Reality vs. specifications
In HWCooling tests, there will no longer be uninteresting fans that serve “only” to build benchmarks. We have passed this phase. From now on, database building will have a different character and each additional fan will enrich the knowledge significantly. We’ll get right into the thick of it, with Cooler Master’s most expensive fan already riding the wave of the framed rotors that are coming in strong. And do you know why?
Reality vs. specifications
Explanatory note: For a quick overview of how manufacturers “spice up” specifications, we have a sort of “truthfulness” coefficient. We calculate this by putting our measured values in proportion to those given in the specifications by the fan manufacturers. A result of “1.00” means that the claimed parameters match the values we have recorded. After such a finding, we can conclude that the manufacturer has done his job honestly and the way he presents the fan agrees. The more the coefficient number is different from 1.00, the less accurate the claimed specifications are. Of course, the better case for the user is if the coefficient is higher than 1.00 (and it is, for example, 1.20), then the real parameters exceed the paper ones. Conversely, if the coefficient starts with zero, then the fan does not reach the parameters on paper. For example, a value of 0.80 means that the real airflow or static pressure is 20 % lower than the manufacturer claims.
- Contents
- Cooler Master MasterFan SF120M in detail
- The basis of the methodology, the wind tunnel
- Mounting and vibration measurement
- Initial warm-up and speed recording
- Base 7 equal noise levels…
- .. and sound color (frequency characteristic)
- Static pressure measurement…
- … and 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 by 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
It looks like the frequency response charts do not show.
Thanks for the heads up, it’s now corrected.
In some of the older articles in English, imperfect processing techniques combined with a lack of focus resulted in incorrect paths to the spectrograms being left in the source code. If you should come across something like that again, the original language version (there are graphs with EN descriptions anyway, you can get to it by clicking the flag in the upper right corner of the page) is always correct. Alternatively, the spectrograms of the individual fans can be accessed by entering the URL according to the format “name-of-the-fan-g***”, where the *** a number from the interval 233 to 244. Of course, this is only a temporary solution until we fix it (after you reporting it). But otherwise it must always work without such complications. 🙂
Thanks, I will keep it in mind if I encounter such an issue in the future and report it so that everyone can have it fixed.
I wanted to see the frequencies because of Noctua NF-A12x25 which has a highly disturbing peak right before 400 Hz. The frequency response of SF120M looks so much better at “33dB” in comparison. That’s why it would be great to have at least 1 sound sample per fan at 33dB, to judge the noise according to personal preference.
This is true, but the reason for this is that the SF120M has an overall “dropped” aerodynamic noise spectrum in this mode due to the higher tonal peaks of the motor and bearings. This is also why it achieves a lower airflow. If the test modes were aligned for equal airflow (i.e., the SF120M would have higher RPM), I expect that the NF-A12x25 might not be noisier even at 380 Hz.