[Review] Round 2 Overall Comparison Thread - Core i7 Waterblocks

Can't write it until I have all the data :lol:

I will say that using only EK parts + silicone, the HK3.0 and the XT were beat. Unfortunately the mod isn't nearly as easy as the first two, which were just 1mm layers of silicone on a flat surface.

I'm more interested in the HK 3.0 cooper vs LT, unmodded results. After GTZ vs GTZ SE review i would like to know if cooper tops tend to produce better results than POM ones...

It beat the HK3.0LT by .03C :eh:

Insignificant difference. Thanks for sharing. Waiting for your review... :)

Great work Vapour, was a great read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vapor

It beat the HK3.0LT by .03C :eh:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeBar

Insignificant difference. Thanks for sharing. Waiting for your review... :)

---

Yup, exactly what has been said numerous times. :up:

Thanks for the testing Vapor!
Looking at getting a new water block in a month or two and all this info will make it easier to pick one up! :)

*edit* found solution

http://www.swiftnets.com/apogee%20xt%20revision.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vapor

I played with some labeling like that, but in my initial implementation, it was too busy.

There were other flaws with that charting too....use of 2nd hand pressure drop data, no idea of the actual wattage of the CPU (I should try your calorimeter/bucket test when I get a chance), and a disambiguation of charted data to "real world" data. I try to include the written table with every (group of) instance(s) of the chart, but I agree I need something in the chart itself.
I kind of already do that...in the full collection of results, I show what temperatures are for core vs. water (what's posted in the first post), core vs. air and for core vs. air (with 1/3rd the radiator ability of mine). Here's a screenshot from my skinneelabs write-up:
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/751/capturewm.png

And yeah, this has taken a lot of work....I'm dreading the Fuzion V2 and the alphacools (their 3 main blocks use identical bases but some have purported quality issues, so I'm going to test all the bases on all the blocks, so it's really going to be 9 blocks in actuality).

And if you think my 4 pump setup is "Freaking NUTS:shock2:" then Testbed 3.0 will probably blow your mind :D
(my Dwyer RMC-144 maxes out at 7GPM, I don't feel like I'm getting money's worth right now ;))

Anyway, thanks for stopping by Martin, always great to see you around these parts :)

---

Ahh...I see.

That reduced raidator capacity chart is perfect!

If most users are running a single radiator setup, that's probably the ideal bottom line chart.

That's really interesting. For anyone running a single triple radiator, the DDC with top (Medium High) is pretty much the optimal amount of pumping power across nearly all of the blocks.:up:

I guess I'll leave my one spare DDC a spare in the parts box then..

Thanks for the work on this, I especially appreciate the extra level in vetting out the pumping power variable. I know it adds 5X the work to an already exhausting scope of work, but it answers alot of previously unknown and debated areas that I was always curious about myself.:yepp:

Thanks!!:toast:

Wow...the XT is very compelling.

Great work Vapor ! big kuddos ! Getting great results too here on the XT on my single pump setup.

No go grab an EK Supreme and add it to the charts!

~Bex

Bex, Supreme HF!! Supreme with some mods is able to beat HT3.0 and Xt according to Vapor. Im curious about HF.. i might leaning for it

yep, i have the EK Supreme HF here and start testing it - it performs like the HK 3.0 Copper, only the Apogee XT is slightly better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bundymania

yep, i have the EK Supreme HF here and start testing it - it performs like the HK 3.0 Copper, only the Apogee XT is slightly better

---

do you have any test data/review on a new EK supreme HF vs Swiftech XT vs HK 3.0 Copper?

yes :) contact me via pn or pls wait a few days for the new chart...

And once again: HF made it
http://www.awardfabrik.de/kuhlung-wa...-hf-plexi.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bundymania

pls wait a few days for the new chart...

---

ok, I will wait! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scamps

And once again: HF made it
http://www.awardfabrik.de/kuhlung-wa...-hf-plexi.html

---

google translate Please take note that a loop with better high flow components than awardfabrik.de might produce better results, I don't know this of course at this time- just mention it :)

Looking good... guess I have mine sometimes next week :)
With 2xD5, Feser Monsta and BP's all the way I think I'm gonna give Supreme HF enough flow and pressure :)

And as far as I know EK have never had such quality issues as we see Swiftech have with the XT - buying a XT and not having quality issues seems to be a lottery. I sort of feel sorry for Swiftech nowadays - they are? my favourite wc producer - but I don't really know any more now....

Vapor, I have got a question: In your review the difference between the Sapphire A and the HK is a good 3-4°C. In HESmelaugh's review, difference is about 1°C.

Maybe you had a faulty unit or an engineering sample or something else? skewed the results. I am aware differences between mounts can vary, but I can't find flaws in either of your methodologies.

Help this noob understand! Thanks.

EDIT: One more thing.. In your full round up, I see this statement

Quote:

---

Here is a pretty fun result...though neither block is great thermally, the Sapphire Rev.A is amazingly low restriction. I broke 4GPM with my pump setup, and over 2GPM with just my 'normal' setup. The Sapphire Rev.A is also the second most low-flow resilient block I've tested so far (behind only the Apogee XT)

---

Your chart in the first post and indeed in that review do not indicate this. Is this a typo or just old data?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scamps

And once again: HF made it
http://www.awardfabrik.de/kuhlung-wa...-hf-plexi.html

---

:rofl:

Not even close to the quality of testing done in the OP. How many mounts, how many sensors?

One thing I don't graps in fact in the AF review, why do you loose warrranty if you open the block ? Why include different jet plates if you aren't allowed to change them ?

For the testing Skinnee, I'm talking about my own conducted tests at the shrimps : I prefer to test the blocks in a real life setup that I would use daily ( read one pump one rad setup), take into account that european loops differ a lot from the USA ones... far less flow, thinner tubing etc... you can remount 10 times and get 10 times slightly different results... some take the average output, some take the best score... to each tester his own method... but yours and vapor's work is amasing, very very thorough... but I really don't have time to test it all as other hardware piles up otherwise on my doorstep...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeghoofd

One thing I don't graps in fact in the AF review, why do you loose warrranty if you open the block ? Why include different jet plates if you aren't allowed to change them ?

---

That stood out to me as well... Eddy can you clarify if openning the block voids warranty? :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeghoofd

For the testing Skinnee, I'm talking about my own conducted tests at the shrimps : I prefer to test the blocks in a real life setup that I would use daily ( read one pump one rad setup), take into account that european loops differ a lot from the USA ones... far less flow, thinner tubing etc... you can remount 10 times and get 10 times slightly different results... some take the average output, some take the best score... to each tester his own method... but yours and vapor's work is amasing, very very thorough... but I really don't have time to test it all as other hardware piles up otherwise on my doorstep...

---

Agreed, and the variety of test methods gives us water heads a lot of information to look over. Scamps and I exchanged some PM's and it became clear my post was not up to its usual standards (Can I blame lack of sleep due to CES? :p:).

My intent was only to have people look over the testing methodology and procedures and take that into account when reading different reviews. I know that is asking a lot due to various levels of understanding and knowledge amongst members of the community. Leegfhold, your testing is solid and the results between the our benches/test setups have always fallen in line in the past. There has been data released by other high profile sites previously that myself and some other testers have not been able to replicate no matter how hard we try. When we run into those situations, it ends up taking more time trying to explain why results conflict than the actual testing and write up... and most of the time, we'll never know exactly why. However, that still doesn't change the fact that we have conflicting results.

I completely agree on the time issue, and that is where my post originated. The testing and work involved never slows down or becomes less, and time away from the bench to deal with conflicting results is something we just shouldn't have to deal with since we (I include you in "we" Leeghoofd) hold our testing to such a high standard.

:toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeghoofd

One thing I don't graps in fact in the AF review, why do you loose warrranty if you open the block ? Why include different jet plates if you aren't allowed to change them ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skinnee

That stood out to me as well... Eddy can you clarify if openning the block voids warranty? :shrug:

---

:slap:

Um,

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=147

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skinnee

(Can I blame lack of sleep due to CES? :p:).

---

Only 1 night was my fault :wasntme:

But you know it was well worth staying up with me.

:rofl: