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

White Water vs RBX vs Cascade - prelim @ Procooling

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

Cathar

Senior Member
​
Joined
Jun 8, 2002
Location
Melbourne, Australia
White Water vs RBX vs Cascade - prelim results @ Procooling

There's a full review to follow, but Phaestus @ Procooling has posted some preliminary results here:

http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/showpost.php?p=100239&postcount=8

Test CPU load was a T'Bred B @ 2200MHz/1.81v running BurnK7. Hotter CPU's will yield larger differences.

wbcompare_s.jpg


Full review, along with the documented test procedure, which is very good through a lot of good equipment and assistance from BillA and others, should be coming at the Procooling front page in the next week.
 
Finally a comparison of the three.

Very interesting info is blatently shown on the graph so far, I'm really looking forward to reading the entire coverage article!

posted by pHaestus on the Pro/Forums

Note (a) the excellent performance of Cascade throughout (b) the poor low flow performance of the RBX (c) the crossover point around 2.25GPM where the RBX (essentially a modified whitewater) finally performs better than the standard whitewater. Most users don't have pumps like mine and so relative performance would be Cascade>Whitewater>RBX.
Click to expand...
 
And my suspicions have been verified. pHaestus is the man, and has possibly the best test bench other than BillA. Now I need to see the original WW vs. the D-Tek.
 
felinusz said:
Finally a comparison of the three.

Very interesting info is blatently shown on the graph so far, I'm really looking forward to reading the entire coverage article!
posted by pHaestus on the Pro/Forums

Note (a) the excellent performance of Cascade throughout (b) the poor low flow performance of the RBX (c) the crossover point around 2.25GPM where the RBX (essentially a modified whitewater) finally performs better than the standard whitewater. Most users don't have pumps like mine and so relative performance would be Cascade>Whitewater>RBX.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Hmm: given that the Whitewater is less restrictive than the Cascade, which aiirc is less restrictive than the RBX?? - then presumably the "true" crossover must be higher still, since a system that'd do 2.25GPM through an RBX would do more than 2.25GPM through a whitewater.....

can't wait for this....
 
crimedog said:
what's the GPH of a "typical" system (with one of these rather restrictive blocks in it).
Like mine for example!
Click to expand...
With the mag 3, a heater core and the RBX I would imagine you would be somewhere around 7.5 - 8lpm or 1.8GPH or so.
 
crimedog said:
what's the GPH of a "typical" system (with one of these rather restrictive blocks in it).
Like mine for example!
Click to expand...

At 1GPM, the pressure-drop for each block is:

Cascade: 1.02PSI
White Water: 0.67PSI
RBX #1 Nozzle: 0.59PSI

With an Eheim 1048 and a DTek Pro core, I estimate around:

Cascade: 1.15GPM
White Water: 1.3GPM
RBX #1: 1.35GPM

With an Eheim 1250 and DTek Pro core, I estimate around:

Cascade: 1.55GPM
White Water: 1.75GPM
RBX #1: 1.83GPM

With a Mag 3 and a DTek Pro core, I estimate around:

Cascade: 1.75GPM
White Water: 2.0GPM
RBX #1: 2.1GPM
 
Wow cathar i would neer have thought that the cascade and WW would be more restrictive than the RBX.. So is it really just the thin design in the block that makes it require more GPH to perform as well as a WW? And was there any difference between your WW and Dteks own now?? When you said the cascade was 1 degree cooler than the WW was it your own or Dteks and if your WW performs better what really is the reason for that??? I always had confidence in the WW over the RBX and these results prove that i made the right choice. cathar your the man:D
 
Biglipzits said:
Wow cathar i would neer have thought that the cascade and WW would be more restrictive than the RBX.. So is it really just the thin design in the block that makes it require more GPH to perform as well as a WW? And was there any difference between your WW and Dteks own now?? When you said the cascade was 1 degree cooler than the WW was it your own or Dteks and if your WW performs better what really is the reason for that??? I always had confidence in the WW over the RBX and these results prove that i made the right choice. cathar your the man:D
Click to expand...

The cascade and whitewater ARE more restrictive than the RBX:

At 1GPM, the pressure-drop for each block is:

Cascade: 1.02PSI
White Water: 0.67PSI
RBX #1 Nozzle: 0.59PSI

With an Eheim 1048 and a DTek Pro core, I estimate around:

Cascade: 1.15GPM
White Water: 1.3GPM
RBX #1: 1.35GPM

With an Eheim 1250 and DTek Pro core, I estimate around:

Cascade: 1.55GPM
White Water: 1.75GPM
RBX #1: 1.83GPM

With a Mag 3 and a DTek Pro core, I estimate around:

Cascade: 1.75GPM
White Water: 2.0GPM
RBX #1: 2.1GPM
Click to expand...

and welcome to the forums!
 
Looks interesting. Nice to have a good performance review on those blocks! Cathar, the flow restriction stuff for the RBX you provided are using nozzle #1 - does that mean the review is using nozzle #1 as well? Also, will the full review have different RBX nozzles?
 
Cathar said:


With a Mag 3 and a DTek Pro core, I estimate around:

Cascade: 1.75GPM
White Water: 2.0GPM
RBX #1: 2.1GPM
Click to expand...

so my previous guess about the RBX was wrong then - looking at the points on the graph it looks as if that Mag 3 might be about the crossover (esp as presumably the procore would be slightly better at 2.1GPM than 2GPM)

wonder what kind of flow an MCP600 + pro core would give?
 
Without identifying nozzle used on RBX the data loses relevance. Also I have to question why only a single rbx curve given the range of nozzle options available with this block? This aspect by itself can call objectivity into question.

In no way defending RBX or suggesting something amiss in the data or intent of the investigator. Just that these results as presented raise additional questions. Perhaps the full review addresses all these points in which case these comments can be taken as premature.

The fact BurnK7 employed is a good sign though, so will wait with interest on full review.
 
johan851 said:
Cathar, the flow restriction stuff for the RBX you provided are using nozzle #1 - does that mean the review is using nozzle #1 as well? Also, will the full review have different RBX nozzles?
Click to expand...

I don't know.

pauldenton said:

so my previous guess about the RBX was wrong then - looking at the points on the graph it looks as if that Mag 3 might be about the crossover (esp as presumably the procore would be slightly better at 2.1GPM than 2GPM)
Click to expand...

Yep, a Mag3 would give about the same performance between the White Water and RBX, so long as there were no additional blocks in the system.

pauldenton said:
wonder what kind of flow an MCP600 + pro core would give?
Click to expand...

I estimate:

Cascade: 1.6GPM
White Water: 1.75GPM
RBX #1: 1.8GPM
 
calvin said:
Without identifying nozzle used on RBX the data loses relevance. Also I have to question why only a single rbx curve given the range of nozzle options available with this block? This aspect by itself can call objectivity into question.

In no way defending RBX or suggesting something amiss in the data or intent of the investigator. Just that these results as presented raise additional questions. Perhaps the full review addresses all these points in which case these comments can be taken as premature.

The fact BurnK7 employed is a good sign though, so will wait with interest on full review.
Click to expand...

iirc #1 is the nozzle that comes as standard? some stores (at least in here in the UK) don't even stock the others.... :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
G1.Sniper 3 Review (PLX8747vsNF200, Circuit Analysis, LN2OC, Core3D...)
Replies
6
Views
10K
(Clanger)(DOA)
(Clanger)(DOA)
thorilan
Before You Ask
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
7K
pauldenton
P
Back