OC3D Review: Cooler Master Hyper Z600 CPU Cooler

JN

New member
Thomas "Teknokid" Koflach gains his reviewer wings as he checks out Cooler Master's beefy Z600 CPU Cooler:

"Cooler Master have made some bold claims about their new Z600 cooler. We put the Z600 to the test to find out if it can really live up to the hype."

10205952745s.jpg


Cooler Master Hyper Z600 CPU Cooler
 
Cheers Jim, Brings warmth to your heart seeing it up there live!

A big thanks goes to yourself and the whole OC3D team as well, top chaps!
 
Haven't gotten a chance to read through it yet, but something to mention is that on the graphs themselves the stock ones should explicitly say it was run passive and the OC'ed ones should explicitly say run with fans. Tons of people who look up cooler reviews only look at the graphs and don't actually read any of the review itself.
 
name='Nick R' said:
Could you give temps with the two fans attached @ 1.4v?

It should be pretty similar, the Z600 handles extra heat extremely well. I cant really go testing for everyones individual set ups, otherwise It would take years. But if you are after a top notch HSF, the z600 is the one :)

name='WC Annihilus' said:
Haven't gotten a chance to read through it yet, but something to mention is that on the graphs themselves the stock ones should explicitly say it was run passive and the OC'ed ones should explicitly say run with fans. Tons of people who look up cooler reviews only look at the graphs and don't actually read any of the review itself.

There is the little text before the graphs, and hopefully people will look accross at them. I dont think there is enough room on the graphs themselves to add in "@ passive" or "@ Load". But I will have to wait for Jim on that one
 
name='Nick R' said:
I misread the latter text and thought that it was still passive when OCed.

Nope, For testing we figured that users that are going to overclock would run the cooler with fans, so therefore tested it in that configuration.
 
Great review, but, should the passive cooling test last for a bit longer, because even with the best heatsink in the world, over time the fins would heat up and the temperature of the processor would increase. Maybe if you had a time vs. temperature for the cooler it would be helpful.

On another point, would this handle the QX9770 (at 4.0 ghz), I move my computer far too much to want to water cool it, so I need decent air cooling. I'm getting idles of 51, 52, 36, 41 and loads (after 20 mins of cpu burn at 100% cpu usage) of 59, 57, 58, 61
 
If you put fans on it, I would expect it to handle that quite easily, Especially if your current cooler is....

If we tested for an hour, there would be someone who would say 2, and so on. At the end of the day, 15 minutes is enough IMO
 
Fair enough, if the results are very similar across that time, it would still be nice to see some time vs. temperature graphs. Great review though.

Also, a quick remount later, turned out the thermal paste hadn't spread properly, was a sort of thick layer on the middle, bit of scraping out solved everything. Now in the mid 40-s for 1 and 2 and low 40s for 3 and 4.
 
name='Diablo' said:
Fair enough, if the results are very similar across that time, it would still be nice to see some time vs. temperature graphs. Great review though.

Also, a quick remount later, turned out the thermal paste hadn't spread properly, was a sort of thick layer on the middle, bit of scraping out solved everything. Now in the mid 40-s for 1 and 2 and low 40s for 3 and 4.

If you're worried about remount descrepancies in the review, the cooler was remounted 3 times and an average taken, so all should be fine for the review figures.
 
Sorry, to clarify, i thought your review was done very thoroughly, when I remounted my cooler, the temps dropped. Sorry for the confusion!
 
Back
Top