What is everyone opinions about this cooler? The recent Anandtech didn't get so much high marks, while I'm hearing owners say its even better than the Ultra-120 Extreme. Also hearing results it sucks compared to Tuniq. So what is everyone opinion on this thing?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Enzotech Ultra-X
- Thread starter YoNeX
- Start date
I have one, see my signature.
My opinion is that it is the best air cooler I ever used, but I think in order for it to perform as well as it can it needs to be in the right situation.
ie, in a case with good airflow and with a decent inlet source of air for the HSF to draw on, like my Thermaltake Matrix VX, I have a 120mm in and 1 120 mm out plus a grill on the side of the case to allow for a decent air intake.
My opinion is that it is the best air cooler I ever used, but I think in order for it to perform as well as it can it needs to be in the right situation.
ie, in a case with good airflow and with a decent inlet source of air for the HSF to draw on, like my Thermaltake Matrix VX, I have a 120mm in and 1 120 mm out plus a grill on the side of the case to allow for a decent air intake.
D
Deleted member 162645
Guest
I can 2nd the recommendation.
I'm using it in an Antec 900 and heat simply isn't an issue, nor the limiting factor on my overclocking. Frankly, all recently released coolers imho cool better than the recent procs and mb's can overclock. And to answer your question directly, no, it doesn't suck compared to the tuniq, not sure where you got that idea. And for what it's worth, there's probably been more than enough discussion around here on temps lately to indicate that most if not all of these reviews are showing bogus idle data anyway. Focus on overclocked loaded temps to see a useful comparison. Even then, like I said, all the coolers released in the last year will cool your CPU sufficiently to overclock up to the limits of your CPU/MB, so don't sweat it too much.
Take mine for example, using an evga 680i MB, and a e6600 I can barely get past 3.5 and boot, and running 24/7 stable 3.4because I want this new rig for gaming, not running orthos (the performance difference between 3.5 and 3.4 was simply not percetible).
Know what my temps are loaded runing orthos all night? 57C Since I can't run it stable beyond 3.4, and i'm like 30 degrees away from throttling, it's effectively irrelivent whether I could run cooler or not. I can't O/C the thing further anyway.
So there's a fair amount of "how many angels can dance on a pin head" that takes place in this forum regarding coolers. Don't let it distract you.
Instead of wasting time looking at more questionable review graphs showing temps that probably aren't even real, I'll humbly suggest the following additional critieria the ultra-x handles quite nicely:
1. how well does it fit the case (relative to the case, MB, RAM, Vid card)? for an evga 680i and antec 900, plenty of room, the design of the ultra-x if you've looked at it, makes it so it fits just about anything in terms of space it takes up, the same cannot be said about the tuniq
2. is the design for attaching it intelligently engineered such that it applies itself well to the cpu? this is a huge factor that seemingly gets ignored all too often by both the designers and purchasers of these products, yet it matters more than just about anything else because 80 heat pipes connected to a slab of copper the size of Texas accomplishes eactly nothing in the way of cooling if not connected to the CPU properly - btw, the connection soln on the ultra-x is VERY well made
3. how easy is it to install (properply)? in the case of the ultra-x you've got to take the MB off, which makes it harder than those solns where you don't have to, but because you put a bracket on the back of the MB, you also have no worries about tightening it down hard enough to make a good connection to the CPU and you don't worry as much about cracking the MB
4. And while this isn't a factor that affected my decision, someone else will bring it up, so I'll simply do it for them, price should also be considered. At 60 bucks, the ultra-x is in line with what I'd expect pricing to be for a good cooler, but for me, as a percentage of the over all cost of the system I built, not a significant factor.
perhaps a bit long winded, but there it is...
I'm using it in an Antec 900 and heat simply isn't an issue, nor the limiting factor on my overclocking. Frankly, all recently released coolers imho cool better than the recent procs and mb's can overclock. And to answer your question directly, no, it doesn't suck compared to the tuniq, not sure where you got that idea. And for what it's worth, there's probably been more than enough discussion around here on temps lately to indicate that most if not all of these reviews are showing bogus idle data anyway. Focus on overclocked loaded temps to see a useful comparison. Even then, like I said, all the coolers released in the last year will cool your CPU sufficiently to overclock up to the limits of your CPU/MB, so don't sweat it too much.
Take mine for example, using an evga 680i MB, and a e6600 I can barely get past 3.5 and boot, and running 24/7 stable 3.4because I want this new rig for gaming, not running orthos (the performance difference between 3.5 and 3.4 was simply not percetible).
Know what my temps are loaded runing orthos all night? 57C Since I can't run it stable beyond 3.4, and i'm like 30 degrees away from throttling, it's effectively irrelivent whether I could run cooler or not. I can't O/C the thing further anyway.
So there's a fair amount of "how many angels can dance on a pin head" that takes place in this forum regarding coolers. Don't let it distract you.
Instead of wasting time looking at more questionable review graphs showing temps that probably aren't even real, I'll humbly suggest the following additional critieria the ultra-x handles quite nicely:
1. how well does it fit the case (relative to the case, MB, RAM, Vid card)? for an evga 680i and antec 900, plenty of room, the design of the ultra-x if you've looked at it, makes it so it fits just about anything in terms of space it takes up, the same cannot be said about the tuniq
2. is the design for attaching it intelligently engineered such that it applies itself well to the cpu? this is a huge factor that seemingly gets ignored all too often by both the designers and purchasers of these products, yet it matters more than just about anything else because 80 heat pipes connected to a slab of copper the size of Texas accomplishes eactly nothing in the way of cooling if not connected to the CPU properly - btw, the connection soln on the ultra-x is VERY well made
3. how easy is it to install (properply)? in the case of the ultra-x you've got to take the MB off, which makes it harder than those solns where you don't have to, but because you put a bracket on the back of the MB, you also have no worries about tightening it down hard enough to make a good connection to the CPU and you don't worry as much about cracking the MB
4. And while this isn't a factor that affected my decision, someone else will bring it up, so I'll simply do it for them, price should also be considered. At 60 bucks, the ultra-x is in line with what I'd expect pricing to be for a good cooler, but for me, as a percentage of the over all cost of the system I built, not a significant factor.
perhaps a bit long winded, but there it is...
I can 2nd the recommendation.
I'm using it in an Antec 900 and heat simply isn't an issue, nor the limiting factor on my overclocking. Frankly, all recently released coolers imho cool better than the recent procs and mb's can overclock. And to answer your question directly, no, it doesn't suck compared to the tuniq, not sure where you got that idea. And for what it's worth, there's probably been more than enough discussion around here on temps lately to indicate that most if not all of these reviews are showing bogus idle data anyway. Focus on overclocked loaded temps to see a useful comparison. Even then, like I said, all the coolers released in the last year will cool your CPU sufficiently to overclock up to the limits of your CPU/MB, so don't sweat it too much.
Take mine for example, using an evga 680i MB, and a e6600 I can barely get past 3.5 and boot, and running 24/7 stable 3.4because I want this new rig for gaming, not running orthos (the performance difference between 3.5 and 3.4 was simply not percetible).
Know what my temps are loaded runing orthos all night? 57C Since I can't run it stable beyond 3.4, and i'm like 30 degrees away from throttling, it's effectively irrelivent whether I could run cooler or not. I can't O/C the thing further anyway.
So there's a fair amount of "how many angels can dance on a pin head" that takes place in this forum regarding coolers. Don't let it distract you.
Instead of wasting time looking at more questionable review graphs showing temps that probably aren't even real, I'll humbly suggest the following additional critieria the ultra-x handles quite nicely:
1. how well does it fit the case (relative to the case, MB, RAM, Vid card)? for an evga 680i and antec 900, plenty of room, the design of the ultra-x if you've looked at it, makes it so it fits just about anything in terms of space it takes up, the same cannot be said about the tuniq
2. is the design for attaching it intelligently engineered such that it applies itself well to the cpu? this is a huge factor that seemingly gets ignored all too often by both the designers and purchasers of these products, yet it matters more than just about anything else because 80 heat pipes connected to a slab of copper the size of Texas accomplishes eactly nothing in the way of cooling if not connected to the CPU properly - btw, the connection soln on the ultra-x is VERY well made
3. how easy is it to install (properply)? in the case of the ultra-x you've got to take the MB off, which makes it harder than those solns where you don't have to, but because you put a bracket on the back of the MB, you also have no worries about tightening it down hard enough to make a good connection to the CPU and you don't worry as much about cracking the MB
4. And while this isn't a factor that affected my decision, someone else will bring it up, so I'll simply do it for them, price should also be considered. At 60 bucks, the ultra-x is in line with what I'd expect pricing to be for a good cooler, but for me, as a percentage of the over all cost of the system I built, not a significant factor.
perhaps a bit long winded, but there it is...
For $65 it better perform at least on par with the other $65 coolers, otherwise why would I spend the money on a $65 cooler when I get a $30 cooler that offers the same performance.
Cooling a Dual Core is a totally different ball game compared to the quad core.
I'm looking at using this cooler on a quad core at the end of July. It is really hard to tell whether or not this cooler has what it takes to effectively cool an overclocked quad. Nothing crazy... maybe just 3.2 ghz max.
I was looking at all of the tower coolers, until I actually measured my case and found that there is NO way that they would fit. (I have a coolermaster btw) So I started looking for alternatives and found this one. If I were going dual core, there would be no question in my mind that I would run this heatsink.
I really don't want to go water cooling because of the obvious high costs, but I'm beginning to think that quad core and overclocking is only for the realm of water cooled and phase changed pc's.
If anybody has any info on this cooler with a quad core, please let me know.
I'm looking at using this cooler on a quad core at the end of July. It is really hard to tell whether or not this cooler has what it takes to effectively cool an overclocked quad. Nothing crazy... maybe just 3.2 ghz max.
I was looking at all of the tower coolers, until I actually measured my case and found that there is NO way that they would fit. (I have a coolermaster btw) So I started looking for alternatives and found this one. If I were going dual core, there would be no question in my mind that I would run this heatsink.
I really don't want to go water cooling because of the obvious high costs, but I'm beginning to think that quad core and overclocking is only for the realm of water cooled and phase changed pc's.
If anybody has any info on this cooler with a quad core, please let me know.
D
Deleted member 162645
Guest
read the part where i tell you why, or if 30 bucks in your world matters, buy the 30 dollar one