- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Location
- East Coast
I am leaving in a couple hours, quick stopover then on to Hawaii until end of this month….so unfortunately wont be able to respond to anyone for few days at least, unless you ask in next 2 hours….though may or may not log in from vacation in few days if any down time and reasonably sober...was going to wait til got back...but why not...
(After mounting HK 3.0 about 20+ times testing mx3 vs mx2 and then different amounts tim...before finally realizing there is very little difference between 2... I got to the point I can keep most of my mounts within 1C of each other, majority of time within .5C, and usually you know while doing it whether you did a good mount or a questionable one)
8 mounts of Swiftech XT versus 8 mounts of Heatkiller 3.0 all copper version
TESTING METHOD
--TIM MX2, measured between 6-7mm pea size for all mounts (that size gives me best/most reproducible mounts), and nice thin coverage across entire IHS.
--Same mounting pressure for all Swiftech XT and same mounting pressure for all HK mounts , ie Swiftech all the way down, HK 8 turns each (calipers to verify, I used slightly tighter than suggested specs but my cpu lapped, approx 2 turns from max all way down). Always 1 turn at time in criss crossing pattern to get even mount. Note my 8th mount of Swiftech was with HK mounting system (modified) so I could vary pressure and recheck, since using lapped cpu.
--All tested on Lapped i950, OC 4.4ghz, 1.34 cpuz vcore at load,
--NOTE...since using GB board, one edge of HK and Swiftech block I flattened the edge so both mount vertically without touching caps. Both, however, I had mounted before flattening edge with same results…just gets annoying pushing caps out way each time, and affects the ability to get good repeatable mounts.
--Used prime ffts large, same fft on each run, monitored heat dissipated with everest all between 178 and 181W, 10 minute warmup (by 6-8mins water temp is already maxed) and used Realtemp to then record next 3 or 5 mins (half of each though results same with either) at 1 second intervals so all 4 cores of data to then average. There is no difference between 3 and 5 or even 30 mins of data, will be within .2 to .3C within same mount...as long as keep ambients from changing during measured run...hence smaller runs are easier to keep very accurate.
--Same fluke thermocouples to measure exact same 1 location in water temp before pump, and thermocouples placed in front rads to measure intakes.
--I am in a 25 x 23 x 12 feet high ceiling room, with computer expelling all hot air in a channel of styrofoam so can not recirculate until travels long distance. A/C off during run and on between runs, otherwise a/c if click on during test will drop ambients quicker than water temp can respond, screwing up delta and measurements. Point is to keep ambient within ~.2C during entire 3-5 minute measurement run, and hence water temp within .1C during run, otherwise start run over.
--All temps corrected to 24.7C ambient, ambient ranged from 24.3 to 25.2, most were between 24.5 and 24.9C.
--All tests done with my 1 large loop, 2x360 rad equivalent (pa120.3 +mcr 220 + mcr 120), 355,pump xspc top, fans all maxed (on controller) GT 1700 rpms pushing, yates UV 1600 pulling, gtx 295 in loop (which btw raises air to water delta only 1C vs it being out of loop...since they downclock at idle)
pic of Swiftech apogee XT installed (flow is pump-mcr120 front-pa120.3 top-cpu (middle is inlet)-gpu-mcr220 rad-reserv-pump)
pic of Heatkiller 3.0 all copper installed (flow exact same as Swiftech XT)
Results:
--If averaging all 4 cores, HK 3.0 is 0.8C lower core temps than Swiftech XT ON MY CPU.
(averaged best 5 of 8 mounts, does not change outcome if use all 8)
Swiftech XT
71.3, 71.6, (72.4 excluded), 71.5, (71.9 excluded), 71.2, (72.1 excluded), 71.3 (included this, though with modded heatkiller mount to increase pressure since had lapped cpu)
HK 3.0 all copper
70.7, 70.8, 70.4, (71.3 excluded), 70.6, (70.8 excluded), (71.1 excluded), 70.5
--However, unlike HK 3.0 versus earlier GTZ, where there was clear 3C lower temps on all cores, this was interesting:
--If just average core 0 and core 2 (ignore core 1 and 3) Swiftech XT was ~0.5C lower ON MY CPU on nearly all mounts
--If just average core 1 and core 3
Heatkiller was ~2C better on each of those 2 cores on nearly all mounts
--Interface differences seemed to exceed overall block differences.
Example of Swiftech XT in all mounts gave cpu temps in ~ following ratio
70.5, 74.5, 70.5, 70.2, ie core 0,2,3 ~same, core 1 was 3-5C higher
HK 3.0 always for each mount gave ~ ratio
71, 72.5, 71, 68, ie core
Very end of typical Swiftech XT run, note typical ratios of core temps seen in all its mounts.
Tail end of typical HK mount, with typical core ratios see in all of its mounts (the 38C is gpu temp, ignore it)
Impression:
1) My cpu is no question better with HK by 0.8C, but I would have to test it on several cpus before I would call it one way or the other, because interface differences, ie relative core differences, exceeded difference between 2 blocks on my cpu.
2) I would not be surprised if reviews will be mixed, especially if flow is optimized for one or other, especially given the interface ??bow?? differences between blocks hence some cores cooler others hotter, or I could be entirely wrong...have to wait and see.
3) Also dont know if lapping affected Swiftech results, need to test a non-lapped one, though I did use the different mount and walked it down very tight watching temps, got a good mount, but not better than Swiftech mounting.
3) If retesting the same mount over and over, ie loading, let cool, then again, get 0.2 to 0.3 max variability, usually less, so accuracy is only about .2 to .3 at best just accounting for measurement accuracy alone.
4) Without accurately measuring intake ambients (and if possible water as well for control/double check), and controlling the intake ambients while you test, you wont be able to tell difference in temps between two blocks, unless you have way better eyes than me.
5) Using the heatkiller before and after lapping, I got the exact same temp ratios between cores BEFORE AND AFTER LAPPING, not to mention the exact same temps. But again, my particular IHS was very flat to begin with, but interface differences ?bowing diff are interesting.
6) The Swiftech mount system was much faster each time, and way easier on my thumbs. Since I have gotten used to using the wrench and counting turns on HK, dont mind it quite as much, but for unscrewing, just wish they had larger thumbscrews...ends of my finger/thumb are raw.
7) hopefully I got everything posted up ok, sorry if little disorganized and not graphs, could have easily done some if had more time...and my 2 hours is now down to less than 1..
(After mounting HK 3.0 about 20+ times testing mx3 vs mx2 and then different amounts tim...before finally realizing there is very little difference between 2... I got to the point I can keep most of my mounts within 1C of each other, majority of time within .5C, and usually you know while doing it whether you did a good mount or a questionable one)
8 mounts of Swiftech XT versus 8 mounts of Heatkiller 3.0 all copper version
TESTING METHOD
--TIM MX2, measured between 6-7mm pea size for all mounts (that size gives me best/most reproducible mounts), and nice thin coverage across entire IHS.
--Same mounting pressure for all Swiftech XT and same mounting pressure for all HK mounts , ie Swiftech all the way down, HK 8 turns each (calipers to verify, I used slightly tighter than suggested specs but my cpu lapped, approx 2 turns from max all way down). Always 1 turn at time in criss crossing pattern to get even mount. Note my 8th mount of Swiftech was with HK mounting system (modified) so I could vary pressure and recheck, since using lapped cpu.
--All tested on Lapped i950, OC 4.4ghz, 1.34 cpuz vcore at load,
--NOTE...since using GB board, one edge of HK and Swiftech block I flattened the edge so both mount vertically without touching caps. Both, however, I had mounted before flattening edge with same results…just gets annoying pushing caps out way each time, and affects the ability to get good repeatable mounts.
--Used prime ffts large, same fft on each run, monitored heat dissipated with everest all between 178 and 181W, 10 minute warmup (by 6-8mins water temp is already maxed) and used Realtemp to then record next 3 or 5 mins (half of each though results same with either) at 1 second intervals so all 4 cores of data to then average. There is no difference between 3 and 5 or even 30 mins of data, will be within .2 to .3C within same mount...as long as keep ambients from changing during measured run...hence smaller runs are easier to keep very accurate.
--Same fluke thermocouples to measure exact same 1 location in water temp before pump, and thermocouples placed in front rads to measure intakes.
--I am in a 25 x 23 x 12 feet high ceiling room, with computer expelling all hot air in a channel of styrofoam so can not recirculate until travels long distance. A/C off during run and on between runs, otherwise a/c if click on during test will drop ambients quicker than water temp can respond, screwing up delta and measurements. Point is to keep ambient within ~.2C during entire 3-5 minute measurement run, and hence water temp within .1C during run, otherwise start run over.
--All temps corrected to 24.7C ambient, ambient ranged from 24.3 to 25.2, most were between 24.5 and 24.9C.
--All tests done with my 1 large loop, 2x360 rad equivalent (pa120.3 +mcr 220 + mcr 120), 355,pump xspc top, fans all maxed (on controller) GT 1700 rpms pushing, yates UV 1600 pulling, gtx 295 in loop (which btw raises air to water delta only 1C vs it being out of loop...since they downclock at idle)
pic of Swiftech apogee XT installed (flow is pump-mcr120 front-pa120.3 top-cpu (middle is inlet)-gpu-mcr220 rad-reserv-pump)
pic of Heatkiller 3.0 all copper installed (flow exact same as Swiftech XT)
Results:
--If averaging all 4 cores, HK 3.0 is 0.8C lower core temps than Swiftech XT ON MY CPU.
(averaged best 5 of 8 mounts, does not change outcome if use all 8)
Swiftech XT
71.3, 71.6, (72.4 excluded), 71.5, (71.9 excluded), 71.2, (72.1 excluded), 71.3 (included this, though with modded heatkiller mount to increase pressure since had lapped cpu)
HK 3.0 all copper
70.7, 70.8, 70.4, (71.3 excluded), 70.6, (70.8 excluded), (71.1 excluded), 70.5
--However, unlike HK 3.0 versus earlier GTZ, where there was clear 3C lower temps on all cores, this was interesting:
--If just average core 0 and core 2 (ignore core 1 and 3) Swiftech XT was ~0.5C lower ON MY CPU on nearly all mounts
--If just average core 1 and core 3
Heatkiller was ~2C better on each of those 2 cores on nearly all mounts
--Interface differences seemed to exceed overall block differences.
Example of Swiftech XT in all mounts gave cpu temps in ~ following ratio
70.5, 74.5, 70.5, 70.2, ie core 0,2,3 ~same, core 1 was 3-5C higher
HK 3.0 always for each mount gave ~ ratio
71, 72.5, 71, 68, ie core
Very end of typical Swiftech XT run, note typical ratios of core temps seen in all its mounts.
Code:
10/11/2009 10:40:49 4416.07 71 75 70 71 38 100
10/11/2009 10:40:50 4416.07 71 75 71 71 38 100
10/11/2009 10:40:51 4416.07 70 74 71 70 38 100
10/11/2009 10:40:52 4416.07 71 75 71 71 38 100
10/11/2009 10:40:53 4416.07 70 74 70 70 38 100
10/11/2009 10:40:54 4416.07 71 75 71 70 38 100
10/11/2009 10:40:55 4416.07 70 74 70 70 38 100
10/11/2009 10:40:56 4416.07 71 75 71 70 38 100
10/11/2009 10:40:57 4416.07 70 74 70 71 38 100
10/11/2009 10:40:58 4416.07 71 75 71 71 38 100
10/11/2009 10:40:59 4416.07 71 75 71 70 38 100
10/11/2009 10:41:00 4416.07 70 74 70 70 38 100
amb 24.7 [SIZE="4"][B]71.5[/B][/SIZE] avg 4 cores 29.5 water
[SIZE="4"][B]70.47 74.60 70.57 70.29 avg each core [/B][/SIZE]Tail end of typical HK mount, with typical core ratios see in all of its mounts (the 38C is gpu temp, ignore it)
Code:
10/11/2009 23:06:43 4416.08 71 73 72 68 38 100
10/11/2009 23:06:44 4416.08 71 72 72 67 38 100
10/11/2009 23:06:45 4416.08 71 73 72 67 38 100
10/11/2009 23:06:46 4416.08 71 73 72 67 38 100
10/11/2009 23:06:47 4416.08 71 73 72 68 38 100
10/11/2009 23:06:48 4416.08 71 73 72 68 38 100
10/11/2009 23:06:49 4416.08 71 72 71 67 38 100
10/11/2009 23:06:50 4416.08 71 73 72 68 38 100
10/11/2009 23:06:51 4416.08 71 72 70 68 38 100
10/11/2009 23:06:52 4416.08 71 73 71 67 38 100
10/11/2009 23:06:53 4416.08 72 73 72 67 38 100
10/11/2009 23:06:54 4416.08 71 72 72 68 38 100
10/11/2009 23:06:55 4416.08 71 73 71 68 38 100
10/11/2009 23:06:56 4416.08 70 72 72 67 38 100
10/11/2009 23:06:57 4416.08 71 73 71 68 38 100
10/11/2009 23:06:58 4416.08 71 72 72 68 38 100
10/11/2009 23:06:59 4416.08 71 73 72 68 38 100
10/11/2009 23:07:00 4416.08 71 73 71 68 38 100
amb 24.8 [SIZE="4"][B]70.7[/B] [/SIZE] avg 4 cores 29.8 water
[SIZE="4"][B]70.97 72.54 71.59 67.79 avg each core [/B][/SIZE]Impression:
1) My cpu is no question better with HK by 0.8C, but I would have to test it on several cpus before I would call it one way or the other, because interface differences, ie relative core differences, exceeded difference between 2 blocks on my cpu.
2) I would not be surprised if reviews will be mixed, especially if flow is optimized for one or other, especially given the interface ??bow?? differences between blocks hence some cores cooler others hotter, or I could be entirely wrong...have to wait and see.
3) Also dont know if lapping affected Swiftech results, need to test a non-lapped one, though I did use the different mount and walked it down very tight watching temps, got a good mount, but not better than Swiftech mounting.
3) If retesting the same mount over and over, ie loading, let cool, then again, get 0.2 to 0.3 max variability, usually less, so accuracy is only about .2 to .3 at best just accounting for measurement accuracy alone.
4) Without accurately measuring intake ambients (and if possible water as well for control/double check), and controlling the intake ambients while you test, you wont be able to tell difference in temps between two blocks, unless you have way better eyes than me.
5) Using the heatkiller before and after lapping, I got the exact same temp ratios between cores BEFORE AND AFTER LAPPING, not to mention the exact same temps. But again, my particular IHS was very flat to begin with, but interface differences ?bowing diff are interesting.
6) The Swiftech mount system was much faster each time, and way easier on my thumbs. Since I have gotten used to using the wrench and counting turns on HK, dont mind it quite as much, but for unscrewing, just wish they had larger thumbscrews...ends of my finger/thumb are raw.
7) hopefully I got everything posted up ok, sorry if little disorganized and not graphs, could have easily done some if had more time...and my 2 hours is now down to less than 1..
