Hydrocool200

[tabytha77]

It would have been nice if THG had tried replacing the 120mm fan with a quieter one. The noise is going to be the biggest hurdle for the Corsair.

I also would have liked to seen THG use the Al/Cu version of the Zalman cooler, which has shown better results than the all copper in other reviews.

 

[Stain]

That just doesn't make sense can you post a link(s) to the AlCu version beating the pure copper version.

 

[tabytha77]

<A HREF="http://www.lostcircuits.com/advice/zalman_cnps7000alcu/4.shtml" target="_new">http://www.lostcircuits.com/advice/zalman_cnps7000alcu/4.shtml</A>

 

[Stain]

Very interesting, if that is true why would they continue make the all copper version? If the AlCu cools better, is lighter, and costs less there is no advantage in the pure copper version.

With the original CNPS7000-Cu we had the complaint that the spring was a bit to loose and we needed to increase the tension to warrant good contact with the CPU surface. With the CNPS7000 AlCu, we had no such issues at all in the same setup. All that was needed was to tighten the screws and the cooler was sitting on the processor like it was held by a vise. Most likely, our original problems were an isolated event.

This tainted the review for me. Do you know of any other reviews of the AlCu? or other hybrid heatsinks beating identical their pure copper versions?

 

[Ryan_Plus_One]

The laws of physics say that all copper is better, but there is a guy who frequents this forum (Can't remember his name) who is going to have a field day after he reads this. Damn AlCu fan boys. 😡

<font color=red>Proudly supporting the AMD/Nvidia minority</font color=red>

 

[tabytha77]

I have no idea why AlCu would be better. But even if performance is the same, the lower weight would be good.

 

[khha4113]

You mean <b><A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=135675#135675" target="_new"><font color=blue>Teq</A></b></font color=blue>?

Good or Bad have no meaning at all, depends on what your point of view is.

 

[Stain]

Just talked to a Zalman rep, he said the all copper version cools better. He wouldn't comment on this review.

I'm going to have to see more proof than this suspicious review of before I believe any AlCu heatsink can beat an identical all copper version.

 

[LtBlue14]

the one he caught a lot of heat from was me
<A HREF="http://forum.oc-forums.com/vb/showthread.php?s=d9ed6b84d8d21c66b99523238877e149&threadid=187162" target="_new">go here</A> for an in depth discussion - and a final conclusion with lots of links and data - on the subject

<A HREF="http://www.planettribes.com/allyourbase/ayb2.swf" target="_new">411 UR 84$3 R 8310N6 2 U$</A>

 

[Crashman]

Their review stated what I have been saying for a long time, Aluminum RADIATES better than Copper, while Copper CONDUCTS better than aluminum! I think it may be the higher DENSITY of copper that causes this, lacking any more than a basic understanding of metalurgy.

The thing that qualifies me to make such an assesment is observation. Put your hand over a hot aluminum pan. Then take a stailess steel pan with a copper clad bottom, and put your hand over it. Don't be surprised if you feel the heat radiating from the Aluminum pan from over an inch away, and nearly have to touch the Copper plate to feel it's heat.



<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>

 

[phsstpok]

Try putting your hand over an iron pan. It gets really hot.

Iron wouldn't make a good heatsink though.

Sorry, I don't have the answer. I just think the frying pan analogy doesn't quite work.

<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b>

 

[Crashman]

Actually it's your understanding that doesn't quite work, the frying pan analogy is perfect!

Cast iron makes a good radiator, it was used for many years in heating buildings, and many small engines were at one time cast iron, with the cooling fins built in. But aluminum is both a better conductor and better radiator than iron.

Put your hand over the cast iron pan, and the aluminum pan. You'll notice the aluminum pan is radiating much better than the cast iron. I mentioned that I think this has something to do with the density of a metal, more specifically, I think that the more dense a material is the more capacity it has to hold heat.

I've burnt my hands several times on automotive brake disks, which are cast iron, because I DIDN'T know how hot they were. I put my hand up to them and DIDN'T feel the heat! Until I touched them...pssss...Doh! That will leave a mark!

Heat is given off by convection, radiation, and conduction. Convection is a property that involves fluids, such as hot air rising. My proposition is that Copper relies more on conduction, air moving over the heatsink gaining heat energy from physically touching the surface, while Aluminum looses most of it's heat to radiation, infrared rays eminating from it's surface.

And there's another thing that can change how well metals radiate heat: the color of light they give off when they are hot! Infrared light is felt as heat, too low in the spectrum for human eyes to see.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>

 

[phsstpok]

Cast iron makes a good radiator, it was used for many years in heating buildings, and many small engines were at one time cast iron, with the cooling fins built in. But aluminum is both a better conductor and better radiator than iron.

I disagree. Iron is a terrible radiator but it was used for heating for just that reason. I'll explain.

Think about the heat source, large boilers producing hot steam. Imagine using an alumininum radiator. The boiler produces large amounts of steam (and heat) and the aluminum radiator dumps the heat almost immediatly into the room. Oops, that's 212 degrees F and hotter. Pretty toasty room.

Iron was better to use with steam heating. Iron heats up slowly and releases the heat slowly. Very ineffecient heat transfer but very effectively slow room heating.

I'm sure you know more about engines than I do but I do know that aluminum engines give off more heat than iron block engines when you stand next to them. Aluminum engines release heat fast! So I'll grant you that aluminum releases heat better than iron.

I'll have to trust you about brake rotor burns. (LOL!). However, I'll remind you that iron brake rotors aren't used in high performance because iron holds onto heat too long. (This reduces braking effectiveness).

You'll notice the aluminum pan is radiating much better than the cast iron. I mentioned that I think this has something to do with the density of a metal, more specifically, I think that the more dense a material is the more capacity it has to hold heat.

But copper is more dense than iron. By your reasoning iron should make a more effective heatsink than copper.

My proposition is that Copper relies more on conduction, air moving over the heatsink gaining heat energy from physically touching the surface, while Aluminum looses most of it's heat to radiation

I disagree. I believe all CPU heatsinks give off nearly all their heat due to conduction (moving air) and that convection and radiation are small components.

I further believe that heatsink effectiveness is all about airflow and surface area.

How do we prove/disprove our assertions, yours and mine?



<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 06/17/03 03:14 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[tabytha77]

I don't think LostCircuits is a fishy site. It's just ugly. They have good reviews.

I would have thought all copper would be better. But I am willing to believe the data. If nothing else, the curves look almost identical so maybe the heat disappation is really the same.

I guess nobody else wanted to see the Hydrocool with a quieter fan, since this Zalman thread shot off...

 

[shadus]

It's very possible that the contact surface may have been flawed. That can count for a huge discrepency in how well a heatsink cools.

Shadus

 

[shadus]

I'd like to see it with a better waterblock, more throughput, and a quieter fan... 😉

Shadus

 

[phsstpok]

Yes it is ugly but it's a great site. Lots of terrific information.

Sorry, I hadn't even clicked that Zalman review link earlier.

Same design, different material but similar performance but AlCu seems to do a little better.

The interesting thing is, looking at the Zalman site, the <A HREF="http://www.zalman.co.kr/english/product/cnps7000cu.htm" target="_new">copper unit</A> has better specs, lower thermal resistance, 0.27 degree C/W silent mode and 0.20 C/W normal mode compared to 0.29 C/W and 0.22 C/W for the <A HREF="http://www.zalman.co.kr/english/product/cnps7000alcu.htm" target="_new">AlCu version</A>.

With similar performance I'd go with the lighter AlCu version. It still weighs in at a hefty 445 grams but the copper one weighs 775 grams!

On second thought, I wouldn't chose either one. The Athlon version uses a single tab clip. Too heavy!

<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b>

 

[Crashman]

Thermaltake always claimed better efficiency for their high end orbs than their volcanos at one time, but we proved otherwise.

The copper vs aluminum discussion has been done time and time again.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>

 

[LtBlue14]

bah <A HREF="http://forum.oc-forums.com/vb/showthread.php?s=d9ed6b84d8d21c66b99523238877e149&threadid=187162" target="_new">READ THIS D4MN THREAD</A> to get your answers
aluminum does radiate heat better than copper, but radiation plays basically no factor in heat dispersion from a heatsink. aluminum also has a better (lower) thermal diffusivity constant, but this only applies in non-steady state conditions. steady state is obviously what we're interested in

<A HREF="http://www.planettribes.com/allyourbase/ayb2.swf" target="_new">411 UR 84$3 R 8310N6 2 U$</A>