The results I posted were with 3 285s on a PA120.3. Temps are fine for all practical purposes ... both at stock and even with the cards overclocked. You will not really be loading the cards at 100% during most gaming or other sessions. Even 50 degrees ... or 60 ... or 70 will be better than you can do on air, and the cards will run fine. So, I'd say give it a whirl with the MCR320.
Dear IanY,
If my company or I have done something to offend you, please accept our apologies. My small staff and I work very hard to keep our customers happy and carry as many parts as customers request. If we messed up somewhere and did not fix it, please contact me here. I take full responsibility for whatever mistakes were made.
If this is not the case, I'd appreciate an explanation as to what you are implying or accusing my company of doing?
Gary Stofer
Sidewinder Computers
basically this thread shows people that parallel setup can work. it just depends on what you're using...
Last edited by septim; 04-29-2009 at 08:54 PM.
It also adds further reinforcement against the "Card 2 will get no flow!" myth that certain people have been pushing in regards to this type of tri-sli parallel setup.
Keep in mind however, that when you split a loop 3 ways each part of the loop (in this case each card) will get 1/3 of your overall flow. So you need to have a pump with good flow capacity (head pressure is less important in these setups because you are also making the resistance much much less than normal by going parallel). So there are certainly many things you still need to be careful of, just that you don't need to worry about each card getting different amounts of flow.
What I'd like to see is the following test:
And noting the flow when the resistance is equal for valves, squewed etc.
If I manage to buy a second pump used I might consider doing this myself.
I think that the parallel topic is quite interesting, and there is certainly not enough testing. That's why we are having these discussions.
Last edited by Zehnsucht; 04-30-2009 at 12:46 AM.
I Are DuneCat
I Controls The Spice
I Controls The Universe
Cooler Master ATCS 840 | Corsair HX 520W | Asus P5Q Pro | Q9550 | HD4870 | Corsair Dominator 4GB PC8500 |
D-Tek FuZion v2 - EK RES 150 - Swiftech MCR-220/320 - Swiftech MCW-60 - DDC 3.2 + Petra's Top
?!?Oookay! Help me out I don't get it!
***EDIT*** Okay got it now! Thanks Skinnee!
But yeah to keep this on topic it does show that parrellel blocks are a viable thing to look into obviously. Just need comparison runs now between parallel and serial to see what is easier to setup and which is more beneficial.
Last edited by Sadasius; 04-30-2009 at 01:38 PM.
Dear Mr. Stofer,
I prefer to respond to you publicly in open forum if you don't mind.
I don't have any greivances against your company, nor do I harbor ill will against yourself personally.
You are an excellent retailer whom I would recommend.
With regards,
Ian Yeoh
Thread cleaned...let's keep the crap, the attitudes, and the off-topic BS out of XS guys.
The problem I see with a high flow parallel setup is that the flow is still relatively low in the cards, but very high in the radiator giving less contact time with the fins to cool down. Sure it works fine with 2xquad rads, but wouldn't anything? The test I would most like to see is a direct comparison between parallel and serial: Same pump, rads, fans, water blocks, etc... except for the way the tubing is connected.
It doesn't work like that. In fact, the radiator performs better with more flow. Just go look at any of the testing charts. The Watts the radiator can dissipate at any given deltaT goes up with flow rate (not by much but it does). This is because it helps lessen the boundary layer between the tubing and the water.
Sure if you slow down the flow rate you will lower the temperature of the water more from rad in to rad out. However you are also increasing the temperature RISE in the waterblocks by slowing the flow down. The Watts dissipated is still going to be the same either way (it always has to equal the Watts put off by the components). Therefore you want to get the most efficient heat transfer, which is with more flow.
Hypothetical Example:
Flow 1: 2GPM
Air Temp : 23C
Rad In: 33C
Rad Out: 32C
Because of fast flow the system can dissipate the heat put off with a 10C deltaT between water and air. However the fast flow results in only 1C temperature drop.
Flow 2: 1GPM
Air Temp: 23C
Rad In: 35C
Rad Out: 33C
Because of the slower flow the radiator needs a higher 13C deltaT between water and air to dissipate the same amount of heat. Notice that the difference between rad in and out is higher but overall water temperatures are higher as well to compensate for the loss of efficiency in the radiator with lower flow.
Now those numbers are greatly exaggerated. Water flow is a relatively minor component in the performance of a radiator, but you get the idea.
Really you shouldn't think about things in terms of change in temperature across a given component (radiator or waterblock). Think about things in terms of Watts dissipated and delta between air and water temperature.
Last edited by Erasmus354; 04-30-2009 at 08:19 PM.
It must be almost May. Every 3 months, like clockwork, this forum sees a series vs. parallel debate.
I just had to post here because if the thread has the words parallel and Naekuh in it an alarm goes off next to my pc and I get a text message and an email reminding me to get involved.
Anyways I cool my 3 gpu's on just one double rad, load temps are 40-50C (they're old 3870's), in a similar parallel arrangement. Parallel rocks, but if there is one thing Naekuh is right about, its that the inlet and outlet should be on opposite sides of the setup, because of the effects of the velocity of the water and the inertial forces involved. Either way, its a matter of a couple degrees, which can easily be due to differences in chips, TIM, mounting pressure, etc etc.
Yay for another parallel success thread!
heres one i did in July last year
temps on GPU 2 were higher than the others until i figured out that the sli fittings needed spacers, the threads were too long and there was only a gap of a few mm between them
What I am thinking is happening in the GPU blocks with parallel flow is completely different then what the blocks were designed to do. The GPU blocks were designed to have flow go through them but with parallel I don't think there is actual flow as we normally see it but is happening in a different way. It's too bad we do not have some sort of visual pinwheels on two sides near the ports on the GPU blocks to confirm this but what I think is happening is that the water is being exchanged at the ports of the blocks and are not really circulating in the block itself as much as it is just exchanging slowly off of the lip of the ports. When you stop to think about it and the results show it too is the temps are consistent through the 3 blocks. The flow is going the path of least resistance down the tubes but is scrapping off fluid along the way and is exchanging that way. So the water in the blocks is kinda sitting there exchanging a little at a time slowly but enough not to overheat the water and I think there is even some protection there as the water heats up and expands into the running water in the ports. I don't know....Just ramblings on my part and may mean nothing.
Bookmarks