That is not a 'better' design. That is a trap. Here is why:

In my designs, each quad cell has one cooling cell, and each cooling cell has only one quad cell it is adjacent to. This... mess... has several different amounts of heat going to each cooling cell, making it nearly impossible to calculate the rate of degradation of the cells for efficient cycling.

For example, the row on the far left, except for the top and the bottom, runs pretty much close to the ones in my reactors. The next row, however, only has a single coolant cell adjacent to two quad cells. This means it's going to burn out twice as fast. The final row on the right is adjacent to cells that already have an adjacent cooling cell, so their cycle time is far less. This creates a nightmare for you.

If you want a better design, you can look at something like this. It has a higher Efficiency rating, which means overall higher EU output per plutonium, all of the cells have a balanced heat distribution, and you have enough cooling cells inside the actual reactor that they can do some good.

Remember, the whole point of the CRCS design is to decentralize the distribution of heat. Which means the MORE cells you have in the reactor, the easier it will be to distribute that heat.

If you want something more economical, I suggest you look at this. Notice how it is only a single-chamber reactor? That means cost and space savings. Your six-chamber reactor eats up a 3 x 3 x 3 area. In that same area, I can have 13 of this type of reactor, although the internal one won't be able to be hooked up, so best say 12 of these smaller reactors, if you play Tetris good enough. You do the math on how much more EU/t is coming out of the same space.