Recent water block (GT/Fuzion/Storm) test results...

Here is a summary of the recent Fuzion, Apogee GT, and Storm test results that I've found to date...

Notes:
- If multiple mounts were done and results provided, I've indicated that and averaged the mounts/runs.
- Review the test methodology details and test result details by clicking the links
- All values are in deg C unless otherwise stated
- DT Values are from Core Temp to Air (unless otherwise stated)
- Quad core load temps as reported by core temp or TAT were averaged by the testers and sometimes the difference between cores was as much as 10 deg C. According to Philly_boy lapping seemed to reduce difference in cores significantly.


H20 Frag-monger (Apogee vs. Storm R2 vs. Fuzion)
CPU: X6800 OC to 3.8GHz
WC Gear: MCP-655, MCR-220
Test SW: TAT
DT Results: Apogee = 55.8, Storm = 51.7, Fuzion = 49.5
Winner: Fuzion beats Apogee by 6.3 and Storm by 2.2
Link: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=152

H20 Frag-monger (Apogee vs. Storm R2 vs. Fuzion)
CPU: N/A - 30x30mm 100W die
WC Gear: Lytron chiller
Test SW: N/A
DT Results: N/A (C/W Curves)
C/W Results @ 1GPM: Apogee = 0.064, Storm = 0.059, Fuzion = 0.057
Pressure Drop @ 1GPM: Apogee = 2PSI, Storm = 5PSI, Fuzion = 0.5PSI
C/W Winner: @100W/1GPM Fuzion beats Apogee by 0.7 and Storm by 0.2
PSI Winner: @1GPM Fuzion has 25% and 10% of the pressure drop of Apogee/Storm
Link: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=304

Nikhsub1 (Storm G5 vs. Fuzion vs Apogee GT)
CPU: E6700 OC to 3.85GHz @ 1.56Vcore
WC Gear: 2xDDC Ultra, PA-120.3
Test SW: TAT
DT Results (avg of 3 mounts each): Storm G5 = 39.08, Fuzion = 43.06, Apogee GT (flat) = 44.54
Mount variation in DT: Storm 2 deg, Fuzion 2 deg, Apogee GT = 4.5 deg
Winner: Storm G5 beats Fuzion by 3.98 and Apogee GT by 5.46
Link: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&postcount=10

FreeCableGuy (Storm R2 vs Apogee vs Fuzion vs Apogee GT)
CPU: X3220 Quad Core
WC Gear: D5, PA120.3
Test SW: Prime95 x4
DT Results (@150W): Apogee = 25, Storm = 26.5, Fuzion = 24, Apogee GT 24
Winner: Fuzion and Apogee GT very close and beat Apogee by 1 and Storm by 2.5 (@150W)
Link1: http://www.thetechrepository.com/showthread.php?t=85
Link2: http://www.thetechrepository.com/showthread.php?t=78
Link3: http://www.thetechrepository.com/showthread.php?t=84

Philly_Boy CES Showdown Part 1 (Apogee GT vs. Fuzion)
CPU: X6700 Quad Core OC to 3.6GHz @ 1.425Vcore
WC Gear: MCP-655, MCR-320
Test SW: CPU Burn 5
DT Results: Apogee GT (Bow?) = 42.1 (1 run), Fuzion = 38.2 (avg. of 3 runs on 2 mounts)
Winner: Fuzion beats Apogee GT (Bow?) by 3.9
Link: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...0&postcount=84

Philly_Boy CES Showdown Part 2 (Apogee GT vs. Fuzion)
CPU: X6700 Quad Core (lapped) OC to 3.466GHz @ 1.5Vcore
WC Gear: MCP-655, MCR-320
Test SW: CPU Burn 5
DT Results: Apogee GT (flat) = 41.7, Apogee GT (Bow) = 34.1, Fuzion = 37.3 (using D-Tek mounting hardware and methods)
Winner: Apogee GT (Bow) beats Apogee GT (flat) by 7.6 and Fuzion by 3.2
Link: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=130142

Shamino (VR-Zone) (Apogee GT vs. Storm Vs. MCP-05 Pro)
CPU: X6700 Quad Core OC to 3.615GHz @ 1.7Vcore
WC Gear: D5, 2x120mm Rad?
Test SW: CPU Burn
DT Results (from Asus Probe): Apogee GT (flat) = 58, Storm = 60, MCP-05 Pro = 56
Winner: MCP-05 Pro beats GT (flat) by 2 and Storm by 4
Link: http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4476&s=1

Budwise (Storm G4 R1 vs. Fuzion)
CPU: E6600 OC to 3.6GHz @ 1.45Vcore
WC Gear: MCP-655, PA120.3
Test SW: Orthos
DT Results (from CoreTemp): Storm = 54, Fuzion = 51
Winner: Fuzion beats Storm by 3
Link: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&postcount=30

Philly_Boy (Apogee GT vs Fuzion)
CPU: E6300 OC to 3.7GHz @ 1.6V Vcore
WC Gear: MCP-355, PA120.3
Test SW: TAT
DT Results (from CoreTemp): Fuzion = 37, Apogee GT = 34
Winner: Apogee GT (Bow) beats Fuzion by 3
Link: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...7&postcount=54

David D. at CoolingMasters.com (Rosco?) (No Fuzion tested)
CPU: E6300 OC to 3.01GHz @ 1.59 Vcore
WC Gear: AquaX150Z, MCR220
Test SW: TAT
DT Results Original IHS (Core to Water @ 350lph): Apogee = 47.1, Apogee GT = 44.4, Apogee GT (bow) = 42.1, Storm = 49.6, MP-05 SP = 48
Winner: Apogee GT (bow) beats Apogee by 5, GT Flat by 2.3, Storm by 7.5, MP-05 by 5.9
Link (translated): http://translate.google.com/translat...language_tools

Kunaak (Fuzion vs Storm)
CPU: X3210 (quad core) OC to 3.6GHz@ 1.48V Vcore
WC Gear: MCP-655, Old BIX Extreme(?)
Test SW: Wprime
DT Results (Avg. from TAT): Fuzion = 42.9, Storm= 52.8
Winner: Fuzion beats Storm by 9.9
Link: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=136703

To see results of a MCW6002a compared with a Fuzion see post #59

My conclusions so far:

Given the fact that all tests by the same testers varied by up to 2-4 degrees just by remounting or doing another run and the fact that all blocks are typically within a few degrees of each other (and often much less) I would say it's impossible to declare any block definitively superior to another so far.

Given this, I think any testing without multiple and equal number of remounts for each block can be very misleading. For example, Nikhsub1's tests show that the Fuzion could win by 4 degrees or lose by 1 degree to the GT depending on which mount and run you used to compare. With the mount making as much as a 5 degree difference on blocks that typically only differ by a couple of degrees it makes drawing conclusions from limited runs/mounts dubious at best. :slapass:

The only thing that everyone seems to agree on is that the Fuzion flows significantly better than any other CPU block giving it a distinct advantage in multi-block loop performance.

BTW, if I've made a mistake in summarizing the results or there are other tests that can be added to the list above, please let me know. Keep in mind that if multiple runs or mounts were reported, I averaged the results of those runs/mounts in the summaries above. :toast:

I agree with your assessment both Apogee GT and Fuzion blocks are so good either one is a good choice but as I have found out lapping the CPU makes them even better as seen at the swifttech challenge. Here is my review of the fuzion after installing, now I am not afraid of summer time temps with OCd quad core.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=131298

Clearly we should all get G7's and call it a day lol... :cool:

The mount..is this with better bolts being used?

The fact that it is apparent no clear winner has emerged...

The world would be a better place if more people understood statistics.

This is not a dig at the OP, I agree with him.

I don't think all of the reviews are complete in part because they haven't accounted for the mounting variations mentioned.

What is needed is at least 50 different tests each with the same blocks and different mounts. So the same 10 blocks with different reviews, for example, but each block is remounted five different times.

The aggregate data can then be analyzed and the spread can be computed.

Here is an old but fair example of testing methodology.

Why isn't anybody focusing on mounting between Storm vs MCP-05 Pro.......???
But of course............ because nobody touches the Storm.
And now that Swiftech has a new block that from day one has to be modded to give equal or better results compared to another contender, a lot of people are talking about bad mounting.
Excuse me but if a block can not be mounted properly isn't that a defect for that block?Or do i have to be a GURU of mounting just to mount a waterblock? If the block's base is flat or concave(Apogee GT) isn't that Swiftech's design or fault?
Why for some people is so dificult to believe that maybe just maybe there is a better block out there, better than Swiftech's blocks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varsos

Why isn't anybody focusing on mounting between Storm vs MCP-05 Pro.......???
But of course............ because nobody touches the Storm.
And now that Swiftech has a new block that from day one has to be modded to give equal or better results compared to another contender, a lot of people are talking about bad mounting.
Excuse me but if a block can not be mounted properly isn't that a defect for that block?Or do i have to be a GURU of mounting just to mount a waterblock? If the block's base is flat or concave(Apogee GT) isn't that Swiftech's design or fault?
Why for some people is so dificult to believe that maybe just maybe there is a better block out there, better than Swiftech's blocks?

---

I would to ask that exact same thing.
According to VR-Zones review, the MP-05 was the best block.

Keep in mind the VR-Zones review is perhaps the most flawed of all. It didn't mount the blocks multiple times or even do multiple runs and it used ASUS Probe for the temperatures!?

I suspect that the MP-05 is right up there with the other blocks... like I said, they are all within a few degrees of each other and when subjected to variations in mounting, real world loops, etc. all perform similarly well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by epion2985

Clearly we should all get G7's and call it a day lol... :cool:

---

Ive looked online cant find where you could buy the G5 or G7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CedricFP

Oh man, and I just purchased an Apogee GT over a D-Tek Fusion :(

I do take solace is the fact that it is apparent no clearn winner has emerged...

---

Have you checked your mother board for bowing? The convex shape of my Fuzion block was enough to cause bowing with minimal pressure from the pressure bolts. The Apogee has a greater bow to the base then the Fuzion block does with the fatter O ring installed. See my pic here and check your motherboard.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post1970470

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varsos

Why isn't anybody focusing on mounting between Storm vs MCP-05 Pro.......???
But of course............ because nobody touches the Storm.
And now that Swiftech has a new block that from day one has to be modded to give equal or better results compared to another contender, a lot of people are talking about bad mounting.
Excuse me but if a block can not be mounted properly isn't that a defect for that block?Or do i have to be a GURU of mounting just to mount a waterblock? If the block's base is flat or concave(Apogee GT) isn't that Swiftech's design or fault?
Why for some people is so dificult to believe that maybe just maybe there is a better block out there, better than Swiftech's blocks?

---

Both the Apogee GT and DTEK Fuzion have convex bases. The Apogee GT comes shipped with flat base to start but if you want to make it convex for better temps you add the fatter O ring to bow the base. This bowing of the cpu water block bases is going to cause lots of bowing in the motherboards too! The water block companies should send out a back plate so the motherboard does not bow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varsos

Why isn't anybody focusing on mounting between Storm vs MCP-05 Pro.......???
But of course............ because nobody touches the Storm.
And now that Swiftech has a new block that from day one has to be modded to give equal or better results compared to another contender, a lot of people are talking about bad mounting.
Excuse me but if a block can not be mounted properly isn't that a defect for that block?Or do i have to be a GURU of mounting just to mount a waterblock? If the block's base is flat or concave(Apogee GT) isn't that Swiftech's design or fault?
Why for some people is so dificult to believe that maybe just maybe there is a better block out there, better than Swiftech's blocks?

---

Mounting variations has been criticized in the past, its not a new point. Some die-sims do take this issue seriously and (plan to) use or varying methods to minimize the effects, from centrally applied weights, 2 to designs with load cells measuring the force applied to the die.

With "bowed" bases and bumpy IHS this issue plays a much bigger role. How do you measure the actual block performance when the mounting methods create a larger tolerance than internal design?

Iam surprised MCP-05 Pro is up there, yet seems like its the underdog since nobody talks about it anymore ever since GT and Fuzion is out. I wonder if the MCP-05 LE gets 1C or better temp?

Considering the small tolerances that constitute the "best" components, I wouldn't worry too much. Personally I prefer the Apogee at the moment, because its cheaper and seems easier to get your hands on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fairydust

With "bowed" bases and bumpy IHS this issue plays a much bigger role. How do you measure the actual block performance when the mounting methods create a larger tolerance than internal design?

---

So you mean that you can't compare two waterblocks that have different mounting methods?
Sorry but when i buy a block iam using it's own mounting kit and i want to know it's performance compared to another block with it's own mounting kit too.
Now if one of the two blocks has better mounting method then for me the credits go to that waterblock or even the company that designed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varsos

So you mean that you can't compare two waterblocks that have different mounting methods?

---

At least according to the test results I compiled above, even the same block, mounted using the same mechanism, mounted in the same way, by the same person, on the same system, did not even provide consistent performance from one mount to the next. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varsos

So you mean that you can't compare two waterblocks that have different mounting methods?
Sorry but when i buy a block iam using it's own mounting kit and i want to know it's performance compared to another block with it's own mounting kit too.
Now if one of the two blocks has better mounting method then for me the credits go to that waterblock or even the company that designed it.

---

If there was a mounting mechanism that consistently gave the same performance on different platforms of the same type I'd agree, even on the exact same platform it's a feat. Tests with a single mounts are luck of the draw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by virtualrain

At least according to the test results I compiled above, even the same block, mounted using the same mechanism, mounted in the same way, by the same person, on the same system, did not even provide consistent performance from one mount to the next. :shrug:

---

I plan on mounting mine at least three times and see if I can get lower temps then now. The first mount that gives a lower temp then the one I have now Ill just keep. Im gonna wait a week in between mounts to let the ACS5 break in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redcorn

Have you checked your mother board for bowing? The convex shape of my Fuzion block was enough to cause bowing with minimal pressure from the pressure bolts. The Apogee has a greater bow to the base then the Fuzion block does with the fatter O ring installed. See my pic here and check your motherboard.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post1970470

---

I do plan on testing both bowed and flat bases, with several remounts. What I do need to do is find a backplate for the motherboard, for fear of bowing it too much and kaput.

I'm rather happy with the performance results of the Apogee GT, particularly for the (rather cheap) price. I am hearing that a lot of retail GT's didn't come with the fatter gasket, though, and that is scaring me a little.

Living in Hong Kong, for anything in America to get shipped here it can take at least 7 days... a real PITA when being forced to wait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by epion2985

Clearly we should all get G7's and call it a day lol... :cool:

---

Amen.

i just got my apogee gt today, it looks good, some small pins in there, i wish it had a thiner base (3mm compared to fuzions 1.5mm)...it came with the extra oring, damn it took along time to put that oring in (took an hour, the dam thing is just too big for the groove) anyway...after puting it back togeter i could really notice a bow...the fuzion definly does not have nearly this much bow...i wonder if some more bow was induced into the fuzion if it would perform better,...im gonna run another set of tests:

1. Apogee GT

2. Apogee GT Bowed (nikhsub1, im a little worried to break my MB or CPU by moutintg this, anything i should no? i will be using the springs so im hoping that will help)

3. Fuzion

4. Fuzion with a nozzel ( i have made 2 diffrent ones)

could you give us a little more info on the nozzles?? :D

peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CedricFP

What I do need to do is find a backplate for the motherboard, for fear of bowing it too much and kaput.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by h20 frag-monger

im a little worried to break my MB or CPU by moutintg this, anything i should no? i will be using the springs so im hoping that will help

---

Check out Redcorn's solution... http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=131415

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redcorn

Ive looked online cant find where you could buy the G5 or G7.

---

That was sort of a joke. The G5 and G7 blocks are made by cathar, they are a refined version of the storm with a silver base that he never stops perfecting. Pretty much the best you can get and not cheap. However they are not for general public purchase. He only makes a batch when he has time and only for limited sale to limited people he chooses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete

The mount..is this with better bolts being used?

---

No its just a bigger o-ring. It causes the base to bow a little and seems to improve performance.

Make sure to check out this mod it does help make the mounting more steady and a little more consistent.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post1972879

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by h20 frag-monger

2. Apogee GT Bowed (nikhsub1, im a little worried to break my MB or CPU by moutintg this, anything i should no? i will be using the springs so im hoping that will help)

---

I wouldnt worry about it... swiftech uses IIRC 45lbs of total mount pressure. Every singe stock Intel HSF warps the crap out of the board. Anyway, just don't use too much force to mount... mount it like you do all other blocks.

Kindly spell Shamino's name right. Its not Shimano, as in the bicycle components heh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IanY

Kindly spell Shamino's name right. Its not Shimano, as in the bicycle components heh

---

Shimano hehe my bicycle has that stuff written all over it... BTW my stock hsf does evil stuff to the board. I had to push with all my strength to get the pins down:P

to add my results of the Fuzion:

Storm Rev1 using CoreTemp

Idle 41-42C Load 54C max

Fuzion :

39-40C Idle 51C Load

I used Orthos Large FFT's to compare. This is also comparing a fresh application of AS5 on the freshly mounted Fuzion vs the Storm's performace on a fully cured AS5 application.

In response to someone earlier in this thread, the reason no one talks about the MP-05 anymore is that it's no longer in production. It's discontinued and has been completely replaced by the FuZion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methylphenidate

In response to someone earlier in this thread, the reason no one talks about the MP-05 anymore is that it's no longer in production. It's discontinued and has been completely replaced by the FuZion.

---

They are not even made by the same company. Are you sure the Mp-05 is discontinued, I still see them on the cooltechnica site?

D-tek was the primary producer of the MP-05. I've spoken with Danny personally about MP-05 availability. He is sure no one is still producing them.

MY mistake then, only ever saw the Mp-05 sold through Cooltechnica as their own.

Yeah, my understanding of it is that that's what made their partnership degrade so quickly. That's why availability of the block was always poor even though it was a great performer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IanY

Kindly spell Shamino's name right. Its not Shimano, as in the bicycle components heh

---

Done! :toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Budwise

to add my results of the Fuzion:

Storm Rev1 using CoreTemp

Idle 41-42C Load 54C max

Fuzion :

39-40C Idle 51C Load

I used Orthos Large FFT's to compare. This is also comparing a fresh application of AS5 on the freshly mounted Fuzion vs the Storm's performace on a fully cured AS5 application.

---

I've added your results to the summary. Thanks!

I did not test in the ways mentioned here, maybe I will if I get the time, but for me Fuzion bested the apogee and storm on my Kent, but the storm bested the apogees on conroes. I have not tried the fuzion on my conroes.

Update: Added coolingmasters excellent review of the Apogee GT here...

http://translate.google.com/translat...language_tools

Too bad they didn't include the Fuzion in their testing.

Please fill in my blanks:

Philly_Boy (Apogee GT vs Fuzion)
CPU: E6300 OC to 3.7GHz @ 1.6 Vcore
WC Gear: MCP-355, PA120.3
Test SW: TAT
DT Results (from CoreTemp): Fuzion 37c; Apogee GT 34c Delta T from ambient air
Winner: Apogee GT (flat/bow?) beats Fuzion by 3
Link: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...7&postcount=54

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philly_Boy

Please fill in my blanks:

Philly_Boy (Apogee GT vs Fuzion)
CPU: E6300 OC to 3.7GHz @ 1.6 Vcore
WC Gear: MCP-355, PA120.3
Test SW: TAT
DT Results (from CoreTemp): Fuzion 37c; Apogee GT 34c Delta T from ambient air
Winner: Apogee GT (flat/bow?) beats Fuzion by 3
Link: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...7&postcount=54

---

NP, but while I'm at it... Did you use the flat or the bowed base on the GT?

One other thing, while we're at it... can you clarify if the results from the first CES test were using the flat GT base? The second test (the next day?) was using the bowed base? Is that correct? Thanks!

A couple of issues I would like to raise

Measuring relative performance of these blocks on the same rig, whatever its configuration, is entirely valid since you are comparing like with like - however the delta T figures being used ( core temp to ambient ) are meaningless as they are completely dependent on the performance of the whole cooling loop. The only valid comparison would be the delta T between core temp and water temp at a given flow rate but since each tester is using a different configuration that is not possible. The only useful conclusions that can be drawn are from the relative performance of each block in the tests to see what trends emerge which would seem to be that - on Kentsfield at least - Fuzion and Apogee GT (bowed) about same, better than Apogee and noticeably better than Storm and MP-05.

Sorry if this is a bit of a rant but I hate reading conclusions based on meaningless results. Some of the results listed would require a cooling loop that could take a load of 150w+ and yet have the water remain at ambient!!

Regarding the full load figures I should remind people that Prime95, Orthos etc do not heat up a Kentsfield as much as CPU Burn in and way less than TAT. Difference for me between Orthos & TAT is around 5C!

My rig QX6700(lapped)@3.75(266 x14) @ 1.5v(1.45v actual), 680i cooled with modded DDC ultra, PA120.3, 3 x Noctua 1200rpm fans, Apogee GT (bowed), DD880GTX block, DD680i N/B & Swiftech MCW30 on S/B - in parallel. Can run any bench/test 24/7 in closed case. I also have Storm, Apogee, MP-05 and ApogeeGT outperforms them all. I am waiting on a Fuzion so I can continue testing but I am not expecting any great performance difference from ApogeeGT.

Incidentally regarding the load on motherboard - especially with bowed blocks - I too am more than a little concerned and feel that a backplate would be a good idea. Swiftech? D-Tek?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by virtualrain

NP, but while I'm at it... Did you use the flat or the bowed base on the GT?

One other thing, while we're at it... can you clarify if the results from the first CES test were using the flat GT base? The second test (the next day?) was using the bowed base? Is that correct? Thanks!

---

I used the Apogee GT with the bowed base for my anecdotal test. I corrected my part of Post #1.

Swiftech Challenge Night (Tuesday) was with with both flat and bowed bases on the Apogee GT. The results from the next night are now correctly stated in post#1. The Fuzion with it's own mounts and mounting methodology hit a 37.1 Delta T so we accepted that as the final figure for the Fuzion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawnmowerman

A couple of issues I would like to raise

Measuring relative performance of these blocks on the same rig, whatever its configuration, is entirely valid since you are comparing like with like - however the delta T figures being used ( core temp to ambient ) are meaningless as they are completely dependent on the performance of the whole cooling loop.

---

Since every test summarized in Post #1 just swaped CPU blocks and kept everything else the same, the delta T figures are not meaningless... as you say they are measuring the relative performance of these blocks on the same rig/loop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philly_Boy

I used the Apogee GT with the bowed base for my anecdotal test. I corrected my part of Post #1.

Swiftech Challenge Night (Tuesday) was with with both flat and bowed bases on the Apogee GT. The results from the next night are now correctly stated in post#1. The Fuzion with it's own mounts and mounting methodology hit a 37.1 Delta T so we accepted that as the final figure for the Fuzion.

---

Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by virtualrain

Thanks!

---

It is I who need to say thank you....for gathering and presenting the data in one post so the uninformed can see which block might be better for them.

I'll have a boat load of data in 10 days when I publish the G80 water block review.

I see C2D's in the list but no AMD's. Could somebody please do a comparison between the Apogee GT, Fuzion, and storm on a dual core AMD with and without the IHS? Thanks :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SparkyJJO

I see C2D's in the list but no AMD's. Could somebody please do a comparison between the Apogee GT, Fuzion, and storm on a dual core AMD with and without the IHS? Thanks :)

---

Sorry my AMD rig is down at the moment....but maybe we can make that happen. I own all those blocks as well as a few others. I have a FX60/DFI LP Expert/Muskin Redlines based rig that we could dust off and do a comparo on an old skool s939 rig...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philly_Boy

Sorry my AMD rig is down at the moment....but maybe we can make that happen. I own all those blocks as well as a few others. I have a FX60/DFI LP Expert/Muskin Redlines based rig that we could dust off and do a comparo on an old skool s939 rig...

---

I've got an MP-05 and a 6k2 if you want to borrow them to add them to the testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragonOrta

I've got an MP-05 and a 6k2 if you want to borrow them to add them to the testing.

---

We'll tawk soon.....gotta clear out some backlogged reviews then this can happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methylphenidate

In response to someone earlier in this thread, the reason no one talks about the MP-05 anymore is that it's no longer in production. It's discontinued and has been completely replaced by the FuZion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fairydust

They are not even made by the same company. Are you sure the Mp-05 is discontinued, I still see them on the cooltechnica site?

---

Methylphenidate, Fairydust is absolutely right and you are wrong. AquaXtreme MP-05 Pro and SP Limited Edition blocks are still in production and available through select resellers such as Petra's Tech Shop, Jab-Tech, Crazy PC etc.

The only water blocks that we discontinued are the White Water and White Water LE blocks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methylphenidate

D-tek was the primary producer of the MP-05. I've spoken with Danny personally about MP-05 availability. He is sure no one is still producing them.

---

CoolTechnica is/was the sole owner and manufacturer of the AquaXtreme MP-05 CPU water blocks. Like I said we are still manufacturing MP-05 PRO and SP LE blocks and as long as there is demand for them we have no plans otherwise.

Bruce
CoolTechnica / AquaXtreme

To straighten out some misinformation....The MP-05 and all the other AquaXtreme blocks were made with D-Tek money. Sorry but I will not sit here and see all that sole owner crap.

They may be in production still but there is no D-Tek money going into them anymore. As a matter of fact We are owed quite a bit from this ordeal and now have to chase it.

I suggest this subject ends

:fight:

:sofa:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-TEK

To straighten out some misinformation....The MP-05 and all the other AquaXtreme blocks were made with D-Tek money. Sorry but I will not sit here and see all that sole owner crap.

They may be in production still but there is no D-Tek money going into them anymore. As a matter of fact We are owed quite a bit from this ordeal and now have to chase it.

I suggest this subject ends

---

Danny,

Apparently you're the one who's been misinforming the customers that D-Tek was manufacturing the MP-05 blocks and discontinued the production and all that crap.

It's also not true that MP-05 and all of our AquaXtreme blocks are made with your money... and you know it...
Let's say you let X company in on a deal and they start offering your Fuzion block under X brand... now does this make X company own the design and manufacturing rights of your Fuzion block?
unless you sell the design and manufacturing rights of your product you're still the sole owner of Fuzion right?

CoolTechnica is the sole owner of MP-05 water-blocks and they're still in production. period!

I suggest you to read the e-mails that I sent you betw. October, and early December last year - that you did not even care to respond -. Also check the attachments...

If you want to start a flame-war that's fine... But my past experience taught me that there are no winners engaging in a flame war situation.

I suggest you to deal with me directly to straighten out any unresolved issues that you may have. I've been dealing with a family emergency and hopefully be available after tomorrow. You have my numbers...

Bruce
CoolTechnica / AquaXtreme

Danny and Bruce,

Although we appreciate the input and support within our forums, I don't think this is the place to start this kind of discussions between 2 companies.
There are other ways to discuss this other than here at XS.

Thanks for understanding.

Bruce,

So I sell a block with your name printed all over and I claim that we manufactured it? We discontinued the blocks that we paid for development and manufacturing on and did NOT receive!!!

This block would NOT have been made without us. If you want to hang with your story to protect your image go right ahead. I have the documented proof of the situation along with the transfer receipts all in the hands of a firm right now (you also know that).

BTW.. an email is on the way. I want to see what your attachments are and see what can be done to settle this.

Jupiter,

I am sorry.. This will be my last post on the subject as long as Bruce does not feel the need to keep this in the public eye. I will move it to email. Be free to delete this entire spat if you like. His dilusions required a response.

To get this back on track, I finally have my test rig ready to be assembled. I have many blocks to test - I do NOT have an MP-05 LE though, if Bruce wants to send me one to test I will gladly include it. I hope to have the test rig running by the end of this week.

OT - Bruce, I wish you and you family the best - I also know what it is like to have a child with a medical condition so my heart goes out to you.

@Nik,

This is good news about your test station. I have been waiting for someone to test the MP-05 SP LE against these other blocks. I have an MP-05 and feel it is the finest of my blocks and have been very happy with its performance. I recently installed the FuZion and find it to be a very high quality block also and with less restriction it has a lot going for it. The MP-05 has a large surface area and performed as well as the FuZion on my current Presler p4d 945 @4.5Ghz.

I am looking forward to your results. And by the way, now ya got me thinking about a PA160 rad for a possible second loop for a NB and SB on either a P5W DH or an D945XBX2 since I have my DDC-2 replacement and might just try a little smaller tubing for them say 3/8"id.

I see that not many people have compared the fuzion and the mcw6002a. I just upgraded from my 6002a to a fuzion in preparation for quad core. My setup is as follows:

p5b deluxe
e6600 9x400 @ 1.47V w/ lapped IHS
mcp655 @ max setting
mcr320 w/ 3 yate loon SLs
mcw6002a and Dtek Fuzion
thermalright 775 backplate
Arctic Silver Ceramique
Coretemp for temp monitoring and Orthos blend for load, load temps were taken after 15 minutes.

My results were kinda suprising. These are the best numbers after 3 remounts:

mcw6002a
ambient: 22C
idle core 1: 33C
idle core 2: 35C
load core 1: 51C
load core 2: 51C

Fuzion
ambient: 22C
idle core 1: 33C
idle core 2: 36C
load core 1: 51C
load core 2: 51C

Im sure the gap widens in favor of the Fuzion on quad core but until I buy a quad core I can only test the dual core performance. For all of you dual core users that have a mcw6002a, you wont see much/any improvement with the fuzion apparently. This really isnt the thread to be posting this but I didnt want to start a whole new thread just to compare another waterblock to the fuzion.

Added Kunaak's latest results to the summary page.

Also added a link to your post above (Babalouj) for those interested.

I'm looking forward to adding some GTX test results to this thread... Get at it boys! :cord:

I too want to see some GTX testing.
looks like a real interesting block indeed.

What all the tests seem to show is that your mount matters more than your choice of block. Maybe block manufacturers need to focus a lot more on mounting, particularly getting good mounts on dodgy IHS surfaces.

Most tests are done with lapped CPUs and blocks, and still the mounting variation is large - and a lot of people are not going to want to go anywhere near lapping their IHS.

With the Swiftech GTX allegedly producing a difference of 1 or 2 C, you are probably better off trying remounts until you get a good temp, rather than going out and buying one to replace a GT, or even an old Apogee, quad-core quibbles not withstanding.

With a restricted loop, it would seem that the FuZion is a no-brainer, but again the mount seems a major factor.

I wish Intel and AMD would pay some attention to this and put some research into it. I am always hearing from people running stock coolers that are running extremely hot, yet my experience of stock coolers is that they are nowhere near that bad unless you are overclocking (just noisy). Surely, the mount is to blame, and making those affected machines practically unusable?
Mounts are an issue for everyone :)

Hmm..keep debating on whether a fuzion is worth replacing my Storm rev2......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nealh

Hmm..keep debating on whether a fuzion is worth replacing my Storm rev2......

---

On the cpu in your sig? Definitely. I have started testing again - I have 3 mounts of the Storm and 3 mounts of the Fuzion done. Bill Adams has (and will continue to) look over my data. We decided to scrap the 24v run of the RD-30 as it just shows nothing useful - all temps just rise the same due to pump heat, ambient rises too. So I will be performing 5 mounts per block and all run at 18v. My cpu is UNLAPPED and no water block has been touched by me.

When Cathar talked about being at the theoretical limit of cooling he meant without an IHS. The IHS creates a whole new ballgame.

excellent thread

it's tough sorting through all that info to find the best block

it seems that if you apply the bowed base mod to Apogee it slightly etches in front but the issue is that such mod benefits quad core CPUs mainly and no so much dual cores even thought they have a 1-2C improvement according to Gabe from memory


I think it's also pertinent to mention that these results are valid for specific types of processors as Storm used to be king until C2D and quads rolled into town and different waterblock designs were once again more efficient




interesting result with that MCW6002 block...............i was always fond of those blocks i must say :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

When Cathar talked about being at the theoretical limit of cooling he meant without an IHS. The IHS creates a whole new ballgame.

---

yeah that's right.................today i realised that intel is also making CPUs with easily removable IHSs and not the epoxy method :) so it will be interesting if they continue that as Storm will once again be the best block if that happens unless the die size becomes too big

but even with IHSs onCPUs last year with AMD Storm wasn't taking a beating until intel

that's why i thought it should be mentioned that it is only since the new generation Intel chips that we have seen these changes


also another interesting development is occuring in air cooling. OCZ is moving towards a carbon/graphite based air cooler base which is supposed to have some amazing thermal properties (will have to wait and see about this claim) but it would be interesting to know whether same material could be used in waterblock designed

here are the two relevant threads on this material and cooling technique

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=137493

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=138253

:toast:

Okay, just want to carlify the finer points of my comments about the theoretical, but rather, the practical limitions of water-cooling, and what my comments were really about.

I was referring to the effective areal convection co-efficient given practical levels of pumping power and tubing as befits installation in a computer case. The comments still apply when IHS's are involved, but the differences seen between specific block implementations (i.e. Swiftech Storm vs some other blocks) is more of a matter of optimising for a set of scenarios, rather than invalidating the comments I made.

When we stick a waterblock on some heat source (CPU) the heat spreads through the copper of the waterblock base and is convected into the water flowing through the block. The heat spread through the copper can be calculated, and is termed as the "spreading resistance". Through measurement and some mathematics and some measure of estimation, we can define a waterblock's effective "cooling power" per unit of area that it is trying to cool in terms of watts per area per Kelvin, or W/m²K. We arrive at a value, typically between 10,000 and 120,000, and this is a measure of the effective water-metal convectional transfer rate, being an estimative mapping of the area that is being cooled (heat source contact area) onto water-cooling structure internal to the block's design.

I took to the time to measure and track the area cooling power of most of my block designs, as well as other designs, and it is really this that formed the basis upon how I determined whether one design was moving in the right direction. It is a unit of waterblock performance measurement that is independent of things like base irregularities, cooling patch size, base-plate thicknesses, IHS's, even the material out of which the waterblock is made out of. All those things are separate issues which can be controlled or optimised independently based upon the scenario in question. Ultimately, no block will perform well if its effective areal cooling power is crap, however it is very possible to have a block with a very high effective areal cooling power perform poorly if those variables are not a good match for the specific scenario at hand. This is precisely why we can observe designs with fantastic convectional efficiency perform worse than mediocre designs.

Warped pressure-sensitive IHS's on oddly dimensioned and/or multi-die cores was never in the design considerations of the Swiftech Storm, and it is for this reason that the specific implementation that was on sale doesn't perform as well as the design's convectional efficiency would suggest. It doesn't mean that the internal design is bad, it just means that all those external variables I mentioned above are significantly less than optimal for that scenario.

first time to see this wonderful thread

thanks for the good job

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by virtualrain

Kunaak (Fuzion vs Storm)
CPU: X3210 (quad core) OC to 3.6GHz@ 1.48V Vcore
WC Gear: MCP-655, Old BIX Extreme(?)
Test SW: Wprime
DT Results (Avg. from TAT): Fuzion = 42.9, Apogee GT = 52.8
Winner: Fuzion beats Storm by 9.9

---

the above quote needs to be corrected ;)

Well for my naked X2 3800 @ 2.9 with 1.62v the storm rev1 beat my apogee by 8c :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cupcake

Well for my naked X2 3800 @ 2.9 with 1.62v the storm rev1 beat my apogee by 8c :D

---

Very likely because your apogee was sitting on the socket cambox and not making contact with the CPU. I just tested a naked 165 (Toledo) and noticed the Apogee was sitting slightly on the cambox. Ground the plastic a tad (1mm) with a dremel, and load temps now sitting at 38C~40C at 2.7 & 1.6v

The issue with Storm always seems to have been not poor performance, or that it required a strong pump:
- From what we've seen in test after test, it still scores well (though not best) on dual and quad cores.
- A bad mount can make more difference than having a Storm or a FuZion
- The storm is fine with the pumps that everyone uses now

The Storm's problem is that it's restrictive and doesn't play as well in a multi-block loop as some other blocks.

The FuZion's main win is that it's very unrestrictive, and gains extra advantage in multi-block loops that are increasingly common (maybe).

Another issue with the Storm now is that it's getting a bit rare and expensive, as dealers aren't restocking it, and the price of blocks seems to be falling slightly while the Storm remains at an old price-point.

I was tempted to get one for my HTPC project, but the price put me off. I'll use the Apogee GT that's currently on my main machine when I rebuild ... which will be soon: FuZion and PAs arrived today!

So a question: are multi-block loops increasingly common? It seems logical now that GFX cards are becoming the main heat generator in a case that people will need to w/c that more than they did in the past.

I think with the CPU manufacturers still die-shrinking, and increasingly performance-per-watt driven as they are now, that we could start to see far more dual loops and even GFX only loops (with CPU on air) - and not for o/c but just to shut up those awful GFX card blowers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFrOuT

the above quote needs to be corrected ;)

---

Fixed! Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fossil

What all the tests seem to show is that your mount matters more than your choice of block. Maybe block manufacturers need to focus a lot more on mounting, particularly getting good mounts on dodgy IHS surfaces.

---

I agree... this was my conclusion as well.

What amazes me is that current water block solutions for Intel motherboards do NOT include any kind of backplate to stop the motherboard from warping or cracking under mounting pressure. How can you possibly get a good mount without a proper backing plate!?! :slap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fossil

The issue with Storm always seems to have been not poor performance, or that it required a strong pump:
- From what we've seen in test after test, it still scores well (though not best) on dual and quad cores.
- A bad mount can make more difference than having a Storm or a FuZion
- The storm is fine with the pumps that everyone uses now

The Storm's problem is that it's restrictive and doesn't play as well in a multi-block loop as some other blocks.

The FuZion's main win is that it's very unrestrictive, and gains extra advantage in multi-block loops that are increasingly common (maybe).

Another issue with the Storm now is that it's getting a bit rare and expensive, as dealers aren't restocking it, and the price of blocks seems to be falling slightly while the Storm remains at an old price-point.

I was tempted to get one for my HTPC project, but the price put me off. I'll use the Apogee GT that's currently on my main machine when I rebuild ... which will be soon: FuZion and PAs arrived today!

So a question: are multi-block loops increasingly common? It seems logical now that GFX cards are becoming the main heat generator in a case that people will need to w/c that more than they did in the past.

I think with the CPU manufacturers still die-shrinking, and increasingly performance-per-watt driven as they are now, that we could start to see far more dual loops and even GFX only loops (with CPU on air) - and not for o/c but just to shut up those awful GFX card blowers.

---

I don't understand what you mean by the Storm being expensive. On jab-tech, its only 55 bucks...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virtualrain:
What amazes me is that current water block solutions for Intel motherboards do NOT include any kind of backplate to stop the motherboard from warping or cracking under mounting pressure. How can you possibly get a good mount without a proper backing plate!?!

---

This is the answer: Companies such as Swiftech that respect/follow the thermal and mechanical design guidelines established by the chip makers do not HAVE to use a back plate simply because the clamping pressure of our cooling devices to the CPU are on specs and therefore do not pose a threat to the motherboard integrity.

We have observed a number of products available on the market right now that cause significant warpage to the area directly underneath the socket. This is due to the fact that these products use extra stiff springs, and do not include a safety mechanism in the mounting system to prevent users from clamping the devices above specs, and I will add that this is a common cause to motherboard instability and/or complete failure. One example I could use was the dramatic mishap that happened to us at the CES challenge which caused our EVGA board to die prematurely. This only happened because for convenience reasons (multiple mounts of various water-blocks) we did not use our stock mounting mechanism –which again IS safe.

The above being said, we have been conducting extensive research and testing since CES, and we do recognize the desirability of a back plate as a means to enhance the clamping pressure safely. As a result, we do have a back plate in production right now, and will hopefully be able to release it by the end of April. It will be included with all existing and upcoming swiftech water-blocks. I would like to take this opportunity to ask the members of this forum to appreciate the fact that this project was not as simple as it looks from the outside. In effect, since there is no specification for a back-plate in Intel's 775 motherboards, manufacturers have been free to place all kind of surface mount components at the back of their motherboards… and they obviously don’t put them at the same place! So if you use the wrong back plate you risk crushing the SMC’s and destroying your motherboard in the process. A good back plate then is one that will be compatible with the majority of the popular motherboards (read "overclockers" models) available today.

In conclusion all I can say at this time is that we do the best we can with the tools at hand, and hope that motherboard manufacturers will keep this particular problem in mind next time they release their newest and greatest!

A final word to all Apogee GT and GTX owners: when the back plate becomes available we will also offer it for free to all who will ask (proof of purchase required) for a period of 30 days after release of the product.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

A final word to all Apogee GT and GTX owners: when the back plate becomes available we will also offer it for free to all who will ask (proof of purchase required) for a period of 30 days after release of the product.

---

Hi mate

Is that the case with Australian customers as well?

Are you going to support the Apogee original customers? I have one of these kits with Apogee when it originally came out.
http://www.pccasegear.com/prod3048.htm

Cheers
Dino

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dinos22

Hi mate

Is that the case with Australian customers as well?

Are you going to support the Apogee original customers? I have one of these kits with Apogee when it originally came out.
http://www.pccasegear.com/prod3048.htm

Cheers
Dino

---

Outside of the US, local resellers and distributors receive allocations to distribute to their customers.

The product is compatible with the original Apogee water-block, but also Storm. The free 30 days offer applies to GT and GTX owners only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

A final word to all Apogee GT and GTX owners: when the back plate becomes available we will also offer it for free to all who will ask (proof of purchase required) for a period of 30 days after release of the product.

---

That's some great customer service right there. Not enough of that these days. Even though I'm a Fuzion user it almost makes me wish I had an Apogee. Thanks for setting a great example Gabe!!! :toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

That's some great customer service right there. Not enough of that these days. Even though I'm a Fuzion user it almost makes me wish I had an Apogee. Thanks for setting a great example Gabe!!! :toast:

---

Agreed! Thanks Gabe!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fossil

I think with the CPU manufacturers still die-shrinking, and increasingly performance-per-watt driven as they are now, that we could start to see far more dual loops and even GFX only loops (with CPU on air) - and not for o/c but just to shut up those awful GFX card blowers.

---

I agree.
For me WC is as much about securing GPU life by dispensing with those trouble prone little fans as it is about temp control.
Saving one vid card from fan induced early mortis makes WC a zero sum economic exchange.

Yep, i definitely respect that. Excellent move to support your customers.

wink wink nudge nudge to Dtek for a free backplate! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Budwise

wink wink nudge nudge to Dtek for a free backplate! ;)

---

I'll second that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

Outside of the US, local resellers and distributors receive allocations to distribute to their customers.

The product is compatible with the original Apogee water-block, but also Storm. The free 30 days offer applies to GT and GTX owners only.

---

i understand