what about i7 980X ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickel020
Printable View
what about i7 980X ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickel020
980x is a single die.
Vapor: have you ever thought to test HF with custom more restrictive plate aswell (eg. single line)? I'm somehow predicting that while restriction will go up (but it has more room to, as block is less restrictive then eg. CPU360/Kryo even with most restrictive and effective plate #1), it will reclaim top performance spot?
A Supreme HF with more restrictive plates would definitely be an interesting test :yepp:
Unfortunately, with only 1 blank supplied per block with no option to buy more (and the fact it's stainless steel--not easy to machine at home), the ability to test it is limited. I modded my Plexi HF and gave it to skinnee for a different project, but I'll probably be buying a HF Cu shortly and might be able to explore midplates with that.
Vapor: i'm pretty shure that Eddy_EK will be willing to suply few of blanks for testing sake on request ..
Which plate is recommended to use with the hf supreme ? Since they send about 4 diff ones from ek
Plate 1 (the one with two slits) was the best in my testing. I think it's the stock plate in the recent Supreme HFs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aedubber
It is!Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
Acrylic Cover: Sanding and Shiny
BEFORE
http://skinneelabs.com/assets/images...HF/Upskirt.jpg
http://v2b.skinneelabs.com/assets/im...F/Chastity.jpg
AFTER
.
So you sanded the acrylic top? I can't really figure it out.
Plated.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottALot
Yeah, I think he made the cloudy parts of the acrylic clear and shiny.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottALot
His base was already plated, IIRC :)
JET PLATE #2 (Mod)
JASSAF: and temps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by churchy
my radiator is to dirty to run the test at the moment. In my new waterbock i used a jet plate (1.05 x 30mm) and the gain was 0.75°C :up: (my previous jet plate: 0.75 x 30mm with two channels). i belive he HK Supr HF must follow he same tendence.:clap:
Rad dirty or not shouldn't change relative result, if you test both jetplates with rad of same dirtyness :). Good to keep ambient temps same with AC during all the time of tests aswell.
EK-Supreme HF - Full Nickel
Is there a difference between that this http://www.performance-pcs.com/catal...ducts_id=26784 and this http://www.performance-pcs.com/catal...ucts_id=27631? water block
Performance-wise, probably not. It's the same block, one with a plexi top, and one with a gold plated copper top.
JET PLATE #2 (Mod)
after cleaning up the radiator, the testīs result was: 0.25°C more than Jet plate #1Quote:
Originally Posted by churchy
EDIT: That was not my intention. im sorry
.
Are you seriously trying to directly compare temps from two different testbeds? :wth:
EDIT: or are you overlaying your difference between P1 and P2m on top of my chart? Either way it's deplorable.
Hey, is there a new version of the HF acetal/copper ? On the EK site, the pictures varies from performance-pcs, the new one sure also looks much better :)
"OLD?":http://www.performance-pcs.com/catal...ducts_id=27127
"NEW?":http://www.ekwaterblocks.com/shop/bl...al-nickel.html
loving the nickel cpu!!Quote:
Originally Posted by kazukun
what about new design EK SUpreme HF ??? some result
Wich pate jetis the best choice for block HF? After the tests, the best #1, or any other?
I believe #1 provides the best cooling but is the most restrictive.Quote:
Originally Posted by M_T_M
Edit: source
Best cooling is most restrictive, yeah. But! Still less resistive then few other top cpu waterblocks. Win-win.
Funny timing too, I just got one in the mail today!
Does anyone know where you can buy black skrews set to the EK supreme HF?
If there is.....
Something has never been clarified, what is the best orientation for mounting.
Can some one tell me what I should see when I look into my case window at the MB. I am going to vertically mount my MB.
Can no one answer this or does it not matter?
I kinda like the 69 mount myself. Everyone wins! :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Masika
Seriously though horizontal is fine. :yepp:
Just an FYI for everyone using a gold block and Indigo Xtreme. This was posted on Indigo's website:
"The Indigo Xtreme alloy will
amalgamate with the gold plate, resulting
in a bond (and loss of the original gold
surface); lapping would be needed to
remove the alloy from the block."
http://indigo-xtreme.com/docs/ixheat...cationnote.pdf
I am torn between getting a one time fantastic thermal performance now and having to lap my HF gold later when I change or lap it now and not having to mess with it later. Oh well...
Also, just a thought on mounting pressure. Since spring compression rates, motherboard thickness, mounting washers, finger strength, etc. all differ, it seems like the best constant would be the distance from the 4 tips of the hold down bracket to the motherboard PCB surface. I measure from the junction of the PCB and the EK pvc washer/metal washer/nut to the top of the outer tip of the hold down bracket. I seem to get good compression (looking at TIM spread) with 14mm.
Some say to measure between top of thumb screw and hold down bracket but differing spring rates will cause errors this way.
Front to back (horizontal). Hole closest to center is inlet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masika
Let me get this straight, the Indigo Xtreme TIM Compound is incompatible with most popular waterblocks, most of the top air coolers and even the default Intel Cooler?
:rofl:
Since when incompatible? Says who? You mean that gold plating post? Somehow hadn't noticed yet most waterblocks and air coolers being gold plated. So far only heard that Unlike liquid metal pro/ultra IX is the one that doesn't diffuse with IHS/block or cooler base and is much easier to remove/peel of.
Churchy, did you read this PDF from IndigoExtreme?
http://indigo-xtreme.com/docs/ixheat...cationnote.pdf
jumper2high: So? In most cases just notes what's specific and what should be taken care of when using IX with particular piece of cooling hardware, why cry loud Not Compatible With Most Of Water Blocks / Coolers!!! (sorry, that's how i interpreted your post).
Like reflowing longer with big top air coolers, changing to spring clamping mount for coolers without such, or that gold plating might be lost on some specific variant of HF (i'm guessing that it's 1:1000 from all HF sold worldwide at most), or isolating mounting bolts from cpu lid, or using less clamping force. I doubt ever seeing someone buying IX to be used with stock oem cooler, and don't know is it really that big issue with coolers of direct touch heatpipes with gaps, as imho some IX will stay nevertheless between base of cooler and IHS.
And i wonder .. how Vapor could test IX in his TIM test on such "incompatible" water block, huh? :)
What that pdf boils down to is anything that doesn't have a full cpu coverage flat suface. Or gold plated. Considering the nature of IX seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Sent from my X10a using Tapatalk
The word incompatible would, in my understanding of English language, mean that something can not be used with it without modifications. I assume that's the case. Basically, all the popular heatsinks and blocks (let's not get into a discussion about "popular" next) are listed with certain limitations. I have to ask, if you are required to modify a heat sink to accommodate thermal interface material, is it really worth the half a degree you'll get compared to using some of the other popular brands that - by the looks of things - don't require any modifications.Quote:
Originally Posted by churchy
You always read only first sentences? How about 2nd one - "Additionally, a few solutions are noted as conditionally compatible, if certain conditions are met."
Anyway, imho any furthier discussion should be kept in some TIM related thread instead of adding offtopic stuff here. Maybe some mod can move posts?
EK states on their website:
" The base plate is made of electrolytic copper lapped and polished to +/- 0,0007 mm flatness"
But mine definitely has a raised area in the middle. It seems to correlate to the area of the micro channels cut in the base. Anybody else notice this?
It looks like when it is manufactured, they lap and polish the base first and then cut the channels afterwards which then distorts the base a little. Here are some pics of a new one:
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...premeHF004.jpg
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...premeHF003.jpg
It is preventing me from getting a good mount.
Thx
Dr_DX
same here !!!Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_dx
but i did not notice any deference in temp after i switched from a HK3.0 block to HF .
this bow is created when putting together the block; the imprint comes from the jet plates afaik and has no negative impact on cooling performance afaik;
lapping it will lower your cooling performance as with any bowed block....
Since my w3680 IHS is slightly bowed, with average pressure I only get contact with about 30% of the IHS. With the max pressure that I feel comfortable using, I get about 50%. On my other blocks that ARE flat, I get about 90~95% contact with max pressure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by generics_user
That's my point - it isn't supposed to be a bowed block according to the manufacturer. :shakes: It is supposed to be flat.
In my book, more contact=decreased Bond Line Thickness=better thermal performance. :up:
You can't tell me that a properly mounted HF making 50% contact is going to perform better than one making 95~100% contact.
It is a bowed block, always has been.
Contact over the die is the most important, and that is where the bow is on purpose.
Two years later ............. cracking?
Attachment 128905
.
Damage done by tightening the fittings ?