A county courts annex compares liquid-assist options because air cooling cannot meet GPU thermal design power. Which evaluation is appropriate?

A county courts annex comparing liquid-assist options because air cooling cannot meet GPU thermal design power is performing the appropriate Domain 2.4 technology evaluation. When measured or nameplate TDP exceeds what air systems can reject at the required density, facilities should compare liquid-assist or liquid cooling approaches rather than pretending air will stretch. Liquid options are evaluated against real thermal limits, risk, and facility readiness for civic AI densification.

Sizing CRAC capacity for liquid cooling options when air cooling cannot meet GPU TDP fails by concept: CRAC capacity is air-side capacity and does not compare liquid-assist heat rejection, risk, and facility readiness when air cannot meet GPU TDP. Ranking liquid-assist options by performance per watt when air cooling cannot meet GPU TDP fails engineering due diligence: performance per watt is a compute efficiency metric, not an evaluation of liquid cooling thermal capability against TDP, and it does not compare liquid options for readiness and risk. Modeling hot-aisle containment for liquid cooling options when air cooling cannot meet GPU TDP fails the evaluation requirement: containment is airflow management, not a comparison of liquid-assist or liquid cooling approaches when air cannot meet GPU TDP.

Exam caveat: Liquid-assist versus full liquid loops, CDU capacity, and leak detection are design details; the exam point is to evaluate liquid options when air cannot meet GPU TDP—not to ban GPUs or ignore thermodynamics.

Operational check: document air cooling's maximum rejectable watts per node/rack; compare liquid-assist proposals against courts' GPU TDP and density targets; pilot with leak detection and maintenance procedures before production densification beyond air limits.