- Oct 17, 2013
- 1,426
- 0
- 11,660
Would love to hear everyone's thoughts on the above subject.
I grow irked when people feel that liquid cooling is the most appropriate cooling solution for the average Joe overclocked PC build and sincerely encourage people to use air and use the ~£50 on alternative hardware where people will feel and see a difference.
There is the visual appeal of a liquid cooled PC - that's a given and each to their own, what i'm interested in discussing is the physical impact.
We all know the silicone lottery will ultimately dictate the chips capability for maximum over-clock.
The temperature of liquid cooled solution will be lower than most air coolers. - That's a given. The difference in temperature and the impact it has on an over-clocked CPU in terms of CPU life or diminishing stability are negligible in my humble opinion.
I have come to the conclusion that if you buy a CPU and are lucky enough to have an achievable over-clock @ ~5 Ghz then yes it makes sense to use a better cooling solution to dissipate the heat energy as at these speeds temps are likely to be uncomfortable on air.
So for the average over-clocker, for debates sake an i5 @ 4.5Ghz using a £30 cooler - temps will range from 60 - 70 degrees on a stress test - now throw in a water cooling solution and reduce the temps by 10 degrees for arguments sake, people will not gain any performance at all nor diminish the life expectancy of a CPU of any notable degree.
Am i missing something ? have we created a 'fear factor' with temperatures? aside from the physical appearance why would someone pay an extra ~£50 for liquid cooling for an average over-clocked PC?
Welcome your thoughts on this for a healthy discussion.
Best
Jonny
I grow irked when people feel that liquid cooling is the most appropriate cooling solution for the average Joe overclocked PC build and sincerely encourage people to use air and use the ~£50 on alternative hardware where people will feel and see a difference.
There is the visual appeal of a liquid cooled PC - that's a given and each to their own, what i'm interested in discussing is the physical impact.
We all know the silicone lottery will ultimately dictate the chips capability for maximum over-clock.
The temperature of liquid cooled solution will be lower than most air coolers. - That's a given. The difference in temperature and the impact it has on an over-clocked CPU in terms of CPU life or diminishing stability are negligible in my humble opinion.
I have come to the conclusion that if you buy a CPU and are lucky enough to have an achievable over-clock @ ~5 Ghz then yes it makes sense to use a better cooling solution to dissipate the heat energy as at these speeds temps are likely to be uncomfortable on air.
So for the average over-clocker, for debates sake an i5 @ 4.5Ghz using a £30 cooler - temps will range from 60 - 70 degrees on a stress test - now throw in a water cooling solution and reduce the temps by 10 degrees for arguments sake, people will not gain any performance at all nor diminish the life expectancy of a CPU of any notable degree.
Am i missing something ? have we created a 'fear factor' with temperatures? aside from the physical appearance why would someone pay an extra ~£50 for liquid cooling for an average over-clocked PC?
Welcome your thoughts on this for a healthy discussion.
Best
Jonny
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram