Skip to main content

How to destroy your CPU by lapping it

Of all the incredibly stupid things people do to their CPUs, including overclocking them until they are hot enough to melt steel, the single most imbecilic modification has to be lapping. Using absurdly skewed logic and completely unsupported data, lappers believe that by physically grinding down the surfaces of their CPUs to make them flatter and gain better contact with the similarly lapped surfaces of their heatsink fan cooler assembly they will lower their operating temperatures up to 20 degrees C.

The miraculous advantages of lapping are evangelized by the same sort of online loonies who believe that Microsoft and AOL are giving away merchandise and cash just for forwarding an email message, three triangulated cell phones can pop popcorn kernels, and that Barack Obama was sworn into his Senatorial office with his hand on the Koran.

CPU Lapping is a destructive process that is claimed to drop operating temperatures when all it does is drop your IQ!

CPU Lapping is a destructive process that is claimed to drop operating temperatures when all it does is drop your IQ!

The process of lapping involves grinding down the top surface of your new CPU with 300 grit sandpaper, which is repeatedly soaked in soapy water. That is about as close as I can imagine to having a perfect formula to irrevocably destroy a computer processor. If the constant static electricity buildup of repeatedly rubbing a CPU with an abrasive is not enough, and even if you can make sure that all the little metal shavings don't migrate to the underside of the processor to short it out, exactly who told you that soapy water and silicon processors mix?

Lapping is supposed to be complete when the silvery surface coating of the CPU is all gone and it reveals the coppery colored core material. Of course this assumes that the CPU manufacturers have invested countless billions of dollars into Research & Development just to coat their processors with a completely useless if not wholly counterproductive metal coating! If anyone wanted to pit the indepth knowledge and understanding of CPU heat transfer technology, I'd always put my money on some socially handicapped zit-faced 13 year old kid in his parents' basement than I will on the entire engineering staff of Intel! NOT!

The lapping is not only restricted to CPUs. Lapping enthusiasts just love to grind down the surfaces on aftermarket third party CPU air coolers, some of which retail for over $100! The lapping lunatics forums are full of descriptions of how to take the mating surface of an expensive air cooler all the way down to the metal substrate!

Lapping not only immediately voids your warranty and prevents any RMA returns but does absolutely nothing at all other than create insane illusions in the minds of lappers who like to boast that they got a mirror finish on their copper IHS and now have dropped their overclock load temperatures into Arctic territory. The bottom line is that no CPU nor HSF ever require lapping and just judicious application of a proper thermal grease is more than enough to ensure proper mating and heat transfer.

If you are ever tempted to lap your CPU do this instead: stand on polyester carpeting with your socks while you press your CPU onto the 3500 rpm spinning gray 60 grit wheel of a nice Black & Decker BT3500 bench grinder. Keep going until the static tingle in your fingers turns into sharp shocks and the IHS is ground down to where the actual circuitry is visible. Now your CPU will work perfectly. If you'll believe that, you'll also believe that Microsoft Bob was the best Operating System in history, Enron stock was a profitable investment, and Hancock was a great superhero movie.

Check out hundreds of Hal's PC Technology articles in these categories:


Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on April 14, 2009:

Hi John Lacey.

Thanks for your comment!

1. I think that when we analyze this statement in depth, we find that it's not necessarily the case. If anything, the cost of adding metal to the IHS is an extra expense and eliminating it is going to be cheaper. Although I'm not privy to Intel's private engineering reports on IHSs, it would seem that the secondary heat spreader needs to work in conjunction with the primary unit (copper) in order to dissipate heat more effectively. I trust that the additional metal on the IHS is also there to add structural integrity and to prevent the CPU from being damaged in puncture incidents, etc. We also need to consider the corrosion issue with exposed copper. We've all seen green corroding copper and that is not exactly my idea of a great CPU facing material. Regardless, the cost of that much metal on a CPU is so minimal that it really shouldn't affect the bottom line costs.

2. I most certainly don't buy the vroom vroom factor. Intel has been pulling out every engineering trick possible to get their CPU speeds up and if it was so simple that just yanking off a metal cover would do the trick, they would have resorted to that already. Besides, with CPU binning, there is a natural adjustment of speeds across a processor family so that the overall curve of slow to fast is relatively stable.

I think when we consider the entire situation from scratch, I would put the highest merit on secondary heat spreading and prevention of copper corrosion as the main reasons why IHS technology is implemented as it is.

John Lacey on April 14, 2009:

Hi Hal! I have a few things maybe why intel doesn't lap their CPUs.

1. It would make the CPUs cost more, not by a lot, but it would still be an increase.

2. Not saying that it does, but lets say lapping works. So say I lap my CPU, and the temp. drops by 6 C. Now, lets say I overclock my CPU. it used to be stable @ 3.0 Ghz. But now, since it runs cooler, It can run @ 3.4 Ghz stable. Buying from Intel, an increase from 3.0 to 3.4 could cost 20 - 50 more dollars. So if Intel lapped their CPUs, they would sell less of their high end CPU, because people could just buy a lesser model, but till get high speeds.

Scroll to Continue

Thanks just why I think maybe Intel doesn't lap their CPUs. What do you think about what I said?

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on April 11, 2009:

Sir, LAPPERS ARE MORONS. That's the end of the discussion. Unlike you, I don't use the R word as it is derogatory and offensive... just like lappers.

Hal is a retard on April 11, 2009:

Still lapping up the attention and hits i see.

You really should give it up and come clean that you where wrong and move on to the next attention seeking post.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on April 06, 2009:

Does it void your warranty? Yes. That means the manufacturers with their thousands of degreed engineers know it damages their product. That makes it idiotic. Now shut up. :P

Overclocker on April 06, 2009:

You really just have no clue. Lapping is a proven method of improving the thermal transfer from CPU to heatsink. This is coming from 8 years in microchip design, and a Doctorate in Electrical Engineering. You are welcome to disagrea, as long as you have a degree in the field, and have worked in the field before.

And yeah, I come from OCN. I'm proud of it. I wasn't one of the people that flamed you for posting this hit, but if I was there, I would have.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on April 05, 2009:

OCN? Sheesh! Figures you'd be from that clan of dodos... just another waste of protoplasm. :P

BlackOmega from OCN on April 05, 2009:

Intel and AMD did not invest BILLIONS of dollars in R&D of the IHS (integrated heat sink).

Its obvious from your article that you have never lapped anything. So you dont really have a leg to stand on in my opinion. And if anyone used 300 grit sandpaper to lap anything, then they're a fool and obviously didn't research lapping AT ALL. Which it seems that you have done. Or rather, failed to do.

You're giving half of the information about lapping to anyone reading your article. And NOWEHERE does it say to SOAK your CPU in soapy water. So upon further reading your article, it seems to me that you're an imbecile. That you simply can not follow even the most rudimentory instruction.

And by sanding down the IHS, PLEASE DO TELL HOW THIS DESTROYS CPUS? You're sanding a coated piece of copper. So, this makes the CPU inoperable how exactly? Oh, thats right, it doesn't. Because you sir FAIL. Please don't comment on things which you OBVIOUSLY have no knowledge.

Good day to you sir.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on March 10, 2009:

Glad we're amusing you. And no, I'm not lapping anything. Thank you. :)

Zeno on March 10, 2009:

This whole blog is just one big LOL.

Firstly, just because it voids the warranty, does not mean it's destructive and dangerous. What about opening up a playstation 2 to manually clean the laser or adjust the pots to give an old laser a bit more power? Both void your warranty immediately because the sticker on the case gets broken. What about putting aftermarket coolers on video cards? Many graphics card manufacturers will declare this as a void of warranty, and even with manufacturers that don't, you often need to reattach the stock cooler to be able to send it back.

You should note two points.

1. The IHS has the CPU's serial number and identification info on it. This tells Inte/AMD what model it is, when it was produced, it's stepping revision etc. This is as important to them as a receipt. Without it, they have no idea what CPU they're actually looking at.

2. The IHS is there to dissapate heat across the entire surface area, and importantly acts to protect the cores during the process of equipping a cooler on top. BUT, the thermal transfer between it and the cooler is LESS effective than cooler straight to the copper shell beneath. Copper is a better heat conductor, and you also have to realise there are now less metal-metal junctions in the entire setup. Instead of cores-copper-IHS coating-cooler you just have cores-copper-cooler (simplified obviously). There is also a decrease in the distance between the cores and the coolers heat dissapating surface. Because of this, thermal transfer is now more efficient. Whether or not the IHS is a more efficient heat transfer material is irrelevant, as even if it is there the copper would now be the limiting factor and thus the IHS wouldn't increase thermal transfer, being there or not.

In short, the IHS is there for identification purposes and for protection of the cores. Removal of it wont destroy the CPU, and will increase the efficiency of thermal transfer to a cooler. Of course AMD and Intel are not going to condone it, as it removes identification info, similar to scratching a VIN number off a car; removes some of the IHS there for safety purposes (increasing susceptibility to damage by being crushed, whacked etc); and can result in damage to the CPU in the lapping process due to human error. Does this mean it WILL destroy your CPU and is detrimental? Absolutely not.

Email intel or amd and ask them, aside from the fact that it voids your warranty and can be dangerous, should lapping off the IHS to reveal the copper and produce a more flat surface result in more efficient thermal transfer? Don't expect them to email you first, dont expect them to change their warranties (waiting for this as proof of lapping not being the most idiotic thing you can do to your CPU is as probably the most naive thought in this entire blog) and dont expect hundreds of people who have done it and attained good temperature drops to just appease to you. Go buy a cheap CPU, put it in a cheap system, lapp it and the cooler and post results. If you kill your CPU, it's because you're incompetent, unlucky or a mix of both.

Finally, no i have not lapped my CPU (yet)

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on March 05, 2009:

Admit I'm wrong? About lapping? I'll be glad to do so. Exactly one minute after Intel and AMD change their warranties so that they are not immediately voided by the act. Since that will be never, I will always firmly adhere to the belief that:

Lapper = Moron

Lapper = Moron

Lapper = Moron

Lapper = Moron

Lapper = Moron

Starting to get the picture?

SN on March 05, 2009:

"My momma always told me that if you know you're right, never back down from a fight! Bring it on! :)"

This is the mentality of a stubborn ignoramus, your momma shouldn't have given you this advice, i feel sorry for you - please just admit you're wrong.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on March 03, 2009:

Lapper = Moron.

End of conversation.

Onegin on March 03, 2009:

No, Hal, I'm just saying I'd rather get hair advice from Phil Spector than get tech advice from someone who looks like they're too busy acquring metabolic disorder to form coherent thoughts.

I could smash my CPU with a hammer and still present a more logical argument than you. I also am enamored with this gem: "Are you a total moron, or do you truly do lap?" Have you ever written anything above a 3rd grade level? I have never lapped a CPU, but I may just stand next to you for a while and win a Nobel Prize by comparison.

In summation, you fail at life. Enjoy living out your days alone, hurtling insults at things you possibly couldn't understand in your lifetime.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on February 27, 2009:

What, according to you I'm supposed to have to have dogs, drive a VW Beetle and eat shrimp? Are you a total moron, or do you truly do lap? Er... yeah... I guess I answered my own question.


Onegin on February 26, 2009:

Read this aloud:

"He lives for cats, pasta and motorcycles."

Pulled straight from Hal's HubPages profile. I'm just amazed so many of you are taking him seriously. This isn't the first time someone has posted something on the Internet to get a rise out of people.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on February 25, 2009:

Simple, dude.

Read and learn:

If you think I was adamant about LAPPERS BEING MORONS before, just imagine how I want to shout from the skyscrapers about them now! :)

Taviyo on February 25, 2009:


Whether or not lapping is advantageous, why are you so emotionally invested in going so over-the-top in your self-righteous display of how it is not? You buddy, are ludicrous.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on February 24, 2009:

Thousands of instances by who? Anonymous geeks on internet forums! Wow! Now that's really hard proof. By that logic I can show you thousands of instances that prove that THE EARTH IS FLAT, MORON! SHOW ME SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEWED PUBLISHED PROOF IN A MAJOR JOURNAL or return back to the fantasy wanker land where all lappers live. LAPPERS ARE MORONS, and you, my dear friend, are proving that with every word! :)

hal is a moron on February 24, 2009:

thousands of instances prove you wrong. google it up. see it for yourself. only then speak up. otherwise you're acting stupid. you obviously have no idea about what you're trolling about. SHUT UP. now bane me, moron :)

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on February 06, 2009:

Hi jmichaels59. I am at least partially willing to agree with Gordon Gekko in that greed can be good if properly channeled and implemented: It's the basis of the capitalistic system. And I agree with you that the greed for some extreme PC enthusiasts to shave an extra degree or two leads them to make disastrous and completely silly judgment calls! Lapping is definitely one of the stupidest things any computer user can do!

jmichaels59 from Hinesville/Savannah, Ga on February 06, 2009:

Hmm, did not know anyone was that stupid! Side note: Enron WAS a good stock early on. People got greedy however, which is what hapens with the CPU is guess, greedy for cool temps in the ol' puter!~

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on February 05, 2009:

Hmm... I wonder if lapper morons live under the same bridge as trolls? :)

Caller-Of-Trolls on February 04, 2009:

Hey, the mystical wizard's tower of troll-breeding and other sundry things called. They want their troll back.

Please do shout that out - I wanna see.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on February 04, 2009:

Lapping is idiotic, and therefore so is Mavis. Furthermore, I will climb every mountain, cross every stream, ford every chasm, sail every sea, do anything and everything for the rest of my existence on this mortal coil to loudly shout from the tops of the tallest buildings: LAPPERS ARE MOOOOOOOOOOOOOROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONSSSSSSSSSSSS!


Mavis on February 04, 2009:

"Lapping is idiotic and destructive. Don't come onto my Hub and tell me to shut up."

Shut up.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on February 04, 2009:

Send me a cookie. Monogram it with your honorary title: MORON! :)

Speller V2 on February 04, 2009:

No. Nonononono. MORON isn't a spelling, it's you trying to shout across the internet (impossible, I may add), and again, lapper may equal moron in your little world (far, far different from those other 6 billion), but I will (to my dieing day) overclock every CPU and GPU I come across. No exceptions.

I haven't killed one yet.

You get a cookie if you let this through.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on February 04, 2009:

Nope. I know how to spell Lapper very well. It's spelled MORON! :)

Speller on February 04, 2009:

Idiot. Lapper isn't even a word, and it would be spelled L-A-P-P-E-R, not M-O-R-O-N. You're confused, apparently.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on February 04, 2009:

Yes, I can spell. Look: I can spell... PC! Wow! Amazing, huh? :)

As for my belief on the MORON status of lappers, I wouldn't care if it was a Nobel Prize winner who was doing it. It's still MORONIC. :)

Jake on February 04, 2009:

*claps* You've proved you can spell. Did you realize that a majority of people who lap are PC entusiasts, and that a majority of them are Professionals in the IT field? I myself am just a bench tech, so I would absolutly know nothing about this sorta thing.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on February 04, 2009:

You're a lapper. What else can I say? Maybe I should spell it out. M - O - R - O - N ! ! ! :)

Amazed on February 04, 2009:

I feel bad for anyone that reads this "article" and actually believes a single word of it. Hal Licino looks to be an angry 13yr old who just had his xbox taken away because he scraped daddy's new CPU.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on January 31, 2009:

You are sooooooooooooooo dumb (since you're a lapper... what else could you be) that you don't realize that's a stock pic and not my CPU! Go lap your skull some more, maybe you'll get better heat transfer to your brain. :)

Jake on January 31, 2009:



You ruined your CPU lapping, and since you cant do it you are trying to convince people its the worse thing ever! Is that picture up there an image of your CPU? You did a horrible lap job ;) barely and copper showing. Speaking of which, did you know that by lapping the entire IHS off you improve temps by removing a medium to pass through that is not needed?

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on January 25, 2009:

I have never lapped. Have you ever had a coherent thought? :)

i think the author screwed up his cpu lapping and hasn't gotten over it ;-) on January 18, 2009:


Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on January 14, 2009:

Yes, let's see... which one is better? Sanding the hell out of a sensitive piece of electronic equipment dry or wet? Hmm... it would seem that either wet or dry,








Oh... and did I mention that



Jake on January 14, 2009:

You can dry lap too, so you can stop saying wet sandpaper. :)

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on January 12, 2009:

Hey, anyone can write a Hub, whether or not they're morons. This particular moron proves nothing. He laps, therefore he morons. :)


You don't have to get a peer review journal to prove something DOESN'T work, you only do it to prove something DOES work, IF it hasn't been proven previously. IHS design is an accepted engineering standard, proven by one of the world's largest corporations (Intel) and conclusively accepted by all CPU manufacturers. It is acknowledged universally as proper. If one of you lapper... er... morons... had the TINIEST SHRED OF REAL SCIENTIFIC, PROVABLE EVIDENCE, get a REAL engineer or researcher to write a paper in a major peer reviewed journal. OTHERWISE YOU'RE JUST BLOWING HOT AIR OUT YOUR DERRIERE.


Maybe you should take some wet sandpaper to your skulls instead of your IHS! :)

Jake on January 11, 2009:

Theres an article for you to read up on.

Jake on January 11, 2009:

I ask again for your proof that you are a computer scientist and worthy of a peer review.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on January 11, 2009:

Ok, let's start at the very beginning AGAIN, as it's clear that you just don't get it. You have no clue whatsoever about what peer review means, so here are selected parts of the Wiki for your enlightenment. Read and learn:


Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review.

Pragmatically, peer review refers to the work done during the screening of submitted manuscripts and funding applications. This process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline and prevents the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Publications that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals.


You get that, Jake? Is that clear enough? Scientists who create advancements in any field have to demonstrate their findings in journals that are reviewed and approved by foremost acknowledged experts in their fields. CPUs are no exception. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN THE HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGY THAT SUPPORTS LAPPING!








Would you like further reading? Please enjoy:


In the case of proposed publications, an editor sends advance copies of an author's work or ideas to researchers or scholars who are experts in the field (known as "referees" or "reviewers"), nowadays normally by e-mail or through a web-based manuscript processing system. Usually, there are two or three referees for a given article.

These referees each return an evaluation of the work to the editor, noting weaknesses or problems along with suggestions for improvement. Typically, most of the referees' comments are eventually seen by the author; scientific journals observe this convention universally. The editor, usually familiar with the field of the manuscript (although typically not in as much depth as the referees, who are specialists), then evaluates the referees' comments, her or his own opinion of the manuscript, and the context of the scope of the journal or level of the book and readership, before passing a decision back to the author(s), usually with the referees' comments.

Referees' evaluations usually include an explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript or proposal, often chosen from options provided by the journal or funding agency. Most recommendations are along the lines of the following:

to unconditionally accept the manuscript or proposal,

to accept it in the event that its authors improve it in certain ways,

to reject it, but encourage revision and invite resubmission,

to reject it outright.

During this process, the role of the referees is advisory, and the editor is typically under no formal obligation to accept the opinions of the referees. Furthermore, in scientific publication, the referees do not act as a group, do not communicate with each other, and typically are not aware of each other's identities or evaluations. There is usually no requirement that the referees achieve consensus. Thus the group dynamics are substantially different from that of a jury.

In situations where the referees disagree substantially about the quality of a work, there are a number of strategies for reaching a decision. When an editor receives very positive and very negative reviews for the same manuscript, the editor often will solicit one or more additional reviews as a tie-breaker. As another strategy in the case of ties, editors may invite authors to reply to a referee's criticisms and permit a compelling rebuttal to break the tie. If an editor does not feel confident to weigh the persuasiveness of a rebuttal, the editor may solicit a response from the referee who made the original criticism. In rare instances, an editor will convey communications back and forth between authors and a referee, in effect allowing them to debate a point. Even in these cases, however, editors do not allow referees to confer with each other, though the reviewer may see earlier comments submitted by other reviewers. The goal of the process is explicitly not to reach consensus or to persuade anyone to change their opinions. Some medical journals, however (usually following the open access model), have begun posting on the Internet the pre-publication history of each individual article, from the original submission to reviewers' reports, authors' comments, and revised manuscripts.

Traditionally, reviewers would remain anonymous to the authors, but this standard is slowly changing. In some academic fields, most journals now offer the reviewer the option of remaining anonymous or not, or a referee may opt to sign a review, thereby relinquishing anonymity. Published papers sometimes contain, in the acknowledgements section, thanks to anonymous or named referees who helped improve the paper.

Some university presses undertake peer review of books. After positive review by two or three independent referees, a university press sends the manuscript to the press's editorial board, a committee of faculty members, for final approval. Such a review process is a requirement for full membership of the Association of American University Presses.

In some disciplines there exist refereed venues (such as conferences and workshops). To be admitted to speak, scholars and scientists must submit papers (generally short, often 15 pages or less) in advance. These papers are reviewed by a "program committee" (the equivalent of an editorial board), which generally requests inputs from referees. The hard deadlines set by the conferences tend to limit the options to either accepting or rejecting the paper.

At a journal or book publisher, the task of picking reviewers typically falls to an editor. When a manuscript arrives, an editor solicits reviews from scholars or other experts who may or may not have already expressed a willingness to referee for that journal or book division. Granting agencies typically recruit a panel or committee of reviewers in advance of the arrival of applications.

Typically referees are not selected from among the authors' close colleagues, students, or friends. Referees are supposed to inform the editor of any conflict of interests that might arise. Journals or individual editors often invite a manuscript's authors to name people whom they consider qualified to referee their work. Indeed, for a number of journals this is a requirement of submission. Authors are sometimes also invited to name natural candidates who should be disqualified, in which case they may be asked to provide justification (typically expressed in terms of conflict of interest). In some disciplines, scholars listed in an "acknowledgements" section are not allowed to serve as referees (hence the occasional practice of using this section to disqualify potentially negative reviewers).

Editors solicit author input in selecting referees because academic writing typically is very specialized. Editors often oversee many specialities, and may not be experts in any of them, since editors may be full time professionals with no time for scholarship. But after an editor selects referees from the pool of candidates, the editor typically is obliged not to disclose the referees' identities to the authors, and in scientific journals, to each other. Policies on such matters differ among academic disciplines.


Any further research on peer review and the scientific method has to be done on your own. Otherwise, my tutoring rate is $100 per hour! :P

Jake on January 11, 2009:

We are not arguing that Intel or AMD will refuse to warrant a lapped cpu, we are arguing that the process of lapping will destroy your CPU. When done correctly it will NOT. And i ask for accredidation because you keep refering to a peer reviewed journal as if you are a part of one.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on January 11, 2009:

Wild assumptions? I take it that AMD and Intel void your warranty at the first scratch of the IHS because they're making wild assumptions as well? Intel has entire platoons of engineers, a market cap of around $75 billion dollars, and you're saying they're idiots and you and your handful of deluded silicon vandals are correct in destroying valuable electronic components? I don't need any MIT degree to recognize a moron. It's simple. If you lap your CPU you're a moron. I believe that, AMD believes that and Intel believes that. You can keep on deluding yourself for the rest of your life, but that will still not diminish the truth of this equation: LAPPER = MORON.

Jake on January 11, 2009:

Hal you keep saying we need to be acredited, so could you please prove to us that you are accredited to make these wild assumptions? A computer science degree from MIT or one of the other TECHNOLOGY schools would suffice.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on January 11, 2009:

Wow, Jake. I try to take you seriously, and then you come up with a completely asinine comment like "The point of the peer reviewed journal is for peers to review it correct? Well guess what, we are peers and we have reviewed it." So I guess since I was looking at the moon last night, I qualify as a peer reviewer for The Astrophysical Journal? You have to be qualified, accredited and recognized by a scientific panel, dough head! And I'm not even going to address the PIII IHS issue... it came from the factory that way! Where did you learn to debate, in kindergarten? With every statement you continue to prove my point: lappers are morons! :P

Jake on January 10, 2009:

"Have him publish his findings in a peer reviewed journal, and then I'll tip my hat."

The point of the peer reviewed journal is for peers to review it correct? Well guess what, we are peers and we have reviewed it. We don't agree. So unless you can pull up graphs and any proof that when done by a skilled lapper, lapping destroys your CPU, you are wrong, your areticle is nothing but hearsay and BS.

intel and AMD do what any company would do, you alter their product, your warranty is void.

"2) Anyone who believes that lapping is a good idea is medically certified to have at least one neuron that is actually firing."

Well lets point the obvious out, I am typing this, therefore i must have at least one neuron firing. I also believe lapping can help. Looks like number 2 is accomplished.

Number one will never be accomplished until the CPU information is not stamped on the surface of the IHS.

One more thing, How is something that just alters the IHS bad, when some NB chips have no IHS, and PIIIs didnt have an IHS?

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on January 07, 2009:

Sir, I have already left instructions that when I die I'm to be buried to the RIGHT of Jesse Helms, so don't give me any of your "Liberal media" nonsense. Since when is CPU OC'ing and lapping a political ideology? "Graysky has done this on multiple CPUs and achieved the same results." Have you read any of this page? Or should I say, can you read at all? Who the hell is Graysky? Why should I or anyone with a brain believe anything an anonymous wanker says on a forum board? Have him publish his findings in a peer reviewed journal, and then I'll tip my hat. Until then, he's just another adolescent CPU-wet-dreamer! The bottom line, sir, is that my Hubs are among the most widely read on this platform and since you have made it clear that you support lapping, we can only conclude that you are a moron, and a neuron-free one at that.

NightOps on January 07, 2009:

As for reading your Hubs on MPG gadgets...if they are as educated as this one....why would we subject ourselves to more ill-informed, un-researched, and biased diatribes?

Either you are trying to be witty and come off as 'in-the-know', or you really are as dense as you appear to be based on your... reporting? I'm not sure it can really be called that. However, since FOX News can do it, I imagine you can too...along with the rest of the Liberal media.

NightOps on January 07, 2009:

BTW, lapping isn't moronic. By virtue of your note to Jake:

"2) Anyone who believes that lapping is a good idea is medically certified to have at least one neuron that is actually firing."

OCers *can* have as many, and more, neurons firing that you.

NightOps on January 07, 2009:

Hal, if your point was to dissuade the common PC user from lapping their CPU/HSF, then this article is well done. However, it is neither objective nor truly informed. [H] is 100% correct in his statements. Furthermore, to blow off graysky by claiming that he 'maybe have gotten the 1 in 1000' of CPU/HSFs that were at the extremes of tolerances, while not impossible, is improbable. Graysky has done this on multiple CPUs and achieved the same results.

End point: if proper done, lapping your hsf/cpu can drop your core temp 5-10 C. It can help with overclocking, but it is not the SOLE determining factor. RAM, motherboard, etc.. all play a vital part in a *stable* OC.

CPU manufacturers state the 'safe' voltages, operating temps, operating speeds of their CPUs. That said, those individuals who choose to push their CPUs beyond rated specifications (but often still within the manufacturers tolerance limits. For more information, feel free to use Intel's Processor Specs finder and see that there *are* variances accepted - most notably in operating temps/volts: can do so, but you do so at your own risk - and can possibly fry your entire system.

If I had to guess, either Hal is not what is commonly referred to as a PC 'enthusiast', or has been burned by attempting to OC a CPU and failed miserably.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on January 04, 2009:

Jake, I will "correct" this article when:

1) Intel & AMD accept that lapping does not void CPU warranty.

2) Anyone who believes that lapping is a good idea is medically certified to have at least one neuron that is actually firing.

Er... that includes you. :P

Amazed, I guess you didn't get the full picture when you read the Hub and its comments, so let me summarize it for you:

Lapping is moronic. Only morons believe in it. Only morons do it.

Is that clear enough? :)

Amazed on January 03, 2009:

Lapping isn't a crazy idea computer enthusiasts came up with to flex their ego. It's a machining technique. I could understand if you are arguing that the effects are not worth it, because at times you may not see much of a gain (but other times you will), but to call it a stupid and destructive idea is just wrong. Why don't you create a new article attaching those "Round Earth" lunatics next, I am sure they need to be made aware of how wrong they are and how flat the Earth actually is. I think the verdit is still out on bacteria, it could be magic.

jake on January 03, 2009:

Thanks for the informative article. It has convinced me that lapping can help. I like of how you kept coming back with "The rediculous claims of a 20C drop" when i haven't seen one person claim a 20C drop, In fact they have only said 2C-5C.

You, Hal Licino, have me convinced you are nothing more then a DEU. You might have to look that one up. It is amazing that you know everything, from how lapping is bad, and every computer person is 13 years old, zit faced, and they live in their basement.

Your argument that the CPU is completely pointless. You mentioned an E8400. If you have one, pull your Heatsink off and take a look at its IHS. How flat does that look to you just by eyeballing it? If you say perfectly flat you are blind.

I myself have never lapped, but I have looked into it enough to tell you that it does help. No its not for everyone, but for those that want the absolute most out of their system, it works.

I believe you should edit your article and correct it, because the way it is, its less informative then a Wiki.

Best regards,


Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on November 13, 2008:

Patrick, the EPA has tested hundreds of devices which claim to increase mileage and they are all worthless. Headers can marginally increase HP, but only when combined with a total flow package from the air intake all the way down to the exhaust pipe. The MPG gains are extremely marginal and certainly not cost efficient. You might have to drive a million miles just to get to the break even point.

R&P, you're a pig and I'll publish your comment when I can build snowmen in Hell. So you might as well head on down there. :P

Patrick on November 13, 2008:

Not all after market parts are worthless for mpg. Headers work! headrers in crease milage and horsepower

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on November 10, 2008:

Read my Hubs on gadgets that extend MPGs and educate yourself on the fact that they're worthless. If you can, given the fact that you have one brain cell and it's moribund! :)

Intel on November 09, 2008:

"Do you think that there is anything on the aftermarket that extends MPG?"

Speaking of MORONS... take a look for yourself, plenty of proof to go around! Ever heard of an EFI fuel controller, aftermarket air filters, etc... where each of these modifications can and have dramatically INCREASE FUEL MILEAGE!

You sir are living in the stoneage !!! Get with the program ...

Patrick on November 08, 2008:

As a side note copper at a purity level of 98% is dangerous i believe it can cause copper poisoning. from a medical stand point you should understand this. the more pure the copper the better the heat transfer. the nickle coating prevents contamination. any heatsink made of copper that is not coated has a very reduced purity content.

Patrick on November 08, 2008:

Hello Hal. i am new to the OC club but these guys are correct, its simple dynamics. no one is asking for obbsurd proof about obbsurd web blogs. there is already conflicting proof for those. a flat earth- they now have pictures.

Microsoft may be able to procure a lapping machine. your right they are not expensive. but microsoft hasnt become the multibillion dollar corp by buying unneeded equipment. there is over head, wages, electricity, employee insurance. all that will be spent as long as they run that equipment. Then there are the jigs and dies for each new processor they develop and the team to design them. 99 percent of the products sent out there door are JUST GOOD ENOUGH. in the world of business that is what you want. something just good enough to make the majority happy.

OCing is a lot like motorcycles. i dont know any one who dreams of riding a mo-ped. then you get the bike, and slowly there are new pieces added. it is like a hobby for most, i think. start with a dell, then build your own. from there you can work to build the biggest and baddest if you like. but on the flip there are people that are just content with there mo-ped.

there is plenty of research about the benefits of lapping. so far as i have found the only argument against is damage and warrenty. anyone who has tried has either seen no gains or gains. other than damage from the improper implamentation of lapping there is slim to no research saying it is counter productive.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on October 31, 2008:

You, sir, would have trouble comprehending the instructions to a Fisher Price set. Do you still live in the '60s and think that the government and car manufacturers form a conspiracy to sell fuel? Do you think that there is anything on the aftermarket that extends MPG? Read my Hubs on that and educate yourself. Or just read a newspaper and realize that you're in the 21st century. But then again, you are defending lapping, which proves you are a MORON.

Intel on October 31, 2008:

Interesting article, yet nothing you say is true. Either you've attempted to lap a processor/heatsink and failed misserably at it...

Lapping is no different than adding modifications to a vehicle... Car manafacturers have no care in the world for MPG, it's a Government regulation and these Car manufactuers could give a flying cows ass if your vehicle only got 5mpg as long as they got their money they're satisfied. However, 5 mpg wouldn't get them far as you know the 'consumer' wouldn't purchase it, BUT there are aftermarket kits that will extend a vehicles MPG dramatically (sometimes you need to tweak them yourself). This is the same concept of lapping... manufacters do not thoughouhly test products, manufactuers go by baseline statistics which they setup...

You sir fail at comprehending the purpose of modifications and how they WILL improve performance.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on October 13, 2008:

I wish I could have read your comment and nothing bad will gonna happening to me! :)

Baalrog on October 13, 2008:

i have a lapped cpu and heatsink, i do it myself, but not in that mode described earlier. It is made carrefully with dry sandpaper, and flow with a air spray can at every 5 front-back moves. The temperature are going down by 6 degree, and i'm so happy. If you can do it with more attention and carrefully, nothing bad will gonna happening.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on October 06, 2008:

Sir, to call you an idiot is to offend idiots. Anyone who wishes HIV-AIDS on another human being is a repugnant despicable slug with an amoeba for a brain. You have just made an excellent case for the retroactive sterilization of your mother.

YourWorstNightmare on October 06, 2008:

Wow...I think I died a little on the inside. The sheer ignorance of your article is staggering, nevermind the exxagerations you put forth.

Allow me to, umm, clarify things for you.

Copper conducts heat better than aluminum or steel. It is also more expensive, so to save money both Intel and AMD coat their IHS's in the stuff. For stock use, lapping is not needed.

Lapping does not involve 300-grit sandpaper. You start at 600 and you don't stop till the IHS is so perfectly smooth that you can read War and Peace on the damn thing. This involves up to 3,000 grit sandpaper, most of the time.

The temp differance is more like 2-5C, not 20.

Lapping helps increase the thermal transfer between CPU and heatsink, often well enough to negate the need for any thermal interface material at all. Yes, you heard me...the improvement is so good that you no longer need that white paste. It's still reccomended, but it's not needed.

And no, my CPU is not lapped, nor is my cooler. My chip runs so cold, even at the highest OC I can get, that I don't need to. 35C load and 30C idle...that's lower than it was at stock, and that's with my chip 5 mhz from bluescreening. So much for your "OC it till it melts steel" theory...god you are stupid.

Overclocking, by the way, is the best way any of us can find to make a 200 dollar CPU, which we can afford, perform like a 500 dollar CPU, which we cannot. It's not dangerous at all if you know what you are doing.

I have a feeling you'll either delete this article or put up more uninformed bullshit to refute it, but my work is done if you see it at all, so either way I'll win. :D Enjoy your fail and aids, bub.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on August 18, 2008:

Hmm... "comic porpuses..." is that a funny dolphin? :)

Since most of you guys are saying the same thing over and over again, and I AM NOT CONVINCED NOT NOW AND NOT UNTIL PAUL OTELLINI AND DIRK MEYER TELL ME OTHERWISE, OR I GET DONATED CPUS AND MOBOS TO RUN MY OWN TESTS, let's move this to:

Matthew Kane on August 17, 2008:

Why don't you try and give it a go at lapping a spare cpu sitting aroun your house?!!!

radodrill on August 16, 2008:

Ironically I found this page throgh OCN, whose community you have been accusing of being "bozos" and "morons" just because a few members made some inappropriate comments which you percieve as death threats. This does not mean that the entire member baseis comprised of n00bs, but rather that wherever you go there will always be some people who are inconsiderate and/or childish. There are a significant amount of members who are very knowledgeable about cooling as well as other topics; some of these also include various types of engineers, I mysely have bachelors degrees in both mechanical and aerospace engineering and have had courses in heat transfer.

The reason why enthusiasts resort to lapping CPUs and/or HSFs is that the surfaces aren't 100% flat (especially on a stock HSF) and as such there is often a small gap between the contact surfaces, which negatively effects the heat transfer between the IHS and the HSF (due to the surfaces not fully being in contact with each other); this in turn also results in higher full load CPU temps than if both surfaces were perfectly flat. Lapping the CPU and replacing the coolerwith a better aftermarket cooler results in significantly lower CPU temps; even lapping just the CPU or HSF will result in somewhat lower temps (even with the stock HSF), but not as much of a gain as lapping both.

The whole point of lapping is to provide flat contact surfaces since any larger gaps (even when they are filled with thermal grease) will not conduct heat as well as having the surfaces in direct contact.

You might ask why CPU and HSF manufacturers do not make them with perfectly flat interfaces. The reason is simply that to be able to machine them with tighter tolerances and higher precision requires more time and more expensive equipment, which would result in higher costs of the final product. On top of that, the average consumer does not really worry about temps and is only interested that it runs; entusiasts and/or overclockers are the only customers who would be interested in the heat transfer and only make up a very small percentage of the people using PCs.

The pursuit of more effective/efficient heat transfer from the CPU (to allow higher overclocks and/or lower CPU load temps) has as a result transitioned from simply lapping the CPU/HSF to utilizing watercooling or phase change vapor cooling.

Just because you do not believe something works or have had some sort of bad experience with it does not mean it's total BS or those who do it are morons. Some people may not have as much sucess due to using the wrong materials and/or using the wrong technique (i.e. lapping on a wood surface rather than a glass plate or just using coarse sandpaper can actually make things worse).

Skullzaflare on August 16, 2008:

lapping does improve temps, usually around 6-10c TOPS. thats usaully in relation to a bad cpu and the TRUE which is one of the move concave sinks.

honestly, being an overclocker, i dont like lapping cpu's, unless the warrenty is gone, or i bought it lapped.

i do lap heatsinks though, as the higher end ones have a bit of concave

i have a celeron 352 i was running at 5.1ghz on water, but i didnt lap it. my e6700 was lapped, it ran 3.6ghz, i had a lapped q6600 that runs 4.1ghz daily

just want to point out, a few of your sentences are off a bit, mostly the killing chips, and 20c difference, and i do have some zits lol, but im 18


blazin-asian on August 16, 2008:

Sorry Hal, your article is one of the most ignorant articles i have read. Lapping your CPU has many benefits like other commenters have stated such as a more even surface so that your heatsink has more contact which in turn provides cooler temperatures.

Similar results can be achieved by simply lapping the heatsink if the user is afraid of voiding the warranty for the CPU.

The only way a user can truly destroy their CPU is if they lap the pins which is completely absurd.

Lapping is not for the weak hearted, but for the true computer overclocking enthusiest. If you are too chicken to do it then dont claim that it will destroy the CPU. only carelessness will destroy it.

S.M. on August 16, 2008:

I've lapped 3 CPUs to date. All of them no longer had a warranty. And dropped my temps by 4 degrees on a 478 northwood 2.6. Another 4 degrees 939 San Diego. And 3 degrees on my 775 E2180. These were all load temps. Is that temperature difference substantial? Yes, I was able to add one or two more increments of voltage for overclocking. On average, another 200Mhz.

Lapping is not stupid, but should definately not be done by everyone for every purpose, it's just for the enthusiast tweakers that are battling temps.

However, you are stating that everyone is trying to do it, which is false. And you are saying its stupid for every reason, which is again false, and incredibly ignorant.

LC on August 16, 2008:

Haha. Hilarious. I love it! Comic genius!Next you may want to put a "This is for comic porpuses only" at the begainning next time, but other then that. It was great.

Guruboy on August 16, 2008:

Since when has every single person who lapped their CPU claim to dropp 20C? The completely inexperienced blogger is the one who made up that number. No one but him has mentioned it.

Just look at the title of this blog post. This person actually believes that lapping a CPU destroys it. The only reason there is a coating over the copper heatspreader (the author incorrectly refers to it as a "core") is so the chip's identification can be stenciled in. The only, ONLY reason why the warranty goes away after lapping is because the serial number is gone! It has nothing to do with the effects on performance and reliability of the chip itself.

I have no idea why the author decided to attack every single person who laps out there at once, calling them idiots or morons or saying they have low IQs.

By the way, any water, soapy or not, can come into contact with a CPU. There is absolutely zero danger as long as you wait for it to dry before starting the computer. Simple, very simple. Water is only dangerous to computer parts if it's in contact with electrical components while electricity is flowing through those parts.

And by the way, there is definitely no way that a metal shaving from lapping could short out two or more pins on a CPU. The pins are recessed into the socket itself; they have no chance of physically coming into contact. In an Intel LGA 775 socket-based CPU, you'd have to have a pretty large metal shaving to create a short.

This author needs to actually do some proving. You can't just say something and have it become true.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on August 16, 2008:

OK, due to the barrage of comments that keeps coming into this Hub, I will reverse my closure and will allow ALL CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS, ok? You don't have to agree with me, but you do have to MAKE VALID POINTS. Otherwise... The Dreaded CyberTrash Flush! Keep posting and I'll publish what is REASONABLE AND SUSTAINABLE on Monday! Bye! :)

Somebody on August 16, 2008:

There is proof that lapping improves heat transfer from the CPU to the heatsink. I do agree that some people spend way too much time on it and take it too far. A little bit of grinding down on you heatsink if it is totally uneven is not crazy, but not completely necessary unless you really need those few degrees. The only time you will actually need all this effor is if you are trying to break a record or something. Overclocking is a hobby, just like fishing or boating, and I could easily argue that fishing is a waste of time sitting on a dock twiddling away the hours waiting for a fish to bite and then letting it go. For the people that like to do it, there is nothing wrong with that! I understand how someone like you that obviously has enough time on his hands to write paragraphs of accusations to people that just like to do what they like to do! It is a hobby, and if they want to take the risk, fine! It is not your position to question their motives. Plenty of people have had great success overclocking SAFELY using lapping techniques and not. Overclocking is not necessarily a 6th graders hobby, nor is it a crazy man's.

Alex C on August 16, 2008:

I think the main problem here is that the people who believe in lapping their CPU's seem to feel that you just utterly hate it and call it stupid, etc., etc. while you are really just saying that it will not give you -20C on your temps. It wont, it cant, unless there was some other issue related to temps, like the heatsink not being mounted properly. It can, however, if done properly, give you 3-5 C temperature drops. Normal computer users really have no need to do it, and not all overclockers do either, but some have to/should to get a stable OC with good temps.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on August 16, 2008:

Hi, moderators at Enjoy:

... and the knock on your door from the RCMP! :)

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on August 16, 2008:

Done! Goodnight!

MagicBox on August 16, 2008:

Well, at least allow my follow-up to your closing post. I even agree with you on one point. That should be worth something :)

MagicBox on August 16, 2008:

That I agree with; lapping by all means is not a necessity at all for the targeted operating conditions set by manufacturers. The stock heatsink unlapped, the cpu unlapped and a good dose of brandless white paste is more than sufficient for normal operating conditions. That's also why people overclock. Hardware is made to perform flawlessly at targeted operating conditions. To make the hardware work in almost all possible conditions, the hardware must have headroom. Overclockers use this headroom to push for the boundary where the CPU still works under their environmental conditions. To some people, getting a good high overclock, getting the temperatures down by a few degrees is a form of art, a hobby.

It isn't any different from Formula 1 racing, where cars are tuned and modded to get every % of performance out of them. Although that is something not meant for the average joe ;) It just that the "pushing things to its boundary" game is employed in so many areas. From personal computers to moto racing ;)

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on August 16, 2008:

Fair enough, MagicBox. Here's your comment published. And no, you have not convinced me that lapping is of any real use, if that was your intent. When Intel and AMD specify that lapping the nickel IHS off does not void the CPU warranty, I'll believe you. Until then, I'm siding with the billion-dollar corporation engineers, not you and your "plenty technical knowledge". And now, since there is nothing valid left to say on EITHER side that hasn't already been dealt with ad nauseum, THE COMMENTS ARE CLOSED FOREVER. GO TRY AND CONVINCE OTHER PEOPLE THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT! GOODNIGHT!

MagicBox on August 16, 2008:

Now that's sad, I take the time to post up a nice objective post and you close this thing. Come on, put it up, my previous post ;)

MagicBox on August 16, 2008:

Alrighty, here you go. First off, a comment to your remark about "why Intel didn't send off their CPUs perfectly flat 'n lapped to begin with". Let's dive into the prodcution process. The IHS (Integrated Heat Spreader) is made out of copper. But, when copper is left in the open air, it will oxidize. That is why it is nickel plated. The heat-spreaders are mass produces within flatness tolerances. When the IHS is mounted to the CPU, it is done by soldering. Yes, there is an actual tiny blob of solder between the IHS and the chip itself to ensure a reasonable heat transfer from CPU to IHS. This heating deforms the IHS on a microscale.

As for the IHS' themselves, they are "pressed" from a plate of copper. Stamped if you will. Flattening the IHS after it being stamped would just be extra cost not justified for the few degrees it would yield. Like said, they are nickel coated as well. If anything, the flattening process would have to occur before the IHS would have been coated. It's just extra production cost that doesn't yield them (Intel) anything. When the IHSs are pressed, they're coated up and stocked. Eventually soldered onto the CPU.

For the enthousiast who is trying to get the most out of his overclock, getting temperatures down anywhere from 1 to 5 degrees may allow him a few more MHz overclock. As to why lapping both CPU and heatsink helps:

Nickel heat conduction is much lower than that of pure copper. The nickel coating on both IHS and heatsink form a "resistance" for the heat. The most optimal heat transfer would be if two perfectly flat pieces of copper would connect to each other. And that is achieved by lapping. To expose the copper surface on both IHS and heatsink, while making them as flat as possible. This again allows much less thermal paste (like AS5) to be used. A drop the size of a rice is already way too much, which however would be needed for unworked IHS/heatsink. The less thermal paste, the more natural contact between two copper surfaces, the better the heat transfer.

Then there's the surface issue. An IHS as the name implies, is to spread the concentrated heat from the CPU cores over a larger surface. Compared to the dissipating surface of the heatsink the IHS surface is only a fraction of this surface. Simple maths show that heat resistance, no matter how minor, has more impact on a smaller surface than it has on a bigger surface. Hence, the resistance drop achieved by lapping both mating surfaces is noticable for a surface as small as that of a IHS.

I have a Q6600 running at 3.4GHz stably for dayly use. Load temperatures are close to 55 degrees. Temperature differences between cores are < 3 degrees. The heatsink used is the famous Thermal Right Ultra Extreme 120. The difference between lapped and unlapped was a whopping 7 degrees of difference under load.

Further more, I'm an electronics / mechanical engineer and in this job, I calculate heatsink sizes and TDPs for the audio equipment I make. Yes, plenty technical knowledge / understanding / skill to both understand the topic as well as to successfully lap a CPU for hobby purposes.

Do you have any of that?

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on August 16, 2008:

Due to a spammer who insists on writing comments at five minute intervals under all sorts of different nicknames defending his Gawd-given right to sandpaper down his parts (izzat why it's so small... you've been sandpapering IT TOO?) :) The comments section of this Hub is now closed. I'm not going to wade through dozens of comments every day ludicrously and offensively stating the same thing over and over again. I've said my piece, the handful of rabid teenies have said theirs, and that's where it stands. You like to lap your CPU? Good, go ahead and have fun with it. And guess what... LAPPERS ARE MORONS! You didn't think you could escape one last parting shot, didya? :)

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on August 15, 2008:

I blew off your initial comment as just another crazy kid with a keyboard. You want me to acknowledge that you are so inept that you can't even spell my name? I just googled 31,400 on "hal licino". What were you entering when you couldn't find any returns for me? "hallucination?" :)

SESnut on August 15, 2008:

You're a joke. I point out fallicies in your almighty ego and you either block or delete them. Good game.

Shopperholic on August 14, 2008:

I guess if you have an old cpu that is going to be binned it would be worthwhile testing this out on it.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on August 14, 2008:

Yes, Matthew, you can most certainly ask me something, and I'll gladly remove you from the Cybertrash flush for it. I answered your question in a Hub:

lamboman, the answers to your queries are in that Hub too.

Mac, it never ceases to amaze me how the proponents of the most outrageously imbecilic causes are so convinced of their own righteousness that they cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly have a different opinion. You definitely fall into that category.

Volcanon, I'd love nothing better than to do a full properly scientific experiment proving that lapping is not responsible for the high temperature deltas claimed. As I explained in an earlier comment, just send me the Core 2 Extreme (or better yet Core i7 Extremes) and the motherboards! :)

Volcanon on August 14, 2008:

Well, if my OC kills my processor in 2 or 3 years, I'll just buy a new one, it isn't worth even 50 dollars now, a pittance, really.I don't think anyone is lapping their processor and HSF to participate in some e-peen measuring contest and if they are I'd agree that that's silly, LN2 does a much better job.Intel doesn't do it because the benefit is negligible and they nickel plate their processors to prevent corrosion. Intel is looking for the long haul(10+ years), while I believe we are looking for performance for a couple years.

While voiding the warranty on an expensive processor is probably not wise, if you have the money to waste on a part that nets negligible performance improvements in most situations, you probably don't care.

I can't think of anything my posts haven't covered. Different goals mean different methods. If you want your computer to just work well and do it for a long time, no you shouldn't lap anything, but if you're an enthusiast who wants to experiment a little bit, I'd encourage you to give it a shot, it's barely worth an article on let alone arguing about it over the internet.

Mac on August 14, 2008:

This is a hoax to see what kind of reaction he can get. Who else would care this much.

lamboman on August 14, 2008:

Let's just say it like this. Lapping DOES give you lower temps. By how much, not much. Is it worth it? Of course not. A small improvement, that takes quite a while, no doubt. The science, you ask. Nickel doesn't transfer heat as well as copper, so getting rid of the nickel gives you direct contact with the copper, giving you better temps as a result.

Whether you agree with lapping or not, is a completely different matter. Just because you think it is stupid, doesn't mean it isn't.

And by the way, you are an best-selling author? Not meaning this in a rude way, but I can't find any of your books... a link possibly?

Matthew Kane on August 13, 2008:

Can I aak you something......hal why are you negative about lapping?

If I said that I have removed the IHS on my Pentium 4, would say thats stupid and a way to destroy your cpu?

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on August 13, 2008:

Yes, chaos68, as I stated previously anyone can do anything they want with their own money. However, having traveled widely around the globe, I can assure you that there are times when at least some of the money donated to charities reaches its goal and has its desired effect, and then it creates a completely uplifting situation which changes the lives of entire families for the better. I haven't used performance-enhanced parts in my own motorcycles since I was racing decades ago. Everything on my scoot is stock or aftermarket cosmetic, not performance. Although I have spent a pretty penny on motorcycles on my life, I have also donated generously to many worthwhile and laudable charities, so my conscience is completely at ease.

Obama: Change We Can Believe In. Yeah, the change from Republican to Democratic White House... pretty well everything else will be business as usual. :(

chaos68 on August 13, 2008:

Hal you seem to be under the impression that donating money to disadvantaged peoples actually helps them when in reality their corrupt government steals all of the money just long enough to go into exile and allow another government to do the same. There is a saying, "give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach him to fish and he will eat for life," however that saying only works as long as that person is willing to learn to fish. The same can be applied to those disadvantaged peoples in third world countries, they can either accept their situation or fight to change it. Hundreds of years ago people from England left to come to america to escape religious persecution, they said "give me liberty or give me death" and they were willing to fight for what they believed in and what they felt they deserved, just because other people cannot do the same does not mean it is our responsibility to help them. As far as im concerned, as long as a country has any starving or homeless citizens it should not be taking care of other countries, because it obviously has no room to tell other governments how to take care of themsevles when it cannot even take care of it's own people. However at the same time you need to acknowledge that some people are not willing to work for a living, some people would just suck the life out of the government and steal money in order to live, and that cannot be permitted either. Hal, most people work for a living. Most people work very hard to survive, if a person has some "extra money" *laugh* then shouldnt they be able to spend it on what they want to spend it on? Why is it selfish to think that i should be able to "waste" my money on a cpu, why is it selfish to think i should have the right to keep ALL of my money, be it a large amount or an insignificant drop in a bucket?

Now i know you mentioned your motorcycling thing, and something about machining parts too. You also suggested that this process can reduce the life span of the parts and also cause harm to the user if done incorrectly. Now, applying your logic that the money from the expensive cpus could be donated, wouldnt it make more sense for you to use standard parts with a greater life span and donate some money with the savings? Or should you continue to work on your engines because it is your hobby, it is how you like to spend your free time when you are not working for an honest living, and perhaps you deserve to be able to spend your money how you see fit, even if there are starving people in the world.

oh and to be honest with you, both obama and mccain are horrible candidates, but i dont like anybody who can just show up to a place and have people start fainting, something about that just seems odd, people would follow obama to the end of the earth for his "change" but not be able to give you a single example of what that change is.

Hal Licino (author) from Toronto on August 13, 2008:

Thanks, Misha! My momma always told me that if you know you're right, never back down from a fight! Bring it on! :)

Chaos68, I would agree with you that many students (but certainly not all) would not be able to actually insert a CPU into a motherboard, but I'm certain that most of them could find a qualified peer to do it for them. OK, if we don't wanna give them the CPUs, then donate the money to a worthy cause. There are plenty of people in the world that are extremely disadvantaged and the cost of a new Core 2, let alone an Extreme, could actually change their lives! To say "It's my $ and I can burn it if I want" seems selfish and childish, but then again... it is their money! FYI, the Obama Antichrist thing is definitely not my invention, but is the subject of a googled 964,000 pages! If I were American, I would be inclined to vote for Obama as I love his JFKish style, and maybe, just maybe, McCain is a bit too long in the tooth to be Prez.

Just wow, you're competing with [H] for the comedian prize. You stated: "sorry I don't have enough time to care about spell checking if it was such an issue you could have done it yourself" and then exactly three minutes later you posted the first of TWO corrected lengthy posts. Since I can tell you are a young person and that you need educating, allow me to share some wisdom gained through experience: If you are engaged in a debate where you are trying to convince the opposite party that you have the definitive interpretation of any subject, it would behoove you to take steps to ensure that the method of your communication does not betray your ignorance. In your TWO corrected posts you have not once (yes, not even once) capitalized the first letter of a new sentence. You have consistently used commas for periods and vice versa. I could go on, but I don't want to belittle you any further. You are young and impetuous, my Padawan learner... take time to hone your weapons before you plunge into battle! And you can thank me later for not publishing your comments and exposing even more people to your incompetent writing. :)

[H], You are obviously misreading my writing style as a personal attack. Why would I care to attack you personally when I have no idea who the heck you are, and if you have two engineering degrees from an accredited university, a diploma mill, or simply the figments of your imagination. But, dude, you are displaying a fundamental ignorance and stubbornness that betrays the fact that you are as much of a scientist or engineer as I am a marathon runner. I have given you all the technical references to more than prove my argument: and Keep believing that posts by anonymous forum teenies are gospel scientific fact and that multi-billion dollar tech companies are involved in a huge conspiracy to overheat their own processors for the sake of saving a few bucks, and keep on being called a MORON.

However, if you'd like to send me a few nice, new, sealed Core 2 Extreme CPUs and some Asus Extreme motherboards, and I'll be more than happy to perform a complete, comprehensive, scientifically valid, verifiable and duplicatable series of bench tests published right here on HubPages that will completely, totally, and forever debunk the blatant and laughable fallacy that CPU/HSF lapping can result in a temperature drop of much more than 3 or 4 degrees C, which is only believed by MORONS.

Sorry... I don't know if you caught that... so let me summarize it for you: LAPPERS WHO THINK THEY CAN GET MORE THAN A 5 DEGREE (AT MOST) TEMPERATURE DROP ARE MORONS. Thank you. Have a nice day. :)

Misha from DC Area on August 13, 2008:

LOL, ROFL, and LMAO at the same time!

Nice hub Hal, and amazing standing power in the discussion :)

Chaos68 on August 12, 2008:

Hal, I found your article to be an interesting read, however it has some errors in it. First you neglected to fully discuss the process of lapping the IHS. 300 grit sandpaper is not nearly fine enough, the process should stop once a grit rating closer to 2000 or 2500 is reached. This ensures a more fine surface for contact. Second, you continue to mention the few idiots who bragged about their 20 degree drops. We know they are idiots, we get it, we really do, and that is why they are idiots. No matter where you go you'll always find them and they will always be a detriment to whatever it is they have chosen to be, but you cannot use them as your prime examples.

Enough of the idiots now and back onto the topic, we all know that this technology is expensive, but your suggestion that cpus be given to needy students in factory sealed boxes is absurd. As a student myself I have come to see that most students dont know much about technology or computers. Sure, they know how to make a table in ms office, or browse certain parts of the internet, but if you show them a cpu and a socket they'll look at you with a dumb look on their face and put the cpu in backwards and ask why it's not working. Not to mention that most colleges require laptops and not desktops, and as we all know, laptops can be a real pain to work with. So let's just leave the expensive cpu's to the people who can afford to lose them. Now personally I dont actually practice lapping on my products because as a student i am poor and needy, and in the case that i went too far i couldnt actually afford to replace the product- but even in the case that i could i probably would not, i dont like to take such risk with expensive components, so without a definite need i would never do it. Now if a person feels the need and has the experience then i dont see a problem with it. Like all things, experience is required to do the job right without causing damage, and in the end you cannot site idiots as the sole reason why lapping a cpu is bad.

Oh and i find that comment about obama as the antichrist to be incredibly offensive, while i do not like obama and will certainly not vote for him I do not think he is the antichrist, i just think he as an idiot who is not qualified to be president.

Related Articles