Well, testing could not finish.

[nikhsub1]

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

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&#176;C ]<--- Apogee GT right before BSOD
Writing to D:\Program Files\Intel Corporation\Thermal Analysis Tool\Results.txt
Intel&#174; Thermal Analysis Tool: v 2.05.2006.0420
Processor: Pentium&#174; 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&#176;C ]
14:39:02: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 47&#176;C ]
14:39:06: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 46&#176;C ]
14:39:08: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 45&#176;C ]
14:39:12:  Workload power level: 100%
14:39:18:  ** Workload Started (Processor 0) **
14:39:14: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 46&#176;C ]
14:39:14: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 48&#176;C ]
14:39:20: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 57&#176;C ]
14:39:20: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 52&#176;C ]
14:39:22: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 51&#176;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&#176;C ]
14:39:24: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58&#176;C ]
14:39:26: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 54&#176;C ]
14:39:28: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59&#176;C ]
14:39:32: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58&#176;C ]
14:39:32: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58&#176;C ]
14:39:34: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59&#176;C ]
14:39:34: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 55&#176;C ]
14:39:36: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58&#176;C ]
14:39:42: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58&#176;C ]
14:39:44: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59&#176;C ]
14:39:48: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 57&#176;C ]
14:39:50: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59&#176;C ]
14:39:52: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 54&#176;C ]
14:39:54: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59&#176;C ]
14:39:59: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 55&#176;C ]
14:40:01: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58&#176;C ]
14:40:01: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59&#176;C ]
14:40:03: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59&#176;C ]
14:40:07: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58&#176;C ]
14:40:09: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 60&#176;C ]
14:40:09: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59&#176;C ]
14:40:13: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59&#176;C ]
14:40:13: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58&#176;C ]
14:40:15: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59&#176;C ]
14:40:21: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58&#176;C ]
14:40:23: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59&#176;C ]
14:40:51: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58&#176;C ]
14:40:57: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58&#176;C ]
14:40:59: Processor 0 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59&#176;C ]
14:40:59: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59&#176;C ]
14:41:03: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 58&#176;C ]
14:41:05: Processor 1 : DIGITAL TMP[ 59&#176;C ]

[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.

[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.

[clokker]

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

[nikhsub1]

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.

[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.
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.

[WeStSiDePLaYa]

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.
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.

[clokker]

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.

[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

[nikhsub1]

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?

[virtualrain]

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?

[gabe]

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.

[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?

[WeStSiDePLaYa]

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?

mine just has screws. no springs.

[Philly_Boy]

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.

[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

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.

[clokker]

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

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?

[nikhsub1]

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?

[clokker]

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.

[nikhsub1]

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 ).

[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?

[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.

[nikhsub1]

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 ^_^

[serialk11r]

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.

[clokker]

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.