• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

DangerDen RBX

was one of the best waterblocks i ever used. definitly a top of the line block. just need a pretty good pump with fast flow rates. recomend over 300GPH.

C
 
From what I under stand it is supposed to be pretty good.
however the real question is...how does it compair to D-teks white water?
 
thats why I am asking dtek is out of the ww, I emailed them today to see how long before they get them back into stock. If it is worth it I am willing to wait to get the ww over the rbx.
 
I just purchased a full set of blocks from Danger Den, the CPU ( RBX ), chipset block for an 875, and the GPU block. I had considered buying the WW from D-Tek, but when I tried, there were none in stock!
 
Originally posted by HiTech-Hate
the WW is still much better, and can be found at other stores, just look around
Click to expand...

I cant find them anywhere else :(
 
Originally posted by Visable-assassin
From what I under stand it is supposed to be pretty good.
however the real question is...how does it compair to D-teks white water?
Click to expand...

The white water is better at everything except extremely high flow rates (higher than you'll get with a 1250)

wbcompare_s.jpg


http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/showpost.php?p=100239&postcount=8

Please remember that pumps DO NOT push their rated gph at 0' of head through a watercooling system.

pqcurves.jpg
 
According to Cathars page he has sold the design of the ww black to dtek customs, they are actually the ones responsable for production of these blocks now. Hopefully they will get them back in stock. I have yet to hear back from them.
 
So maybe I am an idiot but anyone feel like breaking down what thoose charts say, the second chart I understand, its the first chart that I dont, actually just the verticle part of it. Trying ti figure out if the eheim 1250 will work up to par with the rbx.
 
Check out Demoniccooling. I have one of the XTC blocks with new design inlets... supposed to be better then a WW
 
If you have a link for demonicooling, please post - googling demonicooling yielded nothing.
 
Originally posted by foolio
So maybe I am an idiot but anyone feel like breaking down what thoose charts say, the second chart I understand, its the first chart that I dont, actually just the verticle part of it. Trying ti figure out if the eheim 1250 will work up to par with the rbx.
Click to expand...

The top graph shows the delta T (basically performance) of the three blocks at different flowrates in gallons per minute. The bottom graph shows the flowrates of different pumps in gallons per hour.

The actual flowrate through the system is going to be a point on the curve of the bottom graph relative to the total "head" (restrictiveness) of the watercooling setup. The total restrictiveness takes into account the waterblock, the radiator, and the tubing.

Basically, at a (highly?) optimistic flowrate value of 100 gph, 1.67 gpm for the Eheim 1250, the WWR is a slightly better block than the RBX.
 
Originally posted by 2Fresh
http://www.ninjalane.com/display.aspx?docname=demonic-xtc&page=2

This test was done WITHOUT the high performace nozzle. It is now available. If it is that close without, I would bet it beats the WW now.
Click to expand...

Since when is motherboard monitor a testing tool for waterblocks? For starters, that test was done using the thermistor on the motherboard, which can easily be off be several C or more. Also, variations in mounting technique can account for at least several C, even when done by experts. The tester doesn't even give any information about his watercooling setup other than that it uses 3/8" ID tubes.

Even if motherboard monitor and motherboard thermisters were perfect testing tools with zero variance, the test would still only be relevant to someone using the EXACT SAME watercooling system as the tester.

Also, what makes the "high performance" nozzle high performance? Is it more restrictive? Does it have special sauce? Who knows?

On the tester's setup, a more restrictive nozzle would probably hurt performance, not help it.
 
What is your point, the #'s are not correct? I did not say they were. The fact is they were both tested same way and the XTC stayed on the WW. Very simple. And like the performance nozzle is going to hinder performance.
 
Originally posted by Giblet Plus!
The top graph shows the delta T (basically performance) of the three blocks at different flowrates in gallons per minute. The bottom graph shows the flowrates of different pumps in gallons per hour.
Click to expand...

so if I am reading this right, the rbx is actually better at lower flowrates than the ww, or am I reading it backwards? What do the numbers on the left going verticle represent? I think I am reading it wrong, it better to be higher up on the chart or lower?
 
Originally posted by 2Fresh
What is your point, the #'s are not correct? I did not say they were. The fact is they were both tested same way and the XTC stayed on the WW. Very simple. And like the performance nozzle is going to hinder performance.
Click to expand...

My point is that the test is shitty and proves nothing either way.

Also, the fact that the nozzle has "performance" in its name does not mean it will be better in all (any?) setups.

Watercooling performance isn't based off of feelings, it's based off of physics.
 
Originally posted by Giblet Plus!
My point is that the test is shitty and proves nothing either way.

Also, the fact that the nozzle has "performance" in its name does not mean it will be better in all (any?) setups.

Watercooling performance isn't based off of feelings, it's based off of physics.
Click to expand...

the test isnt shitty, it models real world performance probabily better than any scienfitic method. maybe by physics, the WW performs better (by that tiny margin), but by acutual people setting it up, making actual mistakes, not putting the thermal compound on perfectly, then that margin shrinks or even dissappears...


PS check your PMs
 
Originally posted by foolio
so if I am reading this right, the rbx is actually better at lower flowrates than the ww, or am I reading it backwards? What do the numbers on the left going verticle represent? I think I am reading it wrong, it better to be higher up on the chart or lower?
Click to expand...

You've got it backwards. Lower numbers on the "Y" part of the graph are better, they indicate a smaller temperature differential between the block and the water. You need really high flowrates for the RBX to be better. Unless you're running an Iwaki MD20R or similar pump, the WWR will be better.

Look through cathar's posts in this thread for specific performance examples:
http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=266384
 
The testing shows it is close to the WW.

You are trying to rip on a product you know nothing about. I know the maker and have talked with him much about them. His testing on the new nozzles proves better performance.

Also, thank you so much on letting me know "watercooling performance isn't based off of feelings, it's based off of physics".....I was not aware of that. :rolleyes: :eek:
 
Originally posted by 2Fresh

You are trying to rip on a product you know nothing about. I know the maker and have talked with him much about them. His testing on the new nozzles proves better performance.
Click to expand...

I am not ripping on the product, I am ripping on the testing.

You can't just say that the new nozzle improves performance. If it is more restrictive, it will increase the water velocity in some setups, and increase performance. In others, it will have too much of an adverse affect on the flowrate to help performance.
 
Originally posted by 2Fresh
Isn't it given that variables exist with anything?
Click to expand...

Pretty much, yes. But you were saying that with the new "high performance" nozzle, your friend's block would be better than the WWR.

I am saying you have no way of knowing this, especially given the quality of the testing you have linked me too.
 
He is not my friend. It is a logical assumption given his testing on the new nozzles. They have increased performance in testing setups, so why would one assume it would increase performance on the testing used in that particular review?
 
So anyone using the rbx with an eheim1250? or a Danner Mag3 I can pick one up from petsmart :)
 
Originally posted by kronchev
the test isnt shitty, it models real world performance probabily better than any scienfitic method. maybe by physics, the WW performs better (by that tiny margin), but by acutual people setting it up, making actual mistakes, not putting the thermal compound on perfectly, then that margin shrinks or even dissappears...
Click to expand...

The test is shitty because the precision of the test is probably a whole order of magnitude greater than the tested difference in performance of the two blocks.

It is also only applicable for someone using the exact same setup. Look at the RBX/WWR/Cascade graph. For most people (and single tests) the WWR is better, but for people with really high flowrate systems, the RBX is better. Tests like the one done by www.ningalane.com will not be able to find data that will show relationships like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top