Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
⤷ αC
Joined
·
11,240 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
Joined
·
634 Posts
Unfortunately.
Along with the alleged cost-cutting I think adding the spring screws just reduced the mounting pressure to normal levels.
The original didn't have springs and was said to have extremely high mounting pressure which yielded lower temperatures but risked bending thinner CPUs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
27,138 Posts
So it seems to confirm's ehume's review earlier:
https://www.hwcooling.net/en/from-a-hurricane-to-fanless-with-scythe-fuma-rev-b/3/

https://www.hwcooling.net/en/scythe-fuma-rev-b-surprise-with-a-big-question-mark/4/

However, it cannot run as cool passively as NH-D15 and the mosfets on the board aren't kept as cool.
Review seems very poorly done and poorly presented. I found it extremely hard to follow their test proceedures and results.

Interesting that the original is better than the Rev b
Based on what test data?

Unfortunately.
Along with the alleged cost-cutting I think adding the spring screws just reduced the mounting pressure to normal levels.
The original didn't have springs and was said to have extremely high mounting pressure which yielded lower temperatures but risked bending thinner CPUs.
I agree, 'alleged cost-cutting' is only an allegation.
I think changing to spring spring mounting was done because some users do not think mounts without spring are any good.

I'm not putting much if any credibility t one reveiw like linked to here from a new review site that has no track record of doing accurate testing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
Based on what test data?
Not sure, but their conclusion mentions it.

We expected much more form Fuma rev. B. The original cooler was a decent opponent even for NH-D15, the rev. B acts a little bit like some 2nd class cooler. It is only slightly better than the cheaper Fera 3 v2 (and on the top of that, only in low noise modes). With increasing demands for cooling performance, the pipes are obviously the limiter. Perhaps due to their design, and perhaps due to weaker pressure (we will test the influence of the pressure on the heat transfer intensity soon)...Sadly, we must say that it does not pay off to get this cooler. Only if you are lucky enough and get a chance to buy the first version – that one is definitely a good deal. If you own Ryzen, you need to order AM4 kit separately.
*shrug*
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
27,138 Posts
Not sure, but their conclusion mentions it.



*shrug*
I'm not blaming you, but sorry, their entire review seems as if done by a 10 year old kid in 20 minutes for some composition assignment.

Even the basic writing is not correct to the point it is almost impossible to follow and understand what their testing was all about.

To me it's just another wannabee review site that doesn't make the grade .. just like so many others out there.

Their first sentence pretty much shows they are extremely biased againt Scythe:
"Improving production by making it cheaper is often done regardless of whether or not a particular product is doing well on the market. Scythe Fuma probably belongs to the “worse category“, which is also proved by its low availability. It seems that the manufacturer had to start to save up to maintain the production. It is no drama, but this tastes a bit bitter because the first version was the best product for its price."

And it only goes downhill from there.

What do they mean when the say:
"For a better comparison, we also included the tests with standard 4× 550 rpm."
Does that mean they ran 4x fans (4 fans) at 550rpm on the coolers in their testing ???

Who cares if their mosfets run 40.8c instead of 43.9c or 43.0c instead of 46.2c when 60c is considered safe for long term use?

They only have 7 coolers listed for reference with only 6 actual coolers (NH-D15 is listed twice) .. and only 4 with mosfet temps recorded ??

What was fan speed in mosfet test?

The give fan speeds at 39dB and at 33dB. At 39dB Fuma fans are running 121rpm, 150rpm, 225rpm and 470rpm slower than other fans. Normally lower speed means less airflow so logically higher mosfet temps. :rolleyes:

They say "With the same fans" for fans used in one test .. Is that the fans that came with cooler or something else ??? Okay, I guess it's NF-F12 iPPV-2000rpm fans. Their choice of words leaves a lot to the imagination. :thumbsdow

Then testing '+ extra sys. cooling' ... but what is their test system? I haven't seen anything in first three pages of review telling us what their test system is or how air temperatures are monitored. :thumbsdow

That was more than enough time spent trying to understand this garbage review. :thumbsdow:thumbsdow:thumbsdow
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
27,138 Posts
Tweaktown testing of Fuma Rev. B shows is within a couple degrees of D15 even at extreme overclock.

https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8409/scythe-fuma-rev-cpu-cooler-review/index6.html

I can't find any review sites that actually tested both Fuma and Fuma Rev. B on same platforms, so no actual proof of any differences in performance.

What exactly are the differences between them besides spring and AM4 mount? Scythe EU website was asked what the difference between orginal and rev. B and said:
"... Model Fuma Rev.B is not yet available in Europe.
Yes Rev.B of Fuma is AM4 compatible."

And I don't find any Syche USA website, so on clarification from USA either. :p

Looking at specifications included in reviews the only difference I see is Fuma Rev. B a new mount which includes AM4 systems. :p
"With the cooler we are about to see, there have only been two changes to this offering that we can find. One of them, most obviously, is the inclusion of AM4 mounting, which the original did not have. The second change is that the mounting hardware, which used to be matte black, is now polished metal."
Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8409/scythe-fuma-rev-cpu-cooler-review/index.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Hello Doyll,

Thank you for your feedback. We’d like to respond to some things that you mentioned.
First of all, “Scythe Fuma rev. B: From a hurricane to the fanless mode“, is just an expansion of the main test (it is mentioned in the very first sentence) which we and 99% of our readers find completely comprehensible.
The main test: https://www.hwcooling.net/en/scythe-fuma-rev-b-surprise-with-a-big-question-mark/

We’d like to ensure you that we don’t aspire to create a sensation out of nothing and that we do have enough experience to make conclusions about this cooler. I personally (the main editor of HWCooling.net) created a database of 100+ CPU coolers on ExtraHardware.cz (former Czech HW magazine): https://www.cnews.cz/gigatest-100-chladicov-ktory-kedy-a-v-com-ma-navrch-ci-taha-za-kratsi-koniec/
We plan to achieve something similar with HWCooling in the near future. Isn’t it obvious that when you start a new project it takes some time to create a proper database?

Their first sentence pretty much shows they are extremely biased againt Scythe:
On the contrary. I probably shouldn’t say it like this, but I think that Scythe is one of the best CPU cooler manufacturers. Their products are a really good choice for the money. However, that’s the very reason why is Fuma rev. B such a disappointment.

What do they mean when the say:
"For a better comparison, we also included the tests with standard 4× 550 rpm."
Does that mean they ran 4x fans (4 fans) at 550rpm on the coolers in their testing ???“
Yes, you got that right. It means that we tested in two modes of system cooling, with the same RPM of cooler fans. In addition to the mode with a very high airflow, there’s also a classic mode with 4x 550 rpm. This test helps to show how much system cooling affects the performance of the cooler.

Who cares if their mosfets run 40.8c instead of 43.9c or 43.0c instead of 46.2c when 60c is considered safe for long term use?
This is not about the temperature of the MOSFETs, but about the temperature of the heatsink, and we wanted to demonstrate how the cooler cools the socket.

What was fan speed in mosfet test?
The give fan speeds at 39dB and at 33dB. At 39dB Fuma fans are running 121rpm, 150rpm, 225rpm and 470rpm slower than other fans. Normally lower speed means less airflow so logically higher mosfet temps.
You can find all RPM values in the table. We cannot make it more visible...And what you say is not that logical at all. Despite the same speed, the airflow intensity and efficiency can be completely different because of the angle and direction (towards VRM for example).

They only have 7 coolers listed for reference with only 6 actual coolers (NH-D15 is listed twice) .. and only 4 with mosfet temps recorded ??
I counted 6 coolers. Those two that are missing are Zalman FX70 (which is a passive cooler without a fan, so it is impossible to simulate 33 and 39 dBA) and Freezer 33 (which is not capable of cooling the reference heat waste of the test).

Then testing '+ extra sys. cooling' ... but what is their test system? I haven't seen anything in first three pages of review telling us what their test system is or how air temperatures are monitored.
https://www.hwcooling.net/en/scythe-fuma-rev-b-surprise-with-a-big-question-mark/2/
Check this link again please, you probably overlooked the information that you are referring to, and the bonus test requires the knowledge from the main test, which is...obvious, again. We are thankful for you time, but we’d like to ask you to properly check the reviews before calling something garbage.
 

·
⤷ αC
Joined
·
11,240 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Lubo91, thank you for your insight. I'm looking forward to your Scythe Mugen 5 Rev B review!

I thought I recognized the graphing layout from somewhere but I couldn't remember which site it was.
 

·
The 6502 Still Rocks
Joined
·
750 Posts
The review reads like it was done originally in German or Russian and then someone pushed the dubious Google Translate button and published what came back. It's disorienting for native English speakers.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
27,138 Posts
Hello Doyll,

Thank you for your feedback. We’d like to respond to some things that you mentioned.
First of all, “Scythe Fuma rev. B: From a hurricane to the fanless mode“, is just an expansion of the main test (it is mentioned in the very first sentence) which we and 99% of our readers find completely comprehensible.
.......
.......
We are thankful for you time, but we’d like to ask you to properly check the reviews before calling something garbage.
I removed the bulk of above quote.

Strange, but how is it that first sentence I read earlier today in your review is not the same now? Earlier it was:
"Improving production by making it cheaper is often done regardless of whether or not a particular product is doing well on the market. Scythe Fuma probably belongs to the “worse category“, which is also proved by its low availability. It seems that the manufacturer had to start to save up to maintain the production. It is no drama, but this tastes a bit bitter because the first version was the best product for its price."

Now the first paragraph of all pages/windows reads:

"What are the best settings for Fuma? This is a question that belongs to our complementary review where we traditionally test heatsinks with reference fans. This time in two configurations, with one and with two fans. We went from really noisy settings to completely silent mode. The temperature behaviour is captured minute by minute. Let’s take a look at how this twin-tower handles passive cooling compared to top-notch coolers."

My above post was made after spending a considerable amount of time trying to find trying to read and understad your review from beginning to end.

Makes it kind of hard to discuss what I read earlier when somehow your review now seems to have different text than what I read earlier.

I don't know why it is not the same .. or why first paragraph on first two pages is now the same .. but it does make me wonder what you are up to.

Sorry, considering how you seem to be editing / changing review content in what I assume is an attempt to make it better .. something I think is a good thing to do .. I will not try and discuss what I posted about what read early but is not the same now.

Changing what was written in review, then trying to discuss it with me on open forum is not going to happen. My post was based on what I was reading at that time .. and now it seems review has changed.

People who read my posts know I don't post things for no good reason.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
27,138 Posts
The review reads like it was done originally in German or Russian and then someone pushed the dubious Google Translate button and published what came back. It's disorienting for native English speakers.
I can see how it may be the result of a google translate, but any reviewer with much experience knows how poorly online translations can be and will not use them to publish a review in a different language without having someone fluent in that language proof read it before posting it.

The first sentence of review when I read it earlier today was

"Improving production by making it cheaper is often done regardless of whether or not a particular product is doing well on the market. Scythe Fuma probably belongs to the “worse category“, which is also proved by its low availability. It seems that the manufacturer had to start to save up to maintain the production. It is no drama, but this tastes a bit bitter because the first version was the best product for its price."

Which has now been removed.

Now the first paragraph on all pages of review read:

"What are the best settings for Fuma? This is a question that belongs to our complementary review where we traditionally test heatsinks with reference fans. This time in two configurations, with one and with two fans. We went from really noisy settings to completely silent mode. The temperature behaviour is captured minute by minute. Let’s take a look at how this twin-tower handles passive cooling compared to top-notch coolers."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Sorry, considering how you seem to be editing / changing review content in what I assume is an attempt to make it better .. something I think is a good thing to do .. I will not try and discuss what I posted about what read early but is not the same now.

Changing what was written in review, then trying to discuss it with me on open forum is not going to happen. My post was based on what I was reading at that time .. and now it seems review has changed.

People who read my posts know I don't post things for no good reason.
OK. At least we know where the problem is.

The main review: https://www.hwcooling.net/en/scythe-fuma-rev-b-surprise-with-a-big-question-mark/
And bonus test: https://www.hwcooling.net/en/from-a-hurricane-to-fanless-with-scythe-fuma-rev-b/

Two separate articles. So, this is just a misunderstanding. Look at the first post in the thread, there are both links. Nothing was edited since the release. :)

The review reads like it was done originally in German or Russian and then someone pushed the dubious Google Translate button and published what came back. It's disorienting for native English speakers.
We are sorry. We are not native speakers, so it is possible that there might be some imperfections in the text. We will try our best to improve the translations in the future. Thank you for your feedback!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Sorry, considering how you seem to be editing / changing review content in what I assume is an attempt to make it better .. something I think is a good thing to do .. I will not try and discuss what I posted about what read early but is not the same now.

Changing what was written in review, then trying to discuss it with me on open forum is not going to happen. My post was based on what I was reading at that time .. and now it seems review has changed.

People who read my posts know I don't post things for no good reason.
OK. Here's the thing.
The main review: https://www.hwcooling.net/en/scythe-fuma-rev-b-surprise-with-a-big-question-mark/
The bonus test: https://www.hwcooling.net/en/from-a-hurricane-to-fanless-with-scythe-fuma-rev-b/

Two separate articles. So, this is just a misunderstanding. Look at the first post in the thread, there are both links. Nothing was edited since the release. :)

The review reads like it was done originally in German or Russian and then someone pushed the dubious Google Translate button and published what came back. It's disorienting for native English speakers.
We are sorry. We are not native speakers, so there might be some imperfections in the text. We will try our best to improve the translations in the future. Thank you for your feedback!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
27,138 Posts
I just re-read Lubo91 post to me. The link he gives for Fuma Rev. B review is
https://www.hwcooling.net/en/scythe-fuma-rev-b-surprise-with-a-big-question-mark/2/
and different from one posted before and has much different content with the first paragraph being the one I posted before by AlphaC.
https://www.hwcooling.net/en/from-a-hurricane-to-fanless-with-scythe-fuma-rev-b/
Much of the confusing here could be eliminated by changing name of 2nd review to something like "
The link posted by Lubo91 is for reveiw titled
"Scythe Fuma rev. B: Surprise with a big question mark"
with first paragraph on all pages being:
"Improving production by making it cheaper is often done regardless of whether or not a particular product is doing well on the market. Scythe Fuma probably belongs to the “worse category“, which is also proved by its low availability. It seems that the manufacturer had to start to save up to maintain the production. It is no drama, but this tastes a bit bitter because the first version was the best product for its price."

The link posted by AlphaC is titled:
"Scythe Fuma rev. B: From a hurricane to the fanless mode"
with first paragraph on all pages being
"Bonus tests of coolers are a regular extension of standard reviews. In addition to cooling efficiency around the socket, they include testing and comparison of heatsinks using the same fans, as well as fully passive operation without any active cooling. And also other various tests that might be interesting for a particular cooler."

What I consider a problem is both titles are too much alike.
First one is
"Scythe Fuma rev. B: Surprise with a big question mark"
Second one is
"Scythe Fuma rev. B: From a hurricane to the fanless mode"
Re-naming them to something like
"Scythe Fuma rev. B part 1 of 2: Surprise with a big question mark"
and
"Scythe Fuma rev. B part 2 of 2: From a hurricane to the fanless mode"
Would make it clearer to the reader they are not the same review

The closing statement in review linked by Lubo92 reads:

"We expected much more form Fuma rev. B. The original cooler was a decent opponent even for NH-D15, the rev. B acts a little bit like some 2nd class cooler. It is only slightly better than the cheaper Fera 3 v2 (and on the top of that, only in low noise modes).

With increasing demands for cooling performance, the pipes are obviously the limiter. Perhaps due to their design, and perhaps due to weaker pressure (we will test the influence of the pressure on the heat transfer intensity soon).

Prints of the compound cannot refute the theory about weak pressure. Compare them with those in this test where we used the first Fuma. Although the convex point is not in the middle of the base, it is positioned identically on both versions. The first one applies more pressure on the processor, which can be proved by tighter contact under convexity and also by more compound on the edges of the IHS. Since the convex point is a bit out of focus, we turned the heatsink 180 degrees, and tested it that way. However, the result did not change (as expected).

With default CPU settings, Fuma is significantly better than Fera 3 v2, but after overclocking (with the CPU around 180 W), the difference is not that significant at all. And it should be the exact opposite, in fact. It is also possible that we acquired a sample that is not 100% representative. We will verify this when we get the appropriate opportunity (assuming we will be able to get another sample – it can be difficult to purchase one because most shops are usually out of stock). And even Scythe itself does not supply samples of this cooler very often, according to available reviews. We’ve found just one review of it on TweakTown, although they tested it with a more cost-effective processor, where the performance deficit does not show up yet. Similar case like Arctic Freezer 33 which starts to “hobble“ only when facing stronger heat intensity.

Sadly, we must say that it does not pay off to get this cooler. Only if you are lucky enough and get a chance to buy the first version – that one is definitely a good deal. If you own Ryzen, you need to order AM4 kit separately."

Looking at the TIM print it appears there is about 3 to 4 times as much TIM as should be used resulting in a layer of TIM between cooler base and CPU IHS. This problem is extenuated by the new spring loaded mount not applying as much pressure and not forcing the TIM out as well as origninal non-spring mount did .. assume both tests used same amount of TIM.

The use of too much TIM is a common problem and the lower pressure the cooler mount has the more the temps are affected by there being a layer of TIM rather than TIM only filling microscopic voids between surfaces.

There has been extensive testing done using different amounts of TIM, all showed less was generally better .. the exception being CPUs with very large processor dies. More details in below link:
http://www.overclock.net/forum/22335323-post10.html


IHS does not spread heat but give a decent size base for cooler to set on with edges of IHS near edges of CPU socket to limit the possiblity of CPU socket damage. More details in above link.

I have not tested Scythe Fuma or Fuma Rev. B, but after searching web for some time it appears the Fuma is same cooler as Fuma Rev. B with Rev. be having new spring loaded mount at also can be mounted on AM4.

My suggestion to Lubo92I is to re-test Fuma Rev. B with a dob of TIM about the size of a grain of rice, just enough TIM to spread into a circle that is a little smaller then IHS similar to this image:

And compare the results to previous testing. My guess is CPU will be 1-3c lower temp. :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
27,138 Posts
Okay, so you know less TIM usually gives lower temps. Then why is the print in image posted in your testing pf Fuma rev.B have so much TIM it is covering entire surface and oozing out the sides?


Your reveiw of Okeanos TIM print looks like too much time is used too, but there is more metal showing in middle area of base.


Did you ask Scythe about the concave base you have on your Fuma Rev.B? I agree, that is not normal. All the coolers I've used/tested that are/were convex, convex/flat depending on orientation or flat, but never concave.

After looking at more of your work I apologize for saying it looked like you might not know what you are doing. It is clear you are experienced. The problem is probably more the 'lost in translation' kind of thing .. because the English wording you in opening and ending about Fuma Rev.B sound like you think it is not as good as original by a considerable amount. As a native English language reader your lordship's statements, my interpretation is you did not like Fuma Rev.B. You opening of "Improving production by making it cheaper ..." and then saying "Scythe Fuma probably belongs to the “worse category“, ..." are both interpreted as negative to an English language reader.
 

·
⤷ αC
Joined
·
11,240 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
The word "worse" is probably relative to the original Fuma.

Also results may differ with something newer than Sandy Bridge (has way smaller die size than the i7-920 he was using), his i7-920 is closer to the size of Ryzen's die.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
doyll said:
Then why is the print in image posted in your testing pf Fuma rev.B have so much TIM it is covering entire surface and oozing out the sides?
There’s basically no relevant difference between 0.033 ml and 0.15 ml, 0.2 °C when cooling 250 W. I find that negligible (and I guess that any sane person does). In the article about how to spread a thermal compound, we used NT-H1 and it has even higher viscosity than Arctic MX-2 (the compound that we use in standard tests). That means that if you use too much paste, the excess amount is pushed over the edges of the cooler’s base, so no limitation of the heat transfer, although I am aware that high viscosity pastes can be a limiting factor when you overdo it. However, this is not the case because (like I said) MX-2 is a low viscosity compound, and if you get 0.2 °C difference with NT-H1, well...the difference with MX-2 is less than negligible.

Anyway, we use 0.1 mm when we test coolers. And that is an optimal amount considering that we need to apply the same amount for every cooler. 0.033 wouldn’t be enough for coolers that have vastly convex base or DHT (side heatpipes are very dependent on optimal contact). That amount of paste wouldn’t cover enough area, which is obviously a problem.

doyll said:
Did you ask Scythe about the concave base you have on your Fuma Rev.B?
The base is concave on one axis only. The other axis is convex (you can see that in the picture with the prints). And we do plan to consult Fuma B with Scythe, but after we release Mugen 5 review (we got the samples in one package).

AlphaC said:
Also results may differ with something newer than Sandy Bridge (has way smaller die size than the i7-920 he was using), his i7-920 is closer to the size of Ryzen's die.
I used Ci7-920 some time ago. Now I prefer Ci7-5930K. We are preparing a test that will (hopefully) answer your questions. We want to use several representative coolers of each category on processors with different die sizes, and get the results in various OC modes.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
27,138 Posts
There’s basically no relevant difference between 0.033 ml and 0.15 ml, 0.2 °C when cooling 250 W. I find that negligible (and I guess that any sane person does). In the article about how to spread a thermal compound, we used NT-H1 and it has even higher viscosity than Arctic MX-2 (the compound that we use in standard tests). That means that if you use too much paste, the excess amount is pushed over the edges of the cooler’s base, so no limitation of the heat transfer, although I am aware that high viscosity pastes can be a limiting factor when you overdo it. However, this is not the case because (like I said) MX-2 is a low viscosity compound, and if you get 0.2 °C difference with NT-H1, well...the difference with MX-2 is less than negligible.

Anyway, we use 0.1 mm when we test coolers. And that is an optimal amount considering that we need to apply the same amount for every cooler. 0.033 wouldn’t be enough for coolers that have vastly convex base or DHT (side heatpipes are very dependent on optimal contact). That amount of paste wouldn’t cover enough area, which is obviously a problem.



The base is concave on one axis only. The other axis is convex (you can see that in the picture with the prints). And we do plan to consult Fuma B with Scythe, but after we release Mugen 5 review (we got the samples in one package).



I used Ci7-920 some time ago. Now I prefer Ci7-5930K. We are preparing a test that will (hopefully) answer your questions. We want to use several representative coolers of each category on processors with different die sizes, and get the results in various OC modes.
Thanks for the clarifications.

Personally, I would have consulted Scythe as soon as I noticed a concave base to find out if that was normal .. and definitely contacted them again with test results when they were not as good as original cooler results. My experience is good companies reply within 24 hours, and an extra day before releasing review definitely is not a problem.

One final question. Where is the testing of original Fuma vs Fuma rev.B proving Fuma rev.B is not as good .. or mount is not as good? Sorry, but after many years of dealing with scientific testing and reading all kinds of claims I don't accept a simple statement as fact. I want to see the proof .. and even then the 'proof' is often skewed to match hypothesis. Not saying you are doing that, but that it often happens.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top