Customcooled pc watercooling line up

[Etacovda]

http://www.alphacool.de/upload/news/custompc0804.pdf

um... right?
I cant even see what waterblocks they're testing in half of them; they dont show it!
Note - CustomPC, not CustomcooledPC

[firtol88]

Originally Posted by Etacovda

http://www.alphacool.de/upload/news/custompc0804.pdf

um... right?
I cant even see what waterblocks they're testing in half of them; they dont show it!

Their results seem to be different than just about everyone elses, look's like Custom PC favorable reviews are for sale.

[Cathar]

I wonder if any of the manufacturers were contacted prior to publishing?

No way the Swiftech kit performs as badly as indicated if setup properly. There would've had to have been something seriously wrong. I personally suspect that they forgot to open the third tap on the fill and bleed system after filling, and the water flow was probably only trickling through at a rate of 0.1LPM (or whatever), which is what would've been happening for it to perform so badly.

No mention of ambient temperature control either. Who knows what was really going on?

[quicksilverXP]

That's funny. I'd never thought the Koolance, Hydrocool's, and even Zalman Reserator could outperform the swiftech.

[BalefireX]

I'd be extrememly interested to hear BillA's take on this.

[Groth]

I especially like their statement in the Thermochill section:

"Wide pipes mean that you need a very powerful pump to achieve a decent flow rate"

[Etacovda]

Which swiftech block is that? I didnt recognise it(but then, I've only been watercooling for a short while), I'm to take it that its an older model? is it pre MCW5000ish?

[Cathar]

Originally Posted by Groth

I especially like their statement in the Thermochill section:

"Wide pipes mean that you need a very powerful pump to achieve a decent flow rate"

Or the other gem in the Asetek section regarding the Antarctica (WW clone) block:

"This strange design requires a high flow rate, otherwise the pressure will drop inside the waterblock and stop the coolant flowing out to the reservoir"

Originally Posted by Etacovda

Which swiftech block is that? I didnt recognise it(but then, I've only been watercooling for a short while), I'm to take it that its an older model? is it pre MCW5000ish?

Looks like an MCW5000 to me, and the 22501 kit code-name would indicate that it is. See here - although the top of the block looks different...which probably makes it one of the earlier MCW5000 blocks.

[Etacovda]

ah yes, i was under the assumption that it would have the two angled 3/8ths push fits top, rather than the double barbed method.
"Extreme performance MCW5000™ release 2 series water-bocks with patent pending Diamond-Pin Matrix© technology"; must be the release 1?

"This strange design requires a high flow rate, otherwise the pressure will drop inside the waterblock and stop the coolant flowing out to the reservoir"

That was one of my favourite parts too

[BalefireX]

The author seemed a bit overzealous when it came to the importance of reservoirs..
"Like all the high-performance kits (ahem Swiftech), there is a separate reservoir that helps regulate waterflow and stops excess air from circulating around the system." (page 6)
As far as I was aware, if the installer is competent, a reservoir shouldnt effect the performance of the system in any way.

[SlaterSpeed]

I wondered how long it would take for these reviews to filter through to Procooling. I have a subscription too this mag. (its the only mag in the UK that has anything to do with our hobby!) The exact same thing happend with a swiftech setup in the last issue! I agree with cathar theres definatly something wrong there. In the last issue they reviewed dual xeon setups from swiftech and koolance. The swifty setup supposadly could only keep the cpus at 55-60C when at 100% load where as the koolance could keep them at 45-47C under supposadly the same conditions. Koolance beating swiftech theres definatly something wrong there!

On a humorous note the author (James Gorbold) thinks that you have to use PTFE tape on swifty push fittings (and complains when they leak ) He also thinks that gold has better thermal conductivity than silver and that the koolance waterblock can dissipate 300w of heat because it has a high surface area!

I love this guy! :shrug:

[tourist]

Originally Posted by Cathar

Looks like an MCW5000 to me, and the 22501 kit code-name would indicate that it is. See here - although the top of the block looks different...which probably makes it one of the earlier MCW5000 blocks.

The block looks like the MCW5002 with plastic 1/2" barb. But I wonder how is he going to fit the 1/2" fittings into the fill and bleed kit... :shrug:

[BalefireX]

Originally Posted by SlaterSpeed

On a humorous note the author (James Gorbold) thinks that you have to use PTFE tape on swifty push fittings (and complains when they leak ) He also thinks that gold has better thermal conductivity than silver and that the koolance waterblock can dissipate 300w of heat because it has a high surface area!

I love this guy! :shrug:

If this review had been on the internet, this guy would have already been ripped to shreds, but it seems that since his domain is ink and paper, its okay to spread cruddy information. It does a disservice both to the consumer and to the manufacturer when a reviewer doesn't understand the subject he is reviewing, and magazines should be held to an equally high (if not higher) standard than web sites.

SlaterSpeed - if you can tell me the issue of the magazine that those claims appeared in, and give the quotes from the article (verbatim) where he makes these claims, I'm seriously considering writing a letter to the editor of custompc.

[SlaterSpeed]

Its issue 010 (July 2004) pages 52-53

I had exactly the same thought myself. i think the biggest problem is the swiftech reivews. If you do write a letter then consentrate on that and how testing is carryed out as oppose to my 'humorous comments'.

[BalefireX]

Originally Posted by SlaterSpeed

I had exactly the same thought myself. i think the biggest problem is the swiftech reivews. If you do write a letter then consentrate on that and how testing is carryed out as oppose to my 'humorous comments'.

I can't write in complaining about the Swiftech reviews for one simple reason - I have no facts. I haven't tested the Swiftech kits in question, nor any of the other kits, and I have no idea how well they really perform. To write in bashing the magazine's testing integrity and methods without having any numbers to back it up with is pretty hypocritical We know generally how well the blocks perform from pH's tests, but maybe the Swiftech kits don't perform that well. Still awaiting comment from BillA - usually he is quick to protest when reviews don't reflect reality.

[RedViper]

Originally Posted by BalefireX

The author seemed a bit overzealous when it came to the importance of reservoirs..
"Like all the high-performance kits (ahem Swiftech), there is a separate reservoir that helps regulate waterflow and stops excess air from circulating around the system." (page 6)
As far as I was aware, if the installer is competent, a reservoir shouldnt effect the performance of the system in any way.

OT: BalefireX, do you post at INA?

[lizard]

Thanks for your comments guys

Custom PC does appreciate comments on our reviews and other articles.

I'll try and go through your points so you can understand what was written and why.

Before that I'd just like to point out that the focus of the article was to find watercooling kits that are suitable for more average end users to install.

e.g. a lot of the article was dedicated to how easy are the kits to assemble, what is the documentation like etc etc

ProCooling is a very technical high end forum which most of the staff of the mag have been reading for years, so the language used in this article was deliberately much less technical and theoretical than what you guys are used to seeing on ProCooling.

I wonder if any of the manufacturers were contacted prior to publishing?

As standard no, if a product is going to get a bad review then the manufacturer may ask us not the publish the review, which then comprises the integrity of the mag. If there's something wrong with the product (bits missing or broken for example) then yes we will.

On a humorous note the author (James Gorbold) thinks that you have to use PTFE tape on swifty push fittings (and complains when they leak)

If you re-check the original text it states that the push fitting leaked, which is why we fitted some PTFE tape, not the other way round as you seem to imply.

Koolance beating swiftech theres definatly something wrong there!

And why is that exactly? What tests have you done/seen comparing this two products side by side?

If this review had been on the internet, this guy would have already been ripped to shreds, but it seems that since his domain is ink and paper, its okay to spread cruddy information.

Well, you guys seem to have done a pretty good job of that even if the original article was on paper

See above... we do appreciate comments so we can talk stuff through (like we're doing now). That's why we're trying to talk things through with you guys now.

"This strange design requires a high flow rate, otherwise the pressure will drop inside the waterblock and stop the coolant flowing out to the reservoir"

Hands up, we admit it, there is an error in the explanation. Sorry guys.

Perhaps this could have been explained better, what it should have got across clearer is that without high flow rate the velocity of the water through the slot nozzle would have dropped, lowering performance.

Obviously, it wouldn't stop coolant flowing out to the reservoir it could have impinged the velocity of the coolant <embarassed>

We know generally how well the blocks perform from pH's tests, but maybe the Swiftech kits don't perform that well.

Yes, as the review says we agree. BTW we have tested other Swiftech products and found them to be VERY good performers, so we're not anti-Swiftech in any way.

We believe the real reason for the poor performance of that particular Swiftech kit was the 1/2in to 3/8in pipe converters. We fitted these within 1in of the pump (before and after).

Re the issue of leaving a valve closed on the fill and bleed assembly... we did experiment with all the settings to try and improve performance.

We're not faceless reviewers who aren't listening, we are, and hope we talk things through here.

If you do wish the email the editor he can be reached at gareth@custompc.co.uk or me at james@custompc.co.uk

[SlaterSpeed]

I think we understand most of that.

The main point is that you are a very popular mag and most of your readers are not able to see the problems in testing that we can see. If your testing is not totaly up to scratch you may be misleading a large amount of people and that does not sit well with us.

Its a fact, your testing is suspect. Mainly because you dont detail how you test very well. (i dont recall seeing any thing about control of ambiant tempreture which will have a direct effect on results). Partly because we see some errors in your explinations methods and results.

What i suggest is that you tell us exactly how you go about testing and then we may be able to help you in the right direction.

Dont take my comments too seriously most of the time im just having a joke. It is true that your results tend to contradict pervious testing results but if you can proove your testing is good il change my oppinions

slater..

[Tempus]

Having not tested that exact system myself, I can't comment on how accurate your numbers (5 degree drop) might be. But....

A few questions:


How many times did you mount and remove (and retest your temps) the CPU block? If you tested more than once, did you report the exact average? Drop the high and low?

What voltage did you run the fans at?

Why on earth did it take you so long to get the fill/bleed system to work? Have you previously used one and just found this harder?

How well did you clean the cpu surface each time you removed a kit (or just the cpu block) before remounting? What did you clean it with?

What thermal paste were you using? How much was applied (thickness wise) ?

How were the radiators installed? Where was the air path? What was the ambient air temp at the time of testing (for each test.)

How well did it actually work - I don't see a single mention to OCing.

Radiator/Fan wise - did you have the fans in a push or pull configuration? Can we see shots of them installed to see that particulars?

I'm sure there are a few hundred more issues that can affect the reliability of the results (and that the guys here will bring up.)

[Tempus]

Also, I have to take issue with:

"The single most important characteristic of a water-cooling kit is how well it cools your CPU and stops it from shutting down or blowing sky high."

Thats one important aspect, but there are many more. I personally value overclockability and low now. While that is related to the temps you measured, there is alot more to it. I'd love to see an addition to your article showing the max overclocked stress testing each kit was able to sustain.

[jaydee]

Hey, customcooledpc is MY SITE!!! (note the title of this thread) Please don't mistaken it for CustomPC or whatever they call that mag. I can't belive there is a mag for CustomPC's. Seems ironic it isn't internet based instead of the old paper and ink based mag somehow...

[Etacovda]

bahaha i knew you got in my head somehow, and it wasnt with a babe pr0n site.

Edited (lol)

[lizard]

Its a fact, your testing is suspect. What i suggest is that you tell us exactly how you go about testing and then we may be able to help you in the right direction.

Okay, lets see if this clarrifies things:

When we test any hardware in Custom PC we're always trying to simulate a "typical" end user environment as closely as possible.

So HSFs, watercooling kits, phase change systems are installed in a complete PC (3.2GHz P4c ?(overclocked to 3.36GHz) on an Abit AI7 mobo (865PE) in a Cooler Master ATCS201 chassis. This is still a popular case in the UK, which is why we use it.

The test rig is in a temperature controlled room (our test lab) so that the results between different kits are directly comparable. Obviously we know that if the ambient temperature was different then the results would be useless.

First we record the CPU temp with the CPU idle (just sitting in Windows), then load up the CPU with the raytracing prog RealStorm 2004. We then leave the CPU loaded until the temp peaks (maxes out) and record this temp.

How many times did you mount and remove (and retest your temps) the CPU block? If you tested more than once, did you report the exact average? Drop the high and low?

Each block was tested once, except for the Swiftech which was tested three times precisely because the performance was underpar. The result you see in the mag is the average of these three results.

What voltage did you run the fans at?

The default for each kit - remember this was meant to be an introductory article for watercooling newbies.

Why on earth did it take you so long to get the fill/bleed system to work? Have you previously used one and just found this harder?

As it says in the review we think this is an overly complicated system compared to other designs.

How well did you clean the cpu surface each time you removed a kit (or just the cpu block) before remounting? What did you clean it with?What thermal paste were you using? How much was applied (thickness wise) ?

The top of the CPU heatspreader and the surface of each waterblock was cleaned with Akasa Timclean before installation. AS 5 was used on all the blocks so there was a level playing field.

How were the radiators installed? Where was the air path? What was the ambient air temp at the time of testing (for each test.)

See above, the rads were installed in a ATCS201 case. 120mm rads obviously don't fit this case as standard so we cut a hole in the top of the case. We're going to change to a full tower case from next issue onwards so we can also test triple fan rads in the same environment. Josh is busy cutting up cases as we speak.

How well did it actually work - I don't see a single mention to OCing.

See above, the test was intended to find out the very best waterkit, but the CPU was o/c to 3.36GHz (quite a mild overclock admitedly) but this also means the results can be directly compared with HSFs we have previously tested.

Radiator/Fan wise - did you have the fans in a push or pull configuration? Can we see shots of them installed to see that particulars?

The fans were set up as recommended in the manual for each kit. We don't have any shots to hand of the kits installed, but when we've got the new thermal test rigs setup this week we could post these.

Thats one important aspect, but there are many more. I personally value overclockability and low now. While that is related to the temps you measured, there is alot more to it. I'd love to see an addition to your article showing the max overclocked stress testing each kit was able to sustain.

Thanks for your comments. In each review comments were made on how noisy each kit is, although its hard to make a scientfically accurate judgement on noise without testing each kit in a sound proofed room.

Re overclocking I think this has already been covered, I'll just add that we're planning a more high-end watercooling kit group test in the next few months which will focus more on overclocking, so hopefully this should be more to your liking.

[BalefireX]

Lizard - thanks for coming and talking to us (in a civil manner too - maybe paper journalists ARE more respectable than web ones)

One thing that stuck out in your explanation was that you did three tests of the Swiftech System, and averaged the results. Were these numbers close (+/- 1C) or widely varied? Cathar raised the point in another thread that if someone left the fill/bleed valves in the wrong position, this could severely impede flow and therefore cause a big performance drop. If the three tests were seriously varied (say, test 1 and 2 were 20C over ambient, and test 3 was 12C over ambient) and you averaged them, that would be giving a skewed report of performance (but perhaps making a statement on the relative complexity of installation)

[lizard]

Originally Posted by BalefireX

Lizard - thanks for coming and talking to us (in a civil manner too - maybe paper journalists ARE more respectable than web ones)

Thanks for your compliments. We would much rather work together with you guys (readers and the web community) than against you, hence why I'm here on the forums. Once the Custom PC website has its new forum software in place maybe we'll see some of you guys there, who knows...

I won't comment on the last bit as I don't want to start a flame war re print vs web journalists.

But in point of fact we use a lot of web journalists as freelancer writers in Custom PC.

One thing that stuck out in your explanation was that you did three tests of the Swiftech System, and averaged the results. Were these numbers close (+/- 1C) or widely varied? Cathar raised the point in another thread that if someone left the fill/bleed valves in the wrong position, this could severely impede flow and therefore cause a big performance drop. If the three tests were seriously varied (say, test 1 and 2 were 20C over ambient, and test 3 was 12C over ambient) and you averaged them, that would be giving a skewed report of performance (but perhaps making a statement on the relative complexity of installation)

Okay, I see your points. The temperatures recorded across the three times we tested the Swiftech kit were all very close. From my notes they were -4C, -5C and -5C again, which averages at -4.67C, hence why we printed -5C in the review. So we still stand by the test results.

As I'm sure you can imagine there are only so many times we can test any piece of hardware before we have to make a judgement call on its performance. But to be honest even if the Swiftech kit had performed better, it still would not have got a particularly stunning review because as we feel it is harder to assemble than other kits, an important consideration for a watercooling newbie.