RBX vs LRWW suggestion

Byron · 03-30-2005, 12:33 PM

Hello all,
Would like to ask if a Danger Den RBX waterblock is a better block to substitute my current D-Tek LRWW?, i'm looking for maximum performance.
I've read that the RBX with nozzle 5 is better than the LRWW, is that true? Has anybody seen a better difference between a RBX and a LRWW ?
The cpu i'm using is Intel preskot.

I'm looking forward to change my waterblock (hopefully to better not worse ) since the rest of the system is good, 120.2 thermochill, one L20 before the rad and one L30 before the waterblock. This loop is for cpu only, so all the head pressure goes on the cpu block.

Cheers,
Byron

MadHacker · 03-30-2005, 01:23 PM

look here for comparison

Byron · 03-30-2005, 01:33 PM

Yes i've seen this table before but thing is they don't state what nozzle they used on that RBX

Hence the question about the comparison between those two bocks with RBX using nozzle #5.

EnJoY · 03-31-2005, 12:06 AM

As far as I know, the RBX in those graphics are using the stock nossle...but the performance really says otherwise. I'd say #4 or #5.

pHaestus · 03-31-2005, 09:51 AM

Testing was with the stock (#1) nozzle. I have said this many times:

I don't care for the RBX because it simply isn't wide enough. In real world usage you are going to have problems with hoses pulling it off the core making a good mount difficult. This is worse on Socket A, but on 939 and 478 sockets you have a different problem. The base isn't as wide as the IHS and so the cooler does not even meet AMD and Intel required specs for coolers.

I like the DD TDX more than either of these blocks because I don't care for 3 barb blocks.

freeloadingbum · 03-31-2005, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pHaestus

The base isn't as wide as the IHS and so the cooler does not even meet AMD and Intel required specs for coolers.

As long as the block performs well, who cares if it doesn't completely cover the heat spreader? Plus, if you are obsessed about performance, then you should lose the heat spreader (amd64 only as an obsessed person would never buy intel. Thats what insane people do. j/k). Since there are no cushions on an amd64 without the heat spreader, a rbx block should end up being just as squirrelly as any 3 barb block.

Just the same though, I would never swap a ww for a rbx. If you manage any improvement, it would be fairly minor. I would always focus on the water temp first for improvement beyond anything else. If I were to finally achieve a water temp of about 1c above ambient (at desired noise level), and I was still obsessed about increasing performance, then I would consider other options (a shrink would probably be the best choice)

edit:added "above ambient" after 1c

Butcher · 03-31-2005, 11:11 AM

Not completely covering the heatspreader means you're less likely to get maximum performance. As for removing it, I wouldn't the gains are minimal at best and the risks are high.

pHaestus · 03-31-2005, 11:12 AM

Didn't Intel change the way they mount the IHS to cores anyway? I think they are bonded permanently together nowadays...

freeloadingbum · 03-31-2005, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pHaestus

Didn't Intel change the way they mount the IHS to cores anyway? I think they are bonded permanently together nowadays...

I agree, that's why I said amd64 only.

Butcher, based on Incoherent's (spelling) work, I would think removing the hs can potentially offer a good boost in performance provided you are able to deal with the mounting instability

03-30-2005, 01:23 PM	#2
MadHacker Cooling Savant Join Date: May 2003 Location: Okotoks, A.B. Canada Posts: 726	look here for comparison __________________ "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" - (Einstein)

03-31-2005, 11:11 AM	#7
Butcher Thermophile Join Date: May 2001 Location: UK Posts: 1,064	Not completely covering the heatspreader means you're less likely to get maximum performance. As for removing it, I wouldn't the gains are minimal at best and the risks are high. __________________ Once upon a time, in a land far far away...

03-31-2005, 11:12 AM	#8
pHaestus Big Player Making Big Money Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com Posts: 4,782	Didn't Intel change the way they mount the IHS to cores anyway? I think they are bonded permanently together nowadays... __________________ Getting paid like a biker with the best crank... -MF DOOM

03-30-2005, 12:33 PM	#1
Byron Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Everywhere Posts: 39	RBX vs LRWW suggestion Hello all, Would like to ask if a Danger Den RBX waterblock is a better block to substitute my current D-Tek LRWW?, i'm looking for maximum performance. I've read that the RBX with nozzle 5 is better than the LRWW, is that true? Has anybody seen a better difference between a RBX and a LRWW ? The cpu i'm using is Intel preskot. I'm looking forward to change my waterblock (hopefully to better not worse ) since the rest of the system is good, 120.2 thermochill, one L20 before the rad and one L30 before the waterblock. This loop is for cpu only, so all the head pressure goes on the cpu block. Cheers, Byron

03-30-2005, 01:33 PM	#3
Byron Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Everywhere Posts: 39	Yes i've seen this table before but thing is they don't state what nozzle they used on that RBX Hence the question about the comparison between those two bocks with RBX using nozzle #5.

03-31-2005, 12:06 AM	#4
EnJoY Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 50	As far as I know, the RBX in those graphics are using the stock nossle...but the performance really says otherwise. I'd say #4 or #5.

03-31-2005, 09:51 AM	#5
pHaestus Big Player Making Big Money Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com Posts: 4,782	Testing was with the stock (#1) nozzle. I have said this many times: I don't care for the RBX because it simply isn't wide enough. In real world usage you are going to have problems with hoses pulling it off the core making a good mount difficult. This is worse on Socket A, but on 939 and 478 sockets you have a different problem. The base isn't as wide as the IHS and so the cooler does not even meet AMD and Intel required specs for coolers. I like the DD TDX more than either of these blocks because I don't care for 3 barb blocks.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)