Stock and Overclocked Temperature Testing
Cooler Testing Methods
To best gage the quality of the cooler under review and its effect on other components in the cooling loop, CPU, Chipset, VRM, and GPU temperatures were taken with the system idle and under load. To replicate idle conditions, the system was rebooted and allowed to sit idle for 10 minutes. To replicate a stress system load, Aida64 System Stability Test was used in conjunction with EVGA OC Scanner X for 30 minutes per run using the Furry E (GPU memory burner::3072MB) 3D Test, a 1280×1024 resolution, and an 8x MSAA Antialiasing setting. After each run, the system was shut down and allowed to rest for a minimum of 10 minutes to cool down. This procedure was repeated a total of 18 times – nine times for the stock speed runs and nine times for the overclocked speed runs.
Temperature measurements were taken directly from the CPU thermistors using CoreTemp v1.0 RC7 for the X99 testing. Because of the volatile nature of the Haswell-E thermistor readings, the system temperatures were measured as follows. For idle temperatures, the highest recorded value was used for the run. For load temperatures, a series of three values were notated: the average (high and low) across all cores, the average (high and low) across the single highest core, and the high temperature.
Temperature measurements were taken from the board integrated thermistors to measure the Intel X99 Chipset and CPU VRM temperatures using the temperature monitoring functionality built into ASUS' Dual Intelligent Processors 5 software.
Temperature measurements were taken directly from the GPU thermistors using TechPowerUp GPU-Z v0.8.3. For both the idle and load temperatures, the highest recorded value in the application were used for the run. Note that the temperature values are reported as deltas rather than absolute temperatures with the delta value reported calculated as GPU temperature – ambient temperature.
To adequately measure the EVGA GTX 970 SC's cooler performance in SLI, performance testing was done for most scenarios with the cards liquid cooled using a modified configuration with the HeatKiller GPU-X3 GPU water block.
Note that the temperature values are reported as deltas rather than absolute temperatures with the delta value reported calculated as GPU temperature – ambient temperature. For all tests, room ambient temperature was maintained between 25-28C.
Stock Temperature Testing
The CPU stock speed testing was conducted with the BIOS defaults set for the CPU and Turbo Mode disabled, equating to a 3.0GHz CPU speed, 2133MHz memory speed, 3.0GHz ring bus speed, and 100MHz base clock. The Intel Speedstep functionality remained enabled for the duration of the testing to get realistic CPU idle performance conditions. Chipset and VRM temperature testing was conducted at stock speeds with both air and liquid-based cooling. The graphics card temperature testing was conducted at stock speeds with liquid-based cooling with values reported for each individual card for comparison purposes.
Chipset and VRM Performance
With the Bitspower liquid cooling installed to the board, performance was best with the blocks in-line with the CPU only. Adding the GPUs into the cooling loop increased load temperatures a few degrees more. The best performance was seen with the VRM temperatures since the Intel X99 chipset really does not generate much of a heat load.
CPU Performance
The effect of the Bitspower block on CPU temperatures was minimal at best with the system running at stock setting. Even with the VRMs and GPUS dumping heat into the system, the deltas between the lower temperatures with the GPU removed from the loop is a mere 3C.
GPU Performance
The addition heat load introduced by the Bitspower blocks has negligible impact on the GPUs temperatures, raising measured temperatures by 1C at idle and under load.
Manual Overclocking
The system overclocked speed testing was conducted with the highest achievable stable settings from a previous board review with Turbo Mode disabled, equating to a 4.375GHz CPU speed, 2666MHz memory speed, 3.5GHz ring bus speed, and 125MHz base clock. It was found that running with GPUs in SLI mode necessitated lowering the overclocked board speed from 4.5GHz to 4.375GHz to achieve reliable system operation. The Intel Speedstep functionality remained enabled for the duration of the testing to get realistic CPU idle performance conditions. Chipset and VRM temperature testing was conducted at stock speeds with both air and liquid-based cooling. The graphics card temperature testing was conducted at stock speeds with liquid-based cooling with values reported for each individual card for comparison purposes.
Board voltage settings were configured as follows:
- CPU Core Voltage – 1.325
- System Agent Voltage – 1.225V
- DRAM Voltage – 1.23
- All other settings set to Auto or stock setting3s
GPU settings were configured via EVGA Precision X 16 profile settings as follows:
- GPU Clock Offset, card 1 – +100MHz
- GPU Clock Offset, card 2 – +115MHz
- Memory Clock Offset – +500MHz
- GPU Voltage Overvoltage – +37mV (Max)
- Power Target – 110% (Max)
- GPU Temperature Target – 91C (Max)
- Fan Preset – N/A
Performance numbers
- GPU Boost Clock Speed – 1468MHz
- Memory Speed – 1977MHz
- GPU voltage, card 1 – 1.1870V
- GPU voltage, card 2 – 1.2000V
Chipset and VRM Performance
With both the CPU and GPUs running overclocked, the Bitspower blocks have a much more noticeable effect on the VRM temperatures. The VRMs run 10C cooler on average compared to operating with the stock air cooler. While the chipset load temperatures do not change in comparison to the air cooled values, the idle temps are lower with the Bitspower block.
CPU Performance
The Bitspower blocks' effects with an with the overclocked system mimic those seen at stock speeds. Temperatures increase by 2-4C on average with the Bitspower blocks adding heat to the cooling loop.
GPU Performance
The effects of the Bitspower blocks on GPU temperatures remain minimal, similar to the temperature increases seen with the system running at stock speeds.
Great write up Morry! Getting
Great write up Morry! Getting ready for Quakecon?
Yes sir I am. Already there
Yes sir I am. Already there in fact…
More stuff like this, please!
More stuff like this, please! Great review!
Hello Sir Morry.
Thanks, Cool
Hello Sir Morry.
Thanks, Cool review (no pun intended…maybe just a little bit), but as far as I know, the chipset will benefit from watercooling only of you’re running 4-way sli/xfire.
Speaking of multi card config (it is the best segway I can come up with) I would like to ask if there’s any news on the review of the Asus X99-E WS motherboard, I hope I’m not being annoying or anything like.
thnx again
Hopefully that review will be
Hopefully that review will be forth coming, just waiting on review sample. As for the heat, you may not even need a full cover mb block with 4-way SLI / XFire b/c the air cooled solution with the Rampage V Extreme is that good. However, it comes down more to the "cool factor". In tandem with the hardline tubing, you really can't beat the look…
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Hi Morry! what about the heat
Hi Morry! what about the heat from The M.2 I imagine a Samsung 951 could get pretty hot it too bad that this cooler did not tak this into consideration. Some boards stack M.2’s so you could put the Samsung 951 on the bottom ad the Intel SAS or Mini SAS on top I think that would cause Lovely fire someone is going todo it for sure and watch their money burn! As alwats J.S.
An interesting piece of
An interesting piece of cooling hardware!
From your graphs, it appears that the GPU is fine at being cooled by air. The CPU needs a little more help and the VRM are the hot potatoes!
My question is; by cooling the VRM, has there been any noticeable performance improvements? I would think it helps with better stabilized OC ratings.
I’ve been told to cool the VRM, but I’m not ready to build a system with a water cooling system (also due to size). I plan to have the CPU cooled in liquid closed-loop. And the VRM cooled by air.
Generally, you get better
Generally, you get better stability and cooler temps by directly water cooling the VRMs. However, ASUS overengineered the Rampage's VRM cooler so heat is not too much of an issue with it.
You will get some added benefits with stability and overclocking, but not as mucch as you'd think. The one shortcoming of the VRM cooler included in the kit was with its smooth design. If there would have been pins or channels in the VRM cooler base, it would have cooled more effectively because of the added surface area and turbulence caused by such channels…
Morry,
If I understand your
Morry,
If I understand your response, generally speaking, having the VRM at a lower temp doesn’t provide any noticeable PC performance?
For my scenario, I will still proceed with attempting to lower the heat of the VRM for ease of mind that the circuits are receiving a cleaner signal.
I agree with your observation of VRM cooler base design. If it would have fins like those for the chipset, it would theoretically provide better cooling benefits. Did you use thermal paste or thermal pad for the VRM? I couldn’t find that detail in your review. I would think that the pad generates less thermal transfer than the paste.
VRM cooling helps with
VRM cooling helps with overclocking, my comment was more a testament of how well ASUS designed their stock VRM cooler. When you start pumping alot of power (current and voltage) through the CPU is when the VRMs become taxed and the more efficient cooling designs make a difference.
As for the paste vs pad, I use a pad b/c thats what the kit came with, but paste would work just as well or better. However, the temp diff for VRM cooling would be much less than you would see on a cpu for example…
From my experience, it is the
From my experience, it is the it is the cheap motherboards that need aftermarket VRM cooling the most. The problem is that if you have the money for aftermarket cooling for the motherboard, then you have the money to get a higher end board.
Many cheaper motherboards will have VRM temperatures in the 100C range, and the really cheap ones (non heatsinked 4 phase power delivery, will have temperatures hitting 120C with a core i7.
When you jump to higher end boards, you get VRM’s which are more efficient, and have a higher current capacity, along with 8+ phases. the end result is a low duty cycle on each VRM, and they end up running significantly cooler.
Most of the lowest end boards tend to rely on the VRM protection to keep them from overheating, instead of putting the 5-10 extra cents that it would take to add a heatsink. The down side is that you will end up with CPU throttling. This is why some lower end boards will benchmark lower, depending on the load and length of the test (e.g., if you do a prime 95 style load) there will be moments when the clock speed will jump around for a few milliseconds at a time.
Sadly the only boards that really benefit will be those $50-60 boards with 4 phase power and no VRM heatsink, but for some reason will have an auto overclocking function that will attempt to pump 1.3V into a core i5, when the VRM protection kicks in at stock speeds.
Thank you! Very informative
Thank you! Very informative 🙂
You pretty much answered my question in regards to VRM and overall system performance 🙂