Small D-Tek FuZion V1 vs. V2 Comparison/Review

Hi all! :D

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/h...g?t=1209794810

I will be testing each of the blocks throughout this week, and will be updating this post with more tests/results as they are done.

I'm not any good at graphs, but will look into it. Right now though I will just post numbers and screen shots.

First tests:

Stock Fuzion V1 (just washer) vs. Stock Fuzion V2 (just washer).
I will be doing two mounts for each test.
Also NOTE!! My QX6700, Core 1 is always 2-4c higher than any of the other temps, it's not because of a bad mount, it's just that the chip is like that....

So, results!!!

Ambient temp for each of these tests were 25c, I did a thin thin layer of TIM (MX-2) for each mount. Load temps were found by doing Everest Ultimate CPU Stress test (all four cores) for 3.5 minutes.
First mount, Fuzion V1:
Idle:
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/h...kIdleStock.jpg

Load:
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/h...kLoadStock.jpg

First mount, Fuzion V2:
Idle:
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/h...kIdleStock.jpg

Load:
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/h...kLoadStock.jpg

As you can see, the V2 holds lower temps by about 4-5c. This, is very good! :D

Second mount, Fuzion V1:
Idle:
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/h...kIdleStock.jpg

Load:
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/h...kLoadStock.jpg

Second mount, Fuzion V2:
Idle:
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/h...kIdleStock.jpg

Load:
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/h...kLoadStock.jpg

The second mount for each test proved much better temps, as you can see.
And again, the Fuzion V2 yields better temps than the V1. :clap::clap:

Next tests will be the Quad Nozzle on the V1 vs. Quad Nozzle on the V2 vs. the New Quad chamber mid plate.
Stay tuned folks!!! :D :D :D

-Parker

Interesting...

Though I must say the delta between the two blocks seems a bit much to attribute solely to block redesign.

EDIT: 95F ambient?!?!? wtf?

Also its D-TEK not D-TEC...

Wow, that's better than I was hoping for.

I'd like to see others results for conformation.
And more mounts are always good :p:

Umm smee, I know your excited and all, but what you are doing is meaningless and of no benefit to anyone. You can't just take a 'snapshot' of the temps and go, this is the temp of this mount and so on. It is more complicated than that to do it somewhat right. You should first, allow each cpu to be at load for 1 hour, then, have coretemp log temps for the second hour, all the while measuring WATER temps. You can then average all cores for the hour and then subtract the average water temp for the same hour to get deltaT (difference between water temp and CPU temp). Using air temps is terribly unreliable and pretty much useless for determining CPU temps.

Wow, great work, that's a much bigger change than I expected..:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aspire.comptech

Interesting...

Though I must say the delta between the two blocks seems a bit much to attribute solely to block redesign.

EDIT: 95F ambient?!?!? wtf?

Also its D-TEK not D-TEC...

---

Oops, typo. 25c ambient temp:p:

I'm considering doing more tests as you are right, the delta is steep, but as I and my dad have seen, they are correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biftek.

Wow, that's better than I was hoping for.

I'd like to see others results for conformation.
And more mounts are always good :p:

---

Me to, AFAIK there are 3 others here getting there blocks tomorrow. The more results the better!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Umm smee, I know your excited and all, but what you are doing is meaningless and of no benefit to anyone. You can't just take a 'snapshot' of the temps and go, this is the temp of this mount and so on. It is more complicated than that to do it somewhat right. You should first, allow each cpu to be at load for 1 hour, then, have coretemp log temps for the second hour, all the while measuring WATER temps. You can then average all cores for the hour and then subtract the average water temp for the same hour to get deltaT (difference between water temp and CPU temp). Using air temps is terribly unreliable and pretty much useless for determining CPU temps.

---

Hmmm, you are very much right. I used everest ultimate stress tests for 3.5 minutes (each time) to get load temps. But letting it sit for longer is a much better thing to do... and messuring how hot the water is, is also a good idea.
Unfortunately I don't have that much time to do all of this for each test...
So, I've already given a lot of time into this, and this is good enough for most people on the forums right now.

Thanks though! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

Wow, great work, that's a much bigger change than I expected..:up:

---

Thanks!
I am thinking the same thing, big difference......
I'll be comparing the Quad nozzle's tomorrow. Can't wait! :D

I also agree with nikhsub1's earlier comment however I think this thread serves the purpose by providing a quick glance on the cpu block. Just as long you keep all the variables as consistent as possible such as amount of thermal paste and length of time for benching.

In terms of the fuzion's true performance, well that won't be determined based on the testings smee has been conducted as that would require time for the thermal paste to burn in as well as other variables.
My thoughts. :up: to your efforts though smee. Good to see that there appears to be a fair amount of difference thus far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fungry

I also agree with nikhsub1's earlier comment however I think this thread serves the purpose by providing a quick glance on the cpu block. Just as long you keep all the variables as consistent as possible such as amount of thermal paste and length of time for benching.

In terms of the fuzion's true performance, well that won't be determined based on the testings smee has been conducted as that would require time for the thermal paste to burn in as well as other variables.
My thoughts. :up: to your efforts though smee. Good to see that there appears to be a fair amount of difference thus far.

---

Yes I agree entirely with nikhsub1's post too. But I just don't have the time to do things like that :(

And yea, the thermal paste didn't have to much time for curing, but MX-2 doesn't need much time anyway. But regardless, I do agree that it would have been better to let it cure, as I only had the same mount for about 10-20 minutes at a time.
I spread the TIM very thin across the top of the CPU making sure it was flat, without any little dips, and such before I put the block on, and when I did put the block on I made sure that I wouldn't catch any air bubbles underneath it by laying it on at an angle.

Thanks for all the encouraging words guys!!
I'll continue the testing tomorrow. :)

thx for the testing!
i am quite surprised though:shocked:
i expected about 1-2 degrees difference at most:shocked:

Please do a test of the V1 when using the pro mount and quad nozzle. And of course, the intake seal. Compare that to the V2 using the quad insert. These are the results everybody is dying to see :)

Sorry I'm late for the party! Anyway I've to say this is a huge improvement over the V1 that was made long time ago.

Thanks for your time uploading the results. :clap:

Interesting indeed and I'm rather suprised a V2 gave additional 4-5C difference when Fuzion V1 is already the top class waterblock around.

Couldn't agree with nik more...problem is, the Genie's been let out of the bottle and ppl will now take the testing done here as gospel...whether or not there is a "Attention" attached. Damn impatient crack heads. :shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterlogged

Couldn't agree with nik more...problem is, the Genie's been let out of the bottle and ppl will now take the testing done here as gospel...whether or not there is a "Attention" attached. Damn impatient crack heads. :shakes:

---

who r u calling an impatient crack head??? :down:

Quote:

---

Next tests will be the Quad Nozzle on the V1 vs. Quad Nozzle on the V2 vs. the New Quad chamber mid plate.
Stay tuned folks!!!

---

i need to see this, so i can decide whether to get a V2 or stick with my V1 with quad nozzle :)

@xtclocker, please dont' reply in that sense. The original post was long and you practically made it copy the entire thing. Try keep the thread a bit tidy :). Just a thought :up:

and impatient crack head? haha?

@smee: i totally understand xD. Time is an essence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

who r u calling an impatient crack head??? :down:

---

Just look through the other v2 topic, you'll see exactly who I'm referring to. ;)

Oh, and by crack head, I mean everyone here that can't wait to get there hands on the "next best block", y'all are addicted. Just can't wait for proper testing to be done, gotta have it NOW, NOW, NOW!!! It's sad and funny at the same time really.

what is the difference in design between the two blocks to give this temp difference between v1 and v2?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhiteFireDragon

what is the difference in design between the two blocks to give this temp difference between v1 and v2?

---

The base is flatter, and they redesigned the mid plate drastically.

WOW! That's an insane difference! I never thought that there would be that much difference between the V1 and the V2. Great work smee!

do you use the stock mount for V1?

can you get a pro mount kit for V1, and than compare it with V2?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WiZARD_hun

do you use the stock mount for V1?

can you get a pro mount kit for V1, and than compare it with V2?

---

It would be interesting to see the difference that a Pro Mount makes:up:

isnt it just common sense to test and buy something with the name "Pro" in is? i mean we are at XS.
so that means Ultra, Extreme, Uber Edition, etc :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WiZARD_hun

do you use the stock mount for V1?

can you get a pro mount kit for V1, and than compare it with V2?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] NetburstXE

It would be interesting to see the difference that a Pro Mount makes:up:

---

He's using the pro mount on both.

Looky