1 Big Loop vs 2 Loops?

[shunail]

So, here is what I have. I've Laing DDC DDCT-01s pump, EK-RES250 reservoir and Thermochill Pa 120.2 Dual 120MM and Thermochill Pa 120.3 Dual 120MM connecting:

Res => Pump =>CPU => 8800GTX => 8800GTX => Rad 120.3 => Rad 120.2 =>Res.

Now that I'm upgrading my Board and CPU, I thought EK-Bay Spin Reservoir would look cool in front bay. I've 2 of these Laing DDC DDCT pumps (petra tech's). What should I do to utilize this EK bay res and pump (not necessarily both, but one if is enough like it is now). Since EK-Bay Spin has three outlet, I was thinking atleast using 2 outlets straight like

Reservoir Out1 => CPU => Rad 120.2 =>Res

Reservoir Out2 => GPU => GPU = Rad 120.3 =>Res

or should keep it same as before and keep 2 other outlets blocked?

[shunail]

May be I wasn't clear... no replies???

well, what I was thinking is

Res => PUMP => CPU => Small Rad and back to Res.

Res => PUMP => GPU1 => GPU2 = Big Rad and back to Res

where back to Res with Y-Plug since Res has only 1 inlet. So both Radiators outlets to 1 inlet of Reservoir.

Since CPU to GPU 1, water may become hot and from GPU1 to GPU2, it become even more hot so the GPU2 (poor thing) is taking the most heat Smile

What do you think?

Single (big) loop is simple and easy and I think 1 pump should be sufficient also...

[wez]

I would do one loop, and run both GPUs in parallel.
Something like this
res -> pump -> rad1 -> rad2 -> "Y" to GPU 1 and 2 -> back to res

[antiacid]

in your description, you run the water thru the radiator before it goes back in the reservoir. That should keep the water in the reservoir to be somewhat cool. In the end, there's no configuration where you have 1 connecting point between two loops where there won't be this kind of worry. If you want to use a Y and double up your loop, do it and see if the temps are acceptable for you.

[shunail]

This is what I have currently. Pardon my dust...

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_WBPepohOTqI/S9e1njFF9yI/AAAAAAAAAaY/G0MhGtFN_e0/s512/IMG_1481.JPG

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_WBPepohOTqI/S9e1oiAeuLI/AAAAAAAAAag/bw9fHOOqT_Q/s640/IMG_1484.JPG

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_WBPepohOTqI/S9e1oFBTR-I/AAAAAAAAAac/jyPSIZ3zOkI/s640/IMG_1483.JPG

[Lucretius]

You don't want the heat generated by your cards bleeding heat over onto your CPU, or the other way around...

Instead of...
Res => Pump =>CPU => 8800GTX => 8800GTX => Rad 120.3 => Rad 120.2 =>Res.

Do this...
Res => Pump => CPU => Rad 120.3 => 8800GTX => 8800GTX => Rad 120.2 => Res.

Running it through two Rads back to back isn't going to bring your liquid temps down below ambient, and you only need 1 rad to get the temps down close to ambient.

Biggest thing you need to do is develop a wire management strategy. You've got quite a birds nest, and cleaning that up will help out a lot.
I think running a "Y" anywhere in a system is a bad idea personally. If the objective is to keep flow at a constant rate so that each CPU/GPU receives adequate "blood flow" to "carry away the heat" then you're being counter productive by lowering the flow over your GPU's with a "Y"

[shunail]

I'm using 1/2" ID tubes with 3/4"OD. It'll be 1 tube going UP + 1 down + 1UP = 3 Tubes hanging!!! Wow!! Is that practically feasible? Can 1 pump handle all that?

Someone also told me I should consider water blocks on motherboard as well!!

[StAndrew]

The only benefit you get by adding a second loop (assuming you are using the same amount of rads) is a higher flow rate for each component. However this can be had by adding a second pump to your single loop.

In the end, you will still be adding the exact same amount of heat into your loop and dissipating the exact same amount of heat out from your loop. If you are worried about a component "heating" your loop, you can stagger rads throughout your loop if possible. If not, its not that big of a deal.

The only reason I can see someone needing a second loop, is if the want a smaller tube for their "secondary" components (ie chipsets, memory, mosfets).

[Conumdrum]

The only reason I can see someone needing a second loop, is if the want a smaller tube for their "secondary" components (ie chipsets, memory, mosfets).

I can see your argument with your rig. Like my rig a long time ago. Now? The i7 and the new hot GPUs? Some new GPUs put out more heat than your whole system. New ballgame.

Almost have to in some cases.

[Lucretius]

The only benefit you get by adding a second loop (assuming you are using the same amount of rads) is a higher flow rate for each component. However this can be had by adding a second pump to your single loop.

I disagree. To clarify by "second loop" we're talking two totally independent water cooling systems pulling heat from the same box... just attached to different components.

If one loop is dedicated to just your CPU then your fans and radiator aren't having to deal with dissipating the extra heat that would exist in a loop with two video cards. GPUs run much hotter than CPUs, so this is actually injecting a huge amount of heat into the loop that will make your CPU run hotter.

Similarly, if one loop is dedicated to just your GPUs then you're getting some heat segregation there that will keep your components (especially your CPU) cooler.

[orson]

I disagree. To clarify by "second loop" we're talking two totally independent water cooling systems pulling heat from the same box... just attached to different components.

If one loop is dedicated to just your CPU then your fans and radiator aren't having to deal with dissipating the extra heat that would exist in a loop with two video cards. GPUs run much hotter than CPUs, so this is actually injecting a huge amount of heat into the loop that will make your CPU run hotter.

Similarly, if one loop is dedicated to just your GPUs then you're getting some heat segregation there that will keep your components (especially your CPU) cooler.

but then at the same time wouldn't you be adding cooler water from the cooler component loops to the hotter loop and create an equilibrium ?

[Lucretius]

but then at the same time wouldn't you be adding cooler water from the cooler component loops to the hotter loop and create an equilibrium ?

No, because there would be complete physical separation.
2 pumps
2 loops
2 rads
2 tanks
1 loop with GPU(s)
1 loop with CPU(s)

[shunail]

Would 1 tank be OK rather? I don't have room for 2 Res!

[Church]

shunail: there are even 1x5.25 bay reservoirs for dual loops (http://www.performance-pcs.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=advanced_search_result&search_in_description=1&keyword=primochill+typhoon+split+window)(two mini reservoirs in one hausing), so i doubt size/room issue is not solvable.
Oh. And btw, there can be loop setups without any reservoir at all (with T-line for filling). Just that it takes longer and is major PITA to fill it that way. Reservoir really eases initial filling.

[Vinas]

2 single loops don't add additional heat to each other if setup to pull outside air. I get higher temps on all components with three 120.3 in a single loop, rather than using two 120.2 for CPU loop and a separate 120.2 rad for the GPU loop. By outside air, I mean air outside of the case. If you are pushing air in with loop 1 and pulling air out with loop2, then that would negate the separate loop thing since the heat is added back again after it's exchanged with the air in your case.

[shunail]

So here's what I've decided

XSPC Acrylic Dual 5.25in. Reservoir for Two Laing DDC with 2 Pumps conencted =RES+PUMPs
RES+pump 1 => CPU => MofSet => NB/SB => Rad 120.3 => Res
RES+Pump2 => GPU1 => GPU2 => Rad 120.2 => Res

2 seperate loops

[PiLsY]

Put the cpu on its own loop. The motherboard waterblocks will restrict flow and add heat to your cpu loop and it will make a difference to your cpu overclock and temps. If you put the mb blocks in with your GPU loop youll see better results. GPUs are more resistant to warmer water and deal way better with lower flow.

Personally I just run one big loop set out exactly as Lucretius suggested. I have my gfx blocks in paralell to reduce flow restriction and use a single EK 4.0 pump.

[StAndrew]

I can see your argument with your rig. Like my rig a long time ago. Now? The i7 and the new hot GPUs? Some new GPUs put out more heat than your whole system. New ballgame.

Almost have to in some cases.

My Q6600 with almost 1.5V at 3600 gets quite toasty (maybe not as much as the i7). And my three 9800's with ~1.6V, 900+ core, and 2300 shader gets hotter than most newer GPUs.


I disagree. To clarify by "second loop" we're talking two totally independent water cooling systems pulling heat from the same box... just attached to different components.

If one loop is dedicated to just your CPU then your fans and radiator aren't having to deal with dissipating the extra heat that would exist in a loop with two video cards. GPUs run much hotter than CPUs, so this is actually injecting a huge amount of heat into the loop that will make your CPU run hotter.

Similarly, if one loop is dedicated to just your GPUs then you're getting some heat segregation there that will keep your components (especially your CPU) cooler.

You cant create or destroy energy. Making a second loop does not make your heat magically go away.

If you have a CPU that dissipates 200Watts of heat and three GPUs that dissipate 100 watts each, regardless of how many loops you have, your total heat input is still 500Watts. And if you assume the same amount of rads, the amount of heat dissipated is also the same, no matter how you cut it. And dont forget, radiators are more efficient the hotter the water is.

By making a second loop, you are adding to the over all resistance by increasing the overall tube length. This is overcome by the fact that you now have two pumps, but it will be more beneficial to just add a second pump to your single loop, keeping you tube length (and therefore resistance) better optimized.

When setting up a loop, first install the pump and reservoir followed by the rads and blocks as best as you can. Then plan out the most direct path for your tubes, avoiding un-necessary bends, loops, etc... If you are worried about heated water from your CPU affecting your GPUs, its pretty easy to put a red between then (most cases/moboards can internally fit a 120mm rad on the 120mm exhaust). If you are able to stagger the rads just right, and have a radiator that dissipates 200+Watts between your CPU and GPU's (and a 300+watt rad after your GPUs), then you just isolated your GPUs and CPUs thermally (just like you had two loops; but better).

If you dont have an efficient set of radiators (ie, the amount of heat input is equal to or greater than the ability of the radiator to dissipate efficiently) making two loops you can optimize the performance of one of your components at the price of degrading the cooling on the other. However this is stupid as for the same price of a new pump, res, and tubing, you can probably just get a new radiator.

Dont fall for the 2 loop nonsense.

[Vinas]

Dont fall for the 2 loop nonsense.
I respectfully disagree.

Using your example, two 500w rads used in separate loops should cool better than two in series in a single loop. Because the practicality is that most people will need a lower CPU temperature than GPU. And I think even a 1c increase in temperatures added from your GPU would be worse than nothing added at all. In reality it is pretty hard to measure exact heat dump, that's why we all have huge oversized rads... Correct me if I'm wrong, that's just how I understand it.

[StAndrew]

Add a second pump to the single loop and compare. Otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges.

Realize, depending on how you split up the loop, one component may be cooled better, but at the expense of the others. Its physically impossible for both components to be cooled better if you keep the other variables exactly the same. Its the laws of thermodynamics.

[shunail]

I'm more confused than before!!! :(

[facboy]

Add a second pump to the single loop and compare. Otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges.

Realize, depending on how you split up the loop, one component may be cooled better, but at the expense of the others. Its physically impossible for both components to be cooled better if you keep the other variables exactly the same. Its the laws of thermodynamics.

i'm no expert (and plan on running a single loop anyway), but i think most of the '2 loop' people are advocating exactly that...you're cooling the CPU better at the expense of the GPUs, because collective opinion is that GPUs are not as temperature sensitive (though why that should be I have no idea). perhaps it's because GPUs are already running very close to the ragged edge, whereas CPUs (eg current i5/7s) are, at stock levels, running vastly underclocked and undervolted compared to their limits, and are thus 'undercooled' as well. when you start o/cing up to the limits, then you need a more extreme cooling solution to match.

[Hannibal Lecter]

2 loops is absolutely NOT nonsense! Two loops is about heat distribution.

The reason for using two loops (usually CPU loop and GPU/MB loop) is to get better performance for the CPU (and because we can :D).

It is true that if both loops have the exact same rad+fan e.g. each loop has a triple rad with 3 fans, and the CPU and the GPU(s) generate an equivalent amount of heat, then the difference will be small and mostly due to flow. However, if your GPU(s) generate a lot more heat than your CPU, then 2 loops make absolute sense.

GPUs are designed to run much hotter than CPU and generally their O/C potential is not that great. Most people watercool their GPU less for O/C than for reduced noise.

So to answer your question, if you are going to use the exact same type of rad and fans for both loops and if both your CPU and GPU generate an equivalent amount of heat, you probably won't see much of a difference. Otherwise, split your loop (and add a separate reservoir), your CPU will have better temperature and your GPUs won't mind :yepp:

EDIT: @facboy, exactly!

[StAndrew]

2 loops is absolutely NOT nonsense! Two loops is about heat distribution.

The reason for using two loops (usually CPU loop and GPU/MB loop) is to get better performance for the CPU (and because we can :D).

It is true that if both loops have the exact same rad+fan e.g. each loop has a triple rad with 3 fans, and the CPU and the GPU(s) generate an equivalent amount of heat, then the difference will be small and mostly due to flow. However, if your GPU(s) generate a lot more heat than your CPU, then 2 loops make absolute sense.

GPUs are designed to run much hotter than CPU and generally their O/C potential is not that great. Most people watercool their GPU less for O/C than for reduced noise.

So to answer your question, if you are going to use the exact same type of rad and fans for both loops and if both your CPU and GPU generate an equivalent amount of heat, you probably won't see much of a difference. Otherwise, split your loop (and add a separate reservoir), your CPU will have better temperature and your GPUs won't mind :yepp:

EDIT: @facboy, exactly!

I guess I see your point. However, I like to keep it simple. Making two loops is not cost effective when compared to making one properly optimized loop. Its very easy to thermally isolate your components with the proper radiators while maintaining a single loop. In your case, you are describing a loop that is not properly optimized as far a heat load and radiator capacity is concerned, which IMHO is nonsence. Just my :2cents:.

[shunail]

Now, should I run N/B & S/B and GPU one loop and MOFSet and CPU in another loop??
Or MOFset, N/B, S/B & CPU one loop and GPU another?
Or Complete Board's blocks and GPU and CPU on its own.

I'm not looking for O/C at all! Just need system running smooth without getting hot

[Vinas]

Shunail, for no OC you will almost always be just fine with one loop. That PA 120.3 and 120.2 is pretty massive overkill for a stock system, though! With that kind of cooling I bet you could do two CPU and two GPU's at stock no problem.

[Hannibal Lecter]

I guess I see your point. However, I like to keep it simple. Making two loops is not cost effective when compared to making one properly optimized loop. Its very easy to thermally isolate your components with the proper radiators while maintaining a single loop. In your case, you are describing a loop that is not properly optimized as far a heat load and radiator capacity is concerned, which IMHO is nonsence. Just my :2cents:.

Could you please explain how you "thermally isolate your components with the proper radiators" in a single loop? In any closed loop, the water temperature will quickly equalise whatever the order of your blocks and radiators. In other words there is no such thing as isolating your components: the heat they generate will be carried by the same water.

Contrary to what you just said, two loops are about optimizing the cooling ability of your system, not the opposite. Regarding the added cost, this is really for anyone to decide whether it is worth it or not.

@shunail, I agree with Vinas, if you won't O/C, one loop will be perfectly capable of efficiently cooling your system.

[Humminn55]

Could you please explain how you "thermally isolate your components with the proper radiators" in a single loop?


Well, you may never completely thermally isolate the components from one another in a single large loop, but you may be able to mitigate the effects of multiple blocks on each other.

Take the "typical" loop that seems to be the most prevalent around....res -> pump(s) -> rad(s) -> block(s) -> res.

Now, try out this theoretical large single loop: res -> dual DDC 3.2 pumps -> Thermochill 120.3 rad -> Thermochill 120.2 rad -> cpu (i7 920 OC'd to 4GHz on 1.3V) and X58 nb blocks -> Thermochill 120.3 rad -> dual 5870 gpu blocks -> res.

In that case, instead of a loop consisting of a bunch of rads followed by a bunch of blocks, you have rads after each group of blocks. Admittedly, you still have a temp delta coming off each group of block/rad combo, but I'd bet it'd lower than you'd experience from just having block after block after block without any cooling placed between.

And since we know gpu blocks are fairly temp agnostic, just giving some decent cooling after the cpu/nb set of blocks, a TC 120.3 rad, would probably be enough to give decent enough overall temps throughout the entire loop.

Just a thought about what StAndrew was talking about....

[Hannibal Lecter]

Well, you may never completely thermally isolate the components from one another in a single large loop, but you may be able to mitigate the effects of multiple blocks on each other.

Take the "typical" loop that seems to be the most prevalent around....res -> pump(s) -> rad(s) -> block(s) -> res.

Now, try out this theoretical large single loop: res -> dual DDC 3.2 pumps -> Thermochill 120.3 rad -> Thermochill 120.2 rad -> cpu (i7 920 OC'd to 4GHz on 1.3V) and X58 nb blocks -> Thermochill 120.3 rad -> dual 5870 gpu blocks -> res.

In that case, instead of a loop consisting of a bunch of rads followed by a bunch of blocks, you have rads after each group of blocks. Admittedly, you still have a temp delta coming off each group of block/rad combo, but I'd bet it'd lower than you'd experience from just having block after block after block without any cooling placed between.

And since we know gpu blocks are fairly temp agnostic, just giving some decent cooling after the cpu/nb set of blocks, a TC 120.3 rad, would probably be enough to give decent enough overall temps throughout the entire loop.

Just a thought about what StAndrew was talking about....

I am sorry but loop order doesn't matter; after a little while the water temperature will be the same everywhere in your loop give or take 0.5C. IIRC Vapor even proved it a while ago. So you cannot optimise your loop by changing the order of your blocks and rads, or to be more correct the difference you may see is close to irrelevant.

[jedihobbit]

Shunail, for no OC you will almost always be just fine with one loop.......

@shunail: I agree with Vinus, if no oc'ing is involved and going for quiet then one loop should work. Also if this is your first attempt, I've found KISS is the best key until you're totally comfortable with wc'ing.

@StAndrew: Hello from Chesterfield.:wave:

From a noob wc'ing person who has managed to fry two mobos. :doh: :brick: Just my :2cents:

[bmg]

I am sorry but loop order doesn't matter; after a little while the water temperature will be the same everywhere in your loop give or take 0.5C. IIRC Vapor even proved it a while ago. So you cannot optimise your loop by changing the order of your blocks and rads, or to be more correct the difference you may see is close to irrelevant.

You're exactly right. Unless the water is moving extremely slowly through a rad, the water temp doesn't drop very much on a single pass through it.

[shunail]

Ok, Since I've Dual loop res, I'll go with dual loop.
Since I'm not O/C and single or dual loop doesn't matter (so far). Does it matter if I rather have Rad place last in each loop?? Meaning

RES => CPU => MOFSets => RAD =>RES
RES => N/B => S/B => GPU1 => GPU2 => RAD => RES

I think its better managed this way, gain I THINK, unless I'm wrong!

[StAndrew]

Well, you may never completely thermally isolate the components from one another in a single large loop, but you may be able to mitigate the effects of multiple blocks on each other.

Take the "typical" loop that seems to be the most prevalent around....res -> pump(s) -> rad(s) -> block(s) -> res.

Now, try out this theoretical large single loop: res -> dual DDC 3.2 pumps -> Thermochill 120.3 rad -> Thermochill 120.2 rad -> cpu (i7 920 OC'd to 4GHz on 1.3V) and X58 nb blocks -> Thermochill 120.3 rad -> dual 5870 gpu blocks -> res.

In that case, instead of a loop consisting of a bunch of rads followed by a bunch of blocks, you have rads after each group of blocks. Admittedly, you still have a temp delta coming off each group of block/rad combo, but I'd bet it'd lower than you'd experience from just having block after block after block without any cooling placed between.

And since we know gpu blocks are fairly temp agnostic, just giving some decent cooling after the cpu/nb set of blocks, a TC 120.3 rad, would probably be enough to give decent enough overall temps throughout the entire loop.

Just a thought about what StAndrew was talking about....

Correct. If you have a rad that can dissipate the same or greater amount of heat than the amount of heat introduced by a component, then this will work. However, it is commonly thought that it is more beneficial to optimize the loop order for a shorter more direct tube route. I try to do both


I am sorry but loop order doesn't matter; after a little while the water temperature will be the same everywhere in your loop give or take 0.5C. IIRC Vapor even proved it a while ago. So you cannot optimise your loop by changing the order of your blocks and rads, or to be more correct the difference you may see is close to irrelevant.

Incorrect. It isnt the same, its just that the temperature differences are minimal. They are so close that most ppl dont worry as it makes a minimal difference (ie, temps from a CPU block output are only about .5C hotter than temps from the CPU input). The argument here is that newer components are much hotter, thus making a bigger impact on water temps. Im saying that staggering rads will fix this.

For example: My loop has a 120 between the CPU and GPU's. I can run Intel burn all day with my CPU at stock and not change the temps of the GPU's. However, with it overclocked, the temps on my GPUs raise ~.5C with fans on low and minimal change with the fans on high (BI GTS with a generic 120mm on pull and Ultra Kaze 3000 on push).

@ Jedihobbit a Chesty eehh :)?

[Humminn55]

I am sorry but loop order doesn't matter; after a little while the water temperature will be the same everywhere in your loop give or take 0.5C. IIRC Vapor even proved it a while ago. So you cannot optimise your loop by changing the order of your blocks and rads, or to be more correct the difference you may see is close to irrelevant.


I did read Vapor's test when he produced it last year and fell into the same belief as you have right now. But really look closely at what he did in that test.

He made a circular loop....pump, rad, block. The radiator was always after the cpu block....no matter how he labeled it "before" the block or "after" the block. The radiator always received coolant heated by the cpu. So, he didn't change the cpu/radiator relationship at all.....in that loop, he couldn't.

What he did do, though, was change where the 3 pumps were positioned in relation to the radiators, that's all. His three DDC 3.2's, using 54W of electricity to work, either dumped their heat into the coolant and then into either the cpu block without going through the radiator, or had their heat dump cooled by the radiator prior to going into the cpu block.

If you look at his chart, the average temps. he recorded were slightly lower in every test scenario (GTZ, KL-350, FV2+3.5) when pumps were separated from the block by the radiators.

Now, it's true the temp. differences were very slight, but that may be indicative of how little heat the 3 pumps put into the coolant. While the 3 pumps consume 54W of elect. while working, at least, they don't dump all the heat they create into the coolant. They do radiate some of their heat through the pump bodies to be carried off by air convection.

But the trend is definitely there.

Now, to truly see if there is a difference would require a full blown test putting several blocks, such as a cpu, nb, and gpu blocks, in series followed by a few radiators, as is typical of most setups here at XS.

Then, put a good rad between each block, like cpu -> rad -> nb -> rad -> gpu -> rad.

I think you may see a little bit of a difference in ultimate chip temps.

Why? Well, water does have a heat carrying capacity and preheating the water before it gets to the next chip, be it cpu or nb or gpu, reduces its capacity at least a little and may, I repeat---MAY---reduce the amount it cools subsequent chips it flows across.

We tend to run the loop with cpu first in an attempt to give the cpu the "coolest" water and better chance to cool the cpu to the fullest. Subsequent blocks the coolant passes across how has preheated coolant and may reduce how much it gets cooled.

Well, that's my theory anyway. But Vapor's test almost does support this theory. After all, he changed a heat producing device's location in relation to the radiators and got a small drop in cpu temps when the rads were between the pumps and cpu block.

Could the same thing happen if a decent radiator was placed between say, a cpu block and gpu block? Would the gpu be cooled more effectively?

As I said, the only way to really test is to have a loop set up like:

pump(s) -> cpu -> nb -> gpu -> rads -> pump(s)

And then retest the loop set up as:

pump(s) -> rad -> cpu -> rad -> nb -> rad -> gpu -> pump(s)

In the second setup, you may not notice lower cpu temps, but you may see lower nb and gpu temps.

In fact, to really see a difference, run the loop like gpu -> nb -> cpu then rads. Bet a dime to a dollar you'd get worse cpu temps in that sequence. Then run it as gpu -> rad -> nb -> rad -> cpu -> rad. Bet your cpu temps would improve.

Now, this would take someone with the proper equipment and lots of time and effort. Unfortunately, I lack the equipment. I have the time but lack the temp. probes, flow meters, etc. But I wish someone had the gumption to do such a test. The results would be interesting.

Like I said, just a theory. But it only makes sense that if you remove the heat from the coolant before it hits any particular block, that block could be cooled better.

[PiLsY]

Spot on - you've described perfectly what I've been trying to for a long time on here. Gave up posting on these threads where people shout "loop order is unimportant". Think i'll just link back to your post in future :up:.

[shunail]

So, here's my new system:

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_WBPepohOTqI/S-zs57jmxQI/AAAAAAAAAeA/mPMQtir9Tyo/s640/IMG_0079.JPG

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_WBPepohOTqI/S-zs6-0nfYI/AAAAAAAAAeM/xW0H90t6wS8/s640/IMG_0084.JPG

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_WBPepohOTqI/S-zs6ckyltI/AAAAAAAAAeE/AxSvoqY2VnA/s912/IMG_0081.JPG

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_WBPepohOTqI/S-zs6i89MII/AAAAAAAAAeI/OaUcT2IAYgw/s800/IMG_0083.JPG

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_WBPepohOTqI/S-ztHn0PJMI/AAAAAAAAAeY/rwN4BLDOwcQ/s640/IMG_0089.JPG


And this is the temp (w/o overclocking)

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_WBPepohOTqI/S-ztIKeNx_I/AAAAAAAAAec/WHCOv37K6bc/Temps.jpg

XSPC RES1 => Rad 120.3 => NB/SB Block => CPU => MofSet => RES 1
XSPC Res 2 => 8800 -1 Block => 8800 -2 Block => Rad 120.2 = Res 2




What do you think? :explode:

[Waterlogged]

What do you think? :explode:

I think you would have been better served getting some GT's instead of those SilensuX's. ;)

[facboy]

why is all your tubing so long? does it need to be?

[StAndrew]

Yeah, you can probably shorten those tubes a bit, but no big deal. Some wire management would help as well.

Also, most ppl read temps in C not F. Im not crying over it, but just wanted to point it out.

[rge]

I did read Vapor's test when he produced it last year and fell into the same belief as you have right now. But really look closely at what he did in that test.



vapor was just testing, in his own words "does placement of the pump in relation to the CPU block matter? Specifically, does the increased inlet pressure from placing the pumps directly before the block increase performance as suggested by many. "

I dont think most people use that specific test as a reason to say loop order does not matter regarding gpu, cpu, etc...or no one should anyways.

And first you need to decide is 0.3 to 1C important. If it is, then loop order may matter, if it isnt, then it doesnt.

But I have placed sensors before and after cpu block and before and after gpu block, and get similar results to others.

And if you look at single rad testing, with varying heat loads, you can gather the same info: http://www.skinneelabs.com/swiftech-mcr320.html?page=4
280W cooled by triple rad with 1500 rpm fans drops temps about 0.5C.
530W cooled by triple rad with 1500rpm fans drops temps about 1C.

So loop order can manipulate temps 0.3 to 1C (multiple gpus) in terms of you can sacrifice one component temp ie gpu for another ie cpu for that 0.3 to 1C. If you went rad rad cpu gpu gpu gpu, you would expect cpu temps could be ~1C lower (maybe 1.5-2C with hottest gpus then chained through multiple rads) and gpu temps ~1C higher versus rad rad gpu gpu gpu cpu. Or if alternated as you described, have that .5C added to one or subtracted to another...so again, you need to decide if less than 1C is important or not to answer does it matter.

But regardless, I do agree, I would be interested in an in depth test of what you described, but you would need 3 high end hot gpus, OC cpu, and mobo blocks to get enough temp difference to be interesting, and then your talking about 1.5C probably max. With my gtx 295 OCed and i7 oced as only components + my 2 large rads, I can only play with about 0.3 to 0.4C, and need 9 sensors and very careful measurement conditions with avg 3 tests to be able to measure that very small difference.