SwiftTech Apogee GT CPU Water Block
Test Results
Published: 8th May 2007 | Source: SwiftTech | Price: |
Stock - 2.4GHz
First of all I set the clock speed to stock and the voltage to 1.35v (BIOS set) and saw what the blocks would record. I've found that the CPU I'm using (e6600 Retail stepping B1) runs pretty hot as a general rule and so it's a good test of the blocks.
With a difference of only 1°C at idle but a more significant 2°C at load, the GT shows it's worth over the older block. Note also that the ambient temps of the Apogee testing were about 0.5°C higher.
Overclocked - 3.33GHz
At 3.33Ghz this e6600 needs 1.568v set in the BIOS to keep it stable. Not really recommended for those of you who like to keep your CPU's going for a few years! Still this is an excellent test of the blocks coping with high load.
Overclocked - 3.33GHz
At 3.33Ghz this e6600 needs 1.568v set in the BIOS to keep it stable. Not really recommended for those of you who like to keep your CPU's going for a few years! Still this is an excellent test of the blocks coping with high load.
Again at idle the blocks were whithin 1°C of each other with the Apogee GT edging ahead. However again at load the Apogee GT gained a more significant temperature drop on it's older rival of 3°C. That's not too shabby for a small revision on an already well-performing block.
Most Recent Comments
Wow a blister back for a water block. Good idea i think.
Nice job kemp
Nice job kemp
niiiiiiiiiiceeeeeeeeeee
kemp, you've just made me want to buy this block even more! thanks for making my bank account empty! LOL
kemp, you've just made me want to buy this block even more! thanks for making my bank account empty! LOL
lol nps 
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by name='Ham'
Wow a blister back for a water block. Good idea i think.
Nice job kemp |
great review as ever mate....
Really nice review there Kempez!
Nice water block too!
Oh, by the way.. on the graphs isn't it meant to be "Lower is better" instead of Higher? :eh:
Nice water block too!
Oh, by the way.. on the graphs isn't it meant to be "Lower is better" instead of Higher? :eh:
Oops
I'll fix that when I get home. Must have had remnants from other graphs
I'll fix that when I get home. Must have had remnants from other graphs
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by name='Kempez'
Oops
I'll fix that when I get home. Must have had remnants from other graphs |
Apart from the little mistake awesome review..
How long does it take to makes these review.. for water cooling must be quite a long time!
All of them take quite a while tbh. If you look at methods each block had to have 200hrs curing time with AS5 which took a while
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by name='Kempez'
All of them take quite a while tbh. If you look at methods each block had to have 200hrs curing time with AS5 which took a while
|
I salute you sir!
Great review, again, Kemp. Some excellent shots too.
I feel we went through a period of blocks having a chrome/shiney look to them - and tbf it helps the manuf abit cos u look inside the case and u can recognize what a dood is using, to an extent.
Be nice to see one of these blocks` chome finished off, by a user, with some design. A flame trim would be tempting fate perhaps
Oh Kemp, dust them LL fans
I feel we went through a period of blocks having a chrome/shiney look to them - and tbf it helps the manuf abit cos u look inside the case and u can recognize what a dood is using, to an extent.
Be nice to see one of these blocks` chome finished off, by a user, with some design. A flame trim would be tempting fate perhaps
Oh Kemp, dust them LL fans
I just noticed, on the graphs for the results. It says higher is better, isn't it supposed to be lower is better?
Other than that, great review man!
Other than that, great review man!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by name='darkorb'
I just noticed, on the graphs for the results. It says higher is better, isn't it supposed to be lower is better?
Other than that, great review man! |
Ahh, my bad :P
Cheers fella's - changed
@ rast - I would dust em if I had time
@ rast - I would dust em if I had time
Nice review mate. 200hrs curing time, that's dedication for you!
There was no mention about being able to artificially induce a bow in the GT base plate with the (included?) oversized o-ring for an extra bit of performance. I take it the GT was just tested as shipped (with flat base)?
Is that 1/4" BSPP metal barbs you are using? I take it you had no problems using them in the 1/4" NPSM threaded holes?
@ Ham: I also prefer the new blister-pack style of packaging over the old brown box "Made in Shed" style.
200hrs curing time, that's dedication for you! There was no mention about being able to artificially induce a bow in the GT base plate with the (included?) oversized o-ring for an extra bit of performance. I take it the GT was just tested as shipped (with flat base)?
Is that 1/4" BSPP metal barbs you are using? I take it you had no problems using them in the 1/4" NPSM threaded holes?
@ Ham: I also prefer the new blister-pack style of packaging over the old brown box "Made in Shed" style.
No I didn't test the block with a bowed base as I quite frankly didn't have time 
the 1/4" BSPP barbs work fine in the threads for the Apogee and Apogee GT
the 1/4" BSPP barbs work fine in the threads for the Apogee and Apogee GT
CSS Valid
Link