Zalman’s CNPS9500 LED CPU cooler

Manufacturer Zalman
Model CNPS9500 LED
Price (Street)
Availability Now
IT’S RARE THAT WE review CPU coolers at TR, but every so often one comes along that we can’t resist. OK, every so often one comes along that I can’t resist. It seems I’ve developed something of a fetish for funky, silent CPU coolers, and although my therapist assures me that there’s nothing wrong with lusting after artfully sculpted heat pipes and cooling fins, I do my best to suppress those urges. I’m only human, though, and when we spotted Zalman’s new CNPS9500 LED at Computex, I couldn’t resist the impulse to procure one for testing.

Zalman has been producing funky CPU coolers for some time, and while some of the company’s designs are outlandish to the point of impracticality, the CNPS9500 LED has been designed with broad compatibility in mind. It’s also been designed to do more with less, and Zalman claims that the cooler offers better performance with a 92mm fan than solutions equipped with 120mm fans. Does the CNPS9500 LED deliver? Join us as we explore the cooler’s exquisite array of heat pipes and cooling fins to find out.

The cooler
I’m not really sure what’s art and what isn’t, but the CNPS9500 has to come close. The cooler is delicately gorgeous, with 90 (yes, I counted) paper-thin copper fins radiating around a translucent 92mm fan. With these looks, it’s almost a shame to bury it inside a case.

Of course, the CNPS9500 has function to back up its form. That function differs slightly from other Zalman coolers, though. Zalman has traditionally mounted CPU cooling fans parallel to the CPU socket, resulting in air flow that’s perpendicular to the processor; however, the CNPS9500 turns that design on its ear, mounting the fan perpendicular to the motherboard to provide airflow parallel to the board. This orientation is intended to more effectively vent warm air from around the CPU through a case’s rear exhaust port.

To best exploit a case’s rear exhaust port, Zalman suggests orienting the CNPS9500 with its fanless side toward the back of the case. That allows the fan to push air from inside the system over the array of cooling fins and out of the case.

While we’re looking at the CNPS9500 from behind, note that its fins radiate from a series of heat pipes that loop up from the cooler’s base in a figure eight. There are three heat pipes in total, and each is independent of the others. Each pipe is linear, so it doesn’t loop back into itself at the base of the cooler.

The CNPS9500’s trio of heat pipes converges in a surprisingly minimal copper base. Zalman does a decent job of polishing the base to remove imperfections that might otherwise impede heat transfer between the cooler and the CPU, but the finish isn’t as mirror-perfect as we’ve seen on other coolers, including some of Zalman’s own. Still, the base is smooth and scratch-free, and Zalman provides thermal compound with the cooler to fill any micro-grooves.

Clearance and mounting hardware
The CNPS9500 looks huge, and it is, but fortunately not in a way that creates clearance problems.


CNPS9500 LED, CPNS7700-AlCu, Stock AMD cooler

Measuring 85mm wide, 112mm long, and 125mm tall, much of the CNPS9500’s size is vertical. It towers over Zalman’s CNPS7700, which is only 67mm tall, and AMD’s stock Athlon 64 cooler is even shorter still.


CNPS9500 LED, CPNS7700-AlCu, Stock AMD cooler

Distributing its surface area vertically gives the CNPS9500 a smaller footprint than the CNPS7700, which measures a whopping 136mm in diameter. This allows the CNPS9500 to avoid the clearance issues that hamper the CNPS7700, making Zalman’s latest creation compatible with a much broader array of motherboards.

We installed the CNPS9500 on a handful of Socket 939 and LGA775 motherboards and didn’t encounter any clearance problems. In all cases, the cooler’s design allowed DIMMs to be installed and removed with ease, and the fins didn’t conflict with north bridge coolers or graphics cards. In fact, the CNPS9500’s motherboard compatibility is so broad that Zalman hasn’t identified any boards that won’t work with this cooler. The same can’t be said for the CNPS7700, whose wide stance creates issues with a number of boards.

While the CNPS9500’s smaller footprint is handy, the cooler’s relatively low weight is perhaps more impressive. Despite its all-copper design, the CNPS9500 weighs in at just 530g—nearly half the weight of the CNPS7700-Cu. Low weight is especially important for the CNPS9500 given its taller profile; one wouldn’t want too much weight tugging on the motherboard when it’s mounted vertically in a tower enclosure.

A relatively small footprint may be responsible for the CNPS9500’s compatibility with a wide range of motherboards, but it’s Zalman’s impressive collection of mounting brackets that allows the cooler to work with a variety of CPU sockets. Zalman ships the CNPS9500 with mounting hardware for sockets 754/939/940, LGA775, and even Socket 478—one size fits all. The mounting brackets are easy to use, and installation is quick and painless for all sockets. LGA775 installation does require that the motherboard be removed from the system so that the bracket’s back plate can be screwed on, though. Previous Zalman coolers have also required back plate installation for sockets 754/939/940, but the CNPS9500 screws right into AMD’s retention bracket.

In addition to mounting hardware, the CNPS9500 also comes with a variable-speed fan controller. The fan controller is optional, and users with motherboards that feature temperature-based fan speed control probably won’t need it. However, manual fan speed control is still a handy feature to have, especially for older systems and Athlon 64 motherboards where temperature-based fan speed control isn’t always a given.

Zalman’s fan speed controller uses an analog knob to dial fan speeds between 1350 and 2600RPM, allowing for plenty of fine-tuning to balance noise levels with cooling performance. Unfortunately, the fan controller uses a three-pin connector, making the CNPS9500 incompatible with the linear fan speed control on some LGA775 motherboards. Many newer LGA775 motherboards provide provisions for fan speed control with both three- and four-pin fans, though.

Before we dive into the CNPS9500 LED’s performance, we should note that the cooler comes with a bright blue LED. Everyone and his mother is rocking blue LEDs these days, and while the novelty wore off long ago for some, only those with case windows will notice the CNPS9500’s glow.

Our testing methods
Today we’ll be comparing the CNPS9500 LED’s performance to that of a stock AMD cooler and to Zalman’s own CNPS7700-AlCu. We’ve confined the bulk of our testing to a Socket 939 platform with an early Athlon 64 FX-53 sample that runs nice and hot. Extended load tests were also conducted with a Pentium 4 660 3.6GHz to confirm that the CNPS9500 LED could indeed handle one of Intel’s hottest Prescott chips without throttling. The CNPS9500 had no problem handling the Prescott processor, and even after hours of a combined Folding@home and Prime95 load with the cooler’s lowest fan speed setting, the CPU temperature refused to budge over 65C.

We used the following test system.

Processor AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 2.4GHz
System bus HyperTransport 16-bit/1GHz
Motherboard DFI LANParty UT NF4 Ultra-D
BIOS revision NF4LD209
North bridge NVIDIA nForce4 Ultra
South bridge
Chipset drivers ForceWare 6.66
Memory size 1GB (2 DIMMs)
Memory type OCZ PC3200 EL Platinum Rev 2 DDR SDRAM at 400MHz
CAS latency (CL) 2
RAS to CAS delay (tRCD) 2
RAS precharge (tRP) 2
Cycle time (tRAS) 5
Hard drives Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 NCQ SATA
Audio nForce4/ALC850
Audio driver Realtek HD 1.24
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce 6200 with ForceWare 77.77 drivers
OS Microsoft Windows XP Professional
OS updates Service Pack 2, DirectX 9.0c

Our test system was powered by OCZ PowerStream power supply units. The PowerStream was one of our Editor’s Choice winners in our latest PSU round-up.

We used the following versions of our test applications:

The test systems’ Windows desktop was set at 1280×1024 in 32-bit color at an 85Hz screen refresh rate. Vertical refresh sync (vsync) was disabled for all tests. Most of the 3D gaming tests used the Medium detail image quality settings, with the exception that the resolution was set to 640×480 in 32-bit color.

All the tests and methods we employed are publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.

Noise levels
Noise levels were measured with an Extech 407727 digital sound level meter placed one inch from the top of the motherboard and out of the path of direct air flow. We tested the Zalman coolers with their highest and lowest fan speed settings to illustrate the range of noise levels one can expect. To ensure consistent results, the motherboard’s temperature-based fan speed control was disabled.

The CNPS9500 is about a decibel quieter than Zalman’s CNPS7700 with both the high and low fan speed settings. Interestingly, though, both Zalman coolers are louder than a stock AMD cooler at their highest fan speeds.

CPU temperatures
To test the CNPS9500’s cooling performance, we subjected our test system to a 30-minute test that consisted of ten minutes of idling, followed by ten minutes of Prime95’s maximum heat torture test, followed by ten minutes of idle cooldown. CPU temperatures were logged every second through the entire test.

To make things more difficult for the coolers, we tested with Cool’n’Quiet disabled. We also conducted extended load tests to ensure that our ten-minute Prime95 torture test was long enough for the processor to hit its peak temperature. Tests were conducted on an open test bed with an ambient room temperature of 24C.

We’re graphing geeks, so we couldn’t resist posting a graph of CPU temperatures over the length of our test. The graph isn’t all that easy to read, though, so we’ve busted it in two to isolate cooling performance with Zalman’s high and low fan speed settings. Note that the following graphs don’t have a baseline of zero degrees on the Y axis; we’ve just tried to make them a little easier to read.

Interestingly, while the CNPS9500 is quicker to cool down with both fan speed settings, it heats up faster than the CNPS7700 on the low fan speed setting. The graphs are still a little muddled, though, so we’ve whipped up some average results for the last minute of the idle, load, and cooldown periods.

Although the CNPS9500 can’t quite match the CNPS7700’s temperatures at the highest fan speed setting, the 9500 yields lower temps during the idle, load, and cooldown periods at the lower fan speed setting. The CNPS9500 also beats the stock AMD cooler across the board.

Conclusions
The CNPS9500 has exotic lines and a striking look, but this cooler’s compatibility and performance are its most impressive assets. With the lowest fan speed setting, the CNPS9500 is quieter and cooler than Zalman’s CNPS7700-AlCu, and it’s practically silent compared to a stock AMD cooler. This thing should be able to handle the hottest CPUs around, too. Zalman has validated the cooler for all of AMD’s and Intel’s dual-core processors, and we couldn’t even get a 3.6GHz Prescott to break 65C. But Zalman coolers have traditionally offered good performance and lower noise levels. What makes the CNPS9500 really stand out is the fact that its design allows for broad motherboard compatibility. The cooler’s extremely low weight is a nice touch, too, as is the inclusion of mounting hardware for all modern desktop CPU sockets.

Unfortunately, the CNPS9500 doesn’t come cheap. The cooler is currently selling for between $62 and $80 online, which is significantly more expensive than Zalman’s CNPS7700 series. Of course, the CNPS7700 series weighs more, is a little louder, and has some compatibility issues with a number of motherboards. You get what you pay for.

Whether the CNPS9500 is worth the extra scratch will ultimately depend on how much you value weight and compatibility. The CNPS9500 excels on both fronts, and it’s certainly a superior design to Zalman’s previous offerings. I’m just not sure if my fetish for funky, silent CPU coolers runs deep enough to compel me to drop over $60 on one.

Comments closed
    • Craig P.
    • 14 years ago

    Zeroing the graphs to 0° C doesn’t really make sense — the zero point for temperature is actually at -273.15° C.

      • aerst2
      • 14 years ago

      Actually….zeroing it to room temperature would make the most sense, since that would be perfect performance.

    • Eckre
    • 14 years ago

    Though the ALCU should be the same noise… but not the same temp…humm.

    • Eckre
    • 14 years ago

    Why Why WHY! Why doesn’t anybody review this cooler compared to the 100% copper version 7700? I think it’s a conspiricy. I think the 100% copper version is cooler and just as quiet. Anyone seen a review comparing the 100% copper 7700 to this one at quietest settings?

      • continuum
      • 14 years ago

      IIRC, it’s not much different in performance than to the AlCu…

      $62 though… I’ll stick with a Thermalright SI-120 if I’m going to spend that much money…

    • firestorm02
    • 14 years ago

    Check out my results in the cooling forum.
    §[<https://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=34740<]§

    • AmishRakeFight
    • 14 years ago

    Nice review, but it’s definitely not art.

    • Vertigo
    • 14 years ago

    First page of the review instantly crashes Firefox 1.0.7 on Ubuntu Linux, even with the flash plugin removed.

    Edit: working now – thanks!

    • d0g_p00p
    • 14 years ago

    I leave my machine running 24/7. It seems to me like more wear and tear powering it up every time i want to use it.

    • Dieter
    • 14 years ago

    What is the baseline on the noise level? It’s hard to know how “loud” the heatsinks are without knowing how loud the rest of the system is. Judging by the low RPMs of the fans, it seems like the baseline might be just a couple db lower? I think this would be useful information to form a comparison.

    BTW, anybody have an experience with the Thermaltake Sonic Tower? Huge, heavy monstrosity, but no fan. Supposed to be able to handle the thermal load of most processors (any idea if it can do the X2 4400+???).
    §[<http://www.thermaltake.com/coolers/4in1heatpipe/cl-p0071SonicTower/cl-p0071.htm<]§ I am looking into buying it since I'm trying to eliminate all fans from the system except for PS and 120mm case fan. Going passive video, NB, etc.

      • sbarash
      • 14 years ago

      I have a Sonic Tower. It does come with clips allowing a 120mm fan, if you want. I can overclock the hell out of my Athlon without adding a fan. Needless to say, I love it. With my fanless 6800, and only a couple of 120mm case fans, I’m running pretty silent.

      -Stephen

      • ludi
      • 14 years ago

      I’ve also got one, which I purchased after seeing it in a friend’s Athlon64 box; as long as you have decent case ventilation, it works. In his computer he has two very quiet 120mm fans (one front, one back), and a fan on the chipset. PSU is passive and the SonicTower is passive. You can’t hear anything except the faint singing of four SATA hard disks.

      In my computer, the SonicTower holds a Barton 2800+ at around 50C with three 80mm case fans (one front, two back), a slot-vent fan (mostly to keep the 9800XT from overheating) and the fan in the PSU all running. Not bad, considering how much heat being produced in there. The only issue I ran into is that my chipset has a passive heatsink, and once I removed the CPU fan from the equation, the loss of ventilation around the chipset was just enough to cause ocassional lockups. I worked around that by creating a duct from a piece of polycarbonate plastic.

    • flip-mode
    • 14 years ago

    First: Thank you for this review. Like Usa, I appreciate the HSF reviews. And I’ve been curious about this HSF since Zalman started talking about it.

    Second: Like FlyingFox, I was surprised to see a K8 get so hot, but you did remark that the FX53 was one of the hottest.

    Third: I was also suprised that the cooler didn’t do better! It bested the stock cooler by only 5deg at load, and that on high. And that was it’s largest margin. Like muntjac I saw the Xbit piece a while back and held this cooler in higher regard until your review. I feel like Vrock – it simply isn’t worth the price, and if you actually want a temp drop over the stock HSF, then you have to deal with *[

      • ludi
      • 14 years ago

      Keep in mind that there can be other benefits to such a configuration, though, such as improved heat evacuation by the case/PSU fans and reduced component heating around the CPU socket.

    • Flying Fox
    • 14 years ago

    I thought the K8 CPUs never get over 70 degrees. And yet the benchmarks had some that approached that?

      • MagerValp
      • 14 years ago

      They disabled Cool’n’Quiet, making the CPU run a lot hotter than usual. 65 degrees is fine though, as long as it doesn’t go much higher.

        • Dissonance
        • 14 years ago

        Cool’n’Quiet isn’t going to lower temperatures under a sustained load. We just happen to have an early, toasty, FX-53.

    • muntjac
    • 14 years ago

    xbitlabs reviews this thing a while ago, and their results seemed to show that it keeps their p4 ~10C degrees cooler than the 7700. anyone see a major difference in testing method or anything?

    §[<http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/coolers/display/zalman-cnps9500_6.html<]§

      • Dissonance
      • 14 years ago

      The major difference is the fact that we used an Athlon 64 😉

      FWIW, my CNPS7700-AlCu can’t handle my Pentium 4 660 3.6GHz on the low fan speed setting without throttling. Throttling generally hits at around 72C, and given that the same processor wouldn’t budge over 65C with the CNPS9500’s low fan speed setting, X-bit labs’ results are certainly reasonable.

      • Darkmage
      • 14 years ago

      Geoff’s review used the Aluminum/Copper 7700 while the XBitLabs review used the all-copper one. I have heard of other reviews which state the AlCu versions cool better than the all-copper versions.

    • Koly
    • 14 years ago

    Geoff, I ‘d like to know how the RPM varied on the stock AMD cooler (it’s temperature controlled, right?) during testing and especially what was the RPM when noise level was measured. Thanks.

      • Dissonance
      • 14 years ago

      From the review…

      “To ensure consistent results, the motherboard’s temperature-based fan speed control was disabled. “

        • Koly
        • 14 years ago

        I am not talking about the motherboard fan speed control. AMD stock coolers have built in thermal probe which varies the fan speed depending on the temperature. I have just digged out my stock cooler (which I have never used) and a short experiment with a hair dryer revealed that the fan speed varies between 3000-6000 RPM. The difference in noise is dramatic.

        Please, retest the noise level of the stock cooler under load, because the results are misleading!

          • Chrispy_
          • 14 years ago

          As far as I know, this feature was only on early stock HSF’s

          The newer ones are cheapy fixed speed fans now that AMD has cool and quiet so well supported. To mix the two together intentionally would be counterproductive.

            • Koly
            • 14 years ago

            Not at all. Cool’N’Quiet does not have anything to do with fan speed, it adjusts CPU clock and voltage according to load in order to decrease power consumption and heat ouput. You need a temperature controlled fan to take advantage of it. That’s precisely the reason why stock AMD HSFs have built in temperature control. BTW, the one on the pictures looks to be identical to mine.

            • Dissonance
            • 14 years ago

            None of my stock AMD coolers, including the ones pictured, have temperature-based fan speed control built into the cooler.

            • Koly
            • 14 years ago

            Well Geoff, that’s extremely hard to believe. From AMD’s Cool’N’Quiet installation guide:

            y[<4. Required for noise reduction: Heatsink/fan capable of speed control

            All AMD Athlon 64 Processor-In-A-Box packages include thermally controlled fans. A thermally controlled fan detects the current temperature of the processor using a thermistor, and when a lower temperature is detected the fan speed and noise is then reduced. Upon detection of a higher temperature the fan speed is resumed at full speed to appropriately cool the processor. If an AMD Athlon 64 Processor-In-A-Box package is not used, an appropriate 3rd party heatsink with a thermally controlled fan must be used.<]y §[<http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/Cool_N_Quiet_Installation_Guide3.pdf<]§ Please, could you update the article, measure the noise level of the stock cooler under load and report its RPM? If the fan control is not working for any reason, could you at least report the RPM of the stock fan?

            • Dissonance
            • 14 years ago

            The stock fan was spinning at ~3300RPM regardless of whether the processor is at idle or under a Prime95 load. Fan speeds did tend to fluctuate +/- ~100RPM, but those fluctuations were random and not tied to an idle or load condition.

    • Vrock
    • 14 years ago

    The real question is this: how much money is a few db of quiet worth to you? Not $62, at least not for me.

    The stock cooler does just fine, it comes with your CPU (assuming you bought retail), and it is pretty quiet to boot, too.

      • dragmor
      • 14 years ago

      About $40 for zalman passive NB cooler, papst 40mm fan (on NB) and an adda 60mm fan. That got rid of all the fan noise from my shuttle.

      • blitzy
      • 14 years ago

      during the daytime i would agree since ambient noise is usually enough that it doesnt really matter how quiet your computer is, for anyone who has to sleep in the same room as their computer and want to leave it running over night these type of coolers can be worth the extra cash. there’s probably other coolers which are better value than this particular one though

        • Vrock
        • 14 years ago

        Unless your computer is doing something while you sleep (like maybe folding or compiling?), why would you want to leave it on? That’s just wasteful, and why we have STR and Hibernate functions.

          • flip-mode
          • 14 years ago

          What’s the status of that “urban legend” that a computer left on all the time will outlive a computer that is shut down every day? That would be the only reason other than folding/compiling/rendering/… that I could see to leave it on. Not that I would leave it on even if it were true… as you said, its just too wasteful.

            • Vrock
            • 14 years ago

            Dunno, but I call BS. The wear and tear on the fans and PSU alone from running 24/7 would make that legend bunk, even if none of the other components were affected.

            • Delphis
            • 14 years ago

            I wouldn’t be so sure it’s BS. I’d consider it a known fact that the most stress on a hard drive is when it spins up, as well as its highest current draw, and that also stresses the power supply. Then you have thermal expansion and contraction, which can fatigue components too.

            • cRock
            • 14 years ago

            There’s some validity to the legend, but given all of the possible points of failure on a PC, I doubt leaving it on all the time significantly effects overall MTBF. One of the great enemies of electronics is heat so I’d love to know at roughly what case temp does MTBF begin to go down.

            • ludi
            • 14 years ago

            A greater enemy is thermal cycling. Thermal expansion and contraction fatigues electrical and electronic devices at a far greater rate than steady-state operation, provided that steady state operation isn’t excessively hot.

            • Shintai
            • 14 years ago

            If it´s an OCed computer it will last alot shorter due to electromigration, hot electrons and wire self heat down in tiny town.

            Actually most modern PCs from the speedgrade races wont last more than 5-10 years anyway in terms of full functionality of the logic components.

            • Convert
            • 14 years ago

            Proof?

            • Shintai
            • 14 years ago

            For the OC or the other part?

            Try check AMD and Intels documentation on CPUs. You’ll see the expected life for a CPU have gone down from the early P3/K7 from 250 years till 10 years in current.

            A netburst CPU is ofcause the most exposed one here.

            • Convert
            • 14 years ago

            I have now gone over more than 15 pdf’s from amd’s site spanning processors from the k6 to the FX and I see NO mention of what you are talking about.

            A direct link to the exact pdf you are talking about is needed.

            I even googled around and found quite a few references of a 1999 processor (p3 era) lasting a calculated 30 years, which is very different from your 250 years.

            I did however find a pdf from intel that says 7-10 years except this pdf was also during the p3 era. So it once again contradicts the 250 years you mentioned earlier.

            In fact EVERY calculation (even from intel) is complete BS. A small increase in temperature can cut the life in half. For instance, if you used 1999 hardware and ran it at 50c it would only last for 3 years and some change. I personally know people who have run DC projects for that long with 1999 hardware at those temperatures under 100% load and the systems are still going strong.

            • Shintai
            • 14 years ago

            §[<http://support.intel.com/support/processors/pentium/sb/img/tble51.gif<]§ Should have been said as Pentium and K6 i guess. but the PPro/P2 didn

            • Convert
            • 14 years ago

            First of all: “Try check AMD and Intels documentation on CPUs.”

            That means AMD mentioned it somewhere.

            Second: “You’ll see the expected life for a CPU have gone down from the early P3/K7 from 250 years till 10 years in current.”

            The gif mentions *[

            • Chrispy_
            • 14 years ago

            nicely pwned.

            <sarcastic lies>not that I approve of such antics</sarcastic lies>

            • Convert
            • 14 years ago

            Since you keep editing your posts and completely changing them around…

            “Should have been said as Pentium and K6 i guess.”

            So show me proof on the k6 then. I already said the MTBF mentioned is simply the mean time between floating point failure. “Statistical Analysis of Floating Point Flaw”, from the article. This isn’t a article on the lifespan of the processor. Wouldn’t you find it odd that this is the ONLY place intel ever mentioned the life of their processor?

            “And running a CPU at a higher temperature is not really affecting it�s lifespan (Unless it�s over the ratio set..like 72-100degress C.).”

            You don’t really understand electromigration do you. Even intel claims a 10-15c increase over a processor running 10-15c cooler, neither over the “set ratio”, will decrease the life by 2x. Any temperature helps the process (so long as there is current draw). It even happens when you are running at 5 degrees although it is much slower than say 60c.

            “Also most people don�t see the error, the gladly live on with faulty data or/and miscalculations in some scale. There is an almost infinite numbers of possible defects due to this. And some might never be visible shown for you, where others will give random crashes.”

            Either something works or it doesn’t. If there is a defect somewhere on the cpu you are going to find it if you are stressing it (which stressing a cpu and electromigration go hand in hand anyways). In fact this is complete BS. You are trying to say that cpu’s already have EM damage yet we just don’t notice it. Prove it.

            “*[

            • indeego
            • 14 years ago

            I’m not going to check documentation, because I wouldn’t know where to look, but that sounds downright silly, at least for standard clocks. There are standards for equipment length within ISO compliance, and to the best of my knowledge neither Intel nor AMD have broken that complianceg{<.<}g

            • Shintai
            • 14 years ago

            And say 10 years does not apply for ISO specification on a consumer product for what reason?

          • eitje
          • 14 years ago

          don’t forget piratical type activites.

            • Vrock
            • 14 years ago

            I should’ve clarified; I was talking about GOOD reasons for running a computer while you sleep.

            • MagerValp
            • 14 years ago

            Suspending kills my four standard SSH connections, and my P2P downloads. I usually start downloading when I go to bed, and when I wake up they’re all done.

          • RHITee05
          • 14 years ago

          With the price of natural gas skyrocketing, it does make a decent little space heater for the bedroom. 🙂

          • ludi
          • 14 years ago

          If you managed to have STR and Hibernate working on your machines, good for you. My computer tends to lock up if I use either function (motherboard or video card issue, I think).

          Also, I have a bedroom on the northwest corner of the house, second floor. It used to get unpleasantly cold at night during the winter. But not since I got my first computer.

    • Usacomp2k3
    • 14 years ago

    BTW, I really love the HS reviews. It is what caused me to buy the vf700-cu for my video card. Keep up the good work.

      • Shintai
      • 14 years ago

      I love that cooler too on my x800XL 😀

      But why all the damn LEDs on new coolers! They might be cool if I was 10years old….

        • Vrock
        • 14 years ago

        My ex-wife used to call computers with excessive LEDs “Mexican computers”…if you’ve ever seen Latinos cruise by in a 1977 Caprice Classic, you know why.

          • sbarash
          • 14 years ago

          uh, maybe in the states, but go to Mexico and you’ll see that this is not a Mexican thing.

          Better say ‘Mexican American computers’…

          • CasbahBoy
          • 14 years ago

          I guess thats an equivalent of the whole “ricer” thing – its hardly confined to latinos or asians here in northern Ohio, believe me. Mostly upper-middle class suburbanite white kids that like looking and sounding fast better than actually /[

            • Vrock
            • 14 years ago

            Yeah, ricing is something totally different, but equally stupid.

      • CasbahBoy
      • 14 years ago

      TR’s VF7-Cu review is exactly what convinced me to buy mine, too! I know the review put more (?) emphasis on the less expensive and identical performing AlCu, but I had to have it match my CNPS7000A-Cu…

    • Usacomp2k3
    • 14 years ago

    /me hugs my $80 watercooler setup running @ 40 load (read: F@H)

      • Logan[TeamX]
      • 14 years ago

      But my TT Venus 12 and 500MHz OC are also @ 40-42C running F@H… for $30 CDN!

      I’d still love to try watercooling one day.

        • KorruptioN
        • 14 years ago

        With significantly more noise, I would assume. Of all the times I’ve had to play with the Venus 12, I found it excessively noisy.

          • Logan[TeamX]
          • 14 years ago

          Actually it’s not that bad. No doubt the water cooler is much quieter, but the cost and the risk don’t outweigh the noise for me.

        • Usacomp2k3
        • 14 years ago

        My ambient temperature is almost always at least 80F, usually in the high 80’s. At least until winter hits. 8)

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This