I've heard that the Vantec Aeroflow is quite, due to that fact that it has no ball bearings. It uses a Tip Magnetic Drive. You can read about it at their website or on THG. I plan on buying one in the next week, so I'll post with my experience with it.
"Yes, you could just buy a computer from Dell, but that would take all the fun out of building it."
I'd get a Thermalright Ax7 or Slk-800, and a very quiet 80mm fan to put on top. Good ones are Panaflo, Sunon, Coolermaster, and Vantecs. Why can't you just use the stock heatsink? As long as you aren't locking up, or overclocking, you can get by using the retail AMD heatsink
Instead of Rdram, why not just merge 4 Sdram channels...
I plan to use this new system for at least the next 3 years, I wanted to spend the money now on getting a good stable system that when I and if I come round to upgrading again I will be able to use the majority of the current new system.
Anyway my main priorities are low noise and long life.
I think the rest of the components are at 25dB approx. so I just want a good quality hsf that's as close to the dB level of the rest of the case.
I was running an XP2100 with a Coolermaster Heatpipe HS with a Delta 7200rpm fan running at about 5600 (fanbus). My cpu temp at about 55% duty cycle was 42c. I was happy with the temp, but the noise ...
I replaced the hsf with an Aeroflow. My temp went down to around 33-35c at idle and I have gotten it to max out at 39c. And this is with the fan connected to the mb header on an Asus A7V333. The mb controls the fan speed acording to the temp. The noise ? Compaired to the Delta the Aeroflow is pretty much silent. I hear the front case fan more than anything now and that is an Antec silent fan.
There have been some issues with the TM fan, as in stalling. I believe this has been taken care of. But I figure if it does quit MBM will let me know or the Asus MB will just shut the system down.
The Aeroflow is working great on my non-OCed system. My opinion - go with it.
I never really understood the emphasis on hybrid coolers. Although I understand that copper conducts heat better than aluminum and aluminum releases heat better than copper, wouldn't it be better just to get a fully copper heatsink? My argument is removing heat from a single-metal heatsink is a more efficient than removing heat from a 2-metal heatsink because you don't have to deal with any additional thermal resistance between 2 dissimilar metals.
You don't need an ultra high end heatsink for a stable long lasting system. I have one of AMD's hottest running processors, the Athlon Thunderbird 1Ghz, and i'm using the stock heatsinks (with Arctic Silver 3 thermal paste). Works fine, even though it's about 45 celsius at load. Low noise, and long life. I don't see why else you would possible want to waste the money on a new heatsink. if you really want a very ultra quiet computer, then get a cheap copper heatsink, say, a Thermalright Sk6+, about $20, and an ultra low rpm 80mm fan, like a Panaflo or Vantec Stealth (which are sub 25 decibels)
Instead of Rdram, why not just merge 4 Sdram channels...
Your argument has some merrit, and if you look at older vs newer hybrids you will see how the problem was solved.
Early hybrids <i>attached</i> copper plates to the bottom of existing aluminum designs, creating a second thermal joint as you point out.
The newer ones actually cast the aluminum right over the copper insert so that it's all one piece of metal, eliminating most of the problems with secondary thermal barriers.
But there is also the size of these thermal interfaces to consider. The whole point of the copper bottom is to replace the heat spreader that should have been soldered on AMD chips from day one. The heatsink to CPU contact area is frighteningly small --smaller than a postage stamp-- and it has to be cooled in a highly efficient manner to prevent disaster.
When a chunk of copper is used for this purpose it absorbes and distributes the heat very efficiently over a much larger area. This much larger contact area between the copper heat spreader than the aluminum heat sink is far less critical than the tiny contact area with the CPU. The heat energy is already dispersed somewhat making each equivalent-to-cpu area of the second thermal junction far cooler and far less subject to failure because of minor imperfections. From this larger area the aluminum can and does do a much better job of getting rid of heat than the copper ever could.
The main problems with all copper heatsinks are twofold: 1) they weigh a lot more than aluminum 2) copper may absorbe heat a lot better than aluminum (because of it's mass) but it is a lot harder to get the heat out of copper than aluminum (because of it's mass). The result is that the temperature of the heatsink itself will be considerably higher which inhibits CPU cooling to some degree.
The problem with all aluminum is that tiny contact area with the CPU. The aluminum's lower mass doesn't provide adequate heat transfer. The aluminum heat sink itself will run cooler but the cpu will be hotter.
Really it's a marriage made in heaven... copper takes heat off the CPU, aluminum cools the copper.. and it works.
I'm glad your system works so well with the stock heatsink... but, believe me it's not the common experience.
AMD supplied coolers usually produce temperatures in the 60c range at idle, in a comfortable room. Those temperatures can get to 75c or over under heavy load... and that's only about 10c degrees below disaster!
You must be installing your heatsinks wrong then, because i've never seen any reviews from hardware websites have the hardware reviews over 50 celsius. Even under load, they rarely hit 55 celsius, and if you enable the HLT command, at idle, the cpus can go as low as 35 celsius, even the basic alunuminum stock heatsink
Instead of Rdram, why not just merge 4 Sdram channels...
But my experience with about 50 AMD machines says otherwise. I was having problems on problems until I started installing aftermarket heatsinks as a matter of course. At one point the AMD boxes, which make up only a quarter of my machines, were taking up about 2/3 of my time. Putting in better coolers knocked that down considerably.
I'd like to see the numbers for single vs two-metal heatsinks. Unfortunately there are so few heatsink designs that are done both ways.
Quote :
2) copper may absorbe heat a lot better than aluminum (because of it's mass) but it is a lot harder to get the heat out of copper than aluminum (because of it's mass).
Modern copper heatsinks compensate for this problem by having much higher numbers of fins providing much more surface area from which to disipate heat. Of course, the downside is more weight. Too much weight in many cases.
<b>99% is great, unless you are talking about system stability</b>
As you point out, it is very difficult to conduct a fair comaprison.
Do I compare coolers of the same weight?
Do I compare coolers of the same size?
etc.
The best I can tell you is I've purchased coolers of all-aluminum, all coper and hybrids, of more or less similar designs and specs... the hybrids always seemed to do the best job.
I've come to the conclusion that hybrids are the best choice but not for the same reasons.
1) Modern all-copper heatsinks may work well but they are too heavy.
2) All aluminum heatsinks. Well, old all-aluminum heatsinks just weren't that good. Newer ones, I don't know but just haven't heard about any great all-aluminum heatsinks so they probably don't exist.
3) For lack of proof whether aluminum is really worse than the aluminum/copper hybrids, why take the risk? Just get one of the hybrids but I avoid heatsinks with poorly fitting copper inserts.
Guess, that was pretty simple.
<b>99% is great, unless you are talking about system stability</b>
