Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling

[GlassMan]

I inspected the “thin” areas as you mentioned, and they completely meet our specs.

What spec? Did you spec putting the thinnest material and the smallest radius exactly where the top will receive its highest torque loading? Or did someone design a pretty top, and some flow designer come along later and cut out the back side of the radius, with absolutely no thought of the structure.

Pressure tests at 40 PSI resulted in no problems on 100’s of blocks (the pressure we test at). We also did some destructive testing this morning on 20 of these housings, using a heavy hammer and hitting the top of the housing (inlet & outlet), which places a direct stress on the alleged “weak” spots, and NONE failed. The entire housing will eventually disintegrate when hit hard enough, but we found absolutely no signs of stress related failures.

Neither of the above is realistic, or puts a direct stress on the weak spot. Nothing alledged, they are the weakest spots, casting errors and machining errors will determine which is actually the weakest. Rocking 7/16 tubing back and forth to get it over the 1/2+ fitting will put a lot a lot of torque side to side, (the design makes back and forth unlikely) from weak spot to weak spot. It takes a lot of force to get the 7/16 tubing on.
Will one break the first time, unlikely, but how many mountings did you "spec" it for? Would you reveal the the "spec" for the thickness of material at that point? The "tolerance"? What was the load (ft-lbs) "specified", how many repetitions?
No, I didn't think so. If anyone thought about it it would have an 1/8" minimum radius, because it would have cost nothing to do it right.

[Les]

Originally Posted by BillA

....... I believe it is now correct to say that the more vocal on procooling (at least) wish optimum testing done with a bare die sim., I can accept such w/o question, that is the popular opinion....

I wish for testing to continue.
The choice of technique is the tester's
Incoherent's approach("a small heat die in some form") is more interesting to me(unable to define my optimum).
This I hope will enhance my understanding of the influence and interrelation between "sensor position & size","heat source position & size","die size","heatsink effective area & h(eff)", and TIM.
Whereas to quote Incoherent "you haven't a hope in hell of knowing the conditions in an IHS capped CPU".
Further down the line when I have a better grasp of "influence and interrelation" then "IHS capped CPU" data will be of much more interest.If then, this data is already in the bank so much the better

[bigben2k]

First let me thank Incoherent for an excellent post (#67). I too refuse to believe that using a heat die / simulator is not possible. To add to your comment, I often confuse the power level question, because I don't have a firm grasp on the effect (since I haven't started my testing yet), but last I checked, it had no effect, which leaves (me with) a lot of doubts/questions on the results.

Festivus (for the rest of us):
Using a CPU leaves us with an unknown Q (wattage), which is also why I choose to stay away from it. We've been over this in the past, countless times. While pHaestus uses it, and can get it to heat up to approximately the same level, it makes for a reproducible heat source, which is good for comparative testing, not analytical testing (i.e. measuring the actual performance).

[ricecrispi]

Bill mention standards in testing. How can we standardize something like a TIM that is variable and outside parameters of control? Why should testers have to account for it in testing then? Yeah TIMs exist and they affect performance but we are testing WBs and not TIMs. TIMs vary too much and influences results. We want accurate results of WB performance in ideal situations, not one where the TIM is much of a factor in performance as the WB. We can vary the die size and I think that good enough. You guys can add the TIM caps to the dies but using realife CPU for testing is purpose is flawed. CPUs vary and so do TIMs so they are fine for comparative results but not pure performance.

I understand Bill's position. The TTV is a more realistic test setup than a die sim so it's would seem to get results more reflective of real life results. That doesn't make it more accurate or reliable which is Cathar's standpoint I believe.

Swiftech obvious knew about TIM variablity and tried to address it with the flex base idea. Why else would they put that statement down. It could be BS, which GABE seems to be marketing, or maybe they accurately addressed the situation with TIM variablilty but the results dont show in a die sim. It still doesn't mean the block performed better than the Storm because it address a TIM issue better.

It's like racing on a track with potholes or a bad surface. Just because a car can handle the potholes better doesn't mean it's a faster car. It's just a a car that run well with tracks with potholes.

[Cathar]

[Deleted - Not worth it]

[stev]

I had mentioned this at the SystemCooling thread ...

"[Lee] As you had pointed out the plastic cover fittings having thinned walled sections, the injection molding die is steel safe, so updating the wall with a large radius would be ideal and at a minimal cost to do."

I would hope that the thin walled area would be beefed up with a radius.

Sure, pressing on/off tubing and hitting it with an impact testing hammer would show the part is strong without the added radius. HOWEVER, since all tubing is not the same, nor the same ID size, the press on efforts would vary.

The tubing, being secured onto the not radius fittings, when clamped down can route at various angles. Stresses over time would weaken this thinned wall area. Why do I mention this? Some types of tubing will soften with tempatures rising in the cooling loop and then reset when cooled.

Another issue with the thinned out fitting without radius, the coolant over delta-T (time) and delta-P (pressure) would permeate into the plastic and weaken this thin section as well. As overclockers, there are various coolants to be had on the market. Even the DIY coolants from the kitchen and garage.

A thinned wall section would be a high risk if the product is released that way.

Not too long ago, the ThermalTake BigWater pump/reservoir combo ran into a problem with bad fittings. People assembled the kit and it ran fine for a time. Then, without notice, the fitting let loose from the joint of the housing. Don't worry, the BigWater has an improved pump with blue LED now.

Stev

[Albigger]

stev: seems from the reply Lee got from Gabe that the top is sufficient for whatever Swiftech's in-house standards are (if any), and he didn't seem like they would be making any attempt to correct this issue.

regarding testing: ricecrispi has it spot on - we are testing WATERBLOCK PERFORMANCE, and as such the testing setup/system should eliminate as many variables as possible. If anything as an end user I think this information would be VERY valuable - for instance I buy a block based on die-sim results expecting better performance than my current block, and I DON'T see the results. What does this suggest? That (if I've mounted the block several times) my IHS TIM joint is not a good one, and I then have some options if I want to see better temps/overclock - namely remove the IHS or replace the cpu.

[Annirak]

Albigger: That is precisely the point of this thread. I imagine I'll get flamed for thinking up something so outlandish, but it eliminates all TIM joints as variables.

[Albigger]

Originally Posted by Annirak

Albigger: That is precisely the point of this thread. I imagine I'll get flamed for thinking up something so outlandish, but it eliminates all TIM joints as variables.

I know, I'm very much watching/participating in that discussion. Agree with Joe-way to think outside the box. As one who has not done my own testing, anxiously await others' inputs about your suggested method's shortcomings, but if it proves to be theoretically viable, would then be nice to spec out an (affordable?) setup.

--Jay

[Orkan]

OMG...

I just unpacked my Storm. Comparing these two blocks side by side is like comparing a diesel Rabbit... to a Z06 corvette.

If the apogee is the future... I always did like history. The storm is going in my loop.

[Joe]

as gone_fishing said, your 15 minutes is over...

we all understand your deal.

[Orkan]

Joe... go find someone else to play your bitch... I'm growing tired of it.

How many other people on this forum have an apogee, and a storm in their hands? Not sure, but I do. Just got the storm this morning... and wanted to share with others how they "felt" side by side.

Don't like it? fine, delete the post. If I wanted "fame" I'd sell pyramid scams.
.... besides... I'm just trying to thread-hijack here. See... I'm learning something from you.

[Joe]

Weren't you the one who said he wasn't coming back? what happened to that?

what more are you going to offer the readers here? actual data? or real info? Or just more hype and drama? Because honestly I think we have enough hype and drama about he Apogee already in the other 500 posts in the other apogee thread. I think most people here are beyond that and are concerned with real performance data now.

Lots of people have storms here, real G5 storms, and G4's etc... There have been reviews all over the web about he qualities of the storm. Why is that applicable to an Apogee thread? Besides for stirring up more shit and bombing another thread with Hype over substance?

[Orkan]

So you can stir up shit but I cant? ... double standards are no fun. ... they may even poke out an eye!
I tried to make a "fact only" thread about the apogee... but you wouldn't have that either. Make up your mind.


For those of you that give a rip about real data on storm vs. apogee ... here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=82566

[Joe]

Its funny that in that thread you say you hated people throwing it under a bus without testing it.... Aren't you the one who had been doing all the Apogee sucks attacks? And flaming swiftech?

Maybe you should read up on Double Standards since you may not know the definition.

Maybe I missed something but didnt Robotech already post "real data" about the apogee? Also which Storm you use? Since there are like 3 or 4 versions and different mfg's. (Swiftech or LR, G4 or G5?)

[Orkan]

I flamed because of metal shavings... and poor build quality. ... not because of "guessing" performance.

I flamed because of poor initial response from swiftech on my complaint. Aren't you paying attention? My gripes have been valid and verified by others. I DID test it... and everything I posted was to that end. Before I tested it... I merely defended it as an un-tested unit... that was being flamed without proof.

That time has passed. Now it has been tested and will continue to be. A lot of people are questioning how "real" that test is... as it seems to leave the question of what is the better block... just as open ended as it used to be.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Orkan

I flamed because of metal shavings... and poor build quality. ... not because of "guessing" performance.

I flamed because of poor initial response from swiftech on my complaint. Aren't you paying attention? My gripes have been valid and verified by others. I DID test it... and everything I posted was to that end. Before I tested it... I merely defended it as an un-tested unit... that was being flamed without proof.

That time has passed. Now it has been tested and will continue to be. A lot of people are questioning how "real" that test is... as it seems to leave the question of what is the better block... just as open ended as it used to be.

Which Storm block did you test against?

[RoboTech]

I completed two quick tests with an older Maze3 waterblock on the A64 3700+ at stock speed and voltage using the same water-cooling loop as before.



Personally, I find these results rather disturbing. I would have guessed these four waterblocks would have shown a measurable difference when tested on a modern CPU. In reality, it appears they don’t. Admittedly the CPU temperature is not “accurate” but overall the test conditions were held relatively consistent (much more so than a typical user would ever experience under normal operating conditions).

Question: Why does the IHS appear to have such a large affect on waterblock performance – essentially leveling the field between newer high-performance WB’s and older mediocre WB’s?

I have been using a similar CPU test bed (A64 3200+) for well over a year to test heatsink fans and occasionally a water-cooling system – but I never used it to compare individual waterblocks. My experience has shown that after testing well over a dozen HSF’s and half a dozen complete water-cooling systems, there has almost ALWAYS been a measurable difference between various products. Again, while not accurate, the data was repeatable (I can go back and re-test a HSF I tested 6 months ago and get essentially the same numbers), which seems useful for comparative reviews.

Adding a calibrated thermocouple to the side of the A64 IHS provided additional data to go along with the relatively useless internal diode temperature. Even though it’s not representative of the CPU core temperature, the IHS thermocouple almost ALWAYS reported a measurable difference between different products.

Prior to actually doing any waterblock testing/reviews I became convinced (from all the discussion on various forums) that the only “right way” to test waterblocks was with a custom built test bench and that no serious enthusiast would ever consider test results collected from a CPU on a live computer with MBM5! (I also had a good bit of the hardware needed and an interest in learning by doing, which led to my building a waterblock test bench.) Once it was built, I opted not to do waterblock tests on the CPU test platform. The thought did cross my mind, but I just assumed I would see similar results to what I typically saw when testing a HSF or water-cooling system (without the more accurate numbers the test bench produces).

However, I do remember playing around with different waterblocks several years ago on an AMD 1400 and then an XP-2400+ (both with exposed dies) and seeing measurable differences. It’s the newer CPU’s with IHS’s that I never got around to testing waterblocks on – until now. And it appears that somehow the IHS is having a huge affect on waterblock performance.

ASFAIK, the IHS serves two main purposes: (1) it spreads heat away from a relatively small area over the core to a much larger area that contacts a heatsink or waterblock base and (2) provides mechanical protection to the rather fragile/brittle silicon core. Because most IHS’s are thin copper, there still exists a relative hot-spot over the core area (thermal modeling clearly shows this).

Question: How does all this impact previous thinking on WB testing? Are thermal die simulators (without IHS) no longer useful? To be valid (more useful?) should future thermal die simulators incorporate an IHS? Or should we abandon thermal die testing and go back to live CPU’s? (Which one? How to measure temps and power?)

IMHO, thermal die simulators and live CPU testing each have their place. Thermal die testing (with or without an IHS) produces data that should be of particular interest to waterblock designers and hard-core users that run their CPU’s without the IHS. Live CPU testing may be of more interest to the general water-cooling community who has no desire to remove the CPU’s IHS.

I come away from all this a bit discouraged and with more questions than answers…

[nikhsub1]

Thank you Lee!!!!!!!

[Etacovda]

well, this appears to show us that the cpu tests are largely pointless... (thanks for doing the maze review lee, much appreciated!)

The bigger question here is, is it the IHS smoothing out the results? is it the temperature monitoring method? What would be interesting (but extremely ballpark... but then, the IHS cpu tests are, so you cant really debunk this) would be a maximum stable overclock test - after all, thats what its all about, right?

[Brians256]

I'll second that, nikhsub1. Thank you, Lee.

[Eddy_EK]

WoW!

I think that the IHS has too much influence.
Therefore the real CPU testing isn't for WB comparison.
The main problem from my point of wiev is the location where the cpu temperature is measured.

[ricecrispi]

Thanks fo the input robotech.

I like the statement how someone implied the IHS is a condom. Protects the core but removes sensitivity. Since I do with out a rubber, I'm taking the IHS off all my cores. Keep the theme consistent.

I like how Bill described how die sims are like dynos. They offer pure numbers but don't always reflect real life peformance. Maxsaleen brought up the isues of tires on car performance and how they represent IHS, a car can't use all it's power if the tires aren't up to par.

In general, it seems the IHS is limiting performance. Getting rid of IHS seems to improve performance and that is a goal when we watercool.

Robotech, would you dare pop the lid on IHS and see what happens?

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Etacovda

well, this appears to show us that the cpu tests are largely pointless... (thanks for doing the maze review lee, much appreciated!)

You mean CPU tests with an IHS, because I do believe non IHS CPU tests can be viable.

[Joe]

thinking about it... since AMD often follows Intels lead on packaging... if Intel is using some sort of solder now to anchor the IHS to the CPU, AMD cant be far behind on that.

Makes you wonder what use testing will be in the near future when everything benches the same when you cant remove your IHS... (Look I put a turd on the CPU... SAME TEMP! thank god for IHS's)