Informal test results CPU 350 vs Apogee GTZ

[gabe]

I think you don't understand. They have an industrial pump (similar in specs to an Iwaki MD-30Z IIRC) that they can vary the flowrate with valves... the water is kept at a constant temp. Your comments are irrelevant.

Gabe it would be interesting to see the GTZ at 1.33GPM as well... I realize the 350 is way more restrictive but still.

Please clarify your thinking.

[nikhsub1]

Please clarify your thinking.

After further thought, it would be useless to compare these 2 blocks at the same flow rate... as I have said (and you well know), no user can achieve the same flow rate with both blocks with the same pumping power so it makes the point moot.

[Movieman]

After further thought, it would be useless to compare these 2 blocks at the same flow rate... as I have said (and you well know), no user can achieve the same flow rate with both blocks with the same pumping power so it makes the point moot.

What happens in the real world?
If you take each and us in a commonly used setup like a MP655 pump and a MCR320 rad, which is the better or more effective block?
Thanks.

[hellcamino]

What happens in the real world?
If you take each and us in a commonly used setup like a MP655 pump and a MCR320 rad, which is the better or more effective block?
Thanks.

+1 These are the only type of tests that actually matter.

[warriorpoet]

+1 These are the only type of tests that actually matter.

No, they are not, and saying they are is not only inaccurate, it is counterproductive.

[hellcamino]

No, they are not, and saying they are is not only inaccurate, it is counterproductive.

The reason I said that is simple, the average person watercooling their pc uses a single pump, radiator, res/T-line and cpu block. Swiftech radiators are very prevalent, DDC3.2 and D5 pumps are also very prevalent. A simple demonstration of results achieved with a combination of these parts would be great information! If you use a common configuration such as either of these parts and a MCR220 or MCR320 in Gabe's case changing out only the cpu block during your testing you can definitively show which block performs better with each pump, the radiators go without saying. If all that this test was intended to accomplish was which block was more restrictive I would say it did so admirably but it tells nothing about actual capabilities of the blocks using common pumps and radiators.

[Webby]

The reason I said that is simple, the average person watercooling their pc uses a single pump, radiator, res/T-line and cpu block. Swiftech radiators are very prevalent, DDC3.2 and D5 pumps are also very prevalent. A simple demonstration of results achieved with a combination of these parts would be great information! If you use a common configuration such as either of these parts and a MCR220 or MCR320 in Gabe's case changing out only the cpu block during your testing you can definitively show which block performs better with each pump, the radiators go without saying. If all that this test was intended to accomplish was which block was more restrictive I would say it did so admirably but it tells nothing about actual capabilities of the blocks using common pumps and radiators.

I think you are missing the point of the test, the test is not see which block works best in an arbitary system made of common watercooling components it is which CPU block performs the best.

If you want to test a CPU block you need to eliminate all other variables the way in which Swiftech have achieved this is by using a pump set to a particular flowrate via control valves which is then left constant for all tests and they have used a chiller to eliminate any variations a radiator could introduce (like for example changes in ambient temperature).

Yes you can not say if I bought a blah blah and a blah I would get this temperature but then you couldn't say that anyway as every block, radiator, pump, fan and not to mention CPU will be different.

What do you expect to see if a DDC 3.2 and a 360mm rad are used? The flowrates may be closer together but the GTZ will still be less restrictive which will help with heat dissipation in the radiator the is no logical way in which changing to a different pump and a rad rather than a chiller will switch the result it might get closer but it shouldn't switch.

Oh and thanks for the testing Gabe

[santiagodraco]

No, they are not, and saying they are is not only inaccurate, it is counterproductive.

Yes They Are.

Anyone here who says that a manufacturer who does 1) their own tests and 2) does it using lab equipment and not real world equipment is ok... is either a hypocrite or is sitting smack dab on one side of the fence.

Do you see legitimate reviewers doing this? No.

And again, I refer you to the lynch mob and Koolance's radiator tests.

[Archmage]

The testing circumstances seem valid.

I'd like to see a test on an overclocked and overvolted i7 920. 4Ghz would be good.

You could actually reduce the flow-rate to about 2GPM on the GTZ (and whatever that yields on the 350) to add another test, but I don't see this as necessary.

The other thing I might suggest is coolant temperatures at 25C for another data point. I don't know why this should matter, but it'd be easy enough to adjust quickly.

A final point: there may be temperature differences when the pump is placed directly before the block (more restrictive blocks may improve?). This could be tested, or at least we should know the flow-order of the current setup.

That about covers it. I can't really argue with this test, but I can remain skeptical because it contradicts other tests.

[ranker]

Yes They Are.

Anyone here who says that a manufacturer who does 1) their own tests and 2) does it using lab equipment and not real world equipment is ok... is either a hypocrite or is sitting smack dab on one side of the fence.

Do you see legitimate reviewers doing this? No.

And again, I refer you to the lynch mob and Koolance's radiator tests.

Because not only did Koolance outright lie about their product's performance, but they also ran tests where not even .000001% of the population can claim to have comparable equipment.

However, doing a review of your past posts, I can tell you're a Koolance fanboy or Koolance shill. Any test that would put Koolance behind any other product would be a faulty test in your eyes.

Read the data. I'm appalled that you can't even interpret the data.