Swiftech Apogee HD Review and Comparison to other Top Blocks

[jayhall0315]

2:00 PM PST - Arrived from Performance PCs
4:00 PM PST - Testing has begun. The competitors will be the Apogee XT Rev 2, EK Supreme HF (latest version), and the XSPC Raystorm. (Sorry, I dont own the Koolance 370). The Apogee HD has multiple outlet ports, but initial testing will be with one inlet and one outlet, like any standard CPU block.
9:00 PM PST - Xavier, an undergrad engineering student in my lab has completed the first round with the Apogee XT Rev 2.
10:30 PM PST - Few photos:

The opening


Closer view of the block and back plate


View of the internals


Hydrodynamica - The system the Apogee HD is going in if it wins out on top. Currently not using my dual loop config thanks to the messed up 452X2 reservoir.


Side by side with the Apogee XT Rev 2, that it will be competing with to gain a place in my home box


Below are prior testing results posted by Martinm (he has not tested the Apogee HD yet). Keep in mind the top graph below. The best of five mounts graph is not as useful. I have serious doubts about the results released by a few other testers concerning data they obtained for the EK Supreme HF, so I might make note of that further on down.

We will see how great the deltas are tomorrow and their correspondence to this previous work.

1:10 AM PST - Testing has begun on the Apogee HD. Gotta say, everyone has their own preferences, but I liked the chrome look of Swiftech's previous top blocks. I am not a big fan of matte black finish or the much, much uglier white top version that you can order instead.

11:00 AM PST - Testing is ongoing. A few notes regarding accuracy and block versus block direct comparisons:

Two or three people who like test and publish their WC reviews here before have complained that it is hard to measure the latest round of blocks due to their sameness, difficulty in preparing the test setup and statistical outliers. No disrespect to them, but it isnt. (doing a waterblock test is a joke compared to calibrating a laser interferometer for LIGO) They are just forgetting to control a few variables in an N variable problem, where N -1 must remain unchanged. Unfortunately, with many do it yourself testers (including, comically, those who work for the block companies themselves), they have two or more variables varying from test to test, essentially making the high precision of their results void. What are the main N variables for a waterblock test ? They are:

1 – The static block itself
2 – The TIM
3 – The ambient air temp
4 – CPU speed and load
5 – Water quantity (same as saying loop size with reservoir)
6 – Head pressure
7- Flow rate (Dont forget Bernoulli)
8 – Socket force (from the ILM)
9 – Block attachment force

There are a few more very minor variables, but since we arent writing a research paper of 90 pages, this will suffice for now. So, call block testing a 9N problem. With some given loop A (unchanging with the same pump) in some room B (ambient unchanging) with some motherboard C (unchanging) and some processor D (unchanging) using some thermal material E (unchanging) with some block pressure F (unchanging), then only the block choice will change. But take note of variables 8 and 9, cause this is what trips up most testers.

The difference between a Swiftech Apogee XT rev 2 clamped with 190 N (Newtons) is compared to a EK Supreme HF clamped at 240 N is a void result. Which is basically an artsy fartsy way of saying that most testers are not correctly accounting for the force and pressure in which they screw down the block. And after all, how could they be ? Each company has their own sometimes wonky attachment method where it is impossible to measure precisely the force applied or the pressure distributed. The cross product (r x F) torque they apply to the thumb screws has no applicability from one setup to the next. It is usually done by 'feel', Without this variable fixed, one tester will see the EK Supreme HF beating the Apogee XT Rev 2 by 0.9 deg C and another testing, using the exact same bench table, but starting over, will see the reverse.

The difference of 50 N is enough to smear the results almost 1 deg C. (exact calc to follow after lunch)

This is why you see the see sawing results from one review to another. Of course the better testers, try to do five mounts or ten mounts, etc... but still what is tight for one clamp assembly may be loose for another. So you are back to apples and oranges.

So measuring the various blocks heat release ability is actually fairly easy if you account for everything correctly including block attachment force. And that is why we need a lab made rig to correctly apply force to the blocks, to get exact results.

3:40 PM PST - Testing is ongoing. Results later tonight I am hoping. Here is our test setup which has changed a bit:

Simple loop (open air, not in a case) in our back lab room that stays at 27 deg C, with a trusty Asus P6T Version 2 board and an Intel i7-980x processor at 4.4 GHz. The loop consists of the following - Swiftech MCP655 vario on setting 5 (4800 rpms) -> one foot of 1/2 inch ID, 3/4 inch OD clearflex tubing -> for this loop we are changing to the XSPC RX 360 rad with Scythe S-Flex E fans blowing at 1000 rpms -> one foot of clearflex tubing with a Koolance quick dis-connect in the middle -> 980x CPU with block custom clamped to maintain same even pressure (in Pa) -> one foot of clearflex tubing with a Koolance quick dis-connect in the middle -> Swiftech micro-res filled to about 10mm clear of the top and fully bled -> one foot foot of clearflex "" back to pump. The TIM we are using for these mounts has been changed to TX-2. The mix we use is always 100 percent distilled water with 5 drops of algae biocide from Pet Smart.

The same motherboard and processor are used throughout all the block mounts. By pre-measure, we found the ILM to be applying ~ 523 +/- 10 N of force with a pressure of 3.19 x 10^5 Pa (319 kPa) over a roughly 40mm by 41 mm area. Using our custom water block press, we apply exactly 240 N of force with a pressure of 1.07 x 10^5 Pa (107 kPa) over a 45 mm by 50 mm area. To give non science folks an idea of the force we are talking about (ILM plus water block), you could use the mental image of an 85.7 kg person (189 lbs) standing on a bare processor without it being in the socket.

10 PM PST - Tests finished

It is like Kurt Russell said in the movie The Thing; It is time for us to find out who is a poser and who is da bling bling.

Results:

(Notice we dont really have to do multiple mounts since each we apply the same even 240 N of force. But, we are doing three mounts per block, just to account for TIM smearing and even coverage). I will give all the full test methodology and data tomorrow.

Results listed by block release date:

(this is core average – water temp with the i7-980x at 4.4 GHz at 1.45 vcore running Prime 95 small 8K FTT) (I am using the same Dallas one wire sensors used by Martinm so that we can compare our results to what he found previously. Thanks go to the Chem Dept who were kind enough to loan me some stuff.)

Name / Mount 1 / Mount 2 / Mount 3

Danger Den Maze 4 / 42.2 / 42.0 / 42.0

Swiftech Apogee XT / 40.0 / 40.0 / 40.0

EK Supreme Jet HF #6 / 39.1 / 39.0 / 38.9

Swiftech Apogee XT Rev 2 / 39.0 / 38.9 / 38.9

Koolance 370 / 38.7 / 38.7 / 38.6

XSPC Raystorm / 38.1 / 38.0 / 38.0

Swiftech Apogee HD / 38.1 / 37.9 / 38.0

So wow, basically a tie between the Raystorm and the Apogee HD. But the Apogee HD has a better mounting mechanism. And the the Raystorm has better flow I suspect. But the Apogee HD has multiple ports. But the Raystorm is cheaper.

But, ….but, …... but, #$%! my head hurts. Let's wait till the flow data comes in over the weekend.

This Apogee HD block is better in temp and I suspect flow (test tomorrow) than the Apogee XT and XT Rev 2. As to whether you need to pay $15 more for the Apogee HD than the now discounted Apogee XT Rev 2, just to have the biggest e-peen is a matter for your wallet to decide.

Hey look, ....... over there .... a flock of sheep jetting in a new direction. Interesting random observation.


And to illustrate what I explained above, look at the EK Supreme HF #6 and the Apogee XT Rev 2 when the force applied is 200 N (40 N less than our standard runs).

EK Sup Jet HF #6 / 39. 4 / 39.3 / 39.3

Apogee XT Rev 2 / 39.8 / 39.9 / 39.9


Ahh hah. Dr Watson I believe I see why some people are having conflicting answers in previous waterblock shootouts. Perhaps tomorrow, I will also shed a little more light on how you the reader can use simple math to get a good idea of when a 'reviewer' is falsifying results too. (yes, it does happen)

10:00 AM PST - Here is an illustration of our pressure clamp. I draw faster than I can use Sketch Up.



Midnight PST - Stephen asked for data from the regular OEM mounting equipment that comes with each block.

Here is the average of five mounts (with their mounting hardware) (core avg - water temp), with TX-2 TIM, for the three four blocks:

EK Supreme Jet HF with Plate #6 - Averaged 39.3

Koolance 370 - Averaged 38.9

Swiftech Apogee HD - Averaged 38.5

XSPC Raystorm - Averaged 38.1


Monday Evening - Sorry folks, had some good swells on Sunday so I got in some surfing. Here is the pressure drop info (restriction) as promised, but first a quick look at what Martinm already found:



I was not able to secure from the organic chemistry division the same exact equipment that Martinm used, but still got to borrow some very nice stuff. For the blocks I tested, my results were very similar to what Martinm found with a few minor differences (but not enough to make a whole new graph), and here are the results of the two blocks Martinm was not able to test in the previous Raystorm review (bc they had not been released yet):

(pressure drop (inlet - outlet) in psi at - 0.5 gpm / 1 gpm / 1.5 gpm / 2 gpm)

EK Supreme Jet HF with plate #6 - 0.2 PSI / 0.68 PSI / 1.3 PSI / 2.13 PSI

Swiftech Apogee HD - 0.86 PSI / 2.7 PSI / 5.65 PSI / 9.9 PSI


So Swiftech did improve the temps while reducing restriction, but I would still call the Apogee HD a medium-high restriction block. It slots in as just slightly more restrictive than the original EK Supreme. Will be great on the new Sandy Bridge 3960X by itself in a cpu loop only but I think I would prefer the Raystorm if I was using the more standard cpu -> possibly chipset block -> gpu loop. It has so much better flow. While I like the Apogee HD, I think after testing these over the weekend, I might prefer the Raystorm. It has a nice repeatable attachment system, the highest flow of any flagship block, the lowest or close to the lowest temps, awesome looks and blue LEDs, and is $15 to $40 cheaper than other flagship blocks. It is pretty hard to beat.

I will check into the multiple port stuff tomorrow or Wednesday if time permits. Quick pressure testing and flow is finished (posted on Sunday morning). Testing the Apogee HD with the new MCR-X20 Rev 3 rads (with coupled MCP 35X pump) with all the inputs and outputs hooked up will depend on if Gabe or Stephen send me a rad for testing. (Using XSPC at home and in the lab these days mainly)

See ya in a bit - Jay

The beauty of the universe can best be understood by learning the language that Mother Nature truly speaks in, ..... mathematics.

(Like math, computer science and figuring stuff out - perhaps you can join us at the UCSD Jacobs School of Engineering)

[Utnorris]

Looking forward to seeing some results.
Thanks

[PatRaceTin]

That XSPC is damn great Price/Performance

[jayhall0315]

The results are in. It is Raystorm and Apogee HD running side by side.

Flow tests tomorrow.

[bundymania]

Thanks for testing. Ask Shoggy for a Kryos Sample !

[Martinm210]

Great work, thanks for testing!

[JoeM]

yes, I am a real engineer..... no, my degree is not from ITT Tech

ROFL... Win. And like others have said, thanks for the precise testing. I'm curious to see if that dual inlet setup does any good at all. My initial hunch is that it's a neat gimmick, with very little or no performance difference.

[jayhall0315]

Will be adding in more and more data throughout the weekend, so you guys can see all the specifics. Flow testing is ongoing and should have some results tonight or tomorrow. I am trying to use the same or similar equipment to what Martinm used previously, so we can continue in the same vein, despite our lab loop being a bit different.

Thanks for those kudos above fellas. Have been busying trying to write like mad to get tenure and then I slammed the Koolance 452X2 reservoir for being poorly designed, so Vapor got on my ###, which means I havent been able to contribute as much as I like. Also, might say to the readers to be wary of some people claiming to do their own testing. I wont go into specifics and start up a #### storm, but it pays to remain skeptical. I can say with confidence, that in areas where we have tested the same block or part, I have found Martinm's data to be very accurate. That is why I wanted to illustrate the reversal under force for different blocks, because even the best testers can only report what they find to be true to within the accuracy of their setup. And with all the best blocks now, essentially somewhat mirror copies of each other, figuring out who is the best, requires holding more variables fixed.

Be back later today to add more data to the original post.

[EnJoY]

I'm blown away that an old Maze 4 is within 2 degrees of these newer blocks. The Maze 4 is so simple in comparison and has been around for ever. I bet as die sizes have increased since the old single cores that the Maze 4 was designed for, performance of the maze design has actually improved.

I would love to see how a Storm G4 and Storm G5 perform on your tests, especially on a Sandybridge due to it's relatively small quad-core die.

[jayhall0315]

I dont own a Storm G4, G5 or the Koolance 370. (I will include the Koolance 370 if someone loans one to me for testing) I included the Maze 4, so that people could what a marketing run around chasing after the latest block is. It reminds me of one of my other hobbies; mountain biking and how people will blow $800 on a super duper titanium axle, ceramic ball bearing wheelset, only to sell it a few months later to get a $1000 wheelset that performs worse but costs more.

The exact reason why any other flat array copper fin block released tomorrow or 25 years from now will not get much better than what we have now with the Raystorm for example is the Navier-Stokes boundary between laminar flow and turbulence. As long as we continue to use pumps similar to the Laing D5/ MCP 655 or 3.25 / MCP 35X with processor dies consuming 90 to 180 watts, with flat copper channeled arrays, ....very little change.

[rge]

The difference of 50 N is enough to smear the results almost 1 deg C.

Awesome job, thanks for doing the testing

And I definitely agree with the mounting pressure issue, and need to control it. When I tested blocks with multiple mounts, I would also use a mounting system where I could vary pressure (not always one it came with), and even after thinking I was close to correct pressure, often walk same mount down tighter with instantaneously slightly better temps, definitely enough for a degree. On the ones I tried, even the caliper measurement that was supposed to be 250N, sometimes one block would perform better at higher pressure, others might be best at what I guessed to be 250N. Definitely a source of error, which you can see on mount to mount variability. for coming up with way to control it.

And I also prefer all blocks to allow varying pressure....so I can at least test for best pressure on block I use with my cpu on a given mount.

[stephenswiftech]

Hi jay,
Good article.
I do have a couple questions for you.
Did you measure the amount of force each retention mechanisms are providing? If so could you post them? If not, no big deal. Like you said you're testing with the same pressure [which we also do here when publishing competitive data]

I've noticed you've chosen to show your results as a "Water temperature subtracted to CPU average". Why did you choose this specific data? Because all of these blocks work at different flow rate, it would be better for a few reasons to show the "air temperature subtracted to CPU average". Also, if even one is controlling the ambient temperature you still need to take into account the air temperature variations which implies some correction of your Water to CPU delta. As opposed to showing Air to CPU delta which already takes into account the air temperature variations (i.e. no need for corrections) and also, using Air to CPU delta also takes into account the slight (which may not be noticeable) variations in flow rate (affecting the radiator thermal resistance).
edit: you mentioned "flow rate" being unchanged. But you didn't say if you were using a flow meter or set of valves to adjust and maintain the flow rate at a certain value (and which value?). But because all of these blocks don't have the same pressure drop, without control your flow rate will be changed which is precisely why measuring air to CPU is better as it allows one to simply compare the differences from a block to another.

You are correct saying that there shouldn't be much more pure thermal improvements with the current pins/fins array that are currently produced. But CPU changes, their output don't tend to change much (at least they haven't been for the past 10 years) but the die size changes, which equal thermal flux variations. But the biggest change with CPU is the shape of the mechanical contact:
The convexe/concave shape of waterblock bases and CPUs are what's causing the biggest thermal differences today. They'are also part of the reason why there is so much variation in temperature when applying different amount of force. They are a primary reason why there is still a reason to upgrade a CPU block

You've also mentioned the price difference between XT and HD but it's also worth mentioning the XT is no longer produced.


Thanks again for the review and hope you won't mind the couple comments.

[gabe]

Thanks for the testing.

Re. "order of magnitude"

The web page says "and quantify an order of magnitude in flow performance that can be gained"

In math and science, yes you are absolutely correct.

In this sentence however, I meant to say "give the user an idea of the scale in terms of performance difference"

It is the literal translation from the French (my country of birth) for "ordre de grandeur" which is used in a much broader sense than the 10:1 ratio defined above.
Despite spending half of my life in the US, and thinking in English rather than in French, I have to admit to facing a difficult time finding an English equivalent to what the French language describes so admirably in this particular case.

Several references on the subject are found as to this conundrum, with various translations for "ordre de grandeur" such as ballpark or rough estimate, which are not as elegant grammatically/literary speaking:

Quora Reference..
"What is the translation of the French expression "ordre de grandeur"?
Answers Benjamin Zadik, Head translator:
Like most phrases, it depends on context. In most cases, it means an"order of magnitude" in English. However, it can also be used to mean a "ballpark figure" or "rough estimate".


So the question now becomes to express this concept in its most recognizable form (i.e. without ambiguities), preferably with elegance, so that it will be understandable by the largest number of English speaking people.

Any English Professor amongst our midst?

I am now open to suggestions :-)

[jayhall0315]

Just thought I would make a quick note of it Gabe. Assumed it was used figuratively. Hehe

Stephen and RGE - I will detail our system for applying exact force later this evening with an illustration and methodology, so anyone else can repeat what we did. Tied up at the moment with this seminar presentation. I will also address your questions Stephen (which are great) in detail later tonight or on Saturday morning. Any photo from our lab (or any lab here at UCSD or the Salk) requires approval from the silly legal office (so we dont accidentally give away a patent or some such), and I applied for permission to post photos online for this test, but it often takes them a fortnight to respond. Therefore, I will use a few illustrations until approval comes in.

[PiLsY]

Shaping up to be a very nice review. Looking forward to seeing the mount mechanism too.

Gabe - English is very tricky, context is everything and even tone of voice can change that. For ease of understanding I probably would've chosen "...and serve to illustrate the increased flow performance that can be obtained". I'm by no means an english professor, but I do some proof reading so im fairly litterate when I have to be .

[gabe]

Shaping up to be a very nice review. Looking forward to seeing the mount mechanism too.

Gabe - English is very tricky, context is everything and even tone of voice can change that. For ease of understanding I probably would've chosen "and serves to illustrate the increased flow performance that can be obtained". I'm by no means an english professor, but I do some proof reading so im fairly litterate when I have to be .

your suggestion is correct, short and to the point, but is does not account for the fact that I already used the verb "illustrate" in the same sentence .

Here is complete original sentence: "The following flow-charts illustrate two extreme setups (CPU + tripe SLI + chipset + memory) and quantify an order of magnitude in flow performance that can be gained from using a mixed serial + parallel configuration"

so I could say: the following flow-charts present (alt. compare?) two extreme setups (CPU + tripe SLI + chipset + memory), and serve to illustrate the increase in flow performance that can be obtained from using a mixed serial + parallel configuration

if you approve, I will amend :-)

[scamps]

I am really looking forward your method of measuring Mr. Newton ...

[PiLsY]

your suggestion is correct, short and to the point, but is does not account for the fact that I already used the verb "illustrate" in the same sentence .

Here is complete original sentence: "The following flow-charts illustrate two extreme setups (CPU + tripe SLI + chipset + memory) and quantify an order of magnitude in flow performance that can be gained from using a mixed serial + parallel configuration"

so I could say: the following flow-charts present (alt. compare?) two extreme setups (CPU + tripe SLI + chipset + memory), and serve to illustrate the increase in flow performance that can be obtained from using a mixed serial + parallel configuration

if you approve, I will amend :-)

Compare/comparison fits it better but needs a slight grammar change (plus spelling of triple ).

"The following flow-chart comparison of two extreme setups (CPU + triple SLI + chipset + memory) serves to illustrate the increased flow performance that can be obtained from using a mixed serial + parallel configuration"

or

"The following flow-chart compares two extreme setups (CPU + triple SLI + chipset + memory) serving to illustrate the increased flow performance that can be obtained from using a mixed serial + parallel configuration"



Seriously I have the utmost respect for anyone trying to write in english as a second language. Most english people can barely manage it .

[gabe]

Ok, now that we are (more or less) done with the english, let's look at the test results.

1/ You are finding 2C Delta on a 980x (socket 1366) between HD and XT @ 4.5 Ghz. We also found 2C at that same frequency (albeit with different processor), but this certainly confirms our own tests.
2/ flow rate: if you do a half decent job, then I predict that your tests should also confirm our published curves.

Conclusions:
We are all doing a good job at reporting data :-) Can we move on to another subject?

Price: MSRP vs Street Prices should follow the usual pattern.

Looks: we are working on something shiny for the bling aficionados!
[edit] truly sorry that you find the white fugly. I like it a lot myself. I also like the shapes of the HD, vs the plain jane look of some other blocks (which I will not cite out of respect)..

other than that, we try to bring new functionality with this block. to some (who do not understand it, or fail to read our explanations) it'll be gimmick (see joeM comments above), and to some it'll be godsend.. we work for those who need -and understand it.

[JoeM]

other than that, we try to bring new functionality with this block. to some (who do not understand it, or fail to read our explanations) it'll be gimmick (see joeM comments above), and to some it'll be godsend.. we work for those who need -and understand it.

Gabe, I've been speaking English my entire life and still suck at it apparently. I think "gimmick" might not have been the best choice in verbiage. From a standpoint of flexibility, I can see how this would potentially be a great option for a loop (i.e. split off into a parallel loop sort of setup) - not trying to bash design at all here. From a purely performance standpoint (which is what this entire topic is about - how well the new block performs), my personal guess is that dual inlet/dual outlet won't give much change to temps. In other words, multiple inlets won't change how heat transfers from the block into the fluid. This may also just be me showing a complete lack of understanding here.

That make more sense? Of course, I do stand to be proven a total moron here. It certainly won't be the first time. I may be a computer geek, but I will never claim to be so much as even competent in the theories of thermodynamics.

[Utnorris]

Gabe, I've been speaking English my entire life and still suck at it apparently. I think "gimmick" might not have been the best choice in verbiage. From a standpoint of flexibility, I can see how this would potentially be a great option for a loop (i.e. split off into a parallel loop sort of setup) - not trying to bash design at all here. From a purely performance standpoint (which is what this entire topic is about - how well the new block performs), my personal guess is that dual inlet/dual outlet won't give much change to temps. In other words, multiple inlets won't change how heat transfers from the block into the fluid. This may also just be me showing a complete lack of understanding here.

That make more sense? Of course, I do stand to be proven a total moron here. It certainly won't be the first time. I may be a computer geek, but I will never claim to be so much as even competent in the theories of thermodynamics.

You do realize it is not a dual inlet/dual outlet design, correct? It's one inlet and three outlets so that you can split the loop between the chipset blocks and gpu blocks which don't necessarily benefit from high flow and still allow the cpu block to receive the full flow which benefits more from flow. The design does make sense when using either their new rad since it has multiple inlets. Of course, if you have a rad that has multiple inlets/outlets then it should work also.

@Gabe - I like the look, not so much the white, but the overall design to me is better than the chrome plated hold down bracket that is on my XT model. This is just personal preference and some will like it and some will not. What I am sure 99% will agree on is that we appreciate Swiftech's hard work and innovation. For the last year or so you guys have thought out of the box and brought us our first PMW pump, a new design in rads and a new design in cpu blocks, not just the standard repackaging that some companies have been doing lately. Granted, there are a few other companies out there with newly designed rads like the Aquacompter ones or new res/pump combo's like Koolance or Danger Den, but you guys seem to be hitting more than one area, which I like. Don't take what some are saying to heart, we as a community appreciate all of Swiftech's efforts and your involvement in the community. All you have to look at is sales over the last 5 years and you can tell Swiftech is doing it right 99% of the time. Thank you again for the innovative products.

@Gabe - One last thing, any chance you will have other colors besides black and white for the tops, i.e. green or blue or red?

[gabe]

Other colors: Been working hard on this, but hit a brick wall. Were' not giving up. It just takes time. Meanwhile, we'll come out with some limited editions which we hope will satisfy ppl in search of custom looks. Stay tuned.

[ryan92084]

Other colors: Been working hard on this, but hit a brick wall. Were' not giving up. It just takes time. Meanwhile, we'll come out with some limited editions which we hope will satisfy ppl in search of custom looks. Stay tuned.

will you be selling the white top by itself so we can experiment with dying at least?

i wonder which vendors' (if any) mounting system actually obtains 240N of even pressure

[gabe]

Gabe, I've been speaking English my entire life and still suck at it apparently. I think "gimmick" might not have been the best choice in verbiage. From a standpoint of flexibility, I can see how this would potentially be a great option for a loop (i.e. split off into a parallel loop sort of setup) - not trying to bash design at all here. From a purely performance standpoint (which is what this entire topic is about - how well the new block performs), my personal guess is that dual inlet/dual outlet won't give much change to temps. In other words, multiple inlets won't change how heat transfers from the block into the fluid. This may also just be me showing a complete lack of understanding here.

That make more sense? Of course, I do stand to be proven a total moron here. It certainly won't be the first time. I may be a computer geek, but I will never claim to be so much as even competent in the theories of thermodynamics.

From a pure performance standpoint, there are two cases:

CPU-only config: these features won't matter.
Multiple-device environment: using the features will substantially improve flow-rate, and improve overall loop performance. This point cannot be argued because it is based on known laws of fluid dynamics.

Not to say that you couldn't accomplish the same performance gains using "Ys" - We just claim that it makes things easier and cleaner.

This is one more tool to faciliate the life of eXtreme users. That is all we claim. The fact that we explain it at length might make it sound like we are making a big deal out of it. But this is not the case. We completely understand (and knew this from the get go) that this feature touches only a limited number of users (which btw probably represents a majority of users at XS and other extreme forums); yet 95% of these users either set up their system in series using dual pumps, or split their system in two independant loops. This innovation is Stephen's attempt at showing a smarter way to do things.

[stephenswiftech]

Gabe, I've been speaking English my entire life and still suck at it apparently. I think "gimmick" might not have been the best choice in verbiage. From a standpoint of flexibility, I can see how this would potentially be a great option for a loop (i.e. split off into a parallel loop sort of setup) - not trying to bash design at all here. From a purely performance standpoint (which is what this entire topic is about - how well the new block performs), my personal guess is that dual inlet/dual outlet won't give much change to temps. In other words, multiple inlets won't change how heat transfers from the block into the fluid. This may also just be me showing a complete lack of understanding here.

That make more sense? Of course, I do stand to be proven a total moron here. It certainly won't be the first time. I may be a computer geek, but I will never claim to be so much as even competent in the theories of thermodynamics.

the HD is not a 2 in 2 out design at all. more like 1 in and 3 out in the regular configuration. it's the fact that you parallelize "what's after the HD" that improves the flow in the HD itself, because the pressure drop of the parallel setup that's after the HD would be much less restrictive than stacking whatever blocks in series.