[Review] Round 2: Swiftech Apogee XT Tested

Preface
This is a quick version of my Apogee XT Testing....it's part four of my Roundup #2 of waterblock testing. The XS version has the boring parts cut out with basically just the core charts and the words :)

If you have any questions, check out the full review (link above)...if they're not answered, ask away here :)

Test Results

First up, individual mounts:
http://vapor.skinneelabs.com/i7/Round2/XT/Mounts.png
Unlike many other blocks on the market, Swiftech prescribes the orientation of the block so there's no orientation testing here, just the results of the XT against the GTZ and GTZ SE. In addition, I tested the XT with the alternate inlet positioning "XT Alt" and observed roughly a quarter of a degree drop in performance. The drop in performance is largely from the drop in flowrate. On my testbed, flowrates went from 1.38GPM to 1.27GPM by changing the inlet positioning; the small drop in performance is the price to pay for compatibility with large compression fittings. It should be noted that the XT's chief rival, the Heatkiller 3.0 LT/Cu, provides no compatibility with larger compression fittings, aside from purchasing additional adapters/fittings from Bitspower or Feser or elsewhere.

In addition to basic testing, I also attempted to tweak the Apogee XT by using the familiar "silcone mod" I debuted with my Heatkiller tests. I've dubbed the tweaked version of the XT as "XT+" and it provides roughly a 1C increase in performance at the expense of 5 minutes of work, a couple dollars of 100% silicone (many varieties are available), a few Q-Tips, and a slight increase in block restriction (bringing flowrates in my testbed from 1.38GPM down to 1.26GPM). Here is a picture of my mod before I installed it (it obviously doesn't have to be perfect to perform great--mine is definitely not perfectly applied!).

http://vapor.skinneelabs.com/i7/Round2/XT/Silicone.jpg

• Very High Pumping Power: All three MCP355 pumps and the D5 are on at full speed--this has a very similar PQ curve to a pair of RD-30s at 20V.
• High Pumping Power: Two MCP355s with EK V2 tops are on at full speed. The other two pumps are off.
• Medium High Pumping Power: A single MCP355 with XSPC V3 top is on at full speed. The other three pumps are off.
• Medium Pumping Power: The stock D5 is on at full speed and setting 5. The other three pumps are off.
• Low Pumping Power: A single MCP355 with XSPC V3 top is on at minimum speed (~7.7V, ~2450RPM). The other three pumps are off.
• Very Low Pumping Power: The stock D5 is on at minimum speed--setting 1. The other three pumps are off.

http://vapor.skinneelabs.com/i7/Round2/XT/XT25W.png

http://vapor.skinneelabs.com/i7/Round2/XT/XT.png

http://vapor.skinneelabs.com/i7/Round2/XT/XT+.png
Note: I do 5 mounts at "Medium High" then take the best config of a block and test the whole flow spectrum (after a TIM curing session) then realign that curve with average of the 3 median mounts to give you the "Adjusted" data.

Many More Graphs
I've included the core graphs and data here...but there's more in the full review, which is here.


Conclusion
Pardon me while I gush for a bit, but this block is amazing. With it you get the best performance of any block on the market, you get the best mounting system of any block on the market (with no extra cost or disassembly procedures to switch sockets), you get full compatibility with all G1/4 fittings (something that's increasingly rare with high performance blocks), and you even can get a little more performance out of it if you've got tinker-itis. The other amazing thing about this block is just how well it performs in low flow scenarios. Of all the blocks I've tested, it's the most resilient to low flow rates and when you add that to best-as-tested performance in normal and high flow scenarios, that equates to untouchable performance in low flow scenarios.

The mounting system is a carry-over from their GTZs and has been improved by extending compatibility to the three most popular Intel desktop sockets while only using one bracket. Usage of the mounting hardware is slightly clumsier than previous generation because the screws don't always stick straight out (because of the usage of a slot rather than a hole for the screw), but it's still the easiest and most consistent system to use of any mounting system on the market. This is especially true when you compare it to the mounting system of some of the European blocks (EK and Watercool come to mind first) that use off-the-shelf components. I said it in the GTZ review and I'm going to repeat it here: this mounting system should be mimicked by more manufacturers, it's a huge boon in usability of the product.

The other big thing that impressed me with this block is the modular inlet plate. Having a second configuration to allow the use of the largest compression fittings available is a great idea and it was implemented wonderfully. It has only a small knock on performance (very small increase in temperatures and a small increase in restriction), so it's an attractive option for those who need it.

Overall this is an incredibly well-rounded product with the best performance I've ever seen from a block and I'm exceedingly impressed. Without any doubt, it's the best block I've ever tested. In addition to the block itself being great, it's also pushed the GTZ to a lower pricepoint, greatly increasing competition in the $50 range. Swiftech has a winner here.

was there any doubt?
damn, now i'm going to have to place my order for sure!
thank you Vapor, as always!

Great review Vapor, thank you. :up:

Great job Vapor. I really like the review and it seems like a great block. I remember last year when the GTZ came out and many many people bought them, there was a lot of buzz. I think this product brings a significant amount of changes to warrant an upgrade for many people, and that's saying a lot.

Nice work Gabe and Swiftech.

Thanks for the excellent review and hard work :up:

A quick question (sorry if it was answered in the review, a bit of a headache going here) - The XT looks great. It is, however, the most flow restrictive of the blocks reviewed. However, it seems to perform in lower flow situations as well as high. Is this one of the differences between the XT and the Koolance 350 (or perhaps even the EK Supreme)? Since it's not included in your reviews, I hesitate to interpolate, but my fuzzy memory tells me it needed higher flow??? (or was it just that it is more restrictive than even the XT?)

And, great job on the Review :up: Thanks for getting it up so soon.

Thanks for the nice review Vapor. Your articles are much appreciated

Cheers :)

Thanks Vapor. It seems that silicon trick may help a few different blocks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zeropluszero

was there any doubt?

---

The day after launch, I almost had the full suite of testing done with original revision (the one that couldn't mount properly on a Gigabyte board--and I use a Gigabyte board) and it was edging out the HK3.0 by a really tiny margin then, with visibly horrible contact. I alerted Swiftech that something was awry with the mounting (it's a 60mm wide block, the HK3.0 is 59mm and needs the caps pushed aside, but the extra .5mm on that side and stricter lateral tolerances with mounting were really causing a problem) and the wheels went into motion for fixing it (which Swiftech addressed and fixed, fully, within a week of launch). But I've been sitting on "winning" data for almost two weeks now, so no, it wasn't in doubt for me :p:

What was thoroughly surprising was how it behaved with varying flow--there's very little scaling in either direction and that's especially impressive in the low flow direction (better performance for more people).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shazza

A quick question (sorry if it was answered in the review, a bit of a headache going here) - The XT looks great. It is, however, the most flow restrictive of the blocks reviewed. However, it seems to perform in lower flow situations as well as high. Is this one of the differences between the XT and the Koolance 350 (or perhaps even the EK Supreme)? Since it's not included in your reviews, I hesitate to interpolate, but my fuzzy memory tells me it needed higher flow??? (or was it just that it is more restrictive than even the XT?)

And, great job on the Review :up: Thanks for getting it up so soon.

---

I think you're looking for this: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=235967

A comparison between all the results so far :)

The XT isn't the most restrictive block (that honor goes to a block that I haven't fully tested yet--actually two on my to-do list have proven in prelim testing to be more restrictive than the Supreme), but it is more restrictive than the GTZ in my tests. It gets especially restrictive at really high flowrates, but that shouldn't be a concern for most.

As for flow dependence....it's the most resilient to low flow of any block so far, that's for sure! The flipside of that is that it doesn't benefit quite as much as other blocks at higher flowrates, but there are still gains to be had if you have the radiator power to offset the increased heatdump of the additional pump(s).

The Koolance 350 and 345 on next on my to-do list and should hopefully be done by the weekend, then maybe I'll take another stab at the Phobya (utterly horrible results my first try, I might have done something wrong with assembling it, have to investigate more) so I have a block to pair with the Sapphire Rev.A I've already tested and shown the results of (just haven't posted a review of it).

Thanks for the compliments folks :)

Thanks for the quick update, Vapor. That clears it up for me :up:

wow just wow :eek:

Great Block indeed, but I expected better flow!
none the less it is the best in cooling, but still it seems like it shouldn't be accompanied with any water block in the same loop for most people if they use only one pump like the MCP355 or the MCP655, am I right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salamndar

Great Block indeed, but I expected better flow!
none the less it is the best in cooling, but still it seems like it shouldn't be accompanied with any water block in the same loop for most people if they use only one pump like the MCP355 or the MCP655, am I right?

---

I don't see why not?

Flowrate itself is a meaningless, what flowrate does is what's important.

As far as most loops are concerned, there's basically two tiers of importance of components: I'll call them 1st tier and 2nd tier.

1st tier consists of the CPU block and the radiator(s). CPU temperatures do matter for stability...if you can knock a few degrees off, that last 10-20MHz often becomes stable. CPU block and radiators are the two components that contribute to CPU temps.

2nd tier consists of everything else--GPUs don't care whether or not they're at 43C or 46C, VRMs sure don't care about a couple of degrees (and let's not get ridiculous with RAM or hard drives).


Given this breakdown, it's mostly sufficient to say that as long as you have quality components (no Zalman straight pipe or Thermaltake stuff), even very low flow will provide identical system performance (in terms of GPU/VRM/RAM/etc performance).

That leaves the CPU block and the radiator....I test flow vs. temperatures with the CPU blocks, and from all the testing I've seen, radiators just don't care about flowrate. Martin tested this a few months ago...the lowest flowrate he tested was .5GPM and the radiator was still performing at 98-99% efficiency (according to the trendline).

So in the end, the only component that has an effect on your system's performance (with regards to varying flowrate), is your CPU block. I'm giving the reader data for how the various blocks on the market respond to both flow and pumping power.

I wouldn't be at all concerned about the effect of using a Koolance CPU-350 or a Supreme or an XT would have on the rest of your system. I would only look at how the various blocks perform at your anticipated pumping power.

Given that, the XT is actually distancing itself from the rest of the pack because it performs so well with low flow.

Killer review Vapor!! Very happy I chose the XT over the HK..

The charts in the roundup of all blocks don't show the XT though..?

What is this silicon trick exactly?

Thanks Vapor. Well, that settles it for me - HK out the window, XT here I come

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nsx241

Thanks Vapor. Well, that settles it for me - HK out the window, XT here I come

---

I would not do that.
As far as I see the block is not worth replacing.
The block is more restrictive and is barely better for a 0,9°C.
It is a great block, I dont say that, but think about before doing this ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vapor

The day after launch, I almost had the full suite of testing done with original revision (the one that couldn't mount properly on a Gigabyte board--and I use a Gigabyte board) and it was edging out the HK3.0 by a really tiny margin then, with visibly horrible contact. I alerted Swiftech that something was awry with the mounting (it's a 60mm wide block, the HK3.0 is 59mm and needs the caps pushed aside, but the extra .5mm on that side and stricter lateral tolerances with mounting were really causing a problem) and the wheels went into motion for fixing it (which Swiftech addressed and fixed, fully, within a week of launch). But I've been sitting on "winning" data for almost two weeks now, so no, it wasn't in doubt for me :p:

What was thoroughly surprising was how it behaved with varying flow--there's very little scaling in either direction and that's especially impressive in the low flow direction (better performance for more people).

I think you're looking for this: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=235967

A comparison between all the results so far :)

The XT isn't the most restrictive block (that honor goes to a block that I haven't fully tested yet--actually two on my to-do list have proven in prelim testing to be more restrictive than the Supreme), but it is more restrictive than the GTZ in my tests. It gets especially restrictive at really high flowrates, but that shouldn't be a concern for most.

As for flow dependence....it's the most resilient to low flow of any block so far, that's for sure! The flipside of that is that it doesn't benefit quite as much as other blocks at higher flowrates, but there are still gains to be had if you have the radiator power to offset the increased heatdump of the additional pump(s).

The Koolance 350 and 345 on next on my to-do list and should hopefully be done by the weekend, then maybe I'll take another stab at the Phobya (utterly horrible results my first try, I might have done something wrong with assembling it, have to investigate more) so I have a block to pair with the Sapphire Rev.A I've already tested and shown the results of (just haven't posted a review of it).

Thanks for the compliments folks :)

---

Very informative, thx again greatly written :up:

Great review, thanks for your hard work Vapor!

Excellent review Vapor! Was a great informative read.

Now I definitely think I will have to wait until they release an AM3 backplate for it :)

Thanks!

Great review Vapor :up:

As Eddy has mentioned, unless you are using something other then an Heatkiller 3.0 or completely new to watercooling, spending almost $80 for a <0.9C reduction in temperature, which you most probably won't notice unless you start logging data and do multiple mounts as Vipor did, is just not a clever way of spending money. Heck, you may get even more of an improvement remounting your current block :D (of couse it can go either way... :p:)

Also I just find a nickle plated Heatkiller that much sexier then the XT :shrug:

Anyway as I've found during my months with the HK, if you want to use a modern CPU waterblock with complex pin matrix/micro channels, you'd want to invest in a good low restriction filter which you can easily clean and maintain. Using my Aquaero with a flowsensor attached I noticed a drop of 20-30 PLH over a few months. Initially thought my pump is slowly dieing, yet the Aquaero still report over 4.5k RPM, I opened up my HK to find the nozzle plate filled with mostly flint and some wet dust (the stuff you find floating around your room, basically dead skin cells). Cleaned the block and invested in a MIPS filter... best £8 ever spent. :up:

vapor,

I run a Low Flow system 3 L/ Hour and using a EK Supreme Gold, Will A XT give me a 3-5C Temp Drop ? I think my EK Supreme doesnt work very well in my Low flow System

I think there is still a problem with lapped processors taking some performance away (like the GTZ). Read another review using a lapped processor and it was about a degree difference the other way. Good review though Vapor. Much appreciated. Still getting this block and will just use my own hard mount to apply max pressure for better performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EvilClocker

vapor,

I run a Low Flow system 3 L/ Hour and using a EK Supreme Gold, Will A XT give me a 3-5C Temp Drop ? I think my EK Supreme doesnt work very well in my Low flow System

---

3L/hr? I hope you mean 3L/min :p:

Anyway, yeah, it looks like you'd see a 3-4C drop if your CPU has the same heatdump as mine (ignore the high voltage I test with--my CPU is oddly cool running and I need that much voltage for it to have temperatures in the 60s).

This also assumes the GOLD performs the same as the regular Supreme. And I can't comment on that, I just don't know if it's true (my hunch is that the performance is the same).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sadasius

I think there is still a problem with lapped processors taking some performance away (like the GTZ). Read another review using a lapped processor and it was about a degree difference the other way. Good review though Vapor. Much appreciated. Still getting this block and will just use my own hard mount to apply max pressure for better performance.

---

rge's tests? I saw like a week ago he posted that he was having weird results on two of his cores. I posted why I think he's having problems over at OCF, but figure I might as well drop it in this thread too...copy and paste follows

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me at OCF

I saw rge's results (he mentioned a weird increase on two cores on XS--something that shouldn't happen with a block change) and I think I figured out why those two cores are oddly hot.

Unfortunately it hints that the XT is not compatible with lapped CPUs after all--it stems from the same basic issue that caused the Gigabyte issues, the block is big. 60x60mm is big and *I think* it breaks Intel's "no-fly zones."

Anyway, here's what I've found: first, Cores 2 and 4 are actually adjacent and are either the top two cores or the bottom two cores, I forget exactly. I don't know why it's done like that :screwy:

Second, when you lap a CPU, you make it shorter by a fraction of a millimeter, which may not seem like much, but it comes into play.

Third, the Torx screws on the socket assembly are not flush with the socket assembly--the top ones definitely stick out quite a bit and the bottom ones (once the socket is loaded with a CPU forcing the internal springs to compress) do a little bit as well.

Fourth, unlike the HK3.0, the Apogee XT overlaps both sets of socket screws and by a few mm.

Add that all up and I think the Apogee XT is not sitting right on his CPU (or really any lapped CPU) because it's sitting on one set of the socket assembly screws (not sure which, my guess is the top set, they protrude the most) and that's forcing the XT to be lifted off the (either the top or the bottom of) the IHS and resulting in increased temperatures on the corresponding pair of cores.

When he gets back from vacation, he can test this by either removing the socket assembly totally, or grinding down the four Torx screws on the socket assembly (or by grinding out grooves on the base of his XT, but that sounds like the hardest option of all). Or if he has a non-lapped CPU, he can do one or two really quick mounts of both the XT and the HK to see that the core temperature profiles are indeed similar (then go on to recompare if he wants to, he probably won't want to after a vacation, lol).

Here's what my core profiles were like with the two blocks.
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1554/captureob.png
XT = the Gigabyte-compatible base (I use a Gigabyte board for testing, so it was important)
HK3.0 = HK3.0
XTOld = original base SW sent--contact was horrible on the left side of the IHS because the 60x60 base was too big and resting on the adjacent bank of caps (even when pushed to the side as much as possible, they forced the base to lift off the IHS).

I've seen this same basic profile on every CPU block I've tested so far. Note that the numbers in the table above are the average of all 5 mounts, where-as the numbers in my charts are the average of the median 3 mounts (I drop the best and worst from my calculations), so they might differ by a few hundredths of a degree from what's on my charts.

---

Vapor, opps I guess I need some coffee 3L / Min I am running a coolit Boreas and (2) Freezone elites , with the EK Supreme gold cooling my Core I7 860 at 4Ghz HT on, 1.39vcore . & GTX 295 coop with Swiftech Epsilon block... My gts295 stays very cool around 45-49C Running Furmark .. But my cpu cooks 67-70C I just think the EK Supreme needs High Flow and 3/8 tubing
Water Temps 22C

So the Swiftech XT Block Should work better in my Low Flow and 1/4 tubing ?

Thanks !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreamaxx

What is this silicon trick exactly?

---

What dreamaxx said. I too am curious about this, the image doesn't really show :shrug:

See the white stuff in the center? That's 100% silicone caulk that I added. RTV silicone would also work. Between caulk and RTV varieties, a lot of colors should be available (clear included), I chose white since it's easiest to photograph. The 100% silicone part is also important...doesn't have to be anything specific, just as long as it's silicone and not acrylic or anything junky like that.

To do the mod, just gob some on, spread with a q-tip over the entire center section, and then use the straight-edge of a q-tip to remove the excess in one sweeping motion. Then go around the edges with another q-tip and clean up the edges at the inlet and at the 'moat' :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eddy_EK

I would not do that.
As far as I see the block is not worth replacing.
The block is more restrictive and is barely better for a 0,9°C.
It is a great block, I dont say that, but think about before doing this ;)

---

Well, while I do have an HK 3.0 on my cpu, this block is really making me think of switching and not simply because of the temps. It's more a combination of the temps, which are not drastically different as you noted, and the vastly superior mounting system on the Swiftech block. Doing remounts with the HK is so tedious and horrible, I'm really thinking of dumping it and replacing it with this XT.

That's why one should consider the XT.....and keep rejecting the stupidly designed mounts of other blocks on the market until the other manufacturers produce mounting systems as simple and elegant as Swiftech's mount.

+1 to Humminn55's comments - I've kept my GTZ going just because it is so darned easy to work with the mounting system (and temps are fine, if not the best). Great to know we now have an even better alternative with the easy-to-use mounting mechanism.

can you explain a little more about the silicon mod, if you can get a full degree of performance, why is this mod not build into the blocks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vapor

rge's tests?

---

Yup that was the one. Good response too btw and thankfully I don't lap my CPU's anyway! I just don't see the point if you have a good block, excellent TIM spread and enough pressure. I am sure I can squeeze even more out of this block with a little extra pressure.

Also since you used the silicon trick and it worked just like the HK that it would mean water was escaping the same way when bolted down and the plate flexed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

can you explain a little more about the silicon mod, if you can get a full degree of performance, why is this mod not build into the blocks.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sadasius

Yup that was the one. Good response too btw and thankfully I don't lap my CPU's anyway! I just don't see the point if you have a good block, excellent TIM spread and enough pressure. I am sure I can squeeze even more out of this block with a little extra pressure.

Also since you used the silicon trick and it worked just like the HK that it would mean water was escaping the same way when bolted down and the plate flexed.

---

I know how the silicone mod helped the HK: it forced all the flow through the microchannels (huge since I know a lot was going OVER the channels, which is useless) and it increased the bow (probably less huge of a gain in perf).

With the XT I'm a little less sure. There's already an o-ring there that should help with both aspects (bowing and forcing flow through the pins), maybe that's why the gains are smaller with the XT. When I disassembled, there was a clear pin pattern in the silicone (with the pins basically puncturing all the way through to the metal), meaning that there's not much flow going over the pins in stock guise. Maybe it's a combination of the more aggressive bow (it's a visible change) and increasing the velocity of the fluid at the very bottom of the "forest of pins" (10% drop in overall flow with a ~25% drop in cross-section area = 15-20% higher velocities) :shrug:

Very nice work as usual. Roughly a 3c improvement over the GTZ is quite an accomplishment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voigts

Very nice work as usual. Roughly a 3c improvement over the GTZ is quite an accomplishment.

---

And Vapor's testing almost exactly replicates the test data presented by Swiftech through their own testing. Guess this possibly will shut up all the "manufaturer data and testing can never be trusted" comments like were made or implied in the original thread about the XT by Gabe.

Thank you for the great review Vapor.

Dumb question I was thinking about.

Given your measurements of the minimal flow reduction between the regular XT and the XT 'Alt' (the inlet plate rotated), would you expect to see the same/less/more amount of flow reduction with the inlet plate in its default installation but using a 45 elbow at the inlet instead?

Seems it would be a minuscule difference, but a 45 at the inlet may play better with my planned loop setup versus going straight in with the inlet plate rotated to clear the comp fittings..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humminn55

And Vapor's testing almost exactly replicates the test data presented by Swiftech through their own testing. Guess this possibly will shut up all the "manufaturer data and testing can never be trusted" comments like were made or implied in the original thread about the XT by Gabe.

---

So far there are only 2 tests been done, i am not saying vapor is cooking the numbers as he wouldn't have any benefit from doing so, right?

I would just wait for more reports from people with regular set ups, i mean 2 tests and 1 the HK wins the other the XT wins so it wouldn't be a bad idea to wait for more reports. Specially because vapor's test or rge's test config may be favoring either block.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fafeifa

So far there are only 2 tests been done, i am not saying vapor is cooking the numbers as he wouldn't have any benefit from doing so, right?

I would just wait for more reports from people with regular set ups, i mean 2 tests and 1 the HK wins the other the XT wins so it wouldn't be a bad idea to wait for more reports. Specially because vapor's test or rge's test config may be favoring either block.

---

I don't know if you mean to come off as insulting or not but to me it is. Between the two tests if you have read them you will see the similarities and also the problems with the hardware that gave the results they did. Both reviews are pretty spot on. On had a lapped cpu and the other did not. On used the HK LT and the other the HK CU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sadasius

I don't know if you mean to come off as insulting or not but to me it is. Between the two tests if you have read them you will see the similarities and also the problems with the hardware that gave the results they did. Both reviews are pretty spot on. On had a lapped cpu and the other did not. On used the HK LT and the other the HK CU.

---

That is why i said you can't conclusion with just 2 reports, when the hk came out a lot of people was skeptic about the results. I don't mean no harm to no one specially to someone who is putting all the hard work. I truly believe vapor is not cooking the numbers but if you do is your own problem. The difference between the CU and LT are minimal if any.

thx for the review Vapor, nice job ;)

Well, considering the Swiftech mount is not really optimized for a lapped CPU, that would probably be the reason for the difference. One test, CPU was lapped, other test it wasn't. :shrug:

Is this just for Intel? I didnt see any mention for AMD?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titan7171

Is this just for Intel? I didnt see any mention for AMD?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

The AM2/AM3 bracket is in production.It will also include mounting holes for Xeon (771) server class platforms.

ETA is 4 weeks.

---

Here you go. :)

Thanks again for a great work! :clap:


However one thing has got me thinking. In your results XT is more restrictive than GTZ despite Swiftech's claims that it's less restrictive with original top config, on a D5... :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by millertime359

Here you go. :)

---

sweet:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeBar

Thanks again for a great work! :clap:


However one thing has got me thinking. In your results XT is more restrictive than GTZ despite Swiftech's claims that it's less restrictive with original top config, on a D5... :confused:

---

I for a moment thought the same thing. But again Vapor explaining eased my mind a little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salamndar

I for a moment thought the same thing. But again Vapor explaining eased my mind a little.

---

I really don't have a good explanation as to why I'm getting numbers that the XT is more restrictive than the GTZ and they're seeing the opposite. That said, as I explained, flowrate itself isn't the important metric--what flowrate does in terms of temperatures is what's important and with that metric, the XT excels :)


Change of topic...
It seems a few people have missed my educated guess as to why rge is seeing different performance than me--it has nothing to do with Copper vs. Delrin top (though I can now confirm I'll be testing the Copper top effects with HK and the Supreme!), but rather much more dire for some prospective XT owners as it seems to be an incompatibility with the XT + LGA1366 socket when using a lapped CPU. Basically the structure of the socket assembly is preventing good contact on a lower profile CPU (i.e., lapped) because the base of the XT is so big.

Again, here's my longer explanation copy and pasted from an OCF post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

I saw rge's results (he mentioned a weird increase on two cores on XS--something that shouldn't happen with a block change) and I think I figured out why those two cores are oddly hot.

Unfortunately it hints that the XT is not compatible with lapped CPUs after all--it stems from the same basic issue that caused the Gigabyte issues, the block is big. 60x60mm is big and *I think* it breaks Intel's "no-fly zones."

Anyway, here's what I've found: first, Cores 2 and 4 are actually adjacent and are either the top two cores or the bottom two cores, I forget exactly. I don't know why it's done like that :screwy:

Second, when you lap a CPU, you make it shorter by a fraction of a millimeter, which may not seem like much, but it comes into play.

Third, the Torx screws on the socket assembly are not flush with the socket assembly--the top ones definitely stick out quite a bit and the bottom ones (once the socket is loaded with a CPU forcing the internal springs to compress) do a little bit as well.

Fourth, unlike the HK3.0, the Apogee XT overlaps both sets of socket screws and by a few mm.

Add that all up and I think the Apogee XT is not sitting right on his CPU (or really any lapped CPU) because it's sitting on one set of the socket assembly screws (not sure which, my guess is the top set, they protrude the most) and that's forcing the XT to be lifted off the (either the top or the bottom of) the IHS and resulting in increased temperatures on the corresponding pair of cores.

When he gets back from vacation, he can test this by either removing the socket assembly totally, or grinding down the four Torx screws on the socket assembly (or by grinding out grooves on the base of his XT, but that sounds like the hardest option of all). Or if he has a non-lapped CPU, he can do one or two really quick mounts of both the XT and the HK to see that the core temperature profiles are indeed similar (then go on to recompare if he wants to, he probably won't want to after a vacation, lol).

Here's what my core profiles were like with the two blocks.
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1554/captureob.png
XT = the Gigabyte-compatible base (I use a Gigabyte board for testing, so it was important)
HK3.0 = HK3.0
XTOld = original base SW sent--contact was horrible on the left side of the IHS because the 60x60 base was too big and resting on the adjacent bank of caps (even when pushed to the side as much as possible, they forced the base to lift off the IHS).

I've seen this same basic profile on every CPU block I've tested so far. Note that the numbers in the table above are the average of all 5 mounts, where-as the numbers in my charts are the average of the median 3 mounts (I drop the best and worst from my calculations), so they might differ by a few hundredths of a degree from what's on my charts.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ketzer7

Thank you for the great review Vapor.

Dumb question I was thinking about.

Given your measurements of the minimal flow reduction between the regular XT and the XT 'Alt' (the inlet plate rotated), would you expect to see the same/less/more amount of flow reduction with the inlet plate in its default installation but using a 45 elbow at the inlet instead?

Seems it would be a minuscule difference, but a 45 at the inlet may play better with my planned loop setup versus going straight in with the inlet plate rotated to clear the comp fittings..

---

Not a dumb question at all actually!

I think the reduced thermal performance of the alternate position is totally due to the fact there's a nominal loss in flowrate. So because of that, I think the 45 degree bend will actually have better performance than rotating the inlet plate. The inlet plate force the water to take two kinda-rough 90-degree bends when in the alternate position (but it's a straight shot with the regular position). That said, the 45 bend fitting is an extra cost and can look a little clunky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeBar

Thanks again for a great work! :clap:


However one thing has got me thinking. In your results XT is more restrictive than GTZ despite Swiftech's claims that it's less restrictive with original top config, on a D5... :confused:

---

yes, Vapor validated all our published thermal data, but for an unknown reason we are still at odds with respect to flow. We each re-validated our respective tests, and each re-confirmed our respective data, and we still don't find the same numbers. Could be instrumentation, could be methodology. For now, we just don't understand why; but I'm sure we'll figure it out eventually.

Very nice review once again! :up:
And good job Swiftech also! The king is back! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Morello

To me, it seems like Heat Killer and Swiftech have similar cooling performance, like the blocks are approaching diminishing performance returns...... :clap:

So it should now be a preference of looks and brand name?

---

for me the choice is mounting system. ive got a gtz because the hk isnt as easy to replicate good mounts. ill be getting an xt very shortly, once they hit aussieland.

Great review! Nice performance, too. :)

GOt my Block Installed Yesterday On My Core I7 860.. I found out the 1156 Backplate from my coolit block Works PerfectlY! here are some quck results. Major Improvements for me from my EK GOLD

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/t...ottle/4100.jpg

EvilClocker
Hm..? Real Temp runs 15 minutes. Linpack - 24. How can u have thoes min temps?

Waterflex, I am running a Coolit Boreas and Duel Freezone elites in 1 loop

here a Pic of my work in progress.. still cleaning up

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/t...e/CIMG1157.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EvilClocker

GOt my Block Installed Yesterday On My Core I7 860.. I found out the 1156 Backplate from my coolit block Works PerfectlY! here are some quck results. Major Improvements for me from my EK GOLD

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/t...ottle/4100.jpg

---

Nice to hear. Thanks for the feed-back, it is obviously important to us.

Gabe,

the XT Block Works Very good in a Low Flow System... I am using your Epsilon block to cool my GTX 295. Really Amazed how much dfference your block made from the EK Gold .. I only running 3 L/ Min

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EvilClocker

Gabe,

the XT Block Works Very good in a Low Flow System... I am using your Epsilon block to cool my GTX 295. Really Amazed how much dfference your block made from the EK Gold .. I only running 3 L/ Min

---

Ultimately, this might help reduce the overall system cost by curbing the trend of multiple pump solutions that we have seen of late.

Flow rate has been a major concern for all enthusiast users. Your experience tends to demonstrate that the XT performance curve could start nudging people into thinking somewhat differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

Ultimately, this might help reduce the overall system cost by curbing the trend of multiple pump solutions that we have seen of late.

Flow rate has been a major concern for all enthusiast users. Your experience tends to demonstrate that the XT performance curve could start nudging people into thinking somewhat differently.

---

Unfortunately some think that having uber high flow rates will increase the size of their penis. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Unfortunately some think that having uber high flow rates will increase the size of their penis. :shrug:

---

:rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Unfortunately some think that having uber high flow rates will increase the size of their penis. :shrug:

---

Of course this does not apply if you do not have a penis.........:yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

yes, Vapor validated all our published thermal data, but for an unknown reason we are still at odds with respect to flow. We each re-validated our respective tests, and each re-confirmed our respective data, and we still don't find the same numbers. Could be instrumentation, could be methodology. For now, we just don't understand why; but I'm sure we'll figure it out eventually.

---

Thanks for the reply! Hopefully more tests should clarify this out...

Yeah, I'd like more tests to pop up too....there's only two differences in our testing that I know of, and neither sure should be producing results that are this different.

Difference #1: they're measuring pressure drop curve with a flow meter and a manometer. I'm measuring flow rate a fixed levels of pumping power.

Difference #2: I think they use the stock barbs for each block for testing. So for the GTZ, they use their old non-recessed barb types and for the XT they use the Eurostyle barbs that are included. I use 1/2" Bitspower fatboy rotaries for all blocks. Regardless though, I don't think the differences in barb usage is worth very much, let alone the differences we're seeing.

I too agree that barbs shouldn't produce such differences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Unfortunately some think that having uber high flow rates will increase the size of their penis. :shrug:

---

Says the guy who pioneered that thought process with his RD30 and dual Laing DDC's... *cough* :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Unfortunately some think that having uber high flow rates will increase the size of their penis. :shrug:

---

It's the XS way. :yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Unfortunately some think that having uber high flow rates will increase the size of their penis. :shrug:

---

wait... it doesnt?

Thanks Vapor for another outstanding test of CPU blocks.
However I still love the sexy look of that copper heatkiller.

As for the challenge with mounting the heatkiller, how often do you change your block once it is mounted anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kgtiger

Thanks Vapor for another outstanding test of CPU blocks.
However I still love the sexy look of that copper heatkiller.

As for the challenge with mounting the heatkiller, how often do you change your block once it is mounted anyway?

---

Once every couple of months for me.

I think the biggest advantage of the Swiftech mounting system is accessibility. I don't feel that comfortable recommending a block that needs to be measured with vernier calipers to a noob, while with the Swiftech mounting system I can say "just crank it down".

If you like the heatkiller, more power to ya.

Thanks Faster3200 for your insite there, much appreciated

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Unfortunately some think that having uber high flow rates will increase the size of their penis. :shrug:

---

If this was the case, you'd see a sudden surge in sales of RD30s.

It wasn't that long ago that all you heard about was flow, flow flow is everything. I am tired of hearing of all of these uber multi-pump flow setups that are supposed to be so much better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Unfortunately some think that having uber high flow rates will increase the size of their penis. :shrug:

---

It DOES TOO!!! I would be using RD-30's but I don't want my penis TOO big! :bananal:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sadasius

It DOES TOO!!! I would be using RD-30's but I don't want my penis TOO big! :bananal:

---

LMAO! ^

Rotflmao, Guys:kittenhat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sadasius

It DOES TOO!!! I would be using RD-30's but I don't want my penis TOO big! :bananal:

---

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weevil

LMAO! ^

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WaterFlex

Rotflmao, Guys:kittenhat

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by millertime359

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

---

I don't know why you guys are laughing at me because it's a serious situation. Last thing I need is my wife complaining about another item......You don't do the dishes.......You don't do the laundry........You spend too much money on computer parts.......Your Penis is too big! Oh who am I kidding......I do the dishes sometimes! :D

Just remember....Using a RD-30 will give you a Rhino penis large enough to break a table! :up:

Okay seriously now....really! Ummmmm Apogee XT. Can't wait to play with that! :yepp: Is it wrong to have sexual feelings about waterblocks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sadasius

I don't know why you guys are laughing at me because it's a serious situation. Last thing I need is my wife complaining about another item......You don't do the dishes.......You don't do the laundry........You spend too much money on computer parts.......Your Penis is too big! Oh who am I kidding......I do the dishes sometimes! :D

Just remember....Using a RD-30 will give you a Rhino penis large enough to break a table! :up:

Okay seriously now....really! Ummmmm Apogee XT. Can't wait to play with that! :yepp: Is it wrong to think sexual feelings about waterblocks?

---

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: The story of my life, My wife thinks the computer is my
mistress!

:shakes:

have the swiftech XT already launch the AM2+ bracket yet?

nice bro... but can i apply the silicone to my GTZ wb then to get a 1 degree celcius?

Do not do the silicone mod to the GTZ! Doing so kills performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sadasius

Is it wrong to have sexual feelings about waterblocks?

---

Just as long as your wife or G/F doesn't find out. ;)

Vapor:
I have a question about your graphs. On the 2 graphs, the vertical axis is labeled as "...adjusted for 25C Water Temp".
What does this adjustment mean? Would you please explain?
Thank you.

I'm just taking the water temperature (at the inlet of the waterblock) to core temperature delta and adding 25C. :)

25C is an arbitrary choice....I realize most here probably have water temps at closer to 30C, but now that I've been using 25C, I see no reason to not continue to use it. :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vapor

I'm just taking the water temperature (at the inlet of the waterblock) to core temperature delta and adding 25C. :)

25C is an arbitrary choice....I realize most here probably have water temps at closer to 30C, but now that I've been using 25C, I see no reason to not continue to use it. :p:

---

I am still not getting it.
I suppose you get the water temperature from a sensor placed at the inlet of the waterblock and get, say, 25C.
And, you get the core temperature 60C from, say, a software like Core Temp or Real Temp.
Then, the water temperature to core temperature delta is 60-25=45C.
And then you add back 25C to this 45C to get 60C?
Somehow this does not make sense to me.
I know I am sounding stupid but I am a WC newbie and so please pardon me.

Would you please explain the logic in a little more detail?

I have also gone to your skinnee labs website and read the whole report and notice that on some graphs the vertical axis is labelled as "....adjusted for 22C Air Temperature". Would you also please comment on this as well?

TIA for your patience with a newbie.

Has anyone else had trouble getting all four back-plate posts to go through the motherboard holes? I had to sand mine down for quite a while to get them to fit through. It is literally impossible if you don't get all four to push through at the same time, but the adhesive foam makes that hit or miss. Other than having to spend way too much time getting the back-plate situated, I LOVE this block. Unbelievable improvement over my old D-tek Fuzion. Getting lower temps from my 4ghz i7 on the XT than my 3.6ghz Q6600 on the D-tek Fuzion.:up:

Awesome work as usual, thanks for all the testing perfection and hard work.

I really like that flow rate impacts methodology, that's perrrfect!..:yepp:

I guess I better get hold of swiftech. I am seeing the opposite results.

using a swiftech MCP-655 pump, I am seeing the XT having 5-10C higher temps on a 4.5Ghz i5-2500K than my old swiftech GTZ when under full load.

both are within 1C of each other when at Idle, but I never run idle.

i have checked everything and just cannot get the temps down on my XT.

Did you try mounting it again after the first result?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazlov

Did you try mounting it again after the first result?

---

yes. been remounted 4 times with same results.

did have troubles with the block when I first got it though. it had absolutely no water flow through it when I first got the block. I tore it apart and found that the gasket around the inlet was incorrectly installed and was not seated in the slot. after I fixed that, it had flow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nutcase

I guess I better get hold of swiftech. I am seeing the opposite results.

using a swiftech MCP-655 pump, I am seeing the XT having 5-10C higher temps on a 4.5Ghz i5-2500K than my old swiftech GTZ when under full load.

both are within 1C of each other when at Idle, but I never run idle.

i have checked everything and just cannot get the temps down on my XT.

---

This wasn't a Sandy Bridge test

There hasn't been any CPU block testing on sandy bridge that I know of, so we really don't know what the heat signature is like in SB and it may very well behave differently.

Also FYI, 5-10C difference is likely something else. An accurate comparison of any two blocks is very unlikely to be anything more than 4C.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

This wasn't a Sandy Bridge test

There hasn't been any CPU block testing on sandy bridge that I know of, so we really don't know what the heat signature is like in SB and it may very well behave differently.

Also you can't compare different processors. You could have a hot 2500K, etc...too many variables.

---

This block was also on an i7-860 cpu. But I did not have the new bracket to try the GTZ on it. I threw them out because of this.

just want to figure out the problem with it and it appears to be a flow problem. i would like to start using the block again as my i7-860 is just sitting in a box doing nothing. (and I hate idle computers) ;)

5-10C is because I run Distributed computing projects. The load does not stay constant on these depending on what the app is doing.

I want to get it up and running because i love swiftech's mounting system. one if the best on the market!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nutcase

This block was also on an i7-860 cpu. But I did not have the new bracket to try the GTZ on it. I threw them out because of this.

just want to figure out the problem with it and it appears to be a flow problem. i would like to start using the block again as my i7-860 is just sitting in a box doing nothing. (and I hate idle computers) ;)

5-10C is because I run Distributed computing projects. The load does not stay constant on these depending on what the app is doing.

I want to get it up and running because i love swiftech's mounting system. one if the best on the market!

---

Ahh...I got ya..

I totally agree on the mounting mechanism. After using one, I almost feel like I'm taking a step back in time using loose thumbnuts and oh crap springs that go flying everywhere...:D

I'm still trying to decide if I'll use my old Supreme V1 vs. some newer block when I upgrade over the next month. I like the low restriction/performance of the new HF, but I really like the swiftech CPU mounting system by far.:up:

The mounting hardware is only for the Intel Cpu's right?

I was really looking at getting the XT for my AMD project till I read the instructions for installing on AMD. Looks like ocrap springs