Apogee Test at Systemcooling

[nikhsub1]

Not good for Swiftech IMO. http://www.systemcooling.com/swiftech_apogee-01.html

[ExtraPickles]

Performance on a CPU with IHS seems OK, but that top sure is looking ridiculously thin.

-pickles

[nikhsub1]

Yeah, OK, but how do we explain it performing WORSE than a koolance block on the die sim?

[ExtraPickles]

That's a good question... In my own testing there's no difference in performance between the Apogee and Storm on an Opteron 170 with IHS on a single CPU loop only. After reading that review and seeing how thin the top is though I won't be putting the Apogee back in another system like I originally planned.

-pickles

[chinkgai]

guess people should wait for a rev.2

[Eddy_EK]

"Something awfully screwy is going around here!"

By that I mean that I don't understand, why such a big difference in simulating and real CPU testing.

[MaxxxRacer]

Looks like Lee is kinda selling out to Swiftech if you read parts of it. While he just about stated that the live cpu test was useless he went ahead and did it anyway. Kind of Silly. And he also defends the Apogee in his conclusion..


BUT his test data with the die sims confirms it.. Apogee is a product that should have NEVER seen the light of day... Swiftech just wasted 10-15k in tooling costs for that delrin top.

[snowwie]

robotech isn't selling out to swiftech, i think he would be offended by your saying that.

he is interpreting his results on his testbed, something i think he is much more qualified to do than you or nikhsub, but all the sudden you guys (or nikhsub at least) think this is your chance to jump up and cry "i told you so" and continue to claim that your suspicions of the new swiftech (TTV) setup are original and founded. billa (and he IS a definitive source of knowledge when it comes to WB testing, NO ONE has the experience he has) said to "scratch" his old data (1 cm^2 copper die), he found a nexxos xp performed poorly on his old simulator but on the new swiftech simulator it performs well. He believes the TTV better simulates a CPU. and I trust his judgement. he has no agenda to find one test setup "more convenient" than another...he just follows his knowledge and experience (and i'll repeat, which is more than anyone else).
I'm sorry to go on like that nikhsub, but your postings show a grave misunderstanding of robotech's review i think.

"but how do we explain it performing WORSE than a koolance block on the die sim?"
you don't. only robotech can explain such, as it's his data. You keep referring to this data like it's your own to interpret and understand.

[Fairydust]

I am not sure i like this Swiftech Testbed. If I understand correctly the diode is at the outer edge of the IHS? Coolers with a more uniform cooling will receive better results than coolers with core centered cooling performance. Unless the temperature is measured as close to the core as possible, it is quite useless.

[specialblend218]

I am not sure i like this Swiftech Testbed. If I understand correctly the diode is at the outer edge of the IHS? Coolers with a more uniform cooling will receive better results than coolers with core centered cooling performance. Unless the temperature is measured as close to the core as possible, it is quite useless.

That was the first I thought when they stuck the probe to the side of the IHS.

[aMp]

Another nonscientific method here: Why not see how far you can OC two or three difference chips (e.g. P4 570, FX-57, Opty 175, IHS on/off) using the same test rig but different blocks?

[MaxxxRacer]

What fairydust said.

snowwie: i understand you have a company to run here, but we all, including Intel, know that the TTV is a poor way to test CPU waterblocks. As nik as posted here, it says right in the Intel PDF that the TTV is merely for validation and should not be used for long term quantitative testing.

It is quite obvious that the die sim is the most accurate and repeatable test method for waterblocks. Dereks (pH) Athlon XP comes in a pretty close second, but as Derek will admit the Athlon XP's heat output will vary a bit during the test and from test to test. This is no fault of derek, but inherit in cpus.

[nikhsub1]

I'm sorry to go on like that nikhsub, but your postings show a grave misunderstanding of robotech's review i think.

Dood I think you are mistaking me for someone else. I understand just fine thx.

[Bloody_Sorcerer]

So did I, and I feel my original conceptions are correct about this block; when BillA left, swiftech quickly took a turn for the worse.
I respect BillA's opinions on the TTV, but I disagree with using it and it alone in thermal tests. If we at least knew something about it, such as die size, I wouldn't mind as much.
What has me most concerned is not the performance, but the utter lack of any QA at all. .030 inch delrin is NOT acceptable; .030 inch copper or bronze isn't even acceptable. Copper shavings in blocks (hurried manufacturing process) is NOT acceptable. Is it just me or has swiftech taken a turn for the worse as of late?

[snowwie]

we all, including Intel, know that the TTV is a poor way to test CPU waterblocks....It is quite obvious that the die sim is the most accurate and repeatable test method for waterblocks.

if billa hadn't stopped posting here as a result of your censorship he would have issue with your statement right there. who is we? and how do YOU know? So Intel has tested the TTV for use as a vehicle in performance testing on waterblocks?

nikhsub, anyone who reads the review and then claims a koolance block, or even the mcw-6000 will provide better performance on today's processors than the apogee is misunderstanding robotech.

[Bloody_Sorcerer]

Intel claims in their docs that the TTV should NOT be used for reviewing purposes and should ONLY be used to see whether or not a HEATSINK would have a snowball's chance in hell of keeping a CPU cool enough to be stable or not. They then go on to say that HEATSINKs should also be VERIFIED with OTHER heatsources. NOWHERE do they say that it should even be considered for high-accuracy numbers, especially because we have utterly no idea about the TTV; tell us its die size and we might a bit less... might.

[snowwie]

Intel claims in their docs that the TTV should NOT be used for reviewing purposes and should ONLY be used to see whether or not a HEATSINK would have a snowball's chance in hell of keeping a CPU cool enough to be stable or not. They then go on to say that HEATSINKs should also be VERIFIED with OTHER heatsources. NOWHERE do they say that it should even be considered for high-accuracy numbers, especially because we have utterly no idea about the TTV; tell us its die size and we might a bit less... might.

do they? or is it possible that they only say that the TTV should only be used for heatsink validating purposes only and so haven't been qualified for testing? so what? this has been argued before already at procooling...where all of you have been present, including me, i read it too. so tell me something new or something i don't clearly understand and needs to be restated to me. I'll restate something: BillA has had experience with any kind of simulation for cpu testing that surpasses anyone else in watercooling. He believes the TTV is a good simulator (produces accurate results that can be understood by the tester) for waterblock testing. there are many kinds of simulators, all of which can produce good results. Understanding them and their relation to its purpose (thermal performance on modern processors) is the responsibility of the person who built the test bed. I don't think Robotech did a great job in his review. His explanation/conclusion seems to simply invalidate his testing and emphasize the CPU testing, which is a lot less than we would expect from him.

[Bloody_Sorcerer]

We all know where we stand on this, and no one is changing their opinions any time soon. Let's avoid yet another drawn out debate on this; we've had more than enough.

[tw33ter]

The only thing that concerns me about the apogee, is this. It seems like there will be a few reports coming in of their apogee's breaking right there.

[AndrewZorn]

i feel like the kind of person who would break it just attaching the tubes, that is like mcdonalds thin

[Hu1kamania]

i feel like the kind of person who would break it just attaching the tubes, that is like mcdonalds thin

HaHa i hear that!

[nikhsub1]

The only thing that concerns me about the apogee, is this. It seems like there will be a few reports coming in of their apogee's breaking right there.

IN all fairness to Swiftech, they have investigated and found no issue... this so far is from only one user IIRC.

[Hu1kamania]

IN all fairness to Swiftech, they have investigated and found no issue... this so far is from only one user IIRC.

Orkan mentioned his cracking in the same spot as the picture in the review.

[mcbarnet007]

Personally I think that the real life test results are about the same is because of bad IHS and core contact. If both water blocks effectively cool the IHS to close to ambient water temperature then the only variable is between the IHS and the Core. As shown in the review the Apogee performs really well for low heat density (large area). Therefore, cpu with IHS will see about the same temperature between Apogee and Storm.

However if you pop the IHS you will see a big difference between the two blocks on small die. For dual core opterons without IHS the result will be similar to the Large die similation.

From personal experience removing IHS (I've removed at least 5 IHS) will give you a 8 to 10 C drop in temperature. And this is only from a TDX. I am able to cool my opty 170 at 2.8ghz 1.43v to 30 C loaded. Ambient around 20 C. I use the #5 nozzel which has the highest pressure drop similar to the Storm.

So from the review my conclusion is if you are going to use IHS on your cpu, get the Apogee after they fix the molded top.

If you are going to remove IHS then by all means get the storm because it is very good at removing concentrated heat source.

I'll be installling the Storm on my opty 170 after finals and I'll report back my result.

[Plywood99]

It is quite obvious that the die sim is the most accurate and repeatable test method for waterblocks. Dereks (pH) Athlon XP comes in a pretty close second, but as Derek will admit the Athlon XP's heat output will vary a bit during the test and from test to test. This is no fault of derek, but inherit in cpus.

Agreed. Testing with ihs / tim joint is a mess. Bare die or die sim is best that can be done at the moment...