Swiftech Releases Komodo HD5800 F/C Waterblock For ATI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philwong

Unfortunately, the Komodo is not the most "extreme" block as far as VRM temp is concerned. It's all about expectation and you ought to be looking at EK for the lowest possible temp. Like I mentioned earlier, if Swiftech can bring down the temp by such a huge degree just by using paste, there's no reason why EK will not benefit from this tweak as well.

Phil

---

My comment was only intended as a rebuttal to your statement of pushing the card to the extreme. I hardly pushed the card to the extreme, and personally I even stated that I do not think the card died because of VRM temperatures but rather all of the mounting and remounting. Anyway, the main reason I took everything down again last night is so that I can get data for Gabe to show him the problem. I got the data, but unfortunately I also got a dead card now. I had no choice anyway though but to take down the loop again last night since the VRM temperatures were out of control. I was intending to replace the paste with pads again but once everything was done the card would no longer start. I'm loading the images and doing the write up now, they will be up shortly.

Edit: @Philwong, I forgot to mention something. Furmark got nerfed by ATI in their drivers after I reported a problem with it overheating the VRMs at launch of HD 4800 series cards several years ago. I realize that Furmark is not representative of normal load however it is a great test tool and shows problems quickly. After the VRM debacle that happened with the HD 4800 series cards I did not expect a repeat of the problem, and as you can see below I was right. Furmark or not, the block is not making contact as it should be so the VRMs burn, burn, burn :D :up:

Ok, I sorted through the photos and my notes and I think this one illustrates the best the lack of contact. I needed to put on a lot of paste to get anything to come across onto the VRM cooling area. The block was compressed as much as it can be to the graphics card.

http://img.techpowerup.org/100303/P3020553_small.jpg

Notice that the GPU die and the single VRM in the lower right corner have good compression, but the VRMs at the rear of the card barely make contact, and definitely do not have any compression.

And another screenshot following maximum compression of block to card, this time with abut 1/2-3/4 of the thermal paste; notice one of the VRMs has no more contact at all. Also notice the scratches around standoffs as a result of trying to tighten them down as much as possible to get the block to make proper contact in vain.

http://img.techpowerup.org/100303/P3020555.jpg

Now, I have measured the PCB height, VRM height, standoff height when fully screwed in and standalone, VRM plateau height, and determined that the VRMs cannot be cooled with the paste method on either of my Komodo blocks with this card. All measurements have a margin of error +/- 0.05mm due to human error and were done with a digital caliper.

PCB, VRM dimensions:

PCB thickness: 1.55mm - 1.6mm
VRM (rear) thickness: 0.85mm
VRM (front, single) thickness: 1.1mm

Block dimensions, around rear VRM area:

Top-left corner + standoff: 15.30mm
Bottom-left corner + standoff: 15.1mm
VRM plateau height (average): 14.15mm
Difference: 0.95mm - 1.15mm

As you can tell from these dimensions it is not possible to make good contact with the VRM using paste only as the difference between the VRM thickness and where the plateau sits once mounted ranges from 0.1mm to as much as 0.3mm.

The second block is more or less the same, having dimensions 15.05mm/14.75mm/13.9mm (avg); net difference 0.85mm - 1.15mm. Furthermore, on the second block even the single VRM would not make proper contact as the net difference in height between the standoff and plateau height is 1.2mm - 1.3mm, larger than 1.1mm height of that VRM.

Furthermore, the screw-in depth for standoffs and standoffs themselves are not equal. They range in height from 3.85mm to 4.1mm in no practical order. The screw in depths appear to do the same and are uneven. I took a 4.1mm standoff and placed it into the center hole by the DRAM cooling pad near the inlet/outlet and the PCB would still warp here because the screw in depth was deeper by about 0.3mm than other areas. This would happen every time but if the fastener was loosened to eliminate the warping insufficient contact with the DRAM would be made. Finally, around the single VRM area the board warps significantly once the card is mounted in the case as the perpendicular forces exerted by the weight of the block pulling down and away from the mounting slots on the PCB.

Two blocks later I would say that using this block without thermal pads and instead using thermal paste is strongly not recommended, at least with MSI R5850. I will test things out on the Asus EAH5850 as well once it is here in a few more days. The MSI R5850 is now off for an RMA and I really, really hope I actually get the replacement.

I would take mine apart and see what my results would be but I would be afraid that I would never get it back as good as it is now... Maybe we got blocks from different batches of blocks and your batch was put into a jig wrong or something... Sucks either way man, and hopefully they make it right with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badfastbusa

I would take mine apart and see what my results would be but I would be afraid that I would never get it back as good as it is now... Maybe we got blocks from different batches of blocks and your batch was put into a jig wrong or something... Sucks either way man, and hopefully they make it right with you.

---

I can see the operator in China right now going "Eh, it's off by 0.2mm, nobody will notice" :cool:

Two blocks bought at very different times both have same issues though more less, that's the really puzzling part. So either it will turn out that the MSI cards are different by design or there is a very low level of accuracy when manufacturing these in which case using paste is out of the question. Funny thing is had I not opted to follow the "advanced thermal utilization" I would have an alive card now :shakes:

In terms of taking yours apart, I strongly advise against it. One you are risking damaging the card, and two you may not get good contact again, though it does seem that your block fits better. Maybe it is because you are using HD 5870, I have no idea.

At least I managed to get all the relevant info (I think) for Gabe before the card died. That's something :wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dejanh

I can see the operator in China right now going "Eh, it's off by 0.2mm, nobody will notice" :cool:

Two blocks bought at very different times both have same issues though more less, that's the really puzzling part. So either it will turn out that the MSI cards are different by design or there is a very low level of accuracy when manufacturing these in which case using paste is out of the question. Funny thing is had I not opted to follow the "advanced thermal utilization" I would have an alive card now :shakes:

In terms of taking yours apart, I strongly advise against it. One you are risking damaging the card, and two you may not get good contact again, though it does seem that your block fits better. Maybe it is because you are using HD 5870, I have no idea.

At least I managed to get all the relevant info (I think) for Gabe before the card died. That's something :wave:

---

I anxiously await gabes response to this. :yepp:

I have a question for you. The differences in the blocks is definitely not acceptable, but if your going to remove thermal pads, wouldn't you want to remove the rest and use TIM there also? By leaving the other ones on there you are widening the distance from the block to the VRM's by the thickness of the pads.

The odd thing is looking at your picture the pad above the VRM's has almost no mark on them, so even it wasn't really making good contact. No pressure on that end of the block. Card or block that is the million dollar question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dejanh

My comment was only intended as a rebuttal to your statement of pushing the card to the extreme. I hardly pushed the card to the extreme, and personally I even stated that I do not think the card died because of VRM temperatures but rather all of the mounting and remounting. Anyway, the main reason I took everything down again last night is so that I can get data for Gabe to show him the problem. I got the data, but unfortunately I also got a dead card now. I had no choice anyway though but to take down the loop again last night since the VRM temperatures were out of control. I was intending to replace the paste with pads again but once everything was done the card would no longer start. I'm loading the images and doing the write up now, they will be up shortly.

Edit: @Philwong, I forgot to mention something. Furmark got nerfed by ATI in their drivers after I reported a problem with it overheating the VRMs at launch of HD 4800 series cards several years ago. I realize that Furmark is not representative of normal load however it is a great test tool and shows problems quickly. After the VRM debacle that happened with the HD 4800 series cards I did not expect a repeat of the problem, and as you can see below I was right. Furmark or not, the block is not making contact as it should be so the VRMs burn, burn, burn :D :up:

---

If running Furmark at such extreme settings is not pushing your card to the limit with all the warnings of average VRM temps delivered by the Komodo, I don't know what else to say. I will be pissed too if I zapped my card so I do feel for you. But what else can we Komodo owners do when the coolant is not flowing anywhere close to the VRMs? It's not some rocket science that the Ek shines in this area, while the Swifty aced in the GPU department with its micro pins.

Phil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gergregg

I have a question for you. The differences in the blocks is definitely not acceptable, but if your going to remove thermal pads, wouldn't you want to remove the rest and use TIM there also? By leaving the other ones on there you are widening the distance from the block to the VRM's by the thickness of the pads.

The odd thing is looking at your picture the pad above the VRM's has almost no mark on them, so even it wasn't really making good contact. No pressure on that end of the block. Card or block that is the million dollar question?

---

Pads do not control the distance, standoffs do. The block was fully compressed down until it hit the standoffs on every mount. The result you see is after maximum compression. What you are saying would have made sense if the standoffs are not being employed, but they are :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philwong

If running Furmark at such extreme settings is not pushing your card to the limit with all the warnings of average VRM temps delivered by the Komodo, I don't know what else to say. I will be pissed too if I zapped my card so I do feel for you. But what else can we Komodo owners do when the coolant is not flowing anywhere close to the VRMs? It's not some rocket science that the Ek shines in this area, while the Swifty aced in the GPU department with its micro pins.

Phil

---

Reading comprehension problem? I am pointing out that Komodo paste method is not safe as it may appear and does not work on every card. My card dying was an unfortunate part of the discovery process. Yes, I am pissed about it, but clearly not as upset as you :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dejanh

Reading comprehension problem? I am pointing out that Komodo paste method is not safe as it may appear and does not work on every card. My card dying was an unfortunate part of the discovery process. Yes, I am pissed about it, but clearly not as upset as you :rolleyes:

---

There's nothing for me to be upset about and the Komodo works within my expectations even on thermal pads. You're missing my point so far, but to each of his own.

Phil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philwong

There's nothing for me to be upset about and the Komodo works within my expectations even on thermal pads. You're missing my point so far, but to each of his own.

Phil

---

What is your point exactly, because I think everyone is missing your point...

Let's reiterate...

1. Komodo is not the best block for cooling VRM in default configuration - fact.
2. According to Swiftech Komodo can experience 20C - 30C improved VRM temperatures by switching from pad to paste - fact.
3. If (2) is true then Komodo can actually cool VRMs pretty well. This has luckily been confirmed by at least some people (e.g., Badfastbusa) - fact.

Now, why would I want to use pads then that get sub-par performance and not go straight away to paste, after all, it is right in the installation instructions for Komodo, you know, the ones that came printed with the block and that are posted on Swiftech website? Yes, those ones. Well that is were the problems started because as I have now shown beyond any doubt this cannot be done on every card and/or with every Komodo block as the dimensions of block/card/standoffs simply do not allow it. Unfortunately for me while I was troubleshooting this my card died, quite possibly from mounting the block over and over and over again combined with excessive VRM temperatures experienced while the thermal interface was malfunctioning.

So again, please enlighten me, what is your point :shrug:

I fell bad for you dejanh :( Very bad :(

Here is a shot of a 3min Furmark.
Asus EAH5870. Komodo with Thermal pads on VRM. ( well thighten VRM bolts. )
http://www.infodupat.com/pics/Furmark_950_1300.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dejanh

1. Komodo is not the best block for cooling VRM in default configuration - fact.
2. According to Swiftech Komodo can experience 20C - 30C improved VRM temperatures by switching from pad to paste - fact.
3. If (2) is true then Komodo can actually cool VRMs pretty well. This has luckily been confirmed by at least some people (e.g., Badfastbusa) - fact.

---

Exactly. We all know the Komodo is just a mediocre performer for cooling VRM. Yet, you still insist on stress testing your card with the latest "enhanced heat output" Furmark at such dangerous level. Let me reiterate, that's 1,900 x 1,200 with 8x AA. This has nothing to do with your overclocking in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dejanh

After all, it is right in the installation instructions for Komodo, you know, the ones that came printed with the block and that are posted on Swiftech website?

---

Can we take everything at face value liberally just because it's documented in the user manual? The original instructions caused the infamous black screen issue for some of the early adopters including myself.

Plus 20 to 30c reduction at what kind of card and simulation settings? Typical or extreme? Just look at the frame rate of the screen caps from Gabe, other Komodo users and yours for starters.

http://www.swiftnets.com/assets/imag...O-HD5850-2.jpg
Gabe's testing

http://img.techpowerup.org/100302/vr...er_remount.jpg
dejanh

Here's the thread on in-house testing performed by Swiftech.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...highlight=5970

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dejanh

Quite possibly from mounting the block over and over and over again combined with excessive VRM temperatures experienced while the thermal interface was malfunctioning.

---

The extreme Furmark's setting probably has a hand in causing the malfunction as well. How many times did you install the block, too? 10, 20 or 30? I seriously doubt the failure is due to repeated installations.

I know you're upset, but it will help if you can analyze the whole incident calmly. The mounting problem is a genuine concern which Gabe has to address, but stress testing the block at such extreme level is not exactly going to prevent your card from frying. :rolleyes:

Phil

Phil, listen, I do not know how to put it to you more simply...

I found that paste/grease/whatever-you-want-to-call-it method does not work "as advertised". With some blocks/cards/combination there of it does not work period. I do not know how else to put this to you so that you will understand what I am trying to show Gabe.

If you still feel like pushing whatever indeterminate point you are pushing then please stop, I am not interested in hearing your opinion any more. At this point unless you want to do the same tests as me and show that the paste method works perfectly for you with stress test screenshots and block pics and all, or not, please refrain from posting back. Why did you bother commenting on the shorting issue then? Or are you suggesting we should just keep quiet when a problem is found. The problem with the paste method is crystal clear, from pictures, from measurements, from explanation.

I'll leave it up to Gabe now to comment.

As far as my card goes, remounting was done about 5 times total. Did it have something to do with the card dying, probably. Am I blaming the block for "killing" the card directly, no. At no point in time did I come into this thread whining how "omfg, my Komodo killed my card". I would almost 100% certainly say it is a combination of the stress the card underwent while diagnosing this problem and mounting and remounting. Either way at the end of the day I found a problem with the Komodo block (possibly in combination with at least some cards) and if I can help one person think twice about using the paste or understand that using paste may not get them the desired effect then I have done my part for the community. After all, you yourself said instructions are not foolproof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dejanh

Phil, listen, I do not know how to put it to you more simply...

I found that paste/grease/whatever-you-want-to-call-it method does not work "as advertised". With some blocks/cards/combination there of it does not work period. I do not know how else to put this to you so that you will understand what I am trying to show Gabe.

If you still feel like pushing whatever indeterminate point you are pushing then please stop, I am not interested in hearing your opinion any more. At this point unless you want to do the same tests as me and show that the paste method works perfectly for you with stress test screenshots and block pics and all, or not, please refrain from posting back. Why did you bother commenting on the shorting issue then? Or are you suggesting we should just keep quiet when a problem is found. The problem with the paste method is crystal clear, from pictures, from measurements, from explanation.

I'll leave it up to Gabe now to comment.

As far as my card goes, remounting was done about 5 times total. Did it have something to do with the card dying, probably. Am I blaming the block for "killing" the card directly, no. At no point in time did I come into this thread whining how "omfg, my Komodo killed my card". I would almost 100% certainly say it is a combination of the stress the card underwent while diagnosing this problem and mounting and remounting. Either way at the end of the day I found a problem with the Komodo block (possibly in combination with at least some cards) and if I can help one person think twice about using the paste or understand that using paste may not get them the desired effect then I have done my part for the community. After all, you yourself said instructions are not foolproof.

---

Unfortunately, some people here, no matter how many times or different ways you say something, just dont "get it" for some reason... In my worklog thread, I had to say about 6 different times that my overclocks were just for fun and not to be meant for 24/7 stable clocks, and one after another, they each wanted a ton of stability tests LMAO

In conclusion, there are some really smart people here:up:, along with some real idiots:down:. :yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dejanh

Phil, listen, I do not know how to put it to you more simply...

I found that paste/grease/whatever-you-want-to-call-it method does not work "as advertised". With some blocks/cards/combination there of it does not work period. I do not know how else to put this to you so that you will understand what I am trying to show Gabe.

If you still feel like pushing whatever indeterminate point you are pushing then please stop, I am not interested in hearing your opinion any more. At this point unless you want to do the same tests as me and show that the paste method works perfectly for you with stress test screenshots and block pics and all, or not, please refrain from posting back. Why did you bother commenting on the shorting issue then? Or are you suggesting we should just keep quiet when a problem is found. The problem with the paste method is crystal clear, from pictures, from measurements, from explanation.

I'll leave it up to Gabe now to comment.

As far as my card goes, remounting was done about 5 times total. Did it have something to do with the card dying, probably. Am I blaming the block for "killing" the card directly, no. At no point in time did I come into this thread whining how "omfg, my Komodo killed my card". I would almost 100% certainly say it is a combination of the stress the card underwent while diagnosing this problem and mounting and remounting. Either way at the end of the day I found a problem with the Komodo block (possibly in combination with at least some cards) and if I can help one person think twice about using the paste or understand that using paste may not get them the desired effect then I have done my part for the community. After all, you yourself said instructions are not foolproof.

---

Since when have I contest the mounting problem or have you been reading between lines? Like it or not this is still an open forum and you're most welcome to ignore my posts if you desires. For those who prefer to leave sarcastic remarks, pls go ahead and stress test your Komodo at high reso and AA, then whine that temps are bad for all you want . S-h-i-t happens when you play with fire. Remember to do your homework and buy the right block next time. It's not as if there's no obvious hint that the Komodo does not stack up well in VRM cooling. Period.

Phil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badfastbusa

Unfortunately, some people here, no matter how many times or different ways you say something, just dont "get it" for some reason... In my worklog thread, I had to say about 6 different times that my overclocks were just for fun and not to be meant for 24/7 stable clocks, and one after another, they each wanted a ton of stability tests LMAO

In conclusion, there are some really smart people here:up:, along with some real idiots:down:. :yepp:

---

:clap:

:clap: :clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dejanh

Pads do not control the distance, standoffs do. The block was fully compressed down until it hit the standoffs on every mount. The result you see is after maximum compression. What you are saying would have made sense if the standoffs are not being employed, but they are :)

---

sorry for not being able to get back to you faster, but I am in China right now, and facing very hectic schedule.

You are essentially correct: the key here is standoff height. So please make sure that all standoffs are completly fastened tight, particularly in the VRM's area. One or two more turns of fastening the standoff will make the difference between poor contact and good contact. We are indeed dealing with very small distances here, of the order of 0.1 to 0.2mm. anmd since we do not want to warp the PCB in excess, tolerances are tight indeed.

I officially implemented the "no pad" tweak after successfully testing it myself with 5850, 5870 and 5970, so I felt very comfortable recommending it.

BUT making sure that all standoffs are fastened tight is something that I do automatically without even thinking twice about it, and in hindsight I should have added this in the instructions. Using pads gave us sufficient margin to allow for larger tolerance gaps, but not using pads is obviously reducing the margin of tolerance that we have, and therefore absolute repect of the specified standoff height relative to PCB becomes obviously critical.

The conendrum we find ourselves into is this: using standoffs to prevent excessive warpage of the PCB, in other words user safety, and the desire to provide a perfect TIM between VRM's and copper plate. In theory, these two goals are mutually incompatible. In practice, they are possible, but reserved to advanced users who have a solid understanding of the underlying difficulties associated with this kind of mechanical challenge. This is the very reason why I included the tweak in an "advanced users" section of the installation guide.

Other vendors (who do not use standoffs) do provide a better TIM, but this is at the cost of safety. The users of these competing solutions typically qualify themselves as advanced, and so they do not really mind taking the risk. We on the other hand, want to provide safety as well as performance, and it would appear that we still have either some tweaking or better maybe explaining to do in order to accomplish this.

Doing a hard mount (without pads) is quite possible with the Komodo's, I have done it, and I'll stick to my guns about it. Performance is exceptional, and pcb warpage was minimal. Should I revise my standoff heights and therefore reduce the tolerance gap without pads is something I now need to consider carefully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philwong

It's not as if there's no obvious hint that the Komodo does not stack up well in VRM cooling. Period.

Phil

---

Your final statement either shows a poor understanding of the thermal and mechanical requirements to cool these vrm's or an unabated support for your favorite brand, both of which are perfectly understandable and acceptable I should say. I would hope nonetheless that my response above will shed some more light for you on the problem at hands.

As vendors, we make choices as to what we want to accomplish with respect to our users. I already said and demonstrated in our lab that our solution can cool the VRM's just as well as any other extreme solution. The reality is, the heat loads for these components are such that just about ANY full-cover solution providing a decent TIM will cool them enough to be substantially below operating specs. The difference as I pointed above, is that we try really hard to do it safely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dejanh

http://img.techpowerup.org/100303/P3020553_small.jpg

---

Hello,

The indention you have marked, "Bad contact, no compression" with a red line with two arrows on each end, can you remove the pad sitting inside that indention to give your block more height/clearance to successfully cover the components on the pcb marked by the white sticker, "CPL2-3". Then you may have greater compression/pressure on the 5 VT1165 slaves to the left which are not being touched by your cooling block. Also, can you make your cooling block mount tighter to that area of vrm slaves?

Why not use a highly conductive thick thermal pad of good quality to mount on those 5 components. These 5 slaves need *MUCH* more cooling than the parts under the white sticker CPL2-3, which require little cooling, and are not even touching the stock cooler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dejanh

I doubt the card has protection in that sense since I doubt VRM would be allowed to hit 110C+. Anyway, what killed the card is the mounting, and remounting, and remounting

---

The card does indeed have throttling protection to prevent overheating, overvolting, and overcurrent. The slaves throttle at 150C, however are recommended to run <105C, and should avoid ~120C. The cooler the better. I also read that philwong recommended you to file off the "standoffs" to create a tighter connection to the pcb. This may work, AND, I have another suggestion - could you take two cut sections of the thermal pads, stack them, and firmly mount the cooler to create solid compression? Check your temps then (if your card is still working)
:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

Your final statement either shows a poor understanding of the thermal and mechanical requirements to cool these vrm's or an unabated support for your favorite brand, both of which are perfectly understandable and acceptable I should say. I would hope nonetheless that my response above will shed some more light for you on the problem at hands.

As vendors, we make choices as to what we want to accomplish with respect to our users. I already said and demonstrated in our lab that our solution can cool the VRM's just as well as any other extreme solution. The reality is, the heat loads for these components are such that just about ANY full-cover solution providing a decent TIM will cool them enough to be substantially below operating specs. The difference as I pointed above, is that we try really hard to do it safely.

---

Gabe, the EK is superb in VRM cooling but is quite a hassle to install. Whereas the Komodo is quite the opposite with the added advantage of better GPU cooling. The difference here is EK is channeling coolant over the VRM, while Komodo uses micro pins for the GPU. Like I mentioned earlier, the thermal paste tweak should work for EK and its already low VRM temp as well. To me, it is a matter of personal priorities until a near-perfect block appears. For the record, I'm not affiliated with EK and neither do I own any of their products.

May I suggest you contact the German reviewer to carry out third party testing between your block and EK's using thermal paste for the VRM? Could you also share with us the resolution and AA settings used during your in-house testing and whether the heat output increases appropriately with higher Furmark settings?

In addition, it may be advisable to warm your customers that there may be contact issue when using paste instead of pads regardless of whether they are seasoned or advanced users. At least could bench or evaluate the card cautiously after installation.

Lastly, if you could revise the block and force the coolant to flow closer to the VRM, that could be the safest solution to enhance Komodo's performance.

Phil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philwong

Gabe, the EK is superb in VRM cooling but is quite a hassle to install. Whereas the Komodo is quite the opposite with the added advantage of better GPU cooling. The difference here is EK is channeling coolant over the VRM, while Komodo uses micro pins for the GPU. Like I mentioned earlier, the thermal paste tweak should work for EK and its already low VRM temp as well. To me, it is a matter of personal priorities until a near-perfect block appears.

May I suggest you contact the German reviewer to carry out third party testing between your block and EK's using thermal paste for the VRM?

In addition, it may be advisable to warm your customers that there may be contact issue when using paste instead of pads regardless of whether they are seasoned or advanced users. At least could bench or evaluate the card cautiously after installation.

Lastly, if you could revise the block and force the coolant to flow closer to the VRM, that could be the safest solution to enhance Komodo's performance.

Phil

---

Thank you for your suggestions, but your comments confirm an incorrect thermal and mechancial assessment. Again I do not blame you for such, as you lack some basic information, sot I will try to it provide below.

1/If you take the time to compare the distance between the heat sources and the coolant between said competing solution and Komodo's, you might be surprised to find that the coolant might actually flow closer to the hot spots in the Komodo.

http://www.swiftnets.com/assets/imag...ansparency.jpg

2/ Nonetheless, irrespective of the preceding statement, it really doesn't matter because the heat load doesn't warrant immediate coolant proximity to do the job well above and beyond what is necessary (which I would point out completely redeems said competing solution from my previous statement)

3/ The key element in the whole affair is not thermal but mechanical: the TIM joint is the key element here, not the thermal design.

So now you should understand why a solution favoring TIM at the detriment of safety presents an advantage. Again, as cooling solution designers we all have the freedom to make a choice in our design considerations, and as a matter of design philosophy, I choose safety first, AND performance second.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

http://www.swiftnets.com/assets/imag...ansparency.jpg

---

Thanks for clarifying.

http://www.ekwaterblocks.com/uploads...ail-600(1).jpg
Here's a closeup of the EK block. Check out the "step" visible from this particular angle.

Phil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philwong

Here's a closeup of the EK block. Check out the "step" visible from this particular angle.

Phil

---

It is difficult to tell without a transparent view in overlay on the board, but the step I see there appears to be for clearance of the inductors, which would place the vrm's East of that, thus at the very edge of the flow path. But really it doesn't matter one way or the other. The flow path in these, and other blocks is close enough to provide more than ample cooling to the VRM's.

The difference in performance is directly linked to the TIM joint, and the quality of the TIM joint is directly linked to the gaps that are been allowed by design. I will go one step further, if you reduce tolerance gaps with the VRM's, you take the risk to kill the GPU TIM.

gabe, im 100% satisfied with my KOMODO, but im afraid to try paste on VRMs ...