Printable View
It makes me wonder too..
If I were to sit around my milling machine a few hours I assume I could beat the apogee and storm with a block i've been thinking of for a while too.. no tiny little holes to get the impingment and high velocity higher pressure flow onto a direct surface area...
Yeah, lol, right. You know what they say about assuming?Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
it makes an ass out of you and me! :)
i can only think of one modification that i'd try (modification on the storm design) and that'd be using eggshell-shaped cups instead of cup-shaped cups, but i have no idea how one would mill them. I recall that cathar got his jet design doing dishes; so did i (eggshells in the garbage disposal, gettin splashed with water...)
Tried them already BS. In fact, have tried a number of variations.
Then let me clarify things for you a bit:Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxxxRacer
Industry - Standard
When I say Industry, I am referring to the group of companies in our business that is involved (directly or indirectly) with manufacturing of microprocessors and the thermal management products that cool them. By thermal management products I am referring to a group of products that includes any device designed to dissipate the heat generated by microprocessors (or other heat sources in the same general power range and mechanical characteristics).
Standard
When I say standard, I am referring to a device that is manufactured in series to produce repeatable results, and accepted by other industry members (see definition above) as a reliable source of data.
This being explained, you are mistaken. I personally know of at least half a dozen industry leaders (Fortune 1000 Companies and smaller) that use these tools. But you are correct in asserting that I cannot cite one, because I would be breaching confidentiality.
Now surely you do not seriously believe that we are the only Company in the Thermal Management business to be using TTV's. As to restricting the scope of this discussion to water-blocks, are you saying that water-cooling is not a thermal management tool? A water-block is a device designed to remove heat just as a heatsink, a heat pipe, a thermo electric device, or a phase change system. I will repeat again and again that a TTV is a variable heat source designed to emulate the behavior of a CPU. It is also a means to speak the same language with other people in the industry (refer to my definition above).
Now, if by "Industry" you are restricting your definition to the enthusiast community and the small circle of review sites testing water-cooling products in depth, yes you are absolutely correct.
I will again remark that our testing procedures have not been questioned in the past two years. If anything, they have been emulated. Bill Adams set these procedures in place, using his experience, as well as the guidelines established by the tool manufacturer. Why are they being questioned now? rubbing a few feathers the wrong way? Your "poor testing procedures" comment is totally out of place. As to your Doomsday predictions with regards to the Apogee, there is only one thing left to find out (at least for me) about the Apogee: its overclocking ability.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxxxRacer
You need to realize that I am a very pragmatic individual. I am only interested in the truth. I believe that we live in a world were the truth comes out no matter what you do. If the Storm allows better overclocks than the Apogee, why wouldn't I say so? People will find out. It would be foolish to try to conceal it. So once I am done with these overclocking tests, I will publish them as promised. And if they come out in favor of the Storm, so be it. Because in the end, Swiftech is all about performance. And don't tell me that this is a self serving comment. I believe that after five years of making performance oriented products for the enthusiast community, we have earned the right to make such a statement.
close, but no banana.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloody_Sorcerer
Liquid cooling is about SYSTEM cooling. Any device whose specifications contribute to overall system performance deserves to be characterized as such.Quote:
Originally Posted by orkan
For sure I am calling attention on GPU cooling. Because when we designed this block, we specifically thought about system cooling, and in particular GPU coooling.
As to your overclocking results, yes I am questionning them and why not? The scale (100Mhz) that you describe seems like an anomaly to me. If I can repeat your results, you will be vindicated. If I cannot, then people will judge for themselves will they not?
As to my own results not "holding water", I find it interesting to read that you are already preparing to discredit our work. Makes me wonder why. Are we playing chess here? anticipating moves ? Is there a hidden agenda somewhere that I am not aware of?
Whatever the results are, they will be published. Then other people will try, and in the end they will make the choice that suits them best. We have nothing to loose and everything to gain in finding out more about the performance of this product.
As I said in another post, one cannot hide the truth. It always comes out. So I do not fear it. I embrace it. Reason why the results will be published, good or bad. People know and trust Swiftech. They always have, and its not about to change.
I am a third party, and do not stand to profit either way... yet you discount my results as they show one of your products, being better than another. Let me emphasize; Your OWN product, is outperforming another less expensive product. Yet you still challenge my overclocking results, dismiss my opinion that your apogee is weakly constructed. Compared to the storm, the apogee is very VERY weakly constructed.
Your results DESERVE to be discounted until proven by a third party.
Contrary to what you may believe, Swiftech is not unlike any other company in this regard. You own the product, and stand to profit from it where others will not. You could spend $15million on testing, and it would not hold an ounce of credibility until replicated and proven by a third party. This is the way of things. I should think that you of all people would know this.
Until now, no one has had a REASON to question your testing methods and data. But now, you come on the scene with an old-style "pin" block saying that it beats the block the entire world pretty much agree'd to be the pinnacle of waterblock performance. Why should we believe that? The industry has been going one way (impingement) for the last 3 or so years... and you jump back into the stone-age of waterblock design and say it beats the best out there. You deserve to be questioned. ... for many reasons other than performance.
Talk about hidden agendas? Answer me this question:
Why, when my results show one of your own products, beating another one of your products... are you so quick to trash the storm, over your other block - the apogee?
Furthermore... I do not require vindacation from you. Nor do I think you've been overclocking very heavily if you think that the storm's core design principles do not allow for a higher overclock. The "micro-environment-like" cooling that it offers provides a more even cooling of the core, reducing the hotspots and thereby removing miscalculations that lead to instability. With my larger core-d X2... even cooling seems to be the ticket. BTW - given the dates you provided... I have been overclocking longer than you. ;) Does it make me better? Not sure, but I can tell you I have experience in PC building since the 386 days... and have been overclocking since the P-100.
From the advent of the WhiteWater block, and the onset of "impingement" cooling properties, Cathar continued to push the impingement principles further and further to increase the abilty of blocks to remove the hotspots within the core of a processor. Since the whitewater, people have been attaining MUCH higher overclocks with cathar's designs than ANY existing or previous "pin" style, or NON-impingement blocks. Thusly, the overclocking results I saw with the Storm vs. Apogee did not come as great suprise to me. The last 3 years or so have taught us that.
Again, the one question that I am itching to know the answer to:
If individual testing is showing the Storm (one of your products) coming out ahead of the Apogee (another one of your products);
Why are you so quick to throw the Storm under the bus?
A quick history lesson: I introduced the first commercial water-block using impingement cooling on January 25, 2002. This was the MCW462. Bill Adams then started to look into ways to improve it by drilling holes under the jet, and the rest is history. So if one favored impingement cooling, it would be me no?Quote:
Originally Posted by orkan
But there are many ways to skin a cat, I also learned that.
All I need is data. Yours does not make sense to me until I verify it. Clear clean cut straight talk. End of story.
Gabe, I am refering ONLy to watercooling. As has been established, air cooling and watercooling are entirely different animals with regards to testing procedures. So those numerous companies who use the TTV for aircoolers do not at all interest me and are not pertinent to our discussion.
What I am interested in is if any PC Watercooling companies use the Intel or AMD TTV. I understand you are under written or verbal NDA (formal or non-formal) so that you may not disclouse which companies use the TTV for testing, but you can atlest, without breaching confidentiality, let us know if there are any OTHER pc watercooling manufacturers who use an Intel or AMD TTV for their thermal testing.
When I say industry I am strictly refering to the companies who manufacture PC cooling products. No the enthusaists, not the reviewers, not the forums, ONLY the manufacturers. The groups I just listed are part of the PC watercooling community. NOT the industry.
So my question still stands. Are there any companies in the PC Watercooling community whom use an Intel or AMD TTV for quanitative thermal testing for CPU waterblocks? Answering my question outside of the definition of the question is of no use to myself or the other members as it does not regard the topic at hand.
And if you say yes that there are I, and the other forum members will NOT ask you whom those companies are, as we understand that you are under condientiality agreements. Their TTV secrets are safe with you.
Gabe, you must be kidding me right? Different cpus respond differently to cooling. I have had cpus that would max out on stock cooling. Two heatercores and an Iwaki MD20 with 15C air and 400CFM of fannage didnt change the OC from the dinky stock cooler. BUT despite the individual nature of cpu overclocking you want to compare your overclocking results with the apogee/storm to orkans.. That is just silliness. Every person on this forum can tell you that. And to be frank, so would Bill.Quote:
As to your overclocking results, yes I am questionning them and why not? The scale (100Mhz) that you describe seems like an anomaly to me. If I can repeat your results, you will be vindicated. If I cannot, then people will judge for themselves will they not?
Gabe... Why do you not answer the question? That is the second time you've directly dodged it.
If individual testing is showing the Storm (one of your products) coming out ahead of the Apogee (another one of your products);
Why are you so quick to throw the Storm under the bus?
Why are people shooting down Apogee? Orkan did you not have same or even slighly better results with Apogee block in the loop? Shouldn't the facts speak for themselves here...........why aren't MaxxxRacer, Bloody_Sorcerer, Cathar, nikhsub1, STEvil and other "in the know" people doing extensive testing and posting factual proof rather than this crapping. Looks like gabe is doing those tests and will publish results. Why don't you all put your money where your mouth is and show us exactly what the difference is to us laymen.
I think i may have missed further posts about orkan's block whether it arrived to gabe for crack inspection. That is the only concern that I would have with that Apogee block unless game can guarantee without any reservation that it is safe and will not crack.......
dinos. For two reasons. the biggest is that we lack the proper test equipment (well Cathar doesnt), and secondly we dont have an Apogee.
I would LOVE to do nothing more than some testing. want to buy me the equipment and give me the spare time? however, I'm flattered that you list me with Maxxx, Cathar, nikhsub1, and STEvil :)Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
Pay attention and read slowly.Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
My gpu temps went down 2c with the apogee, but the overclock did not go up. The STORM allowed a higher overclock on the CPU, and didn't offer a higher overclock on the gpu, .. but it didnt lower it either.
In my loop, the storm is the better block. Without question. Not to mention it is built like a TANK compared to the apogee.
Of greater concern... Why won't gabe answer my question?
Why do you throw one of your own products under the bus?
"in the know"?Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
please, with exception to cathar, all those guys are just like you and me. they are watercoolers whose knowledge is strictly limited to that of mine and yours...what we read in the various watercooling forums, and our experience in watercooling PCs. you think that they possess a quality that makes them more qualified to test or review watercooling components/systems than your or me? please don't think that because they are skeptical and questioning of swiftech's product they are "in the know" in any form. i bet that at least half of these naysayers presented with the proper equipment to test or review wouldn't know what to do with it. yet maxxxracer continues to debate with gabe over the phrase "industry standard". Maxx, here's a hint: thermal management is thermal management. to ignore a portion of that industry because it serves your arguement is lame. here's another hint: think of the manufacturers just recently getting involved with watercooling; Delphi rings a bell. you think that delphi doesn't use a TTV? i have no idea if they do or not, but i suggest you think about it for second. They are an engineering/technology driven firm. They are designing thermal management products (WATERCOOLING PRODUCTS). how do you think they test/validate their products/designs? i would guess they do it using (woa!) industry standard tools, similarly to how gabe described them. c'mon, the members of this forum already give YOU a LOT of credit, why not give gabe a little too?
hmm, i was was gonna change my mind and not post this, but i'm gonna; i hope it isn't interpreted as inflammatory. i am merely observing.
The storm doesn't have enough QC issues to keep the QC lady with the big magnifying glasses busy enough. All kidding aside, I think the Storm takes up too much production capacity and tougher to mass produce. The storm might be a superior product, but the Apogee isn't too far behind. From a business standpoint, mass production usually leads to lower costs due to that thing called economy of scale. By putting the storm "under the bus," Swifty can free up production capacity and lower the cost of the Apogee even further. Now I am not sure if advertising the Apogee as a better block at a lower cost is smart idea when it was so easily discredited. Simply put, this product launch had PR flaws. Instead of advertising the Apogee as a better block, they could have simply said it performs very similarly to the storm, yet at a much lower price point that would have been much more acceptable. So in conclusion, I say this is more of a PR boo boo and Swifty is having a hard time fixing it. Sometimes, people will appreciate someone who is willing to say "oops we made a mistake and we will learn from this experience." Oh, I would keep the Storm as my ultra premium offering so no other competitor can penetrate that market. Now companies can freely copy and tweak the storm design a little and call it the best waterblock on the market. No competition up there since without the storm, there's really no comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by orkan
I find it amusing how Gabe has refused to reply and answer my one, very simple question.
Indeed, I believe it to be the question that most of us already know the answer to... and is of core importance to this entire apogee vs. storm issue.
snowwie, I do infact know a surprising amount about test equipment as I have done many months of research on it and have a few pieces of test gear, but havnt been able to complete my setup due to lack of funding.
Gabe,
I would like to clarify a few items about the TTV you guys are using. In Intels tech doc you link to on the swiftech website it shows the 775. You also say Swiftech has been using the TTV for 2 years now when the 775 Socket has been out for only ~1.5 years( Released summer 2k4). I know that it is possible that Swiftech recieved a TTV before the release date so this is why I bring it up. Not calling you a liar, merely asking a question.
My next question is how has swiftech attaced the thermocouple/RTD (I would assume RTD as Bill despises anything but RTD). According to Intels tech doc it should be attached by milling out a tiny line halfway across the IHS, leaving a step at the end for the needle probe to rest on. the needle probe should then be covered in loctite thermal adhesive to ensure proper placement and to minimize the effect of the probe. Following this method the needle probe will be dead center above the cpu core and the surace of the IHS will be continuous and level (ie. the cutout is completely covered over)
My final question is which Intel CPU does Swiftech use for testing. On your website it says "Standard Test Equipment and Procedures for current microprocessor generations featuring die sizes from 140mm and up." but does not state the actual die size and the actual cpu used for testing. If a cpu is not actaully used, please excuse the comment as Intels tech docs lead me to believe that a cpu was infact used for testing.
Oh and one last thing. Has the TTV as a whole been kept constant in its configuration with regards to the testing of the MCW600X Storm and Apogee. I am refering to the more recent testing and the older testing from when the MCW600X was released and from when the Storm was released.
My question MAY seem a bit nitpicky, but changing certain aspects of the TTV testing can greatly effect the results that are had.
cool, I made a list :D
I actually havent taken the time to look at the apogee and storm with a microscope, so possibly the 100mhz OC difference could be due to mounting pressure? Maybe the base of one was slightly warped? Did the TIM squish out correctly between installs (TIM is after all an insulator, no matter how good you make it)?
The apogee would probably make a pretty good tec block, but comparred to the storm and designs based on the principles the storm proposes it just cant compete..
Anyways, i've got an MCW6002a with the base milled off here, but no storm or apogee.. so no testing :( I also lack a few peices of equipment to do the testing..
The apogee is being pushed because its nearly as good as the storm but is cheap to manufacture, or at least thats what the situation looks like to me.
actually apogee would make a mediocre TEC block due to the baseplate's tiny size.
why do you act like disagreeing with someone is such a bad thing? if we never went against the grain, progress would stagnate and no new advances would be made.
So make it a bit bigger (not hard given its design).
me?
I dont like treading on toes when I dont have to... but I dont like smoke and flares either.
swiftech, when releasing a product, publishes their test data on their website. when their published test data implies that their new block outperforms their high-end flagship, what are they supposed to do? i sense they are just as confused with what to do with the storm as we are...but hell i don't know, it could be more complicated. but i DO know that I would buy a storm over the apogee, i think most other watercoolers would to. i don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by orkan
max, you mind if i address some of your TTV questions?
A) there were TTVs for the 478 package, possibly for earlier desktop packages as well. (edit: maybe they've had more than one?)
B) Bill describes (in other forums) the importance of the location of the thermal probe, he gives the impression that he has experimented with many different locations and their affects on measurement. this further demonstrates his experience with the ttv.
C) Bill also states (in other forums) that the test bed(s) (ttv or not) at swiftech were (and likely are) constantly evolving. unless the data is displayed on the same chart on swiftech's website, assume it isn't comparable.
edt: lol, now this info is just from a random reader from a disgruntled ex-employee's postings, so you can choose not to believe it, and i won't be offended.
I'm not singling you out here STEvil, but where do people think that the Apogee is nearly as good as the Storm? Not even remotely close, not even a little. The Apogee is barely better than the Maze 3 for Pete's sake! All this IHS talk has people with their heads in the sand all of a sudden it seems. Let me refresh you of this: http://www.systemcooling.com/images/...image27big.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
ouch.. I must have looked at something else, thought it was about on par with the 600x.
I assume the best block tester would have multiple temperature sensors:
1: die top/block bottom (thin if possible between block and heat source, otherwise clamped to side of heat source)
2: die bottom
3: water inlet
4: water outlet
5: 4 probes each 1" (or so) away from heat source on bottom of block in a circle to see how much "heat" is making it that far from the center of the block