Perhaps it is an interpretation that Cathar states the Cascade is bettter than the white water by a couple degrees on one testbench that that logical conclusion could be that if the RBX can almost beat the Cascade or compete head to head, that it logically beats out the ww. Dunno. I don't think player0 is reaching to draw that conclusion too much.

Oh.. btw player0 welcome to the forum. I am glad to see another tester join in and contribute.

edit: oops player0 beat me to it.

"I havent read any testing on the MCW5002, but while you're here Bill, I didn't get great numbers on it. It just doesn't mount tight to my Athlon. I followed the instructions to the letter, and I remounted it like half a dozen times. Im sure that it would work SO much better on a P4 or AMD64 where most mounting works, but the socket mounting system just doesnt seem to work well enough. Have you guys found the same thing? It actually tests worse than my Maze4."

hate to say this, but the MCW5000 and MCW5002 now ship with stronger springs to achieve ~28lbf (AMD limit is 30LBF if all lugs are engaged)

I suspect you are comparing the socket mounting wb to a 4-hole spring mounting, and the springs can be cranked down much more

if there is an interest in the stouter springs I guess we can find some means to 'upgrade' them for users

the actual test data is on the site
note that this data was generated with a 22lbf load

I would observe that our current Xeon and AMD64 products utilize a 60lbf load
it will be interesting to see how reviewers deal with, or ignore, it
-> because clearly the same product mounted differently will perform differently
(with the exception of the AMD64 bp, all the MCW5000 series can be adapted to different platforms)

I been designing and building and testing blocks for over 3 years now and I am not qualified to properly test blocks dude. I can do it better than all but maybe 3-4 people on this forum and I choose not to simply because I cannot do it correctly. Where is your credintials?
I was NOT refering about the RBX but the OTHER blocks you stated. You have the Maze 4 (interestlingly another DD block) outperforming blocks that have been proven to be much better than the Maze 4. Yeah that doesn't look like bias towards DD. (I have a Maze 4 BTW and have tested the hell out of it).
BS! Then whats with the preliminary results to back up you new DD block? Why post them at all?
Maybe you need to learn how to properly test before you claim to know WTF your talking about. You clearly do not. At least from your posts in this thread.
If you followed me on this forum you would know the answer to that. I know all to well about properly testing. thats why I choose not to do it because I don't want to misinform people like you do! Your ignornace is very clear. I suggest you stop writting reviews immediatly before you continue to misinform your readers. Unless attention and hits to the site is more important to you.

Get some better testing equipment and learn how to use it. On top of that conduct yourself in more professional manner.

have you guys seen this page? More and more pics, as example see below:

http://www.themodfathers.com/Reviews/dd_rbx/f2.jpg

I will send you my original WW block. I do not have a D-Tek block but Cathar's. If you want it, PM me your address and we'll arange the details. Obviously when you are done, I want it back and I will include $10 for you to ship it back to me. How's that?

Jaydee the guy hasn't even posted a review yet and you have managed to critique and reject it sight unseen? Now who's being objective again? The main reason that there isn't more decent dialogue among testers is the rampant flaming that goes on in this forum with no real reason. There are people that do poor jobs at testing because they don't give a shit and are only looking for page hits/ad money/free goods. There are people who do poor jobs with testing because they are new to it and just learning the ropes. Feel free to trash the first group of people, but please don't attack the second because it would be preferable to have them continue to learn and improve and contribute. I still fall into the second category in fact :)

and PlayerO has more than sufficient experience
re nikhsub1's WW:
there seem to be some reported differences between the original and the 'commercial' versions

I find this to be completely unacceptable actually. I don't give a shit if he or you is still learning or not. If he/you can't do a correct job then it needs not be done at all.

I find this to be complete garbage. It contradicts just about every review ever done on any of these blocks including more respected one's such as JoeC's. This guy needs to relook at what he is sprewing and recheck his methods. Also jumping into a thread as a reviewer and defending a certain block with numbers he doesn't even belive in (he stated it himself) is nothing more than a complete waste of time for everyone. And I cannot figure out why he says his numbers are not solid. Is he not testing each block one at a time? Why are the numbers "ish" instead of set in stone on each block. From what I can see he has not tested any of these blocks ecxept a few minutes at a time.

This speaks for itself. Yes I have already dismissed his review for the reason above. He sounds like an unorganized fool. Why should I NOT dismiss it?

Unregistered: I would LOVE to hear what your definition of "sufficent experience" is!!! This will help many people in deciding if they are capable of testing or not. Myself inculded.

I don't know him and so I can't comment. Regardless, I don't have time to test every block as it comes out and so I like to see preliminary testing and numbers on the forums. It's unfortunate that the current environment is such here that people don't feel comfortable to do so. That's why I put numbers up in my worklog, after all. About the only criticism I could make about player0's numbers was that his W was too high by far.

Hi Bill, thanks for clearing that up. I'll be sure to mention all that in the review. Im not sure which springs I have, but the mounting pressure isnt as close to the other blocks I tested. Heck, on my personal systems, I end up using 2 springs per post. I didnt want to label the 5002 as a poor performer simply because one of its mounting systems isn't as good for AMDs. I wish I had time to do all the blocks on a P4 system. I dont have another socket tab mounted waterblock to compare it too. I'm sure it probably outpaces the Maze4 on a torque-by-torque bases. Hmm. Maybe I can yank the springs off of it and firm mount it.

Thanks for the vote Bill. I know I'll never get as in depth about it as you. But its fun, I enjoy doing it, and I try to be fair. It costs me time and money to do any of these reviews. Most of the time, I just get critisism back. Im sure the other published reviewers know what I'm talking about. But Im not interested in continuing in to a conversation thats running like this one. I'll be posting the review up, hopefully by this weekend. I hope you guys will read it and that it might have some interesting comparisons. I dont really care what block comes out on top, Im getting a Prommy ;)

I have due respect for Player0 .
In particular, his sub-ambient work has contibuted substantially to the understanding of cooling.

Really shouldn't need someone to vouch for you. This is a serious problem on this forum; it isn't much good if newcomers aren't welcome.

Now that doesn't mean that truth in testing concept is dead just that civility isn't too much to ask.

sliding off topic a bit (again, sorry pHaestus)

jd
sufficient experience = the ability to understand that one may be wrong,
then doing more work to confirm that one was wrong,
-> having the balls to publicly admit such
and then sticking with it until the work was done correctly

it is a rather lengthy road, and humble pie is the main course
been there, and still revisiting regularly

Now that I have a lot of your guy's attention I would like to hear your thoughts in this thread I just started (Especially you Player0):

http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/sho...&threadid=8288

We can take the testing bickering there instead of here. I sure would like a lot of clerification on some issues.

"This is basically a White Water clone. But I added some turbulence to the overall design."

I just saw that thread here, were WaterPimp sais its a WhiteWater clone. If he was involved in the blocks design, and he makes that comment, well then I can see the point you guys have about comparing it to the WhiteWater. I mean, the guy sais he took the idea.

So, i dont know. Im not sure what I could say about this issue and be fair. But these kinds of things are what international patents are for. Let the legal system decide who has claim to the design.

All I can say is that on my little water system, the RBX is a very competitive block. And I only wish I had a stake in DangerDen right now. Or SwiftTech, or Dtek, or any other manufacturer involved in this hobby.

His quotes in that thread and then the ones on page one of this one look pretty much like that's what happened. The block does look different from the WW though to me and so I don't see a huge deal. "Inspired by Cathar's WW design" wouldn't have killed them to say somewhere though.

No one here (at least I think) wishes this block to suck. It is just the manner in which it came to life and the way DD calls it there own. WRT the patent issue, If Cathar patented the WW when he designed it, about a year and a half ago, he'd still be waiting for the Patent to go through and would have spent thousands of dollars. And for what? He knew the WW would be outdone eventually and who wants a patent on a block that is no longer the best?

First of all I will apologize for jumping your case. I hope you continue to take part in this forum. I have an issue with tact and i am working on it.

Patents are near usless for water blocks. They would only be usefull if CPU's stayed the same over time or the block is designed in a fashion that takes account for future CPU's. The Swiftech block comes to mind as it should work great and maybe excell with IHS topped CPU's. Where the White Water and knockoff's will not perform as well due to lack of surface area. Cathar would have lost more money than he made trying to get a patent let alone enforcing it.

Swiftech on the other hand is working on a patent for that pin design and it might actually pay off being that block should be good to use for 5 more years if the current CPU roadmaps stay the same. I think they need to redesign it a little though, but I will keep those changes to myself! :D

I know this is anecdotal "evidence," but I have run my Iwaki through my UPS (which uses a modified sine-wave as its output when running on batteries) once and it hated it. I only ran it for a couple of minutes, but that was enough for me to never want to do it again. There was considerably more noise produced by the motor, and the poor thing ran a lot hotter than it usually does.

Re: New dangerden block
 

Again you ? :D

Well, Ill never pretend to know anything about patent systems ;) Ive only helped others design blocks, I've never owned a design myself :)

Hey Bill,

Gabe heard about the spring problems and is sending me the stronger versions. Looks like Ill delay things a bit more (this is never ending lol). I still have to test the new mounting for AquaJoes block too. Man, carpal tunnel makes reviewing these things tough :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 2250mhz on an XP2400+ at 1.85v, HE120.3 radiator, Eheim 1060 pump, Im getting about 37c with the Cascade and 36c with the RBX. Compared to the Maze4 which runs 39-40c, the AquaJoe at 41c, MCW5002 at 42c, SlitEdge at 42c, ThermoChill at 40c, and whatever else I tested.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This speaks for itself. Yes I have already dismissed his review for the reason above. He sounds like an unorganized fool. Why should I NOT dismiss it?


I dont know whats wrong with the Maze4 numbers. Its right on par with what other people seem to get for the block. The MCW5002 numbers are a bit higher cause of the mounting. I dont know why the SlitEdge was high, I expected it to do better. But they are all within 1c of each other, where most of the blocks end up except for the RBX and Cascade. I had the Maze4 mounted 3 different times during testing. The numbers were consistant there.

These are only some of the numbers. I tested each block at default speeds, and overclocked to 2250. And I tested each speed with full flow, and restricted flow (thanks to a gas ball-valve) which simulates (albeit roughly) a constricted system or a smaller pump. The Maze4 numbers are much more average than your seeing here with just my small sampling of results.

Im not purposely being ambigious, Im just not done confirming results. I just wanted to show some prelims on the RBX because I really like the block.

the test is a simple one....

remove Cathar and every single little thread of existance of him or his awesome contribution to our hobby, from our reality as is stands now, and then ask yourself, if DD's new block would have looked like that....

You guys need to step back from the keyboard and go outside to play.

I don't believe I have ever seen so much argument over a freakin waterblock.

BTW: I've been running a Maze1 for over 4 years now :D

What do we know, we are just uneducated idiots that don't know the truth.:D

Thanks for the info.

If anyone is not convinced by that, that running a magdrive pump off a modified sinewave inverter is a bad idea, I'd be happy to do some testing.

I can come up with the inverter and instrumentation. I just don't have a pump I'm willing to sacrifice for the test. Any leaky/dying piece of junk pump would do.

I don't know about what you guys think about the following, but here's my view on it.

I don't want my name/pseudonym associated with the RBX block, or the hat even tipped to me, at least not in public.

If the RBX block was for private use, then sure, it'd be a nice gesture.

If the RBX block is to be sold commercially, then I'd personally feel a whole lot more "dirty and used" if my name were used in conjunction with a product that started out as "essentially a WW clone", and then gets on-sold to someone else and everyone's making money except I.

Not that I really care about the money, but the last thing I feel that I would want is to then have my name or pseudonym attached to something to be used as a cynical marketing ploy, because that is essentially what it would be, added marketing impact. That would grate a whole lot more to me.

I also still fail to see how "better than a White Water" comments can be made though, especially since a White Water was not used in testing. It is only a hypothesis to suggest such, but it cannot be a firm statement.

The Cascade really comes into its own as one ramps the volts and clock speeds. At default voltages and speeds there is probably about as much separating it and the White Water, as Player0's tests indicate as a separation between the RBX and the Cascade.

Ideally I would've like to have seen a peak overclock/over-volt test as the distributed point cooling of the Cascade provides a more uniform mechanism across the die area. However I believe that Player0 already sold the Cascade that he tested about two weeks ago (the person who bought it has already contacted me asking for some advice).

In any review I would also like to see CPU temp minus water temp deltas as this better factors out issues in the ambient temperature variations.

In any test between two blocks I always like to mount them in opposition to each other (alternate between blocks) to gain some sort of sanity checking. This is needed less for more exacting test beds like BillA's, but for system based test beds I find it's a useful consistency checking tool after an episode during the Cascade development when I had gathered some results and two weeks later could not reproduce them, setting me back quite a bit until I figured out what had changed.

*My Iwaki md30rlt ran hotter, Since87. = No Confirmation needed.

- I now have 2 powerful pumps to test against each other (for personal purposes): Md30rlt + Rainbow Lifeguard Quiet One. I have no experience with the Rainbow pump, but does anyone have any clue which of these I should hold on to? I'll prob. be testing with varying flow patterns...tubing sizes, parallel blocks/rads... that kind of thing - so about 10 different test configurations. Hopefully I can get a hold of a Cascade/RBX type block. Uhm - this is personal cooling thing here, I don't have the equipment for a review.

Anyone have any tips on pump testing methodology for just my own benefit? My setup is not determined...but I have giant, flow-restrictive radiators to be set in parallel.

And about the RBX - it looks good. I DO think they should have mentioned the source for the concept, though.

Edit: Now seeing Cathar's post...perhaps not mentioning was better eh...eheh

I also still fail to see how "better than a White Water" comments can be made though, especially since a White Water was not used in testing. It is only a hypothesis to suggest such, but it cannot be a firm statement.

Okay, fair enough. I wont say anything about the White Water in the review until I test one. I merely thought that the Cascade was the 'design-up' over the WW.

Ideally I would've like to have seen a peak overclock/over-volt test as the distributed point cooling of the Cascade provides a more uniform mechanism across the die area.

Definitely. I was unable to get any more heat out of my XP2400+. I think the blocks should be tested on a highly clocked P4 rig. I think the degrees of seperation will be much more evident, and I think the Cascade would come out on top for sure.

In any review I would also like to see CPU temp minus water temp deltas as this better factors out issues in the ambient temperature variations.

That information will be in my full review. Cascade provides dT of 8.5c at my highest test, and the DBX runs a dT of 9.6c, under ambient of about 25c.

In any test between two blocks I always like to mount them in opposition to each other (alternate between blocks) to gain some sort of sanity checking.

I ran the DBX tests after the Cascade. I had been using the Cascade in the system because I liked it, so when the new block showed up, I swapped it out. So the testing was pretty close on these.