Reality vs. specifications
There aren’t many 140mm fans that are more popular than the NF-A14 (PWM). This Noctua model has maintained that for a long time, for over a decade. In the meantime, naturally, a host of newer competing fans have come along, and the question is how Noctua’s still-flagship 140mm fan will hold up against them in the present day. By analyzing the NF-A14, we’ll also shorten a bit the interminable wait for its successor.
Reality vs. specifications
Explanatory note: For a quick overview of how manufacturers “spice up” specifications, we have a sort of “truthfulness” coefficient. We calculate this by putting our measured values in proportion to those given in the specifications by the fan manufacturers. A result of “1.00” means that the claimed parameters match the values we have recorded. After such a finding, we can conclude that the manufacturer has done his job honestly and the way he presents the fan agrees. The more the coefficient number is different from 1.00, the less accurate the claimed specifications are. Of course, the better case for the user is if the coefficient is higher than 1.00 (and it is, for example, 1.20), then the real parameters exceed the paper ones. Conversely, if the coefficient starts with zero, then the fan does not reach the parameters on paper. For example, a value of 0.80 means that the real airflow or static pressure is 20 % lower than the manufacturer claims. If a value is missing from the chart, it is because the fan manufacturer does not specify the airflow or static pressure.
- Contents
- Seasonic MagFlow ARGB 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
Hmm, that’s worse than I thought for an LCP fan with Gentle Typhoon-like rotor, only trading blows with the much cheaper Arctic P12 ARGB. Perhaps the impeller footprint is the main culprit here, alongside the motor and bearing.
Comparison with the Grand Tornado would be interesting, as they represent two extremes of impeller footprint while having similar blade geometry.
Yes. Thank you for the heads-up, we have added one more negative to the +/- table, namely that the vibrations at some speeds are higher than they could be for the standards of LCP fans. There is probably some imperfection at the level of the bearings, for which this happens in combination with this impeller.
I have no doubt that the impeller itself will be well aligned and the fault will be elsewhere. At the same time, it won’t be some random thing, as these fans behave identically across different samples. It’s hard to say where exactly the weak point is, but maybe it could be suppressed or compensated for in some way. For example with balancing inserts, like the Phanteks T30. And maybe they wouldn’t help at all, there’s probably no point in speculating here and you just have to accept the fact that the vibrations can sometimes be higher for an LCP fan than one would expect.
Still, this is only Seasonic’s second fan and I have no doubt that with each new one more and more flaws will be removed and eventually the result will be very positive. We gave them a tip for an “Arctic P12 with an LCP impeller”. Personally, I would be very interested to see how such a design, with a very precise build, would stand up to, for example, the NF-A2x25 or the T30. I guess it might not be a bad thing, since even the P12, with its noisier low frequencies, which could be significantly suppressed after blade stiffening, ends up at the top of the performance charts. The question is whether with a significantly heavier impeller the small hub could be retained, as it could probably cause some instability.