# Would a aftermarket cooler keep your room cooler or not? *poll*



## Melvis (Feb 11, 2017)

Ok so I was having a debate with my brother today and we couldn't agree on the answer so I thought well why not bring it to the masses and see what everyone on here thinks. 

The question/debate is.....Would the temperature of a room (his bedroom) be higher, lower or the same when using a bigger after market cooler compared to the stock intel cooler on his current CPU. He thinks the temp would be hotter in his room with using a bigger after market heatsink (dissipating heat would be the same and more of it), I think it would be slightly cooler because of the total mass/size of the cooler would lower the temp before it was blown (dissipated) into the room, but maybe Im wrong. 

What do you all think? and we are looking for overall temperature of the room when using different cooling compared to stock.  Will it raise the temp, lower the temp (or have a lower max temp) or be the exact same temp.

Cast your votes and thoughts.


----------



## n-ster (Feb 11, 2017)

Overall, the same. It might be different near the exhaust, but overall, same heat output


----------



## MrGenius (Feb 11, 2017)

Heat only has one place to go. Into the room. The only thing that might change is how fast the temperature in the room rises.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 11, 2017)

It will stay the same.  The amount of heat generated by the processor will be the same.  So the heat entering the room due to the computer will be the same, so the temperature in the room will be the same.  This is basic thermodynamics.  The key is how much heat is generated, not the method of how it is being dissipated into the surrounding air.

*Using a smaller cooler might trap a small amount of heat in the processor(why it would get hotter), but the amount of heat trapped in the CPU would not make any measurable difference in the room temperature.  The amount of mass of the CPU compared to the volume of air in the room means the amount of heat needed to be trapped to double the CPU's temperature would not even come close to make a measurable difference in air temperature in a room.  Even with the most precise measuring instruments available, you would not be able to measure the temperature difference in the room.


----------



## Melvis (Feb 11, 2017)

Now to clarify, we are basically only talking about idle temps and that we would be talking about a base starting room temp of lets say 10c and warming up to said possible temp depending on cooling used.

We all know a stock intel cooler on a intel CPU will run hotter then an after market cooler, eg at idle on a 2550K be 40c, this then transfers that 40c into the room. Now an after market cooler would bring down that over all temp of the CPU to lets say 30c, there fore transferring that 30c into the room, no?

So far its interesting to see what answers are coming up  Links are welcome btw


----------



## Vulcansheart (Feb 11, 2017)

The ambient temperature difference between the two will be negligible, so I voted "same". However, technically since the aftermarket unit *should be a more effective heat exchanger, the room should be warmer and the chip cooler.


----------



## kn00tcn (Feb 11, 2017)

newtekie1 said:


> The amount of heat generated by the processor will be the same.


hotter processors use more watts, maybe like more heat will be generated in the case with a weaker cooler, but not exhausted out

this sounds like an interesting test


----------



## Derek12 (Feb 11, 2017)

The same overall. Thermodynamics don't change
You transfer more heat from the inside of the CPU to the room in a faster pace but that won't change the total heat output to the room



Vulcansheart said:


> The ambient temperature difference between the two will be negligible, so I voted "same". However, technically since the aftermarket unit *should be a more effective heat exchanger, the room should be warmer and the chip cooler.



The heat "inside" the CPU also contributes to heat the room


----------



## phanbuey (Feb 11, 2017)

Derek12 said:


> The heat "inside" the CPU also contributes to heat the room



I think the question implies whether or not the air temperature in the room would be higher or lower... since the heat would be more evenly distributed and more quickly dissipated, the air temp should be ever so slightly higher.

The overall heat would  be the same but the air should be hotter and the chip should be cooler.


----------



## Derek12 (Feb 11, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> I think the question implies whether or not the air temperature in the room would be higher or lower... since the heat would be more evenly distributed and more quickly dissipated, the air temp should be ever so slightly higher.
> 
> The overall heat would  be the same but the air should be hotter and the chip should be cooler.



The air temperature of the room will sooner or later redistribute via convection, with or without an aftermarket cooler.
The heat inside a CPU will also dissipate to the air via convection and radiation but slower without the help of a fan, then a CPU produces more heat than dissipated and it overheats..
When you turn off a computer, the fan stops and the CPU cools down,


----------



## hat (Feb 11, 2017)

the CPU is still going to produce the same amount of heat. You can go from stock cooler to top end water, it will be the same. The chip will be cooler... because the cooling solution is cooling it much better than the stock cooler, but the same heat is still there, just not trapped in the chip.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 11, 2017)

well, we found the two dumb people here lol


the same amount of heat is produced and moved, all you're changing is how fast its relocated from the CPU to the air/exhausted into the room.


----------



## IceScreamer (Feb 11, 2017)

A PC in a room will raise the ambient temp a bit, nothing noticeable but there is a difference, switching to a bigger cooler though won't affect that temperature.


----------



## Melvis (Feb 11, 2017)

Mussels said:


> well, we found the two dumb people here lol
> 
> 
> the same amount of heat is produced and moved, all you're changing is how fast its relocated from the CPU to the air/exhausted into the room.



Yes your moving the heat but your also reducing the over all temp of the CPU as well as you move the heat otherwise having after market coolers would be completely pointless.


----------



## Caring1 (Feb 11, 2017)

IceScreamer said:


> A PC in a room will raise the ambient temp a bit, nothing noticeable but there is a difference, switching to a bigger cooler though won't affect that temperature.


If an aftermarket cooler reduces the CPU's temp compared to a stock cooler, then it stands to reason the increase in room temperatures will also be lower.
I certainly feel the difference if my system is running at 80C or 65C.


----------



## the54thvoid (Feb 11, 2017)

Melvis said:


> Yes your moving the heat but your also reducing the over all temp of the CPU as well as you move the heat otherwise having after market coolers would be completely pointless.



The temp is reduced by removing the heat from the CPU itself. Aftermarket coolers are designed with a TDP limit. This means they can remove up to a certain amount of heat. An insufficient cooler will not extract the heat fast enough and the CPU gets hotter. Any heat extracted from a CPU must be vented into the space around it.  A water loop will effectively reduce room temp as the storage of heat in the radiators will 'slow' the release into the air. Ultimately though, when the system is off, that heat must still escape through the loop and into the air so the 'dump' of heat takes longer, therefore resulting in a lower peak temp but longer raised temp (albeit by practically immeasurable amounts).



Caring1 said:


> If an aftermarket cooler reduces the CPU's temp compared to a stock cooler, then it stands to reason the increase in room temperatures will also be lower.
> I certainly feel the difference if my system is running at 80C or 65C.



The better a cooler cools, the hotter the extracted air.  The purpose of any cooler is to remove the heat generated by the CPU from the system. The heat generated is a physical component of work done by the chip. That work, in a given CPU, will create 'x' amount of heat, which will be dispersed by whichever system is installed.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 11, 2017)

Melvis said:


> Yes your moving the heat but your also reducing the over all temp of the CPU as well as you move the heat otherwise having after market coolers would be completely pointless.



you are *only* moving the heat. it is 100% heat transfer and nothing else.
if you remove water from a bucket to a second bucket, you dont gain more water.


people get confused because they think in F/C, when thats now how it works. 
'If CPU is at 50C and exhaust air is at 50C, my room must be at 50C' - clearly doesnt work that way, as you spread the same amount of heat into a larger area (heatsink, room air etc) the heat does not vanish or reduce it merely gets spread out

Lets go with **made up numbers** in BTU's

lets say with 100 BTU's made a CPU that ran at 100C, passively. Throw a fan on and the heat gets moved away into the air faster - was more BTU's of heat produced? No, the CPU temp dropped as its cooling increased, but the same total amount of heat was generated.

The literal only situation in which better cooling produces more heat, is if a system thermal throttles, because then the heat production reduces - so a properly cooled system produces more heat.


----------



## Caring1 (Feb 11, 2017)

Mussels said:


> you are *only* moving the heat. it is 100% heat transfer and nothing else.
> 
> if you remove water from a bucket to a second bucket, you dont gain more water.


If one bucket is 10C hotter than the other, then the air around it will also be hotter, from radiated heat.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 11, 2017)

Caring1 said:


> If one bucket is 10C hotter than the other, then the air around it will also be hotter, from radiated heat.



correct - you relocated the heat. you just discovered water cooling.


----------



## Potatoking (Feb 11, 2017)

Processor uses all electricity to produce heat, so the actual temperature does not make any difference in heat production. 
However Semiconductors have lover resistance the hotter they get, voltage is constant, then heat=voltage squared/resistance.
For example my 5970 dropped power draw by almost 20watt going from 90c to 40c under water. But this is negated by heat generated by water pump and ect.
In the end every PC is fancy electric heater.


----------



## IceScreamer (Feb 11, 2017)

Caring1 said:


> If an aftermarket cooler reduces the CPU's temp compared to a stock cooler, then it stands to reason the increase in room temperatures will also be lower.
> I certainly feel the difference if my system is running at 80C or 65C.


That is an ideal case, because most of the PC cases are not that isolated the heat will still somewhat spread in the room (which in this case we view as a closed system). Adding a bigger/better cooler changes the time parameter, so the room temp will still raise to a certain value, only the time to do so will be shorter (with a better cooler). That heat is still contained within a given system, how fast its current circulates is a different question.


----------



## Sasqui (Feb 11, 2017)

Thermodynamics 101.  If you plug an air conditioner into the wall in a sealed room, will it cool it down?


----------



## Caring1 (Feb 11, 2017)

Sasqui said:


> Thermodynamics 101.  If you plug an air conditioner into the wall in a sealed room, will it cool it down?


Only if it exhausts outside.


----------



## Sasqui (Feb 11, 2017)

Caring1 said:


> Only if it exhausts outside.



Sealed room, no exhaust.  How could you measure the temperature change?


----------



## P4-630 (Feb 11, 2017)

Well with my current rig, mostly cool air comes out at the back, that was different with my old socket 775 system back in the days though, this one exhausted warm air.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 11, 2017)

Caring1 said:


> If an aftermarket cooler reduces the CPU's temp compared to a stock cooler, then it stands to reason the increase in room temperatures will also be lower.
> I certainly feel the difference if my system is running at 80C or 65C.



i forgot to specifically reply to this part:

The way you describe that has two interpretations and i really want to clarify this with precision:

1. Your CPU load goes up so the heat goes up - this WILL make the room hotter
2. CPU temp goes up because of any other reason (dust in heatsink, fan slows down, etc) - can not make room hotter.

I feel like people confuse those two situations a lot, and/or think they're the same.


----------



## Vya Domus (Feb 11, 2017)

In practical terms it's the amount of heat that is being exhausted is what makes the difference not the cooling itself, in other words if you have plenty case fans and the hot air is pushed out of the case very quickly it will increase the room temperature faster than compared to a scenario where you have little airflow in your case and most of the heat will remain trapped inside it.

In absolute terms the same amount of heat will be dumped in your room regardless of the scenario because of physics , but since it happens more slowly it's less noticeable and not as much of an issue.


----------



## Folterknecht (Feb 11, 2017)

Sasqui said:


> Thermodynamics 101.  If you plug an air conditioner into the wall in a sealed room, will it cool it down?





Sasqui said:


> Sealed room, no exhaust.  How could you measure the temperature change?



 "Sealed" for my also implies no energy via an outlet. The moment the AC kicks in it get's even warmer because the AC is working but has no way to exaust. And that working AC is generating heat itself.


----------



## ASOT (Feb 11, 2017)

If case is well ventilated it will make a sense...u will feel cool air to your feet and coming from pc


----------



## Mussels (Feb 11, 2017)

... i am truly stunned how many people dont understand this. is there a simple youtube video or something we should be sharing on facebook lots "YOU WONT BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?"


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 11, 2017)

Mussels said:


> ... i am truly stunned how many people dont understand this. is there a simple youtube video or something we should be sharing on facebook lots "YOU WONT BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?"



I am too.  Then again, I was a bitcoin miner.  If I didn't have a good grasp of thermal dynamics, my house would've burned down years ago.

The way some people write here, they seem to think their pc can become an exaustless air conditioner.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 11, 2017)

https://www.wired.com/2015/08/fans-dont-always-make-things-cooler/

fans can move heat and cool humans through evaporation (still just moving heat, but it 'feels' cold) - since water is bad for electrical components, we cant use that same method to cool computers.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Feb 11, 2017)

Regardless of what hsf youhave the processor is still creating/outputting the same amount of heat, the only difference is how efficient said heatsink is at drawing that heat away from the processor, so it won't make a difference to the room temp using one from the other hence 90℅ of the poll choosing same...


----------



## Komshija (Feb 11, 2017)

There would be no difference. Processor will generate the same ammount of heat which will have to "escape" somwehere; meaning that cooler will "consume" that heat and fans will blow it out of the case. It doesn't matter whether it's water cooling or air cooling...


----------



## Iceni (Feb 11, 2017)

The same amount of energy is transferred.

Here is the problem. 

The Stock heatsink runs at 90C. The After-market one 45C with more airflow as well. 

So If you are near the PC the 90C + lower airflow will affect more of the air near you.

The after-market one will draw more air and only heat that air to 45C. So the same energy is spread into a greater volume of air, So the perceived temp change near to the PC will be smaller.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Feb 11, 2017)

Mussels said:


> ... i am truly stunned how many people dont understand this. is there a simple youtube video or something we should be sharing on facebook lots "YOU WONT BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?"


Ima guess half didnt read or comprehend your explanation. Yep some pure LOL.


----------



## DRDNA (Feb 11, 2017)

Most already know this but a PC room may also need to be set up in the same way you would set up your PC cases! Inlets and out lets ( For the PC room ), normally the closer you set up the inlets and outlets for the room to the PC or PC's the better it is able to transfer any new heat the PC is creating. Same holds true on PC rooms hot air is rising and cold air is being pushed down..... So go GET ER DONE.


----------



## silentbogo (Feb 11, 2017)

I think the only time I noticed something that OP debate is about, was about 9-10 years ago.
We rented an apartment, and I've decided to take a walk-in closet and make it into my mini-office.
It did not have windows or AC, but heating was there. 
I ran my first quad-core Phenom rig with a moderate overclock (on an old M2N SLI Deluxe) and an HD2900XT. I also had a big-ass CNPS9900 LED with some additional fans inside the case, so my rig was not only hot, it was also loud and bright.
Overall the temperature never dropped below 35C in that room during gaming sessions.

The total area was somewhere in the ballpark of 6 sq. m.

Normal people with normal rigs should not worry about this problem.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 11, 2017)

just run an AC unit.


----------



## Solaris17 (Feb 11, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> the air temp should be ever so slightly higher.



No because you cant create more heat than is being created via the object.

The room temp would be the same.

I dont have time to draw something up maybe someone else will but lets put it like this.

everyone knows heat dissipation is measured in watts right? Lets just use that we wont go deep into thermal dynamics. We will keep it exclusive to PCs.

Lets say you have a CPU that is bleeding 200w.

Now dissipation is helped by coolers but not all the heat can be dissipated because then the CPU would be ambient right? Lets take a look.

You have a CPU dissipating 200W. With the computer running your room sits at 26C (78F).

Your cooler is capable of dissipating 150w of heat. Meaning your CPU is retaining 50W of heat.

Now we all know we dont live in space, so while the cooler cannot bleed 200W of heat the 50w of heat isnt staying with the CPU its just bleeding off the motherboard off the IHS etc etc.

now you buy a better cooler. This cooler can dissipate 180w of heat. Which means at the most your CPU is retaining 20w of heat and bleeding it off some other way.

Now since the CPU is retaining less heat the idle temp has now dropped. Which makes sense we went from 50 to 20w of retained heat.

However, 150 + 50 = 200w

Our new calculation is 180 + 20 = 200w

We changed how heat is dissipated but we are still dissipating the same 200w in total, the CPU did not generate any more or less heat. so our room stays at 26C (78F).


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 11, 2017)

Didn't read anything but the title. The answer is simply, NO. 

Edit: just read the thread... wow.


----------



## AsRock (Feb 11, 2017)

Hell yeah, i put best god dam cooler on my GPU toeject as much heat as possible now i can sit here in my shorts in winter

Not really!.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 11, 2017)

_I_m just going to find a 6 year old and ask them.


----------



## Vulcansheart (Feb 11, 2017)

So many different answers... each one flawed in some way lol


----------



## Beastie (Feb 11, 2017)

Thermodynamics. Ain't life a bitch?


----------



## Mussels (Feb 11, 2017)

if your current understanding produces infinite heat or infinite cooling, rethink things.


----------



## Vulcansheart (Feb 11, 2017)

We can all agree that a PC in a closed room will increase the ambient temperature of that room.

We can all agree that without the A/C system in your home, the ambient temperature of that room will continue to rise while the PC is powered on.

We can all agree that without a cooler, the CPU cannot efficiently dissipate it's heat into the air surrounding it. It will simply burn up.

We can all agree that it is then the sole job of the CPU cooler to exchange heat - hot processor exchanges with cold ambient air.

Why then can we not agree on what happens to the ambient air in the room? To me, it's quite simple. The more efficient the cooler, the warmer the room becomes.  It's a simple heat exchanger thermo-101 problem. If the cooler didn't matter, then why not run the CPU without one?

That said, I still voted "same" simply because a couple watts here or there will not make a noticeable difference for all intents and purposes of this vote lol


----------



## Mussels (Feb 11, 2017)

Vulcansheart said:


> Why then can we not agree on what happens to the ambient air in the room? To me, it's quite simple. The more efficient the cooler, the warmer the room becomes.  It's a simple heat exchanger thermo-101 problem. If the cooler didn't matter, then why not run the CPU without one?
> 
> That said, I still voted "same" simply because a couple watts here or there will not make a noticeable difference for all intents and purposes of this vote lol



"The more efficient the cooler, the warmer the room becomes."

The more efficient the cooler, the quicker the room becomes warmer.

an example would be if your heatsink was at 100C when the PC was switched off - a 'terrible' cooler (because its off) - does that heat fail to get transferred? no, it just takes longer to reach the room. Still the same amount of heat, just gunna take a little longer to get out of the PC case.

at any point someone thinks trapping hot air in the case keeps the room colder, that will only work if the heat *never* leaves, which means your PC is going to overheat. throttle, and/or crash.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Feb 11, 2017)

Same wattage, same heat.


----------



## Vulcansheart (Feb 11, 2017)

Mussels said:


> "The more efficient the cooler, the warmer the room becomes."
> 
> The more efficient the cooler, the quicker the room becomes warmer.
> 
> ...


I agree 100% with 50% of your statement lol. The room will become warmer quicker. Since we aren't talking about saturating the room with heat to the point of equilibrium, then we've answered the OP's question. *The more efficient the cooler, the quicker the room becomes warmer. *Thus, at any given time interveral, the room is warmer with a better cooler than it would have been with a worse cooler.


edit
This is all assuming that the aftermarket cooler isn't a piece of crap that does a worse job than the factory unit lol


----------



## Mussels (Feb 12, 2017)

the heat is dumped into the room quicker - in a timescale of *seconds*

if the hotter running cooler could not handle the heat output of the CPU, it would throttle or crash - again, the same amount of heat is output, so the overall temperature in the room would be the same.

If you had a hair dryer and blew it through a straw, a garden hose, a dryer hose, or any household item the air pressure and temperature of the item you're blowing the heat through will change in that one immediate area, but its the SAME heat output - it just finds other ways out (instead of through the case/dryer exhaust, it'll vent out the casing instead, or slowly vent out once the unit is powered off)


----------



## jboydgolfer (Feb 12, 2017)

Reading through some of these posts makes my brain hurt. I'm comfortable in the  knowledge  that I know how it works and that I don't need to explain it to someone else ,it's obviously magic

 Everyone is still together in the thinking that if we rub cheetah blood on the heat sink ,it will cool more effectively and therefore turn the room into a parallel dimension?


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 12, 2017)

shouldnt this add up to 100 ?


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Feb 12, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> shouldnt this add up to 100 ?
> 
> View attachment 83965



It's .1% off lol


----------



## infrared (Feb 12, 2017)

This really isn't complicated, don't they teach this stuff in school anymore?? I know there's a lot of other good explanations here, hopefully this will help those that are still confused.

Say your cpu is dumping 200w worth of heat continuously. Regardless of what cooler you have, that 200w of heat is leaving the case! It doesn't matter if your cpu runs at 90c or 50c, the room would heat up the same. A PC with cr@p airflow and cooling or watercooling(high thermal mass) might take a few mins before it's fully dissipating that 200w, but eventually it will, and by the same logic would be dissipating heat for longer when it goes to idle or tuned off.

A better cooler has a lower thermal resistance, so the heat is allowed to transfer to the ambient air easier, but that doesn't mean the room heats up more.  I think some of you are mixed up with the thought that better heat transfer = hotter room, but that would only be the case if the CPU remained at the same temperature with a more efficient cooler fitted, but we all know that's not what happens, your CPU runs cooler instead.

Potatoking rightly pointed out that you'd have a few more watts at high temps compared to low temps, but it's pretty negligible imo, on a cpu anyway, the effect is much more noticable on a power hungry gpu.

edit: another idea to consider is PSU efficiency. If you're drawing 500w from a 90% efficient supply, an additional 50w is lost in heat.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 12, 2017)

tigger said:


> It's .1% off lol


Yeah i know and its really kicked off my OCD


----------



## infrared (Feb 12, 2017)

I'm loving the SLI badgers capslock lol


----------



## silkstone (Feb 12, 2017)

Simple explanation:

Thermodynamics - Energy can not be created nor destroyed.

If it's clocked the same and boosting the same (i.e. the power draw is constant) then there will be absolutely no change.
All of the power used by the CPU is dumped into heat because . . . physics.


----------



## Caring1 (Feb 12, 2017)

Iceni said:


> The same amount of energy is transferred.
> 
> Here is the problem.
> 
> ...


This ^^^
I don't know anyone that has their PC across the room from them, or in another room from where they sit, so the air in their immediate vicinity is affected, although the overall temp in the room may be the same.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 12, 2017)

Beastie said:


> Thermodynamics. Ain't life a bitch?



If you're referring to my misspelling, I had a fever when I wrote that from getting over the flu, and I still knew several of the answers here were pretty darn screwy.



Caring1 said:


> This ^^^
> I don't know anyone that has their PC across the room from them, or in another room from where they sit, so the air in their immediate vicinity is affected, although the overall temp in the room may be the same.



The amount of heat being exhausted is still the same with the... even in the...  nevermind.  There are several things wrong with the way the statement you just quoted looks at things, but I have a feeling you just don't want to learn this one.

I mean, I guess if we're looking at a time slice, maybe you could be right, but I live in moving time, like most people.


----------



## Caring1 (Feb 12, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> The amount of heat being exhausted is still the same with the... even in the...  nevermind.  There are several things wrong with the way the statement you just quoted looks at things, but I have a feeling you just don't want to learn this one.
> 
> I mean, I guess if we're looking at a time slice, maybe you could be right, but I live in moving time, like most people.


You say it in such a way that you think you are right, and therefore I am wrong, and don't understand what you are saying.
The fact is I know what I feel sitting at my computer all day and how hot it gets being near it.
It has nothing to do with learning, or not understanding, it is more to do with others unwillingness to understand anothers viewpoint and accept they are right too.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 12, 2017)

Caring1 said:


> You say it in such a way that you think you are right, and therefore I am wrong, and don't understand what you are saying.
> The fact is I know what I feel sitting at my computer all day and how hot it gets being near it.
> It has nothing to do with learning, or not understanding, it is more to do with others unwillingness to understand anothers viewpoint and accept they are right too.



You are wrong.  These are well established, laws of the universe type things dude.

You can't have "alternative facts" here.  AKA "opinions" on the matter.

We also can't both be right, otherwise you'd be arguing your beefy cooler is making your room cooler while I'd be arguing the thermal energy is the same.  The two are not compatible states outside of some kind of quantum universe shit.

I'm unsure what else to say.  The only viewpoint that can be gained here is not only that you don't want to learn, but that you are actively fighting it.

I'm on too much cold-medicine to go on, but do know that what I feel for you isn't anger, but rather pity.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 12, 2017)

Caring1 said:


> This ^^^
> I don't know anyone that has their PC across the room from them, or in another room from where they sit, so the air in their immediate vicinity is affected, although the overall temp in the room may be the same.



Assuming the same number and size of fans in the case, it really shouldn't matter.

Lets say your crappy heatsink will heat up 1sq foot of air to 50 degrees and the case fans move out 2 square foot of air (completely made up numbers) then the air being moved out by the fan is a mixture of cool and hot air which will pretty much reach thermal equilibrium instantly - Let's say 35 degrees (the fans make this happen)

The difference with the better heatsink is that it will heat up a higher volume of air (say 2 sq foot), but at a lower temperature. The case fans do nothing to help the air reach equilibrium like in the above situation as all the air is at already at 35 degrees (rather than a mix of hot and cool air).

This is a very simple explanation to a complex situation, but basically the size of the heatsink shouldn't really affect the local heat distribution. The size of the fans however, would. More air being pushed out of the case per second would lead to more air being pushed around the room in general leading to faster heat dissipation.

Heat is heat is heat. The only way you're going to make a difference to the time it takes for hot air to transfer its energy to cooler air is by aiding convection (fans). An increase temperature gradient would also speed convection up, but this wouldn't really happen outside of the case as the fans are dumping all of the air out.

Another analogy might be a 3-bar heater vs. a 2-bar heater, both operating at 1500 W.
They are both giving out exactly the same amount of heat, but the bars of one rise to a higher temperature. If you put the two heaters in a metal box, the box should heat up to the same temperature. (if you didn't have a box, you'd likely notice a difference in how they 'feel' due to radiation)


----------



## DRDNA (Feb 12, 2017)

Melvis said:


> Ok so I was having a debate with my brother today and we couldn't agree on the answer so I thought well why not bring it to the masses and see what everyone on here thinks.


So what you meant to say was you and your brothers social experiment to prove the contagiousness of information misrepresentation is so contagious even TPU user base could be infected.
  Well done on a very successful social experiment and delivery of such infection!
It seems as of right now there is 1/10 of an spread of misinformation rate.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Feb 12, 2017)

Its all relative, relatively moot.


----------



## Beastie (Feb 12, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> If you're referring to my misspelling, I had a fever when I wrote that from getting over the flu, and I still knew several of the answers here were pretty darn screwy.



 No, I was referring to the inflexibility of physics, specifically the bit that says energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

 Hey at least 91.8% voted the right way 

 Hope the flu is wearing off now.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Feb 12, 2017)

Vulcansheart said:


> I agree 100% with 50% of your statement lol. The room will become warmer quicker. Since we aren't talking about saturating the room with heat to the point of equilibrium, then we've answered the OP's question. *The more efficient the cooler, the quicker the room becomes warmer. *Thus, at any given time interveral, the room is warmer with a better cooler than it would have been with a worse cooler.
> 
> 
> edit
> This is all assuming that the aftermarket cooler isn't a piece of crap that does a worse job than the factory unit lol


Let me break it down for the thick twats...  Processor emits 90w of heat, good hsf keeps processor at 50c ,bad hsf keeps processor at 70c ..... Guess what? 90w heat still getting dumped in the room, are people really this dumb??


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 12, 2017)

You made a mistake with your numbers hope you not one of the embarrassed ?%


NdMk2o1o said:


> Let me break it down for the thick twats... Processor emits 90w of heat, good hsf keeps processor at 50c ,bad hsf keeps processor at 70c ..... Guess what? 90w heat still getting dumped in the room, are people really this dumb??



Sorry but i had to ^^^ and yes your right


----------



## Mussels (Feb 12, 2017)

i saw that typo, cant mod edit this forum section or i would have saved him the embarassment.

still, he's 100% correct.


----------



## Vulcansheart (Feb 13, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Let me break it down for the thick twats...  Processor emits 90w of heat, good hsf keeps processor at 50c ,bad hsf keeps processor at 70c ..... Guess what? 90c heat still getting dumped in the room, are people really this dumb??


Is name calling really necessary in this discussion? Has the thought crossed your mind that you've overlooked a CRUCIAL piece of this equation? I'll give you a hint: the room temperature is raising at a varying rate. It doesn't instantaneously warm up the moment the PC is powered on. The rate that the room warms is directly effected by the efficiency of the CPU cooler.

I've made a pretty little chart so you can all follow along.

Who the eff cares what the final room temperature is going to be? It could take 24, 48 or 1000 hours to reach it's maximum temperature. What I am arguing, and have been arguing since my first reply, is that at ANY given time interval between 0 and X hours, the room will be warmer with the aftermarket cooler. Yes, the final temps will be the same, but again, who the eff cares about the final room temp if you've been sitting in a hot room for the past 4 days?? This chart satisfies the holy need for energy conservation, which I don't know why keeps coming up in the first place, since energy is CONSTANTLY being introduced into the system via the AC current pumping into the PC, but let's just ignore that for argument's sake.

Now, what part of the below chart do you disagree with?


----------



## Mussels (Feb 13, 2017)

if you're gunna do graphs, do it empirically with data results and proper plot graphing.


----------



## Melvis (Feb 13, 2017)

DRDNA said:


> So what you meant to say was you and your brothers social experiment to prove the contagiousness of information misrepresentation is so contagious even TPU user base could be infected.
> Well done on a very successful social experiment and delivery of such infection!
> It seems as of right now there is 1/10 of an spread of misinformation rate.



Your very welcome and this is exactly what I wanted to see, a good debate, ideas etc been thrown around, went even better then I expected actually so im very happy with how this thread is or has turned out  The more brains involved the better the debate is, I thank everyone so far for there input, its been good to read.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 13, 2017)

if this is such a big effin deal maybe it would be a good investment to get one of these

https://www.amazon.com/portable-air-conditioners/b?node=1193678&tag=tec06d-20


----------



## Mussels (Feb 13, 2017)

eidairaman1 said:


> if this is such a big effin deal maybe it would be a good investment to get one of these
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/portable-air-conditioners/b?node=1193678&tag=tec06d-20



and then not run the exhaust hose outside, because denial over powers science


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 13, 2017)

Mussels said:


> and then not run the exhaust hose outside, because denial over powers science




had one in an office and never had it vented outside, it ran just fine lol then again the exhaust was where the cooling came from lol


----------



## DRDNA (Feb 13, 2017)

Mussels said:


> and then not run the exhaust hose outside, because denial over powers science


now there is the real question......would the room heat up or cool down or would it stay the same....lol...an insider told me the chicken indeed came before the egg.


----------



## Vulcansheart (Feb 13, 2017)

Mussels said:


> if you're gunna do graphs, do it empirically with data results and proper plot graphing.


Because somebody would argue it was skewed, or flawed methods, or the font was too small, or the moon was waxing.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 13, 2017)

eidairaman1 said:


> had one in an office and never had it vented outside, it ran just fine lol then again the exhaust was where the cooling came from lol



You obviously have no idea how an air conditioner works.  It's not an energy black hole.  It has a hot air exhaust somewhere to produce cool air.  What you had was most likely some type of fan or a massively flawed perception.



DRDNA said:


> now there is the real question......would the room heat up or cool down or would it stay the same....lol...an insider told me the chicken indeed came before the egg.



It would obviously heat up.



Vulcansheart said:


> Because somebody would argue it was skewed, or flawed methods, or the font was too small, or the moon was waxing.



No, science isn't really that much voodoo.  That said, you make a point with your charts, but we are considering the whole room average from the way we look at it, not just the "room minus case."  This may be the core of several misunderstandings here.


----------



## Solaris17 (Feb 13, 2017)

I was expecting some too not understand or know. I am really shocked at how many rebuttal the science however. This seriously is not straight up wand waving spell casting magic.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 13, 2017)

Solaris17 said:


> I was expecting some too not understand or know. I am really shocked at how many rebuttal the science however. This seriously is not straight up wand waving spell casting magic.



The scary thing I've seen with the ignorant lately is not that they do not know, but that they get aggressive and fight back with more disinformation when you try to correct them.  It's been building on itself in a bad way for a long time.  Heck, I'd argue it even elected a certain few politcal figures in recent times...  maybe one very recent one in particular...

If you asked me what I'm most scared of right now in the world, I'd probably have to reply "antiscience" or something to that extent.


----------



## thesmokingman (Feb 13, 2017)

Science!


----------



## MrGenius (Feb 13, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> ..."antiscience" or something to that extent.


There's that. Or just as bad..."pseudoscience". It's pretty easy...apparently...to "dress" ideas that aren't so scientific in "scientific clothing" and call them "science". A lot of folks don't care to judge them beyond "the book's cover". Like a misleading graph that supposedly shows you proof of something, basically just because it's shown in a graph. And by God if it's shown in a graph it must be true right?


----------



## Assimilator (Feb 13, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> The scary thing I've seen with the ignorant lately is not that they do not know, but that they get aggressive and fight back with more disinformation when you try to correct them.  It's been building on itself in a bad way for a long time.  Heck, I'd argue it even elected a certain few politcal figures in recent times...  maybe one very recent one in particular...
> 
> If you asked me what I'm most scared of right now in the world, I'd probably have to reply "antiscience" or something to that extent.



The Dunning-Kruger effect is terrifying.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Feb 13, 2017)

Vulcansheart said:


> Is name calling really necessary in this discussion? Has the thought crossed your mind that you've overlooked a CRUCIAL piece of this equation? I'll give you a hint: the room temperature is raising at a varying rate. It doesn't instantaneously warm up the moment the PC is powered on. The rate that the room warms is directly effected by the efficiency of the CPU cooler.
> 
> I've made a pretty little chart so you can all follow along.
> 
> ...


Your chart says nothing only that the room heats up and gets to the same temperature, an after market cooler can help keep your CPU cooler than stock but it's not some voodoo contraption that can magically get rid of hot air out of a room.....


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2017)

Vulcansheart said:


> Is name calling really necessary in this discussion? Has the thought crossed your mind that you've overlooked a CRUCIAL piece of this equation? I'll give you a hint: the room temperature is raising at a varying rate. It doesn't instantaneously warm up the moment the PC is powered on. The rate that the room warms is directly effected by the efficiency of the CPU cooler.
> 
> I've made a pretty little chart so you can all follow along.
> 
> ...



Power is measured in Joules per Second. That is units of heat emitted every second.
If 90 J of energy is being put out from PC, the size of the heat sink won't matter in the slightest.

A lot physics behind the heatsink is just thermal conductance.


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 13, 2017)

DRDNA said:


> .lol...an insider told me the chicken indeed came before the egg.



the old Question  well as any country person will tell you
The Cockerel Came first ( how else do eggs get turned into chickens )


----------



## P4-630 (Feb 13, 2017)

My old socket 775 rig was producing much more heat than my new skylake system at the back exhaust.
With my skylake system the exhaust air is more cool then warm, even during gaming because the hardware temps stay really low.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 13, 2017)

dorsetknob said:


> the old Question  well as any country person will tell you
> The Cockerel Came first ( how else do eggs get turned into chickens )



I bet you've been waiting here 12 years just for the chance to post that.



P4-630 said:


> My old socket 775 rig was producing much more heat than my new skylake system at the back exhaust.
> With my skylake system the exhaust air is more cool then warm, even during gaming because the hardware temps stay really low.



I'm willing to bet your Socket 775 had a much higher overall system TDP.  Thank shrinking processes, not heatsinks.


----------



## P4-630 (Feb 13, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> I'm willing to bet your Socket 775 had a much higher overall system TDP.



Ok true.
Recent hardware is able to run cooler than hardware from a decade ago.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 13, 2017)

my skylake LAN build games at 1080p 60hz at 120W on average, vs the 220-250W of my 4K setup. 

On stock cooling, the skylake system mysteriously heats my room less... but its not nothing to do with the heatsinks used.


----------



## P4-630 (Feb 13, 2017)

A larger air cooler will keep the CPU at lower temperatures during load and is in result exhausting less heat compared to a small air cooler which raises the CPU temp during load, which means higher exhaust air temp.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2017)

P4-630 said:


> A larger air cooler will keep the CPU at lower temperatures during load and is in result exhausting less heat compared to a small air cooler which raises the CPU temp during load, which means higher exhaust air temp.



*Yes: *A larger air cooler will keep the CPU at lower temperatures during load 
*No:* result exhausting less heat compared to a small air cooler


----------



## P4-630 (Feb 13, 2017)

silkstone said:


> *Yes: *A larger air cooler will keep the CPU at lower temperatures during load
> *No:* result exhausting less heat compared to a small air cooler



Try it, and measure the exhaust heat!!!
With the smaller cooler the CPU produces more heat.

People that OC their CPU with an air cooler want a large air cooler to keep the temps as low as possible.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 13, 2017)

P4-630 said:


> Try it, and measure the exhaust heat!!!
> With the smaller cooler the CPU produces more heat.



no, it does not. the heat is simply concentrated. dont confuse celcius/fahrenheit (how hot it feels) with how much heat was produced (BTU's/Joules)

If i light a candle and put a frying pan over the candle - did i just suddenly reduce the total heat by spreading it out? no, i SPREAD IT OUT.


----------



## P4-630 (Feb 13, 2017)

Mussels said:


> no, it does not. the heat is simply concentrated. dont confuse celcius/fahrenheit (how hot it feels) with how much heat was produced (BTU's/Joules)
> 
> If i light a candle and put a frying pan over the candle - did i just suddenly reduce the total heat by spreading it out? no, i SPREAD IT OUT.



We are talking about CPU's and CPU coolers lol!
Anyways I'm one of the few that do not agree with you.

My room will heat up faster with a cheap small cooler.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 13, 2017)

I am disappointed in humanity at this point. This is  high school science stuff people...


----------



## Vulcansheart (Feb 13, 2017)

Well, unless any thermodynamic engineers step forward to settle this, I think it's going to be idiots vs dumbasses for the life of this thread.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2017)

P4-630 said:


> We are talking about CPU's and CPU coolers lol!
> Anyways I'm one of the few that do not agree with you.
> 
> My room will heat up faster with a cheap small cooler.



It's not about agreement or disagreement. It's about Physics which obeys well established laws.

If a cpu is using 150 W of power, it is giving all of that out as heat. It doesn't matter what side the heat sink is, it's still giving it out as heat.

Now if you had a ginormously big heatsink, with an extremely high specific heat capacity, then said heat sink would be able to hold more heat due to a high thermal capacity. That would delay the heating of the room.
However, we are talking about small pieces of metal so it makes negligible difference to the heat pumped into the room.



Vulcansheart said:


> Well, unless any thermodynamic engineers step forward to settle this, I think it's going to be idiots vs dumbasses for the life of this thread.



I'm a high school Physics teacher, does that count for anything?


----------



## Mussels (Feb 13, 2017)

P4-630 said:


> We are talking about CPU's and CPU coolers lol!
> Anyways I'm one of the few that do not agree with you.
> 
> My room will heat up faster with a cheap small cooler.




seriously... its 100% the same. if the heat output is constant, it doesnt matter what you cool it with - all you're doing is spreading it out over a greater volume of air (either by a bigger surface area or by greater airflow)


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 13, 2017)

Vulcansheart said:


> Well, unless any thermodynamic engineers step forward to settle this, I think it's going to be idiots vs dumbasses for the life of this thread.


again, high school level science here bud.


----------



## P4-630 (Feb 13, 2017)




----------



## EarthDog (Feb 13, 2017)

But do you understand what we are saying or just giving up and walking away thinking the same thing?


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> again, high school level science here bud.



The confusion between temperature and heat is actually quite common.


----------



## infrared (Feb 13, 2017)

The only reason for all this misunderstanding is people not being taught (or not remembering) any scientific fundamentals  It's a shame really because a few basic facts and logical thinking can help you figure out a lot.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 13, 2017)

silkstone said:


> The confusion between temperature and heat is actually quite common.


indeed.. until highschool... for me. And trust me, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer.


----------



## Air (Feb 13, 2017)

I had no idea a thread like this could actually generate discussion. Arguments being used:

1. Arguments that don't care for energy conservation: please...

2. CPU operating at higher temperatures have higher power draw than on lower temperatures: That's true but i bet i wont make any measurable difference in room temperatures, assuming like +5 W. I dont know the exact numbers though.

3. Thermal inertia of the heat sink will impact the room temperature (the one with graphs): While true this effect is negligible. It will not take hours before coolers reach their final temperature. I don't have a aftermarket cooler, but if its anything like GPUs, it will take more like 5 minutes after starting the CPU load... after that, heat output will be the same regardless of cooler. Not only that, but if you later stop the CPU load, CPU/heat sink temperatures will go back to idle levels, unloading the stored energy back to the ambient.

So, in the end, if you run your CPU load non stop, it will indeed keep a little bit of heat out of the ambient, but when you are generating a lot more heat for hours, it doesnt matter. If you run a variable load, it does not matter since on lower loads the heatsink unloads the stored heat to the ambient.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 13, 2017)

unsubbed.


----------



## Kelvin (Feb 13, 2017)

In most cases the room will get hotter, as aftermarket coolers are often used for overclocking.
A CPU with higher speed & voltage will drain more power.

I remember a hot summer when I decided to undervolt & underclock my CPU & GPU to reduce the room temperature while gaming.
I got around 100W power consumption reduction and almost all of it went into reduced heat as microelectronics, I guess, are very thermal inefficient.
Although with current Intel CPUs the thermal efficiency tends to increase when you overclock, except if you decide to go for the last few MHz by going overboard with vcore.

In comparison an adult emits heat at around 100W.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2017)

Air said:


> So, in the end, if you run your CPU load non stop, it will indeed keep a little bit of heat out of the ambient, but when you are generating a lot more heat for hours, it doesnt matter.




SHC of aluminium is 897 J/kg.K

Assuming a 1 kg heatsink vs. a zero mass heatsink, it will delay a 150 W cpu heating the room up by ~6 seconds.

Edit: (per Celsius difference in temperature between the two heatsinks) - A poor example as pointed out by Air.




Kelvin said:


> In practice the room will get hotter, as aftermarket coolers are often used for overclocking.
> CPU with higher speed & voltage will drain more power.
> 
> I remember a hot summer when I decided to undervolt & underclock my CPU & GPU (~100W reduction in heat as microelectronics, I guess, are very thermal inefficient) to reduce the room temperature while gaming.
> In comparison a human emits heat at around 100W.



If the CPU is drawing more power, then more heat pumped out. Though I believe the initial question was just about the size of the heatsink.

The only thing I can think of why a bigger HS would make the room hotter is if it allowed turbo-boosting for longer and more frequently. That again implies a higher power draw,


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 13, 2017)

I was wondering when the equation would come out.. .thanks silk.. hopefully that quiets this "10" who aren't understanding it. Also, there should be an equation which shows how much energy is needed to heat a given object (water is what I recall the equation being)... that equation doesn't mention temperature in it, except the goal temp you want to heat the medium to..


----------



## Assimilator (Feb 13, 2017)

The fact that almost 10% of people of a _technology_ forum don't understand basic physics does not bode well for the future of our species.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> I was wondering when the equation would come out.. .thanks silk.. hopefully that quiets this "10" who aren't understanding it. Also, there should be an equation which shows how much energy is needed to heat a given object (water is what I recall the equation being)... that equation doesn't mention temperature in it, except the goal temp you want to heat the medium to..



You're likely thinking of the equation for SHC, it tells us the amount of internal energy that an object holds at any given temperature.

My calculations above is actually not entirely correct as there is more at play and you don't get a zero mass heatsink


----------



## Air (Feb 13, 2017)

silkstone said:


> SHC of aluminium is 897 J/kg.K
> 
> Assuming a 1 kg heatsink vs. a zero mass heatsink, it will delay a 150 W cpu heating the room up by ~6 seconds.


That's if the temperature delta is 1 °C... which wont be the case. You should use 30 - 40 °C, and  keep in mind the heatsink will be losig energy during this heat up period, so i will take a lot longer. Not hours, but not 6 seconds.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2017)

Thinking about it, the amount of heat (energy) that both a large heatsink and small heatsink will hold is likely to be similar due to the lower temp of the larger one.

Here's some calculations. I can work in Celsius vs. Kelvin as I'm just looking at the temp difference. The numbers I just pulled out of my backside.

Small heatsink (0.25kg @ 80 degrees ) The amount of energy it will hold is simply 0.25 x 900 x 80 = 18, 000 J

Versus

Large Heatsink (1 kg @ 50 degrees) Q = 900 x 50 = 45 000 J

Difference = 27 000 J

if it's being heated at a rate of 150 W (J/s) then it will take 27 000 / 150  = 180 s = 3 minutes longer to heat up (120 seconds vs. 300 seconds)

Edited for clarity

Edit @Air - Yes an over simplification of a complex system. If you want to consider everything, you'd also need to consider Boltzmann's law as well as a plethora of other things (That if I fully understood, I'd be getting paid a hell of a lot more). The larger heatsink would actually begin pumping heat out to the surroundings at a much higher rate when the computer is first turned on due to the surface area and convection. It's take longer to reach its equilibrium temperature, not because of the heat capacity, but because of the surface area.


----------



## Air (Feb 13, 2017)

silkstone said:


> You're likely thinking of the equation for SHC, it tells us the amount of internal energy that an object holds at any given temperature.



Actually its the internal energy difference between 2 different temperatures. Not absolute.


----------



## RejZoR (Feb 13, 2017)

Bottom line is, it doesn't matter how big the cooler is, it's how hot the source is. The rest is just a matter of time. If the cooler is massive with slow fans, it'll just release the heat slower. If the heatsink is tiny with fast fan, it'll blow tons of heat into the room. Over time, both will heat up the room to same temperature, it's just a matter of how long would it take for both to reach the same temperature point.

Good analogy for that are room heaters. If you have compact 2kW fan heater and massive 2kW oil radiator, they'll both consume same amount of energy to heat up same volume of air to a specific temperature. They'll just need different time to achieve that. This is essentially the same thing as for example CPU with 2 different coolers. The source will always be the same I don't know, 130W TDP CPU. It'll always release 130W of heat (lets leave out the power saving tech and no load situations to make it easier). When you generate 130W of heat, it has to go somewhere. And it'll go somewhere...


----------



## Vulcansheart (Feb 13, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Bottom line is, it doesn't matter how big the cooler is, it's how hot the source is. The rest is just a matter of time. If the cooler is massive with slow fans, it'll just release the heat slower. If the heatsink is tiny with fast fan, it'll blow tons of heat into the room. Over time, both will heat up the room to same temperature, it's just a matter of how long would it take for both to reach the same temperature point.
> 
> Good analogy for that are room heaters. If you have compact 2kW fan heater and massive 2kW oil radiator, they'll both consume same amount of energy to heat up same volume of air to a specific temperature. They'll just need different time to achieve that. This is essentially the same thing as for example CPU with 2 different coolers. The source will always be the same I don't know, 130W TDP CPU. It'll always release 130W of heat (lets leave out the power saving tech and no load situations to make it easier). When you generate 130W of heat, it has to go somewhere. And it'll go somewhere...


OMG thank you. Finally someone that gets it. It's the *rate *of change from Tmin to Tmax that counts here

Edit
And I appreciate those of you that can propose an argument without slinging insults around like a child.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Bottom line is, it doesn't matter how big the cooler is, it's how hot the source is. The rest is just a matter of time. If the cooler is massive with slow fans, it'll just release the heat slower. If the heatsink is tiny with fast fan, it'll blow tons of heat into the room. Over time, both will heat up the room to same temperature, it's just a matter of how long would it take for both to reach the same temperature point.
> 
> Good analogy for that are room heaters. If you have compact 2kW fan heater and massive 2kW oil radiator, they'll both consume same amount of energy to heat up same volume of air to a specific temperature. They'll just need different time to achieve that. This is essentially the same thing as for example CPU with 2 different coolers. The source will always be the same I don't know, 130W TDP CPU. It'll always release 130W of heat (lets leave out the power saving tech and no load situations to make it easier). When you generate 130W of heat, it has to go somewhere. And it'll go somewhere...



More or less. It'd take a different amount of time to distribute the heat rather than heating up quicker or slower, but that would mainly be down to the size of the fans.

Also remember that a computer heatsink  is in a metal box. If you put a fan and oil heater in 2 different metal boxes, there would be no difference. They'd both heat the room the same



Vulcansheart said:


> OMG thank you. Finally someone that gets it. It's the *rate *of change from Tmin to Tmax that counts here
> 
> Edit
> And I appreciate those of you that can propose an argument without slinging insults around like a child.



Power is already measure of the rate of change of heat. If the power of 2 systems is the same the rate of change of temperature will be the same more or less


----------



## Air (Feb 13, 2017)

Vulcansheart said:


> OMG thank you. Finally someone that gets it. It's the *rate *of change from Tmin to Tmax that counts here


I get what you are saying, but I was trying to point out that both the difference in heat exchange rate before "Tmax" is reached, and total time before "Tmax", are too low to actually matter. After Tmax is reached, heat exchange will be the same regardless of cooler. And after the CPU load ceases, there will be another period of time before "Tmin" is again reached, where the oposite happens, the bigger cooler dissipates more heat.


----------



## Sasqui (Feb 13, 2017)

Assimilator said:


> The fact that almost 10% of people of a _technology_ forum don't understand basic physics does not bode well for the future of our species.



Nor the fact that this thread is even still alive!  W-T-F ?


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 13, 2017)

" In the name of Science"
i decided to Experiment
i set up 4 coolers of vastly different size some were just plain Aluminum and some were  Aluminum with a copper core

temps were measured and checked (23c) Ambient room temp
all units were run for 30 min
There was no change in the Temp of the Room ( or in the Coolers ) after 30 min 

conclusion small or big cooler "it made no difference to the Room Temp "

Ps i did not use a CPU as that was a variable i did not want to account for


----------



## Steevo (Feb 13, 2017)

Same within the tolerance allowed by error. 

If you have an enclosed space of a 10 meters and have 200 watts of heat dissipated into that area, the only thing changing a cooler may do is to change the overall localized hot spot, but the heat flux will remain the same, the only variance should be how much heat can the enclosed area dissipate in a given time, and the latent effects of heat soak. 

Years of running water cooling after years of running air cooling, sound understanding of cooling and heating, and running overclocked Pentium 4 systems in enclosed spaces tell me X watts in means X watts of heat generated irregardless of the cooler attached, the only change being the CPU may run a few degrees cooler until the room temperature reaches its maximum.


----------



## Vulcansheart (Feb 13, 2017)

Air said:


> I get what you are saying, but I was trying to point out that both the difference in heat exchange rate before "Tmax" is reached, and total time before "Tmax", are too low to actually matter. After Tmax is reached, heat exchange will be the same regardless of cooler. And after the CPU load ceases, there will be another period of time before "Tmin" is again reached, where the oposite happens, the bigger cooler dissipates more heat.


That's exactly what I was trying to demonstrate with my diagram.


----------



## rruff (Feb 13, 2017)

Air said:


> CPU operating at higher temperatures have higher power draw than on lower temperatures: That's true but i bet i wont make any measurable difference in room temperatures, assuming like +5 W. I dont know the exact numbers though.





Potatoking said:


> For example my 5970 dropped power draw by almost 20watt going from 90c to 40c under water. But this is negated by heat generated by water pump and ect.
> In the end every PC is fancy electric heater.



This is the only thing of interest regarding this question. If the CPU is dissipating the same power, then that heat is going into the room one way or another.

But... if the CPU produces less heat if it's cooler, that may result in slightly lower room temperatures, provided that the cooler itself doesn't generate so much heat that it negates the savings. Power draw is a good measure. If your cooling system draws 20W more than your original, and the CPU draws 20W less, then nothing changed as far as the amount of heat dumped into the room.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 13, 2017)

Vulcansheart said:


> Well, unless any thermodynamic engineers step forward to settle this, I think it's going to be idiots vs dumbasses for the life of this thread.



I'm as close as you're likely to get and frankly, no, this is high school level science.  It's really sad.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 13, 2017)

100 % of climate scientists agree that 9.2 % of the voters in this thread  are wrong.


----------



## Air (Feb 13, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> I'm as close as you're likely to get and frankly, no, this is high school level science.  It's really sad.


Its not that bad actually. It seems most people forget everything they learn in high school, and even though this is a long thread, 90% of the audience chose the right answer. There were just a few misconceptions here and there...


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 13, 2017)

Air said:


> Its not that bad actually. It seems most people forget everything they learn in high school, and even though this is a long thread, 90% of the audience chose the right answer. There were just a few misconceptions here and there...



Yes, I suppose that is correct.


----------



## Vulcansheart (Feb 13, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> I'm as close as you're likely to get and frankly, no, this is high school level science.  It's really sad.


You're right, it is sad. If all CPU coolers were created equal, why would there even be a market?

May I ask your qualifications to make that first claim?


----------



## natr0n (Feb 13, 2017)

Lets say you have a giant cooler and your rooms window open with your case dissipating/directing all heat outside the fucking window.

Yes, your room will stay cooler.


----------



## xorbe (Feb 13, 2017)

Total heat won't change (excluding delta in fan wattage), but it's not so simple in the real world.  A very high cfm system may tend towards evenly heating a room.  A very low cfm system could cause very hot air to rise to the ceiling, which may actually keep the room cooler down where you are, if there's little circulation, and the ceiling insulation is poor, effectively heatsinking the concentrated heat at the top of the room.  As soon as you turn on a ceiling fan, the effect would be lost, and the heat would be evenly distributed again.  However undoubtedly the two HSF setups in question are similar.  Ah, post #70 has a nice graph, showing the "better cooler" is causing room temp to rise more rapidly, as heat is more evenly distributed in the room initially.  Though I feel that the post's reasoning implies the wrong thing.


----------



## rruff (Feb 13, 2017)

Vulcansheart said:


> You're right, it is sad. If all CPU coolers were created equal, why would there even be a market?



CPU coolers are for keeping the CPU cool. Not to keep your room cool. 



> May I ask your qualifications to make that first claim?



I'm not the guy you were asking but I have an mechanical engineering degree and specialty in heat transfer.


----------



## Air (Feb 13, 2017)

rruff said:


> This is the only thing of interest regarding this question. If the CPU is dissipating the same power, then that heat is going into the room one way or another.
> 
> But... if the CPU produces less heat if it's cooler, that may result in slightly lower room temperatures, provided that the cooler itself doesn't generate so much heat that it negates the savings. Power draw is a good measure. If your cooling system draws 20W more than your original, and the CPU draws 20W less, then nothing changed as far as the amount of heat dumped into the room.


It think its safe to assume it wont make a difference anyway. 20 W is more than I anticipated (for both increase in power consumption and pump power), but even if its +/- 20 W, still wont have a noticeable impact on the room.


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Feb 13, 2017)

Entropy.


----------



## rruff (Feb 13, 2017)

Vulcansheart said:


> I'll give you a hint: the room temperature is raising at a varying rate. It doesn't instantaneously warm up the moment the PC is powered on. The rate that the room warms is directly effected by the efficiency of the CPU cooler.
> Who the eff cares what the final room temperature is going to be? It could take 24, 48 or 1000 hours to reach it's maximum temperature. What I am arguing, and have been arguing since my first reply, is that at ANY given time interval between 0 and X hours, the room will be warmer with the aftermarket cooler.



What does "efficiency of the CPU cooler" mean? Efficiency normally implies that you get more output for the input. In this case that would mean the aftermarket cooler requires less watts to cool the CPU, which would put less watts into the room.

If you want to look at the effect of thermal capacity, here is a chart: http://www2.ucdsb.on.ca/tiss/stretton/database/specific_heat_capacity_table.html
1 watt is 1 J/s. Aluminum is .9 J/g-K. dt=M*dT*Cp/P. For example if you had your processor attached to an insulated 200g hunk of aluminum, and your processor ran at 100W, a 50C temperature rise would take 200*50*.9/100 = 90 seconds. I wouldn't count on your heat sink making an appreciable difference.


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Feb 13, 2017)

one can bother himself searching testing what have you it depends if you timeframe or not. overall =


----------



## Beastie (Feb 13, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> I am disappointed in humanity at this point. This is  high school science stuff people...





Assimilator said:


> The fact that almost 10% of people of a _technology_ forum don't understand basic physics does not bode well for the future of our species.


I feel quite positive about the results of this poll.

 I get a warm glow just from being a participant in a forum where 9/10ths of voters understand basic thermodynamics.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 13, 2017)

Now I feel like a jerk in not looking at the positives here...


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 13, 2017)

Beastie said:


> I get a warm glow just from being a participant in a forum where 9/10ths of voters understand basic thermodynamics.



You could also attribute that to diapers being full of Brown..................


----------



## Beastie (Feb 13, 2017)

dorsetknob said:


> You could also attribute that to diapers being full of Brown..................



That's a different kind of warmth


----------



## Steevo (Feb 13, 2017)

Vulcansheart said:


> You're right, it is sad. If all CPU coolers were created equal, why would there even be a market?
> 
> May I ask your qualifications to make that first claim?




Your first question is NOT the same as the question asked in the poll. The question in the poll is more of a, which is heavier a ton of feathers, or a ton of bricks?

The first is a question about the total room, NOT the CPU. If a ROOM is 70F and a CPU cooler can manage to keep the CPU at 100F under full load 125W (for example), we would say the cooler was able to remove 125W of heat at 30 T delta. If you got an after market cooler and it kept the CPU at 90F, 125W under full loaded all else being equal, the after market cooler would be better, it would have a 20 T Delta. 

The same 125W is being dissipated irregardless of a better cooler. Lets agree on that. 
The room will remain at 70F AVERAGE irregardless of what cooler is used as 125W is being dissipated. Lets agree on that.
The CPU temperature will be the ONLY change, but heat flow (flux) will remain the same.

When controlling for all other variables, the same total heat will be entering the room, the only difference is the Thermal Flux Delta (thermal conductive/capacitance) of how well the cooler can move heat from point A to point B. 

That is why and how we use better coolers, their TDelta is better, and that is why people review coolers in the same environment.

Lets do a thought experiment, if you have bottle of champagne to cool ( for V day) and you wanted to cool it, whats the most efficient way cause bae is showing up wearing a garter, thigh highs, and a trench coat in 15 minutes and we forgot the champagne in the trunk and its 90F 

We can cool it with water that has a Tdelta of 40F lower than the champagne. 
We have air in the fridge that has a Tdelta of 70F lower than the champagne. 
We have ice that has a Tdelta of 90F lower than the champagne. 
We have salt. 

The answer is to add salt to the ice, and a little water to cover as much of the bottle as possible. 

Does the salt make ice colder? Nope. It increases the thermal flux of the water, allowing the water to remain liquid water even in below freezing conditions, which increases the chance of the champagne being ice cold and bubbly. Without making this a full physics lesson, you will always have the same amount out as you put in when dealing with heat, the only thing we can change is the amount of transfer to make everything closer to equal.


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 13, 2017)

In this thought game 
I'll Play 


Steevo said:


> Lets do a thought experiment, if you have bottle of champagne to cool ( for V day) and you wanted to cool it, whats the most efficient way cause bae is showing up wearing a garter, thigh highs, and a trench coat in 15 minutes and we forgot the champagne in the trunk and its 90F



Bucket and a CO2 Fire Extinguisher  put bottle in bucket spray with CO2 Fire Extinguisher  Instant cold bottle/bucket 
Plenty of time to rip that Trench coat off with your teeth


----------



## Steevo (Feb 13, 2017)

dorsetknob said:


> In this thought game
> I'll Play
> 
> 
> ...




Next time we get our fire extinguishers refilled at work I will nab one and see how cold it actually gets with the CO2, it may be warmer than you think due to the fire suppression chemicals.


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 13, 2017)

Steevo said:


> how cold it actually gets with the CO2, it may be warmer than you think due to the fire suppression chemicals.


Rest Assured it gets Damm Cold.
  Cold enough to give you FROST BURNS, if you fail to read the Safety warnings about holding the CO2 extinguisher nozzle or Horn while using one,
and it also blasts cold enough to cold shatter Steel padlock shanks with a hammer


----------



## Air (Feb 13, 2017)

Wow. Thread out of control. This complex topic was too much for TPU to handle. Our brains reached critical temperature.


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 13, 2017)

Air said:


> This complex topic was too much for TPU to handle. Our brains reached critical temperature.


Prescribes cold Beer


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2017)

rruff said:


> But... if the CPU produces less heat if it's cooler, that may result in slightly lower room temperatures, provided that the cooler itself doesn't generate so much heat that it negates the savings. Power draw is a good measure. If your cooling system draws 20W more than your original, and the CPU draws 20W less, then nothing changed as far as the amount of heat dumped into the room.



No. The CPU produces exactly the same amount of heat. That heat is just over a larger surface area CAUSING a lower temperature.

Temperature does not cause heat change. Heat causes temperature.change. Heat and temperature are 2 different things.



Vulcansheart said:


> You're right, it is sad. If all CPU coolers were created equal, why would there even be a market?
> 
> May I ask your qualifications to make that first claim?



They are no created equal. Some can dissipate larger amounts of heat resulting in lower temperatures on the CPU. But the CPU is the sole source of said heat. When that heat is dumped into another system (the room) it will cause a different temperature change to that system. If the amount of heat being dumped into that system is the same, the temperature change will be the same.

The zero's law might help some to understand better. I don;t have time to explain now, but basically, the CPU in both cases, is trying to reach thermal equilibrium with the air in the room.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 13, 2017)

Air said:


> Wow. Thread out of control. This complex topic was too much for TPU to handle. Our brains reached critical temperature.


About 10% overheated and throttled to protect themselves.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 13, 2017)

Vulcansheart said:


> May I ask your qualifications to make that first claim?



I ran my own bitcoin farm and helped with a large scale op, hot/cold aisle arrangement.

I was mistaken though, more qualified people are here.


----------



## rruff (Feb 13, 2017)

silkstone said:


> No. The CPU produces exactly the same amount of heat. That heat is just over a larger surface area CAUSING a lower temperature.



A couple of people commented that the CPU will draw less power doing the same task if it's cooler (ie it will be more efficient). I figure they measured it?


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> I ran my own bitcoin farm and helped with a large scale op, hot/cold aisle arrangement.
> 
> I was mistaken though, more qualified people are here.



B.Sc Physics with Astrophysics here. Also a PGCE and a few years teaching this crap. I'm no expert, but I know enough.



rruff said:


> A couple of people commented that the CPU will draw less power doing the same task if it's cooler (ie it will be more efficient). I figure they measured it?



If so, not by a much, especially if the voltage is CPU voltage is kept constant.

If anything, resistance increases with temp, and current goes down so less power draw at higher temps. Though CPUs are not anything like Ohmic, so I'm not really sure.


----------



## infrared (Feb 13, 2017)

rruff said:


> A couple of people commented that the CPU will draw less power doing the same task if it's cooler (ie it will be more efficient). I figure they measured it?


Yep, I have my pc plugged into a wattmeter permanently so i can keep an eye on what's going on. I don't really have enough rad area in my loop, so i run the fans a bit higher during the day which keeps coolant ~36c, and at night i turn the fans down a bit which results in 40c, that extra 5-6c (on-chip temps actually rise a little more than the coolant) Now on my typical arrangement with both cards undervolted slightly to 1.1v @ 1ghz and cpu running 4.5ghz 1.37v it normally uses around 630w with fans cranked up and with fans in slightly less irritating mode it rises to about 660w after the coolant has finished warming up. In fact if you turn the fans off completely to heat the loop fast you can see the wattage rising quite easily. The difference is mostly across the GPU's, the cpu does rise by 2-3w according to AIDA64.

It's a very small difference, not really enough to be relevant to the thread, but it's a real thing so I don't want people that are correct being told they're wrong kinda thing 

sorry for edits, wasn't quite happy with a few thinngs


----------



## phanbuey (Feb 13, 2017)

I think this thread was massively overcomplicated...


----------



## infrared (Feb 13, 2017)

Yes, definitely!  There's been some interesting posts though so it's not all bad


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 13, 2017)

Im only reading it cos im totally bored.


----------



## Steevo (Feb 13, 2017)

Its not overcomplicated, the question asked was perhaps not what the OP really meant to ask, and either way if OP understands that just like all else in physics, what you put in is what has to come out, we have explained everything we needed to.


----------



## rruff (Feb 14, 2017)

silkstone said:


> If anything, resistance increases with temp, and current goes down so less power draw at higher temps. Though CPUs are not anything like Ohmic, so I'm not really sure.



Resistance goes up but power consumption will depend on what the CPU needs to hit the same clocks. I'm guessing it's current, so if R goes up, then so does V at the same clocks.


----------



## Air (Feb 14, 2017)

infrared said:


> Yep, I have my pc plugged into a wattmeter permanently so i can keep an eye on what's going on. I don't really have enough rad area in my loop, so i run the fans a bit higher during the day which keeps coolant ~36c, and at night i turn the fans down a bit which results in 40c, that extra 5-6c (on-chip temps actually rise a little more than the coolant) Now on my typical arrangement with both cards undervolted slightly to 1.1v @ 1ghz and cpu running 4.5ghz 1.37v it normally uses around 630w with fans cranked up and with fans in slightly less irritating mode it rises to about 660w after the coolant has finished warming up. In fact if you turn the fans off completely to heat the loop fast you can see the wattage rising quite easily. The difference is mostly across the GPU's, the cpu does rise by 2-3w according to AIDA64.
> 
> It's a very small difference, not really enough to be relevant to the thread, but it's a real thing so I don't want people that are correct being told they're wrong kinda thing
> 
> sorry for edits, wasn't quite happy with a few thinngs


Thanks for the info. This thread was in need of some actual data. And yeah, as i said, negligible difference.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Feb 14, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Im only reading it cos im totally bored.



I'm surprised you haven't posted a thread on that rotten egg nebula that's normally or type a thing


----------



## Agentbb007 (Feb 14, 2017)

When gaming if I up the fans on my NZXT Kraken X61 it makes my room hotter.  I guess more heat is trapped in my case and radiator when the fan speed is lower.  When I raise the fan speed it pushes more of that warm air into my room.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 14, 2017)

What rotten egg nebula? 
You mean the one that the erroneous voters got on their faces?


----------



## infrared (Feb 14, 2017)

Air said:


> Thanks for the info. This thread was in need of some actual data.


No prob, although I'm slightly moderately concerned at how intimately i know this machine now!!! 

Honestly though, I would have expected what silkstone predicted with ohms law if I hadn't observed this myself.

I just had a looksee at what google reckoned about it because I'm procrastinating instead of sleeping lol... this is kinda interesting tidbit i thought.

Why does the conductivity of a semiconductor increases with increasing temperature?
The electrical conductivity of a semiconductor increases with increase in temperature because with increase in temperature the electrons overcome the energy barrier between the valence band and the conduction band easily.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 14, 2017)

Just to throw a wrench in the spokes... are you sure whatever stress test you are running is a constant load??? Most are not.

Regardless, power use does change with temps, but VERY little. Not enough to make this poor beaten horse get up again for another beating.. lol!


----------



## infrared (Feb 14, 2017)

No that's cool, I don't mind looking for holes in this, I might have gone awry somewhere.
And no, it's not scientific by any means, i could try to log it properly but I'm not sure it's interesting enough to bother with but it's easy to screenshot the afterburner graph showing the gpu wattages, would have to do it tomorrow now though. I was just watching it while it was only folding and crunching with nothing else going on in the background, cpu was at a fairly stead 95%, it was on the same work units while I was watching, all tasks hours left to run  and i watched this over about 5-10 mins, not too long. The wattage was holding steady other than creeping slowly.

Ah I keep forgetting all this is popping up notifications for everyone again! Yep agreed, it's a completely negligible amount. 

edit: could also be the VRM's contributing to extra wattage at the wall too I wonder. Meh. idk. Going to bed lol. Laters TPU!


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 14, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> What rotten egg nebula?
> You mean the one that the erroneous voters got on their faces?


----------



## jboydgolfer (Feb 14, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> What rotten egg nebula?
> You mean the one that the erroneous voters got on their faces?




 I'm sorry I actually meant to say the calabash nebula. Since NASA actually caught the initial explosion which is a rare event to catch on film.

https://www.google.com/amp/kfor.com/2017/02/13/nasa-captures-rare-shot-of-a-star-in-mid-death/amp/


But I digress as it's severely  off topic


----------



## Solaris17 (Feb 14, 2017)

Side note** If you are personally past measuring how much your P4 makes your balls sweat with a hyper 212 vs a stock HS when playing battlefield 4 and your interested in thermodynamics you should check out the heat death of the universe if you havn't already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe


----------



## silkstone (Feb 14, 2017)

infrared said:


> No prob, although I'm slightly moderately concerned at how intimately i know this machine now!!!
> 
> Honestly though, I would have expected what silkstone predicted with ohms law if I hadn't observed this myself.
> 
> ...



Thanks. It's nice to learn new things, I didn't have time to look it up before work this morning but that makes sense. It also explains why temperature, rather than voltage, of CPUs is the killer.

Now we just need a material scientist to pop in and tell us what the typical change in conductivity would be from 40 - 80 degrees.


----------



## hat (Feb 14, 2017)

I must admit, I never thought this thread would go on this long...


----------



## Mussels (Feb 14, 2017)

rruff said:


> A couple of people commented that the CPU will draw less power doing the same task if it's cooler (ie it will be more efficient). I figure they measured it?



its very small scale, but its well known basic science. the 5 watts people mentioned is probably an extreme amount - if you take 20C off a stock clocked CPU you might only take 1W off the power consumption/total heat generated.


----------



## Steevo (Feb 14, 2017)

Silicon has a runaway effect, its greater than exponential once you are past "the bend of the knee" I believe, but it takes a lot more heat than the chip is designed to run at before throttling or shutting down before the runaway is reached. I once cleaned my old, old, old PC and forgot to plug in my CPU fan, and the CPU managed to boot windows and run for about 30 more seconds before it thermally tripped and shut down. I burned my fingers on the heatsink, and it left burns. But a minute later I powered it on and it was fine, and the sheer number of computers in death ovens back in the day (computer desk with tower inside with no vents, minus a few cord cutouts) that survived proves silicon is fine being hot, its the rest of the stuff that doesn't like it. Power traces in the motherboard, voltage regulators, capacitors, plastics.....


----------



## infrared (Feb 14, 2017)

I decided to test this a bit more carefully..
Both screenshots were after 15s of full CPU load, Folding@home was paused, and WCG set to use 100% CPU. The screenshots are only about 5 minutes apart so the same work units were running for both. It's actually a more stable load than prime95 and a real world load so figured I'd stick to this instead of a benchmark/stress test.

+7W on the 6700k when i bring coolant from 25c to 45c. I can't be bothered to test it but I'm sure running stock clocks/volts the increase would be much less as Mussels said.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 15, 2017)

infrared said:


> +7W on the 6700k when i bring coolant from 25c to 45c. I can't be bothered to test it but I'm sure running stock clocks/volts the increase would be much less as Mussels said.
> 
> View attachment 84055



would you look at that, an educated guess based on the science was pretty close to the mark.


----------



## TheBurn (Feb 24, 2017)

Errrr....

So we aren't testing within a vacuum, and the fact of you being in the room increasing the ambient temp; its a measurement of the temp overall in the household room or gamers room. with you and the gaming computer powered on within it. There is some ambient air temp change in the room affected by a window, or door where air escapes or enters the environment.

So a larger CPU heatsink will hold more heat and dissipates less heat then its lower mass counterpart This is the essential design of top quality heatsinks.
A WC heatsink transfers heat from the block, but via tubing and water, exiting via the radiator essentially in its design.
The normal user can measure the air temperature dissipated from the fan exhausts of the pc case. And there would be a significant difference thats measurable using a large heatsink, versus smaller passive/or active heatsink, versus WC system. And this effects ambient air temperature in the room; how would it not ?

So if the aftermarket(larger and better designed) cooler can contain more heatmass and dissipate less heat, then the case temp and room ambient temp changes less over time.

Where is the wrong?


----------



## infrared (Feb 24, 2017)

TheBurn said:


> Errrr....
> 
> So we aren't testing within a vacuum, its a standard household room or gamers room. There is some ambient air temp change in the room affected by a window, or door where air escapes or enters the environment.
> 
> ...


There you go, hope that makes sense to you.  (click expand, i highlighted my bits in blue)


----------



## TheBurn (Feb 24, 2017)

infrared said:


> There you go, hope that makes sense to you.  (click expand, i highlighted my bits in blue)



Mmm Pretty blue highlights... but no.

A heatsink is designed to absorb and hold heat and then dissipate, that is its design without a fan(passive means), from there its dissipation or release of heat otherwise from passive means from the heatsink is via other means such as a fan controller or as we are so familiar with a means of water cooling heat radiation release(radiator)..



But back to the orig poll. The answer is yes


----------



## jagjitnatt (Feb 24, 2017)

An aftermarket cooler would dump heat from the CPU to the room faster, so it would raise the temperature of the room faster(not more, just faster)
A bad cooler would take more time to dump the same amount of heat, and since your room would be losing heat(assuming its cold outside) at a certain rate, the overall temp of the room would rise slower.

If I was to run a load for 1 min, the aftermarket cooler would heat the room more(at the time I switch off the load), because the stock cooler(and the CPU) is still holding some heat and is yet to dump it into the room. But if I was to run this experiment over long period of time, both the heatsinks would reach their peak dissipation rate, and the difference would be negligible. But once the CPU is at idle, the aftermarket heatsink would stop dissipating heat, but the stock heat sink would still be dumping the heat it is holding.

So even though the amount of heat dumped in the room is same, the peak temp in the room would be higher with the aftermarket cooler.

There are a LOT more factors that in play here like the heat dissipation rate of the room will increase as the delta of temp between room and outside increases and the rate of dissipation of heatsink varies based on the temperature of the air around it etc


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Feb 24, 2017)

TheBurn said:


> Errrr....
> 
> So we aren't testing within a vacuum, and the fact of you being in the room increasing the ambient temp; its a measurement of the temp overall in the household room or gamers room. with you and the gaming computer powered on within it. There is some ambient air temp change in the room affected by a window, or door where air escapes or enters the environment.
> 
> ...


Just all of the above comment....


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 24, 2017)

The larger cooler dissipates MORE heat(wattage)... Sure, it 'holds' more before its saturated, but after it reaches an equilibrium, its the same. I mean, if what you were saying was true, why would larger coolers keep temps lower if it isn 't moving more heat than another cooler??? The point is to GET RID OF the heat!!!! 

Again, 100W at 50C is the same as 100W at 70C. Its still 100W of energy trying to 'warm' the air it touches...


----------



## sneekypeet (Feb 24, 2017)

Testing a shit ton of coolers per year, I can say, not matter what the cooler is, my room will eventually get to the same temperature if left to run long enough.
I have thought about doing a video or posting images, but I feel the video would have to be hours long, and images would be claimed as fakes to those who do not believe what most of us are saying!


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Feb 24, 2017)

TheBurn said:


> Mmm Pretty blue highlights... but no.
> 
> A heatsink is designed to absorb and hold heat and then dissipate, that is its design without a fan(passive means), from there its dissipation or release of heat otherwise from passive means from the heatsink is via other means such as a fan controller or as we are so familiar with a means of water cooling heat radiation release(radiator)..
> 
> ...


No it's not designed to hold heat, it's designed solely to dissipate it away from the CPU.... what kind of spongey heatsinks do you use?


----------



## rruff (Feb 24, 2017)

TheBurn said:


> A heatsink is designed to absorb and hold heat and then dissipate.



The heatsink is designed to *dissipate*, not hold. The size is strictly due to dissipation demands only (exchange heat between the CPU and the air). None of them have enough *heat capacity* relative to the amount of energy being generated to make a difference. 

If your after market cooler has 2x the heat capacity and also runs at 1/2 the dT then the amount of energy absorbed would actually be the same (rather than some infinitesimal difference).


----------



## silkstone (Feb 25, 2017)

TheBurn said:


> Where is the wrong?



The laws of Thermodynamics.

Honestly, this is still going?

It's amazing how many people think that Science is an opinion!


----------



## MrGenius (Feb 25, 2017)

107 to 15. Game over. You lose.


----------



## Bones (Feb 25, 2017)

I'll have to climb onto the roof over my room and mount a cooler there to see if it does or not. 

If the cooler is removing heat, it naturally goes out of the system and into the room, plain and simple. If the cooler is removing more heat then you may see a difference BUT in some cases a room may or may not be better insulated, larger or smaller, in a warmer or cooler climate based on where the home itself is.... Lots of variables can affect things but I can say from my own experience my room did get a little warmer after I upgraded the cooler from a stock one.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 25, 2017)

Bones said:


> I'll have to climb onto the roof over my room and mount a cooler there to see if it does or not.
> 
> If the cooler is removing heat, it naturally goes out of the system and into the room, plain and simple. If the cooler is removing more heat then you may see a difference BUT in some cases a room may or may not be better insulated, larger or smaller, in a warmer or cooler climate based on where the home itself is.... Lots of variables can affect things but I can say from my own experience my room did get a little warmer after I upgraded the cooler from a stock one.



Urgh, the amount of heat a large cooler and stock cooler is removing is the same.

There will be slight differences due to CPUs at higher temp having a lower resistance, but the effect would not be noticeable.

There are no other variables that would change the amount of 'heat' put into the room.

There are literally 8-pages explaining the Science and it's explained in layman's terms.


----------



## notb (Feb 25, 2017)

I'm just so disappointed that I found this excellent discussion so late! 

Being quite a fan of experiments, I have to say: I have nothing against testing the law of conservation of energy, because - well - why not? There clearly are worse ways to spend time.
That said, I'm pretty amazed some people decided that it doesn't work. 

I think we should have more topics like this one!


----------



## silkstone (Feb 25, 2017)

notb said:


> I'm just so disappointed that I found this excellent discussion so late!
> 
> Being quite a fan of experiments, I have to say: I have nothing against testing the law of conservation of energy, because - well - why not? There clearly are worse ways to spend time.
> That said, I'm pretty amazed some people decided that it doesn't work.
> ...



A thread discussing the merits of a perpetual motion machine will pop up next!


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Feb 25, 2017)

reminds me of the days i used to have two reference 6970s that ran at 89'c load.... It was like the Caribbean here.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 25, 2017)

There must be something wrong with me...........i keep clicking on this thread.......


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Feb 25, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> There must be something wrong with me...........i keep clicking on this thread.......




Maybe you need room heaters to save on the electricity bill


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 25, 2017)

Its 24C in my sitting room which equates to 

1. X 5670 and HD 7970 which are both ticking over
2. A roaring fire stoked with Welsh anthracite.


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 25, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> 1. X 5670 and HD 7970 which are both ticking over
> 2. A roaring fire stoked with Welsh anthracite.


need to see  "logs "
Oh you cannot provide logs "you burned them last week"


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 25, 2017)

dorsetknob said:


> "you burned them last week"




i did actually. My wife chatted up some local builders and they dropped off enough timber to last us all last week.

back on topic. If our fire goes out overnight the room is still warm in the morning, this is because all the furniture and fittings act as a heat sink and slowly release heat until everything returns to the ambient temperature.

Consequently i have changed my vote to "other"


----------



## infrared (Feb 25, 2017)

We're all in a simulation so have no idea if the physics we experience is real  

Free your mind! haha


----------



## Mr.Scott (Feb 25, 2017)

I'm shocked and appalled at some of you guys that I once respected. 

X Wattage = X Wattage
Period.
Coolers type/size does not change that.

I can't believe there are actually people logging in for the first time to argue this.


----------



## Steevo (Feb 25, 2017)

Mr.Scott said:


> I'm shocked and appalled at some of you guys that I once respected.
> 
> X Wattage = X Wattage
> Period.
> ...


People tend to have misconstrued ideas about some things based off entirely wrong ideas that fit other big picture items. 

Dihydrogen Monoxide anyone? Infused with your flavors of choice?


----------



## Mr.Scott (Feb 25, 2017)

I prefer the classic Lemon water, thank you.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 25, 2017)

Mr.Scott said:


> I prefer the classic Lemon water, thank you.


Yout should give some of that to bonesy...


----------



## Mr.Scott (Feb 25, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Yout should give some of that to bonesy...


I hear ya.


----------



## Caring1 (Feb 25, 2017)

Steevo said:


> Dihydrogen Monoxide anyone? Infused with your flavors of choice?


Anything but the Koolaid thanks


----------



## silkstone (Feb 26, 2017)

Steevo said:


> People tend to have misconstrued ideas about some things based off entirely wrong ideas that fit other big picture items.
> 
> Dihydrogen Monoxide anyone? Infused with your flavors of choice?



Some people confuse temperature and heat quite badly and misunderstand what is going on in thermal systems.

If you are one of those people, an easy analogy to help understand is one with water.

Lets say you have 1 litre of water at 50 degrees and you mix it with 1 more litre of water at 0 degrees. That would give you 2 litres of water at 25 degrees.
Compare that to mixing 0.5 litres at 100 degrees, mixed with 1.5 liters at 0 degrees. That gives the same final temperature of 25 degrees.
Despite the different starting temperatures, both contain the same amount of heat. 

This analogy doesn't model what is going on with a heatsink very well, but it should start to give an idea as to how conservation of energy works.


----------



## Maverick Wolfe (Feb 27, 2017)

Vulcansheart said:


> The ambient temperature difference between the two will be negligible, so I voted "same". However, technically since the aftermarket unit *should be a more effective heat exchanger, the room should be warmer and the chip cooler.


The laws of Thermodynamics are definitly different and in this case YES the room temperature will be warmer by a bit when the CPU and Tower get hotter. I had to use my Desktop during the ice cold winter of 2009-10 to help keep my room warmer during freezing temperatures in Montana. It did not ruin the effect of having my window as a Fridge. But it did keep my room much warmer during this time and I did not die of exposure to the cold. I did the same thing more recently when I lived in a basement. I moved myself into my office and slept there because it was warmer than in the main portion of my studio. this was in 2014-15 in Kitsap County WA.


----------



## DJHeroMasta (Feb 27, 2017)

Melvis said:


> Ok so I was having a debate with my brother today and we couldn't agree on the answer so I thought well why not bring it to the masses and see what everyone on here thinks.
> 
> The question/debate is.....Would the temperature of a room (his bedroom) be higher, lower or the same when using a bigger after market cooler compared to the stock intel cooler on his current CPU. He thinks the temp would be hotter in his room with using a bigger after market heatsink (dissipating heat would be the same and more of it), I think it would be slightly cooler because of the total mass/size of the cooler would lower the temp before it was blown (dissipated) into the room, but maybe Im wrong.
> 
> ...




I went from an air-cooled system to a liquid cooled system. Man, I miss that heater .


----------



## Olle P (Feb 27, 2017)

newtekie1 said:


> It will stay the same.  The amount of heat generated by the processor will be the same.  ...


That's my initial thought too, but then it hit me:
*Under certain circumstances* a better cooler will make the room warmer.

Assume that:

The computer case is poorly ventilated, and
The CPU is stressed hard.
Then the stock cooler will have the CPU throttled (using less power) due to running hot.
A better cooler will reduce the amount of throttling, enable the CPU to use more power and produce more heat, ending up with more heat vented into the room.

Then we also have the factor of room heating/ventilation/cooling.
- In a cold climate you'll either have the computer warming up the room or the radiators will have to work more.
- In a warm climate ventilation (or air conditioning) will have to work harder to keep the room temperature down if the computer use more power.


----------



## infrared (Feb 27, 2017)

You guys realize that we've even had Physics teachers in here explaining in detail why the heat entering the room would be the same, along with all the other simplified explanations? And a hardware reviewer that's tested hundreds of cpu coolers and given his account.

If you STILL want to stick to your own beliefs then there is no hope for you.

I'm unsubscribing, this thread went from being helpful to amusing to now just sad really.


----------



## laszlo (Feb 27, 2017)

1st time i see this thread and reading a few posts made my day

think @Mussels explained all in the 1st page comments.....


----------



## silkstone (Feb 27, 2017)

laszlo said:


> 1st time i see this thread and reading a few posts made my day
> 
> think @Mussels explained all in the 1st page comments.....



and yet we still get this . . .



Maverick Wolfe said:


> The laws of Thermodynamics are definitly different and in this case YES the room temperature will be warmer by a bit when the CPU and Tower get hotter. I had to use my Desktop during the ice cold winter of 2009-10 to help keep my room warmer during freezing temperatures in Montana. It did not ruin the effect of having my window as a Fridge. But it did keep my room much warmer during this time and I did not die of exposure to the cold. I did the same thing more recently when I lived in a basement. I moved myself into my office and slept there because it was warmer than in the main portion of my studio. this was in 2014-15 in Kitsap County WA.


----------



## fourletterfame (Feb 27, 2017)

That thermodynamics is so poorly understood this thread required nine pages...

Just wow TPU members.


----------



## Totally (Mar 2, 2017)

Okay, so we have a leaky faucet and two buckets with holes in them.

There is X amount of water in both buckets and this amount never changes <----(everyone is fixated on this fact)

That rate of the faucet leaking equals the rate that Bucket B leaks.

Water leaks from the faucet into bucket A and in turn into bucket B.

If the rate of water flowing from A-B increases, what is happening to the water level in B the moment this change happens? <------(When this was the question being asked)


Tcpu + ΔT = Tamb

If ΔT increases?

Case 1 : ΔT↑ = Tamb↑ - Tcpu(constant)
Case 2:  ΔT↑ = Tamb(constant) - Tcpu↓


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 2, 2017)

Totally said:


> Okay, so we have a leaky faucet and two buckets holes in them.


Phone a plumber


----------



## rruff (Mar 2, 2017)

Totally said:


> If the rate of water flowing from A-B increases, what is happening to the water level in B the moment this change happens? <------(When this was the question being asked)



Your analogy is a great way to obfuscate. I can't see any other point. You don't even say what the water, buckets, and water level represent. The energy going into the room is the energy dissipated by the processor. Temperature differences don't matter.


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 2, 2017)

Some of the Homeridity in this Thread is so D'OH!!!


----------



## Totally (Mar 2, 2017)

rruff said:


> Your analogy is a great way to obfuscate. I can't see any other point. You don't even say what the water, buckets, and water level represent. The energy going into the room is the energy dissipated by the processor. Temperature differences don't matter.



A ~ CPU
B ~ Room
Water ~ Energy

I was pointing out that there processors that will seek out the fastest frequency below a threshold at load causing Cpu temp to remain constant, the better the cooling the faster the processor runs at expense of energy consumption, resulting in an increase in room temp versus a cpu with static clocks where cpu temp would decrease. People here are just too arrogant or ignorant and quick to ridicule others to think.


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 2, 2017)

Totally said:


> People here are just too arrogant or ignorant and quick to ridicule others to think.


And which of those category's do you fit into 
""Just Curious ????""


----------



## rruff (Mar 2, 2017)

Totally said:


> People here are just too arrogant or ignorant and quick to ridicule others to think.



As you arrogantly make up a story that has nothing to do with the OP. Nothing was said about clocks changing or the energy output of the CPU changing. The only change was the cooler.


----------



## Totally (Mar 2, 2017)

rruff said:


> As you arrogantly make up a story that has nothing to do with the OP. Nothing was said about clocks changing or the energy output of the CPU changing. The only change was the cooler.



Cpu was never specificed, only the cooler was therefore people were spouting out half-right answers how is that arrogant. That is why I pointed out both cases.


----------



## rruff (Mar 2, 2017)

Totally said:


> Cpu was never specificed.



Anything "not specified" you can assume did not change. 

Example: Totally is so excited about his new CPU cooler that he jumps up and down shouting for joy every time he turns his computer on. This obviously increases his metabolic rate and heat rejection, making the room warmer.


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 2, 2017)

Totally said:


> Okay, so we have a leaky faucet and two buckets with holes in them.
> 
> There is X amount of water in both buckets and this amount never changes <----(everyone is fixated on this fact)





Totally said:


> That rate of the faucet leaking equals the rate that Bucket B leaks.


There is a change here
[QUOTE="Totally, post: 3611330, member: 90126"]Water leaks from the faucet into bucket A and in turn into bucket B.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Totally, post: 3611330, member: 90126"]If the rate of water flowing from A-B increases, what is happening to the water level in B the moment this change happens? <------(When this was the question being asked)[/QUOTE]
Surface tension of the water temporary slows the transfer 
Your analogy fails completely
Holes in it in different colour highlighted text

At the end of the Day the CPU loses Same amount of heat thru big cooler >>   as small cooler   "into the Room " (its just in a Different TIME FRAME ).


----------

