- Joined
- Oct 12, 2001
- Location
- Los Angeles
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Full review of the RBX, WW and Cascade...
- Thread starter nikhsub1
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2003
About what I figured.....
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Location
- Seattle, WA
Very nice review. It'll be interesting to see what difference changing the RBX nozzle will make, as a previous review indicated that it does a little better with the #4 nozzle. Still, I'm not sure how applicable that information would be - the inconsistent mounting problem kinda scares me off. Could be a good option for P4 users though.
I didn't know that the Aluminum vs. Poly topped WW could actually make a difference - how big of a difference do you think that would be? It makes me sad...I just bought a poly topped WW.
Probably no more than like .25C though.
I didn't know that the Aluminum vs. Poly topped WW could actually make a difference - how big of a difference do you think that would be? It makes me sad...I just bought a poly topped WW.
Probably no more than like .25C though.
OP
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2001
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Thread Starter
- #5
If that....johan851 said:I just bought a poly topped WW.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Location
- Seattle, WA
Yeah, if that. I'm sure I'll notice though...with my...atomic lazer thermometer and...yeah. I'll be happy.
It is pretty nice to have a side by side comparison between the RBX and WW. That question has kinda been floating around in my mind.
It is pretty nice to have a side by side comparison between the RBX and WW. That question has kinda been floating around in my mind.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2003
- Location
- Virginy
I guess that I will scrap the RBX Idea and get the WW instead
Looks good
The mountability of the RBX is really scary though - why would they make it narrower than the processor's contact pads? That right there is a huge blunder on Danger Den's part, and I hope that they switch to a wider base in future revisions.
I'm also looking forward to the results athered from use of the RBX's different nozzles; I hope that they provide better results.
Cudos to pHaestus for taking the time, and putting the effort, into doing this great (and neccessary!) review
The mountability of the RBX is really scary though - why would they make it narrower than the processor's contact pads? That right there is a huge blunder on Danger Den's part, and I hope that they switch to a wider base in future revisions.
I'm also looking forward to the results athered from use of the RBX's different nozzles; I hope that they provide better results.
Cudos to pHaestus for taking the time, and putting the effort, into doing this great (and neccessary!) review
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2003
- Location
- Overland Park, Kansas
That just scared me back to the WW again. I was starting to lean toward the RBX for price reasons, but I have an AMD set up, so I will definitely go with the WW now. One question: I thought that mixing Aluminum and copper caused corrosion problems when mixing them on the same loop, if this is so, why would the WW have both aluminum and copper in the same block?
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Location
- Seattle, WA
The DTek blocks with aluminum tops (nice rhyme!) use anodized aluminum. If aluminum is anodized correctly (and I believe it is with DTek's tops) then it presents no problems with galvanic corrosion.
My Al topped Spir@l shows no corrosion after more than a year of use.
My Al topped Spir@l shows no corrosion after more than a year of use.
I just got one of the dtek WW blocks. It came with no instructions, the wrong type of screws, a weak aluminum mounting plate that stripped, and a waterblock surface that you can surf on. After two hours of 400 grit sand paper, I still haven't reached the center of the block. All of the edges of the block are nice and shiny and the center of the block still shows the original scratches. Very poor workmanship. It's too bad Cathar sold it to them for production and sales.
kusojiji said:
That is really bad news, considering d-tek has a high reputation among the watercooling community. Well Cathar used to lap the WW by his own hands spending hrs of work.When something of that kind starts to be mass produced IMHO something has to be given less priority
- Joined
- May 20, 2003
- Location
- Colleyville, TX
I love his reviews... *everything* is covered. It's like having BillA 'employed' by OC again ^_^.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2003
- Location
- South of Boston
Just wanted to comment on the incredible difficulties of mounting the rbx...
I've mounted mine several times without the incredibly effective anti-crush pads, and not had a problem. I also tighten all the way and put a lot of pressure on the core (and have never cracked a core). I like to make sure that if the tubing is pulling on the block, the whole motherboard will bend and the cpu won't lose contact with the block. I wouldn't let this scare you away from the RBX, and if you believe in the anti-crush pads, they include a set of 6 for you to apply yourself.
I've mounted mine several times without the incredibly effective anti-crush pads, and not had a problem. I also tighten all the way and put a lot of pressure on the core (and have never cracked a core). I like to make sure that if the tubing is pulling on the block, the whole motherboard will bend and the cpu won't lose contact with the block. I wouldn't let this scare you away from the RBX, and if you believe in the anti-crush pads, they include a set of 6 for you to apply yourself.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Location
- Seattle, WA
Kinda funny - I took the link to your setup thread Crimedog, and it looks like you had a couple experiences remounting the RBX yourself. I believe you though. AMD's crush pad's aren't terribly effective in the first place, and the RBX ones probably help somewhat. I'm sure that with a shim, it's not too bad.
I believe you though. AMD's crush pad's aren't terribly effective in the first place, and the RBX ones probably help somewhat. I'm sure that with a shim, it's not too bad.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
- Location
- Suffolk, UK
It seems interesting to me that despite all the RBX's attachments etc, it still does not seem to beat the WW, which must have been DangerDen's ultimate goal
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2002
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
kusojiji said:
One has to ask why was the block simply not RMA'ed?
DTek have significantly improved their quality control, and are shipping quality items, however there may still be a few wrong'uns floating about from before their changes, and if you come across one then the first point of contact who be the place you bought it from to get it repaired/replaced.
Similar threads
