Printable View
Stock vs. Lapped
After just 30 strokes of 220, the nickel is almost gone, leaving a concave pattern:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...14/Pattern.jpg
All pretty lapped up:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...p2000alone.jpg
And load temps:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...peddiagram.jpg
Overall, I'd say the effects of lapping are minimal. Its not so surprising as the original base was very good, and the nickel microscopic in thickness.
well...maybe lapping the IFX-14 does not make much difference but it did for my Quad core mounted with an Ultra-X...i could not prime 95 all 4 cores, couldn't even do it with 3 cores at 3600 Mhz until i lapped the Ultra-X (did not lap the IHS).Quote:
Originally Posted by Navig
the noise level of all 3 fans roaring must have been horrendous..what kind of sound suppressor headset did you use?!...was it like the one used by technicians to suppress sound around a jet engine in a test stand at full throttle!:p:...i can not imagine most users having 2 or 3 fans running at fairly high RPM...now..if you installed an 100 AMP:D fan controller, then you could reduce the sound when in idle, right!;)
When I looked at this with the Ultra120X I did seem to get a more clear improvement. Of course, this is really only 1/2 of the equation. Obviously the ihs of the cpu plays an important role. I did not use the same cpu as the one in the Ultra120X review--on account of the likelihood of poor contact between the core and the ihs on my e4300.
Anyway, stage is set for the shootout between the 2. I'll probably get on it on Saturday.
i think you are overlooking a hidden value that goes beyond just 1.7C temperature reduction benefit for lapping heatsinks....by lapping the heatsink, you almost totally eliminate valleys, gouges and groves in the bottom of a heatsink...it means you will need less thermal paste to interface between the IHS and the bottom of the heatsink...it also means faster heat transfer from the cpu IHS to the heatpipe system...the faster you remove heat from the cpu cores the longer it operates without overheating....it is why most people have orthos or prime 95 failures...they can't extract the heat as quickly because of the imperfections in the heatsink bottom and the additional thermal paste that is needed to fill those imperfections....the thicker the TIM, the longer it is going to take the heat to transfer through it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navig
That's an interesting thought, unfortunately one that I wouldn't say I'm familiar with. I think its really difficult to get a duo core to fail orthos purely from a heat perspective. Probably not so difficult with a quad--which I haven't got.
Having lapped dozens of heatsinks, there's no question that the TIM physically interacts a little differently with a lapped surface--you can feel it every time you pull the heatsink off, and in the TIM squash patterns.
navig
i like your graphs
very simple :up:
Doesn't seem to be better then Tuniq Tower!
maybe you could backup your notion ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ownage
Im quite sure it is
I would like to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosfer@tu
I dont use the Tuniq anymore, but this are my results:
E6400 L25A 3600mhz 1,47V.
These are temps after few hours of Orthos.
Tuniq Tower
between 68C and 70C depending on temproom.
Watercooling, 600ltr pump, apogeeGT, dualrad
59C max on high roomtemp. (28C)
57C with normaal roomtemp (22C)
Temps @ 3500mhz 1,42V
Tuniq Tower
between 64C and 68C depending on roomtemp.
Watercooling, 600ltr pump, apogeeGT, dualrad
52C max with normal roomtemp.
I always tought my Tuniq temps where to high, but when i see Navig his review on the IFX-14 i see the IFX-14 isn't that powerfull either.
Do not buy this heatsink, just go water :p:
lol, my air cooling temps match or moght even be better than your watercooling temps(65c at 1.53vcore, 3.6ghz), and im sure the ultra 120 extreme could beat my cpu cooler. Water Cooling is overrated.Quote:
Originally Posted by ownage
i don't see how you can support your claim!..."ownage's" water cooling temps beat your temp by at least 6-8C at the same Mhz.:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by enz660
Quote:
Originally Posted by ownage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosfer@tu
i offered up my Tuniq to "Vapor" to test but he has not responded...i guess he's finished with testing any further...
BUT...i will offer the Tuniq to "Navig"...even pay for the roundtrip postage as long as he lives in the USA, maybe canada if it is not to expensive.
AFAIK, Navig alreayd have it and many more
we are waiting for his results comparing this IFX-14 to the other heatsinks specially the Ultra-120X
ok...very good:)
watercooling ins't overrated. My conroe gets really hot. And i have much better temps with watercooling then i had with my Tuniq tower. I also dont have the Uber Elite watercooling, because its really expensive in Holland/Germany. I think my temps aren't to bad with only a 600litre pump.Quote:
Originally Posted by enz660
One CPU gets hotter then another, so its best to test with the same CPU. It would be great if Naviq could compare the tuniq with the IFX-14.
Yeah...my nickel is already wearing away around where the IHS edge contacts on my IFX-14 (I can CLEARLY see copper) after just 3 mounts (well, 5 now...but I could easily see it after just 3, but it was probably there earlier). No doubt it's a very, very thin plating and doesn't impede contact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navig
Base curvature is still a minor issue....probably where your gain is coming from.
My well, i shoulda added an "imo" at the end of that, but basically, my claim is that you paid more for something that cools worse than a nice heatsink. Waste of Money IMO!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace-a-Rue
cmon enz660, you are just a little edgy:p: because you are so protective of your almighty air heatsink...i would GO water but i am a lazy arse and don't want to take a chance of wetting my board!;)
I've already looked at how the Tuniq compares to the Ultra 120 X here. Pretty solidly beaten by a few degrees. I'm not really that interested in re-duplicating data.
My setup is probably going to be:
IFX14 no backside cooler vs. TRU120X
Single fan comparison:
YL 12cm
YL 14cm
Delta25
Panaflo M1
San Ace
Delta38
Duo fan comparison:
YL 12cm
Delta25
Panaflo M1
Sance Ace
Best mod comparison:
IFX14: Delta25-Panaflo M1-Panaflo M1 + backside cooler with 80mm fan
TRU120X: Panaflo M1 - Panaflo M1
navig
when that back plate thing mount how dose that fit into cases dose it come up agents the edge or is there plenty of room
Ultra 120x + backside cooler :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Navig
Too small of a gain to run on any HSF, IMO....but some cases may be very accommodating and you might as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by enz660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Navig
nice job on that review over in Abit's forum...
Alright, Part 3, Heatsink Comparison is completed at the main thread.
Here are the summary tables:
Thermalright IFX-14 vs Ultra 120X, Single Fan Configurations
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...singlefans.jpg
Notes: all testing for the IFX-14 was done with the fan in the middle position (between sink towers)
and for the Ultra120X in the Pull configuration (Pulling air thru the tower sink).
Flames indicate where the cpu failed due to overheating. 75c probably doesn’t represent an accurate temp, as the cpu automatically terminated its load.
Well, with a low speed fan, the Ultra120X actually failed. Its not so surprising as the heatsink tower has fins that are very dense, as well as large in surface area. The IFX-14 appears to have the same density, but breaks the surface area into 2 towers.
However, once you get some fans with some oomph, the 2 heatsinks performed virtually identically. Maybe the slightest edge to the Ultra120X with 38mm thick fans.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...emultifans.jpg
Notes: Best Mod mode for the Ultra120X was Push-Pull Panaflo M1's. Best Mod mode for the IFX-14 was Delta25 - Panaflo M1 - Panaflo M1 + 80mm fan on the backside cooler.
With 2 fans, the Ultra120X gains a small edge.
However, in the best mod mode, you can strap 4 fans to the IFX-14! The 2 best mod configurations are pretty equal in sound, but the IFX-14 gains a 1.3c advantage. The ability to use more fans increases its performance, with minimal addition to noise.
IFX-14 vs Ultra120X comments
Well, I think its much more complicated than saying one heatsink is better than another. They always performed within 1-2c of each other. As of the writing of this article, the IFX-14 is some $30 more than the Ultra 120X. If you are looking for that extra money to translate directly into higher performance, you will be disappointed.
What DO you get for that extra money.
1) A much better mounting mechanism.
2) Significantly better performance if you are looking at using only ONE low speed fan, and generally better performance for low noise solutions (for example 3 yate loons is quiet yet performs quite well).
3) Native support for multiple fan configurations (Recall the Ultra 120 requires modding to support a second fan).
There may be other differences, which I haven’t specifically pointed out. For example, with my IP-35, the IFX-14 consistently beat out the Ultra120X in PWM temps.
On the downside (besides the price), the IFX-14 is enormous, which may interfere with large gpu coolers, nb coolers, or active RAM cooling.
thanks for the effort and results
i think i gonna buy the ultra since mounting it on my dfi will be easier , cause mounting he ifx-14 on my dfi will make it very close to the vga card that i won't be able to install a fan on its side
Ultra-120X with 2 YL will be my best option i think