Enzotech SCW-1 Data

[nikhsub1]

Well guys, I finally finished 5 runs of the Enzotech block, should have been done long ago but if you remember I got sidetracked with stepping bases Anyhow, ya'll know what the block looks like so I'm not going to do a full review at this time - I really do like this block a lot. Conversely, it does irk me a bit that this block merges the Apogee and the Fuzion. The look of the block is all Fuzion with the Enzo having a prettier top with the silverish metallic coating. It has a mid plate much like the fuzion's but it is different, it has a built in o-ring between mid and top plate at the center (inlet) barb hole. This no doubt is to eliminate wash and insure water flows the way intended.

The base it roughly the same thickness as the Apogee ~3mm or so. This of course is the revised base, the original that never made it to production was much thicker (~5mm or so). The internals of the Enzo base are oval pins, similar to the Fuzion pins but not quite. The big differences in bases between the Fuzion and Enzo is that the inside of the Fuzion is sunk in to give a BP thickness of ~1.5mm or so. The Enzo and Apogee Pins just extend up from the base with no recessed portion of the base.

The mount plates of the enzo are shaped almost identical the the GTX for Intel and have a seperate plate for AM2. Like the Fuzion the Enzo mount plates do NOT attach, they merely go over the top.

The BP finish of the Enzo block is superb, as are the others. The BIG difference in performance can no doubt be linked back to the fact that the Enzo block is FLAT as can be. The Fuzion is slightly convex as are the Apogee's when the proper o-ring is used. I know the GTX is shipping with the bowed o-ring but I'm not sure about the GT. In any case, flat bases can only do so much on an IHS CPU, this has been proven in more ways than one.

So we get to my conclusion, I love the looks of the Enzo block but it's flat base keeps performance in the realm of the Storm and the MP-05 and all the 'other' flat or non stepped blocks. You will have to forgive me, I can't for the life of me make a decent excel graph so I am posting the graph that Marci made for me along with the numbers for the Enzo block. To avoid confusion the horizontal axis is NUMBER OF MOUNTS.

DeltaT (Water to CPU) numbers for Enzo:
Mount 1 - 27.98
Mount 2 - 27.92
Mount 3 - 28.06
Mount 4 - 28.00
Mount 5 - 27.94



My testbed and methodologies: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=151781

The story behind stepped blocks: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=160566

All about bowing: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=142998

Some fun with nozzles: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=132454

[Xilikon]

Thanks for the results, I'm glad to not have waited for it and bought a Fuzion instead

[Martinm210]

Exemplary testing, very much appreciated

[Sparky]

Alright then, somebody find a way to bow this thing Step would be better of course but I don't think it is something we can all do

[Walternowi]

Scott,

Thanks for testing and sharing the data!

[Petra]

Interesting... looks like thinning the base helped, but not enough. At 2GPM, the preliminary data that I sent to Enzotech for the 'thick base' version put it just shy of 2C behind the flat GTX (according to TAT) and about 1.2C behind according to the TTV-style Tcase data (overclocked/overvolted E6400).

Either way, I'm ripping the test rig apart again today to work on it a bit. Hopefully I'll get everything dialed in this weekend and move away from what I would consider 'preliminary data' and into some real test results. I'll have to borrow that thin-based Sapphire from you because I only have the thick-based one.

Bottom line, though... this block is still in the 'overpriced and underperforming' category--Enzotech has more work to do.

[Locke]

thanks for all the hard work!!!

[xVeinx]

What is the pricing for this anyway? Sorry if it's been posted elsewhere, but I simply haven't found it...

[LinusTech]

Thanks for doing this testing, Scott. Enzotech told me they don't have any rev.1 samples for North America, so I didn't get one.

Looks like the thinner base didn't make much of a difference.

[disruptfam]

cheers for the result's mate!

[RubberDuck]

Thank you Sir for the hard work & awesome results

[Marcng]

Hey, thanks for all the hard work.
One thing that I'm sure many of us will ask: what about pressure drop?
Is the special-designed mid plate for the block made for such low pressure drop?
if that's the case, modding the FuZion mid plate might be another thing to do to bring it to another performance level.

[nubtrash]

Well guys, I finally finished 5 runs of the Enzotech block, should have been done long ago but if you remember I got sidetracked with stepping bases

You sead you got sidetracked with the steped bases, so have you finished the the testing for steped storm block yet?

[septim]

thanks for posting this very informative result... making the fuzion block a must have for core 2 duos and quads...

[max_87]

Compared to other WBs the results of SCW-1 seems to be a lot more consistent in every mount...

So we get to my conclusion, I love the looks of the Enzo block but it's flat base keeps performance in the realm of the Storm and the MP-05 and all the 'other' flat or non stepped blocks. You will have to forgive me, I can't for the life of me make a decent excel graph so I am posting the graph that Marci made for me along with the numbers for the Enzo block. To avoid confusion the horizontal axis is NUMBER OF MOUNTS.

Here you go

[Martinm210]

That has to be the best mounting consistency I've seen to date though..

[nikhsub1]

Yes I noticed the consistent mounts too. I think this can be attributed to the fact that the block is VERY flat and that is is likely flow agnostic like the fuzion. I can't test pressure drop as I just don't have the tools for that nor the time or interest.

[Shadowtester]

nikhsub1

I wonder how the Enzotech SCW-1 would do after your stepped base mod

[nikhsub1]

nikhsub1

I wonder how the Enzotech SCW-1 would do after your stepped base mod

No doubt quite a bit better. Let me repeat what I've said before, no flat base block (meaning not bowed or stepped) will EVER perform as well as a bowed or stepped base on an IHS CPU.

[AllAgainstPaul]

you may want to rephrase that. I had to do a reread before I understood what you meant. It states two grammatically different things. I think you mean EVER instead of NEVER.

[nikhsub1]

Yes, you are correct and fixed.

[Shadowtester]

niksub1

I was trying to get you to do your stepped base magic on the Enzotech SCW-1 and then test that and post results since you have both the block and access to the equipment for doing the modification.

[nikhsub1]

niksub1

I was trying to get you to do your stepped base magic on the Enzotech SCW-1 and then test that and post results since you have both the block and access to the equipment for doing the modification.

I'm not going to do free R&D for everyone :/

[Martinm210]

I can attest to Niksub1's stepped base idea....working great on my custom block

I'll have to send you a free block if I ever get this thing dialed in to beat the bowed/nozzled fuzion... Testing version 2 now..

[Spawne32]

i am really surprised it performed so poorly