[Review] Skinneelabs CPU Block Roundup #3 Results Database

[Vapor]

Just a quick results database of all the blocks tested so far....will be updated as I add new blocks and as I retest old blocks on the new testbed.


Tables


















Charts














Performance Scores

Something a little different! Relative Thermal Performance Score is just a simple linear scoring method where 10 is the best-as-tested block and 1 is the worst-as-tested block. Scores are derived from the average of the best mount and the average mount (so representative of approximately 75th percentile mount).




Overall Relative Performance Score takes the Relative Thermal Performance Score and the flowrates at medium pumping power and averages them with a 5-part-thermal and 2-part-flow weighting, then rescales from 1 to 10.

[Alexandr0s]

Hey, I kind of like that overall comparison score. Even though the thermal performance and restriction of the block are of different importance to people, it gives a good idea which is a good temp vs flow block . I'd like to see it again in following tests .

[Martinm210]

Nice while in a cpu only loop, thermals are all that matters, I like having both graphs to give some benefit to the lowere pressure drop blocks too. There is some importance there in multiple block loops even if is pretty small.

Can't get over how consistent your data graphs are between blocks..you really have this block testing down pat..awesome work!!

[Vapor]

Thanks guys!

Working through retesting the CPU-360 right now, seems contact is better than in my original review and performance is agreeing too. Maybe I still had cap clearance issues with the GB boards?

How do the overall numbers 'feel' to you? Trying to use the raw numbers to create a scoring system that feels right. I agree that thermal results are the only thing that matter for CPU-only loops, but I feel like I should also implement a score that incorporates restriction somehow and this was my first attempt.

I'd actually argue that more restrictive blocks are marginally better in a few respects (potentially lower performance degradation when adding secondary restriction; lower heatdump from the pump), but that's neither here nor there (and the differences are incredibly minute).

[Church]

Vapor: Just don't implement any 'subjective number scoring system' .. probably because seen it abused too much at many places, eg. @software review sites with so called 'stars' scoring system, reviews in car magazines to name some. Comments on quality/mount sys/other alike details should be enough. As for trying to unifying flow & temp numbers .. don't know if it's worth it. After all, it's too hard to judge or guess right importance of one over other in mirriads of different loops possible. Two rows of numbers/charts (flow/temps) in current reviews imho good enough. For me it would be interesting to see added pricing chart in addition to existing ones, but i can easily get by without. There is saying, that best is enemy of good.

[Waterlogged]

Will a fully tweaked Fuzion make it to the testbed?

[Vapor]

Vapor: Just don't implement any 'subjective number scoring system' .. probably because seen it abused too much at many places, eg. @software review sites with so called 'stars' scoring system, reviews in car magazines to name some. Comments on quality/mount sys/other alike details should be enough. As for trying to unifying flow & temp numbers .. don't know if it's worth it. After all, it's too hard to judge or guess right importance of one over other in mirriads of different loops possible. Two rows of numbers/charts (flow/temps) in current reviews imho good enough. For me it would be interesting to see added pricing chart in addition to existing ones, but i can easily get by without. There is saying, that best is enemy of good.

Great points No subjective scoring system will ever be used--they're useless. I'm still on the fence with the "Overall Performance Score" since the weighting is inherently subjective despite using only objective data.

Will a fully tweaked Fuzion make it to the testbed?

Will a tweaked Fuzion V2 suffice? Last time I tested the FV2 with a high-pressure mounting, it came in almost identically to the HK3.0 LC. Would be interesting to see what a few more tweaks would do (nozzle, broader pin to plate contact, etc). Though it's not first on the list....catching up with the best blocks of Roundup #2 (plus midplate tweaking for the CPU360), then a few new blocks, then back to TIM for a couple months, occasionally adding some CPU blocks to the database.

[Waterlogged]

Will a tweaked Fuzion V2 suffice? Last time I tested the FV2 with a high-pressure mounting, it came in almost identically to the HK3.0 LC. Would be interesting to see what a few more tweaks would do (nozzle, broader pin to plate contact, etc). Though it's not first on the list....catching up with the best blocks of Roundup #2 (plus midplate tweaking for the CPU360), then a few new blocks, then back to TIM for a couple months, occasionally adding some CPU blocks to the database.

Yeah, it'll do for now. It would be nice to see what, if anything, can be further pulled out of a V2 though. I still think there might be a little more performance hiding there somewhere.

[Vapor]

Why do you think a V1 could outperform a V2? Isn't the only difference base thickness and the assembly of the top/midplate?

Looking around the various etailers, it seems all things Fuzion are going OoS, so maybe something new is coming from them?

[Waterlogged]

I never mentioned a V1, just didn't specify V2 in my first post.

I hope that's all it is, the last I heard (which was quite a while ago), there was some kind of rumor about "health concerns" with Danny.

[Vapor]

Oh, I thought you were disappointed with me using the V2 when you said "it'll do for now."

I hope Danny's alright, I haven't heard about any health concerns, but I don't have my ear to the ground either

[Factotum]

please, what is the " bowed " , and why it is compared ?

[Waterlogged]

Just a little disappointed it won't be fully tweaked is all.

[Vapor]

please, what is the " bowed " , and why it is compared ?

Apogee GT includes two o-rings. The standard one and a thicker one that bows the base. The bowed version performs better. The Apogee GT is in this as a reference.

Just a little disappointed it won't be fully tweaked is all.

You want V1 and V2 tweaking?

[Captain H.N.]

Will you test the new Enzotech Stealth? It released behind our backs for as much as a Supreme HF, so it might actually be quite good. I would also think you should get the full-silver Kryos HF to see if the alleged higher thermal conductivity of silver really helps. Even if it doesn't, the base is its own biocide, which is awesome, but it'd be great to have a test to see if it does.

[Vapor]

If I get one to test, definitely

[Waterlogged]

You want V1 and V2 tweaking?

Nope, just the V2. I'm certain there's a little more hiding in it somewhere. Your spring pressure mod + maybe the Quad, 6.5 & 5.5 nozzles.

I have a nozzle mod in mind for one of mine but it's a "get it right or screw up the mid plate" type mod. Not really geared towards increasing pressure as much as increasing "spray area" while trying to maintain the current pressure drop as much as possible.

[ScottALot]

The bowed version would work best with non-lapped surfaces, right? I'm not really suggesting this, but maybe someone could do a lapped test.

[Martinm210]

I guess if I had to decided on my preference, it would be two graphs.
1) pumping powere vs cpu temp as you've already done.
2)flow rate or pressure drop...maybe flow rate vs pumping power

Then people can decide for themselves what's important..

Also wouldn't hurt to have some sort of scoring on mounting system since it is really important that its easy. A difficult block to mount might be a good performer for someone with a lot of testing experience, but perform poor for those mounting a block for the first time. This is probably not emphasized enough..

[Vapor]

Nope, just the V2. I'm certain there's a little more hiding in it somewhere. Your spring pressure mod + maybe the Quad, 6.5 & 5.5 nozzles.

I have a nozzle mod in mind for one of mine but it's a "get it right or screw up the mid plate" type mod. Not really geared towards increasing pressure as much as increasing "spray area" while trying to maintain the current pressure drop as much as possible.

Ah, we're thinking along the same lines then

I guess if I had to decided on my preference, it would be two graphs.
1) pumping powere vs cpu temp as you've already done.
2)flow rate or pressure drop...maybe flow rate vs pumping power

Then people can decide for themselves what's important..

Also wouldn't hurt to have some sort of scoring on mounting system since it is really important that its easy. A difficult block to mount might be a good performer for someone with a lot of testing experience, but perform poor for those mounting a block for the first time. This is probably not emphasized enough..

Hmmm, skinnee is going to be doing pdrop on these blocks, hopefully that'll work out. I guess in the meantime I could throw together a flow vs. pumping power chart.

As for mounting scoring--I wish I could but it really is subjective and I think they'd all be in two camps, an 8-9.5 camp and a 1-3 camp. I sometimes wish some manufacturers would stop trying to get more performance and focus on improved mounting (modern Swiftech, D-Tek Pro-Mount, and Koolance mounting are all great, I think) and lower cost.

With all the CPU blocks I have at my disposal...which ones do I grab first when I just need to throw one on the testbed to do something? Koolance CPU-360 or the Apogee GTZ-SE, depending on what backplate is already there (I'd go for the Apogee XT over the GTZ-SE, but it's incompatible with my eVGA E758 ). It's all because of mounting too...they're just so much better than the EK/HK/AC/Enzo/DD kits.

As for performance loss due to mount difficulty--I hear ya, but that's even more difficult to quantify

[Sadasius]

Thank you for the testing. Much appreciated!

[Martinm210]

Ah, we're thinking along the same lines then

Hmmm, skinnee is going to be doing pdrop on these blocks, hopefully that'll work out. I guess in the meantime I could throw together a flow vs. pumping power chart.

As for mounting scoring--I wish I could but it really is subjective and I think they'd all be in two camps, an 8-9.5 camp and a 1-3 camp. I sometimes wish some manufacturers would stop trying to get more performance and focus on improved mounting (modern Swiftech, D-Tek Pro-Mount, and Koolance mounting are all great, I think) and lower cost.

With all the CPU blocks I have at my disposal...which ones do I grab first when I just need to throw one on the testbed to do something? Koolance CPU-360 or the Apogee GTZ-SE, depending on what backplate is already there (I'd go for the Apogee XT over the GTZ-SE, but it's incompatible with my eVGA E758 ). It's all because of mounting too...they're just so much better than the EK/HK/AC/Enzo/DD kits.

As for performance loss due to mount difficulty--I hear ya, but that's even more difficult to quantify

Yeah, I'm not sure even the standard deviation of your 6 mounts would really show it either? Just one of those things that's hard to put any solid numbers to. A subjective ranking is probably all you could do, but I still think it would be worthwhile as a separate piece of information. IMHO, there's no reason for washers and thumbnuts you can loose, or the necessity to measure spring compression to ensure equal mounting pressure.

I would certainly encourage it..even if it is subjective..its important enough. And if you keep it as a separate piece of information, the reader can either decide what to do with it.

[Church]

BTW, if outdated mounting sys makes very possible bad mounts, then imho almost for shure each review of cpu blocks should include hints/instructions/step by step walkthrough how to ensure better/consistent mount with it. And all 'easy' performance mods should be added/described in details aswell (if such exist for particular block). After all, lot from LC crowd are first timers that might apreciate every helping bit of information they can get hands on to enshure top performance of hardware they bought, no matter what outdated designs some vendors might use.

[Martinm210]

Also FWIW, I think most people would better comprehend flow vs. pumping power. Even though it is specific to the test system, I think the majority of our readers have a hard time understanding pressure drop curves even though it pressure drop is the more scientific way. We just don't see as much variance to the curvature in blocks, so regular old flow rate works pretty well for the most part. Besides, it's data you've already collected, so that's even better.

Flow vs. Pumping power would be perfect and would compliment your CPUtemp vs. pumping power chart nicely.

That would be my vote..

1) CPU temp vs Pumping Power (Tested)
2) Flow rate vs Pumping Power (Tested)
3) Mounting Consistency/Ease of use (Subjective)

The rest is all visual, barb compatibility, and cost... and people can figure that out well enough with pictures/specs/shopping around.

[Vapor]

Updated with Koolance CPU-360 rev1.1 data!

Looks like the improved contact (though I can't attribute it....maybe an issue with my old board?) is helping



Pulled the overall score chart until I can get something up with no subjective weighting.

Added a Pumping Power vs. Flowrate chart per recommendation of Martin