Quote:
heat only damages a drive in the long run. in the long run, the temperature is the same for both the stock HDD and the HDD with the heatsink, period. |
The result indicated 41C with and without the passive cooling heatsink. Hence, there is no benefit unless fan is used. While it takes a bit longer to heat up merely pointing out the time it takes for the passive heatsink to absorb heat. If I read in between the lines, the answer is obvious as you indicated "waste of money" without the fan. TeuS, I believe you might be referring to the Pros and Cons; with which the product rated "super cooling" should have indicated in conjunction with fan. This I concur. |
Damn it, I couldn't sleep at all. It's 4 in the morning. |
Quote:
by using the HS you won't have "long periods" but very short ones compared with the No-HS setup :mrt: |
I agree that for short stressing the heatsink has it's use. I wonder how the idle temps are, they also matter. Wouldn't the idle temps of the HDD with/without the heatsink be the same, more or less? |
yes they would, but it's the load temps that matter. |
here's what I'm trying to point out, for example. every other minute when HD is under load it will increase 1°C without the HS, and 0.5°C with the HS. When cooling down, both will be the same, -0.5°C every other minute. so while copying files, playing games, loading maps, download files, the usage will go up and down, as will the temp. now do note in the review the tester said this Quote:
so YES in the end both HD temps will be the same, but it is the inter-mediate temps which matter most (unlike CPU's). here's what I mean in a graph using the above mentioned "theoretical ideal"; do not that in real life those difference won't be as big, but it gives you an idea: |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 18:19. |
Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO