adelli
Agreed. I’m working on testing it tonight where I’ll show performance with and without tape. Not sure if the tape actually protects PCB components because the older cooler didn’t have any tape. Stay tuned!

adelli
30 min Heaven Benchmark Extreme
 
Concise Methods
GPU Fan @ 50% (1958 RPM)
Rear Case Fan @ 100% (1920RPM)
Noise = 42 dB
Stock Core GPU Clock and Memory
Default Voltage Curve
Ambient Temps: 19.4 to 20 °C
*Delta Temps = Raw Temp - Ambient Temp, then average posted below.
Sample Size is 800-900 at one recording every 2000 ms
 
Stock with Tape
Raw Mean Temps: 75.2 °C ± 0.4 (95%CI)
Delta Mean Temps: 54.1 °C ± 0.4 (95%CI)
 
Stock without Tape
Raw Mean Temps: 65.4 °C ± 0.3 (95%CI)
Delta Mean Temps: 45.4 °C ± 0.3 (95%CI)
 
Got to get to bed soon but thought I would post here. I'll work on the video tomorrow. LMK if you have any questions.
 

adelli
Only real question I have are the VRM: did you have a chance of checking them?
-No I don't own an open test bench or a infrared thermometer...yet =]

Oh and what is your YouTube channel?
-Tech Professor (same logo) . I just started so really nothing on it yet. I am a college professor but tech stuff is my side passion project.
 
Question, was the first test with the tape on the stock or original TIM?  I ask because replacing the TIM alone can have substantial impact on GPU core temps.
- YES...forgot this part. Ugh, I am usually better at reporting so my results aren't suspect. I have 3 sets of data. Stock with Tape, TIM Replaced with Tape, TIM Replaced without Tape. I reported only Stock With Tape and TIM replaced without above. If I recall correctly, the raw temps for the results (TIM Replaced with Tape) I left out were ~69°C . I don't have access to the data in front of me right now because I am at work. 

adelli
Yes - correct three tests in this order (1) Stock Card with Tape, (2) Replaced TIM with Tape, (3) Replaced TIM without Tape.
I will edit the post tonight with graphs (bar graph with mean temps & line graph with temps over time) when I get home. So the delta from just replacing the TIM was ~5 °C, and the delta from replacing the TIM + Removing the tape was ~5°C . 
 
I will also share the data to make it publically available tonight. I believe this is the most important aspect of testing, is independent verification and sharing data so we all can use it. Many tests in the PC tech community use the empirical method (really only descriptive data) whereas I am trying to make a push for open access to data and the use of the scientific method for testing.
 
Also - the VRM temps I do not seem to be that serious of an issue. There are thermal pads (1mm) on the VRMs and Memory covered by a black aluminum heat spreader (1mm) see pic below. You could replace the stock thermal pads with something fancier (i.e., Fujipoly Extreme XR @ 17W/mK), but anything around 6W/mK thermal pads would do just fine.
 

 
 
 
With a custom voltage curve, I can OC to +160Mhz on the clock at 1.00 V stable. I haven't pushed the card since removing the tape but will do more tinkering tonight. 
 
Also - the best part of removing the tape isn't the improvement GPU thermals. It is improved thermals inside your case. I noticed that all of my components were noticeably cooler. (Again, you can verify with data I'll upload tonight, so looks like the video will be delayed a bit).
 
 

adelli

HeavyHemi
 
Okay, but you cannot have it both ways. You went from we need verified objective data to 'oh never mind I think the VRMs are good enough'... or some random thermal pad is 'just fine'.  Having done extensive testing professionally, that's not a good methodology. l hinted at that when I discussed reasons for redirecting airflow. You're not using the 'scientific method' when you substitute your opinion for data. This is why objective analysis is expensive and time consuming. You've only scratched the surface if you truly believe you're going to provide an objective analysis of the thermal design.  If your components are 'noticeably cooler with that small amount of redirected flow, I'd think the evidence would suggest you need a bit better airflow in your case...but that's just an opinion based on the evidence...

Thanks for pointing out the flaw in my logic. A healthy discussion is based on constructive criticism. In future posts, I will attempt to explicitly indicate what information is derived from data, what is an interpretation of data, and what is opinion (albeit informed or uninformed). I by no means have the equipment, facility, or time to perform a proper experiment on thermal design of a graphics card. This is why I included a measure of noise in the data (error) with a 95% confidence interval. Also, kudos for the appropriate use of methodology and methods. Many do not know the distinction and think methodology is just a fancier word when (s)he actually mean methods. 
 

adelli
As promised... link to data...