Noise and Thermal Testing, Overclocked

Remember when I mentioned the DigitalStorm BlackOps using the SilverStone FT02 for cooling, and its stellar noise and thermal performance? Now we're going to apply some very real pressure to the FT02, and this is where it should start to really acquit itself.

Unfortunately thermal performance doesn't quite work out that way. While the CPU temps are still reasonably low and most of the cases are bunching up at the top of the chart, the RV03 is actually able to keep the processor nearly 5C cooler under load. Graphics card temperatures, on the other hand, are among the lowest we've recorded, suggesting the FT02 may, if nothing else, be ideal for multi-GPU setups.

When we test acoustics, though, the FT02 comes out ahead. Under load it's one of the quieter cases we've tested (at least at low fan speed), and winds up actually being one of the more efficient designs. The Level 10 GT still manages to produce better performance overall, though.

Noise and Thermal Testing, Stock Conclusion: A Classic That Needs a Little Love
POST A COMMENT

58 Comments

View All Comments

  • veselinbg - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    Hi everyone! This is my first post and would like to say that I really like Anandtech.com, guys you're great!

    So right on the subject - I think that there is some general issue with testing methodology or accuracy of temperature measurements.

    OK, let see what are the temperatures reported by the SSD:

    Stock speed/ IDLE
    FT02 33 C (low fan)
    RV03 29 C

    Stock speed/Load
    FT02 35 C (low fan)
    RV03 31 C
    Reply
  • veselinbg - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    Difference 4 C, both Idle and Load.
    How is this even possible?! It's a HUGE difference for the same piece of hardware and same conditions (same ambient temperature, same mount method)?!

    Again, the SSD was mounted in a way, that airflow inside the case doesn't affect it's temperature. This statement is more true for RV03 then FT02, because RV03 doesn't have a 180 mm fan under hard drive bay. So for FT02 still there is a little chance to "catch" some of the airflow from third fan. But in thermal diagrams we can see that the SSD in RV03 is cooler then in FT02

    So I have to conclude that the ambient temperature was NOT the same when both cases are reviewed. Which means that all other thermal results (CPU, GPU, chipset etc.) are not relevant.

    Please, let me know what do you think.
    Reply
  • Uritziel - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly; however, I think the answer you're looking for is that the SSD in the RV03 is mounted behind the mobo, where it receives a fair amount of air flow due to one of the fans being offset. Reply
  • veselinbg - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    No, I want to say that in both cases Raven03 and Fortress02, the SSD was mounted under the motherboard tray and the airflow created by the fans affects it's temperature very little, if any.
    In FT02 a little amount of air is possible to reach the SSD, hence the SSD should be more cooler in FT02, then in RV03. But the thermal readings shows exactly the opposite results, which means that something is wrong.

    I intentionally choose to compare the thermal results of two Silversone's cases, because they are using same mounting method for SSD's.
    Reply
  • Uritziel - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    While both cases can mount the SSD behind the mobo, it seems to me the similarity stops there. The RV03 has an air channel back there. The fans actually extend behind the mobo, and the air can continue past the SSD to exit via venting holes in the top.
    I'm not as familiar with the FT02, but looking at the top-down view in the gallery here, there seems to be no air channel behind the mobo. The fans don't appear to actually extend behind the mobo, and I see no venting at the top either. Also, does the FT02 also use the newer "air penetrator" fans (or whatever they're called) that the RV03 uses?
    I just recently put my RV03 build together, so I'm trying to help you make sense of the thermal discrepancy since Dustin hasn't responded to you yet.
    Reply
  • veselinbg - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    I make my conclusions only by using images from the gallery.

    Please take a look here:
    http://www.anandtech.com/Gallery/Album/1235#3

    Please show me where is that air channel?
    As I can see there is a metal folded plate which "hide" the SSD from airflow.
    Reply
  • banthracis - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    It's stated that ambient varies from 71F to 74F so it's not a constant. If fact, unless the room is temperature controlled, I'd also assume the variance is greater as as these systems increase ambient over time.

    It would be much better IMO to measure delta's like bit-tech or normalize the data like HardOCP does, rather than simply give the temperature.
    Reply
  • veselinbg - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    Yes, I agree with you that thermal results as delta is more accurate.
    And I suspect that that big difference in SSD's temperature comes from different ambient temperature.
    Reply
  • don_k - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    Just to point out that a 4C difference on an SSD is simply down to ambient temperature or positioning of the SSD and even then, it does not matter.

    It's an SSD. It uses just a few W of power, it's not going to get hot in the first place.

    Worry about gpu/cpu deltas, not SSD temps.
    Reply
  • banthracis - Monday, August 15, 2011 - link

    The point he's trying to make, is that if the SSD's should have been the same temp, yet are 4C off, then does this mean there was a 4C ambient temp difference?

    If so, that makes all the thermal tests results invalid for comparison, not just the SSD ones.

    So basically, vs the RV02 for ex, the FT02 could temps should be 4c lower than what's on those graphs, a significant difference considering how close temps are.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now