After careful consideration I have decided to transfer all hardware review activities to a new domain. I purchased Hardwareasylum.com in 2012 and have been working hard to build a new and improved Ninjalane on that domain. If you are reading this you have reached one of the archived articles, news, projects and/or reviews that were left behind during the site migration.
Please update your bookmarks and be sure to visit the new and improved Ninjalane at Hardwareasylum.com
Auras T6C Golden Heatsink Review
Author: Dennis Garcia
Published: Tuesday, October 28, 2003
Benchmarks
Benchmarks
The Auras T6C is designed for Pentium 4 up to 3.2Ghz and higher. Here is an overview of the system and testing methodology.
LanParty Pro875 Rev-A
Intel Pentium 4 2.4C (SL6EF)
Auras T6C Golden
AVC Sunflower II
I used the included BIOS monitoring software to obtain temperature information from the system. A simple game of Quake 3 provided the 100% processor usage.
LanParty Pro875 Rev-A
Intel Pentium 4 2.4C (SL6EF)
Auras T6C Golden
AVC Sunflower II
I used the included BIOS monitoring software to obtain temperature information from the system. A simple game of Quake 3 provided the 100% processor usage.
Editors note: Even though the Windows XP task manager reported 100% processor usage we could never attain a 100% of the rated heat output as documented by Intel (see below)
when using Quake 3 as a basis for that heat production. Knowing this the game was played until the maximum temperature was attainted and stabilized, or when the round was over.
Other things to consider when judging software induced heat output.
a) Clock throttling by the processor at high temperatures.
b) Normal software isn't designed to produce maximum heat output.
c) Variances of cooling temperature.
d) Variances in CPU load.
e) Inaccuracies in thermal diode readouts.
Of course the list goes on..
My testing methodology is aimed to provide a real world look into this heatsink given the test system provided.
a) Clock throttling by the processor at high temperatures.
b) Normal software isn't designed to produce maximum heat output.
c) Variances of cooling temperature.
d) Variances in CPU load.
e) Inaccuracies in thermal diode readouts.
Of course the list goes on..
My testing methodology is aimed to provide a real world look into this heatsink given the test system provided.
A C/W rating can quickly be calculated using this formula.
C/W = (CPU temp - Ambient temp)/(Variance(%) * CPU Watts)
Allowed variance for this test = 75%
CPU Watts = 66.2W
0.23 C/W = (36C - 24.5C)/(.75(66.2W))
C/W = (CPU temp - Ambient temp)/(Variance(%) * CPU Watts)
Allowed variance for this test = 75%
CPU Watts = 66.2W
0.23 C/W = (36C - 24.5C)/(.75(66.2W))
For this next test the FSB was cranked up to 220Mhz and the test was re-run. To calculate how the C/W rating has changed we will need to factor in the increased processor
wattage. The formula and constants for this is listed below.
ocC/W = dCPU Watts * (ocMhz / dMhz) * (ocVcore / dVcore)2
ocMhz = 2640
dMhz = 2400
ocVcore = 1.70
dVcore = 1.525
The variance still applies for our C/W calcuation
Allowed variance for this test = 75%
CPU Watts = 90.3W
0.22 C/W = (39.5C - 24.5C)/(.75(90.3W))
ocC/W = dCPU Watts * (ocMhz / dMhz) * (ocVcore / dVcore)2
ocMhz = 2640
dMhz = 2400
ocVcore = 1.70
dVcore = 1.525
The variance still applies for our C/W calcuation
Allowed variance for this test = 75%
CPU Watts = 90.3W
0.22 C/W = (39.5C - 24.5C)/(.75(90.3W))
Benchmark Conclusion
Staying true to the nature of a heat pipe the CPU temperature dropped even though the CPU output was increased. This shows that the heatsink was getting more efficient as the temperature difference in the heat pipes increased.
Keep in mind this calculation is provided for demonstration purposes only and may not reflect the actual lab tested C/W rating, but I think I'm close
Keep in mind this calculation is provided for demonstration purposes only and may not reflect the actual lab tested C/W rating, but I think I'm close
