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 11-19-2005, 12:38 PM   #101
BillA
CoolingWorks Tech Guy
Formerly "Unregistered"
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
Default

"If the heat-die temperature were being monitored as well, then the TTV would be representative of CPU temperature, and would therefore be more suitable."
this is nonsense; apart from having an additional datum, what changed to then make the heat source acceptable ?
treat it as a black box, you know the heat input and the IHS (near) surface temp

not questioning the relevance of the source size, and its effects are shown in the very different wbs - the MCW6000 and the Storm
now there is an additional wb and all anyone can do is wring their hands about how to understand / interpret the numbers
- of course with the base assumption that the mfgr is lying

I am unable to predict the 'accuracy' of the Apogee curve as it is not 'mine'; but if Swiftech has not made fools of themselves, . . . .

"The wb is being manufactured to provide low temperature readings on a flawed testbed by exploiting the very same flaws that were observed to give erroneously low results. The data is the result of a system error."

how can the "flawed testbed" yield acceptable results for the MCW6000 and Storm, yet be unfit to measure the Apogee ?
did you compare the MCW50 and MCW55 data ? (same setup), so now you have more data sets
Cathar; you got a MCW55, how did it compare to the Storm ?

there are 2 testing people here telling everyone that an IHS temp is useful and the response is yap yap yap
and the same re testing with an IHS and there is more yap yap yap

should we split this into those popping the IHS and want data for bare CPUs ?
the other group uses CPU as packaged and wants data for the real applications ?

Cathar
I have no idea where this will land but if your theory will not accommodate the results, it is wrong
and you can resolve this yourself by testing the MCW55 you have
BillA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-19-2005, 12:57 PM   #102
nikhsub1
c00ling p00n
 
nikhsub1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 758
Default

Bill TBH, I have been suspicious of the data ever since the results for the 55 came out. NOt that it is bogus, just that something is off. Then when I researched the TTV, it started to make sense. The TTV is not intended for the use to which Swiftech is using it.
__________________

*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
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 11-19-2005, 01:09 PM   #103
jaydee
Put up or Shut Up
 
jaydee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Spokane WA
Posts: 6,506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unregistered

how can the "flawed testbed" yield acceptable results for the MCW6000 and Storm, yet be unfit to measure the Apogee ?
Because the Apogee base is flexing and the Storm and MCW6000 bases are not? Pretty sure that is the argument.
jaydee is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-19-2005, 02:05 PM   #104
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default

Amended Model in Post 16
Now uses real dimensions.
Ta Lee

Edit1:
A note on predictions:
The predictions in Post 16 refer to "(C/W)average".
My position on TTV interpretation remains the same as posted at OC :-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les56
My position on this:
Think the "presented results" use an "average heat flux" and and a "raw sensor temperature".
The presence of the sensor decreases the heat-flux in its proximity and decreases its temperature.
This lowers the "C/W" values[(raw sensor temp -coolant inlet temp)/(average heat flux)].
Am less clear on the role of TIM in the "presented results".
Correction of the "raw sensor temp", as being undertaken here, should give both a "corrected sensor temp" and an "average(mean or median)". These can be used, respectively, to get "(C/W)local" and "(C/W)average".
It is suggested that these are the parameters of interest in cpu cooling.
The predictions in Post 138 refer to "(C/W)average".

Last edited by Les; 11-19-2005 at 02:20 PM.
Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-19-2005, 02:08 PM   #105
nikhsub1
c00ling p00n
 
nikhsub1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 758
Default

Wow Les, even though just a simulation, is showing quite different results from Swiftech's, I suspect further testing will as well.
__________________

*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
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 11-19-2005, 02:26 PM   #106
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikhsub1
Wow Les, even though just a simulation, is showing quite different results from Swiftech's, I suspect further testing will as well.
It is only a model.
That have previously had some good agreement with data means little.
There is every possibility it has been luck and/or error cancellation.
Blunders have a habit of canceling in this game.
Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-19-2005, 02:30 PM   #107
BillA
CoolingWorks Tech Guy
Formerly "Unregistered"
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
Default

"The TTV is not intended for the use to which Swiftech is using it."
for sure, but it is still a source which can be characterized
try considering data rather than listing all those things not known

the MCW50 and MCW55
was a difference shown ? yes
difference in bp stiffness - none

the MCW6000 and Storm
was a difference shown ? yes
difference in bp stiffness - low (?)

the MCW55 and Storm
was a difference shown ? yes
difference in bp stiffness - low (?)

the MCW6000 and Apogee
was a difference shown ? yes
difference in bp stiffness - high

the Storm and Apogee
was a difference shown ? yes
difference in bp stiffness - high

the MCW55 and Apogee
was a difference shown ? yes
difference in bp stiffness - high

a cynic might observe that reduced conduction losses from a thinner bp are sufficient for the above

you guys are trying to cherry-pick the data you consider (christ we're rooting for models no less)
BillA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-19-2005, 02:35 PM   #108
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unregistered
..., (christ we're rooting for models no less)
Sulks. worked hard on the models.
Unfortunately that does not make them "good"
Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-19-2005, 02:37 PM   #109
nikhsub1
c00ling p00n
 
nikhsub1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 758
Default

Bill, I understand your argument and your point of view, really. Not 'rooting' for anything. Like I said, if the Apogee performs as claimed, that's great. Everything that has been brought up re the TTV and flexing etc just gets dismissed by you and Roscal. If 2 or 3 independent tests show completely different data, what then? I know we all hate 'what if's' but will this not leave the consumer terribly confused? It certainly won't make Swiftech look good, or their testbed. Guess we need to wait and see.
__________________

*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
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 11-19-2005, 02:39 PM   #110
BillA
CoolingWorks Tech Guy
Formerly "Unregistered"
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
Default

the 'problem' is the MCW55 testing so much better than the 40, and then comparing it to the Storm
no flex issue to distort thinking

jk Les
BillA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-19-2005, 02:44 PM   #111
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default

Need to just let further testing take it's course.

Re: MCW55, the MCW55 is a little bit special. It has a raised base-plate plateau that is ~27x27mm in size, in accordance with fitting on GPU's that have shims installed.

Am pretty sure that heatsinks with that sort of geometry characteristics were not part of the TTV geometrical loading design. :shrug:

Who knows? Further testing will reveal. I think the points have been raised and the horse is flogged near to death now.

Last edited by Cathar; 11-19-2005 at 02:54 PM. Reason: correct plataeu size after measurement
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-19-2005, 02:59 PM   #112
BillA
CoolingWorks Tech Guy
Formerly "Unregistered"
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
Default

not being contentious, but being this far into it . . .
(and since I do know)

the pod on the MCW50/55 is ~2.89cm sq, it can be set on the IHS edges - as it was tested so
no flex in that data, worth considering if the TTV is being called a "flawed testbed"

EDIT
too small for the AMD IHS

Last edited by BillA; 11-19-2005 at 03:37 PM.
BillA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-19-2005, 03:10 PM   #113
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default

I await independent tests of both Apogee and MCW55.

Incidentally Bill, since the MCW55 would primarily (solely?) be used on bare-die GPU dies, then why was only TTV/IHS data supplied? I don't really expect you to answer that question though, it's more rhetorical...
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-19-2005, 03:35 PM   #114
BillA
CoolingWorks Tech Guy
Formerly "Unregistered"
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
Default

a TTV is a heat source
a wb bp cannot tell the difference between a copper slug and an IHS

do you guys think a die temp is known ? or necessary ?
-> the goal is the device thermal resistance, not that of the IHS
in all cases Swiftech is now describing the device thermal resistance
BillA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-19-2005, 03:50 PM   #115
BillA
CoolingWorks Tech Guy
Formerly "Unregistered"
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathar
. . . . .
Incidentally Bill, since the MCW55 would primarily (solely?) be used on bare-die GPU dies, then why was only TTV/IHS data supplied? . . . .
a fascinating question, elegantly phrased

implicitly you are suggesting that only bare silicon can emulate a silicon heat source, ?
or is it a difference in the variability of the flux density that the TTV does not replicate ?

please indicate for us all the proper heat source for GPU wb testing, I would like to get it right if I test another wb
BillA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-19-2005, 04:17 PM   #116
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unregistered
do you guys think a die temp is known ? or necessary ?
I would say that it is the only thing of importance.

Perhaps this is the exact point where the overclocker and the thermal engineer differ. The thermal engineer is concerned with assessing the device's thermal characteristics in broad terms, in this instance the IHS surface temp. The overclocker only cares how well the thing that directly affects the ability to overclock is being cooled, being the temperature of the CPU die. There is a direct and immediate relationship between the peak CPU die temperature and the achievable overclock. A broad "smoothed out" IHS surface temperature assessment does not provide that information.

Now people may very well argue that 0.5-1.0C means SFA, but I tend to disagree in a world where performance is balanced against environmental considerations such as noise. That 0.5C gain may be "used" to lower noise levels, and so on. This is not directed at you Bill, but to those who argue that small differences mean little.
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-19-2005, 04:36 PM   #117
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikhsub1
Wow Les, even though just a simulation, is showing quite different results from Swiftech's, I suspect further testing will as well.
When talking about Swiftech's results think we should be considering "(C/W)local"
Think the 1x1mm die predictions are more apt for TTV data
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Apogee3.jpg (52.3 KB, 31 views)
Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-19-2005, 04:47 PM   #118
mikoto
Cooling Neophyte
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: smog
Posts: 47
Default

I rarely post in these types of threads, well, because I have no background for it.
However, it seems to me that the conditions in dispute could be easily satisfied by using a TIM with a known thermal resistance value, like those pads Shin-Etsu makes. The construct a heat source thusly. Make a heat die the size of the actual core on an A64 or P4 or whatever, then apply pad, then attach a fabricated heat spreader to this assembly and place another pad on top of it, then attach waterblock. Time consuming and expensive as you would need to re-apply pads between tests (maybe they would do for a while, I don't know). Then extrapolate data based upon known thermal resistance of TIM.
Forgive me if stupid, I tried
__________________
"I hate people faggoting up my forums to no good end..." --pH
mikoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-19-2005, 05:27 PM   #119
AngryAlpaca
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 631
Default

But, Cathar, isn't the sub-IHS temperature directly proportional to the IHS temperature? The manner of testing involving the temperature above the IHS gives us a relative value, not an absolute one, but all we need is a relative one so we can choose the best block to get a better temperature both above and below the IHS.
AngryAlpaca is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-19-2005, 05:34 PM   #120
RacerX27
Cooling Neophyte
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nashville TN
Posts: 1
Default

As I read this thread and the discussion its turned into, I can't help but think....

If the IHS temp is 'important', why isn't there a IHS temp sensor on every motherboard?

As an average user and overclocker, I never know what the IHS temp really is, at ANY time. I could really care less about the IHS temp.

What I do get to see is die temp, a reference number at best. But the only CPU temp as a user I get to see.

If you give temps for the IHS for reference, you might as well sell me a car and tell me how fast it goes down hill. A Ford Focus can do 0-60 in 5.0 flat going down hill at the right grade.

Waterblocks are for cooling CPU's right?

:shrug:
RacerX27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-19-2005, 05:46 PM   #121
AngryAlpaca
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 631
Default

The IHS temperature is NOT important to overclocking, which is what Cathar is saying.

I believe that the IHS temperature is used in testing because it's an easily acquired number - you can't drill a hole in a CPU, but you can in a metal plate above it. IHS based testing will not indicate what the CPU temperature below is, but that's not the goal. The goal is to see whether Block A will produce a warmer or cooler CPU than Block B. Measuring above the IHS also removes the IHS-CPU TIM joint variable, so you don't have to worry about that degrading.
AngryAlpaca is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-19-2005, 08:20 PM   #122
Incoherent
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Vallentuna, Sweden
Posts: 410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryAlpaca
The IHS temperature is NOT important to overclocking, which is what Cathar is saying.

But it is usable as a method for establishing heat exchanger performance.

However, as with any method the relationship to normal reality needs to be understood.
I'm trying to model this kind of behaviour.
There are differences between blocks on the TTV (and all test testups) that don't exist in reality. This is true with or without the IHS
Some modelling which I'm too fatigued to explain at this point.
Not visible in the gradient chart but there is a 0.02° difference between the two blocks in the two different scenarios at the die core, meaning that the test setup is itself dependent on the block it is testing.
This is exacerbated by TIM variations etc. which I have not modelled at this point. (too complex in a hurry) and even more significant with thin vs thick bases, concentrated cooling regions bla bla

Any test method is inherently flawed unless we understand it.


I am almost typing in my sleep here, forgive the incoherence.
Attached Images
File Type: gif model copy.gif (59.5 KB, 52 views)
File Type: gif gradients.gif (9.2 KB, 36 views)

Last edited by Incoherent; 11-19-2005 at 08:30 PM.
Incoherent is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-19-2005, 08:38 PM   #123
AngryAlpaca
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 631
Default

Does anyone know if it was testing with 3/8" barbs or 1/2" barbs? I'm guessing 3/8" because it was compared to the 6000, but I'm still wondering.
AngryAlpaca is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-19-2005, 08:56 PM   #124
snowwie
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 154
Default

http://www.swiftnets.com/assets/imag...%20vs%20FR.GIF

says it is compared with mcw-6002

Quote:
The IHS temperature is NOT important to overclocking, which is what Cathar is saying.
the test data in question has nothing to do with the overclockability of a cpu. it demonstrates the components' thermal resistance. thermal resistance is our standard of measuring thermal component performance, no? the goal of testers is to have accurate results for c/w, right? i know cathar takes great time in explaining a lot of things to the rest of us, but i still can't understand that because the system is not measuring die temp it results in less accurate results for c/w.
snowwie is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-19-2005, 09:11 PM   #125
AngryAlpaca
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 631
Default

Did anyone read my second paragraph?
AngryAlpaca 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 03:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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...