Tryx Panorama 360 ARGB Review: Cooling newcomer brings F1-level performance

Tryx’s Panorama 360 offers industry-leading thermal performance and a one-of-a-kind wrap-around AMOLED screen that’s bound to draw attention.

Tryx Panorama 360 ARGB
(Image credit: © Tom's Hardware)

Tom's Hardware Verdict

With its wrap-around AMOLED screen and industry-leading performance, the Tryx Panorama 360 might be the most impressive and visually stunning liquid cooler available. It’s the Ferrari of AIOs, with a premium price tag to match at $349 USD.

Pros

  • +

    Wrap-around 6.5-inch HD display

  • +

    Industry-leading thermal performance

  • +

    VRM fan included with the CPU block

  • +

    Pre-installed and 2g tube of thermal paste included

Cons

  • -

    Relatively high minimum noise levels

  • -

    $349.99 USD

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

We’re looking at an eye-catching AIO like none other today, sent to us by a new player in the cooling game: Tryx. While this new company only started business in February 2023, its team of 30 cooling experts has years of experience. 

The AIO we’re looking at today is called the Panorama 360 ARGB, and it features a wrap-around 6.5-inch AMOLED display that uses a clever trick for a “3D” effect. It’s powered by Asetek’s 8th-generation liquid pump and three of Tryx’s 120mm ROTA fans. 

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Albert Thomas
Freelancer, CPU Cooling Reviewer

Albert Thomas is a contributor for Tom’s Hardware, primarily covering CPU cooling reviews.

  • das_stig
    When your cpu cooling solution costs as much as your cpu, things are just getting stupid !
    Reply
  • thestryker
    Well at that price it seems to mostly serve as a justification to get a Hyte AIO to me. While the screen is certainly clever it's still just a generic Asetek AIO and the minimum noise level seems quite bad.
    Reply
  • newtechldtech
    ... invest in performance and not in stupid lights and look ....
    Reply
  • Heiro78
    On page one under Testing Configuration, you've stated the i7-13700K, but the second page you show you've used the i7-14700K. I believe page one to be the typo.

    In the first chart, did you intend to show Maximum CPU Power Consumption as the last bar or was this supposed to represent the Tryx AIO's average watts cooled like the other coolers in the same chart?
    Reply
  • thestryker
    Heiro78 said:
    In the first chart, did you intend to show Maximum CPU Power Consumption as the last bar or was this supposed to represent the Tryx AIO's average watts cooled like the other coolers in the same chart?
    It's a bit confusing, but it's intentional as this cooler is able to cool the 275W this CPU uses at maximum. If they moved the next paragraph and graph above it I think it would be less confusing so you see the temperature performance and explanation first.
    Reply
  • Albert.Thomas
    Heiro78 said:
    On page one under Testing Configuration, you've stated the i7-13700K, but the second page you show you've used the i7-14700K. I believe page one to be the typo.

    In the first chart, did you intend to show Maximum CPU Power Consumption as the last bar or was this supposed to represent the Tryx AIO's average watts cooled like the other coolers in the same chart?
    Oh boy, that was a typo. Thanks for pointing that out.

    The first chart is where you'll find most coolers land - this chart shows the average power consumption in an unrestricted workload.

    The Tryx AIO is not on this list because it was able to keep the CPU under it's maximum temperature, ergo the 2nd chart. I do not expect many coolers to "pass" this test.

    Does that explain it better?
    Reply
  • This whole test is pointless for me, so we have a CPU cooler that keeps its fans at a higher level at all times than most others so its noisier which is the whole reason most folks go AIO or liquid to run quieter so fail number 1
    Then at maximum load yes its certainly cooler by a whopping 3Deg C than the Arctic cooler but way louder by the same 3 Decibels which as we know is non linear so 3 points on DB is a lot.
    Then we come to price $350! The Arctic ARGB version is $240 less for 3DegC but less noise PFFh how can you as a honest reviewer even think to call this F1 level performance its a rip off its a generic pump cooler with a set of noisy fast fans and a fancy screen, not only that but you then compare it to an air cooler for noise!
    Did you bother to run a 2 hour test to really soak the heat into the liquid?
    My older custom loop which has a 3090Ti plus a 7900x with 1x480 and 2x360 with a 750ml reservoir can hit peak coolant levels of 38DegC after a very long OCCT test at max everything usually at least an hour, granted this is at least double the cost of the AIO but its a relevant test regardless and the systems effectiveness is in how long it takes to drop back to it nominal 5DegC over ambient
    Reply
  • BadBoyGreek
    das_stig said:
    When your cpu cooling solution costs as much as your cpu, things are just getting stupid !
    Facts!
    Reply
  • scoob010
    No Gallahad II performance 360 in the comparison?
    Just bought a LCD 280. Would have liked to know how the 360s stacked up after the 240 Tryx arrived.
    Reply
  • ultrasbm
    craigss said:
    This whole test is pointless for me, so we have a CPU cooler that keeps its fans at a higher level at all times than most others so its noisier which is the whole reason most folks go AIO or liquid to run quieter so fail number 1
    Yes!! How this even got passed all the "QC" is beyond me...it's not even a nice sound, it's just horrible :-\
    Reply