Closed Loop AIO Liquid Coolers: 14-way Mega Roundup Review
by E. Fylladitakis on February 12, 2014 7:00 AM ESTSilverstone
Silverstone is another well-known name amongst advanced users and enthusiasts. The company earned their reputation from their first PSUs and original case designs and soon diversified towards cooling related products. They currently offer just two AIO liquid cooling solutions, the Tundra series. The company shipped both of them to us for this review.
Silverstone Tundra TD02
Silverstone ships the Tundra TD02 inside a large cardboard box with a black/blue theme. The box has plenty of pictures and information about the cooler printed on all of its sides. The company also supplies a fairly standard bundle with the Tundra TD02, which consists of a manual with installation instructions, mounting hardware and a syringe with thermal compound. There also is a 3-pin Y-splitter fan cable included, which can be used to power two fans off a single header. Silverstone supplies two 120mm fans with the TD02. The fans have back frames and curved, notched white blades that supposedly reduce aerodynamic noise, as well as fluid-state bearings for prolonged life. Their speed range is rather narrow, ranging from 1500 to 2500 RPM.
Visually, the Silverstone Tundra TD02 certainly stands out a lot. Although it is somewhat different, the Tundra TD02 could be coming from the same OEM that makes the Enermax Liqtech 120X as well; however, Silverstone did not want to reveal their source. The very large and deep radiator with the grey aluminum frame stands out, the size of which overwhelms any Asetek/CoolIT design. Size is not always a good thing though, as the 45mm thick design could bring serious compatibility issues, especially if the case has been designed with 27-29mm radiators in mind.
The design of the radiator is quite different from that of most other kits. Like the radiator of the Liqtech 120X, instead of wavy aluminum fins between the liquid pass-through channels, this design forms single, "seamless" fins from one side to the other, which are soldered onto the channels. The design of the fins and the overall size of the radiator though is different.
The block-pump assembly of the Tundra TD02 stands out over that of most other kits as well. It is entirely metallic, made of nickel-plated aluminum with a copper base. A badge with Silverstone's logo lies in the middle of the aluminum cap, which also has very subtle blue LEDs surrounding it. There is something unique about this block however; unlike any other assembly, including that of the Liqtech 120X, the copper base of the block is not attached to the assembly with screws, leaving the bottom of the block entirely plain. It has also been machined down to a perfect, smooth finish. The only thing that we could complain about is the use of narrow, stiff, white corrugated tubing, which is beneath the quality of such a product.
Silverstone Tundra TD03
Confusing as this may be, the Tundra TD03 actually is a smaller version of the TD02. It comes in a similarly designed cardboard box with a black/blue color theme, only it's significantly smaller. Despite the change in size however, the cooler remains very well protected within cardboard packaging and inside nylon bags. It also shares exactly the same bundle with the TD02, including the manual with the installation instructions. The two 120mm fans supplies are the same as those of the TD02, with a black frame and curved, notched white blades.
Both visually and practically, the Tundra TD03 is just a shorter version of the TD02. The radiator also shares the same design, and is just as wide and thick as the radiator of the TD02, yet nearly half as long, which means that it essentially has half the heat dissipation surface. Nevertheless, Silverstone still supplies two 120mm fans, to be used in a push-pull configuration. It is interesting to note that this radiator design appears a lot more solid, without any imperfections or bent fins, which appear to be very common on radiators with wavy aluminum fins.
As expected, the fully metallic block-pump assembly of the Tundra TD03 is identical to that of the TD02. The top and frame of the assembly are made out of nickel-plated aluminum, with the base of the block made out of solid copper. Even the mounting braces are made of solid aluminum, with those meant for Intel CPUs preinstalled on the block from the factory. Once again, the copper base is not attached to the aluminum frame with screws, at least not screws visible from the bottom of the assembly, leaving the base of the cooler perfectly clean and smooth.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
139 Comments
View All Comments
Dustin Sklavos - Wednesday, February 12, 2014 - link
Good lord.If I'd known my successor would produce results this thorough I'd've stepped aside a long time ago.
Really well done piece of work.
E.Fyll - Wednesday, February 12, 2014 - link
Thank you for the praise Dustin, yet I still stand unworthy of it. :)Dustin Sklavos - Wednesday, February 12, 2014 - link
I'm enjoying your work tremendously. Now that I'm at Corsair I'm glad we have someone we can send case/cooling/PSU hardware to that meets and beats the AnandTech standard.creed3020 - Wednesday, February 12, 2014 - link
Yeah Dustin....I have seriously enjoyed your labors here at AT and do miss them. Your successor has changed the paradigm so much that it's hard to compare, but it's a awesome reboot to this area of reviews here at AT.I, however, have to agree with many other commenters that a secondary dataset produced with the same 120mm/140mm fans does have it's merit as it will provide an objective evaluation of the radiator and pumps. This is one area where I am really curious to see quality differences in the products. I am fully aware that each OEM is very careful in their selection of a fan which matches their product. This is not done by lottery, that much is clear to me. The OEM behind the Silverstone/Enermax product intrigues me, as I am a fan of Silverstone products and use their cases exclusively for all of my desktops, gaming PCs, and HTPCs. The Tundra's seems like they are ripe for a revision!
BigLeagueJammer - Wednesday, February 12, 2014 - link
Under Noise Level Reference Values, your first one of <35dB(A) being "Virtually inaudible" doesn't match up with most sources I've seen. Most rate that as "very quiet" and say the limit of human hearing as 10 db(A). If other sources say things like a ticking watch is around 20 db(A) which in a quiet room is easy to hear, then 35 seems too high for your qualification of "virtually inaudible".E.Fyll - Wednesday, February 12, 2014 - link
True, I am afraid that the lot of "copy/paste-ing" online has produced a lot of bad information going around. Some are works of fiction, some are misinterpretations of confused people, some...I don't even want to know.So, copying my answer from above:
"Sub-35 dB(A) levels are generally impossible to notice by a human ear. Sub-30 dB(A) levels are next to impossible to record with anything less than science lab-grade equipment. There is no handheld or desktop dB(A) meter that can perform such readings. If you have seen reviews stating sub-30 dB(A) levels, make sure to check their methodology (given that there is any). Either the meter cannot read lower than 30 dB(A) (and/or will display a bogus reading, as most cheap Chinese meters do) and the review is a fictional text or their methodology is based on dB readings, not dB(A) readings, which is useless to a consumer."
I think it will suffice for me to say that you cannot possibly hear what an instrument designed for this specific purpose cannot even record. In theory, the human hearing threshold is 1 dB(A); in practice however, that is true only for specific frequencies. The background noise of a typical room is almost always above 32-33dB(A).
Jon-R - Wednesday, February 12, 2014 - link
What is your opinion on the tests done over at SilentPCReview? They test using lab-grade equipment. A rundown can be found here: http://www.silentpcreview.com/article875-page2.htm...They use reference fans which measure around 13dBA at their slowest fan speeds, and they don't think highly of AIO water-cooling at all, as none of the tested ones have come close to the best air-coolers when it comes to quiet cooling.
E.Fyll - Wednesday, February 12, 2014 - link
From what I can see, they are using a highly sensitive microphone and a computer's sound card to record the results, connected through an amplifier. Although the equipment is very good, this is not "lab grade equipment" but just a customized setup. A very good setup nonetheless, including an anechoic chamber. They have a microphone with a self-noise of 8 dB, which measures 11 dB(A) inside the aforementioned anechoic chamber.It will suffice to say that their results are just in no way comparable to mine. Actually, as noise level measurements are environment-specific, you should only compare the results of a same setup, never in-between different setups. Unless they are all science labs with multiple ISO certifications, of course. Given that my room floor noise level is over 30 dB(A) and they are using a sub-12 dB(A) anechoic chamber, I believe that I do not have to stress how different the results out of these two setups are.
As far as equipment goes, for example, this is a cheap lab grade sound analyzer and still costs 5 times more than the whole setup that you showed me, microphones and secondary equipment aside:
http://www.nti-audio.com/en/products/flexus-fx100....
Jon-R - Wednesday, February 12, 2014 - link
But you're not saying that their measurements are inaccurate, only that they've got a significantly lower noise-floor than what you're using? So it boils down to the difference between what is considered silent? Because 30dBA is louder than their reference fan it its loudest setting, and far beyond what they consider acceptable. Just as a reference, they measured 43 dBA for the Silverstonde TD03 at 12v, and 30 dBA at 7v.E.Fyll - Wednesday, February 12, 2014 - link
"Inaccurate" is a harsh word when it comes to sound pressure level measurements. Although I would not hesitate to use this word for most other types of tests, there are far too many variables at stake here. I believe that their setup may be better than mine. I am just using a good handheld sound level meter, with the product positioned in the middle of a standard room.I would simply stick with "different".
Sound levels are additive. If you have a noise source of 20 dB(A) and added another source of 20 dB(A), the room noise would not be 20 dB(A) but 23 dB(A). A third source would make it 24.8 dB(A) and so on. So, a fan that would measure 18 dB(A) inside an 12 dB(A) anechoic chamber, will still add to the 30.4 dB(A) floor noise of my room. The difference is the magnitude, as the scale is logarithmic. As you said, the TD03 added about 18 dB(A) and 30 dB(A) to their setup, when it adds 8.3 dB(A) and 17.7 dB(A) to mine, because of the higher background noise. These differences are in no way comparable to each other; that is only possible when the scale is linear. The further you move up the decibel scale, the largest the increase of SPL becomes per single decibel.