Measuring the intensity (and power draw) of lighting
The Silent Wings (Pro) 4 represent the pinnacle of computer fan range. The non-Pro variants stand out especially in system positions and are not well suited for radiators. This is by design and in line with the sort of “micro-segmentation” of BeQuiet. In a white design, like the one tested, it will be quite difficult to find other 140 mm fans that are quieter at comparable airflow.
Measuring the intensity (and power draw) of lighting
Modern fans often include lighting. This is no longer a “cooling” parameter, but for some users the presence of (A)RGB LEDs is important. Therefore, we also measure how intense this lighting is in our tests. These tests are the only ones that take place externally, outside the wind tunnel.
We record the luminosity of the fans in a chamber with reflective walls. This internal arrangement is important to increase the resolution for us to measure anything at all with lower luminosity fans. But also so that the readings do not blend together and it is obvious which fan is emitting more light and which one less.
The illumination intensity is measured in the horizontal position of the fan, above which is the lux meter sensor (UNI-T UT383S). This is centered on the illumination intensity sensing chamber.
The illumination is controlled via an IR controller and the hue is set to RGB level 255, 255, 255 (white). We record the brightness at maximum and minimum intensity. According to this, you can easily see if the brightness is high enough, but conversely also if the lower level is low enough for you.
In addition to the brightness intensity, we also measure the power draw that it requires. This is again through the shunt, which is between the Gophert CPS-3205 power supply and the (A)RGB LED driver. After this we get a reading of the lighting power draw. In the graphs we show it separately, but also in sum with the motor power draw as the total maximum fan power.
- Contents
- BeQuiet! Silent Wings 4 (BL117) 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
Is the very low speed characteristics similar to that observed in CPS RZ120?
This fan would have been much more competitive if it were to have closed corners by default. The corner swapping gimmick doesn’t seem to offer any actual benefit to me, as the vibrations are already low and similar results in dampening could already be achieved by using rubber mounts. They definitely could have saved some cost and/or priced the fan even more competitively by using integrated, closed corners instead of this gimmicky design.
That said, for users willing to DIY, this should still be a great radiator fan. All you need is some tape to seal up the corners, saving you quite a bit of money.
I mean the F5 R120. Confused with the cooler names.
Yes, if you encounter a lower airflow at the same noise level, a similar characteristic (as with the Silent Wings 4 BL117) is also found in the F5 R120. More fans have this. At such low speeds, the non-aerodynamic sounds must be extremely quiet to leave room to set the speed high enough for leading rankings.
Replacing the corners of the BL117 is really useful if only just to be able to install this fan on a radiator of a liquid cooler, where the SW4 doesn’t make much sense. Although the SW4 doesn’t need to be smeared too much in this scenario. Sure, due to the significant drop in placement compared to other fans, the urge is there, but at higher speeds it even outperforms the NF-A14. Sure, for a fan with modern geometry it’s more of a failure, but…
Using tape to seal the corners is a good DIY “trick”. 🙂
How would you compare it to the Pure Wings 3? This fan seems to constantly get outperformed by its cheaper sibling. The Pure Wings 3 does have a lower RPM limit, but there doesn’t seem to be other major disadvantages by going for the Pure Wings instead.
Now I’m really curious how the high speed, 9-blade version of the Pure Wings 3 performs.
The 140 mm Pure Wings 3 with 7 blades often seems to be a balanced (and a hair more more efficient) solution like the Silent Wings 4 (BL117). Although we have the SW4 in the white variant, which probably tends to be a bit noisier. These small differences (in tonal peaks) do not show up on radiators, where the tested PW3 variant has a significant advantage for obvious reasons (good sealing corners). We are also curious about the 9-blade Pure Wings 3 in 140 mm format. We will probably get to it after the announced Arctic P14 triple fan test (PWM PST, PWM PST CO and Max). 🙂
The Pure Wings 3 has a MTBF of 60 000 hours, which can be a disadvantage compared to Silent Wings 4 (with 300 000 hours). Lower robustness of critical parts in terms of durability (or change of properties over time) can also be indicated by the smaller impeller hub (of the PW3 BL108) and also at higher speeds relatively higher vibrations (again of the PW3 BL108), which could also indicate higher manufacturing tolerances. Of course, these vibrations could also be due to vibrations on the blades, but I assume they will be composed of several sources. And one of them will be related to the quality level of the impeller centering.
I guess the P14 trilogy will be consecutive releases then.
It’s a shame that we can’t have a Silent Wings 4 that comes with sealed corners, otherwise we’d have a reliable (and strong performing) 14 cm fan in the ~20$/£ price range that would compete very favourably vs. the Noctua A14 for example. I guess that’s done to prevent cannibalising their sales of their own flagship, but I’m not sure if it’s a smart move given the tough competition…
Yes, the next test will be the P14 PWM PST CO and I will conclude the trilogy (on Monday?) with the Max model.