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: