Water Cooling vs Expensive Heatsink + Fan

[undeclared]

I was just wondering..

If we were to compare high-class heatsinks (eg XP-120 with a high-quality fan..), to water cooling of the CPU, what is the actual temperature difference we're talking here?

Are we talking 10 degrees celsius? 20? 5?

Thanks

 

[demenion]

I would say about 15C difference from what I've seen... watercooling temps seem to be a lot more consistant especially under full load..

 

[zest]

I recently saw Coolermaster mini aqua..120 versus XP90c.

The mmini aqua 120 clearly outperformed the XP90c.


http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=405648

 

[undeclared]

Cool.. Anyone want to post more results?

 

[Greenman]

They both have the exact same lower limit, but water will generally get closer to that limit. Load temps will improve with water as long as it?s a good system. How low your temps go depends mostly on how much air you push over the radiator.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Greenman
They both have the exact same lower limit, but water will generally get closer to that limit. Load temps will improve with water as long as it?s a good system. How low your temps go depends mostly on how much air you push over the radiator.

Actually even water cooling (unless you are chilling the water before hand) is limited by your ambient temperatures out side the case for idle purposes!!

Most real good heatsinks are equal to most top of the line water cooling units when it comes to idle temps!

Where water cooling chilled or regular have a huge advantage is when your computer is under load.....those temps are generally lower as well as more stable!!

I am thinking about water cooling on my AMD rigg that I will be building real soon!

 

[GalvanizedYankee]

This survey is three weeks old and maybe considered ancient History by some because of that fact. But for the few that have the time and attention span, i humbly offer up this link.

www.overclockers.com/articles1271/



...Galvanized

 

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Greenman
They both have the exact same lower limit, but water will generally get closer to that limit. Load temps will improve with water as long as it?s a good system. How low your temps go depends mostly on how much air you push over the radiator.

Actually even water cooling (unless you are chilling the water before hand) is limites my ypour ambient temperatures out side the case for idle purposes!!
I am thinking about water cooling on my AMD rigg that I will be building real soon!

That is correct, both are limited by ambient tempture, so both have the exact same lower limit. Perhaps my first statment wasn't clear enough.

 

[zest]

This artice outllinge some poins on this subject...http://www.7volts.com/cooling.htm


---

To answer the origional point.
In my opion , The perfonance and subsaantial " cost" difference between the latest Aircooling solutions and water systems is negible. O f course water is better if you are overclocking a hot Prescott to the max . and maintain stale temps.
X/Si 120 with a good f an and system airfow with a well ventilated case will be fne.

T.E.C is the way to go for temps. that make a difference.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Where water cooling chilled or regular have a huge advantage is when your computer is under load.....those temps are generally lower as well as more stable!!

Chilled water-cooling isn't the Holy Grail. It was used on mainframes for years and heat-producing components still had to be kept in refrigerated rooms. In general, terms, just locking your temperatures as close to ambient as possible (and using a res) will be enough for even enthusiast, over clocker types. Sure, if you have a few hundred lying around and can afford high-end, digital chiller then go ahead, but don't expect a huge difference in performance.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Where water cooling chilled or regular have a huge advantage is when your computer is under load.....those temps are generally lower as well as more stable!!

Chilled water-cooling isn't the Holy Grail. It was used on mainframes for years and heat-producing components still had to be kept in refrigerated rooms. In general, terms, just locking your temperatures as close to ambient as possible (and using a res) will be enough for even enthusiast, over clocker types. Sure, if you have a few hundred lying around and can afford high-end, digital chiller then go ahead, but don't expect a huge difference in performance.

Exactly true...but...knwing how these forums are your damned if you do and damned if you don`t....

So I went ahead and threw in the words chilled or otherwise....
Had I not mentioned chilled or otherwise somwbody else would have said somewthing...

As it is you just proved my point...lol

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Where water cooling chilled or regular have a huge advantage is when your computer is under load.....those temps are generally lower as well as more stable!!

Chilled water-cooling isn't the Holy Grail. It was used on mainframes for years and heat-producing components still had to be kept in refrigerated rooms. In general, terms, just locking your temperatures as close to ambient as possible (and using a res) will be enough for even enthusiast, over clocker types. Sure, if you have a few hundred lying around and can afford high-end, digital chiller then go ahead, but don't expect a huge difference in performance.

Exactly true...but...knwing how these forums are your damned if you do and damned if you don`t....

So I went ahead and threw in the wqords chilled or otherwise....
Had I not mentioned chilled or otherwisw somwbody else would have said somewthing...

As it is you just proved my point...lol

That's an interesting point of view.