Apogee vs Apogee GT
 

From the Swiftech description it looks like they're the same, except the GT includes an AM2 mounting plate.
Anyone know if that's actually the situation - or have they modified something else?
Thanks!

Re: Apogee vs Apogee GT
 

Apogee on the left, Apogee GT on the right
http://resources.vr-zone.com/Shamino/swiftapo/13.jpg

Re: Apogee vs Apogee GT
 

I did a very quick google and I didn't see any performance reviews to compare the two.

Anyone know of any reliable numbers for the GT version?

Re: Apogee vs Apogee GT
 

OK - so they're definitely different (d'oh! How'd I miss that one?)
I don't think that they'd have switched from the larger diamond pins to the smaller ones for manufacturing economy. They may have also switched to a thicker baseplate, as I recall some complaints re flexion in the pre-GT...

Re: Apogee vs Apogee GT
 

The GT base does look a little thicker in the picture Captain Slug provided.

Re: Apogee vs Apogee GT
 

Looks like the same course the CoolTechnica/AquaXtreme blocks were taking. Going with smaller and smaller pins. I doubt performance gain was anything substantial (depending on what you consider substantial). I don't think most test bed's error margins are tight enough to tell the difference.

Re: Apogee vs Apogee GT
 

The number and height of the pins isn't the only difference.

There's a thicker o-ring included with the GT which makes the base bow like on the FuZion. Tests done so far indicate that a bowed base yields lower temps than a flat.

The thicker o-ring wasn't included with the early GTs. Contact Swiftech and they'll send one for free.

EDIT: Virtualrain over at XS compiled a list of all FuZion tests, link. FreeCableGuys test includes both Apogee and Apogee GT.

Re: Apogee vs Apogee GT
 

I remember some people having issues with the pins bending and/or breaking(Apogee and MCW60 GPU block). Decreasing the pin's diameter would seem to be even riskier.

Re: Apogee vs Apogee GT
 

I've actually been thinking that the non-GT is more appropriate for my needs.
I'm about to build a couple of core 2 duo machines (yeah, I've gone over to the dark side - at least for now), and as I use weak-ass pumps (because they're almost-silent) I care about pressure drop at least as much as I do about a degree or two - but Swiftech's own charts show about the same temps between non-GT and GT.

Re: Apogee vs Apogee GT
 

What bother me is from previous waterblock performance testing, wb performance gains are incremental and not large and competitive WB perform within that range of 2C. Suddenly we are seeing performances differences of 2, 4, 6 C and this bothers me and they isn't a consistent pattern.

One reason, with a unique a kentfield cpu and the two core package it's hard to compare

Two, most of these reviews are done by first time reviewers. I praise their effort but anyone who was done past reviews it takes time to get the magic down.

H20 Frag-monger reviews: heat die area is too large at 30x30mm.

Nikhsub reveiw: mounting temps vary too much.

CES event: we talked about that fiasco

VR-zone: Kentsfield testbed. # of mountings? Fan info cfm or rpms ? 91C load temps? I seen similar setups with aircoolers at 60 C...

Freecableguy: Kentsfield testbed. Probably the best overall review but i don't agree with his final DT and final load temps and heat dissipated from cpu.

Re: Apogee vs Apogee GT
 

ricecrispi, I kind of said something to that effect in the XS thread linked by mx above.

Quote is by me in the XS thread, see link.
There is no doubt that since PC has declined the quality of data has as well.

As some of use may remember, it was the inability to come to a consensus on a way to maintain the standard of quality data that lead to PC's decline.

I am not going to bring up the old arguments.