Tuesday, November 9th 2021

Noctua Introduces NH-L9i Low-profile CPU Coolers for LGA1700 and NA-FD1 Fan Duct

Noctua today introduced new, LGA1700-specific revisions of its award-winning NH-L9i and NH-L9i chromax.black low-profile CPU coolers. The new NH-L9i-17xx and NH-L9i-17xx chromax.black are ideal for building ultra-compact HTPCs and Small Form Factor (SFF) systems using Intel's brand new 12th generation Core processors such as the Core i9-12900K, Core i7-12700K or Core i5-12600K. The new, optional NA-FD1 fan duct makes it possible to further improve the performance of the coolers by bridging the gap between the fan and perforated case panels in order to enable the coolers to draw in fresh air from the outside.

"We're very happy with the performance of the NH-L9i-17xx coolers on Intel's new LGA1700 CPUs", says Roland Mossig (Noctua CEO). "We have managed to dissipate up to around 160 W on the Core i9-12900K, pushing it to over 4.2 GHz, and up to 125 W on the Core i5-12600K running at 4.3 GHz. These are excellent results for such small coolers, making them fantastic options for highly compact Intel Z690 builds that pack a lot of processing power!"
The NH-L9i-17xx and the all-black NH-L9i-17xx chromax.black are the latest, LGA1700-specific revisions of Noctua's award-winning NH-L9i low-profile CPU cooler. At a height of only 37 mm, the NH-L9i is ideal for extremely slim cases and, due to its small footprint, it provides 100% RAM and PCIe compatibility as well as easy access to near-socket connectors even on tightly packed Mini-ITX motherboards. The custom-designed SecuFirm 2 mounting system for the new LGA1700 socket makes installation a breeze and, thanks to the highly optimised NF-A9x14 92 mm fan that supports fully automatic speed control via PWM, the NH-L9i-17xx runs remarkably quietly. Topped off with Noctua's renowned NT-H1 thermal compound, the NH-L9i-17xx combines everything users have come to expect from Noctua's larger coolers into a super-compact, premium-quality package for ITX and HTPC builds with Intel's new 12th generation Core CPUs.

"For Small Form Factor builds, we now highly recommend the optional NA-FD1 fan duct kit, both to customers choosing the new NH-L9i-17xx models and to users of the existing NH-L9i and NH-L9a heatsinks", explains Roland Mossig (Noctua CEO). "It's a simple yet highly effective way of boosting the performance of these coolers in compact cases. Tech-savvy enthusiasts have been creating similar ducts with their 3D printers for quite some time, but not everyone has the capabilities to do this, so we thought it would be great to offer an affordable, flexible duct kit that doesn't require any special equipment or skills to set up."

The new NA-FD1 fan duct kit makes it possible to significantly improve the performance of Noctua NH-L9i and NH-L9a series CPU coolers in Small Form Factor (SFF) environments where there is a gap of 5 mm or more (up to 45 mm) between the cooler and a perforated top or side panel. Bridging this gap, the duct prevents the cooler from taking in hot air from the interior and enables it to draw in fresh air from the outside through the perforated panel, which can, depending on the setup, improve CPU temperatures by as much as 5°C or more. As the duct is assembled from EVA foam spacers of different thickness, it is fully modular and can be adjusted in 1 mm increments from 5 mm to 45 mm height in order to fit various different cases and configurations. In short, the NA-FD1 is a simple yet smart, flexible, and cost-effective way of boosting the efficiency of NH-L9a and NH-L9i series coolers

The manufacturer's suggested retail prices are as follows:
  • NH-L9i-17xx: EUR/USD 44.90
  • NH-L9i-17xx chromax.black: EUR/USD 54.90
  • NA-FD1: EUR/USD 12.90
For more information, visit the product pages of the NH-L9i, NH-L9i chromax.black, and NA-FD1.
Add your own comment

131 Comments on Noctua Introduces NH-L9i Low-profile CPU Coolers for LGA1700 and NA-FD1 Fan Duct

#76
R0H1T
Valantaras this cooler will let you build one hell of a portable workstation
That's stretching it, it's at best a CM 212x level cooler. Best case scenario ~ it'll come close to a CM 412 cooler. Of course a lot will depend on ambient temps, near the tropics like in Asia or Africa or even down under (summers) this is no good for a "workstation" period!
Posted on Reply
#77
Metroid
DrediIt’s not a theory, but a fact. The temperature will eventually stop climbing as the coolers performance increases with the higher delta t between water and air.

In your case the cpu just got too warm to function properly.

Also, how the hell did you manage to shut your system down with a 240mm rad and fans going full blast? Poor contact with the processor? Silly overclock?
There is that too, i mean poor contact, hard to make a perfect contact, need to try many times. Usually full load tests show if the contact is poor or good or perfect, need to check how fast temperature rise on loads.
Posted on Reply
#78
looniam
MetroidHow is cherry picked?
the CONDITIONS!

this cooler IS NOT marketed to overclocking enthusiasts!
Posted on Reply
#79
Metroid
DrediTPU was not measuring the processor power.
Like I said before I'm not sure, it said total system power and nothing else. Anandtech is famous to only tests the cpu full power = full package, default clocks of course.
Posted on Reply
#80
Dredi
MetroidLike I said before I'm not sure, it said total system power and nothing else. Anandtech is famous to only tests the cpu full power = full package, default clocks of course.
And this noctua cooler is meant to cool the entire system?
Posted on Reply
#81
Metroid
looniamthe CONDITIONS!

this cooler IS NOT marketed to overclocking enthusiasts!
I have never claimed it was, i said it was a mistake they used a 12900k for testing this low profile cooler.
Posted on Reply
#82
R0H1T
MetroidLike I said before I'm not sure,
You can ask the reviewer for clarification i.e. @W1zzard
Posted on Reply
#83
Metroid
DrediAnd this noctua cooler is meant to cool the entire system?
No, but like i sad before it depends the total power it came from, not sure if they also used a gpu but even if they used idle will be like 5 to 10 watts and other things are minimal, like I said before idle system power is around 30 to 60 watts, yeah depends on many factors of course.
R0H1TYou can ask the reviewer for clarification i.e. @W1zzard
I'm not going to bother hehe, better to just take the anandtech review and call a day, like I said before anadtech is famous to only tests the cpu power consumption. I feel good seeing ryzen as 140w and alder lake as 272w ehhe, double the power for nothing extra, for single thread performance is very good, yeah buy that 12900k and disable everything, leave on single core hehe and be happy ehhe
Posted on Reply
#84
looniam
MetroidI have never claimed it was, i said it was a mistake they used a 12900k for testing this low profile cooler.
what else are they going to use? locked chips that do not exist?

really use your head.
Posted on Reply
#85
Dredi
MetroidLike I said before I'm not sure, it said total system power and nothing else. Anandtech is famous to only tests the cpu full power = full package, default clocks of course.
Here, is the 12900k power consumption, in your mind, what anands tests show it to be, or what tpus tests show it to be?


There is a difference of at least 80W. And considering TPUs test methodology it is likely even more as TPU tests the steady state max power consumption and not the peak.

The same applies to TPUs 12600k results. Capisce?
Posted on Reply
#86
Metroid
looniamwhat else are they going to use? locked chips that do not exist?

really use your head.
They sure must have had a 12400 in there, very sure, they are a multi billion dollar company and they get products faster than anybody else to test products and then release altogether with manufactures. I guess they must have been in a non disclosure agreement, anyway, they had the 12600k and they tested it, should have called it off but no, lets test a 12900k to brag with this low profile cooler hehe
Posted on Reply
#87
Dredi
Metroidother things are minimal
They really are not. TPU measures system power from the wall plug. That means that the PSU efficiency and VRM efficiency need to be accounted for!
Posted on Reply
#88
R0H1T
looniamwhat else are they going to use? locked chips that do not exist?
Technically they could limit clocks &/or power consumption through BIOS. Or maybe they did that & listed max cooling capacity till 160W for it?

As far as I'm concerned the (unlocked) i9 should not be in there, despite Noctua's best intentions.
Posted on Reply
#89
Dredi
R0H1TTechnically they could limit clocks &/or power consumption through BIOS. Or maybe they did that & listed max cooling capacity till 160W for it?
This is very likely what they did. As throttling based on temperature alone gives worse performance.
Posted on Reply
#90
Metroid
DrediHere, is the 12900k power consumption, in your mind, what anands tests show it to be, or what tpus tests show it to be?


There is a difference of at least 80W. And considering TPUs test methodology it is likely even more as TPU tests the steady state max power consumption and not the peak.

The same applies to TPUs 12600k results. Capisce?
Yes, that is quite a difference but we need to understand that a 12900k is a 125w binned version of the 12600. So the one that did not make into a 12900k turned into a 12600 with few cores disabled, that 125w 12600 is very similar to a 12900k, 12900k full cores = 12600 disabled, not entirely but is a good indication. That 70 watts diference can be many things, 350 - 272w = 72w. It could very well be an indication of system idle too, 30 to 60w within the margin of error.
Posted on Reply
#91
Dredi
Metroid350 - 272w = 72w.
Really? hehe
Posted on Reply
#93
looniam
MetroidThey sure must have had a 12400 in there, very sure, they are a multi billion dollar company and they get products faster than anybody else to test products and then release altogether with manufactures. I guess they must have been in a non disclosure agreement, anyway, they had the 12600k and they tested it, should have called it off but no, lets test a 12900k to brag with this low profile cooler hehe
holy massive assumptions batman! you just wanna throw things at the wall and see what sticks? its like companies have endless money to buy or give away samples left and right, yeah?

we are done here.
R0H1TTechnically they could limit clocks &/or power consumption through BIOS. Or maybe they did that & listed max cooling capacity till 160W for it?

As far as I'm concerned the (unlocked) i9 should not be in there, despite Noctua's best intentions.
no bios intervention needed if it is as i suspect - those speeds/power consumption is where the chip(s) thermally throttled. i don't believe someone who understands SFF challenges would have a problem with that.
Posted on Reply
#94
Metroid
looniamholy massive assumptions batman! you just wanna throw things at the wall and see what sticks? its like companies have endless money to buy or give away samples left and right, yeah?
we are done here.
Thankgod!!
Posted on Reply
#95
looniam
MetroidThankgod!!
again something that doesn't exist. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#96
Dredi
MetroidThat 70 watts diference can be many things
Let’s then do some napkin math, the difference was 78 watts to the anandtech measurements. If we take the same percentage offset (77% or so) to the TPU 12600k measurement, we get a power consumption of just 174W. Quite far from your ’over 300 Watts’. The actual figure is somewhat lower, as this method does not offset the fixed accessory loads correctly.
Posted on Reply
#97
Metroid
DrediLet’s then do some napkin math, the difference was 78 watts to the anandtech measurements. If we take the same percentage offset (77% or so) to the TPU 12600k measurement, we get a power consumption of just 174W. Quite far from your ’over 300 Watts’. The actual figure is somewhat lower, as this method does not offset the fixed accessory loads correctly.
319 overlocked as per the image and 224 per default clocks so you want to subtract that right so 224 - 78 watts = 146 watts, happy now?
Posted on Reply
#98
Dredi
Metroid319 overlocked as per the image and 224 per default clocks so you want to subtract that right so 224 - 78 watts = 146 watts, happy now?
But where is the over 300W load?? I need to see it. Hehe

319 - 78 is less than 300!!! Though I guess counting isn’t your forté.
Posted on Reply
#99
Metroid
DrediBut where is the over 300W load?? I need to see it. Hehe
Posted on Reply
#100
Dredi
Metroid
But you wanted to subtract 78 Watts from that. :confused:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment