Stren's Titan Water Block Roundup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

wow, only 20c. Seems like they run cool enough that you wouldn't need a heat spreader or anything back there. IR should work..look forward to your additional results..:)

---

Yeah they do get hotter when you run an air cooler as they would roughly track the GPU temps, i.e. ~70C when the gpu was at 75C on air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dernettemann

wo looks nice

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeoAndrade

only 20C? Any chance of you testing a universal block on this card?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vetalar

Nice results here! As an ati fan i'm not going to buy titan but good wb testing is my soft spot :-) also any universal block would be nice...

send from Deathstar via HAL9000

---

Yeah we'll see how time goes, with multiple blocks and multiple runs and the extra time to let MX2 cure then I might want to be selling this card before I get to that point. Plus I'm off on vacation for 10 days on wednesday so I'm trying to get out what data I can before I leave...

Alright then. I got done with the first run on the Koolance block which is a real puzzler. I'm definitely going to have to run this block again to make sure this is legit:

http://i.imgur.com/OKH12ZZ.png

>> edit after removing the koolance block I noticed the TIM wasn't spread as well as it could have been and was still quite thick. This either means that I didn't tighten the block enough (unlikely but always possible) or that the contact area for the GPU is actually too high and isn't making good contact with the IHS.

stren
>This either means that I didn't tighten the block enough (unlikely but always possible) or that the contact area for the GPU is actually too high and isn't making good contact with the IHS.
Will be new results?

And question about EK. This thing got like baffle before VRM zone. Sure it's made to reduce the resistance. But is that good for VRM cooling? Titan can take from PSU 330+ W (with modded BIOS) just under 3DMark11. Don't know about VRM's margin of safety on this card, but I never heard about deaths of these cards even under air cooling. So maybe nothing worry about.

Ordered simple EKs + backplates. But Aquacomp's blocks are most beautiful, as usual. I think they must make XXL Edition, like EK did!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avabaska

stren
>This either means that I didn't tighten the block enough (unlikely but always possible) or that the contact area for the GPU is actually too high and isn't making good contact with the IHS.
Will be new results?

And question about EK. This thing got like baffle before VRM zone. Sure it's made to reduce the resistance. But is that good for VRM cooling? Titan can take from PSU 330+ W (with modded BIOS) just under 3DMark11. Don't know about VRM's margin of safety on this card, but I never heard about deaths of these cards even under air cooling. So maybe nothing worry about.

Ordered simple EKs + backplates. But Aquacomp's the most beautiful, as usual.

---

Yeah I'll be retesting all the blocks, I'm trying to run every block once first in case something dies.

I did forget VRM and memory temps on the EK block, and Koolance had a backplate so I couldn't measure that one, but I have those temps on the AquaComputer block that I'm running now. Yeah we'll see about the VRM's. I'm measuring about 50C over ambient on the VRM's right now with the AC block. I think adding MX2 to both sides of the thermal pad really helps (which this run doesn't have), but I need to get firm data on that to be honest. I also noted that a thermal pad on the VRM sense resistor really helps to stabilize the card's power measurements over temperature. That resistor does not have a zero temp co and could be causing people to power limit unnecessarily.

for the koolance vid titan

do NOT use pads on vram chips
block will not get enough contact to the gpu
simply use thermal grease on vram chips - much better :)

thats what i meant with koolance temperatur problems - just figured out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by naennon

for the koolance vid titan

do NOT use pads on vram chips
block will not get enough contact to the gpu
simply use thermal grease on vram chips - much better :)

thats what i meant with koolance temperatur problems - just figured out

---

Cool I'll try this next - did that help your temps?

Interesting flow behavior on the Koolance. Perhaps there is some block expansion happening as flow and internal pressure increases causing that. I know I have seen some odd things in pressure drop curves flattening out like the GTX radiator series that was presumably due to the very thin tubes expanding under pressure.

Love the work and think the one mount concept first is very wise. Take care of that card and take your time. Enjoy the Vaca.. much deserved break!!

stren
>...but I have those temps on the AquaComputer block that I'm running now. Yeah we'll see about the VRM's. I'm measuring about 50C over ambient on the VRM's right now with the AC block.
+50C from ambient directly on one of the transistors? And I guess it at stock clocks (with boost only)? I think it's a good idea to use a backplate with pads (need to pick up thickness) for VRM zone + slow fan for cooling that backplate. Did it with GTX 580s and will repeat with Titans.

>I think adding MX2 to both sides of the thermal pad really helps (which this run doesn't have), but I need to get firm data on that to be honest.
EK wrote about this in manual. But is that OK if I have MX3? And is there any benefit? If it's only 1-2-3 degrees...

>[i]I also noted that a thermal pad on the VRM sense resistor really helps to stabilize the card's power measurements over temperature. That resistor does not have a zero temp co and could be causing people to power limit unnecessarily./i]
Sorry, I don`t understand - resistor on Titan`s PCB?
I only OC`ed this card under air (stock) in open case, fan was at 5000+ RPM and + two 120 mm side Slip Streams (1600 and 1900 RPM). Card consumption was up to 330W and back side of PCB (on the opposite side of VRM) was about 65-70C (infrared thermometer). Ambient ~24C.

naennon
>do NOT use pads on vram chips
block will not get enough contact to the gpu
But according Koolance manual, we must use them. That's strange. But also they wrote:

Multiple types of heat transfer pads are included with some Koolance blocks.
You might not require both (check the pad diagram). This is done because card
manufactures change the component height tolerance from time to time.

But it looks confusing, I prefer EK way :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

Interesting flow behavior on the Koolance. Perhaps there is some block expansion happening as flow and internal pressure increases causing that. I know I have seen some odd things in pressure drop curves flattening out like the GTX radiator series that was presumably due to the very thin tubes expanding under pressure.

Love the work and think the one mount concept first is very wise. Take care of that card and take your time. Enjoy the Vaca.. much deserved break!!

---

Thanks Martin - interesting - yes it reminded me of a laminar to turbulent transition plot from back in the day. But I thought we always had turbulent flow these days so your explanation might be better!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avabaska

stren
>...but I have those temps on the AquaComputer block that I'm running now. Yeah we'll see about the VRM's. I'm measuring about 50C over ambient on the VRM's right now with the AC block.
+50C from ambient directly on one of the transistors? And I guess it at stock clocks (with boost only)? I think it's a good idea to use a backplate with pads (need to pick up thickness) for VRM zone + slow fan for cooling that backplate. Did it with GTX 580s and will repeat with Titans.

---

+50C above ambient measured on the back of the board underneath where the VRMs are. This was the worst spot of the 6 phases, others were cooler. This raised to ~57C at very low flow. This is without TIM on the thermal pads though so I bet it could be improved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avabaska

>I think adding MX2 to both sides of the thermal pad really helps (which this run doesn't have), but I need to get firm data on that to be honest.
EK wrote about this in manual. But is that OK if I have MX3? And is there any benefit? If it's only 1-2-3 degrees...

---

Any non conductive TIM should be fine. I don't have a definitive numerical answer for you, but the EK block (where I did use TIM on the vram pads) was about 15C better on the VRAM chips on the back of the card than the AC block (where I didn't use TIM on the pads). Now that could be block differences but it might be the TIM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avabaska

>[i]I also noted that a thermal pad on the VRM sense resistor really helps to stabilize the card's power measurements over temperature. That resistor does not have a zero temp co and could be causing people to power limit unnecessarily./i]
Sorry, I don`t understand - resistor on Titan`s PCB?
I only OC`ed this card under air (stock) in open case, fan was at 5000+ RPM and + two 120 mm side Slip Streams (1600 and 1900 RPM). Card consumption was up to 330W and back side of PCB (on the opposite side of VRM) was about 65-70C (infrared thermometer). Ambient ~24C.

---

There is a resistor (or at least I assume it's a resistor) for each phase next to the regulator labelled R22. I assume this means it's a high power 0.22 ohm resistor used to measure the output current of the regulator. But this is a guess. Most instructions tell you to not put a thermal pad on it, but when I didn't on the Koolance block the power measurements were very sensitive to block temperature and would raise 5% over the test. Given that with a stock bios you can easily hit the power limit when overclocking then adding a thermal pad to that resistor might help extend your ability to overclock it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avabaska

naennon
>do NOT use pads on vram chips
block will not get enough contact to the gpu
But according Koolance manual, we must use them. That's strange. But also they wrote:

Multiple types of heat transfer pads are included with some Koolance blocks.
You might not require both (check the pad diagram). This is done because card
manufactures change the component height tolerance from time to time.

But it looks confusing, I prefer EK way :)

---

Yeah I saw this yesterday too (I didn't have a manual shipped with the block as it was shipped so quickly). So they kind of agree except Koolance should have specified that you may not even have to use a pad at all if the spread is still too thick.

Compiled the AquaComputer GPU core results - it's a bunch more restrictive as we knew from the earlier plots. In a single CPU, GPU, Rad, 4xQDC loop it could drop flow from ~1.05GPM (for EK and Koolance) to 0.85GPM. At higher flows it does about the same as the EK block, however at lower flows it does better. Between the two I'd recommend the AC for multiple cards in parallel and the EK for a single card, or cards in series.

Note the lowest pump setting for the AC block is off the scale of my flow meter. The float was not pegged so I made an estimate of 0.28GPM, but this number will be far from exact.

http://i.imgur.com/sXNiFTU.png

That's about all I'll have time for before I leave for vacation. I'll be back by the end of the month and will run the XSPC and then the EVGA. Hopefully the other blocks will arrive shortly after I get back.

Sweetness...finally some good data to understand lower flow rate performance too. I had always assumed the larger fin designs of GPU block would be more sensetive to lower flow rate. That AC block clear down to .25GPM is still doing extremely well. Just another reason not to get overly worked up about thinking we need high flow rates.

Thx Stren, and Hello Martin :)

Those blocks are absolutely beautiful, loving the AC back plate.. definitely ordering a couple titan's this year (maybe 3 if it scales well in surround :D ), water blocks will definitely be used so keeping a eye on this thread.

Looks like EK's and AC's are going toe to toe this round while Koolance is trailing just a step behind, so in the end it may just boil down to aesthetics and which company you prefer, those nickel plated AC blocks just brings another meaning to the word "Sexy".... ummmmm :p:

@shoggy, is there a SLI and Tri SLI block available that is compatible with the heat pipe or this is still in the works?

sure it helped me out with my temps @ stren

do it my way ;)

Love your work, keep it up! :up: Have a nice vacation, recharge your batteries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stren

+50C above ambient measured on the back of the board underneath where the VRMs are. This was the worst spot of the 6 phases, others were cooler. This raised to ~57C at very low flow. This is without TIM on the thermal pads though so I bet it could be improved.

---

Thanks for the answer and I'm very sorry for meddling in your topic :)
Unfortunately, I can measure only the back side of PCB (so it can be + up to 10C to this temp = transistors temp) and there was up to 68C under heavy load (300+W) with water temp 33C:

http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/17/irgun.jpg

Also there was a faint air cooling (92 mm, 1000 rpm):

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8896/fanyz.jpg

And I did not succeed with pads for the back side of PCB, because had only hard pads from Phobya and a backplate began to deform when tightening the screws. So I decided not to install backplates, instead of this I used heatsinks for memory and just a fan for VRM zone. Not so effective, ugly but it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stren

Any non conductive TIM should be fine. I don't have a definitive numerical answer for you, but the EK block (where I did use TIM on the vram pads) was about 15C better on the VRAM chips on the back of the card than the AC block (where I didn't use TIM on the pads). Now that could be block differences but it might be the TIM.

---

It possible, but 15C on VRAM chips :confused: I thought if we have a strong pressing, like this (GTX 680):

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9554/vrmpads.jpg

with a pretty hard pads (like EK's), there is no need of any other thermal interface. But if it will be a copper or aluminium plate, sure we need something like MX2 or 4.
But look how squeezed they are... Maybe thermal paste it's a good idea. I'm starting to think, that I need to reinstall blocks (laziness...) or wait for the next upgrade :eh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stren

There is a resistor (or at least I assume it's a resistor) for each phase next to the regulator labelled R22. I assume this means it's a high power 0.22 ohm resistor used to measure the output current of the regulator. But this is a guess. Most instructions tell you to not put a thermal pad on it, but when I didn't on the Koolance block the power measurements were very sensitive to block temperature and would raise 5% over the test. Given that with a stock bios you can easily hit the power limit when overclocking then adding a thermal pad to that resistor might help extend your ability to overclock it.

---

That's really strange :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stren

Between the two I'd recommend the AC for multiple cards in parallel and the EK for a single card, or cards in series.

---

But our temps will be higher. BTW, I have not noticed any appreciable difference between three GPUs at ~230 l/h. Even at 175 l/h the difference was very small. Maybe even at 150 l/h it's better to use a series connection? In parallel, temp of all cards = last card in series connection. But if we have sufficient (or minium) flow only with one card and want to add two cards more, maybe we need use parallel.

AC block seems to be leading both aesthetics and performance so far although it does appear to be a tiny bit more restrictive. Have a great vacation, look forward to more later.:)

Titan's block from Bitspower
http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/8206/dsc03482f.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juthoss

Titan's block from Bitspower
http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/8206/dsc03482f.jpg

---

Fugly.

wtf were they thinking with those huge black screw at the top?

also, the internals seems a bit too simple and poor

Cooling that memory chips on the back side - useless :) Max temp (55C) got chips near to VRM zone. But 55C it's nothing. So backplate it's only for aesthetics :(

I have owned bitspower blocks (580 GTX models) in the past, they are surprisingly well built, I put those things through torture, literally... Remove / Installed about 5 times, ran coolants, mayhem dyes, flushed with tap water then distilled uncountable times, in the end I use distilled and silver coil only for long use, the quality of the nickel never budged and it never leaked, they are pure eye candy if you pop some LED's in them..

Performance wise is a bit lacking, but beats stock air cooling by far,if you are after pure aesthetics, picture below is a old shot of mine.

http://www.frankandersonblog.com/upload/12292012/2.jpg

http://www.frankandersonblog.com/upload/12292012/8.jpg

http://www.frankandersonblog.com/upload/12292012/9.jpg

for my new cards, I have ordered some AC blocks with the passive back plates :)

I wouldn't say back plates are purely aesthetics, for the temps it may not help much or be negligible as far as performance is concerned, but for the stability of the card, it really does help a lot, going tri or quad graphic cards + blocks + bridge, it weighs quite a bit.

Stren is back! XSPC is on the bench then followed by the hydrcopper. So hopefully those results will be in by the end of the week. I'm following up with BP, alphacool and watercool to make sure I get sent the blocks soon now that they are all ready it seems. Phobya should be ready next month.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frank anderson

Snip

---

Ouchies, most expensive SLI bridging ever! (Looks awesome as though :up:)

-PB

Hey Stren,

I think you have a faulty block from us (warped or otherwise not flat), so we'll ship out another one. You mentioned a less than desirable paste spread. Do the standoffs sit flush when placed onto a flat surface, or does the block rock a little? In our tests on both Titan and GTX 780, the GPU was noticeably cooler with VID-NXTTN than with EK's. This "should" be expected since we're using denser and thinner fins, so I think this certainly sounds like a contact issue.

A little off-topic, but our Titan block will be the first to use our new upcoming acetal SLI bridge connectors (as opposed to our usual sliding pipes). That's the reason the fitting area can be removed from the main block and has its own o-ring seal.

Tim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koolance

Hey Stren,

I think you have a faulty block from us (warped or otherwise not flat), so we'll ship out another one. You mentioned a less than desirable paste spread. Do the standoffs sit flush when placed onto a flat surface, or does the block rock a little? In our tests on both Titan and GTX 780, the GPU was noticeably cooler with VID-NXTTN than with EK's. This "should" be expected since we're using denser and thinner fins, so I think this certainly sounds like a contact issue.

A little off-topic, but our Titan block will be the first to use our new upcoming acetal SLI bridge connectors (as opposed to our usual sliding pipes). That's the reason the fitting area can be removed from the main block and has its own o-ring seal.

Tim

---

Hey Tim - Yes there's a very slight wobble when I put it on a flat surface only in one direction though. And I love that you're doing bridge connectors too! If you decide to send a new one can you also send the short screws so that I don't have to use the backplate? That way I can measure the back of the board VRM/VRAM temps :) Otherwise once I'm done with the first test on all the blocks I have I'll go back and run without thermal pads to get some better data.

Ok, we'll ship today with two GTX 780 hardware packs (shorter screws).

Thanks,
Tim

Thanks Tim

For now I've removed the Koolance block off the chart until the new block gets here. I completed the XSPC run. It's less restrictive than the AquaComputer (though not as much as the EK) but performs the best so far. Now that we've zoomed in we can see that the data is a bit noisy. This is partly because this is a single run with ambients moving (my garage is not climate controlled) and because I'm using MX2 which although it has a short curing time still has some small curing effects despite doing an overnight pre run burn-in.

http://i.imgur.com/oAWcBiG.png

http://www.hardwaremax.net/wasserkue...owall=&start=8 :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiborrr

http://www.hardwaremax.net/wasserkue...owall=&start=8 :shrug:

---

Hey Niko - yeah I hear you, I was surprised too. Here are some differences between the two setups:

1. Load - hardwaremaxx used a small 15% overclock and ran heaven. Neither the benchmark or overclock is as power intensive as my setup where I overclock to 1123MHz (34% increase) and run furmark in extreme burn mode which produces a consistent 124% power load, far above what a card with an unmodified bios could do (106% max). I used a fixed voltage and frequency and did not allow the card to deviate from these settings like it normally would.

2. Throttling Fix - I see no mention of logging gpu frequency and voltage or an upgraded bios to ensure that there was no throttling going on. Throttling is a well known and big issue on many (though not all) Titans.

3. Fixed flow vs variable - the hardwaremaxx data is run at a single pump setting - I calculated it out and my nearest data point is the "129" pump setting. Here I also see EK and Aquacomputer much closer together than HardwareMaxx did. Possibly because of number 4.

4. TIM - It's not clear to me whether HardwareMaxx used the supplied TIM or MX2. MX2 is specified under the hardware system setup though that could be in regard to the CPU, it's never specified that this was used for the test. It's perfectly possible that XSPC's supplied TIM was used and is pretty crappy or has a long curing time.

5. Multiple mounts vs One - My data is only one mount so far, hardwaremaxx completed three mounts and took the best result. Maybe EK had a bad first mount although the TIM spread looked decent?

6. Temperature sensor location - from the picture of the setup the temperature sensor is not located close to the EK titan. I mount my coolant temperature sensor immediately next to the inlet of the GPU to ensure accurate coolant readings.

BTW will the SE block have any different performance? If anyone has any further ideas or information then please let me know, I'm all about making the best test possible. I'm not trying to discredit hardwaremaxx's review but merely to try and understand why the data might be different. If anything I'm surprised their data spread was so large - in their testing the AquaComputer block cooled twice as well as the XSPC, while in mine it performed ~15% worse. Given what we've seen in CPU block testing a performance change of 15% seems a lot more reasonable than 100%. I can change the way I test if there is a better way, but I can't change the numbers that I get back from the testing ;) Well I could, but I don't :p

I also got done with taking the "VRM"/"VRAM" temperature measurements on two blocks. These are measured with an uncalibrated IR temperature sensor vs ambient temps. Measuring vs ambient is far from ideal. Also taking measurements at one point in time is also far from ideal as is measuring the back of the board underneath the components. Essentially take these numbers with a grain of salt, and look for big differences only:

http://i.imgur.com/AWd5kQ2.png

Here we can see VRAM temps are essentially the same for the quality of the test. However we see a decent improvement on the VRMs with the XSPC block. I need to take the EK measurements also as I didn't have the IR thermometer for that point in time. Given that this seems like a reasonable way to measure things even if the method is far from the best, I'll be investing in some more temperature probes to stick to the back of the board for more accurate measurements.

I also took some photos of the xspc block on the card after testing. My normal photo editing rig is down as the PSU died, so the border etc isn't consistent :mad:

http://i.imgur.com/JFhNLYSh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/j8YY0dDh.jpg

I then attached the HydroCopper block. There were 5 different types of screws of which the instructions mentioned 2 different types... The screws are also horribly small and easily strippable. By far the worst block install so far. Leak testing going on now. Results most likely on saturday unless I get busy on the weekend in which case monday :)

Today I quickly ran our GTX Titan card and the highest delta I saw was about 8.5-9?C (D5 on setting 1) or about 6.5-7?C (D5 on setting 5). The loops consists of a single 360 rad and a D5 X-RES system. Even if the block contact was less than perfect one would suspect the higher mass flow cannot solve this. Therefore, a delta of 2K should be expected but not the delta of 10K.

Because the BIOS is still the stock one I could overclock it by +150 / +450 / 106% (GPU/RAM/Power limit respectively). If you send it to me (via email) I can try to replicate the results on Monday.

What I find odd is:
1. EK-FC Titan scaling so well with high flow rates. Usually, low-restriction water blocks like ours do not gain much with higher flow rates. On the contrary, blocks with exceptionally narrow micro-channel structure (e.g. Koolance, Aquacomputer) react positively performance-wise to higher flow rates. It is simple logic really - the more surface area, the bigger the effect. I believe there is a problem with (consistent) throttling of your GTX Titan or maybe with the thread lenght on your fittings? The fitting thread lenght should NOT be longer than 5mm. See this picture: http://i.imgur.com/PjBi23mh.jpg
2. XSPC block is way off the charts. It has the smallest cooling engine of them all therefore it should perform even worse with larger heat loads (given the contact is okay with all of the tested water blocks).
3. Every block you test it performs better. 10?C on a VRM is a too big of a margin given the fact both XSPC & Aquacomputer blocks have direct contact with VRMs. Where and by using what methodology (IR, wire sensor, foil sensor) is that measurement taken?- NEVERMIND I RE-READ YOUR POST. Do you think there is a chance your temperature measuring equipment might be the case as well?

Talk to you soon,
Niko :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiborrr

Today I quickly ran our GTX Titan card and the highest delta I saw was about 8.5-9?C (D5 on setting 1) or about 6.5-7?C (D5 on setting 5). The loops consists of a single 360 rad and a D5 X-RES system. Even if the block contact was less than perfect one would suspect the higher mass flow cannot solve this. Therefore, a delta of 2K should be expected but not the delta of 10K.

---

Yeah my pump range is far wider than a D5 vario can handle though. What flow rates were you getting? If you look at 0.6GPM to 1.3GPM range which is probably similar to your D5 then my block also varies ~3C, the difference is at the very low and very high flow rates. Bear in mind I use a MCP35x2 pump. My lowest flow rate is with PWM at 23% (RPM range is pretty linear from ~19%-51%) and only powering one pump, max flow is with both pumps running at max.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiborrr

Because the BIOS is still the stock one I could overclock it by +150 / +450 / 106% (GPU/RAM/Power limit respectively). If you send it to me (via email) I can try to replicate the results on Monday.

---

Yeah I don't trust the stock bios at all. The rig I flashed on is down right now, but here's the link:

http://1pcent.com/files/nvidia/121nv150.zip

I didn't overclock the memory at all, but I ran 1.212/1123 with the option to lock voltages and frequencies. I forget what it's called in precision-x to do that, but I couldn't find the same thing in afterburner so I gave up on afterburner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiborrr

What I find odd is:
1. EK-FC Titan scaling so well with high flow rates. Usually, low-restriction water blocks like ours do not gain much with higher flow rates. On the contrary, blocks with exceptionally narrow micro-channel structure (e.g. Koolance, Aquacomputer) react positively performance-wise to higher flow rates. It is simple logic really - the more surface area, the bigger the effect. I believe there is a problem with (consistent) throttling of your GTX Titan or maybe with the thread lenght on your fittings? The fitting thread lenght should NOT be longer than 5mm. See this picture: http://i.imgur.com/PjBi23mh.jpg

---

Yup this was very strange to me too, we've seen some blocks in the cpu roundup that scaled a bit better than others but this much scaling was very unprecedented. The fittings I use are the bitspower Q fitting on the inlet side, and the koolance g1/4 to g3/8 adapter on the outlet port (on the thicker side of the bridge). I'll double check the length but I think they are pretty short. Bear in mind the flow rates were still the best out of any block so this is unlikely to be the cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiborrr

2. XSPC block is way off the charts. It has the smallest cooling engine of them all therefore it should perform even worse with larger heat loads (given the contact is okay with all of the tested water blocks).

---

Yeah I haven't opened up the block to measure the fin area and size so I can't confirm this, but like I said it was a surprise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiborrr

3. Every block you test it performs better.

---

Yeah the retests will show if there's some kind of "burn in" process for the card that might be causing performance to shift with time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiborrr

10?C on a VRM is a too big of a margin given the fact both XSPC & Aquacomputer blocks have direct contact with VRMs. Where and by using what methodology (IR, wire sensor, foil sensor) is that measurement taken? Do you think there is a chance your temperature measuring equipment might be the case as well?

Talk to you soon,
Niko :)

---

Like I said this is measured on the back of the board directly below where the VRMs are using an IR "laser" thermometer. This is the first time that I've used this tool, and will be switching over to real probes soon for hopefully better measurements. There's a high degree of error, however I doubt it's 10 degrees big. Thermal pads used are different thicknesses and materials and so some difference would be expected. I'm surprised the VRM area gets this hot under any full cover block to be honest. If the board is this hot, presumably the junction temp of the VRM itself is hotter unless the board is actually getting heated by a nearby device that isn't cooled by the block.

Love your replies, thanks for a quick response! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiborrr

Love your replies, thanks for a quick response! :)

---

NP - I love to see correlation too, but at the same time I think most manufacturer's expect their block to be top because they've designed it for their setup and not my setup. At the same time I like my testing to be representative of an end user's setup which means trying to correlate as best I can, so this kind of discussion is healthy and helps towards that goal.

Looking through the data, the only other thing is that the EK block's ambients during testing were in general lower than the others and this may have some small second order effect due to possibly poor linearity of temperature sensors in the card. So when I retest I'll try and make sure the garage gets nice and toasty.

Hey stren, will you be able to get your hands on the Swiftech Komodo?

-PB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulbagz

Hey stren, will you be able to get your hands on the Swiftech Komodo?

-PB

---

Swiftech Komodo = EVGA Hydrocopper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiborrr

Swiftech Komodo = EVGA Hydrocopper.

---

This is true. First data point on the block (high flow only) is pretty standard, all blocks so far (excluding Koolance) have been between 7.3 and 7.9C delta at max flow. We'll have to see how it responds to lower flows though. It's also seems to be equaling EK for the least restrictive block. As for PCB temps under the VRMs it's the worst yet: ~60C above ambient!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiborrr

Swiftech Komodo = EVGA Hydrocopper.

---

Indeed, hence the desire to see results to see if the price tag warrants it or not.

-PB

Hydrocopper GTX 680 160$ waterblock structure. :ROTF:

http://www.techpowerup.com/img/12-03-31/307f.jpg

Hope to see the Titan model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulbagz

Indeed, hence the desire to see results to see if the price tag warrants it or not.

-PB

---

Hopefully hydrocopper testing will be done tomorrow, but i may not get done with analyzing it until monday. Swiftech are sending a Komodo too though the results should of course be identical. I may run that one last because of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoggy

I have no numbers available. So far we only did a quick test to check if the heatpipe transports heat and it does :D

Today the card have met his new friends:

---

That's some beautiful work !.. Will your nickle/plexi support distilled water with a small trace of copper sulfate as a biocide ?

Hmm. With previous generation cards, Swiftech never sold Komodos (for Nvidia) under their own brand. It was just the Hydrocopper. That is IMO by far the best looking Swiftech block in years. Even the backplate looks good.

@lowfat
what 'bout ATI fullcovers - they were branded as comodo and AFAIR sold only separately

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vetalar

@lowfat
what 'bout ATI fullcovers - they were branded as comodo and AFAIR sold only separately

---

Sorry I meant to say for Nvidia cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lowfat

Hmm. With previous generation cards, Swiftech never sold Komodos (for Nvidia) under their own brand. It was just the Hydrocopper. That is IMO by far the best looking Swiftech block in years. Even the backplate looks good.

---

Yeah this has been the case in the past, but with the H220 success there is more demand for swiftech branded blocks and of course EVGA still want their own branded blocks too. The only differences should be the logos and the LED color. However the Swiftech backplate is different to the EVGA backplate, each one is manufactured by their respective company. Gabe was saying that their backplate is hella beefy 6mm aluminum. I'll see how it compares when it comes in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiborrr

Today I quickly ran our GTX Titan card and the highest delta I saw was about 8.5-9?C (D5 on setting 1) or about 6.5-7?C (D5 on setting 5). The loops consists of a single 360 rad and a D5 X-RES system. Even if the block contact was less than perfect one would suspect the higher mass flow cannot solve this. Therefore, a delta of 2K should be expected but not the delta of 10K.

Because the BIOS is still the stock one I could overclock it by +150 / +450 / 106% (GPU/RAM/Power limit respectively). If you send it to me (via email) I can try to replicate the results on Monday.

What I find odd is:
1. EK-FC Titan scaling so well with high flow rates. Usually, low-restriction water blocks like ours do not gain much with higher flow rates. On the contrary, blocks with exceptionally narrow micro-channel structure (e.g. Koolance, Aquacomputer) react positively performance-wise to higher flow rates. It is simple logic really - the more surface area, the bigger the effect. I believe there is a problem with (consistent) throttling of your GTX Titan or maybe with the thread lenght on your fittings? The fitting thread lenght should NOT be longer than 5mm. See this picture: http://i.imgur.com/PjBi23mh.jpg
2. XSPC block is way off the charts. It has the smallest cooling engine of them all therefore it should perform even worse with larger heat loads (given the contact is okay with all of the tested water blocks).
3. Every block you test it performs better. 10?C on a VRM is a too big of a margin given the fact both XSPC & Aquacomputer blocks have direct contact with VRMs. Where and by using what methodology (IR, wire sensor, foil sensor) is that measurement taken?- NEVERMIND I RE-READ YOUR POST. Do you think there is a chance your temperature measuring equipment might be the case as well?

Talk to you soon,
Niko :)

---

I disagree. I have typically seen blocks that are higher in restriction has less sensitivity to flow rate changes and generally perform better at low flow rates. The more micro pin/fin whatever the smaller the net total cross section which will net higher velocity. Of coarse it is a balancing act with loss in overall net flow rate loss due to the restriction loss.

Take a look at the DT5noz in Strens awesome CPU block work. Vey much an extremely low restriction block with it's parallel nozzle design and also the most gained with increased pumping power.

http://i.imgur.com/rYOEhBH.png

That has been fairly typical of restriction vs flow sensitivity. Not always but generally what I have seen.

As always I would encourage manufactures to share their own. The more data and the more test benches/conditions the better. :)

Thanks for all your hard work Stren!

IMHO it seems GPU performance is so darn close here that perhaps VRM cooling is the more important performance differentiator. I know nothing about the card, but I have heard some others GPUs being more sensitive to VRM cooling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

IMHO it seems GPU performance is so darn close here that perhaps VRM cooling is the more important performance differentiator. I know nothing about the card, but I have heard some others GPUs being more sensitive to VRM cooling

---

Very good points on the 5Noz Martin, although the MIPS block was also massively parallel and didn't see the same effect. Whenever I try and read patterns in my data I always just end up confused lol.

Yeah at some point you feel like whether the core is 9C or 10C above coolant doesn't make a big deal of difference, but 40C vs 60C above ambient on VRMs might.

I actually got done with the hydrocopper on saturday morning, but my workstation pump died yesterday so I had to strip down my TX10 and built a quick bench rig to replace it (I wish I had another of spotswood's tech benches, but the CL motherboard tray doubles decently). Here's some data on the evga/swiftech block:

http://i.imgur.com/zJgLe38h.jpg

Decently performing block on the core, very low restriction:

http://i.imgur.com/OoaVpSP.png

Pretty horrible VRM temps, VRAM temps seems all about the same:

http://i.imgur.com/M708D5K.png

So I ran the 2nd Koolance block without the backplate using the "GTX780 Screw Kit". I used the suggested thermal pads and the TIM spread looked a lot better this time. I did end up with what I would consider unacceptable warping in the card however, so I'd like to re run to see if I can maintain the performance without putting stress on the card. This run at least shows the best possible performance and then we can back off a bit. Luckily the warp did not kill the card (yet). Next up is the EK re run. EK's TIM spread while better than the original Koolance still looked a little thick. I'm going to try and tighten it as best I can without bending the card. Results below:

http://i.imgur.com/AioJKOK.png

Again VRM/VRAM temps have a much higher degree of error:

http://i.imgur.com/Ze4U0k2.png

Go XSPC! :clap:

-PB

Nice work! Looks like VRM is the key differentiator. XSPC looking like the better performer.

Don't like hearing about card warpage on the koolance block. I wouldn't push it, that card is worth way to much to kill for some additional numbers. I doubt anyone in regular use would purposely warp their brand new titan either just to get an extra half a degree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

Nice work! Looks like VRM is the key differentiator. XSPC looking like the better performer.

Don't like hearing about card warpage on the koolance block. I wouldn't push it, that card is worth way to much to kill for some additional numbers. I doubt anyone in regular use would purposely warp their brand new titan either just to get an extra half a degree.

---

I agree - the warp was disconcerting but I wanted to see if with good contact that the block itself was good, which it is. I'm certainly not trying that again lol. Next up will be seeing how this 2nd block performs without warping. My gut feel is that the EK and Koolance blocks don't have quite the right height of the gpu core, EK is off a tiny bit so gets decent but not great TIM spread, and that the Koolance is off by a lot. Naennon solved this by removing the thermal pads, but the real solution maybe to alter the block design a bit.

But yes the core temps are so similar that the VRM temps seem to be the biggest factor. I also think that the biggest factor in my measurement of the VRM temps is the heatsinking on what I think are the "current sense resistors" next to the VRMs themselves. This is because I measure the back of the PCB under the VRMs. Take the Hydrocopper block for example even when I added thermal pads to those resistors they still didnt even make contact with the block which is I think why it's results were so bad. Even though I'm not so much measuring the VRM temp as the board temp, a hotter board will mean the VRM itself runs hotter too. Eitherway if I'm using a full cover waterblock my expectation would be that the board doesn't hit 96C!

Thank you Stren for taking the time to test and report on these blocks, always great to see info like this when buying gear. :)

I can't seem to get my head around these vrms temps and the vast difference in results. Surely if contact is being made with the vrms then we shouldn't be seeing high temps like we are with some of these blocks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor Time

Thank you Stren for taking the time to test and report on these blocks, always great to see info like this when buying gear. :)

I can't seem to get my head around these vrms temps and the vast difference in results. Surely if contact is being made with the vrms then we shouldn't be seeing high temps like we are with some of these blocks?

---

I honestly think it's more to do with contact on the resistors next to the VRMs and not all blocks do make good contact with those. I also think EK uses unusually thin thermal pads which explains it's results below. For example the swiftech didn't make contact with the resistors even though I added extra thermal pads on those resistors. Which leads me to the next question? My new probes came in so I can measure and log tons of points on the back of the board now. So far I have always added thermal pads to the resistors regardless of the installation instructions. Should I continue this method or follow the manufacturer's instructions. I.E. Do what I think is best, or punish those manufacturer's who aren't as smart as me (jk jk)?

Here's EK's VRM and VRAM temps. Very surprising.

http://i.imgur.com/NX1TkFP.png

Stren, when you gonna test Heatkiller waterblock?:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cr1t1cal

Stren, when you gonna test Heatkiller waterblock?:(

---

It was supposed to definitely ship on wednesday, I pinged them again to see if it did in fact ship :)

EDIT: It did in fact ship so hopefully numbers by the weekend :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stren

So far I have always added thermal pads to the resistors regardless of the installation instructions. Should I continue this method or follow the manufacturer's instructions. I.E. Do what I think is best, or punish those manufacturer's who aren't as smart as me (jk jk)?

---

Both. :)

All you time and temperature data are belong to us!

Amazing work, i guess the safest bet is the XSPC Razor TITAN/780 + Backplate right ? I was about to pick two for my 2-Way SLI GTX 780 but now that i see the EK results i'm not really sure :confused:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leopr

Amazing work, i guess the safest bet is the XSPC Razor TITAN/780 + Backplate right ? I was about to pick two for my 2-Way SLI GTX 780 but now that i see the EK results i'm not really sure :confused:.

---

Yeah it all depends if you want better core temps or VRM/VRAM temps. The XSPC is a good choice, bear in mind my testing was done without backplate. Presumably the backplate helps the VRAM temps. You could even get some extra thermal pads and hit up the back of the VRM section too for extra cooling there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stren

Yeah it all depends if you want better core temps or VRM/VRAM temps. The XSPC is a good choice, bear in mind my testing was done without backplate. Presumably the backplate helps the VRAM temps. You could even get some extra thermal pads and hit up the back of the VRM section too for extra cooling there.

---

Thank you for answering, I guess the priority is the VRM cooling because i won't push the memory past 7000Mhz, do you think it is possible to re use the default thermal pads to cool the back of the VRM section ?.

it's a bit OT here, but i like idea to meet titan and chiller. they claim up to -50*C on core. or this is dedicated SS?

I'm using the XSPC Titan block on my 780 and the results are fantastic! Full load (Furmark, Heaven 4.0, 3dmark 11, anything I can throw at it) never budges from 38 degrees C with boost clocks as high as 1293/6608 and 1.212V.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techguy2k5

I'm using the XSPC Titan block on my 780 and the results are fantastic! Full load (Furmark, Heaven 4.0, 3dmark 11, anything I can throw at it) never budges from 38 degrees C with boost clocks as high as 1293/6608 and 1.212V.

---

1293! Can we trade cards??? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vetalar

it's a bit OT here, but i like idea to meet titan and chiller. they claim up to -50*C on core. or this is dedicated SS?

---

Yeah that's a dedicated SS not a chiller I believe :) Pretty sweet though for benching

Well, Titan is fairly easy to manage, heat wise. There's a rotary compressor in there, but at -50?C it will pretty much run in vacuum which will essentially kill the compressor. Plus all that cold on the memory will most likely coldbug the hell out of it. You will loose more with cold on the Vmems than you will gain with the cold on the GPU. This is why we normally run GPU only direct-die evaporators.

Better off building one by yourself or picking up pre-made unit by a renown builder.

Would it be a bad to add card original air cooler results too? just to see how much better water cooling is :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mobsters

Would it be a bad to add card original air cooler results too? just to see how much better water cooling is :D

---

The problem is you're comparing core to ambient vs core to coolant. In an earlier post I said "I took some baseline measurements on air, with the fan at max (85%) the card was running about 50C over ambient which is not bad at all even if the fan is super noisy. " So you have to add on some amount to the liquid cooled results depending on how good your radiator/fan setup is at cooling vs the heat load you have. However most people wouldn't run at max fan rpm on the air cooler because it really is loud. So let's say your best air cooling is 75C with a 25C ambient, but your best water cooling with say a 7C gpu performance + a 3C delta for the loop would be 35C with a 25C ambient. On the other hand your worst water cooling loop might be 20C worse and your worst air cooling would be a lot worse of course as the card would overheat if you turned the fan too low. It's impossible to do a real apples to apples but those are your boundaries of best and worst case.

Does that make sense?

Does it make sense? yes and no. I wasnt really looking apples to apples, more like a baseline. Here is air cooler, here are water blocks.

What i am interested is vrm and vram temps mainly. Again this brings point what speed the fan is running etc. Lets just go with full fan 85% for best case and forget worst case as its just for start point :D

We all know that titan will slow down when core temp hits limit or power limit is reach. So core temp will be 80c or below in stock card depending on load as nvidia wants to keep things silent and people happy. So you could just add vrm and vram temps. There is no point adding core temps.

Interesting note, running fan at 85% will increase gpu power usage by 8% when compared to 30% fan speed. So theres 8% more power to overclock when in water :yepp:

Awesome job with these results anyway :clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stren

I honestly think it's more to do with contact on the resistors next to the VRMs and not all blocks do make good contact with those. I also think EK uses unusually thin thermal pads which explains it's results below. For example the swiftech didn't make contact with the resistors even though I added extra thermal pads on those resistors. Which leads me to the next question? My new probes came in so I can measure and log tons of points on the back of the board now. So far I have always added thermal pads to the resistors regardless of the installation instructions. Should I continue this method or follow the manufacturer's instructions. I.E. Do what I think is best, or punish those manufacturer's who aren't as smart as me (jk jk)?

Here's EK's VRM and VRAM temps. Very surprising.

http://i.imgur.com/NX1TkFP.png

---

Damn, I didn't realise you had replied. I think you could be right about the contact with the resistors as I have looked at the install pics for each of these blocks and its the only thing that makes sense. Your new results for the EK block look very impressive and it has kinda thrown a spanner in the works for me as I have already bought the Aqua block. Even though I have the Aqua block I haven't installed it yet so I could still return it if I so wish, but time is running out. I went for the Aqua block over the XSPC block as I wasn't totally convinced with the XSPC block after reading the other review which pegged it last, add to this I have always wanted to try out Aqua.

You mention that you placed thermal pads to the resistors regardless of the instructions. Did you place any pads on the Aqua block as I see they are the only block which doesn't use as much thermal pads compared to EK and XSPC? If you didn't place any pads here do you have any plans to do so in a future test?

You mention that you have a new probe, was the new EK reading done using this probe?

So if you were going to buy a block today for your own use which one would it be?

Sorry for the many questions but I want to make sure I buy and fit the best block I can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor Time

Damn, I didn't realise you had replied. I think you could be right about the contact with the resistors as I have looked at the install pics for each of these blocks and its the only thing that makes sense. Your new results for the EK block look very impressive and it has kinda thrown a spanner in the world for me as I have already bought the Aqua block. Even though I have the Aqua block I haven't installed it yet so I could still return it if I so wish, but time is running out. I went for the Aqua block over the XSPC block as I wasn't totally convinced with the XSPC block after reading the other review which pegged it last, add to this I have always wanted to try out Aqua.

---

Well the aquacomputer is still a good block, sure the VRMs are on the higher end, but VRMS are also generally expected to run hotter. So while cooler is better, I'm not sure how much additional life you would generally expect to get because it's very design dependent and time to failure on ICs while generally decreasing exponential with temperature, still has some average lifetime that is very design dependent. I design ICs myself so I can design a chip that can live at 110C for a long time, or I can design one that I know will die at 70C after a year. I suppose we might be able to find a datasheet if we really wanted to dig into that, but not many companies even give that data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor Time

You mention that you placed thermal pads to the resistors regardless of the instructions. Did you place any pads on the Aqua block as I see they are the only block which doesn't use as much thermal pads compared to EK and XSPC? If you didn't place any pads here do you have any plans to do so in a future test?

---

Yes, every block so far has had them so that it was a "fair" test. If that is indeed fair lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor Time

You mention that you have a new probe, was the new EK reading done using this probe?

---

I haven't started using them. I didn't do any testing this week because I thought the watercool block would be here any day now as it shipped 12 days ago. Stupid DHL. Anyway I wanted to run the watercool with the same setup before I glue a mass of good thermal probes to the back of the board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor Time

So if you were going to buy a block today for your own use which one would it be?

---

Honestly it's hard to say. Core temps are so close that it's tempting to ignore and choose on VRM temps and aesthetics. However if I were running 3 in parallel I probably would avoid the EK and run the XSPC due to EK's poor core temps at low flow. Not many of us can afford three titans though lol. I'd wait on Koolance until I can do a 2nd run to confirm good performance without warping the card. I also don't like just how hot the VRMs are on the Swiftech/EVGA block. On the other hand if I were choosing purely on aesthetics I think I'd buy the aquacomputer nickel plexi to be honest. Bear in mind we still have four blocks still to arrive though so everything could change yet...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor Time

Sorry for the many questions but I want to make sure I buy and fit the best block I can.

---

There will usually be a trade off in any decision and you have to weigh up what's best for you and there may not be a definitive block that sweeps every performance category. All of them will be an improvement over the stock air cooler. Even the swiftech VRM temps are still lower than the air cooler :)

Stren

Thank you for the detailed reply, its much appreciated.

When you say you used thermal pads for all the blocks I am assuming you placed extra pads as shown here in red on the Aqua block or have I miss understood you? If so what thickness of pads did you use? Do you think the temps would of been higher if you didn't place the pads here?

http://i42.tinypic.com/ab5wxv.jpg


One thing I have noticed is that Aqua is the only block not to provide pads for this area and from memory every other gpu block I have used has always had pads in this area.

With regards to VRM temps I am not really concerned about the shelf life of the card but more of limiting my overclocking headroom if the VRMS are running hot. If this has no real effect on my overclocking headroom then I am not too concerned if the VRMs run 10-20c hotter than another block as they should be allot cooler than what they would be if I was running stock air cooling. It has been this thought that has been running constantly through my mind and one reason why I haven't added the block to my card. I actually have a GTX 780 and I want to get the best possible overclock out of it.

Thanks in advance. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor Time

Stren

Thank you for the detailed reply, its much appreciated.

When you say you used thermal pads for all the blocks I am assuming you placed extra pads as shown here in red on the Aqua block or have I miss understood you? If so what thickness of pads did you use? Do you think the temps would of been higher if you didn't place the pads here?

http://i42.tinypic.com/ab5wxv.jpg


One thing I have noticed is that Aqua is the only block not to provide pads for this area and from memory every other gpu block I have used has always had pads in this area.

With regards to VRM temps I am not really concerned about the shelf life of the card but more of limiting my overclocking headroom if the VRMS are running hot. If this has no real effect on my overclocking headroom then I am not too concerned if the VRMs run 10-20c hotter than another block as they should be allot cooler than what they would be if I was running stock air cooling. It has been this thought that has been running constantly through my mind and one reason why I haven't added the block to my card. I actually have a GTX 780 and I want to get the best possible overclock out of it.

Thanks in advance. :)

---

Yes that's correct.

I think it does affect overclocking headroom because I believe that the resistor is used to sense current and doesn't have zero tempco. I noticed a 4-5% change in the reported "power usage" when I didn't fit the thermal pads there even though the load was the same. Of course this doesn't matter if you have modified bios. In games I never saw any throttling with a 145% bios, but then my card is not capable of meaty overclocks anyway.

The required thickness of thermal pad varies from block to block. Generally I used the spares from that manufacturer's kit. The only exception was the hydrocopper where there weren't extras supplied. For the hydrocopper I used the koolance 0.7mm pads I think, but really I needed something thicker (or a double stack) as these didn't make a good connection to the block.

Stren,

That's interesting and partly what I have been concerned about. 4-5% is fairly high when there isn't much to play with in the first place. I hadn't planned on using a custom bios for my card as I can get over 1200mhz on air with a small voltage bump, but I may change my mind once the card is blocked. I am starting to think I might of been better off with a different block as decent overclocks are one of my main goals and I am now having second thoughts about my choice of block.

Can I ask if you used thermal pads or paste for the Aqua block memory chips?


Edit: After doing some reading it seems there are few reports of vrm temps effecting overall clock speeds on Titans. Very good info to know and thank you for pointing that out. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor Time

Can I ask if you used thermal pads or paste for the Aqua block memory chips?

---

Just in case you would use thermal pads on the RAM there is a good chance that the GPU will have no more proper contact to the block.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoggy

Just in case you would use thermal pads on the RAM there is a good chance that the GPU will have no more proper contact to the block.

---

Hi Shoggy,

The reason why I was asking Stren if he used thermal pads on the memory chips is that I am still trying to get my head around why the vrm temps are a fair bit higher compared to EK and XSPC considering all these blocks have a similar setup and all have direct contact. If thermal pads were used on the memory chips then this might possibly explain the difference in vrm temps???

Stren has already said he used extra thermal pads as per the picture I posted above which I know is not what you the manufacturer recommends in your install instructions. Would adding extra thermal pads to red circled area (resistors) effect anything? Stren has already mentioned that by adding thermal pads to this area he saw a reduction of temps on the vrms and less power usage on the card which sounds like without the thermal pads direct contact is not being made in this area. I am assuming the block was designed to make direct contact to this area?

Basically shoggy I love your block but it seems that vrm temps are fairly important when it comes to overclocking the GK110 chip which is what is concerning me. :)

The block was designed to have no contact to these inductors. I can not tell how much space is left between them and the hollow in the block but it should not be that much. Of course with an additional pad (which is too thick) it might be possible that the other parts in this area will have a lower contact pressure. Since the voltage regulators are next to the inductors it could have a negative effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoggy

The block was designed to have no contact to these inductors. I can not tell how much space is left between them and the hollow in the block but it should not be that much. Of course with an additional pad (which is too thick) it might be possible that the other parts in this area will have a lower contact pressure. Since the voltage regulators are next to the inductors it could have a negative effect.

---

Thank you so much for the reply Shoggy, it is much appreciated and helps explains Strens results. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor Time

Stren,

That's interesting and partly what I have been concerned about. 4-5% is fairly high when there isn't much to play with in the first place. I hadn't planned on using a custom bios for my card as I can get over 1200mhz on air with a small voltage bump, but I may change my mind once the card is blocked. I am starting to think I might of been better off with a different block as decent overclocks are one of my main goals and I am now having second thoughts about my choice of block.

Can I ask if you used thermal pads or paste for the Aqua block memory chips?


Edit: After doing some reading it seems there are few reports of vrm temps effecting overall clock speeds on Titans. Very good info to know and thank you for pointing that out. :)

---

I did not use thermal pads only some paste on the aqua block wrt the memory chips. I could have used a bit more TIM on the memory chips to be honest as I would have thought the aqua block should have the best VRAM temps. On the retests I'll make sure to add a bit more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoggy

Just in case you would use thermal pads on the RAM there is a good chance that the GPU will have no more proper contact to the block.

---

This is correct. I follow manufacturer's guidelines exactly on these.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoggy

The block was designed to have no contact to these inductors. I can not tell how much space is left between them and the hollow in the block but it should not be that much. Of course with an additional pad (which is too thick) it might be possible that the other parts in this area will have a lower contact pressure. Since the voltage regulators are next to the inductors it could have a negative effect.

---

Yup - if you add too much you're going to screw the VRMs. I would suggest some testing of the pad impression after fitting e.g. trial and error. I'll try and take photos of my pads after fitting on the next go through! The swiftech block may improve with thicker thermal pads for example. This is why I wonder if I should just leave the blocks as the manufacturer intended in which case the winners will be whoever said to put thermal pads on those components.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stren

I did not use thermal pads only some paste on the aqua block wrt the memory chips. I could have used a bit more TIM on the memory chips to be honest as I would have thought the aqua block should have the best VRAM temps. On the retests I'll make sure to add a bit more.

---

Thank you for confirming Stren. Your time on this is much appreciated and has been very helpful. Keep up the good work. :)

Heatkiller block finally arrived yesterday though the box is pretty beaten up. Hopefully the block isn't damaged. 2.5 Weeks in the hands of DHL will do that I guess. Results coming this week.

Stren, sorry if I missed that at some point, or if that it is kind of an off-topic, but... have you ever tested the difference in performance (flow restriction and deltaT) between changing the flow direction inside of the waterblock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeoAndrade

Stren, sorry if I missed that at some point, or if that it is kind of an off-topic, but... have you ever tested the difference in performance (flow restriction and deltaT) between changing the flow direction inside of the waterblock?

---

Hey Leo - I'm not planning on it because I don't expect any noticeable change. Much of the restriction should be from the core itself which is symmetrical. The only slight difference is the order. Either the cooler water hits the core first or the VRMs first. Either way the VRMs will make little difference to coolant temperature I would have thought. For testing purposes I always have the cooler water hitting the core first.

Again this is all speculation and not backed up by any testing :)

Well I got the Swiftech block in:

http://i.imgur.com/XWsO7yxh.jpg

Internals are the same as the hydrocopper, but externals are classier:

http://i.imgur.com/v0mycF8h.jpg

Accessories

http://i.imgur.com/G3g3LGqh.jpg

The insert plate has a brushed aluminum style finish and looks way better than the tacky hydrocopper insert:

http://i.imgur.com/6GPcOTIh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/40DNaXeh.jpg

I'd still prefer a one piece top, but this is definitely an improvement over the hydrocopper. The base is chrome plated (not nickel):

http://i.imgur.com/ktOtU99h.jpg

The bridge no longer says evga and the swiftech logo glows green instead of red

http://i.imgur.com/1Yi28kfh.jpg

The edge also has stripes. Overall quite an improvement and $20 less for the swiftech version compared to the hydrocopper. You also get a backplate, but don't get included compression fittings:

http://i.imgur.com/gZiZJe0h.jpg

I do think the logo is too big though, and would have looked better if it was etched out of the Aluminum

http://i.imgur.com/HTJXHK5h.jpg

It is pretty meaty though.

I also got a package from watercool:

http://i.imgur.com/Jm2cNT7h.jpg

DHL took nearly 3 weeks to deliver and it arrived in perfect condition lulz

http://i.imgur.com/gQ0WV06h.jpg

Luckily it was packaged well so everything survived:

http://i.imgur.com/OhcLPfSh.jpg

The block was in a protective bag, but I removed it for the unboxing video:

http://i.imgur.com/kYo63eth.jpg

Pre cut thermal pads and socket cap screws:

http://i.imgur.com/rRPfCqsh.jpg

Hole edition:

http://i.imgur.com/nCHxyZ5h.jpg

Plastic standoffs, actual thread is in the copper though:

http://i.imgur.com/22AsBD5h.jpg

bridge:

http://i.imgur.com/3O8bzgph.jpg

Thanks Stren. Great story-telling with excellent photos. Glad Watercool packages their contents well - that DHL photo made me cringe.

Thanks musicfan :) Got the first heatkiller run done - performs solidly in the middle. I think the vram temps are good because the vram pads were so thin - the VRM pads on the other hand are thicker.

http://i.imgur.com/MHB0tWc.png

http://i.imgur.com/OiaHYxF.png

I added Koolance 0.7mm thick pads for the inductors/sense resistor type things as these weren't included. Now that I've completed all the blocks that have been shipped, I think I'll start on the 2nd/3rd runs. For the 2nd run I will keep the thermal pads on the inductors, but add on my new temp sensors to the back of the board for more accurate vrm/vram measurements. For the 3rd run I will remove the pads if they weren't instructed to be there. This way we get three good core runs to average, one good run of vrm/vram data with extra thermal pads and one good run of vrm/vram data with thermal pads as instructed ;)

Congrats for the hard work Stren! Much appreciated.

I've just bought myself a aquacomputer block, and it looks fantastic! Will be installing it next week, I'll share the results here.

Got some time to do the restriction plots:

http://i.imgur.com/aExEGFzh.png

I'm surprised by two things:

1. Why is the swiftech block so different to the EVGA? I wonder if this is a bad block - I haven't done thermals on it yet. Internals should be the same as the EVGA.

2. Why is the AC block pressure seemingly tailoring off at high flow? I've never seen that happen in any restriction plot?

For reference here are curves from other blocks and rads plotted on the same scale axis:

http://i.imgur.com/PjKydDCh.png

http://i.imgur.com/6aAX4j0.png

So in other words for restriction rads are generally the least restrictive, and some of the GPU blocks are similar in restriction to some of the cpu blocks

The problem with the AC graphic should be only measurement/equipament error. The curve varys with the flow squared (constant*Q^2), and simply there's no way for that to happen... probably if you get more data the graphic will show as it is expected to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeoAndrade

The problem with the AC graphic should be only measurement/equipament error. The curve varys with the flow squared (constant*Q^2), and simply there's no way for that to happen... probably if you get more data the graphic will show as it is expected to be.

---

Yeah agreed, shouldn't be the manometer going weird because it was fine afterwards, maybe a hose was working loose and was starting to leak. I'll retest when I get a chance. I'll take the komodo apart to see whats going on, Gabe confirmed it should be the same as the hydrocopper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stren

Got some time to do the restriction plots:

http://i.imgur.com/aExEGFzh.png

I'm surprised by two things:

1. Why is the swiftech block so different to the EVGA? I wonder if this is a bad block - I haven't done thermals on it yet. Internals should be the same as the EVGA.

2. Why is the AC block pressure seemingly tailoring off at high flow? I've never seen that happen in any restriction plot?

For reference here are curves from other blocks and rads plotted on the same scale axis:

http://i.imgur.com/PjKydDCh.png

http://i.imgur.com/6aAX4j0.png

So in other words for restriction rads are generally the least restrictive, and some of the GPU blocks are similar in restriction to some of the cpu blocks

---

#2 Likely due to "flex" in the block. I have seen this in rads like the HWlabs GTX series and a few others. As pressure increases the chambers/tubes whatever expands causing the normal curve to flatten. GTX rads use very thin and flat and restrictive internal tubes. Som block tops probably just don't have as much bolt restraint or the thin copper base could be flexing. It happens..:)

Great work as usual. Hope be done moving in the next month so I can do more playing as well. Now the proud owner of three mortgages..:)

Anyone knows what the difference is with EK FC Titan and EK FC Titan SE blocks? Are they same with performance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mobsters

Anyone knows what the difference is with EK FC Titan and EK FC Titan SE blocks? Are they same with performance?

---

Should be similar, my SE is arriving soon so first results should be in a few days after it arrives

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mobsters

Anyone knows what the difference is with EK FC Titan and EK FC Titan SE blocks? Are they same with performance?

---

The internals are slightly different around the VRM area and the fins are meant to be finer. I have an EK SE block on my GTX780 and so far I am pleased with the results. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor Time

The internals are slightly different around the VRM area and the fins are meant to be finer. I have an EK SE block on my GTX780 and so far I am pleased with the results. :)

---

This, despite the finer fins restriction looks similar, though I don't have the plot yet. Here are some pics:

SE vs Vanilla:

http://i.imgur.com/zViWkjrh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/28ZDMlnh.jpg

SE in nickel plexi covers the entire pcb much like the vanilla XXL did

http://i.imgur.com/ytsQDPSh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Y5jZkWXh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Q0vJxxsh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/weTYEdjh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/PFAeU2Wh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/6uhONMJh.jpg

Keep up all of the hard work, not the biggest fan of the plexi overhang on the EK block.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m_jones_

Keep up all of the hard work, not the biggest fan of the plexi overhang on the EK block.

---

Thanks :) It does look better in real life than the photos, and it has LED holes too, so it might look better when lit up. I do miss the fish though ;)

hi stren, great write-up!

Silly me grabbed a swiftech block before searching the net for comparisons! Someone might have an answer for me, i went from 2 ek gtx580 blocks in paralell @ 4.2 L/min and now have one swiftech titan block @ 2.6 L/min. I didnt think the swiftech block would be that restrictive! Anyone got any thoughts?

Hmm, somehow i dig looks of new EK block. AC's still best look wise, but this is unexpectedly close. Damn, how i wish old EK waterbridges back though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mojododo

hi stren, great write-up!

Silly me grabbed a swiftech block before searching the net for comparisons! Someone might have an answer for me, i went from 2 ek gtx580 blocks in paralell @ 4.2 L/min and now have one swiftech titan block @ 2.6 L/min. I didnt think the swiftech block would be that restrictive! Anyone got any thoughts?

---

The swiftech should be very low restriction, similar to the hydrocopper restriction data I took earlier in the thread. I'd expect it to be similar to the old GTX580 blocks, but because you had 2 in parallel vs one now therefore you should see restriction increase. However that sounds like a bigger change than I would expect, having said that, it does depend what else you have in your loop. I wonder if your swiftech block is running at much higher restriction like my sample is. I just took mine apart and I don't see anything wrong with it, but I'll send Gabe some photos to see if he can see anything wrong. If not I'll take the hydrocopper apart to compare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Church

Hmm, somehow i dig looks of new EK block. AC's still best look wise, but this is unexpectedly close. Damn, how i wish old EK waterbridges back though.

---

I know those old bridges were much sexier, still I feel like they're on a upward trend in terms of style :)

EK SE (second edition) data:

The finer fins in the cooling engine did not alter the poorer performance at low flow. However I was able to get a better TIM spread and at very high flows the block now performs at the top alongside the XSPC:

http://i.imgur.com/ZghYlr0.png

This time I didn't apply TIM to the VRMs/VRAMs which may explain the slightly poorer performance. However the VRM section design did change.

http://i.imgur.com/qeZqtFU.png

Still to do:

- verify Koolance performance when you don't warp the card
- stick my new temperature probes to the back of the card to log VRM/VRAM temps more accurately
- run the EK SE vs flow (expected to be similar to the older EK block based on flow numbers)

Still waiting for
- Bitspower sample (Redesigning I think)
- Alphacool sample (OOS)
- Phobya sample (Not even sure if this is still happening)

Stren,
This is outstanding work, solidified my choice in an EK block for some GTX 780s. Any chance you can post pictures of the setup? Of the EK block with some LEDs? I know this is a performance thread but I'm just curious.
Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jhors2

Stren,
This is outstanding work, solidified my choice in an EK block for some GTX 780s. Any chance you can post pictures of the setup? Of the EK block with some LEDs? I know this is a performance thread but I'm just curious.
Thanks!

---

Hey - I've actually taken the block off already in order to check the TIM spread was good. I'll take some when it's on again for the next run. I have some of the XSPC blue LEDs as well as some red ones from Monsoon that I can try.

Thank you for posting the EK-SE results Stren. Makes me pleased I went for one. :)

stren: BTW, what do you think of testing out something like this? I liked a lot idea of universal block that fixes most of cons keeping pros (still universal, as cooling plates are exchangeable and cuttable as needed, bridge-edition style enables usage of water bridges enhancing looks, and users get also vrm liquid cooling unlike with other universal blocks). I don't like that i was unable to persuade other vendors with potential of such product though :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor Time

Thank you for posting the EK-SE results Stren. Makes me pleased I went for one. :)

---

Anytime :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Church

stren: BTW, what do you think of testing out something like this? I liked a lot idea of universal block that fixes most of cons keeping pros (still universal, as cooling plates are exchangeable and cuttable as needed, bridge-edition style enables usage of water bridges enhancing looks, and users get also vrm liquid cooling unlike with other universal blocks). I don't like that i was unable to persuade other vendors with potential of such product though :)

---

Yeah it's a good idea, do they have a titan/780 version though I didn't see one? I'm willing to test whatever the manufacturers are willing to send ;) I do think those mini tubes are a bit ugly, but it's a nice idea over just a universal block.