Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

I should have specified torque, I thought my post made it clear. Squeezing it in a vice is not realistic, much like hammer blows. Posting such stuff is a waste of time.
If you want to demonstrate how strong it is put a 12 1/2" rod 1/2 inch into the opening and apply a load from side to side. Say 25lbs load. (You can impress with 50lbs) How many cycles does it last?

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

what is the stupid point here ?
why not a 36" arm ? or 72" ?
and now you move to the acrylic wbs of the world ?

what is the max possible bending load imparted through 2 flexible hoses ?
shit, hang the computer off them; add for dynamic loads (dropping the computer on the barbs ?)
what saftey factor do YOU want ?
what is the relation of that to the procedure you defined ?

torque ? with an NPSM thread ?

go to ignorantcooling.com

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Doesn't exist.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

I believe the point bill is that a screw thread can apply an awful lot of force and that alternating loads will cause failure at much lower loading values than being hit by the hammer. For plastics I would say that screw loading is more destructive than hammer loading. The combination of plastics, warm water and additives, dynamic loading, temperature loading, possible manufacturing defects and a stress concentration MAY cause something.

Given the testing that gabe has undertaken I would say that the above concerns are valid but don’t match reality (ie don’t worry). The broken wb (orkans) is probably a 1 in million chance from something or other. If more start popping up then there maybe a problem. Not specifying a nice radius is abit of school boy error, but its not catastrophic and you could make a point for its inclusion as a matter of aesthetics. Either way looks like there is nothing in this.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

I thought Bill's point was that almost every other block out there has NOT been tested in a thorough manner as this has, and yet no one asks for it, and it's simply not relevant 'cause we don't mount our blocks using hammers/6 foot torque wrenches at 400 pounds load.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

and my point was that it doesnt matter because it passed the test.

Admitly the block is under going undue inspection but inspections that it has past. This is a good thing.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

I don't recall anyone testing the Koolance tops to the degree that the Apogee has had its top tested. Anyone here ever held a Koolance block? The whole plastic top is about as thick as the area of the Apogee top that has caused such controversey.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

To duplicate , within reason, the forces that will be applied to the turret(s) that the fittings screw into when 7/16' tubing is put on the 1/2" fittings.
75 or 150 ft-lbs is a little excessive, ie not realistic.
Not sure what you mean, but they are not sold with 7/16" tubing included in the kit, and any one buying acrylic accepts the risk of a brittle material.
Personally, I don't care because I'm not interested an Apogee. But I think being assured you could install and remove the tubing 10 times without cracking would be a minimum "saftey factor". By my test 50 reps /joint at 50 ft-lbs would be impressive, as I said 25 ft-lbs would be sufficient. Swiftech hasn't shown any safety factor, the tests refered to by swiftech in no way duplicate the loads that will be applied in use.
Not sure what "that" refers to, maybe I already answered it.
Not worried about either of those loads, are you?
I was not refering to the force relating to sealing the O-rings. Not worried particularly about stripping out the threads or twisting the turret out.
Sorry, can't find it BillA. I guess I'll keep looking for answers here.

http://www.systemcooling.com/images/...image17big.jpg
As you view the picture insert the bar into the threads. If you want to take the time, thread the bar and screw it into the threads. Apply the force left to right. If the delrin bends in the circle it will crack at the corner. This test will apply the same forces as rocking tubing onto the fitting that is normally screwed into the threads. 25 ft-lbs is more than I can apply (lever arm is a couple of inches, forces higher) but not as excessively showy as a vise or hammer blow.
I'm not the one that came in talking about how it met specs., and then testing with hammer blows
Frankly Bill, I'm disappointed in you. I thought you were all for appropriate testing.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

This is Gabes post ealier this evening at Xtremesystems.org:


The following tests have been conducted specifically for the purpose of verifying the allegations published by a forum member (Orkan) comparing overclocking performance between an Apogee and a Storm water-block, where it was reported that under the same circumstances (same CPU/motherboard platform etc..)the Storm yielded a 100Mhz higher overclock than the Apogee (2.8 Ghz instead of 2.7 Ghz).

The reason why we questionned this report in the first place was the scale of the alleged difference. In effect a 100 Mhz increase on a CPU operating at 2.7Mhz is a 3% increase in processor frequency. Why doubt such a difference ? An Integrated Circuit Industry rule of thumb states that an IC will gain an average of 2 to 3% in frequency for every 10°C drop in operating temperature. We have practically verified this rule many, many times. So, while the actual CPU temperatures from one testing methodology to another can be argued ad nauseam, the report published by this user suggested to us that the CPU was actually "seeing" about a 10C drop in junction temperature, in effect resulting in this 3% frequency increase.

This, we knew to be highly implausible.

Our tests were conducted in the same fashion as a typical overclocker would.

Equipment:
Motherboard: Asus A8N Sli Deluxe
CPU: AMD A64 X2 4400+ - Unmodified (with IHS)
Waterblocks: Storm and Apogee taken straight from inventory and used "as is"
Radiator: Triple 120mm CF prototype with fans operating at 5 Volts (silent mode)
Pump: MCP655
Vcore: 1.52V (motherboard max)
OS Window 2003 Server

Since CPU overclock was the main object of this test, the memory was set to a 1/2 ratio in order to make sure that no instability would result from the memory.

Processor Load was induced by using 2 tasks of CPU Burn, one per core (Set Affinity function).

The CPU temperature was read using Asus Probe. The Air temperature was measured with an Omega thermometer and its thermocouple placed 1 foot away from the fans intake.

OC procedure:
Starting windows at 2750MHz (250*11), starting CPUZ (v1.30), set 2 tasks of CPU burn (as described above).
If no crash after 20minutes, record the results, launch clockgen and increased the HTT by one increment.
Repeat until windows crashed.

Important Note: this procedure does not provide a full measure of CPU stability but we feel is perfectly adapted to indicate overclockability within a relatively short period of time.

This being said, the results are:

With Storm, we started at 2750, and subsequently passed 2755, 2764, 2771 and reached an immediate fail at a 2781Mhz setting. So for the Storm the final "stable" overclock was 2771MHz with a final air temperature of 23.1C. The CPU temperature (reported by Asus probe) occillated between 47C and 48C.

With Apogee, we passed 2750, 2755, 2764, 2771 and 2781MHz. Windows crashed finally at 2788MHz after 10minutes. So the "pass" for this test is 2781 at an air temperature of 23.2C and CPU temperature stable on the 47C mark.

To us, the above results simply indicate one thing: there does not appear to be ANY significant difference in overclocking abilities between these two water-blocks and with this processor.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

"Our tests were conducted in the same fashion as a typical overclocker would.
Equipment:
CPU: AMD A64 X2 4400+ - Unmodified (with IHS)"


whats a "typical overclocker"

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Differs greatly from my own results.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

before you start tearing him down and nitpicking the details, at least give credit to the fact that he is following through. He is doing his best to satisfy our requests. How many other business owners do you know that would take the time to do this? We asked for more testing, and at least we see that more is being done whether its high tech testing or a simple max OC test.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

I didn't know people asked for more results (from Swiftech specifically) and was thinking the exact opposite: Why is Gabe going through ALL this trouble to assure us of the abilities and soundness of construction of this block? For one user (Orkan)? I mean people post negative comments in forums all day long about products and usually those are the ones that won't believe company data anyhow - they'll test it themselves or wait for others to test it.


But I guess you're right - at least they (Swiftech) are adressing the issues to the best of their abilities.

Edit: Also - at least the procedure for testing stability was defined.
Orkan - saw you popped the top on your X2 - any chance of repeating the apogee vs storm overclock test now without the IHS? Maybe also using Gabe's method (instead of prime)?

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Yeah this would be a good test. I would bet the storm should really shine over the apogee with no IHS... let us know orkan. HTFU already.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

The on die memory controller puts its own limit on OCing.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

am I correct in understanding that this is the last leg of your and Stew's claim of misrepresentation against Swiftech ?

I see non-Swiftech reports of similar performance for the 2 wbs with IHS, so I'm thinking the 2 of you may have dropped that line of attack ?
w/o ever admitting that Swiftech's representations were 'not unreasonable' of course, this is the 'net where one can dump and run

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Bill, I never said there was intentional misrepresntation. I do believe that solely using the TTV is not a smart idea.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

The good news, there was no cracked top, and i have ZERO leaks on my first watercooling system.

The finish on the block was excellent. No nicks or anything. Extremely smoothe.
http://www.thecowsaysmoo.org/budwise...rum/Apex-3.jpg

Here is during some leak testing
http://www.thecowsaysmoo.org/budwise...rum/Apex-2.jpg

Here is the final look
http://www.thecowsaysmoo.org/budwise...rum/Apex-1.jpg


And the bad news...

As you can see, this is what i saw as i opened it up. There is one shaving just sitting there in plain view. The is obviously poor QC... I truly thought that they had tightened down on QC since the last batch. Guess not...
http://www.thecowsaysmoo.org/budwise...rum/Apex-5.jpg

These are the smaller two shavings that i found. There was one big one about 50% larger than these, but it was small enough to get lost on my desk lol...

http://www.thecowsaysmoo.org/budwise...rum/Apex-4.jpg

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Bill. Cut the crap will you? At no stage did I ever claim that Swiftech intentionally misrepresented anything.

All that was ever said was that there were suspicions that TTV results were inconsistent, and that IHS's are inconsistent.

Troll-bait.


Posted at [H]ardOCP, but ignored:

So a call for consistency is now to be interpreted as accusing a company of "intentionally misrepresenting"?

To think that some have the gall to claim that others have some hidden agenda.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

im at 2700 1.45Vcore with a 170. 26C Idle 38C load. Is it just me or does this seem high?

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

agreed Stew, we should bag this whole thing
if you have all you are after, why the need to take issue with CPU testing by others for others ?

"intentionally misrepresenting"
your quotes
identify the source please

yes Stew, I do think you misquoted me intentionally (liar apply ?)
I now view that 'misunderstanding'/wandering off track as a gambit you use repeatedly
I am stopping this game as I do not like the product, endless debate
no more objections from here to your comments Stew (and Scott too),
my insistence on an objective appraisal has produced pointless acrimony - and no testing improvements, my failure

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

The misunderstanding of others is not my problem, it's theirs. It only becomes an "issue" when they attempt to turn it into a problem that never existed. Throughout all of it, I have only seen one person disagree, accuse of hidden agendas, and accuse of lying, that being you. I only questioned your agenda after persistent baiting and snide comments, and even then, it was expressed as a rhetorical question, rather than an outright accusation as you so commonly lay at other's feet.

I want to see consistency. I represent the enthusiast overclocker first and foremost, and throughout our discussions in the past we have commonly understood that you and I have differing points of view about what is most important. I want qualification of die-temps, whether exact or as close as in reasonably possible, as these are of most importance to the enthusiast market, such as has been the case for the last 5 years.

When I see testing methodologies recommended that ignore die temps, and make assumptions about die temps, then I have an issue, and I have raised that same point consistently without diversion for the last four years. This whole Apogee vs Storm thing is just crap. It has nothing at all to do with the real issue, and the real point, but it seems that some are hell bent on attempting to dismiss very valid concerns under the weight of slanderous accusations that this is all about some stupid and irrelevant hidden agenda.

I have worn such accusations from yourself, and in private from Gabe, and I am sick to death of it. I represent the voice of the overclocking community that is being trampled on for purposes of CPU manufacturer testing convenience that quite easily and provably does nothing to serve the direct needs of the overclocking community.

Some, or even most, seem to understand that clear as day. A few, it seems, want to silence it, or call it irrelevant, for whatever reasons I do not know and still do not understand, suffice to say that those reasons appear to be due to a lack of understanding of the community's wants.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/print/p4-temp.html
That is a good article explaining the ALU temp diode and its function on the P4.

Quote
"Intel claims that the integrated thermal diodes are calibrated specifically for each given CPU on the manufacturing stage" End quote


So as we see, each diode is calibrated differently for each cpu to match against an equally unique "critical value" for each cpu. I do not see them being good comparative values from cpu to cpu for test benching.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

gf, I believe that they meant that the diodes are specifically calibrated for shutdown at 135C during the manufacturing stage. All diodes require calibration, and they just can't leave it to chance that some random diode on some CPU they make won't correctly shut the CPU down when it hits the critical 135C. I believe that this is what is meant by that statement. Otherwise the statement makes no sense. Why would anyone calibrate a diode to read differently to other CPU's? The act of calibration essentially means to bring the diode within acceptable error margins, which would make the ALU temp probe specifically ideal and consistent from CPU to CPU.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Each cpu has its own critical heat point. Some can function fine at higher heat while some have a lower threshold.

The ALU diode reading does not shut down the cpu (and readings are spaced in milliseconds). If you read the article you will see that it only triggers the send delay, to cool the alu (which are running at twice the cpu clock btw). The other on die diode is the shut down one, the one that the motherboard can read.

Besides the ALU is rapid functioning and you would only be able to get an average reading because the measurements are taken in milliseconds. So when instructions are being done there will be high heat. If send delay is triggered you will get artificially low averages so theorietically a poor heatsink could give the same reading as a good one.

In conclusion it is a folly to think that if only Intel would let us read the alu diode all would be fine. It is there for a specific function and would not give an accurate die temp for determining heatsink performance.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

GF, you are referring to the Thermal Monitor and the Thermal Control Circuit (Tcc) diode that I occasionally talk about (but I am not referring to Tcc in this post). I think that you will find that Tcc which performs the CPU shut-down is NOT the same diode as the motherboard readable diode .

The rest of the article goes on to demonstrate how the motherboard readable diode reads nothing like 135C, when THERMTRIP gets triggered and the CPU shuts down.

I also believe that you are nit-picking to the highest extreme. Yes, ALU temperatures will fluctuate, but over the period of a few milliseconds the thermal capacity of the silicon itself will not allow for huge variations in the matter of that short period.

The diode is calibrated against the a standard temperature scale, I fail to see how that cannot be taken to be representative of being valid across all CPU's of that type.

In any even, when I referred to Tjunction above, I was not talking about the Tcc probe that is the subject of the XBitLabs article.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

The thermal control circuit is what makes the pauses in the cpu cycles, it is not a temp measuring device or diode in any way.


Also,
Quote above article,
"In order to save the CPU from damages in case of such breakdowns, the second thermal diode built into the CPU keeps track of another CPU temperature value. When this value is notched, it doesn't "slow down" the CPU anymore, but sends THERMTRIP# signal for the system to shut down"

Clearly this second diode is what shuts the computer down, it is NOT the one near the ALU.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Tcc, referring to the Thermal diode that feeds the Control Circuit.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

How can you come to that conclusion? So where is it then?

I am instead drawing my information from published Intel documents, rather than a third party web-site:

http://www.employees.org/~slf/it04021.pdf

http://www.intel.com/technology/itj/...ol09_art03.pdf