Alphacool NexXxos UT60 280 Radiator Review

1. Introduction2. Technical Specifications3. Flow Rate Testing4. Thermal Testing5. Data Analysis6. Summary7. View All

Introduction

Alphacool NexXxos UT60 280mm Radiator Review

Welcome to another Extreme Rigs 280mm radiator review. Today we’ll be looking at the NexXxos UT60 280 from Alphacool. As the name implies the UT60 280 is a 60mm thick radiator suitable for two 140mm size fans (or four fans if setup in Push/Pull).

It is one of 12 different “UT60” sized radiators released by Alphacool which encompass every possible variant in the 120mm and 140mm fan size, including the four recently released 120.x X-Flow versions. The 280mm version we’ll be reviewing today is probably the most versatile of the four 140mm sizes, being suitable for roof, floor, side and front mount situations.

In this review of the UT60 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.

We saw very good all round performance results when we reviewed the UT60 360 last year, so we are expecting similar with the 280mm version. The 280mm version has ~10% less surface are than the 360, so we may find some interesting performance comparisons between the two models.

Firstly a big thanks to Aqua Tuning for providing the review sample of the Alphacool UT60 280mm. 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 densest of radiator cores and of course, their proven reliability.

What’s in the Box?

The UT60 280 sample arrived in full retail packaging. The front and back are virtually identical and feature an image of the radiator along with the model and company logo.

Below the model number Alphacool have noted two key features, the thickness and that it features 6 x G 1/4 ports.

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
5x screw plug
8x M3x30mm hexagon socket screw
8x M3x35mm hexagon socket screw”

In the previous photos we saw the brown box which comes tucked away at one end of the packaging. This contains all of the accessories which are supplied with the UT60 280.

Inside there are 5 small bags in total, four of which contain a set of 4 screws and the last contains 5 stop plugs and an unmentioned Allen Key.

The shorter screws measure in at 30mm, while the longer ones are 35mm. The 30mm screws have ~5mm of thread and the 35mm set has ~4mm 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. However as we will see shortly the length of the screws provided is somewhat of a mis-match when attaching the fans.

There is no warning about correct screw length on or in the packaging, however the following image is on the Alphacool website.
So we have been warned!

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. We hope that in the future this small change can be accommodated.

 

Onwards to technical specifications!

Technical Specifications

UT60 280mm Technical Specifications as listed by Alphacool:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following Technical Drawing is courtesy of Alphacool.

 

Dimensions Measured on the Radiator Tested:

The +1.5 and +3 are to be added if the supplied port plugs are fitted to the ports on each side/end.

Radiator Core Dimensions:

At 60mm thick the UT60 280 is the second thickest of the 280mm offerings from Alphacool.

The 43.5 mm thick core is made up of 3 layers of 14 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. Our first thoughts are that the core package seems ideally suited for medium speed fans. We’ll find out in our performance test analysis if this was an accurate assessment or not.

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 UT60 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 UT60 280 review sample did have a few very minor imperfections, but nothing that detracts from the overall finish. Generally speaking, the finish on the latest revision of NexXxos radiators (including this UT60) has been very good and only under close scrutiny such as we do for our reviews, that minor imperfections have occasionally been noticed.

The steel side panels give the radiator lots of support and the whole thing feels very solid.

A small Alphacool logo is present on each side. The painted blue logo represents the latest (4th, maybe 5th) generation of the NexXxos series radiators. Due to the multi-port nature of the UT60, 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 UT60 280.

The Protection Plates are standard on all Alphacool radiators BUT are particularly beneficial on the UT60 280 as the mounting holes are located directly over the tubes.

As noted earlier the supplied 30mm screws are actually a bit too long for use when attaching a standard 25mm thick fan directly to the radiator. The thread bottoms out on the screw protection plates before the fan is secured. Therefore in most instances the 30mm screws would be an ideal length for mounting the radiator with a fan to a case panel.
However, for mounting fans directly to the radiator, some form of “packing out” is needed under the screw heads.

From this we conclude that for a Push/Pull fan assembly you would need to acquire another set of 30mm long screws.

We’re not sure how much use the supplied 35mm length screws will be with the UT60 280mm radiator, because the 35mm just seems too long given the ~4mm depth to the screw protection plates.

Alphacool have chosen to use a 16mm spacing between the central fan attachment holes. The industry “standard” is 15 mm, so why Alphacool have chosen this spacing size is somewhat of a mystery. I have seen 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.

Recently we have seen some irregular spacing for the fan hole mountings, so we have begun showing these measurements. We hope that by highlighting design or manufacturing issues manufacturers will tighten up on their quality control.

I am unsure if there is an industry standard that the width 140mm fan mounting holes should be, but I am certain that all the 140mm fans I have, are made with a 124.5 – 125mm spacing.

On the UT60 280 review sample we were pleased to find that all the measurements, both across and lengthwise were within expectations.

We had no issues in mounting fans to either side of the UT60 280. (apart from the length of screws as mentioned earlier)

The UT60 280 is fitted with a total of 6x G 1/4 ports on the tank end of the radiator. We love multi-port radiators, so this just makes us happy.

Each inlet/outlet tank has 3 ports in total, with one port on 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 then everything will work just fine.  One example is 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.

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.

In the following photo a Bitspower 1/2″ x 3/4″ compression fitting is installed with a fan attached. At 25.5mm wide these are perhaps the widest fitting available. Therefore the UT60 280 is compatible with almost every fitting on the market.

On the return and of the UT60 280 an ancillary port is fitted 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 UT60 280, is that the threads of the G 1/4 ports have 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.

Internal Cleanliness:

Before moving on to the performance assessment I want to mention the internal cleanliness of the UT60 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.

Well, things have 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 UT60 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 60mm thick radiator with a low density core that has protection plates fitted. It has 6 ports plus an ancillary port. The paint finish had a few very minor blemishes which were within reasonable expectations however 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 UT60 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 UT60 280 is a very low restriction radiator as one might expect with 3 layers of tubes. 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 UT60 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.

The UT60 280 is among the least restrictive of the radiators in our test group at all flow flow rates which were chose to compare against. Three layers of tubes for the coolant to pass through 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 UT60 280 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 UT60 280 fits into our criteria as a low restriction radiator. This means you could easily have numerous UT60 series 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.

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 ~16%, and ranged from ~15% at 750 rpm to 17% at 1300 rpm. This very close percentage difference shows that the UT60 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.

 

Now let’s analyze that data some more…

Data Analysis

This first table shows the UT60 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 ~32% with the next fan speed increase.
This indicates the UT60 280 is likely best tuned for medium speed fans, with a slight bias towards higher speeds than lower speed fans. This makes sense when we consider it’s thickness, despite having a low FPI count.

Recently I’ve been talking more and more about fan speed bias and felt that it was not adequately being represented visually. So we’ve come up with a new plot which maybe better shows fan speed performance bias.

The following plot is not a radiator Vs. radiator comparison, although all the 280 models tested are included and ordered for high speed results.  Rather it is intended to show the bias of each individual radiator by averaging the Push Only and Push/Pull W/10DT results and comparing the result as as percentage to the 1300 rpm result. The averaged 1300 rpm calculation was used as the base-line and is set at 100%.

Or put more simply, how did each radiator’s 750 rpm and 1850 rpm results compare to it’s 1300 rpm.

So from the data above we’re getting a good idea of how the UT60 280 radiator performs relative to itself. But there is a large selection of 280mm radiator models to choose from, so let’s put the UT60 280’s results into some performance comparison charts.

Push Only Data vs Competition

In general, thicker radiators 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 UT60 280 to always be near the top of the charts and our testing would be totally unnecessary.

Focusing on the Push Only results for now, let’s see how the UT60 280’s performance compares to the competition.

Let’s start with 750 RPM results:

The results at this data point are always very close and the top 5 rads are a very mixed bunch of thickness and FPI indeed! After margin for test error is taken into consideration the UT60 280 places equal 5th and is only~4.5% behind the winner.

Something I found interesting here was that the 4 Alphacool models finished in order of thickness. This is something I wasn’t quite expecting. I wrongly assumed that lower fans speeds would not move enough air to make the Monsta more efficient than the UT60 OR that the UT60 would be better than the XT45.

 

Now let’s look at 1300 rpm:

At Push Only 1300 RPM the UT60 280 improves in the rankings to finish in 4th place and was ~7% behind the winner. Again the Alphacool models rank in order of thickness with the XT45  nipping at the UT60’s heels.

Now 1850 rpm Push Only:

At 1850 rpm the UT60 280 claims an equal 3rd position (with it’s fatter sibling; the Monsta 280.) The UT60 280 has turned in 3 very solid comparative results with a Push Only fan assembly. The core then seems very well balanced, with a hint of bias for higher speed fans..

Let’s find out how the UT60 280 performs with Push/Pull fans.

Push/Pull Data vs. Competition

Firstly the 750 rpm:

The UT60 280 and the other Alphacool radiators don’t rank particularly well in at this data point. Other models are better tuned it seems. At 1850 Push/Pull the UT60 places 7th and is ~9% behind the leader.

Let’s move to 1300 rpm:

At 1300 rpm Push/Pull the UT60 280 has found it’s sweet spot, taking another (equal) 3rd place ranking (within test error margins) with the Monsta 280. The Nemesis GTX is streaking away from the pack and is ~10% ahead of the UT60 280 at this point.

Now 1850 rpm:

At 1850 rpm Push/Pull the UT60 280 dips slightly below the Monsta and takes out 4th place,  ~9.5% 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. The combined 750rpm and 1300 rpm 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.

In the 1850 rpm combined we see perhaps the only interesting result concerning the UT60 280. It was one of 5 radiators which had a better Push Only result than the slim ST30’s Push/Pull result.
We’ll leave you to do some maths and figure out which has better value Vs. performance when factoring the price difference of the radiators and cost of your selected fans.

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.

UT60 280 vs. UT60 360

Before moving on let’s take a quick look at the thermal results for the UT60 280 and UT60 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.

The UT60 280 has ~10% less surface area than the UT60 360. Knowing that and the difference in fans used to test the 120.x and 140.x radiators, interpret the following as you will.

Push Only 750 rpm: UT60 360 was ~7.5% better.
Push/Pull 750 rpm: UT60 360 was ~8.5% better.

Push Only 1300 rpm: UT60 360 was ~13% better.
Push/Pull 1300 rpm: UT60 360 was ~8.5% better.

Push Only 1850 rpm: UT60 360 was ~14% better.
Push/Pull 1850 rpm: UT60 360 was ~11% better.

Which is an overall average of 10.5% better performance in favor of the UT60 360, which has a 9.5% greater surface area. Nice!

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 UT60 280’s percentage scores at each data point:

This table shows us that the UT60 280 is on average ~8% 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 UT60’s performance got worse, more so that the best radiator got better as the fan speeds increased. When a radiator is within 10% at every data point, as the UT60’s was very close to achieving, it is a safe bet that it has very good overall performance with a balanced core suitable for any fan combination.

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 UT60 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 93.7 % Averaged Push Only result the UT60 280 places 4th. It’s a great result for the UT60 and Alphacool in general, having 3 of the top 5 280mm models for Push Only.

Now the Push/Pull APF:

In the Push/Pull APF the UT60 280  takes an equal 3rd place with it’s thicker sibling, the Monsta 280. Any weak points were somewhat magnified by the 100% score of the Nemesis GTX which finished ~10% ahead of the UT60.

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 4th place in the overall performance testing, the UT60 280 proved to be an excellent all rounder punching out good results at nearly every data point.

Space Efficiency

The UT60 280’s Space Efficiency vs. Performance ranking is unlikely to be very flattering as thinner rads almost always produce better results in this metric 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 UT60 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 of the 2 plots for space efficiency.

With fan thickness factored in the UT60 280 finishes 2nd last in both Push Only and Push/Pull. So while the UT60 is effective 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 UT60 280’s Value Factor turns out to be quite low, which tells us that it is not fantastic 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 afterall 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
  

The UT60 280’s Push Only APF result of 93.7% translated into a performance score of 4/5.  It’s 43.5mm thick core combined with the low density FPI fin array proved to be a great match for Push Only fans. It has a marginal bias for faster speed fan speeds where it’s comparison rankings got slightly better, but had good results at the slowest fans speeds also. The UT60 280 placed 4th in the Push Only APF rankings.

Push/Pull Thermal Performance

• 3.5/5
  

The Push/Pull APF result of 90.2 translated into a thermal performance score of 3.5 out of 5. The UT60 280 being one the thickest radiator of the test group was expected to perform well in Push/Pull, and achieved a very respectable 4th place in the P/P APF rankings.

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 UT60 280 would have placed 3rd and had a Push/Pull AFT of 96.5 with a performance score of 4.5/5.

 

Overall Thermal Performance

• 3.5/5
  

The Master Performance score of 91.9 generates an above average performance score of 3.5/5. This system generated score does seem a little harsh but 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 of the UT60’s 60mm thickness, it did not score very well in our Thermal Performance Vs. Space Efficiency metric. Additionally it’s Value performance score was also very weak in comparison to the thinner radiators which excel in both these scoring systems.

 

Features & Quality – 4.5/5

The UT60 280 has steel side panels which help this reasonably large radiator feel very robust. It has brass end tanks and the core is constructed of copper tubes and fins which are spaced very evenly. The satin black finish is excellent but our sample did have a few very minor blemishes. We are very pleased that Alphacool radiators now have internal cleanliness which is acceptable.

Apart from it’s size, the amount of G 1/4 ports which are fitted is the stand out physical feature of the UT60 280. With 3 each inlet/outlet ports to chose from plus an auxiliary port it has almost the maximum possible number of ports. Unfortunately Alphacool have chosen to paint the G 1/4 port threads which we believe has the potential to cause issues and unnecessary maintenance.

Tube protection plates are fitted which is great, but a shallow shroud depth meant the supplied screws were not 100% compatible out of the box.

The core is well balanced for performance across all fan assemblies despite having a very low fin count of 10 FPI. This low FPI count should mean the UT60 280 will need cleaning less often than most other radiators.
The very low restriction level will not pose any issues for pump power requirements when planning out your loop, even with multiple UT60 series radiators in the system.

Summary – 4.0/5

The UT60 280 proved to be a very good all round performer and placed 4th overall in our performance tests. It has a slight bias towards higher fan speeds due to it 43mm thick core, but still performs very well with low speed fans because of it’s low FPI count.

Unfortunately the excellent thermal performance didn’t translate so well into space efficiency or value where thinner radiators dominate the results.

It has a very low restriction level and a very low FPI count. The design is traditional looking if somewhat thicker than many other 280mm radiators on the market. The multitude of port options makes the UT60 stand out from many other models. Multi-port radiators offer end users extra freedom when planning out  tubing runs and create easy options for installing temperature sensors and drainage taps.

Of the two thick Alphacool 280mm radiator options, the UT60 280 is our preferred choice over the Monsta as it offers almost identical performance with all fan assemblies and speeds, yet is ~25mm thinner.
There were two thick radiators from a competing manufacturer which had better overall performance, but one of them has only 2 ports and the other has more ports but is currently $20 more expensive.

Ultimately only you as the end user can decide which is is the best solution for you, but the UT60 280 should definitely be on your short list of options to select from because we believe it has just the right balance of options, performance and price. For these reasons the UT60 280 is being awarded ER Gold!

Where to buy:

 

 

 

 

• Aqua Tuning : Black $94.50 (incl. VAT) + shipping
• Aqua Tuning : Black €90 (incl. VAT) + shipping