Enzotech Ultra-X: If Looks Could Chill
by Wesley Fink on June 27, 2007 3:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Cases/Cooling/PSUs
Overclocking
As cooling solutions do a better job of keeping the CPU at a lower temperature, it is reasonable to expect the overclocking capabilities of the CPU will increase. In each test of a cooler we measure the highest stable overclock of a standard X6800 processor under the following conditions:
CPU Multiplier: 14x (Stock 11x)
CPU voltage: 1.5875V
FSB Voltage: 1.30V
Memory Voltage: 2.20V
nForce SPP Voltage: 1.35V
nForce MCP Voltage: 1.7V
HT nForce SPP <-> MCP: Auto
Memory is set to Auto timings on the 680i and memory speed is linked to the FSB for the overclocking tests. This removes memory as any kind of impediment to the maximum stable overclock. Linked settings on the 680i are a 1066FSB to a memory speed of DDR2-800. As the FSB is raised the linked memory speed increases in proportion. The same processor is used in all cooling tests to ensure comparable results.
The Enzotech Ultra-X reaches a stable 3.86 GHz - again similar to other down-facing coolers. This is high enough to make the Ultra-X the best overclocking down-blowing cooler we have tested, but it does not match the 3.90 to 3.94GHz measured with the best heatpipe towers.
Many readers have suggested that an auxiliary case fan exhausting air out the back of the case will improve performance of the down-facing fan coolers. As an additional check we mounted an Aero Cool 120mm Xtreme Turbine fan at the rear of the case exhausting air form the case interior. This fan is capable of air flows up to 89 CFM.
The added case fan did cool temperatures by as much as 4 to 5C at stock 2.93 GHz, and 1 to 3C at 3.83 GHz. This did provide somewhat better cooling with the Ultra-X. However, we could not achieve a higher overclock with the Ultra-X with the added high-output case fan. The highest stable overclock was still 3.86GHz.
As cooling solutions do a better job of keeping the CPU at a lower temperature, it is reasonable to expect the overclocking capabilities of the CPU will increase. In each test of a cooler we measure the highest stable overclock of a standard X6800 processor under the following conditions:
CPU Multiplier: 14x (Stock 11x)
CPU voltage: 1.5875V
FSB Voltage: 1.30V
Memory Voltage: 2.20V
nForce SPP Voltage: 1.35V
nForce MCP Voltage: 1.7V
HT nForce SPP <-> MCP: Auto
Memory is set to Auto timings on the 680i and memory speed is linked to the FSB for the overclocking tests. This removes memory as any kind of impediment to the maximum stable overclock. Linked settings on the 680i are a 1066FSB to a memory speed of DDR2-800. As the FSB is raised the linked memory speed increases in proportion. The same processor is used in all cooling tests to ensure comparable results.
The Enzotech Ultra-X reaches a stable 3.86 GHz - again similar to other down-facing coolers. This is high enough to make the Ultra-X the best overclocking down-blowing cooler we have tested, but it does not match the 3.90 to 3.94GHz measured with the best heatpipe towers.
Many readers have suggested that an auxiliary case fan exhausting air out the back of the case will improve performance of the down-facing fan coolers. As an additional check we mounted an Aero Cool 120mm Xtreme Turbine fan at the rear of the case exhausting air form the case interior. This fan is capable of air flows up to 89 CFM.
The added case fan did cool temperatures by as much as 4 to 5C at stock 2.93 GHz, and 1 to 3C at 3.83 GHz. This did provide somewhat better cooling with the Ultra-X. However, we could not achieve a higher overclock with the Ultra-X with the added high-output case fan. The highest stable overclock was still 3.86GHz.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
33 Comments
View All Comments
Spanki - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
Since I've been pushing to see this sink reviewed at AT, I'd like to be sure to thank you for doing it - thanks!I guess I still have on-going concerns about your test setup and conclusions drawn based on that setup - ie. if you had a side-vent/fan, and also used exhaust fans, your conclusions might be wildly different (as the results we're all seeing in other reviews). Maybe it's the Tower coolers that suffer in those conditions (? I dunno... but your results just don't jibe with other results, where a side-vent might be in use).
I'm not suggesting that everyone should go buy a case with a side vent, only that those who DO own a case with a side-vent/fan might be getting the wrong impression from your general conclusions about top-blowers.
My only other quibble is your comments on price, but I guess if the place who loaned the HSF sells it for X then that must be the "lowest price" you found (~$63)... I've listed at least 4 sites in the forums that sell it for under $60 (ok, $59.99 :) ).
Anyway, nice job as usual - thanks.
Wesley Fink - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
The side vent or hole is to bring air IN, not to exhaust air. The fan on these coolers blows down onto the heatpipe cantilever and CPU block. Readers have been suggesting that an added case exhaust fan at the rear would correct the down-facing cooler performance. As stated in the review we tried an added 120mm rear exhaust fan to our setup and it did improve cooling, but did not improve overclocking.We also ran tests with the side cover off the case above the cooler. Certainly an entire open side will allow as much cooling air to enter the case as a side vent (the test case also has low front vents for air entry, as most cases do). The results with the open side were no different than we show in the review.
Spanki - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
Yes, obviously I was referring to the side vent/fan bringing air IN :). Consider the following though (bare with me)...For purposes of example, let's say that user A uses an http://www.antec.com/us/productDetails.php?ProdID=...">Antec 900 case (with a 120mm fan attached to the side vent) and user B uses an http://www.antec.com/us/productDetails.php?ProdID=...">Antec P182 case. And both users are trying to decide between getting the TR Ultra 120 Extreme or Enzo Ultra-X (again, just for example purposes).
TR Ultra 120:
Height = 160.5mm
Weight = 790g + http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&ar...">164g for Scythe S-FLEX SFF21F fan = 954g
Price = http://www.frozencpu.com/products/5664/cpu-tri-39/...">$64.95 + http://www.frozencpu.com/products/2506/fan-206/Scy...">$14.99 = $79.84 (I won't include the price of the lapping kit, since many people won't bother)
Enzo Ultra-X:
Height = 118mm + 25mm for fan = 143mm
Weight = 835g
Price = http://www.frozencpu.com/products/5516/cpu-enz-01/...">$62.99 (no lapping needed)
...I don't have an Antec 900 case to know for sure, but again for the purpose of example, let's assume that the extra height of the Ultra 120 Extreme means that user A has to remove the fan from his side vent, but not with the Enzo Ultra-X.
From your testing, it seems relatively apparent that user B (no side vent) will get the best cooling performance with the TR Ultra 120 Extreme.
But is it 'concievable' to you that user A could possibly get better cooling performance with an Enzo Ultra-X (side vent, with fan, blowing down into the top of it)?
Personally, I don't know the answer and I'm not trying to champion top-blower design heatsinks either - what I'm trying to do is reconcile the fact that your reviews are not consistent with many other reviews (both from sites and end-users), in the case of top-blower heatsinks.
Obviously there are many many factors that come into play from one review/user configuration to the next (cpu used, "load" app, fan speed, mounting pressure, TIM application, etc), but that's not accounting for the relative differences between heatsinks tested on the same configuration.
Doesn't that bother you? Or are you pretty comfortable with the idea that all the other reviews are just getting it wrong?
magreen1 - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
Yes, and what if my mother likes the Enzo Ultra-X cooler but has a grudge against the TR Ultra Extreme cooler. So if I buy the TR cooler she'll take away my allowance for three weeks. Then I'll have to get a cheaper CPU to save money... maybe an E4300 instead of an E6600, with 2MB less cache. So maybe we should compare performance of the Enzo Ultra-X with an e6600 overclocked to the TR Ultra Extreme with an e4300 overclocked... just to be fair.Spanki - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
Heh. So you're suggesting that I'm nit-picking? Or have some bias towards the Enzo or away from the TR?Let me re-state my motives, just to be clear...
- I don't own an Ezno and have no stake what-so-ever in whether it rox or sux.
- Same is true with TR products.
- I have zero love/brand-loyalty or even hate/beef with any particular company's product.
- I actually have a CM Hyper Tx cooler on my personal system, because it serves my particular needs perfectly.
- I'd like for other readers/users to have the most complete information available to them, so they can figure out the best cooler for thier particular needs.
...in short, the issue to me is acedemic at this point. And if there weren't many conflicting reports out there, I might even drink the Kool-Aid and take the "side-blowers out-perform top-blowers" opinion at face value.
The problem (as I see it) is that there are conflicting results out there and so there is some reason for those differences. I am interested to know what those reasons are. I'm assuming that Wesley (and his readers) is likely at least curious as well. Seems like you would be too... are do you just choose to believe one internet stranger over another?
(The above is no slam on Wesley btw... I happen to think he's a smart, skilled, professional reviewer - which is what leads me to believe that he'd be curious about this apparent discrepency).
strikeback03 - Friday, June 29, 2007 - link
I'd guess that to really solve the question of this variation, the same reviewer would have to test the same group of coolers in different ways. an AMD system, a C2D system, an old P4 system, etc. IIRC some sites don't test on a processor at all, but a heated block. Cases and airflow have a role to play, and some coolers might respond better than others to those changes. so for a site that keeps a consistent method, results are probably correct for that setup, but tests witht he same coolers across a range would be needed to isolate why some places give better reports than others.As far as user opinions, they are at best only somewhat useful. I can tell you that according to the Foxconn software that came with my board, my Tuniq holds my E6600 at 1-2 degrees over ambient at idle. Whight I might not mention is that before a BIOS update the Foxconn software was reporting that the processor was cooler than ambient, and also disagreed with the temp reading in the BIOS. So no guarantees the current figure is correct either.
Spanki - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
Whoops.. I started out doing the comparison with the Ultra 120 (non-extreme) but then decided to use the Extreme (so there's a typo in the labeling, above). Anyway, since this is hypothetical anyway, I'd be just as comfortable with posing the same question comparing the non-extreme version, but you'd have to use the non-extreme weight and price figures, bringing the two sinks much closer together in those aspects.DrMrLordX - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
Actually, I think he specifically meant side vents or side fans for intake . . . which is what I was asking about above.Does your test bed have a side intake vent/duct/etc?
DrMrLordX - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
woops, missed the part in your comment where you said you tested with the side of the case off. Disregard please.jmke - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - link
It's Thermaltake who makes Big Typhoon VX, not Coolermaster (last paragraph 1st page;))