TDX or MCW6002?

[Ancient_1]

ancient what card do u run?

9800 AIW.

As for the review there is something very wrong there. Before I ever started to read it I knew the Swifty block would win LOL
The TDX is a very good block but with just the Ehiem 1250 and the stock plate in it there is no way it could give 6°c better temps (I would of guessed 2°c worse temps)

And as for the mounting hardware my RBX came with the washers and nuts to fasten the rods to the board before you install the block, either the mounting package sent was messed up or the author, and with the results I am not totaly sure of anything in that review.

[MaxxxRacer]

lol.. no wonder the 6002 won.. the eheim 1250 is a great pump, but not for high flow or high head... which is what we need in watercooling (generally)

Ancient: Not to bash jiquid nijas as they are good ppl, it goes to show you how good pH is.

[Ancient_1]

lol.. no wonder the 6002 won.. the eheim 1250 is a great pump, but not for high flow or high head... which is what we need in watercooling (generally)

Ancient: Not to bash jiquid nijas as they are good ppl, it goes to show you how good pH is.

Ahh the TDX won by 6°c Just not possible.

Read the review and pay attention to the ambient temps listed and the water temps listed and how he compared the blocks to each other without even taking one of those other readings into account.

Also said he had a 130 cfm fan and it was only a 120x25mm fan and I know of none like that

Also comented on the lap job of the TDX and said he couldnt even see himself in it (like shiny = flat) I know the MCWs have a great lap on them but they usually arent shiny either.

There are so many bad things in it I cant really find anything good (I really question the competence of the reviewer)

For a site named Liquid Ninjas I expected a bit more even [H] did a better job.

[MaxxxRacer]

hmm.. i didnt read the review.. i just saw your comments and saw no need to read it... how in the hell could the tdx win by 6c.. the only thing it beats by that much is like the maze4 cpu or something worse than that.. . 6C is huge

[WesM63]

Also said he had a 130 cfm fan and it was only a 120x25mm fan and I know of none like that

No where in the review it states what size of fan it actually is. Its actually 120mmx38mm, THIS one to be exact.

Also comented on the lap job of the TDX and said he couldnt even see himself in it (like shiny = flat) I know the MCWs have a great lap on them but they usually arent shiny either.

The 6002 was very shiny and the TDX wasn't, simpily a statement, in which had no affect on tempature. (Drop water onto flat glass and when picked up both where very hard to pull up inciting that the bases where very flat.)

There are so many bad things in it I cant really find anything good (I really question the competence of the reviewer)

The review might not of been up to par with [H] or pro-cooling god forbid, but please don't question my competence. If you look around the web i'm a very respected member of various forums due to my knowladge.

[Ancient_1]

Actualy the only reviews I have seen that results are as bad are a couple of the PolarFlo TT reviews/infomercials out there. And they could be better even. Until PH or JoeC test it I dont have a clue to how good it is.
I believe that if it was a very good block performance wise they would of made sure that both OCrs and ProCooling got one to have reviews available upon release (not doing so I am sure is hurting thier sales if it is as good as the current reviews say)

[Ancient_1]

One thing is very obvious.
The C/W of a block wont change unless the flow through it changes. Which means if you have a block with a C/W of .15 the cpu will have a 15° higher temp than the water going through the block at a 100 watt heat load, and at a 50watt heat load it will be 7.5 and at a 200 watt load it will be 30°C warmer than the water. The only thing that willl make it vary is a change in the flow rate through the block. More load wont change it higher temps will have no effect on it either.

You showed both with similar temps at idle and quite different temps at load, thats not possible with a accurate test.
A bad mount could account for it but you said you did multiple mounts all with the same results, and I am sure you didnt vary the flowrate durring the test so I have no idea on whats being shown in the review.

Also when you review different blocks the only figure you can use to show a performance difference is the temp difference between the cpu and the water. That will take out the ambient temp differences.

[WesM63]

Actualy the only reviews I have seen that results are as bad are a couple of the PolarFlo TT reviews/infomercials out there. And they could be better even. Until PH or JoeC test it I dont have a clue to how good it is.
I believe that if it was a very good block performance wise they would of made sure that both OCrs and ProCooling got one to have reviews available upon release (not doing so I am sure is hurting thier sales if it is as good as the current reviews say)

Read the first page of the review again. The review wasn't written to compare the blocks together for any given system. They were compared against each other in my system and not on a load simulator ect ect ect. I made it as clear as possable that the review wasn't to be a deciding factor against your decsion on one or the other. Rather to help a newbie to watercooling see other things rather than just tempatures. (Thats why I own a Modded Mach 1, water only gets so cold.)

[Ancient_1]

I agree with that and what you are saying but the results are just not possible with your setup.
I am raggin on the review and I usualy dont do things like that, mainly because of the fact it is a lot of work that you dont get paid for and you have people like I am right now just rippin it apart, which I do apologize to you about, but he results are so far out I would hate to see a newbie read it and theink the TDX is that nuch better when with your setup it should be a bit worse.
That and the big descrepancys in your temp readings that dont support each other.

I am sorry I wish I could of been there just to try and figure out why the results are so far off (I really dont blame you as you are reporting what you saw but there is a reason why the temps are so far off you just have to find it)

[Player0]

For a site named Liquid Ninjas I expected a bit more even [H] did a better job.
There are so many bad things in it I cant really find anything good (I really question the competence of the reviewer)

Every reviewer starts somewhere. Wes has been watercooling, among other things, for a long time. Anyone is welcome to post a review on our site, irregardless of their experience in doing so (or their inexperience of being raked over the coals after putting in significant time and effort).

I wouldn't agree that the DD should win by such a large margin. It simply shows the wide margins of deviation that can occur while testing these things. Outside of lab conditions with measured flow, temperature, pressure, and hell, humidity and other ambient conditions that need to be isolated, performance is just going to vary, or at least seem too.

It's what you do with that information. Here's a case where there was a specific set of things done, and these were his results. I don't think anyone can call these results incompetitent without knowing the person or the work that went in to it. He made conclusions based on the information he was given. And yeah, there were a lot of things missing, but this is a beginner review.

Actually, I'm still very curious about the performance differences between the MCW6000/6002 and the TDX/RBX. I know ProCooling has some charts, but I'd like to see something more in depth, maybe even a direct comparison. I'd love to be able to do it myself, but when it comes right down to it, I don't have the budget for the proper testing equipment. I have to pay the bills over at LN

Feel free to debate the results, try to figure out what might be wrong and what might be right, and offer constructive criticism in to how he might do better next time. It's amazing how much bitterness can exist in people when it comes to waterblocks. This is supposed to be a hobby, and honestly, whats the biggest difference between any of the modern waterblocks, maybe 3c tops according to ProCooling? What differences in overclocking does 3c really make? In my practical experience, not a whole lot. I can see why the guys making the blocks would make a big deal out of it, just not sure why anyone else does really

[Ancient_1]

I agree with everything you said, I honestly believe that the review should not of been published till the problem was found. There is far too much misinformation on the net and results like this just add to it. I think that is what got me so angry. You can check all my posts and see I am not the type to personally attack someone this could very possibly be a first for me. I have and do try to correct info I see as bad but as long as I can remember I have never made a public statment like that quote you quoted from that post.

As far as whats wrong the main thing it points to is a bad mount, but it was stated that he had done multi mounts with the same results. I would like to know what the TIM joint looked like after each mount. Other than that all I could guess is something wrong in the block itself, and if that were the case a call to Swiftech would of been a good idea. Or could it of been that wasnt mounted the way it was designed because of the missing IHS, I believe that the mounting pressure for that chip is like 75#.

I just feel published reviews should be accurate to some degree and using a MB it should be able to get within plus or minus a couple degrees which I believe was not the case here.

[Player0]

Any result obtained with honest means, I wouldn't consider misinformation, or misleading. The results are simply what he acheived under those conditions. They are probably reproducable within some level of error.

I would love to have more and more high quality reviews on my site. If you think you can do better, please just let me know. I'll get whatever blocks you want for the review. I think its hard to point fingers until you actually try to do it yourself. Even a review that shows inconsistent and innaccurate numbers due to certain testing conditions is ALOT of work, time, and sometimes money.

Take the review for what it is, a beginner review. What, no one is allowed to have a beginning anymore? I guess we all have to be experts with $1000 test beds? The internet is about free expression, free speech, and the sharing of information. Hey, all Im saying, is offer something constructive, or do it better yourself.

Theres no reason to put someone down personally for working hard on something and trying to get in to an activity with almost no rewards. I know several people who have something interesting to add, but are scared away by all the negativity and anonyminity that floats around out there.

If you never allow for an opportunity to grow, you might miss out on something worth while down the line.

[WesM63]

Any result obtained with honest means, I wouldn't consider misinformation, or misleading. The results are simply what he acheived under those conditions. They are probably reproducable within some level of error.

I would love to have more and more high quality reviews on my site. If you think you can do better, please just let me know. I'll get whatever blocks you want for the review. I think its hard to point fingers until you actually try to do it yourself. Even a review that shows inconsistent and innaccurate numbers due to certain testing conditions is ALOT of work, time, and sometimes money.

Take the review for what it is, a beginner review. What, no one is allowed to have a beginning anymore? I guess we all have to be experts with $1000 test beds? The internet is about free expression, free speech, and the sharing of information. Hey, all Im saying, is offer something constructive, or do it better yourself.

Theres no reason to put someone down personally for working hard on something and trying to get in to an activity with almost no rewards. I know several people who have something interesting to add, but are scared away by all the negativity and anonyminity that floats around out there.

If you never allow for an opportunity to grow, you might miss out on something worth while down the line.

Quoted for truth!

That is the problem with alot of major sites and hardly anyone realizes it. When I started the review I thought to myself it was going to be cake as it sounds so simple. Try it once, get your review on the web and let people rip you a new one for trying.

As far as whats wrong the main thing it points to is a bad mount, but it was stated that he had done multi mounts with the same results. I would like to know what the TIM joint looked like after each mount. Other than that all I could guess is something wrong in the block itself, and if that were the case a call to Swiftech would of been a good idea. Or could it of been that wasnt mounted the way it was designed because of the missing IHS, I believe that the mounting pressure for that chip is like 75#.

TIM Joint? Bad mounting was my first thought. Even multi mounts with perfect impressions of AS3 on the block has to mean I was doing something right. (Not like its the first waterblock i've installed)

BTW, Ancient_1 no hard feelings.

[Ancient_1]

1st I could never write a review my comunication skills are not good enough and I am not qualified technically. I could do a decent job of a comparison of multiple blocks on my setup that would be close to actual, and if I had tested those two block as soon as results like that showed up I would not of stopped looking for the reason till I found it.
I run a RBX with the #5 plate in it and it took me close to a month of switching between the #4 and #5 recording temp averages from a few days at a time to a week at a time to be able to say with any certainty that the #5 was good for about 1 whole degree over the #4 on my system. It takes many repititions to make any test data have any amount of validity.

And 3 degrees or so will change the OC a lil as far as complete or near complete stability is concered (good for about 2 mhz fsb for me).

When I mount either the G4 or G5 on here I will have to do that same process all over again, but I will want to know what the actual difference is, and wont find out by doing once or even twice due to differences in room temps.

Other than the final temp differences of the block I thought he covered the rest good for a 1st review other than the coment on the lap jobs.

I flip the block over to find an under lapped poor looking base. Instantly my face went from an enormous smile to a frown.

How shiny the lap job is has nothing to do with its quality, and no reason to be mentioned other than as an observation unless it was a poor lap (uneven, scratches. or gouges) shiny for an unexposed area isnt relevant. Would be more so for the top of the Swifty considering some are and some arent.

If the review had ended with both blocks within 2° either way I would not of said a word, but with results that are not realistic I feel it should not of been published till the reason was found. It could be something simple like a piece of styrofoam caught in the block even, I have no idea since I dont have access to the block and setup, but something is wrong.

[Ancient_1]

BTW, Ancient_1 no hard feelings.

None here just a bad feeling for the one coment I added. I got personal on that one and thats totaly wrong, and my belief is its justification for a ban (and for all the years I have been on different forums I havnt even been warned) and if I get one it will be well deserved. I will delete that if you guys will (would of already done it but you both quoted it)

[Player0]

1st I could never write a review my comunication skills are not good enough and I am not qualified technically. I could do a decent job of a comparison of multiple blocks on my setup that would be close to actual, and if I had tested those two block as soon as results like that showed up I would not of stopped looking for the reason till I found it.

Qualified? What are the qualifications exactly?
Also, assuming what numbers you should be getting is DANGEROUS for any sort of analytical testing. It can influence results. Or you will avoid paths that don't lead to what you assume will be right, even if they have something relevant to show. Thats not good scientific method.

Back a while ago, I didn't get good results on the SlitEdge block I reviewed. I knew that most other people reported it to work far beyond what it was for me. And no matter what I did (and i spent extra time on it), I was not able to account for the performance loss. It simply didnt work as well on my set up. Maybe flow, or pressure, whatever. The mystery wasnt quantified.

IT DOESNT MAKE THE RESULTS INNACCURATE! It simply couldnt be explained with the tools I had available. A follow up to that review could have been made if there was more data available. I didn't assume the reason why, I just left it as a question.

Its better to leave a question unexplained, than to try and force an assumed answer, even if it makes the numbers in the review askewed.

And 3 degrees or so will change the OC a lil as far as complete or near complete stability is concered (good for about 2 mhz fsb for me).

Oh, I know several people who would argue the importance of as little as 1 degree, or by how evenly that thermal variance is spread over the CPU. 2mhz FSB? Considering modern FSbs of over 1000mhz...thats really a small margin. Heck, a variance in the PLL could cause more than that. Hey, im not trying to convince anyone. I know it will be argued and ill get emails about it. I still think its pretty insignificant overall. Some people cant see the forest from the trees however.

When I mount either the G4 or G5 on here I will have to do that same process all over again, but I will want to know what the actual difference is, and wont find out by doing once or even twice due to differences in room temps.

Most of the watercooling pros around would tell you that you would never be able to find the actual difference on the system you are talking about, and might even get the wrong answer because you wouldnt be testing properly.

How shiny the lap job is has nothing to do with its quality, and no reason to be mentioned other than as an observation unless it was a poor lap (uneven, scratches. or gouges) shiny for an unexposed area isnt relevant.

Shiny has some impact, although flatness is more important and cant be measured without special tools. Irregardless, he never fully quantified 'poor lap' and you are criticising him over assumptions youre making about what he meant. What the heck? Its easy to notice the differences in lap quality with the naked eye, you can see scratches and other imperfections a mile away. Still, he didnt quantify it, so you certainly can't comment on anything, other than to know he thought the lap was better on one than the other. I would also like to point out that in my own experience, Swiftech SEEMS, to me at least, usually do slightly better at lapping. Whether thats true in terms of performance, i dont know.

If the review had ended with both blocks within 2° either way I would not of said a word, but with results that are not realistic I feel it should not of been published till the reason was found. It could be something simple like a piece of styrofoam caught in the block even, I have no idea since I dont have access to the block and setup, but something is wrong.

Styrofoam? Come on. Give the poor guy SOME credit will you? Youve made your point on this thread, you dont like the review, you want to be extremely critical and read in to things that havent even been written. Im not defending anything the review says or how it was tested or what block 'won'. But youre being overly critical.

[Ancient_1]

I might be over critical but 5° difference at load between two modern water blocks isnt realistic specially when its only 1 at idle and would of been a 1.6° lead by the swifty with the water temp factored in. That is a swing of 6.6° more of an increase from idle to load on the Swifty. But like you say its not overly important in the grand scheme of things.
But how many flame wars will use this as proof the TDX is far superior to the MCW6002.

I do like reviews like this (using the same setup and just switching blocks) for a couple reasons. The main one is that with modern block it is almost impossible to say one is better than the other performance wise, since they should all be within about 2° each other and with the MB being the meter used to read the temps 2° is well within the margin of error.

[Player0]

I do like reviews like this (using the same setup and just switching blocks) for a couple reasons. The main one is that with modern block it is almost impossible to say one is better than the other performance wise, since they should all be within about 2° each other and with the MB being the meter used to read the temps 2° is well within the margin of error.

So if the blocks are 2 degrees of each other, and the margin of error is 2 degrees for each block, then it makes a 6c difference plausible, even if youre mounting everything 100% correctly.

The error can simply be accounted for by innaccuracy of the tools measuring the temperature. So, where are you going with this?

[Ancient_1]

I do not see 6° as plausible, now really do you?

[MaxxxRacer]

i most certainly not see 6C plausible in any well monitored setup.. That is keeping with the mobo not going completely crazy when measuring temps. But since the test was repeated this is unlikely...

[Knavinusa]

On another note, should I get a fillport if I'm getting a res?

[Player0]

You cant say that theres a margin of error 2 degrees in either direction, and then say that his results arent possible. Seriously, your brand of logic confounds me. If there is really only a 2 degree variance in the system temperature, then his readings could be 100% accurate. In fact, most people would claim that the varience of the onboard temperature could be a lot more innaccurate than that.

Again, you're confusing what you expect to see with whats being measured. YES, go ahead, bash the measurement technique, we all know its flawed, it CAN cause a 6 degree varience between blocks. If you trust that he was being honest with his findings, OBVIOUSLY thats how we explain some of the problem.

You want to bash the quality of the reviewer because he accurately reported his readings. Readings he probably doesnt have the tools to measure any more accurately than he has.

No ones arguing that the numbers dont make sense. But im 100% sure that the motherboard could cause an innaccuracy of 6c or MORE, because Ive seen it during my own reviews. This isnt bad mounting, or styrofoam. This is simply HOW BAD onboard measurements cant be, so stop shooting the messanger.

[WesM63]

You cant say that theres a margin of error 2 degrees in either direction, and then say that his results arent possible. Seriously, your brand of logic confounds me. If there is really only a 2 degree variance in the system temperature, then his readings could be 100% accurate. In fact, most people would claim that the varience of the onboard temperature could be a lot more innaccurate than that.

Again, you're confusing what you expect to see with whats being measured. YES, go ahead, bash the measurement technique, we all know its flawed, it CAN cause a 6 degree varience between blocks. If you trust that he was being honest with his findings, OBVIOUSLY thats how we explain some of the problem.

You want to bash the quality of the reviewer because he accurately reported his readings. Readings he probably doesnt have the tools to measure any more accurately than he has.

No ones arguing that the numbers dont make sense. But im 100% sure that the motherboard could cause an innaccuracy of 6c or MORE, because Ive seen it during my own reviews. This isnt bad mounting, or styrofoam. This is simply HOW BAD onboard measurements cant be, so stop shooting the messanger.

And the review does state I used MBM for cpu temps and a $10 radio shack thermometer for water temps because not everyone has access to very expensive digital thermometers.

I tried to make things as clear as possable.

[nikhsub1]

I'm just curios as to why the 3.1C difference in ambient (in favor of the TDX) was not factored into the "money shot". I am truly baffled by this, what was the point of even stating ambient temps then? Personally, I believe the Swifty problems were mounting related, nothing your fault, but even when seeing an even impression on the base of the WB does not mean it is a good mount. Also, do you know if your MB reads the diode in the CPU or the insocket thermistor? That was not mentioned either and IMO is critical to know. Anyway, I take most reviews with a grain of salt and I commend your bravery.

[iboomalot]

he did a nice job for not being a Pro

but as mentioned above 3+ degrees air temps will make a large difference.

look at the water temps.. If a block is removing alot of heat it will go into the water.

if the rad and fan in the higher ambient air would have contributed to the higher heat loads.

Still seems the 6002 did little worse overall when all accounts are taken into consideration.

Would have liked to see more equal room temps with a loaded comparison done.

also leave out the DOOM 3 since that is real world but depends on who is playing.

1 hour Folding + couple runs of 32M superpi should give a max temp load.