Apogee vs Apogee GT

bobkoure · 01-23-2007, 06:54 AM

From the Swiftech description it looks like they're the same, except the GT includes an AM2 mounting plate.
Anyone know if that's actually the situation - or have they modified something else?
Thanks!

Captain Slug · 01-23-2007, 08:13 AM

Apogee on the left, Apogee GT on the right
http://resources.vr-zone.com/Shamino/swiftapo/13.jpg

BGP Spook · 01-23-2007, 10:27 AM

I did a very quick google and I didn't see any performance reviews to compare the two.

Anyone know of any reliable numbers for the GT version?

bobkoure · 01-23-2007, 11:31 AM

OK - so they're definitely different (d'oh! How'd I miss that one?)
I don't think that they'd have switched from the larger diamond pins to the smaller ones for manufacturing economy. They may have also switched to a thicker baseplate, as I recall some complaints re flexion in the pre-GT...

BGP Spook · 01-23-2007, 02:50 PM

The GT base does look a little thicker in the picture Captain Slug provided.

jaydee · 01-23-2007, 09:29 PM

Looks like the same course the CoolTechnica/AquaXtreme blocks were taking. Going with smaller and smaller pins. I doubt performance gain was anything substantial (depending on what you consider substantial). I don't think most test bed's error margins are tight enough to tell the difference.

mx · 01-24-2007, 02:55 AM

The number and height of the pins isn't the only difference.

There's a thicker o-ring included with the GT which makes the base bow like on the FuZion. Tests done so far indicate that a bowed base yields lower temps than a flat.

The thicker o-ring wasn't included with the early GTs. Contact Swiftech and they'll send one for free.

EDIT: Virtualrain over at XS compiled a list of all FuZion tests, link. FreeCableGuys test includes both Apogee and Apogee GT.

Hansfragger · 01-24-2007, 08:33 AM

I remember some people having issues with the pins bending and/or breaking(Apogee and MCW60 GPU block). Decreasing the pin's diameter would seem to be even riskier.

bobkoure · 01-24-2007, 07:22 PM

I've actually been thinking that the non-GT is more appropriate for my needs.
I'm about to build a couple of core 2 duo machines (yeah, I've gone over to the dark side - at least for now), and as I use weak-ass pumps (because they're almost-silent) I care about pressure drop at least as much as I do about a degree or two - but Swiftech's own charts show about the same temps between non-GT and GT.

ricecrispi · 01-25-2007, 04:38 PM

What bother me is from previous waterblock performance testing, wb performance gains are incremental and not large and competitive WB perform within that range of 2C. Suddenly we are seeing performances differences of 2, 4, 6 C and this bothers me and they isn't a consistent pattern.

One reason, with a unique a kentfield cpu and the two core package it's hard to compare

Two, most of these reviews are done by first time reviewers. I praise their effort but anyone who was done past reviews it takes time to get the magic down.

H20 Frag-monger reviews: heat die area is too large at 30x30mm.

Nikhsub reveiw: mounting temps vary too much.

CES event: we talked about that fiasco

VR-zone: Kentsfield testbed. # of mountings? Fan info cfm or rpms ? 91C load temps? I seen similar setups with aircoolers at 60 C...

Freecableguy: Kentsfield testbed. Probably the best overall review but i don't agree with his final DT and final load temps and heat dissipated from cpu.

BGP Spook · 01-25-2007, 11:03 PM

ricecrispi, I kind of said something to that effect in the XS thread linked by mx above.

Quote is by me in the XS thread, see link.

Quote:

The world would be a better place if more people understood statistics.

This is not a dig at the OP, I agree with him.

I don't think all of the reviews are complete in part because they haven't accounted for the mounting variations mentioned.

What is needed is at least 50 different tests each with the same blocks and different mounts. So the same 10 blocks with different reviews, for example, but each block is remounted five different times.

The aggregate data can then be analyzed and the spread can be computed.

Here is an old but fair example of testing methodology.

There is no doubt that since PC has declined the quality of data has as well.

As some of use may remember, it was the inability to come to a consensus on a way to maintain the standard of quality data that lead to PC's decline.

I am not going to bring up the old arguments.

01-23-2007, 06:54 AM	#1
bobkoure Cooling Savant Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: USA - Boston area Posts: 798	Apogee vs Apogee GT From the Swiftech description it looks like they're the same, except the GT includes an AM2 mounting plate. Anyone know if that's actually the situation - or have they modified something else? Thanks!

01-23-2007, 08:13 AM	#2
Captain Slug Cooling Savant Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: VA Posts: 129	Re: Apogee vs Apogee GT Apogee on the left, Apogee GT on the right http://resources.vr-zone.com/Shamino/swiftapo/13.jpg

01-23-2007, 10:27 AM	#3
BGP Spook Cooling Savant Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Virginia Posts: 153	Re: Apogee vs Apogee GT I did a very quick google and I didn't see any performance reviews to compare the two. Anyone know of any reliable numbers for the GT version? __________________ I can't spell, but I am working on it.

01-23-2007, 11:31 AM	#4
bobkoure Cooling Savant Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: USA - Boston area Posts: 798	Re: Apogee vs Apogee GT OK - so they're definitely different (d'oh! How'd I miss that one?) I don't think that they'd have switched from the larger diamond pins to the smaller ones for manufacturing economy. They may have also switched to a thicker baseplate, as I recall some complaints re flexion in the pre-GT...

01-23-2007, 02:50 PM	#5
BGP Spook Cooling Savant Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Virginia Posts: 153	Re: Apogee vs Apogee GT The GT base does look a little thicker in the picture Captain Slug provided. __________________ I can't spell, but I am working on it.

01-23-2007, 09:29 PM	#6
jaydee Put up or Shut Up Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Spokane WA Posts: 6,506	Re: Apogee vs Apogee GT Looks like the same course the CoolTechnica/AquaXtreme blocks were taking. Going with smaller and smaller pins. I doubt performance gain was anything substantial (depending on what you consider substantial). I don't think most test bed's error margins are tight enough to tell the difference.

01-24-2007, 02:55 AM	#7
mx Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Sweden Posts: 73	Re: Apogee vs Apogee GT The number and height of the pins isn't the only difference. There's a thicker o-ring included with the GT which makes the base bow like on the FuZion. Tests done so far indicate that a bowed base yields lower temps than a flat. The thicker o-ring wasn't included with the early GTs. Contact Swiftech and they'll send one for free. EDIT: Virtualrain over at XS compiled a list of all FuZion tests, link. FreeCableGuys test includes both Apogee and Apogee GT.

01-24-2007, 08:33 AM	#8
Hansfragger Cooling Savant Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Granite Bay, CA Posts: 105	Re: Apogee vs Apogee GT I remember some people having issues with the pins bending and/or breaking(Apogee and MCW60 GPU block). Decreasing the pin's diameter would seem to be even riskier. __________________ ASUS Maximus II Formula, E8600@4050, OCZ 2x2GB PC2 8500@5-5-5-18, Vista 64, GTX 280@693/1508/2566, Audigy 2, PC P&C 750, ASUS DVD R/RW, Velociraptor 300, Raptor 74, Storm rev2, modified Laing DDC, modified HL BI2 Extreme, 7/16 ID Tygon, modified DD res, PC ICE, TT liquid temp monitor

01-24-2007, 07:22 PM	#9
bobkoure Cooling Savant Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: USA - Boston area Posts: 798	Re: Apogee vs Apogee GT I've actually been thinking that the non-GT is more appropriate for my needs. I'm about to build a couple of core 2 duo machines (yeah, I've gone over to the dark side - at least for now), and as I use weak-ass pumps (because they're almost-silent) I care about pressure drop at least as much as I do about a degree or two - but Swiftech's own charts show about the same temps between non-GT and GT.

01-25-2007, 04:38 PM	#10
ricecrispi Cooling Savant Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: california Posts: 429	Re: Apogee vs Apogee GT What bother me is from previous waterblock performance testing, wb performance gains are incremental and not large and competitive WB perform within that range of 2C. Suddenly we are seeing performances differences of 2, 4, 6 C and this bothers me and they isn't a consistent pattern. One reason, with a unique a kentfield cpu and the two core package it's hard to compare Two, most of these reviews are done by first time reviewers. I praise their effort but anyone who was done past reviews it takes time to get the magic down. H20 Frag-monger reviews: heat die area is too large at 30x30mm. Nikhsub reveiw: mounting temps vary too much. CES event: we talked about that fiasco VR-zone: Kentsfield testbed. # of mountings? Fan info cfm or rpms ? 91C load temps? I seen similar setups with aircoolers at 60 C... Freecableguy: Kentsfield testbed. Probably the best overall review but i don't agree with his final DT and final load temps and heat dissipated from cpu.

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