Yet another exposed heatpipe design: Sunbeam Core-Contact

[figment]

A Tuniq support email pointed this out to me. It seems yet another manufacturer has jumped on the exposed-heatpipe bandwagon:

Sunbeam Core-Contact Freezer

The Frosty Tech Review puts this just just slightly above the Xigmatek S1283 for Intel 85W CPUs.

Just from glancing at the photos, I see it's using four heatpipes instead of three, but not really reporting lower temperatures. One might guess that three is sufficient, as no IHS can actually get good contact with all four pipes. I also noted no mention of the words "Direct Heatpipe Touch", which is the term that the Xigmatek and all its descendants use. It seems safe to say that this is not affiliated with Xigmatek (or Zaward?) and thus I have to guess that there isn't some bizarre restrictive patent on the technique.

It ships with a noisy fan, but uses fan clips, so it can easily be replaced by a Scythe/Nexus/Arctic Cooling fan. Unfortunately, it's primarily made as a 939/AM2 cooler, so it uses an adapter for 775 boards. I'd guess that this adapter isn't going to play well with bolt-thru kits and so you may or may not have a good retention technique. Frostytech didn't really comment much on it.

I can't find any retailer selling it yet, so no word on price.

Of note (and the cause of the support email) was the fact that Tuniq ships TX-2 with the cooler. I was under the impression that TX-2 was a Silicon Oxide paste and thus, shouldn't be used on copper. They insist it's completely safe. I'll admit I'm still hesitant to use it on my Xigmatek.

[Wiseblood]

FrostyTech also just put up a review for the SilenX iXtrema IXC-120HA2 which appears to be the nearly the same heatsink but with a SlienX fan.

What interests me most about these is the the fact that the mounting clip is designed so it mounts onto AMD motherboards vertically so the fan can blow towards the rear exhaust.

[Felger Carbon]

AKA 3RSystems "Prima" HSF, it points toward the exhaust fan on most AMD mobos, which the Xigmatek does not. So that makes 3 brands pushing the HSF. I assume the SilenX will be marketed in the US of A.

[jhhoffma]

Just from glancing at the photos, I see it's using four heatpipes instead of three, but not really reporting lower temperatures. One might guess that three is sufficient, as no IHS can actually get good contact with all four pipes.

You might say that...



Taken from SPCR's review of the Xigmatek HDT-D1284.

[walle]

...as no IHS can actually get good contact with all four pipes.

I would say that wouldn’t be a problem should the base be perfectly flat on the HSF and CPU whilst pared with a good mounting system. So long as the heatpipes do not extend outside the base of the processor I could think of no other thing than an uneven base being the culprit/problem.

As an aside..

Speaking of poor contact and poor performance, the Ninja anniversary model I got did not perform as expected. I think the main reason for this is that the heatpipes are not close enough to the processor, this shall soon be remedied though, a friend of mine will “shaveâ€

[figment]

...as no IHS can actually get good contact with all four pipes.

I would say that wouldn’t be a problem should the base be perfectly flat on the HSF and CPU whilst pared with a good mounting system. So long as the heatpipes do not extend outside the base of the processor...

As shown in the picture above, that's pretty much what seems to be the case. Its not that the heatpipes don't contact the IHS, its that the IHS is really only 3 heatpipes wide, so using 4 means that you you only partial contact with the outer pair.

Figment,

Thanks for the heads up, its always nice and interesting to find out more about “newâ€

[walle]

As shown in the picture above, that's pretty much what seems to be the case. Its not that the heatpipes don't contact the IHS, its that the IHS is really only 3 heatpipes wide, so using 4 means that you you only partial contact with the outer pair.

From what I can see figment (by looking more closely at the picture) is that the IHS makes contact with all four heatpipes (look at the outer line marking the size of the IHS, its faint but you can see it), The left heatpipe about 90% covers the IHS whereas the heatpipe to the far right appears to be covering the IHS with about 45 – 50%.... Ooooops haha, Oh, my, I’m really tired but this one is to good not to leave un edited prior to posting despite me having seen the “mistakeâ€

[Modo]

This is a problem with all similar designs. In theory, the direct heatpipe touch is better for cooling. However, the actual heatpipes never seem to actually directly touch the heatspreader. The IHS is there to ensure good contact with flat surfaces. Didn't the designers get the memo?

[figment]

Have you looked at on of the direct heatpipe coolers?

I can guarantee you, the heatpipes do directly touch the IHS with significant force. The surface on my Xigmatek was quite flat. The only non-flat part of it is the slight crevices between the heat pipes and the block they're mounted in.

[Modo]

Well, the picture above is from a Xigmatek review, so I can say I have looked. And what I saw was a lot of heatpipe area not touching the heatspreader... Plus, you get the added benefit of having to use more thermal compound to fill the holes.

Mind you, I'm not saying this is worse than the standard way of putting the heatpipes just behind a flat plate. But I do think that the uneven contact area with the heatspreader works against the benefits you might get from direct heatpipe contact.

[figment]

Apparently not, given the results the direct heatpipe sinks have been demonstrating. Having four heatpipes but only having three of them making good contact with the IHS is no worse than having just three heatpipes. The worst you can say is that it's wasteful.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying. I don't see where there is uneven contact. The only part of my heatsink that wasn't flat were the tiny cracks between heatpipes and the mount plate. I don't have measurements, but the amount of area lost to these cracks is much smaller than you seem to be implying. I think it'd be safe to say that it's no more than 1-2% of the surface area. Considering that most TIM application ends up missing more area than that, it seems strange to claim that this makes them perform poorly.

Especially when a number of independent reviews have all shown this technique to be quite effective.

[Fallen Kell]

Just from glancing at the photos, I see it's using four heatpipes instead of three, but not really reporting lower temperatures. One might guess that three is sufficient, as no IHS can actually get good contact with all four pipes.

You might say that...



Taken from SPCR's review of the Xigmatek HDT-D1284.

What I don't know is why they don't just remove almost all the aluminum from between the heat pipes, and just have a very small sliver of aluminum between them (i..e less than .5mm), or none at all, and then you would be able to get 4 heat pipes to get contact with a IHS.

[piglickjf]

What I don't know is why they don't just remove almost all the aluminum from between the heat pipes, and just have a very small sliver of aluminum between them (i..e less than .5mm), or none at all, and then you would be able to get 4 heat pipes to get contact with a IHS.

Because then you run the risk of crushing/deforming the heatpipes when the whole thing is cranked down to the mobo and then hung sideways. The aluminum "frame" is there for structural integrity. It could certainly be reduced a bit (I believe some of these do have smaller aluminum "fins" between the pipes than the ones shown here), but you wouldn't want to go too small for the above reasons.

PigLick

[ronrem]

What I don't know is why they don't just remove almost all the aluminum from between the heat pipes, and just have a very small sliver of aluminum between them (i..e less than .5mm), or none at all, and then you would be able to get 4 heat pipes to get contact with a IHS.

Because then you run the risk of crushing/deforming the heatpipes when the whole thing is cranked down to the mobo and then hung sideways. The aluminum "frame" is there for structural integrity. It could certainly be reduced a bit (I believe some of these do have smaller aluminum "fins" between the pipes than the ones shown here), but you wouldn't want to go too small for the above reasons.

PigLick

Figure too that the aluminum spacers will conduct some heat laterally to adjacent pipes so those outer pipes may do more than the contact area suggests. In this pic it seems the thermal goo didn't spread the full width.

It might be that 3 fatter heatpipes would be a nice strategy,but this slight overlap does let more pipes get involved. It would seem that on these direct contact types you really need precise construction to get everything flush,and ideally a bolt through mount.