Is liquid cooling any good?

"James A. Donald" <jamesd RemoveThis @echeque.com> wrote in message
news:96dc81b9.0312071520.63cca47@posting.google.com...
 > Most modern CPUs have the capability to report their temperature --
 > shows up in bios stats.
 >
 > Seems to me as measured by CPU self report, liquid cooling, which
 > costs over two hundred dollars, does not get you anything markedly
 > better than air cooling, which costs about forty dollars.
 >
 > Has anyone obtained worthwhile benefits from liquid cooling?
 >
 > Seems to me that ninety percent of cooling is getting good thermal
 > contact between the heat sink and the CPU, and the rest is merely a
 > detail.
 >
 > Of course liquid cooling will give you some benefits on the disk
 > drives, but you have to space the disk drives, and if you spaced them,
 > you would get some decent air cooling without doing anything special.

Yeah good for a extra couple hundred MHz's.

Hank<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Is liquid cooling any good? 

"James A. Donald" <jamesd.DeleteThis@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:96dc81b9.0312071520.63cca47@posting.google.com...
 > Most modern CPUs have the capability to report their temperature --
 > shows up in bios stats.
 >
 > Seems to me as measured by CPU self report, liquid cooling, which
 > costs over two hundred dollars, does not get you anything markedly
 > better than air cooling, which costs about forty dollars.

You can easily put one together for under $100. Some DIY'ers do it for next
to nothing.

 > Has anyone obtained worthwhile benefits from liquid cooling?

The main benefits to watercooling are quietness and better cooling for
extreme overclocking. However, for the vast majority of systems out there,
a good air cooler is sufficient.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Is liquid cooling any good? 

jamesd.TakeThisOut@echeque.com (James A. Donald) wrote in
news:96dc81b9.0312071520.63cca47@posting.google.com:

 > Most modern CPUs have the capability to report their temperature --
 > shows up in bios stats.
 >
 > Seems to me as measured by CPU self report, liquid cooling, which
 > costs over two hundred dollars, does not get you anything markedly
 > better than air cooling, which costs about forty dollars.
 >
 > Has anyone obtained worthwhile benefits from liquid cooling?
 >
 > Seems to me that ninety percent of cooling is getting good thermal
 > contact between the heat sink and the CPU, and the rest is merely a
 > detail.
 >
 > Of course liquid cooling will give you some benefits on the disk
 > drives, but you have to space the disk drives, and if you spaced them,
 > you would get some decent air cooling without doing anything special.

I recently embarked on my 1st liquid cooling project, I spent $17.53 USD on
the system and am (was) very happy with it. (
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.nathanlandry.com/LiquidCool" target="_blank">http://www.nathanlandry.com/LiquidCool</a> )

I like the reduced nose level as swell as the overclocking potential it
opens up.

N8<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Is liquid cooling any good? 

--
Citizen X <list_serve.DeleteThis@NO-SPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
 > I recently embarked on my 1st liquid cooling project, I spent
 > $17.53 USD on the system and am (was) very happy with it. (
 > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.nathanlandry.com/LiquidCool" target="_blank">http://www.nathanlandry.com/LiquidCool</a> )

Congratulations.

You did not seem entirely happy with it. For lack of a safety,
your CPU and motherboard was destroyed.

Most modern CPUs can be set to automatically shut the entire
system down for an hour when the CPU reaches a certain
temperature. It is a bios setting, which for some strange
reason usually defaults to let-it-fry. I always switch it to
do-not-let-it-fry.


--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
urppO5hKjep2sce9Swu0fEk/6YQiikPAtEH1nR/X
49x+jdNp48OBiQFq/eJyGQbmSshR9YXMLh1TVi9z7<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Is liquid cooling any good? 

Remember liquid cooling is the movement of heat from a
hot object to another object which itself is still cooled by fans.

Reason being that temperatures are not huge, and so the temp
delta between ambient & water isn't so great that you could get
away with a reasonably sized convection stack.

What it does allow is an improved enclosure for the radiator:
o No reason not to mount the radiator separately in a ply cabinet
o Use a simple perforated metal or mesh front/rear grill on it
o Baffle in front of & behind the fans inside re noise
o Use several small low-noise 80mm or 92mm fans
---- or 120mm - depends on your radiator size
o Consider using proper oil coolers re size/quality
---- Mocal & Earl come in 115mm & 235mm width
---- the 235mm will take 3x 80mm fans ok
---- you can vary the height from 5-57 rows, matching # fans

This allows the very-remote location of the unit from the PC/user.
So whilst water cooling is an extra step between heat / water / fans,
it allows you to add distance and even utilise the heat more effectively.

Remember a few things tho:
o Quality re pump
o Large bore tubing
o Anti-bacterial in the water system
o Simpler is better

You can get a silent system with fans - it just takes a bit of effort,
and case makers could do more to help with their designs. For an
overclocking system, that's a different requirement re exponential
cooling need to achieve beyond original clock-speed performance.
--
Dorothy Bradbury
 >> Stay informed about: Is liquid cooling any good? 

--
*****Replace 'NOSPAM' with 'btinternet' in the reply address*****
"Hank" <hank.RemoveThis@youbetya.com> wrote in message
news:BOSAb.14672$P%1.13655156@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
 >
 > "James A. Donald" <jamesd.RemoveThis@echeque.com> wrote in message
 >
 > Yeah good for a extra couple hundred MHz's.
 >
 > Hank
 >
In my experience this is not so...I've used both high end air cooling
(SLK900u with ducted 120mm fan) and high spec water cooling. My temperatures
are about the same either way as is my overclocking limit.
Water used to have a definite edge but with the latest air cooled heatsinks
the difference is little or nothing. Remember water cooling ultimatly uses
air to cool anyway...the water is just a way to transport the heat from 'A'
to 'B' (unless you use a total loss system).
There is also the argument that water cooling is quieter...this may be true
to some extent but you can still achieve a quiet air cooled system by using
a large slow spinning fan and a duct.
As proof of the above, I'm running a Barton 2500+ at 2500MHz with 2.06
Vcore, aircooled, right now...my temp as I type is 36C and it only rises to
48C under Prime 95 torture test...Plus its not too noisy. I've yet to see a
water cooled system do significantly better.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Is liquid cooling any good? 

I don't think anyone said that with the right addative in your water
(something that reacts to uv light), a uv lamp and a windowed case water
cooling looks damn sweet!
Martin.

"James A. Donald" <jamesd DeleteThis @echeque.com> wrote in message
news:96dc81b9.0312071520.63cca47@posting.google.com...
 > Most modern CPUs have the capability to report their temperature --
 > shows up in bios stats.
 >
 > Seems to me as measured by CPU self report, liquid cooling, which
 > costs over two hundred dollars, does not get you anything markedly
 > better than air cooling, which costs about forty dollars.
 >
 > Has anyone obtained worthwhile benefits from liquid cooling?
 >
 > Seems to me that ninety percent of cooling is getting good thermal
 > contact between the heat sink and the CPU, and the rest is merely a
 > detail.
 >
 > Of course liquid cooling will give you some benefits on the disk
 > drives, but you have to space the disk drives, and if you spaced them,
 > you would get some decent air cooling without doing anything special.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Is liquid cooling any good? 

  > > Yeah good for a extra couple hundred MHz's.
  > >
  > > Hank
  > >
 > In my experience this is not so...I've used both high end air cooling
 > (SLK900u with ducted 120mm fan) and high spec water cooling. My
temperatures
 > are about the same either way as is my overclocking limit.
 > Water used to have a definite edge but with the latest air cooled
heatsinks
 > the difference is little or nothing.

ok.... two setups different cooling setups, exact same system

Barton 2500
A7N8X
PC3200 ram (cheap stuff at 2-3-3-
Coolers = Alpha heatsink with 80mm fan or Atlantis waterblock and Radiator

Max OC Water:
2400 @ 1.8volts
2300 @ 1.7volts (used 24/7 for 3 months)

Max OC Air
2000 @ 1.7volts unstable
2000 @ 1.8volts unstable
1900 @ 1.7volts unstable
1900 @ 1.8volts, and still might have to back down, im still testing it atm.

This compares well to other experiences with my other setups for instance:

XP2100 @ 2133mhz with water
and only 1560 with air (yup, thats right below stock..... granted its
sitting a 70c with some silent cooler)

or

XP1700 @ 1800mhz with water
and only 1533mhz with air (another Alpha)

 > my temp as I type is 36C and it only rises to
 > 48C under Prime 95 torture test...Plus its not too noisy. I've yet to see
a
 > water cooled system do significantly better.

the above Barton 2500 setup had a max temp of 39c at full load while at
2300mhz with the watercooling, its now sitting at a toasty 49c at 1900mhz.
Temps are "high" due to using onboard probe and typical Asus high temp
readings.....

atm im using my Athlon 64 with its stock cooler plus 4 case fans its nice a
cool but relatively noisy. Since i dont think im going to get over 210fsb
which im stuck at now, watercooling wont bring me anything other than
silence...which is why i cant wait for the latest Swiftech 5002 to reach
England.....Cant wait for the silence again
--
______
From Adam Webb,
Nick: Overlag
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.tacticalgamer.com" target="_blank">www.tacticalgamer.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Is liquid cooling any good? 

"Adam Webb" <adam.TakeThisOut@ajmysecondname.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message news:<1070937457.392011.TakeThisOut@ananke.eclipse.net.uk>...
   > > > Yeah good for a extra couple hundred MHz's.
   > > >
   > > > Hank
   > > >
  > > In my experience this is not so...I've used both high end air cooling
  > > (SLK900u with ducted 120mm fan) and high spec water cooling. My
 > temperatures
  > > are about the same either way as is my overclocking limit.
  > > Water used to have a definite edge but with the latest air cooled
 > heatsinks
  > > the difference is little or nothing.
 >
 > ok.... two setups different cooling setups, exact same system
 >
 > Barton 2500
 > A7N8X
 > PC3200 ram (cheap stuff at 2-3-3-
 > Coolers = Alpha heatsink with 80mm fan or Atlantis waterblock and Radiator
 >
 > Max OC Water:
 > 2400 @ 1.8volts
 > 2300 @ 1.7volts (used 24/7 for 3 months)
 >
 > Max OC Air
 > 2000 @ 1.7volts unstable
 > 2000 @ 1.8volts unstable
 > 1900 @ 1.7volts unstable
 > 1900 @ 1.8volts, and still might have to back down, im still testing it atm.
 >
 > This compares well to other experiences with my other setups for instance:
 >
 > XP2100 @ 2133mhz with water
 > and only 1560 with air (yup, thats right below stock..... granted its
 > sitting a 70c with some silent cooler)
 >
 > or
 >
 > XP1700 @ 1800mhz with water
 > and only 1533mhz with air (another Alpha)
 >
  > > my temp as I type is 36C and it only rises to
  > > 48C under Prime 95 torture test...Plus its not too noisy. I've yet to see
 > a
  > > water cooled system do significantly better.
 >
 > the above Barton 2500 setup had a max temp of 39c at full load while at
 > 2300mhz with the watercooling, its now sitting at a toasty 49c at 1900mhz.
 > Temps are "high" due to using onboard probe and typical Asus high temp
 > readings.....
 >
 > atm im using my Athlon 64 with its stock cooler plus 4 case fans its nice a
 > cool but relatively noisy. Since i dont think im going to get over 210fsb
 > which im stuck at now, watercooling wont bring me anything other than
 > silence...which is why i cant wait for the latest Swiftech 5002 to reach
 > England.....Cant wait for the silence again

I should heve read your post more thoroughly Adam....I see your
reported temps are indeed lower than mine....however reported temps
can be misleading the temps temp i get from a probe touching the cpu
core are always 3 or 4 C cooler than MBM reports..also if I drop down
to 1.8V / 2400MHz (which I can run no problem)I take the temps down by
a good 5 or 6 degrees. I'd be interested to see your temps at 2.06V.
I would still be confident that running the same speed and voltage
there would be nothing in it as far as temps are concerned...and as
far as getting an extra 200MHz overclock with water...I've yet to see
anyone running at 2700MHz with a water cooled XP2500+<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Is liquid cooling any good? 

"BigBadger" <big_badger.TakeThisOut@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:br2k37$n0v$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
 >
 >
 > --
 > *****Replace 'NOSPAM' with 'btinternet' in the reply address*****
 > "Hank" <hank.TakeThisOut@youbetya.com> wrote in message
 > news:BOSAb.14672$P%1.13655156@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
  > >
  > > "James A. Donald" <jamesd.TakeThisOut@echeque.com> wrote in message
  > >
  > > Yeah good for a extra couple hundred MHz's.
  > >
  > > Hank
  > >
 > In my experience this is not so...I've used both high end air cooling
 > (SLK900u with ducted 120mm fan) and high spec water cooling. My
temperatures
 > are about the same either way as is my overclocking limit.
 > Water used to have a definite edge but with the latest air cooled
heatsinks
 > the difference is little or nothing. Remember water cooling ultimatly uses
 > air to cool anyway...the water is just a way to transport the heat from
'A'
 > to 'B' (unless you use a total loss system).
 > There is also the argument that water cooling is quieter...this may be
true
 > to some extent but you can still achieve a quiet air cooled system by
using
 > a large slow spinning fan and a duct.
 > As proof of the above, I'm running a Barton 2500+ at 2500MHz with 2.06
 > Vcore, aircooled, right now...my temp as I type is 36C and it only rises
to
 > 48C under Prime 95 torture test...Plus its not too noisy. I've yet to see
a
 > water cooled system do significantly better.
 >

If the #s you state are correct and your still able to hear the telephone
when it rings and not have to search through the smoke to find it, I bow to
you for your the God of all air coolers!
There are plenty of water coolers out there that would kill for #s like
that, especially at Prime 95 stable.

Nice Going,
Hank<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Is liquid cooling any good? 

--
*****Replace 'NOSPAM' with 'btinternet' in the reply address*****

 >
 > If the #s you state are correct and your still able to hear the telephone
 > when it rings and not have to search through the smoke to find it, I bow
to
 > you for your the God of all air coolers!
 > There are plenty of water coolers out there that would kill for #s like
 > that, especially at Prime 95 stable.
 >
 > Nice Going,
 > Hank
 >
 >
Then I guess I must be a god because the numbers I'm quoting are genuine and
it's Prime95 stable......here's a screenshot:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://mysite.freeserve.com/abz_piper/2507.jpg" target="_blank">http://mysite.freeserve.com/abz_piper/2507.jpg</a>
Now I don't know any way to capture noise on a screen shot but you can see
that the fan is only running 3409rpm...so I'm sure you understand that it's
not too noisy.
My 'secret' is using a case side mounted fan to draw cold air from outside
the case and duct it onto the heatsink...A lot simpler and cheaper than
water cooling and I agree with your final point...There plenty of water
cooling users who don't get anywhere near as good results, which for me
proves the point that water isn't all it's cracked up to be.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Is liquid cooling any good? 

I can only refer to my experience...And that is that I'm running faster
(2500MGHz), higher voltage (2.06V) and the same peak temps (48C) as your
water cooling....but I'm on air !!!!. My air cooling cost a fraction of what
a decent water rig would cost and took a fraction of the time to fit....Also
other than blowing out dust from time to time it's maintenance free. It's
also not noisy because I use a 120mm fan at 3000-3500rpm.
Here's a screen shot: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://mysite.freeserve.com/abz_piper/2507.jpg" target="_blank">http://mysite.freeserve.com/abz_piper/2507.jpg</a>


--
*****Replace 'NOSPAM' with 'btinternet' in the reply address*****
"Adam Webb" <adam DeleteThis @ajmysecondname.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1070937457.392011@ananke.eclipse.net.uk...
   > > > Yeah good for a extra couple hundred MHz's.
   > > >
   > > > Hank
   > > >
  > > In my experience this is not so...I've used both high end air cooling
  > > (SLK900u with ducted 120mm fan) and high spec water cooling. My
 > temperatures
  > > are about the same either way as is my overclocking limit.
  > > Water used to have a definite edge but with the latest air cooled
 > heatsinks
  > > the difference is little or nothing.
 >
 > ok.... two setups different cooling setups, exact same system
 >
 > Barton 2500
 > A7N8X
 > PC3200 ram (cheap stuff at 2-3-3-
 > Coolers = Alpha heatsink with 80mm fan or Atlantis waterblock and Radiator
 >
 > Max OC Water:
 > 2400 @ 1.8volts
 > 2300 @ 1.7volts (used 24/7 for 3 months)
 >
 > Max OC Air
 > 2000 @ 1.7volts unstable
 > 2000 @ 1.8volts unstable
 > 1900 @ 1.7volts unstable
 > 1900 @ 1.8volts, and still might have to back down, im still testing it
atm.
 >
 > This compares well to other experiences with my other setups for instance:
 >
 > XP2100 @ 2133mhz with water
 > and only 1560 with air (yup, thats right below stock..... granted its
 > sitting a 70c with some silent cooler)
 >
 > or
 >
 > XP1700 @ 1800mhz with water
 > and only 1533mhz with air (another Alpha)
 >
  > > my temp as I type is 36C and it only rises to
  > > 48C under Prime 95 torture test...Plus its not too noisy. I've yet to
see
 > a
  > > water cooled system do significantly better.
 >
 > the above Barton 2500 setup had a max temp of 39c at full load while at
 > 2300mhz with the watercooling, its now sitting at a toasty 49c at 1900mhz.
 > Temps are "high" due to using onboard probe and typical Asus high temp
 > readings.....
 >
 > atm im using my Athlon 64 with its stock cooler plus 4 case fans its nice
a
 > cool but relatively noisy. Since i dont think im going to get over 210fsb
 > which im stuck at now, watercooling wont bring me anything other than
 > silence...which is why i cant wait for the latest Swiftech 5002 to reach
 > England.....Cant wait for the silence again
 > --
 > ______
 > From Adam Webb,
 > Nick: Overlag
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.tacticalgamer.com</font" target="_blank">www.tacticalgamer.com</font</a>>
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Is liquid cooling any good? 

 > I can only refer to my experience...And that is that I'm running faster
 > (2500MGHz), higher voltage (2.06V) and the same peak temps (48C) as your
 > water cooling....but I'm on air !!!!.

same temp? thats 10c higher........

--
______
From Adam Webb,
Nick: Overlag
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.tacticalgamer.com" target="_blank">www.tacticalgamer.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Is liquid cooling any good?