Thermolab Baram Blows In

Post by **MikeC** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 11:10 am

CyberDog · Post by **CyberDog** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:52 pm

Looks promising, but does not cope with the looks. Maybe if they had soldered the fins to heat pipes. How about the contact surface with the IHS?

Post by **MikeC** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:59 pm

The fin/heatpipes mating is normal -- that's the way they're almost all done, and it works well enough most of the time. The base/cpu interface is tight and the base is very flat, so no real issues there. I don't really think the performance is "bad" -- as mentioned in the conclusion, the spread between the best and this one is only 4C, which is pretty minor when you consider the error could be as high as 2C for each product, and there are vairances in the product samples, too.

The main issue, imo, is the mounting procedure. As bad as some of the Thermaltakes from the past.

maf718 · Post by **maf718** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:24 pm

Interesting to hear about a cooler from a "new" player, pity about the previously mentioned mounting system. I was also under the impression that the very best coolers had the fins soldered to the pipes.

Edited

Post by **MikeC** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:27 pm

maf718 wrote:(Not wanting to nitpick but there is a small error on page 5; in the second table exactly the same results are posted for the TRUE and Ninja 2)

corrected

bgiddins · Post by **bgiddins** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:33 pm

Wonder how it would have performed with direct touch heat pipes... at face value it looks like it should have performed a little better.

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 6:21 pm

Hi Mike,

I have thought on a possible method for mounting the thing: temporarily use two long screws on the diagonal locations to align and secure it; then mount two of the standard screws in the other two locations, and then replace the long screws with the standard screws?

Post by **MikeC** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:22 pm

NeilBlanchard wrote:Hi Mike,

I have thought on a possible method for mounting the thing: temporarily use two long screws on the diagonal locations to align and secure it; then mount two of the standard screws in the other two locations, and then replace the long screws with the standard screws?

Yeah, that's a solution. I have no doubt many a reader will say I go too far in damning the mounting system because they've dealt with others just as bad. My point is simple: It shouldn't be so dang hard just to mount something as basic as a heatsink. They take the fun out of it DIY computer building when so much risk is involved. I have broken motherboards trying to install heatsinks before -- I mean broken as it making the board inoperative, not actually a visible physical break. That kind of design is just criminal, imo. The Baram could result in some broken boards, too.

Shamgar · Post by **Shamgar** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:57 am

On pg3,

The AMD AM2 mounting arms are screwed on, and the back plate is shown. Four screws secure Helsinki from the top side to the mounting plate,

Did you mean to write heatsink, or am I missing something?

CyberDog · Post by **CyberDog** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:08 am

That Helsinki typo is in few places at the review. As much I like our Capitol City I would like to the fixed...

Personally I don't mind of complex mounting procedure. As a matter of fact I often tune heatsinks stock mounting to gain more pressure...

Why I wondered that soldering thin is that on paper that thing should perform better as the comparison coolers...

jaganath · Post by **jaganath** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:48 am

MikeC wrote:Yeah, that's a solution. I have no doubt many a reader will say I go too far in damning the mounting system because they've dealt with others just as bad. My point is simple: It shouldn't be so dang hard just to mount something as basic as a heatsink. They take the fun out of it DIY computer building when so much risk is involved. I have broken motherboards trying to install heatsinks before -- I mean broken as it making the board inoperative, not actually a visible physical break. That kind of design is just criminal, imo. The Baram could result in some broken boards, too.

totally agree with this. especially heatsinks where you have to apply a lot of physical pressure, this can break both mobo and cpu, which is totally crazy and unacceptable. when will heatsink manufacturers realise that the mounting mechanism is just as important as the design of the heatink itself.

osmium76 · Post by **osmium76** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:56 am

Hi, I saw different numbers for the Nexus fan. Are these more correct values for the Nexus because taken in the anechoic chamber? In this case are you planning to test the other fans too and update the round-ups?
Thank you.

Lawrence Lee · Post by **Lawrence Lee** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:31 am

osmium76 wrote:Hi, I saw different numbers for the Nexus fan. Are these more correct values for the Nexus because taken in the anechoic chamber? In this case are you planning to test the other fans too and update the round-ups?

Yes, the new numbers are from the chamber. As for a fan round-up - that might take awhile. We're tinkering with our testing methodology once again.

ACook · Post by **ACook** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:24 pm

2nd paragraph page 1: "That's what you're hear to find out, isn't it?"

shame about the mounting. really, why can't they think of something that just works?

Aris · Post by **Aris** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:05 pm

and the first page had me all hyped up about a possible new champ. All the things they "supposedly" did better than other heatsink manufacturers ended up not being so much better it seems.

looks like its still xigmatek and thermalright for the top spot.

Thermolab Baram Blows In

Thermolab Baram Blows In

New measures?

Re: New measures?