Parallel or Serial

In a parallel connection, there is no defined water flow direction in the waterblocks.
Obviously water has to go in somewhere and come out somewhere, but once inside the block it can flow or disperse randomly, returning or flowing out of each channel opening in the block.

In serial the water flow has a defined in and out and pathway through the block channel.

If you click through the pictures supplied in the Performance link, you'll see the water pattern nicely in the included diagrams.

I've always used a serial scheme in my SLi or Crossfire watercooling.
 
I haven't used serial but I installed a parallel block and am getting better temps then with a single water cooled card alone
 
Parallel has less restriction, so if you're using a lot of water blocks/rads in the loops, it can help keep your flow rate higher.
 
magoo said:
In a parallel connection, there is no defined water flow direction in the waterblocks.
Obviously water has to go in somewhere and come out somewhere, but once inside the block it can flow or disperse randomly, returning or flowing out of each channel opening in the block.

In serial the water flow has a defined in and out and pathway through the block channel.

If you click through the pictures supplied in the Performance link, you'll see the water pattern nicely in the included diagrams.

I've always used a serial scheme in my SLi or Crossfire watercooling.
Click to expand...

While what you say is true, it's nowhere near as random as you make it out to be. It's entirely dependent on the restriction of the blocks. If the blocks have identical restriction (which it should have if they're the same blocks), then the flow would be split 50/50 for 2, 33/33/33 for 3, and so on. It may be random which molecules go where, but overall will be split more or less evenly, unless there is something blocking one of the blocks.

IMO, for most people, parallel vs serial is just a matter of preference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top