PC Cooling - Air or Liquid?


Recommended Posts

Curious on how people have their cooling set up in their rigs. Please share

And do you prefer air or liquid? Why?

For my uses im going to stick with air, this is the safest route for me and not having to worry..

Im going to get a Noctua CPU cooler and eventually GPU cooler.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1143636-pc-cooling-air-or-liquid/
Share on other sites

I've seen quite an increase in closed-loop CPU watercooling systems (Corsair Hydro of all calibers, a handful of TTs). Even started recommending them myself (being a Corsair fanboi), because it's so easy (especially H60/H80, which are almost braindead simple) and doesn't really break the bank. Stock fans kind of suck (as in "are loud"), but that's no issue.

However, before hearing bubbling noises now and then right out of the box, and then reading about leaks destroying high-end gear. And now I'm much less enthusiastic. You can't really tell, though, I guess?

First thing I do now - put metal clamps on hoses, because I don't trust the heat sealing. Probably in vain, though - if it does leak, it'll be in the head, especially near the swivels, which, I must say, seems like a patently bad idea.

For SB-E or any AMD I'd still probably go closed-loop. For anything else a decent air cooler (the almost legendary 212 even) would suffice.

For GPU - no idea. Aren't they pretty good as they come, with, say, Windforce and all?

One day I'd love to build a full LC setup, though. The immense factor of cool (both kinds) it brings is unrivaled. Then again, seating the whole thing in mineral oil is even more cool. And about the same distance from being possible.

For me, Air cooled - cheap, easy, and low temperatures. I have an Antec 300, with 4x120mm fan, 1 x140mm fan. My CPU heatsink is the Arctic Freezer 7 Pro Rev. 2 and it idles at 24-30 degrees C, and load tempaeratures in the low 50's. GPU is cooled by the 2 fans that are built in and one of the 120mm case fans, it stays very cool also.

I have a Corsair H50, and you can overclock like a beast with that thing and it keeps it nice and cool. It handles 4.5GHz on my i7 with ease. Never really pushed it further than that though.

It being dead silent is worth it alone.

I use an corsair h80 on my desktop gaming machine and an h60 on my file/hyper-v server. Both are miraculous. the h60 keeps my server running at ~87-90F @ load (ambient is ~75 F) and is nearly silent. the H80 keeps my desktop pretty cool as well, though I don't have #'s off the top of my head. As Phouchg said, they're easy as cake to install, and are very good setups for the cost. (got my h60 for around 50$ and I think 64$ for the 80.)

I've owned several closed loop liquid coolers such as Coolit ECO single and dual fan radiator versions, currently rocking the Antec Kuhler 620. Imho they aren't worth the money, you can get equally good if not better results with a decent tower heatsink if you use decent fans.

The problem with the cheap closed loop watercoolers is that after a while the pump tends to start rattling/gurgling, it's happened to all the ones I've owned so far and its really irritating and spoils the only thing going for watercoolers which is how quiet they are.

I'm thinking of getting a H110i when I up to a 3770K before summer. Really worried about temps, we get above 100F many days in summer here. And to have cooling as well as a decrease in noise, seems like a no-brainer.

I'd really like to get my GPUs cooled as well but until the AIO units can do this easily I won't worry about it.

Is liquid cooling drastically better than air cooling? Comparing an air cooled system where someone has taken advantage of optimal air flow and good cable management and a liquid cooled system, it there a noticeable difference? Or is water cooling just something tech-heads like to do because it is geeky? Like extreme over-clocking.

Water is a superior heat conductor.

The risk of water leaks is what puts me off.

I have a Noctua NH-D14 and my i7-2600K runs between 30 and 39 degrees C at all times.

The water coolers that I've seen are not good enough for me.

I want a NH-D14 to be transformed into a water block. :D

I use a noctua NH-D14 on my 4.4ghz oc 3570k setup. CPU runs mid 20s at idle & mid 50s at max load. After reading horror stories about leaky LC's ruining new builds, I opted for the noctua which offers similar or better performance than a lot of LC's.

Water is a superior heat conductor.

The risk of water leaks is what puts me off.

I have a Noctua NH-D14 and my i7-2600K runs between 30 and 39 degrees C at all times.

The water coolers that I've seen are not good enough for me.

I want a NH-D14 to be transformed into a water block. :D

That is actually the Noctua I was looking at for my CPU, from what I read it is better than most liquid cooling and highly rated.

And there is nothing wrong with my GPU cooling, just think aftermarket would be nice to have on it.

with todays chips if you build a pc correctly you need nothing but stock cooling.

i play anything any game on Ultra settings on a ivy bridge core i3

GTX 670

no need for anything other then stock cooling do not let anyone tell you otherwise my max temps on cpu is 50

and max GPU is 70 under 100% load with stock cooling

The NH-D14 keeps the CPU much cooler and generates less noise at heavy load compared to a stock cooler.

There is nothing wrong with stock coolers, but there are coolers that are much better.

Keeping the stock cooler is up to you, but I rather hear the noise from the actual air flow than the noise from the fan itself. There is a difference between noise and noise.

Air, mainly because it's much cheaper and easier. The overclocking potential with a decent after market cooler is good enough imo.

Also, the performance gain from liquid isn't worth the cost imo, you might as well just get a faster processor. If you get the fastest processor available and want to overclock it even then, you might as well go with liquid because you can probably afford it but you probably don't need the extra power if you've got the fastest processor and you're probably just doing it for the lulz.

Is liquid cooling drastically better than air cooling? Comparing an air cooled system where someone has taken advantage of optimal air flow and good cable management and a liquid cooled system, it there a noticeable difference? Or is water cooling just something tech-heads like to do because it is geeky? Like extreme over-clocking.

Yes it's drastically better (the physics support that) - i've been doing it for about a decade and really I started because I was sick of the noise of air cooling. It is amazing how much temps drop on things like GPUs versus air though - it gives you a lot more headroom for overclocking. Air cooling has come a long way but i'd still stick with my giant rad loops for two 670s in SLI and an overclocked i7 because everything is very quiet and much cooler (longevity, reliability and of course the lack of noise preserves my sanity). When I bench tested the 670s on air it drove me nuts quite quickly - way too noisy for me.

To do it right is very expensive and very time consuming - it's not for the faint hearted but I do enjoy the challenge of doing it (another reason why I still do it today). Changing anything is an adventure(!) So many things can go wrong and there's so much to learn - which is fun!

ish.

Air. 3770K at 4.6Ghz - 75 C at max load.Noctua NH-D14. Water is what you need if temps are limiting (not my case, I'm chip limited), but to get much better than the Noctua you'll need a custom loop which is frankly expensive and a hassle. One day when I have no other hobbies left I might switch to water but for now it's just pointless.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Python programmers in a nutshell. Now, guess what lang most AI programmers use... :-)
    • There was nothing whatsoever wrong with Vista as an OS after the SP1 update. People who claim it wasn't were using ancient machines for some silly reason. Not kidding, no hyperbole/exaggeration. Vista was good.
    • Windows ME was worse.
    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      443
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!