![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Thermalright Inferno FX-14 CPU Cooler Preview
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
Did you have a hidden menu with other coolers? Amazing, because I didn't see any other coolers in this preview.
Oh no, you weren't actually comparing results from this preview to another one where the Tuniq was tested, were you?
Yes i am comparing with other review (Tuniq with same CPU @ 3.35)
That's never ever a good idea.
I'll believe it when I see it
Considering the upgraded Ultra 120+ gave the Tuniq a sharp beat down, I have a strong feeling that the IFX-14 would hand the Tuniq its ass
Man, that thing is a monster! And I never thought I'd see a cooler for the backside of a socket... I just can't understand why you didn't have any other compatible HSF to compare against (I would hope that ANY aftermarket HSF would beat a stock one)
I'm just happy to see there is no "Real World Benchmarking." Wonder what that would be like...
"Gameplay advantages: Use of a quieter fan keeps you from getting distracted by a dull whirring during a loud gunfight. Cooler temps ensure you won't BSOD in the middle of a match."
Welcome to the site. I hope you'll be doing a lot more reviews...
I'm just happy to see there is no "Real World Benchmarking." Wonder what that would be like...
"Gameplay advantages: Use of a quieter fan keeps you from getting distracted by a dull whirring during a loud gunfight. Cooler temps ensure you won't BSOD in the middle of a match."
Welcome to the site. I hope you'll be doing a lot more reviews...
Scythe S-Flex fans use a Sony Fluid Dynamic Bearing (FDB), not ball bearings. There's a significant difference.
The reviews I've seen show the Ultra 120 on top by 1-3C under heavy load. I don't call that a sharp beatdown, although I'd call it a win.
Fixed
Footsteps in games, soft dialog in games...unless I'm wearing headphones, quiet fans must be in the machine.
http://www.anandtech.com/casecooling/showdoc.aspx?i=2981&p=3
Under load at 3.9ghz, the ultra 120 beats the tuniq tower by 6 degrees, which is a 12% improvement. In the cooling world, a 12% improvement is a beat down.
scrawnypaleguy
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2006
- Messages
- 489
Are we going to see this tested with a 140mm fan? There's this Yate Loon to try. I'd like to see what performance/noise gains can be made by using a 140 instead of a 120mm fan.
Note that at the time I posted my response, that review was not online yet. That review came out today, while my post was last evening.
That fan doesn't look very impressive to me.
62 CFM at 29 dBA
The Scythe SFF21F can do 70 CFM at 31 dBA
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article695-page5.html#sflex
I'm not even sure what you're saying, but the reason it's call Silent PC Review is because they are focused on silence. There is no reason for them to waste time testing loud fans. Just find out how many CFM your fan puts out and compare that to fans that are tested.
I don't want to hi-jack the thread, so I'll just say that I'm not interested in reviews of loud fans (well, except so I'll know how loud they are). I'm interested in the quietest fan for some given rpm/cfm - not some magic cut-off rpm/dbA level below what will keep my cpu cool. I'm not asking for reviews on the extreme ends of reason, I just differ on what 'reasonable' is
. I've more clearly explained my comments in the SPCR forums last night (in thier New Fan Testing Methods thread).yup. The one I posted happened to be an updated test using a retail version. I headed over to AT to find the original article (thanks Ender) and was surprised to see an update!
Yes, it was. And I rely on what I said earlier, having read that earlier review...the temperature differences weren't as dramatic in the first review. It was a win; just not a smackdown.
The newer unit with additional heatpipes and some modifications has increased performance over the old one, and is certainly more significant.
Although, it is disappointing that the new improved model doesn't come with Socket 939 mounting gear. And yes, I saw your reply to me about that review and sent one back over there.
You're missing something. In the article AT wrote March 7, the Ultra beat the Tuniq by 6 degrees at 3.9ghz. That is a beat down.Yes, it was. And I rely on what I said earlier, having read that earlier review...the temperature differences weren't as dramatic in the first review. It was a win; just not a smackdown.
The newer unit with additional heatpipes and some modifications has increased performance over the old one, and is certainly more significant.
Although, it is disappointing that the new improved model doesn't come with Socket 939 mounting gear. And yes, I saw your reply to me about that review and sent one back over there.
Yep, I replied in an older thread about the big difference with the 120 Extreme and the other coolers in temps under load. At idle, the difference is negligible, but it doesn't matter. I'm 'extremely' curious what the FX-14 will accomplish in comparison to the 120 Extreme.
that's the $1000 question.
Is the extra size, weight, complication, and cost of the IFX-14 worth it compared to the Ultra Extreme? If so, I think I'm in for 1. If not, I think my Ninja is going to be replaced by an Ultra.
In the original review it beat the tuniq by up to 6c. That's essentially the same as the updated article.
scrawnypaleguy
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2006
- Messages
- 489
True, but that's at full speed. I'm wondering what sort of advantages the 140mm has (if any) at lower noise/rpm levels.
Comparing manufaturer-rated CFM and dbA to some site review's measured ratings doesn't really tell you anything - apples and oranges - particularly when the site is in the process of revising it's CFM testing methods. Sound//noise is also subjective for each person, so the quality or character of the sound is often more important than just how much of it there is.
So site reviews are a good place to start (particularly if they have recordings you can listen to and happen to be testing on the heatsink in question), but the only true test would be how well each fan performs on the same heatsink (ideally in your own particular system's air-flow environment).
Mr.Pickles
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2006
- Messages
- 879
hahaha it looks like a H but is it [H] core for cooling? jk lol
Where are these countless negative reviews?
defiant007
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,497
They're mostly regarding the mounting base isn't firm enough to support the weight of the heatsink and there's great chance that the heatsink isn't flat. Quite a few issues reported from current owners on various forums...
I was going to get the ultra120x but after reading all those, my hope goes for the IFX-14...hopefully thermalright will work on their quality control...it's a fact ....lots of cases
I was going to get the ultra120x but after reading all those, my hope goes for the IFX-14...hopefully thermalright will work on their quality control...it's a fact ....lots of cases
I don't care whether or not it's "flat" if my cpu is idling at 29-30C in TAT (Core 0 and Core 1). It works. I can spin the heatsink on the cpu, but that's a function of the mounting mechanism and doesn't detract whatsoever from the cooling. It doesn't bother me. I took a long, hard look at the mechanism when I was installing it and judged it to be sound.
Here are some pics of the goods mounted on an eVGA 650i ultra.
I didn't find it particularly "big", it's exactly the size I would expect from a best-in-class tower heatsink. It is heavy, though, and even more so with the fan.
Here are some pics of the goods mounted on an eVGA 650i ultra.
I didn't find it particularly "big", it's exactly the size I would expect from a best-in-class tower heatsink. It is heavy, though, and even more so with the fan.
your loss, I guess.
As for me, unless the Inferno provides significantly lower temps, I'm buying an ultra120x this July
Thanks for the replies guys.
For Jet and Al, did you guys"lapped" your IHS by any chance?
If that's the case, it's somewhat a remedy to the common slightly concave HS base on the UltraX.
However, some ultraX owners would argue that it's the way TR designed the base to be slightly concave to get better contact with the IHS. A few people also reported that they get negative result from lapping the HS base and the real answer behind that could be various reasons from too much/little TIM or poor lapping job.
But the respons from you guys did a good job boosting my buying decision for the UltraX again
Thanks for hosting up the pix.
For Jet and Al, did you guys"lapped" your IHS by any chance?
If that's the case, it's somewhat a remedy to the common slightly concave HS base on the UltraX.
However, some ultraX owners would argue that it's the way TR designed the base to be slightly concave to get better contact with the IHS. A few people also reported that they get negative result from lapping the HS base and the real answer behind that could be various reasons from too much/little TIM or poor lapping job.
But the respons from you guys did a good job boosting my buying decision for the UltraX again
Thanks for hosting up the pix.
Negative. Spread AS5 evenly over the entire surface using a straight-edge razor. Wasn't concerned about flatness issues because I had read about TR's outstanding rep and the recent complaints had not yet surfaced at the time.
Why would a slightly concave surface be of major concern? Didn't the reviews test the same product that's available on store shelves? If so, the excellent results obtained by the reviews should be attainable by consumers irrespective of apparent design 'flaws' providing one follows the installation instructions properly, and use the product along recommended operational environments/guidelines. I wouldn't fret about any perceived minor irregularities on the contact surface.
According to the AS5 instructions, a perfectly even HS base is not of paramount importance like we always thought it was. Bottom line is, all you relaly want is TIM between the HS and the heatspreader above the CPU core(s). So, if the concave HS base means 100% of the contact is directly above the CPU cores, I have no problem with that.
I don't like the AS5 instructions and neither do several well known tech sites. They tell you to put a small amount in the center only and the pressure of the HS will somehow squeeze it out over the entire surface. I've tried it, and it doesn't work that way.
If your TIM is not spread evenly over the IHS, then technically, the latter is not flat, since the part with gob on it will be at a higher elevation than the part without. It's a small consideration, but a valid one. I prefer spreading a thin layer evenly over the entire surface of the heat spreader.
If your TIM is not spread evenly over the IHS, then technically, the latter is not flat, since the part with gob on it will be at a higher elevation than the part without. It's a small consideration, but a valid one. I prefer spreading a thin layer evenly over the entire surface of the heat spreader.
Who cares if AS5 covers the entire surface? All you really need is AS5 over the points where the CPU core makes contact with the heatspreader