5 ms·

"Delidding" is the process of removing the lid--the shiny exterior metal integrated heat spreader (IHS)--and replacing the thermal interface material (TIM) betw

"Delidding" is the process of removing the lid--the shiny exterior metal integrated heat spreader (IHS)--and replacing the thermal interface material (TIM) between the CPU die and the spreader. This is done in hopes to reduce operating temperatures and increase overclocking potential. This is similar to the process of scraping off the stock TIM on a retail heatsink. This procedure can be difficult to perform; Silicon Lottery provided a premium service for interested customers. Silicon Lottery also provided "bin" identification services [1] via frequency tests and sold desirable highest quality/lowest defect chips (hence the company name, I presume). Processor "binning", overly simplified, is a process of testing and sorting processors into various bins (e.g. best performance, lowest defects vs. decent performance, some defects, etc). That explanation doesn't do the process justice but should give you an idea. [1] https://siliconlottery.com/pages/statistics https://siliconlottery.com/pages/statistics

dcow 5y ago
Yep and with Intel shitting the process bed all they can do is bin their existing stuff better, add some more aggressive boosting, and sell it as i9. They're essentially stuck "overclocking" their own chips.
- techrat 5y ago
  To the point to where you often could get better performance UNDERCLOCKING what Intel sold you. Often to the amount of 1% less performance but also 15% less power draw.
  - heydabop 5y ago
    > you often could get better performance UNDERCLOCKING > often to the amount of 1% less performance That doesn't sound like better performance to me. Better performance per watt maybe, but then if I'm buying an i9 chip I'm probably not chasing performance per watt.
    - techrat 5y ago
      You miss the whole issue with Intel's CPUs. How much power they draw. They hit thermal throttle quite often. Especially the high end chips where Intel is maximizing the clock to bin them as i9s. 1% overall decrease in performance to ensure a lower power draw overall to prevent reaching thermal throttling thresholds absolutely does equate to better performance.
      - throaway46546 5y ago
        I could be wrong, but I guess that would depend on how efficient your cooling is, no?
        techrat 5y ago
        Intel has been misrepresenting the TDP requirements of their CPUs for some time. https://www.extremetech.com/computing/319402-intels-desktop-tdps-no-longer-useful-to-predict-cpu-power-consumption https://www.extremetech.com/computing/319402-intels-desktop-... Something they list as 65W can draw over 200 Watts at full load. Consider that even with the most high end CPUs, they include the copper slug stock coolers than can make even a 45W rated CPU thermal throttle. > For most of the 2010s, Intel kept its typical desktop CPU power consumption at or below the CPU’s rated TDP, even at peak power draw. Once AMD launched Ryzen and Intel had to start adding more CPU cores to its desktop parts, that changed. The Core i9-10850K draws up to 265W but claims a 125W TDP. The Core i7-10700 claims 65W, but draws up to 214W under load, at motherboard defaults. In effect, Intel is brute forcing performance by cranking the power draw way up in order to compensate for what AMD has been able to bring to the table. They're bulldozering their way out of this mess, basically. The end result is that Intel is already pushing their chips to near maximum performance, power efficiency be damned, leaving zero room for overclocking... as the reason for this article exists.
        heydabop 5y ago
        > Consider that even with the most high end CPUs, they include the copper slug stock coolers than can make even a 45W rated CPU thermal throttle. While isn't true for either the i9-10850K or the i7-10700K, but one is included for the i7-10700. However overclocking is mostly irrelevant on the 10700 since it requires changing your motherboards clock and most people won't bother. Honestly I love what they're doing. With AIO coolers in abundance getting liquid cooling no longer requires researching and building a custom loop, and is nearly as easy as installing air cooling. If my PSU's 12V rail can deliver 250W, and my cooler can easily displace 250W, why not let my processor consume that much? > The end result is that Intel is already pushing their chips to near maximum performance, power efficiency be damned, leaving zero room for overclocking Isn't this what silicon lottery was doing before? Intel saw that market space and is now filling it directly. Overclocking has never been about power efficiency anyway (undervolting of course is), it's always been decreasing gains as you increase the voltage and clock rate. Also, as an owner of a i9-10850K, I can confirm that there is room for overclocking (tho not much or else it would be an i9-10900K), and you can find many instances of people overclocking their i9-10900Ks as well. Intel has figured out what their high-performance non-business users want and are delivering on it perfectly. This is even one/two of the reasons that siliconlottery is listing as to why they're closing.
- RachelF 5y ago
  And AMD is also overclocking their own chips now. The days of running a chip 20% faster are gone - now with much tweaking you'll get a few percent gain and way more power draw. All this makes the Apple M1 chip look amazing, for single core loads it matches the best AMD and Intel have to offer.
  - teamspirit 5y ago
    If only we could add a real GPU.
    - dcow 5y ago
      I wish the eGPU scene was a little more refined and mature. It was almost there with Intel thunderbolt but with the M1 we've got an entirely new thunderbolt implementation that barely supports (pretty sure it still doesn't without something like display link) more than one external display for what I can only imagine is a hardware limitation. It seems like we always almost get there and then something new comes along and everyone chases that instead.
      - brokenmachine 5y ago
        M2 is sure to provide what you want. In the meantime, just keep buying.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    > All this makes the Apple M1 chip look amazing, for single core loads it matches the best AMD and Intel have to offer. M1 uses the next gen 5nm fab tech, it isn't fair to compare it to the others 7nm or 11nm. Apple bought up all next gen fab time to make M1, so right now you can only get it via Apple and that is the reason M1 is so superior. But this isn't thanks to Apple, AMD will get the same performance in their low power chips once they also get 5nm fab time. But I assume that Apples strategy here is to always buy up the next gen fab time since they can sell their components at a significant markup in their phones. So that is the future of hardware, we will never get the latest gen hardware again without software lockin.

dcow 5y ago

Yep and with Intel shitting the process bed all they can do is bin their existing stuff better, add some more aggressive boosting, and sell it as i9. They're essentially stuck "overclocking" their own chips.

techrat 5y ago
To the point to where you often could get better performance UNDERCLOCKING what Intel sold you. Often to the amount of 1% less performance but also 15% less power draw.
- heydabop 5y ago
  > you often could get better performance UNDERCLOCKING > often to the amount of 1% less performance That doesn't sound like better performance to me. Better performance per watt maybe, but then if I'm buying an i9 chip I'm probably not chasing performance per watt.
  - techrat 5y ago
    You miss the whole issue with Intel's CPUs. How much power they draw. They hit thermal throttle quite often. Especially the high end chips where Intel is maximizing the clock to bin them as i9s. 1% overall decrease in performance to ensure a lower power draw overall to prevent reaching thermal throttling thresholds absolutely does equate to better performance.
    - throaway46546 5y ago
      I could be wrong, but I guess that would depend on how efficient your cooling is, no?
      - techrat 5y ago
        Intel has been misrepresenting the TDP requirements of their CPUs for some time. https://www.extremetech.com/computing/319402-intels-desktop-tdps-no-longer-useful-to-predict-cpu-power-consumption https://www.extremetech.com/computing/319402-intels-desktop-... Something they list as 65W can draw over 200 Watts at full load. Consider that even with the most high end CPUs, they include the copper slug stock coolers than can make even a 45W rated CPU thermal throttle. > For most of the 2010s, Intel kept its typical desktop CPU power consumption at or below the CPU’s rated TDP, even at peak power draw. Once AMD launched Ryzen and Intel had to start adding more CPU cores to its desktop parts, that changed. The Core i9-10850K draws up to 265W but claims a 125W TDP. The Core i7-10700 claims 65W, but draws up to 214W under load, at motherboard defaults. In effect, Intel is brute forcing performance by cranking the power draw way up in order to compensate for what AMD has been able to bring to the table. They're bulldozering their way out of this mess, basically. The end result is that Intel is already pushing their chips to near maximum performance, power efficiency be damned, leaving zero room for overclocking... as the reason for this article exists.
        heydabop 5y ago
        > Consider that even with the most high end CPUs, they include the copper slug stock coolers than can make even a 45W rated CPU thermal throttle. While isn't true for either the i9-10850K or the i7-10700K, but one is included for the i7-10700. However overclocking is mostly irrelevant on the 10700 since it requires changing your motherboards clock and most people won't bother. Honestly I love what they're doing. With AIO coolers in abundance getting liquid cooling no longer requires researching and building a custom loop, and is nearly as easy as installing air cooling. If my PSU's 12V rail can deliver 250W, and my cooler can easily displace 250W, why not let my processor consume that much? > The end result is that Intel is already pushing their chips to near maximum performance, power efficiency be damned, leaving zero room for overclocking Isn't this what silicon lottery was doing before? Intel saw that market space and is now filling it directly. Overclocking has never been about power efficiency anyway (undervolting of course is), it's always been decreasing gains as you increase the voltage and clock rate. Also, as an owner of a i9-10850K, I can confirm that there is room for overclocking (tho not much or else it would be an i9-10900K), and you can find many instances of people overclocking their i9-10900Ks as well. Intel has figured out what their high-performance non-business users want and are delivering on it perfectly. This is even one/two of the reasons that siliconlottery is listing as to why they're closing.
RachelF 5y ago
And AMD is also overclocking their own chips now. The days of running a chip 20% faster are gone - now with much tweaking you'll get a few percent gain and way more power draw. All this makes the Apple M1 chip look amazing, for single core loads it matches the best AMD and Intel have to offer.
- teamspirit 5y ago
  If only we could add a real GPU.
  - dcow 5y ago
    I wish the eGPU scene was a little more refined and mature. It was almost there with Intel thunderbolt but with the M1 we've got an entirely new thunderbolt implementation that barely supports (pretty sure it still doesn't without something like display link) more than one external display for what I can only imagine is a hardware limitation. It seems like we always almost get there and then something new comes along and everyone chases that instead.
    - brokenmachine 5y ago
      M2 is sure to provide what you want. In the meantime, just keep buying.
- Jensson 5y ago
  > All this makes the Apple M1 chip look amazing, for single core loads it matches the best AMD and Intel have to offer. M1 uses the next gen 5nm fab tech, it isn't fair to compare it to the others 7nm or 11nm. Apple bought up all next gen fab time to make M1, so right now you can only get it via Apple and that is the reason M1 is so superior. But this isn't thanks to Apple, AMD will get the same performance in their low power chips once they also get 5nm fab time. But I assume that Apples strategy here is to always buy up the next gen fab time since they can sell their components at a significant markup in their phones. So that is the future of hardware, we will never get the latest gen hardware again without software lockin.