Endorfy Fluctus 140 PWM ARGB works, looks come second

Base 6 equal noise levels…

The first Fluctus 120 PWM fans marked a great qualitative progress in SilentiumPC production (now Endorfy). Nevertheless, they had their flaws, which the developers are gradually eliminating and, based on the measurement results, the newer 140 mm Fluctus can be said to be a clear improvement. The Fluctus 140 PWM ARGB stands out nicely from other fans in its price category.

Base 6 equal noise levels…

There are several options by which to normalize the test modes for fans. In the previous chapter, we wrote that perhaps the least appropriate option is equal speed.

Settings according to the same static pressure or flow are for consideration, but we find it most sensible in the long term to normalize the measurement modes according to the same noise levels. Firstly because decibels are a logarithmic unit and all others scale linearly, but mainly because you can orientate fastest by the same noise levels. The easiest way to compare the efficiency of fans is just by how they perform at the same sound pressure level. Of all the options, this is the one that most people can best imagine and bounce off of when considering other variables.

The individual noise level modes are adjusted from low levels continuously to higher levels. All users will find their results in the tests, regardless of whether they prefer very quiet operation at the limit of audibility or whether high performance is paramount.

The quietest mode corresponds to 31 dBA, followed by 33 dBA, and for each additional mode we add 3 dBA, which always doubles the noise level (36, 39, 42 and 45 dBA). Finally, we measure the fans at maximum power. Here, each one already has a slightly different noise level, which we also report. If there are missing measurements between the results for any of the fans, this means that it was not possible to set the target noise level. Either because its minimum speed exceeds the quietest mode of 31 dBA or vice versa because the fan is quieter than 45 dBA at maximum power.

It is important to add that our noise level measurements are incomparable to the values quoted by the fan manufacturers in their specifications. One of the reasons is because we use a parabola-shaped collar around the sensor of the noise meter, which increases sensitivity. This is important in order to distinguish and set to the same noise level even modes at very low speeds, especially 31 dBA.

The noise meter next to the fan is quite close for sufficient resolution. The distance between the frame and the sensor is 15 centimeters. The sensor is positioned in such a way that there is no distortion or that the noise level measurements are not affected by airflow. Therefore, the noise meter is centered perpendicularly to the frame that defines the depth of the fan. Everything is always at the same angle and at the same distance. We use an inclinometer and markers to set the distances precisely and always the same.

The noise meter sensor is positioned relative to the position of the fan from the profile. It is centered to the depth of the frame both vertically and horizontally

We use a Reed R8080 noise meter to measure noise levels. This allows real-time averaging of samples, which is important for fine-tuning individual modes. We tune the fans until the specified noise level is reached to two decimal places, for example 31.50 dBA. The noise meter is the only instrument we calibrate inside our testlab. The other instruments have been calibrated by the relevant technical institutes. However, in the case of the noise meter, calibration is required before each test and we therefore have our own calibrator. This is already calibrated externally according to the standard.


  •  
  •  
  •  
Flattr this!

Comments (3) Add comment

  1. I have several general questions.

    I see how the exhaust airflow pattern is often commended on. By how much does airflow pattern affect cooling performance? For example, assuming two fans have identical airflow rate on a thin radiator. One fan has cylindrical exhaust while the other has conical exhaust. Alternatively, one has a larger fan hub and the other has a smaller one. Or just different blade design in general. Does cooling performance differ, and if so, by how much? How about for case fans? How about on the intake side, does airflow pattern differ there?

    The wind tunnel is made free of dust before testing. By how much does dust settled on the wind tunnel/fan blades etc affect airflow and noise? Would a thin layer significantly affect the results?

    1. Great questions. We have had the ones from the first paragraph jotted down for a while and we will deal with them later in specialized tests. We just have to work our way through the other topics. 🙂

      As for the effect of fan “dirtiness” on air flow, I wonder how this could be tested. Of course, we keep the wind tunnel as clean as possible (it is even stored in a vacuum chamber) and I don’t think it is a good idea to risk changing the friction or reducing the anemometer speed by some sediments from the tested fan. But we’ll figure something out. For this purpose we could use some of the prototype tunnels that preceded the final one we are using. They have some imperfections, but they should be suitable for this purpose.

  2. I’m in love with these deeply scientific reviews. No other reviewer, ever, anywhere, went to such lengths and details in their reviews, especially about pc fans. Because of them I’m getting now 2x Endrofy Fluctus 140 argb for a top exhaust on case with grill+ dust filter. Having read all other reviews, I do prefer them over Pure Wings 3, they seem to be more efficient and more quiet at similar settings.
    Thank you!

Leave a Reply

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