Oh boy, can someone say SPANKED!!! Swiftech needs to rename the block APOLOGY...
http://www.systemcooling.com/swiftech_apogee-01.html
Printable View
Oh boy, can someone say SPANKED!!! Swiftech needs to rename the block APOLOGY...
http://www.systemcooling.com/swiftech_apogee-01.html
But what about the pump?Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxxxRacer
http://www.systemcooling.com/images/...ee/image17.jpg
^^^ ... that is EXACTLY where mine cracked. WTF could they have been thinking?!?!?! That thin of a connection cannot support ANY kind of load. No wonder mine cracked. Why in the F couldnt they just machine the top? So it would have cost 10$ more... at least it wouldn't have been a cheap, nasty plastic part that cracks easily.
I'm going to machine a top out of delrin. THEN I'll stick it in my loop. But not before.
Its realy sad to see what have become of Swiftechs blocks, i remember when i fist bought the mcw462 when it came out and took it out of the box, what a block, quality all trough, as where those that followed it. I consider the 6000/6002 series to be very good blocks, good temps, nearly maintenance free. It will be sad to see the Apogee take its place with its inferior quality. I hope for their sake that they reshape the block to a standard worth its name, or else it will be remembered as nikhsub1 put it "Apology".
This block will be hard to sell from now on if they dont quickly present a new decent rev2 of it.
ouch... the only thing it did outperform was the DD Maze3 HAHA. everything else beats it by such a large margin it makes you want to slap someone over at swiftech... nice job by Robotech, once again. :up:
the CPU testing was quite peculiar though. wonder what we'll see when we remove the IHS.... COME ON pH give us those IHS results man!! lol.
... I just don't understand why the CPU tests were reporting that it is on par with a storm...
Can someone clarify this for me? If it performs so terrible in comparison to other blocks on a simulator, why does it perform so closely on a cpu?
Lee actually explains it in the review. read the whole thing start to finish and you'll understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by orkan
Why should I believe that if swiftech can't produce a quality apogee they can produce a quality storm? Are they following specs closely enough on the storm?
Where does swiftech get there performance results between apogee and storm? Are they in house? How credible is that?
Sorry I just have a few questions that are bugging me.
Has anyone else detected copper shavings or a weak part intersection?
edit:\ I haven't found any shavings within the flow thru area but a minor bit w/in the screw threads. I will inspect closer with a small screwdriver later on and report if I find anything.
i ordered an apogee first, but then the intent of swiftech became amazingly clear.
create a block that is far cheaper to produce than the storm. sell it for somewhat less than the storm. say it is better on the storm.
- cheaper production means more money for them
- slightly cheaper tag does not cancel out lower production costs, but makes users think "wow, what a deal!"
- fake test results that make it look like a complete replacement.
per unit they will make more money than on the storm. so they had to give people a reason to buy it.
i cancelled my apogee and ordered a storm.
i wouldn't go so far as to say that swiftech's tests are fake, but I would say that the TTV clearly represents an unrealistically large die, especially considering that future CPUs will have smaller dies than we're seeing now, because of the shift towards smaller manufacturing processes.
oh man yours cracked.......that's not good..........apart from that issue this block is good...........Storm should have shown why it's a better block on paper and lab tests in the last CPU test with San Diego running with 1.66v........not ever 1C better.......common nowQuote:
Originally Posted by orkan
test are subjective they will only tell you results taken from the test but does not translate into real world. What i'm concern about is real world preformance not something just on spec sheets. If the apogee can cool just as good as the storm with +/- 2 degree of difference than i'm all for the apogee by swiftech. I do believe it is wrong of Swiftech making false claims that it will cool better than the storm.
Well, we cannot tell if it is a crack or a defect in material, since Orkan never sent us the block back for inspection (at least we have not received it to this date, although Orkan promised to me he would send it last week. Maybe it's "in the mail" ?Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
Irrespective, I also posted last night on procooling explaining that everybody is missing an important point: that "thin spot" of 0.030 is at the apex of an eliptical funnel. If you look at the cross section ~0.050 away from the apex, the thickness is now 0.035, then another 0.050 and its 0.040, until you reach the tangent of the elipse where it reaches the full thickness of the upper wall i.e. 0.045.
We have placed several blocks in shop vises under constant pressure and found no cracks over time (4 days so far).
With regards to shavings, I already addressed this point. Lee (Robotech) also concurred with me that he had to cut the pieces with a special tool in order to detach them.
When these plates came out of production we were literally amazed by how clean (no burrs) they were compared to our earlier manufacturing process (mill). The very thin pieces on the outer edge that people think are shavings are in fact leftover pins from the cutting process. These are very solidly attached to the base, and we didn't see them as problems. We still don't but are having them removed anyways just to avoid criticism.
I also read all kind of conspiracy theories here and elsewhere. There are no conspiracies against Cathar or anyone else. We designed a block using the latest CFD tools and the data showed us that it was going to perform at a certain level. We then tested the block with all the tools at our disposal, and we published (disclosed) all these results. Some were better than the best blocks we had available for comparison (Storm and 6000), some were worse, some were even. The data was disclosed in full, and in all honesty, as is the tradition at Swiftech. The data was also presented with emphasis on the Industry Standard tool (TTV), the same tool we have used for the past 2 years.
Bottom line, thermally I think that the jury is still out there. Hydraulically, the verdict is clear. There is one last set of tests that I want to do, in order to verify some report by Orkan about overclockability. I happen to have the same CPU he has on my system. So I will do the same set of tests he did (and more) and publish my results here. I have real doubts about this 100Mhz difference in O/C. It doesn't make much sense in my experience. I started overclocking systems in 1998 in the days of the Celeron, and haven't stopped ever since (slowed down a bit I will admit). I will also ask my friend Eric (OPPainter) if he can do some OC tests for us including the graphics. As Orkan reported himself, his GPU temps dropped 2C with the Apogee. The fact that he couldn't OC it more means that he didn't tweak his card enough. 2C is quite significant, and it could have allowed him to increase the voltage on his card, to get a higher OC. Remember guys that CPU OC nowadays is not as critical as it used to be for game play. What is critical is GPU OC.
Anyways, whatever the results are, you guys will be informed.
if GPU OC is more critical than CPU OC, why is the waterblock focus still on the CPU? wheres the GPU STORM? the GPU APOGEE?
:clap: :clap: :clap: :toast: :toast: :toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by gabe
How many manufacturers will at least get on the sites and address issues w/ their products :shrug: While there are some (and just about all of them end up here if they care), the fact that Gabe came over and is trying to answer stuff here is admirable, and I think he will follow thru if someone can conclusively prove issues exist. Give him credit for that, and let's see some more tests, etc. :facts:
(I personally like storm blocks, but Gabe deserves credit for attempting to address the issue of issues :D )
Bloody:
there is a GPU Apogee.. Its called the MCW55. if you look at the internals of the Apogee and MCW55 they are exactly the same in design except that the proportions are a bit different. IE: the dimmensions are not the same.
Sorry Gabe, but the TTV is NOT industry standard for testing Waterblocks. Name one other company or individual who uses a TTV to test waterblocks. The fact that you wont be able to name a single one shows that the TTV is in no way the industry standard for waterblock testing.Quote:
The data was also presented with emphasis on the Industry Standard tool (TTV), the same tool we have used for the past 2 years.
What it IS and industry standard is for validating cpu heatsinks. I point out the word "validating" becuase this does not mean testing. Valid means it is a pass fail basis. Not quantitative testing.
mad mikee:
I applaud Gabe coming out to the community , but sadly it was not really to our benefit. It was more of a self serving move to defend Swiftechs poor testing procedures and ill fated Apogee.
ouch max
i agree with you, but i'd probably phrase it differently ;)
thank you for your feedback............it's good to hear from the manufacturer(i assume that you work for Swiftech due to nature of the write up). I am glad that you are so responsive to these claim and I agree with you about too many jokers here making all sorts of claim. Now that you are in fact retesting these areas is a good sign and if you deem them safe it will be much appreciated......cheers dinos22 :toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by gabe
Well to use a very old phrase; "The truth hurts"
In all honesty I have alot of respect for Swiftech. They have produced quality products for a long time and have been involved in the community aswell. And while I do not agree with their testing methods I do commend them for actually posting test data unlike any other waterblock manufacturer, who just releases the product, hoping that people will buy it based on its looks alone. Some companies go so far as to even refuse to send their premiere product to well known reviewers for fear that their prodcut will be exposed.
For those who do know know, Gabe owns Swiftech. Cant remmeber if he has full ownship or if its a partnership but he does own the company.
wooooooooooooo
hows that for customer support lol.
props to gabe and swiftech.
and heres something, if everyone is going to piss and moan about how unclean their blocks are with the shards, then go make your own. :-P im sure it wont be near as good as swiftechs. ( erm, most of you wouldnt, but I know there is people on here that could :D)
2c is not a very big difference when you are already runnin a 630mhz core 24/7 stable on an x850xt chief. The card has been hard vmodded and takes 1.65v to be stable at that speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by gabe
More voltage did not increase the overclock.
The 2c drop in temps did not increase the overclock.
I find the shift in focus to the temps of the vid card, and my overclocking abilities disturbing. Is the block in question not meant for a cpu? It has already been established that the apogee is not restrictive.
We seem to be shifting back to the OLD thinking of waterblock design. Back when flowrates were king, and hotspots in the cpu didn't mean jack. I have been overclocking since the P-133... and havn't slowed down... so I assure you I know how to OC.
Discount my results as you may... they are a "3rd party" result. Whatever testing you do, will not hold water as it is your own product you are testing. Please do not believe us so ignorant to think that you would go out of your way to post results that shed a negative light on your new product.
FYI... I have nothing against your company, if you think there is an alterior motive here. I have both a Storm, and an Apogee from you. The storm... is one heck of a quality product. Almost a work of art. The apogee, based on my own performance and overclocking tests... and from a mere "feeling" perspective, can never hold the same title as the Storm has.
Ok, now I'm confused.
Why would a manufacturer of both the Storm and the Apogee, with the Storm being the higher priced "premium" product, willingly to go out of their way to disprove that the Storm is the superior product that justifies its price-point?
If Swiftech truly believe that the Apogee is the superior product, and wish to discontinue selling the Storm, then just discontinue it. The market seems to be making up its own mind. If the market is deciding that the Storm justifies itself after all the hype of the Apogee, and subsequent fall as more and more third party results hit the street, then isn't that a good thing in terms of product positioning and placement?
Normally I would have kept this sort of discussion private between myself and Gabe, but Gabe now seems to be willing to go public in both his building up of the Apogee, and tearing down of the Storm, I just don't understand it. The products are naturally falling into place as the market sees fit, and yet the company that is producing both wants to fight this very convenient progression of market-place perception?
Exactly cathar.
MONEY is the only reason. Performance be damned. Gabe told me on the phone the apogee costs roughly 40% less than the Storm to make.
I don't fault them for this progression... companies want to make money. But sacrifice their credability? Odd move for sure.
Even if money is the only reason, then it still makes no sense. Sure the Storm costs more to make, but so what? Charge more for it. Silly to make any product for a loss.
Okay, so the Apogee costs 40% less to make than the Storm, and the Apogee sells for $50. So, sell the Storm for $80. That covers the increased production cost, and Swiftech would still be making more on a Storm than on an Apogee.
The Storm survived and sold well at $80 in a marketplace filled with $45-55 competing products. The Apogee is here, now, and the only data which is proving to show it is superior is Swiftech's own TTV data, which no other data agrees with. Swiftech also claims similar performance on IHS CPU's, but independent testing by Robotech, nikhsub1, and others, have shown that IHS CPU measurements provide no distinction between 5yo products and the latest products, let alone latest to latest. Anecdotal evidence is leaning one way (Apogee ~= MCW6000). Small AND Large die tests are also leaning the same way.
So what's the problem here? Why come out swinging, slashing and fire-saling the Storm's price, and attacking anyone who doesn't agree that the Apogee isn't the best thing ever to come along?
Put the prices back where they were, continue to sell both, make the company required amount of profit on both blocks as suits their manufacturing and pricing structure, and let the market decide, which it already seems to be doing anyway.
Why fight it? I don't understand. Suppose a company makes $100 on a budget product, and $160 on a high-end product (because everything gets scaled up by 1/0.6, or 60%), then what's the problem? Why try to convince the market to buy the budget product in place of the high-end product against the market's perceptions? Surely the company would be happier that more people bought the expensive product, and that they were pocketing the extra $60?
Not even the "It's all about money" argument makes sense in light of what's going on.
I built a block out of 10 bucks of material that doesn't have any shards floating around, and I'd wager it outperforms the apogee ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gimmpy224