Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jaydee116
...Ben, There is more water to copper surface area with pins. There is more copper mass with channels. When you mill a groove to make a pin in a channel block there is additional surface area on the base. More copper Mass is not what you want. You want as much water to copper surface area possible. This is the very same concept the G5 and Cascade follow hench the cups in the base. By drilling down he removed copper mass and replaced it with copper to water surface area. Copper to water surface area combined with impngment is why the G5 works. Also the same reason the Nexxos XP works so well.
|
True, but there's a fine balance between surface area and the mass (of the fins).
As with any heatsink design, the purpose of a fin or pin is to effectively extend the surface area of a flat baseplate. (sorry for the rambling, I'm just adding that for everyone else's benefit)
A pin-style heatsink is nothing more than a continuous fin design that's been chopped up. Chopping up the fins has one effect: the temperature gradient will increase up the pins, as less of the heat is able to leave the baseplate. When the temprature gradient increases, the performance drops.
Consider this: if you start with a flat plate, and figure the area that is extended by fins/pins with both designs, you'll find that more of the baseplate is extended with continous fins. (hint: there are some interesting things that can happen from looking at it that way).
The Cascade/G5 "works" because it maximizes turbulent flow against the base as well as the fins, just about as efficiently as can be had.
I'd like to see the efficient flow geometry of Cascade/G5 applied on a pin-style block design, but I really doubt that it would beat a continous fin design. It ought to be close though.
Here's another crazy thought: an "air" version of Cascade/G5. (the fins would be 3-4 times thinner).