Comparison of four DIY waterblocks – Bill Adams
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:
- Swiftech 462 which is a large open-chamber
- Owen’s Copper Cap which is a smaller chamber
- Hoot’s Pin-Fin with internal round ‘fins’
- Owen’s Multi-Hole with large irregular ‘fins’ and high flow restriction
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.
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
Be the first to comment