Viewing page 4 of 6 pages.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
FANDER FX-120
Ambient noise at the time of testing was 18 dBA.
| Brand |
Fander |
Power Rating |
0.18A |
| Manufacturer |
Xinruilian |
Airflow Rating |
31~67 CFM |
| Model Number |
FX-120W |
RPM Rating |
700~1,400 RPM |
| Retail Availability |
Limited (Europe) |
Noise Rating |
14.9~23.7 dBA |
| Bearing Type |
Sleeve |
Header Type |
3-pin & Molex Adapter |
| Hub Size |
1.87" |
Starting Voltage |
5.0V |
| Frame Size |
120 x 120 x 25 mm |
Number of Samples |
2 |
|
Voltage
|
Noise
|
RPM
|
CFM
|
Power
|
|
12V
|
26 dBA@1m
|
1400 RPM
|
46 CFM
|
1.21W
|
|
9V
|
22 dBA@1m
|
1040 RPM
|
32 CFM
|
0.90W
|
|
7V
|
20 dBA@1m
|
770 RPM
|
22 CFM
|
0.71W
|
|
5V
|
<18 dBA@1m
|
480 RPM
|
14 CFM
|
0.52W
|
|
@25 CFM (7.7V)
|
21 dBA@1m
|
840 RPM
|
25 CFM
|
0.86W
|
May 5, 2008
The updated airflow results here are the result of improvements
in our testing procedures. They are more accurate than the original results
above, but they are not directly comparable. Please compare these only with
fan reviews published after May 5, 2008 — or ones that have updated
results published in a box like this one. |
|
12V
|
26 dBA@1m
|
1400 RPM
|
39 CFM
|
1.21W
|
|
9V
|
22 dBA@1m
|
1040 RPM
|
27 CFM
|
0.90W
|
|
7V
|
20 dBA@1m
|
770 RPM
|
20 CFM
|
0.71W
|
|
5V
|
<18 dBA@1m
|
480 RPM
|
11 CFM
|
0.52W
|
|
@20 CFM (7.0V)
|
20 dBA@1m
|
760 RPM
|
20 CFM
|
0.71W
|
The last Fander model
we saw made quite an impression. Though we'd never heard of Fander before,
this small Polish company produced a fan worthy of recommendation over any of
the other 92mm models we saw. It did this by being both quiet and flexible,
with an excellent noise signature and a built-in, variable speed fan controller.
On top of that, it was rated for long-term use with an MTBF of 80,000 hours.
Naturally, we expect great things of the 120mm version, which is more or less
the same as its smaller cousin. And, sure enough, when we powered it up for
a casual test, it sounded just as good. It came with the same fan controller,
giving it an operational range of 590~1400 RPM without requiring any modding
at all. And, just like the 92mm version, it is rated for a high MTBF of 80,000
hours.
External fan controller not required.
Fast forward a few weeks, and we were finally ready to run it through some
more rigorous testing. However, when we powered up the fan this time, it had
developed a distinct chuffing that ruined its formerly smooth noise signature.
The rhythm and volume of the chuffing varied considerably depending on the orientation
of the fan, but the problem was too prevalent to get rid of just by adjusting
the fan's position. Both of our test samples were affected, yet we could find
no reason why the fans should suddenly develop this problem. We can only conclude
that our rough handling somehow damaged the bearings.
Without the chuffing the noise was smooth and quiet enough to become inaudible
below ~6V (roughly the same as setting the controller to minimum). Like the
92mm version, the noise character was very similar to the equivalent Nexus fan,
which is to say, among the best we've heard.
The FX-120W certainly has the potential to be one of the top 120mm fans. With
an undamaged sample, the wide speed range and control offered by the fan controller
give it more flexibility than almost any other fan we can think of. On the other
hand, if our two damaged samples are anything to judge by, the FX-120W may not
be durable or consistent enough to beat out the other contestants in the field.
Noise Recording
ENERMAX MARATHON UC12EB
Ambient noise at the time of testing was 18 dBA.
| Brand |
Enermax |
Power Rating |
0.20A |
| Manufacturer |
Enermax? |
Airflow Rating |
44 CFM |
| Model Number |
UC12EB |
RPM Rating |
1,000±10% RPM |
| Retail Availability |
Yes |
Noise Rating |
17 dBA |
| Bearing Type |
Enlobal |
Header Type |
3-pin & Molex Adapter |
| Hub Size |
1.77" |
Starting Voltage |
6.6V* |
| Frame Size |
120 x 120 x 25 mm |
Number of Samples |
1 |
|
Voltage
|
Noise
|
RPM
|
CFM
|
Power
|
|
12V
|
28 dBA@1m
|
950 RPM
|
25 CFM
|
0.53W
|
|
9V
|
20 dBA@1m
|
710 RPM
|
18 CFM
|
0.45W
|
|
7V
|
20 dBA@1m
|
540 RPM
|
14 CFM
|
0.39W
|
|
5V
|
~19 dBA@1m
|
340 RPM
|
9 CFM
|
0.35W
|
|
@25 CFM (12.0V)
|
28 dBA@1m
|
950 RPM
|
25 CFM
|
0.53W
|
May 5, 2008
The updated airflow results here are the result of improvements
in our testing procedures. They are more accurate than the original results
above, but they are not directly comparable. Please compare these only with
fan reviews published after May 5, 2008 — or ones that have updated
results published in a box like this one. |
|
12V
|
28 dBA@1m
|
950 RPM
|
22 CFM
|
0.53W
|
|
9V
|
20 dBA@1m
|
710 RPM
|
16 CFM
|
0.45W
|
|
7V
|
20 dBA@1m
|
540 RPM
|
11 CFM
|
0.39W
|
|
5V
|
~19 dBA@1m
|
340 RPM
|
6 CFM
|
0.35W
|
|
@20 CFM (11.3V)
|
28 dBA@1m
|
860 RPM
|
20 CFM
|
0.50W
|
One of the methods fan makers like to use to set their fans apart is to invent
a new bearing type that is better than the traditional ball or sleeve bearings
in some way. Most of the time, what's new is not the whole bearing but an improvement
to some aspect of one of these two traditional designs (see Global
Win's Nanometer Ceramic Bearings above). Enermax' Enlobal bearing is different.
While it does share some traits with other bearing types, it stands apart from
ball or sleeve bearings in a very fundamental way.
A bearing is designed to reduce friction between moving parts. Ball bearings
do this by letting the parts roll on balls between the two parts, like wheels
on a car letting the car roll forward without dragging on the ground. Sleeve
bearings achieve the same thing by using a liquid between the two parts instead
of solid balls — usually some kind of oil. This is like putting soap and
water on a plastic sheet in the summer so you and your kids can slide down a
hill.
Neither of these two examples apply to the Enlobal bearing, which uses a magnetic
field in place of balls or oil. The Enlobal bearing is like a
maglev train, in which the train is suspended on a magnetic cushion above
the track, with only air between the two. Thus, friction between the moving
parts is greatly reduced, since most of the time they are only in contact with
the air, not each other. (That said, it is worth pointing out that at least
one SPCR user has found that oiling
the Enlobal bearing improved both vibration and noise dramatically).
The advantages of reduced friction are not hard to recognize: Less wear, reduced
power requirements, less heat produced — and less noise. And, indeed,
these are exactly the benefits that Enermax uses to sell the fans that use Enlobal
bearings, including the Marathon that we looked at. The question is, how much
do these theoretical benefits actually come out in practice? Have Enermax' engineers
done a good job implementing the technology? Is it cost effective?
All of these are open questions, and not all are easy to address in a short
review. For example, we cannot evaluate longevity or reliability, and Enermax'
documentation conspicuously omits any hard numbers in this respect. Even a ballpark
MTBF number would be welcome here. What we can examine are things like
power, airflow and noise, and our hands-on review showed the Marathon to be
unusual in a number of ways.
One things that surprised us initially was how little power it required —
and how little the power consumption changed when we adjusted the input voltage.
In fact, it required less power per rotation than any other 120mm fan we've
tested — and not by a small amount! This stands to reason; with less friction
to deal with, the fan's electric motor would not need to work as hard.
The quality of noise behaved similarly: It was low and changed very little
with speed. This is markedly different from how fans usually behave; as a general
rule speed and noise are strongly correlated, but the Marathon varied more based
on listening angle than rotation speed. Unfortunately for the Marathon, it happened
to be loudest at the angle that we typically measure from — 45° off
the exhaust side — so our noise measurements and recordings are worst case,
not typical. At this angle, the noise was a constant droning hum. Instead of
becoming louder when the fan speed increased, the noise became rougher and more
intrusive. In addition to the drone, a pure tone — most likely the sound
of the blade assembly resonating — could be heard. At full speed, this
resonance dominated the noise signature, but turning the fan down by even one
volt dropped the tone drastically.
The best position to listen to the fan was directly beside it. From here, the
Marathon was more or less inaudible below 9V (!), and even at 12V the pure tone
did not distract too much. If we could guarantee that the fan was only heard
from this position, we would offer it our wholehearted endorsement. But, thanks
to the hugely directional noise pattern, the best we can say is that it might
be worth experimenting with.
The fan exhibited a couple of other oddities as well. For reasons that never
became apparent, the Marathon did not move as much air per rotation as many
of the other fans we tested. Like the Arctic Fan 12L, the Marathon seemed to
lag about 5~10% behind the airflow produced by other fans. But, while the Arctic
Fan could probably attribute this to its frameless design, the Marathon doesn't
have this excuse. While this isn't a large difference, it does bear thinking
about and perhaps also some further testing at a later date.
Another oddity was the way the Marathon started up. Given a sudden burst of
voltage (our usual method for testing starting voltage), the fan started reliably
at 6.6V. However, if the voltage was increased gradually, the fan wouldn't start
until a full 12V was reached. This could pose a problem if the Marathon ever
stalls when undervolted. When the fan was stopped forcibly, it had trouble restarting
unless the input voltage was close to 12V.
All in all, the Marathon (and presumably Enermax' other Enlobal fans) is a
very interesting fan, but until some of its quirks are worked out, it won't
stand out in the crowd as much as Enermax might like. For us, the biggest issue
was the highly directional, resonant pure tone that made judging the noise character
so difficult. Perhaps Enermax would do better to choose a less resonant (read:
non-transparent) material for the blade assembly? However, it's worth pointing
out that other users have had issued with vibration and quality control. It
may be that fixing these issues is as simple as lubricating the bearing a bit,
but we can't recommend a product that requires maintenance out of the box. Like
the SilenX Ixtrema Pro, it is worth experimenting with, but hard to recommend
unconditionally.
Noise Recording
JUMP TO:
| Help support this site, buy from one of our affiliate retailers! |
|
