Cooler Master V8 GTS 140mm POM Heatsink CPU Cooler Review

By Tom Jaskulka

Manufacturer: Cooler Master Ltd. Inc.
Product Name: V8 GTS Polyoxymethylene CPU Cooler
Model Number: RR-V8VC-16PR-R1
UPC: 884102021039
Price As Tested: $99.99 (NewEgg / Amazon)

Full Disclosure: The product sample used in this article has been provided by Cooler Master.

Cooler Master brings their decades of experience in retail and OEM cooling solutions to the CPU cooling market with the newly released V8 GTS heatsink, model RR-V8VC-16PR-R1. Sporting a horizontal vapor chamber and enhanced-life “POM” polyoxymethylene bearing 140mm fans and a car-engine motif similar to the previous generation V10, V8 and V6/GTS coolers, the V8 GTS promises to pack a lot of performance under the hood. Benchmark Reviews has a chance to see how the first retail horizontal vapor chamber heatsink will affect CPU cooling performance in testing the Cooler Master V8 GTS 140mm CPU cooler.

Features & Specifications

Model	RR-V8VC-16PR-R1
CPU Socket	Intel® LGA 2011/1366/1156/1155/1150/775 AMD FM2/FM1/AM3+/AM3 /AM2
Dimensions	154 x 149.8 x 166.5mm (6.1 x 5.9 x 6.6 in)
Heat Sink Dimensions	154 x 140 x 153.5mm (6.1 x 5.5 x 6.0 in)
Heat Sink Material	Vapor Chamber / 8 Heat Pipes / Aluminum Fins
Heat Sink Weight	854g (1.9lb)
Heat Pipe Dimensions	Ø6mm
Fan Dimensions	Ø 140 x 20 mm (5.5 x 0.8 inch)
Fan Speed	600 – 1,600 RPM (PWM) ± 10%
Fan Air Flow	28 – 82 CFM ± 10%
Fan Air Pressure	0. 3 – 1.45 mmH2O ± 10%
Fan Life Expectancy	160,000 hrs
Noise Level	36 dBA
Bearing Type	POM bearing – Cooler Master 4th Gen. Bearing (*POM = Polyoxymethylene)
Connector	4-Pin
Rated Voltage	12 VDC
Rated Current	0.31A
Power Consumption	3.72W
Fan Weight	110g (0.24 lb) x 2

Closer Look: V8 GTS

The V8 GTS follows in the steps of the original “engine” cooler, the first Cooler Master V8. To my knowledge, the original V8 was the first time a manufacturer drew a direct parallel between CPUs and car engines, which might be a surprisingly appropriate connection. More likely, that’s just my (distant) background as a diesel mechanic talking. Still, it isn’t too hard to think of a central processing unit as an “engine” of sorts although the PSU would arguably be a more accurate metaphor, with the driver being the CPU… Okay, let’s just forget about the technicalities here, and admit that enthusiasts of both hobbies are usually interested in one thing: performance. The V8, either as an engine or CPU cooler invokes thoughts of big performance – let’s see if the performance matches the marketing!

Opening the cube-shaped box, you’ll find the V8 GTS efficiently packaged and protected with foam. All of the “nuts and bolts” are contained in a small box. The V8 GTS includes back-plates for both Intel and AMD platforms, although you may be able to utilize the back-plate that comes with some AMD motherboards (and of course the built-in plate for Socket 2011/1366). The manual is adequate, but pretty standard. In the age of YouTube videos this probably isn’t an issue, as “how to install a CPU cooler” is one of those things that’s easier to watch than read.

All of the necessary brackets, nuts and bolts are included, along with a wrench (which I found mostly useless – it was too flimsy, hopefully you have your own!) and some of Cooler Master’s thermal interface material. If you’ve installed similar CPU coolers before, there isn’t anything surprising or tricky here. The manual does a decent job of explaining the installation, but the pictures could be a little bigger or clearer – again, that’s the case for most manuals for these coolers that I’ve dealt with. Simply pick what set of brackets you need (pictured in the upper left – AMD vertical, Intel, and AMD horizontal from left to right), and bolt them to the horizontal vapor chamber for installation.

I’m not sure if this view is considered the front or side, so I’ll just call it the “intake.” The unique design of the V8 GTS places radiators out in front and behind the 140mm fans, with another radiator sandwiched in between. Contrast that with the original V8’s single 120mm fan located in the center, and we can hopefully assume there’s some greater cooling capacity here. The 140mm fans are low enough to potentially provide some VRM/component cooling on the motherboard as well, which is something to consider.

The side profile shows the radiator and fan layout a little more clearly. There are eight heat-pipes, two for each of the outer heat-sinks and four for the interior heat-sink.

The pair of 140mm fans are bolted to the main plastic “frame” through plastic brackets. Simply remove two hex screws up top, and the entire assembly slides off. It seems to work well enough, but there aren’t any vibration dampening mechanisms. I worry about how the plastic will hold up through continuous installation and removal, since removing this assembly is essentially mandatory to install the cooler (if you want to keep your sanity, that is). The plastic used for the frame struck me as a little brittle – it isn’t confidence-inspiring. The fans seem to be of decent quality though, and are stated as using “POM” (Polyoxymethylene, a type of plastic) bearings. Polyoxymethylene is a composition known under some commercial names as “Delrin” and “Celcon.” If you’ve ever ridden a sport-bike with “frame sliders,” chances are they are made out of the same material. Any other application that requires high-stiffness, dimensional stability (won’t warp from any direction) and low-friction probably uses a similar material. The fact that they are 140mm diameter fans probably impacts the noise output more than the composition of the bearings, but there are other advantages to this material (it has some self-lubricating properties as well).

With the POM bearing 140mm fans removed, the layout of the heat-pipes becomes more clear. Splitting the heat-sink surface area into different sections like this is actually a decent idea; that way you can avoid “dead spots” and place some fins right in front of the initial intake fan. It helps with accessing the mounting screws as well, although in one orientation on my AM3+ platform (vertical) one of the screws was very difficult to tighten since you could only reach it from an angle with a screwdriver (one of the heat-pipes sat directly over the mounting screw) – yes, Cooler Master includes a wrench, but the VRM and south-bridge heat-sinks on my particular motherboard prevented any horizontal motion. The horizontal orientation made it easier to access the mounting screws, and I would assume the Intel bracket would be similar.

For completeness, here’s a view from the “intake” with the fans removed. This may help illustrate the path that each of the eight heat-pipes takes throughout the V8 GTS’s aluminum fins.

V8 GTS Detailed Features

The main story here is the use of a horizontal vapor chamber in a CPU cooling application. Vapor chambers are similar to heat-pipes, in that they use a fluid that evaporates quickly to hasten the transfer of heat from one location to another. Several manufacturers have used them on graphics cards, but this is the first time a horizontal (the Cooler Master TPC 812 used a vertical vapor chamber) version has been used for cooling a CPU.

The advantage of using a vapor to dissipate heat is the ability for it to rapidly heat and cool, preventing any “hot spots,” as a gas will rapidly expand to fill a cavity with equal pressure on all surfaces (thus transferring heat evenly), whereas metal will leave a “trail” of heat as it transfers heat much more slowly (please excuse my colloquial definition, I’m sure my college mechanical engineering friends just glanced up from their thermodynamics books in horror – anyone with a more academic knowledge of this process, feel free to comment!).

This uniquely addresses the recent trend of shrinking heat-spreader surfaces and die sizes of CPUs, and essentially provides a larger cooling surface with a more even distribution of heat. Theoretically, it will create a “buffer” of sorts to allow a small CPU to transfer heat to a larger surface. This cooler might be a good fit to overcome some of the “hot” Haswell and Ivy-Bridge CPUs, which due to their small die size might have some trouble transferring their heat. Unfortunately I don’t have a Haswell platform to test my theory on, but it might be worth looking into.

The AMD and Intel mounting brackets included allow for both vertical and horizontal installations, which is a nice feature for a cooler as big as the V8 GTS.

The base isn’t as polished as I expected for a $99 cooler, but perhaps the HVC technology doesn’t necessitate a polished surface. In either case, the mounting surface is probably sufficiently smooth, it’s just nice to see manufacturers take that additional step. The brackets pictured above are the AMD “vertical” brackets, and were the only ones that caused some clearance issues with the heat-pipes (it was hard to get a screwdriver on the bolts using these brackets – you can probably see how some of the heat-pipes would get in the way).

With a cooler this massive in dimensions, you’ll probably want to make sure you’re using a full ATX board. Even with two 140mm fans there’s still a decent amount of clearance, but it’s going to be difficult to work around regardless (to make your life easier, I would advise taking the motherboard out of the case to mount the V8 GTS). Once the V8 GTS is installed, the unique split arrangement of the heat-sinks allows for adequate RAM clearance even for taller heat-spreaders.

Not so much in the horizontal configuration, as the central heat-sink is wide enough to encroach on the DIMM slots of an ATX motherboard. Honestly, I’m not sure how much of an issue this is as the performance of the cooler didn’t change significantly between the two orientations in my test-bed, and anyone looking at a twin 140mm fan cooler should be aware that tall heat-spreaders on RAM could potentially be an issue. You should be able to find an orientation that works for you, and clearances overall are better than I anticipated (the raised heat-sinks on the outsides are positioned high enough to clear most RAM sticks).

CPU Cooler Heatsink Preparations

It bears repeating here that no heat-sink will work effectively unless it transfers heat from the CPU. To do that, it needs to be in contact with the CPU heat spreader or die, with the greater the contact surface the greater the potential for heat transfer. One of our own writers here at Benchmark Reviews has done a lot of work in this area, and it is certainly worth the time it takes to read (and re-read) the discoveries he made during the famous 80+ thermal paste tests (I still see Newegg reviews reference the discoveries made therein).

I mention this because I still see this as a major source of misinformation – most end users will use far too much thermal interface material when switching CPU coolers. Possibly through little fault of their own – I’ve read official repair manuals stating to use the entire tube of thermal paste when replacing a CPU and heat-sink. This is, in almost every case, FAR too much – to the point of being harmful in most cases. So do yourself a favor and get acquainted with CPU Cooler Preparations and Thermal Paste Application.

Contact Surface Preparation

Processor and CPU cooler surfaces are not perfectly smooth and flat surfaces, and although some surfaces appear polished to the naked eye, under a microscope the imperfections become clearly visible. As a result, when two objects are pressed together, contact is only made between a finite number of points separated by relatively large gaps. Since the actual contact area is reduced by these gaps, they create additional resistance for the transfer of thermal energy (heat). The gasses/fluids filling these gaps may largely influence the total heat flow across the surface, and then have an adverse affect on cooling performance as a result.

Thermal Paste Application

The only reason for using Thermal Interface Material is to compensate for flaws in the surface and a lack of high-pressure contact between heat source and cooler, so the sections above are more critical to good performance than the application of TIM itself. This section offers a condensed version of our Best Thermal Paste Application Methods article.

After publishing our Thermal Interface Material articles, many enthusiasts argued that by spreading out the TIM with a latex glove (or finger cover) was not the best way to distribute the interface material. Most answers from both the professional reviewer industry as well as enthusiast community claim that you should use a single drop “about the size of a pea”. If there was ever any real advice that applies to every situation, it would be that thermal paste isn’t meant to separate the two surfaces but rather fill the microscopic pits where metal to metal contact isn’t possible.

After discussing this topic with real industry experts who are much more informed of the process, they offered some specific advice that didn’t appear to be a “one size fits all” answer:

1. CPU Cooling products which operate below the ambient room temperature (some Peltier and Thermo-electric coolers for example) should not use silicon-based materials because condensation may occur and accelerate compound separation.
2. All “white” style TIM’s exhibit compound breakdown over time due to their thin viscosity and ceramic base (usually beryllium oxide, aluminum nitride and oxide, zinc oxide, and silicon dioxide). These interface materials should not be used from older “stale” stock without first mixing the material very well.
3. Thicker carbon and metal-based (usually aluminum-oxide) TIM’s may benefit from several thermal cycles to establish a “cure” period which allows expanding and contracting surfaces to smooth out any inconsistencies and further level the material.

The more we researched this subject, the more we discovered that because there are so many different cooling solutions on the market it becomes impossible to give generalized advice to specific situations. Despite this, there is one single principle that holds true in every condition: Under perfect conditions the contact surfaces between the processor and cooler would be perfectly flat and not contain any microscopic pits, which would allow direct contact of metal on metal without any need for Thermal Interface Material. But since we don’t have perfectly flat surfaces, Thermal Material must fill the tiny imperfections. Still, there’s one rule to recognize: less is more.

Surface Finish Impact

CPU coolers primarily depend on two heat transfer methods: conduction and convection. This being the case, we’ll concentrate our attention towards the topic of conduction as it relates to the mating surfaces between a heat source (the processor) and cooler. Because of their density, metals are the best conductors of thermal energy. As density decreases so does conduction, which relegates fluids to be naturally less conductive. So ideally the less fluid between metals, the better heat will transfer between them. Even less conductive than fluid is air, which then also means that you want even less of this between surfaces than fluid. Ultimately, the perfectly flat and well-polished surface is going to be preferred over the rougher and less even surface which required more TIM (fluid) to fill the gaps.

This is important to keep in mind, as the mounting surface of your average processor is relatively flat and smooth but not perfect. Even more important is the surface of your particular CPU cooler, which might range from a polished mirror finish to the absurdly rough or the more complex (such as Heat-Pipe Direct Touch). Surfaces with a mirror finish can always be shined up a little brighter, and rough surfaces can be wet-sanded (lapped) down smooth and later polished, but Heat-pipe Direct Touch coolers require some extra attention.

To sum up this topic of surface finish and its impact on cooling, science teaches us that a smooth flat mating surface is the most ideal for CPU coolers. It is critically important to remove the presence of air from between the surfaces, and that using only enough Thermal Interface Material to fill-in the rough surface pits is going to provide the best results. In a perfect environment, your processor would mate together with the cooler and compress metal on metal with no thermal paste at all; but we don’t live in perfect world and current manufacturing technology cannot provide for this ideal environment.

Mounting Pressure

Probably one of the most overlooked and disregarded factors involved with properly mounting the cooler onto any processor is the amount of contact pressure applied between the mating surfaces. Compression will often times reduce the amount of thermal compound needed between the cooler and processor, and allow a much larger metal to metal contact area which is more efficient than having fluid weaken the thermal conductance. The greater the contact pressure between elements, the better it will conduct thermal (heat) energy.

Unfortunately, it is often times not possible to get optimal pressure onto the CPU simply because of poor mounting designs used by the cooler manufacturers. Most enthusiasts shriek at the thought of using the push-pin style clips found on Intel’s stock thermal cooling solutions. Although this mounting system is acceptable for casually-used computers, there is still plenty of room for improvement when overclocking.

Generally speaking, you do not want an excessive amount of pressure onto the processor as damage may result. In some cases, such as Heat-pipe Direct Touch technology, the exposed copper rod has been pressed into the metal mounting base and then leveled flat by a grinder. Because of the copper rod walls are made considerably thinner by this process, using a bolt-through mounting system could actually cause heat-pipe rod warping. Improper installation not withstanding, it is more ideal to have a very strong mounting system such as those which use a back plate behind the motherboard and a spring-loaded fastening system for tightening.

Heatpipe Directional Orientation

Heat-pipe technology uses several methods to wick the cooling liquid away from the cold condensing end and return back towards the heated evaporative end. Sintered heatpipe rods help overcome Earth’s gravitational pull and can return most fluid to its source, but the directional orientation of heatpipe rods can make a significant difference to overall cooling performance.

The following is retained word for word from the source article, but note that not every CPU cooler will be or can be tested in a horizontal orientation. Please refer to the testing methodology on the next page or the pictures in the article to see how each specific cooler was tested.

For the purpose of this article, all CPU-coolers have been orientated horizontally so that heatpipes span from front-to-rear with fans exhausting upward and not top-to-bottom with fans blowing towards the rear of the computer case. This removes some of the gravitational climb necessary for heatpipe fluid working to return to the heatsink base. In one example, the horizontally-mounted tower heatsink cooled to a temperature 3° better than when it was positioned vertically. While this difference may not be considered impressive to some, hardcore performance enthusiasts will want to use every technique available to reach the highest overclock possible.

Testing & Results

I tested the V8 GTS in both vertical and horizontal orientations, but it didn’t reveal any significant differences in load temperatures. Normally, the less the fluid in the heat-pipes have to deal with gravity as they condense and expand the greater potential you have for performance (see the previous page).

There are enough bends and curves in those heat-pipes that may be making it tough for gravity to have an advantage one way or the other, or perhaps the use of a horizontal vapor chamber moved the “bottleneck” for heat transfer away from the heat-pipes themselves.

In fact, in the horizontal orientation pictured above the temperatures were around .5C hotter. I’ll attribute that to poorer airflow, as the front-to-rear airflow in the NZXT H630 I used for testing is less obstructed than the bottom-to-top airflow, even with the addition of a 200mm exhaust fan – and even though the GPU wasn’t under load during the stability test, the horizontal orientation basically pulls air straight off of the GPU. The point I’m trying to make is this: find the orientation that works the best in your rig, as I can only give you the results I’ve found using my own equipment.

Testing Methodology

The CPU coolers were tested installed in a computer case in its normal orientation (a NZXT H630). A 200mm top/rear exhaust fan was added to the enclosure to aid in cooling VRMs and most of the front drive cages were removed to clear the path from the 200mm intake fan. The GPU remained installed during testing. All fans were set to 100% to remove that variable from the results (motherboard fan control was disabled). This is how I would assume most enthusiasts would set up a similar case while overclocking a similar platform.

All tests were performed using the AIDA64 Extreme Edition System Stability test using 100% fan settings on an Asus M5A99FX PRO R2.0. The test was allowed to run until temperatures plateaued, then I recorded the ambient temperature of the intake air and began logging temperatures over the next minute. After an initial warm-up run, I ran each test at least three times (more if I received inconsistent results), and recorded the ambient temperature again. Once I had “good data,” I dropped the best and worst results and subtracted the (average over the test) ambient temperature from the median result to arrive at the delta T temperature you see in the chart.

Each time a heat-sink was swapped, the Tuniq TX-2 thermal interface material I used for each application was cleaned off of the contact surfaces with Arctic Silver’s ArctiClean two-step TIM remover, and an appropriate amount of TX-2 replaced for the next heat-sink. Due to the nature of applying TIM and mating two surfaces, I would like to adopt a 3% margin of error – even though my thermometers and the built-in thermal diode measure temperatures down to one-tenth of a degree Celsius, it could be assumed that temperatures within a degree of each other are essentially the same result.

Test System

• Motherboard: Asus M5A99FX-PRO R2.0 w/ 1708 BIOS/UEFI
• System Memory: 8GB (2x4GB) GSkill Ares 1600MHz DDR3 CL8
• Processor: AMD FX-8320 Piledriver, 4.6GHz/1.428V LLC (Extreme)
• Audio: On-Board
• Video: Sapphire Radeon 7950 3GB 1000MHz Core, 1300MHz mem
• Disk Drive 1: OCZ Vertex 2 240GB
• Enclosure: NZXT H630, +200mm exhaust fan (top/rear)
• PSU: Rosewill Lightning 800W Modular 80+ Gold
• Monitor: 1920×1080 120Hz
• Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit w/SP1

Results

It’s at this point where I realized I didn’t know what I was expecting. Maybe I was caught up by the marketing, maybe I thought two 140mm fans would magically whisk all of the heat away, maybe I thought the price would place it along similar products (as has been my general experience in the past). Maybe I was expecting too much of the horizontal vapor chamber, or maybe I didn’t see the maximum benefit from it as the heat-spreader on the FX-8320 is pretty big (it might fare better on Socket 1155/1150 platforms). I don’t think any of these things impacted performance negatively, but I guess I was expecting more performance – especially for the price.

That pesky EVO 212 shows its value again, but remember I do not include noise results. I can definitely say the V8 GTS is much quieter at 100% RPM than the EVO, and the character of the noise is entirely different as well. Keep aspects like these in mind when looking at a data chart; it only displays one attribute of the product. While cooling performance/price is an important ratio, it isn’t the only part of a product that contributes to the final price. Weight, aesthetics, sound, mounting system, dimensions and clearances are all considerations as well.

CPU Cooler Final Thoughts

It’s not like the V8 GTS performed horribly – an overclocked FX platform doesn’t run cool by any stretch of the imagination, and keeping around 200W of heat in check is still an accomplishment. I was left a little confused at the price/performance ratio, and can only conclude that wasn’t the only objective of the V8 GTS. Perhaps it was to modernize the old V8, perhaps to bring forward a platform that uses horizontal vapor chambers – or perhaps it was just to make a cool-looking CPU cooler. It bears repeating: price/performance is an important ratio, but it isn’t always the sole consideration you should make when choosing a CPU cooler. I would personally pay extra for better mounting systems, or for particular aesthetics that are unique to my tastes because that’s what I like about building PCs!

Cooler Master V8 GTS Conclusion

It’s tempting to fall into the “it didn’t finish at the very top of the chart, so it’s not a good cooler” trap. I say trap, because I think that’s exactly what it is. Too often we think of products in terms of “what’s the best,” without stopping to define exactly what that means. Too many of the attributes that make one CPU cooler better than another are subjective for each particular user. As I mentioned above, sometimes I don’t mind paying extra for things that don’t necessarily translate to better performance (as long as those extras have value to me, obviously), and I think products like the V8 GTS reflect that mentality. I think the question here shouldn’t be “does the V8 GTS perform on par with other $99 coolers,” but rather “given the performance, how much do you care?”

Performance is something that can be measured objectively however, and the V8 GTS still manages an impressive cooling performance on its own. Measured against the competition, that picture of performance is tainted a little bit – especially when one of Cooler Master’s own (EVO 212) racks up a similar temperature. That specific example impacts the discussion of value more than anything, but I can’t help but think there is some hidden performance still in this thing. I can’t deny the result though, and I did twice as many test runs as usual to make sure. Perhaps a different platform would unlock the advantages of that horizontal vapor chamber and generate a more significant result.

Appearance, as always, is much more subjective. In my personal opinion, this is where the V8 GTS is justifying the price tag – to those that like the “engine” look, you can’t get it anywhere else. The red LEDs and unique heat-sink layout contribute to an attractive CPU cooler – it is fun to look through the window (let’s face it, if you’re interested in this cooler you’ll want/have a side panel with a window) of your computer case and see a “V8 under the hood.” Obviously others have felt the same, as the V8 GTS was awarded a Red Dot Design Award in the Product Design 2013 category.

The attraction ended as soon as I began playing with the V8 GTS. In taking off the plastic frame, the PCB that held the center red SMD LEDs fell off. Well, it was still attached by the wiring I guess, and it was just hot glued on anyway…don’t worry though, I fixed it. It looks as if the glue they used had dried too quickly or just didn’t make good contact, as the posts it sits on are pretty small. Maybe it was a quality control issue, but a customer that purchases a $99 cooler isn’t going to want to experience it falling apart. Sure, if you never take out the fans it won’t be an issue…but if you value your time and energy, you’ll be forced to take them off for installation and removal. The plastic used just struck me as brittle overall. It looks nice from a distance and has adequate strength to do what it needs to do, but it just felt out of place. That didn’t worry me quite so much as some of the aluminum fins rattling after removing the plastic frame – they appear to be stamped/crimped in place, without any solder attaching them to the heat-pipes. It felt like I could just start unstacking them…again, maybe it’s because I was careless in removing the fans or an early release/quality control issue, and I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but this is a little worrisome on a product that retails for $99.

At least the V8 GTS is functional for a product in this category. I was glad to see all of the brackets necessary for various orientations included, so you should be able to install this cooler in your desired direction or to clear any motherboard components. The two included PWM 140mm fans seem to do their jobs quietly and effectively, and serve to contribute to the engine aesthetic. Overall, it adequately cools a hot CPU, which is what it is supposed to do.

Therin lies the problem. The V8 GTS is a good cooler, but it’s priced like an excellent cooler. As of September 2013, the V8 GTS was selling online for $99.99 (NewEgg / Amazon). You can commonly find 240mm AIO coolers for around that price on sale, which are much easier to install (although you may have clearance issues in another area). Some of the newer 120mm AIO liquid coolers will avoid any clearance issues and still generate better temperatures – which brings up that price/performance ratio again. Is that the only metric to measure value? Only you can really decide that.

I’m still curious to see if the horizontal vapor chamber will generate better results on a CPU with a smaller heat-spreader. Perhaps that feature will be a boon to those on the socket 1150 platform, and the V8 GTS will better earn its asking price there.

Until that can be determined I feel I can only recommend the V8 GTS to those that truly enjoy the “engine” look, and would appreciate the lower noise from the twin 140mm fans – not to mention, the V8 GTS will still keep your CPU cool. I don’t think the target demographic would be disappointed with the V8 GTS because it seems obvious to me you don’t buy a CPU cooler like this for practicality; in that sense the V8 GTS delivers. If all you want is a product that gives you the best performance for the price there are better options.

Pros:

+ Appearance is unique and eye-catching
+ Uses new technologies (vapor chamber)
+ Includes twin 140mm PWM fans
+ Allows for various mounting orientations
+ Adequate performance
+ Impressive RAM clearance for a 140mm CPU cooler

Cons:

– Construction could be better
– Price/Performance isn’t very competitive
– Can be unwieldy while installing
– Vapor chamber might not see full benefit on every platform (more testing required!)

Ratings:

• Performance: 7.00
• Appearance: 9.00
• Construction: 5.00
• Functionality: 8.50
• Value: 6.00

Final Score: 7.10 out of 10.

COMMENT QUESTION: What is your favorite desktop CPU cooler?