ASUS Sabertooth P67B3· nVidia GTX580 1536MB PhysX · Intel Core i7 2600K 4.5GHz · Corsair TX850W · Creative X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty
8GB GSKill Sniper PC3-16000 7-8-7 · OCZ Agility3 SSD 240GB + Intel 320 SSD 160GB + Samsung F3 2TB + WD 640AAKS 640GB · Corsair 650D · DELL U2711 27"
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'
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.
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)
Very nice work as usual. Roughly a 3c improvement over the GTZ is quite an accomplishment.
Latest Project Log: Project Quintessence
1935 Zenith Radio Scratch Build
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..
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.
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
OBSIDIAN 800D, ASRock P67 Professional, Intel 2600K [UNLOCKED] watercooled by Ybris Black Sun (HWLabs Black Ice SR1-360 w/Nanoxia 2K, Swiftech MCP655 + Res XSPC), 4GB KINGSTON LoVo, SSD 128GB Crucial RealSSD C300, HDD Seagate Barracuda 250GB/500GB, Corsair HX 750w, nVidia 260 GTX XFX Black Edition, X-FI Xtreme Gamer
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.
Project Millertime: The Core I5 build
Crunching/folding box on air: AMD Athlon X2 7750 Black Edition; Sapphire Radeon HD 4830; Gigabyte MA78GM-US2H; Lian Li PC-V351; Windows 7 RC
Is this just for Intel? I didnt see any mention for AMD?
AMD 1090T@4.0ghz
Enzotech sapphire/Mo-Ra extreme rad
Asus Crosshair IV Formula
ht 2400mhz / nb 2400mhz
12gb Gskill 1300mhz
HIS HD5970
Enermax Evo Galaxy 1250
case: XCLIO A380PLUS-BK
4.61ghz water
4.5ghz superpi 1M 15.585
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/j...rpi4500mhz.jpg
25,396 06 Phenom 965@ 4.4ghz HIS 5970@960/1260
21,893 Vantage, Phenom 965 4.2ghz HIS 5970 @960/1260
Phenom 2 125w 965 test results
http://futuremark.yougamers.com/foru...d.php?t=117414
Phenom 2 140w 965 test results
http://futuremark.yougamers.com/foru...d.php?t=109214
Phenom 2 AM2+ 940 cold air results
http://futuremark.yougamers.com/foru...ad.php?t=97430
If I dont get every single drop out of my cpu I feel like someone is stealing from me
Project Millertime: The Core I5 build
Crunching/folding box on air: AMD Athlon X2 7750 Black Edition; Sapphire Radeon HD 4830; Gigabyte MA78GM-US2H; Lian Li PC-V351; Windows 7 RC
Thanks again for a great work!
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...
Project ZEUS II
Asus Rampage II Extreme
Intel I7 920 D0 3930A @ 4.50GHz (21 X 214mhz)
3 x 2GB G.Skill Trident 1600 @ 1716MHz (6-8-6-20-1N)
2 x Asus HD 6870 CrossFire @ 1000/1100MHz
OCZ Vertex 2 60GB | Intel X25-M 120GB | WD Velociraptor 150GB | Seagate FreeAgent XTreme 1.5TB esata
Asus Xonar DX | Logitech Z-5500 | LG W2600HP 26" S-IPS LCD
Watercooling setup:
1st loop -> Radiator: 2 x ThermoChill PA120.3 | Pump: Laing DDC-3.25 with Alphacool HF 38 top | CPU: Swiftech Apogee XT | Chipset: Swiftech MCW-NBMAX | Tubing: Masterkleer 1/2" UV
2nd loop -> Radiator: ThermoChill PA120.3 | Pump: Laing DDC-3.2 with Alphacool HF 38 top | GPU: 2 x EK FC-6870 | Tubing: Masterkleer 1/2" UV
Assembled in Mountain Mods Ascension Trinity
Powered by Corsair Professional Series Gold AX1200
AMD 1090T@4.0ghz
Enzotech sapphire/Mo-Ra extreme rad
Asus Crosshair IV Formula
ht 2400mhz / nb 2400mhz
12gb Gskill 1300mhz
HIS HD5970
Enermax Evo Galaxy 1250
case: XCLIO A380PLUS-BK
4.61ghz water
4.5ghz superpi 1M 15.585
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/j...rpi4500mhz.jpg
25,396 06 Phenom 965@ 4.4ghz HIS 5970@960/1260
21,893 Vantage, Phenom 965 4.2ghz HIS 5970 @960/1260
Phenom 2 125w 965 test results
http://futuremark.yougamers.com/foru...d.php?t=117414
Phenom 2 140w 965 test results
http://futuremark.yougamers.com/foru...d.php?t=109214
Phenom 2 AM2+ 940 cold air results
http://futuremark.yougamers.com/foru...ad.php?t=97430
If I dont get every single drop out of my cpu I feel like someone is stealing from me
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:
Originally Posted by me
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.
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.
CEO Swiftech
Very nice review once again!
And good job Swiftech also! The king is back!
Bookmarks