• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

"Overclockers.com" vs "Bill Adams" WB Test Results

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

E_Man

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Why do the Overclockers.com(new guys) test results have a lower C/W compared to Bill Adam's (old guy) test results?
 
The biggest issue seems to be the area of the die simulator.

JoeC's die simulator has a larger surface area, therefore lower C/W numbers.
 
Doesn't "Overclockers.com" vs "Bill Adams" WB Test Results mean the blocks BillA tested vs the same blocks JoeC tested?
 
Since87 said:
The biggest issue seems to be the area of the die simulator.

JoeC's die simulator has a larger surface area, therefore lower C/W numbers.

Yes, this is the main reason.

BillA's test simulator had a contact surface area of 100mm²

I believe that JoeC's is 140mm²

It's proportionally easier to pass heat through a larger area than a smaller area and this explains the large bulk of the differences seen between the two test-beds. Other differences are due to the internal abilities of each block to deal with smaller/larger contact surface areas, and then we get to per-block variations in things like base-flatness, and general measurement differences.
 
Hey, lets stop instigating, ok?
It's not that serious, we're just keeping CPU's cool enough that they don't burn up.
 
Well if you want to buy a crappy waterblock for a high price, YOU can go for it. "So they don't burn up"? They don't have issues until the 90s. Why don't YOU just put a passive heatsink on? It will keep it cool enough, so it doesn't burn up.
 
iNSiGMA said:
Hey, lets stop instigating, ok?
It's not that serious, we're just keeping CPU's cool enough that they don't burn up.



True we want to keep are CPUs nice and cool. However when buying a waterblock we would rather have a block with a low C/W. So with that in mind if Joe's test bed has a die of 140mm and our cpu has a die of say 90 to 110 the C/W would be off alittle.
 
AngryAlpaca said:
Well if you want to buy a crappy waterblock for a high price, YOU can go for it. "So they don't burn up"? They don't have issues until the 90s. Why don't YOU just put a passive heatsink on? It will keep it cool enough, so it doesn't burn up.

The goal of watercooling, orignally anyway, was to have a quieter way to cool the CPU. I went with watercooling so that the heat from the CPU isn't being thrown all around the case and is contained. Everyone around here wants the freeze their cpu with as little effort as possible :rolleyes:
 
iNSiGMA said:


The goal of watercooling, orignally anyway, was to have a quieter way to cool the CPU. I went with watercooling so that the heat from the CPU isn't being thrown all around the case and is contained. Everyone around here wants the freeze their cpu with as little effort as possible :rolleyes:

thats not true.. i remember reading that servers were watercooled for stabilty and they were far from quiet.
i personily watercool to overclock as well as making my computer quieter, but that was only after i satisfied my overclocking rush :D.
The way i look at it.. if you're going to invest so much into water cooling you might as well get the best right?
if i just went and brought cather's WW block in the first place, i would a lot happier now then spend over 100 bucks on 3 different blocks before i even knew overclockers.com.
And ofcourse everyone would like to freeze their cpu with little effort. Thats how life is. i'd like like to speed up my car a bit with little effort, luckly thats possible with a little thing called NOS. :D,
for example..
you just gotta understand for some people, this is a hobby and they want the best preformer, and for others, they just want a realible solution. its not nice to :rolleyes: to either side
 
I'm digging the whole testing thing, whether or not the results are the same between the two. I'll take the results all from one source because the field is level there. Mixing and matching test results from here or there can get back to the same problem as on-the-mobo testing...there's variation in everything a human does--period. Joe C simply doesn't have the entire setup exactly as BillA had, so results are going to vary between them. I don't knock Joe's tests either, he's the one place I'm looking for results.
Bill's were trustworthy to be sure, but he's not in the scene much anymore and can't do it independently (so I believe).

Testing arose from a need we all had. Every site on the planet was puting up their waterblock and claiming it to be the best darned thing since sliced bread. With level and repeatable testing, those turkeys went away, and either developed a good working product, or just dissapeared from the scene.
The other problem it solved was the "less than trustworthy" results from sites that don't have to buy any hardware at all because they are sponsored by the maker of the test blocks. As if those results were trustworthy....the salesman's buddy isn't going to tell you the thing just plain sucks...duh.

I look forward to Joe filling out the datbase as he can, but remember, some sites don't give away samples for fear of that level playing field biting their you-know-what. Others are more responsible people that learn from the tests to make improvements. That's why I'd wait to find them on his roster of good'ns.
 
Does anyone know what pumps the two guys are using? I read for a while but coulnd't find it.

I believe that if you simply regulate the flow on a pump, the pressure stays the same (works that way in hydraulics and pneumatics anyway). Therefore any test with a "lowered flowrate" would still be at pressures that most magdrives can't achieve if their pumps were like Iwaki's or something.
Wouldn't that also affect c/w? as well as the comparison of c/w in their systems .vs c/w achievable in MY system?

As for pressure drop measurements, I'd think that .5 psi pressure drop against an Iwaki would change tests little, however against a maxi-jet....well, you get the idea.

Just wondering
 
Diggrr said:
Does anyone know what pumps the two guys are using? I read for a while but coulnd't find it.

I believe that if you simply regulate the flow on a pump, the pressure stays the same (works that way in hydraulics and pneumatics anyway). Therefore any test with a "lowered flowrate" would still be at pressures that most magdrives can't achieve if their pumps were like Iwaki's or something.
Wouldn't that also affect c/w? as well as the comparison of c/w in their systems .vs c/w achievable in MY system?

As for pressure drop measurements, I'd think that .5 psi pressure drop against an Iwaki would change tests little, however against a maxi-jet....well, you get the idea.

Just wondering
No, what happens is that the throttling valve drops the extra pressure from the bigger pump. All other components behave exactly the same, dropping the pressure according to the flow rate.

Think of the big pump and valve as one unit, simulating a smaller pump.

What's an issue is that it adds heat to the loop, and that's where the maintained coolant temp comes in.

I opted to go with a DC pump, and controlling the voltage to adjust the flow rate: I'm lazy that way ;) Otherwise, my chiller will maintain the water temp. (test bed still being put together)


I believe that JoeC uses an Eheim 1048 or 1250, and I believe that Bill used a powerfull Iwaki and a fairly powered Little Giant pump. It doesn't matter which, but if the extra pumping power is required, it can be attained.
 
E_Man said:
Why do the Overclockers.com(new guys) test results have a lower C/W compared to Bill Adam's (old guy) test results?

The C/W also depends on the rest of the system, not just the block. Bill uses a very standard system that would be typical of most watercooling systems. This allows you to compare the blocks more fairly. What the other guys have may be better than Bill's setup.
 
Re: Re: "Overclockers.com" vs "Bill Adams" WB Test Results

Caffinehog said:


The C/W also depends on the rest of the system, not just the block. Bill uses a very standard system that would be typical of most watercooling systems. This allows you to compare the blocks more fairly. What the other guys have may be better than Bill's setup.
Not if the testing is done properly Caffinehog. Bill uses a 'standard' system typical of most H20 systems? Have you ever seen a picture of his situp? Looks like a mad scientist lab! AFAIK, BillA has the most comprehensive test bench out there for testing water blocks. If the C/W in ANY test is based on anything EXCEPT the block itself, then that test is no good in my book. The goal is to isolate the blocks performance.
 
The C/W on ANY test will change unless the setup is EXACTLY the same as another, and that includes hose lengths, pump heat, etc. The other components will affect it a LOT, no matter what. However, the other components do not change at all between tests, so, as compared to his other tests, it is very accurate.
 
Back