Who is the daddy of air cooling right now

I have no idea, air cooling is no my fortay so come on lads and any gals if you got them in this section.

Who is the daddy of air cooling?

I've a QX9650 ES to bench on air only for a comp on my team forum.

I will be doing it at 3am so temps as low, mega low, but a beafy HSF is handy to wip that heat away and blah blah blah..

I was thinking the Thermalright IFX-14 CPU Cooler and a Delta 38mm fan, outside, so noise meh no pronblem but keeping plenty of cold air flow perfectly ideal!

Please help

Pete

Still the Ultra 120 Xtreme..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NickS

Still the Ultra 120 Xtreme..

---

Really, bugga me!

Yup, TR Ultra-120 eXtreme for 65nm quads.

45nm quads have higher power density, so the IFX-14 may be able to catch up (seem to do well with higher power density from what I've seen). But lap the TRUE and it'll pull ahead again (IFX-14's nickel plating is MUCH thinner and the base is better too--small gains from lapping).

So IFX-14, lapp the base of and the chip and some AS5?

Any mods other than lapping for the IFX-14?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete

So IFX-14, lapp the base of and the chip and some AS5?

Any mods other than lapping for the IFX-14?

---

Yep the one mod involves throwing the IFX out the window of a highrise... and ordering an Ultra120 Extreme :ROTF:

Thermalright Ultra 120 eXtreme.
Though according to anandtech Tuniq Tower 120 and standard TR Ultra are very close.
eXtreme is still better than both.

PCPerspective finally did a proper IFX-14 review and it came out winning, AS EXPECTED.

Not like that thinkcomputers CRAP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegras

PCPerspective finally did a proper IFX-14 review and it came out winning, AS EXPECTED.

Not like that thinkcomputers CRAP.

---

Others here though haven't had the greatest results from it. I think they need to cut the fin density down and then it would probably perform much better since air could actually get through the fins.

ChaosMinionX
have u noticed any difference in T between THU120X and Enzotech Ultra-X?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBeast1590

ChaosMinionX
have u noticed any difference in T between THU120X and Enzotech Ultra-X?

---

With both lapped, using LMP (liquid kind, not pads) about a 4C difference at load, idles were the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegras

PCPerspective finally did a proper IFX-14 review and it came out winning, AS EXPECTED.

Not like that thinkcomputers CRAP.

---

I have both. My TRUE was slightly better than the IFX-14 when both were unlapped (both with modded mounts).

Lap both, increase mount pressure on both, and the TRUE pulls noticeably ahead, especially on 65nm C2Qs.

On 65nm C2Ds the IFX-14 was slightly better when both were not lapped. Considering the non-existent gains lapping the IFX-14 and the massive gains lapping the TRUE, I have a feeling the TRUE would pull ahead noticeably.

However...the higher power density of the 45nm C2Ds and C2Qs may help the IFX-14. I don't have either, so I don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vapor

I have both. My TRUE was slightly better than the IFX-14 when both were unlapped (both with modded mounts).

Lap both, increase mount pressure on both, and the TRUE pulls noticeably ahead, especially on 65nm C2Qs.

On 65nm C2Ds the IFX-14 was slightly better when both were not lapped. Considering the non-existent gains lapping the IFX-14 and the massive gains lapping the TRUE, I have a feeling the TRUE would pull ahead noticeably.

However...the higher power density of the 45nm C2Ds and C2Qs may help the IFX-14. I don't have either, so I don't know.

---

Thinkcomputers review was just a joke though.

I think the IFX-14 is supposed to dissipate huge heat loads though, and as you lower the heat load you actually get less performance (this is just from a look at the cooler - fin density + 8mm pipes).

I think someone was using this to cool a TEC and it actually fared surprisingly well.

Also, a 38mm fan inbetween, ala tuniq tower, or some high static pressure fan would do much more - the one problem I've had with the sparse IFX-14 reviews is that they don't use appropriate fans. (Except Naviq.)

As for lapping .. it's not a universal thing, but I do acknowledge the performance gains one can get from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegras

Thinkcomputers review was just a joke though.

I think the IFX-14 is supposed to dissipate huge heat loads though, and as you lower the heat load you actually get less performance (this is just from a look at the cooler - fin density + 8mm pipes).

I think someone was using this to cool a TEC and it actually fared surprisingly well.

Also, a 38mm fan inbetween, ala tuniq tower, or some high static pressure fan would do much more - the one problem I've had with the sparse IFX-14 reviews is that they don't use appropriate fans. (Except Naviq.)

As for lapping .. it's not a universal thing, but I do acknowledge the performance gains one can get from it.

---

So they made the IFX for Prescotts? :rofl:

Even with an insane heatload on my QX6700 overvolted (but not OC'd for stability reasons--yes, that's how hot I made it) the TRUE did a little better. In fact, the results scaled pretty normally on the quad...TRUE always edging the IFX-14 (both unlapped).

However, with my E6700 at (truly insane) high volts, the IFX-14 did noticeably better. Tells me that load wasn't as important as the power density. E6700 had a slightly lower load, but with half the die size, the power density was higher. In fact...the IFX-14 was definitely more competitive on the E67 than on the QX67 at all clocks/voltages.

The loadpoint that a TRUE 'breaks' at is well above what any modern processor can dissipate and remain stable. The IFX-14 probably does go higher....and a TEC is a great way to utilize that.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/coole...diagr_temp.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/coo...x_5.html#sect0

according to this article (and some enzo owners )
the enzo is a goodin.
i think true120 may be a little less of a 'footprint' due to its vertical orientation...and this put me off the enzo because of 'bulkiness'/ ease of fit for most motherboards.

if-x is way too bulky and true outperforms it anyway.

even tho the enzo is maybe even better cooler than the true120.

if enzotech ultrax fits you get a bit of airflow over yr pwms/nb/ram aswell...

but true120 is cheaper mostly isnt it?

As a former Enzotech "Ultra-X" user, and promoter of its performance I can safely say the TRUE beats it in almost every situation.

Sod the reviews, so what a website says. What are end users and overclockers, xtreme system saying from xtreme users is what i wana know.

Review sites mean nowt too me, there good if i want to look at it more than what the MFG website shows it, thats it

most review sites don't lap the HS as well. that's because they're good at reviewing, but not really at modding and ocing.

i would listen to these guys here and go with the TRUE

No review website gives a true review. Hense why i am asking people that will really really use it. Plus i will get 2+ replys thus giving me non bius reviews and stuff

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=158187

Yes, the Ultra 120 Extreme! Go and get it now!

The reason why I'll never believe the Ultra-X is better than a TRUE, or any vertical tower, is that it's been proven time and time again - down facing coolers just don't perform as well. (According to Anandtech's charts)

DON'T forget the "Coollaboratory CL-LIQUIDPRO Cooling liquid metal" gets to 5ºC lower than AS5. Search for these:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16835121005