Preface
This is a quick version of my Heatkiller 3.0 LC and LT Testing....it's part two of my Roundup #2 of waterblock testing. I have some cool things in store for testing (including ways to significantly improve the performance of some blocks) and will be testing a lot of blocks. Anyway, I'll cut the boring parts out of the test logs and post up the Heatkiller results in this thread
If you have any questions, check out the full review (link above)...if they're not answered, ask away here
Test Results
First up, finding the best orientation for each block:
Here we can both the LC and LT prefering the Vertical orientation (barbs parallel to the socket latch) and the LT benefiting from having the plastic divider at the inlet removd (not the metal plate! Do not remove that!). Overall, the LT being roughly 1C better than the LC at this pumping power.
Improving the Heatkillers!
In my observation of the blocks, I actually noticed a design flaw. The base, while it sits flush with the internals when you just place one on the other, does not sit flush with the internals once you tighten it down and form the bow. Basically, when you force the base to bend outward at the center, you're causing a gap between the injectors and the base. That means flow 'escapes' over the microchannels. While that lowers restriciton, it's also less efficient thermally. I decided to close up that gap with inexpensive, completely waterproof, removable, and easy-to-use 100% silicone caulk.
It doesn't have to be perfect, but using Q-Tips and silicone caulk, I formed a compresible and resilient 1mm layer on top of the impingement plate. That's what it looked like before I installed it. What's really interesting is what the performance looks like once it's installed! From here on out, I'll call it the "LT+"
I've included performance from three different baselines: 1) the best-as-tested LC config, 2) the best-as-tested LT config, 3) the LT's base with the LC's top (Frankenblock!). The showstopper is just how much performance improved from adding that little bit of silicone, that's the "LT+" on the chart. We took what is largely considered the best block on the market (and the best I've tested so far), and made it better, noticeably better. Flowrate went down, as predicted, but not by much--from 1.77GPM to 1.55GPM (more flow than the Supreme LT at the same pumping power).
Now that we know which orientations are best for each block, let's run the full flowrate spectrum and see how they respond to flowrate.
- 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.
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 + thoughts are also in there...I suggest checking it out if you want more info, thanks for reading!
Working on the overall comparison review/charts...it'll be updated with every installment I do
(also almost done with Apogee GTZ and GTZ SE testing)
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Vapor
).
.
. However, I am sure a bit of googling will find you some pics of similar installs. I will try to dig out a link of one similar -but in the mean time try this: 
Bookmarks