Best CPU cooler for i5-2500K

[Mats]

Different CPU assemblies have different thermal signatures (the clarkdale actually has two chips with different heat signatures on different sides of the CPU assembly).

1156 coolers are made for Lynnfield, just because it came before Clarkdale, and it was also the hotter running CPU since it had 4 cores. Clarkdale had 2.
In many situations though, manufacturers just added 1156 support to existing 775 and 1366 coolers.
For every dual chip CPU there has been a single chip counterpart:
Smithfield & Prescott, Presler & Cedarmill, Kentsfield & Conroe, Yorkfield & Wolfdale, Clarkdale & Lynnfield (different nm).

The CPU's older than Lynnfiled had chips that were more square shaped, meaning that when placed in pairs, they had quite a different layout than the single chip version.
Still, I never saw coolers optimized for one or the other. There are exceptions like AMD's huge dual server chips.

Besides, it's not like Clarkdale (Westmere) looked that much different just because it got two chips.

[ces]

Bunch of misleading comments in this thread. Here's what I have: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=63878

You have a thoughtful setup and are obviously knowledgeable. What, in your opinion, are the misleading comments?

[ces]

In many situations though, manufacturers just added 1156 support to existing 775 and 1366 coolers.

That is sort of the problems with those direct contact coolers. Thermalright and Noctua do not use direct contact and I believe that makes it easier for them to move their coolers from generation to generation of CPU chip without much effort. I don't think that works so well with a direct contact cooler.

[Mats]

I don't think that works so well with a direct contact cooler.

Why?

[ces]

Direct contact removes all the barriers between the heatpipes and the CPU... but then places those heatpipes in particular locations. If they are not located directly over the hotspots on the CPU what was an advantage becomes a disadvantage. It appears to me that alternative design is less susceptible to that particular problem.

[Pappnaas]

Direct contact removes all the barriers between the heatpipes and the CPU... but then places those heatpipes in particular locations. If they are not located directly over the hotspots on the CPU what was an advantage becomes a disadvantage. It appears to me that alternative design is less susceptible to that particular problem.

In principle you're right. But after a certain time of testing, depending on thermal resistance of cooler base and heatpipes, the conducted heat should have spread evenly across the hole material. So it all depends on the testing method.

I think it's safe to assume that after 30-60 min. of load testing, all thermal differences regarding different materials should be neglegtible. Otherwise you should observe really different temperatures on the outer heatpipes with direct contact coolers, because the heat would not have spread.

[ces]

In principle you're right. But after a certain time of testing, depending on thermal resistance of cooler base and heatpipes, the conducted heat should have spread evenly across the hole material. So it all depends on the testing method.

This is all conjecture without some real testing, but...

I have seen some illustrations showing on how on a certain chip a certain direct contact cooler is missing direct thermal contact with the outlying heat pipes. If you accept the theory of direct contact coolers that the closer physical proximity of the heat pipes improves cooling... then if you have those heat pipes positioned other than where the heat is being generated... well you have problems.

Does that not make sense?

[Pappnaas]

Personally i believe that those differences are merely of theoretical nature, because all tests together do clearly show one fact: neither technique is in front.

So, assuming your real world pc usage has longer than 15 min. of load time, this difference is likely to be of marketing importance.

Of course, if you take all the ifs possible into account, you will find examples for either technique having the (dis) advantages,