Layer 1 · head to head
Direct-to-chip liquid cooling vs Single-phase immersion
The production method against the thermally superior one. Serviceability decides it, not physics.
| Direct-to-chip liquid cooling | Single-phase immersion | |
|---|---|---|
| Capital cost | Higher than air; lower than immersion | High, and it changes the whole facility design |
| Density supported | 50-200+ kW per rack | 100+ kW per rack equivalent |
| PUE | 1.1-1.2 | 1.02-1.10 |
| Maturity | proven | proven |
Direct-to-chip liquid cooling
The catch: Cold plates capture most of the heat; the rest still leaves as air, so you keep a hybrid air path. It is not a full replacement for the existing system.
Decides: The 2026 production method, full stop. It holds 47% of the AI datacentre liquid cooling market on the strength of standard rack compatibility and a straightforward retrofit path.
Single-phase immersion
The catch: Direct-to-chip is the 2026 production method; immersion is not. Serviceability, hardware warranties and the fact that you cannot mix it into a normal hall are the reasons, not thermal performance — where it wins.
Decides: Best PUE available. Chosen by people building a purpose-built fleet, not by people upgrading a datacentre.