Asus TUF Gaming TR120 Reverse in detail
This is a first – a fan with the leading edges of the impeller blades on the opposite side to normal ones. This is primarily done for a better view of “fans without stator struts” in cases with glass side panels. In addition, such an unconventional design also has quite clear and measurable advantages and disadvantages, also in terms of functional characteristics. Let’s take everything in turn.
The Asus TUF Gaming TR120 (120mm format) fans come in two design variants. One with standard blade orientation, one with a “reversed” one. And this second variant (Reverse) will also be the subject of these tests. In both cases these are fans with a fully illuminated ARGB LED impeller. And while “visuals” are obviously important to Asus, it’s not just the visual aspect that makes the TR120 fans attractive.
You can see from the detail of the blade that the leading edge of the fan goes towards the motor, or the stator struts. This is mainly so that nothing but the impeller can be seen from the opposite side. That is, so that the stator struts, which are of course important for keeping the impeller in the frame, disappear from view. However, they don’t need to be out of sight typically in situations where the fans are at the bottom of the case, for example, and are pushing air upwards. And there are other cases. For example, with fans on the case exhaust, where only the impeller is required to be visible without distracting elements.
But it’s not just about looks. I mean, this and similar schematic constructions arise mainly for aesthetic reasons, but there are a number of side-effects attached to them. Ones that already have an impact on the performance or acoustic characteristics of the fan. A completely new situation with such fans is that the stator struts are suddenly in front of the impeller (instead of the usual location behind it). Naturally, this also has an effect on the noise level. However, from an overall point of view, such a layout may not lead to worse results. It could, but it doesn’t have to.
It is also important to consider that the impeller of such a “reverse” fan is more (than in most standard designs) remote from an obstacle, thus suppressing turbulent airflow to some extent on the intake side. This increases the airflow while reducing noise. Sure, we don’t know how much, but the final results of the fan as a whole are what’s important. These will also be shaped by the aforementioned elements. By the way, the advantage of such a solution is also that the impeller will never collide with a dust filter. Not even with the nylon types with excessively sagging screens. This is because it always rests on the motor housing, or on the stator struts, which are static parts. This means that there is no friction (rubbing) when they come into contact with each other, as could possibly be the case on the opposite side of the fan.
The impeller geometry relies on seven wider blades with moderately curved leading edges. The gaps between the blades are smaller, or… medium. Similarly (medium) are the gaps between the blades and the frame tunnel.
The trailing edge as well as the rest of the blade structure is smooth. The finish of the entire surface (blades) is lightly sandblasted, but this will not affect the performance and acoustic properties. The blades are otherwise quite solid, although a less stiff material is used to make them. Polycarbonate? The good stiffness, ultimately well documented by the low vibration, is also there because the blades have a wider base in proportion to their relatively smaller length, although the thickness (of the blades) is only average, up to about 1.5 mm.
However, what is above average here is the thickness of the profile. Asus writes about 28mm, which fits as far as the frame is concerned. But at the widest point, along with the anti-vibration pads, you’re up to somewhere around 29.5mm. Greater impeller thickness will mainly increase the static pressure. The parameters list up to 2.75 mm H2O, which, at 2000 rpm, is high above standard for a 120-millimeter fan.
And one more thing: To navigate through the result graphs as easily as possible, you can sort the bars according to different criteria (via the button on the bottom left). By (non)presence of lighting, profile thickness, brand, bearings, price or value (with the option to change the sorting to descending or ascending). In the default settings, there is a preset “format” criterion that separates 120mm fans from 140mm fans.
- Contents
- Asus TUF Gaming TR120 Reverse in detail
- Overview of manufacturer specifications
- Basis of the methodology, the wind tunnel
- Mounting and vibration measurement
- Initial warm-up and speed recording
- Base 6 equal noise levels…
- ... and sound color (frequency characteristic)
- Measurement of static pressure…
- … and of airflow
- Everything changes with obstacles
- How we measure power draw and motor power
- Measuring the intensity (and power draw) of lighting
- Results: Speed
- Results: Airlow w/o obstacles
- Results: Airflow through a nylon filter
- Results: Airflow through a plastic filter
- Results: Airflow through a hexagonal grille
- Results: Airflow through a thinner radiator
- Results: Airflow through a thicker radiator
- Results: Static pressure w/o obstacles
- Results: Static pressure through a nylon filter
- Results: Static pressure through a plastic filter
- Results: Static pressure through a hexagonal grille
- Results: Static pressure through a thinner radiator
- Results: Static pressure through a thicker radiator
- Results: Static pressure, efficiency depending on orientation
- Reality vs. specifications
- Results: Frequency response of sound w/o obstacles
- Results: Frequency response of sound with a dust filter
- Results: Frequency response of sound with a hexagonal grille
- Results: Frequency response of sound with a radiator
- Results: Vibration, in total (3D vector length)
- Results: Vibration, X-axis
- Results: Vibration, Y-axis
- Results: Vibration, Z-axis
- Results: Power draw (and motor power)
- Results: Cooling performance per watt, airflow
- Results: Cooling performance per watt, static pressure
- Airflow per euro
- Static pressure per euro
- Results: Lighting – LED luminance and power draw
- Results: LED to motor power draw ratio
- Evaluation
Any plans for tests of the non-reverse variant, and also spacers (like Noctua NA-IS1)? To me they would be the logical next steps for topics raised in this test.
We do not plan to test the standard variants of TR120 fans in the near future. In the long run, the basic plan remains the same – we have to compare all the fans that exist, haha. Only time will tell where we will really end up. 🙂
We’ve had the NA-IS1 frames in our editorial office since their introduction. Of course it would be really useful to get to them and one day it will come. I still can’t make space for them – there is always something “more important”.
Always looking forward to your tests, whatever they are🙂
One additional question though, could you further elaborate what’s going on with the hexagonal grille tests for this fan? First time I’ve seen a fan that somehow has parts of the data missing in the middle (33 and 36 missing, but not 31 and 39). You say unstable tonal peaks, so is the RPM unstable at those noise levels, or is it due to something else?
I think it’s happened before. But maybe it was for the quietest or loudest mode of normalised noise and then it can be attributed to another reason? Anyway, I will explain.
It is important to realize how we bring the fans to the “same noise level”. It’s not like we set the fan somehow and it’s stable at, say, 36 dBA. It’s that we set the fan so that the average of 30 samples ends up at 36 dBA. The interval of these samples can be in the range of 35,9–36,1 dBA during the measurements, for example, but possibly also in a much wider range, for example 32–38 dBA, and now I am not exaggerating. This latter case is similar to trying to get the TR120 into the 33 and 36 dBA modes, which failed. With no PWM setting (nor after very fine tuning of the pulse strength with voltage in single digits of mV), we could not set the fan on the grille so that the average of 30 samples corresponds to 33 dBA and 36 dBA, respectively. It was always more or less, i.e. not what was required. This is a topic that certainly makes sense to look at in more detail. Especially after Noctua opened this “Beat frequency theory” topic, which is a good basis for understanding the issue by a wider than very narrow spectrum of users.
–“Beat frequency theory”
…well, already during the 1st world war the company on the bridge had to stop marching in order not to shake the bridge.
Wave interferance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_interference
In acoustic
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_(acoustics)
Thanks for your detailed explanation. The only other time I have heard the need of averaging noise samples is from ThermalLeft. What’s the sampling rate you’re using?
This phenomenon is definitely worth looking into some day, especially for instances like this where large deviations occur.
The sampling rate of the Reed R8080 is 1s. The settings for the individual modes normalized according to a fixed noise level are based on the arithmetic mean of a 30-second recording. This must always be exactly 31.0; 33.0; 36.0; 39.0; 42.0 or 45.0 dBA after rounding.