I just ordered an apogee out of sheer curiosity. It is also the cheaper of the two. I won't be able to shed any light on storm vs. apogee... but I will be able to post my temp differences vs. LRWW. ;)

If there are no differences, then at least I'll be able to get rid of a couple of hoses coming out of this damn 3-barb WW block. lol

Thats the same reason for me.

Its impossible to get everything the same between 2 different test runs. Not even the CPU power output is constant, so you have to consider the physics if you want to come to a meaningful conclusion. Theres a reason people do PhDs on this sort of thing. Its only easy until you try and make your own measurements.

Edit: If you're just a casual user, then buy which well ranked block looks best. The difference is irrelevent at this point unless you're operating at the extremes of flow, restriction, etc.

hahaha... impossible to get the same results between two runs huh? ... thats why you re-mount and test each one five times... or ten times... or FIFTY times. Then you take the average of each block and compare.

You don't need a PHD to be LOGICAL pal. And if it is + or - .5c... then chances are good that NO ONE WILL CARE ANYWAY.

Also in real worl type testing accuracy is nearly impossible and to tell the truth doesnt even really matter.

A little off topic but it still has to deal with the Apogee:

What is the profile of the block compared to the storm? I'm not sure if I just read over that bit of info or not but I wasn't able to find anything that talks about the height of the block. Is it taller or shorter compared to the storm?

Is 1-2C worth $50+ to you? If you're already watercooled, your overclock is likely not limited by the temperature of your processor, but by the hardware itself. You'll probably have to cool it a lot more than 1-2C to gain any appreciable performance. In other words, you could get considerably more bang for your buck by spending the $50+ on the actual hardware. The LRWW is still a very competant block. You won't gain anything significant by upgrading.

As for Storm vs Apogee, no one can be certain yet, as Swiftech's data is the only data that's been provided yet. They say it's better than the Storm in most scenarios, but this has yet to be confirmed or denied by any independent testing. So no one has an answer for you, unless you want someone to just make something up. I can do that if you like.

You obviously do not possess said Ph. D. I wouldn't argue something you know nothing about with Cathar and Bill. They DO know what they're talking about. If it were so ****ing simple, everyone would be doing it.

hear, hear!!!

I concur with that statement.

However, as someone emphasized.. which one is truly better?

From my viewpoint however, it would seem to me that the storm is much better...

but then again... don't believe in the ramblings of a not so genius watercoolooing man...

ok, noone else saw it and it made me chuckle.
interesting discussion on this, I have one question on something I didnt see referenced, if someone could define TTV, I didnt see it when I was reading through.

:D

whats the US equiv? imperial is a darkages system, get with the times, yanks ;)

Jon, I believe Thermal Test Vehicle

yeah, the thermal test vehicle is a sample you acquire from intel and on the outside it is exactly like an intel CPU. you just plug it into a dummy motherboard and apply an electrical current through the board (and thus through the TTV) and it simulates an intel cpu. that is as much as i know

7 pages later... headache. Pass the bucket and the sand...

I'm not 'arguing' with bill or cathar. That statement was directed at "redleader."

As I said before, you don't have to possess a PhD to know logic. The point of my posts are not to "argue" with anyone... rather to get them to stay on topic. They are going back and forth about the TTV and testing procedure. I was simply looking at it from the outside, if you will, and finding it very frustrating - as it seems no one can agree with anything anyone else said.

No matter however. I bought an apogee... and I'm sure I'll see a drop in temps, and I'll also get rid of a hose. 2 barbs ftw.

a thread about a product was spun into declaiming the TTV as a thermal test vehicle to cast doubt on the provided data

for those concerned with the relative performance of the Apogee, just wait until someone says that which you feel like believing; no reason at all you have to make a purchase decision - lots everywhere will offer advice

for those concerned with the use of a TTV, ignore all test results that do not use a Cathar approved heat source (all Swiftech wb thermal data, perhaps the hsf data too as there was/is no die temp !)
note that I do not have a TTV, and likely never will again; but they are the best heat sources I know of and I'm glad for the opportunity to have been able to use 'state of the art' technology
- new TTVs will reflect new products, much farther yet from a simple copper slug (think dual)

that Cathar declines to answer questions about which source IS acceptable does leave a quandary
which of Lee's dies is 'acceptable' ?
(that which shows the Apogee in the worst light to satisfy the expectations / pronouncements of a competitive designer ? - so convienent to be able to wait until the results are in before committing, eh ?)
Which of Joe Citarella’s dies are ok ?
Can Derek use an IHS ?
If the IHS/CPU thermal transfer is suspect, -> WHAT IS THE QUALIFICATION PROCEDURE TO ENSURE THAT THE INTERNAL TIM JOINT IS ‘OK’ ?
- note that you do now need to APPROVE something, something at all please

there are threads relating to the die size, where was/is Cather's input ?
all criticism is acceptable when accompanied with a corrective suggestion

all criticism is acceptable when accompanied with a corrective suggestion

Exactly my point.

Also, you'd have to be ignorant to think that cooling a dual core cpu with an IHS is the same as cooling a single core cpu without an IHS. Different blocks are definately going to be better suited to cooling a larger heating element than others.

This is not a political discussion, is it? This arguement is common place in Congress. Don't know if it's relevent there, but I'm sure it is not relevent when discussing data. Bad data is bad data, whether it is the best you have or not. The idea is to figure out if the data is good, you worry about how to get better data if you decide that the data isn't good (enough).
Since there is only one data set now, the whole arguement is pointless until there is other data to compare it with. And in the end there is only one valid measurement as to performance, assuming the block can run the chip at stock speeds. Did the overclock increase, how much, was it worth the time and money.
By the way, since they are using a fake intel heatsource (does it attempt to duplicate a single or dual core), is it even relevent to an amd64 or x2?
Just bought a Storm, so waiting for more results with interest, but not really caring one way or the other.

Bill's questions are more or less the reason that I haven't actually DONE anything with my "new" test setup.

OK so I like CPU as heat source not because they are accurate but because they give me a chance to look at mounting/real world usage issues of blocks while I am testing. And also because the secondary heat sources and dissipation paths on the real PC system can do some interesting things when you get to either very high performance or very poor performance. But they are NOT good heat sources from a bench testing/modeling standpoint. OK that's fine still I state the system I use and I try to frame my results (when possible) vs. other people and I go on with life.

But my dP xmitter just won't seem to "go" like it should. When everyone is so particular then this shuts me down. I just don't feel like I can do the kind of testing I did on SocketA now. I'll be producing the numbers noone really wants to see :/

What we (as a community) need are some high quality test results on a quantified bench testing platform (for modelers and for pushing our understanding of the theories we blabber about on this forums) AND more good results of the type I produced with a real CPU to verify our bench testing is simulating real world performance.

The TTV would be a perfectly fine choice for heat source if one has the equation which relates the C/W for that source to the C/W obtained with different dies/heat sources. I don't think anyone whose reviews we read is making up numbers (me, Robotech, JoeC, Swiftech, who else?). They just require correlation with one another and there's not much common ground for us to do so when insulation of the die/die size/probe placement/W(in my case)/other factors aren't characterized.

"When everyone is so particular then this shuts me down."
the result of hypercriticism, though the dP data is needed

and now we can look forward to endless carping from those that want bare CPU data vs. those using CPUs as sold by AMD and Intel
- and already some describe a 'true' enthusiast as (only) one who removes the IHS

w/o the ability to deduce and extrapolate testing is going to be impossible (or pointless),
especially with yet-to-be-revealed heat source requirements

IF AN ACCEPTABLE HEAT SOURCE COULD BE DESCRIBED (and built); there seems no reason why the thermal resistance could not be described by bench testing (the rest of the world is able to do so), and the OC capability on a CPU (same mobo/CPU for all)

specific tests for specific characteristics

none of the TTV info is going to be available, the community does indeed have to 'trust' that Swiftech gets it right
don't sweat the source, work on the correlation

"I'll be producing the numbers noone really wants to see :/"


From my wb modelling point of view, I am not too concerned about dP measurements.
Only attempt to correlate numbers for cooling and coolant-flow-rate , this requires temperatures and dimensions(lacking from previous reviews).
In a wb, various factors in both the active element and the irrigation system decide dP
The dominant dP controller is considered to be max velocity in "wb system".
Not progressed as far as numerically considering both "active" and "irrigation"
I am happy just observe the max test flow rate.
Am interested in understanding, not establishing an order of merit.

Ah! Modelling will be impossible.
So don't bother even trying ?
Ruled by any Tom-Dick-or-Harry's testing
As long as it passes Cathar?

got to have stds here Les

but yes, I know of no way to get the source size info
the trying is the correlation
as long as Stephen is doing the testing, I have no difficulty with Swiftech's data
(he is probably less prone to error than I too)

TTV data passing Cathar ?
hey, I could get religion too eh ?

Considering most in the industry go to bill for block testing... If he tells me that stephen @ swiftech is doing the tests, and says stephen is as good or better than he is... I'll buy the data. I seriously doubt it will be disproved, on the AMD X2 platform w/IHS anyway.

Personally I think anyone who is brave enough to hazard a combination of electricity and water near a $1000+ investment is an enthusiast.

As far as popping the IHS off, well for some its important for that extra cooling, others just to say they did it, and some just want to see whats inside. Personally after spending 800+ Euros on a processor, there is no way in hell that Im going to pry the thing off and risk frying the thing after sucessfully voiding the warranty beyond repair. If that makes me a non-enthusiast, well call me Mr. Boring then.



Seems to me that the gist of the issue is (IMHO):

1. Swiftech bought the rights to the G4, manufactured it, and sold it by its history/name more than anything else.

2. Swiftech already had something in the wings that probably costs less to produce, hence more profit for them.

3. What better way to bring in that product than to compare it favourably to something that they already produce/own. And there is no one that can honestly say they are flawed in that, because all the data is produced within Swiftech, comparing 2 of Swiftechs products. Unless people can replicate the exact setup that Swiftech uses, Its one persons word against another, as I see mostly in all debates concerning watercooling.

I think this is just purely marketing(not neccessarily bad, and it remains to be seen) on Swiftechs part and Im not sure what the problem is in recognizing that. If...."IF" they have headed down that road that so many others have headed, then just take everything with a grain of salt, market speak always comes to light eventually. But if they have a good waterblock that is worth speaking highly of, then that should be brought to light also.

As far as this whole IHS or no IHS, hey...the damn things are sold with the IHS on them, and 99.9 percent of the people who have the things leave them on. I leave mine on because Im not willing to void the warranty on a computer that I expect to last me a couple of years, not because Im scared of crushing the core. So yea, I would like to know how the waterblock Im buying is going to cool that, not some theoretical situation. Athlon XP's shouldnt be the testbed anymore for waterblocks anymore than a 286-6, unless your planning on putting the block on an XP.

Dont get me wrong... I enjoy seeing the results of people who do the testing here, and I based alot of my decisions on my current build in progress, on what is said here. On the other hand, I dont see alot of concensus on much, especially on testbeds, so I just take X this and Y that and come up with Z...the enthusiasm level of the testers over a certain product, and comments by people who use them on a regular basis. Then I make a decision.

What seems to be happening anymore in watercooling (IMHO) is what I observed when "CPU and GPU Benchmarking" became all the fad. It is inherently flawed from the start. Take 2 "Identical" computers, same components software etc, down to the case, and you will still end up with widely differing "scores". Its impossible to use any of the information except on a average and even then its useless..again in my opinion. Yea I know that the test setups a lot of people usein watercooling are more stringent (less variables to contend with) but you get my point/concern.

Ah! The laws of physics.
Would be nice, if he would illustrate, with fictitious values, where the laws are broken . The "large blue (3,2 0.0039) point", for h(eff)= 270,000w/m^2*c on 14.4x14.4x1mm, breaks no laws(Post133)

Must be wrong
You are being logical (jk)

"Considering most in the industry go to bill for block testing"

i was under the impreshon ph did all the well trusted data ? as from what i see from a lot of post round hear billa's obsesshon with swiftech is takeing on an eaven more bitter taste with evrything being related to them aparantly being 100x better than nething elce infact evrthing elce is a copy of what swiftech make/have made

and then he speeks of fan boys :evilaugh:


i persoanly will be waiting for a non biased test

Gotta throw in something, in spite of headache.

First, the obvious:
-The different location of the temp probe will return different data, but as long as the same setup is used, block differential performance can be determined, to some extent.

-While it would be nice to get raw data temperature measurements (core side) that match what an actual processor would report (actual or interpreted through BIOS), it is unfortunately rarely possible. What is possible though, is to add a correction that would simulate the actual core temp, as reported by BIOS/MBM or other/or directly through the CPU diode, the last of which is neither obvious nor practical, the firsts of which is racked with issues.

Then the not so obvious
-The TTV issue. what I see is a claim (which I'll support) that measuring the core side temp by measuring the temp of the IHS, is flawed. But if the claim extends to state that the block contact area may be affected by an IHS, and by extension, using an IHS temp measurement alongside, then I would submit that the issue is with the block design, not the TTV/IHS.

-It really isn't practical to measure the IHS temp, because it involves altering the DUT (Device Under Test), and it may not always be possible to alter a DUT in that way (i.e. cutting a groove on the contact area, to route a temp probe to the middle). I will stand against altering a block, for the sake of measuring performance. While the term may be applied wrongly, I'll dub it "destructive testing".

-Apogee claims: I share many's opinions that the Apogee design, as presented, regardless of the inlet geometry, cannot possibly match the performance of the Storm block, unless the design of Storm was altered from the G4/G5 original in an unfavorable way.

fl
your summation of your understanding is concise

Ben
consider the MCW55 data, now thin the bp; what would you expect ?
or is the MCW55 data flawed because it cools the IHS clad heat source effectively also ? (is that not the goal ?)

it is strange that no one wishes to consider that other data except Les (who is omnivorous)

tnx love you 2 :dome: