Go Back   Pro/Forums > ProCooling Technical Discussions > General Liquid/Water Cooling Discussion
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar JavaChat Mark Forums Read

General Liquid/Water Cooling Discussion For discussion about Full Cooling System kits, or general cooling topics. Keep specific cooling items like pumps, radiators, etc... in their specific forums.

Reply
Thread Tools
Unread 11-18-2005, 12:12 PM   #26
bigben2k
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here.
 
bigben2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
Default

It would be nice to see under the block's top; that's where the real news is...
bigben2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 12:15 PM   #27
Roscal
Cooling Savant
 
Roscal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: North of France
Posts: 198
Default

Page with AMD CPU (X2 with IHS) results is provided in the release page now, Apogee appears a bit better in real conditions with their kit. Draw your own conclusions...
Roscal is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 12:15 PM   #28
jaydee
Put up or Shut Up
 
jaydee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Spokane WA
Posts: 6,506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigben2k
It would be nice to see under the block's top; that's where the real news is...
I bet nothing to spectacular. Even doubt any major jetting. Maybe a thinner inlet to increase velocity.
jaydee is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 12:34 PM   #29
BillA
CoolingWorks Tech Guy
Formerly "Unregistered"
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
Default

not nice for fanboyism I suppose, but if the data is ok (and there are no known instances of such not being the case, eh ?) - then all the moves make sense

need the Apex data - but with the DDC/MCP350
BillA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 12:57 PM   #30
RoboTech
Cooling Savant
 
RoboTech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigben2k
It would be nice to see under the block's top; that's where the real news is...
Just look under the hood of the MCW55...

http://www.swiftnets.com/products/mcw55.asp
RoboTech is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 01:05 PM   #31
BillA
CoolingWorks Tech Guy
Formerly "Unregistered"
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
Default

no, its the pins (the dP indiicates)
need a good pic of the pins
BillA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 01:15 PM   #32
RoboTech
Cooling Savant
 
RoboTech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unregistered
no, its the pins (the dP indiicates)
need a good pic of the pins
OK, (same comment) just think higher density (12 rows x 17 columns) in a 1.33" sq array...

Edit: I'll try to post some pics later tonight or tomorrow.

Last edited by RoboTech; 11-18-2005 at 02:25 PM.
RoboTech is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 02:24 PM   #33
BillA
CoolingWorks Tech Guy
Formerly "Unregistered"
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
Default

well come on, cough up the pic
BillA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 03:10 PM   #34
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unregistered
but if the data is ok (and there are no known instances of such not being the case, eh ?)
...not even the NexXxoS XP data on the same testbed? With the block assembled incorrectly, 2/3's of the flow occurring directly between the inlet and outlet between the top/middle plates, only 1/3rd of the flow making it into the jetted/pinned area, the base-plate flexing under even slight pressure, and having all that produce h(eff) results that would put Les's and my theory out by a factor of 10?
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 03:17 PM   #35
BillA
CoolingWorks Tech Guy
Formerly "Unregistered"
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
Default

product descriptions Cathar
published data in the public domain

you and I discussed this data, and its problems
this is not the place to bring up such, nor do I still have access to the data
BillA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 03:19 PM   #36
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoboTech
OK, (same comment) just think higher density (12 rows x 17 columns) in a 1.33" sq array...
.
Ta
Was modeling on 12x17 in 40 sq mm not 34sq mm - difference significant.
More dimensions appreciated
Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 03:46 PM   #37
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default

I can't help but feel some of Roscal's comments were directed my way. Even if they weren't, I feel that I should explain my motivations.

As always, I view my goals as that of obtaining the highest possible cooling performance from a waterblock design. That is pretty much all that concerns me, and pursuit of the Storm/G7 with a "hang the cost" approach is pretty much evidence of that.

Where I get concerned with all of this, is that I just want to see waterblock design pushed forwards, not backwards. The Apogee is a well thought out design with a lot of merits, of that there is no doubt. It suits Swiftech's marketing goals to a tee, and that's always a good thing for Swiftech.

I guess that my main concern is that one design is not being passed over or shelved on the merits of test data from an individual testbed in which the heat die temperature is not known, the variations in effects between heat-die and IHS TIM layer interaction is not known, and the size of the heat die is not known. To put in so much effort, and to have one's work effectively dismissed or sold short based on the results from a testbed where so little is known about what is actually happening at the CPU/heater-die level, just makes me feel no small amount of chagrin. If I felt that there were no doubts, then I would be a lot happier to suck it up, roll my sleeves up, and try harder.

I guess I could some it all up as feeling like the designer of Betamax in a VHS world.
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 03:46 PM   #38
nikhsub1
c00ling p00n
 
nikhsub1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 758
Default

I think these results are due to the TTV used for testing. Unknown is the size of the heat element or the temperature of the element. We have no idea the TIM relationship between the IHS and the element etc, etc. How can this be a useful tool? Isn't the TTV (from what I've read on it) used for HSF validation only to then be revalidated elsewhere, as in, don't rely only on the TTV as your only means. Again, using an AMD chip and measuring the IHS temp means nothing to me. We used to make FUN of people that performed this type of testing eh? Now we are supposed to take it as the word.
__________________

*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
E6700 @ 3.65Ghz / P5W DH Deluxe / 2GB 667 TeamGroup / 1900XTX
PC Power & Cooling Turbo 510 Deluxe
Mountain Mods U2-UFO Cube
Storm G5 --> MP-01 --> PA 120.3 --> 2x DDC Ultras in Series --> Custom Clear Res
"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity."
1,223,460+ Ghz Folding@Home
aNonForums
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
nikhsub1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 03:56 PM   #39
nikhsub1
c00ling p00n
 
nikhsub1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 758
Default

Furthermore, you guys remember this article? http://www.bleedinedge.com/reviews/a..._temps_01.html IMO there is little difference between the TTV results and the results obtained in this article, both fairly useless. Same concept at work here, no different. I do recall all of us making lots of fun at the above article. What gives?
__________________

*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
E6700 @ 3.65Ghz / P5W DH Deluxe / 2GB 667 TeamGroup / 1900XTX
PC Power & Cooling Turbo 510 Deluxe
Mountain Mods U2-UFO Cube
Storm G5 --> MP-01 --> PA 120.3 --> 2x DDC Ultras in Series --> Custom Clear Res
"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity."
1,223,460+ Ghz Folding@Home
aNonForums
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
nikhsub1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 04:26 PM   #40
BillA
CoolingWorks Tech Guy
Formerly "Unregistered"
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
Default

then it is agreed that there is not only one method ?
or just that 'that' method is 'wrong' ?
absolute or relative ?
if absolute then the limits must be defined, which they are - which these apps have nothing to do with
- so we are left with a heat source having certain characteristics
what is the big deal ?

ah yes Scott, "take it as the word", what a burden are facts in conflict with opinion
are the conditions not stated ? then that is the word to be listened to, and to use to 'adjust' the data as appropriate

that article is a bonehead comparison, pay attention to definitions (case temp is defined as the IHS temp measured a very specific way)

are the TCs reading the same temp ? same place ?
what is your point/question ?
what are you comparing it - or any heat source - to ?
or are you questioning sensor placement ?

data is no more than data; if reproducible it is good, if intelligible it may be useful
BillA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 04:32 PM   #41
Roscal
Cooling Savant
 
Roscal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: North of France
Posts: 198
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathar
I can't help but feel some of Roscal's comments were directed my way.
Not at all, it's for people who think that Storm can't be beaten because it comes from you. I see a lot of stupid comments on forums about that story Apogee Vs Storm, I am under the impression that we've got kids in a fight to know who got the best toy and Swiftech brake their dreams with its new model... "OMG, Apogee is 0.5°C better @100W, what a drama", it's the feeling that a lot of people give me, but they aren't be able to understand what tests give us and what they represent really on a real machine. There are so many factors involved in these measurements that you can't say what are exactly the absolute performances, it's always relative to others factors like the heated system in this particular case...

Actual processors have an IHS, we can't neglect it (should we?) and if someone think the contrary, he's wrong. You want correct data? You have to replicate a similar system to reproduce as close as possible the thermal behaviour of a real product, naked dies are good for some things, not for all of them. No difficulties to understand that fact I think ? I don't say that TTV is the St Graal, it's a different way to measure, but why TTV will be less interesting than a simple die? Show us some true evidence if you are so categorical (it's a general question, not yo you Cathar). You're arguing using some pretexts which can be determined and measured if a good cross study is made, but nobody makes it, is it my fault? Effects are common to all WB measured on a same system and this is why multiple mounting are required for example, we don't need to know how TIM will react exactly because it will react in a same manner each time (flat IHS, same pressure, multliple alternate mountings, etc.) and you could control it if you really want. All is relative !! Again, thermal management is not a simple science, not at all, especially int this case...
Roscal is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 04:32 PM   #42
nikhsub1
c00ling p00n
 
nikhsub1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 758
Default

Bill, the big pink elephant here is what is the DIE or heating element temp? No one knows. The surface of the IHS temp is useless IMO without knowing how the heat source is being cooled. You dont have this in die sim testing. That is the big deal.
__________________

*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
E6700 @ 3.65Ghz / P5W DH Deluxe / 2GB 667 TeamGroup / 1900XTX
PC Power & Cooling Turbo 510 Deluxe
Mountain Mods U2-UFO Cube
Storm G5 --> MP-01 --> PA 120.3 --> 2x DDC Ultras in Series --> Custom Clear Res
"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity."
1,223,460+ Ghz Folding@Home
aNonForums
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
nikhsub1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 04:38 PM   #43
nikhsub1
c00ling p00n
 
nikhsub1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roscal
Not at all, it's for people who think that Storm can't be beaten because it comes from you.
No wrong. I could give a rats ass if the apogee is a better block. The one and only issue I have here is the test method and the device being used (TTV). One must know die temp not IHS temp. Yes the IHS plays a factor on all current cpu's but so what? Is it impossible for the surface of the IHS to be shown cooler with one block yet the the actual heat element underneath hotter than the other block?
__________________

*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
E6700 @ 3.65Ghz / P5W DH Deluxe / 2GB 667 TeamGroup / 1900XTX
PC Power & Cooling Turbo 510 Deluxe
Mountain Mods U2-UFO Cube
Storm G5 --> MP-01 --> PA 120.3 --> 2x DDC Ultras in Series --> Custom Clear Res
"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity."
1,223,460+ Ghz Folding@Home
aNonForums
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
nikhsub1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 04:46 PM   #44
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathar
I guess that my main concern is that one design is not being passed over or shelved on the merits of test data from an individual testbed in which the heat die temperature is not known, the variations in effects between heat-die and IHS TIM layer interaction is not known, and the size of the heat die is not known. world.
There are two threads here and here which are attempting to meet these issues head on.
Perhaps we would benefit if you expressed your validity concerns there.
You are waffling
Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 04:47 PM   #45
BillA
CoolingWorks Tech Guy
Formerly "Unregistered"
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
Default

it doesn't really matter, cancels out with the same source - or a correlation is developed if the interest and data are sufficient

the Swiftech wb data sets utilize the same source,
both the 6000 and Storm have been tested by others,
and . . . .

I still do not understand the technical issue
as with all things, many ways to skin a cat
applies to product design as well as testing
BillA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 04:56 PM   #46
jaydee
Put up or Shut Up
 
jaydee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Spokane WA
Posts: 6,506
Default

I really dislike the idea of using a IHS CPU for testing. The IHS has a TIM layer that meets the die of the CPU no? How many times can you mount a block to it until that TIM layer starts to degrade? How many times do you use the same TIM joint from the heat sink/water block to the CPU? I only use it once. Hell sometimes not at all if I feel I screwed up the mount. How many times does AMD or Intel think their CPU will be remounted? I doubt they figure multiple remounts into their engineering of the IHS and TIM layer seeing how 99.9% of CPU's only get mounted once in their life time.

Also the IHS helps spread the heat more evenly eh? So how is that different than a die sim which the heat is spread pretty evenly? Only difference is TIM layer and the thickness of the IHS itself. I don't see why that would change things so dramatically.

I hope to mill a new die sim or 2 during Thanksgiving if I have time. Should I mill a IHS to mount on top of the die aswell?
jaydee is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 05:01 PM   #47
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unregistered
it doesn't really matter, cancels out with the same source - or a correlation is developed if the interest and data are sufficient
Well, not really. If the heat-die to IHS TIM interaction is varying with respect to block geometry, which I strongly believe was shown with the XP results, then it does matter.

If the IHS is not being pushed against the heat-due strongly, or there are variations, then the thermal probe will read differently when the IHS is making poor contact with the heat-die. If such is not quantified, or that variable not removed, then what is being measured?

In order to remove this variable, the simulated die and the IHS need to be a single-piece affair, and in doing so the issue is solved. When can then use TIM layer extrapolations/experiments/calculations to apply a project temperature delta when a die->IHS TIM layer is present. Doing so does not take into account the full variability of this thermal interface, but attempt to derive a "clear picture" of waterblock performance when such a variable is in effect seems flawed. No?
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 05:02 PM   #48
BillA
CoolingWorks Tech Guy
Formerly "Unregistered"
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
Default

no Scott, you do not want the die temp to characterize the device thermal resistance
what you want is the 'sink-to-air' dT (or wb bp-to-coolant)
no matter what, you will have a TIM joint; Intel grooves the IHS and includes the joint, AMD grooves the sink excluding it - net effect is the same after calculation
both methods are imperfect, but understood

the die temp is a fiction
BillA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 05:07 PM   #49
Roscal
Cooling Savant
 
Roscal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: North of France
Posts: 198
Default

nikhsub1> TTV TC is just above the core center, thermal gradient is only one way because power comes from die (hottest part), if IHS center is cooler then core is cooler and vice versa, the opposite isn't possible, it's not physical. If really you are motivated, nobody prevents you to control multiple points (die T° in addition to IHS center for example) if you really want to see how linear or how non linear relations are, choose a method and have more data. Die temp isn't the only interesting point.

jaydee> IHS is bigger than a die, it's not the same thing to put ~1.4mm more height (IHS thickness) on a 10x10mm die, than put a 30x30mm IHS on a 10x10mm die. And it's not the same to make a 30x30mm die (Joe on o/c.com makes one, no? It's meaningless), it's absolutly not equal to a die covered by a 30x30 IHS part !

For the TIM between die and IHS, you can solder it if you want or use epoxy, no matter and it don't change for tests. Intel uses epoxy to this place, it's not liquid thermal paste (pump-out effect is always possible)

Last edited by Roscal; 11-18-2005 at 05:12 PM.
Roscal is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 05:15 PM   #50
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default

Epoxy will still be subject to pressure based variations. Solder less so.
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(C) 2005 ProCooling.com
If we in some way offend you, insult you or your people, screw your mom, beat up your dad, or poop on your porch... we're sorry... we were probably really drunk...
Oh and dont steal our content bitches! Don't give us a reason to pee in your open car window this summer...