• reviews
  • cooling
  • Cooler Master Hyper 212 RGB Black Edition Heatsink Review
  • Cooler Master Hyper 212 RGB Black Edition Heatsink Review



    The Cooler Master Hyper 212 RGB Black Edition is designed for Intel Socket LGA2066 / 2011 / 1156 / 1155 / 1150 / 775 and AMD processors. Here is an overview of the system and testing methodology.

    The System as it was Tested

    ASUS Maximus APEX – Z390 Chipset
    Intel Core i9 9900k (3.6Ghz) Octo Core 8 x 256KB L2 Cache 16MB L3 Cache

    Cooler Master Hyper 212 RGB Black Edition (Single)
    Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus (Single)

    The CPUID System Monitor was used to obtain and record system temperature data and being that this is a quad core processor we need something that will work across all of the cores at once.  For this task we're using a new version of Prime95 (p95v255a) that will allow you to spawn (n) instances to test with.

    Editors note: Even though the Windows 10 task manager reported 100% processor usage we could never attain a 100% of the rated heat output as documented by Intel when using Prime95 as a basis for that heat production. Knowing this we ran the stress test until the maximum temperature was attainted and stabilized.

    Other things to consider when judging software induced heat output.
    a) Clock throttling by the processor at high temperatures.
    b) Normal software isn't designed to produce maximum heat output.
    c) Variances of cooling temperature.
    d) Variances in CPU load.
    e) Inaccuracies in thermal diode readouts.
    Of course the list goes on..

    Our testing methodology is aimed to provide a real world look into this heatsink given the test system provided.

    Default Speed

    A C/W rating can quickly be calculated using this formula.

    C/W = (CPU temp - Ambient temp)/(Variance(%) * CPU Watts)
    Allowed variance for this test = 85%
    CPU Watts = 95W  (or 124W due to turbo clock)

    0.32 C/W = (56C - 22C)/(.85(124W))


    For this next test the CPU speed was cranked up to 5.2Ghz and the test was re-run.

    To calculate a new C/W rating for this test we will need to factor in the increased processor wattage. The formula and constants for this are listed below.

    ocC/W = dCPU Watts * (ocMhz / dMhz) * (ocVcore / dVcore)2
    ocMhz = 5200
    dMhz = 4700 (boost)
    ocVcore = 1.3
    dVcore = 1.14
    The variance still applies for our C/W calculation
    Allowed variance for this test = 85%
    CPU Watts = 178W

    0.32 C/W = (70C – 22C)/(.85(178W))

    Benchmark Conclusion

    In our heatsink and waterblock tests we don't really focus on overall load temperatures but rather how well the product can remove heat given a specified heat load. Since this is a real world testing method we need to take into consideration real world variables and estimate tolerances. This is why we normally only apply 85% of the total wattage output to our heat calculations.

    The resulting C/W number is used to rate how efficient a heatsink or waterblock is based on the given heat load. These numbers can be used to determine heat capacity, the larger the difference the less efficient the heatsink is. (aka not good for overclocking)

    As the charts show we have a heatsink that can clearly handle a Core i9 9900k despite the logic of using a “budget” cooler on a $500USD processor.  Of course if the Hyper 212 can handle a Core i9 9900k it also means it can handle any other CPU around the 130w range.  (Ryzen, LGA 2011 etc..)  When looking at raw temperatures the 53c load temps at the default speed is about what I would expect however 70c at 5.2Ghz is getting up there.  The CPU fan was running close to 100% and clearly working for its money.

    What was really amazing was watching the classic Hyper 212 handle the Core i9 with the same ease as the never RGB Black Edition.  The one degree drop seems like a fluke but was repeated three times in a row and was within an acceptable range.  I guess they don’t make them like they used to.

    Keep in mind these calculations are provided for demonstration purposes only and may not reflect the actual lab tested C/W rating, but we're pretty close.