Heat Sinking DB410c

My DB410c heats up quite a lot and I am afraid when I put it inside a IP65 enclosure, it would deteriorate further and may lead to some problem with the board. I want to install a passive heat sink to keep the board a little cooler. What is the best way and what are the heat touch points on the board, please suggest.

Thanks !
Rajat Ratra

Gold square on the bottom of the board opposite the SoC. The purpose of that is to provide a surface to contact a heat sink. You will need to use a thermal pad that is sufficiently thick.

Thanks doitright !!

Appreciate your response.

Actually I expected that portion to the touch points, but was wondering what happens to the components or points lying inside the square if i put a thick thermal pad from edge to edge of the square.

I have arranged this… http://www.saintyoo.com/en/product_list.aspx?tid=3. This is about 5mm thick, I plan to sandwich this between the DB410C bottom and aluminum heat sink. Any reference would help, picture or product data sheet that has been validated already for the purpose. Any comments…

Thanks !
Rajat Ratra

Well, anything you put directly on these components must be non electrically conductive.

Note that the DB410C includes support for thermal throttling… cores should rise to a fixed value (85C IIRC) and will then cap out. A heatsink is only likely to be needed is you need sustained performance.

BTW when you talk about attaching DB410C to a heat sink. Just want to check that by heat sink you are talking about the IP65 chassis itself? Whatever you attach to the board needs to have cooling surfaces outside the chassis to be effective.

Yes, Daniel rightly pointed, the other surface of the heat sink will be directly attached (tightened) to the body using thermal paste. I couldn’t find anything std. off the shelf available, so trying to create the whole thing.

Thanks !!
Rajat Ratra

Hi Loic,

I don’t think I would anyway cover the components inside. I am working on a cavity for those components in the heat sink as well as thermal pad.

Rajat Ratra

Hi @rajat_ratra:
Heatsinking the 410c is not a new idea, check out this thread Recommended Heatsink/Fan for 410c I posted some ideas and they were nicely documented here: https://www.element14.com/community/community/designcenter/single-board-computers/blog/2016/02/01/cooling-the-dragonboard-410c-and-ifc6410p . The 410c is thermally throttled and won’t get too hot in your IP67 box, although it will slow down if it gets hot. A heat sink inside your box will help with short term demand, but won’t help if you have long term high compute loads.

You could also adapt the box here: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1692217


Hi @rajat_ratra
If you follow the links I posted below you will find a very similar material to what you have found. It wraps nicely around the caps/resistors on the bottom of the board and makes great thermal contact.

I just felt that the chip (IC) behind the ethernet RJ45 connector gets quite hot. Can this lead to network disconnection and can’t connect back?

Since when does a DB410c have an ethernet jack?

I have it on mine…So not sure which hardware version is it, but it has. Got it from Geniatech, China.



Just to be clear, that is definitely NOT a dragonboard. In fact, it’s not even close to being 96boards compliant.

This is db410c: https://www.arrow.com/en/products/dragonboard410c/arrow-development-tools

I think you’d have to ask the board manufacturer that question. The Dragonboard 410C does not have a network jack.

Oh ok… that’s strange as they provided me saying its 96boards design. Will check back, Thanks Daniel.

I think that some aspects of it are influenced by 96boards CE design, in particular, the low and high speed connectors appear to be consistent, however, the rest of the configuration is non-compliant.

Given the location of the power jack of it, I would guess that there is potential for something like a voltage regulator in that location.

If they’re selling it as 96boards compliant, or as a dragonboard (calling it “DeveloperBoard” is pretty weak…), then you’re looking at “knockoff” status. To be honest, it is a pretty weak design. If they wanted to add a network jack, they should have gone to the “extended” layout (like the DB820C or Hikey970). Then they could have added the parts they added and maintained compliance with the standard they’re poorly emulating.