Swiftech Apogee GT vs the D-Tek FuZion CPU blocks @ CES

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeStSiDePLaYa

people!

it does not matter how flat your base is.

due to how the simple mechanics of how it is mounted, it should benefit EVERY cpu. even those without IHS.

here is a simple example for those who having a bit of trouble

Take a waterglass, and a CD

place the CD on the bottom of the glass. it will sit flat.

push on the outer parts of cd, (replicating a block mount) and you will see the inner part of the CD rises up and away from the center of the glass


that is what is happening to the base of the block when you mount it.

if you are able to understand this, you will understand that this will work for any cpu. and then you will see all this talk about different IHS is irrelevant.

---

I'd say the flexibility of a CD in your example is way off from a 1/4" slab of copper. You might as well compare it to a piece of paper. As a matter of fact try it with a piece of paper- the center does not lift the glass?

Where's you're engineering degree from again??

Actually, yes, the differences are tiny. But however, you must remember that thermal paste has terrible thermal conductivity. Its just better than air and most other viscous things. When the base is lifted just a tiny bit, thermal conductivity goes down.

There is a review already of apoggee gt vs. storm vs mcp 05. I don't really know how useful it is but apoggee once more got beat.
http://sg.vr-zone.com/?i=4476&s=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mion

There is a review already of apoggee gt vs. storm vs mcp 05. I don't really know how useful it is but apoggee once more got beat.
http://sg.vr-zone.com/?i=4476&s=1

---

They used Asus PC Probe as the reference..... blaah. Take the review with a grain of salt. Asus PC Probe stinks.... way off from Core Temp or TAT.

Funny how this thread has very little to do with the gt vs. the fuzion.

Any one know what the heat distribution is on a IHS? My guess is that it will be much hotter directly above the die, and not so much so around the edge of the IHS.
If so, having a convex base may tend to be better in most cases.

The relatively large size of the IHS may be causing problems by taking contact pressure away from the region with the most heat density.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdelong

I'd say the flexibility of a CD in your example is way off from a 1/4" slab of copper. You might as well compare it to a piece of paper. As a matter of fact try it with a piece of paper- the center does not lift the glass?

Where's you're engineering degree from again??

---

you dont need an engineering degree to think rationally and logically about something.:rolleyes:

have you ever thought of how soft copper is, and the great amounts of pressure the mounting mechanisms put on the block?

If you cant understand the concept here, it is not my problem. I have tried explaining it, and other members seem to understand. As well, both Gabe and RyderOCZ, who have companies putting out waterblocks, they both seem to understand what I am explaining. and it seems they both already knew this.

So maybe you need to look into it a bit more to realize what is happening. I would try to explain more to you, but i feel from the last part of your post that you would rather try to antagonize me, rather than listen to reasoning.

Barb kinda said what I was trying to say, and finished quicker than I did.

Quote:

---

Funny how this thread has very little to do with the gt vs. the fuzion.

Any one know what the heat distribution is on a IHS? My guess is that it will be much hotter directly above the die, and not so much so around the edge of the IHS.
If so, having a convex base may tend to be better in most cases.

The relatively large size of the IHS may be causing problems by taking contact pressure away from the region with the most heat density.

---

Hi, guys (and gals?), brand new to XS. Dig the good stuff though. You guys rock.

I had some thoughts about why this might work that kinda made sense to me. Think about the length of the pins in a waterblock. Why are they not longer? It's because the heat only makes it up the pin so far before the rest of the pin is mostly a waste of copper. Same with an IHS, or any other component involved. If the heat is being moved away from the IHS fast enough, at least some of the IHS is kinda wasted. Therefore, full IHS contact might be overrated.

Then, think of the contact surface of a convex block. It's probably like a car tire (only to a lesser degree). The round surface conforms a little which would give a tad wider "contact patch" than you'd get if the base stayed truly convex. Then, instead of spreading the pressure from your mounting screws over 2 square inches, you are focusing that pressure in the center, right over the die(s). More pressure= less distance between the surfaces. So, you are squeezing the TIM harder, and forcing the surfaces to mate tighter. Makes sense to me. That's probably a lot of the gain.

I hope that makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

We checked 2 of the C2's that we have at work: the QX6700 was convex. The E6400 was concave. At CES Fuggers QX6700's were what I can only describe as "irregular" with high edges and high center section. We are researching the subject matter, trying to see if there are statistics available.

---

Gabe, Intel knows of the problem with the IHS' and has stated that the lack of flatness comes from when the die is soldered to the IHS. The heat from this process warps the IHS. What I do not know however is, which deformation is the most common. I would imagine that since the process to place the IHS on the die is the same for all of their CPU's that there would be a deformation trend. The key word here being trend, as can be seen by the fact that you have measured a convex, concave and irregular [Charles QX6700 ] IHS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Can't you use DangerDen Maze4? Is there anything bad about it?

---

not the greatest for performance.

I don't trust tests run by the same company that made the block,dtek or swiftech....I am purchasing an apogee gt to run my own test.....I just am very skeptical of 8deg improvments....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Can't you use DangerDen Maze4? Is there anything bad about it?

---

Well, besides the fact that it is a much worse block for TECs then the 6002. The key thing with TECs is to cool the entire surface of the TEC and the Maze4 doesn't cool a very large area. The Apogee is a bit better then the Mase4 but is more difficult to mount a TEC to and still doesn't work as well as the 6002.

The D-Tek looks like it has good potential for use as a TEC block but with modern CPUs you need to use a 50x50 437W TEC. I'm hoping someone with the block has some experience with TECs and can evaluate the FuZion's potential as a TEC block.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeStSiDePLaYa

you dont need an engineering degree to think rationally and logically about something.:rolleyes:

have you ever thought of how soft copper is, and the great amounts of pressure the mounting mechanisms put on the block?

If you cant understand the concept here, it is not my problem. I have tried explaining it, and other members seem to understand. As well, both Gabe and RyderOCZ, who have companies putting out waterblocks, they both seem to understand what I am explaining. and it seems they both already knew this.

So maybe you need to look into it a bit more to realize what is happening. I would try to explain more to you, but i feel from the last part of your post that you would rather try to antagonize me, rather than listen to reasoning.

---

Explaining something with some rational and logical thought is far from stating a theorm and prooving it beyond a doubt... which no one here has been able to do consistently concerning this warped base/IHS situation.

It seems everyone is so rushed to do the comparison testing, that the results end up prooving nothing conclusive and create more confusion than we started with. You can't call a fresh mount stable in 15 minutes or even 30 minutes.... AS5 takes days, Ceramique takes weeks. Some are making 4,5,6 mounts in a day and posting comparison results :nono:

One day a particular block is 5C better, the next day it's 3C worse- that's what I'm talking about. It's like Fox News, ABC, CBS and NBC all trying to break the story first. This can't all be done in a day with a winner being declared. It will take weeks for it all to fall out.

Let's just all sit back, enjoy the ride and see where we are in a few weeks;) My guess is that it will not be exactly where we are today, but not far from where we are today either. We'll see that a convex base will perform best on a flat or slightly convex IHS.... for a given block design, whatever yields the most surface contact will always win the heat transfer game;) Convex to convex will yield best contact at the center and the less convex each surface (and closest to flush when mounted) will yield the best results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdelong

for a given block design, whatever yields the most surface contact will always win the heat transfer game;) Convex to convex will yield best contact at the center and the less convex each surface (and closest to flush when mounted) will yield the best results.

---

Good point, but can you run through (for us non-rational people) why taking the IHS off a A64 X2 CPU drops temps by 10, 11, 12 degrees... and has not even half the surface area as with the IHS? Taking out one thermal interface can be a good bit of that.... but surely not all. I think that the only thing wrong with your statement above is that you left out the word "quality" before surface contact in bold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Curtybob

Good point, but can you run through (for us non-rational people) why taking the IHS off a A64 X2 CPU drops temps by 10, 11, 12 degrees... and has not even half the surface area as with the IHS? Taking out one thermal interface can be a good bit of that.... but surely not all. I think that the only thing wrong with your statement above is that you left out the word "quality" before surface contact in bold.

---

Agreed. Surface area is good, but so is good contact. If it turns out that these bowed bases consistently whoop flat ones on flat IHSs, then I think that cdelong (whom I respect and do not intend to make an inflammatory comment towards) will be proved wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdelong

It seems everyone is so rushed to do the comparison testing, that the results end up prooving nothing conclusive and create more confusion than we started with.

---

No one set of results should ever be conclusive. We need many to form a trend. Only those looking for something conclusive will be confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdelong

You can't call a fresh mount stable in 15 minutes or even 30 minutes.... AS5 takes days, Ceramique takes weeks. Some are making 4,5,6 mounts in a day and posting comparison results :nono:

---

Sigh, every block (at least the way I'm testing) has the same advantages (in this case disadvantages) as the next. If every block has exactly the same amount of time to cure the TIM, what matter does it make how long it cures so long as they are all IDENTICAL?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdelong

One day a particular block is 5C better, the next day it's 3C worse- that's what I'm talking about. It's like Fox News, ABC, CBS and NBC all trying to break the story first. This can't all be done in a day with a winner being declared. It will take weeks for it all to fall out.

---

You are being redundant here about your first point. Again, it is about forming a trend for many sets of (hopefully good) results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdelong

for a given block design, whatever yields the most surface contact will always win the heat transfer game;) Convex to convex will yield best contact at the center and the less convex each surface (and closest to flush when mounted) will yield the best results.

---

It is NOT just about contact area, it is also about contact force or mounting pressure.

Niksub,have you done any testing upon the apogee gt?I read the vr-zone review and i got confused, i see a lot of different numbers and i don't know what to believe! Just waiting for your results! :fact:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Curtybob

Good point, but can you run through (for us non-rational people) why taking the IHS off a A64 X2 CPU drops temps by 10, 11, 12 degrees... and has not even half the surface area as with the IHS? Taking out one thermal interface can be a good bit of that.... but surely not all. I think that the only thing wrong with your statement above is that you left out the word "quality" before surface contact in bold.

---

I should have qualified that statement to pertain only to IHS topped CPU's;) Of course eliminating a "barrier" to the heat transfer process (the IHS) would obviously yield better results.

The VR-Zone review is without the thicker gasket, or in other words, with a flat base. So you shouldn't be confused as that is pretty much what has been shown by many(EDIT: by a couple, "many" is quite an exageration), although the MP-05 came as a surprise to me.

btw, does anybody have any good pictures of the convex base? in my mind its just very slight convex but i think maybe some believes its more lika a base ball...:p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helmore

The VR-Zone review is without the thicker gasket, or in other words, with a flat base. So you shouldn't be confused as that is pretty much what has been shown by many(EDIT: by a couple, "many" is quite an exageration), although the MP-05 came as a surprise to me.

---

The MP-05 is a quality water block and should never be discounted.

Sorry if this is a repeat, but I haven't been following these threads too closely the past day or two and things really moved a lot since then. I was just looking on swiftech's website and saw that the GT flows slightly worse than the regular apogee. I thought it was said a week or so ago that the GT flowed slightly better? Was that just a guesstimate, or truly noticable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Peanut

Agreed. Surface area is good, but so is good contact. If it turns out that these bowed bases consistently whoop flat ones on flat IHSs, then I think that cdelong (whom I respect and do not intend to make an inflammatory comment towards) will be proved wrong.

---

no offense taken;) just curious as which of the many statements I made there I'll be proved wrong on? I did a lot of fast typing and assumed everyone was inside my head thinking some of the same things as me.

By stating whatever yeilded the most surface area would be king, I also figured it was obvious I meant surface area contact..... and yes pressure plays a role in that as well;)

Also as agreed before, a topless CPU "should" have better results due to direct contact on the die, although I flipped more Opterons lids (dual and single core) than I care to count, only to get the same temp results.

I'm off now to play for a while.... just got back with some 220/320/440/600/1500 wet/dry paper. I want to see what shape my IHS was:banana:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeStSiDePLaYa

you dont need an engineering degree to think rationally and logically about something.:rolleyes:

have you ever thought of how soft copper is, and the great amounts of pressure the mounting mechanisms put on the block?

If you cant understand the concept here, it is not my problem. I have tried explaining it, and other members seem to understand. As well, both Gabe and RyderOCZ, who have companies putting out waterblocks, they both seem to understand what I am explaining. and it seems they both already knew this.

So maybe you need to look into it a bit more to realize what is happening. I would try to explain more to you, but i feel from the last part of your post that you would rather try to antagonize me, rather than listen to reasoning.

---

Have you ever actually handled a pure copper bar before? It is far from soft. Its soft compared to other metals, but is not what I would call soft. The bases of those blocks there are rigid enough alright. The thing is, if you look at the thermal conductivity of AS5 or any thermal paste, you will find that it suxxors and might as well be your poop(well not really). If the distance between the block and IHS or core increases by just a tiny bit, the thermal paste will have to "bridge" it and hence the crappy heat transfer and the crappy temperatures.

It'd probably smell bad when the computer is running and heating it up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziddey

It'd probably smell bad when the computer is running and heating it up

---

lol, thx for making my joke more funny.