My WB Testing Results, Excel file inside.

Alright guys, I think it goes without saying that testing just sucks. You get people trying to influence you from all angles, the work is tedious and boring. To tell you the truth I really lost interest as time went on - certain individuals made the whole thing 'un-fun'. I have no affiliation and don't stand to profit from any company or individual. I do want to thank those that sent water blocks, I want to thank Swiftech for their support and blocks (as well as the facility tour) and D-Tek for the blocks. Some tests you will note are either incomplete or do not have the 5 runs done. There are various reasons for this that I can outline for you. The Storm got 4 runs - it is getting ownd and I didn't see the point in continuing with it, 4 runs is all she can take. You will note the 4th storm test was done on the back end, this is due to the fact I switched from 3 tests to 5. Same goes for the MCW6002, 3 mounts for it. The important recent contenders are the Fuzion and the Apogee line as they currently lead the pack. The MP-05 LE got one mount, yeah I know but by this point I had enough - it is going to perform near identical to the Storm on an IHS 6600. You will see some nozzle testing of the fuzion as well - and a bowed fuzion with no nozzle. Interesting to say the least. And guess what? The Fuzion with the 4.5mm nozzle has LESS restriction than the Apogee GTX (thanks for that Alex!).

I'm sure you'll have questions, and my excel file is a mess.

If anyone is good at graphing in excel, please feel free to do something to make it look nice PLEASE. :)

I forgot to explain a bit about my testing procedures. First, the was all done with an Asus P5W-DH Deluxe and a E6600 Intel Core 2 Duo. The CPU was run at STOCK speed (2.4Ghz) but with 1.55v set in bios. Load temps were generated with TAT and temps were attained with TAT via the logging function. TAT takes a reading of each core every 2 seconds. Each cores readings are averaged, then the 2 averages are averaged to get a single average temp. FYI TAT generates MUCH more heat than any other load program period. It has been said that TAT is a 'power virus' and will actually get the chip to output about 20% more than Intel's TDC rating. Pump used was an Iwaki RD-30 at 18v, rad is a Thermochill HE (not PA!) 120.3 with 3 102 CFM sanyo denki fans in pull on a shroud. Fans for testing were always at 12v. A Swiftech micro res was used as well. Ambient air temps were taken and recorded every 10 minutes by the digital sensor in the test room. Water temps were taken by an identical sensor in the water. Only pure distilled water was used, no additives were used whatsoever. Thermal paste used for all tests was Arctic Ceramique and I use the 'dollop' method. D-tek mount hardware was used with ~50lbs of total mount pressure - plastic stops were used so every mount had the same amount of pressure. I tried to test when ambient temps were close, but this is not always possible without an environmental chamber which of course I do not have.

Here is a pic of the test setup:

http://www.anonforums.com/builds/tes...setup/full.jpg

*Edit for the dope graph courtesy of Marci! Seems he plotted each MOUNT, so we can easily see the mount variation of each run. VERY nice!

Awesome work Nikhsub. I was wondering where you think a G5 fits into?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chunkylover77

Awesome work Nikhsub. I was wondering where you think a G5 fits into?

---

I will test it, I've just been way too lazy and uninspired... Cathar said he was sending me a G7 to test... Stew????????????? :D

Pretty much what was expected but thanks for validating. The really intriguing results were the GTX bowed results and the 4.5mm nozzles on the Fuzion.

It seems to imply that the Fuzion is better overall due to requiring only a slight non-permanent mod to achieve similar if not better results than the bowed GTX.

As a little added support... Here's some pressure drop vs. flow data for the FuZion and Apogee GTX:

http://www.petrastech.com/YHST/images/CPU_PD.jpg

The differential pressure data was gathered using my Sper Scientific 840081 manometer (and their data acquisition software) and flowrate monitored and adjusted with a Key Instruments FR4L66BVBN (+/- 3% full-scale) flow meter. I realize that this sounds like quite a miss-match (+/-3% FS vs. +/-0.3% FS, manual "data acquisition" vs. automated acquisition and logging, etc.) but it's the best I have right now. To help make up for the inadequacies of the flowmeter, each data point on the graph represents the mean average of three non-consecutive trials. The "raw" pressure data that's on 'sheet 1' of the spreadsheet file shows the rounded max/min/mean/std. dev. output of the manometer's data logging software for each trial (again, 3 non-consecutive trials for each flowrate) and the mean result of each after three trials (the sheet titled 'FuZion' contains the graph, trend lines, etc.).

G7 is finally coming? Wish I could afford that baby.

Looks like I'm gonna need to get another WB soon. Thanks for all the hard work you put into this, nikhsub1. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

If anyone is good at graphing in excel, please feel free to do something to make it look nice PLEASE. :)

---

Is this what you were thinking of, Scott? (rounded mean average of your test runs)

http://www.petrastech.com/YHST/images/CPU_DT4.jpg

This is excellent stuff. Ive always wondered how far behind the modern blocks my MP-05 was. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petra

Is this what you were thinking of, Scott? (rounded mean average of your test runs)

Couple oddities... averaged, the FuZion 6.5mm nozzle data seems odd (borked mounts, perhaps?), wtf is the 'Apogee GT Hybrid', and I'm assuming that the 4.5mm nozzle tests were non-bowed (and that the bowed FuZion tests were with no add-in nozzle), yes?

---

I was hoping to have each mount in a graph, but that may be too busy? ROFL.

Actually, the 6.5 nozzle data should really be discarded... the nozzle was not inserted properly, made that mistake on the 4.5mm at first too. To clarify, the 6.5 nozzle is just the nozzle, the 4.5mm nozzle testing is with a PROPERLY inserted nozzle and the ek barb o-ring between top and mid plate - so this is nozzle + bow if you will. The 'bowed' fuzion is with no nozzle and just the oring. Now, the GT hybrid was something I had to try... I wanted to be certain that the better performance of the GTX was due to the deck height of the top and the diagonal flow arrangement and NOT due to the more square mount. I guess a picture is worth...

Oh and Alex, your Apogee GT Flat? in the graph is actually the GT bowed but mounted VERTICALLY and not horizontally... bout 1-1.5C better as you can see. Gabe mentioned that on the GT with a DUAL CORE (single die) it matters which way the water flows.

http://www.anonforums.com/builds/tes...on/apogee1.jpg

nice work...*-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Gabe mentioned that on the GT with a DUAL CORE (single die) it matters which way the water flows.

---

what about quad core?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

I was hoping to have each mount in a graph, but that may be too busy? ROFL.

---

Well, if you did a separate graph for each set of results, then it wouldn't be too bad... you'd just have a lot of graphs.

Quote:

---

Actually, the 6.5 nozzle data should really be discarded... the nozzle was not inserted properly, made that mistake on the 4.5mm at first too. To clarify, the 6.5 nozzle is just the nozzle, the 4.5mm nozzle testing is with a PROPERLY inserted nozzle and the ek barb o-ring between top and mid plate - so this is nozzle + bow if you will. The 'bowed' fuzion is with no nozzle and just the oring. Now, the GT hybrid was something I had to try... I wanted to be certain that the better performance of the GTX was due to the deck height of the top and the diagonal flow arrangement and NOT due to the more square mount.

---

Chart updated accordingly....

Quote:

---

Oh and Alex, your Apogee GT Flat? in the graph is actually the GT bowed but mounted VERTICALLY and not horizontally...

---

The Apogee GT (bowed, vertical) is/was already on the chart... You have a set of tests that are labeled "Apogee GTX" (between the bowed FuZion test and the last 4.5mm nozzle test) that I'm assuming are of a stock/flat GTX, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petra

The Apogee GT (bowed, vertical) is/was already on the chart... You have a set of tests that are labeled "Apogee GTX" (between the bowed FuZion test and the last 4.5mm nozzle test) that I'm assuming are of a stock/flat GTX, no?

---

Yes sorry you are correct... 2 mounts of the 'flat' GTX. As you can see, the performance is well... so that is why I didn't bother to continue...

@ rdmty - I don't have a quad core and I have no interest in rerunning these tests for quad ATM.

Interesting. In my own testing, a single 3/16" nozzle (4.76mm), was found to be optimal for the initial Storm/G1 prototype (single jet) in terms of trading off volumetric flow for jet velocity with typical pumps. It worked out to be just a slight touch better than 4.5mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cathar

Interesting. In my own testing, a single 3/16" nozzle (4.76mm), was found to be optimal for the initial Storm/G1 prototype (single jet) in terms of trading off volumetric flow for jet velocity with typical pumps. It worked out to be just a slight touch better than 4.5mm.

---

Very well could be... cause right around 4.5mm seems to be the spot.

Thanks for the work, good to see some hard results! :up: A few questions...

Was the CPU lapped?

FWIW, my 'flat' Fuzion actually has a slight bow to it when checking contact patterns using Coolaboratory LM under light pressure on my lapped CPU, so I am wondering if the better temperature results of the 'flat' Fuzion and bowed Fuzion along with the bowed Apogee are a result of block design or simply better contact with the center of an unlapped CPU.

Do you have any results of a 'flat' Fuzion with the 4.5 mm nozzle to compare?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Very well could be... cause right around 4.5mm seems to be the spot.

---

The RD-30 favored slightly smaller jet sizes 'cos of its high head and moderate flow, so that's why it'd be working well. Various other pumps with less pressure need that slightly larger nozzle diameter to find the right balance, whereas the RD-30 really doesn't care so much. It's more a case of finding the "plateau" that's broad enough to cater for a variety of pumps. Doing research based on the RD-30 is prone to skew things to the more overly restrictive side of the coin, 'cos the RD-30 will just push on through restriction more easily than most pumps will.

As for the G7, I'd been housebound up until this week. Am now able to limp around with a single crutch now that the leg cast is off, and am able to drive a car again. It's a little painful (not on any painkillers which is a good thing), and I'm going to head to the machinists today to modify a Rev0 G7 prototype base-plate for you. I'll then conduct some testing of it against the Swiftech Storm, to ensure that the base-plate modifications are doing their thing properly, and assuming it all goes well, I'll send it your way. Gimme another 3 weeks or so for all that to happen. It's not the latest G7 prototype, but it'll give an idea.

If only you had published thi two days ago. Oh well now I ordered the GTX and it is heading for bowing. I am really curious anyway how much better than my original Apogee it will be.

those deltas hurt my eyes!!!

basically that is what WCing will be stuck with until the IHS heat issues are resolved?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Very well could be... cause right around 4.5mm seems to be the spot.

---

Hey Nihk,

Can you provide a small little guide on how to install everything that's needed to achieve your end product of a bowed Fuzion with 4.5mm nozzles (and what/where to purchase)? I'd appreciate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ranker

Hey Nihk,

Can you provide a small little guide on how to install everything that's needed to achieve your end product of a bowed Fuzion with 4.5mm nozzles (and what/where to purchase)? I'd appreciate it.

---

yeah copy that soldier. i want to know too. for the bow isnt it just an EK barb O-ring though? but what about the nozzle?

Awesome, this is exactly what I have been looking for. Thanks for the work nikhsub1, it is greatly appreciated :)

So if I am not into bowing then the Fuzion is my choice... which I already have anyway. When gabe finishes his limited edition copper top for the GTX I will still pick it up and try it out.

What are these nozzles? Are they something you have done yourself or can you buy them?

First to answer the question about my cpu, it is UNLAPPED...

@Cathar - send that badboy over!!!! I still need to test the G5 on my test bed but that means ripping it out of my work machine... i gotta change tubing on it soon anyway so...


Here is where the ek barb oring goes - keep in mind this is a ONE WAY STREET!!! You bow any of these blocks and there is no going back! Yes the fuzion is slightly bowed (convex) from D-Tek - this makes it more pronounced and gives a bigger mount variation too - mount several times to find the sweet spot. The nozzles were prototypes made by D-Tek and sent to me - Danny keeps saying that they are in production (the nozzles) and should be ready to go. Email him and bug him, IDK why it is taking him so long.

http://www.anonforums.com/builds/tes...zion_oring.jpg

Nozzles - 4.5mm installed with 6.5mm and 7mm on desk.

http://www.anonforums.com/builds/fuz...ilinstall2.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

@ rdmty - I don't have a quad core and I have no interest in rerunning these tests for quad ATM.

---

Oops was just wondering if Gabe said anything about the mounting direction for quad cores.


When you say mounting the GT vertically as opposed to horizontally, do you mean the in/outlets should be on top of each other rather than to the left/right of each other?


Thanks for the results btw! (makes me want a fuzion now)

This is excellent work nik as usual. It had to be very tedious with that many blocks x mounts and test data. :clap: :clap:

The test done with a DDC and a D5 would be very interesting to compare blocks performance.

I wonder if these nozzles would give the same performance gain with a Quad Core?

Wow, that's how testing should be done. Kudos to all your hard work, it is very much appreciated!:up: :up:

crap:bsod: ..figures..I go and buy a GTX and low and behold a Fuzion performs better at least on dual core...quad core will be interesting..wonder if the larger die will allow a bowed GTX to equal the Fuzion(bowed with 4.5 nozzle)

crap:bsod: ..figures..I go and buy a GTX and low and behold a Fuzion performs better at least on dual core...quad core will be interesting..wonder if the larger die will allow a bowed GTX to equal the Fuzion(bowed with 4.5 nozzle)

Great work and thanks for your efforts

BTW...lucky dog getting at least a G7 prototype to try:slobber:

Nice testing, keep up the good work :)

Thank you for this work. It's greatly appreciated.

great worklog...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nealh

Great work and thanks for your efforts

---

+1 :up:

Bump for the new graph in the first post.

Good to see affect of mount exemplified - good / bad mount can account for upto 2.5 degree swing in temps in either direction... effectively negating benefits of one block over another... ie: a good mount on a bowed GTX would beat a bad mount on a nozzle-bowed FuZion and viceversa... average difference between the two assuming average mounts allround is approx 1 degree in the FuZion's favour...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marci

Good to see affect of mount exemplified - good / bad mount can account for upto 2.5 degree swing in temps in either direction... effectively negating benefits of one block over another... ie: a good mount on a bowed GTX would beat a bad mount on a nozzle-bowed FuZion and viceversa... average difference between the two assuming average mounts allround is approx 1 degree in the FuZion's favour...

---

Actually no, even the worst mount of the bowed/nozzle fuzion recorded better than the best mount of the bowed GTX, of course not by much at all.

One thing to note, bowed bases tend to be more inconsistent in regards to mount variation - it should be obvious as to why.

Depends whether you consider 5 mounts to be "enough". Could be you had one REALLY bad GTX mounts, and 4 reasonable mounts, but no REALLY good mounts, whereas with the fuzion bowed with nozzle you got one REALLY good mount, and 4 reasonable mounts, and no really bad mounts... if u get my drift? Is the sample size enough to cover the potential mounting variances...

I'd like to see (entirely up to you of course) a lengthier set of testing concentrating on these two blocks (and poss G7 if it falls near / within these two in the overall mix), consisting of 10 to 20 mounts possibly... just to show max possible variance between mounts (ignore flat bases as it's much easier to get good mount with them)... use torque wrench with GatorGrip and replace thumbscrew with a suitable nut to get a representation of mounting torque? Or are we heading too far down ProC roads...?

Marci what you propose would not be fun :D I believe that with the 5 mounts a trend has been established... I also think that if we performed 100 mounts of each the current trend with the 5 mounts would continue. Maybe if I get bored...

Heh... definitely not fun... no

Bring on a bowed Fuzion with nozzle :)

Went to machinists yesterday, and asked to get a new top made up for the incomplete G7. They had apparently backed up all my block data onto a CD, but something had gone wrong, and the CD didn't have my data on it, and all the original mastercam plans were gone.

i.e. the machinists have lost all the Mastercam work for all of my blocks and we're back to the paper plans again. :rolleyes:

Oh well, what they lost wasn't like to get made again anyway, but it'll take a couple of extra weeks to get the G7 top made up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cathar

Went to machinists yesterday, and asked to get a new top made up for the incomplete G7. They had apparently backed up all my block data onto a CD, but something had gone wrong, and the CD didn't have my data on it, and all the original mastercam plans were gone.

i.e. the machinists have lost all the Mastercam work for all of my blocks and we're back to the paper plans again. :rolleyes:

Oh well, what they lost wasn't like to get made again anyway, but it'll take a couple of extra weeks to get the G7 top made up.

---

poop... a lot of work that mastercam is... well... coudl be a LOT worse... lol

is this the o-ring used to bow the fuzion?
http://www.petrastechshop.com/ekthspforg1f.html

Very methodical testing nik...obviously a great expenditure of your time and effort. Test bench looks very slick too. :up:

Is the D-Tek nozzle for sale ?

Not in shops yet, as they say.

Marci
Racing sidecars is fun.
Slaving over multiple block mounts is purgatory.

Don't you like Nik'?


:rofl:

im willing to bet the data to be different on a quadcore.

i wish you had one to test on. :\

Reason why im saying this is becuase of core locaiton and the fact a quadcore is dual die stacked next to each other. There is a much larger cooling area required on the Quads vs a Dual Core.

This is also the reason why i think a block thats ment to cool a 52mm TEC would perform better. The GTX can support a 52mm TEC, while the Fusion cant.

So if I knock 5º off these numbers I'd have a ball park predictor of these blocks on a E6600 with a PA120.3 loop?
The only info I've for comparing HE and PA120.3 seems to point to about five degrees performance difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaeKuh

im willing to bet the data to be different on a quadcore.

---

You will have an answer for that soon. Fuzion will support quad cores with no problems (and I am no fanboy of D-Tek or Swiftech).

Jay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaeKuh

Reason why im saying this is becuase of core locaiton and the fact a quadcore is dual die stacked next to each other. There is a much larger cooling area required on the Quads vs a Dual Core.

---

Maybe there will be future dual die designs but it is the exception not the rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

First to answer the question about my cpu, it is UNLAPPED...

@Cathar - send that badboy over!!!! I still need to test the G5 on my test bed but that means ripping it out of my work machine... i gotta change tubing on it soon anyway so...


Here is where the ek barb oring goes - keep in mind this is a ONE WAY STREET!!! You bow any of these blocks and there is no going back! Yes the fuzion is slightly bowed (convex) from D-Tek - this makes it more pronounced and gives a bigger mount variation too - mount several times to find the sweet spot. The nozzles were prototypes made by D-Tek and sent to me - Danny keeps saying that they are in production (the nozzles) and should be ready to go. Email him and bug him, IDK why it is taking him so long.

http://www.anonforums.com/builds/tes...zion_oring.jpg

Nozzles - 4.5mm installed with 6.5mm and 7mm on desk.

http://www.anonforums.com/builds/fuz...ilinstall2.jpg

---

where did you get the nozzles? Thanks ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdelong

where did you get the nozzles? Thanks ;)

---

He Said, from Dtek, they are prototypes.

Wow man thanks for the results.
Benching and testing for others can become quite tiresome but I'm sure i'm not the only one that really appreciates your effort.
Would love to see some quad results on the fuzion. I myself am getting a quad in and would be happy to test but don't have any other comparable water blocks :(
Do you think a bowed fuzion would be better or worse than stock on a quad considering the larger surface area required to be covered. Same question goes for the nozzle i spose as it reducing the cooling patch.

Thanks a lot for all the tests!

I have built a number of loops now with the FuZion on Quad and it works great.

TBH I like the Apogee better the Apogee GTX Bowed or unBowed and just can't get excited about the GTX and it's finicky need for multiple mounting to get it right. Not real crazy about the construction or the finish or the restriction of the GTX either. I found that with a low flow pump like the db-1 the GTX does not work as well as the FuZion all other factors being equal.

Right now I have on Quad rig with GTX and one with FuZion and am perfectly happy with either...but the FuZion is cooling a bit better .

How do you bow the fuzion exactly? I don't see that it comes with any other seal like the GT/GTX does. I think I'm going to order one tomorrow morning.

Thanks,
Jared

someone tell me how to bow a fuzion and where can i buy what i need to do it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by louie101086

someone tell me how to bow a fuzion and where can i buy what i need to do it

---

Grab any extra o-ring you have lying around. For a smaller bow, use an EK o-ring. For a more significant bow, use a Swiftech o-ring. If you don't have any extra, order some from Petra's, Swiftech, or even some generic ones from McMasters.

Now, you'll notice that your Fuzion, when unscrewed, breaks down into basically 3 chambers. The delrin top, the delrin chamber, and the copper base.

http://www.anonforums.com/builds/tes...zion_oring.jpg

You want to place the o-ring on top of the circle of the delrin chamber. It will sit between the delrin chamber and the delrin top. Now screw everything back together while keeping the o-ring in place. You'll now have bowed your block.

EK/D-tek o-ring's = moderate bow
Swiftech o-ring = significant bow

Like Nikhsub1 said, once you bow, there's no going back.

why no going back

so nikhsub, reffering to the graph, it looks like on the second mount of each plot, something significant happened...any clue why the data for mount 2 are so different? or is the X axis flowrate?


great job though, cant wait for the G5 results just for kicks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Senater_Cache

so nikhsub, reffering to the graph, it looks like on the second mount of each plot, something significant happened...any clue why the data for mount 2 are so different? or is the X axis flowrate?


great job though, cant wait for the G5 results just for kicks.

---

Mount 2, meh IDK, it is what it is. I am testing the revised enzotech block now. My theory is shaping up, Cathar nailed it a while back but I never read it... all flat blocks are limited, they all fall into the (in my graph) 27-30C deltaT range. The Enzotech is no different... Once I show my modded block results to the world we will likely see a different direction in WB's. I predict the Storm will once again rule the roost. As for the G5, will likely fall in the same 27-30C deltaT range... unless I mod it too. I will if the mod proves worthwhile :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Mount 2, meh IDK, it is what it is. I am testing the revised enzotech block now. My theory is shaping up, Cathar nailed it a while back but I never read it... all flat blocks are limited, they all fall into the (in my graph) 27-30C deltaT range. The Enzotech is no different... Once I show my modded block results to the world we will likely see a different direction in WB's. I predict the Storm will once again rule the roost. As for the G5, will likely fall in the same 27-30C deltaT range... unless I mod it too. I will if the mod proves worthwhile :D

---

Has there been any experimenting with ultra thin base thicknesses?

Seems like the base thickness currently is more for rigidity than thermal gathering of the pins.

I'm waiting for some tooling to show up at my front door, but I'm thinking there is some benefit there also..


Also regarding the stepdown, if it's made really small like the size of the actual die under the IHS, I bet it's going to be really tricky trying to get the block on there flat. Probably need the assistance of a foam surround or something like idicators on the four bolts to ensure even adjustment. I could see someone cranking the block on there where only the bottom edge is making contact.

man , o man nikhsub you are making my mouth water with that prediction. optimistic as it may be, I am 100% ready to let the storm rip again !.

hurry up machinists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

Also regarding the stepdown, if it's made really small like the size of the actual die under the IHS, I bet it's going to be really tricky trying to get the block on there flat. Probably need the assistance of a foam surround or something like idicators on the four bolts to ensure even adjustment. I could see someone cranking the block on there where only the bottom edge is making contact.

---

maybe some sort of "gasket" can be supplied using uniformly and easily compressable material (think the "dots" on old naked Athlons), it could just stay on there after mounting. idk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Here is where the ek barb oring goes - keep in mind this is a ONE WAY STREET!!! You bow any of these blocks and there is no going back! Yes the fuzion is slightly bowed (convex) from D-Tek - this makes it more pronounced and gives a bigger mount variation too - mount several times to find the sweet spot. The nozzles were prototypes made by D-Tek and sent to me - Danny keeps saying that they are in production (the nozzles) and should be ready to go. Email him and bug him, IDK why it is taking him so long.

---

The EK-Barb-Oring goes where? into the middle, where the D-Tek washer is placed? :confused:

I have received my Nozzle-Kit with the washer. the washer is placed like the manual describes and the quadnozzle is also installed, as described to lead the water over the 2 dualcores.
That actually did not really bow the D-tek did it? It is to thin to bow anything.

But my nozzle did around 2-3°C.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peebee

The EK-Barb-Oring goes where? into the middle, where the D-Tek washer is placed? :confused:

I have received my Nozzle-Kit with the washer. the washer is placed like the manual describes and the quadnozzle is also installed, as described to lead the water over the 2 dualcores.
That actually did not really bow the D-tek did it? It is to thin to bow anything.

But my nozzle did around 2-3°C.

---

The washer seals the bypassing of water through the gap. Actually I think a good portion of the 2-3C folks are noting is actually the sealing of the block with the washer and the nozzle only helps a smaller portion of that.

When I first put a custom nozzle in mine I only saw about 1C, but then I added a washer and gained 2-3C more. The nozzle probably makes it even more important to seal that gap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peebee

The EK-Barb-Oring goes where? into the middle, where the D-Tek washer is placed? :confused:

I have received my Nozzle-Kit with the washer. the washer is placed like the manual describes and the quadnozzle is also installed, as described to lead the water over the 2 dualcores.
That actually did not really bow the D-tek did it? It is to thin to bow anything.

But my nozzle did around 2-3°C.

---

I had the same question. It seems my fuzion is slightly bowed with the washer and nozzle installed. I'll not touch it until I have some performance numbers with it.

Did anyone ever figure out if bowing has an effect on Quads?

Thanks,

Utnorris

The block is already bowed a bit so increasing the bowing has not much effect. It's the sealing of the gap between the top and middle chamber which account for the improvements.

That's why the Fuzion nozzles kit is released with a washer to seal this. Even if you use just the washer, you can see 1-2C improvement.