Test report Apogee GTZ vs. Koolance 350 vs. HeatKiller 3.0

[gabe]

Well I shouldnt get the GTZ I suppose as I have lapped my Q6600 :&

or at least not use it with stock screws.

M3x35mm philips + thumbnuts fix the issue.

[Martinm210]

or at least not use it with stock screws.

M3x35mm philips + thumbnuts fix the issue.

What about adding a thin washer under the existing springs?

[Sadasius]

The real bomb, I dropped here: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...5&postcount=11, but no one seems to have noticed, or decided to discuss it -at least between members, since I stated that I wouldn't.

Ha, did too and commented on it.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...3&postcount=14

[Martinm210]

Ha, did too and commented on it.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...3&postcount=14

I never consider a learning opportunity controversy. I think we keep testing methods and data far too quiet. Since there are not any standards to follow, my vote has always been to share everything.

Please let us know what you've learned Gabe, keeping it to yourself isn't going to help us learn anything.

[Sadasius]

+1 on that. WC is a hardcore addiction that is worse then crack and heroin together. The more info the better feed that addiction and to share it amongst the rest of the hobo's in here.

[kimoyo]

While I understand the hesitancy at relying on a manufacturer's own tests like this posted by Gabe, I think some people go to the point of having a conspiracy theory. Not that I'm a Swiftech fanboy, but Gabe could simply not post his testing results and leave out this info for us all. Also, where is Koolance or Dtek or any other manufacturer when it comes to being willing to put their own products on the line in their labs and publish the results? I think it is great for Hondacity and others to take of their time and money to run tests for us all to benefit from, and I also appreciate Gabe being willing to put his products on the line as well.

I heard that! I've been following XS for a few months now. I was a member and then lost my membership with the server-switch. But for a CEO to be on the board posting when he knows he going to get reamed is impressive. Especially, since he already did these tests with weaker equipment and got reamed. I'm probably going with another block for looks but Gabe you made me think twice, three or four times. What are these improvements you are being secretive about?

And I mean this in the nicest way, but a lot of yall sound like es. No disrespect intended. You can pickup the phone and give Gabe a call, can you do that with some of these other testers. It sounds like you could probably swing by and run the tests yourself it you want.

[gabe]

What about adding a thin washer under the existing springs?

Think travel distance. Screws bottoms out already. It doesn't matter how much spring tension. The waterblock base can't travel down to mate with IHS.

[gabe]

I never consider a learning opportunity controversy. I think we keep testing methods and data far too quiet. Since there are not any standards to follow, my vote has always been to share everything.

Please let us know what you've learned Gabe, keeping it to yourself isn't going to help us learn anything.

I do not intend to keep it to myself. You know me better than that
I am working with an independent tester. The strategy is that if the data is presented by a well-known independent, it will be accepted more readily. Too many people (even if they do not openly say so) question the data I present. just read these comments: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...3&postcount=53 , it's fairly typical, and very frustrating to me.

So I will let him present his data, and then be available for comments and additional input.

I just wish for the community to accept the findings as unbiased, that's all.

[skinnee]

The real bomb, I dropped here: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...5&postcount=11, but no one seems to have noticed, or decided to discuss it -at least between members, since I stated that I wouldn't.

Actually, I did notice. Only problem I have is I need to finish collecting my data to see if I can support or dispute your findings. I've speculated before and I do not want to do that when I can have data to support the findings.

I will have to start with a stock IHS, runs tests, lap it and run tests again. From what I can tell out of my own testing, some blocks are designed around the stock IHS, others are not.

You can pickup the phone and give Gabe a call, can you do that with some of these other testers. It sounds like you could probably swing by and run the tests yourself it you want.

I give tours on the weekends, ask BlueAqua.

[sirheck]

I do not intend to keep it to myself. You know me better than that
I am working with an independent tester. The strategy is that if the data is presented by a well-known independent, it will be accepted more readily. Too many people (even if they do not openly say so) question the data I present. just read these comments: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...3&postcount=53 , it's fairly typical, and very frustrating to me.

So I will let him present his data, and then be available for comments and additional input.

I just wish for the community to accept the findings as unbiased, that's all.

Eh dont worry to much about post,s like that. I dont.
Ive had the so-called king 120.3 uber big and uber expensive rad.
And seen zero difference from it to ST,s rads, why i got rid of it.
I like your products and will continue to buy them.

[shazza]

Gabe ... I don't think you can take the negative posts as representative of the entire community. Many of us value your testing. Some people are naturally skeptical. There are many people who don't post, but who do lurk and read.

Healthy debate is a good thing ... we all learn from it. Again ... thanks for posting the test results.

[Sadasius]

I just wish for the community to accept the findings as unbiased, that's all.

Well you know what? You stick to your guns and keep being the cool and level headed guy. Don't let others change that. People seem to forget that people who run these companies just might be a fanatic too that would like to share some info and be happy they are in that business. After all I am sure some of the members would like to do this 24/7 and still want to be able to work with others without them thinking they full of it because they work for so and so and their word no longer means anything. I can see where that would be frustrating as hell.

[ecat]

I do not intend to keep it to myself. You know me better than that
I am working with an independent tester. The strategy is that if the data is presented by a well-known independent, it will be accepted more readily. Too many people (even if they do not openly say so) question the data I present. just read these comments: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...3&postcount=53 , it's fairly typical, and very frustrating to me.

So I will let him present his data, and then be available for comments and additional input.

I just wish for the community to accept the findings as unbiased, that's all.

Methods and results will always be questioned, not always but often by those with agenda. The important thing is you stated your findings and the equipment you used allowing anyone to repeat your tests should they wish to do so.

Most impressive of all, you did this in a public forum. How many manufacturers would be this open ?

[antiacid]

thx for sharing this testing session! I own a GTZ and i couldn't be happier

[Martinm210]

Think travel distance. Screws bottoms out already. It doesn't matter how much spring tension. The waterblock base can't travel down to mate with IHS.

I understand the screw bottoms out, I was thinking more along the lines of increasing spring tension. During testing of the GTZ on a lapped processor, I never noticed where there was some sort of travel distance limitation, there was always quite a bit of spring compression and well within the travel limits of the system on a lapped processor. Of coarse I don't lap my processors very much, only enough to remove the coating and level the surface over the core, so it's probably a very small thickness. There have also been some past work by Bill Adams showing somewhat of a progression in performance relative to mounting pressure. I haven't tried plotting this out myself, but it seems reasonable to presume mounting pressure does have an important role. Not sure more is always better, but it does play a role depending on the thermal compound used. If the thought was that lapping a processor causes a loss of thickness and that's the only problem here, this should be correctable with the use of an additional washer between the retaining plate and spring. If you lost .5mm of thickness from lapping (I'm sure it's not that much) a .5mm washer should correct that and apply the same spring compression, etc. At least that's the idea I had.

Regardless, I've always wondered if there was any difference. My thought on lapping in the past was to ensure a flat contact surface since it appears the actual IHS shape may vary to some degree between samples. If the IHS shape is indeed sample specific, then you could possibly see block results vary per sample. A concaved IHS for example would likely see more favorable gains from a highly bowed base. Or a convex IHS may see little to no improvement in bowing. My thought was, lapping the base helps eliminate that sample variable to some degree. This is all speculation though, as hobby testers we simply don't have the ability to buy and test half a dozen processors of the same type to do that sort of analysis and I haven't really seen much of any work in that area. I haven't even seen too much more than very casual testing of stock vs. lapped IHS testing.

Anyhow, there could be a difference, but I would be suspect of IHS sample specific differences as well. I know with the few I've lapped, they all seem to have some variation, so trying to test and verify that may take retesting over several samples..not sure.

I do not intend to keep it to myself. You know me better than that
I am working with an independent tester. The strategy is that if the data is presented by a well-known independent, it will be accepted more readily. Too many people (even if they do not openly say so) question the data I present. just read these comments: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...3&postcount=53 , it's fairly typical, and very frustrating to me.

So I will let him present his data, and then be available for comments and additional input.

I just wish for the community to accept the findings as unbiased, that's all.

I don't know how many times I've compared something like a pressure drop curve and been pretty well spot on with your results. I have no reason not to look forward to it, and have always appreciated the information.

[santiagodraco]

I do not intend to keep it to myself. You know me better than that
I am working with an independent tester. The strategy is that if the data is presented by a well-known independent, it will be accepted more readily. Too many people (even if they do not openly say so) question the data I present. just read these comments: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...3&postcount=53 , it's fairly typical, and very frustrating to me.

So I will let him present his data, and then be available for comments and additional input.

I just wish for the community to accept the findings as unbiased, that's all.

I don't think that's the problem. I think the problem is that your tests appear, to some, to be fairly... rigid in methodology, whereas other tests cover a broader, and more realistic, scope.

To give you an example it's fairly well known that the Koolance 350 block performs better with higher flow, and that the GTZ performs better, comparatively, when flow is lower. So a "fair and unbiased" test of these blocks would cover various flow rates, imo. But your tests have yet to do that, and when asked to do so you have either not acknowledged the request or attempted to discredit it.

So you state you want to go to an independent tester (I'd say that's happened quite a bit already, but whatever). So, if said independent testing house also follows a specific singular test condition, most favorable to the GTZ, wouldn't you also expect it to be met with skepticism by at least some folks?

I really don't think it has nearly as much to do with you personally, certainly ANYONE performing legitimate tests adds value, and your tests have been legitimate, if not narrow in focus

But I have an issue with a vendor posting "tests" of competitors blocks in a community forum without stating clearly these conditions. Posting these kinds of things in a sales forum where it's clearly from an adverstizer, or on your own website, is different. But here they hold a different level of credibility as they appear to be less biased as they are in a community forum, so extra care SHOULD be taken to make sure they cover a broad range of conditions. Low, medium and high flow, for example. Single block loop instead of multi block loop, for example.

I also find it odd that you are complimented for doing your job as CEO, which is to advertize your product. And anyone who thinks that this is anything other than brand promotion is fooling themselves. To imply some kind of nobility to promoting your product is a bit odd to me.

Anyway, no disrespect meant here Gabe, but we are all entitled to our opinions, and our right to speak out, respectfully. Personally I think the GTZ is a good block, and in certain conditions, such as your test bed, the better block. But not all conditions and WE as a community have an obligation to assure that the community readers are getting unbiased, unconfusing, and applicable test results. I'm not quite sure this has been done here.

To close out, I'd refer you to the survey I tossed up yesterday. Question 5 specifically. Of the 60 XS readers that responded
78.6% run their pumps at max speed, 3.4% don't know and the rest run at medium or low. For what it's worth.

[YukonTrooper]

*Snip*

Good post.

[santiagodraco]

Deleted. No sense adding fuel to the fire!

[MpG]

Deleted. No sense adding fuel to the fire!

Probably just as well. Because your previous post basically involved you accusing Gabe of cooking the test with conditions favourable to his own product. And yes, there IS a difference between that, and simply asking if future testing could involve other conditions. And this isn't the first time - is your KL stock doing that badly? Because a look at your post-history is pretty brutal.

[santiagodraco]

Probably just as well. Because your previous post basically involved you accusing Gabe of cooking the test with conditions favourable to his own product. And yes, there IS a difference between that, and simply asking if future testing could involve other conditions. And this isn't the first time - is your KL stock doing that badly? Because a look at your post-history is pretty brutal.

Read into it what you will. The fact that those conditions have been asked for, multiple times by multiple people and have generally been ignored or discredited speaks volumes to me. There are multiple posts in this thread asking for just this, all of them ignored.

But you keep on telling yourself it's otherwise.

[Freaky Freezer]

I don't think that's the problem. I think the problem is that your tests appear, to some, to be fairly... rigid in methodology, whereas other tests cover a broader, and more realistic, scope.

To give you an example it's fairly well known that the Koolance 350 block performs better with higher flow, and that the GTZ performs better, comparatively, when flow is lower. So a "fair and unbiased" test of these blocks would cover various flow rates, imo. But your tests have yet to do that, and when asked to do so you have either not acknowledged the request or attempted to discredit it.

So you state you want to go to an independent tester (I'd say that's happened quite a bit already, but whatever). So, if said independent testing house also follows a specific singular test condition, most favorable to the GTZ, wouldn't you also expect it to be met with skepticism by at least some folks?

I really don't think it has nearly as much to do with you personally, certainly ANYONE performing legitimate tests adds value, and your tests have been legitimate, if not narrow in focus

But I have an issue with a vendor posting "tests" of competitors blocks in a community forum without stating clearly these conditions. Posting these kinds of things in a sales forum where it's clearly from an adverstizer, or on your own website, is different. But here they hold a different level of credibility as they appear to be less biased as they are in a community forum, so extra care SHOULD be taken to make sure they cover a broad range of conditions. Low, medium and high flow, for example. Single block loop instead of multi block loop, for example.

I also find it odd that you are complimented for doing your job as CEO, which is to advertize your product. And anyone who thinks that this is anything other than brand promotion is fooling themselves. To imply some kind of nobility to promoting your product is a bit odd to me.

Anyway, no disrespect meant here Gabe, but we are all entitled to our opinions, and our right to speak out, respectfully. Personally I think the GTZ is a good block, and in certain conditions, such as your test bed, the better block. But not all conditions and WE as a community have an obligation to assure that the community readers are getting unbiased, unconfusing, and applicable test results. I'm not quite sure this has been done here.

To close out, I'd refer you to the survey I tossed up yesterday. Question 5 specifically. Of the 60 XS readers that responded
78.6% run their pumps at max speed, 3.4% don't know and the rest run at medium or low. For what it's worth.

1. How many use low-medium flow in comparison to high flow?
2. How many use CPU only loops in comparison to multi-block loops?

He is not complimented for doing his job as CEO, which as far as I know does not include being an active member of a public forum and actively interacting with members/customers. I don't see the CEO of HK hanging around here with us. He is complimented for admitting to being the CEO unlike others on this site and other sites who have biased and ulterior motives induced by a secret affiliation not made known to the other members.

If Gabe wanted to do some real "brand promotion", he would join the forum under another identity, posing as a regular ole' watercooling junkie who wants to conduct some "independent tests" for "the good of the forum community" and THEN skew the results in favor of Swiftech. OR simply give some "incentive" to one of the other "independent testers" to skew the results for him, which I am sure happens quite often. Why do it under his true identity, letting everyone know he is in fact the CEO of Swiftech, knowing full well that guys like you will automatically accuse him of a biased test in favor of his own product? It makes no sense.

If you're going to take his tests, results and information with a grain of salt simply because YOU KNOW who he is, then you need to take everyone else's tests, results and information with a grain of salt because YOU DON'T KNOW who they are.

[santiagodraco]

1. How many use low-medium flow in comparison to high flow?
2. How many use CPU only loops in comparison to multi-block loops?

He is not complimented for doing his job as CEO, which as far as I know does not include being an active member of a public forum and actively interacting with members/customers. I don't see the CEO of HK hanging around here with us. He is complimented for admitting to being the CEO unlike others on this site and other sites who have biased and ulterior motives induced by a secret affiliation not made known to the other members.

If Gabe wanted to do some real "brand promotion", he would join the forum under another identity, posing as a regular ole' watercooling junkie who wants to conduct some "independent tests" for "the good of the forum community" and THEN skew the results in favor of Swiftech. OR simply give some "incentive" to one of the other "independent testers" to skew the results for him, which I am sure happens quite often. Why do it under his true identity, letting everyone know he is in fact the CEO of Swiftech, knowing full well that guys like you will automatically accuse him of a biased test in favor of his own product? It makes no sense.

If you're going to take his tests, results and information with a grain of salt simply because YOU KNOW who he is, then you need to take everyone else's tests, results and information with a grain of salt because YOU DON'T KNOW who they are.

No. If Gabe wanted to be called out for being a scam artist, a liar and a fraud, then he'd follow your suggestion. Or don't you remember the Belkin fiasco? But I have not nor do I intend to suggest he is even close to any of those. He's a CEO doing his job to promote his product and NOT promote the competitors (which he would quite possibly be doing if his tests were broader in scope). But that doesn't mean he shouldn't be called out on it. He's a big boy, he can take the heat. And if he can't he shouldn't be CEO in the first place.

As for the figures, question 1 was already answered, and you can go HERE to see them. But to answer your question 1 again, 78.7% run at high speed/flow and 18.1 run at low or medium speed.

As to question 2, of those with one loop only 13 run CPU only and 86% run CPU+GPU. So that part of the test is more representative than the flow portion. However of those with 2 loops 64.3 have an isolated CPU loop and the other 36% have CPU + soemthingelse in one of the loops.

So, again, I think Gabe's results are accurate. I don't think he cooked the books or falsified any of the results. But that doesn't mean the conditions are not favorable to his block, and I would expect any CEO who publishes a test of his companies products to make damn sure that the tests ARE favorable or they DON"T get published.

But do so in a public forum and you better damn well expect it to be scrutinized.

Oh, and one other thing. Gabe is complimented left and right for doing his job. What the hell are you talking about. And as for implying that all other tests are invalid because of YOUR conspiracy theory is bull as well. You attempt to credit Gabe by discrediting everyone else simply because they have the good sense to not post their own tests on a public forum and instead do so on their websites where it belongs. Here's what I would suggest. Gabe can create a Swiftec forum and posts tests to his hearts content. I would respect him for doing so. If you think the tests are valid you can start a post saying "Swiftec publishes new test results for medium flow loops" and I'd bet the response here would be quite different. Then Gabe can continue to do the other side of his job which he does VERY well which is to help his customers with questions about his products. I respect him and the others (like Dean from Koolance) for doing the same. THAT is the proper use of the forums by a company representative imo.

[Freaky Freezer]

No. If Gabe wanted to be called out for being a scam artist, a liar and a fraud, then he'd follow your suggestion. Or don't you remember the Belkin fiasco? But I have not nor do I intend to suggest he is even close to any of those. He's a CEO doing his job to promote his product and NOT promote the competitors (which he would quite possibly be doing if his tests were broader in scope). But that doesn't mean he shouldn't be called out on it. He's a big boy, he can take the heat. And if he can't he shouldn't be CEO in the first place.

As for the figures, question 1 was already answered, and you can go HERE to see them. But to answer your question 1 again, 78.7% run at high speed/flow and 18.1 run at low or medium speed.

As to question 2, of those with one loop only 13 run CPU only and 86% run CPU+GPU. So that part of the test is more representative than the flow portion. However of those with 2 loops 64.3 have an isolated CPU loop and the other 36% have CPU + soemthingelse in one of the loops.

So, again, I think Gabe's results are accurate. I don't think he cooked the books or falsified any of the results. But that doesn't mean the conditions are not favorable to his block, and I would expect any CEO who publishes a test of his companies products to make damn sure that the tests ARE favorable or they DON"T get published.

But do so in a public forum and you better damn well expect it to be scrutinized.

Oh, and one other thing. Gabe is complimented left and right for doing his job. What the hell are you talking about. And as for implying that all other tests are invalid because of YOUR conspiracy theory is bull as well. You attempt to credit Gabe by discrediting everyone else simply because they have the good sense to not post their own tests on a public forum and instead do so on their websites where it belongs. Here's what I would suggest. Gabe can create a Swiftec forum and posts tests to his hearts content. I would respect him for doing so. If you think the tests are valid you can start a post saying "Swiftec publishes new test results for medium flow loops" and I'd bet the response here would be quite different. Then Gabe can continue to do the other side of his job which he does VERY well which is to help his customers with questions about his products. I respect him and the others (like Dean from Koolance) for doing the same. THAT is the proper use of the forums by a company representative imo.

I'm not sticking up for Gabe. I don't know him on any form of personal level. I'm sticking up for his results, which you have admitted are an accurate representation of the majority of water-coolers on this forum. And I never discredited anyone else. I gave you plausible scenarios which you are obviously to obtuse to consider and would immeadiately call them "conspiracy theories".

You have no idea who the other independent testers on this site are, you have no idea who they work for, what business, company they are a part of or own. You have no idea what company gives them free stuff or work in exchange for "favors". YOU are the one who discredited Gabe because YOU DO KNOW WHO HE IS. If you're going to do that, then you need to descredit the others for NOT KNOWING WHO THEY ARE. Either take everyones results with the same level of trust, or don't trust any results, don't pick and choose.

Here's a conspiracy theoryfor you; you like Koolance and these results don't like Koolance best.

[NaeKuh]

Here's a conspiracy theoryfor you; you like Koolance and these results don't like Koolance best.

Heres another one.

Skinnee's test show both the KL-345 (but DAYAM HORRIBLE MOUNTS) and the KL-350 in favor of the GTZ on his bed.

So what does that tell ya?


To me its tells me its about application and how you set it up.


Anyhow Gabe generously gave out blocks to our testers, and they been testing it. Skinnee is almost done with the block roundup and ive been leaked special information (more like rants and the usual boredom crys on Load waiting), while he's been doing the test.

So Gabe doing these tests for us is a bonus, give the man some credit, and you guys he's very smart as well.

[santiagodraco]

I'm not sticking up for Gabe. I don't know him on any form of personal level. I'm sticking up for his results, which you have admitted are an accurate representation of the majority of water-coolers on this forum. And I never discredited anyone else. I gave you plausible scenarios which you are obviously to obtuse to consider and would immeadiately call them "conspiracy theories".

You have no idea who the other independent testers on this site are, you have no idea who they work for, what business, company they are a part of or own. You have no idea what company gives them free stuff or work in exchange for "favors". YOU are the one who discredited Gabe because YOU DO KNOW WHO HE IS. If you're going to do that, then you need to descredit the others for NOT KNOWING WHO THEY ARE. Either take everyones results with the same level of trust, or don't trust any results, don't pick and choose.

Here's a conspiracy theoryfor you; you like Koolance and these results don't like Koolance best.

Your examples are conspiracy theories meant to discredit, and you know it

Ok, maybe this is what you are asking for: "Any manufacturer that posts results under assumed names are frauds, and you know who you are!!!" Is that what you are saying I should agree with? Now, as reasonable (if dramatic) that statement is, how does that somehow imply that tests not conducted by some manufacturer's employee are invalid? Don't you see anything wrong with your statement? You are basically saying that we should essentially dismiss all other tests because of the possibility that they are ACTUALLY done by the manufacturers...and you don't think that is conspiracy theory? You think that Gabe's tests are to be treated as absolutely alturistic simply because his name is attached? Man, you have a lot to learn about reality.

And you don't seem to be able to read statistics well. Gabes tests are NOT representative of most of the users of the forum. When he runs his pumps at full, not half, speed, then they will be valid for the "majority" of users.

Yes, I think Gabe's tests are valid, for the conditions of the test. I said it before and I'll repeat it again. But I also think the test is intentionally constructed to favor the GTZ. There you go. When Gabe runs a test that uses:

• Multiple rates of flow
• Uses single AND multiblock configurations
• And posts all results for all conditions

I'll be happy to call king to the king, whoever that may be. I'll be happy to call the GTZ king under Gabe's conditions, but that's it, and since I run MY pump at max speed it's not king for me, at least not according to other tests.

As for me liking Koolance (and you liking Swiftech - translation hypocrite) I've never attempted to hide that. I've also never spoken out against other tests that were fair, even when Koolance came out behind, since in most cases the tests were broad in scope and were representative of the varying conditions XS readers will see in the real world. But of course that doesn't fit your argument so you chose to dismiss it out of hand.

Now here's why I am using a 350 and not a GTZ.

• First I use ALU, and because of that the plated 350 is a better choice.
• Second the 350's mounting system is less prone to problems (ala it will work on any cpu variant, lapped, unlapped, too high too low).
• Third I like Koolance and what they have done, and the block looks good.

Now, if I was using no ALU I might have considered a different block, maybe the GTZ, maybe something else. But I'm happy with Koolance and no one can dispute that their recent products are top notch. Are they the best? That depends on the conditions. Certainly not always and certainly sometimes.