AOC CU34G2X monitor review
TeamGroup CX2 1TB SATA3 SSD review
EVGA GeForce RTX 3070 FTW3 Ultra review
Corsair 5000D PC Chassis Review
NZXT Kraken X63 RGB Review
ASUS Radeon RX 6900 XT STRIX OC LC Review
TerraMaster F5-221 NAS Review
MSI Radeon RX 6800 XT Gaming X TRIO Review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6800 NITRO+ review
Corsair HS70 Bluetooth Headset Review
Review: MSI Core Frozr L processor cooler
We test and review the MSI Core Frozr L processor cooler. MSI is placing the cooler in the market, likely made with the same designers and fab that manufacturers their TwiNFrozr GPU cooler. The end results of the first ever MSI processor cooler even baffled us, as it is really good.
Read the full review here.
Review: Zalman ZM-K900M RGB mechanical keyboard with Kailh switches - 10/27/2016 08:17 AM
We review the ZM-K900M, the new RGB LED lit mechanical keyboard from Zalman. This Kailh switches based mechanical keyboard with nice pressure keys comes an RGB LED animation system. Overall a simple a...
Review: MSI GeForce GTX 1050 & 1050 Ti Gaming X - 10/25/2016 02:00 PM
Last week Nvidia announced the GeForce GTX 1050 and 1050 Ti, today the performance benchmark embargo is lifted. We test the MSI Gaming X editions, two graphics cards aimed at the budget minded consume...
Review: Battlefield 1 DirectX 11 and 12 PC graphics performance - 10/21/2016 01:13 PM
We will look at Battlefield 1 PC in our geeky gamer way, both DirectX 11 and 12 are adressed. We'll test the game on the PC platform relative towards graphics card performance with the latest AMD/NVI...
Review: Samsung 960 PRO 1TB NVMe SSD - 10/19/2016 07:00 AM
In this review we test the new M.2 and extremely fast Samsung 960 PRO Series M.2 SSDs with all new Polaris based controller. These new M.2 units can now be purchased in volume sizes up-to 2TB and use ...
Review: G.Skill TridentZ 3200 MHz 32GB Quad Channel DDR4 - 10/13/2016 08:36 AM
We peek at a very nice 32GB DRAM kit, the TridentZ 3200 MHz CAS14 DDR4 memory from G.Skill. It's fast, it's cool and runs XMP 2.0 memory profiles on Intel platforms as well. Join us as we review som...
Agent-A01
Senior Member
Posts: 11396
Joined: 2010-12-27
Senior Member
Posts: 11396
Joined: 2010-12-27
#5353567 Posted on: 11/01/2016 06:25 PM
You know, you are right and you have is a totally sound thesis, however people want to compare coolers with processors they can afford / own and not compare it towards processors only 0.1% of the PC community have.
We did that in the past and people seriously hated the usage of an enthusiast class processor for cooling reviews. For the test itself objectively you are right, it's just not what the majority of our reader-base would like to read about. They want to be able to compare it to a setup they own and can afford (or is reasonably comparative to that).
It actually is a very similar situation with our graphics card reviews, the reviews often get attacked due to the fact I use an 8-core 5960X @ 4.3 GHz where I often get the remark that hardly anyone owns /uses such a processor. See I am testing the full capacity of a graphics card. and am not trying to limit it. The huge majority of the reader-base is using a quad-core processor. The number of times that people claimed that our 3DMark results are screwed due to using an 8-core part I cannot even count anymore. Neither can I convince the reader-base that is it better to use a massive processor for testing. e.g., I use such a high-end tweaked CPU not limit (if possible) the higher-end and enthusiast class graphics cards. E.g. I do not want to CPU bottleneck a test environment at lower resolutions. Two years after using this processor people finally and slowly are accepting the 8-core processor as a valid component in the test-setup,
I purchased a 6950X 10-core processor for GFX reviews, yet cannot use in my graphics card reviews for exactly the reasoning I just described, people would spit on the reviews if they see a 10-core beast at a 4.3 GHz clock per core. But considering it is a 1200 USD part, people absolutely and irrefutable refuse to accept it as a proper component in a test environment. It is all for the very same reason, people want to compare with what they have at home (within reason and acceptable margin).
It is the same with CPU cooler reviews ... we need to stay a little in the affordable range. This is why I introduced the overclocking segment in the cooler reviews .. if the cooler can take it we'll take the processor up and over 1.40 Volts. The high voltage OC results as far as I am concerned are a definitive enough answer to your question, as the tweak really stresses the cooler.
Okay, that's way more words then I wanted to type in this reply lol
Yes I understand where you are getting at.
I don't get how people don't understand when reviewing a GPU that you want it to be the bottleneck of the system.
What good is testing it with an i5 and only getting 70% usage out of a titan X pascal?
But anyways, I think you should use a 6 core as the CPU for thermal testing.
a 5820k/6800k are very obtainable, they are only like $40 more expensive than a 6700k.
I get that most users will have a CPU that uses TIM instead of solder but it skews the results for others.
Someone will look at the review and see that this $30 cooler is only a couple degrees from a $100 cooler and think that $100 cooler is a waste of money.
Then they proceed to use a $30 cooler on their 6/8 core and wonder why temperatures are so high under load.
That's why IMO a 6 core would be a perfect medium to test thermals with.
It gives a more realistic representation of a coolers potential.
You know, you are right and you have is a totally sound thesis, however people want to compare coolers with processors they can afford / own and not compare it towards processors only 0.1% of the PC community have.
We did that in the past and people seriously hated the usage of an enthusiast class processor for cooling reviews. For the test itself objectively you are right, it's just not what the majority of our reader-base would like to read about. They want to be able to compare it to a setup they own and can afford (or is reasonably comparative to that).
It actually is a very similar situation with our graphics card reviews, the reviews often get attacked due to the fact I use an 8-core 5960X @ 4.3 GHz where I often get the remark that hardly anyone owns /uses such a processor. See I am testing the full capacity of a graphics card. and am not trying to limit it. The huge majority of the reader-base is using a quad-core processor. The number of times that people claimed that our 3DMark results are screwed due to using an 8-core part I cannot even count anymore. Neither can I convince the reader-base that is it better to use a massive processor for testing. e.g., I use such a high-end tweaked CPU not limit (if possible) the higher-end and enthusiast class graphics cards. E.g. I do not want to CPU bottleneck a test environment at lower resolutions. Two years after using this processor people finally and slowly are accepting the 8-core processor as a valid component in the test-setup,
I purchased a 6950X 10-core processor for GFX reviews, yet cannot use in my graphics card reviews for exactly the reasoning I just described, people would spit on the reviews if they see a 10-core beast at a 4.3 GHz clock per core. But considering it is a 1200 USD part, people absolutely and irrefutable refuse to accept it as a proper component in a test environment. It is all for the very same reason, people want to compare with what they have at home (within reason and acceptable margin).
It is the same with CPU cooler reviews ... we need to stay a little in the affordable range. This is why I introduced the overclocking segment in the cooler reviews .. if the cooler can take it we'll take the processor up and over 1.40 Volts. The high voltage OC results as far as I am concerned are a definitive enough answer to your question, as the tweak really stresses the cooler.
Okay, that's way more words then I wanted to type in this reply lol
Yes I understand where you are getting at.
I don't get how people don't understand when reviewing a GPU that you want it to be the bottleneck of the system.
What good is testing it with an i5 and only getting 70% usage out of a titan X pascal?
But anyways, I think you should use a 6 core as the CPU for thermal testing.
a 5820k/6800k are very obtainable, they are only like $40 more expensive than a 6700k.
I get that most users will have a CPU that uses TIM instead of solder but it skews the results for others.
Someone will look at the review and see that this $30 cooler is only a couple degrees from a $100 cooler and think that $100 cooler is a waste of money.
Then they proceed to use a $30 cooler on their 6/8 core and wonder why temperatures are so high under load.
That's why IMO a 6 core would be a perfect medium to test thermals with.
It gives a more realistic representation of a coolers potential.
tsunami231
Senior Member
Posts: 11186
Joined: 2003-05-24
Senior Member
Posts: 11186
Joined: 2003-05-24
#5353571 Posted on: 11/01/2016 06:31 PM
That lil cool has some nice performance it even gives the noctau D-14 a run for its money
That lil cool has some nice performance it even gives the noctau D-14 a run for its money
sykozis
Senior Member
Posts: 21791
Joined: 2008-07-14
Senior Member
Posts: 21791
Joined: 2008-07-14
#5353598 Posted on: 11/01/2016 07:48 PM
That's why IMO a 6 core would be a perfect medium to test thermals with.
It gives a more realistic representation of a coolers potential.
Considering your previous statement that the 6700K uses TIM and not solder, using the 4970K makes considerably more sense. The 4970K runs hot as hell. If the CPU cooler can cope with the heat produced by the 4970K, and keep that particular processor reasonably cool, it's safe to assume that it will do the same with a processor that has proper heat transfer. Of course, you are pointing out a limitation of Noctua's coolers....
I'd expect a $100 cooler to perform just as well, in regards to other coolers, regardless of the thermal transfer media being used between the CPU core and IHS......but that's just how most of the market thinks.
That's why IMO a 6 core would be a perfect medium to test thermals with.
It gives a more realistic representation of a coolers potential.
Considering your previous statement that the 6700K uses TIM and not solder, using the 4970K makes considerably more sense. The 4970K runs hot as hell. If the CPU cooler can cope with the heat produced by the 4970K, and keep that particular processor reasonably cool, it's safe to assume that it will do the same with a processor that has proper heat transfer. Of course, you are pointing out a limitation of Noctua's coolers....
I'd expect a $100 cooler to perform just as well, in regards to other coolers, regardless of the thermal transfer media being used between the CPU core and IHS......but that's just how most of the market thinks.
Texter
Senior Member
Posts: 3155
Joined: 2008-11-03
Senior Member
Posts: 3155
Joined: 2008-11-03
#5353602 Posted on: 11/01/2016 08:00 PM
Great job from MSI...nice price too.
Great job from MSI...nice price too.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 39979
Joined: 2000-02-22
You know, you are right and you have is a totally sound thesis, however people want to compare coolers with processors they can afford / own and not compare it towards processors only 0.1% of the PC community have.
We did that in the past and people seriously hated the usage of an enthusiast class processor for cooling reviews. For the test itself objectively you are right, it's just not what the majority of our reader-base would like to read about. They want to be able to compare it to a setup they own and can afford (or is reasonably comparative to that).
It actually is a very similar situation with our graphics card reviews, the reviews often get attacked due to the fact I use an 8-core 5960X @ 4.3 GHz where I often get the remark that hardly anyone owns /uses such a processor. See I am testing the full capacity of a graphics card. and am not trying to limit it. The huge majority of the reader-base is using a quad-core processor. The number of times that people claimed that our 3DMark results are screwed due to using an 8-core part I cannot even count anymore. Neither can I convince the reader-base that is it better to use a massive processor for testing. e.g., I use such a high-end tweaked CPU not limit (if possible) the higher-end and enthusiast class graphics cards. E.g. I do not want to CPU bottleneck a test environment at lower resolutions. Two years after using this processor people finally and slowly are accepting the 8-core processor as a valid component in the test-setup,
I purchased a 6950X 10-core processor for GFX reviews, yet cannot use in my graphics card reviews for exactly the reasoning I just described, people would spit on the reviews if they see a 10-core beast at a 4.3 GHz clock per core. But considering it is a 1200 USD part, people absolutely and irrefutable refuse to accept it as a proper component in a test environment. It is all for the very same reason, people want to compare with what they have at home (within reason and acceptable margin).
It is the same with CPU cooler reviews ... we need to stay a little in the affordable range. This is why I introduced the overclocking segment in the cooler reviews .. if the cooler can take it we'll take the processor up and over 1.40 Volts. The high voltage OC results as far as I am concerned are a definitive enough answer to your question, as the tweak really stresses the cooler.
Okay, that's way more words then I wanted to type in this reply lol