Alphacool Monsta 280 Radiator Review

Introduction

Alphacool NexXxos Monsta 280mm Radiator Review

Welcome to another Extreme Rigs 280mm radiator review.  Today we’ll be looking at the NexXxos Monsta 280mm from Alphacool. This behemoth measures in at a whopping 84.5mm thick and is by far the thickest 280mm radiator of our test group. We saw some interesting and unexpected results when we reviewed the Monsta 360 last year. The 280mm version only has ~10% less surface are than the 360, so might come up with some good performance comparisons between the two models.

There are currently 11 different “Monsta” sized radiators released by Alphacool which encompass every possible variant in the 120mm and 140mm fan size, as well as 3 different 180mm fan versions. They range from the Monsta 120 right up to the 2 versions of the Monsta 560 (4 x 140 and 3 x 180). The 280mm version we’re looking at today is almost certainly the most popular of the 140.x sized radiator.

In this review of the Monsta 280 we’ll take a close look at it’s construction & quality, analyze the performance data by comparing it’s results against other 280mm radiators and then conclude with a summary.

Firstly a big thanks to Aqua Tuning for providing the review sample of the Alphacool Monsta 280. Since we commenced our radiator testing, Aqua Tuning’s commitment to our independent tests has been second to none. Extreme Rigs couldn’t publish the reviews we do without the continued support offered by our sponsors, so a big thanks to all the crew at Aqua Tuning and Alphacool.

Before we start we would again like to say thanks to Noctua for providing the NF-A14 Industrial PPC-2000 IP67 PWM 140mm fans. We use these fans for all our 140mm based radiator thermal performance testing because they have great static pressure which is required to get the best performance from even the densest of radiator cores and of course, their proven reliability.

What’s in the Box?

The Monsta 280 sample arrived in full retail packaging. The front and back are identical and feature an image of the radiator along with the model and company logo.

Of interest below the model number Alphacool have stated the radiator is 80mm thick. We’ll see our measurements and the stated specifications shortly, but the Monsta 280 is definitely a bit thicker than what is being advised on the packaging.

Opening the box, we see the usual packing layout for Alphacool radiators.  Alphacool really have done a great job in ensuring that their radiators have every possible chance of arriving to the purchaser in the best possible condition.

As always, we are happy to see a bubble wrap sleeve to protect the paint finish from scuffing during transport and the foam pieces at each end keep the radiator from sliding about.

Placing the accessories in a separate box at one end of the package tops off what is a simple yet effective packaging layout.

Extent of delivery as listed by Alphacool:

“1x Radiator
8x M3x30mm hexagon socket screw
8x M3x35mm hexagon socket screw”

It’s interesting that Alphacool don’t list the 5 stop fittings as supplied accessories which are also included in the accessory box.

Aqua Tuning do mention the stop fittings on their Monsta 280 product page, and list the following as included in the package:

“1x Radiator
8x M3x30mm hexagon socket screw
8x M3x35mm hexagon socket screw
5x lock screw”

In the previous photo we saw the brown box tucked away at one end of the packaging. This contains the accessories which are supplied with the Monsta 280.
Inside there are 5 small bags in total, four of which contain a set of 4 screws and the last contains the stop plugs and an unmentioned Allen Key.

The shorter screws measure in at 30mm, while the longer ones are 35mm. Each screw has ~5mm of thread before a solid and thicker shank up to the button head, hex key heads. The supplied 2.5mm Allen Key in used to tighten the hex head screws during installation.

8 screws of each length are provided, so there are enough to fit the radiator with either a Push Only, Pull Only OR Push/Pull fan assembly.

It is unusual that no warning about using correct screw length was on or in the packaging. however the following image is on the Alphacool website.
So we have been warned!

However, the Monsta 280 has four built in features that make it impossible to puncture a tube with the supplied screw sets. It has great puncture protection plates (PPPs) and the super deep internal shrouds of 11mm mean that even a 35mm screw length do not even reach the PPPs when passed through a 25mm fan. The key features however are that the tubes are NOT under the fan attachment holes and the screws themselves only have 5mm of thread.  So the screws can not physically screw down far enough to get anywhere near the core (or protection plates). Excellent!

For Push/Pull fan assemblies without grills/gaskets, it is likely that you will need to source another set of 8 30mm length screws, or use the supplied 35mm screws with the less desirable and more ugly option of using washers to pack out behind the screw heads.

The supplied low profile stop plugs are finished in a rather industrial looking black nickel finish. They don’t look sensational, but at least they are supplied so all unused ports on the radiator can be capped off with out the end user required to purchase anything else.
We would prefer the port plugs to have a black finish and we suspect most people who purchase Alphacool radiators would prefer this also, so we hope that in the future this small change can be accommodated.

Onwards to technical specifications!

Technical Specifications

Technical Specifications as listed by Alphacool:

Unfortunately a Technical Drawing of the Monsta 280 could not be located.

Dimensions Measured on the Radiator Tested:

The review sample has a thickness of 84.5mm which differs from a fair bit from what is stated on the packaging and is slightly thinner than the specification listed on Alphacool’s website. The +1.5 and +3 are to be added if the supplied port plugs are fitted to the ports on each side/end.

To be honest, 5mm variance is probably neither here nor there. If you are considering a Monsta radiator of any size, you will either already have a case or be getting one that can easily accommodate these oversize beasts such as one of the larger models from CaseLabs.

The above photo has 2 Monsta 480mm radiators fitted, both with Push/Pull fan assemblies. Warning: Don’t try this at home!

To get a real scale for the Monsta 280, it needs to be seen side by side with some other 280 mm radiators. Here we see Alphacool’s range of NexXxos 280mm radiators. Normally a 60mm radiator such as the UT60 would be classed as thick, but the Monsta 280 takes it to another level.

Radiator Core Dimensions:

The 62.5 mm thick core is made up of 4 layers of 10 tubes arranged in the standard U-Flow configuration. The fin arrangement consists of single serpentine fins which are louvered and have a 10 FPI count. On a thinner radiator this somewhat sparse core figuration would certainly be best suited for low speed fans, but with the Monster’s thick core all bets are off until we see some data.

The following picture is a reference which shows a typical U-Flow coolant flow path, where the coolant travels up all the tubes on one side (left in pic) of the rad and then returns down the other side. U-Flow is most easily recognized when the port end has 2 separate tanks, such as those on the Monsta 280.

The louvered fins are spaced very evenly between the tubes and our sample had the specified fin count of 10 FPI.

Finish and Features

The satin black paint finish on the Monsta 280 is buttery smooth. I really could not fault the paint work on this one which is in contrast with some other Alphacool radiators I’ve received for review.
The steel side panels give the radiator lots of support and the whole thing feels very solid.

Some time ago a limited edition white version of the Monsta 280 was available, but these all seem to have disappeared, so for now it seems only the satin black finish available.

A small Alphacool logo is present on each side. I think the painted blue logo represents the latest (4th, maybe 5th) generation of the NexXxos series radiators. Due to the multi-port nature of the Monsta 280, it can be roof mounted or floor mounted and the logo will be the right way up now matter which end of the case the ports are located.

Screw protection plates are fitted under each fan attachment hole on the Monsta 280.

These could save the radiator from damage if custom length screws are used. However as no tubes are directly under the fan mounting holes, terminal damage is unlikely to occur anyway.

When using either of the supplied screw sets which have only 5mm of thread, it is impossible to damage the core by tightening the screws down too far.

Above a supplied 30mm screw fixing a 25mm thick fan in place. These are the perfect length for direct fan attachment or for fixing through a case panel.

Below the 35mm screws are used and we can clearly see (click to open in new tab) the thread has run out preventing the screw from being tightened down any further. Hence our suggestion earlier that for a Push/Pull set-up you will likely need to purchase addition 30mm length screws.
So every tube protection method is incorporated into the Monsta 280 design – protection plates, depth of shrouds, tube locations and screw thread length. Perfect!

The Monsta 280 is fitted with a total of 6x G 1/4 ports on the tank end of the radiator. We love multi-port rads, so this just makes us happy.

Each tank has 3 ports in total, with one port one each side of the tanks and one on the ends.
Either tank can be used as the inlet or outlet side for the coolant flow path, and any of the 3 ports on each tank can be selected to install the fittings for tube attachment.
so long as one tank is coolant in, and the other is coolant out, such as this “traditional” fitting placement.

Having the option to route tubes in and out at different angles offers opportunities for cleaner or even hidden tubing runs depending on the installation orientation.

And let’s not forget about possibilities to add a drain tap and temperature sensors. Mulit-Port radiators add so much flexibility to users in virtually every installation scenario.

On the return and of the Monsta 280 we also have an ancillary port which can be used as an air bleeding port, fitting a temperature sensor, fill port, or a drain port depending on the orientation that it is mounted.

One of the only criticism I have with the current NexXxos range including the Monsta 280 is that the threads of the G 1/4 ports have also been painted black. It is unavoidable that paint will chip away or get scraped off when screwing fittings into the threads and where will these paint chips end up ? In the micro channels of your blocks most likely, possibly reducing the flow rate and overall performance of the system.

Another issue is that Alphacool have chosen to use a 16mm spacing between the central fan attachment holes. Every other manufacturer uses a 15 mm spacing, so it is strange that Alphacool have decided to go with 16mm. I have seen instances in some build logs where users have had to unnecessarily modify the mounting holes on their cases to accommodate the screw locations on the 140.x Alphacool radiators.

While the 16mm fan spacing is bothersome, of more concern is the spacing for each fan: in particular the spacing across the width of the radiator. I am unsure if there is an industry standard that the width fan mounting holes should be, but I am certain that all the 140mm fans I have, are made with a 125mm spacing.
Below we see a 124mm spacing at one end of the Monsta 280 (all were similar). This is usable, but only just. Because the supplied screws have a thicker shank there is less wiggle room to move the fan when starting off the threads. Therefore a tighter tolerance is needed for the threaded screw holes.

The spacing across the 2 center sets of holes was worse at ~123mm. I was able to get all 4 screws in for each fan, but I was feeling uncomfortable when starting off the last screw of each fan. The “tell tales” of scratched paint around the screw holes are not just there from me fumbling around. The holes are not positioned correctly to allow for trouble free installation. I have no doubt this will lead to cross threading and rounding off of the threads sooner rather than later.

Having said that I did get some photos taken with fans attached.

If your thinking of going Push/Pull with a Monsta 280, make sure you have ~150mm of available real estate in you case as the radiator and fans alone measure in at ~135mm.

Internal Cleanliness:

Before moving on to the performance assessment I want to mention the internal cleanliness of the Monsta 280 sample. This is not something I normally do because cleaning new radiators before use is just one of those chores which we all have to do.

Alphacool radiators have been consistently among the dirtiest which have passed over the ER test benches and has been noted in numerous reviews we have done on them in the past.

Things have now changed and the good news is that the latest revision of NexXxos radiators (with blue logos) are coming out with a different cleaning process after manufacturing. This new process has resulted in unexpected and surprisingly clean internals. I recently flushed/cleaned 5 different current version Alphacool radiators including the Monsta 280 reviewed here, and all were within reasonable expectations of being clean and free of excess amount of debris after the first rinse.

We still strongly advise cleaning all new radiators prior to use, but it is great to see that what was a terrible problem has now been rectified.

So here we have a ~85mm thick radiator with a low density core. It has 6 ports plus an ancillary port. Screw protection plates are fitted but some of the screw attachment holes are at best, not very user friendly and at worst at risk of being inadvertently cross threaded. The paint finish on the sample was excellent but we feel that the paint on the inside of the ports could lead to unwanted problems.

Let’s see how it performs…

Flow Rate Testing

The Data

As all the testing was performed with the exact same equipment (except the 140mm Noctua Industrial fans replace the 120mm GT fans), using the exact same methods as was used in the 360mm round-up we have decided to keep this review uncluttered by keeping our testing methodology, test set-ups and equipment used in a single location. To see exactly how the tests were carried out, details of the test set ups and equipment used, please head over to the RRU Test Setup page.

Restriction Test

It is generally agreed that radiators are one of, if not the least restrictive components in the water cooling loop. There are some exceptions however, so this must still be verified through testing:

The above photo is for referencing the restriction test bench The Monsta 280 is not loaded so please disregard the data in the picture as it does not relate to the its test results.

Here is the raw data at the tested flow rates, displaying the measured Differential Pressure across the radiator as flow rate was increased.
The table numbers indicate that this Monsta 280 is a very low restriction radiator. However numbers in isolation can only tell half the story. By plotting against other components it more easily shows the whole story.

We use a HeatKiller 3.0 CPU block as the reference in this next plot for two reasons. Firstly there is little chance of the plot being cluttered by curves overlapping and secondly it gives a reference point against a fairly common loop component of average restriction.

As with all previous radiator restriction plots, we have limited the maximum flow rate displayed to 2.0 GPM as we suspect there are very few systems that operate above 2.0 GPM. For more information on how to read a restriction plot check out our guide.

This plot indicates the Monsta 280 is a very low restriction loop component when compared to a CPU block of average restriction, but what about other radiators?

The next three plots show the restriction level at three different flow rates compared to the other 280mm radiator that have been tested. We consider the chosen GPM rates to represent systems which have low, medium and high flow rates.

That is a very low restriction level indeed!

The Monsta 280 is the least restrictive of all the radiators in the test group at each flow rate which was chosen to be compared at.

This is due to it having 4 layers of tubes which split the fluid volume being pumped. The extra layer of tubes means less pressure is build up at the inlet port which results in less pressure difference between the inlet and outlet ports. This difference in pressure is exactly what we are measuring in this test.

In the following plot the data has been zoomed in to display only between 0.8 GPM and 1.2 GPM which is what an average system’s flow rate would be running at. Clearly there is not a lot of variance between the least restrictive radiators of the group.

Let’s now take a look at where the Monsta fits in relation to all the radiators we have tested. For this plot, only results for 1.0 GPM have been used for the comparison.

When put into context with all the radiators at 1.0 gpm, the Monsta 280 fits into our criteria as a very low restriction radiator. With Monsta radiators being the 3 least restrictive radiators overall, it is obvious that their 4 layers of tubes are beneficial for improved system flow rates. This means you could easily have numerous Monsta radiators without having to be concerned about them reducing your flow rate by very much at all.

Excellent!!

Next onwards to Thermal Performance.

Thermal Testing

The Thermal Data

A total of 6 tests were conducted at 1.0 GPM with fan speeds of 750 rpm, 1300 rpm and 1850 rpm being run in ‘Push Only’ and ‘Push/Pull’. All inclusive this testing takes between 40 – 50 hours of logging time (plus processing the data) to get the results that are presented.

Below is the final data results gathered from at least 5 data logging runs at the flow rate and fan rpm combination. The most stable 15 minute period from each logging run was used and then averaged with the other runs to obtain the data for the table below. A total of 16 temperature sensors are used in the thermal test chamber (8 air in, 2 air out, 3 water in, 3 water out). Each sensor takes a reading every second and is logged via a CrystalFontz unit.

The data in the table below is the averaged results of the logging runs which has then been used to create all the plots and tables there-after.

The performance metric of critical importance is the delta between the warm coolant temperature in and the cool ambient air temperature going into the radiator. Given that the system is well insulated and in equilibrium and we know the heat input to the system then we can also calculate a very important number. That number is the amount of power required to raise the coolant temperature by set amount. That amount is typically 1C or 10C. The latter is a more useful reference point.

Let’s take a look at the Delta T results from the tests. Note that the extrapolation of the curve is much more sensitive to error than in the tested range.

I was not too concerned about the actual delta numbers but instead the trend pattern. As we should expect, the deltas come down significantly as the fan speed is increased. The two lines look to be pretty evenly spaced apart at the data points, indicating we should expect a set of balanced performance results with no huge bias to any particular fan speed.

Delta T results (as above) are not always helpful when thinking about how many radiators you would need to cool your system. Instead it’s more useful to know the metric of W/Delta C. This metric is plotted below. It tells us how many Watts are dissipated by the radiator when the coolant rises 10C above ambient temperatures. (W/10 Delta T):

The average difference between Push Only and Push/Pull results at the same fan speed was ~14.5%, and ranged from ~13% at 750 rpm to 16% at 1850 rpm. This very close percentage difference shows that the Monsta 280’s potential performance scales very evenly across different fan assemblies as the fan speeds are increased.

This same data can now be plotted on a chart so that an end user can interpolate their own fan speed. Note again that the extrapolation of the curve is much more sensitive to error than in between the tested range.

Here we can see that the Monsta scales well with more airflow even above 1850RPM.   The thick core unleashes a lot of possible cooling – if you can get enough air through it.

Now let’s analyze that data some more…

Data Analysis

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!

Summary

Thermal Performance

Thermal Performance scores are derived from the relevant Performance Factor scores. We set this scale with 75% and below as the 0 mark, with each 2.5% increase in relative performance adding 0.5 to the awarded performance score.

Note: Our test group of 10 radiators range in thickness from 29.5mm to 84.5mm with core density ranging from 9 FPI to 21 FPI. This greatly differing array of samples means that the better performing thicker radiators (generally speaking) will actually make the thinner radiators scores appear worse. This is an unavoidable side effect of the scoring system and we again advise readers to focus on radiators which are suitable for the specific case scenario. Depending on the amount of variance in the results, this could end up with misleading scores based on the comparative performance.

Push Only Thermal Performance

• 4.5/5
  

The Monsta 280’s Push Only APF result of 95.6% translated into a performance score of 4.5/5.
It’s 62.5mm thick core combined with the low density FPI fin array proved to be a match made in heaven. While not taking out a 1st place it did finish 3rd in all 3 tests for Push Only.

Push/Pull Thermal Performance

• 3.5/5
  

The Push/Pull APF result of 90.6 translated into a thermal performance score of 3.5 out of 5. The Monsta 280 being the thickest radiator of the test group was expected to perform well in Push/Pull, however with 2 radiators that are ~20% thinner having better results it proves that core design can be better than brute force size alone.

The Nemesis 280 GTX which scored a perfect 100 in this category pushed all the other rad’s scores down.
Imagine for a second the results without the Nemesis GTX – the Monsta 280 would have placed second and had a Push/Pull AFT of 97.1 with a performance score of 4.5/5.

Overall Thermal Performance

• 4/5
  

The Master Performance score of 93.1 generates an above average performance score of 4/5. This system generated score does actually seem somewhat harsh given that the Monsta 280 placed 3rd in 5 out of 6 thermal tests conducted. Again the Nemesis GTX pushed many other radiator’s scores lower having an APF result of 98.2.

Performance is not the be all and end all factor in making a purchase decision, though for many it is high on the selection criteria.

Because the Monsta is so thick it did not score very well and placed last in our Thermal Performance Vs. Space Efficiency metric. Additionally it’s Value performance score was also very weak.

Features & Quality – 3.5/5

The Monsta 280 has steel side panels which keep this very large and heavy radiator feeling very solid. The end tanks are brass with copper tubes and fins which are spaced very evenly. The satin black finish was flawless and we are very pleased to see that a new cleaning method has been employed after manufacturing which brings Alphacool radiators internal cleanliness to acceptable levels.

The 84.5mm overall thickness of the sample is hard to overlook as the dominant physical feature of the Monsta 280, but coming a close second is the amount of G 1/4 ports which are fitted. With 3 each inlet/outlet ports to chose from plus an auxiliary port it has almost the maximum possible number of ports.

Also outstanding is the tube protection, having protection plates fitted plus a large shroud and supplied screws with a small amount of thread. The threaded fan mounting holes was the biggest problem with the Monsta 280 sample we received. Not being able to attach fans easily with the supplied hardware is a big cause for concern and this reduced the Monsta 280’s score in this category.

The core is well balanced for performance across all fan assemblies despite having a very low fin count of 10 FPI core. This low FPI count should mean the Monsta 280 will need cleaning less often than other radiators.
The very low restriction level will not pose any issues for pump power requirements when planning out your loop, even with multiple Monsta radiators in the system.

Summary – 4.0/5

The Monsta 280 proved to be a very good all round performer and placed third in 5 of the 6 thermal tests conducted. Not surprisingly then it took 3rd place in Push Only, Push/Pull and the overall score.

Unfortunately the excellent thermal performance didn’t translate so well into space efficiency or value.

It has a very low restriction level and a very low FPI count. The design is traditional looking if somewhat thicker than everything else on the market, and it has a multitude of port options.

Apart from the poor screw hole locations the build quality and finish are great, but with it currently retailing at $115 USD it is the most expensive radiator of the test group.

The Monsta 280 is going to be suited for a certain type of buyer. One who has ample room in their case to fill up. It is somewhat expensive compared to other 280mm radiators and there are thinner radiators which perform better than or equal to it. It’s hard to recommend the Monsta 280 over the Alphacool UT60 for example, which had very similar results in our tests at each data point.

Where to buy:

• Aqua Tuning : Black $115 + shipping
• Aqua Tuning : Black €109 (incl. VAT) + shipping