Quote:
|
Rather interesting too is the ~2C difference between the RBX and the Cascade for Phaestus at 0.5GPM, yet just a 0.5C difference at WCP. Where'd the other 1.5C go? Oh I'm sure that it had nothing to do with mounting variances and testbed irregularities. Worse, the WCP testbed test load is quite a deal higher, so the differences should've been more like 3C, so where did the other 2.5C go that should've been there? What, though, of the RBX, Maze4 and Cascade's performance when operated within their targetted design parameters? Are such even considered, let alone explored, under such a testbed?
|
The rbx was using the #5 nozzle plate. They showed the #1 plate to be about 1C worse. Plus pHaestus had alot of trouble mounting the rbx. I have a feeling that when Joe over at overclockers tests the WW that the difference at 1gpm between the rbx will be alot smaller than what pHaestus showed.
As I understand it, the german site used 100 watts, less an unknown secondary heatloss (say 5%) amount to pHaestus's 75ish watts as measured in the block. So thats 1.5C minus 1C for different nozzle, then add 20% equals .6C off the mark which could be explained by mounting variance.
This isn't to say that I'm validating the site's methods, just to say that the results aren't that impossible.