Kingwin RVT-12025 Installed

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
I finally mounted my Kingwin RVT-12025 Sunday afternoon, and thought I would share my experience.

The heatsink is nicely finished overall. The heatpipes are an impressive 8mm diameter, and the fins solidly mounted. The base is flat and reasonably smooth, with some fine lines approximating what you would have from lapping with ~800 grit paper. My one initial gripe is with the fan mounting; two of the push-pins for the Socket 775 mounts (and two of the screws I used for my ThermalRight backplate) are blocked by the fan, so I had to remove it before installing the heatsink. The fan is attached to the heatsink by four rubber isolators that hook over the ends of the fins and into a groove cut vertically parallel to the edges of the fins, and whoever attached the fan at the factory was rather careless. The mounts weren't hooked over the same fins on both sides of the 'sink, and the ends of fins were badly bent. It was just a few minutes work to straighten them, but it shouldn't have been necessary. The included instruction sheet has a serviceable illustration of fan mounting. IMHO, Kingwin would be well served to ship the unit with the fan separate.

I had to remove the motherboard (P5N-E SLI) to mount the 'sink. It was relatively easy, though I did have to remove my Noctua NC-U6 Northbridge cooler. There was no way to hook the rubber fan mounts into the fins with the Noctua in the way. I used Shin Etsu G-751 TIM, working some into the small voids between the heatpipes and the copper base and scraping the excess off with a plastic card. I then placed a line of G-751 on the CPU's IHS and mounted the 'sink. After attaching the fan, I remounted the NC-U6 and reinstalled the mobo in my Antec Solo case. It was a bit of trouble getting the 'sink in past the PSU brace. If the Kingwin were 5mm taller the heatsink fins would have hit the brace, and the ends of the heatpipes would likely have hit the side of the case. This is definitely not an option for a small case. It barely fits the Solo.

I'm running my E6300 @ 2.625 GHz (on stock volts), and after 4 hours of Orthos, my load temps (speedfan 4.32) have dropped ~4 degrees from what I had with my Sunbeam SW-CR-775; 48C CPU, 58C for both cores. This is with Q-Fan enabled, the 120mm Kingwin fan turning at ~625 RPM (silent). Temps would certainly be better if I let the fan spin faster, but I like the silence.

Conclusion: I'm quite pleased with my $30 purchase (Directron). Not the best of all possible heatsinks, but I think I have a great value cooler here.
 

toadeater

Senior member
Jul 16, 2007
488
0
0
Thanks for the review and installation details. Coincidentally, a review of the Xigmatek version showed on Frostytech today. I know someone is going to complain about it being in first place, beating out the TRU 120 by 1 degree @ 150W.

http://www.frostytech.com/arti...?articleid=2233&page=5

I'm going to get the Xigmatek version, to hopefully get a better fan and avoid Kingwin's shoddy assembly.
 

n7

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2004
21,281
4
81
I saw that review today...looks like the very good cooler, but fan would be way too loud for my liking, & at lower fan speeds, it drops in the rankings alot.

IOW, it's still not really better than the TRUE if fans are equal.
 

DerwenArtos12

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2003
4,278
0
0
Originally posted by: n7
I saw that review today...looks like the very good cooler, but fan would be way too loud for my liking, & at lower fan speeds, it drops in the rankings alot.

IOW, it's still not really better than the TRUE if fans are equal.

exactly what I was thinking, in their chart it shows the U120 outperforming the U120E but, the DB are higher so it's obviously a different fan, where's the consistancy. You can't really compare the heatsinks themselves if you put different fans on them.
 

toadeater

Senior member
Jul 16, 2007
488
0
0
I think the TRUE only shows its strengths at extreme temps, with quads. Most heatsinks have very similar performance with dual-core CPUs, and it comes down to noise being the key difference. E.g. if you're within the thermal limits of the AC Freezer 7 Pro, it will cool about as well as much more expensive heatinks.
 

DerwenArtos12

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2003
4,278
0
0
Originally posted by: toadeater
I think the TRUE only shows its strengths at extreme temps, with quads. Most heatsinks have very similar performance with dual-core CPUs, and it comes down to noise being the key difference. E.g. if you're within the thermal limits of the AC Freezer 7 Pro, it will cool about as well as much more expensive heatinks.

The only real problem with that idea is that they're using a fixed wattage heating plate to test them so there is not variance in anything but the heatsink itself and it shows xigmatec pulling ahead at the 150w mark which is just about as acurate as you're going to get for a quad core.
 

toadeater

Senior member
Jul 16, 2007
488
0
0
Originally posted by: DerwenArtos12
The only real problem with that idea is that they're using a fixed wattage heating plate to test them so there is not variance in anything but the heatsink itself and it shows xigmatec pulling ahead at the 150w mark which is just about as acurate as you're going to get for a quad core.

Well, in Xbit's comparison, the Xigmatek did lose by a couple of degrees, so it's hard to say what the deal is with these tests. I've been trying to compare as many as I could find. In general, the results have been similar, this $30 heatsink, Kingwin or Xigmatek, is on par with heavier heatsinks costing 2x as much. The only thing it might need is a better fan if you're going to run it at full RPMs with a quad-core.

EDIT: Oh yes, possibly a bolt-through kit, for those that don't like pushpins.
 

DerwenArtos12

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2003
4,278
0
0
Originally posted by: toadeater
Originally posted by: DerwenArtos12
The only real problem with that idea is that they're using a fixed wattage heating plate to test them so there is not variance in anything but the heatsink itself and it shows xigmatec pulling ahead at the 150w mark which is just about as acurate as you're going to get for a quad core.

Well, in Xbit's comparison, the Xigmatek did lose by a couple of degrees, so it's hard to say what the deal is with these tests. I've been trying to compare as many as I could find. In general, the results have been similar, this $30 heatsink, Kingwin or Xigmatek, is on par with heavier heatsinks costing 2x as much. The only thing it might need is a better fan if you're going to run it at full RPMs with a quad-core.

I woul dkill to see a site where they too every heatsink and used the exact same fan for every 120mmheatsink and a fan that moved ~76% the air as the 120mm for the 92mm on a fixed wattage heatplate and reported those temperatures. Then a seperate graph with 120mm and 92mm fans moving the same CFM. Finally a seperate graph for just the 120mm fans. That would be as fair an assesment as you could possibly give a heatsink. A seperate graph with the stock fans would be fine as well but, how hard is it to change a fan to get the best performance:sound ratio you can live with?