Conclusion
In this review, we strapped the DeepCool AK400 to our test bench to see how it performed against other air coolers that we’ve tested. It’s a budget-oriented 4 heatpipe tower cooler with a 120mm fan that looks different due to the top cover that DeepCool adorned it with for $34.99 MSRP. So, let’s recap the performance below and see how the DeepCool AK400 stood up!
Summary of Temperatures
DeepCool AK400 With AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
At stock speeds, the DeepCool AK400 turned in relatively solid numbers for a small, four heatpipe tower cooler with a single 120mm fan. With fans turned to 11, it maintained 58.75 degrees Celsius. It did a fairly good job of keeping the cool as the fan speeds dropped to 1000RPM during testing, though, at 600RPM it was done trying.
When overclocking, the best we can say is that the DeepCool AK400 survived testing its higher fan speeds, but turned in less than ideal temperatures. Ultimately, we were able to keep our AMD Ryzen 7 2700X in stable at 4.1GHz at the Max fan setting and 1500 RPM setting and no lower.
Summary of Sound Levels
DeepCool AK400 Sound Levels with AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
At its highest fan speed settings, the DeepCool AK400 was barely audible over the ambient room sound levels, with our decibel meter rating it at 46.4 dB(A). As we slowed the fan speeds, it disappeared into the ambient noise of the room, generally quieter than the competition that we reviewed it against.
Final Points
The DeepCool AK400 is priced as a budget cooler at its MSRP of $34.99, which is a solid $20 under the current street price of the SilverStone AR-01 V3 and about $10 under the current street price of Cooler Master’s Hyper 212.
From a performance perspective, it outcooled the SilverStone AR-01 V3 but was warmer than the Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO. From a sound perspective, it hushed far better than the other comparison coolers.
When you consider the overall performance from a cooling and sound perspective and factor in its price, the DeepCool AK400 is a beast when considering the overall value even if it is not the absolute best performer and not a cooler you’d want to overclock with.
If you’re in the market for an inexpensive, aesthetic, and quiet cooler that will get the job done at stock speeds, look no further than the DeepCool AK400. Check out our pricing widget above to see what it is going for today.
Discussion (3 replies)
Join Discussion →The 212 has been out for how long now? 2007? Sure, it's showing it's age a bit with noise levels, but man... it's just become so ubiquitous and the cost was never huge, it was the go-to for a lot of my builds that weren't going for cutting edge performance.
It's very nice to see this come out and be extremely competitive against what I consider to be the de facto entry-level standard. Great writeup, looks like a decent product. It's amazing how the basic design of these coolers is essentially the same - 4 heat pipes and some fins on a copper block; but they still have so much variance. I suspect we are seeing differences associated with the fans that are provided with the HSFs moreso than anything -- if you used the same fan with each run, I bet the results would be a lot closer. I know you're testing at static RPMs, and I think that's good, but different fan blade designs are going to push different CFM and static head with various noise levels for a given RPM as well. Whichever HSF has more pipes and more useable fin area will win every time if the fans are the same. Not saying you should adjust your testing -- I think testing with the fan provided with the unit is appropriate, just commenting to hear myself talk.
Also, I really appreciate that you have a steady test bench setup. It may not be cutting edge hardware, but I don't think it needs to be - the consistency matters more, especially if you start comparing reviews done today to reviews done 2-3 years from now.
It does make me think about Alder Lake and some of the issues it's having with it's design though... a drawback to this methodology is that you aren't able to identify or account for things like that. However, this is a review of the HSF, not Alder Lake, so I think that drawback is worth the consistency it gets you.
Heh. One of the criteria for the 2700X is we're not using it for GPU reviews anymore, might as well put it to work doing something else!
The thing that's really really really challenging with cooler reviews (in my opinion) is comparability. In today's more "modern" systems, there's a ton of variables that can get tweaked that will ultimately impact the overall performance of a given cooler. There's boost optimization for the CPU, there's fan speeds, there's the overall temperature of the CPU as well.
At default in the 2700X's case, it tends to start thermally throttling itself in the low 60's and really won't let itself get up over 80 degrees Celsius under load (probably for good reason as it starts crashing around 83c). Pair with that some arbitrary motherboard fan curve, and you'll end up with results that look quite similar between good and not-so-good coolers. It took a while to take those variables out of the game - running a set voltage, set frequency and getting around the CPU fan curve to allow for higher temperatures solves that particular comparison data issue, but of course, it creates another one.
The downside now is that the testing that we do does not necessarily relate to real-world usage of the product, though, I'd like to think the data points presented would be helpful to someone that is trying to customize their fan curve for the given cooler.
I think that's perfectly ok in this case --- you are looking for something representative of the cooler and it's performance; not how well any particular platform advantages or energy profiles play to that. Those will be consistent to your particular platform, and as you say - can mask the problems that a lesser cooler would exhibit over a better cooler.
Particularly today with chips that will run with some mayonaisse slathered on a metal lunchbox -- the only difference being how long and how high it will boost --- systems will work, and often work decently well under lightly loaded scenarios, with any old cooler that is at least connected to the socket properly. But a ~good~ cooler will get you better boost speeds and for longer times. But you won't know what a good cooler is from a bad cooler without some baseline info - which is what I appreciate your benchmark system providing.
If you tried to review a HSF under those conditions - they would all look about the same, because the chip would throttle out at some temp and you'd have to look at other parameters than just temperature and/or noise to determine what was working (and what was not).