Liquid Cooling

[Riyonuk]

I've been researching investing into a high-end computer, just to deck it out (because I'm a teenager, and that's what we like to do). Anyways, I'm tired of fans, and was reading on alternatives to those. Liquid Nitrogen is a little bit too extreme for me, but liquid cooling seems what the cool kids are doing these days. What I don't quite understand, is must the water be constantly refilled? How often, cause if it's everyday, forget that. Couldn't you just connect it to a refrigerator pump...thingy, and have it "auto-refill", for you?

I never quite understood how they worked. Common sense tells me the water never touches the actual computer component, but how is it being cooled? Is it like this...

CPU > Metal Square > Water, where the CPU heats the metal square, and the water, which is, I'm assuming, frigid cold, removes the heat?

And one last thing, how in the world are these cases "lighted" up? I want that, that's cool.

http://www.million-dollar-pc.com/gallery-2008/lian-li/pc-g70/steffel-01.jpg

http://www.million-dollar-pc.com/gallery-2008/lian-li/pc-g70/steffel-03.jpg

http://www.million-dollar-pc.com/gallery-2008/lian-li/a01/lian-li-a01-07.jpg

[Liquid 2]

Water cooling really isn't worth it at all. Just get a nice heat sink and you can overclock very well on Intel's processors.

That PC is lit up with LEDs.

[ITDEFX]

Water cooling really isn't worth it at all. Just get a nice heat sink and you can overclock very well on Intel's processors.

That PC is lit up with LEDs.

I thought about WC and OC'ing before I got my quad core @2.5ghz, but to be honest.. it's fast enough without OC'ing. I wouldn't WC unless you were planning on cranking your CPU to 4ghz, which again is unnecessary since it's no longer about speed these days.

[Richard Longfellow]

Look into various tower-style CPU coolers. They'll let you O/C to 25-50% while still running cool on air. IMO water cooling is a silly luxury that won't be around very long. Chip makers find ways of making CPUs more efficient with each redesign, so there won't ever be a real need for supercooling.

Those pictures terrify me. I can only imagine what it will be like to own that thing in a few years when all the gaskets and o-rings start hardening and leaking. NO THANKS.

[mtxbass1]

Water cooling was fine back when your CPU maxed out at 500MHz. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense right now. Just buy an I7 and clock the shit out of it with a good heatsink.

[Clarke]

Don't do it. Just spend the money on hardware. Anyway you're not just going to get a pump and some pipes. You'll probably have to get a new case assuming you didn't buy your case in anticipation for WC. If it's a mid tower you'll need holes in the back for the tubes and external pump or full tower if you want it internal. It's not really something to play around with especially if you don't know much about OCing and really pushing your hardware to its limits. I say buy a nice graphics card, monitor, or some games, that'll be more fun.

[BlueLobstah]

Not worth it. Water cooling is very expensive, and with the efficient chips they make these days it's just not worth it.

Get a good 45-65w chip, a good case, and run your fans on low. I have a 65w chip with 2x 120mm fans running on low and you can barely hear it. Never have had a problem with heat.

[Ruahrc]

To answer the actual question:

The water is used as a heat transfer medium, not to actually "cool" the system (so essentally "watercooling" and "air cooling" are the same because the heat eventually gets transferred to the air in the room). Note that in a watercooled system that does not have any "active" cooling (a peltier or refrigeration unit) the temperature of the CPU will never go below ambient temperature, just like air cooling. Therefore, the block on the CPU never gets "frigid cold", rather it actually gets a little warm as the CPU heats it up. The advantage of the watercooling is the better heat transfer from the water.

Some watercooled systems are sealed such that replacement of the water should never be necessary. Other systems are designed with a small resivoir which although tightly closed, may lose water via evaporation over time, and may need to be periodically refilled. Most watercooling systems would only need refilling like once or twice a year, if that. Not like every day. The other problem is that the water can get gunky as mold or algae can grow in it, or it can pick up residue/corrosion from the tubing or components. Therefore you may have to periodically change the cooling fluid out for fresh stuff. Again this should be a sporadic thing, like once a year or more.

The logic behind watercooling is that by using the water to transfer the heat, you can set up a large cooling device (radiator) somewhere else in the system, be it elsewhere in the case, or even outside the case. The large radiator can dissipate more heat more efficiently than a CPU mounted heatsink, because it can be made much larger than what would fit on the CPU mount. The other bonus with this is that due to the larger size, the cooling fan can be larger, and allowed to rotate at a slower speed. The bigger the fan and the slower the rotation, the less noise it produces. Thus you can use watercooling to make your PC more silent. "Cool" water that just exited the radiator flows to the heat block on the CPU, where it gets warmed up. The "hot" water then flows from the CPU block to the radiator where the heat is transferred to the air. And around and around again.

The second computer you posted up has 4 large heatsinks outside the case through which the water flows. The heatsinks are large enough such that no fan is required to cool them, and therefore should be silent. The builder has taken advantage of the heat transfer of water enabling him to use massive cooling fins outside the case to cool the CPU, which clearly would not fit on a motherboard mounted cooler.

Some liquid cooling designs have involved evaporative cooling, where the heat is lost in converting liquid water to water vapor. These types of cooling require no fan, and can be very quiet. The drawback is that you do consistently lose cooling fluid (by design) and thus it requires more frequent refill/replenishment.

Modern heatsink designs, new processors with lower power output, and heatpipe technology have reduced the practicality of watercooling, where you can now reliably overclock with a good CPU mounted heatsink.

The other advantage of watercooling is that you can chain up all the hot components of your system together and have them all cooled in the same location. This way you can reduce the total amount of fans in your system, again reducing the noise.

Don't let the comments deter you, as an engineering project it is a lot of fun to set up a watercooled system. I had a lot of fun putting together mine. I don't water cool anymore but it was a great learning experience in both system design and building to make one. If you are looking for a practical mild OC solution, then don't bother with water- like I (and others) have said, air cooling and heatpipes have improved such that they can compete with water now. But if you want a fun and challenging project then liquid cooling is a great idea!

Ruahrc

P.S. your car is water cooled, in exactly the same manner as described above. Just on a bigger scale. Again liquid cooling is used in the car because it is an efficient medium to use to transfer heat from one location to another. If yo'ure interested then a quick internet search should teach you all you want to know.

[RAMSTORIA]

its like getting a spoiler on your car. sure it looks cool (well some people might think so...) but it really doesnt do anything. you can get a nice fan, for cheaper, and still over clock a good deal.

[SuxoR]

Sadly I would have to agree with RAMSTORIA liquid cooling is really nice and kinda expensive but really isn't needed for anything besides over clocking


What would be better is getting yourself a nice i7 system that over clocks like a champ on air (4Ghz)

[XxSmityxX]

its like getting a spoiler on your car. sure it looks cool (well some people might think so...) but it really doesnt do anything. you can get a nice fan, for cheaper, and still over clock a good deal.

LOL bad example... Water cooling does actually do something and look cool. But I have the same thoughts as everone else that posted just get a small 45w chip and work with air.

[Riyonuk]

its like getting a spoiler on your car. sure it looks cool (well some people might think so...) but it really doesnt do anything. you can get a nice fan, for cheaper, and still over clock a good deal.

Are you talking about Fast and the Furious? Cause, I've seen some type of movies, where two cars come up to a red light. The one of the left is a crappy looking chevy or something, while the other one is all tricked out, those lights on the bottom, nitros and whatnot, and then the chevy wins...

I like flashy though, I'm weird. Is it a teenager thing? And as I grow older, I'll prefer a stealthy modern look for my computer, as oppposed to LED Fans and Translucent towers?

Sadly I would have to agree with RAMSTORIA liquid cooling is really nice and kinda expensive but really isn't needed for anything besides over clocking


What would be better is getting yourself a nice i7 system that over clocks like a champ on air (4Ghz)

I keep hearing nifty things about this i7. That's another thing that confuses me. These CPU chip codenames. Oh, look at me, I got a Orion, it's totally better than that Sempron, or K10, or i7. I'm so confused. Like I read in some articles, I literally thought it was all about 2.10 GHz being a larger number than 2.05 GHz.

[darthbudge]

Well, here is what I would recommend.

Forget about water cooling. You can trick out your case with LEDs and stuff, but water cooling just isn't worth it.

After you forget about that, you need to read up A LOT about the different components. They make CPUs more efficient with every redesign. So for example, I have a Pentium 4 dual core processor running at 3.6GHz. Pretty fast you say?

Well a Core 2 Duo running at 2.4GHz would provide almost double the performance of my current processor. Well then we have an i7, which is a quad core processor, running at 2.66GHz and it is almost 5x more powerful than the Core 2 Duo I mentioned earlier.

But that isn't a very fair comparison because the Core 2 Duo is a dual core processor and the i7 is a quad core. So let's compare i7, to a Core 2 Quad processor.

The i7 running at 2.66GHz is 1.5x more powerful than the Q9450, which is a Core 2 Quad processor running at 2.66GHz.

See where I am going with this?

[s2k]

Watercoolings looks nice but when you want to upgrade its going to be a pain to take it off. Personally i have a nice heatsink and fan and it keeps my 3.6ghz e8400 very cool even under load while the stock heatsink was always at 60-65 unload

[Clarke]

Why not go all the way and do some phase change cooling
http://64.202.120.86/upload/image/articles/2007/ionic-wind/vapochill.jpg

[zionoverfire]

Most cheap water coolers simply cycle water from inside to outside the computer which helps keep things cool as water transfers heat significantly better than air current generated by a fan.

For heavier end equipment (typically not personal computers) you can buy chillers that actually cool down the water with a mini-fridge or through cryogenics with liquid nitrogen....

[Riyonuk]

Well, here is what I would recommend.

Forget about water cooling. You can trick out your case with LEDs and stuff, but water cooling just isn't worth it.

After you forget about that, you need to read up A LOT about the different components. They make CPUs more efficient with every redesign. So for example, I have a Pentium 4 dual core processor running at 3.6GHz. Pretty fast you say?

Well a Core 2 Duo running at 2.4GHz would provide almost double the performance of my current processor. Well then we have an i7, which is a quad core processor, running at 2.66GHz and it is almost 5x more powerful than the Core 2 Duo I mentioned earlier.

But that isn't a very fair comparison because the Core 2 Duo is a dual core processor and the i7 is a quad core. So let's compare i7, to a Core 2 Quad processor.

The i7 running at 2.66GHz is 1.5x more powerful than the Q9450, which is a Core 2 Quad processor running at 2.66GHz.

See where I am going with this?

Your example confused me.

Pentium 4 dual core processor running at 3.6GHz
Core 2 Duo running at 2.4GHz, Core 2 Duo is a dual core processor

If both are "Dual Core", then the one with the bigger number would be faster, right?

Also, a quad core running at 1.0GHz, is actually running at 4.0GHz?

[Ruahrc]

I think what he's saying is that since the C2D is faster than the pentium 4, it's not all about clock speed. In fact the newer CPU designs are aimed at being more "efficient"- that is, performing more work per cycle. Therefore, even though the C2D is "slower" than the P4, it is a faster processor. Same logic applies for the i7. Even though the i7 is clocked even lower than the C2Q, it still runs faster.

The way this relates to watercooling is that watercooling is not as needed as it used to be for big-time overclocking, because since processor speeds (absolutely speaking) have gone down recently, it is possible to get decent overclocking with just air cooling.

My original reply still stands though. It all just depends on what you want, why you are considering watercooling. If you are looking for a cheap way to get big-time overclocks, it's not worth it for modern day processors. BUT, if you want to turn your next build into a neat project that you can have a lot of fun with and learn from, then I highly recommend watercooling.

Try to look past the "Cheapass" in the other CAGs' replies. while I agree with their arguments and they are valid, don't let that stop you from watercooling if you think it would be fun. The way I read your OP was that you were not necessarily looking for a cheap ticket into overclocking- rather you just wanted to build a kickass computer to impress both yourself and your friends. Hence my recommendation to go for it :).

Ruahrc

P.S.- for the quad core 1GHz running at 4GHz, it's not necessarily true. You have four 1GHz processors. So, for tasks that scale well to multiprocessors (like video encoding, editing photos/movies, or folding, etc), yes the performance will be similar to a 4GHz. But if your application is only written to use one processor, then a 4GHz processor will be faster for the job despite it being only one core. AFAIK the modern games are just now really starting to take advantage of dual and quad core processors. Gaming (and other "interactive" or "real-time" software) generally is very difficult to write properly for multiple cores because of timing issues.