Components Require Better Heat Management
Components Require Better Heat Management
I struggled to find a suitable title under thirty words without undermining the content, so this will do for now. I plan to use a Threadripper 1950X paired with GTX 1080TI Poseidon cards and the Phanteks Enthoo Primo case. It offers an excellent mix of HDD/SDD space, especially with my prized 5.25 drive bays for hot swapping drives, card readers, CD-ROMs, and fan controllers. The challenge is wanting to fit two 420 rads inside but it’s not feasible. Therefore, I aim to upgrade the 16-core 32-thread 3.4GHz processor to 3.8-4.5GHz (though a 4.0-4.2GHz max seems more realistic) and explore how far I can push both the GPU’s core clockspeed and memory speeds. I’m concerned that a single 420 rad won’t handle the heat and won’t give a quiet performance. I don’t want a 480 rad, but I realize I might need an extra radiator inside the case. Since I’m using a 1.2Kw unit, a 280 rad at the bottom seems necessary. The issue is that adding a radiator as an intake isn’t appealing to me—it feels counterproductive. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated, as most parts of this project are resolved except for this one, and the budget is still tight. (I’m open to custom loop cooling if executed well; otherwise, I worry about future maintenance.)
When cooling just a CPU and one GPU, it's possible to run them together in a single loop to share the cooling load across all radiators. However, if you need separate thermal management and want to handle each component differently, dual loops are an option. You don't necessarily require D5 pumps for each loop—DDC pumps would also work fine. Either pump type will perform well for your setup. I've personally used both DDC and D5 watercooling systems; either choice is reliable.
You're clarifying whether 420 rads breaks down into multiples like 4x120 and what that implies for other values. You're also asking about your method for determining the radiator size needed, whether it's just an estimate or a TDP calculation.
First off - are you suggesting 420 rads as 4x120 and implying 480 is 4x140 or something similar? In reality, the only rads available are 120/220/320/420, which Swiftech offers, while most others use 120/240/360/480 based on the 120mm x 'X' ratio.
Secondly, how do you calculate the radiator size you need? Is this just an approximation, or have you tried converting it into a TDP total?
The radiator I’m considering is a 3x140 (420) model. It’s intended to fit three 140mm fans. I’m opting for 140mm fans because they provide better airflow at higher pressures and deliver slightly higher noise levels compared to the 120mm ones.
The 1950X CPU needs about 180 watts of heat dissipation. If I plan to overclock it even slightly, cooling requirements could rise to 250 watts or more. Adding a GTX 1080TI (which adds another 250 watts) means the radiator must handle around 500 watts. All while aiming for quiet operation rather than excessive noise.
And no, I’m not referring to an AIO setup—I’m building my own cooling system using parts from various online suppliers.
I wouldn't suggest an AIO for either of those parts, given your goals. It seems you have a clear understanding of the thermal requirements, which is a positive starting point. I didn't consider the 3x140 factor, but it could be feasible. If you're not aiming to overclock, one radiator might suffice—but since you're overclocking, you'll need something more powerful, likely the 280 model. You should also use high-quality fans for these radiators and opt for a pull setup to maximize airflow. What pump are you evaluating?
I wouldn't suggest using an AIO for either of those parts, given your goals. It seems you have a clear understanding of the thermal demands, which is a positive starting point—great news. I didn’t consider the 3x140 specification in that context, but it could still work. If you’re not aiming to overclock, one radiator might suffice; however, since you’re overclocking, you’ll need additional cooling, possibly the 280 model you mentioned. You’ll also need high-quality fans for these radiators, and running a pull setup would help maximize airflow across them.
What pump are you evaluating?
Swiftech's MCP655
CPU and GPU on separate loops.
I could go all out with HDD silencers for a 5.25 bay setup and opt for an overpowered PC case with plenty of radiator space, using two 420RADs as exhausts.
I plan to use Push/Pull with Noctua's NFA14 IndustrialPPC IP67 fans (2000rpm).
Performance metrics: 107.4CFM, 31.5dba, 4.18mmH20.
I’m paying attention to their noise levels, so I’m choosing a large radiator paired with push/pull fans for quieter operation. For demanding situations, I can run the fans at full speed with a powerful pump to ensure strong cooling when needed, but near silence otherwise.
I would like to apologize ahead of time, as my response might unintentionally offend some individuals.
In my view, instead of attempting to force the hardware to overclock, achieving better improvements would come from adjusting the software settings.
Since February 2017, I've been quite occupied and recently had some free time to explore. My most recent game is Battlefield 1. At that time in February 2017, it was the most demanding CPU, requiring at least six threads for optimal performance. I'm running an Xeon E5-26xxL V4 (12 cores, 24 threads) purchased for around USD 130. Its issue was a low clock speed of 1.7GHz. With a GTX 1060 6GB (OC +200MHz on GPU and VRAM), 4x4GB DDR4 2400 quad channel RAM, and a standard 480GB SSD, it achieved approximately 60-65 FPS (1080 Ultra 100% scaling) though it occasionally dropped to 45 FPS. The maximum CPU usage at that point was 25%.
Last week, while browsing news on the BF1 forum, I noticed a suggestion to add a user.cfg file that would instruct the game to use 12 threads instead of the standard 6. The outcome was impressive: maximum CPU usage increased to 50%, and the performance jump eliminated the dip, reaching 65-80 FPS.
With that real-world CPU enhancement in BF1, my current standard Intel Xeon cooler ($40 for a cooler was too costly, and I initially booked a $15 one) still manages to keep temperatures around 50°C. My 12 threads can handle up to 80% of the game's maximum usage, while the remaining threads adjust accordingly.
What I intended to convey is that your current setup is well beyond what any single application can leverage effectively. Even if you pushed it further, you'd only see about a 5% improvement in real performance, which could harm your hardware and waste energy. My example demonstrates that software tuning often matters more than hardware upgrades for achieving noticeable gains.
I would like to express my apologies in advance, as my response might unintentionally offend some individuals.
In my view, instead of attempting to force the hardware to overclock, achieving better improvements would come from adjusting the software settings.
Since February 2017, I've been quite occupied and recently found time to explore. My most recent game is Battlefield 1. Back in February 2017, it was the most demanding CPU, requiring at least six threads for optimal performance. I'm running an Xeon E5-26xxL V4 (12 cores, 24 threads) purchased for around USD 130. Its issue was a low clock speed of 1.7GHz. With a GTX 1060 6GB (OC +200MHz, 256MB VRAM), 4x4GB DDR4 2400 quad channel RAM, and a standard 480GB SSD, it maintained around 60-65 FPS (1080 at full scaling) and occasionally dropped to 45 FPS. The peak CPU usage during that period was 25%.
The other day, while browsing news on the BF1 forum, I noticed a suggestion to add a user.cfg file that would instruct the game to use 12 threads instead of the standard 6. The outcome was impressive: maximum CPU usage rose to 50%, and the performance jumped to 65-80 FPS.
With such a significant boost in real-world CPU performance, my usual Intel Xeon heatsink ($40 was too costly) turned out to be sufficient—my initial $15 purchase was misplaced. Now it reliably keeps the CPU at around 50°C. My 12 threads handle up to 80% of BF1’s demands, with the remaining threads managing efficiently.
What I intended to convey is that your current setup is well beyond what most applications require. Even pushing it further would only yield about a 5% improvement and could risk damaging your hardware while wasting energy. My experience demonstrates that software tuning often matters more than raw hardware in terms of performance gains.
This entire setup isn’t just about chasing the highest FPS—it’s about supporting various tasks like Megatasking, encoding, programming, rendering, modeling, animation, etc. It’s fascinating to see how some games are poorly optimized, especially newer titles. They demand enormous power and cooling solutions.
Anyone notice smoke? If not, take a closer look—there might be a fire under these components.
In short, I’m choosing this configuration to work with, not just for gaming. My goal is to build a reliable platform for diverse projects. Spending 30-70 thousand dollars on one machine isn’t something I’m willing to do. My name isn’t Rockefeller, and I won’t be. Being mindful of price and specifications while packing the best hardware is essential. I don’t need to sacrifice performance just to run a few programs.
This might seem off-topic now, but I hope this clarifies my reasoning for opting for a ThreadRipper 1950X and a GTX 1080TI. It’s a powerful workstation that excels in many entertainment tasks.
When cooling just a CPU and one GPU, it's possible to run them together in a single loop to share the cooling load across all radiators. However, if you need separate thermal management and want to handle each component differently, dual loops are an option. You don't necessarily require D5 pumps for each loop—DDC pumps would also work fine. Either pump type will perform well for your setup. I've personally used both DDC and D5 watercooling systems; either choice is reliable.