Ekwb, XE vs PE Rad's

bigdave2k9 · 8 Feb 2016 at 15:11

I may have overlooked a thread somewhere but i cant seem to find an answer to this..

As the thread state's its about comparing the two above rad's.

I'm in the market for 2x quad rad's for a new build.

The only noticeable difference between the XE and PE is one is 60mm deep and the other is 38mm deep.

The more experienced hopefully can answer this, what sort of temp difference is this going to cause? Is it going to be like a couple of degree's in water temp or are we talking 10+ degree's difference?

Cheers

vsg28 · 8 Feb 2016 at 15:48

Depends on the heat load, but two XE480s will be a good 4-5 C cooler more often than not.

bigdave2k9 · 8 Feb 2016 at 15:56

vsg28 said:
Depends on the heat load, but two XE480s will be a good 4-5 C cooler more often than not.

5930k, 2x980ti's, southbridge and mosfet blocks.

so a respectable amount of heat..

pastymuncher · 8 Feb 2016 at 16:17

Do they have different fin densities as well? The one with the lower density will allow slower fans if you want a quiet set up.

vsg28 · 8 Feb 2016 at 16:27

bigdave2k9 said:
5930k, 2x980ti's, southbridge and mosfet blocks.

so a respectable amount of heat..

If you can fit in the dual XEs, definitely go for it then. Chipset + VRMs will add minimal head but the x99 setup + dual GM200 will be hot, hot, hot

pastymuncher said:
Do they have different fin densities as well? The one with the lower density will allow slower fans if you want a quiet set up.

Yeah they do, and that's also the main reason I recommended the XE over the PE. I got reviews of both done on my website but basically- XE is always better at any airflow, and also gives 2 extra ports to play with.

bigdave2k9 · 8 Feb 2016 at 16:44

vsg28 said:
If you can fit in the dual XEs, definitely go for it then. Chipset + VRMs will add minimal head but the x99 setup + dual GM200 will be hot, hot, hot

Plenty of space

Corsair 900D

2x XE's in the basket

deFiniLoGy · 9 Feb 2016 at 04:09

I think for the price of XE, you really should look at Black Ice Nemesis GTX series..

Baboonanza · 9 Feb 2016 at 12:04

You are confusing two rads there I believe. The HardwareLabs Nemesis GTX is a thinner rad while HardwareLabs Black Ice GTX is a thicker rad almost (but not quite) as good as the EK XE.

vsg28 · 9 Feb 2016 at 14:44

Baboonanza said:
You are confusing two rads there I believe. The HardwareLabs Nemesis GTX is a thinner rad while HardwareLabs Black Ice GTX is a thicker rad almost (but not quite) as good as the EK XE.

Nemesis GTX is 54mm thick, so it is thinner than the XE but not by much. It is a better performer at lower fan speeds but gets overtaken at higher fan speeds. The GTX is an older rad which is more high airflow optimized and will only beat the XE at higher fan speeds.

deFiniLoGy · 9 Feb 2016 at 19:47

vsg28 said:
Nemesis GTX is 54mm thick, so it is thinner than the XE but not by much. It is a better performer at lower fan speeds but gets overtaken at higher fan speeds. The GTX is an older rad which is more high airflow optimized and will only beat the XE at higher fan speeds.

^ that.

I think Black Ice Nemesis GTX remains the king of rads in fan speeds below quiet fan speed, i.e. 1200RPM.

realscot · 11 Feb 2016 at 07:40

I found this radiator review an interesting read.
http://www.xtremerigs.net/2015/02/11/radiator-round-2015/
Every test seems to indicate that the Black Ice Nemesis GTX is not the King, and is consistently beaten by the EK rads

vsg28 · 11 Feb 2016 at 14:46

Not mine

deFiniLoGy · 11 Feb 2016 at 16:39

realscot said:
I found this radiator review an interesting read.
http://www.xtremerigs.net/2015/02/11/radiator-round-2015/
Every test seems to indicate that the Black Ice Nemesis GTX is not the King, and is consistently beaten by the EK rads

I compared the two reviews (very briefly as I seriously would not read all 10 pages unless I am that keen) and it seems very clear that Extremerig's review is done in the very ideal scenario whereas Thermalbench's review is done in a more realistic scenario.

In Extremerig, (i think) they measured the total walt dissipated from each rad while controlling the delta to be 10K, whereas in Thermalbench review, they measured the delta T when a given load is applied to the radiator.

I did not go that far into really thinking why is their a difference in result, however, I would assume in a realistic system, where noise to performance is a primary concern (more often than not people will be using D5 together with a loop with loads of rotaries, i.e. high restriction), an ideal delta T (10K) is very rarely archived. So I myself would refer to Thermalbench's review.

Again, I did not really review both reviews in depth, just a two-cent from a science undergrad.

vsg28 · 11 Feb 2016 at 17:10

Both mine and ER's tests have a particular heat load given to the coolant, which the radiator then dissipates. I went with big rads to distinguish liquid flow restriction so the instrument's accuracy isn't a concern anymore, and a much larger heat load to better distinguish between the various rads. I tested at 1 GPM flow and a lot of different airflows, whereas they went with different flow rates and 3 fan speeds. They have more analysis, I did more testing. I would definitely recommend reading their reviews also but I can only speak for my own findings

Sky01454 · 20 Feb 2016 at 01:50

just be warned that going with the XE rad will only allow you to go push or pull but not push/pull as there is not enough clearance between the case and the motherboard. The bottom chamber will also be limited due to the psu. I have a 900d with two 480 PE rads and I have the same CPU and GPU but one GPU and motherboard is not watercooled. My temps are very low and I keep the fans at low RPM. Also note that the rad on the top will block the drive bays.