Informal test results CPU 350 vs Apogee GTZ

[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.