Swiftech Apogee Discussion ( The Cat is Out of the Bag )

[snowwie]

oh.

well i would say than one page compares the storm with the mcw6002 and the other compares the mcw55 with the mcw50
but i presume i'm supposed to put two and two together....

i dunno nik, your concerns you cite now were largely ignored then, for good or bad i don't know...but it seems the reason why is because there is no way for us to assume the data published for two diff products (cpu and gpu, no less; next we compare tested c/w between their air and water products? they all use the ttv now!) over a span of over two months is comparable.

edit:
hmm, maybe this quote from billa will help: http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/sho...666#post150666

Swiftech data is comparable if on the same graph, not so between graphs (different bench in almost all cases, I know for I did it)

[MaxxxRacer]

snowwie, we all made a decently large fuss over the MCW55 test data presented by Swiftech, but there wasnt much we could say as there is not a single soul who does gpu block testing.

Actaully Lee's large die sim would do pretty well for a gpu sim.. I will talk with him about it.

[snowwie]

um, i'm looking at the die on my ati card (9600xt)...looks 12mm sq TOPS to me...

i dunno about my nvidia 6800gt, but i don't think it can be much bigger.

[MaxxxRacer]

look at the X800 and 7800GTX die.. they are huge.

[dinos22]

hello to snowie and the rest of the chatterboxes.............i think you guys are just talking too much and not presenting your findings to be taken seriously on this topic...........people on the last couple of pages of this thread dominate discussion about watercooling products here at XS but show very little factual evidence of their own.....especially about Apogee.........don't forget what the thread title is pls

I think i should give you an example of someone with high standards and thorough testing methodologies.............eva2000 ..........You see eva2000 has a website called i4memory and he certainly lives and breaths this technology much like you do watercooling. I have learnt to respect this guy more than any other hardware enthusiast for a number of things. He thoroughly tests every piece of memory/CPU/GPU/Mobo/PSU/Warecooling gear/basically you name it and draws conclusions from personal experience. I mean this guys can spend a couple of months just learning a new motherboard, weeks testing each pair of RAM/CPUs, do 100s of mounts on watercooling gear of his until he is satisfied, list goes on and in the process he posts ALL the details there in black and white and lets everyone draw their own conclusions and provide input into his own work. He buys all his gear and has had so many things in the last 6 months it's a bit scary.............my point is that when this guys shows up here or anywhere else he'll offer his opinion which bings a lot of weight into any discussion because he backs it up. So i guess what i'm asking from some of you "in the know" guys is to show something for us normal people to understand why you say Apogee is one big mistake.

I know Cathar is certainly a person with strong credentials in watercooling gear and I would value his take on Apogee if he is to test it. Whether he does it or not I don't know but it would certainly be appreciated to see some unbiased figures built into the discussion. Right now we've got people like orkan getting his knickers in a twist because gabe questioned his OCing abilities and goes so much out of his way it is becoming rediculously personal. Just drop it and get on with it. I don't care who has what agenda here boys. I just want to see some data from everyone in the know simple

[orkan]

Right now we've got people like orkan getting his knickers in a twist because gabe questioned his OCing abilities and goes so much out of his way it is becoming rediculously personal.

My "knickers" were in a twist far before that statement. You talk to Gabe on the phone? Did he then spite you for thinking that his new product is cheaper than his other products?

The storm, is a better block than the apogee. Hell, my 2-year old whitewater that I have in my system is a better block than the apogee. Not by a little... by a LOT.

Lee tested this block like he tested others... and it barely beat the maze3. Then he tested it like he NEVER tests... with a cpu. Can't use a cpu for testing because of IHS and other factors.

Once all this IHS and testing crap is put to rest... you will see. I was the first one to come to the DEFENSE of the apogee. (ask nikhsub1) I was also one of the first ones to actually GET the block and do my own (amatuer) testing. Only after my own testing, and finding it to be of poor build quality did I thrash it.

It DESERVES to be thrashed... and so does Swiftech if they think the apogee is better than their other block, the Storm.

[Marci]

From the onset, the eva2000-equiv's of the watercooling world have been giving the reasons in this argument across various sites, but these were dismissed as they weren't on a CPU...

Long n' short - there isn't currently a suitable testing methodology out there yet that will provide necessary data that will satisfy ALL parties. If it could be done, it'd be done... so not simple. Just check thoroughly thru all the testing discussions that have arisen over at procooling since the release of this block... you'll see why the pro-testers (for want of a better name - ie: the testers who frequent procooling as opposed to professionally paid testers) can't speak up YET...

Time... s'all about time...

This whole Apogee v Storm just wants laying to rest for a while. When data is available it will be shared as it always has been... but only when that data is of suitable quality to not raise further questions, as current data already has.

IE: When the data is conclusive...

[orkan]

Nicely said.

Doesn't bigben2k have a site dedicated to building a wb test setup? Thought I saw it a while back.

[Marci]

W(ater)B(lock)T(esting)A(lliance) - same still applies... the WBTA's mission is to get a suitable uniform testbench and methodology (I think). Such doesn't yet exist to provide undisputable data suitable for all.

Gotta remember all these Testers are independant. They have to buy the block, dedicate what equates to a good few solid weeks to testing it etc, for no ultimate benefit to themselves...

Most of the pro-testers don't have an Apogee available to them to work with...

[moonlightcheese]

Actually I started complaining back in Sept... when the data for the MCW55 came out and it equaled the Storm... this is not just about the Apogee, this is more about the TTV and it's suspect data.

actually i recall that post. it stuck out in my mind as it seemed utterly impossible. all of these arguments are getting ridiculous really. as Marci said, more test data will lay this all to rest in the future (hopefully the near future). and as i have said a couple times in this thread, i'm eagerly awaiting some results from procooling. i've been following some of the threads over there and things seem to be coming together in their test bed ideas.

that aside, what i see in this thread are two arguments from four groups of people. there is the argument of test methodology, where some criticize the swiftech testing or systemcooling testing and others defend them. there is little to say about this, only that more independent testing will show which is truly superior (and i am also of the mind that swiftech has made a catastrophic mistake by discontinuing the storm).

then there is the other group arguing about data vs theory. many of the senoir members and others are going on about theory and how it is thermodynamically impossible for the apogee to get better temps than the storm where others argue that there either isn't data to back it up or that swiftech's data is more than sufficient as it "has been in the past" (which is only partially true). again, more testing will lay this to rest.

it's really pointless to go on in this manner as there's little else to say that hasn't already been said and only more testing will conclude this argument. if the tests from procooling agree with swiftech or systemcooling or somewhere in between or not at all then so be it. just wait. we'll see soon enough.

[dinos22]

My "knickers" were in a twist far before that statement. You talk to Gabe on the phone? Did he then spite you for thinking that his new product is cheaper than his other products?

The storm, is a better block than the apogee. Hell, my 2-year old whitewater that I have in my system is a better block than the apogee. Not by a little... by a LOT.

Lee tested this block like he tested others... and it barely beat the maze3. Then he tested it like he NEVER tests... with a cpu. Can't use a cpu for testing because of IHS and other factors.

Once all this IHS and testing crap is put to rest... you will see. I was the first one to come to the DEFENSE of the apogee. (ask nikhsub1) I was also one of the first ones to actually GET the block and do my own (amatuer) testing. Only after my own testing, and finding it to be of poor build quality did I thrash it.

It DESERVES to be thrashed... and so does Swiftech if they think the apogee is better than their other block, the Storm.

hey dude i know you were the first to argue for Apogee fiercly and now you are arguing against apogee fiercly which is fair enough because it was damaged......but please don't confuse my rant with something personal...... i am not having a go at you

I am just really like to see numbers when such passionate argument spring up......and get more input from the rest of you guys

From the onset, the eva2000-equiv's of the watercooling world have been giving the reasons in this argument across various sites, but these were dismissed as they weren't on a CPU...

Long n' short - there isn't currently a suitable testing methodology out there yet that will provide necessary data that will satisfy ALL parties. If it could be done, it'd be done... so not simple. Just check thoroughly thru all the testing discussions that have arisen over at procooling since the release of this block... you'll see why the pro-testers (for want of a better name - ie: the testers who frequent procooling as opposed to professionally paid testers) can't speak up YET...

Time... s'all about time...

This whole Apogee v Storm just wants laying to rest for a while. When data is available it will be shared as it always has been... but only when that data is of suitable quality to not raise further questions, as current data already has.

IE: When the data is conclusive...

Hey Marci, I agree what you say as well. I followed watercooling based threads since i started with my Corsair kit not that long ago and i know you guys come through with goods. What i liked about physical PC/CPU rig testing methods was when people use actual CPUs and compare their results to their other hardware........i know that many people discount that sort of testing due to too many variables which can affect testing and it's hard to do this on large scale BUT those are real results with hardware that already ran on each type of cooling..........i guess for certain things like mounting pressure, ambient temps, voltage variations and rest you can test on a few occasions and compare results to see if anything stands out........This form of testing is good and shouldn't just be completely disregarded because at the end of the day this cooling hardware will end up staying on the PC platform people test on so you may as well provide those test........and there is nothing more exciting in my eyes than seeing a better cooling platform with better OCing results......makes it all worth while and thread subscribers get to see pretty piccies hehehe

[Budwise]

my Apex kit w/ Apogee should be here tomorrow. I hope its not as bad as you guys make it out to be... :/

[dinos22]

wow 0543TPMW......any resemplance to 0530 CPUs.....what should be a good one.....pity you don't have a G4 to compare to this block

Hyper6 is a top of the range air heatsink....it will be interesting to see how well it performs again apogee-apex

i read a post by another user who had a temp drop of 8-10C from Thermalright XP120 or SI-120 I fogot now but that's all the info posted....it would be good to see actual screenshots with all the necessary info

[Budwise]

ya, the 0543's are right on par with the 0530's. I should have the kit in hand tomorrow early morning. So give maybe an hour or to for the install, 6-8 hours of leak testing, and then an evening of overclocking. I'll post my results before and after with the Hyper 6 vs the Apex Ultra kit.

[orkan]

I am just really like to see numbers when such passionate argument spring up......and get more input from the rest of you guys

I argued "for" the apogee... because of the same reason. No data, no actual real experience first hand.

I have first hand experience with not one, not two, but THREE of swiftechs products. 2 apogee blocks, and one storm. These blocks are in my hands and have been tested by me. That is the only reason my posts shed a negative light on the apogee, because it does not hold a candle to the storm.

As marci stated... time will inevitably tell the tail. Most educated people know what the tail will tell.

[Budwise]

for those of us who cant take the risk of removing the IHS, wouldnt it not matter much considering temps are exactly the same as the Storm? I for one wish i could have gotten the Apex with the Storm, but for me it was a 69$ difference between the two kits (got in on a deal). Im by no means a pro, but technically shouldnt the same temps = same overclock? I know that you have had a different overclocking experience with these blocks. But for an IHS, technically the Storm or Apogee choice makes very little difference temp wise correct?

[orkan]

I got higher overclocks with the storm before I took my IHS off.

It has to do with the "even" cooling the storm provides. It removes hotspots in the core, to remove stability problems. This usually translates into a higher overclock vs. a non-impingement block anwyay.

On my bare core, I am running my whitewater block. This weekend, I am going to run the storm. We will see if it offers a higher overclock over the WW.

[dinos22]

I argued "for" the apogee... because of the same reason. No data, no actual real experience first hand.

hence my posts.....

argument+results=informed XS members

argument+NO results=mainly horseshlt

[gabe]

The following tests have been conducted specifically for the purpose of verifying the allegations published by a forum member (Orkan) comparing overclocking performance between an Apogee and a Storm water-block, where it was reported that under the same circumstances (same CPU/motherboard platform etc..)the Storm yielded a 100Mhz higher overclock than the Apogee (2.8 Ghz instead of 2.7 Ghz).

The reason why we questionned this report in the first place was the scale of the alleged difference. In effect a 100 Mhz increase on a CPU operating at 2.7Mhz is a 3% increase in processor frequency. Why doubt such a difference ? An Integrated Circuit Industry rule of thumb states that an IC will gain an average of 2 to 3% in frequency for every 10°C drop in operating temperature. We have practically verified this rule many, many times. So, while the actual CPU temperatures from one testing methodology to another can be argued ad nauseam, the report published by this user suggested to us that the CPU was actually "seeing" about a 10C drop in junction temperature, in effect resulting in this 3% frequency increase.

This, we knew to be highly implausible.

Our tests were conducted in the same fashion as a typical overclocker would.

Equipment:
Motherboard: Asus A8N Sli Deluxe
CPU: AMD A64 X2 4400+ - Unmodified (with IHS)
Waterblocks: Storm and Apogee taken straight from inventory and used "as is"
Radiator: Triple 120mm CF prototype with fans operating at 5 Volts (silent mode)
Pump: MCP655
Vcore: 1.52V (motherboard max)
OS Window 2003 Server

Since CPU overclock was the main object of this test, the memory was set to a 1/2 ratio in order to make sure that no instability would result from the memory.

Processor Load was induced by using 2 tasks of CPU Burn, one per core (Set Affinity function).

The CPU temperature was read using Asus Probe. The Air temperature was measured with an Omega thermometer and its thermocouple placed 1 foot away from the fans intake.

OC procedure:
Starting windows at 2750MHz (250*11), starting CPUZ (v1.30), set 2 tasks of CPU burn (as described above).
If no crash after 20minutes, record the results, launch clockgen and increased the HTT by one increment.
Repeat until windows crashed.

Important Note: this procedure does not provide a full measure of CPU stability but we feel is perfectly adapted to indicate overclockability within a relatively short period of time.

This being said, the results are:

With Storm, we started at 2750, and subsequently passed 2755, 2764, 2771 and reached an immediate fail at a 2781Mhz setting. So for the Storm the final "stable" overclock was 2771MHz with a final air temperature of 23.1C. The CPU temperature (reported by Asus probe) occillated between 47C and 48C.

With Apogee, we passed 2750, 2755, 2764, 2771 and 2781MHz. Windows crashed finally at 2788MHz after 10minutes. So the "pass" for this test is 2781 at an air temperature of 23.2C and CPU temperature stable on the 47C mark.

To us, the above results simply indicate one thing: there does not appear to be ANY significant difference in overclocking abilities between these two water-blocks and with this processor.

[dinos22]

that's the sort of test I wanted to see..........I think that the tests you've done should be used by everyone here to determine their quick maxes ...it's short and pretty accurate.....for consistency I would repeat these tests on 3 different occasions to eliminate any possible discrepancies i mentioned above

i normally do that with stressCPU or prime blend with a new CPU to see what the highest clocks are initially

looks great but what happen to pretty pics gabe

[Hu1kamania]

I just know someone is going to mention how maybe the block wasn't mounted well, in either gabes case with the storm, or orkans case with the apogee, this debate will never end until a few independant testers can get thier hands on each block and do the tests. Its been quite entertaining i gotta say!!

[Budwise]

nice... I hope my Apogee does as well tomorrow...

[gabe]

Gabe, you must be kidding me right? Different cpus respond differently to cooling. I have had cpus that would max out on stock cooling. Two heatercores and an Iwaki MD20 with 15C air and 400CFM of fannage didnt change the OC from the dinky stock cooler. BUT despite the individual nature of cpu overclocking you want to compare your overclocking results with the apogee/storm to orkans.. That is just silliness. Every person on this forum can tell you that. And to be frank, so would Bill.

Silliness?
We are not arguing that different CPU's of the same make and model will overclock at completely different levels.
We are arguing about the scale of the report. 100Mhz (3% OC in this case) is a huge difference, you know that as well as I do. We are not trying to beat Orkan's numbers, we are trying to see if there is a difference in overclockability between these two blocks. Read my latest post to see our results. So far, we see no difference whatsoever.

Another note, to ALL:
I run a business and work 6 x 12. Unfortunately I cannot spend much time on these forums. I spent part of last sunday answering some posts, but please forgive me if I simply cannot address all your questions.

[Budwise]

Gabe: I'll pass your results around a few forums as alot of people would like to see your findings im sure...

[Cathar]

I just know someone is going to mention how maybe the block wasn't mounted well, in either gabes case with the storm, or orkans case with the apogee, this debate will never end until a few independant testers can get thier hands on each block and do the tests. Its been quite entertaining i gotta say!!

I, for one, believe everyone's results when it comes to overclocking tests.

Has been seen many times before, but eva2000 researched it quite a bit and took a lot of time. Across a range of IHS capped CPU's, put block A on, and measure the overclocks across a range of CPU's. Put block B on, and the overclocks are different, sometimes ranging up to 100MHz difference, but not in all case is one block necessarily better than the other. CPU 1 may very well work well with Block B, and CPU 2 may very well work better with Block A. This has been observed by more than just eva2000 for those who have taken the time to do so.

The pattern is quite clear. die->IHS->wb interaction is unique and specific for each individual processor. It is not something that can be generalised on with a sample size of one. Would probably need a sample size of maybe 20 to 100 CPU's to form any "trend" with regards to differences between two blocks. This is the specific problem that I have always had with IHS testing, and I noticed it 3 years ago when I started testing on the IHS capped P4's. Since that time, there has been a gradually increasing body of evidence to support the statement that when it comes to an IHS bound CPU, what block works best with that CPU is near totally random.

Pull off the IHS, and all the inconsistencies go away (after multiple remounts to qualify the die->tim variations).

Additionally, there's always the issue of whether or not the motherboard, power supply, memory, chipset, mobo power regulation, or whatever, is merely flat-lining the overclock. Overclock flat-lining is quite a common problem, and it takes a lot of effort to find and build a system where particular sub-components are not limiting a CPU's overclock independently of whatever the cooling is doing. This is an issue that applies to all CPU's though, whether or not they are bare-die, or IHS capped.

There's no right or wrong here, nor is there even a valid disagreement, not when the body of evidence for the inconsistencies for IHS use is ever growing.