Greg, Thank you. Yes, this is the protocol I have always used in the past. This time, due to the obvious dimensional differences, I chose to differ. On all subsequent (2) installs, I will go back to my default protocol. Somehow putting paste on the cpu where the HS never contacts it was a question. Yes, it is just ME. If I burn one up, so be it. Expensive learning! I do so hate when this happens. LOL! Best, Duncan
At 20:07 11/10/2008 -0600, you wrote:
You should apply thermal paste to the processor's surface, not the HSF. That's pretty much always been the case, even with non-IHS (exposed) cores when spreading was the preferred method. They used to suggest "treating" the HS surface by spreading material on it then wiping it off against the machine marks (grain), but I don't bother with that step anymore. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardware- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of DHSinclair > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 7:53 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [H] preference? > > Greg, > Did not, this time. Perhaps you are agreeing with my choice. > But the send you attached (from AS, and I have already studied this) > focuses me at the cpu. > Perhaps AS needs an update? > Perhaps in the past. Not this time. > I will defer. This is the single largest cpu heat spreader I have ever > seen. > Please pardon my confusion. I dressed the HS/Fan this time. > Even with the silly Intel connection latches, it does appear to be > firmly > locked in place. > But, now I do understand why there is such a willing 3d party business > supplying HS/Fan combos > for these devices. I can see a call to ThermalRight very soon! > Best, > Duncan
