MBP and the Thermal Paste Discussions

I've read with interest the postings on this web site regarding the MBP heat issues and the possibility that too much thermal paste is causing that problem. I've spent quite a few years designing computer motherboards using Intel processor chips, and want to share some thoughts on the topic. I only mention my background because one thing this business has taught me is that we can all be easily mislead by our test data if our process for gathering the data isn't rigorous (and, believe me, I've learned that lesson many times).

First, the excess thermal paste is definitely a problem, regardless of whether it is the root cause of the heat issue. Some of the photos posted on the various web sites show thermal paste covering bypass capacitors on the chip carriers (the green fiberglass boards that carry the CPU and GPU die). Thermal pastes can cause stray capacitances that can interfere with circuit operation. Standard industry practice is to use only as much paste as is necessary to achieve a layer that is about as thin as a single layer of tissue paper (or less). The amount used by Apple is far too large, particularly because the paste in coming into contact with other electrical components and conductors. A common failure mode associated with degraded bypass capacitors is random (and unrepeatable) crashes due to corrupted digital data in the processor chip.

In addition, all thermal pastes contain various types of fluids. Over time, these fluids evaporate, and frequently they condense elsewhere inside a computer. When CD drives were first introduced years ago, a common cause of mid-lifetime failures was condensates on the optics of the laser. The condensation fogs the lens and interferes with the ability of the laser to focus while reading and writing data. The contamination was traced to outgassing by thermal pastes, greases, sulfurized elastomers, and similar items used to build the computer. (Note that the Apple service manual for the MBP refers to the thermal paste as “thermal grease”.) Consumer electronics manufacturers learned to minimize the use of such materials in computer designs. The amount of thermal paste shown in the Apple service manual is very large, and I wouldn't rule out that it might contribute to future DVD drive failures.

It is difficult to say, based on the available data, that reducing the amount of thermal paste actually contributes to improving the thermal behavior of the MBP. Part of the problem is that the procedure to remove the pastes involves disassembling the laptop, and this introduces the possibility that the disassembly/reassembly process is inadvertently fixing the problem.

First, the high case temperatures could be the result of loose or poorly placed thermal sensors. If the disassembly/reassembly process fixed a loose sensor, or loose sensor electrical connection, or placed the sensor in a better position, you would get lower case temperatures, and possibly (inadvertently) attribute this to less paste.

Second, the cooling system design in the MBP requires that the die caps on the chip carriers be pressed tightly against the pads on the heat sink, so that heat is transferred efficiently. If the MBP is not assembled properly, (i.e., if the logic board mounting screws are not properly torqued, or the logic board is not mechanically aligned properly to ensure a tight fit to the heat sink), it is possible that this will manifest itself as high case temperatures. In the Intel processor chips there are two paths for heat to travel – out of the die cap, and through the electrical contacts to the motherboard. If the die cap isn’t properly cooled, heat will instead go into the motherboard, and the case temperature will rise. There is a possibility that the disassembly/reassembly process will fix a loose or misaligned logic board problem, with the result that the case temp will be reduced.

Also, if you work through the details of the thermal model that results from excess paste, it's hard to see how it would result in more heat to the case and less to the heat sink. Most of the photos on the web appear to show thin paste on top of the die, indicating that there was probably a low thermal resistance path to the heat sink prior to disassembly. The excess paste to the sides will simply further reduce the thermal resistance between the chip carrier and the heat sink. I may be missing something, but it's hard to envision how this lower thermal resistivity between the CPU and the heat sink drives more heat into the case. But it is also possible that the disassembly process destroys evidence of the actual connection to the heat sink, so this failure mode is hard to judge.

The best way to determine if removing the excess paste is actually helping would be to measure the exhaust air temperature from the cooling fans before and after removing the excess paste. I haven't seen such data, but if it were taken, and showed that the exhaust air was at a significantly higher temperature after the fix than before it, then we would know that the fix worked. If not, then the heat is going elsewhere, and it is possible that fix has actually made things worse.

Finally, all the symptoms we're seeing can be explained by poor software calibration and/or incorrect software control of the CPU clock speed. I wouldn't rule out a software fix at his point.

I'm not saying removing the paste is not a fix, only that there are still open questions that remain to be answered. It would be hard for me to recommend that anyone rework an MBP for the thermal problem in the absence of additional data.

For myself, I own an MBP, and though I have access to an electronics lab and some great technicians, I intend to buy Applecare, and in the meantime wait for a fix (or at least more information) from Apple.

Best of luck to everyone who has this issue - thats what we get for being early adopters.




G5 2.5 DP Mac OS X (10.4)

G5 2.5 DP Mac OS X (10.4)

G5 2.5 DP Mac OS X (10.4)

G5 2.5 DP Mac OS X (10.4)

G5 2.5 DP Mac OS X (10.4)

G5 2.5 DP Mac OS X (10.4)

MBP 2.0, Mac OS X (10.4)

Posted on May 4, 2006 5:10 PM

Reply
76 replies

May 9, 2006 1:41 PM in response to Illuminati

"If not, then the heat is going elsewhere, and it is possible that fix has actually made things worse. "

Illuminati, thanks for the nice post. One comment though, is that the heat must go somewhere. As long as good contact is present, I can't imagine how decreasing the paste between the die and heatpipe could be bad. One step that people should do if they decide to open the case is to verify the contact between the different dies and the heatpipe plates before putting everything back together. Using the thinnest amount of paste I screwed everything back together and then took it apart to see if there was any poor contact. Surprisingly, despite each die not have it's own independent adjustable heatsink, I had just about 100% contact on all of them.

Given good contact, I'm unclear how decreasing the seperation could hurt and where the heat might otherwise go. In my experience the fans became much more responsive to any changes in temperature (suggesting improved heat transfer) and the temperature readings on both the case and temp apps have decreased about 10C. Before I rarely heard the fans, now I hear them more, and they spin up faster and down faster in response to temp changes observed with speedit and Temperature Monitor (I'm not sure of the accuracy of the application, but seem consistent qualitatively). I'm not sure what combination of input from the three sensors is controlling the fans, but the fact that they are running more often, and the case and temp sensors are cooler, suggests to me the improved contact has helped. If heat were accumulating somewhere else, over longer time periods it would be noticeable somewhere on the machine and the CPU might shut down.

The other change that may have helped, is the tape connecting the left heat vent and fan did not completely cover the vent, as it did on the right side. From my perspective, this allows air to blow from the fan directly onto the area above the function keys and even back into the case. After reattaching the tape so that it covered the heatvent on the right side, the area above the function keys is only a few degrees warmer than anywhere else, whereas before it was about 10C warmer. Just my observations.

May 9, 2006 3:42 PM in response to migs

"The other change that may have helped, is the tape connecting the left heat vent and fan did not completely cover the vent, as it did on the right side. From my perspective, this allows air to blow from the fan directly onto the area above the function keys and even back into the case. After reattaching the tape so that it covered the heatvent on the right side, the area above the function keys is only a few degrees warmer than anywhere else, whereas before it was about 10C warmer. Just my observations."

Now THAT, is jolly interesting...

May 9, 2006 5:12 PM in response to Illuminati

I personally think Apple may have underestamated the amount of heat the Macbook Pro would create. This however could also be more of a manufacture problem rather than a design problem. I would say that the design was ok, but somehow quality or poor selection of parts probably made more of a difference.
However, in defense of Apple, I would say that many of todays computers are running much hotter than previous ones. So some of the heat must be expected.

May 9, 2006 5:13 PM in response to Illuminati

Illuminati,

Great read thankyou.

Just wondering though, being a productsdesign engineer myself, and very interested in all this, why would apple (or intel for that matter) not use a THERMAL FILM and not a paste. from what i have researched on the topic the tape is around 95% the efficiency of the paste and a whole lot easier to manage.

This way at least you generate a level of confidence in the effectivness of the film.

It is servicable and much much more pradictable. Oh, i doubt it had any vaporization problems also.

Is this ever used in the industry? especially for this perpose? would be interested to know what you think?

Cheers




May 9, 2006 7:27 PM in response to goo.nguyen

"Heat Seeking MacBook Pro" or "Heat Sinking MacBook Pro"


Now I have done it. I am in trouble. Apple has
removed my posting on the above..... sigh.....


OK.. luckily I have a copy of the original post in my blog:
http://intelmaccoreduo.blogspot.com/2006/05/heat-seeking-macbook-pro-or-heat.htm l

Here's the email from Apple:
http://intelmaccoreduo.blogspot.com/2006/05/apple-says-your-post-was-removed.htm l

May 10, 2006 7:58 AM in response to Illuminati

Since my last post, I read the data sheet on the Intel Core Duo processor, and thought I'd pass along some information and thoughts.

FYI, the Core Duo in the MBP is spec'd to have a worst-case power consumption of 31 watts. This is not unreasonable for a laptop processor.

The Intel data sheet contains information that might help folks determine if heat poses an immediate risk to their laptop. The Core Duo contains an internal "Intel Thermal Monitor" feature that automatically reduces the clock frequency of the CPU as the die approaches a temperature (125C) at which damage might occur. (Power consumption is generally proportional to clock frequency, and reducing clock frequency reduces the heat produced by the processor.) If the die becomes too hot, the CPU will shut down completely. This feature is intended to be turned-on via firmware at boot time, and thereafter is completely independent of any software.

What this means to a user is that, if the laptop starts to slow down, or halts completely, then it is possible that the CPU may be automatically reducing its speed to avoid damage. In turn, this means that the cooling system for the CPU may be compromised, and the laptop might need to be repaired. The Intel data sheet indicates that frequent activation of this thermal control feature may result in diminished long-term reliability of the CPU. At the same time, if you're not seeing a loss of performance, or halts, then you may be safe from heat damage to the CPU, at least in the near-term. (My MBP slows down and halts.)

There is one circumstance in which the above paragraph won’t be correct. The thermal monitor feature has to be enabled via firmware at power-up. If, for some reason, the firmware doesn't do this, then the CPU is unprotected and damage can occur if the cooling system fails; the CPU will heat up until it has a hard failure. In this scenario the extra paste may actually help by providing an additional (albeit small) cooling path to the heat sink. I haven't seen any postings of hard failures like this, and it doesn’t appear this is happening to MBPs to any significant degree.

My impression at this point is that, unless a laptop is experiencing slow-downs or halts, it may be best to wait until Apple fully diagnoses the problem and issues a fix. I know from experience that thermal management features are complex to implement, and in the initial release of a product it is difficult to get them right the first time. This is because most manufacturers don't have accurate "real world usage profiles" that can be used to validate the firmware thermal settings prior to the first sale.

Regarding some of the questions in previous posts:

Sheva – You will need to completely remove and replace the thermal paste. The original paste will be too dry to spread out properly and fill the gap between the CPU and the heat sink when the laptop is reassembled, and this will make things worse for you.

Jean-Cyril – It is difficult to judge without seeing it. If the bare spot is due to the CPU having been in full metal-to-metal contact with the heat sink, then that is OK. The paste is only intended to fill gaps where those surfaces are not in contact. If the bare spots are due to complete lack of paste, then that is a significant problem. It's sometimes hard to tell which is the case because the pastes dry-out over time, and frequently when the heat sink is removed the paste will crumble and separate from the surfaces, and give an appearance of blank spots. In some of the electronics manufacturing plants that I have dealt with, the repair facilities pay no attention to the appearance of the paste after disassembly since it's very difficult to infer anything with confidence (unless there is evidence of chemical contamination or heat damage).

Tompi – Whether to use thermal paste or tape is usually a manufacturing decision, rather than a design decision. The tapes require much tighter manufacturing tolerances in the stack-up of the bottom plane of the heat sink relative to the top of the CPU. If the manufacturing tolerances can be kept small, then tape is preferred because it is simpler to apply. Conversely, if the manufacturing tolerances are loose, then pastes are preferred because they have better gap-filling qualities and are more tolerant of inevitable dimensional drifts in tools and fixtures over the life of the product. Intel uses tape on some of its over-the-counter Pentium 4s because the design of its heat sink allows it to grab hold of the motherboard under the CPU and pull the CPU into tight contact with the tape. In the MBP, the assembly tolerances are looser because there is less opportunity to control the vertical tolerance stack-up, and the thermal paste is less sensitive to those tolerances. This is not because Apple has porr quality control. Rather, it is an artifact of building a laptop vs. a desktop computer.







MBP 2.0 Mac OS X (10.4.6)

This thread has been closed by the system or the community team. You may vote for any posts you find helpful, or search the Community for additional answers.

MBP and the Thermal Paste Discussions

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple Account.