DIY Waterblock Roundup

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

Comparison of four DIY waterblocks – Bill Adams

DIY Waterblock Discussion

That the flow resistance of Owen’s Multi-Hole wb is high is fairly obvious, but a comparison with the previously tested DIY wbs will be more informative as there is now data on four rather different types of designs:

Head Loss

Head Loss

Looking at the preceding Head Loss and “C/W” graphs, one might be tempted to conclude that higher head loss = better cooling, but obviously that 462-B data doesn’t quite fit.

Flow Rate

With the “C/W” vs. Head Loss graph, the wbs’ performance can be put into perspective. While the Multi-Hole achieves the lowest “C/W”, the head loss for the requisite 7.6 lpm flow is quite beyond ‘normal’ WCing pumps. (This a ‘problem’ associated with test bench data, results can be ‘artificially’ produced which do not represent ‘real world’ conditions. In this case it is the large pump being used that produces the Multi-Hole’s apparent superiority.)

When the comparison is based on a more typically available 0.5 to 1mH2O pressure drop, Hoot’s, Owen’s and the 462-B are pretty much equal – with the edge going to the 462-B at higher flow rates due to its lower head loss (and better slope, indicating that the advantage will widen at higher flow rates).

For low flow rates typical of WCing systems with smaller pumps and 3/8in. tubing, Hoot’s Pin-fin is clearly superior. From the data on just these four wbs, it should be clear that the wb is only one of the elements in a WCing system, and that good performance is going to be achieved by accurately matching the characteristics of all of the system components.

Is there more to be revealed? You bet, but we’ll need some more data from different wbs.

DIYers interested in having their waterblock tested can find out more HERE.

be cool

Bill Adams


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.