Fuzion V2 Nozzles Compared - Core 2 Quad

Preface
This is my first stab at the waterblock testing market. Got a lot more in the plans, but as anyone who has done extensive testing before knows--this takes a lot of time and effort. I figured I might as well release it in pieces rather than all at once :) (and months later :lol: )

I'd also like to go out of my way to give thanks to everyone who has shared their testing procedures and expertise--I've learned an invaluable amount of information from you guys. Both the actual test results and how they were conducted.

I'd also like to thank Skinnee for all the direct help he's given me in putting this together. He's also graciously lent me space on his FTP to host the images, which is greatly appreciated :toast:

I hope my testing will be able to supplement the wealth of data we already have here at XS :bows:

The What
My goals with testing are slightly different than what others have done so far--an evolution if you will. I'm aiming to obtain and graph real world CPU temperatures and seeing how they change as flowrate changes.

In my opinion, this data will be very useful to readers: it will show how waterblocks compare at a given pumping power, it will show how waterblocks limit flow compared to each other (though I will not be mapping component PQ curves), and most of all, it will show how much a waterblock responds to flow.

My first testing is with the Fuzion V2 on a B3 QX6700 and specifically the usefulness of the quad inserts. I'll be getting to other waterblocks, the other various nozzles of the FV2, and to an i7 system. Of note, I am going to forgo Conroe/Yorkfield/Wolfdale setups. Conroe is out of date, Wolfdale has questionable viability in watercooling, and Yorkfield, I feel, should be similar to Kentsfield.

The How

• The processor I'm using for this test is my B3 QX6700. I'm running it at 9x400 (3600MHz) at 1.49V loaded on a Gigabyte EP45T-Extreme. It is unlapped and the IHS is pretty typical from the many I've seen. I'm running 2GB of G.Skill DDR3 1600MHz. All heatsinks on the board are stock and there is no airflow provided anywhere over the board. The video card is a 4850 1GB with VF830 running in the top slot. The board is sitting on my desk alongside my Odin 1200W PSU and DVDRW and HDD drives.

• The watercooling loop I'm using is very untraditional, but allows me to test the way I want to test.
  • It consists of an MCR320 + MCR220Res sandwich with three Sanyo Denki "San Ace" 109R1212H1011 fans and 5 (3+2) 120x120x20mm Yate Loons cored out as shrouds. The sandwich allows for high-dissipation ability in a compact setup. The 'Res' part of the MCR220Res is used not as a res, but as a drain port.
  • For pumps, I use three MCP350s modded to MCP355s. One is attached to an XSPC Res Top and the other two are attached to the EK Dual Turbo Top--all three are in series. The MCP attached to the XSPC Res Top I can modulate the supply voltage freely between 7.65V and 12.65V. The two MCPs on the EK Dual Turbo Top always run at 12V. I have six pump settings I run with every mount: 1) All three on at full speed, 2) EK Dual Turbo only (at 12V), 3) XSPC Res Top only (at 12.65V), 4) XSPC Res Top only (at 10.5V), 5) XSPC Res Top only (at 9V), and 6) XSPC Res Top only (at 7.65V). The ability to consistently vary flow is a huge aspect of my testing.
  • I use a Koolance FM17 for my flowrate measurement. I recognize its lack of 'professionalism' but still use it because it 1) covers the entire range I anticipate I'll be testing in (~.2GPM up to 3GPM), 2) outputs measured flowrate every second via RPM wire, which is logged for the entire test and then averaged and has thus far brought on extremely consistent results.
  • Loop order: CPU block -> Koolance VL3 Quick Disconnect -> MCR220Res -> Koolance FM17 -> MCR320 -> XSPC Res Top + MCP -> EK Dual Turbo Top + 2xMCP -> Koolance VL3 QD -> CPU block. Air flow order: in -> temp probe array -> MCR320 -> San Ace H1011 -> MCR220Res -> out

• Adapted from Martin (who adapted it from nikhsub1), I also do a 5 mount test, each with their own TIM application. It takes a ton of extra time (each block takes 5x6x45min to test), but it's totally worth it. In the words of Martin "It's not uncommon at all to see mounting variations as high as 2 degrees or more, so with only one mount, that error is 2 degrees. When you mount 5 times and average those results, your standard deviation is significantly lowered and the overall testing confidence improved. In addition multiple mounts serve as a means to validate data, because each test is carried out again and again, chances are if some variable is affecting results, it will show."

• I have 10 temperature probes in use: 6 Dallas DS18B20 Digital one-wire sensors on the intake of my sandwich, 4 Intel DTS sensors in the processor.

• For temperature logging, I use OCCT v3.0.0.RC1's internal CPU polling that is performed every second on all four DTS sensors and is automatically output to .csv files. I also use OCCT for loading the CPU. For intake air temperatures, I use Crystalfontz 633 WinTest b1.9 to log the Dallas temp probe data on my Crystalfontz 633. I also use WinTest b1.9 to log fan RPM and Koolance FM17 flowrate output. Martin et al. have been over the many advantages and qualities of the Crystalfontz + Dallas temp probe combinations--it really is a wonderful setup and aids the testing process immensely.

• For processor loading, I find OCCT v3.0.0.RC1 to be extremely competent. It provides a constant 100% load (so long as WinTest b1.9's packet debugger is fully disabled) and is extraordinarily consistent. It allows me to, in one button push, start both the loading and the logging as well, which helps. I immediately also start to log the Crystalfontz data simultaneously. I run a 45 minute program, the first minute is idle, then I have 40 minutes of load, and then 4 minutes of idle. The first 10 minutes of load are thrown out as warmup and only the remaining 30 minutes of load are used for data compilation. During the last 4 minutes of idle, I adjust the pumps to be prepared to immediately begin the next 45 minute program.

• For TIM, I use MX-2. It's plentiful, representative of what a lot of people use, and has no break-in period. I use the dot in the center method and validate all my mounts to be at least "good" visually upon removing the waterblock.

• Like Martin, I have found that simply using processor temperature minus ambient temperature is not adequate. So I mapped out the thermal response of my setup and found that a correction of .216C per degree Celsius was needed. That is, for every 1C below 21C ambient (my arbitrary pivot point), I need to add .216C to the delta to correct it. The opposite is true as well, for every 1C above 21C ambient, I need to subtract .216C to the delta to correct it. I then add that corrected delta to 21C and get my adjusted core temperatures for 21C ambient. I found the .216C correction vector to be very accurate for ambients ranging between 14.5C and 26C (past that, I did not test). Even with all the correction automatically performed for me, I still try my hardest to maintain a 21C ambient when testing. I would expound on this further in another thread, but 1) Martin already did an excellent job and all I did was mirror his technique and testing for my own testbed and 2) I seem to have too much data for Excel to reliably function--the majority of the time I try to work on the spreadsheet containing all this data, it crashes.

• My graphs....they may look a little different than what you've seen before, but I feel they're a great way to show all the individual data points from testing while also highlighting the averages of that data. I've termed them Planet/Moon graphs--each data point get its own moon and 5 moons get averaged into a planet. From there, the planets get a line drawn through them (not a trendline, just a regular line with the "smooth line" option checked). For something like flow vs. cooling, I've found Excel's trendlines to be totally incompetent. This applies to HSFs too. In fact, I have yet to see a situation where they do work involving flow vs. cooling.

Charts
The Big Daddy chart...all my data in one graph, presented as conveniently as possible!
http://vapor.skinneelabs.com/FV2Tests/FV2Q.png
http://vapor.skinneelabs.com/FV2Tests/FV2Ct.png


Isolated charts....these are for a different representation of the data to make certain aspects of it easier to see.

Full pumping power = all pumps on
http://vapor.skinneelabs.com/FV2Tests/QuadFull.png

Moderate pumping power = XSPC Res Top pump only (at 12.65V)
http://vapor.skinneelabs.com/FV2Tests/QuadMod.png

Minimal pumping power = XSPC Res Top pump only (at 7.65V)
http://vapor.skinneelabs.com/FV2Tests/QuadMin.png



Tables
Per request, tables of the data graphed :)

http://vapor.skinneelabs.com/FV2Tests/FV2St.png

http://vapor.skinneelabs.com/FV2Tests/FV2QNt.png

http://vapor.skinneelabs.com/FV2Tests/FV265t.png

http://vapor.skinneelabs.com/FV2Tests/FV255t.png

http://vapor.skinneelabs.com/FV2Tests/FV245t.png

Conclusion
More to come from me with WB testing :D

And take what you want from the results, that's all :p:

wow the quad noz...improved temps..i wonder how that equates to the corei7....


thanks for the numbers:up:

very nice, i am always amazed when someone puts that much effort into something. very good job :up:
so the nozzles make much more of a difference then the quad inlet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcoffey

Great work and well done Vapor,

Don't be surprised to see your ambient offset difference change when moving to a 45nm quad. I was really shocked at how badly a 65nm quad scales. I think it has more to do with how the DTS probes are calibrated in a non linear fashion on a 65nm quad than anythign else.

andyc

---

Good call, didn't think about that....I'll definitely retest the scaling when I go to i7 :) :toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vapor

Adapted from Martin, I also do a 5 mount test, each with their own TIM application.

---

Funny since Martin adapted it from me. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Funny since Martin adapted it from me. :rolleyes:

---

Oops, forgot :p: Fixed :)

Well done Vapor! :clap:

I know how much work went into the testing, glad to see everything came together so well. I'm surprised to see the difference in the quad nozzle versus the quad insert, could this be explained by the spacing of the dies on the Kentsfield versus the Yorkfields? :shrug:

Thanks skinnee :)

At first I thought it was a Kents vs. York thing as well, but I've put both of them under the faucet and the insert's two streams are much further apart than the nozzle's....my guess is that the insert is just overshooting the dies. :shrug:

EDIT: though I guess when it's flush to the plate, the two streams probably aren't overshooting the dies :idea: maybe it really is a York vs. Kents thing? I have a Yorkfield here doing nothing, but it runs suspiciously cold and I don't think the DTS sensors are 'with it' (RealTemp's sensor test also fails them, if that means anything).

[/COLOR]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcoffey

Tell what I find the most facinating is the spread between 1.0 GPM and 2.0 GPM using the quad nozzle on your first graph. I read it as less than .6c improvement on the trend line. I would assume that's roughly the difference between all 3 pumps running full blast at approx. 2.0 GPM, and 1 pump running at 12v on the res top combo.

Unless I'm reading something worng, just goes to show that there's a lot less to be gained by adding multi pump regarding thermal performance than everyone is making it out to be.

Or am I reading something wrong based on your results?

Anyways, great approach and facinating stuff. Very valuable to the community I think.

---

You're reading it right.....seems there's only a .6C improvement from ~1GPM to ~2GPM.

And yeah, that's all three pumps at just under 2GPM and somewhere between 10.5V and 12.65V for the single Res Top pump for the 1GPM approximation. Each of the six pump settings I ran has its own dot along each line, though they might be a little difficult to see....maybe I should change that?

Anyway, w hat's even crazier is how much intentional restriction I have in my loop (so that I can get data at very low flowrates without having a variable amount of restriction, which I find harder to consistently do than variable pumping power): dual VL3 QDs, FM17 flow meter, two MCRs, ~9ft of 3/8" tubing, natural pump restriction when some are turned off, etc. The kind of flowrates I'm getting with the triple pump system is attainable with a single DDC3.2 if you do things right.

Of course this is just one block that has a bit of a reputation for being flow-agnostic, but as I get more blocks under my belt, it'll definitely be something to look out for and largely why I'm doing this testing :)

Coming from you, that means a lot to me...thank you :) :bows:

subscribed :)

That is some quality info, over time we will definatly be able to make some valuable assesments based on the data,
Props for the effiort, that is a very challenging task to undertake

Quote:

---

It takes a ton of extra time (each block takes 5x6x45min to test),

---

and even more Props for putting it in a format that we could understand
I look forward to watching and reading and learning. Top Notch :up:

Thanks for performing all these tests. I know it is time consuming.

I was thinking about mcoffey's point about flow. My testing with a single pump versus two pumps, rest of the loop identical, is the extra heat dump of the 2nd pump (or 3rd pump in your case) negates/reduces the performance gains from additional flow.

I just think that the diminishing returns seen with flow rate may have to do with heat dump.

Your not martain stop stealing his show.... but seriously though, thanks for this test been waiting on something like this for awhile since martain mentioned way back he would do something like this at some point. Also thanks for your other recent tests keep up the good work

Awesome work!

I love the core vs flow rate data, that's great.

Ton's of work there, but very conclusive as well because of all that data....perfect!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flip_Lx

Your not martain stop stealing his show.... but seriously though, thanks for this test been waiting on something like this for awhile since martain mentioned way back he would do something like this at some point. Also thanks for your other recent tests keep up the good work

---

Not trying to be Michael Jordan, just trying to be me :p: Glad you like the tests and thank you :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

Awesome work!

I love the core vs flow rate data, that's great.

Ton's of work there, but very conclusive as well because of all that data....perfect!!

---

Thank you very much Martin :) :bows:

Well done Vapor, we appreciate the time and effort you put into this.
More testing is always good testing!

I have found that the 4.5 mm nozzle and a proper o-ring bow > quad nozzle.

Great test Vapor, well done :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snyxxx

Thanks for performing all these tests. I know it is time consuming.

I was thinking about mcoffey's point about flow. My testing with a single pump versus two pumps, rest of the loop identical, is the extra heat dump of the 2nd pump (or 3rd pump in your case) negates/reduces the performance gains from additional flow.

I just think that the diminishing returns seen with flow rate may have to do with heat dump.

---

i highly doubt heat dump from added pumps hurt the temps...the added flow causes more "rough seas" for the pins..causing better temps...

the rad and san ace fans will definitely dissipate the heat before even touching the cpu waterblock....

just my 1cent

@all

is the base bowed?

@vapor

hard mount used? or promount with springs?