CPU Cooling Test Configuration

All tests use our new cooling test bed. This consists of a Rosewill R604-P-SL case sold by Newegg without a power supply. The Rosewill is typical of a moderately priced mid-tower case our readers might own. We chose this case because it is a Newegg top seller and includes a variable front intake louver and a quiet 120mm exhaust fan at the rear of the case. The case is also screw-less with components held in place by plastic holders instead of metal-to-metal connections. This appears to reduce case vibration and noise.

The power supply is a Corsair HX620W, which has proven in benchmarks to be an exceptionally quiet unit. The HX620W features a variable speed fan and a down-facing intake fan mounted just above the CPU space in the case. To eliminate the video card as a source of noise we have moved to a fanless card. Since we will move to Vista and DX10 in the very near future, the test bed runs an MSI NX8600 GTS that supports DX10 and cools with heatsinks and heatpipes. The reduced noise power supply and fanless video card help to dramatically lower system noise in the test bed.

The motherboard is an ASUS P5K Deluxe. This P35 chipset motherboard has exhibited outstanding overclocking capabilities in our testing. It can also mount the newest 1333 FSB Intel Core processors and can handle our existing high-speed DDR2 memory. The P5K3 uses heatsinks and heatpipes to cool board components so all motherboard cooling is passive. There are no active cooling fans to generate unwanted noise during testing.

The 120mm exhaust fan mounted to the rear of the case is below the system noise floor. We run that fan during performance and overclocking tests. However, system noise can be cumulative, so we turn off the exhaust fan during noise testing.

Cooling Performance Test Configuration
Processor Intel Core 2 Duo X6800
(Dual-core 2.93GHz, 4MB Unified Cache)
RAM 2x1GB Corsair Dominator PC2-8888 (DDR2-1111)
Hard Drive(s) Hitachi 250GB SATA2 enabled (16MB Buffer)
Video Card MSI NX8600GTS (fanless) - All Standard Tests
Intel TAT Version 2.05.2006.0427
CoreTemp Version 0.95
Video Drivers NVIDIA 163.71
CPU Cooling Noctua NH-U12P
Arctic Cooling Alpine 7 (with PWM)
Arctic Cooling Freezer Pro 7
ZEROtherm Nirvana NV 120
Cooler Master Hyper 212
OCZ Vendetta
Scythe Kama Cross
Swiftech H2O-120 Compact
Corsair Nautilus 500
Thermalright Ultima-90
ZEROtherm BTF90
Xigmatek AIO (AIO-S800P)
Evercool Silver Knight
Enzotech Ultra-X
3RSystem iCEAGE
Thermaltake Big Typhoon VX
Thermaltake MaxOrb
Scythe Andy Samurai Master
Cooler Master Gemini II
Noctua NH-U12F
Asus Silent Square Pro
Scythe Ninja Plus Rev. B
OCZ Vindicator
Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme
Thermalright Ultra 120
Scythe Infinity
Zalman CNS9700
Zalman CNS9500
Cooler Master Hyper 6+
Vigor Monsoon II Lite
Thermalright MST-9775
Scythe Katana
Tuniq Tower 120
Intel Stock HSF for X6800
Power Supply Corsair HX620W
Motherboards Asus P5K Deluxe (Intel P35)
Operating System Windows XP Professional SP2
BIOS Asus AMI 0501 (06/26/2007)

We run all cooling tests with the components mounted in our standard mid-tower case. The idle and stress temperature tests are run with the case closed and standing as it would in most home setups. Room temperature is measured before beginning the cooler tests and is maintained at 21C +/-1C (68F to 72F) for all testing.

For consistency of test results, we use a standard premium silver-colored thermal compound. In our experience, the thermal compound used makes little to no difference in cooling test results. This is particularly true now that processors ship with a large manufacturer-installed heatspreader. Our current test procedure uses this standard high-quality silver-colored thermal paste for all cooler reviews.

For comparison, we first tested the stock Intel air-cooler at standard X6800 speeds and measured the CPU temperature at idle. We then stress the CPU by running continuous loops of the Far Cry River demo. We repeat the same tests at the highest stable overclock we could achieve with the stock cooler. "Stable" in this case is the ability to handle our Far Cry looping for at least 30 minutes without crashing.

The same benchmarks are then run on the review cooler(s) at stock speed, 3.33GHz (10x333) at stock voltage, highest stock cooler OC speed (3.73GHz), and the highest OC that could be achieved in the same setup with the cooler being tested. This allows measurement of the cooling efficiency of the test unit compared to stock and the improvement in overclocking capabilities, if any, from using the test cooler.

We compare results with a representative sample of air- and water-cooling results measured with CoreTemp. TAT provides a similar core measurement, but test results with CoreTemp are more consistent over a wide range of test conditions than the results reported by TAT. We retested previously reviewed coolers with CoreTemp under idle and load conditions. In benchmarks where the new test bed makes no apparent difference, like maximum overclock, we include results for all coolers tested since beginning cooling reviews in early 2007.

Noise Levels

In addition to cooling efficiency and overclocking abilities, users shopping for CPU cooling solutions may also be interested in the noise levels of the cooling devices they are considering. We measure noise levels with the case on its side using a C.E.M. DT-8850 Sound Level meter. This meter allows accurate sound level measurements from 35b dB to 130 dB with a resolution of 0.1 dB and an accuracy of 1.5 dB. This is sufficient for our needs in these tests, as measurement starts at the level of a relatively quiet room. Our own test room, with all computers and fans turned off, has a room noise level that has been reduced slightly to 35.0 dB(A) compared to the previous 36.4 dB(A). With the new test bed, the system noise at idle is 36.5 dB(A) at 24" and 37.8 dB(A) at 6". This is better than our previous system noise floor of 38.3 dB(A) at 24". The noise reduction at the 6" distance is dramatically lower than the previous test bed floor of 47 dB(A).

Installation Cooling at Stock Speed
Comments Locked

51 Comments

View All Comments

  • Wesley Fink - Friday, March 21, 2008 - link

    We covered the Thermalright question head on in the Final Words. The Thermalright is not really set up for push-pull fans so you have to jury rig to get two fans on the cooler. We stated clearly the Thermalright would likely outperform the Noctua with the same fan, but if you wanted to conveniently mount two fans the Noctua was a better choice. Several readers have detailed instructions in the comments on how to mount two fans on the U120 eXtreme with Zip Ties.

    BTW we have tested every heatsink that was setup for multi-fans with both single and push-pull configurations, so your comment is not fair or accurate. The Thermalright is not really set up for two fans and you end up ripping open the fan wire holders if you try to force two fans. That is why people resort to jury-rigging and Zip ties. We hope Thermalright will address this in the near future as the Thermalright could othwerwise easily mount push-pull fans.
  • poohbear - Saturday, March 22, 2008 - link

    oh ok, i dont recall reading that part of the article, my bad. yea if Thermalright isnt setup for a push/pull config from the factory, it wouldnt make sense to start making customizations just to accomodate it. cheers though.
  • Mr Perfect - Friday, March 21, 2008 - link

    At first I was little taken back by the airflow numbers of the fan, but then I noticed they where reporting in Cubic Meters Per Hour instead of the normal Cubic Feet Per Minute. Do you have CFM numbers so this fan can be compared to other fans on the market?

    Air Flow 92.3/78.5/63.4 cubic meters/hour (1300 stock/1100 LNA/900 ULNA)
  • poohbear - Friday, March 21, 2008 - link

    its 54cfm @ 1300rpm.

    1 foot = 0.3048 metres; therefore
    1 cubic foot = 0.3048*0.3048*0.3048 cubic metres = 0.028316846 cubic metres
    and
    1 hour = 60 minutes

    therefore 1 m3/h = 0.5885778 cfm

    hence 92 m3/h * 0.5885778 = 54.1491576 cfm

    cheers.
  • JarredWalton - Friday, March 21, 2008 - link

    Some simple math should suffice....

    1 cubic meter = 35.31467 cubic feet
    60 minutes per hour

    That gives 54.326/46.203/37.316 CFM, assuming they didn't just put in the wrong abbreviation.
  • Mr Perfect - Saturday, March 22, 2008 - link

    Those numbers make much more sense. Other ~1000RPM 120mm fans also push in the 36ish CFM range.

    I was hoping Anandtech would put the CFM numbers in the article, it could be misleading if readers don't notice that the rates are not listed in the standard measurement. Anyone who buys a whole bunch of these $21 fans because they think they're putting out 63.4CFM at 900RPM and 12dba is going to be upset.
  • Baked - Friday, March 21, 2008 - link

    If you're not overclocking, Freezer 7 Pro should be the no brainer HSF of choice.
  • Baked - Friday, March 21, 2008 - link

    Why bother wasting all that money on trivial performance gain. Just get the Freezer 7 Pro and be done with. Oh wait, I forgot about the epeen factor.
  • poohbear - Saturday, March 22, 2008 - link

    freezer pro 7 won't give u a 50%-70% overclock. a 70% overclock is hardly trivial, this is'nt video card overclocking wherein people usually get a 10%-15%.
  • Basilisk - Saturday, March 22, 2008 - link

    "freezer pro 7 won't give u a 50%-70% overclock"

    What am I missing here? As I read the charts in this article, the best listed cooler gave 34% OC on this CPU, while the AFP7 gave 31%. Maybe I'm missing the obvious; or are you reporting un-cited data?

    My instinct was the same as others: the AFP7's the better performance/$$ unit, although this new kid has a slight upper end edge.

    Not that I don't appreciate the fan improvements. My instinct is there are several further improvements to reduce flow turbulence [noise/efficiency], but we don't see much change in fans.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now