Well, testing could not finish.

Printable View

01-15-2007, 03:19 PM
nikhsub1

Well, testing could not finish.

Well, I don't know what to say but I could not get the Apogee GT to complete it's last test. Test 1 and 2 went well, both performed on consecutive days with very similar ambient temps (~20C). Well, test 3 which I started yesterday never finished. I got 3 BSOD's yesterday on 3 different mounts. Today, I remounted 4 times because each mount looked bad judging by initial load temps, they were just too high. On the 5th mount I decided to try to run the test after the hour burn in period with TAT. Well, with 8 minutes before completion BSOD. IDK what the heck is going on but it seems Im having the same issue that they had at CES - although my hardware is fine! Being utterly frustrated, I removed the GT and put the G5 back in to see what was going on. After mounting the G5 I immediately started TAT, air in system and all. I don't know what I am going to do with my results because they are incomplete. I think I need to take a day break and think. Any suggestions welcomed. FWIW, here is the end of the GT TAT log followed by the G5 mount. I don't know if the GT's base is just borked or what. I hard mount all of my blocks with a tremendous amount of torque, perhaps the base is deflecting too much with this much pressure. *Sigh* - now I know why I never wanted to test :mad:

Code:

13:31:15: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 69°C ] 13:31:15: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 67°C ] 13:31:17: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 68°C ] 13:31:17: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 66°C ] 13:31:31: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 69°C ] 13:31:33: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 68°C ] 13:31:37: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 67°C ] 13:31:39: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 66°C ] 13:31:43: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 67°C ] 13:31:45: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 70°C ] 13:31:45: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 70°C ] 13:31:48: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 68°C ] 13:31:48: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 66°C ]<--- Apogee GT right before BSOD Writing to D:\Program Files\Intel Corporation\Thermal Analysis Tool\Results.txt Intel® Thermal Analysis Tool: v 2.05.2006.0420 Processor: Pentium® M Processor (6FXh) Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2 OS version: 5.1.2600 (Build 2600) On Demand Clock Modulation [Processor 0] : Chipset: 0-4 Processor: 0-1 On Demand Clock Modulation [Processor 1] : Chipset: 0-4 Processor: 0-1 Driver Version: v1.0 Power Source: AC Workload library returns Context: 0x1 Polling Period: 2000 mSec. On Demand Clock Modulation [Processor 0] : Chipset: 0-4 Processor: 0-1 On Demand Clock Modulation [Processor 1] : Chipset: 0-4 Processor: 0-1 14:39:01: ** Monitor Started ** 14:39:01: No temperature reading 14:39:02: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 45°C ] 14:39:02: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 47°C ] 14:39:06: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 46°C ] 14:39:08: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 45°C ] 14:39:12: Workload power level: 100% 14:39:18: ** Workload Started (Processor 0) ** 14:39:14: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 46°C ] 14:39:14: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 48°C ] 14:39:20: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 57°C ] 14:39:20: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 52°C ] 14:39:22: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 51°C ] 14:39:22: Workload power level: 100% 14:39:22: ** Workload Started (Processor 1) ** <-----G5 Right at Boot 14:39:24: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59°C ] 14:39:24: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58°C ] 14:39:26: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 54°C ] 14:39:28: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59°C ] 14:39:32: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58°C ] 14:39:32: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58°C ] 14:39:34: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59°C ] 14:39:34: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 55°C ] 14:39:36: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58°C ] 14:39:42: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58°C ] 14:39:44: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59°C ] 14:39:48: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 57°C ] 14:39:50: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59°C ] 14:39:52: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 54°C ] 14:39:54: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59°C ] 14:39:59: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 55°C ] 14:40:01: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58°C ] 14:40:01: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59°C ] 14:40:03: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59°C ] 14:40:07: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58°C ] 14:40:09: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 60°C ] 14:40:09: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59°C ] 14:40:13: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59°C ] 14:40:13: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58°C ] 14:40:15: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59°C ] 14:40:21: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58°C ] 14:40:23: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59°C ] 14:40:51: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58°C ] 14:40:57: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58°C ] 14:40:59: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59°C ] 14:40:59: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59°C ] 14:41:03: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58°C ] 14:41:05: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59°C ]
01-15-2007, 03:22 PM
MaxxxRacer

Well you said that you might think that your putting too much mounting pressure.. so with that in mind, try mounting the GT with the stock equipment.
01-15-2007, 03:26 PM
nikhsub1

Yeah, I may just try that Maxxx... I just can't figure why test 1 and 2 went perfectly fine, then all of a sudden I can't get a good mount out of 6 or 7 attempts. That is what I am not understanding, but in light of your advice (which I'm known to sometimes overlook the obvious) I may just do what you suggest.
01-15-2007, 03:27 PM
clokker

Hmmm.
IIRC, you were testing several blocks, weren't you?
All of them finished save the GT?
01-15-2007, 03:32 PM
nikhsub1

Quote:

Originally Posted by clokker

Hmmm.
IIRC, you were testing several blocks, weren't you?
All of them finished save the GT?

Yes. So far I have tested the G5 and the Fuzion. I ran a total of 6 tests on the fuzion, one in stock form and one with a custom nozzle I fabbed. So the fuzion had 6 mounts and the G5 had 3. The GT finished the first 2 with no issue but the 3rd is 8 minutes shy of the hour. Not only that but the deltaT of test 3 is much higher (+2C) than the other 2. As far as I am concerned, all the GT data needs to be scrapped and I need to start again with it.
01-15-2007, 03:55 PM
flou

Nikhsub1, it is not your problem if these guys in swiftech can't make a proper mounting mechanism for their block.The results are what you have.And thank you so much for the time you spent.:toast:
You guys are expert and even you are not able to make the right mounting, the one that the block needs. The majority of people are not going to think so much about the mounting.They just open the package,make up the circuit, put some paste and then right on the cpu.So, even you ,a guy that knows so much about watercooling, why do you have to see what is going on after 5 mountings and the block doesn't have the proper results? Even the other 2 reviews, from tyrou and vr-zone, show that other older blocks might perform better.Even those guys did the standard mounting,no need to see what is going on. That is why i think that Fusion is the clear winner among the 2 blocks.
01-15-2007, 03:55 PM
clokker

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

As far as I am concerned, all the GT data needs to be scrapped and I need to start again with it.

I would disagree.
"Failure to complete test" is data...maybe not what you (or Gabe) were hoping for, but data nonetheless.
Of interest would be the "why" of such a failure.
If you suspect incorrect mounting technique (and by following Maxxx's advice you are basically ceding the point), how come the G5 and the Fuzion survived?
If you redo the GT tests using Swiftech's hardware aren't you obliged to redo the Fuzion as well, using D-tek's?

If the GT is more sensitive to mounting pressure ( sensitive to the point of failure actually) that is valuable information above and beyond any temp data acquired.

I'd like to see the results you've already gathered, albeit presented with the caveat that the GT didn't complete the full round and may be retested at a later date.
The data pool is rather shallow at this point and it'd be a shame not to add whatever results you've got.
01-15-2007, 04:05 PM
BillA

ck the bp, did you crown it ? (reverse curvature, concave)
hard mounting can bugger a 'flexable' bp, as the Apogee is known to be

I would add that I always use springs
01-15-2007, 04:17 PM
WeStSiDePLaYa

Quote:

Originally Posted by flou

Nikhsub1, it is not your problem if these guys in swiftech can't make a proper mounting mechanism for their block.The results are what you have.And thank you so much for the time you spent.:toast:
You guys are expert and even you are not able to make the right mounting, the one that the block needs. The majority of people are not going to think so much about the mounting.They just open the package,make up the circuit, put some paste and then right on the cpu.So, even you ,a guy that knows so much about watercooling, why do you have to see what is going on after 5 mountings and the block doesn't have the proper results? Even the other 2 reviews, from tyrou and vr-zone, show that other older blocks might perform better.Even those guys did the standard mounting,no need to see what is going on. That is why i think that Fusion is the clear winner among the 2 blocks.

im pretty sure he doesnt use the stock mounting hardware. so there goes that theory.

Only thing that makes sense is that the not stock mounting hardware is putting too much pressure on the core. Too much pressure is a bad thing, as it starts to warp the base of the block, and mess around with the contact.
01-15-2007, 04:19 PM
nikhsub1

Clokker you raise some good points. I have ALWAYS hard mounted my blocks with no springs and with a lot of pressure. Even since my Athlon XP days. I have always found this to give the best and most consistent mounts. The GT was mounted for the 3rd test (all 6 or 7 times) in the same manner I mounted it for test 1 and 2 and all blocks for that matter. I could understand if ambient was much higher and it BSOD'd but such is not the case. I know people are interested in data so I will post it here now - just keep in mind that I will be retesting the GT with this 'super o-ring' once it arrives. I will also test the Swiftech G4 as well. Of interest is the Fuzion with my nozzle. As you can bet, D-Tek will have a nozzle shortly :D

FuZion Mount 1
--------------
Temp Avg. 64.037
Ambient Avg 20.556
Avg DeltaT 43.481

FuZion Mount 2
--------------
Temp Avg. 64.811
Ambient Avg 21.875
Avg DeltaT 42.936

FuZion Mount 3
--------------
Avg Temp 64.981
Avg Ambient 22.222
Avg DeltaT 42.759

FuZion w/Nozzle Mount 1
--------------
Temp Avg. 60.680
Ambient Avg 20.509
Avg DeltaT 40.171

FuZion w/Nozzle Mount 2
--------------
Temp Avg. 60.844
Ambient Avg 20.463
Avg DeltaT 40.381

FuZion w/Nozzle Mount 3
--------------
Temp Avg. 60.921
Ambient Avg 20.669
Avg DeltaT 40.252

G5 Mount 1
--------------
Avg Core Temp 63.703
Avg Ambient 23.472
Avg DeltaT 40.231

G5 Mount 2
--------------
Avg Core Temp 59.292
Avg Ambient 21.000
Avg DeltaT 38.292

G5 Mount 3
--------------
Avg Core Temp 58.533
Avg Ambient 19.814
Avg DeltaT 38.719

Apogee GT Mount 1
--------------
Avg Core Temp 65.159
Avg Ambient 20.741
Avg DeltaT 44.418

Apogee GT Mount 2
--------------
Avg Core Temp 62.934
Avg Ambient 20.555
Avg DeltaT 42.379

Apogee GT Mount 3*
--------------
Avg Core Temp 67.476
Avg Ambient 20.648
Avg DeltaT 46.828

*= Test did not complete - 52 minutes completed out of 60. BSOD prevented completion.
01-15-2007, 04:27 PM
nikhsub1

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillA

ck the bp, did you crown it ? (reverse curvature, concave)
hard mounting can bugger a 'flexable' bp, as the Apogee is known to be

I would add that I always use springs

Err, it does appear I have buggered the base :( Rule #1. DO NOT hard mount the Apogee! Lesson learned I guess. Well, this at least makes me feel better that I have an answer as to WHY I could not get a good mount after the first 2. Oh well. Unless Swiftech wants to send me another base plate (along with the o-ring they are sending) I guess this Apogee is done. I have never had a block do this to me before, my mistake on the hard mount here. Perhaps this is EXACTLY what happened at CES?
01-15-2007, 04:28 PM
serialk11r

Whats strange about the BSOD? I had my e6400 at 2.66GHz on my sh*tty motherboard fine for a month, then it bsoded. I would expect a BSOD, given enough time, for any overclock.
01-15-2007, 04:33 PM
nikhsub1

Quote:

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Whats strange about the BSOD? I had my e6400 at 2.66GHz on my sh*tty motherboard fine for a month, then it bsoded. I would expect a BSOD, given enough time, for any overclock.

What is strange is the fact that 3.85Ghz @ 1.56V is my 24/7 365 setting! I run FAH 24/7/365 so my machine is ALWAYS on (unless im swapping WB's) and always at load. I had NO BSOD's with the G5 or the Fuzion. I believe I have found the source of the issue ^_^
01-15-2007, 04:33 PM
clokker

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

As you can bet, D-Tek will have a nozzle shortly :D

My Fuzion arrives Wednesday and I have a lathe and am not afraid to use it.

I saw your nozzle and read Stew's comments regarding a theoretically good nozzle design.
In a perfect world would you incorporate the tapered plug into the barb itself or is there room for it to extend below, into the base of the block?
01-15-2007, 04:34 PM
serialk11r

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

What is strange is the fact that 3.85Ghz @ 1.56V is my 24/7 365 setting! I run FAH 24/7/365 so my machine is ALWAYS on (unless im swapping WB's) and always at load. I had NO BSOD's with the G5 or the Fuzion. I believe I have found the source of the issue ^_^

Ah... IC... I think swiftech is thoroughly screwed.
01-15-2007, 04:38 PM
nikhsub1

Quote:

Originally Posted by clokker

My Fuzion arrives Wednesday and I have a lathe and am not afraid to use it.

I saw your nozzle and read Stew's comments regarding a theoretically good nozzle design.
In a perfect world would you incorporate the tapered plug into the barb itself or is there room for it to extend below, into the base of the block?

No not into the barb - the nozzles will install under the barb, there is plenty of room (~3/4") as the barb will help keep the nozzle in place. Amazing the difference from no nozzle to my crappy version of a nozzle isnt it?
01-15-2007, 04:40 PM
clokker

Quote:

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Ah... IC... I think swiftech is thoroughly screwed.

Hardly.
This would probably not have happened had nik used the supplied hardware.
The GT has a thinner baseplate and must be treated a bit more carefully is all.
01-15-2007, 04:42 PM
nikhsub1

Quote:

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Ah... IC... I think swiftech is thoroughly screwed.

I wouldn't go that far. Did you see test 2 of the Apogee? Not too shabby at all. I used the block out of spec (heck, i use all blocks out of spec) and killed it. I call things as I see them, I have no debt to anyone. I just like to see what is what for myself and I know I can do a reasonable good job of attaining results with what I've got. With that said, this is no fault of the Apogee it is my fault and the lesson here is that it can't be manhandled like the other blocks, the base is too flexible.
01-15-2007, 04:44 PM
clokker

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

No not into the barb - the nozzles will install under the barb, there is plenty of room (~3/4") as the barb will help keep the nozzle in place. Amazing the difference from no nozzle to my crappy version of a nozzle isnt it?

Yes, it is.
Any wagers as to how much better (if any) a tapered nozzle will be?
I'm guessing, not all that much.

If you'd like one let me know.
01-15-2007, 04:47 PM
nikhsub1

Quote:

Originally Posted by clokker

Yes, it is.
Any wagers as to how much better (if any) a tapered nozzle will be?
I'm guessing, not all that much.

If you'd like one let me know.

Well my bet is that a proper nozzle (~6.5mm at smallest point) will not yield temps as good as my 4mm nozzle but, overall flow rates won't suffer like they do with my nozzle (which i have since killed tying to improve it :D ).
01-15-2007, 04:47 PM
virtualrain

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Err, it does appear I have buggered the base :( Rule #1. DO NOT hard mount the Apogee! Lesson learned I guess. Well, this at least makes me feel better that I have an answer as to WHY I could not get a good mount after the first 2. Oh well. Unless Swiftech wants to send me another base plate (along with the o-ring they are sending) I guess this Apogee is done. I have never had a block do this to me before, my mistake on the hard mount here. Perhaps this is EXACTLY what happened at CES?

Nik... sorry to hear that... what exactly happened to the base?
01-15-2007, 05:57 PM
SiGfever

@nik,

My Fuzion is due in tomorrow and now I need a nozzle before I install it. Any word from D-Tek about when they will have some available?
01-15-2007, 06:10 PM
ziddey

Damn. So you're thinking only hard mounting can have this adverse affect? I'm curious since with my regular apogee, I use the supplied hardware (springs et al) and tighten down until the whole bolt starts spinning (which is after I apply more force than it takes to become tight). I've tried stopping when it became hard as well.
01-15-2007, 06:19 PM
nikhsub1

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziddey

Damn. So you're thinking only hard mounting can have this adverse affect? I'm curious since with my regular apogee, I use the supplied hardware (springs et al) and tighten down until the whole bolt starts spinning (which is after I apply more force than it takes to become tight). I've tried stopping when it became hard as well.

I guess. But let me explain the way i mount; no springs at all, the nuts to the mount plate and I torque them a lot, as in as tight as I can turn them before my fingers bleed.
01-15-2007, 06:31 PM
_G_

you could try propping up the edges of the baseplate on wood and tape the concave out of it with a wood dowel and hammer:hammer:
start off light and check after each smack looks like swiftech used real soft copper
01-15-2007, 06:42 PM
gabe

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Err, it does appear I have buggered the base :( Rule #1. DO NOT hard mount the Apogee! Lesson learned I guess. Well, this at least makes me feel better that I have an answer as to WHY I could not get a good mount after the first 2. Oh well. Unless Swiftech wants to send me another base plate (along with the o-ring they are sending) I guess this Apogee is done. I have never had a block do this to me before, my mistake on the hard mount here. Perhaps this is EXACTLY what happened at CES?

CES: Not at all what happened! We believe we damaged the motherboard with a hardmount (OP thinks he tightened way too much and cracked a trace). Replacing the motherboard next day with exact same model resolved all stability issues.

Sorry I didn't send you the o-ring today, vendor was late in delivering. Parts were received 5 minutes ago... NP to send you another block. Note: if you want to verify whether base is now concave, simply place a straight edge across it, and inspect against bright light.

Mounting system of Apogee GT is same (same posts, same springs) as regular Apogee. Thousands of Apogee sold in 2006. never any pb. Hard mount is never advisable as too risky (ongoing debate about this with OP), unless you have a means of limiting the torque by placing a spacer of the correct size between hold-down plate and motherboard, or using an acorn nut (blind nut) with the correct length screw.
01-15-2007, 07:08 PM
flou

So, you think nikhsub1 that the apogee gt is a better block than the Fusion?Can you make a flow test with the nozzle?How much is the drop pressure?
01-15-2007, 07:44 PM
gabe

Update:

Parts received tonight. I mounted the "fat" o-ring for you already, and placed the "regular" in the box, with a note.

will send block tomorrow.
01-15-2007, 08:31 PM
sonofander

How do the rest of us "pre-releasers" go about getting that extra o-ring?
01-16-2007, 11:49 AM
gabe

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonofander

How do the rest of us "pre-releasers" go about getting that extra o-ring?

email to help@swiftech.com with your address and copy of your receipt

again sorry about this inconvenience
01-16-2007, 12:25 PM
Fr3ak

I still dont get what is causing trouble.
Due to hard mounting the block is now most likely concav.
That means the center of the block doesnt make good contact with the IHS.
But when looking at the temp reading in niks post, the reading right before it BSOD (cos of too much heat?) is 4C lower than the temps he got before that..
Shoulnt temps skyrock or increase slighlt over time with a concave base?
01-16-2007, 01:23 PM
nikhsub1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fr3ak

I still dont get what is causing trouble.
Due to hard mounting the block is now most likely concav.
That means the center of the block doesnt make good contact with the IHS.
But when looking at the temp reading in niks post, the reading right before it BSOD (cos of too much heat?) is 4C lower than the temps he got before that..
Shoulnt temps skyrock or increase slighlt over time with a concave base?

No, not necessarily. I tried mounting the Apogee for the 3rd test 6 or 7 times, each time noting that temps just looked off, too high. Each time I ran TAT at load for just a few minutes it would BSOD. Temps never shot up. Keep in mind that the speed I am running (3.85Ghz) that any instability or too high temps will BSOD the machine. The last attempt is the log that is shown.
01-16-2007, 01:42 PM
WeStSiDePLaYa

Quote:

Originally Posted by gabe

Mounting system of Apogee GT is same (same posts, same springs) as regular Apogee. Thousands of Apogee sold in 2006. never any pb.

since when is that how apogee mounts?:confused:

mine just has screws. no springs.
01-16-2007, 06:33 PM
Philly_Boy

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Err, it does appear I have buggered the base :( Rule #1. DO NOT hard mount the Apogee! Lesson learned I guess. Well, this at least makes me feel better that I have an answer as to WHY I could not get a good mount after the first 2. Oh well. Unless Swiftech wants to send me another base plate (along with the o-ring they are sending) I guess this Apogee is done. I have never had a block do this to me before, my mistake on the hard mount here. Perhaps this is EXACTLY what happened at CES?

Tuesday night at the Swiftech Challenge we hard mounted the Apogee GT to the point of bowing the mother board. We were greeted by 6-7 lock ups or BSOD's or spontaneous reboots. Before we ran the Apogee GT we mounted the Fuzion several times with the D-Tek hardware which includes longer stiff springs and inserts and it ran with no problem. We were curious that when we pulled the blocks off it was apparent that one corner of the CPU was not making the best contact with the block.

When we redid the the testing on Wednesday with a new mobo we were very careful to properly and precisely mount the blocks, ensuring an even mount with even pressure. We used a micrometer to insure each nut was turned down within 0.012" of each other. Both blocks ran with no problem at all. The Apogee GT mount with the larger diameter gasket (which bowed the otherwise lapped flat base) ran up to 8c better than the same block with the smaller diameter gasket with the flat base.

Also, we noticed that the mounts had nice even contact with the entire surface of the CPU. The TIM pattern was nice and square like the IHS on the CPU. It is difficult to say whether this resulted from the better mounting methodology or the fact that we carefully lapped the CPU we used for Wednesday evening.

In the end I agree that you need the springs for each block to and you must be very careful to mount the blocks evenly but without so much pressure that it warps the mobo.
01-16-2007, 06:37 PM
nikhsub1

Well, even the intel stock HSF warps the mobo... a whole bunch! My mounts warp the mobo as well, always have.
01-16-2007, 07:17 PM
BillA

"net clue factor"
truly this is a cycle, for noobs; round and round we go
01-16-2007, 07:32 PM
_G_

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Well, even the intel stock HSF warps the mobo... a whole bunch! My mounts warp the mobo as well, always have.

do you have a metal backing plate?
had the same problem with my A64 setup until I got a metal one.
01-16-2007, 08:07 PM
nikhsub1

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillA

"net clue factor"
truly this is a cycle, for noobs; round and round we go

You love Cathar's coinage of that don't you? :D Do you direct this at me? :confused:
01-16-2007, 08:08 PM
nikhsub1

Quote:

Originally Posted by _G_

do you have a metal backing plate?
had the same problem with my A64 setup until I got a metal one.

Let me be very clear here. I have NEVER EVER had a problem with mounting without springs. I get more consistent mounts that way. I have run many many blocks in my day and have never run into this issue.
01-16-2007, 08:17 PM
_G_

I was refering to mobo warping(I was running a cheape evga board:p)
not youre mounting method.
01-16-2007, 09:57 PM
MaxxxRacer

As I read through this guide I was going to suggest checking the Apogee for warping as I know the base is rather thin to improve performance/reduce costs.. but that that has already been suggest and determined to be the prob....

lol @ bill.
01-17-2007, 10:41 PM
[XC] DragonOrta

nikhsub, do you happen to have a 6002 to add to this testing?
01-18-2007, 05:12 AM
WeStSiDePLaYa

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaxxxRacer

As I read through this guide I was going to suggest checking the Apogee for warping as I know the base is rather thin to improve performance/reduce costs.. but that that has already been suggest and determined to be the prob....

lol @ bill.

direct me to where it has been "Determined" to be the problem.

I havent seen any conclusive evidence to support that.:fact:
01-18-2007, 06:08 AM
Leeum

Interesting results nikhsub1, thanks for sharing. Would it be possible to have something like a Danger Den TDX added to the comparison?
01-18-2007, 06:20 AM
IanY

I'm tired of the snide remarks, insults and innuendo. I'm going to just speak my mind, as plainly as my simpleton self knows how.

If anyone deems themselves/himself as the true expert here, kindly step up to the plate and show some initiative. Otherwise, if you are going to kick back and sit in the back seat, then kindly shut your collective traps.

If you are so darn initiated, as opposed to the rest of us being n00bs, then take the leadership role and do the testing using the method you deem correct. Otherwise, provide due credit to those who have at least tried, rather than resting on your collective pompous oversized posteriors. These people have worked tirelessly to benefit the community. All you have contributed is criticism.

You know exactly who you are.
01-18-2007, 07:09 AM
IanY

Quote:

Originally Posted by WeStSiDePLaYa

direct me to where it has been "Determined" to be the problem.

I havent seen any conclusive evidence to support that.:fact:

If that isn't the most blatant corroborative evidence of Apogee prejudice, then I don't know what is.
01-18-2007, 07:38 AM
WeStSiDePLaYa

Quote:

Originally Posted by IanY

If that isn't the most blatant corroborative evidence of Apogee prejudice, then I don't know what is.

NOBODY has determined that any problems are related to the base of the Apogee. Show me otherwise, and I will shut up, if not, you do the honors.

And to add to that, your just throwing big words around you dont seem to understand. Why would you claim I was being prejudice against the Apogee? If anything, im SUPPORTING it for now, due to CES testing.

EDIT:

Referring to your first comment: And sorry, I cannot afford to spend hundreds of dollars on blocks. I guess the people who dont have access to the newest and pre release waterblocks have no input.

But hey, maybe I should try being like some other members, who's extent of input ends at "OMG, your testing is soo coolz." And then do not even question testing methodology, or think objectively about the results given. Instead they accept every little thing they hear from certain watercooling "gods".

Note the above is speaking generally.
01-18-2007, 08:03 AM
IanY

Quote:

Originally Posted by WeStSiDePLaYa

NOBODY has determined that any problems are related to the base of the Apogee. Show me otherwise, and I will shut up, if not, you do the honors.

And to add to that, your just throwing big words around you dont seem to understand. Why would you claim I was being prejudice against the Apogee? If anything, im SUPPORTING it for now, due to CES testing.

Not you! How can you be prejudiced against the Apogee :) I wasn't talking about you! You are the *last* person on earth to be prejudiced against the Apogee.. as though I wouldn't know that :)

Incidently, the base of the Apogee warps? That's news to me. As far as I'm concerned, its the first time I've heard this. The Apogee design has worked well for quite a while, and better than the Storm Rev 2 on the Kentsfield, thank you very much. There. Feel better? :)

Note that I do my own testing and form my own conclusions. I don't rely on anyone's tests, regardless of how "coolz" anybody is supposed to be.

My first comment wasn't directed at you either lol :) Its a reference to some other supposed big guru here... rarely contributes.. only criticizes.. and I am tired of his snide remarks and unnecessary personal insults. Look further up this thread.

Recognize who wears the same uniform before firing your weapon :)
01-18-2007, 08:07 AM
clokker

Quote:

Originally Posted by WeStSiDePLaYa

And to add to that, your just throwing big words around you dont seem to understand. Why would you claim I was being prejudice against the Apogee? If anything, im SUPPORTING it for now, due to CES testing.

Just to be pedantic....
"Prejudice" is not implicitly for or against an object.
It actually denotes assuming an attitude/belief without experience or fact.
01-18-2007, 08:25 AM
nikhsub1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leeum

Interesting results nikhsub1, thanks for sharing. Would it be possible to have something like a Danger Den TDX added to the comparison?

Nope sorry. I don't have a 6002 either, wish I did but tis kind of a moot point as the block no longer is being made. I guess we could say the same thing about the Storm...

I received the new Apogee with the bigger o-ring installed. Of course, first thing I did was take it apart :D (sorry Gabe). When the base of the apogee is unbolted from the top (with the fatter oring) the top sits ~1/8" perhaps a tad less off the base. There is a very noticeable gap. When the corners are torqued down, you clearly see the bow - each corner is touching the top (delrin) but on each side in the middle you see a slight gap between base and top. I placed the bowed apogee on my glass table and it only ever so slightly rocks side to side... you can spin it like a top if you wanted to :D

I have to finish an important work project that I hope to have done tomorrow night, perhaps Saturday. I hope to get results for the G4 and the bowed Apogee before I leave to Chicago on Wed the 24th...

If time permits I have a very interesting idea with the Storm that I want to try. I also have even more ideas about the Fuzion and how to maybe make that perform even better - clokker is making a nozzle me thinks.

To address my first apogee which the base crowned, what is there not to understand? Do you NOT see the 3rd apogee test? Is it not horrid? Was it not stated that I had to remount 6 or 7 times just to be able to attemp the 3rd test? BillA made mention that the base is most likely now CONVEX due to the tremendous mounting pressure I subjected the block to. One thing I know for sure, it no longer performs like it did when I first got it. I wouldnt run around saying this is or will be a problem, I dont think anyone uses my mounting technique.
01-18-2007, 09:21 AM
WeStSiDePLaYa

Quote:

Originally Posted by clokker

Just to be pedantic....
"Prejudice" is not implicitly for or against an object.
It actually denotes assuming an attitude/belief without experience or fact.

the tone though is what made me take it that way.

and yes, just look at the roots of prejudice, the prefix pre, and the root, judgement.
01-18-2007, 09:28 AM
IanY

Anyway, WestSidePlayer, my remarks were not directed at you. OK?
01-18-2007, 09:33 AM
WeStSiDePLaYa

Quote:

Originally Posted by IanY

Anyway, WestSidePlayer, my remarks were not directed at you. OK?

They clearly were, as you reffered to me by name.

Also, if you think im prejudiced against the apogee, you should go look at the thread "storm vs apogee: too much hype?", showing how the apogee has many advantages over the storm.

once your done that, look who wrote it.;)
01-18-2007, 09:50 AM
IanY

This is getting ridiculous. I was clearly making reference to MaxxRacer's remarks about a warped Apogee base, which I have never heard about before. Anyway, I said that you are the last person to be prejudiced against an Apogee because I know your background and the presence of that thread. Once again, my remarks were not directed at you. I'll leave it at that.
01-18-2007, 12:27 PM
chunkylover77

What did Maxx say that was an insult to anyone in this thread? As far as I can see he has 2 posts in this thread and neither of them are insulting to anyone. Must be from a previous thread.
01-18-2007, 03:14 PM
WeStSiDePLaYa

Quote:

Originally Posted by chunkylover77

What did Maxx say that was an insult to anyone in this thread? As far as I can see he has 2 posts in this thread and neither of them are insulting to anyone. Must be from a previous thread.

Nothing out of hand. He made a statement I disagreed with, and asked for evidence of. All of that was perfectly fine and neutral.

IanY for some reason seemed to go off, make some comments from me, and then retract them like they never happened. I think he is a politician....:p:
01-21-2007, 02:10 AM
pumbertot

Quote:

Originally Posted by WeStSiDePLaYa

Nothing out of hand. He made a statement I disagreed with, and asked for evidence of. All of that was perfectly fine and neutral.

IanY for some reason seemed to go off, make some comments from me, and then retract them like they never happened. I think he is a politician....:p:

no I think I see what IanY was trying to do. he thought he was quoting you quoting Maxracer, however on this type of forum it only quotes the last person to post not both sets of quote. if you see what im saying........:confused:
01-21-2007, 08:27 PM
neonflx

please see my comments here
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...86#post1965986

i could not finish orthos before cause of high temps, now i can
01-22-2007, 06:59 AM
pumbertot

oops did WSP get banned for his comments in this thread?he does put a bit too much 'energy' into his replies sometimes. ;)