|
|
Cooling News From Around The Web You can post links, or comments about cooling related articles and reviews from around the web. |
Thread Tools |
09-18-2005, 07:37 PM | #1 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 631
|
White Water review at oc
http://www.overclockers.com/articles1262/
Based upon other reviews, I'm not sure what to think of Joe's tests anymore. |
09-18-2005, 08:44 PM | #2 |
Put up or Shut Up
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Spokane WA
Posts: 6,506
|
I got the White Water ahead of the TDX in all my tests.
|
09-18-2005, 09:16 PM | #3 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dunedin NZ
Posts: 735
|
The polar flow 'i designed this using a spirograph' block is better, apparently.
Joes testing has clearly become 'interesting'. Is this on the 1" square die? if so, its hardly surprising. He needs to be shot for cross-corrolation of data across two entirely seperate die sizes...
__________________
Hypocritical Signature I tried to delete: Procooling: where scientific principles are ignored because big corporations are immune to mistakes and oversights. |
09-18-2005, 09:58 PM | #4 | |
Thermophile
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
|
Quote:
That would explain a lot. The WW's cooling patch is ~17mm x 30mm in size, as is suitable for real CPU dies, whether they be IHS capped or not. If the data is an extrapolation from a 1" square die then that would explain the less than stellar performance. |
|
09-18-2005, 10:46 PM | #5 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: FL
Posts: 164
|
Is this die size thing pissing anyone else off yet?
|
09-18-2005, 11:26 PM | #6 |
Big PlayerMaking Big Money
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com
Posts: 4,782
|
Those results show the MCW5002 as being superior to the whitewater design too. That doesn't correspond to any testing I've done ever. That suggests that either the die size issue is a large one, or that there's something about the Cooltechnica WW that makes it perform differently from the DTek or Little River ones.
__________________
Getting paid like a biker with the best crank... -MF DOOM |
09-18-2005, 11:44 PM | #7 |
Put up or Shut Up
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Spokane WA
Posts: 6,506
|
I got the exact same WWLE he tested and my numbers always show the WWLE ahead of the TDX. In fact my numbers scale pretty close to yours. I think the main difference is the jet is slightly smaller than the original LRWW and DTek WW. But that would only improve performance.
|
09-18-2005, 11:50 PM | #8 |
Cooling Neophyte
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 32
|
I think overclockers.coms testing has went massively downhill, the tests seem to be getting more and more breif and inacurate.
If you read that, then read the Swiftech storm review, they could be copied and pasted from the same notepad txt file, and then just have the odd detail edited a bit.
__________________
"Okay, okay! I take it back. Unf*ck you!!!" Last edited by Bundles; 09-19-2005 at 12:20 AM. |
09-19-2005, 04:50 AM | #9 |
Cooling Neophyte
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 94
|
I think that Joe doesn't give its best these days in tests.
With all respect to Joe.
__________________
EK Water Blocks |
09-19-2005, 04:59 AM | #10 | |
Pro/Vendor
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 267
|
Quote:
and you also have the same White Water Limited Edition with a copper top as well, so you can test it and enlighten us hopefully soon P.S.: WoW is bad
__________________
www.cooltechnica.com |
|
09-19-2005, 05:06 AM | #11 | |
Pro/Vendor
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 267
|
Quote:
__________________
www.cooltechnica.com |
|
09-19-2005, 05:14 AM | #12 | |
Thermophile
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
|
Quote:
As in, is it possible that all blocks tested more than 5 weeks ago were all done in the original small die testbed, and all newer tests in the last 5 weeks (including the Storm) are now being done on the newer 1" sq. die and extrapolated? That is what is being proposed. I truly don't know, but I do know that the WW would not fare too well on a 1" square solid heat die, but only because a 1" sq. die is not how CPU's distrubute heat, not even IHS capped CPU's. |
|
09-19-2005, 05:36 AM | #13 | |
Pro/Vendor
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 267
|
Quote:
IF true, that's the craziest thing that I ever heard... that's apples to bananas comparison... how could that be possible?
__________________
www.cooltechnica.com |
|
09-21-2005, 03:19 AM | #14 |
Pro/Vendor
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 267
|
JoeC said he tested the WW-LE on the small die...
__________________
www.cooltechnica.com |
09-21-2005, 12:41 PM | #15 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
|
The more test data I see, the more I ignore, and the more I rely on my simulations.
Attached predictions for all WWs Notes: "(C/W)in" is *T(wb face) - T(water inlet))/(Watts absorbed by water)". Excludes TIM and sensor offset. Includes allowance for water temp rise in wb. JoeC's die was considered to be 140sq mm (link) prior to Aug 2005(link) Edit Updated graph. ref Last edited by Les; 10-08-2005 at 03:58 PM. |
09-26-2005, 02:50 PM | #16 |
Cooling Neophyte
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 94
|
There is another rewiew of that block at OC.
I can't believe that such a small difference could make so big difference in preformings. :shrug: Could dacooltech tell us what was the differences between those bloch to achieve that big difference... :shrug:
__________________
EK Water Blocks |
09-26-2005, 05:12 PM | #17 | |
Thermophile
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
|
Quote:
The WW overall is a very balanced design. Bruce/Cooltechnica acquired the machining duties for it from DTek, but it's also why every other WW Clone uses close to the exact same fin/channel dimensions that I originally established over 3 years ago. It's simply what works best. There are things that I'd change slightly, after 4 years experience with designing blocks, but I won't disclose them here. The results shown now have me ever more convinced that something was definitely wrong with the Storm as tested. The pressure drop was close to double what it should be, and the results at 1gpm were not as good as it should be in comparison to the old WW Classic design. Last edited by Cathar; 09-26-2005 at 05:18 PM. |
|
09-26-2005, 06:56 PM | #19 |
Thermophile
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
|
Les, there are effects due to the jet impingement that play out sub-optimally with the jet height of 4mm and using 0.8mm channels. Also the wall width vs wall height is a little low. These are all things that I noticed in the development of the design originally.
Overall I would not have thought it would make more than a 0.01C/W difference though, hence my statement that something else is also probably going wrong. |
09-26-2005, 08:37 PM | #20 |
Put up or Shut Up
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Spokane WA
Posts: 6,506
|
Which version of the block do I have Bruce?
Maybe this is why I got the WWLE Closer to the TDX than pH. I still have it better than the TDX in my latest results with the new Silver TIM though. |
09-26-2005, 10:42 PM | #21 |
Put up or Shut Up
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Spokane WA
Posts: 6,506
|
I see what the problem is. I don't think Bruce changed the design. The problem is in the machining and I see why. They are using slit saws to make the channels instead of end mills. I took mine apart and it clearly shows the slit saw marks. My trusty micrometer tells me the fins width on mine is .82mm, .88mm, .88mm, .84mm, .82mm, .84mm and .88mm. Channel width varies from .9mm to 1mm....
If I were Bruce I would be chopping machinists heads off. |
09-27-2005, 01:20 AM | #22 |
Cooling Neophyte
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 94
|
About difference. I see only smallest difference in chanel width. And the 2nd block is durtier Jaydee: I don't think that manufacturing with slit saw could made such difference. Anyway I can't see how to make such channels otrherwise than with slit saw. Making that block with end mill would take about 30 minutes just to make those channels. Perhaps the copper material is difference, and the worst is made out of les condustive copper :shrug:
__________________
EK Water Blocks Last edited by Eddy_EK; 09-27-2005 at 01:28 AM. |
09-27-2005, 09:13 AM | #23 |
Big PlayerMaking Big Money
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com
Posts: 4,782
|
The DTek wws were made with slit saws too. The big difference you'll see with using an end mill will be a decreased pressure drop not a change in the C/W for a particular fixed flow rate. At least that's what I saw when I tested a WW variant made with an endmill instead of slit saw
__________________
Getting paid like a biker with the best crank... -MF DOOM |
09-27-2005, 07:41 PM | #24 |
Put up or Shut Up
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Spokane WA
Posts: 6,506
|
The tooling should not change anything if done right. Providing the tooling has the same width on the cut.
Main problem with slit saws is any little vibration or imbalance will make the channels wider than the width of the blade. Thay can become out of balance a lot easier than end mills especially if ran hot. Probably not the case here though. That much of a change was probably some other issue. Still shouldn't change the results that much though. I don't see it taking 30 minutes to mill a white water with a end mill. The channels are not that deep. 2 passes at 1IPM would only be about 20 minutes. A good mill should be able to run at least 5IPM conservatively with a 1mm end mill in Copper. It would be about 16" total (just the channels) with 2 passes. 32" with 4 passes. Should be under 10 minutes on a good mill. Slit saw would probably cut that in half as you should be able to make the entire channel in one pass. Anyway Bruce or Cathar can correct me if I am way off as they both done it each way. |
09-27-2005, 08:06 PM | #25 |
Thermophile
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
|
You do a depth pass of 2.0mm with a 1.0mm end-mill in copper? Sounds pretty ambitious to me. Not saying that it can't be done, but typically faster to do 0.5mm depth cuts per pass and feed at a higher rate, or at least that's what my machinists told me. Had problems enough with the end-mills snapping as it was with 0.5mm depth passes. One end-mill bit lasted about 15-20 blocks.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|