D-Tek+All Nozzle kit Vs EK Supreme+Option Accelerate Plate Tested (56k Warning!)

http://www.overclockzone.com/zolkorn...Untitled-1.jpg

Hello everyone,

From last week on i received Supreme Option Accelerate Plate from Eddy, Thanks very much for it :up: so after i received i just testing it instant and compare with D-Tek FuZion v1+all nozzle kit too :)

For the method and device on tested it same all first time is i posted here from this link >> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...hlight=roundup but i change only one on thermal compound from MX-2 to normal compound and this time i only tested one time of mount because i haven't much time :( but i think it to be satisfied level with results notwithstanding it not 100% sure :)

Point of today it'll on EK Supreme Option Accelerate Plate as it have six type of design, but i met something is different from my 3x Supreme on Stock plate
http://www.overclockzone.com/zolkorn...k/IMG_5133.jpg
well on first Supreme is i order it come with white box of package plate in side it's " Stock plate " in the picture but on second and third by order it come with new package design for plate in side it's " #6 style " in the picture, OKay on testing to day i used the first from order and for plate #2 to #6 it'll option for me, hope everyone will understand is i try to told :)
http://www.overclockzone.com/zolkorn...k/IMG_5046.jpg

On testing system
http://www.overclockzone.com/zolkorn...k/IMG_5044.jpg
CPU on testing is QX6700@3.6GHz, 1.650V bios set, 1.600V windows idle, 1.695V windows full load :eek:

http://www.overclockzone.com/zolkorn...k/IMG_4981.jpg
Ambient i measure air before flow in radiator

http://www.overclockzone.com/zolkorn...k/IMG_4976.jpg
style is i smear of thermal compound on the IHS :D

http://www.overclockzone.com/zolkorn..._dtek/test.png
http://www.overclockzone.com/zolkorn...k/d-tek4.5.png
20 minute burn of CPU for full load temperature and used idle temperature after burned

http://www.overclockzone.com/zolkorn...k/IMG_5042.jpg
Test results...

bowed checking after mount we can see distinct between Supreme and D-Tek who is more than bowed :) (on mount have a back-plate)

D-Tek
http://www.overclockzone.com/zolkorn...k/IMG_4980.jpg
http://www.overclockzone.com/zolkorn...k/IMG_4974.jpg

Supreme
http://www.overclockzone.com/zolkorn...k/IMG_5045.jpg
http://www.overclockzone.com/zolkorn...k/IMG_5039.jpg
http://www.overclockzone.com/zolkorn...k/IMG_5040.jpg

Temperature Results

Core Temp Measure(min/max from log file) - degrees Celsius ( ํC)
http://www.overclockzone.com/zolkorn...tek/Clip_3.png

CPU IHS Measure - degrees Celsius ( ํC)
http://www.overclockzone.com/zolkorn...tek/Clip_2.png

Average Temperature from Core Temp log file on full load (20min)
http://www.overclockzone.com/zolkorn..._dtek/Clip.png
sorry for hard of looking on this graph because i haven't other ideal on it but need to sharing it :p:

for more picture >>> Here
------------------
btw. if next time i can find some free time on my work i'll testing it again on 4.5mm, 5.5mm, #2, #3 and Stock plate by multi mount for make sure of results :)

ps. sorry for not good English :D

Specials Thanks.... Eddy for Supreme option plate on tested :)

Best regards
ZoLKoRn

So it seems the optional plates all just decrease performance in your case?

Great work, thanks for posting!:up:

It's interesting to see how you also didn't seem to gain much with the nozzles, if anything it was worse than stock.

This also seems to indicate these microchannel blocks are doing really welll with quad cores. That makes sense to me because the flow is spread out better.

Hmm, now I know what is wrong with my EK, it isnt bowed at all and the performance is worse than a 6002. Also, zolkorn how old is that d-tek? That base seems totally flat which is no doubt why performance is no good. I'm wondering if it hasn't been flattened out from use. Very odd results that we are seeing.

Awesome job, this is the kind of review on the supreme I have been looking for

very precise tests :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cupcake

Awesome job, this is the kind of review on the supreme I have been looking for

very precise tests :D

---

Except i think there is something wrong with the test altogether, I mean, that fuzion is flat as can be. Same as the ek I've got which I wont release cause there is a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Except i think there is something wrong with the test altogether, I mean, that fuzion is flat as can be. Same as the ek I've got which I wont release cause there is a problem.

---

It's the other variable, the manufacturing one.

I have two sets of pressure drop tests now of the exact same product, they are never exactly the same. That or the base just isn't as tight as I normally tighten mine. With a lapped IHS and stock fuzion, I get a nice clear bowed looking center, it probably depends on how concaved the IHS is stock too.

I've tested two block exactly the same block and two radiators that were exactly the same radiator, yet pressure drop tests were slightly different.

BTW, I'm running the V2 with a thicker EK o-ring now to see if there is any gain with even more bow. I believe in the end, there is no gain with a lapped IHS. That or the TIM used makes the difference...not sure.

I think the supreme does it's best on quads and even better with really strong pumps..:shrug:

Yeah but 10C? I don't buy it... something borked with that D-tek base, i can see it, its FLAT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Except i think there is something wrong with the test altogether, I mean, that fuzion is flat as can be. Same as the ek I've got which I wont release cause there is a problem.

---

From what i remember the Supreme is bowed :confused:

Did you lap your IHS zolkorn?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Yeah but 10C? I don't buy it... something borked with that D-tek base, i can see it, its FLAT.

---

I see what you're looking it, it does seem to be apply pressure at the perimeter.

ZoLKoRn looking at your results from this testing compared to the previous one there seems to be an inconsistency of results between fuzion vs supreme..the difference in this test is by far greater than in the previous one:shocked:

am i missing something in the test method here or could it be because it was only 1 mount?

anyway nice to see how the nozzle results compare to martins

thanks for the testing mate...

something seems off .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aspire.comptech

So it seems the optional plates all just decrease performance in your case?

---

hmm about that i think :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

Great work, thanks for posting!:up:

It's interesting to see how you also didn't seem to gain much with the nozzles, if anything it was worse than stock.

This also seems to indicate these microchannel blocks are doing really welll with quad cores. That makes sense to me because the flow is spread out better.

---

Yep, it make astonished to me too :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Hmm, now I know what is wrong with my EK, it isnt bowed at all and the performance is worse than a 6002. Also, zolkorn how old is that d-tek? That base seems totally flat which is no doubt why performance is no good. I'm wondering if it hasn't been flattened out from use. Very odd results that we are seeing.

---

Yes d-tek it flat of base but it not to be necessary is flat will better than bowed all time, and my d-tek 8 month in side it very clean :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Giannis86

ZoLKoRn looking at your results from this testing compared to the previous one there seems to be an inconsistency of results between fuzion vs supreme..the difference in this test is by far greater than in the previous one:shocked:

am i missing something in the test method here or could it be because it was only 1 mount?

anyway nice to see how the nozzle results compare to martins

---

Yah it not inconsistency on the previous one maybe because this time i change thermal compound from MX-2 to normal white compound and from only 1 mount too

Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by disruptfam

thanks for the testing mate...

something seems off .

---

hmm... i'll testing it again but not all nozzle and all plate, on my ideal i'll testing only 4.5mm, 5.5mm ,Stock plate and 2slot plate and i'll multi mount of setup too :)

---------
Thanks everyone for comment and i'll reform to next time

personally i dont see the point of doing the same test again..your previous round looked very good and informative.

if i were you i would retest the nozzles with a more powerful pump (or maybe 2 ddcs in series). Seeing how restrictive the nozzles are they should benefit at higher flow rates. Only problem is the added heat from a second pump, which should be compensated by the increase in flow (hopefully:D )

Can you shrink the pictures a bit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZoLKoRn

Yes d-tek it flat of base but it not to be necessary is flat will better than bowed all time, and my d-tek 8 month in side it very clean :)

---

Yeah, your Fuzion has been flattened... this shows the importance of bowing (or stepping) as my EK block seems totally flat and the performance shows it. As a tester you always have to question your OWN results. I know there is something borked with my EK, just as I know something is borked with your Fuzion. The difference is, I recognize this and don't release results that are out of the 'norm'. People will see your above test and do the whole; "OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!??? teh EK is teh bomb and teh Fuzions is teh suxors!". You should have realized at your roughly 10c difference that perhaps there was a problem?

try with the pump feeding the block first not the rad

Something has to be wrong for the Supreme to beat the FuZion by such a large margin. Why did you change TIM during the testing, MX-2 is a proven product?

Microchannels are the future I tell you ^^ (I'm into watercooling research here at our local university, they study it intensively in cooperation with some manufacturers. They say that they have only scratched the surface on the potential of microchannels but that it already outperforms jets. )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Hmm, now I know what is wrong with my EK, it isnt bowed at all and the performance is worse than a 6002. Also, zolkorn how old is that d-tek? That base seems totally flat which is no doubt why performance is no good. I'm wondering if it hasn't been flattened out from use. Very odd results that we are seeing.

---

*sigh*

ive been trying to tell you that your EK is borked scott. :shrug:


Also why dont people test these blocks with dual pumps. Guys the accelerators on the EK and D-tek was designed around high pressure pumps. Dual DDC-3.2 OR IWAKI RD-30 @ 18-21V for pinicle performance.

But then again, you guys can all just ignore me until someone does a test to prove i was right again on this area. :ROTF:

I was wondering. When y'all refer to "bowing" are you referring to physically bending the metal around the block?
If so, how are you bending them?

Thanks.

breezyjr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaeKuh

*sigh*

ive been trying to tell you that your EK is borked scott. :shrug:

---

With due respect, you didn't have to tell me that it is borked, I knew and know it is, now however, after seeing his imprint on the EK, my EK is most definitely FLAT. Eddy is already upset with me so I doubt he will send me another block... the WHOLE POINT OF MY COMMENTARY HERE is the fact that I knew something was wrong with the block and did NOT publish numbers on it. Now, would that be fair to anyone if I did? I think if ZoLKoRn were a 'mench' (it's a yiddish term, google it) he would pull this and request or attain a new V1 fuzion and retest it. Just to clarify here, I am NOT questioning the numbers that ZoLKoRn recorded, meaning I don't think he lied or fudged it, I am questioning (as should he) the integrity of the base of the Fuzion.

You don't see huge differences in performance between different blocks on an IHS unless one is flat, and the other bowed or stepped, its just a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaeKuh

Also why dont people test these blocks with dual pumps. Guys the accelerators on the EK and D-tek was designed around high pressure pumps. Dual DDC-3.2 OR IWAKI RD-30 @ 18-21V for pinicle performance.

But then again, you guys can all just ignore me until someone does a test to prove i was right again on this area. :ROTF:

---

So how many people actually own a RD-30 for a watercooling setup? Very little. Test results with these pumps might be interesting, but you're looking for a setup that'd apply to what most watercoolers would go with.

ZoLKoRn, I think your test results are interesting as they differ from what the general expectancy is. Good effort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xavior

So how many people actually own a RD-30 for a watercooling setup? Very little. Test results with these pumps might be interesting, but you're looking for a setup that'd apply to what most watercoolers would go with.

ZoLKoRn, I think your test results are interesting as they differ from what the general expectancy is. Good effort.

---

yeah but this was a nozzle comparison :D
zolkorn did another test without the nozzles..personally i liked that one more. The differences seem to be more precise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

With due respect, you didn't have to tell me that it is borked, I knew and know it is, now however, after seeing his imprint on the EK, my EK is most definitely FLAT. Eddy is already upset with me so I doubt he will send me another block... the WHOLE POINT OF MY COMMENTARY HERE is the fact that I knew something was wrong with the block and did NOT publish numbers on it. Now, would that be fair to anyone if I did? I think if ZoLKoRn were a 'mench' (it's a yiddish term, google it) he would pull this and request or attain a new V1 fuzion and retest it. Just to clarify here, I am NOT questioning the numbers that ZoLKoRn recorded, meaning I don't think he lied or fudged it, I am questioning (as should he) the integrity of the base of the Fuzion.

You don't see huge differences in performance between different blocks on an IHS unless one is flat, and the other bowed or stepped, its just a fact.

---

Scott, we all appreciate your experience and rigorous testing. It takes the right mix of perseverance and being freaking anal to get it done right. But, I am unclear. Do you mean that testers should keep trying blocks until they find one that works like they think it should? If that's what you mean, then I think that there is less integrity in that than if you just get a block, test it, and post the results.

I see what you're saying, and I agree that all of the results we see around the web must be looked at with a bit of sobriety and suspicion. But, I don't think that we should cherry-pick blocks to test by finding the one with the exact amount of bow, etc (and would the right amount of bow depend on the state of your IHS? Thicker/thinner solder, lapping, etc. could all affect that maybe?).

Yeah, I agree.

We shouldn't be afraid to publish results here regardless of testing methods used. I think we're all a little overly critical in the "Hobby", the truth is there are just way too many variables to completely isolate performance on a set test method.

The best thing you can do with variables and statistics is MORE NUMBER, MORE TESTING, and MORE TESTERS. While I really like the "5 mount method", I don't think people should hold back results for a single mount. If we had 5 people chip in and run 5 single mount tests, you've got essentially the same thing. CPU testing is extremely boring!! If I didn't have my crystalfontz to do the work for me, I wouldn't do it...

The only real solution to determining block performance specs would be for manufacturers coming together and agreeing on a c/w testing method and posting their results THEMSELVES! They would have to AGREE to a very defined method and do so for every processor type out there. But that'll never happen, so you get what you pay for and I have yet to see anyone get paid for testing....the best you can do is get some free parts out of the deal. But even with that you have to have a passion to doing work to help other people.

We don't have that, so we're stuck with helping each other out and the last thing we should do is discourage more testing.

My 2c...how about some more testing, I appreciate anyone's testing and always learn something from it so...keep it up!!..:)

I think there's something wrong with my Fuzion v1 too. I get a 27 degree celsius difference from idle to load on an E6850 with 1.5 vcore (no vdroop).

Is there a way to bow the block if it's flat? It already has the washer and a nozzle.

I have the exact same setup on a s939 system with a Storm instead of Fuzion and it has a 10-12 degree delta from idle to load on an Opteron 165 with 1.57 vcore.

1.5V vcore is pretty high for a core architecture chip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

With due respect, you didn't have to tell me that it is borked, I knew and know it is,

---

:up:

It just you still kept doubting my comment about the EK. Ive been telling people from the start its a better block on quadcores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xavior

So how many people actually own a RD-30 for a watercooling setup? Very little. Test results with these pumps might be interesting, but you're looking for a setup that'd apply to what most watercoolers would go with.

ZoLKoRn, I think your test results are interesting as they differ from what the general expectancy is. Good effort.

---

Quite a bit. And i know quite a bit who double up on pumps, and i also know quite a bit who own both setups. Me being one of them. :yepp:

You can ask martin directly, everything thats being proved right now, ive been telling him.

Add more pressure on that block, and it will pull ahead of the d-tek by a larger margin.

Once you exceed the 22-23V on the RD-30, you'll lose performance due to the added heat dump by the pump. :\


ZolKoRn, dont get me wrong, i thank you for your test. You answered a question i had tho, how would the ek go against the v2 fusions. :T

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by headala

But, I am unclear. Do you mean that testers should keep trying blocks until they find one that works like they think it should? If that's what you mean, then I think that there is less integrity in that than if you just get a block, test it, and post the results.

---

No that is not what I mean. I'll try to explain better. I knew from various sources that the EK block performs well, close to or better than a STOCK Fuzion. Ok, with that bit of knowledge I mount my EK block and do a run. The numbers are BAD. Like, worse than any other block I've tested. OK, I think, hmm maybe it's the horrible mount hitting the MOBO mosfet sinks. Petra's sends me a 775 mount for the block. Put the 775 mount on to make sure the other mount was not the issue. Retest. Same thing, terrible. Remount. Same thing, awful. At this point, I call Alex asking him is he has any ideas. He says, "Have revalidated your testbed with a known block?". Hmm, obviously he is smarter than me, so I retest the test fuzion I've got and it checks out where it should. OK, what should I do? What does this tell me? This tells me the EK is BORKED and it can't be published.

By no means to I think testers should cherry pick anything but at the same time if you get a defect or a dud as I have with the EK block you ought to seek out WHY. It is MORE THAN OBVIOUS that the Fuzion he has is borked, the base is too flat. Furthermore, you cant test a block that has been in general use for 7 months vs. a brand new block from the Mfgr, which is the jist I got from Zolkorn, pehaps I'm wrong though.

Next, if you look at ZolKorn's FIRST roundup here: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...hlight=roundup you will see that the EK and the Fuzion are VERY CLOSE, like almost identical. Now all of a sudden in this more recent test the EK is owning it by almost 10C? This isn't rocket science, and I agree with Martin but BAD numbers are worse than no numbers IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Furthermore, you cant test a block that has been in general use for 7 months vs. a brand new block from the Mfgr, which is the jist I got from Zolkorn, pehaps I'm wrong though.

Next, if you look at ZolKorn's FIRST roundup here: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...hlight=roundup you will see that the EK and the Fuzion are VERY CLOSE, like almost identical. Now all of a sudden in this more recent test the EK is owning it by almost 10C? This isn't rocket science, and I agree with Martin but BAD numbers are worse than no numbers IMO.

---

actually i have to agree with this statement. I wasnt looking at the results very carefully, only the fact that the ek came ahead. :\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xavior

So how many people actually own a RD-30 for a watercooling setup? Very little. Test results with these pumps might be interesting, but you're looking for a setup that'd apply to what most watercoolers would go with.

---

From my point of view, it doesn't matter how many people do or don't use the Iwaki RD-series pumps. Having a powerful pump, like the RD-30, in a testbed is useful because in what I would consider a "proper" test, you're plotting performance (either in dT (CPU temp minus coolant in temp) or thermal resistance) versus coolant flowrate. Testing in this manner provides a much more complete picture of waterblock performance and allows for the direct comparison of waterblocks within specific flowrate ranges (this is where the power of the RD-30 comes in handy). In a good test, you're trying to control as many variables as possible so that you're testing just the waterblock and it's in this scenario that the rest of the hardware being used doesn't really matter so much because, if you've controlled your variables well, your results will be independent of the hardware used (referring to radiators, pumps, fans, ambient temperature, etc.).

As a side note, I'm with Scott on this one--he may seem harsh but he's usually right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aspire.comptech

1.5V vcore is pretty high for a core architecture chip.

---

For 65nm? I don't think so. I see people here claiming to be running more than that through 45nm chips.

I currently use a TR backplate and screws/nuts. Thinking of trying the pro mount, but I'm not so sure it's going to make a drastic difference if any. So I guess it would be bad to put an o-ring on top of the washer in the Fuzion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petra

As a side note, I'm with Scott on this one--he may seem harsh but he's usually right.

---

Man I really don't mean to sound harsh! I'm just trying to get folks to understand my logic here and to try to push the tester in the right direction. I know what PITA testing is and how much time he spent! Anyway, I think I've now said more than enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Man I really don't mean to sound harsh! I'm just trying to get folks to understand my logic here and to try to push the tester in the right direction.

---

Yeah, I know. It doesn't come off as being harsh to me, but that's because I know what you're going for... other people just seem to take it the wrong way sometimes. Some of Bill's past comments, on the other hand, I found a little abrasive :rolleyes:;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Man I really don't mean to sound harsh! I'm just trying to get folks to understand my logic here and to try to push the tester in the right direction. I know what PITA testing is and how much time he spent! Anyway, I think I've now said more than enough.

---

:rofl:

yeah i get scared asking you questions sometimes. :ROTF:

You and Nol Both do this to me when i have a question regarding theory. :rofl:

But i know you guys dont mean any hate to it. But it does sound harsh sometimes. :wasntme:

Yeah, the only problem with flow rate performance relations is as Cathar pointed out here that it ignores pressure drop.

If you compared two C/W curves of a restrictive block to one that's not restrictive it would "Appear" the more restrictive block is better. When it's entirely possible that the lower restriction block nets much higher flow rates and actually performs better.

In the end Cathar's solution was a dT curve relative to pumping power, but that still requires alot of work. I do like the idea, here is Cathar's suggestion on a good method of comparison:
http://www.employees.org/~slf/curves...r/perfpwr3.png

But now we have multiple "Types" of processors, so you'd really have to do this for single core, dual core, quad core..etc...:eek:

Scott has brought to light the importance of multiple mounting and I can't thank him enough for setting the example there, it really helps tighten up the results.

I'm just afraid it all get way too complex and time consuming to also capture flow rate effects and I'm not entirely sure it would come across as something that easy to understand.

I think ideally a test would capture 5 mounts minimum and two pumping systems. Perhaps one "Average" pumping system like a D5/DDC etc, then one "High Performance" pumping system like an RD-30 or dual D5/DDC's etc.

The only non-commercial thermal test that incorporated flow rate effects was vkbms on his fuzion nozzle testing here.

http://www.nexthardware.com/focus/scheda/80_701.htm

I thought it was a great example. The only problem I'm having is measuring that level of accuracy. With 5 mounts I'm still at best only accurate to .2C, and it makes me wonder if part of that error is TAT itself or the internal diodes measureing core temperatures. He measured good gains clear down to the smallest nozzle, yet when I tried to measure gains on the 4.5mm nozzles vs stock on V2...I couldn't do it..

So either actual core temperatures can't be simulated using exterior probes, or the internals sensors just arn't that good..

I don't know. I think using an actual processor and heat signature from that processor is probably the best thing to do, but I'm really tempted to build a die simulator for another means to compare. I just don't know there could be a relationship made...?

In the end though, I think most people appreciate seeing a simple bar chart. I'm not sure it would be worth testing with two pump systems, there could be some switching around of performance rankings, or it could be insignificant. I like like the end result method of testing, pick a pump and go with it. If it's low restriction it automatically gains from the lower pressure drop and higher flow rates and at the same time it accounts for added heat dump by the pump for that added flow rate.

I went with a D5 myself because I figured most people were running a single pump like a D5 or DDC with top. Chances are the majority water coolers use a single pump and multiple block loops as well. We're probably in the single digit percentages for users running dual pumps or high performance pumps like the Iwalki's, although this is extreme systems, so there are users here.

Good discussion, since I'm switching to quad core...I'm considering tweaking my testing method as well..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

Yeah, the only problem with flow rate performance relations is as Cathar pointed out here that it ignores pressure drop.

If you compared two C/W curves of a restrictive block to one that's not restrictive it would "Appear" the more restrictive block is better. When it's entirely possible that the lower restriction block nets much higher flow rates and actually performs better.

In the end Cathar's solution was a dT curve relative to pumping power, but that still requires alot of work.

Scott has brought to light the importance of multiple mounting and I can't thank him enough for setting the example there, it really helps tighten up the results.

I'm just afraid it all get way too complex and time consuming to also capture flow rate effects and I'm not entirely sure it would come across as something that easy to understand.

I think ideally a test would capture 5 mounts minimum and two pumping systems. Perhaps one "Average" pumping system like a D5/DDC etc, then one "High Performance" pumping system like an RD-30 or dual D5/DDC's etc.

The only non-commercial thermal test that incorporated flow rate effects was vkbms on his fuzion nozzle testing here.

http://www.nexthardware.com/focus/scheda/80_701.htm

I thought it was a great example. The only problem I'm having is measuring that level of accuracy. With 5 mounts I'm still at best only accurate to .2C, and it makes me wonder if part of that error is TAT itself or the internal diodes measureing core temperatures. He measured good gains clear down to the smallest nozzle, yet when I tried to measure gains on the 4.5mm nozzles vs stock on V2...I couldn't do it..

So either actual core temperatures can't be simulated using exterior probes, or the internals sensors just arn't that good..

I don't know. I think using and actual processor and heat signature from that processor is probably the best thing to do, but I'm really tempted to build a die simulator for another means to compare.

---

To complicate matters further, the thermal diode in the die isn't that accurate. Intel's way to make accurate temp reading is to mill a channel on the IHS then epoxy a thermal sensor in it then lap it flat. No one beside a professional tester will be able to comply to this method.

Even 2 testing setup might have variances so it's almost impossible to directly compare both results. The only way to reproduce a testing setup is to be able to get the exact same parts and use the same methods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xilikon

To complicate matters further, the thermal diode in the die isn't that accurate. Intel's way to make accurate temp reading is to mill a channel on the IHS then epoxy a thermal sensor in it then lap it flat. No one beside a professional tester will be able to comply to this method.

Even 2 testing setup might have variances so it's almost impossible to directly compare both results. The only way to reproduce a testing setup is to be able to get the exact same parts and use the same methods.

---

Yeah, I've seen that, but it also leaves you with performance at the center of the IHS and doesn't capture how well a block cools directly over the die locations. That's probably not a big deal for HSF testing because they generally cool over a large area well enough (big heat pipes and base masses), but water blocks are much more particular (Very thin bases and nozzles, etc). I think you would almost have to mill out a sensor directly over the die locations for that to represent well...:shrug:

Thank you everyone for your comment and some introduce to me :)

So from this tested, Yes! on my ideal in first time i think one mount it'll ok but after i try ans try... well i see some different from little to much same as Martin told ;)

So i have plan for all new testing same as this time but i'll order new D-Tek V1 on new testing and i'll order V2 too and sure next testing will be multi mount same as Martin told because it'll good for results :up:

btw. Thanks NaeKuh for kind word from your ;)

Best Regards
ZoLKoRn :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xilikon

Even 2 testing setup might have variances so it's almost impossible to directly compare both results. The only way to reproduce a testing setup is to be able to get the exact same parts and use the same methods.

---

Yeah its a pain, I wont even update my bios on my test bed lol. Even windoze updates scare the :banana::banana::banana::banana: out of me :rofl: :ROTF: :yepp:

WOW!! Hey eddieEK how do you get these optional plates I cannot seem to find them?? I need a set bad, then I can switch out my Dtek :)