Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxxxRacer
Agreed. Testing with ihs / tim joint is a mess. Bare die or die sim is best that can be done at the moment...
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxxxRacer
Agreed. Testing with ihs / tim joint is a mess. Bare die or die sim is best that can be done at the moment...
Not bad for a first test/review...
The MAJOR thing that stands out to me is that the die sim data shows the Apogee performing one way, then the system test shows it performing another way....
Does anyone else get the impression that Swiftec in their own way are attempting to discredit BIllA's testing methodology (which is the basis for the majority of the reliable testbeds out there)?
I smell sour grapes and they aren't making chardonay, they are making whine......
What does bill have to do with the testing?? He didnt supply the test data for the apogee.
god we are letting this get personal now, people are taking posts as someone attacking them now 0.o
these are called opinions for a reason 0.0
one thing I dont understand is why it matters what temp you get when testing, as long as the conditions can be repeated wouldnt the proportions be the same?
I guess I can kind of see how the diode being stuck to the side would maybe effect it.
You are correct that BillA didn't supply the data, however if I recall he was employed at Swiftec prior to the Apogee being released. This does not mean that he tested or even saw this design before leaving the company or for that fact that Swiftec tested it according to BIlla's methods.Quote:
Originally Posted by nikhsub1
He was also one of the early leaders in the watercooling arena who did start showing the general public the flaws which were involved in some of the testers methodolgies. His early tests and testbed became the basis for future tests and testbeds.
What I am trying to say (not very successfully) is that perhaps while at Swiftec BIlla had their R&D conducting testing one way, then when he left; someone there said let's test another way leading to those end results not agreeing at all with results derived from Billa's methods. All this leads to Swiftec trying to 'deprogram' the watercooling community in regards to testing methodology (hence the last test in systemcooling's article being new, as stated in the article).
Swiftec is basically saying 'Billa's tests are rubbish, here is how you should test and we have now got a part to show the world that this is the way it should be....'
I am in no way saying that anything is personal, nor am I saying that Billa's testing is rubbish, nor am I saying that Swiftec is right or wrong; just an idea.....
I'm curious as to whether Swiftech will continue to produce Cathar's Storm or not.... My guess would be that they won't and mainly for financial reasons. Let's just look at the situation for a moment...
-they stopped production of the MCW20
-they replaced the MCW50 with the MCW55
-iirc, it was mentioned in that review that they are discontinuing the MCW600x series
-they will likely discontinue the Storm
-all CPU blocks are replaced by the Apogee
-all blocks are now Delrin topped
The Storm is a relatively expensive block to produce due to the amount of machining time involved and its overall complexity (now, I'm not an expert but I'd tend to think that, at the very least, the Storm's very precise nozzle array would take a decent amount of machining time...even if using Delrin)... also, since it isn't Swiftech's design, they undoubtedly have some sort of licensing fee associated with its production. As a result of all of this, Swiftech's margin on the blocks likely wasn't good enough considering their limited production capacity and inability to fulfill their reseller's orders (let alone do so in a reasonable timeframe).
*EDIT* Bah! Sorry... I just noticed a difference which invalidates a lot of what I was saying below... the Apogee has a much higher pin density than the MCW55. :doh: :slap: (hey, what can you expect from a guy at 3:00am?)
*please read above edit regarding quoted text block*Quote:
So... What does Swiftech do to address this? Simple, really.... sell only one block with two different tops and a few minor alterations. After all, let's face it... the Apogee is an MCW55 with a few minor alterations: flat base vs. raised contact patch, different top, missing two notches on the sides, and missing that little groove in the 'diamond matrix'. Aside from those differences, the bases are the same part.
Anyway, I think what I'm getting at is that it appears that Swiftech has shifted from Performance & Quality to Low Production Cost & Volume. Is it just me, or does this not sound like a good change? :hm:
As a side note, I'm kinda interested to see actual test information as to how all three Swiftech blocks would compare when overclocking on a bare-die A64... I'd need an Apogee block to do that, though, since I already have the other two... hmm... perhaps later this month :idea:
...I really hate it when I shoot down part of my own conspiracy theory... even though there isn't really any "conspiracy" here... lol :rolleyes:
...maybe I should just go back to making watercooled cardboard box computers ;)
Yes they have. They also have all the correlative data to convert TTV results to produce predicted die results for every make and model of CPU from themselves and competitors, including heatflux variances. However, Intel don't and won't share that info. To do so benefits the competition too much. Hence you won't see any documented proof of such. TTV is fine to use provided we / the tester has all the info needed to produce the results we want. We / the tester don't. Simple as. TTV Documentation harps on about TTV-to-CPU correction / conversion formulae... but don't provide such formulae...Quote:
So Intel has tested the TTV for use as a vehicle in performance testing on waterblocks?
i just ordered an Apex kit with the old Storm in it before they can no longer be found... Anyone ever order from voyeurmods? They seem ok but so far kinda slow...
i find it funny that a lot of you chide BillA for using the TTV but it's perfectly fine for Lee to use a die sim for conclusive results. it really is fortunate that he included actual CPU temps in this review and we can clearly see now that sims are an absolutely unacceptable way to test waterblocks.
it seems like the concensus of the senior members here on XS was perfectly on target. the Apogee performs only slightly worse than the Storm with the IHS included. my original theory was that the Apogee would perform better with the IHS removed, but it seems pretty obvious that it would not since the Apogee is geared more towards large SA heat removal and the Storm is heavily concentrated on cooling the die area alone. only testing will truly show this however.
it's true that the build quality of the Apogee is far less than acceptable. perhaps the Apogee can withstand hammering, but i'd hardly consider that conclusive testing. the problem is, with engineering like this, you are leaving too much room for error. it's very easy to have a small machining error and have a block pass QC (by the way, 40psi is a joke for testing) and fail when an end user receives it. i've seen it when i worked at Panasonic. leaving too much room for error, you are asking for it.
pH's tests will prove to be much more conclusive and i'm eagerly awaiting those results which will truly lay the topic of performance to rest, since we all know the quality is nowhere near that of the storm.
The die sim is suppose to simulate bare core cpu without IHS. So if are you going to get a water block to cool a venice or a single core without the IHS then you better get the storm because Apogee sux with small area. For dual cores 2x 1mb cach cpu with IHS removed the storm will still come out ahead, just not by much.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonlightcheese
????Quote:
Originally Posted by moonlightcheese
c'mon now, as long as the reviewer understands the results that a simulator yields then a sim gives an infinitely better picture of waterblocks' performance than the "alternative" cpu testing....the cpu testing robotech did was only useful because he had sim testing to go with it. imagine he had just posted the review with only the "outside-the-IHS-temp" cpu testing and based his conclusions on that.
Everyone seems to be forgetting something though. According to Robotechs tests the MCW6002 outperforms the Apogee in the large die tests at ANY flowrate...
Oh and yes.. the MCW6002 is more durable and the same price... So why in the name of anything would you want to get the apogee?? Because it looks pretty?? If so then I will sell you a picture of niki cox to cool your cpu with..
100% disagree. Die sim or bare die cpu is a much better way to test block performance. ihs / tim joint adds too many variables that can not be reliably accounted for. Why do you think that Apogee, Storm and 600x series scored so closely on the cpu test bench?Quote:
Originally Posted by moonlightcheese
Robotech is currently testing the old Maze 3 or 4 on the cpu test bench. I think it will be a real eye opener...
MR, you seems to be forgetting something though. The comparative data from robotech's die sim alone does not explicitly represent how performance will translate to any one wc setup.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=985553
he swapped out his mcw-6000 for an apogee and reports better performance.
maybe his setup is very unique, maybe he is misguided, but i doubt he is the only one
Or maybe he had a bad mount on the 6000. Or maybe it is wishful thinking...Quote:
Originally Posted by snowwie
Or just maybe the Apogee performed better for him. Swapping out the Apogee for a Storm (not a 6000) did nothing nada zip for my temps on an Opteron 170 with IHS. Granted the quality of the Apogee leaves a lot to be desired but the performance was there with my setup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plywood99
-pickles
Which is why I repeat what I said in post 38, "Die sim or bare die cpu is a much better way to test block performance. ihs / tim joint adds too many variables that can not be reliably accounted for."
snowwie, I realize that Robo's results will not translate perfectly to every system on the planet, but they do show the general performance trends.
And to be frank, Robos smaller Die sim has a surface area of 196mm^2.. Guess how many square mm a X2 4800 is.. 199mm.. thats REALLY close if u ask me. Now Robos large die sim is 1024mm^2. That is 5.15 times larger than the X2 4800 core.. So unless AMD is releasing a 10 core cpu in the next few months the large die tests that robo did are not very useful.
Now you are going to say that they are useful becuase they represent how a cpu would perform with an IHS and that as we all know is just rubbish. In a die sim the entire die is heated relatively equally while in a cpu with an IHS the center of the IHS (where the cpu core is ) is transfering atleast 2/3 of the heat while the area outside of where the cpu core would lie transfers a considerably smaller amount of heat energy. In reality an IHS effects the waterblock testing merely by making the base of the waterblock thicker.
If you attached a 2mm thick plate (of copper) to the bottom of the Apogee, storm and MCW6002, and then placed it on a bare cpu (no IHS), you would see nearly the exact same results as if you just had the IHS on.
there is absolutley nothing special about the IHS. it is merely a hunk of nickel (i think its nickel) plated copper.
And now to get to the [H] member,
Anyone notice that he is using the onboard sensors to measure the temp.. And we all know the onboard sensors are good for nothing..
The good for nothings sensors are also displayed in robs testing as the cpu temp never varried (36C) in the stock speeed batch independent of the waterblock attached. And in the OC testing the temp only moved 1C and was in favor of the Storm. So going from that info the 6002 storm and apogee are equal across the board.. And we all know that isnt true.
So please do not EVER try to base ANY cooling performance data off of the onboard sensors. They are off by rediculous levels and only provide a vague estimate of the actual cpu temperature.
dude, how u gona sell a damn pic of niki? you email me that pic for FREE.
NOW.
here you go :D
Niki Cox was here.
Picture removed to save keyboards around the world from puddles of drool.
anyone who DARES to trust sensor readings can be slapped with a trout. I have a screenshot of my video ram at -40C with aircooling. with an ambient temp around 25C. onboard sensors don't even have repeatability so don't give me that crap.
maxxx: yummy pictures ;)
OMG women like this exist? I have to seriously rethink my priorities.
I looked at those pics for about 5 minutes, then realized there was a head attached... Dern, she's cute :slobber:
lol @ you guys.. you need to get out more.
I shouldnt have posted that picture. I had a feeling that things would get off topic with that picture..
BUT now i know how to derail any thread.. just post that... and bam! FX60 to niki cox in 3 seconds flat.
*fap fap fap*
huh did you say something max?
:banana: