Thoughts on PolarFlo
 

Well. time for my 4th watercooling adventure. This time I would like to try some nice looking blocks out. PolarFlo caught my eye. Any info on these blocks would be nice

http://www.frozencpu.com/images/prod...ex-blc-100.jpg
http://images.gruntville.com/images/...untonright.jpg

We honestly don't know at this point. From what I've seen of the inside it doesn't look like a very good performer, but they've always been bad angles.

looks like outstanding machining and finish. I don't care for 3 barb blocks from an ease of use standpoint, but at least this one is designed so the barbs shouldn't make it hard to tighten down wingnuts. I asked PolarFlo for a wb to review a week ago and haven't gotten a response still. Presumably that's a "no".

I guess I could buy one, but it seems kinda silly when I have ~ 20 wbs lying around here already and when I am providing (IMO) very high quality testing for free to the mfgr. Not sure I am ready to make the leap to "paying mfgrs for the priviledge of testing their wb"

at the not inconsiderable risk of being cynical, they have a good review, no ?

I would say they have a very bad review with favorable results.

Seems like they are sucha mystery really. I seen a few reviews. One from Pimprig if Im not mistaken. They liked it. But it really comes down to Looks/Perforamnce. Would this be a hit or miss? Should I wait longer to see if they get more reviews? Granted the CPU block ~ $50 or so. So any other $50 block than would be better?

Polarflo's machining is top notch - I think they make the nicest looking and possibly the best finished waterblocks out there... but the fact that they send their block off to be reviewed and then ignore requests from procooling suggests to me that they have something to hide performance wise. I'm sure your CPU won't overheat if you get one, and even if its a terrible design, it would only be a handful of degrees hotter, but if you want a sure thing, take a look at pH's graphs.

RedPhoenix. If you do end up buying the block... you could always send to pHaestus for testing....

Always true. I wouldnt mind that seeing how THIS next prject will take me months to do

not necesarily the case. E-mails get ignored and people get overloaded with review requests all the time. I wouldn't speculate on performance based upon that.

They may also feel that since they have wb performance curves posted on their website that they dont need more testing and just need a few well placed reviews that have lots of nice pictures and an editor's choice award.

Or it could be Steve is buddies with the gruntville guys and we pissed them off last week saying that that review was poorly done. Who knows?

Would it be reasonable for me to buy wbs out of pocket and then turn around and sell them for full retail price after the review? The problem with this is that I DO like keeping wbs around for things like "testbed upgrades/mishaps"...

What I would personally like to see is for more mfgrs to follow the lead of Danger Den with the TDX: Procooling and OCers got a wb to review prior to product release so the day the blocks were available in stores there were quality reviews out there for consumers to use to base their decisions upon.

is it possible that their blocks aren't all that good...
and that they just look good?
It would be safe for them to post their own performance curves and send the blocks to those that wouldn't be able to give accurate reviews...
even if the block would come out as just average... it wouldn't be a positive review for them so why should they bother...
my 2¢

How about some sort of auction at the site? Then ppl could buy blocks from you or perhaps we could all buy and sell from each other! I wouldn't mind buying the "used" Cascade SS cheap after you did your testing.. I'd even send it back for more testing if it was cheap enough ;-)

I certainly wouldn't label the block a poor performer because of it, but in my (perhaps oversuspicious) mind I wouldn't say its a good sign. Polarflo aren't oblivious - we know they read Procooling, and as a manufacturer/designer they know how pitiful the testing at most sites is.

My business sense says if I design a block that performs really well, I'm going to send it off to be tested by all the best places so that I can demonstrate my superiority with scientific results, but if my block is an average performer with more looks than grunt, I'm going to send it to places that will take lots of pretty pictures and offer flowery praise without testing it particularly well.

I like the dangerden approach too, but if you know your block doesn't stack up, its just bad business to send it off to get panned when you know there are lots of sites happy to give it 10/10 and an editors choice for chrome plating.

I guess balefirex. But DD sent the TDX to me and JoeC who BOTH showed it performed slightly worse than the RBX. So that doesn't completely fit in with your theory.

Slightly less performance BUT the wider base meant you could recommend it whereas the RBX you didn't. I think that people realized that the RBX would probably outperform the TDX due to its dual barb design, the question was at what cost convenience? In that regard, the TDX didn't put up a bad showing - as you said, only slightly worse, and certainly easier/safer to use.

I guess the options are
1) call polarflo and ask for a block - perhaps they really have misplaced your email, and i'm a paranoid idiot
2) ask someone who is buying a TT to send it to you for a few days to run tests on
3) buy one and either raise the money for it through donations or sell it off when you're done with it
4) say screw polarflo and simply ignore the TT (least satisfactory option for me, i'm curious now)

You gave the TDX a better review than the RBX, actually, just not performance wise.

JoeC gave it a low pressure drop making it look about the same but more convenient, the silver one was a mistake, though.

But that is DD... Poloarflow may opt for different ideology.
Also are we on as good a terms with polarflow as we are with DD?
When I say we I mostly mean pHaestus... I think...
Ok I'll shut up now...

I would assume so; I caught a lot of flak for the RBX review and my complaints about the design. Hard to imagine I was high up on DD's list of favorite people at that time. I don't THINK I've ever said anything about PolarFLO to make them dislike me (could be wrong tho I insult SO MANY)

Looks like they may have considered your comments on the RBX when they designed the TDX.
It is easy to design a great block... when you don't do accurate comparisons to other blocks...
but when you do take the risk and let someone who know their sh*t do a review of it... it may not get a good review but atleast you hopefully find out what it's flaws are and learn from them...

I don't know what PolarFlo motives are. I guess there is one way to find out,
Kall them

If you take the PolarFlo performance testing results here:

http://www.polarflo.com/index.asp?Pa...n=Custom&ID=17

And then look at how the PolarFLO SF compared to other wbs Bill tested here:

http://www.overclockers.com/articles373/basum.asp

Then that puts the PolarFLO TT at roughly the same performance as the slit edge or slightly worse than the MCW5002?

That's with a huge grain of salt of course; would be interesting to take a look at the block

that is the deductive reasoning that reveals why things do - and do not - occur

well it would be possible for them to do 100 mounts of the block and only take the stats of the best 40 mounts...

when they say 4 out of 5 doctors approve... think they only asked 5 doctors?

link to hardocp review

ouch.. bested by a maze4. they seem to have a decent setup for this test too.

interesting line however

Unrelated to this thread, but this statement typically tells me that 1 in 5 doctors refused to comment about a product that they received marketing kickbacks for.

I thought that this was a little odd too

I had this feeling that the difference would be a bit more significant.

I'm also wondering if the installation issues might have a marked effect on the mounting pressure which could greatly affect the temperatures reported.