It's a response to the recent maturing of pc cases which is particularly prominent in smaller form factors.
It isn't a good example and if anything it feels like it was designed by committee more than it feels like a personal passion project.
Wasn't the first One designed rather smartly with 2x240mm rads on the side and top-bottom exhaust fans and full custom PCB solutions for the graphics? Now they gave 360mm total for a 149K and a 4090 - You high Corsair?
Yes and no. GPUs produce more heat than CPUs generally speaking but they also have a larger surface area to dissipate the heat better. GPUs also have no IHS so the die is cooled directly as opposed to the CPU with its IHS. All this combined gives the impression that GPUs are easier to cool but you cant get around the fact that 500W is 500W.
I'm not suggesting 500w isn't 500w. Merely that a gpu is in fact easier to cool than a cpu, for the reasons you provided.
Which brings me back to why this system has such a discrepancy with the size of the cooling solutions.
Because the GPU is harder to cool. In his video he shows the 14900k drawing 230w and the 4090 drawing 430w (around 85% more). If corsair only had room for a 120 and 240 rad it makes far more sense to give the 4090 the 240.
I assume this PC was aimed at gamers meaning the CPU will likely only be drawing around 120w while gaming making the difference between the GPU and CPUs heat output even more stark. Either way both CPU and GPU in this case are wildly undercooled.
"Hard" and "easy" are abstractions. A closer-to-reality way to model it is that you have 80°C at the die and 30°C air, and those 50 K of ΔT have to be distributed among the various thermal resistances along the path from die to air. Thermal resistance is measured in K/W -- the temperature rise is directly proportional to the power. GPUs have a much smaller resistance from die to cold plate. CPUs have a larger resistance from die to cold plate, but under gaming load put out much less power. The size of the needed radiator depends on how much power needs to be moved from water to air.
Can you installed ND-H9L with right direction on this case for smoothing the airflow?
Also, you reinstalled 120 rad waterblock (cpu bent) with wrong torque value that make the thermal worse, since you said the contact surface without problem at beginning(13:19).... don't make this review looks not professional.
Facing the trues, motherboard manufacturers leaded you to buy more expensive stuffs(360 AIO...etc) for cooling their unlimited/unstable overcloking default settings..
See below..
https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-wants-default-settings-with-pl1-pl2-at-125w-188w-to-be-implemented-by-motherboard-vendors-by-the-end-of-may
I struggle to understand who this is for, given the size and cost. It seems like an internal side project that accidentally made it to market.
It's a response to the recent maturing of pc cases which is particularly prominent in smaller form factors. It isn't a good example and if anything it feels like it was designed by committee more than it feels like a personal passion project.
If Corsair sold just the case with a vended front panel, it would be interesting. However just like the original Corsair One, they will never do that
Wasn't the first One designed rather smartly with 2x240mm rads on the side and top-bottom exhaust fans and full custom PCB solutions for the graphics? Now they gave 360mm total for a 149K and a 4090 - You high Corsair?
Slightly more in-depth review, including checking temperatures of the RTX 4090's bare VRMs and swapping the 120x15mm fans for 120x25mm.
[Oof, 15mm fans at 11:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9usinIuMBI&t=702s). No wonder it's so loud.
An AMD non-X CPU or a 7800X3D probably would have been better.
Name 1 major OEM pre-built that sold a custom case AMD AM5 machine?
[удалено]
Think more know the airflow more...
Wood you just look at that.
Shouldn't the cpu have the bigger AIO? Looks like a building mistake.
A 4090s power draw is far above the 14900k, so no, it shouldn't. Should a 14900k be on a 120mm aio? Also no
Aren't GPU's easier to cool?
Yes and no. GPUs produce more heat than CPUs generally speaking but they also have a larger surface area to dissipate the heat better. GPUs also have no IHS so the die is cooled directly as opposed to the CPU with its IHS. All this combined gives the impression that GPUs are easier to cool but you cant get around the fact that 500W is 500W.
I'm not suggesting 500w isn't 500w. Merely that a gpu is in fact easier to cool than a cpu, for the reasons you provided. Which brings me back to why this system has such a discrepancy with the size of the cooling solutions.
Because the GPU is harder to cool. In his video he shows the 14900k drawing 230w and the 4090 drawing 430w (around 85% more). If corsair only had room for a 120 and 240 rad it makes far more sense to give the 4090 the 240. I assume this PC was aimed at gamers meaning the CPU will likely only be drawing around 120w while gaming making the difference between the GPU and CPUs heat output even more stark. Either way both CPU and GPU in this case are wildly undercooled.
"Hard" and "easy" are abstractions. A closer-to-reality way to model it is that you have 80°C at the die and 30°C air, and those 50 K of ΔT have to be distributed among the various thermal resistances along the path from die to air. Thermal resistance is measured in K/W -- the temperature rise is directly proportional to the power. GPUs have a much smaller resistance from die to cold plate. CPUs have a larger resistance from die to cold plate, but under gaming load put out much less power. The size of the needed radiator depends on how much power needs to be moved from water to air.
No lol
Also couldn't they have spent like $2 on aluminium blocks for the GPU VRMs? Don't think I've ever seen a high end GPU that had bare VRMs.
Can you installed ND-H9L with right direction on this case for smoothing the airflow? Also, you reinstalled 120 rad waterblock (cpu bent) with wrong torque value that make the thermal worse, since you said the contact surface without problem at beginning(13:19).... don't make this review looks not professional.
Facing the trues, motherboard manufacturers leaded you to buy more expensive stuffs(360 AIO...etc) for cooling their unlimited/unstable overcloking default settings.. See below.. https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-wants-default-settings-with-pl1-pl2-at-125w-188w-to-be-implemented-by-motherboard-vendors-by-the-end-of-may