Cooling Performance

For testing on the Enermax ETS-F40-FS ARGB and both the Enermax Aquafusion Adv 240 White and the  Aquafusion Adv 360 Black, I set them up on our 13900 K-based test bench and ran a few different tests. I tested using the AIDA64 Stress Test with the always demanding FPU workload, I should also point out that all temps listed are from the CPU sensor, not the CPU package. I did these with the stock fan profile as well as with the fans and pump for the AIOs at 100%. I also tested our test benches Corsair H100i Elite for a point of comparison as well. With the stock fan profile, the ETS-F40 which we already know had contact issues because of the height of our VRM heatsinks reached 89c and throttled back. The Aquafusion Adv 240 did well at 64c, 4c lower than the H100i, and the Aquafusion Adv 360 which should have done even better was warmer at 70c. I reinstalled the Aquafusion Adv 360 multiple times and retested more times than I could count, but it just didn’t do as well even with the longer radiator and additional fan. Cranking the fans up to 100% the ETS-F40 and the Aquafusion Adv 360 which struggled didn’t show any improvement but the Aquafusion Adv 240 and the H100i did drop down but just by one degree.

*update* I did update the numbers below with the replacement Aquafusion Adv 360 that Enermax sent over and you can see that it did fix the issue that we saw in our testing. With the FPU workload, the stock fan profile dropped down to 62c from 70c and with the fans cranked up it ran a little cooler at 60c. Both were the coolest results of the coolers tested.

I did the same test as above only using AIDA64’s FPU workload but this time I uncapped the PL2 settings on the Intel i9-13900K. For this test, there was no point in looking at the temperatures, for each cooler it would max out the temperatures. I just kept an eye on the total wattage that the CPU used in HWMonitor to see how each did. The ETS-F40 with its contact issues did the worst of course. That said even with the less than perfect contact the F40 is rated at a 200-watt TDP and it came in at 208, so it wasn’t too far off. The H100i did 271 watts and we can see the Aquafusion Adv 360 was a little below that at 262. But the Aquafusion Adv 240 did well reaching 297 watts.

*Update* The performance numbers have been updated with the replacement Aquafusion Adv 360 and the replacement was able to improve on the performance of the original by 62 watts. This put it up at the top of the coolers tested, no surprises there given it is later than the other coolers. The performance between the 240 and 360 here wasn't much but that is more because of the 240 over performing than anything else.

For my last test, I continue using AIDA64’s Stress Test but switch over to the CPU workload from FPU. In my experience, the CPU workload is similar to what you will see for everyday use in games and other regular PC use whereas the FPU workload is similar to what your CPU will do when rendering. With the CPU workload, all of the coolers run cooler. The H100i was running at 63c and down to 61c at 100% fan speed. The ETS-F40 still struggled and was at 88c for both tests still. The Aquafusion Adv 240 ran at 60c and with the fans cranked up to 100% it dropped 3 degrees to 57c. The Aquafusion Adv 360 was still behind the 240 and the H100i at 65c and while it did drop, it didn’t drop as much at 100% fan speed as the others with it dropping just 1c to 64c.

*Update* We did get in a replacement for the Aquafusion Adv 360 and retested and you can see that it performed better than our initial testing. With the stock fan profile, it ran at 55c, 10c less than our original did, and 5c lower than the Aquafusion Adv 240.