ok this is for all who are very versed on water cooling and top end air cooling.

I am pretty familiar with air cooling, what makes a product worse/better then others and what defines how well it cools.

however i know next to nothing about water cooling. I would like to go water cooling because from a naive perspective water cools better then air and is quieter.

BUT i do know that not all water cooling systems cool better (sometimes just cool down faster from load) and i do know that not all water systems are quieter.

So for anyone willing to bestow knowledge onto me

1. is water cooling a worthwhile upgrade from high end air cooling? (like the zalman 7900 or asus ppc)

2. if it is worthwhile is it only for top end water systems? im not looking to drop 200+ on a water cooling for minimal upgrades etc

3. what specs too look for in water cooling


thanks!

8/28/2007 8:47:23 PM

From what I understand, water cooling isn't cost efficient unless you're already buying the most expensive processor available. With the money you burn on the water cooling setup, you could've just gotten a faster processor and not dealt with the damage that comes with overclocking.



so basically it's not worth it unless you've spent $rhodeisland on a $1000 processor. even then, you've gone way beyond the price point for performance so why would you risk that spent cash overclocking, when something as simple as a leaking seal could destroy the whole thing.


it's a terrible choice to make economically. but if you're in it to impress your friends with your ability to set it up. It's not something that's gonna get you laid, and it's not something that your most tech savvy friends are going to be impressed by (since they'll likely be using my same logic)


I'd say it's just an add-on. Much like your blue LEDs, except much more expensive and time consuming to install.


[Edited on August 28, 2007 at 9:04 PM. Reason : someone stop me if im wrong here, im not going to crunch the $'s to disprove my thought train.]

8/28/2007 8:59:21 PM

I love mine.

8/28/2007 9:05:38 PM

Quote :

"o basically it's not worth it unless you've spent $rhodeisland on a $1000 processor. even then, you've gone way beyond the price point for performance so why would you risk that spent cash overclocking, when something as simple as a leaking seal could destroy the whole thing. "

winner /thread

8/28/2007 11:11:44 PM

^ftw. [/thread]

[Edited on August 28, 2007 at 11:12 PM. Reason : ^wow, by 6 secs, gg ]

8/28/2007 11:11:50 PM

i wish computer lab pcs were water cooled and i could hook them straight to a chilled water line.
i'm fucking sick of 5-6 ton a/c units just for a damned computer lab.

8/29/2007 12:19:42 AM

I wanted to go water cooling, but didn't want to spend a lot of money so i went against everyones advice and bought this after a little research:

http://www.thermaltakeusa.com/product/Liquid/All-In-One/cl-w0065/cl-w0065.asp

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835106078&Tpk=cl-w0065

It's $59.99 and i thought i'd mess around with it, then buy a nice air cooler, but i've been running this thing since January almost 24/7, and it keeps my cpu around 28c idle, and maybe around 35c load (core 2 duo 6600 @ 3.6).

So if you wanna try a cheap water cooling solution, i highly recommend this. I know it's very low on the water cooling scale, but its been running fine for 7-8 months with constant temps.

^^^so that doesn't always apply. I bought a 60 dollar water cooler, with a 300$ (at the time) cpu, and havent had any issues.

Oh and it's almost silent. There's a fan rpm control, but it only makes a 3-4c temp difference so i keep it silent.

So there's a silent water cooling solution for 60 bucks that keeps your cpu cool.

[Edited on August 29, 2007 at 1:02 AM. Reason : .]

8/29/2007 12:59:11 AM

ok well the point was deffinately made clear.

from neodata's post the question becomes.

spend 60$ on that low end water cooling system (or one of equal performance / value)

or spend 60$ on a high end air cooling system (the zantec or asus)?


if they are the same price and performance, i would choose air just for ease. but if the water has slightly better performance for the same price then obv i would choose that.

however sound is a big issue to me.

what do you guys think?

8/29/2007 1:15:46 AM

^well i assumed the pump would give out after a few months of running it all the time, but it's going strong, and it's really quiet.

It just depends on what kind of temps you get with a 60$ air cooler. I think temps in the upper 20's, lower 30's from a 60$ water cooler is pretty good. The e6600 is 2.4 stock, and i run it at 3.4 for daily use, but had it at 3.6 and it still had around the same temps.

8/29/2007 1:21:25 AM

I maintain at 33 or so load with my Zalman CPU air cooler. Why deal with the hassle of water cooling, when you get watercooling performance with a good air cooler?

8/29/2007 1:37:05 AM

^Oh i agree, i just wanted to try this thing out, and it worked great with great temps so i kept it. It's really quiet too.

What is your cpu, and is it overclocked at 33c load?

Oh and setup was just as easy as an air cooler. In fact all that goes on the mobo was the little copper block, so it frees up so much space compared to a larger air cooler. The radiator/fan fit nicely on the back 120mm fan area.

[Edited on August 29, 2007 at 1:44 AM. Reason : .]

8/29/2007 1:38:17 AM

I've got an AMD X2 3800+ , I don't run it overclocked, because I live in Japan and during the summer, my apartment gets pretty warm. In winter, when my room is in the 50's my computer runs at about 25 or so.

8/29/2007 3:18:18 AM

I thought we decided a loooooong time ago that overclocking was about fun rather than cost effectiveness.

8/29/2007 4:21:12 AM

^


bingo.

8/29/2007 8:35:19 AM

Quote :

"^well i assumed the pump would give out after a few months of running it all the time, but it's going strong, and it's really quiet. "

Considering how many complaints there are about this on newegg, I wouldn't advise buying the thing. Just adding one more point of failure.

At least it works though.

8/29/2007 9:03:31 AM

Noise + energy consumption

8/29/2007 9:12:56 AM

i knew neodata686's bitch ass would post in here disagreeing with everyone else

8/29/2007 10:15:06 AM

ok, all taken into account,

water cooling aside


which would you choose?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835118019

or

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835101009

obv the zantec is extremely popular and works great
however, the asus takes up less room and (from what i get) runs slightly quieter with same results

which would you choose? or if you have any others please post

thanks again!

8/29/2007 12:23:31 PM

zalman.


it has higher reviews, it's cheaper, and it'll do the job well.

8/29/2007 12:28:02 PM

zalman, i'd choose double ball bearing over sleeve any day

8/29/2007 12:29:22 PM

I like the Zalman as well but why not go with the thermalright 120 extreme. same price and supposedly does better.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835109140

8/29/2007 2:15:33 PM

zalman is my personal recommendation, and yes, i have one in my box.

8/29/2007 2:31:20 PM

all you guys are helping out the NCSU folding team right? message_topic.aspx?topic=118820

8/29/2007 2:38:53 PM

Quote :

"Considering how many complaints there are about this on newegg, I wouldn't advise buying the thing. Just adding one more point of failure."

Yeah i just bought it to see how long it took before it crapped out. I knew it was cheap, and i knew about the bad reviews but i still bought it. I guess i made the right choice???

It's been 8 months and i'm running it almost 24/7 and it keeps my cpu around 30c. So it hasn't crapped out yet so why change?

Quote :

"I thought we decided a loooooong time ago that overclocking was about fun rather than cost effectiveness."

Ok i admit i'm new (past year) to the whole computer building thing. I bought a 300$ cpu (2.4 stock) and I overclocked it to 3.4 (stable). From my knowledge of c2d prices, the x6800 (2.93ghz) for 985$ benches lower than my e6600 @ 3.4. So i saved 600$+ dollars and have a faster processor.

So how is it just "fun" and not cost efficient? Am i just completely missing something??

Quote :

"i knew neodata686's bitch ass would post in here disagreeing with everyone else"

Dude.
1. bought 60$ cheap thermaltake cpu water cooler.
2. Running it for 8 months no problem
3. Keeps my e6600 c2d ~30c at 3.4ghz (2.4 stock)
4. kevin=happy

Explain to me how this is "disagreeing" with everyone? I'm simply explaining my situation based upon the title of the thread.

[Edited on August 29, 2007 at 3:05 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2007 3:02:59 PM

I dunno.


lets say he doesnt get the cheap water cooling shit. (which just seems like a terrible idea, even though you seem to have gotten lucky)



he'll spend $150 on a water cooling setup to OC to x6800 speeds on a $300 processor

that's $450 on the setup. plus time.

the x6800 costs $970

so the only things to take into account here are:

how long is the e6600 going to last at those speeds? if the answer is somewhere around half the lifespan of a stock x6800 then you'll end up replacing it at least once.

so now we're at $750. that means if you have to replace it again, you would've been wiser to buy the x6800. not only because of the long term investment, but also because an x6800 can easily squash that e6600 with just stock air and without compromising its life expectancy.








This is also assuming that you don't replace your entire system every couple years.



I didnt factor in time, which is much more valuable to some than others. Also, if you fuck up on your first watercooling setup and wet the components, you may not even be able to RMA. that means it's gonna cost you a shit-ton.

[Edited on August 29, 2007 at 3:59 PM. Reason : moooore]

8/29/2007 3:47:46 PM

^unfortunately that's not a valid argument.

Most processors have a working life of 50-60 years. Even overclocked, the average consumer CPU is going to last more than a decade.

And you can't compare the most bargain price/perf chip against the flagship supremely overpriced chip.

If you want to do any kind of monetary comparison, look at it as time invested versus income lost. If you are worth 20 dollars an hour, then if you spend less than 30 hours fucking around with your system, you are coming out cheaper overclocking. However I can pretty well say, that isn't going to happen.

But it really is all about the fun of fucking around with something, just because you can. And you can't put a price on that. If you just want something to WORK, so you can do whatever task you want to do (gaming, productivity et al), don't waste your time even considering watercooling. It's a fun hobby, but a system that has a lot of drawbacks, tweaks, and upkeep.

8/29/2007 4:04:01 PM

it would easily last for a decade even at a 150% overclock?



What if we changed the definition of life expectancy to "average number of years a comsumer keeps a desktop computer between replacements."

8/29/2007 4:06:47 PM

I dunno about you guys, but I've never had a processor just arbitrarily crap out on me after x number of years. In fact, the only processor I ever remember dieing is the first one I ever installed because I didn't realize thermal compound was important

8/29/2007 4:13:47 PM

i have.

8/29/2007 4:16:49 PM

noen you said it best for what i want to do.

dont get me wrong i love tinkering and im constantly looking for new gear i havnt tried out on my new rig.

however as much fun as water cooling would be to mess with (for my first time) in now way is it what im looking for right now after hearing everyones comments. I am in need for a stable, reliable, and high performance cooling system. My main question was if cheap water cooling systems could offer this, apparently they cant.

So for now i will either rely on the zalman or the asus. I know the zalman is tried and true and i will 100% get my monies worth but at the same time i prefer the asus for asthetics and for the simple fact that i think it will perform just as well (just hasnt been out as long to have as many user reviews)

i will look to pick up the water cooling hobby later on.


and for graniteballs i agree with noen in that fact that processor life is way beyond that of the rest of the gear, no matter how oc'd it is

so lets say you drive your processor into the ground , it will still outlast either the market or your other gear.

that is to say as long as you keep it cool.

oh and back to the asus vs zantec..which do you think would be quieter?

8/29/2007 5:36:20 PM

Quote :

"it would easily last for a decade even at a 150% overclock?"

Yea. I mean, this could have changed, but I took the time back in the early P4 days (when everyone was doing the 1.6ghz->2.4 overclock) to root through Intel's white papers on the cpu. It had a engineering silicon drift (I could be totally wrong on the terminology too, its been years) of like 65 years under normal use, and something like 25 years at max voltage full load.

^Yea, thats kind of the shitty thing about it. If you know what you're doing, you can setup a watercooling rig in a couple of hours, and it only needs servicing a couple of times a year. But that first time always seems to take for damn every to get everything right (with a high end, reliable setup)

8/29/2007 11:20:53 PM

well Noen your argument isn't really valid either

a) no one is replacing time to water cool that they could be earning money, most people i'd imagine do this in their free time, either you want to setup your computer in an hour using air, or you opt for spending 2-3 hours on watercooling... it's just a decision one has to make.

b) the life span of a cpu is directly related to heat, not in whole by a intel white paper. so if you are OC'ing your cpu and under full load you are hitting 62'C which is the thermal design for the core 2 duo, then you are surely going to burn out your cpu quicker, doesn't matter what speed it's at, the heat will cause the internal parts to fail quicker. while i'd say the thermal design is almost always a conservative number i wouldn't push it.

c) i do agree with you in the fact that if you want it to work, buy a stock cpu and you can even get a fancy air cpu cooler and you'll be set

[Edited on August 29, 2007 at 11:53 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2007 11:50:18 PM

I would never listen to a thing neodata686 said on any topic.

8/30/2007 12:23:48 AM

Quote :

"With the money you burn on the water cooling setup, you could've just gotten a faster processor and not dealt with the damage that comes with overclocking."

8/30/2007 12:51:52 AM

Quote :

"no one is replacing time to water cool that they could be earning money, most people i'd imagine do this in their free time, either you want to setup your computer in an hour using air, or you opt for spending 2-3 hours on watercooling... it's just a decision one has to make."

It may not be money earning time, but it's time nonetheless. And I for one would much rather spend mine doing about 200 other things these days. But its definitely just a personal preference.

Quote :

"the life span of a cpu is directly related to heat, not in whole by a intel white paper. "

It's not actually the heat. It's directly correlated to the flow of electrons over time. Heat is just a byproduct. Intel's whitepapers give you the expected lifetime of the circuits before the silicon degrades enough to allow crosstalk (someone with more circuit knowledge please feel free to override me here, this is my very basic layman understanding) which ends up "killing" the processor. It's an issue of flow over time. Hency why an overclocked chip runs through it faster. The thermal design is a break/dont break number.

8/30/2007 1:10:09 AM

so if a train was headed east at a rate of 55mph and another train was headed west at 65mph...

no seriously, so if you had a 3.6Ghz E6600 that ran at 40'C and another 2.4Ghz E6600 that ran at 40'C, you're saying that while the temperature remains the same, the OC'd will still die first? my impression is that the byproduct of heat had to do with the breakdown of parts, not just electrons passing through it, but interesting none-the-less, i'll take your word for it though

8/30/2007 1:26:33 AM

Quote :

""With the money you burn on the water cooling setup, you could've just gotten a faster processor and not dealt with the damage that comes with overclocking.""

ive already got the 2.4 duo...so i COULD drop another 300 and err..upgrade to a higher model, or spend 300 on a watercooling system then oc to the equal performance...(is that what your point is?)

earlier in my post i said i wasnt interested in a high end water system atm. meaning in no way would a water system = new processor as far as the price im spending. I see where your comming from in the idea that if i was looking for a top notch water system.


anyways i did alot of research and apparently for pure performance the best out there are the

tuniq




which has outrageous performance and had good value, but imo looks just fucking ridiculous

and the thermalright 120




which also looks cheep and tacky imo.

i know that it doesnt matter what they look like but i do take asthetics into account considering im not a 100% hardcore oc'er..

so taking everything in i decided on the zalman



thanks all

[Edited on August 30, 2007 at 1:36 AM. Reason : .]

8/30/2007 1:34:27 AM

zalman 9700 ftw, good choice

8/30/2007 1:47:12 AM

Quote :

"I would never listen to a thing neodata686 said on any topic."

I would never listen to a thing Stein said on any topic.

Oh wait. He hasn't said anything in this thread at all.



^Yeah great cooler.

8/30/2007 2:01:27 AM

those heatsinks are crazy. i would be more worried it would crack the PCB than a water cooled computer leaking. you're talking very low PSI water on fairly hefty barbs with hose clamps.

the used market for watercooled parts is MASSIVE. just buy a new water pump (which WILL die on you eventually).

the time you spend arguement is good at first glance, but i sure as shit dont get paid to build computers for me, or anyone else for that matter. people dont work 24 hours a day 7 days a week. You give up a lot of earning potential (sleeping is costing me 20$ an hour!11one) just to not want to owen wilson yourself.

that being said, i have an air cooled dell with no intentions of building a new pc anytime soon.

8/30/2007 7:51:30 AM

have the zalman......

but the way if you aren't careful when you are installing that, those stupid little copper fins will cut the shit out of your hand

8/30/2007 8:58:27 AM

hahah amen. dust that fucker regularly too to keep it running

8/30/2007 8:59:23 AM

I have sliced my fingers enough times messing with my zalman ... great piece of gear though!

8/30/2007 9:44:22 AM

i went with the black model b/c my evga 8800 is black along with my evga 680i

however rereading this post i notice (without rechecking specs at newegg) that the heatpipes are not "copper colored"

does this 9700 nt consist of aluminum while the other is copper?

or should i go suck a dick

8/30/2007 1:31:35 PM

no, they are both copper, one is alum. colored

8/30/2007 1:57:48 PM

ty x 5

8/30/2007 7:28:21 PM

update: installed the zalman, runs perfect, so far it dropped my temps from 55-58 under load to high 30's to low 40's under load.


also looks excellent in case and installation was a breeze, ty for all the info all

9/5/2007 12:28:37 AM