If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is liquid cooling any good?
Most modern CPUs have the capability to report their temperature --
shows up in bios stats. Seems to me as measured by CPU self report, liquid cooling, which costs over two hundred dollars, does not get you anything markedly better than air cooling, which costs about forty dollars. Has anyone obtained worthwhile benefits from liquid cooling? Seems to me that ninety percent of cooling is getting good thermal contact between the heat sink and the CPU, and the rest is merely a detail. Of course liquid cooling will give you some benefits on the disk drives, but you have to space the disk drives, and if you spaced them, you would get some decent air cooling without doing anything special. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
quieter
handles more heat more fun -- ______ From Adam Webb, Nick: Overlag www.tacticalgamer.com "James A. Donald" wrote in message m... Most modern CPUs have the capability to report their temperature -- shows up in bios stats. Seems to me as measured by CPU self report, liquid cooling, which costs over two hundred dollars, does not get you anything markedly better than air cooling, which costs about forty dollars. Has anyone obtained worthwhile benefits from liquid cooling? Seems to me that ninety percent of cooling is getting good thermal contact between the heat sink and the CPU, and the rest is merely a detail. Of course liquid cooling will give you some benefits on the disk drives, but you have to space the disk drives, and if you spaced them, you would get some decent air cooling without doing anything special. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"James A. Donald" wrote in message m... Most modern CPUs have the capability to report their temperature -- shows up in bios stats. Seems to me as measured by CPU self report, liquid cooling, which costs over two hundred dollars, does not get you anything markedly better than air cooling, which costs about forty dollars. Has anyone obtained worthwhile benefits from liquid cooling? Seems to me that ninety percent of cooling is getting good thermal contact between the heat sink and the CPU, and the rest is merely a detail. Of course liquid cooling will give you some benefits on the disk drives, but you have to space the disk drives, and if you spaced them, you would get some decent air cooling without doing anything special. Yeah good for a extra couple hundred MHz's. Hank |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"James A. Donald" wrote in message
m... Most modern CPUs have the capability to report their temperature -- shows up in bios stats. Seems to me as measured by CPU self report, liquid cooling, which costs over two hundred dollars, does not get you anything markedly better than air cooling, which costs about forty dollars. You can easily put one together for under $100. Some DIY'ers do it for next to nothing. Has anyone obtained worthwhile benefits from liquid cooling? The main benefits to watercooling are quietness and better cooling for extreme overclocking. However, for the vast majority of systems out there, a good air cooler is sufficient. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Remember liquid cooling is the movement of heat from a
hot object to another object which itself is still cooled by fans. Reason being that temperatures are not huge, and so the temp delta between ambient & water isn't so great that you could get away with a reasonably sized convection stack. What it does allow is an improved enclosure for the radiator: o No reason not to mount the radiator separately in a ply cabinet o Use a simple perforated metal or mesh front/rear grill on it o Baffle in front of & behind the fans inside re noise o Use several small low-noise 80mm or 92mm fans ---- or 120mm - depends on your radiator size o Consider using proper oil coolers re size/quality ---- Mocal & Earl come in 115mm & 235mm width ---- the 235mm will take 3x 80mm fans ok ---- you can vary the height from 5-57 rows, matching # fans This allows the very-remote location of the unit from the PC/user. So whilst water cooling is an extra step between heat / water / fans, it allows you to add distance and even utilise the heat more effectively. Remember a few things tho: o Quality re pump o Large bore tubing o Anti-bacterial in the water system o Simpler is better You can get a silent system with fans - it just takes a bit of effort, and case makers could do more to help with their designs. For an overclocking system, that's a different requirement re exponential cooling need to achieve beyond original clock-speed performance. -- Dorothy Bradbury |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
-- *****Replace 'NOSPAM' with 'btinternet' in the reply address***** "Hank" wrote in message gy.com... "James A. Donald" wrote in message Yeah good for a extra couple hundred MHz's. Hank In my experience this is not so...I've used both high end air cooling (SLK900u with ducted 120mm fan) and high spec water cooling. My temperatures are about the same either way as is my overclocking limit. Water used to have a definite edge but with the latest air cooled heatsinks the difference is little or nothing. Remember water cooling ultimatly uses air to cool anyway...the water is just a way to transport the heat from 'A' to 'B' (unless you use a total loss system). There is also the argument that water cooling is quieter...this may be true to some extent but you can still achieve a quiet air cooled system by using a large slow spinning fan and a duct. As proof of the above, I'm running a Barton 2500+ at 2500MHz with 2.06 Vcore, aircooled, right now...my temp as I type is 36C and it only rises to 48C under Prime 95 torture test...Plus its not too noisy. I've yet to see a water cooled system do significantly better. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
--
Citizen X wrote in message I recently embarked on my 1st liquid cooling project, I spent $17.53 USD on the system and am (was) very happy with it. ( http://www.nathanlandry.com/LiquidCool ) Congratulations. You did not seem entirely happy with it. For lack of a safety, your CPU and motherboard was destroyed. Most modern CPUs can be set to automatically shut the entire system down for an hour when the CPU reaches a certain temperature. It is a bios setting, which for some strange reason usually defaults to let-it-fry. I always switch it to do-not-let-it-fry. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG urppO5hKjep2sce9Swu0fEk/6YQiikPAtEH1nR/X 49x+jdNp48OBiQFq/eJyGQbmSshR9YXMLh1TVi9z7 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think anyone said that with the right addative in your water
(something that reacts to uv light), a uv lamp and a windowed case water cooling looks damn sweet! Martin. "James A. Donald" wrote in message m... Most modern CPUs have the capability to report their temperature -- shows up in bios stats. Seems to me as measured by CPU self report, liquid cooling, which costs over two hundred dollars, does not get you anything markedly better than air cooling, which costs about forty dollars. Has anyone obtained worthwhile benefits from liquid cooling? Seems to me that ninety percent of cooling is getting good thermal contact between the heat sink and the CPU, and the rest is merely a detail. Of course liquid cooling will give you some benefits on the disk drives, but you have to space the disk drives, and if you spaced them, you would get some decent air cooling without doing anything special. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah good for a extra couple hundred MHz's.
Hank In my experience this is not so...I've used both high end air cooling (SLK900u with ducted 120mm fan) and high spec water cooling. My temperatures are about the same either way as is my overclocking limit. Water used to have a definite edge but with the latest air cooled heatsinks the difference is little or nothing. ok.... two setups different cooling setups, exact same system Barton 2500 A7N8X PC3200 ram (cheap stuff at 2-3-3-8) Coolers = Alpha heatsink with 80mm fan or Atlantis waterblock and Radiator Max OC Water: 2400 @ 1.8volts 2300 @ 1.7volts (used 24/7 for 3 months) Max OC Air 2000 @ 1.7volts unstable 2000 @ 1.8volts unstable 1900 @ 1.7volts unstable 1900 @ 1.8volts, and still might have to back down, im still testing it atm. This compares well to other experiences with my other setups for instance: XP2100 @ 2133mhz with water and only 1560 with air (yup, thats right below stock..... granted its sitting a 70c with some silent cooler) or XP1700 @ 1800mhz with water and only 1533mhz with air (another Alpha) my temp as I type is 36C and it only rises to 48C under Prime 95 torture test...Plus its not too noisy. I've yet to see a water cooled system do significantly better. the above Barton 2500 setup had a max temp of 39c at full load while at 2300mhz with the watercooling, its now sitting at a toasty 49c at 1900mhz. Temps are "high" due to using onboard probe and typical Asus high temp readings..... atm im using my Athlon 64 with its stock cooler plus 4 case fans its nice a cool but relatively noisy. Since i dont think im going to get over 210fsb which im stuck at now, watercooling wont bring me anything other than silence...which is why i cant wait for the latest Swiftech 5002 to reach England.....Cant wait for the silence again -- ______ From Adam Webb, Nick: Overlag www.tacticalgamer.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
(",) Good News for Google Groups, Usenet and Other Users | [email protected] | General | 0 | January 29th 05 12:44 AM |
(",) Hello, I Have Good News! | [email protected] | General | 3 | January 28th 05 09:34 PM |
(",) Good News for Google Groups, Usenet and Other Users | [email protected] | General | 0 | January 28th 05 05:13 PM |
can anyone confirm? computer resets when loading winx, not softw, one bad address when testing good ram on this machine | General | 0 | June 22nd 04 04:44 PM | |
liquid cooling | Arthur Hagen | Overclocking | 2 | July 30th 03 02:50 PM |