooler? How about the disclaimer that came with the cooler?

I'm sure they've done the math and tests and have minimized the failure rate to a number that won't generate too much of a fuss. But a few thousand failing chips here and there all soon add up to real money, even in a pool millions. Finding a way to save on that saves on costs.

Anyway, that's the angle I see... I've been known to be wrong on economics before. I've always found it wise to steer clear of the latest and greatest models of CPUs until there's enough complaints on the internet to know what you're getting into.

On a sidenote, I've been having this feeling for a while now that the CPU arms race has slowed down quite considerably. Oh yes, there's new features every now and then and the number of cores goes up, but for the home consumer the upgrade pressure is far less than a decade ago. Even for modern videogames the CPU demands have stayed pretty much the same in the last couple of years, but I guess the GPU race makes up for that in that respect.

Re:Warranty (2)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094076)

On a sidenote, I've been having this feeling for a while now that the CPU arms race has slowed down quite considerably.

For what it's worth I've felt that way for a while too. I recently got a new Core i7 system and *wow*.
I've been working on a 1080p video project (was on a Core2 Quad Extreem) and the wait time for render operations is waaaay lower on the core i7.

As to the heatsink issue, I think this CPU is being targeted at high end desktop users and such who usually just toss the OEM cooler in the bin. Since at 180W the OEM cooler would be rather expensive, I think this is mostly a way for Intel to keep the price about $25-$50 lower than it would be with the cooler included. Naturally, breaking the bundle will make the combined cost higher (part of that is justifiable based on seperate packaging, parts that have to be tracked/shipped/etc.) but yeah, I'll bet that you see maybe an overall increase of about $20/unit over the bundle price.
-nB

Re:Warranty (4, Insightful)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093784)

Is this really such a big deal? I've used third-party high end cooling solutions for over a decade now and I always buy tray-only CPUs. I buy AMD and I can usually find the processor I want without the heatsink and fan. Are things that different from Intel?

I say it's a great change. How many stock fans and heatsinks will be saved from gathering dust because of this? How much waste will this reduce? Plus it will put $10-15 in someone's pocket (probably Intel's).

Re:Warranty (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094286)

That and it will save Intel cost in terms of packaging and materials cost. Chips can now be in a smaller package allowing higher density.

Re:Warranty (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093844)

Given that Intel chips have had thermal throttling protections since the P4(the effect makes for a cool demo: spin up something CPU intensive, pop the cooler off, and watch the slideshow start, pop the cooler back on, watch the FPS shoot back up...) chip death from pure overheating should be pretty rare(OEMs selling expensive chips with coolers that never actually allow them to run at full speed, on the other hand...)

The best way to cook a chip is found when you start fucking around with the supply voltage in order to get higher stable clock speeds. That can kill your CPU good and hard if done in excess, and in a way that not even a liquid-nitrogen immersion cooler can prevent.

Unless intel wants to incorporate some sort of voltage watchdog(either some tiny voltmeter, or a bunch of carefully calibrated fused/resistive elements that are tuned to blow at specific voltage steps to show the max voltage to which the chip was subjected over its operating life, or something of that nature), they probably won't be able to detect most of the real customer-error kills, and won't face too many purely thermal replacements.

Can they overheat to the point of dying? (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093866)

I'd expect the CPU would start throttling and then shutdown if it reached the edge of its acceptable operating range. My 2600K runs 'hot' with the stock cooler (not overclocked but running boinc clients). It seems to hover between 64 and 70c but I think it would start throttling at 78 and shutdown completely if it got to 90-something.

Re:Warranty (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093906)

No, the article is just written by morons... Current high end Xeons ship without coolers, as have Xeons for many generations, this is because Intel have no clue where the chip is going –it could be into a 1U system, or it could be into something enormous. Basically... Move along, nothing to see here.

Re:Warranty (1)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094432)

Ya, let's ruin a company that largely sells because of it's reputation so we can weasel on some warranties. Make perfect sense!

Pure FUD (2)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094538)

Intel chips overheat? I don't think so

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSGcnRanYMM [youtube.com]

So many of these comments are outright lies. Intel sells OEM chips without a heatsink and retail kits with a pretty decent stock heatsink. Here is a stock intel heatsink for a P3 cpu.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Intel-1U-Socket-370-P3-Heatsink-Fan-Sanyo-Denki-/310132647048 [ebay.com]

P4 again? (2, Funny)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093460)

Prescott 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Re:P4 again? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37094094)

Give this man a +1 funny!

Taco, could you explain this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37093474)

Curiously, Intel will still offer 'sold separately' own-brand cooling solutions for the new chips â" so is this merely Intel trying to cut costs for enthusiasts who don't need a stock cooler â" or is this the beginnings of Intel branching out into the cooling business?

Starting with the words, own-brand, this sentence makes absolutely no sense. Would you care to explain or re-write it? Thanks.

Re:Taco, could you explain this (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37093504)

Intel will offer Intel-branded cooling solutions for the new chips, they just won't package them with the chips.

Re:Taco, could you explain this (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093744)

Maybe this has something to do with fear of a DOJ antitrust suit. As we've said, there are lots of cooling solutions on the market, which are compatible with the chips. Yet intel "bundles" its own cooler with the chip. Is there a paralllel to Microsoft bundling IE with Windows?

Honestly, you gotta put your conspiracy hat on pretty tight to get this one to come into focus, but that was the first thing that popped into my mind, so I posted it.

Re:Taco, could you explain this (5, Informative)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094136)

Intel will offer Intel-branded cooling solutions for the new chips, they just won't package them with the chips.

^----- This has been confirmed: [vr-zone.com] "Intel has decided to offer own brand coolers for the platform, it's just that they won't come in the box with the CPU."

So Intel will offer coolers, they're just sold separately, probably because these are cpus designed for enthusiast ("The E range (which stands for ‘enthusiast’") [extremetech.com] so they're meant for people that overclock and buy separate coolers rather than use the "stock" cooler that comes with the cpu.

Pricing of the CPUs has also been released: [cpu-world.com]
_name__core__threads__freq__turbo freq__L3__TDP__price_
Core i7-3820 4 8 3.6 GHz 3.9 GHz 10 MB 130 Watt $294
Core i7-3930K 6 12 3.2 GHz 3.8 GHz 12 MB 130 Watt $583
Core i7-3960X 6 12 3.3 GHz 3.9 GHz 15 MB 130 Watt $999

Re:Taco, could you explain this (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093568)

What part of it don't you understand? It makes perfect sense to me.

Re:Taco, could you explain this (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093686)

Is illiteracy somehow fashionable in Slashdot now? Or is it a new form of trolling to take a valid sentence and say that you don't understand it? Look in the current poll for a lot of other examples...

Re:Taco, could you explain this (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37093852)

Douche,

How is this sentence supposed to make ANY sense? Intel will still offer own brand products? HOW does that make any sense at all? Illiteracy? Pot? Kettle? Black?

--Alberto Contador

Re:Taco, could you explain this (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094130)

That sentence makes perfect sense. Get over it.

It's not Taco's fault you're illiterate...

Cooling update (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093532)

It is just so they can sell you the cooling update software patch [slashdot.org] .

Re:Cooling update (1)

ifrag (984323) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093670)

Could actually be a real problem with selling "software" frequency unlocks. Perhaps the OEM packages it with enough cooling for the stock frequency, but unless it has the extra headroom on cooling the software unlock is going to make things worse.

no (4, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093550)

this is the beginnings of Intel branching out into the HEATING business

Re:no (3, Funny)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093570)

Beginnings?

1993's Pentium 60 says otherwise.

Re:no (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093812)

LOL

Re:no (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37093634)

Why not click a hot link instead?

http://tinyurl.com/3fczjvb [tinyurl.com]

Re:no (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094146)

Why not click a hot link instead?

Because usually they lead to either a Rick Roll, or goatse?

Just to save a few bucks.. (4, Insightful)

Ross R. Smith (2225686) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093560)

This is just Intel trying to increase their profit margins even more.
Most custom builders/modders don't even contemplate using the Intel stock cooler so it just sits there doing nothing.

If most, if not all, of the intended market will use an aftermarket air cooler/watercooling loop is there really any reason to include the stock heatsink/fan?

The 'Extreme' chips are very high end and generally not intended for Joe Public to just pick up - more of an enthusiast chip, Intel is just cashing in on this by not shipping with the stock cooling but keeping the price the same. It's also been said on the grapevine that Intel intend on releasing some of their own cooling solutions in the not so distant future.

Re:Just to save a few bucks.. (1)

ifrag (984323) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093808)

If most, if not all, of the intended market will use an aftermarket air cooler/watercooling loop is there really any reason to include the stock heatsink/fan

I'm on water now, but setting such a system up requires getting a lot of different parts, probably even from different vendors. I certainly didn't have all that stuff set to go when the CPU was ready to be plugged in. Having a respectable stock heat-sink while sorting out other various hardware is not necessarily useless. And on the extreme chips Intel actually provided a fairly decent product, at least enough to up the clocks some.

And even if all the hardware orders had arrived, there was still time spent on leak testing outside the system. Either way, for such a ridiculously priced product, removing that *small* extra, even if not always used, is not cool.

Re:Just to save a few bucks.. (1)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093986)

Nice pun. Sorry, bud, you're in the minority and I will be glad not to have a bunch of stock heatsinks sitting around - both for me and the environment.

Cost Cutting? (4, Insightful)

BlakLanner (743891) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093604)

It is possible that this is a cost cutting measure. I think that a lot of people who buy standalone CPUs use third party cooling solutions. It would save Intel a lot of money in materials and packaging if they don't ship the heatsinks and fans that people just throw away anyways.

Re:Cost Cutting? (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093896)

I have owned a Pentium 166 MMX, a Pentium 3 800, a Pentium 4 1.4, a Pentium 4 2.4 and now a Core 2 Duo. All were bought as individual parts and in all 5 cases I used the stock Intel cooling solution on the CPU.

All of those are not high end (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094632)

Everything you list there is a mid-range part. That's fine, but that isn't what we are talking about here. The E series chips are Intel's high end enthusiast chips. They require different, more expensive, motherboards and support things that most consumers don't care about. Their consumer Sandy Bridge chips are already out, have been out for quite some time, and come with stock coolers.

That you tend to buy mid to lower-mid solutions and don't upgrade all that often says that price is important to you. That's perfectly ok, and indeed puts you in the majority. However that is not the market for the E series. They are for people who want high end stuff and those people like to buy their own coolers.

The reason is Intel coolers are the minimum it takes to get the job done. They use less material and higher fan speeds to achieve the cooling needed than aftermarket coolers (because more aluminium costs more money) and they provide the level of cooling specified in the TDP, no more, leaving little room for overclocking.

For budget users, that is fine. For the kind of people who drop the cash on the E series, it is not.

Water? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37093618)

Or maybe the chip heats up so badly, that it requires water cooling, which sold with the chip would skyrocket the price? :P

Re:Water? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093860)

180watts is totally doable on air. You'll either need a fairly large heatpipes-n'-copper arrangement with a 120mm or two blowing over it, or something annoyingly noisy; but you'd only need water on that if you were pushing the clocks further and needed to keep temperatures down to keep it running stable or not-throttling.

Tasty (1)

symes (835608) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093636)

Intel should get into the restaurant business - they do high end computng and cook food at the same time.

Stock coolers are a waste anyway (5, Insightful)

algorimancer (2266264) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093640)

Stock coolers are a waste -- there are much nicer (quieter) alternatives available, and at minimal expense. I never use the stock coolers. It's long seemed a bit silly to me that you couldn't buy the CPU without getting the cooler along with it, so I'm pleased that they're leaving the choice to those building the systems.

Re:Stock coolers are a waste anyway (2)

eddy (18759) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093758)

I thought you'd always been able to buy 'tray [intel.com] ' (aka OEM) variants (without the cooler), it's just that lately the tray has cost the same or even less than the retail (aka "boxed") package, so there haven't really been a point to it.

Re:Stock coolers are a waste anyway (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37093786)

I agree.
Nobody I know who builds their own PC uses the stock cooler of either Intel or AMD unless they are on a very tight budget and even then it's the first thing getting replaced.

Re:Stock coolers are a waste anyway (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37093928)

I'm an enthusiast. I build with stock coolers if they're available at the same price(and frequently they are). No particular reason other than they work. I don't overclock, though. Going from 100 to 105fps or slightly dropping the time it takes to encode something doesn't really interest me.

Re:Stock coolers are a waste anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37094338)

OCing is often the difference between 30fps and 45fps and -15 to -30 minutes of encoding time.

Re:Stock coolers are a waste anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37094558)

Maybe if you're going the liquid route. That is a significant improvement in performance(not sure about 50% and 100%, though). Some of the best performance gained today is from core unlocking, and that doesn't require any additional cooling over the stock hsf. You may see those gains you speak of in multithreaded applications just through core unlocking by itself

Re:Stock coolers are a waste anyway (1)

registrationssucks (2352628) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094462)

Nobody I know who builds their own PC uses the stock cooler of either Intel or AMD unless they are on a very tight budget and even then it's the first thing getting replaced.

Do you know how hard it is to find a good low profile HSF. If the stock one works, see feedback here [newegg.com] , then why change? Then again, I build PCs for business use mainly and personal use only on occasion. In both cases, the only non-stocks I use are the custom heating solutions that come with Shuttle XPC (integrated case, PSU, and motherboard).

To me, a bigger question is why more people don't build their own PCs. It takes less time to slap the hardware together than it does to de-crapify a consumer/small business Dell PC (or HP or just about anyone else).

Re:Stock coolers are a waste anyway (1)

6ULDV8 (226100) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093794)

I'd be fine with them not shipping the fan. All the CPUs I've bought in the last 10 years or so go into rack mount cases that don't have room for the stock heatsink anyway. We end up with shelves full of unused parts that we have to inventory and dispose of.

Re:Stock coolers are a waste anyway (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093878)

No. The expense is not minimal. This is especially true for the cheaper CPUs.

In fact, this will add a significant cost to any CPU packaged without one and put it at that much more of a disadvantage when compared with rivals.

The expense is only "minimal" is when you are talking some bleeding edge part that costs several times more than it's marginal performance improvement warrants.

Re:Stock coolers are a waste anyway (1)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094040)

This IS a "bleeding edge part that costs several times more than it's marginal performance improvement warrants"
It's about a freaking EUR 1K CPU! A large part of the users will water cool anyway, so why include a fan?

Re:Stock coolers are a waste anyway (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094176)

Which, incedentally is what these parts are :)

And the people who buy the E chips want better (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094470)

This isn't because "Intel can't cool them." Please, there are hotter chips out there. Have a look at the heat sinks on an IBM POWER chip sometime. For that matter just look at video cards. The nVidia GTX 580 is spec'd at 244 watts TDP.

Also it is easy to find current socket 1155/1156/1136 coolers that can handle more than that. Arctic Cooling, my preferred brand of aftermarket coolers, makes one rated to 300 watts. They've made ones rated to 200 watts for years now.

The reason Intel is doing this is because enthusiasts like to provide their own cooling solutions. They want to buy high end air coolers, or even do water cooling. They don't care to use stock cooling. That being the case, it is not useful to include a stock cooler since they'll just discard it. Save money and don't bother.

For their mainstream chips, the 1155 socket processors, they do include a cooler because some people don't care and just want it to work. So Intel includes a cheap cooler. It gets the job done, but is not particularly quiet (since it contains a minimal amount of aluminium and makes up the cooling with more fan speed) and it provides what is necessary for stock cooling, not for overclocking.

So makes a lot of sense to me. You are spending a bunch of money to get these new chips. They require a more expensive motherboard, they themselves cost more, and so on. If you are willing to drop that kind of cash, you probably want your own cooler and will buy it. Why should Intel waste money including one?

Re:And the people who buy the E chips want better (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094684)

that is wonderful and all but for the rest of us (ya know the majority of us) is not really interested in dropping 50-60 bucks on a fan to OC our chip 4% so we can get an extra 2 FPS out of our system (that will be worthless in a year or two anyway)

Then don't buy an E chip (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094752)

If you are going to bitch about money, the Sandy Bridge E series is NOT for you. They are Intel's "enthusiast" chips which means "costs a lot more". The chips themselves will be expensive, probably $300 minimum and up to $1000 for the top of the line. They also need more expensive motherboards, and those boards demand more expensive things like more RAM sticks with they use more channels.

For people who wish to spend less, Intel already released the products: The non-E series SB chips. They came out earlier this year and are available in a massive range. The top of it is the Core i7 2600k for $320, the bottom is the Pentium G620 for $64. All of them have a stock Intel cooler (if you buy the retail boxed model).

So you've got nothing to bitch about. If your budget is tight enough that $50 matters, then you want a non-E series chip. They go plenty high end. The 2600 is a quad core, hyperthreaded chip that can destroy any game out there.

If you want an E series, you are going to have to scale your budget up by a hell of a lot more than $50 over what you'd pay for a 2600 and a 1155 board.

Made to torpedo Bulldozer (1)

whiteboy86 (1930018) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093760)

So it seams Intel will make sure they retain top benchmark spots even when Bulldozer hits. Meanwhile AMD is stressing performance per watt and that might be their weak spot, they need similar E-extreme performance model badly, otherwise Intel will grab all performance premiums again and outchart them in the benchmarks.

Re:Made to torpedo Bulldozer (2)

eddy (18759) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093846)

I'm not saying you're wrong, but most sensible people will compare CPUs at a similar price, and the Intel 'extreme' CPUs typically slot in at $999 and beyond. Hopefully Bulldozer isn't trying to compete in that segment.

Granted, sensible people don't buy these sorts of CPUs at all and are waiting for Ivy Bridge....

Re:Made to torpedo Bulldozer (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094024)

The top-of-range extreme gear, as you say, is just enthusiast candy of minimal relevance to the rest of the market.

With one exception: This particular "Extreme" part, with its comparatively huge cache and ample supply of PCIe lanes, certainly sounds like it could be a viable close relative of a fairly mean 1-2 socket Xeon(it wouldn't be unprecedented, a number of "Extreme" enthusiast Intels have been Xeons without dual-socket capability, and some single-socket Xeons have been, basically, high end desktop parts with "Xeon" stamped on them so that they were acceptable to the low end workstation market). And that is a market where people do shell out for expensive processors, and one where AMD(with their comparatively cheap CPUs that have lots of cores and can handle plenty of RAM, great VM boxes...) has been holding out.

The "Extreme" SKUs are strictly for slightly nutty enthusiasts; but they often resemble pretty strongly what Intel has, or soon will have, in the low-socket-count Xeon market...

Seems logical enough to me... (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093768)

This seems reasonable enough to me...

Particularly for high end or "extreme" CPUs, homebuilders virtually never stick with the stock cooler anyway. If they buy the retail box at all, rather than the OEM one, the cooler just goes in the trash/on ebay/cooling something else. Big OEM builders, on the other hand, frequently want a custom cooler that integrates with their toolless or minimal-tool easy maintenance cases, to cut repair costs. For everybody else, Intel is still offering a badged "official" cooler.

This really just seems like a sensible recognition that there really isn't much point investing in chasing the high-end cooler market(which isn't an enormous R&D burden or anything; by Intel standards; but churns pretty fast and is at least partially driven by aesthetics, which aren't Intel's strong suit.) and there also isn't much point in shoving a chunk of finned aluminum in every box if it is just going to get tossed out(also, with the increasingly large number of enthusiast CPUs that are probably being purchased online, or from locked cases at retail, making the packaging a lot smaller will make everybody happier. CPUs are tiny, CPU+Cooler+retaining plastic tray is a decent size box.

The only place where the Intel stock cooler ever made much sense was for lower-end homebuilders or OEMs too cheap to do their own case designs. Those segments can still buy the Intel-blessed coolers if they want, and everybody else can go with what they were already using anyway.

Motherboards not designed for extreme coolers (1)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094160)

The problem is that many motherboards are not designed to take anything BUT the stock cooler. In too many motherboards other components end up being mounted too close to the CPU socket to allow installing an over sized cooler. Sometimes it's one of the heat sinked 'bridge' chips, power supply parts, or even memory sockets. It sucks if an otherwise suitable motherboard won't allow installing a suitable CPU cooler (though in some cases if the cooler were made so the main cooling fins were just a bit higher up to clear the motherboard things would be OK).

"It's what our customers asked for" (1)

krygny (473134) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093778)

"It's what our customers asked for"

This is what an oem or manufacturer says when it's to their benefit and almost nobody else's. Who can prove them wrong? All they need is one or two feedbacks suggesting it and technically, they're not lying. Most people don't want to have to engineer their own cooling solution and wonder if it will be adequate or overkill.

Why do you have to high end to get more 16 pcie (1, Offtopic)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093856)

Why do you have to high end to get more 16 pcie 3.0 lanes? With all the talk about useing the gpu as a CPU some day it may be better to get a low to mid range cpu and get a good GPU or 2. Also the four PCIe 2.0 lanes linking the cpu to the chip set will get used up fast by USB 3.0, SATA ports and thunderbolt.

You may be able to put thunderbolt on a switch linked to the x16 pci-e lanes but then to get full speed on the video card you need a pci-e 3.0 card or the switch to out put x16 pcie 2.0.

They might be including water cooling (1)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093858)

According to this article [xbitlabs.com] they are looking to include a water cooled solution instead.

I don't use Intel stock cooler anyway (1)

drobety (2429764) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093950)

I support the move, I don't use Intel stock coolers anyway, too noisy and not that efficient at dissipating heat. Since I assemble my PCs to last for years to come, I go for a silent and efficient cooler. So I bought an i5-660 (no need for video card, one less source of noise), and the Intel stock cooler was a real annoying buzz, going high-pitch when the load increased. Bought the Scythe Shuriken 3-Heatpipe Low Profile, and it is just great, quite silent, and efficient, only a noticeable non-annoying low breeze-like sound when the CPU load maxes.

It is the latter. (1)

slack_justyb (862874) | more than 3 years ago | (#37093976)

Intel is moving into cooling business, I thought we knew this already? Go check their site.

It makes sense (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094018)

I large percentage of Intel processor buyers throw the stock heatsink away. We all know this. It is wasteful to include a heatsink when you know a large number of them are simply going to be discarded.

It is good for the consumer because they can reduce the price of the CPU by a few dollars by leaving the heatsink out. The consumer can either purchase the stock cooler separately for those few dollars, or as many consumers do, purchase the latest whiz-bang cooling solution from a third party.

omg patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37094038)

Someone probably patented the fan or motor or some bullshit know IP these day :P

I know we love slagging off intel, but... (3, Insightful)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094098)

Is Intel unable to cool these extreme chips?

Er... let me think...

Curiously, Intel will still offer 'sold separately' own-brand cooling solutions for the new chips

So, I'm guessing "yes".

Seriously. Maybe, just maybe they did some checking and found that a large proportion of their bundled coolers were ending up in the spare parts bin. Its not exactly surprising that the same people who buy the "extreme" chips would also go in for high bling-to-noise ratio heatsinks and water cooling systems. Not everything is a money-grabbing conspiracy.

Not needed (4, Insightful)

Sniper98G (1078397) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094148)

The sandy bridge "Extreme" is aimed at the ultra high end enthusiast market. If you are building one of these rigs you are not going to use the stock cooler. I think this is a good move, it will keep Intel's useless stock coolers from sitting in my closet for a couple of years.

180W (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37094302)

I'm not that worried about the cooling (well, still a bit!), but, 180W? Wow, I really hope they can come up with a CPU that is also powerful, but consumes a lot less than that!

Re:180W (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094624)

I'm not that worried about the cooling (well, still a bit!), but, 180W? Wow, I really hope they can come up with a CPU that is also powerful, but consumes a lot less than that!

Again, these are the top end super-fast CPUs for the 'I'm going to spend twice as much on my CPU as you did on your entire system' end of the market. My i5-2400 uses the stock fan and I can hardly hear it running most of the time.

To make more money is alway the right answer (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094306)

It has been my experience that if there is a "to make more money" option, that is the correct options to choose.

push pin vs back pane design (1)

itof500 (239202) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094312)

I've been building systems for a few years, and I much prefer the back pane design in the 2nd market coolers to the push-pin of the stock HSF unit. I find it easier to install firmly, and much easier to deal with if I want to upgrade the CPU in an existing unit.

Duke out

So Whatcher Wanna Do... (3, Informative)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094550)

Is get yerself a big potroast see? Now yew wanna make yereslf a dry rub with some cumin and... Ok... 'ere's my secret ingredient, don't tell anyone... dark cocoa powder. Salt that potroast and rub it with yer dry rub! Now yew wanna wrap that fucker up with some tinfoil, an' go ahead and chuck some raisins and a bit o' tomato sauce in there! Wrap it good now, don't wanna leak that all over the place! Now park that fucker in yew computer and fire up counterstrike fer about 6 hours! Shoot some goddamn hippies yeehaw! After 6 hours yer roast she oughta' be fork tender and just fallin' apart! Nothing better than shooting hippies and computer-cooked potroast nosireee!

standard business practice (1)

pz (113803) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094570)

There's no need to run to conspiracy theories when standard business practices explain the observed behavior: Intel is looking to increase its profits. Instead of selling you two things together for one price, they can sell them separately for slightly more, increasing profit rate.

If, at the same time, they've realized that they are losing the CPU cooler business at the high-end, and that most of the manufacturing cost that goes into a heat sink is not being used by the end consumer, they save money by not including a cooler in the retail package, and discounting the wholesale price slightly. That particular consumer market segment sees no difference since they don't use the stock cooler, and Intel saves money, again increasing profit rate.

Intel makes money hand-over-fist on CPUs. I have not heard a good argument that they should enter the cooler market.

Top dollar (1)

Corson (746347) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094666)

Intel just found a way to increase profits. It's along the same lines as their offering software CPU upgrades.

The way it used to be (1)

FridayBob (619244) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094714)

In the early 90s, all CPUs were sold without coolers. They could get pretty hot, but that was considered normal. This was followed by a period in which you could buy CPU coolers separately, which made sense, because in those days overheating CPUs would crash and burn instead of shutting themselves down to avoid damage. Those early coolers were small and simple, but as the megahertz race between Intel and AMD began heating things up (in this case literally), the coolers got bigger and more expensive. This created a sizable market of which Intel and AMD decided they wanted a share, so they introduced slightly more expensive "boxed" versions of their products that included their own coolers. Now that these have been standard for years, I guess Intel is trying to get rid of them again in order to cut costs. If AMD follows suit, then I expect history will repeat itself: the 3rd party cooler market will expand, and some years later Intel and AMD will introduce "new" boxed versions of their products.

Computer enthusiasts don't need them (1)

Artem Tashkinov (764309) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094718)

Usually only computer enthusiasts buy high end Intel CPUs, many of them buy these CPUs for overclocking and setting performance records.

These people have never installed stock Intel coolers, so this decision made by Intel seems like a no-brainer to me. Besides with 180W TDP many will install water cooling kits which allow noise free operation and increased overclockability.

Fine with me (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#37094722)

If I'm building a computer that powerful I never use the stock cooler. The first thing I usually do with a CPU is remove the factory heatsink and throw it at the nearest person.

Liquid cooling is so simple and ubiquitous these days there's very little reason not to use it when you have something this powerful to cool.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?