Swiftech Apogee GT vs the D-Tek FuZion CPU blocks @ CES

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graystar

Just as it would be silly to say that hot water placed in a freezer will freeze faster than cold water placed in the freezer...yet under certain conditions that's exactly what happens.

We live in a complex world. Nothing should simply be dismissed outright.

oh...what if your pool of liquid was hotter than the rock? The the statement would be true!

---

I'm not dismissing anything- especially the laws of physics, heat transfer and thermodynamics. Again.... let's not negate the laws of physics, heat transfer, thermodynamics and so on here.

As for the freezer thing- that's a commonly asked Heat Transfer 101 trick question. The hotter water freezes faster because it induces a faster rate of heat transfer due to the higher DeltaT. Been there, done that- even got the T-shirt ;)

It doesn't matter if the liquid was hotter than the rock, or whether we're talkng about the temperature of the hot rock or the liquid...... my point is this: the more surface area in contact, the more heat transfer. Lets also remember, the hot rock problem assumes no further heat in or out by either source (unlike in the computing situation we are in here).

and.... If my pool of liquid was hotter than the rock we wouldn't be watercooling would we :D

I'm cool with it... we can agree to disagree;)

Please accept apologies for the off topic...

Gabe, can you please check your PMs? Want to discuss editing your title to show who you are so there will be no more mis-conceptions.

Thanks

IFMU ~ Marty

So, any chance one of you with the FuZion measured it for TEC use? Its geting hard to find 6002s....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plywood99

I did that. Heated the block up on a gas stove till the solder joint melted. Then used a small screwdriver to lightly knock the cover from the base. I think the U is made of brass.

Tricky part was getting it all soldered back together. Clean surfaces then use flux to help wick solder into the joint...


Ply

---

I may look into making a new mid-plate and top out of derlin or something.. if possible. If I get around to it... if if if if :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

place index and thumb of each hand at each corner, and slide the CPU back and forth

---

In other industries this technique is well known to give convex bottoms. Don’t use it.

The proper technique for “lapping” (we’re not actually lapping) is to push the item forward then lift and return to the starting point and push forward again. Never rotate or pull back.

Here’s a complete description of the process...
http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php...4&postcount=11

It’s even endorsed by BillA...
http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php...05&postcount=4

Gabe, I set your account to be able to set your own user title. Go into user CP and you should be able to set it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graystar

In other industries this technique is well known to give convex bottoms. Don’t use it.

The proper technique for “lapping” (we’re not actually lapping) is to push the item forward then lift and return to the starting point and push forward again. Never rotate or pull back.

Here’s a complete description of the process...
http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php...4&postcount=11

---

I concede that your technique migh be safer to untrained hands. Particularly if there is a lot of material to remove. We use the technique I described for finishing/polishing after the lapping machine has ground the parts flat. Both techniques do require training and patience. We are able to make perfectly flat/mirror pieces using this technique (as in measured with optical flat).

I am sorry Iany. I come from hundreds of hours of lapping and polishing parts myself over the years. What may seem easy to me might not be to others. Follow Graystar's technique, it is long, but safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graystar

In other industries this technique is well known to give convex bottoms. Don’t use it.

The proper technique for “lapping” (we’re not actually lapping) is to push the item forward then lift and return to the starting point and push forward again. Never rotate or pull back.

Here’s a complete description of the process...
http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php...4&postcount=11

It’s even endorsed by BillA...
http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php...05&postcount=4

---

Very interesting. This raises some observations.

In lapping the IHS, we are taking out surface irregularities that may affect performance, but in doing so we are introducing a convex IHS surface.

We are then artificially manipulating the waterblock baseplate to be concave to better match our artificially created convex CPU IHS.

I guess the question to raise is this. Are the results of such a fair indication of performance?

Does the performance of the concave base-plate still hold true with an unlapped CPU IHS?

In terms of seeking pure performance, the convex IHS and concave w/b do appear to be a good match, but is everyone prepared to lap their >$900 CPU and thereby invalidate any warranty.

Just asking questions, that's all. No attempt to knock, but rather to clarify.

I thought it was known that lapping was imperfect?

Any method used means you put more pressure on one area than another depending on how you are holding the item and which direction you are moving it while lapping.. doesnt matter if you go straight, circle, or figure-eight.

Heck, i've even got a machine meant for this stuff (vibrating bowl that you fill with abrasive material) but its still imperfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cathar

In lapping the IHS, we are taking out surface irregularities that may affect performance, but in doing so we are introducing a convex IHS surface.

---

Not so. We MIGHT be introducing convex surface if not careful. Care and rigor in the process are important. Checking progress with straight edge against a light helps greatly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cathar

We are then artificially manipulating the waterblock baseplate to be concave to better match our artificially created convex CPU IHS.

---

Not so. We are manipulating the water-block base plate to be convex, not concave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cathar

I guess the question to raise is this. Are the results of such a fair indication of performance?

---

Performance of what? fairness to what? the water-block hydraulic design, the thermal joint, both?

As to fairness, from what point of view? We are not discussing the merits of such or such hydraulic technique here. We are discussing a possible improvement in the thermal joint between IHS and water-block

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cathar

Does the performance of the concave base-plate still hold true with an unlapped CPU IHS?

---

Again, not concave..Convex. and yes, we did measure positive results with an unlapped CPU. Does it hold true in all case? We don't know, until we test every single IHS config we can get our hands on: concave, convex, irregular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cathar

is everyone prepared to lap their >$900 CPU and thereby invalidate any warranty.

---

A good point. I am curious as to how many people in this forum uncapped their AMD IHS. I for one never cared (dared?) doing it until OP showed me.

I have lapped my Kent (paid $1k for it). I did it because I feel comfortable with lapping due to experience. The guys at Xtreme lapped both Kents without even the hint of a second thought...

sounds like we need waterblocks that include different bases for different cpu applications.. let the end user test and decide which is best for their application....

choice = power :D

My mistake. For some strange reason I thought that the bases were being made concave.

My apologies. I really should get more sleep.

By "fair", I had meant whether or not it represented the usual/general scenario (vanilla w/b on a vanilla CPU), that's all. The comments were not meant to be inflammatory, although upon re-reading, I guess they may have sounded as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eva2000

sounds like we need waterblocks that include different bases for different cpu applications.. let the end user test and decide which is best for their application....

choice = power :D

---

That would only be good if different bases can be done for a small price, which I doubt aint possible, because copper is not that cheap.

I for my part dont want to spend a fortune on a waterblock. I usually buy a good performing block with a price that is ok for me.
No way I am spending an additional 30$ on a block that is 2C better.

That is why I will never get a storm over here. 84euro is way to much for me, which is why I went with a Alphacool Nexxxos XP that is half the price and not that much worse.

And from what I have read on German forums, most people think the same way I do. There are only a few extreme enthusiasts who buy the best stuff available, no matter at what cost (for the record: I consider myself a enthusiast aswell).

If I want to break records, I go with dry ice or LN2.
For 24/7 usage I want to have good performing components for a good price, a few degrees mroe or less dont matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eva2000

sounds like we need waterblocks that include different bases for different cpu applications.. let the end user test and decide which is best for their application....

choice = power :D

---

Heheheee they should call it waterblock for masochists or Apogee WM. Drain and bleed with every cpu change.

Well again there's power in choice

3 different packages

1. waterblock + base #1
2. waterblock + base #2
3. waterblock + base #1 + #2

heh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

Heck, i've even got a machine meant for this stuff (vibrating bowl that you fill with abrasive material) but its still imperfect.

---

That sounds like a deburring/polishing rig and you're right...it would be "imperfect" at actually producing a flat surface.

Hmm, this is so confusing - how many times will I have to reseat these things for optimal setup. Watercooling is confusing enough :(

The guys over at Cooling-Masters have a thread on DIY lapping machines made from old record players, nice results on blocks and dies, might be interesting for people who lap more than the occasional block/IHS.

In looking at most of the lapping progress shown in various users pics here, it seems quite obvious most all IHS's start out convex as evidenced by material being removed at the center first, then towards the edges to become more flat after lapping.... yes??

Therefor, it seems to me that a flat base, or even a slightly convex base should work just fine for the average Joe with an unlapped IHS. If the WB base is tweaked to a concave state just slightly during installation (at this point, I'd say it would have to be slightly overtorqued) you'd have near perfect mating between the convex IHS and concave base.

So why lap??

people!

it does not matter how flat your base is.

due to how the simple mechanics of how it is mounted, it should benefit EVERY cpu. even those without IHS.

here is a simple example for those who having a bit of trouble

Take a waterglass, and a CD

place the CD on the bottom of the glass. it will sit flat.

push on the outer parts of cd, (replicating a block mount) and you will see the inner part of the CD rises up and away from the center of the glass


that is what is happening to the base of the block when you mount it.

if you are able to understand this, you will understand that this will work for any cpu. and then you will see all this talk about different IHS is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdelong

In looking at most of the lapping progress shown in various users pics here, it seems quite obvious most all IHS's start out convex as evidenced by material being removed at the center first, then towards the edges to become more flat after lapping.... yes??

Therefor, it seems to me that a flat base, or even a slightly convex base should work just fine for the average Joe with an unlapped IHS. If the WB base is tweaked to a concave state just slightly during installation (at this point, I'd say it would have to be slightly overtorqued) you'd have near perfect mating between the convex IHS and concave base.

So why lap??

---

We checked 2 of the C2's that we have at work: the QX6700 was convex. The E6400 was concave. At CES Fuggers QX6700's were what I can only describe as "irregular" with high edges and high center section. We are researching the subject matter, trying to see if there are statistics available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdelong

In looking at most of the lapping progress shown in various users pics here, it seems quite obvious most all IHS's start out convex as evidenced by material being removed at the center first, then towards the edges to become more flat after lapping.... yes??

Therefor, it seems to me that a flat base, or even a slightly convex base should work just fine for the average Joe with an unlapped IHS. If the WB base is tweaked to a concave state just slightly during installation (at this point, I'd say it would have to be slightly overtorqued) you'd have near perfect mating between the convex IHS and concave base.

So why lap??

---

In theory, this is fine, but hard evidence and testing in many different systems yields only one conclusion...flat waterblocks produce better temps with flat IHSs. While WSP's theory does make sense, but I'm not
willing to base anything off of it until we get some hard evidence or math that proves that our waterblocks are contorting to a significant degree, or even that bowed bases under significant contortion becomes flat. Also, if his theory is correct, than wouldn't a severely-bowed base perform differently than a barely-bowed base or moderately-bowed base? Would there be a "sweet spot" for each waterblock that allowed a bowed base to become flat? If so, then would there not also be a "sweet spot" involved in how much pressure was mounting the block to the CPU?

IMO, the problem with watercooling forums is that too many posts are based off of theories that "make sense", but don't have any actual evidence to support them. A specific theory is not true simply because it is currently our only mechanism for strange, previously unexplainable phenomenon. (An example of these "phenomenon" is bowed bases yielding better temps on mirror-finished, almost-flat IHSs.) I know that many sciences work in this manner, but I still don't like it.

Also, was the Fuzion block only performing better because of its base shape? When the Apogee GT had the advantage of that base shape, it outperformed the Fuzion. Does this mean that the Apogee GT is a superior waterblock? What if the Fuzion had a flat base and a comparison was then made? What if the base shape affects block performance in some mysterious way that we have never guessed before? Should more waterblocks be tested with this bowed base? I'm curious to see how a Storm would perform with it.

Finally, if the bowed base is superior because of waterblock contortion, then is it possible to make waterblocks that will not contort? I have always wondered about very large waterblocks with raised bottoms to clear capacitors that allowed for huge amounts of water to flow through the block and cool it down. Sort-of like a Mega-Apogee. Would this huge waterblock design also contain enough copper in the base to resist contortion to a significant degree? Could bases be made thicker to resist contortion? Could we modify waterblock mounting so that more pressure is on the center of the block? The outside? The possibilities are seemingly endless.

In conclusion, we need more testing to figure out why a bowed base does what it does.

EDIT: Here is another possibility: Bowed bases force good contact on the center of the IHS. Maybe good contact on the center and bad contact on the rest of the IHS is better than mediocre contact on the entire thing. Keep in mind that this is just a possibility. I think that we need to brainstorm as many possibilities for why this is happening as we can.

If two surfaces are machined perfectly flat then the adhesion between them is like glue. The more contact area gives the best transfer on flat surfaces. We can not see the die to IHS configuration to determine exactly which shape will overcome the inadequacies in the CPU manufacture.

Even if we obtain a perfectly flat mating between the block and the IHS we are still at the mercy of the die to IHS mating. Couldn't we also get to the point where a convex block could crack the die from too much center pressure? Obviously there is a "sweet spot" when it comes to block fitting. An extra turn of the nut can yield better temperatures so are we reshaping the two surfaces with the additional pressure or just making sure that the two surfaces are as flat as possible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Peanut

IMO, the problem with watercooling forums is that too many posts are based off of theories that "make sense", but don't have any actual evidence to support them.

---

Hear hear! :clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baenwort

So, any chance one of you with the FuZion measured it for TEC use? Its geting hard to find 6002s....

---

Can't you use DangerDen Maze4? Is there anything bad about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeStSiDePLaYa

people!

it does not matter how flat your base is.

due to how the simple mechanics of how it is mounted, it should benefit EVERY cpu. even those without IHS.

here is a simple example for those who having a bit of trouble

Take a waterglass, and a CD

place the CD on the bottom of the glass. it will sit flat.

push on the outer parts of cd, (replicating a block mount) and you will see the inner part of the CD rises up and away from the center of the glass


that is what is happening to the base of the block when you mount it.

if you are able to understand this, you will understand that this will work for any cpu. and then you will see all this talk about different IHS is irrelevant.

---

I'd say the flexibility of a CD in your example is way off from a 1/4" slab of copper. You might as well compare it to a piece of paper. As a matter of fact try it with a piece of paper- the center does not lift the glass?

Where's you're engineering degree from again??

Actually, yes, the differences are tiny. But however, you must remember that thermal paste has terrible thermal conductivity. Its just better than air and most other viscous things. When the base is lifted just a tiny bit, thermal conductivity goes down.

There is a review already of apoggee gt vs. storm vs mcp 05. I don't really know how useful it is but apoggee once more got beat.
http://sg.vr-zone.com/?i=4476&s=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mion

There is a review already of apoggee gt vs. storm vs mcp 05. I don't really know how useful it is but apoggee once more got beat.
http://sg.vr-zone.com/?i=4476&s=1

---

They used Asus PC Probe as the reference..... blaah. Take the review with a grain of salt. Asus PC Probe stinks.... way off from Core Temp or TAT.

Funny how this thread has very little to do with the gt vs. the fuzion.

Any one know what the heat distribution is on a IHS? My guess is that it will be much hotter directly above the die, and not so much so around the edge of the IHS.
If so, having a convex base may tend to be better in most cases.

The relatively large size of the IHS may be causing problems by taking contact pressure away from the region with the most heat density.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdelong

I'd say the flexibility of a CD in your example is way off from a 1/4" slab of copper. You might as well compare it to a piece of paper. As a matter of fact try it with a piece of paper- the center does not lift the glass?

Where's you're engineering degree from again??

---

you dont need an engineering degree to think rationally and logically about something.:rolleyes:

have you ever thought of how soft copper is, and the great amounts of pressure the mounting mechanisms put on the block?

If you cant understand the concept here, it is not my problem. I have tried explaining it, and other members seem to understand. As well, both Gabe and RyderOCZ, who have companies putting out waterblocks, they both seem to understand what I am explaining. and it seems they both already knew this.

So maybe you need to look into it a bit more to realize what is happening. I would try to explain more to you, but i feel from the last part of your post that you would rather try to antagonize me, rather than listen to reasoning.

Barb kinda said what I was trying to say, and finished quicker than I did.

Quote:

---

Funny how this thread has very little to do with the gt vs. the fuzion.

Any one know what the heat distribution is on a IHS? My guess is that it will be much hotter directly above the die, and not so much so around the edge of the IHS.
If so, having a convex base may tend to be better in most cases.

The relatively large size of the IHS may be causing problems by taking contact pressure away from the region with the most heat density.

---

Hi, guys (and gals?), brand new to XS. Dig the good stuff though. You guys rock.

I had some thoughts about why this might work that kinda made sense to me. Think about the length of the pins in a waterblock. Why are they not longer? It's because the heat only makes it up the pin so far before the rest of the pin is mostly a waste of copper. Same with an IHS, or any other component involved. If the heat is being moved away from the IHS fast enough, at least some of the IHS is kinda wasted. Therefore, full IHS contact might be overrated.

Then, think of the contact surface of a convex block. It's probably like a car tire (only to a lesser degree). The round surface conforms a little which would give a tad wider "contact patch" than you'd get if the base stayed truly convex. Then, instead of spreading the pressure from your mounting screws over 2 square inches, you are focusing that pressure in the center, right over the die(s). More pressure= less distance between the surfaces. So, you are squeezing the TIM harder, and forcing the surfaces to mate tighter. Makes sense to me. That's probably a lot of the gain.

I hope that makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

We checked 2 of the C2's that we have at work: the QX6700 was convex. The E6400 was concave. At CES Fuggers QX6700's were what I can only describe as "irregular" with high edges and high center section. We are researching the subject matter, trying to see if there are statistics available.

---

Gabe, Intel knows of the problem with the IHS' and has stated that the lack of flatness comes from when the die is soldered to the IHS. The heat from this process warps the IHS. What I do not know however is, which deformation is the most common. I would imagine that since the process to place the IHS on the die is the same for all of their CPU's that there would be a deformation trend. The key word here being trend, as can be seen by the fact that you have measured a convex, concave and irregular [Charles QX6700 ] IHS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Can't you use DangerDen Maze4? Is there anything bad about it?

---

not the greatest for performance.

I don't trust tests run by the same company that made the block,dtek or swiftech....I am purchasing an apogee gt to run my own test.....I just am very skeptical of 8deg improvments....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Can't you use DangerDen Maze4? Is there anything bad about it?

---

Well, besides the fact that it is a much worse block for TECs then the 6002. The key thing with TECs is to cool the entire surface of the TEC and the Maze4 doesn't cool a very large area. The Apogee is a bit better then the Mase4 but is more difficult to mount a TEC to and still doesn't work as well as the 6002.

The D-Tek looks like it has good potential for use as a TEC block but with modern CPUs you need to use a 50x50 437W TEC. I'm hoping someone with the block has some experience with TECs and can evaluate the FuZion's potential as a TEC block.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeStSiDePLaYa

you dont need an engineering degree to think rationally and logically about something.:rolleyes:

have you ever thought of how soft copper is, and the great amounts of pressure the mounting mechanisms put on the block?

If you cant understand the concept here, it is not my problem. I have tried explaining it, and other members seem to understand. As well, both Gabe and RyderOCZ, who have companies putting out waterblocks, they both seem to understand what I am explaining. and it seems they both already knew this.

So maybe you need to look into it a bit more to realize what is happening. I would try to explain more to you, but i feel from the last part of your post that you would rather try to antagonize me, rather than listen to reasoning.

---

Explaining something with some rational and logical thought is far from stating a theorm and prooving it beyond a doubt... which no one here has been able to do consistently concerning this warped base/IHS situation.

It seems everyone is so rushed to do the comparison testing, that the results end up prooving nothing conclusive and create more confusion than we started with. You can't call a fresh mount stable in 15 minutes or even 30 minutes.... AS5 takes days, Ceramique takes weeks. Some are making 4,5,6 mounts in a day and posting comparison results :nono:

One day a particular block is 5C better, the next day it's 3C worse- that's what I'm talking about. It's like Fox News, ABC, CBS and NBC all trying to break the story first. This can't all be done in a day with a winner being declared. It will take weeks for it all to fall out.

Let's just all sit back, enjoy the ride and see where we are in a few weeks;) My guess is that it will not be exactly where we are today, but not far from where we are today either. We'll see that a convex base will perform best on a flat or slightly convex IHS.... for a given block design, whatever yields the most surface contact will always win the heat transfer game;) Convex to convex will yield best contact at the center and the less convex each surface (and closest to flush when mounted) will yield the best results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdelong

for a given block design, whatever yields the most surface contact will always win the heat transfer game;) Convex to convex will yield best contact at the center and the less convex each surface (and closest to flush when mounted) will yield the best results.

---

Good point, but can you run through (for us non-rational people) why taking the IHS off a A64 X2 CPU drops temps by 10, 11, 12 degrees... and has not even half the surface area as with the IHS? Taking out one thermal interface can be a good bit of that.... but surely not all. I think that the only thing wrong with your statement above is that you left out the word "quality" before surface contact in bold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Curtybob

Good point, but can you run through (for us non-rational people) why taking the IHS off a A64 X2 CPU drops temps by 10, 11, 12 degrees... and has not even half the surface area as with the IHS? Taking out one thermal interface can be a good bit of that.... but surely not all. I think that the only thing wrong with your statement above is that you left out the word "quality" before surface contact in bold.

---

Agreed. Surface area is good, but so is good contact. If it turns out that these bowed bases consistently whoop flat ones on flat IHSs, then I think that cdelong (whom I respect and do not intend to make an inflammatory comment towards) will be proved wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdelong

It seems everyone is so rushed to do the comparison testing, that the results end up prooving nothing conclusive and create more confusion than we started with.

---

No one set of results should ever be conclusive. We need many to form a trend. Only those looking for something conclusive will be confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdelong

You can't call a fresh mount stable in 15 minutes or even 30 minutes.... AS5 takes days, Ceramique takes weeks. Some are making 4,5,6 mounts in a day and posting comparison results :nono:

---

Sigh, every block (at least the way I'm testing) has the same advantages (in this case disadvantages) as the next. If every block has exactly the same amount of time to cure the TIM, what matter does it make how long it cures so long as they are all IDENTICAL?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdelong

One day a particular block is 5C better, the next day it's 3C worse- that's what I'm talking about. It's like Fox News, ABC, CBS and NBC all trying to break the story first. This can't all be done in a day with a winner being declared. It will take weeks for it all to fall out.

---

You are being redundant here about your first point. Again, it is about forming a trend for many sets of (hopefully good) results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdelong

for a given block design, whatever yields the most surface contact will always win the heat transfer game;) Convex to convex will yield best contact at the center and the less convex each surface (and closest to flush when mounted) will yield the best results.

---

It is NOT just about contact area, it is also about contact force or mounting pressure.

Niksub,have you done any testing upon the apogee gt?I read the vr-zone review and i got confused, i see a lot of different numbers and i don't know what to believe! Just waiting for your results! :fact:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Curtybob

Good point, but can you run through (for us non-rational people) why taking the IHS off a A64 X2 CPU drops temps by 10, 11, 12 degrees... and has not even half the surface area as with the IHS? Taking out one thermal interface can be a good bit of that.... but surely not all. I think that the only thing wrong with your statement above is that you left out the word "quality" before surface contact in bold.

---

I should have qualified that statement to pertain only to IHS topped CPU's;) Of course eliminating a "barrier" to the heat transfer process (the IHS) would obviously yield better results.

The VR-Zone review is without the thicker gasket, or in other words, with a flat base. So you shouldn't be confused as that is pretty much what has been shown by many(EDIT: by a couple, "many" is quite an exageration), although the MP-05 came as a surprise to me.

btw, does anybody have any good pictures of the convex base? in my mind its just very slight convex but i think maybe some believes its more lika a base ball...:p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helmore

The VR-Zone review is without the thicker gasket, or in other words, with a flat base. So you shouldn't be confused as that is pretty much what has been shown by many(EDIT: by a couple, "many" is quite an exageration), although the MP-05 came as a surprise to me.

---

The MP-05 is a quality water block and should never be discounted.

Sorry if this is a repeat, but I haven't been following these threads too closely the past day or two and things really moved a lot since then. I was just looking on swiftech's website and saw that the GT flows slightly worse than the regular apogee. I thought it was said a week or so ago that the GT flowed slightly better? Was that just a guesstimate, or truly noticable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Peanut

Agreed. Surface area is good, but so is good contact. If it turns out that these bowed bases consistently whoop flat ones on flat IHSs, then I think that cdelong (whom I respect and do not intend to make an inflammatory comment towards) will be proved wrong.

---

no offense taken;) just curious as which of the many statements I made there I'll be proved wrong on? I did a lot of fast typing and assumed everyone was inside my head thinking some of the same things as me.

By stating whatever yeilded the most surface area would be king, I also figured it was obvious I meant surface area contact..... and yes pressure plays a role in that as well;)

Also as agreed before, a topless CPU "should" have better results due to direct contact on the die, although I flipped more Opterons lids (dual and single core) than I care to count, only to get the same temp results.

I'm off now to play for a while.... just got back with some 220/320/440/600/1500 wet/dry paper. I want to see what shape my IHS was:banana:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeStSiDePLaYa

you dont need an engineering degree to think rationally and logically about something.:rolleyes:

have you ever thought of how soft copper is, and the great amounts of pressure the mounting mechanisms put on the block?

If you cant understand the concept here, it is not my problem. I have tried explaining it, and other members seem to understand. As well, both Gabe and RyderOCZ, who have companies putting out waterblocks, they both seem to understand what I am explaining. and it seems they both already knew this.

So maybe you need to look into it a bit more to realize what is happening. I would try to explain more to you, but i feel from the last part of your post that you would rather try to antagonize me, rather than listen to reasoning.

---

Have you ever actually handled a pure copper bar before? It is far from soft. Its soft compared to other metals, but is not what I would call soft. The bases of those blocks there are rigid enough alright. The thing is, if you look at the thermal conductivity of AS5 or any thermal paste, you will find that it suxxors and might as well be your poop(well not really). If the distance between the block and IHS or core increases by just a tiny bit, the thermal paste will have to "bridge" it and hence the crappy heat transfer and the crappy temperatures.

It'd probably smell bad when the computer is running and heating it up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziddey

It'd probably smell bad when the computer is running and heating it up

---

lol, thx for making my joke more funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Have you ever actually handled a pure copper bar before? It is far from soft. Its soft compared to other metals, but is not what I would call soft. The bases of those blocks there are rigid enough alright.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeStSiDePLaYa

have you ever thought of how soft copper is, and the great amounts of pressure the mounting mechanisms put on the block?

---

Relatively soft, compared to other metals. WSP isn't talking about soft as in ''teddybear soft'', obviously.

Even though a copper base isn't exactly ''soft'', it's going to bend (slightly) under the stress of the mounting mechanism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xavior

Even though a copper base isn't exactly ''soft'', it's going to bend (slightly) under the stress of the mounting mechanism.

---

I didn't think any of this discussion involved base warping due to mounting pressure (which I should think would lead to a convex base anyway), rather it was assembly pressure at issue (the larger diameter o-ring creating a slight convex distortion as the block block itself is screwed together).

Didn't Cathar have a few instances of this with the G5 due to a slightly shallow o-ring channel (or maybe a slightly too large o-ring...can't remember which)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Have you ever actually handled a pure copper bar before? It is far from soft. Its soft compared to other metals, but is not what I would call soft. The bases of those blocks there are rigid enough alright. The thing is, if you look at the thermal conductivity of AS5 or any thermal paste, you will find that it suxxors and might as well be your poop(well not really). If the distance between the block and IHS or core increases by just a tiny bit, the thermal paste will have to "bridge" it and hence the crappy heat transfer and the crappy temperatures.

---

that is exactly my point ;)

and my little cd/glass thing was just to emphasize the theory for those who werent understanding that strong mounting pressure will reduce contact over the core.

and that the bowed base helps counter that occurence.

so we are on the same page, just different paragraph.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdelong

no offense taken;) just curious as which of the many statements I made there I'll be proved wrong on? I did a lot of fast typing and assumed everyone was inside my head thinking some of the same things as me.

By stating whatever yeilded the most surface area would be king, I also figured it was obvious I meant surface area contact..... and yes pressure plays a role in that as well;)

---

I was referring to your statement about surface area>all. I took that to mean that a flat IHS combined with a flat block would equal optimum temps. However, looking at the results at CES, this was not the case.*** I find it hard to believe that a bowed base will become perfectly flat under mounting pressure. (Although I invite someone to prove me wrong on that point.) Therefore, wouldn't a bowed base yield less contact area between the base and the IHS than a flat base?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdelong

I should have qualified that statement to pertain only to IHS topped CPU's Of course eliminating a "barrier" to the heat transfer process (the IHS) would obviously yield better results.

---

An IHS isn't the only barrier between the base of the block and the die. There is also thermal paste. If contact between the base of the block and the IHS is improved, then the "barrier" of thermal paste would be reduced. Under your reasoning, this would decrease temps, which we have seen happen. I think that the bowed base's performance has just as much to do with good contact as it does with anything else.

***I would also like to emphasize my belief that everything anyone, including myself, posts about bowed bases is purely speculation at this point. More testing needs to be done with them and the factors that may or may not help them to gain or lose an edge in performance.

Couldn't all this stuff be done away with by simply making the blocks perfectly flat, and using a different mounting mechanism?
One that would apply pressure over the center of the block:

___V___ - mount
======= - block
_++++_ - cpu

Seems just about all current mounting mechanisms force some sort of warping of the base...

Well I can tell you guys one thing, if you hard mount a FLAT apogee GT with too much pressure you will bugger the base for good - I have just managed to do so.

Isn't this result far more likely than distorting the copper base when you apply too much mounting pressure on a block?

http://members.shaw.ca/virtualrain/mounting.gif

Even this is probably more likely depending on the rigidity of the mounting plate...

http://members.shaw.ca/virtualrain/mounting2.gif

I suppose if you really go overboard, you may start to distort the base itself but I would think the major distortion would occur on the mounting plate long before the base got distorted.

Nikhsub1... what did you do to your base?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by virtualrain

Isn't this result far more likely than distorting the copper base when you apply too much mounting pressure on a block?

http://members.shaw.ca/virtualrain/mounting.gif

I suppose if you really go overboard, you may start to distort the base itself but I would think the major distortion would occur on the mounting plate long before the base got distorted.

Nikhsub1... what did you do to your base?

---

id say the mounting brackets are easily harder than the copper bases. they would have to be to work properly.

and if a mounting plate was made like that, the base would still deform at high pressure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by virtualrain

Nikhsub1... what did you do to your base?

---

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=130318

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeStSiDePLaYa

id say the mounting brackets are easily harder than the copper bases. they would have to be to work properly.

and if a mounting plate was made like that, the base would still deform at high pressure.

---

I guess it really does depend on the rigidity of the mounting plate... it also depends on how much the intermediate layer (not shown in my diagrams) will give as well... usually blocks are like...

Mounting Plate
--------------------
Delrin or IMP Housing
--------------------
Copper Base

So the rigidity of all three layers comes into play as well as the torque on the screws making it difficult to determine just how much the copper is going to distort, if any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Peanut

I was referring to your statement about surface area>all. I took that to mean that a flat IHS combined with a flat block would equal optimum temps. However, looking at the results at CES, this was not the case.*** I find it hard to believe that a bowed base will become perfectly flat under mounting pressure. (Although I invite someone to prove me wrong on that point.) Therefore, wouldn't a bowed base yield less contact area between the base and the IHS than a flat base?

An IHS isn't the only barrier between the base of the block and the die. There is also thermal paste. If contact between the base of the block and the IHS is improved, then the "barrier" of thermal paste would be reduced. Under your reasoning, this would decrease temps, which we have seen happen. I think that the bowed base's performance has just as much to do with good contact as it does with anything else.

***I would also like to emphasize my belief that everything anyone, including myself, posts about bowed bases is purely speculation at this point. More testing needs to be done with them and the factors that may or may not help them to gain or lose an edge in performance.

---

Without restating everything you just have- I think we're basically on the same page here, but I'm making assumptions you know what I'm talking about without stating every explicit detail ;) Yes the stock goop between the IHS and the die blows.... that being said, I'm not sure we can reasonably or safely put enough pressure on the IHS by cranking down on the WB base to make Intel's goo perform any better under the IHS. I just think we just may be stuck with what's there... and every CPU is as different as you and I in that respect. I don't know... maybe the installation force does squeeze the TIM under the IHS??

I just spent the last 1.5 hours lapping my E6600. Very funny profile:confused: Highest at the edges (caused by solder joints??), next highest in the center (die and TIM??) and lowest in between. It only took 5 minutes to see that the edges were the highest. It took the other hour and change to see the rest for sure. Lapped down to 1500grit and burning in now. I'll let it go for a few days and formally post what I see. Unformally, I like it so far;) (this is with the Fuzion).

I'm going to have to get a GT after my PA120.2 is set-up and get busy. I've asked D-Tek for a new midplate to fuss with and should have one soon. If they do implement a nozzle I'm all game to give it a try. Hopefully it will be a simple midplate upgrade or just an insert to install.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdelong

Very funny profile:confused: Highest at the edges (caused by solder joints??), next highest in the center (die and TIM??) and lowest in between.

---

exactly what we saw at CES with Fugger's quads.. This is apparently a result of the soldering process.. HOWEVER, I just checked an AMD IHS today that we had removed from an X2 4600, and it had the same wavy profile (high edges, high center, low mid-section), but to a lesser extent than the Intel.

I might be mistaken, but I thought the IHS was soldered to the die? Yeah... I remember seeing an article about a guy trying to remove a couple, and wound up with some cool shots of the dies removed from the packaging.

please see my comment here

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...86#post1965986

i could not finish orthos before because of high temps now i can

as i dont have an apogee GT im finding it hard to visualize where this gasket(that has 2 thicknesses) actually goes in the assembly. can someone explain it? can we do anything similar to a storm or any other block or is only the apogee built in such a way as to warp it?

so which is the preferred choice? Fuzion or GT?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtle 1

I am sorry but if you look at the D-Tek casting . mechanicly speaking the mateing surface and the mounting surface are on a parrallel but not the same plane. that casting has a vertical wall that meets the mating surface. Where the metering block mounts to the base is a differant plane. Its much more rigged than the apogge block . I can see where installing a larger diameter o-ring would cause deflection of its mating surface.With the apogge.
The same does not apply to the D-tek design . I highly suspect that the convex surface of the D-tek block is the result of the casting process. Fact is I believe the D-tek block when it comes out of its mold is actually concave . and is mechanicly straightened to a convex with a press. The reason I believe this is the mass of the pins . In the cooling process would cause warp towards the mass.

---

Looks like you should have paid more attention to this post. You may than have avoided ruining a perfectly good block.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by situman

so which is the preferred choice? Fuzion or GT?

---

Seriously.
And in a simple, straight-forward answer, not one filled with a bunch of useless theories and bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darcon

Seriously.
And in a simple, straight-forward answer, not one filled with a bunch of useless theories and bias.

---

*Sigh* - there is no straight forward answer here... there are lots of variables and not one block will be best for all. It also depends on what CPU you are running. I will have more results in a couple of weeks.

Check out this cheap effective way to protect our motherboards using intel 775 chips and any water cooling cpu block.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post1972879

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redcorn

Check out this cheap effective way to protect our motherboards using intel 775 chips and any water cooling cpu block.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post1972879

---

Gabe...Dtek...you need to provide a backplate for the mobo with these blocks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nealh

Gabe...Dtek...you need to provide a backplate for the mobo with these blocks

---

If the springs are used (and the instructions followed) you wouldn't get nearly as much warping as pictured, even less once you mount the mobo in a case since the motherboard hold downs would aid in keeping it from bending.

So has anyone put a pelt under either one of these yet? Interested in how well they would perform next to the mcw6002. The base seems large enough to accommodate a 50mm-50mm pelt and the cooling patch is large. Any word yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Levish

If the springs are used (and the instructions followed) you wouldn't get nearly as much warping as pictured, even less once you mount the mobo in a case since the motherboard hold downs would aid in keeping it from bending.

---

I barely had my Dtek tension screws turned 5 turns each when I took that picture. Anyone using these water blocks should definitely take the time and spend 5 bucks to install a back plate to protect your mother board. Just for fun I went back and installed the Koolance 300 V series cpu block and when tightened to factory specs the motherboard bows. What I think is happening is people are installing the blocks while the mother board is in the case so you never realize the board is bowing. Install the block on a bench or table and you will see it happen fairly easy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by epion2985

So has anyone put a pelt under either one of these yet? Interested in how well they would perform next to the mcw6002. The base seems large enough to accommodate a 50mm-50mm pelt and the cooling patch is large. Any word yet?

---

Haven't gotten there yet in my testing. . .maybe next week. . .

I am interested myself to see if the heat dump from the pelts affect the CPU overclock. We'll know in awhile.