SilverStone Tundra SST-TD03 All-In-One Liquid CPU Cooler Review

By Tom Jaskulka

Manufacturer: SilverStone Technology, Co., Ltd.
Product Name: Tundra TD03
Model Number: SST-TD03
UPC: 844761010003
Price As Tested: $99.99 (NewEgg / Amazon)

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

Well here’s something a little different. SilverStone Technology has released their first line of all-in-one liquid coolers, part of the Tundra series. Sporting a patented fin design with claims of 40% higher cooling efficiency, new 120mm fans in a push/pull arrangement on a 45mm thick radiator and a custom water block, the SilverStone Tundra SST-TD03 All-In-One Liquid CPU Cooler that Benchmark Reviews has received for testing is a refreshingly unique addition to the growing and popular all-in-one water-cooling segment.

Complemented by another entry in the Tundra series (the TD02 with a 2x120mm radiator), the TD03 retains SilverStone’s affinity for aluminum construction to present a product that offers more than the typical “clone” AIO cooler.

Features & Specifications

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The CPU coolers tested were installed in a computer case in its normal, upright 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). In the case of liquid coolers, they were mounted in the rear exhaust location if possible (otherwise, as in the case of the Swiftech H220, mounted in the “floor” of the H630 as an intake). 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 (PWM/motherboard fan controls were disabled for testing). 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 heatsink 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 heatsink. 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.

• 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
• 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

At least on my overclocked AM3+ FX platform I use for testing, the changes SilverStone made to the AIO cooler formula appear to have worked. Unfortunately, I don’t have a Corsair H80i available to test, as that would be the most natural “competition” for the TD03. I’d be most interested in seeing these results as well! Still, it’s a strong showing for the TD03, and it seems to fit nicely along the price/performance curve.

With the fans running 100%, they did get pretty loud, but the pump itself was near silent (I couldn’t hear it over the rest of the case fans). At PWM speeds, the fans are quiet enough to make the move to water cooling worth it to help with noise. Overall, an impressive performance for a cooler that has to contend with a CPU that is consuming around 200W at load.

The TD03 is a refreshing addition to the growing and popular AIO liquid cooling market. The extra touches and attention SilverStone spent on the water block and radiator really set it apart from the competition, and the performance ranks right up there with the best as well.

Honestly, I was surprised to see the TD03 performing as well as it did. Normally with an overclocked FX platform, you want as much surface area as possible to dissipate the extra heat from the CPU – for higher overclocks, you’ll probably want a 240mm radiator at least, but at an average to high overclock of 4.6GHz the 45mm thick 120mm radiator of the TD03 seems to be able to keep up (perhaps due to that 40% greater cooling efficiency of the fin design?). It may take a bit more noise to do it, but at least you know the upper range of the TD03. Besides, a stress test is a “worst-case” type of scenario, you’ll probably be able to get by with a less aggressive fan profile to reduce noise if desired. If you need silence AND cooling for high overclocks, you’ll need to go a little bigger – but for everything else, the TD03 works quite well.

Appearance is the advantage the TD03 has over the competition, in my opinion. That all-aluminum (nickel plated) water block is beautiful, and would really fit well with some of SilverStone’s enclosures (or anyone that likes the look of brushed aluminum). I think they missed an opportunity by trying a completely different angle with the hoses (tell me braided stainless lines wouldn’t look amazing with that water block!), but that’s about the only misstep in an otherwise “premium” looking product. It certainly stands out among the other AIO coolers on the market.

Of course, the extensive use of aluminum means the TD03 is constructed well and feels solid when you’re installing it into your rig. The radiator fins, due to their unique design don’t seem to bend or dent as easily as other aluminum radiators, and feel stiffer overall. I think the appearance and construction of this product go hand in hand – the nickel-plated aluminum isn’t just for show, it definitely results in a more solid-feeling product.

The advantage of using 120mm fans/radiator is compatibility. Although 140mm rear exhaust fans are becoming more popular, you’re almost guaranteed a mounting place for the TD03 in most computer cases. Along with the ability to cool a hot FX CPU, I’d say the TD03 is a pretty functional product – while it may not do anything revolutionary, the cooling performance in such a small form factor is pretty compelling.

Possibly the most interesting quality of the TD03 is the value. As of August 2013, the SilverStone SST-TD03 was selling for $99.99 online (NewEgg / Amazon), which is right in the ballpark of what you would pay for a 45mm thick radiator and a push/pull configured AIO liquid cooler. Once you throw the metal construction of the custom water block and unique radiator (resulting in some impressive performance) in the picture, I’d say that’s a fair price. If you can deal with the hard plastic kink-free hoses and have an extra hand to help with installation, you’ll probably be pretty satisfied with the SilverStone TD03.

Even though the TD03 will probably end up scoring high enough for a Gold Tachometer award, I feel that a Silver is more appropriate as there is still some room for improvement. The performance is great and the product itself is a refreshing addition that brings premium materials and a touch of class to the popular AIO liquid cooler market. I’d love to see SilverStone take advantage of this and swap out those hoses for something even better, but overall I think I’ll be recommending the TD03 to anyone that’s looking for a nice-looking CPU water cooler that performs impressively well for the price. If I had to give a Gold Tachometer award to one AIO cooler right now, it’d still have to be the Swiftech H220 for it’s powerful pump, copper core radiator, expand-ability and quiet performance (even though they aren’t available in the US currently) – but the TD03 is a compelling option and a great choice. It definitely deserves a Silver Tachometer award – I can’t wait to see what SilverStone comes up with next.

+ Premium, unique look
+ Impressive performance
+ Silent pump
+ Stays quiet with less aggressive fan profiles
+ No software to install/configure, runs off of motherboard PWM
+ Compatible with most cases/builds

Cons:

– The stiff hoses will make installation more difficult than other options
– Plastic spacers for holding back-plate screws could grip tighter
– Fans get loud at full RPM

• Performance: 9.00
• Appearance: 9.50
• Construction: 9.00
• Functionality: 8.75
• Value: 8.50

Quality Recognition: Benchmark Reviews Silver Tachometer Award.

COMMENT QUESTION: Do you prefer liquid or air cooling on your CPU?