Swiftech Apogee GTZ vs D-Tek Fuzion V2 As-Shipped

Here is what I have for comparisons, the Fuzion V2 vs the Swiftech Apogee GTZ:

My review page is in progress is here:
http://www.martinsliquidlab.com/Swif...TZ_Review.html

First I'd like to give thanks to:

Gary from Sidewinder for providing me with the Q6600 to test with...I shop there all the time.
Martin from The Fesser Company for providing me with the Radiator I used in testing - Check out the water/air dela on this beast..
Linus from NCIX for the fans.
Danny from D-Tek for the Fuzion V2 block sample.
And Gabe from Swiftech for the GTZ sample.

Without the above, this wouldn't have happened. Thanks!!

I also want to give thanks to McCoffee, for helping me work out some bugs in the crystalfontz, it's great working with other testers on this stuff!!

Here is the block in review:
http://www.martinsliquidlab.com/img/...pogeeGTZ-1.jpg

The very nice and complete package that you get:
http://www.martinsliquidlab.com/img/...pogeeGTZ-3.jpg

Flow path in the base:
http://www.martinsliquidlab.com/img/...pogeeGTZ-7.jpg

Macro of the pins:
http://www.martinsliquidlab.com/img/...pogeeGTZ-8.jpg

And by popular demand, yes 3/4" compression fitting do fit, you just need to slip an extra o-ring over the threads to raise it a little.
http://www.martinsliquidlab.com/img/...ogeeGTZ-10.jpg

Testing Specifications:
http://www.martinsliquidlab.com/img/...-ThermTest.jpg
* Real World Full System Testing - Over time I developed a radiator testing bench that I've decided to incorporate into my CPU block testing setup. This gives me a full 8 air inlet sensors, 4 air outlet sensors, and two water sensors to much more precisely monitor everything. My testing occurs as close to the real world as possible, I just have a crap load of sensors on everything. I am testing on a processor, with a loading program, in a real world computer case, with a fixed pump, and a regular radiator setup. All of this helps include the little odd things that actually occur in a regular system.
* Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield Processor - Overclocked to 3600 MHz, 65nm, Vcore = 1.472 under load. Motherboard is a DFI Lanparty X48 LT with 4GB of Corsair Dominator memory with fan module. The northbridge and southbridge chips are both watercooled. Video card is an EVGA 8800GTX, also watercooled. Case is a Thermaltake Armor, position is horizontal for easy block mounting case cover left off.
* 5 separate TIM applications and mounts averaged - This is not common, but extremely important. It's not uncommon at all to see mounting variations as high as 2 degrees or more, so with only one mount, that error is 2 degrees. When you mount 5 times and average those results, your standard deviation is significantly lowered and the overall testing confidence improved. In addition multiple mounts serve as a means to validate data, because each test is carried out again and again, chances are if some variable is affecting results, it will show.
* Logging temperatures - After several iterations of a new testing method I finally landed on logging of temperatrues for 1 hour. I then can simply start up the loading routine, and trigger on my two logging programs and walk away for an hour. I then come back and remove the first 10minutes for warmup time. The remaining 50minutes is then left to average out temperatures which are recorded every second over 18 active sensors plus 4 core temperatures. Logging is essential for higher resolution measurements. Our DTS core sensors are only resolved to 1C, however after logging that resolution out for 50 minutes of testing, that can be reduced significantly. In addition my ambient temperatures are held constant by an A/C system thermostat that actually makes the temperature swig up and down in a sawtooth like fashion over a 2C limit. Logging this sawtooth occurrence over a long period of time also levels out the ambient to a nicely resolved level of accuracy.
* Temperature Probes Deployed - I kept my sensors fairly basic, but I did run a few extra's just for interesting information. This includes a sensor for:
o 2 ea Water Out sensors (After radiator and before CPU block) Dallas DS18B20 Digital one-wire sensors, and CrystalFontz CFA-633
o 8 ea Air In Bottom (Bottom inlet side of radiator) Dallas DS18B20 Digital one-wire sensors, and CrystalFontz CFA-633
o 4 ea Air Out Top (Top out side of radiator) Dallas DS18B20 Digital one-wire sensors, and CrystalFontz CFA-633
o 4 ea Q6600 DTS sensor these were logged using Core Temp Beta Version 0.94. I chose this particular version because it stacks logged data cores in separate column which makes integrating into my crystalfontz data much easier.
o Crystal Fontz logging is accomplished through the use of their Cyrstalfonts 633 WinTest b1.9. Only special settings are turning off all packet debugger check boxes to avoid paging the processor.
* The Dallas DS18B20 Digital one-wire sensors that were used as noted above have a specified absolute accuracy of .5C with a .2C accuracy between 20 -30C temperature range. They also have resolution down to .0625C which is very good, and because they are digital they are not affected by the wiring or length of wire like thermocouples are.
* The CrystalFontz CFA-633 is an LCD with up to 32 channels of monitoring and logging capability. It logs temperatures of each channel on a one second interval, so over a 30 minute test, I'll have about 1,800 entries noting time and temperature of each channel. These are then averaged for a fairly accurate number.
* Pump - Laing DDC3.2 with XSPC Reservoir top. I think this pump represents the pumping power available to many users and gives a fair amount of strong pumping power. This top rated near the top in my pump top testing and is very powerful.
* Radiator - The Feser Companty (TFC) 480 ER radiator with Yate loon D12SL12 medium speed fans at 12V with TFC shrouds in pull condition. This is an extremely powerful radiator and was purposely chosen because the smaller water/ambient deltas reach equilibrium fast and pressure drop for this radiator is minimal. This provided me very short warmup periods and ensured maximum pumping power for the CPU blocks being tested.
* TIM Material - While I really like the TIM consultants TC Grease 0098, I found the thicker consistency wasn't helping with mounting consistency and required user effort to seat the block down. For that reason I chose Artic Cooling MX-2, it's been very popular in the forums and preliminar testing showed to perform well, it's noted as non-curing, and more importantly is a thickness/consistency that more accurately represenst most thermal compounds and easily applied and removed. I felt this was important to maintaining a higher level of repeatability. There was no cure time allowed for the compound (even though it's noted as a non curing compound). Testing was started immediately following block installation. TIM installation method is the thin line method.
* Hardware - I've change my review process to include testing of two options. First an "As shipped" option that includes what you get in the box with the block, nothing more. This forces me to make due and use the hardware included and provides users some evaluation and performance of what you get straight from the box. In addition I plan to use a fixed hardware scenario to more closely look at the block only.
* Prime 95 Load - I used Prime 97, torture test, Custom, Min FTT 8K, Max FTT 8K, Run FFTs in place checked ON. This is an easy to use and constently loading program. It provided the most consistent loading I could find for quad cores.
* Lapped IHS - My Q6600 has been lapped flat down to 1200 grit to ensure a true and flat surface. The stock intel IHS can be very irregular, some are convex, some are concave, some are wavy, and some are fairly flat. Lapping a processor voids it's warranty, but it ensures a nice flat surface for optimal heat transfer. My particular processor has been lapped. A complete stock IHS may benefit more from a bowed block than my samples because it is flat.

D-Tek Fuzion V2 promount as-shipped
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/6...malq660mm5.png

Swiftech Apogee GTZ as-shipped mount
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/4...thermalzu6.png

Comparison:
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/4...uzionv2es2.png

Bottom Line

The thermal results are so close that they are within standard deviations found during testing. All that means is they are too close to measure and really say one is better than the other.

They are a TIE!!!

With that said, they are both two blocks with the very best mounting mechanism. Both blocks offer a mechanism that screws down until the threads bottom out, so it takes all the guesswork out of mounting.

I didn't update the V2 nozzle testing, but my first round I threw out was showing the quad midplate performing "Worse" than the block by itself. I would recommend running the Fuzion V2 in stock trim as it's shipped in the box and forget about the midplate.


They are both excellent blocks!:up:

Cheers!
Martin

Update:
Swiftech notes they published their "Best of " results, which included the 4.5mm nozzle on the Fuzion V2. D-Tek also suggested trying the red quad nozzle that is may provide benefit. I will try these among other tweaks in my second more advanced run, but this concludes my "As-shipped" experiement without additionally purchased accessories.

thank you! 1 more person to confirm results. i'm sure everyone was waiting for you to post this martin

Cool, more nice test from you.

I am running the D-tek v2 stock on my Q66 so this makes me happy.:D

thanks for the review! so no point to change my v2 to the GTZ especially in a multi-block loop. I took my quad nozzle out and noticed the performace gain as well (on a q6600)

Thx Martin :yepp: :up: for another great review

it doesn't look like there's much thermal difference, however, the fuzion is slightly better when it comes to flow?

Nice...looks like a very, very small difference. Either block would be a great purchase.

Thanks Martin!

:clap: Thanks again Martin!

Very nice work. Great review and both very impressive blocks. Damn I wish one won would make the decision easier :p:

Amazing review martin! :up:
Really interesting results.

Very interesting results indeed
So no backplate on this testing?

damn looks like im going to get the cheaper one then :P

thanks for this review - ive now decided on what to buy next (and i wont be fiddling with it like you suggested!)

Ah finally results with the fuzion without the quad plate :up:
Miss the supreme :p:

Thanks guys, glad it helps or doesn't help you make a decision..:D
Just my test though, could be different with different testing specs/methods.

I was a little concerned I didn't match swiftech's published results, but after reviewing the two I see two very different approaches. They used fixed flow rate which isn't what the pump will produce for two blocks that have different pressure drops. I used a fixed pump which produces different flow rates depending on pressure drop of the block. In addition they used a nozzle in many of the V2 results, I believe stock outperforms the nozzled setup and this is stock results.

Not to say or argue one is right over the other, just different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhiteFireDragon

it doesn't look like there's much thermal difference, however, the fuzion is slightly better when it comes to flow?

---

Yes, higher flow, but along with that comes about a .1C hotter water temeprature even with the big quad rad. Pump heat dump is pretty interesting, I consistently saw lower water temperatures with the more restrictive blocks that resulted in lower flow rates. The question is will the difference in flow rate add up enough flow rate gain to overcome the extra pump heat....I don't know...probably depends on the block and radiator used..:shrug: My guess is the difference is too small to measure and they are a wash..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eddie3dfx

Very interesting results indeed
So no backplate on this testing?

---

Yes, the as-shipped backplates were used. Both of these blocks have proprietary mounts and their own backplate. I have a hole in my motherboard tray now that allows me to switch hardware pretty easily. The GTZ was tested with the GTZ backplate and proprietary mount fully tightened with screwdrivers, and the same for the Fuzion V2 pro mount. Both were tested with the as-shipped backplates.

I'm not very surprised it was a tie, although I think that the GTZ may have an edge on a dual core with a smaller die, as more of its surface area is concentrated in the center compared to the fuzion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

In addition they used a nozzle in many of the V2 results, I believe stock outperforms the nozzled setup and this is stock results.
.

---

one clarification (although it is also published on our site): we published the best results we could get from the blocks.If a block came with nozzles, we tried them all and published the best results.

Great job Martin! An awesome review! The difference between the blocks is really ridiculus. Now it's just a matter of the price and outer design

Great test report Martin. It's nice to have so many good options when picking a good block. The GTZ just seems the most versatile right now with the best mounting mechanism and the barb spacing. I wonder how they would compare on a dual core.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shabranigdo

Very nice work. Great review and both very impressive blocks. Damn I wish one won would make the decision easier :p:

---

It does. Just buy the one that looks the best to you because performance wise they are the pretty much the same. :yepp:

Thanks Martin for your time and effort :clap: :clap:

great testing, so fuzion is the best for multi-block systems because of the higher flowrate, but for single-block they're a tie :up:

only thing we need now is some ek-supreme testing WITH backplate :D

still have to decide if it's worth it to pay 20€ extra for a fuzion/gtz just because the temps are 1° higher :shrug:

Very good test!

Although am I the only one dissapointed to see that a tiny 2.5C Water-to-Air delta nets you a whooping 25C CPU-to-Water delta? That's just redicilous.

Thank you for your thorough testing Martin!

You should add the Supreme! And maybe add dualcore testing.
Great testing over there! :clap:
I like your reviews :up:

Good work martin! Thanks for the effort!

so martin you say tie.

EK > the D-tek

Yet Andy's tests shows its slightly better then the EK.

*lost*

I'll stick with my EK. :T

Great test tho martin, as always, your my superstar! :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

one clarification (although it is also published on our site): we published the best results we could get from the blocks.If a block came with nozzles, we tried them all and published the best results.

---

Thanks Gabe!

So a 4.5mm nozzle is a good option for a quad core too...interesting. I'll try that for my advanced round.

This was just the "As Shipped in the box" test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcoffey

Do the older V1 nozzles fit into the newer v2 midplate opening. Still haven't had time to check it out.

andyc

---

Yes, I pressure drop tested with them. It does seem like there is a little more tolerance (They seem more snug in V1) between the nozzle and opening, but they fit ok.

I'd like to try some tweaks on both block for another round:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcoffey

Oh cool, thanks for the info, somethin else to play with and check out. I love this freaking hobby man.:up:

andyc

---

I want to try and make my own GTZ nozzle too, it'll be a bit more difficult, but "Tinkering" is the fun part for me...:D

Well Martin, guess I wont have to fool with writing a review next week, since I have almost the same results. (insert sound of hand patting Martin's back in thanks)

I see some slight differences at different flow rates but no block is "destroying" any of the others hands down.

Bravo !

Jay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jayhall0315

Well Martin, guess I wont have to fool with writing a review next week, since I have almost the same results. (insert sound of hand patting Martin's back in thanks)

I see some slight differences at different flow rates but no block is "destroying" any of the others hands down.

Bravo !

Jay

---

Please do. :yepp: With the inaacurracy of the DTS sensors, I'd always like to see more reviews myself, even if it's just a quick few numbers, it's always helpful as a check. You've been doing some interesting work with the different flow rate stuff, mine has been fixed pump so I havn't been looking at what flow rates might do....you've got that part covered..:up:

Let me try to summarize? Since performance's a tie:

V2 = Better flow rates = for higher restriction loops
GTZ = Better spaced barbs = Hellooo 3/4"OD compression fittings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navanod

Let me try to summarize? Since performance's a tie:

V2 = Better flow rates = for higher restriction loops
GTZ = Better spaced barbs = Hellooo 3/4"OD compression fittings?

---

I havn't done the "Tweaks" round 2 yet, but that's pretty close for Round 1. Only thing about compressions is the bottom of the TFC fittings want to impact the little Swiftech logo. The top has recessed areas to retain the standard swiftech barbs which makes the fitting sit down in there and conflicts with the logo a bit. So you might have to remove the logo to make them work on there. Easy enough to do, but something to be aware of.

Yes crazy Asian guy with interesting hair, that is a rough summology .

The Fusion V2 and GTZ are damn near equal. So it comes down to how many blocks are in your loop and what size tubing you like to use. The GTZ also has a slightly nicer mounting plate and screws.

Jay

Yes, there is definately more mounting pressure going on with the GTZ as well, so it appears to be holding the differential across the cores closer together. I liked using two long screwdrivers to install both blocks, it worked really well that way. The Fuzion V2 backplate probably also has a little more rigidity to it than the GTZ, but the larger thumbscrews on the GTZ allows you to start them and install with either your fingers or the philips heads. I found it almost necessary to use a screwdriver to fulling tighten the GTZ though...it's probably getting in the 50-60lbs of mounting pressure. I didn't notice any bowing of my DFI in the case with standoffs though.

In the end I liked both mounts because of the limiting screws. No guess work on how much to tighten...you bottom all four corners and you have a perfect and straight mount.

Nice to finally see your review:up:. I went ahead and ordered the GTZ even though I already own the V2. I'm seeing too much variance between Core #0 and the rest of the cores on my quad w/ the V2, the most variance showing up between core #0 and cores #3 and #4. I've remounted multiple times w/o seeing much difference and this variance wasn't as great even with my TRUE. I also like to use my compression fittings finally! Thanks Martin.

thanks Martin, great job as always. :up:

Great review Martin!

It looks like purchasing could come down to how many blocks will be in a loop or the need for 1/2" x 3/4" compression fittings.

I got my GTZ in the mail the other day, and pulled the block apart to take a look at the inside. When I did that I noticed a plastic insert inside the block that fell out when I pulled it open. The insert looks like it should fit a section in the top of the block, but doesn't quite fit (at least, not without me taking a hammer to it). Is the insert supposed to be loose like that (that is, not fully snugged into that slot), or am I supposed to put some pressure on it and force it back into its slot?

Thank you! You gave me the answer to my most important question at the moment. I already have the FuZion V2 and thought about the GTZ. So I will be waiting for another new cooler - the difference is not worth talking about.

Martin, one question please:
Are the backplates of the GTZ and FuZion V2 identical? The one of the V2 was almost (or totally?) the same as my old Thermalright Ultra 120 eXtreme-Backplate and looks like the GTZ´s one, too ... What is more, the screws of FuZion V2 seemed to have the same thread as the Thermalright ones.

I'm running the Q6600 with the D-Tek V2 and the quad mid-chamber insert right now. I'm confuse, is it better to use the stock mid-chamber with my Q6600?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OC_Newbee

I'm running the Q6600 with the D-Tek V2 and the quad mid-chamber insert right now. I'm confuse, is it better to use the stock mid-chamber with my Q6600?

---

Run it without the mid-chamber. People have seen better temps without the insert and Martin confirms this. Thanks Martin, great review!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hotdun

Run it without the mid-chamber. People have seen better temps without the insert and Martin confirms this. Thanks Martin, great review!

---

Thanks for the reply, wait so you're saying run it without ANY mid-chamber insert (completely remove them), STOCK and QUAD? sorry for the confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

I liked using two long screwdrivers to install both blocks, it worked really well that way. The Fuzion V2 backplate probably also has a little more rigidity to it than the GTZ, but the larger thumbscrews on the GTZ allows you to start them and install with either your fingers or the philips heads. I found it almost necessary to use a screwdriver to fulling tighten the GTZ though...

---

Don't Slip! :rofl::ROTF:

Wow, i really like that swiftech, especially being able to use Bitspower Comps.

Martin is 2.26 to 1.86 a big difference in flow?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcoffey

You have to run th eV2 with a mid chamber/nozzle, but just use the stock mid chamber/nozzle, not the special quad mid chamber/nozzle.

gl,

andyc

---

Thanks, will do. I will switch back to stock nozzle tonight after getting off from work.

Great work Martin! My Quantitative Methods professor would love you. ;)

I can't wait to see some Nehalem results. Larger, non-square IHS and a single, large monolithic core with about the same surface area as a dual-die Penryn. Think it would make a difference any?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TouGe

Nice to finally see your review:up:. I went ahead and ordered the GTZ even though I already own the V2. I'm seeing too much variance between Core #0 and the rest of the cores on my quad w/ the V2, the most variance showing up between core #0 and cores #3 and #4. I've remounted multiple times w/o seeing much difference and this variance wasn't as great even with my TRUE. I also like to use my compression fittings finally! Thanks Martin.

---

At least from the tests I ran, the GTZ was doing a little better at holding the core temperatures between cores closer to each other. this is probably due to the larger slot like nozzle of the GTZ vs a smaller circle of the fuzion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickCain

Great review Martin!

It looks like purchasing could come down to how many blocks will be in a loop or the need for 1/2" x 3/4" compression fittings.

---

Yeah, I'm not so sure I would be too worried about flow rate though. They were close enough to me not to get really excited about it. Especially when you start considering pump heat. While the fuzion ran higher flow rates it also ran with water temperatures that were almost .1C higher even with the larger quad radiator and 1550RPM fans. If you had a smaller radiator that could mean .2C or hotter water temps. I'm not sure the hydraulic gain would be there to make up for the heat. Regardless fractions of a degree are pretty hard to measure, even after 5 mounts and all these sensors, I'm still only good to about a half a degree or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orclev

I got my GTZ in the mail the other day, and pulled the block apart to take a look at the inside. When I did that I noticed a plastic insert inside the block that fell out when I pulled it open. The insert looks like it should fit a section in the top of the block, but doesn't quite fit (at least, not without me taking a hammer to it). Is the insert supposed to be loose like that (that is, not fully snugged into that slot), or am I supposed to put some pressure on it and force it back into its slot?

---

My nozzle plate fits very accurately, make sure you don't have it backwards or upside down. Mine will come out and slip back in without much effort at all. I need to get some internal pictures done then I'll be able to show you a better picture of the nozzle orientation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scamps

Martin, one question please:
Are the backplates of the GTZ and FuZion V2 identical? The one of the V2 was almost (or totally?) the same as my old Thermalright Ultra 120 eXtreme-Backplate and looks like the GTZ´s one, too ... What is more, the screws of FuZion V2 seemed to have the same thread as the Thermalright ones.

---

They might be the same threading, but the standoff are different. You could probably get either one to work, but I would recommend using the backplate that comes with it otherwise you might not install the block with the intended pressure. They both bottom out very specifically and you could overtighten it with the V2 backplate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OC_Newbee

I'm running the Q6600 with the D-Tek V2 and the quad mid-chamber insert right now. I'm confuse, is it better to use the stock mid-chamber with my Q6600?

---

Andy seemed to confirm with his quad that was the case. My first round that I had issues with my ambient and had to throw out was showing the quad midplate doing about a degree worse than the stock midplate. But you do need the midplate for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mpower1001

Wow, i really like that swiftech, especially being able to use Bitspower Comps.

Martin is 2.26 to 1.86 a big difference in flow?

---

Just watch the o-ring seating on the compressions. I don't have any bitspower compressions, but the TFC compression will impact the swiftech logo that's raised above the block top because the barb seats are recessed. I think you could get them to work, but you might have to remove the logo first or use thicker o-rings.

No, I consider anything over 1GPM good, and 1.5GPM excellent. I want to do some pumping power vs heat dump experiements later, but I suspect the DDC3.2 with top as I had tested is too much pumping power for optimal performance on some of the blocks. Hard to say without testing, but a CPU only loop I would never worry about flow rate, just bottom line performance. Only in a multiple block loop would I worry at all about flow rate and both of these blocks are pretty good with that using a D5 or DDC, you'll still have plenty of reserve pumping power for most setups.:up:

Martin thank you for hard work, totally appreciated. Looks like my next block with be GTZ :up: compression fittings and mounting mechanism sounds so welcoming..

Thanks!

Update the op with some additional pictures of the interior and one with compression fittings on there...

ths is a great block..i cant wait to see your extended testing results!
although i have a fuzion v2 im actually considering switching to a GTZ mainly because of it wider barb spacing (having trouble on the v2 with 1/2" ID tubing and zip ties..) and because of its sexy looks :D )

:) Thats good to know they are the same.

Would the quad insert help for a quad or would it matter much?

Hey martin.

How about doing the exact same test.
Only with say a swiftech 220 radiator?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freaksavior

:) Thats good to know they are the same.

Would the quad insert help for a quad or would it matter much?

---

I'm going to try it again when I go into round two, but this was intended to test straight out of the box as shipped without buying any accessories. My first round of testing I had problems with because of ambients was however showing the quad midplate performing worse than stock. Swiftech's published results show performance of the 4.5mm nozzle which was the best for them. D-Tek noted that some of the nozzles are finicky about installation and some are better for different types of quads, etc. But they also suggested trying the red quad nozzle, it may be helpful for the Kentsfield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirheck

Hey martin.

How about doing the exact same test.
Only with say a swiftech 220 radiator?

---

Sorry, it's incredibly time consuming and I've already tested the MCR220. If you want an estimate you can use my MCR220 radiator estimator and estimate your water delta. My testing here with the TFC480 resulted in about a 2.5degree delta, so for a rough number just add the difference from 2.5 degrees. That's not going to be a perfect number though because as the processor gets hotter, it produces more heat. I purposely chose the TFC480 for two reasons, one is because it's a quad rad and I can then use all 8 of my air in sensors and 4 air out sensor. In addition the larger radiator reaches equillibrium much faster than the higer delta of a small radiator, so 10 minutes is enough time for warmup.

Ok cool.
I have never gotten around to taking my Tc320 off and testing my ST220.
I did do it in the reverse order with the same sys only difference was the two radiators.
I wouldnt figure there would be much difference anyway.

Pretty much anyone running a cpu and gpu on a 220 radiator or larger, one wouldnt see a very big drop in temps.

Now of course if one ran an SLI/CrossFire set-up plus a cpu then i could see a 220 style or smaller radiator posing problems.

Anyway thanks always for the test and feedback.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirheck

Ok cool.
I have never gotten around to taking my Tc320 off and testing my ST220.
I did do it in the reverse order with the same sys only difference was the two radiators.
I wouldnt figure there would be much difference anyway.

Pretty much anyone running a cpu and gpu on a 220 radiator or larger, one wouldnt see a very big drop in temps.

Now of course if one ran an SLI/CrossFire set-up plus a cpu then i could see a 220 style or smaller radiator posing problems.

Anyway thanks always for the test and feedback.

---

Yeah, probably not going to be more than a couple of degrees differeence depending on the fans use.

The interesting thing I found with my CPU block testing is the .2 to .3C error I was fighting before I fixed my ambient problem. The hotter the processor, the more heat it produces, so a couple of degrees hotter water temperature might translate into a little more than that after you figure in the extra processor heat that's coming out. It's very complex in how it all works, and interesting.

One thing to think about is as the cpu/waterblock/NB/memory, all watercooled or some watercooled.
Will raise the avg/overall temps on the mobo as a whole, and heat will spread over a givin area.
Even more so with the sys under load.
And give a good 1/4 or more of a degree variance in testing.

Ambient heat so too speak.
Does that make any sense?

IMO something like a thermal camera with time recorded video of said sys
from idle to full load would best show when/where and how the heat spreads.
Plus case airflow and fan orientation would also be a big factor for that type of test.

But then again that is a whole nother hair pulling, long, time consuming, lots of drinking and expensive test in it-self.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

At least from the tests I ran, the GTZ was doing a little better at holding the core temperatures between cores closer to each other. this is probably due to the larger slot like nozzle of the GTZ vs a smaller circle of the fuzion.

---

Yeah, this was the first thing I looked for when I saw that you posted tables. From what people that have used it are saying it sounds like the GTZ exerts more mounting pressure which would be very cool if true.

Thanks for all your effort martin!
I have a question, as can be seen there's a 0.4 GPM gap between the FuZion and the GTZ. Now, according to your flow estimator (:clap:), the following system:
FuZion V2
MCW60
2x MCR320 QP
D5
1x Res
6ft. 7/16" tubing
would yield 1.53 GPM. Let's replace the FuZion with a GTZ. 1.53-0.4 = 1.13 GPM.
Isn't it a big difference? I'm afraid 1.13 is not that good, esp. for future upgrades. What would be best for the above setup?

Thanks ^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fir3^StorM

What would be best for the above setup?

---

Just like martin said, if you have a multiple loop, then your best bet would be the fusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mpower1001

Just like martin said, if you have a multiple loop, then your best bet would be the fusion.

---

Matters what pump you have...... As Martin as shown, flow isn't all that important once you pass 1.5 gpm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickCain

Matters what pump you have...... As Martin as shown, flow isn't all that important once you pass 1.5 gpm.

---

Yeah, but in my case, I wouldn't pass 1.5 gpm with the GTZ :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fir3^StorM

Yeah, but in my case, I wouldn't pass 1.5 gpm with the GTZ :p:

---

While having a target flow rate is somewhere to start, the more I've been playing with this CPU block setup where I get the full picture, the more complex I'm seeing this pump heat issue becoming.

For each CPU block tested I'm recording flow rates, but also water and air temperatures. What I'm noticing is that even with the same pump, the more restrictive blocks have a lower water temperature. Even with the TFC 480, I'm seeing around .1C hotter water with the more free flowing blocks.

So in the end you might have higher flow rates, but also hotter water temperatures. The question then becomes, which is better or worse or does the end resulting performance on your other blocks better or worse.

In the end I think there is probably some sort of "Optimal" flow rate to shoot for and it's going to be a function of pump heat dump.

It's all splitting hairs at this point to the point it really doesn't make a difference in the real world, but I'm not entirely sure running a system at 2GPM with a known pump would be better than say undervolting the pump to 1 or 1.5GPM. I'm not really sure what to shoot for at this point but I know the differences are very small above 1GPM.

wow umm this is very interesting... id like to find out what the optimal gpm is for water cooling?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fatman

wow umm this is very interesting... id like to find out what the optimal gpm is for water cooling?

---

Unfortunately since it's heat realated, it's also radiator/fan performance related and block related. There won't be one answer....

The ole famous answer....it depends..:D

.1°C hotter water for a free flowing block?......I think I can live with that. :rofl: ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterlogged

.1°C hotter water for a free flowing block?......I think I can live with that. :rofl: ;)

---

:yepp:

It's all moot...

I feel like I'm with my buddy's racing bikes on the dunes. We get all giddy about a carbon fiber clutch lever that cost $50 for a 2 ounce weight reduction. Never mind the 1/4 pounder with fries we ate for lunch, that 2 ounces makes all the difference.:rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

:yepp:

It's all moot...

I feel like I'm with my buddy's racing bikes on the dunes. We get all giddy about a carbon fiber clutch lever that cost $50 for a 2 ounce weight reduction. Never mind the 1/4 pounder with fries we ate for lunch, that 2 ounces makes all the difference.:rofl:

---

haha sure it does. :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fir3^StorM

Let's replace the FuZion with a GTZ. 1.53-0.4 = 1.13 GPM.

---

It's not as simple as that. The more restriction already in your loop, the less of an impact replacing the FuZion with the GTZ will have in terms of flow reduction. Look at the PQ-curve of the pump, it's not linear. If you could do what you did, adding enough blocks would make the water flow the other way. :p:

Wow! Great preview of these 2 super water blocks!
Guys, I need your help. U can see my liquid system i`m going to buy this week. I will use only 1 block in my system. And i`m going to swap my E3110 on Q9650 in future.
What is the best choice for me :
D-Tek FuZion v2
Aquacomputer cuplex XT di (G1/4")
Swiftech Apogee GTZ 775
Thanks in advance ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

While having a target flow rate is somewhere to start, the more I've been playing with this CPU block setup where I get the full picture, the more complex I'm seeing this pump heat issue becoming.

For each CPU block tested I'm recording flow rates, but also water and air temperatures. What I'm noticing is that even with the same pump, the more restrictive blocks have a lower water temperature. Even with the TFC 480, I'm seeing around .1C hotter water with the more free flowing blocks.

So in the end you might have higher flow rates, but also hotter water temperatures. The question then becomes, which is better or worse or does the end resulting performance on your other blocks better or worse.

In the end I think there is probably some sort of "Optimal" flow rate to shoot for and it's going to be a function of pump heat dump.

It's all splitting hairs at this point to the point it really doesn't make a difference in the real world, but I'm not entirely sure running a system at 2GPM with a known pump would be better than say undervolting the pump to 1 or 1.5GPM. I'm not really sure what to shoot for at this point but I know the differences are very small above 1GPM.

---

So, which would make the best bet?
a. GTZ resulting in approx. 1.1GPM and 0.1c colder water temp
b. FuZion resulting in approx. 1.5GPM and 0.1c warmer water temp?
The FuZion seems like a safer candidate.. although they're both good choices and top performers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alacheesu

It's not as simple as that. The more restriction already in your loop, the less of an impact replacing the FuZion with the GTZ will have in terms of flow reduction. Look at the PQ-curve of the pump, it's not linear. If you could do what you did, adding enough blocks would make the water flow the other way. :p:

---

http://www.overclock.net/gallery/dat.../Pump-D5-5.jpg
That curve? It's very close to be linear actually ;)
Btw, martin used DDC3.2+XSPC top in the GTZ-FuZion testing, didn't he? the flow rate decline with a D5 should be even bigger.

Any advices?

Sorry I've been absent... great job Martin as always. It's been too hot for me to test, actually I've done one run the the GTZ but with these high ambients, I won't do it. People are now beginning to understand the consequences of pump heat, this 'OMGWTFBBQ I NEED TEH UBER FLOWZRATEZ' is laughable. Sure more flow is always better, the caveat is that it comes with the cost of increased heat, which, 9 times out of 10 will send your temps backwards. I still can't believe that no one has made a PD pump or a screw pump for our application, would own all centrifugal pumps like $2 ho's ;)

Great review, comforting to know that my Fuzion v2 is still a great purchase. I will just yank the quad mid-plate when I get a chance (I'll disassemble the whole loop soon for maintenance and cleanup).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fir3^StorM

That curve? It's very close to be linear actually ;)
Btw, martin used DDC3.2+XSPC top in the GTZ-FuZion testing, didn't he? the flow rate decline with a D5 should be even bigger.

---

Wow, you're right, I was wrong. It is almost linear.

However, I'm still sure you cannot do the calculation the way you did. If you fire up up Martin's estimater, plug in the Fuzion v2 and MCP 655 you will have a flow rate of 2.01 GPM. Fuzion -> Supreme yields 1.22 GPM or 0.79 GPM less.

Adding a D-Tek GFX to the loop and doing the same yields a difference of only 0.34 GPM. (1.34 GPM to 1.00 GPM)

If you take into account that pressure drop in the blocks is a function of flow rate, the results make sense even if the pumps PQ-curve is linear. But I guess I could be wrong again. :shrug:

Anyway, if you added enough blocks to get the flowrate to less than 0.4 GPM and then replaced a GTZ with a Fuzion you would, by your example, have negative flowrate, which obviously makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

And by popular demand, yes 3/4" compression fitting do fit, you just need to slip an extra o-ring over the threads to raise it a little.
http://www.martinsliquidlab.com/img/...ogeeGTZ-10.jpg

---

Does this also occours with the Koolance G 1/4" Compression Noozles ID 3/8 ?

Does the GTZ need to be lapped to help temps with C2Ds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jVIDIA

Does this also occours with the Koolance G 1/4" Compression Noozles ID 3/8 ?

---

I don't know, I don't have any Koolance fittings yet, but I'm trying to get a few so I can check compatibility with all the types of popular fittings on all the blocks. It's really not a problem to use the extra o-ring, you can take one from the original shipped barbs. There is a very deep recess there that holds it in place nicely. Generally if the 3/4" OD type compressions fit, you should be able to fit just about any fitting. The extra o-ring is just needed to fill in that recessed slot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukee

Does the GTZ need to be lapped to help temps with C2Ds?

---

No, I wouldn't, it comes in very good condition as is. You especially wouldn't want to lap it while assembled, it has a significant bow that you could make worse by lapping.

Generally I don't lap waterblocks anymore unless you somehow scratched the base badly. I do lap the processor IHS though, that can be helpful especially if you IHS is slightly concaved. That does void your warranty though.

If a base gets a little oxidation from fingerprints etc. I just use paper towel and your favorite thermal compound as a polish. It works pretty well and helps embed good TIM material into the pores of the base.

I already have my CPU lapped and temps are a bit high. Trying to troubleshoot my temp problem. Thanks for your response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukee

I already have my CPU lapped and temps are a bit high. Trying to troubleshoot my temp problem. Thanks for your response.

---

Start a new thread about your problem and note some details, and if you have them, some photos of the setup.

There are lots of very talented folks on the forums that have gone through that one time or another. If you post the details in a new thread, alot of those folks will try to help out..:up:

If you can spell out the following that will help out alot:
Processor, Speed, Vcore
Radiator, fans, location of setup
TIM material used, application method.
Any other blocks in the loop and details about what they are cooling.
Pump, and any tubing details...etc.

Great work as usual Martin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

I don't know, I don't have any Koolance fittings yet, but I'm trying to get a few so I can check compatibility with all the types of popular fittings on all the blocks.

---

I love the way every second post that I see by you contains something along the lines of "I'm going to test _____ as soon as I can.". Keep up the great work.

Nice review Martin!!!
Dtek Fusion v2 is good! ;)

Thanks Martin! I love your work. The graphs are so clean. Now i understand how much work you have to go through making all these charts. It's so detailed.

picked up the GTZ and the EK 790i blocks, I am excited to get them rocking, thanks for the info on the Apogee GTZ.

martin you left one thing unanswered which performs better on a dual core? my 2 cents: i think the fuzion would do better because the input barb is directly over the core

I had been thinking about replacing my GTZ with a DD TDX on my i7 rig. Now I'm thinking I might just leave it alone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaadDaawg

I had been thinking about replacing my GTZ with a DD TDX on my i7 rig. Now I'm thinking I might just leave it alone

---

That would definitely be a downgrade if I ever saw one...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aspire.comptech

That would definitely be a downgrade if I ever saw one...

---

That's quite a statement, have you tried both of these blocks yourself?

But MadDawg, there is absolutely no reason to switch from what you have. In my experience the MC-TDX, while an excellent block, will not net you any advantage over the GTZ.