EDATec Passive Coolers for Raspberry Pi 5 and 4 Review: Keeping Cool

The Raspberry pi 4 is not set for retirement just yet!

EDATec Passive Coolers
(Image credit: © Future)

Tom's Hardware Verdict

For under $4, these coolers perform remarkably well, we just wish that port access was a little easier. That said, some forward planning will work around that issue.

Pros

  • +

    Easy to install

  • +

    Keeps the Pi cool

  • +

    Doesn’t interfere with Wi-Fi

  • +

    Very cheap

Cons

  • -

    Camera / Display / PCIe port access is awkward

  • -

    Big logo

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.

Keeping your Raspberry Pi cool is a top priority, more so since the Raspberry Pi 5 was released in 2023. But, the older Raspberry Pi 4 also needed cooling in order to keep it ticking. We can go to the expense of water cooling, a big fan, or we can use the official Raspberry Pi active cooler. But what if we want silent cooling? For that we need a good passive cooler, and it seems that EDATec has something to offer.

For under $4 we can have a passive cooler for the Raspberry Pi 5 and the older 4, but are they any good? Does a slab of aluminum harm Wi-Fi connectivity, and what about port access? We’re going to test both units at the same time and see how they perform with a 4GB Raspberry Pi 4 and 5 running the latest Raspberry Pi OS release.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Les Pounder
Associate Editor

Les Pounder is an associate editor at Tom's Hardware. He is a creative technologist and for seven years has created projects to educate and inspire minds both young and old. He has worked with the Raspberry Pi Foundation to write and deliver their teacher training program "Picademy".

  • wujj123456
    The Raspberry Pi 4 with no cooler was actually 3 Mbits/s faster. The Raspberry Pi 5 was 0.9 Mbits/s faster.
    The table shows the reverse. One of them must be backwards. Which is actually faster?
    Reply
  • bit_user
    The testing methodology is sadly missing. The article mentions that the measurements were taken after 5 minutes of running an unspecified stress test, but neither the precise test, nor the resulting power dissipation were specified. Based on my experience, power dissipation can vary a lot, depending on these details.

    Regarding wifi performance, perhaps looking at some of the stats in ethtool -S <device> or netstat -s <device> would be a little more revealing than throughput, but I'm not speaking from experience. I rarely use my Linux systems with wifi.

    Tagging @PaulAlcorn .
    Reply