[Review] Round 2: Swiftech Apogee XT Tested

[Vapor]

Preface
This is a quick version of my Apogee XT Testing....it's part four of my Roundup #2 of waterblock testing. The XS version has the boring parts cut out with basically just the core charts and the words

If you have any questions, check out the full review (link above)...if they're not answered, ask away here

Test Results

First up, individual mounts:

Unlike many other blocks on the market, Swiftech prescribes the orientation of the block so there's no orientation testing here, just the results of the XT against the GTZ and GTZ SE. In addition, I tested the XT with the alternate inlet positioning "XT Alt" and observed roughly a quarter of a degree drop in performance. The drop in performance is largely from the drop in flowrate. On my testbed, flowrates went from 1.38GPM to 1.27GPM by changing the inlet positioning; the small drop in performance is the price to pay for compatibility with large compression fittings. It should be noted that the XT's chief rival, the Heatkiller 3.0 LT/Cu, provides no compatibility with larger compression fittings, aside from purchasing additional adapters/fittings from Bitspower or Feser or elsewhere.

In addition to basic testing, I also attempted to tweak the Apogee XT by using the familiar "silcone mod" I debuted with my Heatkiller tests. I've dubbed the tweaked version of the XT as "XT+" and it provides roughly a 1C increase in performance at the expense of 5 minutes of work, a couple dollars of 100% silicone (many varieties are available), a few Q-Tips, and a slight increase in block restriction (bringing flowrates in my testbed from 1.38GPM down to 1.26GPM). Here is a picture of my mod before I installed it (it obviously doesn't have to be perfect to perform great--mine is definitely not perfectly applied!).

• Very High Pumping Power: All three MCP355 pumps and the D5 are on at full speed--this has a very similar PQ curve to a pair of RD-30s at 20V.
• High Pumping Power: Two MCP355s with EK V2 tops are on at full speed. The other two pumps are off.
• Medium High Pumping Power: A single MCP355 with XSPC V3 top is on at full speed. The other three pumps are off.
• Medium Pumping Power: The stock D5 is on at full speed and setting 5. The other three pumps are off.
• Low Pumping Power: A single MCP355 with XSPC V3 top is on at minimum speed (~7.7V, ~2450RPM). The other three pumps are off.
• Very Low Pumping Power: The stock D5 is on at minimum speed--setting 1. The other three pumps are off.

Note: I do 5 mounts at "Medium High" then take the best config of a block and test the whole flow spectrum (after a TIM curing session) then realign that curve with average of the 3 median mounts to give you the "Adjusted" data.

Many More Graphs
I've included the core graphs and data here...but there's more in the full review, which is here.


Conclusion
Pardon me while I gush for a bit, but this block is amazing. With it you get the best performance of any block on the market, you get the best mounting system of any block on the market (with no extra cost or disassembly procedures to switch sockets), you get full compatibility with all G1/4 fittings (something that's increasingly rare with high performance blocks), and you even can get a little more performance out of it if you've got tinker-itis. The other amazing thing about this block is just how well it performs in low flow scenarios. Of all the blocks I've tested, it's the most resilient to low flow rates and when you add that to best-as-tested performance in normal and high flow scenarios, that equates to untouchable performance in low flow scenarios.

The mounting system is a carry-over from their GTZs and has been improved by extending compatibility to the three most popular Intel desktop sockets while only using one bracket. Usage of the mounting hardware is slightly clumsier than previous generation because the screws don't always stick straight out (because of the usage of a slot rather than a hole for the screw), but it's still the easiest and most consistent system to use of any mounting system on the market. This is especially true when you compare it to the mounting system of some of the European blocks (EK and Watercool come to mind first) that use off-the-shelf components. I said it in the GTZ review and I'm going to repeat it here: this mounting system should be mimicked by more manufacturers, it's a huge boon in usability of the product.

The other big thing that impressed me with this block is the modular inlet plate. Having a second configuration to allow the use of the largest compression fittings available is a great idea and it was implemented wonderfully. It has only a small knock on performance (very small increase in temperatures and a small increase in restriction), so it's an attractive option for those who need it.

Overall this is an incredibly well-rounded product with the best performance I've ever seen from a block and I'm exceedingly impressed. Without any doubt, it's the best block I've ever tested. In addition to the block itself being great, it's also pushed the GTZ to a lower pricepoint, greatly increasing competition in the $50 range. Swiftech has a winner here.

[zeropluszero]

was there any doubt?
damn, now i'm going to have to place my order for sure!
thank you Vapor, as always!

[Weevil]

Great review Vapor, thank you.

[BlueAqua]

Great job Vapor. I really like the review and it seems like a great block. I remember last year when the GTZ came out and many many people bought them, there was a lot of buzz. I think this product brings a significant amount of changes to warrant an upgrade for many people, and that's saying a lot.

Nice work Gabe and Swiftech.

[mikecdm]

Thanks for the excellent review and hard work

[shazza]

A quick question (sorry if it was answered in the review, a bit of a headache going here) - The XT looks great. It is, however, the most flow restrictive of the blocks reviewed. However, it seems to perform in lower flow situations as well as high. Is this one of the differences between the XT and the Koolance 350 (or perhaps even the EK Supreme)? Since it's not included in your reviews, I hesitate to interpolate, but my fuzzy memory tells me it needed higher flow??? (or was it just that it is more restrictive than even the XT?)

And, great job on the Review Thanks for getting it up so soon.

[NeedMoMegaHurtZ]

Thanks for the nice review Vapor. Your articles are much appreciated

Cheers

[millertime359]

Thanks Vapor. It seems that silicon trick may help a few different blocks.

[Vapor]

Originally Posted by zeropluszero

was there any doubt?

The day after launch, I almost had the full suite of testing done with original revision (the one that couldn't mount properly on a Gigabyte board--and I use a Gigabyte board) and it was edging out the HK3.0 by a really tiny margin then, with visibly horrible contact. I alerted Swiftech that something was awry with the mounting (it's a 60mm wide block, the HK3.0 is 59mm and needs the caps pushed aside, but the extra .5mm on that side and stricter lateral tolerances with mounting were really causing a problem) and the wheels went into motion for fixing it (which Swiftech addressed and fixed, fully, within a week of launch). But I've been sitting on "winning" data for almost two weeks now, so no, it wasn't in doubt for me

What was thoroughly surprising was how it behaved with varying flow--there's very little scaling in either direction and that's especially impressive in the low flow direction (better performance for more people).

Originally Posted by shazza

A quick question (sorry if it was answered in the review, a bit of a headache going here) - The XT looks great. It is, however, the most flow restrictive of the blocks reviewed. However, it seems to perform in lower flow situations as well as high. Is this one of the differences between the XT and the Koolance 350 (or perhaps even the EK Supreme)? Since it's not included in your reviews, I hesitate to interpolate, but my fuzzy memory tells me it needed higher flow??? (or was it just that it is more restrictive than even the XT?)

And, great job on the Review Thanks for getting it up so soon.

I think you're looking for this: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=235967

A comparison between all the results so far

The XT isn't the most restrictive block (that honor goes to a block that I haven't fully tested yet--actually two on my to-do list have proven in prelim testing to be more restrictive than the Supreme), but it is more restrictive than the GTZ in my tests. It gets especially restrictive at really high flowrates, but that shouldn't be a concern for most.

As for flow dependence....it's the most resilient to low flow of any block so far, that's for sure! The flipside of that is that it doesn't benefit quite as much as other blocks at higher flowrates, but there are still gains to be had if you have the radiator power to offset the increased heatdump of the additional pump(s).

The Koolance 350 and 345 on next on my to-do list and should hopefully be done by the weekend, then maybe I'll take another stab at the Phobya (utterly horrible results my first try, I might have done something wrong with assembling it, have to investigate more) so I have a block to pair with the Sapphire Rev.A I've already tested and shown the results of (just haven't posted a review of it).

Thanks for the compliments folks

[shazza]

Thanks for the quick update, Vapor. That clears it up for me

[Fafeifa]

wow just wow

[Salamndar]

Great Block indeed, but I expected better flow!
none the less it is the best in cooling, but still it seems like it shouldn't be accompanied with any water block in the same loop for most people if they use only one pump like the MCP355 or the MCP655, am I right?

[Vapor]

Originally Posted by Salamndar

Great Block indeed, but I expected better flow!
none the less it is the best in cooling, but still it seems like it shouldn't be accompanied with any water block in the same loop for most people if they use only one pump like the MCP355 or the MCP655, am I right?

I don't see why not?

Flowrate itself is a meaningless, what flowrate does is what's important.

As far as most loops are concerned, there's basically two tiers of importance of components: I'll call them 1st tier and 2nd tier.

1st tier consists of the CPU block and the radiator(s). CPU temperatures do matter for stability...if you can knock a few degrees off, that last 10-20MHz often becomes stable. CPU block and radiators are the two components that contribute to CPU temps.

2nd tier consists of everything else--GPUs don't care whether or not they're at 43C or 46C, VRMs sure don't care about a couple of degrees (and let's not get ridiculous with RAM or hard drives).


Given this breakdown, it's mostly sufficient to say that as long as you have quality components (no Zalman straight pipe or Thermaltake stuff), even very low flow will provide identical system performance (in terms of GPU/VRM/RAM/etc performance).

That leaves the CPU block and the radiator....I test flow vs. temperatures with the CPU blocks, and from all the testing I've seen, radiators just don't care about flowrate. Martin tested this a few months ago...the lowest flowrate he tested was .5GPM and the radiator was still performing at 98-99% efficiency (according to the trendline).

So in the end, the only component that has an effect on your system's performance (with regards to varying flowrate), is your CPU block. I'm giving the reader data for how the various blocks on the market respond to both flow and pumping power.

I wouldn't be at all concerned about the effect of using a Koolance CPU-350 or a Supreme or an XT would have on the rest of your system. I would only look at how the various blocks perform at your anticipated pumping power.

Given that, the XT is actually distancing itself from the rest of the pack because it performs so well with low flow.

[woffen]

Killer review Vapor!! Very happy I chose the XT over the HK..

The charts in the roundup of all blocks don't show the XT though..?

[dreamaxx]

What is this silicon trick exactly?

[nsx241]

Thanks Vapor. Well, that settles it for me - HK out the window, XT here I come

[Eddy_EK]

Originally Posted by nsx241

Thanks Vapor. Well, that settles it for me - HK out the window, XT here I come

I would not do that.
As far as I see the block is not worth replacing.
The block is more restrictive and is barely better for a 0,9°C.
It is a great block, I dont say that, but think about before doing this

[Salamndar]

Originally Posted by Vapor

The day after launch, I almost had the full suite of testing done with original revision (the one that couldn't mount properly on a Gigabyte board--and I use a Gigabyte board) and it was edging out the HK3.0 by a really tiny margin then, with visibly horrible contact. I alerted Swiftech that something was awry with the mounting (it's a 60mm wide block, the HK3.0 is 59mm and needs the caps pushed aside, but the extra .5mm on that side and stricter lateral tolerances with mounting were really causing a problem) and the wheels went into motion for fixing it (which Swiftech addressed and fixed, fully, within a week of launch). But I've been sitting on "winning" data for almost two weeks now, so no, it wasn't in doubt for me

What was thoroughly surprising was how it behaved with varying flow--there's very little scaling in either direction and that's especially impressive in the low flow direction (better performance for more people).

I think you're looking for this: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=235967

A comparison between all the results so far

The XT isn't the most restrictive block (that honor goes to a block that I haven't fully tested yet--actually two on my to-do list have proven in prelim testing to be more restrictive than the Supreme), but it is more restrictive than the GTZ in my tests. It gets especially restrictive at really high flowrates, but that shouldn't be a concern for most.

As for flow dependence....it's the most resilient to low flow of any block so far, that's for sure! The flipside of that is that it doesn't benefit quite as much as other blocks at higher flowrates, but there are still gains to be had if you have the radiator power to offset the increased heatdump of the additional pump(s).

The Koolance 350 and 345 on next on my to-do list and should hopefully be done by the weekend, then maybe I'll take another stab at the Phobya (utterly horrible results my first try, I might have done something wrong with assembling it, have to investigate more) so I have a block to pair with the Sapphire Rev.A I've already tested and shown the results of (just haven't posted a review of it).

Thanks for the compliments folks

Very informative, thx again greatly written

[Anemic]

Great review, thanks for your hard work Vapor!

[ohms]

Excellent review Vapor! Was a great informative read.

Now I definitely think I will have to wait until they release an AM3 backplate for it

Thanks!

[eternal_fantasy]

Great review Vapor

As Eddy has mentioned, unless you are using something other then an Heatkiller 3.0 or completely new to watercooling, spending almost $80 for a <0.9C reduction in temperature, which you most probably won't notice unless you start logging data and do multiple mounts as Vipor did, is just not a clever way of spending money. Heck, you may get even more of an improvement remounting your current block (of couse it can go either way... )

Also I just find a nickle plated Heatkiller that much sexier then the XT

Anyway as I've found during my months with the HK, if you want to use a modern CPU waterblock with complex pin matrix/micro channels, you'd want to invest in a good low restriction filter which you can easily clean and maintain. Using my Aquaero with a flowsensor attached I noticed a drop of 20-30 PLH over a few months. Initially thought my pump is slowly dieing, yet the Aquaero still report over 4.5k RPM, I opened up my HK to find the nozzle plate filled with mostly flint and some wet dust (the stuff you find floating around your room, basically dead skin cells). Cleaned the block and invested in a MIPS filter... best £8 ever spent.

[EvilClocker]

vapor,

I run a Low Flow system 3 L/ Hour and using a EK Supreme Gold, Will A XT give me a 3-5C Temp Drop ? I think my EK Supreme doesnt work very well in my Low flow System

[Sadasius]

I think there is still a problem with lapped processors taking some performance away (like the GTZ). Read another review using a lapped processor and it was about a degree difference the other way. Good review though Vapor. Much appreciated. Still getting this block and will just use my own hard mount to apply max pressure for better performance.

[Vapor]

Originally Posted by EvilClocker

vapor,

I run a Low Flow system 3 L/ Hour and using a EK Supreme Gold, Will A XT give me a 3-5C Temp Drop ? I think my EK Supreme doesnt work very well in my Low flow System

3L/hr? I hope you mean 3L/min

Anyway, yeah, it looks like you'd see a 3-4C drop if your CPU has the same heatdump as mine (ignore the high voltage I test with--my CPU is oddly cool running and I need that much voltage for it to have temperatures in the 60s).

This also assumes the GOLD performs the same as the regular Supreme. And I can't comment on that, I just don't know if it's true (my hunch is that the performance is the same).

Originally Posted by Sadasius

I think there is still a problem with lapped processors taking some performance away (like the GTZ). Read another review using a lapped processor and it was about a degree difference the other way. Good review though Vapor. Much appreciated. Still getting this block and will just use my own hard mount to apply max pressure for better performance.

rge's tests? I saw like a week ago he posted that he was having weird results on two of his cores. I posted why I think he's having problems over at OCF, but figure I might as well drop it in this thread too...copy and paste follows

Originally Posted by Me at OCF

I saw rge's results (he mentioned a weird increase on two cores on XS--something that shouldn't happen with a block change) and I think I figured out why those two cores are oddly hot.

Unfortunately it hints that the XT is not compatible with lapped CPUs after all--it stems from the same basic issue that caused the Gigabyte issues, the block is big. 60x60mm is big and *I think* it breaks Intel's "no-fly zones."

Anyway, here's what I've found: first, Cores 2 and 4 are actually adjacent and are either the top two cores or the bottom two cores, I forget exactly. I don't know why it's done like that :screwy:

Second, when you lap a CPU, you make it shorter by a fraction of a millimeter, which may not seem like much, but it comes into play.

Third, the Torx screws on the socket assembly are not flush with the socket assembly--the top ones definitely stick out quite a bit and the bottom ones (once the socket is loaded with a CPU forcing the internal springs to compress) do a little bit as well.

Fourth, unlike the HK3.0, the Apogee XT overlaps both sets of socket screws and by a few mm.

Add that all up and I think the Apogee XT is not sitting right on his CPU (or really any lapped CPU) because it's sitting on one set of the socket assembly screws (not sure which, my guess is the top set, they protrude the most) and that's forcing the XT to be lifted off the (either the top or the bottom of) the IHS and resulting in increased temperatures on the corresponding pair of cores.

When he gets back from vacation, he can test this by either removing the socket assembly totally, or grinding down the four Torx screws on the socket assembly (or by grinding out grooves on the base of his XT, but that sounds like the hardest option of all). Or if he has a non-lapped CPU, he can do one or two really quick mounts of both the XT and the HK to see that the core temperature profiles are indeed similar (then go on to recompare if he wants to, he probably won't want to after a vacation, lol).

Here's what my core profiles were like with the two blocks.

XT = the Gigabyte-compatible base (I use a Gigabyte board for testing, so it was important)
HK3.0 = HK3.0
XTOld = original base SW sent--contact was horrible on the left side of the IHS because the 60x60 base was too big and resting on the adjacent bank of caps (even when pushed to the side as much as possible, they forced the base to lift off the IHS).

I've seen this same basic profile on every CPU block I've tested so far. Note that the numbers in the table above are the average of all 5 mounts, where-as the numbers in my charts are the average of the median 3 mounts (I drop the best and worst from my calculations), so they might differ by a few hundredths of a degree from what's on my charts.

[EvilClocker]

Vapor, opps I guess I need some coffee 3L / Min I am running a coolit Boreas and (2) Freezone elites , with the EK Supreme gold cooling my Core I7 860 at 4Ghz HT on, 1.39vcore . & GTX 295 coop with Swiftech Epsilon block... My gts295 stays very cool around 45-49C Running Furmark .. But my cpu cooks 67-70C I just think the EK Supreme needs High Flow and 3/8 tubing
Water Temps 22C

So the Swiftech XT Block Should work better in my Low Flow and 1/4 tubing ?

Thanks !