Testing Methodology

Although the testing of a cooler appears to be a simple task, that could not be much further from the truth. Proper thermal testing cannot be performed with a cooler mounted on a single chip, for multiple reasons. Some of these reasons include the instability of the thermal load and the inability to fully control and or monitor it, as well as the inaccuracy of the chip-integrated sensors. It is also impossible to compare results taken on different chips, let alone entirely different systems, which is a great problem when testing computer coolers, as the hardware changes every several months. Finally, testing a cooler on a typical system prevents the tester from assessing the most vital characteristic of a cooler, its absolute thermal resistance.

The absolute thermal resistance defines the absolute performance of a heatsink by indicating the temperature rise per unit of power, in our case in degrees Celsius per Watt (°C/W). In layman's terms, if the thermal resistance of a heatsink is known, the user can assess the highest possible temperature rise of a chip over ambient by simply multiplying the maximum thermal design power (TDP) rating of the chip with it. Extracting the absolute thermal resistance of a cooler however is no simple task, as the load has to be perfectly even, steady and variable, as the thermal resistance also varies depending on the magnitude of the thermal load. Therefore, even if it would be possible to assess the thermal resistance of a cooler while it is mounted on a working chip, it would not suffice, as a large change of the thermal load can yield much different results.

Appropriate thermal testing requires the creation of a proper testing station and the use of laboratory-grade equipment. Therefore, we created a thermal testing platform with a fully controllable thermal energy source that may be used to test any kind of cooler, regardless of its design and or compatibility. The thermal cartridge inside the core of our testing station can have its power adjusted between 60 W and 340 W, in 2 W increments (and it never throttles). Furthermore, monitoring and logging of the testing process via software minimizes the possibility of human errors during testing. A multifunction data acquisition module (DAQ) is responsible for the automatic or the manual control of the testing equipment, the acquisition of the ambient and the in-core temperatures via PT100 sensors, the logging of the test results and the mathematical extraction of performance figures.

Finally, as noise measurements are a bit tricky, their measurement is being performed only manually. Fans can have significant variations in speed from their rated values, thus their actual speed during the thermal testing is being acquired via a laser tachometer. The fans (and pumps, when applicable) are being powered via an adjustable, fanless desktop DC power supply and noise measurements are being taken 1 meter away from the cooler, in a straight line ahead from its fan engine. At this point we should also note that the Decibel scale is logarithmic, which means that roughly every 3 dB(A) the sound pressure doubles. Therefore, the difference of sound pressure between 30 dB(A) and 60 dB(A) is not "twice as much" but nearly a thousand times greater. The table below should help you cross-reference our test results with real-life situations.

The noise floor of our recording equipment is 30.2-30.4 dB(A), which represents a medium-sized room without any active noise sources. All of our acoustic testing takes place during night hours, minimizing the possibility of external disruptions.

<35dB(A) Virtually inaudible
35-38dB(A) Very quiet (whisper-slight humming)
38-40dB(A) Quiet (relatively comfortable - humming)
40-44dB(A) Normal (humming noise, above comfortable for a large % of users)
44-47dB(A)* Loud* (strong aerodynamic noise)
47-50dB(A) Very loud (strong whining noise)
50-54dB(A) Extremely loud (painfully distracting for the vast majority of users)
>54dB(A) Intolerable for home/office use, special applications only.

*noise levels above this are not suggested for daily use

The Phononic HEX 2.0 Thermoelectric Cooler & Software Testing results, maximum fan speed (12 Volts)
Comments Locked

48 Comments

View All Comments

  • MrSpadge - Tuesday, September 27, 2016 - link

    "As the load increases, the thermal resistance of the HEX 2.0 decreases, particularly with thermal loads above 200W. With a thermal load of 340W, the thermal resistance of the HEX 2.0 drops down to 0.1685 °C/W"

    Yep.. this should be:

    "As the load increases, the thermal resistance of the HEX 2.0 INCREASES, particularly with thermal loads above 200W. With a thermal load of 340W, the thermal resistance of the HEX 2.0 INCREASES UP to 0.1685 °C/W"
  • bug77 - Tuesday, September 27, 2016 - link

    Oh goodie. A cooler with Windows-only software. Where do I sign up? /s
  • BulkSlash - Tuesday, September 27, 2016 - link

    It's great to see someone experimenting with TECs again, I think the last time I used one was with the ATI Radeon 800 XT! It's a pity this doesn't really work for really high temperatures as that's really where a TEC can come into its own.
  • Haravikk - Wednesday, September 28, 2016 - link

    Seems like some odd choices. For me it always seemed like a TEC made most sense as an external unit for liquid cooling, since the liquid can transfer the heat out and the TEC then cools it somewhere that the condensation problem can be controlled. Plus externally you can have a massive heatsink or even a huge plate for dissipating passively.

    Trying to squeeze it inside a case like this just doesn't seem all that practical, and it doesn't really seem to offer much in the way of advantages; I'm not that fussy about how cool my processor is when it's idle so long as my fans are quiet at that point. Most good coolers will keep a CPU from exceeding 40-50ºC under light load without making too much noise (some will even do it passively in the right case) so I just don't see what this unit offers for the price and complexity.

    Also, while aesthetically I like the fan in the middle, practically I don't see the point; horizontal space usually isn't so tight that you can't fit the fan on the front or back of the cooler, plus with that design it's easy to provide mounts for a second fan. Sandwiching in the middle just seems like it limits the heatsink unnecessarily.
  • dave_the_nerd - Wednesday, September 28, 2016 - link

    On one hand, this is a compact, nice looking cooler that performs very well with the 50-65w TDP CPUs that Intel makes and sells.

    OTOH, I really want a Reeven Okeanos now.
  • zodiacfml - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    Other reviews were not able to find that advantage at low loads.
    The question now is, which chips are suitable for overclocking to 65W. If it did, will it improve highest possible overlclock?
  • Sunburn74 - Tuesday, October 4, 2016 - link

    Was I the only one who thought the conclusion was a bit off? Why didn't the reviewer just say it's a bad product at a terrible price point? I mean, it appears to be that there is always a smaller, quieter, cheaper and equally if more efficient cooling option in almost every situation tested
  • Sadler2010 - Monday, August 22, 2022 - link

    I used to run an Ultra Chilltec Black until the Peltier died it successfully cooled a Phenom II 970T and my FX-8350 until it flatlined. So my experience with TEC's was good, but now I'm looking at AIO's to avoid the issues brought by TEC's.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now