Silverstone Lucid LD01

[GlacierNine]

@W1zzard, @Darksaber, @VSG

Can anyone help answer this question? Its been nearly a month without a response.

Give it up dude. Darksaber clearly doesn't give a shit.

 

[EarthDog]

Here is the link to our review btw...https://www.overclockers.com/silverstone-ld01-mid-tower-case-review/

 

[GlacierNine]

Hmm.

Interesting that the CPU thermal throttled on such a modest overclock (for that chip). What voltage was used to get your 4.9GHz? Granted, it's only cooled by a 212X, but that's pretty much a nothing overclock in my opinion - 200MHz on all cores is very little. In fact, it's little enough that I question why your review states it's an "aggressive" overclock.

For comparison's sake btw, 100% of 8700K's Siliconlottery tested, would reach 4.9GHz at 1.387V with a -2 AVX offset. 6% of chips tested would reach 5.3GHz at 1.437V. I'm quite sure the *majority* of 8700Ks will reach 4.9GHz at below 1.3V.

Also surprising that adding two entire fans did so little to affect the temps. Just goes to show how airflow-constrained some case designs are even when fully populated with fans - especially considering you were using 3x static pressure optimised fans and 2x "balanced" pressure fans.

All of this is another good reason Darksaber should be testing this sort of stuff - Even in a tiny chassis like this, when you're using 3 120mm fans in a space that small, while using a not-excessive, but certainly quite capable, CPU cooler, it should be possible to gain 200Mhz without thermal throttling. If your methodology is flawed, then Darksaber bothering to test thermals, even if his data is also flawed, would at least provide another point of comparison instead of dooming us to believe this case is a chip-cooker.

As is, we have little to go on other than your data, which paints a terrible picture of this case.

I would seriously question why TPU considers this case "Highly Recommended" in light of the new info you've provided - and that's even overlooking the standoff issue you encountered, which I *really* hope is a case of lost-in-translation between you and Silverstone.

 

[EarthDog]

4.9 GHz and a 212X is pushing the limits in any case. I also do not believe he used an AVX offset either. Remember its 4.9 Ghz all c/t, no AVX offset. Also worth noting is the temp of things barely budged when the case side was off. What that tells us is the case had adequete airflow in the first place. If there is poor airflow, temps would have dropped notably with the side panel off. You'll also notice SL uses a 2x120mm CLC which is leaps and bounds better than a 212X. So their percent doesn't really mean much here.

I'm not going to touch the quality of reviews here as they are, typically, good (there are things I disagree with methodology wise, but that is neither here nor there... we all do things different). All I want is the most simple of answers from this guy and its been a month... its ridiculous at this point the lack of response...especially considering I called in others multiple times and NADA. I mean a simple F off would be better than what is going on here.

 

[GlacierNine]

4.9 GHz and a 212X is pushing the limits in any case. I also do not believe he used an AVX offset either. Remember its 4.9 Ghz all c/t, no AVX offset. Also worth noting is the temp of things barely budged when the case side was off. What that tells us is the case had adequete airflow in the first place. If there is poor airflow, temps would have dropped notably with the side panel off. You'll also notice SL uses a 2x120mm CLC which is leaps and bounds better than a 212X. So their percent doesn't really mean much here.

I'm not going to touch the quality of reviews here as they are, typically, good (there are things I disagree with methodology wise, but that is neither here nor there... we all do things different). All I want is the most simple of answers from this guy and its been a month... its ridiculous at this point the lack of response...especially considering I called in others multiple times and NADA. I mean a simple F off would be better than what is going on here.

AVX offset is fair enough, but I don't think AIDA64 on a combined test actually hammers AVX instructions like other tests do. (It can do it but you have to test only the FPU), and in my experience AIDA64 is consistently 10 or so C below the temps produced by a test like Prime95, so I'd still be concerned by those temps.

 

[EarthDog]

We dont typically run P95 (or other more strenuous apps) for this testing. A64 does a solid job and uses avx. It may not be the most stressful however it serves its purpose here and for my personal needs (which includes FPU only).
With the case side being of and temps barely changing airflow is OK. It's a Hyper 212X on top of a 4.9 GHz 8c/16t cpu.

OP signed in again... no response here. I give up. This is ridiculous a complete lack of a response from anyone.