Informal test results CPU 350 vs Apogee GTZ

[Pellepel]

you guys are idiots, you realize that if the gtz gets 1.86 from the ddc3.2 then the 350 is gonna be down to ~.86 gpm and its just gonna perform worse

How much worst? That Is what I’m curious about? ~1.5C temp difference at whatever Gabe’s flow rate was set at the pump. I want to know how much difference would it make with D5 or DDC 3.2’s pumping power. Therefore I can base my judgment whether the temp difference is negligible or not. Like Webby mentioned we won’t know until it is tested.

[warriorpoet]

How much worst? That Is what I’m curious about? ~1.5C temp difference at whatever Gabe’s flow rate was set at the pump. I want to know how much difference would it make with D5 or DDC 3.2’s pumping power. Therefore I can base my judgment whether the temp difference is negligible or not. Like Webby mentioned we won’t know until it is tested.

I am also curious.

Just to clarify a few points made earlier:
1. Real-world pump testing (DDC 3.2 and D5 were mentioned) would provide useful information. Gabe is under no obligation to provide such results.
2. Gabe's information is useful in that it adds to the growing knowledge base concerning these two blocks, even if he chose to provide information using a pump none of us use in our builds.
3. Gabe's information, although from a potentially biased source (despite his long track record of providing good, verifiable information), is produced in a manner that is both easy to understand and free of typical variables.
4. Crying out for "real world" test in the manner that has been done in this thread is begging for configuration-specific results that are not universally applicable.
5. No test, other than one you either conduct yourself or hire someone else to do with your specific hardware, will be 100% applicable to your system. None.

[rocket733]

Geez most of the drama in this thread provides a good reason for mfrs to not publish data. Thankfully Swiftech is willing to put with a bunch of bs to provide interesting information to everyone else.

[Waterlogged]

[Hondacity]

GTZ number 2 on the way

i miss my first GTZ

[nikhsub1]

Yup I agree with the methodology, but how much temp difference would it be between the two blocks say if the industrial pump were regulated to pumping power of a stock D5 or DDC3.2 with top?

Less. How much? I don't know.

[warriorpoet]

Less. How much? I don't know.

Heat dump would still be different than either of those pumps using the industrial pump, however.

[santiagodraco]

i love how the guys that i have seen nothing of, with very low post count, and one with koolance branded stuff all over his sig trying to push around the true everlasting knowitalls of the liquid cooling world. Gabes data, if his test was done to what he said ( i belive it was), is infact less biased than any test you could possibly produce.

And your contributions to this thread are...? Yep, your flame post.

You should know that people post more where their interests lie. I like Koolance, that's obvious from my sig and my posts. I won't, however, misrepresent anything intentionally. I also am biased so when I see a vendor's post about a competitors product where they come out on top... I have immediate doubts. Who knows it may be very accurate data. I don't know but I'm smart enough to see where the holes "may" lie.

Glad to know you are so knowledgeable that you can state without any doubt that Gabe's post is the gods truth and nothing but the truth. Your credentials are exactly what? You've built a loop or two? Engineering background? Maybe your a scientist?

Oh and where did I say I was going to run tests myself?

Other than that, where are the flaws in my arguments?

Btw I'm sure you are a genius but you might want to check your grammar and spelling a bit before posting.

And if you are curious why people like us push back... it's when said vendor doesn't take the time to present counter arguments. Credibility suffers.

[santiagodraco]

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.

Did they? I'm curious where all those "unbiased real world tests" ended up. Go check the thread. Lot's of cry's of foul and "I'm going to go test this and that and show you what is fact" and guess what, not ONE counter test came back from anyone. What that tells me is that someone probably did run their tests and didn't like that they saw.

Look at it this way. Someone has to stand up for the little guy. Since the real fanbois (such as yourself) are here to flame and slam every chance they get.

As for the test being faulty, I never said it was. I, like others, simply questioned if the very limited set of boundries of the test may have tilted the results in the favor of the tester... and that is very possible. Smart customers/buyers might ask the same questions. But no, you have to come out with the game stopper arguments: shill, fanboi and whatever you think will intimidate and win you the argument by default.

But hey, whatever gives you kicks

[santiagodraco]

I am also curious.

Just to clarify a few points made earlier:
1. Real-world pump testing (DDC 3.2 and D5 were mentioned) would provide useful information. Gabe is under no obligation to provide such results.
2. Gabe's information is useful in that it adds to the growing knowledge base concerning these two blocks, even if he chose to provide information using a pump none of us use in our builds.
3. Gabe's information, although from a potentially biased source (despite his long track record of providing good, verifiable information), is produced in a manner that is both easy to understand and free of typical variables.
4. Crying out for "real world" test in the manner that has been done in this thread is begging for configuration-specific results that are not universally applicable.
5. No test, other than one you either conduct yourself or hire someone else to do with your specific hardware, will be 100% applicable to your system. None.

Reasonable arguments except for the real question. Does flow rate make a difference. If the flow rate was doubled would the blocks perform differently relative to one another. I can't answer the question but it seems reasonable to me. Wouldn't a set of tests with a RANGE of flow rates be more valid to the range of systems out there?

[anzial]

Does GTZ contain any aluminum?

[basserdan]

I think this is why municipality signage so often include pictographic representations of what they wish to convey. Some people just can't understand things until you draw them a picture.

It has been entertaining though.

[warriorpoet]

...Wouldn't a set of tests with a RANGE of flow rates be more valid to the range of systems out there?

Of course it would, but that is not what this test was about. It was an apples-to-apples test at a specific pump setting. Would altered pumping pressure/ flow change things? Absolutely. How much? We'll have to wait for additional tests.

As for me, I'm happy with my FuZion rev.1.

[santiagodraco]

It has been a bit entertaining and frankly I'm probably pushing too hard. I tend to get overly passionate about things like this and I should probably back off a bit

So, in the interest of fairness and all that, I have a suggestion that I think might resolve the issue and make Gabe's tests more valid.

I suggest that the tests be conducted like this. First, take the GTZ block and install and test as Gabe mentioned. The key here is to find the BEST temperature possible with the same load and same water temperature by only varying the water flow. In other words change the water flow over time, pausing at various steps and observing the resulting temperature, until you find the absolute lowest you can get.

Next repeat the test for the CPU-350. Keep all test conditions the same except vary the flow rate until you obtain the absolute lowest temperature for the Koolance block.

If the theory is right you might have a best low temp for each block at varying speeds/flow for the pump. If true it might indicate that each blocks "sweet spot" is different, so choosing one over the other may depend on the type of pump, or flow rate, you plan on using.

Of course we may see that one block is always lower across all flow rates. If true then great, we have a king. But I think it's too early to tell that.

Sound reasonable?

[Conumdrum]

Of course it would, but that is not what this test was about. It was an apples-to-apples test at a specific pump setting. Would altered pumping pressure/ flow change things? Absolutely. How much? We'll have to wait for additional tests.

As for me, I'm happy with my FuZion rev.1.

My V1 is enough for me now too.

From the basic tests Gabe showed with controlled water temps and controlled pump setup that his GTZ has better flow and better temps than the 350. If I slap the GTZ in my loop I'll have better flow and better temps, it's enough for me to see. How many 350's have been sold vs the GTZ? Gabe didn't even have to do this, he did, and I'd love to see Koolance do anything to refute the results.

I don't need any more info, I'm simple enough to not need more and can figure it out myself. GTZ FTW!!!

[santiagodraco]

Of course it would, but that is not what this test was about. It was an apples-to-apples test at a specific pump setting. Would altered pumping pressure/ flow change things? Absolutely. How much? We'll have to wait for additional tests.

As for me, I'm happy with my FuZion rev.1.

Nod. Although I'm not quite sure it's apples to apples (see post above) as I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) but Koolance advertises this block very clearly as highly restrictive. Gabe, do you advertise your block as say medium or low restriction? It's kind of hard to tell from the copy on the site.

But certainly additional tests are what's needed. Let's get all the facts.

[Conumdrum]

Nod. Although I'm not quite sure it's apples to apples (see post above) as I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) but Koolance advertises this block very clearly as highly restrictive. Gabe, do you advertise your block as say medium or low restriction? It's kind of hard to tell from the copy on the site.

But certainly additional tests are what's needed. Let's get all the facts.

Gabe doesn't need to advertise as high or low. It's been tested. It's one of the lowest restrictive modern blocks. Now your getting to silly semantics on the usage of his wording on the sites. It's better than the 350 hands down. Gabe wins again.... Why would anyone ever use a high restriction block that cools worse than a low restriction block?

More testing. Sure, whatever, MY next purchase will be the GTZ, not the 350.

[ranker]

And your contributions to this thread are...? Yep, your flame post.

You should know that people post more where their interests lie. I like Koolance, that's obvious from my sig and my posts. I won't, however, misrepresent anything intentionally. I also am biased so when I see a vendor's post about a competitors product where they come out on top... I have immediate doubts. Who knows it may be very accurate data. I don't know but I'm smart enough to see where the holes "may" lie.

Glad to know you are so knowledgeable that you can state without any doubt that Gabe's post is the gods truth and nothing but the truth. Your credentials are exactly what? You've built a loop or two? Engineering background? Maybe your a scientist?

Oh and where did I say I was going to run tests myself?

Other than that, where are the flaws in my arguments?

Btw I'm sure you are a genius but you might want to check your grammar and spelling a bit before posting.

And if you are curious why people like us push back... it's when said vendor doesn't take the time to present counter arguments. Credibility suffers.

Reread your old posts. You couldn't even read Gabe's data correctly. In case you're blind, the cynical/sarcastic comments others made were directed towards your inability to read what Gabe was testing.

Did they? I'm curious where all those "unbiased real world tests" ended up. Go check the thread. Lot's of cry's of foul and "I'm going to go test this and that and show you what is fact" and guess what, not ONE counter test came back from anyone. What that tells me is that someone probably did run their tests and didn't like that they saw.

Look at it this way. Someone has to stand up for the little guy. Since the real fanbois (such as yourself) are here to flame and slam every chance they get.

As for the test being faulty, I never said it was. I, like others, simply questioned if the very limited set of boundries of the test may have tilted the results in the favor of the tester... and that is very possible. Smart customers/buyers might ask the same questions. But no, you have to come out with the game stopper arguments: shill, fanboi and whatever you think will intimidate and win you the argument by default.

But hey, whatever gives you kicks

Sorry buddy, you're the self admitted fanboi. The idiocy of your arguments tainted by your fanboism is nauseating. Like many others, I don't defend any one product religiously. Matter of fact, I disagreed with many of Gabe's design decisions and stopped purchasing Swiftech products for a 2 year period until recently. I'll bet you money that KL is hoping their radiator fiasco remains swept underneath the rug. Every reputable WC'er, including Cathar himself, dismantled their testing procedure to the point where it became laughable. Even the "user end" tests have shown how poorly the KL radiators during that time period didn't stand up. You seem to overlook the fact that even I purchased KL products when i started as a WC noob.

Your undying and unhealthy love for Koolance is a problem as your criticisms and flaming have no merit nor help spur any sort of healthy debtate.

It has been a bit entertaining and frankly I'm probably pushing too hard. I tend to get overly passionate about things like this and I should probably back off a bit

So, in the interest of fairness and all that, I have a suggestion that I think might resolve the issue and make Gabe's tests more valid.

I suggest that the tests be conducted like this. First, take the GTZ block and install and test as Gabe mentioned. The key here is to find the BEST temperature possible with the same load and same water temperature by only varying the water flow. In other words change the water flow over time, pausing at various steps and observing the resulting temperature, until you find the absolute lowest you can get.

Next repeat the test for the CPU-350. Keep all test conditions the same except vary the flow rate until you obtain the absolute lowest temperature for the Koolance block.

If the theory is right you might have a best low temp for each block at varying speeds/flow for the pump. If true it might indicate that each blocks "sweet spot" is different, so choosing one over the other may depend on the type of pump, or flow rate, you plan on using.

Of course we may see that one block is always lower across all flow rates. If true then great, we have a king. But I think it's too early to tell that.

Sound reasonable?

Wrong. There's nothing more "valid". His methodology is sound. He's controlled more variables than any other test I've ever seen or heard. He does not attempt to spin the results by providing any commentary. He leaves the data for us to process.

Nod. Although I'm not quite sure it's apples to apples (see post above) as I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) but Koolance advertises this block very clearly as highly restrictive. Gabe, do you advertise your block as say medium or low restriction? It's kind of hard to tell from the copy on the site.

But certainly additional tests are what's needed. Let's get all the facts.

It is apples to apples. Stop trying to spin the subject because you have an unhealthy infatuation with Koolance. The KL350 is a fine cpu block. In the end, that's what it is a CPU waterblock. The test is comparing one cpu block to the next with all variables being controlled and accounted for.

All the facts are there. Stop trying to create a specific set of conditions just so you can get the personal satisfaction of seeing Koolance ahead. It's nauseating.

[brewer265]

It has been a bit entertaining and frankly I'm probably pushing too hard. I tend to get overly passionate about things like this and I should probably back off a bit

So, in the interest of fairness and all that, I have a suggestion that I think might resolve the issue and make Gabe's tests more valid.

I suggest that the tests be conducted like this. First, take the GTZ block and install and test as Gabe mentioned. The key here is to find the BEST temperature possible with the same load and same water temperature by only varying the water flow. In other words change the water flow over time, pausing at various steps and observing the resulting temperature, until you find the absolute lowest you can get.

Next repeat the test for the CPU-350. Keep all test conditions the same except vary the flow rate until you obtain the absolute lowest temperature for the Koolance block.

If the theory is right you might have a best low temp for each block at varying speeds/flow for the pump. If true it might indicate that each blocks "sweet spot" is different, so choosing one over the other may depend on the type of pump, or flow rate, you plan on using.

Of course we may see that one block is always lower across all flow rates. If true then great, we have a king. But I think it's too early to tell that.

Sound reasonable?

So you are saying they should change all the test until your favorite comes out on top?

[Waterlogged]

Gabe doesn't need to advertise as high or low. It's been tested. It's one of the lowest restrictive modern blocks. Now your getting to silly semantics on the usage of his wording on the sites. It's better than the 350 hands down. Gabe wins again.... Why would anyone ever use a high restriction block that cools worse than a low restriction block?

More testing. Sure, whatever, MY next purchase will be the GTZ, not the 350.

Are you sure about this?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=206712

Yeah the 350 is missing and is almost assuredly higher yet but the GTZ is far from "free flowing" like some of the other blocks in that test.

[anzial]

I'm surprised TDX is the king of low restriction I guess I gotta dig it up, dust it and slap it on my new i7 build lol

[twwen2]

...Snip...

Nice to have you back ranker.
It's good to see some rational heads still exist

[ranker]

Nice to have you back ranker.
It's good to see some rational heads still exist

I think I stepped on a few toes as usual with my re-entrance =P

However, I'm glad to be back and to see the familiar faces within the XS WC'ing community! =)

[Conumdrum]

Are you sure about this?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=206712

Yeah the 350 is missing and is almost assuredly higher yet but the GTZ is far from "free flowing" like some of the other blocks in that test.

Yep, your right, I was too broad on that statement. Modern I guess was meaning pretty darn new.

I retract my statement as meaning it's way the best. Still way better than the 350. All depends on your overall loop.

I got caught up in the moment. And thats a bad thing here. Data darnit, data!

[iandh]

This test isn't really all that hard to understand.



I could see how the flow restriction differential between the two blocks could be amplified or reduced depending on pump type used, and how that could translate to differences in final performance as the flowrate through the radiator changes... but seriously folks, this is pretty damn straightforward data. I don't really see any reason to question it in itself.

Sure, a scenario which more accurately represents an average WC loop may provide more useful data, but without control such as in this test, it might not either.



At best I find this to be a comparison of the two block's performance under controlled conditions, and at worst I find it to be sort of interesting. No reason to go calling BS and such though.





Gabe, what coolant was used in the test? It probably would have only minimal effect but a heavily glycol laden coolant could amplify the restrictive effects of the 350 due to higher viscosity. The flow resistive effects of a higher viscosity coolant would be amplified in a high restriction block while in a lower restriction block they would be minimal. It would be interesting to see a test with pure water and then a heavy glycol mix (just for fun if anything).