mcw6000 review

[pHaestus]

first one I've seen...

http://www.bytesector.com/data/bs-article.asp?ID=273

[BillA]

I really don't want to, but am compelled by the manisfest errors
this is the text sent to the reviewer:

You chose to test the MCW6000 with a Thermaltake Aquarius 3 watercooling kit, for which Thermaltake is no longer providing the pump specs. The pump rating on the (slightly smaller ?, unconfirmed) Aquarius II is 90 L/hr; note that this, like all pump ratings, is under 'free flow' conditions. The actual system flow rate will be 1/2 to 1/3 of the free flow rating. Optimistically, this translates to ~0.2 gpm. This value is 33% lower than the lowest flow rate we measure, 0.3 gpm.

My perspective on your test results is that the MCW6000 performed extraordinarily well, at an absurdly low flow rate. If you look at the MCW6000 performance curves on the website you could see that the performance improves markedly as the flow rate goes to 1 gpm and above.

As a reviewer I would expect you to understand such things, and to discuss them in your review.

You stated: "The one limitation could be my water cooling system that could be creating the illusion of lessened performance, but then again, no system will provide anywhere close to even 90% efficiency." This is a confused sentence, lets take it in two parts: "The one limitation could be my water cooling system that could be creating the illusion of lessened performance, . . . ". So where is the illusion ? The flow rate is a characteristic of your system, and it is so low that a wb designed for higher flow systems (quite the norm in the US) does less well than anticipated.

The second part is worse: "but then again, no system will provide anywhere close to even 90% efficiency". What does this mean, or even imply ? 90% of what ? Are you attempting to suggest that your (Thermaltake) system is the same as all other systems ? Trust me here Chris, it is not a high performance system. OK, what is the efficiency of your system ? And by substituting the MCW6000 the efficiency changed from what to what ? What is the efficiency of some other watercooling systems (for comparison) ?

Just for reference, my take on your review would be that:
The MCW6000 can provide a modest improvement to a Thermaltake Aquarius 3 system; to utilize the capability of the MCW6000 a larger pump and radiator are required than the Thermaltake kits provide.

The above comments are technical, but if you write a technical review of a Swiftech product you are expected to have a grasp of the fundamentals.

This is an incorrect statement: "My one concern for such a quality waterblock is that it isn’t currently compatible with the new lGA775 socket from Intel." Had you chosen to inquire of Swiftech, you would have found that this wb is good-to-go for a whole range of yet-to-be-released processors, in addition to being compatible with all present Intel and AMD mounting systems - excluding the 4 mobo holes with the socket 462..
Again incorrect: "All in all, the MCW6000 is a well designed waterblock, but it isn’t designed to work with future socket designs." Not true.
This kind of error damages directly our marketing activities.

If you have questions regarding the above, please contact me and we can discuss. It is hoped that the gravity of the misrepresentation (regarding future socket compatibility) might warrant some corrections in your review.

Regards, Bill Adams

[pHaestus]

Somehow I thought you might have an opinion Bill. Still no block here in sunny SK

[nicozeg]

Ouch! an aquarius III based test setup!

But I think the most traumatic part of the review was seing the author's face in it

[Wildfrogman]

Hmm, goes to show you the first quicky reviews usually are never all that good. No talk about mounting more than even once. Who knows, it just looks like he swapped out his thermaltake block and stuck in the swiftech block on and tested for 10~minutes with toast or some sisoft. Maybe it was a review masked to make the thermaltake block look better...who knows, some thermaltake fanatics go to great lengths

[BillA]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

Somehow I thought you might have an opinion Bill. Still no block here in sunny SK

you'd have had one weeks ago if you had an Intel mounting system
-> do you have a P4 or Zeon or Nocona or Tejas mounting setup ?
AMD hold-down plates using the lugs due tomorrow (wb still too big to fit the AMD mobo holes)

[pHaestus]

I'm a typical overclocker (read cheapass) and have used only AMD since the beginning of SocketA. The exception is my notebook PCs; I pay for them with research money and only use Thinkpad T series (currently T41P). If I could get my die simulator finished I could run any mounting configuration; just need to find someone to mill the socket lugs off this big hunk so I can properly insulate it. Oh yea and buy some current/voltage meters...

[BillA]

ok cheapass, what's your budget for the meters ?

you know, a band/hacksaw will deal with protrusions . . . .

what happened with the fan grilles ?
considered donations ? (presumably NOT from mfgrs ?)
- note that I do not have an 'issue' with your receiving donations from mfgrs, so long as such is apparent (an Equip List indicating donors where appropriate), but others may

may I initiate a PROCOOLING TEST EQUIPMENT DONATION FUND ?
you could then apply those restrictions you see fit ?
where to site the thread ?

EDIT: BTW, the author of the review has made several changes reflecting some of my criticisms

[BalefireX]

Well, it appears that the review has been changed to remove the concerns in the article re: future mounting issues, but the score has not been changed - I don't think that a 65% compatability rating is particularly realistic for a block which supports Sockets 462, 478, 603, 754, 775, 939, and 940. In fact, I'd give that a 100% compatability, which would change the overall score from 74.6% to 81.6% - considering they gave the Thermaltake system an 80%, I don't think thats much to ask.

Reading that review makes it ever so clear why real scientific testing and product research should be required for waterblock testing - I'm actually wondering why Swiftech sent those guys a block to review after reading some of the site's other stuff. Long story short, I'd throw in some cash for a better procooling testbed -- worth it to have a review that isnt a "bs-article" (taken conveniently from the URL of the review)

[pHaestus]

The fan grilles haven't sold very well; I need to send some out for review I guess

The general consensus among people I spoke with was that mfgr donations was the kiss of death for the site. I still don't know how that is reconciled with all the websites where mfgrs pay for ad banners, but the small sample of people I spoke with freaked out about it.

[BillA]

Holy Crap !
I had not seen those 'rating' #s
perhaps the reviewer's problem is that different hold-down plates are needed ?
(though such was not stated)

yes, a change is in order; Gabe has been sending to those who ask - no more
I will 'vet' reviewers from now on

ok pHaestus, lets go for non-commercial donations (even keep a public list ?)
may I start a thread ?
where ?

am I permitted to donate as an individual ?

[pHaestus]

thread started here

[AngryAlpaca]

Wow, that was a terrible review. So, apparently, using a poorly setup system, with only one mounting, an 80mm radiator, and a 90LPM pump, the block is only slightly better than the Thermaltake. I can see how that relates to the standard heater core and the 300GPM pump. (Is 300GPM still standard, or has the Swiftech overtaken that? I'd think that the Mag 3 has become more popular, though...)