-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
New Swifty VGA RAM WB
- Thread starter Froggy
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2005
- Location
- Ormond Beach, FL.
Zalman came out with one, so I guess they had to follow suit.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2004
I saw that earlier today, seemed pretty sick.
QuietIce
Disabled
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Location
- Anywhere but there
I like it! Too bad they weren't out 4 months ago ... 
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2001
- Location
- Bakersfield, CA
That's a bit different from what I was expecting when I read the thread title. I was thinking system ram blocks which I wouldn't be very impressed with. It's nice to have this as an option to an existing GPU block instead of replacing the entire thing.
Now the question is, will you be able to OC your ram any more with this than with the MC14 sinks or sinkless?
Now the question is, will you be able to OC your ram any more with this than with the MC14 sinks or sinkless?
- Joined
- May 10, 2004
- Location
- Brooklyn
not worth it.
heatsinks + fans on ram ftw.
heatsinks + fans on ram ftw.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
that looks nice as hell, but im still sticking with ramsinks
and blah! none for x1k series...
and blah! none for x1k series...
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Location
- Los Angeles
I'm not liking the 3/8" fittings.
Personally, I prefer the Danger Den stuff, they're excellent blocks and they'll work in a Quad SLI setup.
Personally, I prefer the Danger Den stuff, they're excellent blocks and they'll work in a Quad SLI setup.
QuietIce
Disabled
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Location
- Anywhere but there
3/8" fittings? Only the RAMblock has smaller fittings - is that what you're talking about ...?
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2000
- Location
- Sheboygan, Wisconsin
Seven said:
You may want to take another look as it looks to be 1/4" barbs. As the F fitting is either 1/4" x 1/4", 3/8" x 1/4" or 1/2" x 1/4" It also says "linking in parallel the 1/4" MCW-Ramcool ports "
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Location
- Los Angeles
I was talking about the RAM block only, in fact.
Ah yes, Insane Clown is right about the ram block. Those F-fittings look interesting, although a proper test of pressure drop due to the fittings would be nice.
Ah yes, Insane Clown is right about the ram block. Those F-fittings look interesting, although a proper test of pressure drop due to the fittings would be nice.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2001
- Location
- Los Angeles
What is wrong with the pressure drop graph on swiftech's site? Their data is generally very good.Seven said:
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Location
- Los Angeles
nikhsub1 said:
You misunderstood my statement. I was referring to the pressure drop vs. flow rate for the F-fitting independently, just running on it's own in a system with no blocks. It seems to me like the middle part of the F wouldn't pick up that much pressure or flow from the main line.
Interesting idea though, although I'm more of a fan of the huge copper waterblock covering my GPU.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2005
Seems to me like the DD blocks are still a better solution... but since I have a pair of MCW60's I may just have to look into this...
- Joined
- May 22, 2004
- Location
- Gainesville, FL / Frankfurt Germany
this does give the option of a dual loop setup, which the DD block dont allow.
Say 80mm rad with a low end pump using 1/4" cooling GPU-RAM and NB.
just a thought.
Say 80mm rad with a low end pump using 1/4" cooling GPU-RAM and NB.
just a thought.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2005
- Location
- Ormond Beach, FL.
The DD blocks are too heavy. A pound of copper, plus the coolant sag the cards too much. It knocks the contact with the chip outta whack. I suppose if you have a card keeper.
