Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Indeed. Not sure what good it does any of us in the end though.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

For me as a reader I extrapolated much information from the fact BillA used one and Cathar never has (although he seems to have been privy to some top secret data generated from it's use).
The contested comparison of the two blocks in question has Swiftech giving data all generated from the use of a TTV wheras Cathar generated his own non-disclosed (we are left to just trust him on this) data from some home mobo setup.
BillA has stated that all the comparison Swiftech data were generated from the same methodology and testbed using the Intel TTV.
Further it is clear to me that the actual temp of any die is not of value because the temp of the IHS (or case temp as they call it) is more usefull because it eliminates one variable (the extra tim layer). The more variables elliminated, increases the value of the data. Keeping this concept in mind, the TTV package IMO is more likely to have the sensors arrayed in a more precisely consistant manner than any home brewed testing methodology (elliminating or minimalizing another variable).
Given we take for granted that all of Swiftechs data is generated from the same test model (the main componant of which was made by Intel), we do have consistant data to go by. Cathar provided zero data.

True, nobody will be able to exactly replicate a TTV at home for comparison but how can we bitch about a company trying to provide us with data using an industry standard tool?

Remember the days of blocks selling on bling, putting pigtailed shaped curly cues in the channels or just following DIY trends with no real data to back them up?

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

I wasn't so much complaining about the data so much anymore but more so the usefulness of it. Which TTV model did they use? What CPU was being replicated? How does the data transfer to other Intel CPU's and more importantly, to me, AMD CPU's?

Also don't get to exited about the TTV. Even Intel says it shouldn't be used for such testing.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Finally hooked up my apogees to the wmd30 I have. Neither appear to leak as of yet (was holding my breath on that one). Though I will have to be careful with the tubing attached to the barbs, I can easily see how a misguided hand could yank the tubing too hard and cause the top plate to crack.


Anyway, I did a few 'bucket' flow tests. Actually I measured out 56 liters into a large container and did the tests with that. I timed 4 trials on each of 3 setups:
1st setup: pump with tubing on inlet and outlet
2nd setup: pump with same tubing and 1 apogee block connected (1/2" barbs)
3rd setup: pump with same tubing and 2 apogee blocks connected (1/2" barbs)

Graph and Data table attached. Graph includes WMD-30RZT curve (taken from reefs.org info), Apogee C/W (swiftech data, plotted on secondary axis), Apogee pressure drop (taken from swiftech data) and 2xApogee pressure drop (for my second block in series). The pressure drop data was extrapolated to hit the wmd curve. The vertical lines are the three average flow rates I 'measured.' (In quotes because I don't have the equipment to properly do such. But hopefully this isn't complete garbage)

EDIT (added):
The pressure drop I infer due to the apogee blocks seems well under what the swiftech graph shows - IF the iwaki manuf. data is to be trusted. Has there been an independent PQ curve done for the 30RZT? (Since Bill backs up Swift. testing I'm more inclined to believe that for now...) Anyway, continuing on (using probably wrong PQ curve): At ~3.9 gpm the predicted (extrapolated from swift data) PD for the apogee is ~14 ft of water or 6.07psi. The actual PD found from the flow rate and iwaki PQ curve is more like ~4 ft of water or 1.7psi. The added pressure drop from the second block, only another 3.5 ft of water (1.5 psi) at 3.5 gpm, where the data predicts there should be a drop of ~ 12 ft of water (5.2 psi).

--Jay

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Exactly.

I think I resent that. My heat die is at least late Bronze age.

;)

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

There are TTV-to-CPU correction formulas that can be applied to all TTV-obtained results to produce die results, and those exist for EVERY cpu on the market (AMD and Intel). The correction factors account for heatflux differences etc etc. Problem is, I think Intel are the only folks that KNOW what those correction formulas are for each TTV - and with never being in the position of acquiring one, don't know if they share that info with the TTV purchaser etc...

If correction formulaes for each CPU bed-type (eg: Socket A/ Sempron bare die, A64 IHS, A64 Dual Core) are applied and graphed, and a simple confirmatory test done to see whether realworld matches corrected TTV data, then battle is solved... yes? Provided results become more useful... (?)

Logic would say Swiftech could easily contact them and get this info and apply it (but likely won't)... which would give the customer something more of use to base comparison from...

If not, p'raps attempts need to be made to get it... (in progress already)

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Finding even a simple analysis a can of worms

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Ah Les, surely a man of your talents could work out a solution to the fourier equation for an IHS + heat die. Might want to try STRAND7, its an FEA (doesn’t do fluids) package the demo goes up to 100 elements which might just do for your tasks

There is no true (as in perfectly true) calibration factor for cpus as there is two sets of data that need to be know. The absolute heat flux and the distribution of this heat flux. Give that the dim sims mentioned on this board are based on constant surface temperature / heat flux distribution there is going to be some difference that may or may not be significant. The distribution of the heat energy “flow” is a unknown for cpus and will probably remain that way. One solution might be to ignore it and say that heat distribution to the WB or a at least a short distance inside it becomes constant. To model the increased resistance because of the longer heat path some kind of constant can be used.

Generating this constant other than clicking the random number generator; guesstimation in your head might be a little tricky. The proper solution would be to look at statistical distributions in real cpus and pick an appropriate value. This might help with heat distributions as well if you could include them. Further more with knowledge about cpu heat output distribution you could include that as well. I have a feeling that intels formula is empirical using stats from a large number of cpus. Get some chips test the output, put a resistance in. From these results find a conservative value for what the factor should be(or indeed the form of the factor. Could say that thermal paste thickness is increased by X or ideal resistance multiplied by some number).

Obviously DIYers can’t do this. A statistical model using FEA could easily be developed with perfect knowledge about the manufacturing (FEA all possible paths and get a result). We don’t have a perfect data but we can guess.
The unknowns are:
CPU total heat output – Guess able or non dimensionalise.
CPU heat distribution – hard. Constant heat flux might be appropriate. I think being a little smart and saying the cache is cooler than the processing units might be valid.
Distribution of thermal compound – This again is hard. We’re going to need some BC’s here to help.
Geometry of HIS – this is obviously some manufacturing variations, indeed are we even going to say the same about the core (given the process for making a core I would say that saying its perfectly flat and level is a suitable assumption).
Material properties – some silicon to model the core, thermal paste is doable, I H S is doable as well. Interface properties if we chose to include them might be hard.
Block properties – Do we include the interface there, I assume just use Bills data, but the distribution might prove troublesome.

My suggestion would be:
Assume we’ve got material properties and say the I h s conforms exactly to available data. Data on heat output from cpus is around. The temperature distribution can be made up by some guy with a beard (preferably long, with pizza in it :P), even have it as a changing distribution(ie manufacturing difference between cpus, could do further test to show influence on OCing etc. Thermal paste distribution is then the troublesome bit. We can however say what the limiting value is as we can guess when the core can shut down due to heat with the bare minimum craptastic heat sink. We can also guess what perfectly applied thermal paste would look like. Easy option then is run FEA on this millions of times to show what a random distribution of the variables would look like. This then gives you an approximate model of heat distribution on the surface of the I h s (so you can tell if its approximately constant or not) and a good GUESS at thermal resistance of the rig. This kind of procedure of empirical FEA is carried out by a few companies to check that parts as a group won’t fail etc. It will take awhile however on computers. Its not SETI but a good evenings work and computer time.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Posted for a month already? :laugh2: Err, the month not only is wrong but spelled wrong to. Glad I don't care about spelling. :)

Interesting page: http://www.systemcooling.com/swiftech_apogee-13.html

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Good review Lee.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Seems to me Swiftech should rename the block - Apologee?

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Another nice review Lee.

Rather damning.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Bobo,Strand7 appears to be 21st century and I don't go beyond 20th. I will leave the field clear for you

The only "damning" I see in the review is the inadequacy of present techniques That is simple uniform-flux heat-die measurements,SpeedFan 4 reported temperatures and side-of-IHS temperatures.
Bronze Age shows promise if coupled with 21st century analysis.

Models in attachment are all single TIM inclusive

Edit: Removed "alien point" from graphs

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Agree, all are flawed. Not to fault Robotech, best possible analysis under the circumstances I'd say.

Think so too, becoming more and more aware that understanding these problems/behaviours are impossible without good models. I might want to move into early iron age with the hardware though. Some ideas germinating.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

1) Absolutely
2) Will probably have a look at free thingies like Strand with view to application to an Iron Age die.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

And what I was saying in the start of this post, eh ? Some heavy considerations must be taken here using dies in comparison of true systems and Lee shows well this fact. Reactions are (and will be) always very disparate and say "WB blabla is better" don't mean nothing without giving testbed conditions (far from reality or not)... But some are always reluctant to understand, I see :p . Data and more (controled) data from others are a necessity to enlarge perf view.

Nice job Lee !

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

*deleted <brain not awake> *

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

No
1)spreading is a most important factor.
2)missing (a) TIM (b) the influence of furniture area .

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

1) agreed. not saying it isn't.
2) (a) true. was not attempting to model at this time
(b) the rest of the block?


Edit: realized NEED to model TIM based on temp taken (should get some sleep before posting). Will delete erroneous post above.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Once i learn STAR CD or ANSYS CFX (commercial high end/ moderately high end CFD), does that mean that i will then move into Future tech? :P

OR hatch a cunning plan to start rapid prototyping blocks in my bedroom via mail order. Storm G7 alike with less pressure drop (3d porting) and slightly lower performance (copper ploymer matrix, only moderate thermal conductivity) for half the price (lloking at maybe $100 a block to manufacture) with your name and maybe something funny in 3d on the top (skull or something as that would be well l33t).

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

I only consider the cup base and cup wall area:-
My estimates
Effective Cup Base Area=330.8391314 mm^2
Effective Cup Wall Area=1694.330101 mm^2

Consider separately to apply "efficiency factor" to wall area.
See Post330

Edit That is the Storm G4 Model
Same applies to Apogee but use Pin Area and "Channel base" area.
Apogee
Total Pin Area=5936.4 mm^2
Channel base Area=672.0 mm^2
on 1141.2 mm^2 's square of bp

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

doesnt quite work like that for storm, area is a non-linear function of performance.

Send me an email via pm, i think i can show you how to model it near precisely (stew has a few performance tricks up his sleeves). You better know how to do geometric scaling though (have data for 4mm jets).

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Thanks. will take a closer look at previous post.


re: pin area and channel area I have apogee modeled if you need them. My numbers (mostly) agree with the ones Lee quoted in review, although he says .9mm channel and I measure ~1mm (will have to verify with gauge pins when I can stop by work again).

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Never suggested "area" was a "linear function of performance".
Post Model in thread,several wish to learn.

As you should have gathered(eg here and link within) I only modelled the Storm as a last resort because nobody else would.

Edit: Added link

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Since i just read it i thought that you might as well use this les. Some one modeled a storm type blocks heat transfer (using the nusselt number as)

(Nu / Pr^0.53) * (D/d)^2 = 32.49 * Re^0.523 [jet impingment effect] + 0.266*(D/d -8) * Re^0.828 [wall region]

This is for gases and high Re's (2000) but it shows a model of the effect.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Show models, both the "unnamed some one" and your own.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

k, but i dont have my own, as im not that good.

source for the one above is Sitharamayya S; Raju KS (1969) Heat transfer between an axisymetric jet and a plate held normal to the flow.

The distance between the jet and the plate surface is not given so its a little simple. Probably should use DIYer units instead of scientists.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

My own testing shows the apogee performing quite well on my X2. Only problem;The weak ass top. After seeing it X-sectioned... I'm pissed. No way, can that thin of plastic support any type of load.

I'm afraid to push my hoses on.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

The thin point is at a stress concentration (a corner) as well, they could of easily curved that section and got rid fo the problem. If they've doen the injection moulding dies now then they can't really change it.