-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Anyone see this review yet...
- Thread starter Soja
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2001
- Location
- Los Angeles
Another review that deserve no consideration IMO. The numbers just don't add up at all. I believe you would get more accurate numbers by throwing darts at a board.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Location
- University of Michigan
Hmm interesting review although I wouldve liked more detail on the setup config.
I think MCW5002 should perform alot better than that.
edit - yea this review doesnt say much... Just the temp on the die. I wouldve liked to see how he mounted all the blocks, if they were equivalent. And also the flow rate that he was testing at...
I think MCW5002 should perform alot better than that.
edit - yea this review doesnt say much... Just the temp on the die. I wouldve liked to see how he mounted all the blocks, if they were equivalent. And also the flow rate that he was testing at...
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Location
- Seattle, WA
Saw that review this morning...from OCAU's news page. I'm not sure about the results either...I was pretty sure that a WW is going to perform more than 1C better than the Spir@l. One merit of the setup he had was that he didn't change anything...so basically this assumes the same no-block flowrate for each test.
I wonder...if all the blocks had been lapped in a similar fasion, would that be more 'fair?' I realize that most users won't lap the blocks, and I definitely see the merit in the 'open the box and test' theory, but it would be a nice way to even out the playing field, in that the true potential of each block would be shown. I'm saying this because I suspect that the WW might have scored lower due to a poor lapping job characteristic of these blocks.
I wonder...if all the blocks had been lapped in a similar fasion, would that be more 'fair?' I realize that most users won't lap the blocks, and I definitely see the merit in the 'open the box and test' theory, but it would be a nice way to even out the playing field, in that the true potential of each block would be shown. I'm saying this because I suspect that the WW might have scored lower due to a poor lapping job characteristic of these blocks.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2002
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
I had discussed this review with both the reviewer and Bill Adams prior to it being published (about 9 weeks ago actually) and also raised my concerns about the MCW5002 results. The MCW5002 reviewed had the weak springs and due to the way it was being mounted, the hosing was tilting the block away from the CPU as the springs weren't strong enough to deal with the hosing tilt. As far as I'm aware Bill did indeed sent the reviewer stronger springs which have been shipping with all MCW5002 blocks for the last few months, and I'm puzzled as to why the MCW5002 was not restested with the stronger springs.
Oops - just noticed on the first page where he talks about updated Swiftech MCW5002 results with the stronger springs are forth-coming.
The Cascade is indeed better than the White Water, but not by 5C+ under load, and the White Water is a significantly better performer than the Spiral than the review indicates. Perhaps just a bad mount of the block, just as for the MCW5002?
Oops - just noticed on the first page where he talks about updated Swiftech MCW5002 results with the stronger springs are forth-coming.
The Cascade is indeed better than the White Water, but not by 5C+ under load, and the White Water is a significantly better performer than the Spiral than the review indicates. Perhaps just a bad mount of the block, just as for the MCW5002?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Location
- University of Michigan
I think he shouldve waited until he got results from new clips for 5002....
BTW, do the new clips look different than the previous ones or is it just made with better material?
BTW, do the new clips look different than the previous ones or is it just made with better material?
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2003
- Location
- Sheridan, Arkansas
ILikeMy240sx said:
I believe they only changed the springs for stiffer ones and kept using the same clips.
This review may explain why I had such poor results with a MCW-5002 using an AMD socket mount. With system in sig, I was getting loaded die temps in the high 50's with a chevette heatercore, quiet one 1200 pump, and 1/2" ID tubing; a vantec Aeroflow kept it at 51C under the same conditions.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Location
- University of Michigan
Yea email Swifty as their customer service is 
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2003
- Location
- Israel & USA
nikhsub1 said:
Agreed.
Suma.
The best you can hope for with the majority of waterblock testing and roundups are some high quality pictures and some honest comments on which blocks are easiest to mount. Without a lot of practice, a lot of money in equipment, and a lot of thought on test design you simply cannot get reliable and reproducible test results.
It is our own fault though really. Wouldn't you guys flame a review that included NO temperature numbers at all? And so we get results like these that aren't very satisfying. And we've seen worse reviews than this before haven't we?
It is our own fault though really. Wouldn't you guys flame a review that included NO temperature numbers at all? And so we get results like these that aren't very satisfying. And we've seen worse reviews than this before haven't we?
