Go Back   Pro/Forums > ProCooling Technical Discussions > General Liquid/Water Cooling Discussion
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat

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.

Reply
Thread Tools
Unread 03-30-2005, 12:33 PM   #1
Byron
Cooling Neophyte
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 39
Default 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
Byron is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-30-2005, 01:23 PM   #2
MadHacker
Cooling Savant
 
MadHacker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Okotoks, A.B. Canada
Posts: 726
Default

look here for comparison
__________________
"Great spirits have always encountered violent
opposition from mediocre minds" - (Einstein)
MadHacker is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-30-2005, 01:33 PM   #3
Byron
Cooling Neophyte
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 39
Default

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.
Byron is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-31-2005, 12:06 AM   #4
EnJoY
Cooling Neophyte
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 50
Default

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.
EnJoY is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-31-2005, 09:51 AM   #5
pHaestus
Big Player
Making Big Money
 
pHaestus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com
Posts: 4,782
Default

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.
pHaestus is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-31-2005, 10:53 AM   #6
freeloadingbum
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 129
Default

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

Last edited by freeloadingbum; 03-31-2005 at 12:03 PM.
freeloadingbum is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-31-2005, 11:11 AM   #7
Butcher
Thermophile
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,064
Default

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...
Butcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-31-2005, 11:12 AM   #8
pHaestus
Big Player
Making Big Money
 
pHaestus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com
Posts: 4,782
Default

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
pHaestus is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-31-2005, 11:20 AM   #9
freeloadingbum
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 129
Default

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
freeloadingbum is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(C) 2005 ProCooling.com
If we in some way offend you, insult you or your people, screw your mom, beat up your dad, or poop on your porch... we're sorry... we were probably really drunk...
Oh and dont steal our content bitches! Don't give us a reason to pee in your open car window this summer...