CPU Cooler Charts 2008, Part 3 - Are Box Coolers any Good?

[TechnologyCoordinator]

I don't agree with reviewing AMD coolers. You couldn't compare the results to the Intel coolers because they use different processors, it wouldn't be apples to apples.

However, I will agree with others that article quality isn't as good as it was. They seem to have comitted to quantity and not quality with the recent addition of Charile "FUD" Demerjian.

 

[sailer]

I didn't mean to compare AMD coolers with Intel coolers, except maybe at the box stock level so it could be seen which company provided the best coolers with its chips. But that's why for the continuity of the articles, only Intel coolers can really be compared so that the variable remains the same, that is, the cooler only.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

I didn't mean to compare AMD coolers with Intel coolers, except maybe at the box stock level so it could be seen which company provided the best coolers with its chips. But that's why for the continuity of the articles, only Intel coolers can really be compared so that the variable remains the same, that is, the cooler only.

I hear ya. You would have to provide comparison of AMD boxed coolers VS. AMD aftermarket coolers and Intel Boxed VS. Intel aftermarket and compare the differences between them.

I just wanted to make sure, because a cooler may have to dissapate more heat on chips with no headroom (cough, AMD, cough) which might make them look not as good as the Intel coolers, when in fact, that might not be the case(no pun intended, or in Tom's lab, there is no case).

 

[sailer]

This did just give me an idea. Don't know if it will work or not, but my Zalman 9500 came with clips for both AMD and Intel chips. Since the stock cooler on my Intel machine is getting very noisy, I wonder if I could use the Zalman Intel clip to attach a stock AMD cooler to it, then compare before and after temps of stock Intel and AMD coolers on the same Intel chip. Going to try that now and see if it works. Nothing to loose except a bit of time trying it.

 

[razor512]

for amd all they need to do is find a equivalent amd processor to intel then rate the stock coolers for each

or do the entire test using only amds so theres one for intel and one for amd

many of amd coolers are comparable with with many after market coolers

for example look at thermal takes cooler

now look at amd's stock cooler

(this is the one in my case)

(ps the amd stock one is a little larger than the thermal take one)
and i can get a really good overclock while using stock, try that with a stock intel cooler

intel coolers are cheaper to make since 1 mold can pretty much do 90% of the job of making the cooler

intel sees making coolers as a burden that they just have to offer, but care nothing for but their processors can handle more heat than AMD ones 80-90C would kill a amd cpu quickly and companies take a real hit from warranties since they have to replace the dead cpu

 

[sailer]

Just through with my idea of trying an AMD cooler on an Intel chip. Looks like it would have worked easy enough, but the Intel I have has an upgraded cooler already, so I couldn't compare stock AMD with stock Intel.

 

[snarfies1]

Next series on Tom's Hardware: AMD Athlon or Intel PIII, which is better for YOU?

 

[calyth]

The greatest omission that I see is the Arctic freezer Pro 7, they list Arctic, they show a picture of it in the article, but no info on it at all.

Interesting, why is this?

I have found the Arctic series of coolers to work well in many different computers and socket combinations. At an excellent cost to performance ratio.

My Arctic Freezer Pro 7 works very well at cooling my Q6600 Socket 775 CPU, yet not a word of it in any of the charts.

Seconded - although I do run 2 Arctic Freezer 64s for my AMD systems.

Also, the stock AMD sinks for Phenom seems interesting, with the heatpipe and all. However, I'm afraid the dinky fan won't do well. However, they did use thermal paste, instead of thermal pad that fuses onto the CPU...

 

[rockbyter]

Sorry, but did nobody read the last line of the article? Or any of it?

"We will be testing these versions in an upcoming installment of the Cooler Charts."

they are not done, there will be more. I dont much see why we have to discuss the same issue over (this being the third time) about how they are testing. They are being consistent, nothing has changed. If every single heatsink continues to be tested in this manner we may not know the reallistic temps of what it would be like in a case, or with additional fans, but we will see how they compare directly to each other -- which is really what matters.

 

[vangvace]

Sorry, but did nobody read the last line of the article? Or any of it?

"We will be testing these versions in an upcoming installment of the Cooler Charts."

they are not done, there will be more. I dont much see why we have to discuss the same issue over (this being the third time) about how they are testing. They are being consistent, nothing has changed. If every single heatsink continues to be tested in this manner we may not know the reallistic temps of what it would be like in a case, or with additional fans, but we will see how they compare directly to each other -- which is really what matters.

Until this article there was no baseline. Hell there still isn't really a baseline because things like room temp are missing. At least now we can compare aftermarket to stock. For being a technical article without technical specs they half-a$$ed it, again. (see poor 8 gig of ram vista by same author)

Installation points = joke

While I commend them for trying, articles like this give tom's a bad name. And it's not just recent either. This half-finished article junk has been happening over the past year+.

 

[KyleSTL]

My question is why did this article take so long to come state-side? Thanks to a glitch at work I'm often routed to tomshardware.co.uk . I read this series of articles weeks ago (Part I: Jan 29, Part II: Feb 6, and Part III: Feb 13). What gives THG?

 

[yonef]

Naaah, they realy NOT gonna review some real good coolers
all 3 parts reviewing only rubish coolers (((((
what'w wrong with you ? (tom's hardware)

 

[chuckm]

I'd say there will be more. Probably about half (I didn't count 'em) of the list hasn't even been reviewed yet

 

[Onus]

To address the absurdity of the test rig, I'd like to see a comparison of any cooler done in that rig vs. properly mounted in a closed case with decent airflow, and the fan pointed in the proper direction.

 

[wgdz]

I am also disappointed, all those popular heat sinks are not mentioned! Whats going on... THG is better than this.

 

[ocguy31]

for amd all they need to do is find a equivalent amd processor to intel

Easier said then done. :lol:

 

[sailer]

Easier said then done. :lol:

Funny thing about that, Intel seems to make a better processor while AMD makes a better cooler.

 

[Evilonigiri]

They said the box coolers aren't for OCing. Funny, they did an article before that you can OC a E2160 to 3GHz with the stock cooler.

 

[the_tones2301]

Hey guys,
New to these forums, just looked at the review and found it excellent, i don't see what everyone is complaining about. Its not like they reviewed six identical coolers, the intel coolers over 775 were rather different, something i didn't no much about, all i knew was that the e2's had an aluminium base, and the e8's have a tiny heatsink lol, and what would be the point of putting each cpu onto each different chip that it was designed for? You would end up with no comparison, 'Each cooler was able to cool their specced chip to 70 degrees' yay, how informative, instead they took a new faster but still hot chip to test each one on individually giving us a direct comparison of each cooler, i mean i've now realised that in the new e2200 computer i'm building i should definitely use my E6300 cooler over the stock one that comes with it for the better ocing.
In terms of other coolers, as many have pointed out there will probably be another part.
I'm not saying the review was perfect, in the end every1 has opionions, for instance i've owned and installed a IFX-14 and a Zalman8700NT and personally found the zalman to be 100 times better to install then the ifx-14, the ifx 14 is definitely an insane performer but i disagree with the scores toms hardware has given, but obviously they found a good way of installing the ifx and couldn't figure out the 8700nt.
In terms of the Tuniq Tower and the Ultra 120-Extreme they may leave them given their performance is pretty on par with the IFX-14, and giveen the IFX-14 could be seen as the successor of the Ultra 120, why don't you stop bagging tom's and realise that they can't please everyone, i found a couple of coolers that i've had and so i found it great, seeing the IFX-14 beating 2 watercoolers after purchasing it is a very good thing
In short they've done a more comprehensive review so far then most i've seen out there, and by the looks of it theres more to come.
Oh and i agree that they've probably put the intel things in after people requested but i mean if it was your article that you worked on wouldn't you want it too seem professional and planned rather then thrown together becuase people wanted it to?
And i do agree that some people are right in saying the article isn't as detailed as others but i don't think i've seen many articles where they have done such a comprehensive review, all the coolers on the identical system all compared to each other, so this one isn't about huge detail on one cooler its brief on many, so you look, you see something you like and go find more detail.
Anyways just thought i'd put my two cents in, i'm not saying anyone who complains is an idiot, as first impressions can be deceiving, but just give some thoughts and leave the attitude behind.

 

[the_tones2301]

Sorry, but did nobody read the last line of the article? Or any of it?

"We will be testing these versions in an upcoming installment of the Cooler Charts."

they are not done, there will be more. I dont much see why we have to discuss the same issue over (this being the third time) about how they are testing. They are being consistent, nothing has changed. If every single heatsink continues to be tested in this manner we may not know the reallistic temps of what it would be like in a case, or with additional fans, but we will see how they compare directly to each other -- which is really what matters.

I completely agree, if you want a realistic temp get the one you like and find out more on it from other who did an in depth review on that one particular cooler

 

[gLip]

All I know is that the cooler that came with my E8400 is the biggest waste of aluminium that has ever been made.

 

[ocguy31]

All I know is that the cooler that came with my E8400 is the biggest waste of aluminium that has ever been made.

Why, did your chip fry at stock speeds, with it properly installed? Probably not. It is only Intel's (or AMD's) job to supply you with a fan that works properly. Are you expecting them to give you a fan that allows you to OC easily?

 

[bob8701]

total 100% agreewith ocguy31

 

[jimmysmitty]

The stock coolers are fine for the CPU at stock speeds. OC'ing comes with a premium and thats called an aftermarket HSF. What THG did in this article is obvious.

I would never OC my Q6600 with the stock cooler. Hell I got my Zalman CPNS9700 with my CPU and still have the stock cooler sitting in the box. Never know when you may need one.

But I am sure they will review the better performers. But if they give the CPNS9700/9500 a bad grade I would be aggitated a bit as it is a great cooler even for quad cores. The Ultra120 is better but I like the looks of the CPNS9700 better and it keeps my Q6600 @ 3GHz nice and cool and all happy in its case.

 

[edwuave]

the strange thing is, why the thermal pad that comes with the stock heatsink perform better than thermal paste? Shouldnt they work more on this to find out the reason?