Asus TUF Gaming TR120 Reverse in detail
This is a first – a fan with the leading edges of the impeller blades on the opposite side to normal ones. This is primarily done for a better view of “fans without stator struts” in cases with glass side panels. In addition, such an unconventional design also has quite clear and measurable advantages and disadvantages, also in terms of functional characteristics. Let’s take everything in turn.
Evaluation
A very specific fan. But in the environment it’s aiming for, it’s top-notch. As a system fan operating with a dust filter, it has no competition among illuminated models of the same format (120 mm). Not among those we have tested so far. At low speeds, the TUF TR120, both with a nylon and with a plastic filter, is very high in the relative rankings. In one case, in “36 dBA mode” with a plastic filter, this fan even took first place. For a change on a hexagonal grille, we didn’t even manage to get it to a comparable noise level due to the high and unstable tonal peaks. The sharp tonal peaks on the hexagonal grille well can be seen especially in the 39 dBA mode.
The fan is also noisier than it could be without any obstacles at all. Actually, there is a certain obstacle you can’t get rid of with the TR120 fan, and that is its stator struts. And these increase the sound frequencies in the 300-400 Hz aerodynamic band. At higher speeds quite significantly, as shown by this spectrogram recorded at about 1250 rpm. The struts, of course, also increase the noise in other modes, with obstacles, but there are situations where their presence does not degrade the results too much. This also applies to the aforementioned operation on a plastic filter at lower speeds, the fan structure benefits from a larger offset from the filter itself.
Even at higher speeds, you may notice in the spectrograms (with a plastic filter) that there is relatively little noise at frequencies around 5 kHz. That is, little compared to other fans whose impellers are closer to the filter’s screen. The TUF TR120 Reverse has the leading edges of the blades relatively “far away”, which reduces turbulence, along with that the noise level decreases and in turn the airflow increases. This is due to a more laminar (or less turbulent, whatever you want…) airflow at the fan intake. For such applications, the TR120 Reverse will undoubtedly be one of the most efficient illuminated fans. And if we still take into account the main consideration of not being able to see the stator struts, even more attractive fans will be hard to find in this category.
The TUF TR120 Reverse also delivers above-standard results among all (i.e. not only illuminated) 120 mm fans on radiators. But of course, the variants of these fans with the “standard” impeller often make more sense here. But if for some reason you want to orient the fans in a “pull” direction with the idea that a nice view is to be ensured (no stator struts in the picture), then you can’t go wrong by installing them on a radiator either.
The TUF 120 Reverse should also be praised for its wide speed range (214~1964 rpm) and quiet operation even at non-aerodynamic levels. In our measurements, we did not notice any excessive disturbing motor or bearing noises. I guess it is safe to say that the Asus fan is not only supposed to look good, but also work pretty well. Just beware that in some situation the 28-millimeter profile is not too thick. The TR120 Reverse achieves attractive results thanks to it as well.
Very similar to the older TF120, the luminance is also very high with this fan. It really brings a lot of light into the case, but this can also be dimmed significantly if needed. So in addition to the high maximum brightness, the minimum brightness is low enough, which is again suitable for darker environments. In short, the range of customization is wide here as well.
The price to airflow ratio is slightly weaker compared to the older model (TF120). This is mainly due to the fact that the TR120 is more expensive. Not dramatically though, and the price is still acceptable, but in this respect the newer Asus fan has not impressed us as much as its predecessor. The final evaluation is now well described by the editorial award “Approved“.
English translation and edit by Jozef Dudáš
| Asus TUF Gaming TR120 (Reverse) |
| + Suitable for every use |
| + Cooling efficiency (airflow/pressure per unit of noise) at a very high level |
| + High airflow and static pressure even through an obstacle |
| + Attractive price/performance ratio for an illuminated fan |
| + Wide speed range |
| + Really powerful motor |
| + Very low speeds possible (stable from approx. 214 rpm) |
| + Quiet motor and bearing operation |
| + Extra low, negligible vibrations |
| + Impeller illumination with very high luminosity... |
| + ... and wide range (can also be dimmed significantly) |
| + Efficient in "pull" orientation, greater offset of the leading edges of the blades from an obstacle |
| + The rare, sometimes more visually acceptable reverse design... |
| - ... but its stator struts in front of the impeller cause more noise (compared to the "standard" layout) |
| - Possibly noisier on a grille. More problematic especially the lower half of the speed range |
| Approximate retail price: 20 EUR |
- Contents
- Asus TUF Gaming TR120 Reverse in detail
- Overview of manufacturer specifications
- Basis of the methodology, the wind tunnel
- Mounting and vibration measurement
- Initial warm-up and speed recording
- Base 6 equal noise levels…
- ... and sound color (frequency characteristic)
- Measurement of static pressure…
- … and of airflow
- Everything changes with obstacles
- How we measure power draw and motor power
- Measuring the intensity (and power draw) of lighting
- Results: Speed
- Results: Airlow w/o obstacles
- Results: Airflow through a nylon filter
- Results: Airflow through a plastic filter
- Results: Airflow through a hexagonal grille
- Results: Airflow through a thinner radiator
- Results: Airflow through a thicker radiator
- Results: Static pressure w/o obstacles
- Results: Static pressure through a nylon filter
- Results: Static pressure through a plastic filter
- Results: Static pressure through a hexagonal grille
- Results: Static pressure through a thinner radiator
- Results: Static pressure through a thicker radiator
- Results: Static pressure, efficiency depending on orientation
- Reality vs. specifications
- Results: Frequency response of sound w/o obstacles
- Results: Frequency response of sound with a dust filter
- Results: Frequency response of sound with a hexagonal grille
- Results: Frequency response of sound with a radiator
- Results: Vibration, in total (3D vector length)
- Results: Vibration, X-axis
- Results: Vibration, Y-axis
- Results: Vibration, Z-axis
- Results: Power draw (and motor power)
- Results: Cooling performance per watt, airflow
- Results: Cooling performance per watt, static pressure
- Airflow per euro
- Static pressure per euro
- Results: Lighting – LED luminance and power draw
- Results: LED to motor power draw ratio
- Evaluation
Any plans for tests of the non-reverse variant, and also spacers (like Noctua NA-IS1)? To me they would be the logical next steps for topics raised in this test.
We do not plan to test the standard variants of TR120 fans in the near future. In the long run, the basic plan remains the same – we have to compare all the fans that exist, haha. Only time will tell where we will really end up. 🙂
We’ve had the NA-IS1 frames in our editorial office since their introduction. Of course it would be really useful to get to them and one day it will come. I still can’t make space for them – there is always something “more important”.
Always looking forward to your tests, whatever they are🙂
One additional question though, could you further elaborate what’s going on with the hexagonal grille tests for this fan? First time I’ve seen a fan that somehow has parts of the data missing in the middle (33 and 36 missing, but not 31 and 39). You say unstable tonal peaks, so is the RPM unstable at those noise levels, or is it due to something else?
I think it’s happened before. But maybe it was for the quietest or loudest mode of normalised noise and then it can be attributed to another reason? Anyway, I will explain.
It is important to realize how we bring the fans to the “same noise level”. It’s not like we set the fan somehow and it’s stable at, say, 36 dBA. It’s that we set the fan so that the average of 30 samples ends up at 36 dBA. The interval of these samples can be in the range of 35,9–36,1 dBA during the measurements, for example, but possibly also in a much wider range, for example 32–38 dBA, and now I am not exaggerating. This latter case is similar to trying to get the TR120 into the 33 and 36 dBA modes, which failed. With no PWM setting (nor after very fine tuning of the pulse strength with voltage in single digits of mV), we could not set the fan on the grille so that the average of 30 samples corresponds to 33 dBA and 36 dBA, respectively. It was always more or less, i.e. not what was required. This is a topic that certainly makes sense to look at in more detail. Especially after Noctua opened this “Beat frequency theory” topic, which is a good basis for understanding the issue by a wider than very narrow spectrum of users.
–“Beat frequency theory”
…well, already during the 1st world war the company on the bridge had to stop marching in order not to shake the bridge.
Wave interferance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_interference
In acoustic
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_(acoustics)
Thanks for your detailed explanation. The only other time I have heard the need of averaging noise samples is from ThermalLeft. What’s the sampling rate you’re using?
This phenomenon is definitely worth looking into some day, especially for instances like this where large deviations occur.
The sampling rate of the Reed R8080 is 1s. The settings for the individual modes normalized according to a fixed noise level are based on the arithmetic mean of a 30-second recording. This must always be exactly 31.0; 33.0; 36.0; 39.0; 42.0 or 45.0 dBA after rounding.