toms hardware tests a bunch of cpu coolers, fails 45%

[1Tanker]

I realize that installing/uninstalling 80ish HS/F's is a lot of work, but if you're gonna do something... FFS...do it right. Mount the board in a closed-case, like most of us run. The results would surely change.

[crazyazn]

I don't like this at all...at least do the stuff inside a closed case as somebody already mentioned...

Or maybe I just hate it because my Scythe Ninja Plus Rev.B scored so low I always thot it was a pretty good cooler...

What do u guys think about the 'cooling performance' scores?

[Keir]

I think your taking the scores a little too harshly.

They are scoring it out of 3 things, How well it works, which they said the IFX14 monster worked great, sound was ok, but installing it took a lot of time. While it may be time well spent do you think it deserves the same scores as say one that just clips on using the stock intel clips and can be installed in 5 seconds? Seriously c'mon now. It deserves a 2 its a time consuming thing to do. Doesnt make it a bad cooler.

there is also nothing wrong with how they mounted the coolers. As long as they mount them the same way for all of them, it still shows which do a better job. While having it in a case might make a slight difference for some, your going to get people saying ' you should have used this case... or that case ' this takes the case out of the equation which is really the only way to test a cooler.

And the results are on a quad core, more heat, I mean this is as hot a load as you can probably make. I know Vince posted up his comparison of the Ninja vs Ninja copper, he had lower load temps than these, but thats on a dual core.

Just use it as a comparison, try not to get offended. I cant find the link to part2?

[Mr. Cipher]

I think an open config is fine, since the results in a case would give rise to a slew of other issues.

1. what is the cooling like
2. what is the material that is in the chassis
3. psu on the top/bottom?
4. etc, etc...

If they had simply taken a baseline against the stock HSF, then at least we could have something to refer to. But they didn't even do that.

[Nuckoholic]

That article is such a joke. Installation time doesn't matter, unless it's like five hours or something.

[b1lk1]

I disagree. Open case is the best way to do this since you want to take all other factors out of it. You should understand how well your particular case's airflow will help/hurt your performance and they would need to test in multiple cases to keep it fair. I disagree with them hanging the board like it was in a case and then forcing the fan to push air down through the heatsinks. The heatpipes on the heatsinks don't care about mounting position like motherboard heatpipes so that methodology is flawed. I am in the middle of a similar test and can say that their "failure" of heatsinks for tough mounting is kinda foolish. There is not a good high end cooling solution out there that is easy to mount. That is a fact.

[t0m]

well part 3 is up now (with a link to parts 1 and 2 if you missed them, on the first page). i was wrong about the heavy hitters, turns out they went back to look at 'stock' coolers. im surprised there is no TRUE in the lineup though, i was under the impression it was one of the best/most popular coolers right now. as for case/no case, i dont doubt they are properly showing the relative performance of each cooler, but it would nice to see 'real world' numbers so i can also compare them to real setups (like my own).

maybe HWC should do its own version of this test without the bs?

[3.0charlie]

Oh my. This is pathetic.

Conclusion - Box Coolers Are Not A Good Choice For Overclockers

I don't think that I needed to read through ~45 pages of HSF tests to learn that.

Overall result: the IFX-14 wins? But where are the other heavy hitters?

This is a joke.