To provide the best experiences, we and our partners use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us and our partners to process personal data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site and show (non-) personalized ads. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Click below to consent to the above or make granular choices. Your choices will be applied to this site only. You can change your settings at any time, including withdrawing your consent, by using the toggles on the Cookie Policy, or by clicking on the manage consent button at the bottom of the screen.
Technické uloženie alebo prístup sú nevyhnutne potrebné na legitímny účel umožnenia použitia konkrétnej služby, ktorú si účastník alebo používateľ výslovne vyžiadal, alebo na jediný účel vykonania prenosu komunikácie cez elektronickú komunikačnú sieť.
Technické uloženie alebo prístup je potrebný na legitímny účel ukladania preferencií, ktoré si účastník alebo používateľ nepožaduje.
Technické úložisko alebo prístup, ktorý sa používa výlučne na štatistické účely.
Technické úložisko alebo prístup, ktorý sa používa výlučne na anonymné štatistické účely. Bez predvolania, dobrovoľného plnenia zo strany vášho poskytovateľa internetových služieb alebo dodatočných záznamov od tretej strany, informácie uložené alebo získané len na tento účel sa zvyčajne nedajú použiť na vašu identifikáciu.
Technické úložisko alebo prístup sú potrebné na vytvorenie používateľských profilov na odosielanie reklamy alebo sledovanie používateľa na webovej stránke alebo na viacerých webových stránkach na podobné marketingové účely.
Is the Arctic Freezer 36 the number one challenger? 🙂
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?)
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).