Swiftech Apogee XT review

Posted here: http://vapor.skinneelabs.com/i7/Round2/XT/R2i7XT.html
Updated Overall Comparison here: http://vapor.skinneelabs.com/i7/Roun...i7Overall.html

Awaiting my Gigabyte modified base plate before I can start up my system again

A quick note to anyone who might be confused by that chart: The XT+ and HK+ were modified by the tester using silicone, hence the +. They are not special versions of the block for sale.

Yes - the plus is after the "siliconemod" for both XT and Heatkiller
This highly effective mod is very easy to do - the drawback is a more restrictive block since this mod hinders water flowing above the micropins.
This mod is is highly recommended !

Your updated overall comparison link is busted.

Where's the HK 3.0 CU in the chart ???

Originally Posted by Xilikon

Where's the HK 3.0 CU in the chart ???

Agreed. I'm curious as well...

here wondering where it is as well.

Originally Posted by Xilikon

Where's the HK 3.0 CU in the chart ???

Add yet another to the list.

No CU in the comparison???

Must have been a reason it was left out...

WOW... That silicon mod doesn't look too good....

Originally Posted by Xilikon

Where's the HK 3.0 CU in the chart ???

Originally Posted by craigbru

Agreed. I'm curious as well...

Originally Posted by lollerskater69

here wondering where it is as well.

Originally Posted by CrazyJoe_

Add yet another to the list.

FYI we conducted (and published) all our test own test data with the HK 3.0 CU version. You may chose to question/ignore our data of course, but it shows 1.5C Delta in favor of the XT. A difference in methodology should be noted between us and Vapor's procedures: we report the best of 5 mounts instead of the average of X mounts. We believe in effect that the best mount reflects what a block can do at its best. Another scientific reason for this approach is to reduce mathematical data massaging versus presenting measured data.

Looks good, but do we now have a filter on top of the CPU? Does this warrant adding in-line filters... or would it be no different than the GTZ?

I'm satisfied with these tests, but now I want data on LAPPED CPUs. I wonder if it'll still edge out the HK 3.0. - just a curiosity. I'm not sure that the XT, being a large block, is compatible with lapped processors... or how easy/difficult it'd be to mod it for compatibility (seems we could lap the perimeter of the block the same amount as the CPU to clear the socket - but maybe there's a more obvious solution... on the socket itself or something).

I've tested the XT every which way till Sunday, and I show it 0.7c behind the HK3 with copper top. The internal pin matrix is chewed up with poor inconsistent milling on the XT, and I can see small pits on the the base that appear to come from casting also.

From what I can tell, the XT is no where near as well made as the GTZ was, but does perform better than the GTZ. That much they got right. Another thing, the XT mounting
system doesn't seem to crank the block down any where near as much as the GTZ mounting system did. You can spin the XT screws down easily to the stops, but you almost always has to use a screw driver to crank the GTZ springs down all the way unless you want to remove skin from the finger tips.

That all being said, I test as "best used", not "as sold" on the other blocks with my own preference of springs, mounting pressure and back plates. So maybe that has something to do with the difference I'm seeing in performance from what others have stated.

The XT is a decent performer with one of the best mounting systems available, but I haven't seen one reason to swap a HK3 out for a XT yet based on any performance or workmanship criteria.

I was much more excited about the GTZ when it first came out and I tested it for Gabe. The XT just doesn't seem to be up the same standard or quality based on the retail version I purchased and tested.

andyc

Originally Posted by mcoffey

I've tested the XT every which way till Sunday, and I show it 0.7c behind the HK3 with copper top. The internal pin matrix is chewed up with poor inconsistent milling on the XT, and I can see small pits on the the base that appear to come from casting also.

From what I can tell, the XT is no where near as well made as the GTZ was, but does perform better than the GTZ. That much they got right. Another thing, the XT mounting
system doesn't seem to crank the block down any where near as much as the GTZ mounting system did. You can spin the XT screws down easily to the stops, but you almost always has to use a screw driver to crank the GTZ springs down all the way unless you want to remove skin from the finger tips.

That all being said, I test as "best used", not "as sold" on the other blocks with my own preference of springs, mounting pressure and back plates. So maybe that has something to do with the difference I'm seeing in performance from what others have stated.

The XT is a decent performer with one of the best mounting systems available, but I haven't seen one reason to swap a HK3 out for a XT yet based on any performance or workmanship criteria.

I was much more excited about the GTZ when it first came out and I tested it for Gabe. The XT just doesn't seem to be up the same standard or quality based on the retail version I purchased and tested.

andyc

My block too got some anomalies in the pin matrix, they are in the outer zone - so I don't belive at all that this will affect the blocks performance.
As from I can tell from my 3 days testeing with the block it easily outperforms GTZ and Heatkiller (which I also have both of). During my short tests I am not really sure if I got burnt in the tim enough either - so I might get lower temperatures when I will be finished reconfiguring my system (still awaiting parts so I can start up my mainsystem again ).
I neither had any problem with GTZ's mounting, but I always grease threads like that slightly with silicon tim.

Originally Posted by Main

My block too got some anomalies in the pin matrix, they are in the outer zone - so I don't belive at all that this will affect the blocks performance.
As from I can tell from my 3 days testeing with the block it easily outperforms GTZ and Heatkiller (which I also have both of). During my short tests I am not really sure if I got burnt in the tim enough either - so I might get lower temperatures when I will be finished reconfiguring my system (still awaiting parts so I can start up my mainsystem again ).
I neither had any problem with GTZ's mounting, but I always grease threads like that slightly with silicon tim.

I'd be interested in seeing those results and good luck. And yes, letting the TIM set up makes a difference. MX-2 does improve around 0.5-1.0c over several hours depending on the thickness. I like letting my new mounts set up overnight for a least 12 hours before I gather my results.

andyc

See my post here:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...236172&page=11

I encountered the same thing. Gabe says there's no performance impact, but I admit I'm a bit disappointed with the quality (or QC on it). In any case, I got a RMA from Swiftech for the base plate, and the new one looks a lot better.

What in God's name are you spreading all over the inside of that waterblock????

What the hell??? It looks like shit on a stick. I can't imagine that is any good for the system as a whole, but what do I know.

Originally Posted by magoo

What in God's name are you spreading all over the inside of that waterblock????

What the hell??? It looks like shit on a stick. I can't imagine that is any good for the system as a whole, but what do I know.

Agreed,

If you want to try something like creating a bow on a block such as the HK-3, or increasing a blocks bow, there's much easier and cleaner ways of doing it than smearing caulk all over the place. That's just asking for trouble. Some people assume to much without the actual experience it takes to make a substantiated claim, and that's when the trouble starts

andyc

Originally Posted by magoo

What in God's name are you spreading all over the inside of that waterblock????

What the hell??? It looks like shit on a stick. I can't imagine that is any good for the system as a whole, but what do I know.

hehe - yes I was very sceptical myself
So before I did put it in my system I tested it in my testrig with a 133watts peltier attached to the waterblock.

The idea is that this mod will hinder waterleakage over the micropins - and I can assure you that it does really work.

That caulk is soft and stretchable and I am 100% sure it wont come loose.

Originally Posted by mcoffey

Agreed,

If you want to try something like creating a bow on a block such as the HK-3, or increasing a blocks bow, there's much easier and cleaner ways of doing it than smearing caulk all over the place. That's just asking for trouble. Some people assume to much without the actual experience it takes to make a substantiated claim, and that's when the trouble starts

andyc

I have been watercooling / phasecooling for some ~10 years - and modded the shit out of "everything". Even made my own waterblocks / and built phasecooler systems - in other words I am not afraid trying new things if it gives me better performance aso.

Originally Posted by Main

I have been watercooling / phasecooling for some ~10 years - and modded the shit out of "everything". Even made my own waterblocks / and built phasecooler systems - in other words I am not afraid trying new things if it gives me better performance aso.

Understood and good luck to you!

andyc

Main, are you trying to pass this testing off as your own? WTF

You're not the tester....I am (even when I signed up a few years ago, Vapor was taken, meh).

______________
As for why the mod works on the XT, I'm really not sure why it works. When I disassembled the block, the pins went all the way through the silicone (I did a very thin layer--you could still see the o-ring through it), so I don't think much flow goes 'over' the pins. I think it may just increase the velocity of the fluid at the bottom of the pins and creates a slightly different bow--the modification visibly deforms the base on both the XT and the HK3.0. It's also more effective on the HK3.0 and the microchannel's fins don't go through the silicone at all.

Anyway, you should have used a straight edge to wipe away the silicone (can be caulk or RTV or any variety really, just as long as it's 100% silicone) and form a better and thinner surface. If nothing else, a really thick layer will increase restriction a ton.

HK3.0 Cu is in testing right now using the same base from my LT block