Page 3 - Test Results
Our test configuration is as follows:
CPU: AMD FX-8320 @ 3.5GHz (Stock Settings)
Motherboard: ASUS M5A78L-M/USB3
RAM: G.Skill RipjawsX F3-12800CL9D-8GBXL 2x4GB
Graphics: ASUS Radeon R9 270
Chassis: NZXT H440
Power: Corsair CX430 430W
Storage: Kingston SSDNow V300 120GB; Seagate Desktop HDD ST1000DM003 1TB
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 10 Home x64
Compared hardware:
- SilverStone Tundra TD02-SLIM
- Scythe Ninja 4
- SilverStone Tundra TD02-LITE
- SilverStone Tundra TD03-LITE
- SilverStone Tundra TD03-SLIM
All tests were run in our custom built computer to best reflect real life performance. The computer remained in the same place and room throughout all tests. The ambient temperature in the room was around 21c. The thermal paste applied to each cooler was stock respective to their manufacturer's to rate its performance; all pastes had sufficient time for them to settle. The fans on all heatsinks were connected to the same motherboard 4-pin connector. The test computer was turned on and idling for at least one hour for the idling tests. High CPU load results were obtained using the Prime95 in place large FFTs test with eight worker threads for a minimum of fifteen minutes, and recorded when the temperature was deemed stable.
Comparing the Tundra SLIM series to the Tundra LITE series should provide a good ground for how well the cooler performs, especially considering the SLIM series is literally quite a bit thinner. In addition, we compared it to the Scythe Ninja 4, the only air cooler on this list, to see the benefit of water cooling. The temperature results for each cooler was measured with CoreTemp, which reports the CPU's integrated digital thermal sensor for maximum accuracy. Each temperature result was calculated by taking the maximum value of the cores inside the CPU.
After leaving the computer idling for the required time, I checked up on the results. As you can see, the TD02-SLIM performed about the same as the Tundra TD02-LITE, coming in at 21 degrees Celsius and 20 degrees Celsius, respectively. This is great for how slim the cooler is, but most of the other design choices are the same for the two water coolers. It performed better than the air cooler on this list, but these were only idle tests. What we really need to do is to put some stress on the CPU. We did just that using Prime95.
Putting maximum stress on the CPU really displayed the difference between the thinner design of the cooler and its bigger sibling. The radiator of the Tundra TD02-LITE is 5mm thicker when compared to the TD02-SLIM, which created quite a difference in temperature. The other thing attributing to the slimness, the fans, should also be taken into account, as thinner fans are not capable of providing the same airflow or static pressure. The TD02-SLIM came in at 54 degrees Celsius, and was quite a bit warmer than the Tundra TD02-LITE at 48 degrees Celsius. On the other hand, this was still much better than the smaller radiator TD03 editions. In comparison to the Ninja 4, however, the results were relatively close, with the air cooler being a couple of degrees cooler. Of course, there were a few other issues with the Ninja 4, which I have outlined in that review.
For anyone not using over-the-ear headphones to block out everything except your game or music, sound is pretty important to the enjoyment of using your computer. Using a scale between 0 and 10, where 0 is silent and 10 is a jet taking off, I would rate the TD02-SLIM at 3.5/10 at idle, while under load, the sound comes in at 4.5/10. The RPM of the fans really ramp up to keep the system cool, and the pump also makes some noise. Generally speaking, depending on your sensitivity to noise, the TD02-SLIM will be adding a moderate amount of noise to the rest of your system while keeping it under safe temperatures. Perhaps if you are very picky with noise emissions, you could change the RPM range of the system, but that will affect the cooling performance.
Page Index
1. Introduction, Packaging, Specifications
2. Physical Look - Hardware; Installation
3. Test Results
4. Conclusion
