| Xigmatek Aegir SD128264 CPU Cooler Heatsink |
| Reviews - Featured Reviews: Cooling | |
| Written by Olin Coles | |
| Wednesday, 25 August 2010 | |
Xigmatek Aegir SD128264 CPU Cooler Heatsink ReviewNot everyone wants to spend a small fortune buying the fastest processor sold, simply for the promise of factory-made speed. Overclockers are quite the opposite; they're known for taking a more affordable model and making make it into a CPU comparable to the top products. Overclocking can mean exerting additional performance from computer hardware, or it can be a hobby for anyone who likes to tweak settings the same way that some people wrench on cars. But like any race car, the high-performance computer requires the right components to keep it operating at peak condition. Heat is the problem, and overclocked processors generate plenty of it. CPU cooler heatsinks are the answer, and the Xigmatek Aegir SD128264 is the latest product to promise outstanding thermal efficiency and ease of installation. Benchmark Reviews tests the double-layer HDT design of the Xigmatek Aegir SD128264 against the best heatsinks in the industry, using both silent and high-output fan combinations. Xigmatek first earned their reputation with heat-pipe Direct Touch technology, used in their HDT-S1283 heatsink. It's been a long time since Xigmatek made waves with a full line of HDT cooling solutions, and the Xigmatek Aegir SD128264 (pronounced A-gear) heatsink is their first major enthusiast innovation since the Xigmatek Thor's Hammer S126384 CPU Cooler launched back in early 2009. Xigmatek's D.L.H.D.T. (Double Layer with Heat-pipe Direct Touch) technology is the new buzz word, if you can call it that. The Aegir SD128264 heatsink breaks down the part number: 12CM wide fan profile, 8mm heat-pipes x2, 6mm heat-pipes x4. Aegir is compatibility with Intel Core-i3/i5/i7 (LGA 1156), Core-i7 (LGA1366), LGA775 & AMD AM2/AM2+/AM3.
Aegir SD128264 Features
CAC-SXHH6-U02 Specifications
Manufacturer: Xigmatek Co., Ltd. Full Disclosure: The product sample used in this article has been provided by Xigmatek. Closer Look: Xigmatek AegirXigmatek doesn't do brown box product packaging. The Aegir SD128264 comes in windowed package that shows off Xigmatek's new D.L.H.D.T. (Double Layer with Heat-pipe Direct Touch) feature. Unlike other enthusiast-level heatsinks, Aegir includes a high-speed 120mm cooling fan and also supports all recent AMD motherboard sockets.
Included with the Xigmatek Aegir SD128264 kit is a 120mm PLA12025S12M-4 PWM fan, which uses 0.31A at 12 volts. This is the same fan used with the Xigmatek Dark Knight S1283V CPU cooler kit, and good for an operating range of 1000-2200 RPM and maximum 89.45 CFM maximum output.
From the side view it's difficult to distinguish the Aegir from the other Xigmatek heatsinks, at least until you examine the heat-pipes. Thor's Hammer was Xigmatek's first heatsink to feature two levels of stacked heat-pipe rods, but Aegir is the first to use mixed size rods on the HDT base.
Heat-pipe rods on the Xigmatek Aegir SD128264 are spaced apart and positioned directly behind the optimal air current path for most 120mm fans. The staggered design also allows the rods to disrupt currents and break-up laminar air flow around the fins.
Lacking a polished chrome finish or ill-placed copper heatsink plates, the Xigmatek Aegir is left to attract impressionable eyes using a 120mm translucent cooling fan that contrasts white LEDs with black fins.
The Xigmatek Aegir SD128264 is priced around $60 to capture the mainstream aftermarket segment, and despite the more expensive alternatives, Aegir is expected to compete on the same performance level. We'll see if there's any truth to this claim in the next few sections... Aegir SD128264 DetailsIt might seem like there's only one major difference separating the Aegir SD128264 from a heatsink like the Achilles S1284, such as the heat-pipe sizes and number of rods used. But there's more that meets the eye, and four major improvements make their debut. First, take a look at the shape of Aegir's fins. Notice that this is one of the few heatsinks Xigmatek offers that makes use of all possible fin area, thus improving heat dissipation. Other previous fin designs used a jagged 'saw-tooth' pattern, which reduced the heatsink's surface area.
Aside from a maximized fin design, Xigmatek has given the Aegir SD128264 their D.L.H.D.T. (Double Layer with Heat-pipe Direct Touch) feature. This isn't going to help the Aegir cool stock systems any better, but highly-overclocked CPUs with increased voltage (and heat output) will benefit from the auxiliary top deck of heat-pipe rods.
Looked at from a different perspective (below), Aegir's copper rods are flattened to make flush contact with the mounting system's bridge piece. The top bridge piece is built of solid aluminum, and compresses the heatsink to the processor while at the same time spreading heat across the top of the base. This leads us to the third improvement...
The Xigmatek Aegir SD128264 includes an improved universal mounting system that's compatible with both AMD and Intel processor sockets. Specifically, Aegir supports Intel's Core-i3/i5/i7 (LGA 1156), Core-i7 (LGA1366), LGA775 and also AMD AM2/AM3 sockets. Similar to the truly exceptional mounting system used with the Prolimatech Megahalems, Xigmatek's (unnamed) bolt-through mounting kit offers an extreme amount of contact pressure between heatsink and CPU. Since springs are not part of the system, users must be care to avoid over-tightening the mounting plates.
The fourth Xigmatek improvement is an un-even combination of copper heat-pipe rods on the Aegir SD128264. Two large 8mm gauge rods occupy the center lanes, while two smaller 6mm rods travel along the outer edges. This may seem odd to some users, but experienced overclockers will recognize how this layout fits perfectly over most processors instead of running over the edges. This allows the heat-pipe to accept a full thermal load from the processor, and reach a proper temperature for evaporation.
In summary, the Xigmatek Aegir SD128264 offers four improvements over previous designs: larger fin plates, two layers of heat-pipe rods, high-pressure universal mounting system, and perfectly proportioned HDT contact base. Now we begin the testing, and find out how much difference these changes really make to cooling performance. Contact Surface PreparationProcessor and CPU cooler surfaces are not perfectly smooth and flat surfaces, and although some surfaces appear polished to the naked eye, under a microscope the imperfections become clearly visible. As a result, when two objects are pressed together, contact is only made between a finite number of points separated by relatively large gaps. Since the actual contact area is reduced by these gaps, they create additional resistance for the transfer of thermal energy (heat). The gasses/fluids filling these gaps may largely influence the total heat flow across the surface, and then have an adverse affect on cooling performance as a result. Surface Finish ImpactCPU coolers primarily depend on two heat transfer methods: conduction and convection. This being the case, we'll concentrate our attention towards the topic of conduction as it relates to the mating surfaces between a heat source (the processor) and cooler. Because of their density, metals are the best conductors of thermal energy. As density decreases so does conduction, which relegates fluids to be naturally less conductive. So ideally the less fluid between metals, the better heat will transfer between them. Even less conductive than fluid is air, which then also means that you want even less of this between surfaces than fluid. Ultimately, the perfectly flat and well-polished surface is going to be preferred over the rougher and less even surface which required more TIM (fluid) to fill the gaps. This is important to keep in mind, as the mounting surface of your average processor is relatively flat and smooth but not perfect. Even more important is the surface of your particular CPU cooler, which might range from a polished mirror finish to the absurdly rough or the more complex (such as Heat-Pipe Direct Touch). Surfaces with a mirror finish can always be shined up a little brighter, and rough surfaces can be wet-sanded (lapped) down smooth and later polished, but Heat-pipe Direct Touch coolers require some extra attention. To sum up this topic of surface finish and its impact on cooling, science teaches us that a smooth flat mating surface is the most ideal for CPU coolers. It is critically important to remove the presence of air from between the surfaces, and that using only enough Thermal Interface Material to fill-in the rough surface pits is going to provide the best results. In a perfect environment, your processor would mate together with the cooler and compress metal on metal with no thermal paste at all; but we don't live in perfect world and current manufacturing technology cannot provide for this ideal environment. Mounting PressureProbably one of the most overlooked and disregarded factors involved with properly mounting the cooler onto any processor is the amount of contact pressure applied between the mating surfaces. Compression will often times reduce the amount of thermal compound needed between the cooler and processor, and allow a much larger metal to metal contact area which is more efficient than having fluid weaken the thermal conductance. The greater the contact pressure between elements, the better it will conduct thermal (heat) energy. Unfortunately, it is often times not possible to get optimal pressure onto the CPU simply because of poor mounting designs used by the cooler manufacturers. Most enthusiasts shriek at the thought of using the push-pin style clips found on Intel's stock LGA775 thermal cooling solution. Although this mounting system is acceptable, there is still plenty of room for improvement. Generally speaking, you do not want an excessive amount of pressure onto the processor as damage may result. In some cases, such as Heat-pipe Direct Touch technology, the exposed copper rod has been pressed into the metal mounting base and then leveled flat by a grinder. Because of the copper rod walls are made considerably thinner by this process, using a bolt-through mounting system could actually cause heat-pipe rod warping. Improper installation not withstanding, it is more ideal to have a very strong mounting system such as those which use a back plate behind the motherboard and a spring-loaded fastening system for tightening. The Noctua NH-U12P is an excellent example of such a design. In all of the tests which follow, it is important to note that our experiments focus on the spread pattern of thermal paste under acceptable pressure thresholds using either a push-pin style mounting system or spring-loaded clip system. In most situations your results will be different than our own, since higher compression would result in a larger spread pattern and less thermal paste used. The lesson learned here is that high compression between the two contact surfaces is better, so long as the elements can handle the added pressure without damaging the components. Thermal Paste ApplicationThe entire reason for using Thermal Interface Material is to compensate for flaws in the surface and a lack of high-pressure contact between heat source and cooler, so the sections above are more critical to good performance than the application of TIM itself. This section offers a condensed version of our Best Thermal Paste Application Methods article. After publishing our Thermal Interface Material articles, many enthusiasts argued that by spreading out the TIM with a latex glove (or finger cover) was not the best way to distribute the interface material. Most answers from both the professional reviewer industry as well as enthusiast community claim that you should use a single drop "about the size of a pea". Well, we tried that advice, and it turns out that maybe the community isn't as keen as they thought. The example image below is of a few frozen peas beside a small BB size drop of OCZ Freeze TIM. The image beside it is of the same cooler two hours later after we completed testing. If there was ever any real advice that applies to every situation, it would be that thermal paste isn't meant to separate the two surfaces but rather fill the microscopic pits where metal to metal contact isn't possible.
After discussing this topic with real industry experts who are much more informed of the process, they offered some specific advice that didn't appear to be a "one size fits all" answer:
The more we researched this subject, the more we discovered that because there are so many different cooling solutions on the market it becomes impossible to give generalized advice to specific situations. Despite this, there is one single principle that holds true in every condition: Under perfect conditions the contact surfaces between the processor and cooler would be perfectly flat and not contain any microscopic pits, which would allow direct contact of metal on metal without any need for Thermal Interface Material. But since we don't have perfectly flat surfaces, Thermal Material must fill the tiny imperfections. Still, there's one rule to recognize: less is more. heat-pipe Directional OrientationHeat-pipe technology uses several methods to wick the cooling liquid away from the cold condensing end and return back towards the heated evaporative end. Sintered heat-pipe rods help overcome Earth's gravitational pull and can return most fluid to its source, but the directional orientation of heat-pipe rods can make a significant difference to overall cooling performance. Benchmark Reviews expands on this topic in our upcoming in-depth CPU-Cooler heat-pipe Directional Orientation comparison guide. For the purpose of this article, all CPU-coolers have been orientated so that heat-pipes span from front-to-rear with fans exhausting upward and not top-to-bottom with fans blowing towards the rear of the computer case. This removes much of the gravitational climb necessary for heat-pipe fluid working to return to the heatsink base. In one specific example, the horizontally-mounted ProlimaTech Megahalems heatsink cooled to a temperature 3° better than when it was positioned vertically. While this difference may not be considered much to some people, hardcore enthusiasts will want to use every technique possible to reach the highest overclock possible. Heatsink Test MethodologyBenchmark Reviews is obsessed with testing CPU coolers, as our Cooling Section has demonstrated over the past few years. We've solicited suggestions from the enthusiast community, and received guidance from some of the most technical overclockers on the planet. As a result, our testing methodology has changed with every new edition of our Best CPU Cooler Performance series. Because of this, each article is really its own stand-alone product, and cannot be fairly compared to the others. This particular article is a perfect example of that principle, since we're using a fresh methodology. Benchmark Reviews continues to test CPU coolers using the stock included fan (whenever applicable), and then replace it with a high-output fan for re-testing. Manufacturers are not expected to enjoy this sort of comparison, since we level the playing field for all heatsinks by replacing their included fan with a common unit which is then used for every CPU cooler tested. Many manufacturers include fans with their heatsink products, but most 'stock' fans are high-RPM units that offer great airflow at the expense of obnoxiously loud noise levels. By using the same model of cooling fan throughout our heatsink tests, we can assure our results are comparable across the board. This is one of the more significant changes we have made to our test methodology, since many of the benchmark tests we have conducted in the past have compared the total package. Ultimately we're more interested in the discovering the best possible heatsink, and we believe that you'll feel the same way.
Yate Loon S12SH-12 Cooling Fan (Special)Testing was conducted in a loosely scientific manner. Ambient room temperature levels were maintained within one degree of fluctuation, and measured at static points beside the test equipment with a calibrated digital thermometer. Manufacturer-supplied thermal paste was not used in these tests, and a common Thermal Interface Material of our choosing (listed in the support equipment section below) was utilized instead. The processor received the same amount of thermal paste in every test, which covered the ICH with a thin nearly-transparent layer. The heatsink being tested was then laid down flat onto the CPU, and compressed to the motherboard using the supplied retaining mechanism. If the mounting mechanism used only two point of force, they were tightened in alternation; standard clip-style mounting with four securing points were compressed using the cross-over method. Once installed, the system was tested for a baseline reading prior to testing. At the start of each test, the ambient room temperature was measured to track any fluctuation throughout the testing period. Lavalys EVEREST Ultimate Edition was utilized to create 100% CPU-core loads and measure each individual processor core temperatures. It's important to note that software-based temperature reading reflects the thermal output as reported from the CPU to the BIOS. For this reason, it is critically important (for us) to use the exact same software and BIOS versions throughout the entire test cycle, or the results will be incomparable. All of the units compared in our results were tested on the same motherboard using the same BIOS and software, with only the CPU-cooler product changing in each test. These readings are neither absolute nor calibrated, since every BIOS is programmed differently. Nevertheless, all results are still comparable and relative to each products in our test bed (see The Accuracy Myth section below). Since our test processor report core temperatures as a whole number and not in fractions, all test results utilize EVEREST to report averages (within the statistics panel), which gives us more precise readings. To further compensate for this, our tests were conducted several times after complete power down thermal cycles. Conversely, the ambient room temperature levels were all recorded and accurate to one-tenth of a degree Celsius at the time of data collection. When each cooler is tested, Benchmark Reviews makes certain to keep the hardware settings identical across the test platform. This enables us to clearly compare the performance of each product under identical conditions. While the ambient room temperature did fluctuate between 23.4~24.6°C during testing, the thermal delta would not change enough to impact our test results. Benchmark Reviews reports the thermal difference in test result charts. For the purpose of this article, thermal difference (not the same as thermal delta) is calculated by subtracting the ambient room temperature from the recorded CPU temperature. Intel Test System
Support Equipment
All of the tests in this article have been conducted using vertical motherboard orientation, positioned upright in a sealed traditional tower computer case. Heatsinks are positioned so that heat-pipe rods span horizonally, and described in our heat-pipe Directional Orientation from the previous section. At the start of our test period, the test system is powered on and EVEREST system stability tests are started with Stress CPU and Stress FPU options selected. For a minimum of thirty minutes (one hour) EVEREST loads each CPU core to 100% usage, which drives the temperature to its highest point. Finally, once temperatures have sustained a plateau, the ending ambient room temperature and individual CPU core levels are recorded thus completing the first benchmark segment. The second test segment involves removing the stock cooling fan (while the system is still under load) and replacing it with a high-output 120 mm Yate Loon D12SH-12 cooling fan. The system is given thirty additional minutes with EVEREST loading the CPU cores before final temperature readings are taken and recorded. The Accuracy MythAll modern processors incorporate an internal thermal diode that can be read by the motherboards' BIOS. While this diode and the motherboard are not calibrated and therefore may not display the actual true temperature, the degree of accuracy is constant. This means that if the diode reports 40°C when it's actually 43°C, then it will also report 60°C when it's truly 63°C. Since the design goal of any thermal solution is to keep the CPU core within allowable temperatures, a processor's internal diode is the most valid means of comparison between different heatsinks, or thermal compounds. The diode and motherboard may be incorrect by a small margin in relation to an actual calibrated temperature sensor, but they will be consistent in their margin of error every time. Silent Heatsink PerformanceHigh-performance heatsinks are often highly efficient devices capable of serving dual purposes. These heatsinks can offers silent and sometimes passive (fanless) cooling to stock or slightly overclocked processors, or they can be loaded with high-output fans to cool heavily OC'ed CPUs. In this section, Benchmark Reviews explores the cooling performance for heatsinks using a pair of Noctua NF-P12 fans configured in a push-pull set. Advertised to produce 54.3 CFM @ 19.8 dBA, Noctua NF-P12 fans are great at moving moderate levels of air without making much sound. These fans are ideal for computer systems where noise must be reduced to minimal levels. All of the top performing CPU coolers have a few things in common: bolt-through mounting clip systems that create impressive contact pressure. Although some mounting systems are better designed than others, the fastening system of the ProlimaTech Megahalems uses a bolt-through system with slotted alloy plates to ensure a perfectly centered cooler, similar to the new crossplate system on the Xigmatek Aegir heatsink. The Thermalright Venomous-X RE heatsink's 'Pressure Vault' mounting kit creates a dangerous amount of contact pressure on the processor, but it also offers ideal contact between surfaces. Although we were able to tighten these coolers all the way down without incident, our readers should take caution. Using several of the past Best CPU Cooler's for re-testing, each heatsink received the same Noctua NF-P12 fans to cool an overclocked Intel Core-i7 processor powered to 1.40V. The average temperature difference (core temps minus ambient temp) is noted beside each heatsink:
CPU Cooler Performance: Silent FanThermalright's Venomous-X RT (39.8°C) and ProlimaTech Megahalems (40.1°C) battle for leading position when equipped with dual silent fans. Because extra-large heatsink dimensions benefit from more airflow than a pair of Noctua fans can provide, Scythe's Mugen 2 trails behind with 41.2°C. Any of these top coolers are ideal for passive cooling needs, and can often times handle the thermal load of a lightly overclocked CPU when case fans provide airflow. The Xigmatek Aegir SD128264 (42.0°C) surprised us by surpassing the Balder SD1283 (43.2°C), and proved that Aegir's unique HDT base was best tuned for Core-i7 processor dimensions. The Zalman CNPS10X-Performa (43.8°C) trailed slightly behind Balder, while Titan's Finrir finished out our test results with a respectable 45.4°C over ambient. Taken as a whole, every single heatsink tested here performed very well with a highly-overclocked Intel Core i7-920 processor running at 1.40 volts vCore. If you want to see how all of these coolers performed with a high-output Yate Loon cooling fan attached, please continue into the next section... Heatsink Performance: High-Output FanIn the last section, we observed how well Aegir cools with silent fans attached - earning it a position beside three of the best heatsinks we've tested (Venomous-X, Megahalems, and Mugen-2). In this section, Benchmark Reviews tests the Xigmatek Aegir SD128264 heatsink against the same collection using a high-output Yate Look D12SH-12 fan to cool an overclocked and over-volted Core i7-920 with 1.40V vCore. While some enthusiasts may dare to trespass beyond this voltage, Benchmark Reviews needed our test system to remain functional long enough to complete testing on all products under several different conditions. Please keep in mind that every product must complete testing on the exact same motherboard and processor for our results to be comparable, and if one of these fail all the testing must be redone completely. Overclockers are known for being particular to their equipment, which is why Benchmark Reviews changes our format with each new project. Although it's impossible to nail-down which cooling fan is the overwhelming choice for overclocker projects, most enthusiasts would agree that fans with the best static pressure and highest airflow are the most appropriate. Because of size and design constraints in most of these products, a 120x120x25mm fan is as large as we can go with our collection of CPU coolers. This section uses the 'special' high-output Yate Loon D12SH-12 cooling fan on each product tested. Most D12SH-12 cooling fans force 88 CFM of air at a moderately noisy 40 dBA, but the clear acrylic 'special' version we use (see Heatsink Test Methodology section for image) performs better than most 120x120x38mm fans we've tested. At least half of our CPU cooler collection have very flat mirror-finished contact surfaces, whereas the other half use Heat-pipe Direct Touch (HDT) technology. Every single one of these coolers have either large-gauge heat-pipes, or several pairs of heat-pipe rods integrated into the base. In my opinion nearly every single product on this chart is an outstanding aftermarket cooler, but only a select few can be considered the very best! Benchmark Reviews reveals the results of our overclocked Intel LGA1366 CPU-cooler performance tests using the Yate Look high-output cooling fan in the chart below: 
Armed with an abnormally high-output Yate Loon D12SH cooling fan, the ProlimaTech Megahalems (36.3°C) leads the pack just slightly ahead of Thermalright's Venomous-X RT (36.6°C). Scythe's Mugen-2 perks up with the Yate Look fan, and nearly matches the Venomous-X by posting 37.0°C over ambient. Xigmatek's new Aegir SD128264 heatsink appears to enjoy the extra airflow, and is almost one degree behind Megahalems with 37.7°C over ambient. These are the four most impressive coolers tested in the group, and could definitely cool an overclocked processor with maximum efficiency. If you're wondering why we didn't test Super Mega instead of Megahalems, it's because another staff member and I each tested the ProlimaTech Super Mega directly against the older Megahalems model and it didn't outperform. In that review, the Super Mega trailed behind the Megahalems in both independent tests, proving to us that Megahalems is still the best heatsink ProlimaTech has produced. The Xigmatek Balder SD1283 (updated version of the original S1283) trails a full 3°C the Aegir heatsink, and creates a noticeable separation between those coolers above and below it. The Zalman CNPS10X-Performa does its best to keep up, and produces 41.2°C for its effort. Titan's Finrir cooler produced 42.8°C over ambient, which trails the leader by 6.5°C. CPU Cooler Final ThoughtsThere is one minor drawback to using the Core i7 or Phenom II processors which affects overclockers: the difference in CPU cooler mounting dimensions. Many overclockers and enthusiasts have grown to cherish their favorite cooler, and trust them to cool the hottest system they can build. The problem is that now many manufacturers are offering free adapter kits, or include an adapter with their current model coolers, which leads to bigger problems because of minor processor-size differences. Heatsinks made for the old LGA775 platform are designed for use with a Core 2 (Duo or Quad) or Pentium 4 and D processor with an integrated heat-spreader measuring 28.5 x 28.5mm (812.25mm total area), but the LGA1366 socket requires a much larger 32 x 35mm (1120mm total area) footprint to accommodate the extra 591 'pins'. Then there's the LGA1156 socket, which measure 30mm square for 900mm of area. If you use an LGA775 or LGA1156 cooler on a LGA1366 socket, your missing out on up to 38% (307.75mm) of the contact surface. Additionally, the cores are located in slightly difference locations; the Core 2 Quad is slightly spaced away from the center, while the Core i7 is concentrated there. The Phenom II processor series from AMD offer a very large 37.31 x 37.31mm (1392.04mm total area) integrated heat-spreader surface, which is the largest processor surface I can recall since the original Intel Pentium (I) days. Compared to Intel's Core 2 Duo and Quad processors which measure 28.5 x 28.5mm, the Phenom II offers over 71% more contact surface area. If you compare the latest Intel Core i7 processors which measure 32 x 35mm, then the Phenom II series offers 24% more contact surface area. For overclockers, this will mean a much larger area to cool, but also much more manageable temperatures.
There are a lot of different products out there, and believe it or not we exclude a few from each article because they don't stack up well at all. So this is why you may not see some of the coolers other sites have tested in our results. Because of space and time limitations it's just simply not feasible to review them all, but it's certainly worth mentioning which products should be avoided. So I began to carefully think about it and nearly constructed a real-time chart which places products into different levels of performance. That's when I realized that performance is relative, too, and what performs well today might be considered low-end only a year from now. Perhaps the best method for testing is to use a synthetic system to generate the same exact load for each and every test conducted. This would stand the test of time much better than any computer system or processor platform would, because temperature is a static measurement, but it wouldn't take into account the differences seen between processor model architecture. The synthetic test unit might generate 250W of thermal energy, but every CPU series has a different layout and might not mate perfectly to a particular cooler. This brings me to my final point: there's a cooler for every processor and purpose. The ordinary casual computer user is fine with the included thermal cooling solution that comes with the retail processor kit. Systems built with a Core 2 Duo processor and three-piped HDT cooler (like the HDT-S1283 or Vendetta 2) will not be cooled the same as a Core 2 Quad processor because of where the cores align with the heat-pipes. Likewise, coolers built around the Core 2 LGA775 design may not perform well at all with the Core i7 or Phenom II platforms. This is why the research is so critical, and understanding the product is important. Xigmatek Aegir SD128264 ConclusionIMPORTANT: Although the rating and final score mentioned in this conclusion are made to be as objective as possible, please be advised that every author perceives these factors differently at various points in time. While we each do our best to ensure that all aspects of the product are considered, there are often times unforeseen market conditions and manufacturer changes which occur after publication that could render our rating obsolete. Please do not base any purchase solely on our conclusion, as it represents our product rating specifically for the product tested which may differ from future versions. Benchmark Reviews begins our conclusion with a short summary for each of the areas that we rate. The Xigmatek Aegir SD128264 offers top-class performance, and despite it's mainstream price tag is still competes with premium coolers like the Megahalems and Venomous-X. Full-size aluminum heatsink fins optimize surface area, and replace the old saw-tooth design that may have slightly impacted cooling performance. While Aegir performed very well at cooling an overclocked/overvolted Core-i7 processor, the D.L.H.D.T. (Double Layer with Heat-pipe Direct Touch) feature gives it an added level (pun) of auxiliary heat-pipe cooling when temperatures exceed to tolerance of the first four heat-pipe rods. Paired with a more size-appropriate HDT contact base, Xigmatek's Aegir SD128264 is the best heatsink they've ever produced. Of course, the new mounting system has a lot to do with this, and other Xigmatek coolers are scheduled to follow suit with the new design.
Appearance is a more subjective matter since the rating doesn't have benchmark scores to fall back on. Xigmatek knows better than to add unnecessary cosmetic touches to their design, and anodized aluminum fins or nickel-plated heat-pipe rods could reduce cooling performance even if only slightly. As a result, Aegir comes off looking rather unpolished. The translucent black cooling fan with white LEDs surely helps, but these days enthusiasts are used to seeing polished metal parts everywhere they look. Conversely, Xigmatek's construction of Aegir is top-notch, and I wouldn't change anything about it. The new mounting system is similar to ProlimaTech's legendary design, but doesn't use thumb-screws. Users will have the option of mounting Aegir onto both Intel and AMD motherboards, without paying for additional hardware. Over the past few years I've noticed that processor architecture can have a huge impact on heatsink performance. I'm not referring to speed or voltages here, because those factors are a given when it comes to cooling. What I'm referring to is how the 45nm Intel Bloomfield Core-i7 is going to have a 'heat signature' area that differs slightly from 32nm Gulftown. In fact, Gulftown's 248mm2 die package is closer to a Lynnfield LGA1156 Core-i7 CPU. Those heatsinks with a larger contact surface (and heat-pipe base) will best serve 45nm AMD Phenom-II processors with a 258mm2 die or 45nm Intel Core-i7 quad-core 263mm2 Bloomfield CPU's. Essentially, it's important to research the cooler's physical information in addition to performance results when you're shopping for a CPU cooler. It's not a one-size-fits-all heatsink market, and the biggest cooler doesn't always provide the best performance. Xigmatek plans to sell the Aegir SD128264 (model CAC-SXHH6-U02) for between $50-60, although an official pricing has not been made. Considering that Aegir includes a moderate-airflow fan and universal AMD/Intel mounting kit, this price carries a better value than a $68 Venomous-X RT, and also better than a $62 ProlimaTech Megahalems that lacks fan or AMD mounting system. Compared against the $45 Xigmatek Balder SD1283, which isn't intended for extreme overclocking, Aegir has an edge when the voltage and temperature rise to higher levels. In conclusion, the Aegir SD128264 successfully updates the high-end Xigmatek product line with renewed heat-pipe design, larger aluminum fins, and an improved high-compression mounting system. Enthusiasts will be pleased with Aegir's ease of installation and universal compatibility, while overclockers will appreciate the D.L.H.D.T. feature and optimal cooling performance. For the price Aegir offers great value and performance, and is certainly worth considering for either extreme overclocking projects or silent passively cooled computers. Pros:
|
|
Comments