Results 1 to 11 of 11
Thread: Water cooling Socket 775 (T)
09-06-04, 03:12 PM #1
Water cooling Socket 775 (T)
Ok I got this off the abit fourms so any one that has a LGA775 system and wants to water cool here is some info.
The solutions I am listing are designed to work with LGA775 and are only the best I can find. If you know of more please add!
1- 55$ Dangen Den TDX Waterblock just recently released. Looks awesome and comes in either 3/8" or 1/2" fittings. The clear lucite top is so sexy but no guarantees it will work on all boards because of location of your components on the board.
2- 60$ PolarFlo TT Series Waterblock. This is a good block. Not as good looking as the other options. Even though it doesnt list the LGA 775 as compatible they list a mounting plate for this cooler to install it on the 775. Once again no guarantees it will work due to location of your components on the board.
3- 57$ Koolance CPU 300-H06 The manufacturor of this product is in my hometown so I gave them a call to see if they had a solution for the LGA775 and YES! This Friday 09/03/04 they will be releasing a bracket that will allow mounting of this cooler to our beloved heater. Since there is also no guarantee that this will fit your board because of components Koolance so far is the only company I found that recognizes this common problem with this chip and is releasing another mount in the case this doesnt work on 09/07/04.
4- 200$ (Approx) Thermaltake BigWater Liquid Cooling System. This is an all in one internal system which includes pump, radiator, waterblock, and all parts needed for install. I havent been able to find this for sale anywhere or reviews posted anywhere either. Thermaltake reviews for their other liquid cooling systems have been dismal. I would be interested in the waterblock if only I could find one. Considering I went to every single vendor website they had listed and couldnt find it my hopes are low.
I have a Koolance EXOS system and with the stock fan I was getting 70C but I just got the adaptor for my koolance block and temp want way done I am at 28-29C at idle and at full load prime 95, 3d mark its is only41-42 I got my EXOS for $75 CND so I am very happy.
Last edited by hkh; 09-06-04 at 05:39 PM.
09-06-04, 04:30 PM #2
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
09-06-04, 05:40 PM #3
01-19-05, 01:04 AM #4
- Join Date
- Mar 2004
- Toronto, Ont., Canada
http://www.razorcomputers.net/ is selling the Thermaltake CL-P0005 BigWater Cooler for $156.00 CAN. Also, there is a review at http://www.overclockercafe.com/Revie...ter/index.html
Looks like a good setup for the money.
01-19-05, 12:33 PM #5
Out of curiosity, why did you choose the TDX over the RBX in your "best" category?
01-19-05, 02:59 PM #6
01-19-05, 04:36 PM #7
I only read the review on the TDX (since it was compared to the RBX), but according to pHaestus' review, the RBX will slightly outperform the TDX. "At very low flow rates (0.5GPM) the TDX performs about 0.7C worse than the RBX. This performance difference decreases to around 0.4C at high flow rates (2.25 and 2.5 GPM)."
He notes, however, that this isn't a completely "fair" comparison since the TDX is less restrictive and that in high flow systems it's possible that "end users would see essentially identical performance from these two water blocks."
Lastly, he notes that he didn't recommend the RBX because of mounting issues, but that isn't the issue here. Assuming the user can mount the block correctly the RBX can provide better performance, or at least the tests indicate that it can perform better. Every system is different and blanket statements as to "better" don't necessarily apply. But, all else being equal, the RBX should perform "better" than the TDX. And, since this discussion began as specific to LGA775 systems I, for one, don't think the mounting issues are as relevant now as they once might have been. The mounting bracket for the LGA775 fits very cleanly (though the wider footprint of the TDX would be an overall improvement) and shouldn't be an impediment to good performance.
So, again, why include the TDX and exclude the RBX when in tests it doesn't perform as well?
01-20-05, 12:34 AM #8
It seems you thought this out very carefully, MVC. Well done.i7 940, HK 3.0 LT WB, ASUS P6t DLX V2, GTX 480 SLI, BP FC blocks, Win7U 64bit
Corsair Dominator GT 1600 6gig, MM Ext. Ascension AL case
2x655-B pump-EK top, 2x120.3 Coolgate rads+6xCorsair SPC120 HP fans
XPSC dual bay res+T-line, Distilled + Silver
X-Fi Fat. Pro PCI-e, Enermax Galaxy 1250 watt
5x2tb WD Caviar Black, 150g RaptorX
01-20-05, 01:57 AM #9
I say stick with the TDX with the 2 barbs instead of the 3 barb RBX becuase that's just too much of a hassle and looks ugly in my opinion.
01-20-05, 02:19 AM #10
Originally Posted by MVC
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Cartoon Capitol (DK)
The TDX performs just as well as the RBX (or slightly better).
With results being so close, it basically comes down to personal preference.
IMO, the RBX isn't as pretty (designwise) as the TDX, and its more of a hassle to hook up, using 3 barbs...
I would go with the TDX (oh, I already did )
01-20-05, 04:23 AM #11
Don, now that's cheating, using a #5 nozzle with the TDX and the #1 nozzle with the RBX What happens when one uses a #5 nozzle for both blocks? A user ordering either block is offered the choice of buying a range of nozzles so anyone using a TDX with nozzle #5 could just as easily use an RBX with nozzle #5.
Two barbs are easier to hook up than three and not having to mess with a wye could be a significant benefit to some users, but those aren't really performance issues. And, in fact, one could say that a user was trading a little bit of performance for ease of installation using the TDX rather than the RBX--all else being equal.
As for the aesthetics, that is personal choice. I happen to like the look of both blocks, each for different reasons. So if one chose one block over the other based purely on looks, I certainly wouldn't object. But, again, aesthetics don't equate to performance so saying one block performs better than the other because it looks better (in one's opinion) isn't a sustainable argument.
When I posed my original question I was actually expecting reasons other than performance--ease of installation (no wye) or aesthetics (2 barbs vs. 3). I am sort of surprised that performance keeps popping up as a reason to choose one block over the other since reviews and tests indicate they have very similar performance. And, since they perform similarly I would expect the choice of one over the other to be based primarily on other considerations.