Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
liquid cooling VS standard cooling
demonslyer
Member Posts: 84
in Hardware
Ok. I need to no what everyone would prefer. Liquid cooling or the standard cooling for computer's. What one in your point of view is better?
This will help me determine what cooling to go with on my new computer. And to see what others think of these methods.
Comments
No don't waste your time bud. Water cooling is not good enough to validate the extra cost and chances. I had 2 system water cooled in the past because I got the kits cheap through a local store. After countless benchmarks across the years by independent testing sites and my own experiences say it isn't worth it. You only get a 2 to 4 degree drop over all vs HSF methods and many of the new thermal pastes with a good HSF can do the same thing and even better cooling then most water kits.
The only worth while cooling solution if you want to spend $400 a couple hundred or more over water is for refrigerant cooling systems, these can keep the CPU temps at minus 20 to minus 90 degrees, depending on the model and how much $$$ you spend.
Anyway don't waste your money, get a very high end HSF and good thermal paste and your set. Read reviews off the major hardware review sites for the best solutions, they typically beat or match water cooling solutions in performance.
Who let you in the VIP section?
Liquid cooling is, and forever will be better than than air cooling. The problem with liquid cooling though, is that it's more expensive than air cooling, and more time consuming to keep it up. I've always used air cooling instead liquid (no need for liquid as I never overclock, or get super-powerful-ultra-insane-next-gen hardware that runs at a million billion GHz) as it has always worked fine for me, so I can't comment on the nitty gritty of it all for liquid. Besides the fact that liquid costs more than air, I think you would need to filter the water in some way as well, and clean it up every so often. You'd also need to be careful of not plucking part of the liquid coolants wires, as that can cause a leak on your hardware (water+electricity=bad imo), ruining your system.
Liquid cooling is a commitment, air cooling is not. If you plan on getting (or have) a standard system, air cooling will do you just fine (just set it up, clean out the dust once a month, and that's it). If you plan on having (or have) a $5k+ system though, having an overclocked processor at 4GHz+ etc etc, and don't mind the hassle of keeping up your system a few times a month, spring for the liquid cooling... it'll do wonders.
I beg to differ. Show me a single review of a water cooling unit that out shines a great HSF by a good margin in degrees and has the better performance to cost ratio. The truth is your statement is almost correct. Almost doesn't make it 100%.
There are air cooled HSF coupled with good thermal paste that out perform or match water cooled systems, and do it really cheaply. So with that I disagree water cooling is forever better then air cooling. For an example my water cooled PC is only 1 degree better then my best HSF air cooled PC with similar specs. My HSF pc actually has a hotter CPU.
We need Clef to give his thoughts on this, because I doubt I am the only one who knows the debate between water cooled or air cooled.
Who let you in the VIP section?
Watercooling is in nearly all cases, completely unnecessary, but it does have some benefits. First off, as no-one on here has actually disagreed, you will get a better cooling performance, though in nearly all cases, the benefit is relatively minimal over high quality HSFs...there are exceptions, but It is not generally worth the price increase.
The primary point being that water can move a great deal of heat away from the unit very quickly, which means, if you're the type who likes to overclock everything in his system, you may find some advantages to the temperature your various processing units peak out at under load when using watercooling over air. Devices these days are built to be overclocked however, and even stock HSFs can usually cover quite a bit of ground...and the hi end ones will usually keep you cool right through everything that you'd be able to be stable at regardless.
Mind you, I have been running watercooled systems since 2001, I do not do this strictly for the cooling benefit as much as I do for the combined benefits of cooling and noise reduction...with the exception of my hard-drives, my computer is virtually silent. Mind you, I need this as I do professional level sound recording in a small home-studio where I cannot afford to build separate rooms with baffles and sound proofing and high end control consoles and the like. In my case, it's worth it. This isn't to say I couldn't get the same benefits from a rack-mount, open case and large passive cooling devices, it's just that I do also tax the system as well, and prefer to make sure everything will be fine.
You have to drive the hardware to extremely high levels to see any real benefits from watercooling over HSFs, and these days HSFs are usually good enough that the levels you'd have to drive everything at to see that benefit would most often lead to system instability regardless of your temps.
If you're spending $4000 on a new system and then you're planning to try to overclock it as far as it will go, sure, may as well throw in the extra cash for watercooling, but otherwise, I don't honestly recommend it unless you really need the quiet...and even then, if you're not careful designing your system, you'll wind up with a machine that's jsut as loud as one with air cooling (which usually isn't very noisy to begin with).
Any upgrade I do to my machine costs at least an additional $100 for a new waterblock. Adding and removing anything from my motherboard is a complete pain in the ass because of all the tubing that's been cut to length that interconnects most of my devices (my CPU, GPU, NB, and Hard Drives are all watercooled in my system to reduce the need for airflow as much as possible, it's excessive, but it works). Regular maintenance actually isn't that bad, you're supposed to do it once every 6 months, to once a year, I tend to do it about once every 2 years and it takes about 20 minutes of my time.
The four times I have completely switched out my motherboard for a new one, with new CPU and other hardware, the watercooling has added generally between 4-6 hours onto time spent trying to get everything laid out and set up.
Also, I had a waterblock break on me in the middle of the night once while my computer was on, fried my video card, then the PSU blew. That was beyond scary and not fun. The system had been running fine for about 1.5 years, then all of a sudden one morning there's a pool of blue liquid on my floor and my machine I left running overnight is off.
It's really late and I'm exhausted, hopefully this post will still make some sense in the morning.
I beg to differ. Show me a single review of a water cooling unit that out shines a great HSF by a good margin in degrees and has the better performance to cost ratio. The truth is your statement is almost correct. Almost doesn't make it 100%.
There are air cooled HSF coupled with good thermal paste that out perform or match water cooled systems, and do it really cheaply. So with that I disagree water cooling is forever better then air cooling. For an example my water cooled PC is only 1 degree better then my best HSF air cooled PC with similar specs. My HSF pc actually has a hotter CPU.
We need Clef to give his thoughts on this, because I doubt I am the only one who knows the debate between water cooled or air cooled.
Unfortunately, I can't find any comparion reviews comparing the ultimate form of liquid cooling against the ultimate form of air cooling. All I can find is, The 5GHz project. A CPU at 5.25GHz running at -190C... I'd think that finding an air cooling unit that would be able to do better than that would be hard.
IMO unless you're OCing some super toasty high end system and have money to burn, there is no reason to use water cooling over fans...
-------------------------
"Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P.Lovecraft, "From Beyond"
Member Since March 2004
why do you guys only assume that w/c is done to the cpu alone?
Anyway. as of now air cooling is better in regards to price/performance. But w/c is becoming insanely popular. With that you should hopefulyl see the prices drop, then w/c would be the obvious choice.
If I didn't have to worry about school, I'd cough up the money for a good w/c kit - regardless of the money. AND they aren't as overpriced as some of you have made them seem.
Well popularity sorta gives the company a little something to keep the price up or go a little higher. I have found some w/c for around $200-$250 i think it was. not a bad price. But even if w/c went cheaper doesn't mean it will be the pick. Most don't get cause there is the threat of a leak. no matter how good of tubing you have there is always a chance of a leak some how, some way.
ATM i don't have to worry about school. I might look more into them and see. Maybe ill stick with just fans. Maybe further down the road or so i will up to a w/c or better
just curious who choose let it burn? lol Id like to see you let it actually happen on a good system.
I beg to differ. Show me a single review of a water cooling unit that out shines a great HSF by a good margin in degrees and has the better performance to cost ratio. The truth is your statement is almost correct. Almost doesn't make it 100%.
There are air cooled HSF coupled with good thermal paste that out perform or match water cooled systems, and do it really cheaply. So with that I disagree water cooling is forever better then air cooling. For an example my water cooled PC is only 1 degree better then my best HSF air cooled PC with similar specs. My HSF pc actually has a hotter CPU.
We need Clef to give his thoughts on this, because I doubt I am the only one who knows the debate between water cooled or air cooled.
Unfortunately, I can't find any comparion reviews comparing the ultimate form of liquid cooling against the ultimate form of air cooling. All I can find is, The 5GHz project. A CPU at 5.25GHz running at -190C... I'd think that finding an air cooling unit that would be able to do better than that would be hard.
you can't use the 5GHz project because it's not by air or water cooled. it is cooled by liquid nitrogen
I'll just add one thing to this thread:
Most fluids by themselves will not conduct electricity, including water... if they are 100% pure. It is extremely difficult to keep a fluid free of impurities and therefore, non-conductive. Even within an enclosed environment such as your water cooled PC's hose/pump system.
So after a period of time most non-conductive fluids will cause a short if there is a leak as they pick up impurities as they circulate.
You might want to search Tom's Hardware for a PC they cooled in a water-tight acrylic case filled with cooking oil. That was interesting.
hmm cooking oil don't seem like it would be a very good cooling source
This guy put it to the point in simple terms...
Of course water can move more heat away, but the minor performance gain isn't worth the cost and upkeep.
Don't get pulled into the hype. Spend your hard earned coinage on something more important for your system.
This guy put it to the point in simple terms...
Of course water can move more heat away, but the minor performance gain isn't worth the cost and upkeep.
Don't get pulled into the hype. Spend your hard earned coinage on something more important for your system.
Water cooling is really only for those who run like dark said super toasty systems.
The water probly can carry more heat away, but like you said minor performance may not be that great but can have a big gain dependin how how it all is. Plus u have to remember to add water and the colent all the time and if you forget and u run hot well your screwed will say.