Advice Sought - Keeping DDR4 Cool in a fanless case?

The OP is ignorantly going to use a 13900K and does not care about the advise suggesting it will melt.
Yup, but that’s their choice so I’m just going to wait for follow up sale of the cooling solution that doesn’t work in the used PC parts section of the forum in a couple months time lol.

I got out of IT for this very reason.

Customer:”I need a computer. What about <insert poor solution here>”
Me: “buy this, it’s much better and the same price or not much more expensive”
Customer:”no, sell me the poor solution”
Me:”uuuh,ok”
Customer:”that thing you sold me is rubbish, I want my money back”
Me:”…ffs”
 
Stopping back to thank you all for your comments and suggestions... Based on feedback - and more reading - I think I'm going to need to move from the FC8 case - which can only deliver 160W - to the Streacom FC10 Alpha... I had not considered it to start with because it has top-side ventilation and I was a bit concerned about dust getting in... but I think the better cooling and better PSU options for the FC10 make more sense...
Neither the FC8 or the FC8 can deliver 160W of cooling - they both are rated at 87W with a recommendation that you should use a 65W TDP CPU.

Either look at a more suitable case - i.e. one that has active cooling (even if you have to pay extra for quiet fans and spend time balancing their speed vs noise), or dial back your performance needs to a more suitable processor e.g. a 13600 has a 65W TDP and a Turbo TDP of 154W (which you could probably reduce)

1701856967106.png
 
Last edited:
From Noctua

The problems with TDP (Thermal Design Power) ratings​

TDP (Thermal Design Power) ratings have been introduced by CPU manufacturers in order to specify how much heat a particular processor will emit, so that customers can select an appropriate heatsink. In response, heatsink manufacturers have started to specify how much TDP their coolers support. As simple and fool-proof as this may sound, there are several severe problems that have made this seemingly straightforward process of selecting a cooler with a TDP rating that matches the TDP rating of your CPU more and more confusing.

First of all, the TDP ratings published by Intel and AMD have become increasingly misleading over the years. Nowadays, it is not uncommon to see so called “95W” or “105W” CPUs producing a heat-output of 150W or more. In the past, pushing CPUs beyond their specified TDP often required manual tuning by the user (overclocking), but nowadays, many CPUs go way beyond their specified TDP ratings automatically, using their turbo modes. These turbo settings are often enhanced even further by many enthusiast motherboards, which do not enforce the recommended power limits from Intel and AMD by default, unless they are manually limited by the user. Considering all this, selecting a heatsink that only supports the specified TDP of the CPU can be problematic and result in lower-than-expected system performance. As a result, the TDP specifications given by CPU manufacturers can no longer serve as a simple guideline in cooler selection.

This is just the tip of the iceberg though. The second key problem is that the amount of heat that a cooler can dissipate can vary greatly from CPU to CPU. For example, the same cooler may be able to dissipate 250W on CPU A but only 150W on CPU B. In particular, CPUs with smaller chips (DIEs) and smaller integrated heat-spreaders (IHS) are much more difficult to cool than larger ones that emit the same amount of heat. In addition to these differences that are due to different heat flux densities, other aspects such as internal DIE configuration and placement on the processor package, as well as the maximum allowed temperature of the processors, also lead to significant variations from model to model. Assigning a general TDP rating to a CPU cooler can therefore end up being misleading as well.

Thirdly, maximum heat dissipation capacity is by no means the only aspect of a heatsink’s thermal performance and perhaps not even the most important one: The thermal performance of heatpipe-based CPU coolers doesn’t scale linearly, so even if cooler A might be able to dissipate up to 350W and cooler B only 300W, it could still be the case that they perform the same at lower heat levels such as 150W, which may be much more relevant for the customer. Max. TDP ratings therefore cannot tell the full story about heatsink performance. This is particularly important for CPUs with high heat flux densities or other internal limitations that cannot be pushed beyond relatively low power levels no matter how much heat the cooler would be able to dissipate. For example, if a CPU cannot go beyond 120W due to internal limitations, cooling performance at 120W will be much more important for the customer than if the cooler could theoretically dissipate 300 or 350W.

Last but not least, it is often unclear how the TDP ratings some cooler manufacturers advertise are actually derived. This is highly problematic because the maximum amount of heat a cooler can dissipate will vary greatly depending on the testing environment and parameters. The results will not only differ from CPU to CPU or if a custom heating element is used instead of a real CPU, they also depend on ambient temperature and the maximum temperature that the CPU or heating element is allowed to reach. For example, the maximum amount of heat a cooler can dissipate will be completely different when the test is conducted at 15°C ambient and the heating element is allowed to reach 90°C than if the test is done at 25°C ambient and the heating element is allowed to reach 50°C. Since most cooler manufacturers don’t specify how their TDP ratings are obtained, it is highly problematic to use these ratings to compare products from different manufacturers. With no parameters specified and therefore no way to control the values, some brands have started to advertise TDP ratings that appear simply unrealistic with regards to real world applications. Taking part in a game of exaggerated specifications is no option for us and this is another reason why Noctua doesn’t publish TDP ratings. Instead, we avoid the various shortcomings of the common TDP ratings by offering a combination of our Noctua Standardised Performance Rating (NSPR) and CPU-specific classifications.



The Noctua Standardised Performance Rating (NSPR)​

Noctua’s Standardised Performance Rating (NSPR) is a platform-independent classification system that allows customers to assess and compare the efficiency of Noctua CPU coolers at a glance: The higher the NSPR score, the better the heatsink’s performance. For example, high end coolers such as the NH-D15 will reach a NSPR score of more than 150 whereas compact low-profile coolers will score below 50. Mid-range models such as the NH-U12S will fall somewhere in between:


Their massive passive PH1 cooler is rated at 42. With a fan it’s rated at 87 ish (I think).

Thats a huge passive cooler.

The top of the range active coolers from them is rated at 150 ish and even they won’t cooler a 13900K.
 
No point at all going for a 13900k in a fanless pc, some 360mm aio's cant keep it under control, not a chance you'll see the advertised 5.6ghz boost, under a tiny cooler the cpu will throttle back so hard you'll be lucky to get 3ghz as a max frequency as temps will be volcanic, i would have a look at a i5 13400 at a absolute max even then it may struggle but it will be night and day better than a 13900k.

You have to concider the motherboard you have listed, without airflow over the vrm area it will run super hot with a 13900k and will result in crashing and loads of instability, if you want a fanless setup the 13400 is the best route and stick to 32gb of ddr4 ideally modules that are rated at 1.25v to keep them nice and cool.
 
A 9900k has nothing on a 13900k when it comes to power and heat. Many air coolers cannot even keep a 13900k cool and a big AIO is usually recommended. There is no way you are going to passively cool one and certainly not in either of those Streacom cases you are looking at. Their websites states that the FC10 Alpha only has 87w of cooling so there is no way it will cool a 13900k.
A 9900K & 13900K (limited to 240W) using a NH-D15 with both fans going will still hit 90C+ under load (more in benchmarks) with limits set in BIOS. I know as just upgraded from a 9900K to a 13900K in a case with good airflow & the NH-D15. Undervolting both will bring temps down a bit but still not enough to passively cool (unless got a huge heatsink with heatpipes that also join up to the chassis).

A 13900T (same number of cores but much lower power & frequency especially at idle) would be more suitable for a passively cooled system as turbo wattage is 106W (5.3Ghz P-Core) & 32W (1.1Ghz P-Core) at stock. Tjunction is still same at 100C. Running a 13900K totally passive will end up almost permanently throttling when under any sort of load. RAM temps at stock JEDEC should be fine if the case has adequate ventilation (I don't know the case being used).
 
For Posterity I've just retested my CPU in cinebenchR32

i5 13600k stock speed, undervolted under a Noctua DH-15 cooler.

Peak temp (CPU only): 76c
Peak power draw (CPU only): 135w

Assuming you don't fry the motherboard and/or PSU with an i9, which you will, it's just not going to work
 
Last edited:
For Posterity I've just retested my CPU in cinebenchR32

i5 13600k stock speed, undervolted under a Noctua DH-15 cooler.

Peak temp (CPU only): 76c
Peak power draw (CPU only): 135w

Assuming you don't fry the PSU, which you will, it's just not going to work
Just using the PC for word stuff, what’s the wattage draw and temperature?

Also, what’s the wattage watching a YouTube at 4K ?
 
Last edited:
Just using the PC for word stuff, what’s the wattage draw and temperature?

Also, what’s the wattage watching a YouTube at 4K ?

I'm 'Idling' (steam and web browser but not much going on:
CPU temp: about 35c
CPU power draw: fluctuation about 10w - 20w

With the above plus watching a 2min long 4k vid on youtube:
Peak CPU power: 50w
Peak CPU temp: 46c

But bear in mind that's an undervolted i5, with a big ass cooler strapped to it... an i9 with passive cooling would be silly, performance would be so bad for an i9 you may aswell save some money and drop an i3 into it.

What the OP is proposing, is akin to putting a Ferrari engine into a Fiat Panda, whilst also still using the Fiat panda radiators, cooling, brakes, suspension, wheels and tyres...it's only going to end in tears.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom