Water Block Roundup Part 1 - Discussion

[Joe]

http://www.procooling.com/reviews/ht...t1-1_2_0.shtml
This is where to be if you want to talk about the Waterblock Roundup Part 1!

Questions?

Comments? Let it be heard!

[Brad]

how can we chat about it when we can't view it?

[Joe]

You can you just arent looking hard enough

Let's just say the posting of this thread was well timed with the posting of the review

[webmedic]

What about testing some of custom coolings blocks in the next one? He's working on them right now and should have one for testing soon. Like maybe a week at the most.

[Joe]

Yep Just got a PM from Custom Cooling They will be in teh socket A roundup.

[Rampage101]

will you be comparing the two Australian waterblocks - The Cyclone and Cyclone2 in the SocketA roundup?

[Joe]

Yes I will be, I have them here already

[Brad]

rampage, I think he is testing one of them, not sure about both

*edit* Joe beat me to it

[jaani]

Long time reader, first time poster :P

Anyone know if Joe is testing the Spir@l blocks that fixxit from Hardocp is CNCing? ( http://www.dtekcustoms.com/ )

I ordered one a while ago, sure hope it's worth the wait

[morphling1]

First I must say incredible work with review Joe. And now wanna know if you will test my water block , I will send it to you ,but I'll need address where to send it. Here's my email . But there is one bad thing, I'm currently serving in the army, and I'll be out for next three weeks, so you can get this wb in 4-5 weeks if you're still interested.

[morphling1]

Oh yeah, one thing about the review, ambient temp. were room temp. right? I would also like to see, water temps.

[newbie]

I've recast Joe's data by taking into account the difference between the core temperature and the ambient temperature.
I've also ignored the early temperature readings on the static test and only use the last three temperature readings at 20, 25, and 30 minutes. I did that because I don't think the early readings mean much as the system tries to reach equilibrium.

The data below are the average temperature deltas for the 6 waterblocks.


WaterBlock.........Average Delta
Danger den..............18
z3......................18
leufken.................19
cool comp...............19
Becool..................20
ocwc vtuned.............21
fx reactor..............27
ocwc silver.............31



As you can see from the table, there's a slight difference between the four top blocks. Joe's graphs show that the data are +/- one degree. The graphs show several cases where a block lucked out as to when the temperature was taken...had the temp been read 30 seconds later, it would have been a degree hotter.

Becool's offering doesn't fare so well in this analysis because I tossed the ten minute readings. Again, I didn't think the early readings mean much - what matters to me is how hot will the core be 2 hours into doing my work.

Kudos to joe for getting the review finished - I was surprised to see such a spread in scores! I wonder how ocwc's nanoblock would have fared.

[surlyjoe]

Great work joe! get ready for some serious linkage

[Brians256]

Did you discuss some of those horrible results with the block manufacturers? For instance, what did CpuFX have to say about their horrible (weight, performance, and mounting) block?

[pHaestus]

I was looking over the results, and it seems to me that we could possibly learn a lot about bottlenecks in WB design from them. For example, the Becooling block and the OCH Z3 seem to have the same exact channel design but differences in performance. I assume that the Jagged Edge has a higher surface area (since it is jagged and all) but it looks to have channels that are less wide than the Z3. Why does the Z3 outperform it?

It is convenient to point to differences in flow rate, but at the highest flow rate from the dynamic flow tests the Z3 is 0.5C lower than the BeCooling, and at the lowest flow rate it is 0.6 cooler. So I guess that we can exclude that possibility.

I guess it could be due to either the thickness of the baseplate (CPU to water) or else it could be that wider channels (more water in contact with the copper base) is more important than the total internal volume. In any case, internal surface area isn't dictating performance.

So what do you guys think?

[redleader]

Nice work Joe!

[Joe]

The averages that were used were not calculated off the 5 min temp readings. They were calculated off the once/6sec readings that I had. You are taking the temp's from the every 5min temps I put up as gospel when I know they are not.

I cant display the 6sec temps cause hacing 1000 temps listed on one grah would make it a lil confusing. So I showed 5Min temps to give you some idea of the temp activity.

ALL the averages were computed off the entire test set, not just the selective temps I listed every 5 min.

Originally posted by newbie
I've recast Joe's data by taking into account the difference between the core temperature and the ambient temperature.
I've also ignored the early temperature readings on the static test and only use the last three temperature readings at 20, 25, and 30 minutes. I did that because I don't think the early readings mean much as the system tries to reach equilibrium.

The data below are the average temperature deltas for the 6 waterblocks.


WaterBlock.........Average Delta
Danger den..............18
z3......................18
leufken.................19
cool comp...............19
Becool..................20
ocwc vtuned.............21
fx reactor..............27
ocwc silver.............31



As you can see from the table, there's a slight difference between the four top blocks. Joe's graphs show that the data are +/- one degree. The graphs show several cases where a block lucked out as to when the temperature was taken...had the temp been read 30 seconds later, it would have been a degree hotter.

Becool's offering doesn't fare so well in this analysis because I tossed the ten minute readings. Again, I didn't think the early readings mean much - what matters to me is how hot will the core be 2 hours into doing my work.

Kudos to joe for getting the review finished - I was surprised to see such a spread in scores! I wonder how ocwc's nanoblock would have fared.

[Joe]

Originally posted by Brians256
Did you discuss some of those horrible results with the block manufacturers? For instance, what did CpuFX have to say about their horrible (weight, performance, and mounting) block?

To keep as Neutral in it, I simply asked some questions about the blocks that were used. I asked if the Reactor was supposed to clip like it does, etc... Also asked OCWC about the mounting of their blocks.

They way I see it, is OCWC's prototype block can be improved on from seeing the data that was gathered.

The reactor was just a exercise in bad design.

[Joe]

Originally posted by morphling1
Oh yeah, one thing about the review, ambient temp. were room temp. right? I would also like to see, water temps.

Water temps are shown. and yes ambient was room temp. Amazing how I was able to keep the room temp within 1 DegC in a 4 month span between tests

[Joe]

The Z3 has a good deal of size and weight over the Jagged Edge, maybe mass plays a roll? I think the base in the Z3 is also thicker than the Jagged edge.

Originally posted by pHaestus
I was looking over the results, and it seems to me that we could possibly learn a lot about bottlenecks in WB design from them. For example, the Becooling block and the OCH Z3 seem to have the same exact channel design but differences in performance. I assume that the Jagged Edge has a higher surface area (since it is jagged and all) but it looks to have channels that are less wide than the Z3. Why does the Z3 outperform it?

It is convenient to point to differences in flow rate, but at the highest flow rate from the dynamic flow tests the Z3 is 0.5C lower than the BeCooling, and at the lowest flow rate it is 0.6 cooler. So I guess that we can exclude that possibility.

I guess it could be due to either the thickness of the baseplate (CPU to water) or else it could be that wider channels (more water in contact with the copper base) is more important than the total internal volume. In any case, internal surface area isn't dictating performance.

So what do you guys think?

[Sled_Dog]

is it just me or was the Z3 actually a non-production model? isn't that essentially cheating??? the only Z3s I ever saw were aluminum cause they were all anodized. This one is pure copper. That is well messed up and misrepresenting the product.

[Joe]

you've been hitting that crack pipe again havent ya?

No the Z3 is real, its copper, and its exactly like its shown.

[Sled_Dog]

that is not what I mean though I have been hitting the pipe. What can I say a habit. I mean that they sent you a block that they cancelled production on in a form they never used. Makes them look better than they are. THey only sold that block in ALuminum to my knowledge. But they sent you a copper one. So now isn't that sort of cheating?

[Joe]

Sled, I dont know what your deal is, this is a NORMAL Z3, they STILL sell them, The still make them, its the same as all the others I have seen.

[Sled_Dog]

I see that now. That damn steve got in my brain with his gay blue system I forgot they made copper ones.