- Back to homepage
- Related articles
  Related articles

6 High End CPU Water Blocks Tested and Compared

Cooling/Water Cooling by KeithSuppe @ 2008-02-01

In this group test we compare the performance of six high end water blocks from Koolance, Danger Den, D-Tek, Swiftech and EnzoTech on an overclocked Intel Quad Core Processor. Which one keeps the CPU running the coolest? Read on to find out.

Swiftech Apogee GTX

Apogee GTX

Madshrimps (c)

Swiftech's decision to eliminate the Storm from their line-up left Apogee GTX to occupy the number one performance slot. The technology behind GTX is of course very different from the Storm. Apogee GTX is an extruded pin, cross flow design based on Swiftech's Diamond Pin Matrix.

Madshrimps (c)

Apogee GTX Specifications / Features:

The housing is CNC machined out of billet aluminum and receives two plating's for a lifetime protection against corrosion: electroless nickel plating (MIL-C-26074E grade B) and Zinc Cobalt plating (ASTM B 840-99 grade 6). A black die is applied after plating strictly for cosmetic appeal.

The port threads are 1/4" BSPP standard.

The housing is supported by a 5 year limited (*) warranty.

Base plate dimensions: 2" x 2" (50.5 x 50.5 mm)

Total assembly weight: : 6.7 oz (190 g)

Internal structure: the CNC machined C110 copper base plate is at the heart of Apogee™ water-block cooling efficiency. Designed using Computational Fluid Dynamics, the Patent Pending Diamond Pin Matrix was further optimized in the "GT" and "GTX" versions resulting in increased surface area and coolant velocity. The base thickness remains at 3mm to promote a high compliance factor with its mating surface (i.e. the CPU heat spreader) thanks to the base plate flexing ability. This particular feature allows additional "tweaks" to the Apogee™ generation of water-blocks and may yield substantial performance gains as described in the tweaking guide HERE.

Madshrimps (c)

The design similarities and prima facie ergonomic differences between Apogee GTX and Apogee GT give the consumer some nice options. GTX sports a "High Performance" style while Apogee GT retains the classic Apogee appeal.

Madshrimps (c)

From above the blocks look like two completely different models. In fact the only similarity seems to be the Swiftech name. Removing the mounting plate fom each block reveals much more detail (below). Each block is built around the same exact 3mm Diamond Pin Matrix design seen in the thumbnail below (left). The performance difference between blocks is based entirely on the inlet/outlet distances which differ among them. Swiftech explains: "...the longer path between the ports gives the GTX a 1°C advantage over the GT at 100 Watts, making the GTX Swiftech's new performance flagship."

Madshrimps (c)

The distance between ports (inlet/outlet) between GTX and GT is just a few mm's, however the drop in temp has been verified by Swiftech. Further implications may have the Apogee GTX be a better choice for use with multi-core processors because of the increased flow path. In GTX H20 flowing onto pins closer to the base edge utilize the Dynamic Fluid model to a greater degree. By the same principle water flowing into Apogee GT inlet/outlet which are closer to the center, infers less surface area is affected (cooled). An oddity among these samples was the base plate finish. Seen in the photo below and the thumbnail above right, reveals GTX base finish had striations visible from the finishing process.

Madshrimps (c)

Out of curiosity I switched the Apogee GT base plate to GTX which led to a 1C ~ 2C drop in temps. Those results will not be included since anyone buying a GTX would have to live with the base plate included with the block. I did not lap any blocks for this round-up. The difference in temp is more likely attributable to other factors.

Onto Enzotech...>>

Comment from geoffrey @ 2008/02/01

Love this article. I would expect less difference at such modest heat output, 4Ghz @ 1,5V CPU would definitely make the Fuzion even more worth its price.

PS: 128W IDLE is huge, still... that makes 30W per core. Eat that Atlon 64!

Comment from Rutar @ 2008/02/01

Yes, why didn't he use more voltage and more OC?

Comment from Kougar @ 2008/02/02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rutar

Yes, why didn't he use more voltage and more OC?

Not really needed? Would only be useful for showing performance scaling, which while I agree would be interesting to compare it is not as useful as showing results at 3Ghz. The vast majority of overclocks run Q6600's at 3Ghz, so this was the best scenario to test with.

I have a great deal of testing to try on my own setup, I don't see results nearly as good as those.

Throwing in the best air cooler (120 Extreme?) would be interesting to see included in that setup.

Comment from Rutar @ 2008/02/02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kougar

The vast majority of overclocks run Q6600's at 3Ghz, so this was the best scenario to test with.

A water overclocker doesn't aim at 3 GHz and he won't stop below 1.5V either.

Comment from jmke @ 2008/02/02

a water overclocker will go for silence and performance, at 3ghz it's an ideal mix of both!

Comment from Kougar @ 2008/02/02

What JMke said. Neither myself nor any other watercoolers I know run their systems beyond the best mix of cost/performance, or overclock/voltage. Most of us tend to overclock to find the limits, then settle on using the sweet spot for 24/7 use. For Q6600 users that often is 3GHz.

All information and graphics contained in Madshrimps are sole property of the Madshrimps crew and may not be reproduced or copied in any manner without written permission from us.