tim851 wrote:
According to the German review you provided in the next post, they do work as well as reference cards.
Are we reading the same review?
Quote:
When they rotated the case by 90° - turning it into a conventional one - the reference card's temps rose by 4c, the DirectCU II card's temps rose by 3c.
I think you are looking at CPU temperatures. Try the pull-down menu and change it to GPU - the numbers should be a little more drastic for the reference card then what you are seeing, which speaks to the RV/FT series unique… privileging (sorry, that’s a poor word choice) of reference GPUs.

Quote:
In dual GPU configurations, EVERY CASE benefits from reference (i.e. exhaust) cooling solutions. That's not "unique" to the FT02/RV02.
Sure, yes, but if you put two of the exact same cards in a different case you get better temperatures than you do in the FT/RV series.
Quote:
So it is the thing where they say a specific heatpipe orientation is suboptimal.
That is not what you claimed, i.e. that Silverstone recommends the use of reference cards.
You are correct, my fault! I am thinking of posts from the OCN SS owner’s club - whoops!
Quote:
I googled "expreview ft02" and "expreview rv02" and it didn't find anything.
And that Archive.org link that you brokenly posted gives me a "Wayback Machine doesn't have that page archived.”
That is unfortunate - it is working on this end, right now, and users on OCN confirmed that it worked two months ago, so sorry for your luck? Perhaps try again later? Anyway, here are their reference card thoughts:
expreview wrote:
As we can see from the above table,no mater RV02 was in normal replacement(graphics was vertical to ground) or rotated 90° for placement(graphics was horizontal to ground),it was with little effect towards
GPU temperature which was between 1℃ and 2 ℃.To some extent,we could get to know wind channel was with minor influence.
Theoretically,when MSI N460GTX HAWK was vertical to ground,condensation side of its two heatpipes was obviously lower than evaporation side.At this time,gravity effect would become larger,surely condensation side of another two heatpipes would be higher than evaporation side,and gravity could bring positive effect.In addition,GPU temperature was only 1℃ higher,similar case happened in the AC Accelero Xtreme Plus cooler,however,it was with great deal of difference.
And their non-reference card thoughts:
expreview wrote:
Above data might be a great surprise to you.
The four TRad series graphics coolers performed much differently being vertical/horizontal to ground.When we installed them in a normal way,(heatpipes of cooler are vertical to ground)performance was quite bad,what’s more,T-Rad2 GTX and MK-13 couldn’t be qualified for basic work,with GPU temprature soaring to 105℃ and automatically entry into protection period.
Even for the best-performance Shaman,it was 17℃ higher than that of horizontal placement(RV02 rotated 90°),which might be related with its length of heatpipes,while Accelero Xtreme Plus was 20 ℃ higher,we were afraid that it was not the wind channel could explain these phenomena.
It is worth noting that these results are old, and that users with newer revisions of the Accelero and T-Rad coolers like the Windforce (basically an accelero) have had better experiences - sintered heat pipes maybe?
Quote:
In dual GPU configurations, EVERY CASE benefits from reference (i.e. exhaust) cooling solutions. That's not "unique" to the FT02/RV02.
Sure, yes, but if you put two of the exact same cards in a different case you get better temperatures than you do in the FT/RV series.
Quote:
So it is the thing where they say a specific heatpipe orientation is suboptimal.
That is not what you claimed, i.e. that Silverstone recommends the use of reference cards.
You are correct, my fault! I am thinking of posts from the OCN SS owner’s club - whoops!
tim851 wrote:
claes wrote:
You know full well what I meant - greater surface area = greater distribution of heat = less energy/heat per square inch of heatsink
That is not what you said and not what you meant.
Yet, somehow, the words are right there...
You keep insisting that you are having this argument in good faith and yet refuse to give me the benefit of the doubt. I appreciate that I may have been unclear/you may have misread, but at this point it’s ludicrous. You have consistently misread every post I’ve made in this thread from the beginning, where you somehow read my talk about CPU heatsink size as need for more exhaust…
Your primary beef with me (I struggle to call this an argument) appears to be this:
Quote:
Heatsink size and/or efficiency has no effect on the amount of heat a CPU generates!
Which I totally agree with.
Let’s take a look back in context.
A disclaimer from my third post, before this particular argument started, that you appear to have missed:
claes wrote:
Before you get all excited, of course having a bigger tower wouldn't decrease the temps of the GPUs directly (or change the TDP of the CPU, or magically absorb GPU heat output, et cetera), but it would decrease the temperature of the heatsink itself, which would decrease overall chassis temperature.
To which you responded:
tim851 wrote:
Heatsinks don't emit heat.
CPUs do. The heatsink just passes it along.
If the CPU consumes 100 watts of power, those 100w will be released into the system as heat. 8th grade physics, law of conservation of energy.
How hot the heatsink gets in the process doesn't matter for the thermal energy being released.
Again, I’ll insist that I know that and, in fact, said that a heatsink has no effect on the TDP/thermal output of a CPU when I very literally said “[having a bigger tower wouldn’t] change the TDP of the CPU.”
I then responded like so:
claes wrote:
You'll notice that I clarified later that a larger heatsink doesn't decrease the TDP of a CPU, and that I had clarified that, as OC reviews have shown, that dual tower heatsinks, like the D15, handle higher TDPs...
I’m not sure how I can be any clearer or why you insist that I am saying the opposite of the words that are posted here, which all leads me to believe that this is in poor faith and that maybe you’re just trolling me.
Quote:
Quote:
You know full well what I meant - greater surface area = greater distribution of heat = less energy/heat per square inch of heatsink
That is not what you said and not what you meant.
That is what
*I* said.
Actually, no, you said some nonsensical thing about how heatsinks don’t emit heat - see above. I know that you know that this is not true, that heatsinks in fact absorb heat from the CPU and then fans push that heat through the chassis, and I do apologize for taking advantage of this rhetorical slip-up later in the thread (I’ll explain below what I mean by "taking advantage" if you do not know what I am referring to - re: sarcasm used to poke fun).
Quote:
You said these things:
Quote:
A dual-tower CPU cooler would've helped tame overall heat to be exhausted from the case
Quote:
a bigger tower (...) would decrease the temperature of the heatsink itself, which would decrease overall chassis temperature.
Quote:
More CPU headroom might decrease overall temps
...repeatedly demonstrating a misunderstanding.
Please explain how this ideas are incongruous. Bigger heatsink = greater surface area = greater distribution of heat = less energy/heat per sqaure inch…
Quote:
Yes, I am insisting on it.
Please re-read - I see very well that you are insisting but you are failing to demonstrate why…
Quote:
Are you seriously trying to call me out for using your own words against you?!
No, I was sarcastically calling you out for suggesting that heatsinks don’t emit heat:
tim851 wrote:
Heatsinks don't emit heat.
CPUs do. The heatsink just passes it along.
And then make fun of your rigorous demand for semantic consistency to hold you accountable for saying something that you know is untrue…
Quote:
If the CPU consumes 100 watts of power, those 100w will be released into the system as heat. 8th grade physics, law of conservation of energy.
because, if it were, heatsinks would melt and or explode, so, therefore, have a sense of humor:
Quote:
"BUT WUTT ABOUT THOSE WORDS YOU USED ABOUT HOW HEATSINKS DON'T EMIT HEAT? OMG YOU ARE SO WRONG ABOUT THAT GO BACK TO THE EIGHTH GRADE AND RELEARN YOUR PHYSICS LOL UR SO DUMB"
Quote:
Also, I'm likely older than you are, it's no use calling me a kid every time you run out of arguments.
You seem to be operating on the false assumption that age and maturity are correlated.
Quote:
I’ll not forget what we are argueing about and I will come back to poke you with it every time.
It’s pretty clear that you have some bone to pick, but I’m really not sure how to make it any more plain or to remind you exactly what it is: when I am talking about using a larger heatsink rather than a smaller one because of the benefit of it’s increased size I am pretty plainly making the “bigger heatsink = greater surface area = greater distribution of heat = less energy/heat per square inch” argument. You can continue to insist that I am not, and you’re welcome to, but if you think that makes you a good faith ensurer of truth, or that fighting about semantics isn’t embarrassing for everyone in this thread, well, I guess that’s too bad.

Edit: Relavant aside,
a user just posted a 970 sli reference setup in a FT05 with a D15 over at OCN... AP182s at ~570rpm constant, single CPU fan (middle) at ~500rpm on load, and they report that the GPUs stay below 70 while playing BF4 (significantly more demanding than RE6)... but, you know, conjecture isn't proof and they offer no GPU fan speed info
