Zalman VF900 GPU cooler

[Rock Hydra]

I was just looking at the 7900GTs then went over to Zalman's site to see if the VF700 cooler fit on it and I saw this.
Link

It's got heatpipes and everything. Looks sweet.

 

[SpeedZealot369]

Cool, wonder how well it works.

 

[Crescent13]

Hmm. Looks interesting. I wonder how much better it is than the VF-700Cu that I have. Would it be worth the upgrade? I'll see if I can find some reviews.

EDIT: Holy Crap 44 pounds!!!

 

[RossCorp]

looks interesting, i kind of hope it doesn't work that well, just so I don't have to buy another cooler, lol

 

[nib95]

Nice, what do you guys think.

2 of these, or 2 Asselero X1's for my 7900 GT's?

 

[elpres05]

Those heat pipes serve more for marketing than actual performance gains. For a cooler of this size, the VF900 is not only smaller; it?s much lighter than the VF700. And ask me, going lighter isn?t a good option. You can learn much more about heat sinks and the physics involved HERE

After close inspections, this is what I think of the new VF900. I have a lot of bad views but it doesn?t change the outcome, the VF900 will perform better. See all the explanation..

1. Weight is reduced (FLAW no.1) (VF700=250+ g, VF900=185 g)

Major part of the weight reduction is due to the removal of heavy base area that is present in all ZALMAN CPU and GPU coolers. I?ve had experience up close with ZALMAN coolers and the heaviest region is the base area. The VF900 differs completely; on one hand ZALMAN reduced the weight (good) while on the other hand they ran into a couple of design problems. To resolve them, they used heat pipes, adding to the total cost of the cooler.

2. Pure copper but only 180 g (FLAW No.2)

Less weight is always bad trust me, if the VF900 was an aluminum construction, then 180 g of it would have been quite enough. AT LOW FAN SPEEDS, the cooling of the VF900 will SUCK compared to the VF700.

3. Cooling is entirely dependant on the fan speed.

Heat pipes are only there to connect the slim fins to the base material for instant heat transfer but on high level loads (Heat), the cooling is largely dependant upon the fan speed. As mentioned earlier, the VF900 doesn?t have enough mass to sustain ultra high heat levels of current monster GPU?s.

4. Overall cooling with increase overthe VF700 (funny, but its simple)

The VF900 has a greater surface exposure, a large number of fins all around means more air can particles can strike the surface carrying the heat away.

To sum up!

Great job by ZALMAN, they managed to reduce a full 100 g (that?s awesome) so now you don?t have to worry about your VGA falling off.

If you need more help HERE or simply join the forums.

 

[Rock Hydra]

Wow, nice. You really analyzed that. Very interesting. :thumbsup:

 

[Munky]

Sweet. Any reviews on it yet? I have a vf700cu, but I'm using the stock cooler on my x1900 to exhaust the hot air, and even then it gets to 90C under load. I need a new cooler...

 

[hemmy]

Originally posted by: elpres05
Those heat pipes serve more for marketing than actual performance gains. For a cooler of this size, the VF900 is not only smaller; it?s much lighter than the VF700. And ask me, going lighter isn?t a good option. You can learn much more about heat sinks and the physics involved HERE

After close inspections, this is what I think of the new VF900. I have a lot of bad views but it doesn?t change the outcome, the VF900 will perform better. See all the explanation..

1. Weight is reduced (FLAW no.1) (VF700=250+ g, VF900=185 g)

Major part of the weight reduction is due to the removal of heavy base area that is present in all ZALMAN CPU and GPU coolers. I?ve had experience up close with ZALMAN coolers and the heaviest region is the base area. The VF900 differs completely; on one hand ZALMAN reduced the weight (good) while on the other hand they ran into a couple of design problems. To resolve them, they used heat pipes, adding to the total cost of the cooler.

2. Pure copper but only 180 g (FLAW No.2)

Less weight is always bad trust me, if the VF900 was an aluminum construction, then 180 g of it would have been quite enough. AT LOW FAN SPEEDS, the cooling of the VF900 will SUCK compared to the VF700.

3. Cooling is entirely dependant on the fan speed.

Heat pipes are only there to connect the slim fins to the base material for instant heat transfer but on high level loads (Heat), the cooling is largely dependant upon the fan speed. As mentioned earlier, the VF900 doesn?t have enough mass to sustain ultra high heat levels of current monster GPU?s.

4. Overall cooling with increase overthe VF700 (funny, but its simple)

The VF900 has a greater surface exposure, a large number of fins all around means more air can particles can strike the surface carrying the heat away.

To sum up!

Great job by ZALMAN, they managed to reduce a full 100 g (that?s awesome) so now you don?t have to worry about your VGA falling off.

If you need more help HERE or simply join the forums.

So when an XP-120 beats coolers twice its weight, you still think less weight is always bad?

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Crescent13
Hmm. Looks interesting. I wonder how much better it is than the VF-700Cu that I have. Would it be worth the upgrade? I'll see if I can find some reviews.

EDIT: Holy Crap 44 pounds!!!

That looks like the Euro symbol to me, and the site is in German (they don't use pounds there). And prices are usually pretty comparable at a 1:1 conversion rate due to higher prices in Europe, meaning $44 US or less in the states.

 

[elpres05]

Originally posted by: hemmy

Originally posted by: elpres05
Those heat pipes serve more for marketing than actual performance gains. For a cooler of this size, the VF900 is not only smaller; it?s much lighter than the VF700. And ask me, going lighter isn?t a good option. You can learn much more about heat sinks and the physics involved HERE

After close inspections, this is what I think of the new VF900. I have a lot of bad views but it doesn?t change the outcome, the VF900 will perform better. See all the explanation..

1. Weight is reduced (FLAW no.1) (VF700=250+ g, VF900=185 g)

Major part of the weight reduction is due to the removal of heavy base area that is present in all ZALMAN CPU and GPU coolers. I?ve had experience up close with ZALMAN coolers and the heaviest region is the base area. The VF900 differs completely; on one hand ZALMAN reduced the weight (good) while on the other hand they ran into a couple of design problems. To resolve them, they used heat pipes, adding to the total cost of the cooler.

2. Pure copper but only 180 g (FLAW No.2)

Less weight is always bad trust me, if the VF900 was an aluminum construction, then 180 g of it would have been quite enough. AT LOW FAN SPEEDS, the cooling of the VF900 will SUCK compared to the VF700.

3. Cooling is entirely dependant on the fan speed.

Heat pipes are only there to connect the slim fins to the base material for instant heat transfer but on high level loads (Heat), the cooling is largely dependant upon the fan speed. As mentioned earlier, the VF900 doesn?t have enough mass to sustain ultra high heat levels of current monster GPU?s.

4. Overall cooling with increase overthe VF700 (funny, but its simple)

The VF900 has a greater surface exposure, a large number of fins all around means more air can particles can strike the surface carrying the heat away.

To sum up!

Great job by ZALMAN, they managed to reduce a full 100 g (that?s awesome) so now you don?t have to worry about your VGA falling off.

If you need more help HERE or simply join the forums.

So when an XP-120 beats coolers twice its weight, you still think less weight is always bad?

Yes, less weight is bad. If you read my article linked above, you will realize that there is no direct way of relating Cu with Al. Still, i can relate a VF900 with an XP-120 because both have puny base area and the cooling is largely dependant on the speed of the fan.

I did another test on the XP-90 where it was subjected to high heat levels without using a fan, guess what, it cannot be run passive.

If suppose i take an XP-90C (okay, the Cu model) and a ZALMAN CPNS 7700, which do you think can sustain more heat before the chip temp. exceeds 60 deg C. Obviously, the ZALMAN will win because the XP series rely on surface exposure + good fan where as the ZALMAN (except the 9500 and VF900) will not require a Panaflo high RPM fan or similar.

 

[lifeguard1999]

Originally posted by: elpres05
Those heat pipes serve more for marketing than actual performance gains. For a cooler of this size, the VF900 is not only smaller; it?s much lighter than the VF700. And ask me, going lighter isn?t a good option. You can learn much more about heat sinks and the physics involved HERE

After close inspections, this is what I think of the new VF900. I have a lot of bad views but it doesn?t change the outcome, the VF900 will perform better. See all the explanation..

1. Weight is reduced (FLAW no.1) (VF700=250+ g, VF900=185 g)

Major part of the weight reduction is due to the removal of heavy base area that is present in all ZALMAN CPU and GPU coolers. I?ve had experience up close with ZALMAN coolers and the heaviest region is the base area. The VF900 differs completely; on one hand ZALMAN reduced the weight (good) while on the other hand they ran into a couple of design problems. To resolve them, they used heat pipes, adding to the total cost of the cooler.

2. Pure copper but only 180 g (FLAW No.2)

Less weight is always bad trust me, if the VF900 was an aluminum construction, then 180 g of it would have been quite enough. AT LOW FAN SPEEDS, the cooling of the VF900 will SUCK compared to the VF700.

3. Cooling is entirely dependant on the fan speed.

Heat pipes are only there to connect the slim fins to the base material for instant heat transfer but on high level loads (Heat), the cooling is largely dependant upon the fan speed. As mentioned earlier, the VF900 doesn?t have enough mass to sustain ultra high heat levels of current monster GPU?s.

4. Overall cooling with increase overthe VF700 (funny, but its simple)

The VF900 has a greater surface exposure, a large number of fins all around means more air can particles can strike the surface carrying the heat away.

To sum up!

Great job by ZALMAN, they managed to reduce a full 100 g (that?s awesome) so now you don?t have to worry about your VGA falling off.

If you need more help HERE or simply join the forums.

When you test it, let me know. Otherwise this is just educated guessing.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: lifeguard1999

Originally posted by: elpres05
Those heat pipes serve more for marketing than actual performance gains. For a cooler of this size, the VF900 is not only smaller; it?s much lighter than the VF700. And ask me, going lighter isn?t a good option. You can learn much more about heat sinks and the physics involved HERE

After close inspections, this is what I think of the new VF900. I have a lot of bad views but it doesn?t change the outcome, the VF900 will perform better. See all the explanation..

1. Weight is reduced (FLAW no.1) (VF700=250+ g, VF900=185 g)

Major part of the weight reduction is due to the removal of heavy base area that is present in all ZALMAN CPU and GPU coolers. I?ve had experience up close with ZALMAN coolers and the heaviest region is the base area. The VF900 differs completely; on one hand ZALMAN reduced the weight (good) while on the other hand they ran into a couple of design problems. To resolve them, they used heat pipes, adding to the total cost of the cooler.

2. Pure copper but only 180 g (FLAW No.2)

Less weight is always bad trust me, if the VF900 was an aluminum construction, then 180 g of it would have been quite enough. AT LOW FAN SPEEDS, the cooling of the VF900 will SUCK compared to the VF700.

3. Cooling is entirely dependant on the fan speed.

Heat pipes are only there to connect the slim fins to the base material for instant heat transfer but on high level loads (Heat), the cooling is largely dependant upon the fan speed. As mentioned earlier, the VF900 doesn?t have enough mass to sustain ultra high heat levels of current monster GPU?s.

4. Overall cooling with increase overthe VF700 (funny, but its simple)

The VF900 has a greater surface exposure, a large number of fins all around means more air can particles can strike the surface carrying the heat away.

To sum up!

Great job by ZALMAN, they managed to reduce a full 100 g (that?s awesome) so now you don?t have to worry about your VGA falling off.

If you need more help HERE or simply join the forums.

When you test it, let me know. Otherwise this is just educated guessing.

i thought cooling was all about surface area?

 

[elpres05]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: lifeguard1999

Originally posted by: elpres05
Those heat pipes serve more for marketing than actual performance gains. For a cooler of this size, the VF900 is not only smaller; it?s much lighter than the VF700. And ask me, going lighter isn?t a good option. You can learn much more about heat sinks and the physics involved HERE

After close inspections, this is what I think of the new VF900. I have a lot of bad views but it doesn?t change the outcome, the VF900 will perform better. See all the explanation..

1. Weight is reduced (FLAW no.1) (VF700=250+ g, VF900=185 g)

Major part of the weight reduction is due to the removal of heavy base area that is present in all ZALMAN CPU and GPU coolers. I?ve had experience up close with ZALMAN coolers and the heaviest region is the base area. The VF900 differs completely; on one hand ZALMAN reduced the weight (good) while on the other hand they ran into a couple of design problems. To resolve them, they used heat pipes, adding to the total cost of the cooler.

2. Pure copper but only 180 g (FLAW No.2)

Less weight is always bad trust me, if the VF900 was an aluminum construction, then 180 g of it would have been quite enough. AT LOW FAN SPEEDS, the cooling of the VF900 will SUCK compared to the VF700.

3. Cooling is entirely dependant on the fan speed.

Heat pipes are only there to connect the slim fins to the base material for instant heat transfer but on high level loads (Heat), the cooling is largely dependant upon the fan speed. As mentioned earlier, the VF900 doesn?t have enough mass to sustain ultra high heat levels of current monster GPU?s.

4. Overall cooling with increase overthe VF700 (funny, but its simple)

The VF900 has a greater surface exposure, a large number of fins all around means more air can particles can strike the surface carrying the heat away.

To sum up!

Great job by ZALMAN, they managed to reduce a full 100 g (that?s awesome) so now you don?t have to worry about your VGA falling off.

If you need more help HERE or simply join the forums.

When you test it, let me know. Otherwise this is just educated guessing.

i thought cooling was all about surface area?

Depends on the application.

I remember my P3 from NEC; no fans, no casing side holes, just a large Al heat sink on the CPU. Even at room temperatures of 30+ C, i never had any heat problems.

Oh, i almost forgot to tell, my X800 Pro runs passive on a ZALMAN ZMHP80D(but ido have good case ventilation). Unfortunately, the ZMHP80 had to be dropped by ZALMAN because of the difficult assembly and most importantly the critical weight factor.

Today, the role of surface exposing the metal is most important. The reason is obvious, we still have to work in a limited space and yet manage upto 120 watts of heat losses.

You can try running your CPU passive but soon you will note the temperature exceeding critical limits, this was not an issue in the P3 era.

Come to GPU's and you are even more space limited. The only solution was to expose as much metal as possible and make use of quality fans so heat doesn't get trapped inside.

I'm not a fan of High End fans (never owned one). With my XP-90, i use a sucky chinese $ 3 fan and it seems to be just fine.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

too bad the only thing that sucks is zalman is usually slow to release their products to retailers. i need this like quick..

 

[Woodchuck2000]

Sorry to burst your bubble here but that's largely nonsense. The site you link to also has a number of glaring factual inaccuracies. In order then...

Originally posted by: elpres05
1. Weight is reduced (FLAW no.1) (VF700=250+ g, VF900=185 g)

Major part of the weight reduction is due to the removal of heavy base area that is present in all ZALMAN CPU and GPU coolers. I?ve had experience up close with ZALMAN coolers and the heaviest region is the base area. The VF900 differs completely; on one hand ZALMAN reduced the weight (good) while on the other hand they ran into a couple of design problems. To resolve them, they used heat pipes, adding to the total cost of the cooler.

2. Pure copper but only 180 g (FLAW No.2)

Less weight is always bad trust me, if the VF900 was an aluminum construction, then 180 g of it would have been quite enough. AT LOW FAN SPEEDS, the cooling of the VF900 will SUCK compared to the VF700.

The statement "Less weight is always bad" is simply wrong. If you stick a 500g cube of copper to a graphics card, I guarantee that it will cool less well than a VF900. The design of the heatsink and parameters such as fin area and fin effeciency have far more effect.

If you consider the steady-state heat transfer of both heatsinks, the difference will be that the VF900 will hit its maximum temperature marginally quicker as it's lighter and therefore requires less energy input for a 1 degree temperature rise. The maximum temperature reached by the VF700 would be greater, I'm willing to bet.

3. Cooling is entirely dependant on the fan speed.

Heat pipes are only there to connect the slim fins to the base material for instant heat transfer but on high level loads (Heat), the cooling is largely dependant upon the fan speed. As mentioned earlier, the VF900 doesn?t have enough mass to sustain ultra high heat levels of current monster GPU?s.

Wrong again. As above, the mass is largely irrelevant in steady-state transfer - if you consider a constant heat input than all it affects is that initial temperature gradient.

The heatpipes in the VF900 significantly increase the fin efficiency. The heat transfer between the base of the VF700 and the tip of its fins is not very good because they are so thin (look up the Fourier Rate Equation). The addition of heatpipes increases the average temperature of the fins, increasing heat transfer away.