"Yes, but that doesn't explain why the A12's performance doesn't match Noctua's stated range for it, which is basically equal for push and pull."
The stated stats are based on their testing system and setup. Your testing setup is probably very different.
Besides differences in the test labs, there is other influencing factors such as humidity in the air, pollution or chemicals or smoke in the air, solid particles such as dust or pollen or ash, etc., Hardware involved for the system is probably very different.
And of course the air pressure of the lab; based on altitudes and I guess sea level should be taken as a base or standard but it's probably not. Example: water on very high mountains boils at maybe 60C not 100C due to the thin air (low air pressure). So the amount of available heat in the air at a higher altitudes is always lower than at sea level.
Also the number of tests performed, the time duration of the tests (1 day, 2 days or for a solid week or 1-6 months, etc.) and is the stats based on normal averages or on a curve or a bell?
And of course the exact testing procedure and process of the testing in their lab probably differs from your lab.
Are their stats correct for their fans? More than likely as far, as their lab testing is concerned.
Can these stats be challenged or proven or even reproduced? Yes of course.
Can any tests results be cherry picked to show favor or be disfavored - sure can in most situations
I never take any vendor's (including Noctua) stats or figures or specs as being perfectly correct, precise, or as being absolutely accurate; just use it as a guide line or rough indicator.
See, the problem I have with their results is that if they are testing based on a totally controlled environment, it isn't representative of the vast majority of users. Sure, there are a lot of people with AC, but there are many more without it. When we look at de/humidifying, air filtration, water cooling, etc., the numbers drop majorly. So, that means their numbers are only useful for the lab scenario, as you pointed out. That means that they are useless numbers that don't give us the real picture and distort our understanding of how the fan will work for us. I'm not just pointing the finger at Noctua - I'm pointing it at every fan maker that puts out "facts" without backing them up with the same data that commercial-level products have to show. P/Q curves, according to many people, are pretty much useless, because they lack the data backing them.
But maybe they tested it in a way that isn't actually representative of their cooling ability. We get fans for cooling, though, so that means that data is garbage, too. If a company claims AF and SP whatever, yet it does a poor job of cooling, then published AF and SP just don't matter.
Let's say that they are just looking at how well a fan performs against a radiator or an exhaust grill. That's all well and good - we need to know if it's going to move air effectively through barriers. Yet, if that movement doesn't effectively cool the PC, then that info is useless, too. That's why my test is about actual temperatures. Sure, I'll also do AF and SP when I can find good enough quality meters, but what really matters is the temps. And, for some people, noise levels.
One more point regarding the A12s. They're supposed to be so great, right? One of the best of the best. Still, the T30 beats them. We can argue that's because of the extra 5mm (which can be a lot, as my mechanic recommended tires to me that were 5mm larger, only to have them rub against the wheel wells of my Ford Focus ZTS), so let's set aside the T30. But then there's the CM Mobius OC, but we can argue that it has a top RPM that's 1000+ over the A12x25. Yet, that is splitting hairs. Noctua makes faster fans, too, so why aren't they ranked at the top, too? Noctua charges a lot more money for most of their products, but they also give superior service - except their website. Yes, there's a lot of data, but it's not well-organized, and trying to find the right fan or cooler presents barriers that will cause people to contact Noctua, wasting their time because they refuse to improve it (I asked). When I contacted them about the best cooler for my PC and environment, they actually gave good advice, unless be quiet!, which recommended the wrong cooler, and DeepCool, which couldn't answer me about the AK500, and then recommended the AK400.
Again, they contend equal ability of the A12x25 for both intake and exhaust yet, given the same barrier, they didn't perform equally even though it was their product. Maybe their data is only valid when there's no barrier at all, which is useless, too since, aside from lazy testers, almost no one runs their computer on an open bench.
Whatever their methodology is, it's clearly flawed. On Hardware Busters, Aris (whom I've heard Steve @GN refer to with respect) reported that Noctua (and most others) published inaccurate specs. The person is a highly respected expert in the field but there's still the chance that he wasn't able to EXACTLY duplicate Noctua's methods, which might account for the variance, but most other manufacturers were shown to either exaggerate or downplay their specs. Here's for the A12x25, where the most notable variance is that Noctua vastly under-reported the max noise.
I don't mean to imply here that my methodology is the best. I will make no such assertion because there is NO best way and many bad ways. There are just TOO many variables to ever produce results that will be equally valid for every computer, regardless of size, case, components, etc.
"My guess, for what it's worth, boils down to what you said about cooler clearance plus price. Then again, some of those 140s are inexpensive, too."
Sometimes what is better or the best product doesn't always sell and make money for companies and stock holders.
Most often it is the product with inferior product design or just garbage products that sells the best as along as it is what is popular or very familiar or recognized as "the" name brand that sells the best. It's a general trend in almost all consumer products (including food and drink and health products, clothing, etc).
I agree. I remember that Iomega Zip drives were inferior to Syquest drives, yet Syquest became a fossil while Zip drives thrived until they became obsolete.
Back to top
