Roscal
sure I tested grease over time, but the data is not mine; AS has data also I believe
the curve depends on the paste, thickness, and pressure (therefore use the same methods and materials)
the time-to-test is a variable that must be controlled, even if reading only tenths (the variation over time can exceed a degree or more)
this is crucial with an IHS as compared to the smaller and flatter CPU die surface

one min/max period for quick comparative, 48hrs for 'final' data if a known testing paste used

Cathar
understood
and taken as a given, whatever/however it is
I do not concern myself with what is below the IHS, I share your concern but do not consider this characteristic as a variable

re the CPU temp, a heat source and a specific CPU can be correlated with a TC on the IHS
this is a test methodology for heat sink thermal resistance characterization
so cut a groove in your CPU heat sources ?
why not ?

ok, then slot the wb bp
too thin ? then slot the IHS
the (required) goal is a direct measurement, indirect is ok if understood
this is purely an experimental issue, no more (offset and compression)

"My concern with this block is that it will do well on a test rig and be awful in actual long term usage." and then some unclear stuff about warping of the bp
??
my guess has to be that you do not understand the present wb product offerings, Swiftech products have thick bps

jd
the goal is not a CPU emulator, it is a CPU + IHS emulator

Did you read the Swiftech page? it spacifically said the base flexes? Did I read it wrong?
As for the CPU-IHS emulator.... why? Havn't we decided the IHS was not important enough to concern ourselfs with?

I got confused between all this I h s talk and bp thickness, forgive me im still a newbie at this stuff.

My gut feel is still that 3m is too thin but I could well be wrong.. the geometry of the design leads me to believe that it would need a thicker than normal bp.

And as for CFD I’m ready to call my ass about that because you’ve got to know what you are doing with a design like that.

3mm, compared to which products ? (which wb bp is thicker ?)
flex ?
lol, sure some deformation occurs with any load but it is the IHS 'till the edges bear on the bp; then the mobo will start deflecting depending on the socket
- I did not write that, its sales bs (turn your bs filter on)

sorry jd, I am not part of "we" in seeking a consensus;
I do what I think is correct, after discussion if I can find the interest
as long as CPUs are sold with IHSs, I will want to test the thermal solution in the same way

the cfd was just a general comment, if they cant pay your wages im somewhat doubting that they can pay for $20k cfd packages and ppl who can use them, my guess is COSMOS in solidworks which would get this horribly wrong. I need to think about this distortion thickness stuff i got 1.5mm from IHS mixed in there which would deform as part of bp.

3mm compared to the conductivity of copper and potential temprature variation accros the block, especially if your talking about extremley low temprature differentials.

IHS = Integrated Heat Spreader, nickle plated copper lid on all desktop CPUs (less than 1mm thick I believe - ?? someone ?)
despite its name it is for physical protection, the thermal hit from it and its TIM joint is known and accepted by the mfgrs

bp = base plate, 3mm is pretty thick in the high performance crowd - 2mm is more typical of impingment, some less

Ok guys. Not the best pic yet...better ones are coming asap.
Enjoy.

http://cryo-laboratory.com/upload/us...he/ApogeeB.jpg

Uhh SC, no pic here WTF? Been boozing? :D

I never said that, it's not the case anyway.

Okay, about the IHS vs die readings... If we look at the real world applications, there are so many bad IHS to die interfaces on processors these days. There are people who get strange temps because of these poor interfaces. I'd rather measure from the die for this reason...

Think about it... Does it make sense to measure the middle layer when we actually want to know how effectively the bottom layer is cooled?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...ps/measure.jpg

Excuse the crude paint drawing...
Would you measure the item that generates heat or just a layer the heat transfers through?

Or as I like to call it, Idiot Handling Shield :D

IHS thickness above the die on P4C is between 1.3 to 1.4mm.

** fixed
How did you know buddy lol

cheeers.
anyways , enjoy.

-No jetting, and no sort of water channeling through the fins vertically (like in the 6000s), interesting in how basic this design is (assuming I know nothing of their fluid-dynamic modeling throughout the fins)

I cannot wait for pH to bust a move on this one.

Ok, just trying to clarify. I am unable to understand all this ramble. All I got out of it is testing water blocks is futile and no one's results are worth the time it took to get them and no one agrees on a acceptable way to go about it. :shrug:

IHS CPU's are not acceptable to me for testing results. Intels way about it isn't acceptable and AMD's way isn't acceptable. They are not interested in accuracy but just a base line of general performance as to not kill their CPU's. Prime example is the half assed thermal throttling system they use which is based off the ondie diode which we know is crap yet the CPU are throttled from it.

Bah, I understand Cathars frustration.

Is this thread about IHS discrepancys now? hmm.
Well from the pic it is conclusive that the internals are predicable and were in fact predicted correctly. Nothing big here. Not even accelerating inlets

OK, here is the shot of the Apogee base plate I promised... :)

http://www.leesspace.com/images/Web_.../Base-Pins.jpg

Note there are 12 rows x 17 columns = 204 pins (water flow is from side-to-side in the previous pic)

http://www.systemcooling.com/forums/...16&#entry32916

looks like the same as the MCW55 to me,
less the ridge which dropped the head loss
??
I guess the CFD was to arrive at the 3mm bp thickness, not to assess the pins

for, ahem, the designed flex
what crap (can conduction losses be differentiated from 'compliance' gains ?)

otherwise they know how to test, should be as described

had not thought so thick, 1.4 is a good % of 3 and indeed thicker than several
interesting, compliant bps are NOT part of any sink spec and generally a very bad idea wrt the internal TIM joint

Thanks Lee, a review in the pipeline ?

Ah crap, got a headache now! I'll print and read over the weekend.

On one side we have debates over spreadability, and on the other we have actual temp measurement. On one side we have repeatability, and on the other we have actual CPU temperature simulation.

Hummm..

Is 1.3-1.4mm the over all thickness or the thickness over the die? 1.4 seems like the over all thickness and not the thickness removed to fit over the die. Unless Intel does it different then AMD anyway.

Yes, but much testing and understanding needed first... :)

I mic'd the base plate as being .120" (~3mm) thick as Swiftech says (bottom surface to base of the pins). Total thickness is .276" (7mm) from bottom surface to top of pins.

The flexing of the wb base-plate is exactly what is required to cause the Intel TTV to read incorrectly, and this was demonstrated to very dramatic effect with another block. That it is acknowledged that the bp flexes, thereby NOT pushing the IHS against the heat-die in the center where the thermal probe is located, is exactly why I believe that this methodology of testing is flawed.

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.

we shall see

Hmm this thread points to one of my dilemmas:

I dislike IHS in principle and pop them off my own CPUs. But for the test system I have left it on because I figured twi (testing whilst intoxicated) dictated I'd eventually break something otherwise. I also figured that popping it off precluded testing any "normal" mounting stuff.

Did I err? Either way I go with that I'll get shit I think.

Ok, it's been announced now.

Well you have to leave it on simply for mounting issues if nothing else. I think this whole base flexing thing is shit myself. Bill suggests it is PR BS yet Roscal claims Swiftech is honest. The two don't add up. Then there is the TTV issue Cathar brought up which is hard to dismiss.

I am going with the die sim as I am more interested in actual performance as opposed to system performance. Let's face it, it dosn't matter what top 5 blocks you use they will all be well within the error margins of the onboard temp monitors not to mention mounting issues and flexing IHS and bases and blah blah.....

Hmm if all 5 top blocks are close together in performance on a die sim then mounting issues on motherboards and "tippiness" and cost and even appearance become even MORE important to look at, right?

Another of my dilemmas

I'm pretty sure "succeeds" isn't used properly in that press release. They mean "supercedes" I think.

//end grammar nazism.

I would use succeed in that way.

Heck: "To come next in time or succession; follow after another; replace another in an office or a position: She succeeded to the throne."

They put the 600X in "discontinued products", BTW

I was meaning more torwards the end users results with the top 5ish blocks. Their results are hardly going to be noticeably different providing they mount the thing right. I think most significant temp drops after using a new block are more from a better mount as opposed to actual block performance.

However the 5 blocks (nopt limited to 5, just a number out my ass) performance on the die sim is still pretty damn close. To close to measure accurately from the average Joe.

Also IMO 1-3C means jack and I think more people are caring less about the absolute best they can get because they end up spending $300 for a block that gains 1-2C yet their overall system performance has not noticeably changed. That $300 could be better served on more memory, vid card, faster CPU ect...

I personally think this Apogee block (providing performance is as advertised) is kick ass. Low restriction, high performance and priced well (not to mention I am a pin grid fan boy). Looks are the only down side I can see and it looks professional, appeals to me, as opposed to bling which the average enthusiast seems to be after these days.

Anyway I am way to tired to think.