this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
550 points (100.0% liked)
History Memes
2138 readers
802 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism (including tankies/red fash), atrocity denial or apologia, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Piefed.social rules.
-
History referenced must be 20+ years old.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
OTHER COMMS IN THE HISTORYVERSE:
- !historymusic@quokk.au
- !historygallery@quokk.au
- !historyruins@piefed.social
- !historyart@piefed.social
- !historyartifacts@piefed.social
- !historyphotos@piefed.social
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Maybe you're right, but I remember than in the 2000s I've had identical cpu heatsinks in both copper/aluminum versions, and the aluminum one had better performance. And then they started to make hybrid ones, stating that the copper part was to allow rapid heat transference, and the aluminum part to improve dissipation. But maybe its all marketing.
Aluminium is significantly cheaper, that's why they make coolers with a copper base and alu fins. It's a good compromise.
I just thought of another reason for using Al this way.
Since the heat is being transferred to air, which would be much slower than the 2, using larger fins with lesser thermal conductivity might be more desirable than smaller fins with higher conductivity.
This would also be accompanied with other design changes like greater fin-fin gap, which is better for use with lower pressure fans.
So overall cheaper design and lesser noise.
Aluminium is cheaper and lighter.
This seems to suggest that the metal-air transmission is virtually identical between the two, and cites some sources: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/255731/copper-or-aluminum-heatsink