Arctic P14 Pro PST: The Best “Price-to-Performance” Ratio

Cooling, Extra tests, Fans | | Ľubomír Samák

The concerns were unwarranted. The Arctic P14 Pro (PST) fans are, at a comparable price, more appealing than their predecessors—the P14 series. They’re a step up in engineering refinement, pushing the limits across all key aspects you can think of. It’s clear that Arctic knew exactly what it was doing, and even after a major aerodynamic redesign, the company still holds the crown for overall excellent budget-friendly fans in the 140 mm format.

Results: Frequency response of sound w/o obstacles

Measurements are conducted using TrueRTA, which captures audio data across 240 frequency bands within the 20–20,000 Hz range. To facilitate comparisons between articles, we extract and present the dominant frequency from each of three spectral bands: low (20–200 Hz), mid (201–2000 Hz), and high (2001–20,000 Hz) in standardized bar graphs.

However, for an even more detailed analysis of the sound expression, it is important to perceive the overall shape of the graph and the intensity of all frequencies/tones. If any aspects of the graphs or data tables are unclear, detailed interpretation guidelines are provided in this article.

Most fan-related acoustic activity occurs within the 70–7000 Hz range. Frequencies above 7000 Hz typically represent electromagnetic interference from the test environment, while the lowest bands below 70 Hz may also include such noise, albeit mixed with aerodynamic sound. Although we could exclude these frequency extremes, they are retained to detect and visualize potential anomalies.



Wordpress Table Plugin



Wordpress Table Plugin



Wordpress Table Plugin
Why is a value sometimes missing for a fan? There can be several reasons. Most commonly, it’s because the fan couldn’t be regulated to the target noise level. Some fans have higher minimum RPM (or they spin slowly but have an excessively noisy motor), or they are simply slower models that can’t reach higher decibel thresholds. Results are also omitted from graphs if the impeller scrapes against the mesh of a nylon filter. In such cases, we classify the combination as incompatible. And of course, a zero in the graphs naturally appears in situations where we record an actual 0.00. This often occurs at extremely low speeds when obstacles are present or during vibration measurements.


Contents

   

Related articles

The end, or just the beginning? 100 fans in HWCooling tests

Cooling, Extra tests, Fans | | Ľubomír Samák

Our database now includes one hundred fans—75 in the 120 mm format and 25 models with a physical size of 140 mm. In this article, we have compiled all data into unified charts. What was once separated for clarity is now brought together again, and the commentary will also include a… look ahead regarding fan testing. But we can already reveal that there is still a lot more to come. Read more “The end, or just the beginning? 100 fans in HWCooling tests” »

Contents

   

Arctic P12 Pro Reverse A-RGB: Looking good, working well!

Cooling, Extra tests, Fans | | Ľubomír Samák

The impeller is oriented so that, in the installed position, nothing visually obstructs the view. This refers to the stator struts, which can otherwise “spoil” the appearance. But this is not just about looks—it is about combining them with the efficient geometry of the proven five-blade design with a stabilizing ring (familiar from the P12 A-RGB). It is not exactly the same design, though, if only because what used to be behind the impeller is now in front of it. Read more “Arctic P12 Pro Reverse A-RGB: Looking good, working well!” »

Contents

   

Clean look prioritized: Arctic P1x Pro (A-RGB) Reverse

Cooling, Fans, PR article | | Ľubomír Samák

Arctic has been offering P12 Pro Reverse fans for some time now—models with blades shaped so that, when viewed head-on, no visually distracting elements are visible. At the same time, they are based on a proven aerodynamic design that delivers very strong airflow relative to noise levels. These fans are available in both 120 mm and 140 mm sizes, with and without lighting. Read more “Clean look prioritized: Arctic P1x Pro (A-RGB) Reverse” »

Contents

   

Comments (35) Add comment

  2. Thank you for such an in-depth and thorough review!

    One thing that I would like to ask though, do you think it would be possible to include an option to display the RPM values in the charts as well?
    It would be really useful to see the RPM values at a given sound or airflow level.

    Reply

    1. Thank you for the comment. The fan speeds corresponding to the individual modes normalized by comparable noise levels in the article are in Chapter 13. 🙂

      From Chapter 5, you can also find out the method (the technique) used for recording the fan speeds.

      Reply

      1. Thank you for replying to my comment!

        I realised that what I was looking was in Chapter 13 after posting my initial comment. However, I guess what I was referring to was to be able to see the RPM values in the other charts, without having to go back and forth to Chapter 13. Maybe when hovering the mouse pointer over the other chart results/values, the RPMs can be displayed then?

        Reply

        1. Be careful, the RPM value is different for other applications (filters, rads…) and is not recorded. 😉

          Reply

          1. Thanks for pointing that out! That’s why I asked if this would be something that the author can implement, as it would be handy to have when configuring the fans once installed in the case. Since you’re recording various data, specifying the RPM value would be an additional step, but an important and useful one.

            Reply

            1. Thanks for the note. We considered that when designing the testing methodology, and in the end—within the available (time) constraints—we decided to record fan speeds only in the unobstructed scenario. That said, I completely understand that having RPM data in other scenarios would definitely be useful. Of course, so the user can easily fine-tune the fan based on how it behaves in a given mode. 🙂

              Reply

  3. I have found on forums that , there is a problem with Artic fans Pack of 3 Fans :
    The Pack of 3 Fans or more are cheaper BUT they have more failures than single boxed fans .
    Buyers think there is no quality control on those Eco pack…

    Reply

    1. Thanks for the info. Do you have more details on this? For example, what exactly is the bottleneck or likely failure point in the fans, and so on.

      I would think that quality control for 3-packs wouldn’t differ significantly from individually sold fans. In both cases, manufacturing tolerances are probably going to be looser—Arctic P14 Pro are, after all, budget-friendly fans. 🙂

      Reply

      1. “what exactly is the bottleneck or likely failure point in the fans,”

        I believe I can answer this as I have tested almost a hundred P12 Pro fans at this point.

        The fan blade ring to chassis distance has a very small tolerance. There is also a level of imbalanced impellers between fans. Combined, on defective models they can increase noise somewhat heavily. I encountered these problems on, maybe 2 out of the 5 fans in the 5 packs.
        There is another element that has to do with the fan frame being quite cheap. When mounting them, you must be careful to screw them in evenly and gently, as uneven/too much mounting pressure can deform the frame and can exacerbate the above issue.
        No issues with the bearings as of yet, which in my experience is a large improvement from their P12 Max models.

        Reply

        1. Yes, with cheaper fans, the production tolerances are higher, and as a result, each fan may behave differently. This is well illustrated by this vibration test of 15 Stratus 120 PWM fan samples. The large spread of vibrations at the same speeds shows clear signs of different manufacturing flaws—or simply variations—that occur. Sometimes you get lucky and avoid them altogether; other times, you have to pick through “better” and “worse” pieces. 🙂

          Reply

            1. I agree, it would certainly be a useful analysis for Arctic fans as well. However, our capacity doesn’t allow us to dedicate time to that, and I’ll be glad when we manage to complete the vibration tests for the 15 Noctua NF-A14x25 G2 PWM fans. We announced them a year ago and haven’t made much progress since—we have the fans, they are ready, but we lack the time to focus on them. 🙂

              Reply

    1. I assume you mean the P14 Pro when comparing it with the Toughfan 14 Pro?

      Yes, the Toughfan 14 Pro has excellent aerodynamics—but so does the P14 Pro. A common drawback of these fans can be lower manufacturing quality. They are budget fans, where shortcomings may arise from production cost constraints. With Thermaltake fans, we did encounter such issues (and this is mentioned in the article). With Arctic fans, we haven’t—though that doesn’t mean it can’t happen. I’d say that Noctua NF-A14x25 G2 PWM fans won’t be affected by these kinds of production defects, while at the same time offering comparable real-world results in terms of cooling efficiency, or cooling performance per unit of noise. At least when it comes to working on liquid cooler radiators. By “Noctua” do you mean the NF-A14x25 G2 fans? If not, and you meant the older NF-A14 with the previous aerodynamic design, then yes—the aerodynamic efficiency of those older fans can be significantly lower.

      Regardless of noise levels, at maximum performance the Toughfan 14 Pro and Arctic P14 Pro fans provide significantly higher cooling performance because they have higher airflow. But compared to the Noctua NF-A14x25 G2, they are also noisier.

      Reply

      1. It really seems like these P14 Pros are the best for my use case, noise normalized beating everything at 31dBA and 36dBA (the two noise levels I target). Disregarding reliability concerns (a 5 pack in my country is less than a single A14x25 G2), these are the undisputed best in 140mm radiator fans?

        They have such a high static pressure, to my understanding: Dense radiators used in custom watercooling would surely benefit heavily from them.

        Mr. Samák, you are very experienced with fans, so your opinion is valuable to me.

        Reply

        1. If we take into account both results and price, then yes—on radiators (and in many other scenarios), the Arctic P14 Pro 14 A-RGB can indeed be considered among the “best” fans. I personally use the word “best” rather reluctantly, because it is quite subjective and everyone may imagine different qualities under it (it’s enough for someone to dislike the acoustic profile and suddenly it’s a deal-breaker, haha). But yes… if the P14 Pro A-RGB fan is technically fine (not defective), then very few models can surpass its aerodynamic properties. One could also mention the TT Toughfan 14 Pro, which is likewise excellent on radiators. However, even with it, you may encounter samples that are not in optimal condition. If you look at the conclusions of our tests on our site, you’ll see that weaker pieces, in terms of build quality, can occur with it as well. Despite being an LCP fan, its relatively low price naturally reflects some cost-cutting in critical aspects, which can (but do not necessarily have to) show up negatively in practice.

          With the Arctic P14 Pro (A-RGB), weaker results may sometimes appear in pull position (against an obstacle), as indicated by our grille test results. Certain types of obstacles clearly can significantly increase the noise of this aerodynamic design, and therefore in noise-normalized tests the performance can look weaker. Something very similar can, however, also be observed with significantly more expensive fans such as the Noctua NF-A14x25 G2. 🙂

          Reply

          1. –“…weaker results may sometimes appear in pull position (against an obstacle)…”
            Well, when I look at the pull/push coefficient
            …and the excellent results on the nylon filter. I rather think that it creates the kind of pressure/flow that causes higher noise and turbulence on the hex/plastic filters precisely due to its ability to pull.
            …if it were moved away from the obstacle through some extender, I think that would be sufficient. 😛
            …who knows how a BQ SW 4 would turn out with such an adjustment, it has a completely brutal coefficient (one could say significantly unbalanced).
            That’s just my guess, maybe wrong 😉

            Reply

            1. „Well, when I look at the pull/push coefficient…“

              These results are not influenced by the grille changing the noise characteristics. The pull/push coefficient is measured in an environment without obstacles.

              If you space the fan away from the grille with a spacer, the results would almost certainly be more favorable. Naturally, what you describe is caused by input turbulence, which itself is created by the grille structure. With a nylon filter, this effect doesn’t occur in the same way, because its structure doesn’t push the fan into resonance frequencies.

              Reply

              1. yes, that’s exactly what I meant, 😉
                …that due to its strong pull ability it may be causing a lot of turbulence and noise (when close to the obstacle) and that’s why it’s not so at the top in the hex/plast charts, but is at the top in the nylon chart. 😛

                Reply

          2. I see. Very insightful and objective reply, which I thank you for.

            I have the time to return defective fans, so I will purchase more than what I need and return the rest.

            Reply

            1. Thanks for sharing your experience.

              What you describe most likely stems from variations in the production quality of the fan shaft itself (this comes from fan manufacturing information—we haven’t examined it physically in detail). Some shafts are perfectly straight, others are… let’s say, not quite so straight. And from that, many other behaviors follow. The degree of fan misalignment depends largely on how straight or not straight that shaft is. 🙂

              Yes, the amount of mounting pressure when tightening the fan on its frame can also cause different kinds of deformation. Noctua, for example, explored this issue in depth. What exactly does that mean? We even published an interview about it: https://www.hwcooling.net/en/noctua-on-nf-a14x25-g2-frame-deformations-interview/

              Reply

            2. I knows it’s an old comment, but you easily could buy p14 pros in a pack of 5, test which ones are least noisy, and use them on the radiator.

              Reply

  5. Thanks for the review – I purchased a 5-pack of these ($6.80 each) and another ($10.50). Very economical, appear to work very well and quietly at low RMP. I plan to put these on radiators in a Fractal Design Meshify 3XL case. They spin much more slowly than the fans that came with the fractal case. I like them a lot.

    One thing I would like to mention is that these P14 PRO PST fans are 27mm thick, which is 2mm thicker than usual fans. This means one would need slightly longer screws for mounting onto a radiator, and possibly implications for clearance. For example these fans barely fit on the front of the Meshify 3XL under the front panel when screwed in from inside. BUT, I have not yet tried to see how they fit mounted to a radiator with the screw-heads protruding forward. In the same case, these fans wouldn’t fit into the side radiator mount with a 30mm radiator (won’t clear the air guide panel – there is probably 56mm of thickness room there).

    Reply

  6. Thanks for the useful information. Yes, the Arctic P14 Pro fans are thicker and have worse compatibility in other aspects as well, but with a 27 mm thick profile, they are still better in this regard than ones with 30 mm. 🙂

    Reply

  7. I’m using LianLi O11 Air Mini case, the revised one with a couple of different fans. The config is:

    2x 140mm BeQuiet Pure Wings 2 High Speed PWM – front
    2x 140mm LianLI case fans ~ 800 RPM – bottom
    2x 120mm Arctic P12 Bionix – side
    1x 140mm BeQuiet Pure WIngs 2 High Speed PWM – top exhaust
    1x 120mm BeQuiet Pure Wings 2 – back exhaust

    I want to buy these new fans, they seem like a good option for me, both performance wise and appearance wise. I just want to ask a simple question: they are going to be better than my current config, right?

    Reply

    1. Do you notice any difference in CPU and GPU temperatures when the side fans (Bionix) are turned off/on?

      Reply

      1. Yeah, GPU temp dropped a bit, but I cant tell you the exact numbers. I have 7900XT with reference design, so every bit of fresh air helps.

        Reply

    2. I don’t know if other fans will have any significant impact on temperatures. 🤷
      What will change is the sound profile and noise level (depending on the settings).
      Does the current setup not suit you in terms of tone/noise?
      If so, you can trh it…otherwise I wouldn’t bother with it 😛
      New FD Momentum 14 and Noctua G2 have a nice sound profile (for me at least, have both in Lancool 207) 😉

      Reply

      1. Ha! Maybe it’s like this. I think we both basically wrote the same thing, just phrased a bit differently. 🙂

        Reply

    3. There’s no simple answer to that one. The P12 Pro fans are excellent budget options, but the Pure Wings 2 are great as well. Of course, the newer Arctic fans generally achieve a higher airflow per unit of noise, but in terms of case cooling, that difference may not even show up in practice. It might—or might not—it depends on the situation.
      There are also many other aspects that determine whether one fan is “better” or “worse,” including the tonal quality of the noise—its frequency characteristics. Naturally, these differ, and everyone has their own preferences. 🙂

      Reply

  8. “Is it okay to use Arctic P14 Pro PST fans in a push or pull configuration on an Arctic Liquid Freezer III 420 mounted in the front of the case?”

    “Should I use push or pull for the Arctic P14 Pro PST on an LF III 420 (front mount)?”

    Reply

    1. First of all, thank you for the questions. 🙂

      Arctic P14 Pro PST fans can be used on the Liquid Freezer III 420 radiator in both pull and push configurations, with comparable efficiency. In the past, this was also examined during cooler testing by our colleague Pavel Sekerka, and I even have specific numbers somewhere—but they remain internal for now due to capacity constraints that prevented publication.

      It’s true that in pull orientation, fans often reach higher noise levels due to interaction with an obstacle, but this generally doesn’t apply much to radiators. Radiators have a fin structure that usually doesn’t increase noise significantly.

      Of course, results depend on the specific fan and its aerodynamic impeller design, but when you analyze the impact of fan placement (push vs pull) for the P14 Pro PST on a radiator, you’ll likely find the difference to be minimal. The same applies to cooling performance.

      Yes, we do record the push/pull coefficient, but it’s important to note that this represents the upper limit at zero airflow. In real use, there is always some airflow through the radiator, meaning the environment has significantly lower resistance.

      So yes—on the Liquid Freezer III radiator, you can use the fans in either push or pull without worrying that one configuration would be worse than the other.

      As for front-mounted radiator placement in a case, we don’t have exact data for that, so we can’t give precise advice. The best approach is to test it in your specific setup, and we’d be happy if you came back later to share what you found. 🙂

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *