![]() | ||
|
|
General Liquid/Water Cooling Discussion For discussion about Full Cooling System kits, or general cooling topics. Keep specific cooling items like pumps, radiators, etc... in their specific forums. |
![]() |
Thread Tools |
![]() |
#1 |
Cooling Neophyte
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 39
|
![]()
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Big PlayerMaking 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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 129
|
![]() Quote:
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 Last edited by freeloadingbum; 03-31-2005 at 12:03 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
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... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Big PlayerMaking 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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 129
|
![]() Quote:
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 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|