The way I saw it is that the Cascade/Storm focused the cooling across the die effectively.
The same can be said for thicker BP waterblocks where the heat-distribution is more even like the MCW500x/MCW600x series.
However. in a sense, you can't really focus the cooling of a heatsink onto the location of the temperature sensors and what not, much like we could with waterblocks. (Cutouts in the base would be the exception much like the Cooljag CJC6166A).
That is what I felt was happening with the SLK900A & MCX462-V whereby the thicker baseplate of the MCX462-V allowed for better heat distribution and evening out of the heatspots.
Now though, with the heatpipe/tower heatsinks how would this be different with the added medium of a heatpipe?
To me, I've seen heatpipes as more like highways, just moving the heat from one point to another, allowing for greater cooling efficiency at the new location (and also expanding some heat through the actual movement). However, comparing the two heatsinks currently in question, the baseplates are almost identical in thickness, except the Hyper6 includes an aluminum heatsink above the heatpipe soldered area.
Would this addition in turn act as an increased thickness baseplate? For the Tuniq Tower120, the thickness of the base between the IHS and the bottom of the heatpipes appears to only be 1.5mm.
The bad thing in a sense with all this is that thermal resistance figures can be easily found and in sense double-checked versus other testbeds (though the die size is an issue), however, double-checking the overclocking effectiveness of a heatsink is quite based on anecdotal evidence.
|