Danger Den's new TDX waterblock

[pHaestus]

Danger Den (http://www.dangerden.com) has now officially announced their new waterblock, the TDX. We've been talking about this on the forums for a week or two now so it isn't a huge surprise. Danger Den was kind enough to send me a production block prior to release for testing, and since Wednesday I've put in about 15 hours doing so. Hope you guys enjoy this; thank my wife for watching the kids 2 nights in a row!

Procooling's Danger Den TDX review (http://www.procooling.com/reviews/html/danger_den_tdx_waterblock_revi.php)

[leejsmith]

Danger Den (http://www.dangerden.com) has now officially announced their new waterblock, the TDX. We've been talking about this on the forums for a week or two now so it isn't a huge surprise. Danger Den was kind enough to send me a production block prior to release for testing, and since Wednesday I've put in about 15 hours doing so. Hope you guys enjoy this; thank my wife for watching the kids 2 nights in a row!

Procooling's Danger Den TDX review (http://www.procooling.com/reviews/html/danger_den_tdx_waterblock_revi.php)

JoeC at OC has just posted his TDX results and also puts the TDX just behind the RBX.

http://www.overclockers.com/articles1022/

[pHaestus]

Nice to see that the numbers are reasonably consistent. However, JoeC used the #4 nozzle on the TDX and the #1 on RBX; I used #1 on both blocks. I see TDX equaling the RBX at 1.5GPM with the #4 (preliminary data though) and flow resistance on par with RBX. I will wager that the RBX does a little bit better on JoeC's die sim w/ perfect mounting than it does on my 8K3A motherboard-based setup (not so perfect)

[freeloadingbum]

Looking at a picture of Joe's die simulator, it seems to me that the RBX's point of impingment may be taking a better advantage of the temp sensor location. Perhaps if Joe was able to rotate the TDX 90%, his results may be different.

[Les]

Looking at a picture of Joe's die simulator, it seems to me that the RBX's point of impingment may be taking a better advantage of the temp sensor location. Perhaps if Joe was able to rotate the TDX 90%, his results may be different.


Oh.
Interesting assertion.
Can you expound.
I find it impossible to predict given the vagueness of the sensor location http://www.overclockers.com/tips263/index02.asp

Edit: Added link.

[freeloadingbum]

I'm assuming the sensor location is where the sensor wire is. I don't know how deep the sensor is located within the die which is why I'm only saying it "may" have an affect on the results. If the sensor is close to the outside of the die, then The RBX's impingment will still be over it while the TDX's may not. Even then I don't know how much, if any, effect it will have.

Basically, I'm trying to understand the reason why the TDX, even with the #4 nozzle, is being outperformed by the RBX. At the moment, this is the best one I could come up with.

[Les]

Without dimensions. it is impossible to theorise.
Maybe theory can be based on looks.
However I think there has to be a mathematical relationship between "the judger's assessment" and "performance" .

[pauldenton]

I'm assuming the sensor location is where the sensor wire is. I don't know how deep the sensor is located within the die which is why I'm only saying it "may" have an affect on the results. If the sensor is close to the outside of the die, then The RBX's impingment will still be over it while the TDX's may not. Even then I don't know how much, if any, effect it will have.

Basically, I'm trying to understand the reason why the TDX, even with the #4 nozzle, is being outperformed by the RBX. At the moment, this is the best one I could come up with.

well it is reasonable to expect that no single nozzle is best at all flow rates/pressures... joe's testing holds the flow at 1gpm by varying the pressure. it is not certain that #4 is better than #1 at that flow... which is on the low side for a system (pHaestus' tests should give us a pretty good idea when they are done)

[freeloadingbum]

Les, I think you're missing my point. While I can't know for sure if changing the block orientation will make a difference, you can't know for certain it won't. Until then, the possibility exists. As long as the possibility exists, it should be explored.

If Joe were to rotate the block 90% and the results were the same, then we could be certain that the impingment orientation has nothing to do with why the blocks perform differently from one another. This would bring us one step closer to the real answer through the process of elimination.

[Les]

Ah.
Exploratory research is.

[pHaestus]

#4 is better than #1 at 1.50GPM for sure (and by a fair margin)

[thegame]

ok, so in real life what block cools better?

[freeloadingbum]

My money is still on #5 (come on 5, come on number 5. Papa needs a new pair a shoes.)