Heatkiller 3.0 poorly made? - Page 3 - Overclock.net

Shrimpykins · 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by X1L3D

It would be very useful if you could make a thread on this Shrimpykins, I'm sure there's a few people out there that are thinking about lapping the HK.

I would but unfortunately I don't have the $ to spend on another HK 3.0 and those figures (3-4C) are from memory so they can't be dependable. Overall though it looks to be about a 5C drop in temps with lapping the HK 3.0... Again though this data is partially based on memory and not hard data I can show.

fstfrddy · 3 Weeks Ago

One should not be so concerned about the "shine". Being a block builder I have experimented with it and so long as the lap job is good the difference is unmeasurable. Of course the blocks I send out have their bases shined up pretty good but it is because it is what people like to see. On my own blocks for my use I just dont bother putting the high shine on them. A good Lap job does not have to be mirror finish to be efficient.

cooper_inc1 · 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by fstfrddy

One should not be so concerned about the "shine". Being a block builder I have experimented with it and so long as the lap job is good the difference is unmeasurable. Of course the blocks I send out have their bases shined up pretty good but it is because it is what people like to see. On my own blocks for my use I just dont bother putting the high shine on them. A good Lap job does not have to be mirror finish to be efficient.

100% true, was waiting for someone to say this for a while. No one's heatkiller shines and yet its still a top performing block, so really no reason to be concerned about a apart of the block that faces down, and you will never see.

Slider46 · 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberDruid

THat's news to me. No where in any literature or white papers I have read does it say anything about warranty hinging on cooling used. Link/proof please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shrimpykins

Was about to reply the same thing... Now altering the CPU in any way would break warranty, such as lapping, but other than that....

I've seen it somewhere (on the box or something) that using anything but the stock intel heatsink will "void" their warranty but really - there's no way to prove that.

However, I have been asked for the serial number or model number on the stock Intel heatsink that came with my chip when I was on the phone setting up an RMA. I would assume that if you can't provide them with the stock heatsink s/n or model number they won't honor the warranty at that time.

Not a big deal as long as you keep your stock heatsink

cooper_inc1 · 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slider46

I've seen it somewhere (on the box or something) that using anything but the stock intel heatsink will "void" their warranty but really - there's no way to prove that.

However, I have been asked for the serial number or model number on the stock Intel heatsink that came with my chip when I was on the phone setting up an RMA. I would assume that if you can't provide them with the stock heatsink s/n or model number they won't honor the warranty at that time.

Not a big deal as long as you keep your stock heatsink

Yep, which leads back to how they can atleast tell you lapped your processor, because all of that information will be scraped off. So no lapping for me!

Clockadile Dundee · 3 Weeks Ago

The only thing with regards to shiny-ness, is that because neither my cpu nor HK3.0 is lapped, I will create a film layer of TIM on the IHS, before applying the actual mass of TIM; I got this from the makers of IC7 (Innovative Cooling).

Cores are ~64c-68c @ 100% load in LinX, at 4.431 GHz Hyperthreading ON, 1.43v vCore. ~20c ambient.

The voltage is not even optimized.

Since the DTS is really not meant for monitoring anything but whether to trip PROCHOT, I will say that it is significant, only because I reduced it from over ~70c with a few small changes, and also because I know YOU want to know, anyway, lol.