[Review] PrimoChill Typhoon III

S

skinnee

n00b
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
47
PrimoChill Typhoon III
Laing D5 Reservoir System

​


I will start today by thanking Brian from PrimoChill for providing the lab with our test sample. To say the Typhoon III is one serious example of "outside the box" thinking is almost an understatement. A few lab records were shattered along the way, and one of those was broken by Brian. Normally, I get the first (of many) emails asking when the testing and review will be done within 3 or 4 days of receiving the product (it takes a bit longer to do the type of extensive testing we do after all). Brian's record is never. Not one email. Oddly enough however, I think this made the pressure to get done even worse.

I also want to thank Geno (aka: BoxGods) who designed the Typhoon III for making himself available to answer my plethora of questions. I am obviously fascinated by water cooling and having unlimited access to the designer provided a lot of interesting insight into the process, design goals, and technical details of the Typhoon III.

Full Review

Intro
For those not familiar with PrimoChill, they have been actively designing and selling us water heads products since 2001. They have recently begun to push the envelope with several products including their PrimoFlex PRO LRT tubing, unrivaled in terms of bend radius and selection, as well as a full line of fluids and new polycarbonate compression fittings, which are also included with the Typhoon III.

I first stumbled upon pictures of early prototypes of the Typhoon III (aka: T3) several months ago while planning Laing D5 tests. In my early discussions with BoxGods, he was very focused on the usability of the T3. Almost adamant, he went so far as to build a small acrylic test stand for me that held the T3 in the same location and orientation it would normally be in when installed in a case. What really stood out about the Typhoon III was the different approach BoxGods took. While most are producing a replacement pump top with maybe some inlet/outlet options, the T3 veers off in an entirely different direction. And from those early discussions it was clear the goal of the T3 was to make a pump and reservoir that was very easy for novice users to install, setup, and use...well noobs need love too right?

One of the most touted features of the T3 is the ability to run two independent loops off the same D5 and reservoir. Any hardcore user knows how hopeless that is from a performance perspective, right? One forum poster even claimed he would rather go back to air cooling than run two Y split loops off one pump. In retrospect, I am quite glad I never posted any of the jokes about running parallel loops off the same pump that occurred to me when early images of the T3 began popping up because, while it may have been one of the designer's goals to build an easy to use setup for novices based on the venerable D5, he also stuffed the T3 with enough high flow magic to distill the term "hardcore water cooler's wet dream" down to "priapism".

Back to the point. As you're going to see when you get to all the data tables and charts (especially in the dual loop tests), the T3 is going to make a lot of noise in performance circles. So much so that all those usability features (read noob goodness) are going to get lost in the commotion. With that in mind, I have split this review into two parts. The page you're reading now is all about performance. A second page discussing the usability features built into the T3, like the dual front fill ports, overflow basins, etcetera etcetera--is a must read for the novices. Now shoo, the adults need to talk about important stuff.

Full Review

Dual Loop Capability

As I said earlier, every water head knows that if you take your favorite D5 pump top and add a "Y" fitting a few inches out from the inlet and another from the outlet port you are going to split the flow and pressure which means a big hit to your potential cooling. So how does the T3 not only get away with it, but excel at it?

I will start with the unique pump expansion chamber, cleverly abbreviated PEC, which is directly adjacent to the pump head’s 360 degree deep-draw helix--close enough that it actually straddles it really. The PEC is proportioned and placed to take the water fed through the primary pump head outlet and let it "expand" before being fed out the back into either one or both secondary outlets. Although I am no mechanical or hydrodynamics engineer, I am told that in addition to splitting the flow evenly between the two ports (no easy feat, +1 T3) it works as a sort of pressure regulator. In order to increase flow into this expansion chamber the primary outlet is almost double what you find on other pump heads.

So now we have increased the amount of water the D5 can push out with deeper draw and a larger outlet, and even given it a place to go that helps regulate (and maintain some of) the pressure. Again, you don't have to be an engineer to know that if more water is being pushed out then you need to draw more water in through the inlet or you starve the pump and a nosy neighbor calls pump protective services on you. Feeding the inlet is a large "tank" that is, in turn, fed by the inlets on the back of the T3 that you connect your loop or loops to. The problem is that the inlet diameter is precisely matched to the impeller in the D5 and any change in diameter kills performance. An area that has long been considered the biggest limiting factor on gaining any more performance out of the D5. At this point the discussion turns to laminar boundary layers and feed angles and stuff that Vapor and the engineering types wax on about at length. Fortunately for most of you, I barely understand it, so you do not have to read my poor attempt at explaining it. BoxGods tried to explain it in layman's terms for me by saying:

"Although water is not compressible in the very limited pressure ranges we are working in, it CAN be redirected and moved in a more efficient manner similar to a venturi. I actually got the idea to try it from an article by Martin (from Martin's Liquid Labs =)) where he suggested (amazingly based just on observation) that although the impeller on the D5 was obviously optimized for maximum efficiency, the inlet feed angle didn't seem to be. In simplified terms this means that although the inlet diameter and the impeller are matched for efficiency, the perpendicular inlet angle dictated by the tubing type fitting is actually pretty bad."​

In the SolidWorks images below you can see that although the outlet is still the same size, it has been "humped" into an efficient hydrofoil cross section and the trailing edge is very sharp. In effect, a low pressure venturi that accelerates the water entering the pump so that a larger volume can pass through. It is also fed into the pump's impeller at a much more efficient angle.

All of these tweaks on the inlet, outlet and PEC are balanced to provide the best possible increase in potential flow rate without sacrificing head pressure, and are the true genius behind the Typhoon III. The "Y" fitting method mentioned earlier happens before and after the pump. In the T3, the PEC and reservoir are essentially a part of the pump head, so much so that you can think of the loop split happening inside the pump, which is why you are going to start seeing the term "through the pump" a lot more often from now on in water cooling. Hopefully, with this explanation, you will no longer look at the T3 as just a bay reservoir with a pump attached to it. If you do, you are overlooking a major evolution to our previous LC loops.

​

In the first frame of this SolidWorks image, the PEC is shown with its cover in white, so you get a better view of the relationship between the PEC and the pump head. In the second image, the white cover is removed for a peek inside, and in the third image a .30" diameter circle, shown in blue, demonstrates the size difference between the primary outlet on the T3 and a standard D5 pump head. You also can get an idea of the "humped" shape of the inlet and its razor sharp leading edge.

​

The same area from the opposite side shows the positions of the in and out ports relative to each other and the primary inlet and outlet.

Test Methodology

Test methods and specifications have been removed from the product review pages to ease the torture my reviews inflict on your mouse wheel finger. You can find the test process, methods and explanations of how to read the charts and tables using the link below.

- skinnee labs Pump Test Method / PQ Curves

Test Results

Okay, I have finished holding back the eye candy you crave from our reviews… Here are the compiled scatter plots for Typhoon III single loop--tested at Speed Setting 4 (D5 Basic) and Speed Setting 5 (D5 Vario). For the single loop configurations, I have included the stock impeller housing or top along with the comparable Koolance top with Front Inlet/Outlet configuration. A large portion of the testing was focused on the dual loop configuration of the Typhoon III and, to be candid, I don't think my scatter plots truly tell the story of how incredible the Typhoon III is with the dual loop configuration--but more on that after the single loop scatter plots. Below each scatter plot is the test data for each inlet/outlet configuration at the specified speed setting. The Performance Results Intro explains how to read the charts and the explanation of the data if you find yourself scratching your head.

D5-T3_single-loop_s5.jpg

Setting 5 Top Inlet/Outlet - Setting 5 Lower Inlet/Outlet

D5-T3_single-loop_s4.jpg

Setting 4 Top Inlet/Outlet - Setting 4 Lower Inlet/Outlet​

The single loop charts are nothing new if you have read pump reviews before, as I said, it is easy to get caught up in the performance of the dual loops configuration, but as you can see above, the T3 is competant in the single loop department too. Nothing to write home about, but no slouch either, comparable to the Koolance top or sticking with stock. Though I look at a single loop as someone just waiting to upgrade and go for dual loops. Running two loops off a single pump was taboo on the hard core, more serious cooling forums. Well, the Typhoon III changes the game up bringing the capability of running dual loops without kissing your loop (both of them) performance good-bye.

As you are reading this next chart, be sure to keep in mind that these are only the pressure measurements on one of the running loops, the other loop is adjusted to a specific flow rate and maintaining its own head pressure. I could not come up with a good way to display this concept visually, so I have to rely on my non-engineer speak. Separating out one long serial loop into two loops, you reduce the amount of restriction that serial loop has to overcome. Reducing restriction means a higher flow rate which actually boosts the efficiency of the pump back up the performance curve.

Vapor and I were trying to get a remixed version of Martin's Flow Estimator ready for this review so you could play with the numbers between single loop and dual loops on the Typhoon III yourself, but we're still working the kinks out even though Vapor has worked the equations every way from Sunday. What he came up with and the explanation are posted at XtremeSystems. We hope to have the Flow Estimator (currently named Loopilator) ready for release soon, and will post on the main page when it is available.

As I mentioned previously, thanks to the PEC and its pressure regulating function, the top and bottom ports are so closely matched for output that you can choose whichever one fits your loop layout needs the best--chalk another one up to the PEC.

Okay, okay, enough of my blabbering...on to the dual loop PQ Curves.


:D
 
System Flow Rate Tests

I was having a hard time figuring out the best way to properly display the System Flow (through the pump) improvements the Typhoon III unleashes when you are using dual loop configuration in a format similar to the way it has always been done. The reality is that the T3 is going to rewrite a lot of those "old school methods". After much debate with Vapor and a lot of input from various forum members I decided to just plumb up some loops using different radiators, CPU blocks and GPU blocks. This is a very simple test, one that we all have done by building our own loops. Just add the loop components, fill/bleed and use the "system". These tests are the flow rate for the loop. For the regular D5 and DDC tops there is one serial loop. Thanks to the dual loop configuration on the Typhoon III, we can split the loops. I decided to split the loops how I would inside a case. Lower Inlet/Outlet for GPU blocks with radiator(s) and Top Inlet/Outlet for CPU and radiator. The loop order does not matter, the individual components will not change their restriction properties by being in a different spot in the loop, or on a different loop altogether. While this is a simple test, it is a full disclosure of pumping performance.

Note: Chart and graphs contain measurements for each split loop on the Typhoon III, the Lower and Top Inlet/Outlet flow rates are not a single serial loop. The Lower and Top Inlet/Outlets were measured with two flow meters, one for each Lower and Top Inlet/Outlets.

Here is the data table that feeds the three System Flow charts.

D5-T3_SysFlow_chart.jpg

Test Loop 1

The first loop is a simple CPU and single GPU loop with a radiator after each block. I tossed in a Swiftech GTZ, EK-9600GT and 2 XSPC RX360 radiators. On the Typhoon III, the Top Inlet/Outlet had the GTZ and 1 RX360 while the Lower Inlet/Outlet had the EK-9600GT and a RX360. The single pump serial loops are still well in the target range for a good flowing loop, the Typhoon III boosts System Flow up to 3.47GPM. Yes, I said 3.47GPM!!!

D5-T3_SysFlow_01a.jpg

Test Loop 2

After running the first loop, I wanted to see an extremely restrictive loop...let's stomp on the T3 a bit and see what happens. I went a little crazy and decided to run a Koolance CPU-350 and EK Supreme for blocks with a Swiftech MC320 and HWLabs GTX360 for radiators. Flow rate on the serial loop was actually higher than I expected, I was predicting lower than 0.5 GPM in serial. For the Typhoon III, the CPU-350 and MCR320 were on the Top Inlet/Outlet and the Supreme with GTX360 took the Lower Inlet/Outlet. Typhoon III comes closer than 0.25GPM of tripling the System Flow Rate (flow through the pump) achieved by the other pumps with aftermarket tops--Yes--nearly tripling the system flow rate. If your heart’s not beating noticeably faster by this point...you're either not a hard core water cooler, or you are so hard core you passed out after the first graph.

D5-T3_SysFlow_02a.jpg

Test Loop 3
Now that I have the crazy lab technician torture the T3 loop out of my system, let's load up an SLI loop...only with a bit extra. This time we loop a HeatKiller LT, RX360, two DangerDen GTX295's in serial, a Swiftech MCR320, and let's add a HWLabs GTX360 in for kicks. This is a lengthy serial loop and although I personally would not run all of that off one pump, we see people do it. Anyone shocked at this point that the Typhoon III is able handle the loops with no problem, cranking out 3.16 GPM or more than doubling the serial flow rates of the other 3 pumps? As I was packing up all the test gear and entering the data into Excel, the thought occured to me that it would have been interesting to crank the power setting down on the D5 vario until the T3's performance matched the other pump top's flow rates. Not that anyone reading this review would ever run it at less then full power, I am curious. Ah well, that is a test for another day.

D5-T3_SysFlow_03a.jpg

Conclusion

From the initial forum photos and debate to the end of testing, the PrimoChill Typhoon III has been one surprise after another. As I mentioned in the intro, I was one of the many (pretty much everyone) that were skeptical of running two loops from one Laing D5. Skeptical--ok, let’s be honest...we called it insane and other colorful terms that amounted to pointing and laughing. After the time I've spent on the bench with the T3, I will gladly admit I was wrong--the dual loop capability and performance are a truly revolutionary leap forward with the D5. The proof is in the data, and the last three charts show exactly what the Typhoon III can bring to your loop. You can easily run two full traditional loops off ONE Typhoon III with D5. That takes a whole bunch of the loop cost and sticks it right back into your wallet (for more water cooling parts of course). You can snag a major performance improvement that costs less than providing pump power and reservoirs for that second loop.

I do need to take a step away from performance a bit because if this review was only about the numbers I would be doing all of you a disservice since the Typhoon III is really a collection of many well planned ideas which were executed very nearly to perfection. After countless installs, fills, air bleeds, draining, rinse and repeats, I can confirm that the T3 has really been designed with ease of use as a primary goal. No black magic involved, just good old fashioned attention to the little details by a designer that has obviously built a lot of machines over the years and I believe genuinely cares about the guys new to water cooling. To back up that claim, I will point you to http://www.boxgods.com]www.boxgods.com and tell you to check out the article index for how-to articles.

It is a nice change of pace to see a product hit the bench that is not just about pure performance, but one that also recognizes usability as an integral component of real world performance. If it goes like crazy but makes you crazy using it...well, as long as it goes like crazy we're all good. Seriously though, not cursing the whole install is a nice change.

Be sure to read Full Review for all the details that go into making the Typhoon III user friendly.

Pros
  • Dual Loops from 1 Pump
  • Blow your mind flow performance from a D5
  • Easy installation, fill/bleed
  • Breakthrough design of performance and usability
  • Amazing system flow rates (yes, its worth mentioning twice)

The Typhoon III that hit my bench was a great test subject, but there are some minor things I have to point out. There is a scratch-like mark on the right front port as seen from the front that is repeated on the inside and outside of the front that looks very much like a crack. I did not notice it until It was brought to my attention (by PrimoChill) because, although you can see it if you look closely when the T3 is empty, it is invisible when filled. According to PrimoChill, "Although, it looks like a fine crack, it is actually a flaw in the mold that needs to be polished out. Unfortunately, the first 1,000 parts were delivered before anyone noticed it so it's there till that batch is gone." Also, on the edge where the top meets the face, toward the right side, there is a very slight imperfection called a molding spru (an air passage in the mold that lets entrapped air escape as the molten plastic is injected). You can feel it with your finger more than you can see it, and it's not visible when installed.

My test unit did not have this, but seeing user photos posted in the forums there is a bonding strip that wraps around the two pieces of the T3, this change was made to quell the outbursts by some community members who want to use non-PrimoChill UV reactive coolant that contains Ethylene Glycol. I understand the need for it, but the amber colored bonding strip IS visible. It will not show in 95% of the installs because you normally only see the front and back, but anyone running a bench type system or a clear case needs to be aware. If I did use a points system, I would subtract a point for the bonding band. At some point in the future PrimoChill may find a clear method that works as well. If they do, I will gladly give the point back.

One last little thing, to do with fittings...I use Bitspower High Flow barbs, and had no problems threading in the barbs, but some people are experiencing pains with the o-rings on some brands of fittings. If you want to use fittings other than BP High Flows or the Ghost Compressions that come with the Typhoon III, you may need thicker o-rings. They can't design for every fitting.

Cons
  • Slight molding imperfections
  • Alternate fittings may need thicker o-rings
  • Amber bonding strip

The tests and review you just completed reading was a challenge, a great learning experience and a fun three weeks. Yes, from start to finish the whole thing took a little over three weeks. A bit longer than anyone would have preferred I know. From the initial threads that popped up once photos started to appear and discussions of this taboo parallel flow beast to the present, the Typhoon III is finally here and ready to be unleashed on your loops. If you have not been able to tell from all of the above, I think the Typhoon III is a great product, one that has the users' needs in mind as well as a major shift in loop design with a kick in the performance pants that will leave a mark. If you are just planning a build and debating on whether or not to run two loops, no need...pick up the Typhoon III with D5 Vario and be on your way. I am still in awe over how the Typhoon III brought forward so many new design concepts to reality...we might have to initiate a yearly award system just to crown the PrimoChill Typhoon III the Most Innovative Water Cooling product of the year. I know the year is only half over, but I cannot imagine something else this flat out innovative stealing that crown...if this were to happen, it would be another design by BoxGods I suspect as I have seen the new Radiator line (code named RainMaker) he is working on and I will be stunned if these radiators don't blow your socks off even more than the Typhoon III. I seriously doubt that when RainMaker pictures start popping up in forums anyone is going to be "pointing and laughing". Congratulations on Typhoon III and a Well Done to PrimoChill!

Thanks for reading! If you missed the several links already... Be sure to read the Full Review. :D
 
Last edited:
Is there any public information available about the RAINMAKER line yet?

I've been following the T3 on XS, but I'm surprised you posted your review here on the [H]. I've been pimping it over here already, but now it's official.
 
So how did you measure both halves of the parallel loop? Did you have two flowmeters for that?
 
The method here is flawed.

You took a loop, halved it, and measured the flow through the loop twice to get the T3 result..............and measured flow only ONCE for the other pump/res combinations. Serial versus parallel.

This data is not correct.period.as it stands. 1.48 + 1.48 = ~3 (XSPC Top) See......the XSPC is now revolutionary.

I will not pass judgement on the device as it may still be good, but it is in no way TWICE what any of the compared devices are.

Better people than me are questioning these results...........http://www.realredraider.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=11038
 
magoo said:
The method here is flawed.

You took a loop, halved it, and measured the flow through the loop twice to get the T3 result..............and measured flow only ONCE for the other pump/res combinations. Serial versus parallel.

This data is not correct.period.as it stands. 1.48 + 1.48 = ~3 (XSPC Top) See......the XSPC is now revolutionary.

I will not pass judgement on the device as it may still be good, but it is in no way TWICE what any of the compared devices are.

Better people than me are questioning these results...........http://www.realredraider.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=11038
Click to expand...

The method isn't flawed, but I will agree that the way the data was presented is flawed. If he used both flow meters and measured both halves of the parallel loop at the same time then the data is perfectly correct. The problem here is the unequal comparison to the other pumps. I would have liked to see how the other pumps perform in a matching parallel configuration. Otherwise we are just looking at two different things.

Consider the simple parallel loop. Lets say A is the pump, B is cpu + rad, C is gpu + rad.
Code: 
	---B----
---A---<	>--A
	---C----

Flow in B is 1gpm, Flow in C is 1.5 gpm. What is the flow through A? 2.5gpm, because it is additive. Now what does that 2.5gpm number mean to you? Nothing really, you aren't getting 2.5gpm through any cooling component. The only numbers that matter is the flow through B and C. The numbers aren't wrong though.


Skinnee: Do you have plans to perform such a test as an addendum to this review?
 
Last edited:
I understand your comments and appreciate the diagrams, there 354.

If one doesn't pay close attention, however to what is presented in this "review" it looks like the T3 is indeed "revolutionaty" which may or may not be the case..........you simply cannot tell from this presentation because it is not apples to apples.....and I do not understand how the reviewer can stand behind this.

I am NOT trying to create World War III over this. As I said, this may indeed be a pretty good reservoir/pump head.......but I can't tell because the data is not presented in a way that allows me to evaluate it correctly.

I am not going to come at this with the ferosity that has been generated between XS Forums and RRR......that has been something to observe from the sidelines, and people are being banned right and left over this. I don't think it deserves such.
I do think it is necessary to point out the review is not fairly representing the compared reservoirs.............so people don't get the wrong idea.
 
Last edited:
Archmage said:
Is there any public information available about the RAINMAKER line yet?

I've been following the T3 on XS, but I'm surprised you posted your review here on the [H]. I've been pimping it over here already, but now it's official.
Click to expand...

I think anybody you eagerly attracted to this review should read what we are saying before you bring out the crown.:eek:
 
Erasmus354 said:
Skinnee: Do you have plans to perform such a test as an addendum to this review?
Click to expand...

No he doesn't, he was asked to on another forum that was promotiing the T3, several members questioned his results and testing methods and this lead to mass bannings of over 30 people :D

I can appreciate the amount of work that goes into reviewing these products but when the review is not objectionable and is only written to show the product in a positive light it is really not a review at all, it is what we call an advertisement.

At first I felt it was just an honest mistake in the testing but having seen first hand the events that have taken place to protect this product and review from any sort of objective testing once the discrepancies were noted. It really can mean only one thing IMO.
 
It should be obvious that to run the same loop in parallel using a DDC 3.2 would require a "Typhoon 4" device of some sort. It'd be possible to run parallel loops using a larger diameter manifold I suppose, but then we don't have an equivalent "pump-top" for the DDC 3.2.

Assuming we did have an equivalent pump-expansion chamber for the DDC 3.2, the D5 is still very efficient at higher flow rates according to its PQ curve. That's the reason it was chosen.

Now on to the results:

The flow rate from each individual loop from the T3 should be compared against the flow rate achieved in serial with the DDC 3.2. The T3 wins. I think if you use 2 DDC 3.2 pumps, one for each loop, then the DDC 3.2 would win.

That would have been a good comparison. However the extra cost, complexity, and heat dump (extra pump) from such a setup is what the T3 aims to avoid. Still... it would have been nice to have this data point.

The total flow-rate from the T3 should be observed, but the reader is left to use his/her brain to discern that this number is not directly comparable to the flow-rate from the serial loops.

Edit: I stand by my recommendation for the T3. It doesn't beat TWO DDC 3.2 pumps, but that was never the claim. It is still the most cost-effective solution for running 2 high-performing loops off a single pump. Don't bother pointing out that it's the ONLY solution.
 
Last edited:
Archmage said:
It should be obvious that to run the same loop in parallel using a DDC 3.2 would require a "Typhoon 4" device of some sort. It'd be possible to run parallel loops using a larger diameter manifold I suppose, but then we don't have an equivalent "pump-top" for the DDC 3.2.

Assuming we did have an equivalent pump-expansion chamber for the DDC 3.2, the D5 is still very efficient at higher flow rates according to its PQ curve. That's the reason it was chosen.

Now on to the results:

The flow rate from each individual loop from the T3 should be compared against the flow rate achieved in serial with the DDC 3.2. The T3 wins. I think if you use 2 DDC 3.2 pumps, one for each loop, then the DDC 3.2 would win.

That would have been a good comparison. However the extra cost, complexity, and heat dump (extra pump) from such a setup is what the T3 aims to avoid. Still... it would have been nice to have this data point.

The total flow-rate from the T3 should be observed, but the reader is left to use his/her brain to discern that this number is not directly comparable to the flow-rate from the serial loops.

Edit: I stand by my recommendation for the T3. It doesn't beat TWO DDC 3.2 pumps, but that was never the claim. It is still the most cost-effective solution for running 2 high-performing loops off a single pump. Don't bother pointing out that it's the ONLY solution.
Click to expand...

Would you kindly show me where in the "review" the T3 is compared in a serial loop or even a single loop with the other reservoirs.......how can you say the T3 "wins" when it wasn't done???? Even when I single out the "upper and lower loop" data in the report, for the T3 the flow rates are,taken seperately statistically equal to the flow rates of the other reservoirs. All you did was add the two together. That's what my brain tells me. The T3 does not "win" anything but an award for bad data reporting.

Where is the temperature data???? IF, the T3 is so very excellent at flow rate, how does that affect the temperature of the device cooled???? This was not done, using comparable or even different equipment. After all, this is waterCOOLING, not waterFLOW.

You make judgements and conclusions that are not backed by the data in this report. I do have a "brain" and my brain tells me that I cannot make any conclusions based on this report, because the data does not compare the test subjects equally and under the same conditions.

I cannot make a judgement on the worth of this product based on this report.
 
Last edited:
magoo said:
Where is the temperature data???? IF, the T3 is so very excellent at flow rate, how does that affect the temperature of the device cooled???? This was not done, using comparable or even different equipment. After all, this is waterCOOLING, not waterFLOW.
Click to expand...


I'm probably just stirring the pot here, but last time I checked this was a pump review not a radiator review.
 
I looked at this &#8220;review&#8221; yesterday and walked away with nothing but a headache trying to figure out what I was missing since I couldn't find a way to get any useful information out of it.

I came back today with the hope that in one of the replies I would find a clue to what it is I was missing only to find I didn't miss anything and the data really is just useless.

Skinnee I don't mean to question your motives or make light of the time that would have gone in in to the testing but in my opinion your doing this product a huge disservice. You took a product that could have great potential and presented it to us in a review that in my opinion reads like a bunch of Monster Cable marketing BS.
 
Perhaps people feel misled with Skinnee's review. I do not. I believe I fully understood the review, but maybe Magoo or someone else can enlighten me as to what the problem is (seriously).

I want to try to clear up the confusion (for myself as well) so I'll be reading through and quoting Skinnee's review while I compose this post:

- "...comparable to the Koolance top or sticking with stock. Though I look at a single loop as someone just waiting to upgrade and go for dual loops." - The performance of a single, serial loop is predictably stock'ish. We knew this and it was obvious. It IS a relevant set of data, but it really shouldn't matter much. It's just a D5 + reservoir in this config.

- "Lower Inlet/Outlet for GPU blocks with radiator(s)" - To compare the T3's flow-rate through the GPU + Radiator with that of the best serial loop:

Loop 1: 1.98 GPM > 1.48 GPM (+33.8%)
Loop 2: 0.98 GPM > 0.86 GPM (+13.95%)
Loop 3: 1.51 GPM > 1.40 GPM (+7.86%)

Comments: Obviously the serial loop is a greater restriction than the Lower Loop alone, but the flow-rate observed through those same components is still valid.

- "Top Inlet/Outlet for CPU and radiator"

Loop 1: 1.49 GPM > 1.48 GPM (+0.676%)
Loop 2: 1.26 GPM > 0.86 GPM (+46.5%)
Loop 3: 1.65 GPM > 1.40 GPM (+17.86%)

Comments: T3 is flowing better through the CPU and Radiator as well. I'll agree that the T3's flow through Loop 1 shows no advantage.

- If we review the minimum flow from each loop, it's still a gain.

Loop 1: +0.676%
Loop 2: +13.95%
Loop 3: +7.86%

Conclusion: The T3 system has transformed the D5 into something which bests the DDC 3.2 (which was originally higher-flowing than the D5). It's also a convenient reservoir. The dual-loop configuration (the only reason to use the T3) does provide enough flow for 2 separate loops. We use the DDC 3.2 due to its high head pressure. The watercooling community seems to be impressed with each new DDC 3.2 TOP released (from alphacool to XSPC to EK rev2). Those were small incremental gains from each other (though an overall large gain from stock). The T3 is, IMO, more impressive. That said: I'm pretty happy about the T3, and I look forward to the RAINMAKER (whatever that is).

What is missing from the review:

- Temperature comparisons (as pointed out). This is an obvious one, but it probably wouldn't matter much. Temperature data would be valuable for those people running a SINGLE radiator in the dual loop configuration.
- Serial configuration Data: Why bother? We see the PQ curve... we know what to expect.
- Comparison against 2 pumps

Unless I'm misunderstanding something crucial, my previous post was probably valid.

Did I misunderstand anything?

I will correct my statements and formally apologize if I'm wrong. I'm human (I assume).
 
And here is a superimposed graph of what the actual data looks like when all tops are compared on an equal footing, this is from skinnee's own data the only thing is he never put the tops against each other in a head to head style graph, well because if he had these would have been the results:

D5PQ.jpg
 
Archmage: what you need to compare them is a test on the other D5's with Y fittings to make similar parallel loops. This will tell you if the T3 does anything more than make it a little bit easier to setup dual loops or if it is actually improving performance. The gains you are seeing might not be from the T3 at all, but simply of the way the loops are setup (parallel reducing pressure loss and therefore improving overall flow). With those tests negligently left out you can't conclude much at all from this review.
 
I sort of understand your point that there could have been more data. I think it is generally understood that the data points you are looking for are the worst points for each respective pump top.

Considering the time involved I wouldn't have bothered to find the worst possible performace of each pump also.

The review features the best performace of each pump top through a standard set of components. It shows the ingenuity of the product perfectly well.

I would be extremely surprised if parallel loops for the other pump tops came close to equalling their serial loop numbers. However these numbers would have gone a long way to silencing the skeptics. Serial loop numbers for the typhoon are completely unnessecary as that is not the intended use of the pump top, and as such are likely lower than a pump top designed for serial operation.
 
Erasmus: You hit the nail on the head, except there are more nails with parallel/dual loops. I certainly did not leave out data, I didn't run the tests. Not being sinister or hiding anything, I just didn’t think to run them. I wrote about this in my lengthy reply on OCN and XS. The testing for the T3 was difficult, the PQ curve testing (bluehaze, thats what you posted with the EK and DT tops added, a compiled Single I/O PQ plot...which will be added to the comparison thread for all D5's) alone with the “dual loop config” took me 3 days to figure out how to test it. Testing serial is easy—with the right tools--, testing single inlet/outlet is easy, you only need 1 flow meter and one manometer.

Testing dual inlet/outlet, parallel loops, Y loops and whatever non-serial combination you can come up with...its friggin difficult. You really need two of everything, two flow meters (have several) and two manometers (only 1 :() to really have the dead on #'s. Before getting the T3, I didn't even ponder the tests requiring dual loops or think two manometers was necessary. The PQ curves I did for dual loop inlet/outlets, I did 24 total tests (each config 3 times), setting the non manometer loop to a locked flow rate (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0GPM) using a flow meter for each inlet/outlet loop (TITO, LILO) while measuring pressure like I always have for Single I/O, one loop being measured and logged, the other at a set flow rate. I haven't heard anyone say whether that was right or wrong, no debate what so ever. The System Flow Rate tests are another test just the real loop application of PQ curves, the pumping power with the restriction of the loop components (this is the math Vapor worked on). The other pumps top performing pump tops didn’t have dual I/O…

After the testing, review and responses I see the need to break down dual/parallel/multi I/O testing for loops, pumps and GPU blocks. I have the flow meters, but I need to pick up another manometer and those guys aren’t cheap. The full on parallel tests are definitely in order, just have to have all the tools and test gear required. At least, through all the criticism thats what I read...we need to understand dual/parallel/multi I/O testing for loops, pumps and GPU blocks better and with data...I only scratched the surface with the T3.

No, I’m not in hiding, I’m doing the same thing I did before the parallel/dual loop discussion went wild…testing and working in the lab. Hell, I've already posted pics of the HWLabs SR1.
 
12 Axes said:
The review features the best performace of each pump top through a standard set of components. It shows the ingenuity of the product perfectly well.
Click to expand...

:confused: The review did no such thing, these graphs are from a reader of the review not from skinnee These graphs illustrate perfectly the data that is missing and also illustrate that if a comparison was made in a head to head fashion the T3 loses by a fair margin. It also illustrates perfectly that regardless the excuses made...did not have time etc... that the data was there in the first place to provide comparison on equal ground yet was intentionally omitted. The review is biased regardless of how you try to spin it.

How anyone can have a favorable opinion of this product at this point is beyond me... Perhaps when a legitimate review is given with proper comparisons I will listen until then you are talking on deaf ears. And even if the product does somehow eventually show itself to be worthwhile at this point I wouldn't give the company a dime of my money just due to the shady tactics employed in the first place. I prefer to only deal with reputable companies with morals :D
 
skinnee said:
Erasmus: You hit the nail on the head, except there are more nails with parallel/dual loops. I certainly did not leave out data, I didn't run the tests. Not being sinister or hiding anything, I just didn’t think to run them. I wrote about this in my lengthy reply on OCN and XS. The testing for the T3 was difficult, the PQ curve testing (bluehaze, thats what you posted with the EK and DT tops added, a compiled Single I/O PQ plot...which will be added to the comparison thread for all D5's) alone with the “dual loop config” took me 3 days to figure out how to test it. Testing serial is easy—with the right tools--, testing single inlet/outlet is easy, you only need 1 flow meter and one manometer.

Testing dual inlet/outlet, parallel loops, Y loops and whatever non-serial combination you can come up with...its friggin difficult. You really need two of everything, two flow meters (have several) and two manometers (only 1 :() to really have the dead on #'s. Before getting the T3, I didn't even ponder the tests requiring dual loops or think two manometers was necessary. The PQ curves I did for dual loop inlet/outlets, I did 24 total tests (each config 3 times), setting the non manometer loop to a locked flow rate (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0GPM) using a flow meter for each inlet/outlet loop (TITO, LILO) while measuring pressure like I always have for Single I/O, one loop being measured and logged, the other at a set flow rate. I haven't heard anyone say whether that was right or wrong, no debate what so ever. The System Flow Rate tests are another test just the real loop application of PQ curves, the pumping power with the restriction of the loop components (this is the math Vapor worked on). The other pumps top performing pump tops didn’t have dual I/O…

After the testing, review and responses I see the need to break down dual/parallel/multi I/O testing for loops, pumps and GPU blocks. I have the flow meters, but I need to pick up another manometer and those guys aren’t cheap. The full on parallel tests are definitely in order, just have to have all the tools and test gear required. At least, through all the criticism thats what I read...we need to understand dual/parallel/multi I/O testing for loops, pumps and GPU blocks better and with data...I only scratched the surface with the T3.

No, I’m not in hiding, I’m doing the same thing I did before the parallel/dual loop discussion went wild…testing and working in the lab. Hell, I've already posted pics of the HWLabs SR1.
Click to expand...

skinnee while I have no problems with you personally I do have numerous problems with the review and for you to claim "testing was difficult you didn't run the tests" is ludicrous. You had the information you just chose not to provide it in the review. Instead you chose only to provide information favorable to the product which you were reviewing which is blatantly obvious to anyone that's read the reviews.

I even suggested to you before you posted the review that this information was very misleading and a proper test should be done yet you chose to ignore it and go ahead with the misleading review.

Then once the review comes out low and behold you get bombarded with "not fair testing" "improper review" etc... What did you expect? People are not ignorant...some folks won't understand and will just look at the pretty pictures and run to the store to buy the product. Unfortunately for yourself not everyone on the internet is that naive and you've been called out on the review.

The most damning factor of this all has been the mass bannings over at XS with regard to anyone that disagreed with you, if that doesn't speak volumes about the website and your review I don't know what does.
 
Believe whatever you would like to bluehaze...

But one thing is for certain, I had absolutely nothing to do with any bannings, I'm just a member there like several thousand others...same as I am here.
 
Ahh yes... thank you all for that.

However it's not as though I didn't already understand what you're saying.

Skinnee assumes in his review that we KNOW that a parallel loop utilizing a "Y" is a poor performer. This stems from the years of trial and error the watercooling community has endured, but I agree that it isn't too much to ask for a formal challenge of this assumption. This would have been extremely relevant data.

Assumption: The T3 provides a more effective way to reduce the restriction of a parallel loop than a regular "Y." Pumps enhanced with aftermarket tops will thusly not perform as well in parallel as the T3.

Superimposing the PQ curves highlights what Skinnee said in the review. We know that the other D5 tops have higher head pressure than a stock D5. In serial, the T3 is just an ordinary D5 + reservoir. I do agree, though, that he should not have excluded that superimposed data. However I think we all understood that Skinnee's and Martin's other pump tests were just a few clicks away (and I'm familiar with them).

If we were able to create an expansion chamber for the other pumps, and they somehow maintained their head pressure as-is, then they would perform better. A "Y" is not quite the same expansion. It's just a division.

Will the "Y" reduce the system pressure drop? The entry-point to the "Y" is a series 1/2"-3/4" line, however the line-in would likely be 1/2" max. It becomes, in essence, a 45-degree "T." If you take a look at Martin's Flow-Rate estimator, a regular "T" slightly increases total system pressure drop. Other than this, however, it SEEMS like the system would perform similar to a regular series loop (total flow). With the Typhoon 3, the loops are "more parallel," and we can treat the pressure drop of each loop somewhat like we would the electrical resistance of a parallel circuit.

I think the assumption is logical - but thanks for challenging. This means there will eventually be some test done. If I'm proven wrong then I will have learned something - looking forward to it.

I do agree that the review has a favorable slant, but that's something to be ignored.

Edit: I should go read the criticism at XS and RRR...
 
Archmage said:
Ahh yes... thank you all for that.

However it's not as though I didn't already understand what you're saying.

Skinnee assumes in his review that we KNOW that a parallel loop utilizing a "Y" is a poor performer. This stems from the years of trial and error the watercooling community has endured, but I agree that it isn't too much to ask for a formal challenge of this assumption. This would have been extremely relevant data.

Assumption: The T3 provides a more effective way to reduce the restriction of a parallel loop than a regular "Y." Pumps enhanced with aftermarket tops will thusly not perform as well in parallel as the T3.

Superimposing the PQ curves highlights what Skinnee said in the review. We know that the other D5 tops have higher head pressure than a stock D5. In serial, the T3 is just an ordinary D5 + reservoir. I do agree, though, that he should not have excluded that superimposed data. However I think we all understood that Skinnee's and Martin's other pump tests were just a few clicks away (and I'm familiar with them).

If we were able to create an expansion chamber for the other pumps, and they somehow maintained their head pressure as-is, then they would perform better. A "Y" is not quite the same expansion. It's just a division.

Will the "Y" reduce the system pressure drop? The entry-point to the "Y" is a series 1/2"-3/4" line, however the line-in would likely be 1/2" max. It becomes, in essence, a 45-degree "T." If you take a look at Martin's Flow-Rate estimator, a regular "T" slightly increases total system pressure drop. Other than this, however, it SEEMS like the system would perform similar to a regular series loop (total flow). With the Typhoon 3, the loops are "more parallel," and we can treat the pressure drop of each loop somewhat like we would the electrical resistance of a parallel circuit.

I think the assumption is logical - but thanks for challenging. This means there will eventually be some test done. If I'm proven wrong then I will have learned something - looking forward to it.

I do agree that the review has a favorable slant, but that's something to be ignored.

Edit: I should go read the criticism at XS and RRR...
Click to expand...

My understanding (and I could be wrong as well) is that as long as there is only 1 Y at the outlet of the pump and both loops feed back into a mutliport res (not another y) that flow will be higher accross the two seperated loops because the only restriction now becomes the pump itself. The Y could be a restriction if added back to the end of the two loops before they feed back into the pump but without a Y there and with both loops feeding into a multiport res the res will act as the expansion chamber. The Y coming out of the pumps restriction should be null because it's total flow will be greater than the sum of the components in the two loops.

Would be nice to see all this information tested and contained in the review and at one point skinnee said he was testing it then next thing we know he says he's going to lay low for a few weeks and just let it die out because releasing this information would not be fair to the T3.

This is when all the hubbub started over at XS and when all the bannings started happening etc...so the whole discussion pretty much ended at that...( of course it did everyone challenging it got banned :D) yet more information being withheld most likely because (I assume) it once again showed the T3 in an unfavorable light so was omitted much the same as the rest of the data that was omitted.

All this without even mentioning that the fact that the actual proposed 10-15% difference in flow rates from this product will net you less than 1 degrees temp difference on it's best day and likely give you worse temps than using a ddc 3.2 on a more restrictive loop...

I don't know, I could be wrong here but I have to say it sure does seem like a major spin in is in play...
 
Point taken.

If there is a "Y" directly after the pump's outlet, and the return lines feed into a multi-port reservoir which directly supplies the pump's inlet, then it would be quite similar to the T3.

I had assumed "Y" connectors at both the inlet and outlet.

Which products allow for this configuration? The DDC 3.2 + XSPC res-top would need an additional inlet I think.

If there is any custom work involved then I'd say that's asking a lot of the review. This is a pre-fabbed product, and that's part of the appeal. I would, however, like to see the numbers on this configuration you're suggesting.

Edit: Discussion leading up the review suggested that the T3 is only good at high flow. LOOP 2 is quite restrictive. The T3 still managed to do well. I'm getting tired of this now...moving on to productive work.
 
Last edited:
Archmage said:
Point taken.

If there is a "Y" directly after the pump's outlet, and the return lines feed into a multi-port reservoir which directly supplies the pump's inlet, then it would be quite similar to the T3.

I had assumed "Y" connectors at both the inlet and outlet.

Which products allow for this configuration? The DDC 3.2 + XSPC res-top would need an additional inlet I think.

If there is any custom work involved then I'd say that's asking a lot of the review. This is a pre-fabbed product, and that's part of the appeal. I would, however, like to see the numbers on this configuration you're suggesting.
Click to expand...

I don't think the pump would need to be attached to the res, the res is acting like an expansion chamber only to remove the restriction of the two loops feeding back into one thus allowing each loop to only be restricted by the individual components in each loop i.e. each loop is only restricted by 1/2 as many components so flow will naturally be higher. I am pretty sure a single 1/2" tubing running to the pump can sustain the proposed 3.47gpm that the parallel loops require but it is a good point. I wonder if anyone has ever actually measured the flow capability of the different sizes of tubing, I have never seen such a test.
 
Thanks Bluehaze.
Those graphs show exactly what one can see if the report is read carefully, statistically the T3 is no better than the competition.

My simple observation is this.......the T3 can output two loops at once, right? While that does make it unique, there is minimal difference in flow on an apples to apples basis.

If you want to even the playing field, just put plugs in one set of outlet pairs and run the T3 against the competition.
In science and critical research, you cannot simply refuse to evaluate because you don't have time or equipment. If you are out to prove a hypothesis, you have to provide evidence that your new or unknown is better than the existing product/substance head to head.
If you cannot run a head to head comparison, then you MUST disclose why you didn't and then surmise what the outcome might have been......otherwise you will be subject to scrutiny.
It it not up to the reader to suppose or assume he/she knows what the author was thinking or meaning or could have done. It is not up to the reader to go elsewhere and research other work to gain understanding about what might have been.
It is up to the reviewer to do that work and to explain how the product bests anything else.....especially when the result is so remarkably different.
 
skinnee said:
Erasmus: You hit the nail on the head, except there are more nails with parallel/dual loops. I certainly did not leave out data, I didn't run the tests. Not being sinister or hiding anything, I just didn&#8217;t think to run them. I wrote about this in my lengthy reply on OCN and XS. The testing for the T3 was difficult, the PQ curve testing (bluehaze, thats what you posted with the EK and DT tops added, a compiled Single I/O PQ plot...which will be added to the comparison thread for all D5's) alone with the &#8220;dual loop config&#8221; took me 3 days to figure out how to test it. Testing serial is easy&#8212;with the right tools--, testing single inlet/outlet is easy, you only need 1 flow meter and one manometer.

Testing dual inlet/outlet, parallel loops, Y loops and whatever non-serial combination you can come up with...its friggin difficult. You really need two of everything, two flow meters (have several) and two manometers (only 1 :() to really have the dead on #'s. Before getting the T3, I didn't even ponder the tests requiring dual loops or think two manometers was necessary. The PQ curves I did for dual loop inlet/outlets, I did 24 total tests (each config 3 times), setting the non manometer loop to a locked flow rate (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0GPM) using a flow meter for each inlet/outlet loop (TITO, LILO) while measuring pressure like I always have for Single I/O, one loop being measured and logged, the other at a set flow rate. I haven't heard anyone say whether that was right or wrong, no debate what so ever. The System Flow Rate tests are another test just the real loop application of PQ curves, the pumping power with the restriction of the loop components (this is the math Vapor worked on). The other pumps top performing pump tops didn&#8217;t have dual I/O&#8230;

After the testing, review and responses I see the need to break down dual/parallel/multi I/O testing for loops, pumps and GPU blocks. I have the flow meters, but I need to pick up another manometer and those guys aren&#8217;t cheap. The full on parallel tests are definitely in order, just have to have all the tools and test gear required. At least, through all the criticism thats what I read...we need to understand dual/parallel/multi I/O testing for loops, pumps and GPU blocks better and with data...I only scratched the surface with the T3.

No, I&#8217;m not in hiding, I&#8217;m doing the same thing I did before the parallel/dual loop discussion went wild&#8230;testing and working in the lab. Hell, I've already posted pics of the HWLabs SR1.
Click to expand...

I look forward to the testing when you get the equipment skinnee. I didn't want to imply that you had the data and you left it out for some reason, only that you were negligent in not performing the tests in the first place, intentional or not.

You say you have many flowmeters. Do you mind running a quick test for me? Set up the three flowmeters in parallel and see if the middle flow meter gets the same flow as the others.

As for Y fittings, they will add restriction anywhere you put them in the loop, just like any other fitting will. The question here is how much of a difference that makes over the T3.
 
bluehaze013 said:
And here is a superimposed graph of what the actual data looks like when all tops are compared on an equal footing, this is from skinnee's own data the only thing is he never put the tops against each other in a head to head style graph, well because if he had these would have been the results:

D5PQ.jpg
Click to expand...

This chart right here shows that this "review" was little more than a marketing campaign.

The data for a real comparison were available, but not presented in such a way as they didn't fit the results the manufacturer wanted to market. No false data was presented, but numbers were manipulated to show this product in a more favourable light.
 
Well this is appearing like a "marketing campaign" to me now as well.

It's a shame that the review apparently had to be spun like this. A real shame.
 
Erasmus354 said:
As for Y fittings, they will add restriction anywhere you put them in the loop, just like any other fitting will. The question here is how much of a difference that makes over the T3.
Click to expand...

I think you might be a little confused here. A Y on the end of the pump top will convert 1 water path into 2 waterpaths and will halve the restriction not increase it. The y or the T3 converts 1 serial loop into 2 parrallel loops which does not double flow through the blocks it only doubles flow through the pump this is another bad thing as doubling flow through the pump without also doubling flow through the components means the pump is working twice as hard to do the same amount of work = more heat dump from pump in the loop and possibly premature failure of the pump due to overdriving.
 
bluehaze013 said:
I think you might be a little confused here. A Y on the end of the pump top will convert 1 water path into 2 waterpaths and will halve the restriction not increase it. The y or the T3 converts 1 serial loop into 2 parrallel loops which does not double flow through the blocks it only doubles flow through the pump this is another bad thing as doubling flow through the pump without also doubling flow through the components means the pump is working twice as hard to do the same amount of work = more heat dump from pump in the loop and possibly premature failure of the pump due to overdriving.
Click to expand...

No converting to a parallel loop lessens restriction, but the Y fitting adds it over say a reservoir with 2 inlets or a pump with 2 outlets.
 
Erasmus354 said:
No converting to a parallel loop lessens restriction, but the Y fitting adds it over say a reservoir with 2 inlets or a pump with 2 outlets.
Click to expand...

Y fitting will only add restriction when converting two waterpaths into 1, never when converting 1 waterpath into 2 such as on the outlet of a pump top because the restriction of the components in the loop will always be greater than that of the Y.

Think of it this way you have 1 serial loop total flow through components = 1.5gpm flow through pump = 1.5gpm.

Now you throw a Y on the pump outlet and divide the serial loop in two parallel loops. You now have two loops capable of flowing at least 1.5gpm each 1.5gpm loop a + 1.5 gpm loopb = 3gpm flow through pump and Y.
 
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=170217 - Martin's original D5 test.

If you look at that test, the heat-dump of the pump is about:

1.5 GPM = 20w
2.0 GPM = 21w
2.5 GPM = 22.5w
....
4.0 GPM = 24w
---------------------------

It's true that the heat-dump will increase as the flow increases, but not by that much. I'd worry MORE about the longevity of the pump in this situation. That said, the T3 would most likely be used to reduce restriction in the case of systems with high pressure drop. I think this should have been said in the review, but uh... we know this is the application.

Vapor also talked about balancing the load between the sub-loops back when he was doing the "math" on the T3. This is probably important for a pump that really doesn't have high head pressure.

I'll have more to comment on later I hope.
 
Yea, problem is alot of people ran out and bought this thing due to the whole greatest thing since sliced bread propoganda that was put forth and now you see people giving thier reviews stating "My GPU temps dropped 2 degrees!" The reason is because the majority of these folks had no clue what they were getting into and ran out and bought these things for simple cpu/gpu loops and in that configuration the reason the gpu temps dropped is because there is so much less restriction than the cpu loop that you now have more flow through your gpu but LESS flow through the cpu block so the most important temp which we all care about (CPU) is actually going to go up. Now add to it not enough restriction for the pump and as you have said premature pump failure. Pump failure can be disastrous if you are not around when the pump stops running it can destroy your computer in no time at all!

So now I am left wondering how long we have before all the "T3 blew up my computer" threads start coming from all these unsuspecting folks that ran out and bought this thing.

As far as the folks with complex loops restrictive enough to benefit from this, for the same price of the T3 they can pickup another DDC and run 2 loops with seperate pumps and see far greater benefit than using this.

The only advantage I see this product offering is being able to save some space by having a pump/res all in one type deal but you sacrifice performance in order to achieve that not gain it because on a simple loop you should be running the thing in serial mode in which the EK and Detroit tops are significantly better or else you have a complex loop able to take advantage of the parallel loop configuration but you sacrifice performance over just going with 2 seperate loops with DDC's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top