MMM
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: [Review] Round 2: Swiftech Apogee GTZ and GTZ SE Tested

  1. #1
    Admin
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    12,338

    [Review] Round 2: Swiftech Apogee GTZ and GTZ SE Tested

    Preface
    This is a quick version of my Apogee GTZ and GTZ SE Testing....it's part three of my Roundup #2 of waterblock testing. I have some cool things in store for testing (including ways to significantly improve the performance of some blocks) and will be testing a lot of blocks. Anyway, I'll cut the boring parts out of the test logs and post up the Apogee GTZ results in this thread

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

    Test Results

    First up, comparing the two blocks over 5 mounts...there's no need to do orientation testing (the best orientation is already told to use by Swiftech and there are no known mounting issues with some boards):


    The first odd result I've ever had with my testing. For the record, the exact same base, mounting plate, bowing plate, o-ring, distribution insert, and mounting screws were used. The only thing changed was the top. The tops are, aside from material, identical as far as I can tell. Furthermore, the airflow over the socket I provide for MOSFET cooling is, at best, water temperature (it's usually .3C higher than water temps). So the "radiator effect" of a metal top is totally non-existent here. That really leaves one option--it's a structural advantage. The GTZ uses a very deliberate bow in its design and it seems the stronger metal top is more effective at implementing the bow. In turn, the GTZ SE does noticeably outperform the GTZ.

    I do have a spare base here that's seen a lot of mileage (and isn't looking so good), but I'll use it to see if I can unlock some more performance, akin to what I did with the Heatkillers (the mods I have in mind require physical modification to the base). I'll report back if it's a fruitful venture.


    • 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 + thoughts are also in there...I suggest checking it out if you want more info, thanks for reading!

    Overall comparison write-up and charts are in progress...I need sleep first

    Testing the Sapphire Rev.A right now, fwiw.

  2. #2
    Never go full retard
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Vegas
    Posts
    3,984
    I still want to know if there were any tweaks by Gabe besides the plated brass top...something else changed. 1.1C advantage and that carried through multiple tests, I'm telling ya there is something structurally that changed... Come on Gabe, spill it.

    I still like my GTZ, just always ends up being the block I grab for lab stuff. Vapor, seriously though with the pace here, you're starting to make me look bad.
    Last edited by skinnee; 10-04-2009 at 08:07 AM.

  3. #3
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Back and forth between Florida and Maine
    Posts
    4,097
    Good job, Vapor. Interesting results on the GTZ SE. I know I've been tempted to change out the GTZ on my main rig because of the temp differences I've seen with other blocks, but it is just so darned easy to work with.

  4. #4
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    2,443
    I would not be surprised if there were a couple tweaks since that one review awhile back which dealt with lapped CPU's and the limitation of the GTZ moutning mechanism. I bet he tightened up the gap a little to give better clamping force. Pretty good numbers. Thanks Vapor!

  5. #5
    Unoriginal Macho Energy
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    3,158
    Vapor can you swap bases and retest? It seems to me that either the deck height of the SE is LOWER or the non SE base is jacked. Or, like you said the metal plate provides more of a bow. The only way to know for sure is to test the variables. This is the part I miss most about testing.

    *:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
    GTZ --> MCW-NBMAX --> EK FC --> PA 120.3 --> PA 160.1 --> 2x DDC Ultras in Series --> Custom Clear Res
    "Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity."
    *:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*

    Quote Originally Posted by ranker View Post
    Did you just get hit in the head with a heavy object? Because obviously you're failing at reading comprehension.

  6. #6
    Admin
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    12,338
    I used the exact same everything on both blocks, only swapped the top.

    My non-SE's base is jacked (my fault), that's why I bought the SE

  7. #7
    Unoriginal Macho Energy
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    3,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Vapor View Post
    I used the exact same everything on both blocks, only swapped the top.

    My non-SE's base is jacked (my fault), that's why I bought the SE
    Well then, can you measure the deck heights on both tops?

    *:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
    GTZ --> MCW-NBMAX --> EK FC --> PA 120.3 --> PA 160.1 --> 2x DDC Ultras in Series --> Custom Clear Res
    "Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity."
    *:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*

    Quote Originally Posted by ranker View Post
    Did you just get hit in the head with a heavy object? Because obviously you're failing at reading comprehension.

  8. #8
    Admin
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    12,338
    Every measurable dimension is identical between the two. Neither my eyes nor calipers can find any difference anywhere

    EDIT: found one difference, but it's irrelevant to thermal performance....there's a bit of a bevel at the corner of the inlet on the delrin top. Might explain why flowrates were higher on the delrin top for all but "Very High" pumping power setting

  9. #9
    Unoriginal Macho Energy
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    3,158
    Then my conclusion would be that the more rigid top induces more of a bow when mounted.

    *:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
    GTZ --> MCW-NBMAX --> EK FC --> PA 120.3 --> PA 160.1 --> 2x DDC Ultras in Series --> Custom Clear Res
    "Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity."
    *:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*

    Quote Originally Posted by ranker View Post
    Did you just get hit in the head with a heavy object? Because obviously you're failing at reading comprehension.

  10. #10
    Admin
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    12,338
    Yeah, that was my conclusion too.

  11. #11
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    1,905
    Great testing Vapor!
    -


    "Language cuts the grooves in which our thoughts must move" | Frank Herbert, The Santaroga Barrier
    2600K | GTX 580 SLI | Asus MIV Gene-Z | 16GB @ 1600 | Silverstone Strider 1200W Gold | Crucial C300 64 | Crucial M4 64 | Intel X25-M 160 G2 | OCZ Vertex 60 | Hitachi 2TB | WD 320

  12. #12
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,586
    Quote Originally Posted by nikhsub1 View Post
    Then my conclusion would be that the more rigid top induces more of a bow when mounted.
    excellent conclusion

    i wonder if the top is available as top only...


  13. #13
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Posts
    3,656
    Nice work Vapor!


    Pretty interesting results. Never thought a top would make such a difference...
    Project ZEUS II

    Asus Rampage II Extreme
    Intel I7 920 D0 3930A @ 4.50GHz (21 X 214mhz)
    3 x 2GB G.Skill Trident 1600 @ 1716MHz (6-8-6-20-1N)
    2 x Asus HD 6870 CrossFire @ 1000/1100MHz
    OCZ Vertex 2 60GB | Intel X25-M 120GB | WD Velociraptor 150GB | Seagate FreeAgent XTreme 1.5TB esata
    Asus Xonar DX | Logitech Z-5500 | LG W2600HP 26" S-IPS LCD

    Watercooling setup:
    1st loop -> Radiator: 2 x ThermoChill PA120.3 | Pump: Laing DDC-3.25 with Alphacool HF 38 top | CPU: Swiftech Apogee XT | Chipset: Swiftech MCW-NBMAX | Tubing: Masterkleer 1/2" UV
    2nd loop -> Radiator: ThermoChill PA120.3 | Pump: Laing DDC-3.2 with Alphacool HF 38 top | GPU: 2 x EK FC-6870 | Tubing: Masterkleer 1/2" UV


    Assembled in Mountain Mods Ascension Trinity
    Powered by Corsair Professional Series Gold AX1200

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •