Performance and Conclusion
While recent cooler reviews have included results from an updated Intel X99 test platform, I decided to add results from the previous Z170 system using a Core i5-6600K. The newer system's six-core i7-6800K is a bit unrealistic for a smaller cooler, but we'll see how the Maker 92 fared against an assortment of other coolers between the two platforms.
| Z170 Test Platform | X99 Test Platform | |
|---|---|---|
| Processor | Intel Core i5-6600K | Intel Core i7-6800K |
| Motherboard | EVGA Z170 Stinger | EVGA X99 Micro2 |
| Memory | Crucial Ballistix 8GB (2x4GB) 2400 MHz DDR4 | HyperX Fury 16GB (4x4GB) 2400 MHz DDR4 |
| Graphics Card | XFX AMD Radeon 5450 (Fanless) | |
| Storage | OCZ Vertex 460 120GB SSD | |
| Power Supply | Corsair TX 650W PSU | |
| OS | Windows 8.1 64-bit | |
We'll start with the Z170 results, and for these I tested the cooler in its default push-pull configuration and with one fan removed. When the cooler is folded down into its horizontal position, the top fan's removal lowers the overall height to just under 100 mm. While the lower height obviously enhances the potential compatibility for the Maker 92, the big question was how much of a performance hit we would see from a single-fan setup.
As you can see, the dual fans definitely make a difference, but the numbers with a single-fan Maker 92 aren't bad at all considering its lower profile. I didn't have a lot of low-profile cooler options on hand to test against, but this first set of results should at least provide an idea of the Maker 92's performance with a 91W TDP processor like the Core i5 on test.
Next we'll look at results on the larger X99 platform with the i7-6800K, a six-core processor with a TDP of 140W. I included results from some larger coolers here, strictly for reference. If you have the room for a big cooler the Maker 92 probably doesn't make sense, but I still wanted to see how it coped with a bigger thermal load.
The point of testing with Maker 92 the big i7-6800K processor was to see if it could simply keep up with the CPU load - which it did nicely, even though it obviously finished last here. Those load and stress temps are very good for this processor, and even leave a bit of room for overclocking if desired. I had no interest in pushing it with this cooler, however, and I think the sweet spot for a cooler of this size is Intel LGA 115x.
Noise results are next. I only tested the Maker 92 cooler with both fans connected, as the second fan makes little difference in overall noise output, which you will see is rather low considering the 92 mm fan diameter:
These numbers are impressively low for a cooler with small fans, especially considering how fast (over 2000 RPM under load) they had to spin. Subjectively the Maker 92 seemed louder than the SPL meter (positioned 18 inches away) detected, with an audible 'hum' - but I use an open testbench so pump noise will seem louder in my testing. The contrast in sound characteristics between the pump and fans did made it harder to ignore the cooler, but inside a case it should far less audible.
Height vs. Performance
Using the Core i5-6600K test results I decided to chart the coolers based on the hottest load temps (using the Prime95 stress temps from the chart above), comparing these to the total height of each cooler tested. Really, when we're talking about low-profile coolers, the height/performance metric might be the most important thing to consider, and this should determine if the Maker 92 is really worth considering over cheaper low-profile air coolers.
Of this group, the low-profile air coolers on test include a stock Intel cooler at 46 mm, the Cryorig C7 at 47 mm, the Deepcool Gabriel at 60 mm, and the Noctua NH-U9B SE2 - which barely qualifies as "low-profile" - at 125 mm. The ultra-popular Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO - which is in no way a low-profile solution, and is included for reference only - stands in at 159 mm tall. This leaves the Cooler Master MasterLiquid Maker 92, which - in its horizontal position - is either 118 mm tall with both fans, or around 95 mm tall with the top fan removed.
A look at the center of this chart shows the intersection of height and performance, with the MasterLiquid Maker 92 coming in as the winner; and you might notice this result is with one of the Maker 92's fans removed (and with the system in its horizontal position, of course).
Conclusion
When we consider the raw performance results above, it's clear that the MasterLiquid Maker 92 isn't going to break any records for a liquid cooler. Its performance is certainly up to the task of even an Intel Core i7-6800K, and having the ability to properly cool even a 140W 6-core CPU (under the stress of Prime95 torture testing, no less) adds value to a product that should still probably be considered for smaller Core i5/Core i7 builds. It is when we take the overall size of the cooler into account that the Maker 92 starts to look much more impressive.
With an excellent size/performance ratio the MasterLiquid Maker 92 is a very nice option when standard liquid coolers just won't work, and can out-perform low profile air coolers as we saw with the Intel Z170 system results above. The ability to change the cooler's orientation is a unique design choice, and Cooler Master has implemented this very well with the Maker 92. It's a very well made product with a lot of potential, but it will require a very specific application to warrant selection over more conventional coolers.
Strengths
- Excellent performance for its size
- Unique folding design
- High quality construction
- Low noise output
- Ease of installation
Weaknesses
- Price tag
- Limited use-cases
If it fits your particular needs the MasterLiquid Maker 92 is an outstanding option considering its compact design, size/performance ratio, and unique transforming design.
now all the industry needs is
now all the industry needs is a reason to upgrade from an i5-2500K
Can’t believe you gave this
Can’t believe you gave this turd an award. Very disappointing
Considering its worse than a
Considering its worse than a decent air cooler i agree. It is a terribly engineered solution.
Don’t worry there’ll be
Don’t worry there’ll be something else you can hate on soon enough.
It’s too well designed and
It's too well designed and built not to give it an honorable mention. I debated whether that could be grounds for an award, and finally did – with this provision:
If it fits your particular needs the MasterLiquid Maker 92 is an outstanding option considering its compact design, size/performance ratio, and unique transforming design.
If you own, say, an In Win 901 mini-ITX case, which only includes a 92 mm rear fan opening and has poor airflow, this would be an interesting option. The primary flaw with this product is that it was designed for a need that doesn't exist for most people. But it's a really cool idea, and well realized.
In other words, it's not a "turd".
For all you students out
For all you students out there, the above comment is a great example of the a red herring.
Cooler Master’s own cases
Cooler Master’s own cases that this cooler is targeted at aren’t even compatible with this. Sorry, but I just see this as a fail. Plus the it really doesn’t perform any better than a much lower priced air cooler. I just fail to see the point. The engineering and design is to be commended for sure, but it just isn’t a product I would every buy, and I am curious as to how many units they will sell on the market.
Yep, I think this is a silly
Yep, I think this is a silly product too. It has all the downsides of an air cooler without the benefits of a big radiator. The whole point of doing water cooling is to increase your surface area. A small radiator that you cannot move to a convenient location is actually not that different than heat-pipes embedded in fins.
@Sebastian:
“A look at the center of this chart shows the intersection of height and performance, with the MasterLiquid Maker 92 coming in as the winner;”
This type of definition of “winning” depends a lot on how you scale your axes. You can put the intersection anywhere you wish. I’m not saying you are cheating, I’m just saying that it is not very well defined and calling it “winning” is a bit of a stretch.
I’d say 95mm is not a sweat-spot for cooler height since you either have a case that can fit a +120mm GPU, or you don’t and then 47mm seems more logical. Moreover, if somehow 95mm happens to be your exact limit, I’m not sure it will perform as presented in the review, with limited clearance on the “breathing” side of the radiator.
I strongly agree with your
I strongly agree with your assessment of “winning” based on the intersection.
Thank you for writing this so I didn’t have to.
This type of definition of
This type of definition of "winning" depends a lot on how you scale your axes. You can put the intersection anywhere you wish. I'm not saying you are cheating, I'm just saying that it is not very well defined and calling it "winning" is a bit of a stretch.
Same scale as the benchmarks. Defined by parameters of the chart.
I'd say 95mm is not a sweat-spot for cooler height since you either have a case that can fit a +120mm GPU, or you don't and then 47mm seems more logical.
The point of the "sweet spot" is that of height vs. max temp in this particular group. Of course 95 mm is not a sweet-spot for cooler height in general. Look how well the Hyper 212 EVO performs! It wins most price/performance battles and is obviously taller than 95 mm. Where is the argument made that this is a better option than other coolers that cost less, or even have a lower height? Context matters.
Moreover, if somehow 95mm happens to be your exact limit, I'm not sure it will perform as presented in the review, with limited clearance on the "breathing" side of the radiator.
It will, and it did. I don't make numbers up.
Thx for the reply, I don’t
Thx for the reply, I don’t think we will converge on this topic, but that is ok. I general, I’m very positive about your work, this one is a decent review as well. There was no personal agenda. Until next time.
Interesting. All the above
Interesting. All the above comment are obsessed about performance. The fact that it works, works well seems to be beside the point. I’m going to wager that this little gem is going to sell out quick just because it’s neat. Good design and engineering has its own reward and I’d love one in my case.
Bottom line, most people who
Bottom line, most people who are motivated to comment on this product will look past any of the good aspects of the design.
Lets be honest. The reason
Lets be honest. The reason they dont like it is because they dont understand what the intended use is. Also because it doesnt say corsair and have flashing LED’s all over it.
rgb or gtfo ;}
maybe next
rgb or gtfo ;}
maybe next years model will get the infection.
Poor cpu socket, holding all
Poor cpu socket, holding all this weight.
Great intro photo Sebastian –
Great intro photo Sebastian – well done!
As an added bonus, this
As an added bonus, this behemoth will quickly find any weakness in your motherboard’s strength. Bend…CRACK!
well there is a another bonus
well there is a another bonus – in a pinch you could use the rig as in a shot put competition.
but i personally do not like the large (and extremely large) coolers- this one is heading into the OMG WHAT IS IT! category
the numbers are really not bad, however i would have expected better I7 numbers to get a silver award.
but then i have an opinion like everyone has a ……
.
I bought this because my 1080
I bought this because my 1080 ti has a radiator which takes the only mount which can fit a radiator (rear exhaust) the top Mount can not fit a AIO because it fouls on the motherboard otherwise I’d have 2 radiators. Also because hoses go towards the bottom they hit either the PSU or GPU (in my case anyway) so it’s really annoying but this is the only AIO that is compatible with my setup short of cutting it apart to make room. I’ll have this mounted on the CPU so it’s blowing straight up to the top exhaust fan, and side cover will have 2 intake fans so plenty of fresh air going through the rads