Swiftech Apogee XT review

Originally Posted by Ether

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

wtf ??? Have I ever said anywhere that I did that test I linked to ????
I linked to Koolance yesterday, does that make it look in your book like I have made the plate heat exchangers ??

On the other hand I do also test waterblocks (amongst a lot of other things) - I have also been heavy involved in the development of waterblocks for a commercial producer. I am also "betatester" for various producers (both software and hardware) - but I don't write reviews anymore since it is too little money in beeing a reviewer.

Don't tell me how to apply the silicone either - what I have done really work perfect. I did measure the space with use of clay before putting on the caulk. And I have reopened the block of course - twice now - to check that the pins aren't bent.

FYI: This "caulk" I have used is very soft and of the sanitary type - meant to be used in moist/wet conditions and are therefore treated so no fungus will start developing. I cant see that you have used a caulk like I have done - if so - you most certainly will end up getting problems.
Likewise putting on too much caulk will cause the baseplate to bend as you say - I became aware of that

Anyway this mod is great (but looks like shit - but frankly who cares at long as it works ?), other mods I did is to put some spacers under the springs on the fasteningbolts to achieve a bit better pressure since my cpu's are extremely lapped. Here too one have to be careful since the tiny 1/8" (or 3mm ? not sure since I don't have a caliper here just now) threads cant take that much load.


I am sorry if you felt like I was taking credit for your test - that was really not the meaning. English is not my native language - and in addittion I speak/write 7 other languages (approx. on the same level as english) so my head is full of words and misunderstandings because of my way of putting words toghether can and will happen.

Originally Posted by Ether

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

LMAO...I actually thought that was you in the OP Vapor. Glad you straightened that out, and how's it going

andyc

Originally Posted by Main

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.



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.

That's cool..............but it still looks like a baboon's ass............

Originally Posted by magoo

That's cool..............but it still looks like a baboon's ass............

hehe yeah - I know... but let's keep it a secret - noone is gonna see it

Well,

After complaining about the hacked up base I received on my retail XT, Gabe was kind enough to replace it with this.

They got some serious QC issues with that base. Large pic to show milling defects.



Needless to say, I was expecting something a little different:rofl:

I agreed to retest and see if the new base would help the XT I have catch up to the HK-3, but the new one I received today looks as bad as the one I have on the XT now. Funny thing is, both bases are hacked up in the same way, and in the same exact place on the pin matrix.

I guess they can say it doesn't hurt performance, but something's either produced correctly with care, or it's not. I don;t buy it either way to be honest. I'll retest and see if I can get the XT with the new base to catch up to the HK-3 which I show 0.7c better than the XT.

andyc

That definitely doesn't look too pretty. I guess I'm a little surprised because the base on my old Apogee GT looks so well made by comparison.

Originally Posted by mcoffey

Well,

After complaining about the hacked up base I received on my retail XT, Gabe was kind enough to replace it with this.

They got some serious QC issues with that base. Large pic to show milling defects.

Needless to say, I was expecting something a little different:rofl:

I agreed to retest and see if the new base would help the XT I have catch up to the HK-3, but the new one I received today looks as bad as the one I have on the XT now. Funny thing is, both bases are hacked up in the same way, and in the same exact place on the pin matrix.

I guess they can say it doesn't hurt performance, but something's either produced correctly with care, or it's not. I don;t buy it either way to be honest. I'll retest and see if I can get the XT with the new base to catch up to the HK-3 which I show 0.7c better than the XT.

andyc

Terrible...

Originally Posted by Kaldskryke

That definitely doesn't look too pretty. I guess I'm a little surprised because the base on my old Apogee GT looks so well made by comparison.

Yep..something's going on and quality has dropped way off from the base on my GTZ. I realize the pins are cut deeper, but still no excuse. With the proper equipment, attention to detail and overall willingness to create something of quality, not that tuff. And it's not like the XT is a cheap block.

andyc

Originally Posted by mcoffey

Yep..something's going on and quality has dropped way off from the base on my GTZ. I realize the pins are cut deeper, but still no excuse. With the proper equipment, attention to detail and overall willingness to create something of quality, not that tuff. And it's not like the XT is a cheap block.

andyc

Sadly, I have to agree with you with respect to cosmetics of the replacement plate that we sent you. This is a plate left from our first production run. Two people are involved in sending you this, and I severely reprimended them.

I am sending you this new plate coming from our latest production run, received this week:



I already said so before, but let's be cristal clear again: there will not be any difference in performance. It's purely cosmetic.

For the record, and contrarily to what you are asserting, if there is a Company on the market that cares for quality and attention to detail, and has proven so over and over again in the past 10 years, it is Swiftech. On the other hand, people and tools are not perfect, and constant vigilance is needed to keep us on track. This new pin matrix has been a technological challenge, and comparing it to the GTZ only shows a lack of understanding of this manufacturing process on your part. I can't blame you for that, after all, we certainly don't go about advertising how we do things. Suffice to say that it is a difficult process, and that practice makes perfect.

Now talking about performance, I'd like to know the date at which you conducted your tests with your HK. What I am getting at is this: when you conduct comparative testing, do you validate the performance recorded earlier by running a baseline test? Typically it is always preferable to conduct your comparative testing between blocks back to back.

Originally Posted by Gabriel Rouchon

Sadly, I have to agree with you with respect to cosmetics of the replacement plate that we sent you. This is a plate left from our first production run. Two people are involved in sending you this, and I severely reprimended them.

I am sending you this new plate coming from our latest production run, received this week:



I already said so before, but let's be cristal clear again: there will not be any difference in performance. It's purely cosmetic.

For the record, and contrarily to what you are asserting, if there is a Company on the market that cares for quality and attention to detail, and has proven so over and over again in the past 10 years, it is Swiftech. On the other hand, people and tools are not perfect, and constant vigilance is needed to keep us on track. This new pin matrix has been a technological challenge, and comparing it to the GTZ only shows a lack of understanding of this manufacturing process on your part. I can't blame you for that, after all, we certainly don't go about advertising how we do things. Suffice to say that it is a difficult process, and that practice makes perfect.

Now talking about performance, I'd like to know the date at which you conducted your tests with your HK. What I am getting at is this: when you conduct comparative testing, do you validate the performance recorded earlier by running a baseline test? Typically it is always preferable to conduct your comparative testing between blocks back to back.

Thanks and look forward to the new base. I just saw Michelle's email for tracking. Multi mounts, sets and data pulls for well over 5 mounts on both blocks done during the same time periods. I was so thrown by the discrepancy I saw with my results from what others have shown, that I actually did extra mounts. I'm well aware of the sound methodology it takes to preform comparative testing I deem critical (ie, "best used" as opposed to "as sold" for mounting purposes using my own preference of springs, mounting pressure, back plates, etc for the HK-3 CU), and I applied that methodology to both the HK-3 and the XT when I tested.

I look forward to getting a clean base and retesting,

andyc