Product comparison · 2 computer cooling systems

CoolBox T12 Reverse ARGB vs MSI MEG CORELIQUID E15 360

Add a product
  • 15specifications compared
  • 11differ
  • 4identical
  • 22known for one product only

Key differences

The MSI MEG CORELIQUID E15 360 has 200 RPM more rotational speed (min) than the CoolBox T12 Reverse ARGB (800 RPM vs 600 RPM). The MSI MEG CORELIQUID E15 360 has 700 RPM more rotational speed (max) than the CoolBox T12 Reverse ARGB (2300 RPM vs 1600 RPM). The MSI MEG CORELIQUID E15 360 has 8.28 dB more noise level (high speed) than the CoolBox T12 Reverse ARGB (39.58 dB vs 31.3 dB). Suitable location: Computer case on the CoolBox T12 Reverse ARGB, Processor on the MSI MEG CORELIQUID E15 360. Type: Fan on the CoolBox T12 Reverse ARGB, All-in-one liquid cooler on the MSI MEG CORELIQUID E15 360.

  • Suitable location
    • T12 Reverse ARGB:Computer case
    • MEG CORELIQUID E15 360:Processor
  • Type
    • T12 Reverse ARGB:Fan
    • MEG CORELIQUID E15 360:All-in-one liquid cooler
  • Rotational speed (min)
    • T12 Reverse ARGB:600 RPM
    • MEG CORELIQUID E15 360:800 RPM
  • Rotational speed (max)
    • T12 Reverse ARGB:1600 RPM
    • MEG CORELIQUID E15 360:2300 RPM
  • Noise level (high speed)
    • T12 Reverse ARGB:31.3 dB
    • MEG CORELIQUID E15 360:39.58 dB
  • Maximum airflow
    • T12 Reverse ARGB:49.75 cfm
    • MEG CORELIQUID E15 360:217.91 cfm
  • Maximum air pressure
    • T12 Reverse ARGB:1.39 mmH2O
    • MEG CORELIQUID E15 360:3.84 mmH2O
  • Bearing type
    • T12 Reverse ARGB:Hydraulic
    • MEG CORELIQUID E15 360:Fluid Dynamic Bearing (FDB)

Side by side

Differences highlightedShow differences only (on)
Comparison of T12 Reverse ARGB, MEG CORELIQUID E15 360
37 specifications
Performance8 differ
Suitable locationDiffersComputer caseProcessor
TypeDiffersFanAll-in-one liquid cooler
Supported processor socketsKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceLGA 1700, LGA 1851, Socket AM4, Socket AM5
Rotational speed (min)Differs600 RPM800 RPM
Rotational speed (max)Differs1600 RPM2300 RPM
Noise level (high speed)Differs31.3 dB39.58 dB
Maximum airflowDiffers49.75 cfm217.91 cfm
Maximum air pressureDiffers1.39 mmH2O3.84 mmH2O
Bearing typeDiffersHydraulicFluid Dynamic Bearing (FDB)
Fan noise level (max)Known for oneUnknown — not stated by the source39.58 dB
Fan speed (max)Known for oneUnknown — not stated by the source2300 RPM
Fan speed (min)Known for oneUnknown — not stated by the source800 RPM
Noise level (low speed)Known for one10.1 dBUnknown — not stated by the source
Minimum airflow (imperial)Known for one16.66 cfmUnknown — not stated by the source
Minimum air pressureKnown for one0.2 mmH2OUnknown — not stated by the source
Quantity per packKnown for one1 pc(s)Unknown — not stated by the source
Fan's mean time to failure (MTTF)Known for one40000 hUnknown — not stated by the source
Designidentical
MaterialKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceAluminium, EPDM
Radiator materialKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceAluminum
Number of fansKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source3 fan(s)
LED connector typeKnown for one3-pinUnknown — not stated by the source
Fan connectorKnown for one4-pinUnknown — not stated by the source
Poweridentical
Fan currentKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source0.68 A
VoltageKnown for one12 VUnknown — not stated by the source
LED voltageKnown for one5 VUnknown — not stated by the source
Weight & dimensions3 differ
WidthDiffers120 mm71.6 mm
DepthDiffers33 mm68.5 mm
HeightDiffers160 mm65 mm
Radiator widthKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source39.7 cm
Radiator depthKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source3 cm
Radiator heightKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source12.4 cm
Fan dimensions (W x D x H)Known for oneUnknown — not stated by the source362 x 125 x 28.4 mm
WeightKnown for one150 gUnknown — not stated by the source

A dash means the value is not stated by the source. Unknown values are never counted for or against a product, and there is no overall score.

More computer cooling system comparisons

All computer cooling system comparisons