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.
What this powers
Want this whole layer as one table?
The power and cooling options on these pages as a single CSV — lead time, capex, carbon, maturity, density supported, PUE, the catch and what each one decides — ready to sort, filter or load into a notebook.
Get the energy table — free for research and evaluation
Four short lines and the download starts at once (CC-BY-NC-4.0, built from these pages the moment you ask). What you type is used only to answer the request and is never sold. Prefer Hugging Face? Request it there.
Using it inside a product, a client report or anything you sell? That needs a commercial licence.