CPU-360 Midplate Testing

[Vapor]

So what one do you guys think will perform the best?

Bei Fei made the plates a few months back....finally getting to testing now, I have all but the top one.


Might also be interesting to see if some fine mesh or a combination of plates works well together

[OC Maximus]

HKesque has my money. No scientific thought behind it, just a guess.

I'm looking at picking up a Koolance CPU-360 so this will surely be an interesting test.

[NaeKuh]

Diamond... followed by Jagged.

However if were talking more then standard pumping power, i think dots would be supreme.
Would cause the most turbulance and theoretically increase efficiency, unless the base was limited.

[Martinm210]

Top one..just because its the one you're missing.....

Second place will be the orginal single slot, third place the upper right two slot variety.

Better yet try taking the winner and radiusing the leading edge for a nice smooth nozzle entry...that alone should be worthwhile.

Looks like a good variety there..keep us posted.

[Vapor]

Ya, I don't really know what to think with these....I think M-pede stacked with Double might be interesting. Diamond + fine mesh (from a faucet aerator) might be interesting too.

FWIW, Stock isn't shown in the pic, but it's just a wider single.

Radiusing is a good idea to reduce restriction too, hmmmm.

Maybe the winner will be modeled by Koolance and they'll come out with a CPU-361 or something

[Martinm210]

Ya, I don't really know what to think with these....I think M-pede stacked with Double might be interesting. Diamond + fine mesh (from a faucet aerator) might be interesting too.

FWIW, Stock isn't shown in the pic, but it's just a wider single.

Radiusing is a good idea to reduce restriction too, hmmmm.

Maybe the winner will be modeled by Koolance and they'll come out with a CPU-361 or something

I think the pedes won't do well. I tested a privately made block with a fairly large open desing that didnt do well. Seems like when the nozzle plate is too open with an intricate open design, there is only movement at the perimeter of the opening pattern. Water at the center of those nozzle types is essentially sitting still.

Actually I think the single slot would do well if radiused. Its pretty surprising how much a little radius can do at inlet losses like that. In pipe design you can see upwards of a 30% or more improvement..so if the nozzle plate itself is causing a majority of the pressure drop, you should see a worthwhile gain trying the dremel radius thing..

[NaeKuh]

mmm vapor take a dremel and step your original base.

LOL.. i know you have a rev.1 base, so if you step the stock base you wont cry.

[S3RV0]

Nice, very much looking forward to the results.

[Vapor]

So, ehhh, thoughts on how to test these?

6 mounts X 9 plates = 54 mounts

How about:

If mount 1 is within 1C of stock average, it gets a 2nd mount.
If the best of the first two mounts is within .5C of stock, it gets a third mount.
If the best of the first three mounts is better than the stock average, it gets a fourth mount.
If the best of the first four mounts is at least .1C ahead of stock average, it gets a full 6 mounts.

That should filter the bad ones out and cut down my testing without any false negatives, hopefully.

(testing M-pede now and it's pretty clear it's not going to be within 1C of stock)

[Bei Fei]

I think they are all beautiful! But them I am partially biased........

I could have sworn that I send the "missing one"

I still have more I will send you one when I get back from MA.

[Utnorris]

I have been happy with the stock plate, but I would be interested to see how much extra performance you can grab just by swapping the mid-plates out. A .5c won't be worth it, but 3-4c might.

[NaeKuh]

A .5c won't be worth it, but 3-4c might.

holy cow 3-4c would be a land slide win you are aware of that right?

the top 5 only space themselves out by 1-2C at the most.

[Vapor]

I think .5c over stock is realistic, based on my Supreme HF tests....



(stock CPU-360 is probably better than stock/P3 of the Supreme HF)

[Utnorris]

holy cow 3-4c would be a land slide win you are aware of that right?

the top 5 only space themselves out by 1-2C at the most.

Exactly my point. It seems like an awful lot of trouble to get .5c.

I think .5c over stock is realistic, based on my Supreme HF tests....



(stock CPU-360 is probably better than stock/P3 of the Supreme HF)

Which is what I would expect. This is why we need a different approach to water block designs. We are fighting to get .5c more from the current designs and quite honestly, the design has not changed it quite some time. A .5c is not going to help you push your system any harder and if anything makes you wonder if we have hit the limits of water cooling. If so, then why buy any new blocks over the current blocks?

[NaeKuh]

We are fighting to get .5c more from the current designs and quite honestly, the design has not changed it quite some time.

did you not hear me rant to the general public that we are stagnet now in water?



Bring on the TECS!
WTF happened to HWLab's Evap radiators??????? They kinda went POOF out of existence.

[UrbanSmooth]

This guy and his TECs.

I say go ahead and mount them all as you usually would, Vapor. Take your time and savor this one.

[Vapor]

Exactly my point. It seems like an awful lot of trouble to get .5c.

Which is what I would expect. This is why we need a different approach to water block designs. We are fighting to get .5c more from the current designs and quite honestly, the design has not changed it quite some time. A .5c is not going to help you push your system any harder and if anything makes you wonder if we have hit the limits of water cooling. If so, then why buy any new blocks over the current blocks?

Basically free performance for Koolance though

Plus, half a degree would put them past the Supreme HF and kryos XT in my tests, and should be attainable.

This guy and his TECs.

I say go ahead and mount them all as you usually would, Vapor. Take your time and savor this one.

Don't have 9+ days to test these, unfortunately.

I think my filtering should work pretty well.

[Church]

I'm somehow betting on single line, as probably most restrictive and possibly giving best temps (thinking of differences between HF plates ..)

[facboy]

did you not hear me rant to the general public that we are stagnet now in water?



Bring on the TECS!
WTF happened to HWLab's Evap radiators??????? They kinda went POOF out of existence.

OT but i've seen you type this a couple of times now and cannot hold back any longer .

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stagnant

[Utnorris]

did you not hear me rant to the general public that we are stagnet now in water?



Bring on the TECS!
WTF happened to HWLab's Evap radiators??????? They kinda went POOF out of existence.

Keep your TEC's, they're too inefficient. As far as your rant about water being stagnant (yes I can spell check), how far back does yours go? Mine goes back at least a year. While I appreciate free performance, no disrespect intended Vapor, but getting a .5c in temp performance is like getting 50Mhz more from your chip over stock. If HWBOT gave points for temps then I could see the purpose of the fine tuning for a degree or two, but since that is well within the margin of error and the results don't get you anymore performance out of your chip, I think it's like pissing in the wind. The blocks should have been tweaked at the factory, not here, not for a degree. I would like to see someone come out with a block that isn't just like the last block released. How about some more dual inputs, single output blocks? Or a block made out of titanium with pins the size of needles so you could have a couple thousand in a square inch area? I mean it would be nice to see someone take a chance on something different, make a prototype and toss it to the wolves to see what they think instead of just copying what has already been done so many times before that it's hard to see the difference besides cosmetics. No one has changed the way we mount the blocks, no one has come out with a true FC block that covers the CPU, NB/SB and mosfets, no one has tried anything new in at least three or four years. It's to the point that when someone asks "What's the best block to get?" the only reply is "What looks best in your build?".

Ok, I will now step off the soapbox and end my rant.

[Martinm210]

So, ehhh, thoughts on how to test these?

6 mounts X 9 plates = 54 mounts

How about:

If mount 1 is within 1C of stock average, it gets a 2nd mount.
If the best of the first two mounts is within .5C of stock, it gets a third mount.
If the best of the first three mounts is better than the stock average, it gets a fourth mount.
If the best of the first four mounts is at least .1C ahead of stock average, it gets a full 6 mounts.

That should filter the bad ones out and cut down my testing without any false negatives, hopefully.

(testing M-pede now and it's pretty clear it's not going to be within 1C of stock)

That should be plenty accurate considering you previous best to worst mount was only .8c apart.


Nozzle testing is always tedious..you might even just test at one pumping power too..

[Vinas]

So, ehhh, thoughts on how to test these?

6 mounts X 9 plates = 54 mounts

The Koolance quick disconnects come to mind... if you could somehow keep the block mounted while changing the plate, that would be excellent. Unfortunately I can't help that process!

[Church]

..No one has changed the way we mount the blocks, no one has come out with a true FC block that covers the CPU, NB/SB and mosfets ..

I recall reading thread @XS about such. Others probably can help with finding url to it ..
I myself see problem with it just like with anything integrated - no way to upgrade/change single component of it. And as there is full board cover in it aswell = it's single motherboard specific. No-no for me.
I'm all for innovations/new ideas .. except when they do more harm then good/make little sense in price/effectiveness/upgradeability/etc. Making something different but without practicality behind is just an DIY experiment 'because i can' with no impact/improvement on industry.

[Utnorris]

I recall reading thread @XS about such. Others probably can help with finding url to it ..
I myself see problem with it just like with anything integrated - no way to upgrade/change single component of it. And as there is full board cover in it aswell = it's single motherboard specific. No-no for me.
I'm all for innovations/new ideas .. except when they do more harm then good/make little sense in price/effectiveness/upgradeability/etc. Making something different but without practicality behind is just an DIY experiment 'because i can' with no impact/improvement on industry.

I was just using it as an example, nothing more. My point is that all we see are the same old designs being rehashed. It's like an Iphone, sure they are cool, but there really has been any "game changing" design to the Iphone since the second model, mostly because it is a pretty damn good phone and it just works. Same thing with CPU blocks, nothing new with the current designs. Until someone decides to do something radical CPU blocks for the most part will perform within a few degrees of each other.

[skinnee]

Until someone decides to do something radical CPU blocks for the most part will perform within a few degrees of each other.

Funny thing is, I've been reading that statement since P4 Northwood's and yet there are new CPU blocks coming out all the time. Look at the comparison between the Apogee GT and the Supreme HF, we have over 5C separation in performance... is that what we consider a few degrees? To me, 5C is quite a margin when you consider the medium we're using to cool our gear.

However, I still choose the single slot midplate.