Gigabyte Aorus 140 ARGB: Short/quiet and lighted (blades)

How we measure power draw and motor power

Blade length is always the “topic”, but will be more common with 140mm fans than smaller variants. Some bet on long blades for preference of selected features, the other manufacturer on short ones. And such (short) and overall more robust blades are also used by the 140mm Aorus fan. From certain points of view this is quite a big advantage, but for which something had to be sacrificed. It’s a quid pro quo.

How we measure power draw…

Is it worth addressing the power draw of fans? If you have seven of them in your computer (three on the radiator of the cooler and four for system cooling in the case) and they are also backlit, the power draw starts at tens of watts. This makes it worth dealing with.
All fans are powered by Gophert CPS-3205 II laboratory power supply. It is passive and virtually noiseless, so it does not distort our noise level measurements. However, for the PWM fans, a Noctua NA-FC1 controller is connected through which the fans are regulated. We also have a shunt between the power supply and the Noctua controller. On it, we read the voltage drop, from which we then calculate the current. However, the voltage on the power supply is set so that 12 V goes to the Noctua NA-FC1. We then also set the exact 12 V to measure the maximum power of the 3-pin linear power supply fans.

In the power draw tests, we will be interested in the power draw in fixed noise level modes in addition to the maximum power consumption at 12 V or 100% PWM. That is, at those settings at which we also measure other parameters. Finally, in the graphs you will also find the power consumption corresponding to the start-up and minimum speeds. The difference between these two settings is that at start-up speed you need to overcome the frictional forces, so the power draw is always higher than at minimum speed. At these, the fan is already running and just reduces power to just before a level where it stops.

These start-up and minimum power draw data are a substitute for the start-up and minimum voltage information. You often encounter this when reading about fans, but with PWM fans there is no point in dealing with it. And although it is possible to power a PWM fan linearly, it will always perform better with PWM control – lower starting and minimum speeds. Therefore, it would be unfair to compare these parameters for all fans using linear control. That way, fans with PWM would be disadvantaged and the results distorted.

…and motor power

In addition to power draw, it is important to consider one more parameter that is related to the power supply – the power of the motor. This is usually listed on the back on a label and is often mistaken for power draw. However, the voltage and current indication here is usually not about power draw, but about the power of the motor. The latter must always be well above the operating power draw. The more, the longer the life expectancy of the fan.

Over time and with wear, fan friction increases (through loss, hardening of the lubricant, dust contamination or abrasion of the bearings, etc.). However, a more powerful motor will overcome the deteriorating condition of the fan to some extent, albeit at a higher power draw, but somehow it will cope. However, if the difference between the motor power and the operating power draw of the new fan is small, it may no longer be able to exert sufficient force to turn the rotor under increased friction due to adverse circumstances.

The label detail often does not talk about power draw, but about the maximum power of the motor

To test the power of the motor, we set the fan to full power (12 V/100 % PWM) and increase the mechanical resistance by braking the rotor in the middle. This is a higher load for the motor, with which the power draw naturally increases. But this is only up to a point, until the rotor stops. The power of the motor in our tests corresponds to the highest achieved power draw that we observed when the fan was being braked.

We use the Keysight U1231A high sample rate precision multimeters to analyse motor performance (as well as normal operating power draw). In addition, the individual samples are recorded in a spreadsheet, from which we then graph the maximum. The final value is the average of three measurements (three maximums).


  •  
  •  
  •  
Flattr this!

New Arctic P14 Max: Anti-vibration and high speed

Those interested in 140mm fans have reason to rejoice. After the P12 Max, Arctic is also releasing the P14 Max, which is one size larger. These stick to the already established features, such as a significant speed increase, but also probably a noise reduction even at low speeds. By all accounts, these should be universal fans that will be efficient across the entire speed spectrum, and on all types of obstacles. Read more “New Arctic P14 Max: Anti-vibration and high speed” »

  •  
  •  
  •  

Release of Noctua’s 140mm next-gen fans sticks to schedule

The title couldn’t fit a “despite complications with the frame”. Even though Noctua figured out that the fan blades could collide under adverse circumstances due to deformation of the frame in a more advanced stage of prototyping, it seems that the fix for this inconvenience didn’t take too long. We’re again at the point where it looks like Noctua’s 140mm LCP fans are right outside the doors of the retail market. Read more “Release of Noctua’s 140mm next-gen fans sticks to schedule” »

  •  
  •  
  •  

Thermaltake Toughfan 14 Pro: Number one for radiators

While the selection of high-end 140mm fans is quite narrow, there is one model that may be of interest to you. Especially if you want the “most effective” for your radiator, at low noise levels. Certain features of the high-end admittedly don’t appear on the Toughfan 14 Pro, but when it comes to cooling radiators, Thermaltake’s fan doesn’t have much competition in this discipline. It will defend its place in silent builds. Although… Read more “Thermaltake Toughfan 14 Pro: Number one for radiators” »

  •  
  •  
  •  

Comments (5) Add comment

  1. Nice to see the 140mm fan reviews rolling!

    Also, would it be possible to publish noise samples for your fan/cooler reviews? Preferably for all scenarios where you perform frequency analysis?

    1. And they will continue to come, tests of 140 mm fans. But we probably won’t exaggerate it, so that they stay in a relevant ratio (according to the interest in whichever format in general) to 120 mm models.

      Which noise samples do you mean? From spectrographs? Do you want that data for your own purposes, for your own analysis? If so, we can send you the noise levels at all frequencies in all tested scenarios almost immediately (e.g. by e-mail). We can certainly post them on the web somewhere, but it will take more time, as we will need to create a section for this somewhere. Making it make sense on the web will be more time-consuming and at the moment we are quite overloaded and it is hard to find space for extra activities. :/

      1. Always looking forward to your fan reviews regardless of size!

        For noise samples, I mean audio files so I can listen to them to make a subjective judgement. In reviews you often mention the differences in frequencies between obstacles/fan models etc. With audio files to listen to, it will be much more easy to understand the difference.

        Maybe you can consider compiling the audio files for each fan and upload to YouTube as a video, for example, which perhaps take relatively little effort, though I am not sure if the audio quality is satisfactory. Anyway, it is only a suggestion so please decide on whether you think it is worth the effort or not.

        1. I understand now, and I am also sorry that I am now likely to disappoint you.

          Sound recordings are something I boycott against and the goal is to get more and more people to learn to read spectrograms. Sure, it’s more complicated, but we plan to publish materials to facilitate reading these charts. We will select a few fans that have the biggest differences in the frequency characteristic of the sound, make a sound recording of them, and put a spectrogram against it. On it we then explain which component of the sound represents what in the spectral analysis.

          You know, I’m willing to sacrifice all my time for these things, but I have to see some meaning behind the results. And sound recordings don’t make sense to me because they can be extremely misleading. While the user thinks he’s hearing the fan, the sound system with the speaker on top is laughing at how they have been perfectly fooled. It is certainly not necessary to elaborate that the same recording sounds different on each speaker (it is determined by the frequency characteristics of the sound equipment of the end user), and this also with regard to the volume that the person sets. To judge something on the basis of the sound recording is therefore very inaccurate and misleading. I would probably suffer a lot when making them with my high demands on the relevance of things and at the same time it would reduce the relevance of spectrogram, which everyone sees the same way.

          I believe that after this message you will not give up on our tests and sooner or later you will surely find out (also with the help of various auxiliary materials, which we plan to publish on this topic), that you understand everything perfectly also with the help of spectrograms. 🙂

          1. Not disappointed at all, very satisfied with your answer. Looking forward to the articles explaining spectrograms, I’ll admit I never really understood how to interpret them.

Leave a Reply

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