PDA

View Full Version : Cumulative Test Results - AC DI Included



nikhsub1
02-07-2008, 08:37 AM
Guys, I know I seem to take forever to do this, and I do, but it seems I need things to align just so in order to even get one test run in! I have to thank Martin for the awesome graphs! He made 2, one which plots each of the 5 mounts and another which averages all mounts into one final number.

Of particular notation is the AquaComputer Double Impact block (Thanks to RickCa1n) which just astounded me with it's sheer performance for a FLAT block (now bow or step). As you can see, it actually beats out a bowed Apogee GT on certain mounts, note that mount variation plays a BIG role!. Keep in mind this is the MOST restrictive block I have EVER come across! For sure, this would require a loop of it's own! I have not the tools nor the will to do pressure drop testing, I'll leave that to Martin :yepp:

Also of note is I left out of the graphing blocks that could not compete AND that had less than 5 mounts. I also left out STEPPED blocks of the Apogee, Storm and Fuzion. Why? Well in reality the results are not really relevant since you can't buy these blocks stepped... plus, I didn't do 5 mounts of each either - what I can say is that on a flat block, a step should yeild a 2-3C improvement... on a bowed block the difference is a bit more fuzzy but in my opinion a step is preferable to a bow. I'll not go into details of why here.

I have more to test... I have the EK on the bench which does not fit with the current bracket... dremel time! I have the stepped G5 to pick up, and Cathar said he was sending a stepped G7 my way as well. I would love to test OCZ's new stepped block, the thermalright block, DD's new block and whatever else is out there.

So, now onto the cumulative results... I am going to copy and paste my testing methods below as they have not (and will not be) changed.

Testing procedures. First, the was all done with an Asus P5W-DH Deluxe and a E6600 Intel Core 2 Duo. The CPU was run at STOCK speed (2.4Ghz) but with 1.55v set in bios. Load temps were generated with TAT and temps were attained with TAT via the logging function. TAT takes a reading of each core every 2 seconds. Each cores readings are averaged, then the 2 averages are averaged to get a single average temp. FYI TAT generates MUCH more heat than any other load program period. It has been said that TAT is a 'power virus' and will actually get the chip to output about 20% more than Intel's TDC rating. Pump used was an Iwaki RD-30 at 18v, rad is a Thermochill HE (not PA!) 120.3 with 3 102 CFM sanyo denki fans in pull on a shroud. Fans for testing were always at 12v. A Swiftech micro res was used as well. Ambient air temps were taken and recorded every 10 minutes by the digital sensor in the test room. Water temps were taken by an identical sensor in the water. Only pure distilled water was used, no additives were used whatsoever. Thermal paste used for all tests was Arctic Ceramique and I use the 'dollop' method. D-tek mount hardware was used with ~50lbs of total mount pressure - plastic stops were used so every mount had the same amount of pressure. I tried to test when ambient temps were close, but this is not always possible without an environmental chamber which of course I do not have.

Here is a pic of the test setup:

http://www.anonforums.com/builds/teststation/setup/full.jpg

Graph plotting each of the 5 mounts per block:

http://www.anonforums.com/builds/teststation/nikhsub1mount.png

Average performance of the 5 mounts:

http://www.anonforums.com/builds/teststation/nikhsub1bar.png

NaeKuh
02-07-2008, 08:43 AM
very nice scott.

im assuming this is all using the RD-30 @ 18V?

Cronos
02-07-2008, 08:45 AM
FYI TAT generates MUCH more heat than any other load program period.

No, Linpack 64bit generates considerably more heat than TAT. You can expect much higher temps with it, especially with Core2 Quad.


Anyway, thank you for the work, i think it is excellent. I really hope you are going to test these blocks with Core2 Quad.

nikhsub1
02-07-2008, 08:46 AM
im assuming this is all using the RD-30 @ 18V?

Pump used was an Iwaki RD-30 at 18v
:yepp:

IanY
02-07-2008, 08:46 AM
Great work.

nikhsub1
02-07-2008, 08:48 AM
No, Linpack 64bit generates considerably more heat than TAT. You can expect much higher temps with it, especially with Core2 Quad.


Anyway, thank you for the work, i think it is excellent. I really hope you are going to test these blocks with Core2 Quad.
TAT is made by Intel to put the chip OVER TDP by ~20%... doubt linpack does that? Plus, TAT is not available for quads, only dual core...

FuriousSalesman
02-07-2008, 08:49 AM
I'm curious what a D-Tek Fuzion could do with the 3.6mm nozzle.

Cronos
02-07-2008, 08:54 AM
TAT is made by Intel to put the chip OVER TDP by ~20%... doubt linpack does that? Plus, TAT is not available for quads, only dual core...

Yes it really does, believe me. Or, better yet, try for yourself.
But you'll need either Windows XP x64 ot Vista x64 to run it. 32bit Linpack is nowhere near 64bit version.

Check out this thread:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=175729

And TAT can be ran on arbitrary number of cores, there is a way to do this.
Here is a comparison of 4xTAT with Linpack 64bit:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2745317&postcount=16

nikhsub1
02-07-2008, 08:54 AM
Great work.
Thanks Ian!

I'm curious what a D-Tek Fuzion could do with the 3.6mm nozzle.
Heh, I don't think I want to spend ~20 hours to find out!

nikhsub1
02-07-2008, 08:58 AM
Yes it really does, believe me. Or, better yet, try for yourself.
But you'll need either Windows XP x64 ot Vista x64 to run it. 32bit Linpack is nowhere near 64bit version.

Check out this thread:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=175729

And TAT can be ran on arbitrary number of cores, there is a way to do this.
Here is a comparison of 4xTAT with Linpack 64bit:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2745317&postcount=16
Very interesting! Well, I believe you , its just im running 32 bit... and I don't feel like changing that either! Plus, if I changed my load method, well then all previous results are out the window!

leo_bsb
02-07-2008, 11:14 AM
no problem, you may start a new series of tests with the QUADs, that is what we are using now.
Thanks for the great work nikhsub1 ;)

nikhsub1
02-07-2008, 11:41 AM
I really believe that separate dies will be a thing of the past...

Cronos
02-07-2008, 11:48 AM
Not necessarily.
We all know what happened with AMD after they decided separate dies is a thing of the past...

IanY
02-07-2008, 11:49 AM
Once again, its really hard work and I can appreciate the effort and monotony (not that I have done anything like this before). As always, your efforts cuts through the fog and haze.

Thank you. And you know I don't hand compliments out easily.

coolmiester
02-07-2008, 12:20 PM
Good job nikhsub1 though personally a little disappointing not to see the Supreme or MC-TCX in the mix this time around as they have both been out a while now though note you’re working on it so looking forward to a head to head with the FuZion / MC-TDX / Supreme.

Also wondering if the numbers were a surprise or disappointment to anyone.

:up:

nikhsub1
02-07-2008, 12:29 PM
Good job nikhsub1 though personally a little disappointing not to see the Supreme or MC-TCX in the mix this time around as they have both been out a while now though note you’re working on it so looking forward to a head to head with the FuZion / MC-TDX / Supreme.

Also wondering if the numbers were a surprise or disappointment to anyone.

:up:
LOL, in my testing timeline, the EK and MC-TDX are like BRAND NEW rofl. The good thing, all future blocks will just be added to the existing mix!

coolmiester
02-07-2008, 12:40 PM
Oh yeah I know only to well how long these things take and what a pita it is in getting all the relevant hardware together so wasn’t trying to undermine your hard work at all, its just I think a lot of people like myself are all waiting on some numbers from these three blocks…………….well I am anyway :)

FallenCow
02-07-2008, 02:43 PM
Thanks for all of the hard work testing those blocks! Any plans to test all of the fuzion nozzles? I'm curious about the quad nozzle.
I have a Supreme coming my way, so let me know you'd like to borrow it for testing.

SiGfever
02-07-2008, 04:10 PM
We appreciate all your hard work and the people that sent you blocks for testing. Keep up the great work.

nikhsub1
02-09-2008, 08:37 AM
Great stuff as aways Scott,

Would you expect the results to narrow more with a quad core? Also, would you expect the mounting variation to be more on a quad?

The reason I ask is because I'm starting to see those trends on my bench and testing. I'm like you as far as limited time to test, so too early to tell conclusively.

thanks again for all the hard work,

andyc
No, I think the results would be very similar on quads... you are still cooling the IHS remember. The only block that may do some weird stuff is the fuzion with the 4.5 nozzle, which BTW is what I run on my quad... Mount variations would no doubt be greater on the quad... more cores to average.

Martinm210
02-09-2008, 09:26 AM
Awesome work as always, very noteable how multiple mounts are truely mandatory anymore these days to gather any realy conclusive results.


Multiple mounts + Water/Core Deltas = Conclusive CPU thermal Testing

:D:D

NaeKuh
02-09-2008, 10:18 AM
Thanks,

I have a 6850 and quad 6600. After I rest up from my Peeble Beach trip I'll get down to some real testing based on some of the things I"ve learned from yours..

andyc

ahhh how did you like cali Andy? :up:


That area is a very beautiful place. :D

Anyhow back on topic.. scott did you run any tests on that block with 21 and 24V