Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Swiftech made it sound like the apoggee was a clear cut one temp degree improvement over the Storm on TTV and RL tesbed data to back it up.
I would love to have robotech use an apex kit like swiftech did on a cpu testbed to compare results. We should throw in mcw55 and that would add more heat into the loop.
=====
According to Swiftech

"Here it is apparent that the Apogee has the lowest thermal resistance at all flow rates and more importantly features a wider performance advantage at "real life" flow rates between .3 and 1.5 GPM."

"As in the preceding graph, the Apogee outperforms all previous solutions whether a small aquarium pump or a high pressure industrial pump are used."
===
I know I wont trust Swiftech test results and their statesment from now on. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. :nono:

If the data was still good, I wouldn't buy the block anyways. Who cares about the performance of the block if it breaks apart, leaks, and has shavings that might damage a pump. Have we forgetten to talk about reliability? If a car in MaxSaleen's example broken down each run do you think that would matter? The nail in the coffin for the apogge is not performance data, it's the Qc and reliability issues.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

I hope I'm not guilty :( I am just trying to understand the how's and why's here. Seems a complete 180 has happened it terms of assessing a WB's performance and I can't figure out the reasonings why.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Wow, you guys really want to put that sucker in the grave. It's introduction has caused such angst it has led to full rebellion.

Maybe they should have been honest and pushed it as,

"Here is a cheapass version of a waterblock that will give you the same overclock even though it has shitty thermal die numbers. Now go out and buy it because we refuse to make expensive products with the high overhead anymore for zero detectable real world gains."

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Wasn't my point, and I agree the proof is in the pudding.
I have no plans to get an Apgee when I get to the limit of the Storm, and most people will feel the same and vice versa. So we compare 2 (insert #) rigs nothing is proved either. If Robotech had done that I would give the result limited credence (since I have the same cpu), but I know if I had the same equipement I could easily have different results. What's the difference in C? When does that amount result in a better overclock. Stew brought up the same point with his G7
Should have gotten a 6000?
I am happy my Storm only had a thumb print inside, and if I screw up sometime putting the tubing on I might break the fitting, but won't break the housing. That's worth the $10.00 buck extra I payed, out of the several hundred I layed out. Thank you.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Yeh there seems to be a nice whiplash from this change that has everyones hair up...

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Stew backed me into that corner, how can I say that artificial test results are more meaningful than actual performance data ?

testing is/can be a guide, but the the goal is a performance increase
if the test yields data that is found to be useful, good
if not, revise the test or the analysis

until now it seems, the various heat sources produced different results but not in extreme conflict; but now the Apogee results 'don't fit'
such is something for investigation by those with an interest, but there is a very handy arbiter, actual performance
(and if we say that we cannot discern based on performance, then what is going on ?)

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Am still puzzled. Ref post#19.

The largest difference noted was > 3 deg C, under 14 by 14 @ 80W (simulator)

Why would there be no discernable difference under (roughly) the same contact area, at 100W? 125W? (real CPU)

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

I am not going to add additional shit to the fight, but will only repeat user observations that have been reported to me over the years, and not specifically relating to the Storm at all. Correlate them at your will/peril.

In all non-IHS scenarios there has consistently appeared to be a very strong correlation with artificial die performance, and the ability to overclock and/or sustain lower reported CPU temps. A trawl through the various OC forums over the years shows that this is a strong general trend. Not a given fact.

Users of IHS capped CPU's have fairly consistently reported a "numbness" effect with respect to reported CPU temperatures. There is always very little to separate different blocks from each other, if anything at all, unless there is a truly vast difference in measured artificial testbed performance.

Users of IHS capped CPU's who have subsequently removed their IHS's have trended to observe cooling performance and overclocking performance consistent with projected artificial test-bed performance. i.e. lower reported temps and better overclocks. As always, temperature reporting differences are numbed/dulled by the practises of temperature "fiddling" and compression that occurs by mobo makers in the industry.

Those few users who have persisted with assessing waterblock performance between both different waterblocks and different IHS capped CPU's, and as such perhaps provide a clearer independent picture of the extent of the muddiness of the IHS->wb relationship, have found that reported waterblock performance is wholly dependent on the individual CPU+IHS being used. On one individual CPU, broad cooling patterned wb A can be found to be better than focused cooling patterned wb B. Switch out the CPU for another of the exact type, and the observable wb performances will trade places, as will achievable overclock.

In all of this, it is quite clear to me that no-one is lying, and no one is at fault. The only issue is this:

The use of IHS's provides a variant and inconsistent mechanism around which cooling device performance may be assessed. Where any individual gets "tripped up" in all of this is choosing to believe otherwise, or worse, choosing to base expensive business decisions on the results provided by a variant and inconsistent testing mechanism.

Are bare-die-sims better than "real world IHS die sims". Yes, and no. They are because they are consistent. No, because they do not reflect the real world directly. The problem here though is much like chaos theory. The introduction of the IHS provides for a large set of variables that absolutely defy consistent measurement. We could sit here all day and construct hypotheticals for why the use of IHS's are providing varying results as they are, and the more we do so, the more we will come to understand how futile it is to attempt to use them categorise cooling design performance.

So where does that leave us? Between a rock and a hard place. Damned if we do (use IHS's for measurement) and damned if we don't (cue cries of "NOT REAL WORLD!").

The real world sucks (IHS use). In a world where IHS's pollute results, the best any of use can do is fall back to the one thing that is providing consistent results, and that is bare-die simulation testbeds. It may not simulate the real world, but I'll be damned if someone can convince me that using a mechanism that introduces a multitude of variables for purposes of assessing wb design performance can ever be described as "a good step forwards".

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Um, where do you get the data that it provides the same overclocks?
Both of your posts in this thread assume it - where is evidence?

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Exactly. Either we're now saying the CPU/mobo system test is the real deal (even though everything I've read up till now suggests not to trust those sensors for crap - and a temp probe on the side of the IHS - not sure about its correlation to core/center IHS temps) and then the TTV does a rather good job of simulating the real thing. That leaves us with the heat dies which don't produce similar results.


OR

Still say the temp readings from the mobo/cpu are not to be trusted but take the heat die ones as gospel. Then the TTV/Swiftech results are still in disagreement....


EDIT: would REALLY like to see a heat die with an IHS (either built-in or removable). May possibly help bridge the gap?

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Cathar that was a great post.

While I know there will never be a uniform agreement on anything... as you said we are damned either way... I think you touched on many areas I was wondering about.

I mean its simple to figure out that an IHS hurts cooling... there are at least 2 more layers of material to go through for an IHS so it makes very good sense that an IHS will always be a handicap for the best cooling. I couldn't imagine dropping $300.00 on a cooling system and keeping the IHS on the CPU.

From my point of view... and this is just me talking out my butt I guess... But for REAL results in my eyes I would want one that came from a bare die than results obscured by a IHS.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

No reason why they couldn't publish both results w/ & w/o the IHS. To me that would lend more credibility to the test.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Argh! If only I had my testbench running!

I would do a comparison of a free floating IHS, mounted with old clamping pressures. Then re-run the series without an IHS.

Cathar makes a good point; IHS add a variable that is hard if not impossible to measure/replicate. Here's a bit of info that might help clarify it, for some:

When the core was bare, some people reported using mounting pressures way above specifications, with varying results, but has anyone tried to do the same with an IHS capped processor? I see none. (!)

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

“Those few users who have persisted with assessing waterblock performance between both different waterblocks and different IHS capped CPU's, and as such perhaps provide a clearer independent picture of the extent of the muddiness of the IHS->wb relationship, have found that reported waterblock performance is wholly dependent on the individual CPU+IHS being used. On one individual CPU, broad cooling patterned wb A can be found to be better than focused cooling patterned wb B. Switch out the CPU for another of the exact type, and the observable wb performances will trade places, as will achievable overclock.”

Stew, the above is the basis for our disagreement. I do not believe that it is accurate. It is beyond my understanding how such IHS performance variability could be seen in products so different, the TIM joints in AMD and Intel CPUs. And we are to accept that this variability applies to all past and future products having an IHS ?

I do not wish to pillory you about someone else’s data, but do not believe it correctly characterizes present products. Here is the problem in assessing the internal TIM joint variability; how does one distinguish between differences in the TIM joint and differences in the CPU ?
You would posit that all CPUs are the same, such that all differences are due to the TIM joint only ?

You have not supported your proposition that all factory TIM joints are different (apart from the absolute sense), but you are stating that any wb could equal any other depending on the CPU it was mounted on.
The random walk theory of wb cooling ?

“The use of IHS's provides a variant and inconsistent mechanism around which cooling device performance may be assessed. Where any individual gets "tripped up" in all of this is choosing to believe otherwise, or worse, choosing to base expensive business decisions on the results provided by a variant and inconsistent testing mechanism.”

DO note that you are saying that IHS users must expect inconsistent cooling performance.
I do not believe this is true.

As an intellectual exercise Stew, let us posit that the Intel internal TIM joint is consistent.
Your whole argument collapses, yes the IHS will compress the range of the apparent temps – but so what ?

You have not supported your assertion that Swiftech used “a variant and inconsistent testing mechanism” as you have not shown that it was inconsistent. In fact the opposite is true, the mechanism provides vastly more consistent results than my old heat die. Nor, using consistent in a different sense, should it be said that the testing mechanism was inconsistent between wbs; similar types of wbs had similar results (MCW55 and Apogee).

For those not aware of the larger issue, it is this:
If Stew is successful in characterizing ALL ”test mechanisms” using an IHS as being “inconsistent”, then no CPUs could be used as a “Stew approved” test mechanism.
I believe that a means can be devised to use a CPU as a so-so heat source and am attempting identify such.
bare die sim vs. CPU

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Whatever Bill.

Didn't come here to throw shit. Seems to be just one person doing it after all.

Later.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

I spent 45 min carefully wording a response (slow typer) and have it dismissed in 3min as shit ?

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

You're just repeating the same thing that has been said dozens of times before. Why continue? We fundamentally disagree. There is no point. Period.

At this stage I really could care any less about waterblocks in general. This is far beyond enthusiast material, and well into grubby business-based politics. A game that I have absolutely no desire to play as I have stressed many times before.

For me to continue on posturing around the same point that we fundamentally disagree on will just destroy any last shred of enthusiasm I have left. In case people hadn't noticed, I haven't posted much of anything of late, and really, I couldn't be happier.

To me it's pretty obvious what's going on. I refuse to waste further energy on it.

As I've stated many times before, this is not about money for me. This is about the joy of discovery. I've seen grubby business politics destroy that joy about as well as a bullet to the head. I am truly sorry that I ever broke my promise to myself to remain wholly independent of the greater commercial mire.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

FWIW, I think it's worth investigating.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Well, no shit. His argument was based on the evidence that the internal TIM is NOT consistent. If you take away one of the presumptions of an argument, is it any surprise that it collapses? Thanks for an introduction to logical reasoning that is completely pointless. If you can provide data to show that the Intel TIM is consistant, then you might have an argument.

This is the most ridiculous assertion I've seen you make yet. It's like this completely fake scenario:

Cathar: Suppose A=>B and B=>C then A=>C
BillA: Suppose A does not imply B and B=>C Then A does not imply C!!! Therefore you must be wrong!!

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

What really needs to be done to set this issue to rest is (gasp) statistical analysis and loads of testing. Buy 5-10 of the same procs and test them in the same mobo each at least 5 mounts with the same waterblock and see the variation (or lack thereof). Grooving the IHS for a temp probe may be helpful (to see (in)consistency of temp differential to core temp).

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

What evidence?

As BillA pointed out, IF any variation is observed in IHS tim from cpu to cpu it is indistingishable from variations in the cpu's themselves. Any observation made would quantify the two together, so how do you seperate them?

Edit to clarify point.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Buy some cpu's, test with IHS on, pop IHS off all cpus and test the bare dies themselves.

Who is going to lay out for that one - probably no one.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Oh, good grief. You're arguing because I didn't post evidence? The whole point is that Cathar stated that he had anecdotal evidence that IHS interfaces were highly variable. Nothing in there has any relationship to me pointing out that BillA's argument is running in a logical circle.
And besides. I was the one demanding evidence. Stop asking me to provide it.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

*/me points at the chocolate biscuits and wiggles eyebrows...*

Circles... as in "we are going round in"... and have been for days.
Anyone else been watching Swiftech's shares values since this all began...?

Pass me some skii's - there's a good downhill slope to fly down...

Bedtime - n' me woman's waiting... much more interesting now... :D

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

That would be one way to get a number. So you get 10 cpus (a very small group 100 would be more of what we would want) you do 5 trials IHS on 5 trials off....that is 50 sets of data for 10 cpu's. Now do the same for AMD....then the same for each type of AMD and Intel cpu on the market today..... that is over 400 test runs and 80 cpus to buy not to mention all the mobos for different socket types. I doubt Cathar or anyone did this so how could anyone (other than the manufacturers themselves) have evidence?

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

The results are in disagreement. Something is wrong.

Surely the first point of call would be to presume that there is an unaccounted variable, being introduced by the IHS->CPU die interface, that is been ignored.

Surely, in light of the increasing amount of data that shows that this is highly likely to be the case, that it is then up to prove that the IHS->CPU die interface is invariant, and not the other way around.

The assertion is that the IHS->CPU interface is variant. There is already sufficient data to show that this is highly likely given the rather obvious existing discrepencies. Where, then, is there any shred of evidence to prove the opposite, other than merely taking someone's word for it?

The evidence is mounting to presume that the interface is variant, but we are still arguing that it is invariant with absolutely no evidence? Please. When did logic take a leap out the window?

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

I for one will believe that Intel TIM interfaces are invariant once someone produces PROOF showing it that way(real test, real numbers) Including a TTV. And from that I assume any TIM interface on any CPU is going to be the source of dynamic readings and shouldnt be trusted for exacting tests.

Real world or no, if you show that every block has the same rating with an IHS but vastly different without it, you will see people ripping IHS's off their CPU's. as I said earlier... why spend money on a cooling system if you arent willing to get the best cooling you can for the money or the purpose. (ie: do something free and remove that IHS)

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

My old Maze3 is on the CPU and testing now... :)

I contacted Swiftech and expressed my concerns about the shavings and thickness of the top housing. I was not surprised to receive an immediate reply and hear they were already aware of the concerns, had investigated them in-house, and have implemented corrective action where necessary. Here is a direct quote from Gabe:

Copper shavings: Nothing is loose shavings when delivered. Each base plate is inspected in production, and cleaned up. Some might have escaped scrutiny. After all, these pins are really tiny. The lady doing this is now using a big magnifying glass to see well. In any case, you really have to scrape them with a sharp tool to remove them, which is what she is doing. Also note that the bigger pieces (on the outside perimeter) that you showed on your site are actually left over pins from the machining not “shavings” or burrs. These are normally solidly attached to the base. Finally, we have also taken steps in production to completely eliminate any shavings using a new process.

Gabe is correct about the few tiny shavings I found. Too small to see until I hunted them down with a magnifying glass, and they did have to be pried out with a fine dental tool.

I inspected the “thin” areas as you mentioned, and they completely meet our specs. Pressure tests at 40 PSI resulted in no problems on 100’s of blocks (the pressure we test at). We also did some destructive testing this morning on 20 of these housings, using a heavy hammer and hitting the top of the housing (inlet & outlet), which places a direct stress on the alleged “weak” spots, and NONE failed. The entire housing will eventually disintegrate when hit hard enough, but we found absolutely no signs of stress related failures.

I read in Pro Cooling that some people are concerned about pushing the tube in and breaking the housing. Well, we “pushed the tube” on 20 blocks with repeated blows of a hammer… When you “push” hard enough, the housing will explode in pieces. I will therefore advise users who push the tubing that hard to wear protective glasses… :) Joke aside; I think your concerns with respect to the thickness of the wall are unfounded. The fact that ONE user reported a problem, problem that we cannot even verify since he epoxied the water-block does not mean that there is a problem with the housing. It means that either we did a poor job at QC, or that something else happened with this water-block that the user is not reporting.

I also decided to abuse the Apogee top cover I had sectioned, and found it to be very tough. Pushing, pulling, prying, etc. – in general applying a lot more force to the hose barb than I ever would under normal circumstances, without any signs of cracking or failure. I even gave it a few good whacks with a hammer and nothing.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

What I don't understand is this. We have literally dozens of engineering review articles detailing the variability of TIM interfaces with respect to pressure and flatness. We have an incredible amount of evidence to show that these interfaces vary for whatever reason, pressure and flatness being the two main culprits.

We have a testbed that appears to be producing odd results. This testbed introduces a second interface via a TIM + IHS. We have these odd results forming the basis of a marketing campaign for a new waterblock, strangely enough with a flexible base-plate (pressure/flatness above anyone?), and somewhat unsurprisingly for that which independent tests can't verify the claimed results.

We then have a disgruntled ex-employee who is still owed a lot of money by said company which has taken a rather large financial gamble on this new block, and he's putting his hand over his reputation and stating that we should ignore everything we've come to know about the variability of TIM interfaces, and accept that the TIM interface on the Intel TTV is now suddenly and conveniently invariable, and to believe that everything else is faulty or irrelevent.

Say what? Come again? I don't care if there is any shred of legitimacy in the apparent reasons for asking everyone to ignore established facts, but heck, it sure doesn't look good. I am sorely annoyed that Bill has chosen to label any of my calls for a quite basic level of reasoning and derisively refer to them as:

I contend that the mechanisms need to prove themselves, before all of us, not for any one individual, especially in light of what we know about the proven variability of interfaces. If any mechanism comes along and is generating results that don't agree with established procedures, and introduces new variables that are known to cause variance, then the ABSOLUTE LAST thing we should be doing is then saying "No. The device introduces no variances" in absolute contrast to established facts about interface variances.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Thanks for the heads up, Bill, I won't bother. It won't help things, it appears.

I've never been a TIM fan. Sure it is easier for the OEMs, but it sure does make things hard over here at procooling. I'm with Stew (not that my opinion matters, a boy among the kings here) on the TIM varience issue. Here's why:

Case1:
About 18 months ago, I had an Intel 2.8e which I overclocked (great chip, hot as hell though). On air with a MCX-478 my maximum stable OC was 3.2. Temps were high (no sense in posting as I have no accurate way of measuring). When I put some of my watercooling gear on (an old BIP, MCW5000, hydor L-20) my maximum stable OC went up to 3.4. I say to myself "Strange. This chip is regularly hitting 4.2. Bad chip perhaps?" I checked out the bin number (week 23 malay if I remember) over one VR and saw that some had gone as high as 4.4 on water.

What I noticed was that my temps had not improved that much, though I was using a vastly superior thermal solution on a very hot CPU. After a couple of remounts I thought to myself "Maybe a bad IHS?" It would take to long to lap the sucker, so I took it off. Next (scary) mount of the block: major decrease in temps, maximum OC shot up to 4.0.

Case 2:

In a recent upgrade (on a different rig), I swapped out an old 2.6C for, wouldn't you know it, a 2.8E (great value for the old 478s). Checked it out on VR again, seemed like I had another good chip (week 37 malay). This time, out of the box, IHS on, the thing does 4.0. Temps are surpisingly good (using the same MCX 478). Pop off the IHS, install new WC gear (Dtek WW, MCP350, BIP3). Temps improve, but not nearly as much as the last time. OC went to 4.2, also not nearly as much as last time.

Obviously not science, but it is good anectodal evidence. The first 2.8E couldn't go anywhere near its max OC with the IHS on. The second 2.8E went almost to its max OC WITH the IHS on. This would seem to say that the IHS on the first chip was severly limiting my ability to cool the chip, while the second IHS had much less of an impact. I consider that to be inconsistancy (varience).