Endorfy Fera 5 Black cooler tests on AM5 and LGA 1851

Endorfy Fera 5 Black in detail

One of the most popular CPU coolers of today has already appeared in our tests, but on an older, basically outdated platform. That’s why we’re bringing you measurements that better reflect what’s in use these days. We have the results of the Endorfy Fera 5 cooler on the latest Intel and AMD platforms with their top processor models. How does an, essentially, inexpensive tower cooler handle them?

We have already discussed what results the Endorfy Fera 5 Black achieves compared to other coolers. But that was on the older Intel LGA 1200 platform, where the relative ranking among coolers may not always scale. The ratios on different platforms may vary depending on the specifics of the CPU under test. This was also shown in recent liquid cooler tests, where the Fractal Design Lumen S36 V2 fares better (than on a Core Ultra 9 processor) on an AMD platform (Ryzen 9 9950X). The Endorfy Fera 5 Black cooler may also behave differently depending on the platform. How it is on the most modern ones, with the most powerful processors, will be the subject of the following analysis.

* This dimension specifies the width of the heatsink along with the fan typically towards the DIMM slots. That is, assuming the cooler is installed vertically.
** The distance between the shorter sides of the fins of the cooler. The larger it is, the closer the cooler is to the first PCIe ×16 slot in the case of symmetrical heatsinks. Or in a horizontal position, possibly to memory slots already covered by the cooler.

Details of the Endorfy Fera 5 Black cooler

Design-wise, it is a tower cooler with one tower, or with one bundle of fins pressed on heatpipes. There are four of them, with a 6 mm diameter. The cooler is oriented vertically, being 155 mm tall. Thus, it is not a super tall cooler, but it is not very short either. In short, this design strikes a balance, taking into account compatibility (so that the cooler fits into as many cases as possible), but also achieving the highest possible cooling performance, which naturally also depends on the size of the surface area of the fins.

The surface of the fins is lightly moulded to enlarge the fins in order to maximise their surface area. There are small circular protrusions on the fins for this. The long side of the ribs has serrated edges. This is for acoustic reasons, to keep the noise of the air circulating around this heatsink as low as possible. Unlike the standard variant (EY3A005), this one tested (EY3A011) has a completely black heatsink shell. This is due to surface treatment of the otherwise, again, aluminium fins.

  

The heatpipes are also black, that is outside the part contacting the processor IHS. On it you can already see that they are copper (and black is only the surface finish).

The heatpipes are also characterized by their “direct contact” (with the processor). This means that the heatpipes are milled and ground into a plane. Remarkably, there are no gaps between the heatpipes (some coolers have aluminum fillers) or the typical unevenness or gaps between the heatpipes, which would have to be filled with a larger amount of thermal paste. Such weak spots, where thermal conductivity drops, have been avoided by the manufacturer of the Fera 5 (Black) cooler. Everything gives the impression that every effort has been made to get the most out of the available material to make it as efficient as possible. The inside, of course, can’t be seen and we’re just stating things based on external features.

The heatsink is cooled by a 120-millimeter Endorfy Fluctus 120 PWM fan. We also tested it separately and it’s in the same form on the Fera 5 Black cooler (including the 300–1800 rpm speed range). While only one fan is supplied in the box, the accessories come with two pairs of clips to possibly extend the cooler with a second fan on the back of the heatsink.

With 77 mm of width, a rather narrow profile can be noted, thanks to which the Fera 5 (Black) cooler, for example, does not interfere with the space above the DIMM slots. Thus, when choosing memory, you do not have to look at how tall the heatsinks are. Any will fit next to the Endorfy cooler.

The thermal paste supplied with the cooler is Pactum PT-3 – a pack with the smallest (1.5 g?) tube, but for multiple uses.


  •  
  •  
  •  
Flattr this!

Test: MSI Z890 Ace (and CU9 285K) with CoreLiquid I360 cooler

What would be the results of standard motherboard tests if we used the MSI MAG CoreLiquid I360 cooler with them? Better. Specifically, lower temperatures would be achieved for the CPU cores, which would then run at higher clock speeds, which naturally means higher computing performance. Not dramatically, but if we are to illustrate the situation with plates of scales, their position is quite clear. Read more “Test: MSI Z890 Ace (and CU9 285K) with CoreLiquid I360 cooler” »

  •  
  •  
  •  

Endorfy Fortis 5 Black: Six heatpipes for Intel CPUs

In addition to the standard variant, the Fortis 5 is also available in a completely black version. Compared to the lower-end series (Fera 5), it has two more heatpipes which increase the cooling performance of this cooler. In practice, however, it only does better in some cases. When the processor can benefit from the “extra material” available in the Fortis 5 cooler. How so? We’ll break everything down in this detailed analysis. Read more “Endorfy Fortis 5 Black: Six heatpipes for Intel CPUs” »

  •  
  •  
  •  

Duel: Endorfy Navis F360 vs. Fractal Design Lumen S36 V2

We start the new stage of CPU cooler tests on HWCooling with a duel of two AIO liquid coolers. Both the Navis F360 and the Lumen S36 V2 represent the cheapest coolers with a 360mm radiator that Fractal Design (Lumen S36 V2) and Endorfy (Navis F360), respectively, have. Sure, these aren’t downright cheap coolers, but both are associated with very high cooling performance. Read more “Duel: Endorfy Navis F360 vs. Fractal Design Lumen S36 V2” »

  •  
  •  
  •  

Comments (3) Add comment

  1. I really like this methodology! Performance is the metric we should be comparing first and foremost, not temperatures. Also, I highly appreciate having noise and frequency analysis on the pumps only.

    Some observations:
    1. If processor is NOT thermal throttling: Faster fan speed = lower temperature, equal or higher clock speeds, lower power consumption.
    2. If processor is thermal throttling: Faster fan speed = same temperature (Tjmax), higher clock speeds, higher power consumption.
    3. For AMD, lower temp does not equal to higher frequency, for example Fractal Design Lumen S36 v2 always achieve higher clock speed than Endorfy Navis F360 on 9950X. Some investigation is needed – it’s perhaps due to different cores having different temperatures. In that case, some extra data might need to be included (e.g. temp of the hottest core).
    4. Although it might have been true that Intel processors are cooler at the same power draw vs AMD, it seems to be no longer the case for this generation.

    Suggestions:
    1. Sort by processor first – so it goes Intel clock speed, Intel temps, AMD clock speed, AMD temps. I think this is more logical as we need all three data to properly evaluate the cooler’s performance.
    2. Frequency is the most important metric, so it should be first, before temperature and power. Temp and power are equally important so their order does not matter, as long as they are next to each other.
    3. I think the observations are worth writing an analysis article for, perhaps after more cooler reviews using the new methodology. I don’t think people would be accustomed to the performance-first approach, so the more explanation, the better (perhaps also include interpretation instructions on the result pages?)

    1. Thank you for the useful insights. 🙂

      I agree, you’re right. CPU core clock speed is an important metric and could be listed first among the graphs. We originally had it that way, but in the end, the temperature is what’s on top. The reason for this is that people are used to comparing this parameter and are more comfortable with it when comparing coolers. But this parameter can be misleading and that’s why for completeness we also list the clock speed in MHz and the power consumption in W. We will do our best to educate the readers gradually and… we will see.

      Also noteworthy is the comparison of the shape of the consumption curve, which is different for coolers that do not have performance difficulties (e.g. Navis F360) than for “problematic” ones (e.g. Fera 5), which cannot sustain a given load. We also plan to publish and analyze these things later in separate thematic articles. Addressing this in standard tests proved impossible from a time perspective. And it would probably be ineffective – such an analysis would get lost among other things and fewer people would get to it.

      Yes, it would certainly be useful to monitor and record the clock speed of each core separately. This will of course vary depending on how much contact is there with each cooler over a particular core. When the core clock speeds are averaged, as we do, what you describe can happen. I’m wondering how to reasonably interpret this data with respect to sufficient clarity. We’ll figure something out in the future. We record this data in the HWiNFO logs, so we have it available for all the coolers we tested, even the first ones (Navis F360, Lumen S36 V2 and Fera 5 Black).

Leave a Reply

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