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

    • Pretty nice tool, thanks
    • Indeed. But note that this has Wifi7, HDMI 2.1, BlueTooth 5.4, and 5G Ethernet, so even in the additional features list this bundle blows the Steam Machine away. And, with the money saved, one could improve this dramatically.
    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, 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.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      454
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      83
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!