This first table shows the Monsta 280’s Watts/10 Delta Temp numbers in a quick glance chart format.
Using this data we can effectively show percentage gains/losses relative to a reference point. It’s an interesting way to show gains/losses while changing a variable.
So, let’s focus on 1300 RPM as our reference and see how much gain or loss in performance we get by changing fan speed.
From these results we see a ~37% drop in performance of from 1300rpm to 750 in both Push Only and Push/Pull, however there is a good performance increase of ~31% with the next fan speed increase. This indicates the Monsta 280 is likely best tuned for medium to high speed fans. This makes sense when we consider how thick it is, despite having a low FPI count.
So from the data above we’re getting a good idea of how the Monsta 280 radiator performs relative to itself. But there is a large selection of 280mm radiator models to choose from, so let’s put the Monsta 280’s results into some comparison charts.
Push Only Data vs Competition
In general, thicker radiator perform better than thinner radiators of the same size (fan capacity) but a lot also has to do with how each core has been designed / tuned; number of tubes, thickness of tubes, fin array etc.
If it were thickness alone we should expect the Monsta 280 to outperform everything and our testing would be totally unnecessary.
Focusing on the Push Only results for now, let’s see how the Monsta 280’s performance compares to the competition.
Let’s start with 750 RPM.
Clearly the Monsta 280 has performed very well in Push Only at 750 RPM. With ~1.5% difference between it and the best performing radiator our predictions earlier that it would perform best with medium to high fan speeds may have to be reassessed.
Now let’s look at 1300 rpm:
At Push Only 1300 RPM the Monsta 280 again finished in 3rd place (equal 2nd really if we factor in margins for test error) and was ~4.1% behind the all conquering Nemesis GTX
Now 1850 rpm Push Only:
At 1850 rpm the Monsta 280 holds 3rd position (just) over it’s thinner sibling; the UT60. Somewhat surprisingly The Monsta 280 has turned in 3 very good comparative results with a Push Only fan assembly. The core then seems very well tuned, having it’s thickness balanced by the fin array and tube layout.
Let’s find out how the Monsta 280 performs with Push/Pull fans.
Push/Pull Data vs. Competition
Firstly the 750 rpm:
For the first time the Monsta 280 has appeared in the bottom half of the performance results. Here we see 2 radiators nearly one third of the Monsta 280’s thickness appearing in the top 5. Rather than the Monsta performing worse at this data point, it is far more likely that those radiators have found their sweet spot.
Let’s move to 1300 rpm:
At 1300 rpm Push/Pull the Monsta 280 again takes the (equal) 3rd place ranking (within test error margins) and again is going head to head with the UT60. The Nemesis GTX is streaking away from the pack and is ~10% ahead of the Monsta 280 at this point.
Now 1850 rpm:
At 1850 rpm Push/Pull the Monsta 280 takes another 3rd place, again ~10% behind the winning rad.
Let’s now combine the Push Only and Push/Pull results of our 1.0 GPM flow rate tests. Sometimes these combined plots show up points of interest. Actually, the combined plots did not show anything up which was out of the ordinary or amazing this time, so I have decided to “spoiler” them. This way readers who like these plots can still see the data.
Another view of the same data, this time plotted as curves and some extrapolation added.
Be warned these plots can be hard to read given that many results are similar at the same data points.
Again the Push Only data first:
This perhaps best shows just how close the results are, particularly with low speed fans.
Because the data curves in plot above are almost blurred into one another, we have split it into two separate plots; 750 rpm to 1300 rpm and 1300 rpm to 1850rpm and zoomed in on those fan speed zones.
Now the Push/Pull results are plotted, again followed by split and zoomed versions.
Before moving on I’ve put the W/10ΔT results for the Monsta 280 and Monsta 360 on the same plot. This is one of those “just for fun” plots because in reality we can’t make a 1 to 1 comparison between the two sizes because of the differing performance of the fans used. However, lets quickly throw out some percentages for viewing to save those of you interested in doing it yourself, which we know you will 🙂
In the introduction I stated that the Monsta 280 had 10% less surface area than the Monsta 360, knowing that and the difference in fans used to test the different size radiators interpret the following as you will.
At all three fan speeds in both Push Only and Push/Pull the Monster 360 had better performance.
At 1850 rpm in both Push Only and Push/Pull the Monsta 360 had ~7.5% better performance than the 280mm version.
At 1300 rpm the difference varied a little so a single percentage can not be used.
Push Only Monster 360 was 6.75 % better.
Push/Pull Monster 360 was 8.75% better
At 750 rpm Push Only: Monster 360 was 4.5% better
and at Push/Pull 750 rpm: Monster 360 was 10.5% better
From all the test results we created “Average Performance Factor” charts for both Push Only and Push/Pull. We then made a combined plot of the average called the “Master Performance Factor”. The radiator with the best cooling ability (W/10ΔT) at each rpm was awarded a score of 100. Each other radiators W/10ΔT result was scored as percentage of the top performer.
This way of looking at the comparison takes away any advantages that a radiator may have at higher or lower fan speeds and looks at an overall average. While this appears fair it does tend to favor those radiators that are all-rounders and those radiators which do very well at high RPM. Most users should be more focused on their specific use case.
Here are the Monsta 280’s percentage scores at each data point:
This table shows us that the Monsta 280 is on average ~7% behind the best performing radiator at each data point that was tested. The results “appear” to get worse with increased fan speeds, but that does not mean that the Monsta’s performance got worse, more so that the best radiator got better as the fan speeds increased.
As these percentage scores are relative to the best performer at each data point, we again advise readers to cross reference specifications and results for each radiator and keep in mind your intended fan assembly and operating speed.
The percentage numbers in the table above offer another way of looking at the Monsta 280’s results. But for our scoring system we need a way to reduce the categories while retaining the data. To do this we average the results for each fan assembly type giving us Averaged Performance Factors. We calculate this for Push Only, Push/Pull and finally an average of everything.
Firstly – the Push Only APF:
With an 95.6 % Averaged Push Only result the Monsta 280 places 3rd. Not surprising given it had 3 individual 3rd place results. This is an excellent data set for the Monsta 280.
Now the Push/Pull APF:
In the Push/Pull APF the Monsta 280 again takes third place. Any weak points were somewhat magnified by the 100% score on the Nemesis 280 GTX which finished ~9.5% ahead of the Monsta 280.
Finally we created the Master Performance Factor which is calculated from the averaged results of all the Push Only and Push/Pull thermal tests, at all fan speeds.
With a 3rd place in the overall performance testing, the Monsta 280 proved to be a very good all rounder punching out good results at every data point.
Space Efficiency
The Monsta 280’s space efficiency vs. performance ranking is unlikely to be very flattering as thinner rads almost always produce better results here than their thicker counterparts. We have used the Average Performance Factor results from the charts above to compile two plots which shows us how it compares to the other rads in terms of performance Vs. space taken.
First up is Radiator Thickness Vs. APF
Here the combined APF scores were divided by the radiator thickness only, with the highest (most space efficient) issued a score of 100. Each of the other radiators results was converted to a percentage of the most space efficient radiator’s score.
The order has ended almost in order of thinnest to thickest and as anticipated the Monsta did not fair so well in this assessment.
Next we took the APF results for Push/Pull and divided it by the total thickness including the fans and applied the same scoring system. For the Push Only we used the Push Only Vs Push/Pull comparative results and applied the same scoring system when compared against the Push/Pull.
This plot is likely the most useful for readers of the 2 plots for space efficiency. With fan thickness factored in the Monsta 280 finishes last place in both Push Only and Push/Pull. So while the Monsta is efficient at heat dissipation it does so at the cost of taking up a lot of space because of it’s thickness.
Value Factor
While our APF’s are still fresh in mind, let’s now look at some performance results vs Price to show which of the 280mm radiators might offer the best bang for your buck. Each radiator’s combined APF scores were divided by the radiator cost and again we applied our scoring system of percentage Vs. the best performer of the category.
The Monsta 280’s Value Factor turns out to be quite low, which tells us that it is not very good value for the performance potential it offers. In reality the difference is not great, but when visualizing with percentages as we have done, the gap appears large. Generally value and space efficiency metrics usually correlate – thicker radiators do contain more material after all and so are usually also more expensive.
Next Up – Summary!
