Does this perform on par or better than the FuZioN V2?
Printable View
Does this perform on par or better than the FuZioN V2?
Do you have any 5 mount runs before and after bowing with the same nozzle in?
I just didn't see much gain when I tried it before although I didnt put it through the testing I'm currently doing. The nozzle kit only comes with a washer, so I figure 99% of the users out there will run a washer.
I'm testing the V2 currently (which is better) and should have a review of that up before too long.:up:
as always a nice work from Martin.
BUT you really need to try these blocks with a quad. This low wattage e6600 will not even start the fight with the fuzion.
since it doesn't have a way to put pressure on the center, I doubt you can bow it. You may try milling .005 off all but a 20mmx10mm area in the center.
I think you can, you just need a spacer very slightly taller than the gap between the channels and the top block. It'll probably only bow in one direction though opposite that of the channel direction because I'm sure they give it a fair amount of rigidity.
If not, I'll fire up the mill..:D
Being the owner of the Storm Rev 2, I would still like to see how well the Storm performs against XSPC Edge.
When did this become the Fusion v1 vs. v2 thread? Lets please keep this thread on topic. We need a few more individual comparison tests between this new XSPC block and the most current blocks. XSPC is really hitting the market hard with all these new quality products. :)
Not to sound like a broken record, but ALL FLAT BLOCKS PERFORM VERY SIMILAR ON IHS BASED CPU'S. Being that the Storm and the XSPC are both FLAT, they perform very similarly. The XSPC is a tad better on my testbed but nothing to write home about... the storms design is totally crippled on an IHS.
Unless you lap the IHS that is. In the end I think it's better to lap an IHS and make it flat so you mate two flat surfaces than to bow a block to match an irregular IHS. I think it gives you the same net gain, only more consistent mounting. It does void your warranty though.
I've got a new quad coming and I think the first thing I'll do is lap that baby..:D
Theoretically a perfect lap of the IHS/block and using a low viscosity thermal compound and moderate mounting pressure, should be identical to a cranked down bowed block.
When you overtighten a lapped block on a lapped CPU, you are now bowing in the opposite direction, causing the block to form a concave bow in its own surface due to pressure against the edges of the IHS. That is where most people screw up and end up getting worse temperatures than a bow with lapping IMO.
As long as you don't go totally crooked, a bowed block is more foolproof for core pressure, while a properly tightened lapped setup should yield much higher repeatability.
Yeah, I'm trying out more bow in a block right now and not finding any measurable gains. I am only mounting with 40lbs of pressure though, that's the point at which the springs I use bottom out.
I don't know, I guess if you polled the population of users most would use a stock IHS though, so bowing will always have application. The part I don't like is how the IHS varies between samples, some are flat, wavy, concave, or convex so the benefit of bowing will be different depending on your sample.
Not sure what you can do about that...:shrug:
Lapping is my preference...I just like the SHINY copper....:)
Hopefully the plate should be rigid enough that concave flexing isn't an issue. That said, with many plates being a thin piece of copper with pins on the top, that may not hold. However, the ribs on the XSPC and maybe the EK blocks should add significant rigidity.
The increased pressure at the interface point should do more that compensate for major surface irregularities, say those exceeding .0005-.001". They compress minor surface irregularities through deformation and force excess thermal grease out. The last point, squeezing excess thermal grease out, may be a large part of the advantage since over application seems to be a big issue.
A second advantage may be placing the contact area over the hottest parts of the IHS. There appears to be a significant thermal gradient across the IHS. Bowing places the contact area closer to the hottest parts. Other setups may then have to add additional thermal conductivity loses in the IHS. Stepping the base plate to only contact the hottest areas may work better than bowing here.
That said, the difference between the top 2-4 CPU water blocks with all the different nozzles, lapped or unlapped IHS, different top thermal greases, and clamping forces is only a few degrees. Unless there is a really bad TIM application or really insufficient clamping force (40# vs 75# spec would qualify as insufficient) it is doubtful that difference would have any measurable difference in overclocking capability or longevity.
Will do, I think this one as well as the EK supreme will do really well with the quads.
I might have to try and do some independant testing on the bowing vs lapping thing. I think the thermal paste used also plays a significant role in what happens there. I'm really impressed with the tim-consultants.com grease, it gave me almost 3 degrees over artic ceramique. I'll have to do a comparison some time against Coolaboratory Liquid Pro. I can't use CLP for testing, it's much too difficult to install, but I think the TC grease performs nearly as well.
We'll have to get together, and get Martin a 50g container.
http://tim-consultants.com/images/T-C-0098.jpg
Postal address: xxxxxxxxxxxx, Round Rock, TX 78665-7892
Heck, these guys are about 45mins away.. I'll just go say hi.. :)
Anyone know where in the USA I can get one of these blocks? My ageing Swiftech Storm Rev1 doesn't do too dang well with dual and quad cores. I know Performance-pcs will get it eventually, but I want one sooner rather than later.
They mentioned they would be a bit limited in supply off the get go and that UK retailers would get supplied first.
Your fastest way would be something like this:
http://www.watercoolingshop.com/cata...8e3209c675c0b2