Enzotech Ultra-X: If Looks Could Chill
by Wesley Fink on June 27, 2007 3:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Cases/Cooling/PSUs
Scaling of Cooling Performance
The Ultra-X performance was average at stock idle and below average among top coolers at stock load. As overclocks are raised, the Enzotech exhibits improved performance in the ability to cool the CPU under stress conditions. To be as fair as possible all overclocking tests were run with the Enzotech fan at the highest speed.
At 2.93GHz the retail HSF is running at 41C, compared to 32C with the Ultra-X. This is a delta of 9C. The delta becomes greater as the overclock increases. At 3.73GHz the idle with the retail fan is 56C compared to the Ultra-X at 39C - a delta of 17C. The cooling performance of the Enzotech is much better than the Intel retail cooler at idle, but the Ultra-X does not reach the same cooling levels measured with the Thermalrights (with a Scythe S-Flex SFF21F fan) or the stock Tuniq 120. The top Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme, for example is at 33C at the same 3.73GHz.
We also need to compare cooling efficiency of the Enzotech Ultra-X under load conditions to the retail HSF and other recently tested CPU coolers. Load testing can be very revealing of a cooler's efficiency. A basically flat line, particularly form 3.73GHz upward, indicates the cooler is still in its best cooling range. A line that is increasing rapidly indicates a cooler nearing the end of its ability to cool efficiently. Lines which parallel the best coolers over a range of values are indicate that the coolers have similar cooling efficiency.
The Ultra-X is very efficient in cooling in the 2.93 GHz to 3.73 GHz overclock range. As you can see in the chart the cooling is almost a horizontal line in this range. The Enzotech continues on to a highest overclock of 3.86GHz, which is short of the 3.90GHz to 3.94GHz most of the top coolers in our testing have achieved. These results are similar to other down-facing coolers. While the overclock is the best we have seen with a down-facing cooler, they are still below the top heatpipe towers. The slope of the Ultra-X in this range from 3.73GHz to 3.86GH is steeper than the heatpipe towers, indicating it is nearing the end of its range of efficient cooling.
Unfortunately, the Ultra-X is not in the same cooling category as the best heatpipe towers we have tested. We hoped this cooler might be the down-facing cooler to buck the trend, but that is not the case. Ultra-X is a decent cooler to the range just below the best, but cooling efficiency is similar to other down-facing heatpipe towers tested.
As stated many times, the overclocking abilities of the CPU will vary at the top, depending on the CPU. This particular CPU does higher FSB speeds than any X6800 we have tested, but the 3.90GHz top speed with the Tuniq is pretty average among the X6800 processors we have tested with Tuniq cooling. A few of the other processors tested with the best air coolers reach just over 4 GHz, but the range has been 3.8 to 4.0GHz. Stock cooling generally tops out 200 to 400 MHz lower, depending on the CPU, on the processors tested in our lab.
The Ultra-X performance was average at stock idle and below average among top coolers at stock load. As overclocks are raised, the Enzotech exhibits improved performance in the ability to cool the CPU under stress conditions. To be as fair as possible all overclocking tests were run with the Enzotech fan at the highest speed.
 |
| Click to enlarge |
At 2.93GHz the retail HSF is running at 41C, compared to 32C with the Ultra-X. This is a delta of 9C. The delta becomes greater as the overclock increases. At 3.73GHz the idle with the retail fan is 56C compared to the Ultra-X at 39C - a delta of 17C. The cooling performance of the Enzotech is much better than the Intel retail cooler at idle, but the Ultra-X does not reach the same cooling levels measured with the Thermalrights (with a Scythe S-Flex SFF21F fan) or the stock Tuniq 120. The top Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme, for example is at 33C at the same 3.73GHz.
We also need to compare cooling efficiency of the Enzotech Ultra-X under load conditions to the retail HSF and other recently tested CPU coolers. Load testing can be very revealing of a cooler's efficiency. A basically flat line, particularly form 3.73GHz upward, indicates the cooler is still in its best cooling range. A line that is increasing rapidly indicates a cooler nearing the end of its ability to cool efficiently. Lines which parallel the best coolers over a range of values are indicate that the coolers have similar cooling efficiency.
 |
| Click to enlarge |
The Ultra-X is very efficient in cooling in the 2.93 GHz to 3.73 GHz overclock range. As you can see in the chart the cooling is almost a horizontal line in this range. The Enzotech continues on to a highest overclock of 3.86GHz, which is short of the 3.90GHz to 3.94GHz most of the top coolers in our testing have achieved. These results are similar to other down-facing coolers. While the overclock is the best we have seen with a down-facing cooler, they are still below the top heatpipe towers. The slope of the Ultra-X in this range from 3.73GHz to 3.86GH is steeper than the heatpipe towers, indicating it is nearing the end of its range of efficient cooling.
Unfortunately, the Ultra-X is not in the same cooling category as the best heatpipe towers we have tested. We hoped this cooler might be the down-facing cooler to buck the trend, but that is not the case. Ultra-X is a decent cooler to the range just below the best, but cooling efficiency is similar to other down-facing heatpipe towers tested.
As stated many times, the overclocking abilities of the CPU will vary at the top, depending on the CPU. This particular CPU does higher FSB speeds than any X6800 we have tested, but the 3.90GHz top speed with the Tuniq is pretty average among the X6800 processors we have tested with Tuniq cooling. A few of the other processors tested with the best air coolers reach just over 4 GHz, but the range has been 3.8 to 4.0GHz. Stock cooling generally tops out 200 to 400 MHz lower, depending on the CPU, on the processors tested in our lab.
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;))