Thermal Comparisons and XFR2: Remember to Remove the CPU Cooler Plastic!

Every machine build has some targets: performance, power, noise, thermal performance, or cost. It is certainly hard to get all of them, so going after two or three is usually a good target. Well it turns out that there is one simple error that can make you lose on ALL FIVE COUNTS. Welcome to my world of when I first tested the 32-core AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX, where I forgot to remove the plastic from my CPU liquid cooler.

Don’t Build Systems After Long Flights

Almost all brand new CPU coolers, either air coolers, liquid coolers, or water blocks, come pre-packaged with padding, foam, screws, fans, and all the instructions. Depending on the manufacturer, and the packaging type, the bottom of the CPU cooler will have been prepared in two ways:

  1. Pre-applied thermal paste
  2. A small self-adhesive plastic strip to protect the polishing during shipping

In our review kit, the Wraith Ripper massive air cooler, made by Cooler Master but promoted by AMD as the ‘base’ air cooler for new Threadripper 2 parts, had pre-applied thermal paste. It was across the whole base, and it was thick. It made a mess when I tried to take photos.

Also in our review kit was the Enermax Liqtech TR4 closed loop liquid cooler, with a small tube of thermal paste included. The bottom of the CPU block for the liquid cooler was covered in a self-adhesive plastic strip to protect the base in the packaging.  


Example from TechTeamGB's Twitter

So confession time. Our review kit landed the day before I was travelling from the UK to San Francisco, to cover Flash Memory Summit and Intel’s Datacenter Summit. In my suitcases, I took an X399 motherboard (the ASUS ROG Zenith), three X399 chips (2990WX, 2950X, 1950X), an X299 motherboard (ASRock X299 OC Formula), several Skylake-X chips, a Corsair AX860i power supply, an RX 460 graphics card, mouse, keyboard, cables – basically two systems and relying on the monitor in the hotel room for testing. After an 11 hour direct flight, two hours at passport control, a one hour Uber to my hotel, I set up the system with the 2990WX.

I didn’t take off the plastic on the Enermax cooler. Well, I didn’t realize it at the time. I even put thermal paste on the processor, and it still didn’t register when I tightened the screws.

I set the system up at the maximum supported memory frequency, installed Windows, installed the security updates, installed the benchmarks, and set it to run overnight while I slept. I didn’t even realize the plastic was still attached. Come mid-morning, the benchmark suite had finished. I did some of the extra testing, such as base frequency latency measurements, and then went to replace the processor with the 2950X. It was at this time I performed a facepalm.

It was at that point, with thermal paste all over the processor and the plastic, I realized I done goofed. I took the plastic off, re-pasted the processor, and set the system up again, this time with a better thermal profile. But rather than throw the results away, I kept them.

Thermal Performance Matters

The goal of any system is to keep it with a sufficient thermal window to maintain operation: most processors are rated to work properly from normal temperatures up to 105C, at which point they shut down to avoid permanent thermal damage. When a processor shuttles electrons around and does things, it consumes power. That power is lost as heat, and it dissipates from the silicon out into two main areas: the socket and the heatspreader.

For AMD’s Threadripper processors, the thermal interface material between the silicon dies and the heatspreader is an indium-tin solder, a direct metal-to-metal bonding for direct heat transfer. Modern Intel processors use a silicone thermal grease instead, which is not as great, but has one benefit – it lasts longer through thermal cycling. As metals heat up, they expand: with two metals bonded together, with different thermal expansion coefficients, with enough heat cycles will crack and be ineffective – thermal grease essentially eliminates that issue. Thermal grease also happens to be cheaper. So it’s a trade-off between price/longevity and performance.

Above the heatspreader is the CPU cooler, but between the two is another thermal interface which the user can decide. The cheapest options involve nasty silicone thermal grease that costs cents per gallon, however performance enthusiasts might look towards a silver based thermal paste or a compound with good heat transfer characteristics – usually the ability for a paste to spread under pressure is a good quality. Extreme users can implement a liquid metal policy, similar to that of the solder connection, which binds the CPU to the CPU cooler pretty much permanently.

So what happens if you suddenly put some microns of thermally inefficient plastic between the heatspreader and the CPU cooler?

First of all, the conductive heat transfer is terrible. This means that the thermal energy stays in the paste and headspreader for longer, causing heat soak in the processor, raising temperatures. This is essentially the same effect when a cooler is overwhelmed by a large processor – heat soak is real and can be a problem. It typically leads to a runaway temperature rise, until the temperature gradient can equal the heat energy output. This is when a processor gets too hot, and typically a thermal emergency power state kicks in, reducing voltage and frequency to super low levels. Performance ends down the drain.

What does the user see in the system? Imagine a processor hitting 600 MHz while rendering, rather than a nice 3125 MHz at stock (see previous page). Base temperatures are higher, load temperatures are higher, case temperatures are higher. Might as well dry some wet clothes in there while you are at it. A little thermal energy never hurt a processor, but a lot can destroy an experience.

AMD’s XFR2

Ultimately this issue hurts AMD more than you might think. The way AMD implements its turbo modes is not a look-up-table where cores loaded equals turbo frequency – it relies on power, current, and thermal limits of a given chip. Where there is room, the AMD platform is designed to add frequency and voltage where possible. The thermal aspect of this is what AMD calls XFR2, or eXtended Frequency Range 2.

At AMD’s Tech Day for Threadripper 2, we were presented with graphs showing the effects of using better coolers on performance: around 10% better benchmark results due to having higher thermal headroom. Stick the system in an environment with a lower ambient temperature as well, and AMD quoted a 16% performance gain over a ‘stock’ system.

However, the reverse works too. By having that bit of plastic in there, what this effectively did was lower that thermal ceiling, from idle to load, which should result in a drop in performance.

Plastic Performance

So despite being in a nice air-conditioned hotel room, that additional plastic did a number on most of our benchmarks. Here is the damage:

3D Particle Movement v2.1Agisoft Photoscan 1.3.3, Complex TestCorona 1.3 BenchmarkBlender 2.79b bmw27_cpu BenchmarkPOV-Ray 3.7.1 BenchmarkWinRAR 5.60b3PCMark10 Extended ScoreHandbrake 1.1.0 - 720p60 x264 6000 kbps FastFCAT Processing ROTR 1440p GTX980Ti Data

For all of our multi-threaded tests, where the CPU is hammered hard, there is a significant decrease in performance as expected. Blender saw a 20% decrease in throughput, POV-Ray was 10% lower, 3DPM was 19%. PCMark was only slightly lower, as it has a lot of single threaded tests, and annoyingly in some benchmarks we saw it swing the other way, such as WinRAR, which is more DRAM bound. Other benchmarks not listed include our compile test, where the plasticated system was 1% slower, or Dolphin, where there was a one-second difference.

What Have I Learned?

Don’t be a fool. Building a test bed with new components when super tired may lead to extra re-tests.

Overclocking: 4.0 GHz for 500W Conclusions: Not All Cores Are Made Equal
Comments Locked

171 Comments

View All Comments

  • edzieba - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    Not really. In chasing Moar Cores you only excel in embarrassingly parallel workloads. And embarrassingly parallel workloads are in GPGPU's house. And GPU lives in GPGPU's house.
  • boeush - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    Try to run multiple VMs/Containers and/or multiple desktop sessions on a GPGPU: you might find out that GPGPU's house isn't all it's cracked up to be...
  • SonicKrunch - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    Look at that power consumption. I'm not suggesting AMD didn't create a really great CPU here, but they really need to work on their efficiency. It's always been their problem, and it's not seemingly going away. The market for these near 2k chips is also not huge in comparison to normal desktop space. Intel has plenty of time to answer here with their known efficiency.
  • The_Assimilator - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    Yeah... look at the number of cores, numpty.
  • somejerkwad - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    The same efficiency that has consumer-grade products operating on more electricity in per-core and per-clock comparisons? Overclocking power gets really silly on Intel's high end offerings too, if you care to look at the numbers people are getting with an i9 that has fewer cores.
  • eddman - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    Interesting, can you post a link, please? I've read a few reviews here and there and when comparing 2600x to 8700k (which is more or less fair), it seems in most cases 8700k consumes less energy, even though it has higher boost clocks.
  • CrazyElf - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    The 8700k is not the problem. It is Skylake X.

    https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/-intel-skylak...

    Power consumption when you OC X299 scales up quickly. Threadripper is not an 8700k competitor. It is an X299 competitor. The 32 core AMD is clearly priced to compete against the 7980X, unless Intel cuts the price.
  • eddman - Tuesday, August 14, 2018 - link

    I should've made it clear. I was replying to the "more electricity in per-core and per-clock" part. Also, he wrote consumer-grade, which is not HEDT. I do know that TR competes with SKL-X.

    Comparing OCing power consumption is rather pointless when one chip is able to clock much higher.

    Even when comparing 2950 to 7980, there are a lot of instances where 7980 consumes about the same power or even less. I don't see how ryzen is more efficient.
  • alpha754293 - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    @ibnmadhi
    "It's over, Intel is finished."

    Hardly.

    For example, the Threadripper 2990WX (32C, 3.0 GHz) gets the highest score in POV-Ray 3.7.1 benchmark, but when you compute the efficiency, it's actually the worst for it.

    It consumes more power and only gets about 114 points per (base clock * # of cores - which is a way to roughly estimate the CPU's total processing capability).

    By comparison, the Intel Core i9-7980XE (18C, 2.6 GHz) is actually the MOST EFFICIENT at 168 points per (base clock * # of cores). It consumes less power than the Threadripper processors, but it does also cost more.

    If I can get a system that can do as much or more for less, both in terms of capital cost and running cost (i.e. total cost of ownership), then why would I want to go AMD?

    I use to run all AMD when it was a better value proposition and when Intel's power profile was much worse than AMD's. Now, it has completely flipped around.

    Keep also in mind, that they kept the Epyc 7601 processor in here for comparison, a processor that costs $4200 each.

    At that price, I know that I can get an Intel Xeon processor, with about the same core count and base clock speed for about the same price, but I also know that it will outperform the Epyc 7601 as well when you look at the data.

    As of August, 2018, Intel has a commanding 79.4% market share compared to AMD's 20.6%. That's FARRR from Intel being over.
  • ender8282 - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    base clock * number of cores seems like a poor stand in for performance per watt. If we assume that IPC and other factors like mem/cache latency are the same then sure base clock * num cores effectively gives us performance unit of power but we know those are not constant.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now