single-slot, full-cover or non FC, water-blocks for the 560Ti

[jalyst]

Single-slot = block/top & fittings don't make front of card extend more than 14.5mm into neighbouring card's back keep-out zone.
i.e. Whatever part of the block fits "between the cards", must be less than 12mm.
Fittings can make overall thickness greater than 12mm if a block is full-cover...
As with FC blocks, fittings aren't usually situated "between" cards, hence they won't extrude into the keep-out zone.

Here's an excellent resource for comparing the performance of full-cover & universal blocks.
Although it's a shame the very latest blocks for the 5xx series of nV GPU's aren't yet tested.
Full-covers at least should be tested by now, as they can change quite a bit more from generation to generation.

Is there any single slot full-covers or universals (560Ti) that aren't on my list below?
Which is the best performing single slot full-cover & universal in your opinion?
If there's not any decent single slot universals, then which universal do you prefer?
I will buy 1x full-cover & 1x universal, both single-slot preferably, this is all I've found so far:

_________
Single-slot

Full-cover:
*Dangerden DD-GTX560
Seems to have limited compatibility...
*HeatKiller GPU-X³ GTX560 "Hole Edition"
Better compatibility? According to PPC the "hole edition" offers slightly better cooling than the non-hole edition.

Universal:
*Koolance GPU-180-H06's thin enough @11mm, but considering it's newer brethren (210/220) didn't do too well here.
It's likely to do much poorer than even them, & hence be unsuitable should I want play with OC'ing etc.
*This design by fitseries looks almost perfect, cept it's prolly best not to have the VRM/Mem sitting under the waterways.
Otherwise it's not really a GPU-core-only block anymore, perhaps what's suggested by WL is a better compromise?
Although personally I'd prefer my universal to be truly GPU-core-only, & to use sink/s on the Mem/VRM.
Alas nothing like any of this seems to exist!!!

_____________
Not single-slot
If there's no decent single-slot universals (looking likely) then I'll get something from here.
I'm leaning mostly towards the MCW82+heatsink, but curious to hear other folks thoughts!

Full-cover:
*Koolance VID-NX580: it seems Koolance makes nothing for 550/560Ti, they only have this for 570/580.
I'm wondering if I could still use it on 560Ti, but it also seems too thick for true single slot anyway @16mm?
*EKWB EK-FC560 GTX: nickel plated copper base, & non-nickel plated copper base. From what I can tell from specs...
Combined thickness of acetal top + copper base for both is 13.1mm, meaning neither would be suitable as single slot.
Nickel plated one is off my list already because of widespread plating issues...
Lack of copper density for the copper only one too, but apparently that hasn't been proven yet?

Universal:
*EKWB universal VGA blocks
*Swiftech MCW82 + 560Ti mounting kit + this heatsink system?
*Maze5-GPU: user in another thread claims it's usable with 560Ti & is single slot.
I've seen no evidence that it's usable, & neither does the OEM claim that.
There's also no block dimensions on the site, so it's hard to know if it's single slot.
Update: DD support says the Maze5 is 30mm & Maze5 LP is 24mm, so both are too thick!

___________________
Single slot back-plate (many full-cover blocks may already come with one?)
HDMI adapter plate made by EK

____________
TIM for GPU's
What's the best TIM out there for GPU's?
Is there a clear performance leader like IX once was/is in the CPU realm?

Looks like the priciest stuff @ most retailers, is it any good?
http://www.aquatuning.us/product_inf...at---4-8g.html
http://www.performance-pcs.com/catal...ducts_id=26061
*UPDATE*
It's pretty clear after looking at this & vapor's post in the comments, that PK-1 is the 2nd best option after IX.
And as IX is tailored specifically for different CPU sockets, PK-1 becomes the obvious choice!

[fearsjohn]

heatkiller has a block also.
http://www.performance-pcs.com/catal...ducts_id=30418

[st0ned]

I wouldn't go with EK, just for now...

[NaeKuh]

PK-1 is what i recommend.

I dont like IC Diamond because it etches the IHS and blocks of whatever its applied to.
Also makes application very difficult.

[Fatfool]

heatkiller has a block also.
http://www.performance-pcs.com/catal...ducts_id=30418

This one's an Aussie. They enjoy being ripped off.


Nah, they just often don't notice it.
Essentially, there are 3 shops down under. pccasegear, thekoolroom and gammods. Low competition, low demand, high wages, high delivery charges.

[paulbagz]

This one's an Aussie. They enjoy being ripped off.


Nah, they just often don't notice it.
Essentially, there are 3 shops down under. pccasegear, thekoolroom and gammods. Low competition, low demand, high wages, high delivery charges.

Uhh wut?

$11 for next day delivery by AAE is more then acceptable postage and handling imo.

-PB

[subtec]

You won't find any single slot GPU-only blocks, unfortunately, with the possible exception of the Koolance GPU-180-H06. It's not a stretch to imagine that block isn't likely to provide the best cooling results on a modern GPU.

The problem is the smallest fittings used in water cooling have a larger diameter than the space available between cards, so it's 1.) either make it thicker and impinge on the next slot, 2.) use integrated barbs, like the Koolance, or 3.) something else.

It would be nice to see an updated single-slot GPU-only block from one of the manufacturers, for people using non-reference cards or who'd like to re-use their blocks between upgrades, but between the physical limitations and lack of demand I'm not sure we'll ever see any.

[tastymannatees]

PK-1 is what i recommend.

I dont like IC Diamond because it etches the IHS and blocks of whatever its applied to.
Also makes application very difficult.

FAQ on the polishing issue

Some background on the subject - 100 years of standard Industry practice on abrasives is well documented and well understood by those in the business.

Most thermal compounds are liquid sandpaper or lapping compounds by definition.

Light gray compounds are usually/mostly made up of aluminum oxide. (Check MSDS for AS5,Ceramique, ShinEtsu, Dow etc. hard metal oxides are more common in thermal compounds than you think)

Aluminum oxide is what they make sandpaper out of.....MOHS Hardness scale 9

Diamond on the MOHS hardness scale: 10

Copper MOHS: 3

To be abrasive you just have to be harder than the material to be cut.

Most thermal compounds have particle sizes in the range of 600 - 800 same as your 600 - 800 sandpaper

http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/scales/grit.html

If you are ambitious, you can calculate cutting speeds and material removal between diamond -- the hardest, (cubic boron nitride is actually harder than diamond) and the second hardest -- aluminum oxide, you will find an insignificant difference.

For the insignificant distance traveled, equivalent pressures, You will not see any difference between the two under normal use.

Abrasives have to move to work.


For all compounds- if you are a habitual abuser who re-installs his sink 20 times a week or constantly rotates the sink under pressure then switch to something less abrasive like a zinc oxide compound .

[Fatfool]

Uhh wut?

$11 for next day delivery by AAE is more then acceptable postage and handling imo.

-PB

And when you're not in the same state....

Btw, the other 2 shops definitely have higher priced shipping.

[prznar1]

I wouldn't go with EK, just for now...

pls be more clear about the issue.

do not use nickle plated EK blocks. all other products are fine.

[Fatfool]

pls be more clear about the issue.

do not use nickle plated EK blocks. all other products are fine.

I believe the aversion is partly because of the way EK's handling it.

[Church]

tastymannatees: theory is all good/fine and dandy. Yet IRL common TIM pastes almost don't damage/affect IHS surface but 1C Diamond does so significantly. Others advise based on own practice and experience, not on "how it seemingly should be according to theory".

[paulbagz]

And when you're not in the same state....

Btw, the other 2 shops definitely have higher priced shipping.

Exactly, I live in regional North Queensland and I can make an order mid afternoon and have the items in my hands the following morning from Melbourne.

And its wrapped in 50 layers of bubble wrap

-PB

[tastymannatees]

tastymannatees: theory is all good/fine and dandy. Yet IRL common TIM pastes almost don't damage/affect IHS surface but 1C Diamond does so significantly. Others advise based on own practice and experience, not on "how it seemingly should be according to theory".

My opinion has a technical basis backed by empirical data with over 3 years of field use and yours is backed up by? 2 or 3 posts you read on the Internet?

Idle opinions are one thing, product defamation is another more serious issue.

If one is making such statements they should be prepared to personally back it up technically & not anecdotally with a parroted weak reference to somebody's forum post as evidence of fact.

The resolution is simple, prove it technically first hand and develop a serious argument that has a basis you can back up.

Prove it, now is your chance....

[st0ned]

pls be more clear about the issue.

do not use nickle plated EK blocks. all other products are fine.

Nop, as it seems copper is also at risk atm, due to lack of density found in some tests. So, if I were him, justo for now I would hold on buying EK stuff and go for something else. If you have products around the same price, and one is EK and the other isn't ( koolance, BP, swiftech, etc... ), just go for the 2nd group...

[jalyst]

You won't find any single slot GPU-only blocks, unfortunately, with the possible exception of the Koolance GPU-180-H06. It's not a stretch to imagine that block isn't likely to provide the best cooling results on a modern GPU.

Damn, are you absolutely sure?!?
Surely a single-slot gpu-core-only is easier to design/fabricate, than a single-slot full-cover?!
What makes you think that Koolance block is likely to be mediocre?
It looks like it uses good build materials, seems a bit on the small side though.

so it's 1.) either make it thicker and impinge on the next slot, 2.) use integrated barbs, like the Koolance, or 3.) something else.

That 3rd one looks interesting, I wonder what became of it?
The thread seems to have died years ago...

[Kayin]

The reason there are no single slot GPU only blocks is because you have to fit the barbs on them, and very few designs have come about that would allow them to fit and be GPU-only. There are a few good designs that nobody has produced, however. A 3/8" barb is wider than single slot spacing, and you have the baseplate thickness on top of that.

The EK nickel problem is pretty widespread, I don't think you'll hear any recommendations for them right now. As for the copper density, more tests need to be performed but it's possible that they aren't everything they're supposed to be. The new rev Swiftech MCW-80s I believe are just as good, though.

[Waterlogged]

On the EK plating, there is some conjecture about the problem being either crappy copper that nickel plating won't stick to, and a pi** poor plating job. Personally, I think it's a bit of both.

As for the single slot GPU, the threads of the fittings have to be G1/4, so that is already the majority of the single slot dimension, you then need material for the block which puts the overall dimension for the block over the size for single slot. Now, if someone were to come out with a block like Fitseries designed in the topic linked to earlier, it's more than possible but the problem with that design is that there will be a couple of memory chips that won't get any sinks placed on them and if you use the block to cool them, it's no longer a GPU only block anymore.

Personally, I prefer a method that Watercool used back in the day. They used a GPU block with a thin piece of copper that attached to the bottom of the block that covered the memory. If someone were to do the "flat block concept" with the the Watercool memory cooler idea, I think that'd be the perfect compromise between FC and GPU only and would likely sell a ton seeing it would be offering better performance than GPU only and cheaper than FC blocks.

[Kayin]

I have a render you might wanna see, WL.

I think he explained the idea of fitting space better though. There's simply no room after the material for the fitting bosses.

[NaeKuh]

What makes you think that koolance block is likely to be mediocre?
It looks like it uses good build materials, seems a bit on the small side though.


Not sure what you mean?
The EK one I'm looking at is nickle plated, not straight copper.
Others have suggested avoiding it because of that.

im sorry if anyone tells u a koolance block is mediocre, they havent tried the new stuff.
90% of my gear right now is koolance based, and i can probably say it kills 99% of the people here in being an extreme setup.

I tell this to people many times.. once u tried the new koolance, u wont go back.
Why? Because they take care of ya... and when they go OOPS, they pay for it and not us.

Lastly the most recient complaint i heard about KL is the increasing pricing.
But the guys who complain dont understand, KL blocks are no longer thin sheets of acrylic with steel cover.
Its a solid derlin top guys... Give them a break... of course its going to be more expensive.

Also the problem right now with EK is SOMETHING (we have no clue yet) is causing the plating to fail (this we have proof tho).
http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/sidew...te06042011.pdf

And they havent yet told us why it was failing besides "we are not using good coolant". which makes no sense because they work in the competitors nickle block.

Lack of information = go to another product... or wait for more information to come out, unless u want to play guinea pig.

[Waterlogged]

I have a render you might wanna see, WL.

I think he explained the idea of fitting space better though. There's simply no room after the material for the fitting bosses.

If you don't feel like posting it publicly, you now have PM access.

[subtec]

Here, I made a picture using Sketchup, see if this helps:



The max component height areas are defined in the official PCIe specification. The 6mm fitting, despite being the smallest Koolance offers, is obviously too large to fit without encroaching on the next card's keepout zone.

The diameter of a G1/4 BSP threaded hole by itself is almost as large as the height of the front keepout area. And that's not taking into account the height of the baseplate and necessary wall thickness for the block, not to mention the chips and other components on the card itself.

Fittings simply won't fit in the available space.

im sorry if anyone tells u a koolance block is mediocre, they havent tried the new stuff.
90% of my gear right now is koolance based, and i can probably say it kills 99% of the people here in being an extreme setup.

I tell this to people many times.. once u tried the new koolance, u wont go back.

[more irrelevant rambling]

NaeKuh, seriously, it would help if you actually paid attention to what people are talking about. The Koolance block I linked, the only one that we are talking about in this thread, is the GPU-180-H06, one of the oldest blocks they still sell.

Considering even their newer GPU-210 with its microfin array didn't fare so well, what are the odds an older design like the GPU-180 is going to do well on a modern GPU?

Having said that, they do rate it up to 200w, so it may be adequate for more mid-range GPUs at stock clocks.

[nvmc]

The GPU-220 has threads on the side of it, not sure if the block itself is slim enough though.

[jalyst]

The GPU-220 has threads on the side of it, not sure if the block itself is slim enough though.

Yeah because they have no integrated barbs, I suspect the 210/220 will be even worse than the 180 in terms of "thickness"
I don't get why they can't make the i/o ports sit "above" the height of most standard cards instead of "between".
Keep it gpu-core-only, but extend the block above the height of most standard cards, & plonk the i/o ports there.

heatkiller has a block also.
http://www.performance-pcs.com/catal...ducts_id=30418

Thanks mate! Do you know for sure that it's single-slot though?
If anyone knows of other makes/models (preferably single-slot & universal) please let me know!

The only decent comparo of full-cover's & universal's that I know of are here:
http://skinneelabs.com/gtx480-full-c...ock-roundup/6/
http://skinneelabs.com/universalgpu-nv480/9/

Unfortunately both are for the last generation of nV GPU's...
So I've no idea if performance leaders there, will necessarily be leaders of the current gen!
Plus there's no mention anywhere in both articles, of any of them being single-slot

FAQ on the polishing issue <SNIP>

Thanks for the back-ground...
It's pretty clear after looking at this & vapor's post in the comments, that PK-1 is the 2nd best option after IX.
And as IX is tailored specifically for different CPU sockets, PK-1 becomes the obvious choice.

On the EK plating, there is some conjecture about the problem being either crappy copper that nickel plating won't stick to, or a pi** poor plating job. Personally, I think it's a bit of both.

I see... definitely staying away from EK nickle platted for now then!

Here, I made a picture using Sketchup, see if this helps: <SNIP> The max component height areas are defined in the official PCIe specification. The 6mm fitting, despite being the smallest Koolance offers, is obviously too large to fit without encroaching on the next card's keepout zone. The diameter of a G1/4 BSP threaded hole by itself is almost as large as the height of the front keepout area. And that's not taking into account the height of the baseplate and necessary wall thickness for the block, not to mention the chips and other components on the card itself. Fittings simply won't fit in the available space.

Much clearer now, thanks for that mate!
So FC blocks can pull-off single-slot because the fittings don't have to sit in the PCIe spec's max component height areas?
i.e. They can be placed above official max. height, or max. length of cards.

That being the case, I guess FC blocks can often make use of much larger diameter fittings/tubing?
I'm looking at getting koolance's V4LN QDC M/F fittings, which can take thicker tubing than the more standard V3LN.
As I believe the thicker the tubing (where practical), the better!?

[subtec]

Yeah because they have no integrated barbs, I suspect the 210/220 will be even worse than the 180 in terms of "thickness"
I don't get why they can't make the i/o ports sit "above" the height of most standard cards instead of "between".
Keep it gpu-core-only, but extend the block above the height of most standard cards, & plonk the i/o ports there.

Thanks mate! Do you know for sure that it's single-slot though?
If anyone knows of other makes/models (preferably single-slot) please let me know!

Basically, whatever part of the block fits between the cards must be less than ~12mm thick for it to be single slot. Many blocks have the dimensions listed - that HK is 11.5mm thick for example, while the Koolance GPU-210 and 220 are 22mm and 24mm thick respectively. So the HK should be alright for single slot, while the Koolance blocks are obviously way too fat.

The only issue might be connecting the FC blocks together, if you're planning on SLI/Crossfire with zero-slot spacing. Koolance has these sliding connectors that should work for that, with Koolance full coverage blocks at least, and probably others.

Unfortunately both are for the last generation of nV GPU's...
So I've no idea if performance leaders there, will necessarily be leaders of the current gen!

There shouldn't be much difference in relative performance.

Much clearer now, thanks for that mate!
So FC blocks can pull-off single-slot because the 6mm fittings (smallest around) don't have to sit in the PCIe spec's max component height areas?
i.e. They can be placed above official max. height, or max. length of cards?

That being the case, can FC blocks often make use of much larger diameter fittings/tubing?
I'm looking at getting koolance's V4LN QDC M/F fittings, which can take thicker tubing than the more standard V3LN.
As I believe the thicker the tubing (where practical), the better!?

Look at any FC blocks and it's obvious the way the fittings attach don't cause any conflict with the cards. The blocks typically extend 25-30mm past the top edge of the card, so larger fittings aren't a problem.