Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

MaxSaleen,
Iv'e experienced the same thing on the A64 platform. Ihs / tim joint just too variable. Personaly I'm convinced that bare die or die sim is the way to test.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

That's why this statement is so nonsensical.
There may not be measurements, but there is overwhelming anecdotal evidence. And that is something that someone in BillA's position really ought to know or check before blowing off steam at us.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

We got our review by robotech who did another fine job. I feel we don't give him enough credit that he deserves. He really went out of his way on this one and his reviews are getting better.

Maybe the next thing we need to do is finding out why the intel TTV is producing such different results. Maybe someone should contact Swiftech and bring up the topic. It was their data and their block that brought all this hoopla. THey should have a hand in explaining why they got different reults other than saying different testbeds. Maybe they should retest or try some changes in the setup.

As for the intel TTV, I can't trust data coming from it unless we found out why the results it got vary so much from what robotech got. I'm not going to say it's a bad or invalid tesbed, but I trust robotech's review more. We talk about grooving ihs, what the thermocouple is measuring and IHS variablity but that doesn't prove anything until we actual find out why. We can make as many theories as we want but they don't meaning anything if we do go out, test them, and prove them
.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Good god. :uhh:


So all the data you done on your die sim posted on overclockers and Thermal Managment website is now crap as with all of your data Les was using to make predictions and models.


Basically all that work tells us no more than we knew before the tests.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

No, JD (link)
To repost:
"It would be nice, but this is the problem
There is not " a good approximation for C/w vs Q", if you are referring to measured "C/W".
Good data for "Swittech Storm"(G4) but as discussed here interpretation is impossible without more details.
Good data for LRWW but requires leap of faith re C/W(TIM)(different TIM and wb surface finish) and possibly "sensor offset allowance" (Die conductivity(360-400w/mk and sensor position(seperately reported as 1.9939mm))
Possibly the only "good and interpretable" data is the SwiftechMCW6000 on a 144sq mm heat-source (Incoherent's presentation here and subsequent posts)."

Edit: The crude models are for uniform-flux from Die (be it CPU or Simulator)
Should apply to Heat-Dies which are designed to give uniform-flux.
Although data may have to be manipulated to account for "sensor introduced errors" (link5 in next Post)

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Presently focusing on the analysis of the various test beds.
Progressing tortuously along the lines indicated by : link1 , link2 ,link3,link4 and link5 .
Here "link1 & link2" are TIM, "link3 & link4" are "position & size of heat source" and "position & size of sensors", and "link5" is "sensor introduced errors"
Still a long way to go, an IHS has not yet even been introduced, but....

Edit. Changed "link5" from Post to Page

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

I am going to go out on a limb.

Why are we even discussing this?
I have been considering whether or not to embark on a series of tests on a die simulator where I attempt to characterise waterblock behaviour with an IHS.
After having read this thread I am hesitant to do this, I believe the exercise to be futile. Putting a heat spreader on top of a CPU die with a waterblock on top is exactly the same as putting a Heat spreader under a waterblock with a CPU die underneath.
The point of that statement, stupid as it is, is to illustrate that you can turn any high performance waterblock into a complete dog by putting crap in the heatpath. There are lots of analogies. A thoroughbred racehorse will beat shire horse around a racetrack. But not if you have it pulling a heavy cart through mud. This community only deals with unimpeded racehorses as far as I am concerned. The business of cargo transport is a whole other industry, that which I think Swiftech is moving towards with the Apogee. ie general, reliable, sustainable and above all economical. No-one breeds racehorses for cargo transport.

In my world, using an IHS capped CPU for performance should not even be considered. The whole basis for my testing is and always has been to establish performance levels that would enable me to build the best block I possibly could. Having spent time building waterblocks, or money buying waterblocks, or effort designing waterblocks, WTF would I render that irrelevant by hitching up a cart to the racehorse?

This is Procooling, it's always been about the overclock at the end of the day, that's what the watercooling community started from. Leaving an IHS on is not what we are about. Waterblocks designed to adequately cool an IHS capped CPU are another market entirely, potentially a much bigger one, and the right way to go for Swiftech IMO from a purely economical standpoint.

I am going to stick to testing, using a small heat die in some form, because I believe that that best represents a small UNCAPPED, CPU die. Despite the concerns of whether it fully represents a real CPU I believe it to be the only reliable way to establish waterblock performance. Because the conditions in a heatdie a are known and if the setup is known it can be modelled. If it can be modelled then absolute performance can be established from real data.

I refuse to believe this is not possible.

And I am not talking about data only valid for one testbench, I am talking about absolute performance which would be reproducable in any other testbench where the the conditions are known. In a TTV they are not (at least by me), In a real CPU they are not, and you haven't a hope in hell of knowing the conditions in an IHS capped CPU.


P.S. Ben. I also refuse to believe that performance is dependent on power level in a die simulator. If it is the calibration is out. In fact I think that this effect is a way of verifying the calibration of the temperature sensors. Take temperature readings at different power levels, plot a curve dT water-Sensor vs Watts, extrapolate a linear down to 0W. If dT for all sensors is not zero at this point, you need to recalibrate.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Think I perch on a twiglet of the same limb

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Lets get real for a minute. Those on the real cutting edge of overclocking do not bother with watercooling. They spend near $1000 for the very latest cpu (multiple ones of a batch), pry off the IHS's, put a copper cup filled with liquid nitrogen and overclock them cpus with no worry of destroying the entire investment. So do not assume watercooling at above ambient temps is the cutting edge, it is somewhere along the line where the mediocre cheapass section of overclockers reside.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Sorry but that's bollocks. You're talking about the cutting edge of the benchmarking crowd where OC's don't have to be sustainable other than to run the single bench in question. Radically different crowd.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Perhaps I should have said:

It's all about the maximum sustainable overclock.

With hardware that is affordable. If you get $1000 dollar CPU performance with one costing $100, you have a lot to play with.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

No, they overclock. The above ambient crowd overclocks. There is also the phase change below ambient crowd who also overclocks (at sustained periods). The above ambient crowd is the bottom of the barrel so to speak, with the least performance gains and the least investment.

So I ask, what is the point of benchtesting to this crowd at this point (other than it being a hobby). There are physical limitations. For those enthuseists who wish to make the next leap in performance the obvious road is a reliable phase change system.

In that context this block by Swiftech appears to be overdesigned with far too much investment in getting data to use to market it. Now we see in fact that their own investment has turned against them and the very data they used to market it is the flak they are recieving. Nobody in their right minds will ever attempt this path in waterblock marketing to the bottom of the barrel again.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

:hammer:

:uhh:

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Thanks gf, again

On 11/30 a thread was started “product testing today – who is being served ?” specifically addressing the potential for using a CPU as a so-so heat source intended towards low budget / semi-technical review sites. There has been limited response to this topic and the probable reason could be the strong disapproval apparent in this thread for both the thermal impediment and the additional source of uncertainty introduced into the DUT. I believe it is now correct to say that the more vocal on procooling (at least) wish optimum testing done with a bare die sim., I can accept such w/o question, that is the popular opinion.

There is no need for my technical concurrence on using a bare die sim, I and others have used such for years. The limitations of practical use however, I believe I may be uniquely aware of as I alone have visually observed with optical flats the surface wear over time. But it is quite clear that ‘facts’ are not going to be accepted on my say-so alone as I am not a “trusted’ source, and that virtually any anecdotal un-named source can trump my ‘facts’. Yes, such is the court of public opinion.

The ignorant conceit displayed by some, in a presumably technical forum, is amazing to one having started in engn some 40 yrs ago. Our technical society is built on Stds and Specs (ASTM, API, AWWA, NSF, ISO, DIN, etc., etc); these and company/product specs are how companies communicate. Contrast this with the comments of those who ‘cannot trust’ data because it was generated by the company itself. OK, now it is the presumed veniality of the company, they must lie for advantage. Well kids, keep that shit on procooling – you cannot work in engn with this mentality.

The Scientific Method: Define the Conclusion, and Assemble the Facts to Fit
Re the TTV, why not start a thread soliciting hands-on experience with TTVs ?
(I am a ‘not trusted source’ so my experience is invalidated; commercial interests, blah blah)
Sport has been had misquoting out of context the P4 TTV info. Anyone read the goddanm thing ? What is the heating element ? Whose hairbrained idea was it to consider the TTV as a CPU ? And transfer (presumed) problems ‘generally attributable’ to IHS TIM joints also to TTVs ? GOOD science fellows, why not consider that almost no one here knows anything about TTVs ? But of course it’s a source problem again. I suggest that TTVs disappear from our vocabulary, other than as a topic to beat up Swiftech of course.

It was distressing to have Stew raise the issue of my benefiting by pimping Swiftech products, and being a disgruntled ex-employee as well. If I was not a pimp for years before, why would I change ? Ah says the dirt-digger, because Gabe owes you money ! Liar Gabe is paying $380/wk, when he is so inclined; but if Gabe goes bellyup I am paid at once. So why would I be pimping Gabe’s stuff ? Again it returns to the issue of technical impartiality, now Stew too has called me out (to be polite, lol). [Why was this issue raised ? It is not technical, it is a personal slur.]

BillA, the technical whore – just ‘cause it feels good
I’ll take a break and see if I cannot develop a more positive attitude, later

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

No, Bill, it has nothing to do with you claiming that some things are facts, and that any un-named source can trump you. It's that your assertions are don't pass sanity checks, and you insist on ignoring variables. That ain't engineering, it's marketing. Start being an engineer again, and we'll believe you.
It's not so much that we--well... I--don't trust the data because it comes from the company, it's that I don't trust the data because the testbed isn't characterised, is designed for validation, not thourough testing, and is missing a critical variable, which is the only one that anyone who's trying to overclock CARES ABOUT!
Again, we have marketing, not the scientific method. The scientific method is a process that follows "observe a phenomenon, formulate a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, repeat"

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

What spec? Did you spec putting the thinnest material and the smallest radius exactly where the top will receive its highest torque loading? Or did someone design a pretty top, and some flow designer come along later and cut out the back side of the radius, with absolutely no thought of the structure.
Neither of the above is realistic, or puts a direct stress on the weak spot. Nothing alledged, they are the weakest spots, casting errors and machining errors will determine which is actually the weakest. Rocking 7/16 tubing back and forth to get it over the 1/2+ fitting will put a lot a lot of torque side to side, (the design makes back and forth unlikely) from weak spot to weak spot. It takes a lot of force to get the 7/16 tubing on.
Will one break the first time, unlikely, but how many mountings did you "spec" it for? Would you reveal the the "spec" for the thickness of material at that point? The "tolerance"? What was the load (ft-lbs) "specified", how many repetitions?
No, I didn't think so. If anyone thought about it it would have an 1/8" minimum radius, because it would have cost nothing to do it right.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

I wish for testing to continue.
The choice of technique is the tester's
Incoherent's approach("a small heat die in some form") is more interesting to me(unable to define my optimum).
This I hope will enhance my understanding of the influence and interrelation between "sensor position & size","heat source position & size","die size","heatsink effective area & h(eff)", and TIM.
Whereas to quote Incoherent "you haven't a hope in hell of knowing the conditions in an IHS capped CPU".
Further down the line when I have a better grasp of "influence and interrelation" then "IHS capped CPU" data will be of much more interest.If then, this data is already in the bank so much the better

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

First let me thank Incoherent for an excellent post (#67). I too refuse to believe that using a heat die / simulator is not possible. To add to your comment, I often confuse the power level question, because I don't have a firm grasp on the effect (since I haven't started my testing yet), but last I checked, it had no effect, which leaves (me with) a lot of doubts/questions on the results.

Festivus (for the rest of us):
Using a CPU leaves us with an unknown Q (wattage), which is also why I choose to stay away from it. We've been over this in the past, countless times. While pHaestus uses it, and can get it to heat up to approximately the same level, it makes for a reproducible heat source, which is good for comparative testing, not analytical testing (i.e. measuring the actual performance).

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Bill mention standards in testing. How can we standardize something like a TIM that is variable and outside parameters of control? Why should testers have to account for it in testing then? Yeah TIMs exist and they affect performance but we are testing WBs and not TIMs. TIMs vary too much and influences results. We want accurate results of WB performance in ideal situations, not one where the TIM is much of a factor in performance as the WB. We can vary the die size and I think that good enough. You guys can add the TIM caps to the dies but using realife CPU for testing is purpose is flawed. CPUs vary and so do TIMs so they are fine for comparative results but not pure performance.

I understand Bill's position. The TTV is a more realistic test setup than a die sim so it's would seem to get results more reflective of real life results. That doesn't make it more accurate or reliable which is Cathar's standpoint I believe.

Swiftech obvious knew about TIM variablity and tried to address it with the flex base idea. Why else would they put that statement down. It could be BS, which GABE seems to be marketing, or maybe they accurately addressed the situation with TIM variablilty but the results dont show in a die sim. It still doesn't mean the block performed better than the Storm because it address a TIM issue better.

It's like racing on a track with potholes or a bad surface. Just because a car can handle the potholes better doesn't mean it's a faster car. It's just a a car that run well with tracks with potholes.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

[Deleted - Not worth it]

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

I had mentioned this at the SystemCooling thread ...

"[Lee] As you had pointed out the plastic cover fittings having thinned walled sections, the injection molding die is steel safe, so updating the wall with a large radius would be ideal and at a minimal cost to do."

I would hope that the thin walled area would be beefed up with a radius. :)

Sure, pressing on/off tubing and hitting it with an impact testing hammer would show the part is strong without the added radius. HOWEVER, since all tubing is not the same, nor the same ID size, the press on efforts would vary.

The tubing, being secured onto the not radius fittings, when clamped down can route at various angles. Stresses over time would weaken this thinned wall area. Why do I mention this? Some types of tubing will soften with tempatures rising in the cooling loop and then reset when cooled.

Another issue with the thinned out fitting without radius, the coolant over delta-T (time) and delta-P (pressure) would permeate into the plastic and weaken this thin section as well. As overclockers, there are various coolants to be had on the market. Even the DIY coolants from the kitchen and garage.

A thinned wall section would be a high risk if the product is released that way.

Not too long ago, the ThermalTake BigWater pump/reservoir combo ran into a problem with bad fittings. People assembled the kit and it ran fine for a time. Then, without notice, the fitting let loose from the joint of the housing. Don't worry, the BigWater has an improved pump with blue LED now.

Stev

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

stev: seems from the reply Lee got from Gabe that the top is sufficient for whatever Swiftech's in-house standards are (if any), and he didn't seem like they would be making any attempt to correct this issue.

regarding testing: ricecrispi has it spot on - we are testing WATERBLOCK PERFORMANCE, and as such the testing setup/system should eliminate as many variables as possible. If anything as an end user I think this information would be VERY valuable - for instance I buy a block based on die-sim results expecting better performance than my current block, and I DON'T see the results. What does this suggest? That (if I've mounted the block several times) my IHS TIM joint is not a good one, and I then have some options if I want to see better temps/overclock - namely remove the IHS or replace the cpu.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Albigger: That is precisely the point of this thread. I imagine I'll get flamed for thinking up something so outlandish, but it eliminates all TIM joints as variables.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

I know, I'm very much watching/participating in that discussion. Agree with Joe-way to think outside the box. As one who has not done my own testing, anxiously await others' inputs about your suggested method's shortcomings, but if it proves to be theoretically viable, would then be nice to spec out an (affordable?) setup.

--Jay

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

OMG...

I just unpacked my Storm. Comparing these two blocks side by side is like comparing a diesel Rabbit... to a Z06 corvette.

If the apogee is the future... I always did like history. The storm is going in my loop.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

as gone_fishing said, your 15 minutes is over...

we all understand your deal.

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Joe... go find someone else to play your bitch... I'm growing tired of it. :)

How many other people on this forum have an apogee, and a storm in their hands? Not sure, but I do. Just got the storm this morning... and wanted to share with others how they "felt" side by side.

Don't like it? fine, delete the post. If I wanted "fame" I'd sell pyramid scams.
.... besides... I'm just trying to thread-hijack here. See... I'm learning something from you. :)

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Weren't you the one who said he wasn't coming back? what happened to that?

what more are you going to offer the readers here? actual data? or real info? Or just more hype and drama? Because honestly I think we have enough hype and drama about he Apogee already in the other 500 posts in the other apogee thread. I think most people here are beyond that and are concerned with real performance data now.

Lots of people have storms here, real G5 storms, and G4's etc... There have been reviews all over the web about he qualities of the storm. Why is that applicable to an Apogee thread? Besides for stirring up more shit and bombing another thread with Hype over substance?

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

So you can stir up shit but I cant? ... double standards are no fun. ... they may even poke out an eye!
I tried to make a "fact only" thread about the apogee... but you wouldn't have that either. Make up your mind.


For those of you that give a rip about real data on storm vs. apogee ... here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=82566

Re: Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling
 

Its funny that in that thread you say you hated people throwing it under a bus without testing it.... Aren't you the one who had been doing all the Apogee sucks attacks? And flaming swiftech?

Maybe you should read up on Double Standards since you may not know the definition.

Maybe I missed something but didnt Robotech already post "real data" about the apogee? Also which Storm you use? Since there are like 3 or 4 versions and different mfg's. (Swiftech or LR, G4 or G5?)