View Full Version : new Xigmatek AIO
i was just reading http://anandtech.com/casecoolingpsus/showdoc.aspx?i=3032 on anandtech and decided to post it here since this is the site that does the most reviews and we haven't yet seen this on here
Looks promining from the review i read but waiting on you guys first before purchasing one of these units
Marci
07-10-2007, 04:57 AM
Looks FAR from promising to me - gets beaten by the aircoolers...
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/water%20coolers_07090770722/15064.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/water%20coolers_07090770722/15063.png
Neither of these results challenges the best air coolers with their 3.90GHz to 3.94GHz overclocks or the TEC/air hybrid Monsoon II at 3.96GHz. It certainly appears the smaller radiators and smaller physical sizes of the self-contained water coolers make it a real challenge to extract top overclocking performance from these coolers.
The only missing part is whether these self-contained water cooling systems perform as well as the air coolers they compete with. Unfortunately the Evercool Silver Knight and Xigmatek AIO do not perform as well the top air coolers. That makes them much less exciting than they might otherwise be. Neither cooler is particularly efficient at cooling at stock speeds, under idle or stress conditions. The Xigmatek overclocks the standard CPU to 3.83GHz and no higher, while the Evercool manages an even poorer 3.81GHz. The same CPU reaches 3.90 to 3.94GHz on the same test bed with the best air coolers.
Water cooling is also famous for its silence, and even here these self-contained water coolers do not stand out. The small Xigmatek is mostly below our system noise floor regardless of speed and should be considered a noise success - particularly considering it is cooling 80mm radiators with a high RPM 80mm fan. The Silver Knight, on the other hand, is just too loud at the high speed needed for best cooling. Even at high speed it isn't a great cooler, and at low speed it is worse, though noise at low-speed is OK. There are still many other air coolers that best these results, however, often at lower prices.
So this great concept of self-contained water coolers falls short in the all important performance and noise areas - at least with these two coolers.
I think general concensus here will be "a waste of money - get a proper water cooling solution or don't bother".
Sparky
07-10-2007, 06:42 AM
Looks FAR from promising to me - gets beaten by the aircoolers...
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/water%20coolers_07090770722/15064.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/water%20coolers_07090770722/15063.png
I think general concensus here will be "a waste of money - get a proper water cooling solution or don't bother".
Certainly agree with you there on both counts.
nikhsub1
07-10-2007, 06:57 AM
ROFL? The only HSF it is better than is the retail unit.
santiagodraco
07-10-2007, 07:43 AM
Haha. Pretty embarrassing if you were the designer on that.
Aerou
07-10-2007, 03:42 PM
Haha. Pretty embarrassing if you were the designer on that.
no come on,
right, we all know that you can do it better :rofl:
i'd still like to see a review here though
Chewbenator
07-10-2007, 07:21 PM
It seems the fan didn't kick into high speed even when the temps where pretty far up there, that may be the whole problem. But still you will get the same response as Marci mentioned.
Frank M
07-11-2007, 05:02 AM
ROFL? The only HSF it is better than is the retail unit.
They said the fan still wasn't on high.
IMO, if it had a 92mm or even better a 120mm fan (maybe it would be too big or
heavy then?), it could perform much better. The weak link may then be the non-
user-replacable pump.