SystemCooling + AC

[Erasmus354]

Typical narrow minded response

Actually I think the review was great! Just as expected, it performed as good if not better than a Storm under apples to apples tests.

What did we learn? If a garden hose is connected to a Cuplex XT, it will perform as good if not better than any block on the market. At low flow, it still holds its own against the best large bore blocks.

What is not to like?

You are even more laughable.....

The AC block is more restrictive than the storm, and is worse performing at every flow rate. So not only would the Storm beat it on a flow by flow basis, but in any given loop the Storm will have a higher flow rate than that of the Cuplex XT.


My thoughts about the review:

The die sim results are right where I would have expected the Cuplex XT to be. The "real world" results I found very intriguing. Considering this is the testing that most small bore activists want to see it showed the AC kit in the worst possible light. Part of this poor performance is exacerbated IMO by the EVO radiator, which as R1ck mentioned isn't very good (cant believe I am agreeing with this guy on something).

Also, the sound testing couldn't go very low, 35dB is not very quiet if you ask me. I would be willing to bet that if Lee had been able to test down to 20dB that the AC setup was the quietest in the bunch.

The most interesting thing to me is this little gem,

Switching to the larger 3/8” ID vinyl tubing decreased the average CPU full load temperature by a full 3ºC. (Larger cross-section area => lower water velocity => less flow resistance inside tubing => increased system flow => increased heat transfer)

I have said many many many times that using 6mm tubing is unnecessarily holding back a block like the Cuplex XT. This testing just confirms that.


Overall what I take away from this review is that the Cuplex XT, albieit overpriced, is not a bad block--which is what I already suspected. If you want a good performing loop you still need to intelligently choose your components, blindly making a loop comprised of exclusively AC components will not produce the best results.

I was also a little dissapointed with the marketing speak used throughout the entire review. Even AC proponents such as R1ck and TN know that the EVO radiators aren't necessarily optimal for most watercooling setups. Yet the review talked about it as if it was an excellent radiator custom designed for top performance in watercooling loops.

 

[Top Nurse]

What did we learn? If a garden hose is connected to a Cuplex XT, it will perform as good if not better than any block on the market. At low flow, it still holds its own against the best large bore blocks.

What is not to like?

edit: the only thing I would like to see is the test with a thermochil or BIX radiator instead of that POS EVO rad. other than that, we have a winner!

I believe a BI Pro is on it's way to SystemCooling very soon to see what the difference is. Many AC users have found that the BI Pro series rads knocks off a few degree's.

I also was looking at the flow curve and noticed that if you were to carry it further out ( > 3 GPM) that it would actually be worse than some of the other blocks. As I have belabored to point out previously the XT was designed to excel at the lower flow rates. That is exactly what we are seeing here.

 

[Bbq]

Great review. I think this shows quite a few things, including:

1. The Cuplex is Very restrictive. Between the MP-05 and the Storm.
2. With flow increasing, the performance increases quite a bit. It varies from .16 c/w to .14 c/w, as opposed to the .155 to the .135 cw for the MP-05.
3. Why it only shipped wiht a single 120mm radiator and a papst is what I'm wondering. Maybe with a different fan, or a 2x120, it would have truely hauled ass.
4. I want one.

 

[plywood99]

Typical narrow minded response

Actually I think the review was great! Just as expected, it performed as good if not better than a Storm under apples to apples tests.

What did we learn? If a garden hose is connected to a Cuplex XT, it will perform as good if not better than any block on the market. At low flow, it still holds its own against the best large bore blocks.

What is not to like?

edit: the only thing I would like to see is the test with a thermochil or BIX radiator instead of that POS EVO rad. other than that, we have a winner!

Lol, typical defensive posture response.

1) Storm beat XT at every flow rate. And your calling me narrow minded.
2) What you should learn. Sticking the Cuplex XT or any other block for that matter onto some norrow catheter sized tubing just doesn't make sense.
3) Hmm, I recall you guys talking about the evo style copper loop rads as being the cat's meow, now they are junk. Hmm, good ole defensive posturing, better known as back-pedaling.
4) "What is not to like?" How bout that setup costing $350 dollars, that is what not to like!

Still can't see the forest for the trees though can you? I mean come on Rick, a XP120 destroyed this thing in all areas but noise. Try to be just a little reasonable please...

 

[R1ckCa1n]

I was also a little dissapointed with the marketing speak used throughout the entire review. Even AC proponents such as R1ck and TN know that the EVO radiators aren't necessarily optimal for most watercooling setups. Yet the review talked about it as if it was an excellent radiator custom designed for top performance in watercooling loops.

Actually I used an EVO in my first loop (which lasted about a month), then to a BIX Pro, then to a Thermochill. Each time my temps got better. I would approximate 4-5c overall.

 

[R1ckCa1n]

Still can't see the forest for the trees though can you? I mean come on Rick, a XP120 destroyed this thing in all areas but noise. Try to be just a little reasonable please...

I take except with his motherboard results as I get better results with my Cuplex Pro with two X1900XT's in the loop than he showed with a single block.

 

[Top Nurse]

As I pointed out earlier most everyone who runs an Aquastream pump has it OC'd to its maximum potential and the review only gave figures on its stock setting. Essentially the difference between an Eheim 1046 and a 1048. Almost twice the flow makes for a teeny weeny difference, yes?

 

[R1ckCa1n]

Maybe I am confused, but isn't the MP-05 SP showing best and the DangerDen Maze3 worst?

Same with this one, right?

 

[Top Nurse]

The first graph shows the pressure loss so the MP-05 is more restrictive and the Storm is less restrictive. However, it is quite a slight amount either way.

The second graph shows the temp based on flow and is slightly beat out by the the Storm and the MP-05, but certainly by not more than a very slim difference. However, the graph does show that the XT works better at lower flows than it does at higher flows by extrapolating the curve out towards the > 3 GPM.

 

[R1ckCa1n]

The first graph shows the pressure loss so the MP-05 is more restrictive and the Storm is less restrictive. However, it is quite a slight amount either way.

The second graph shows the temp based on flow and is slightly beat out by the the Storm and the MP-05, but certainly by not more than a very slim difference. However, the graph does show that the XT works better at lower flows than it does at higher flows by extrapolating the curve out towards the > 3 GPM.

This tells me to stop with the white russians while trying to read graphs.

/back to the Laker game!

 

[phide]

Very strong showing. Certainly a block for anyone to consider, regardless of tubing size. Considering the XT doesn't utilize a central inlet design, I'm actually quite impressed.

The results indicate that a straight AquaComputer setup is not, in any way (to most), justifiable. I'd be shocked, in fact, if it performed better than a Starfi ($50?). Given a better radiator, I'd think performance would be much more acceptable. An MPC350/PA160/Cuplex XT configuration with 3/8" tubing would be highly desirable to anyone who prefers little fuss and quiet (and relatively inexpensive).

I also noticed this...

Correctly aligned chamfers with respect to the jets! The so-called AquaComputer secret is discovered to be little more than a massive error (probably). All chamfers seem to be aligned reasonably well. Either AC have corrected any glitches or this is simply a different revision. But, yes, pressure drop associated with the jets should now be much more reasonable. A large part of the total pressure drop of the Cuplex XT lies in the jets, so this is an important fix.

 

[Bbq]

The great AC mystery seems to have been solved.

Maybe an inexperienced mill operator misaligned the blocks? maybe this is a new revision?

 

[Erasmus354]

The first graph shows the pressure loss so the MP-05 is more restrictive and the Storm is less restrictive. However, it is quite a slight amount either way.

The second graph shows the temp based on flow and is slightly beat out by the the Storm and the MP-05, but certainly by not more than a very slim difference. However, the graph does show that the XT works better at lower flows than it does at higher flows by extrapolating the curve out towards the > 3 GPM.

You cant simply look at the graph and say that the XT works better than other blocks at low flow rates. Because in a loop where the XT might get .5gpm the RBX might get 1gpm, in which case the RBX wins. The high restriction of the XT means that while it can perform well at low flow rates....other blocks wont have as low a flow rate. It would have been nice to see a C/W versus hydraulic pumping power graph.

 

[madmat]

Maybe I am confused, but isn't the MP-05 SP showing best and the DangerDen Maze3 worst?

Same with this one, right?

In the first image the MP-05 is showing the most restrictive while the Maze 3 is showing the least. That'd depend entirely upon your definition of best I suppose. In the next graph the Storm (sort of a royal blue color) is showing the most efficient cooler but we all already knew that didn't we?

 

[R1ckCa1n]

The great AC mystery seems to have been solved.

Maybe an inexperienced mill operator misaligned the blocks? maybe this is a new revision?

How is the mystery solved as there have been picture of this block on the forum for almost a year....... As for the revision, my original XT looks just like that one. I think the alignment is not consistant with milling the holes.

 

[R1ckCa1n]

In the first image the MP-05 is showing the most restrictive while the Maze 3 is showing the least. That'd depend entirely upon your definition of best I suppose. In the next graph the Storm (sort of a royal blue color) is showing the most efficient cooler but we all already knew that didn't we?

What I don't understand is if the XT is in second or third on the graphs, how does that make it a bad block and worthy of ridicual?

 

[thewhiteguy]

How is the mystery solved as there have been picture of this block on the forum for almost a year....... As for the revision, my original XT looks just like that one. I think the alignment is not consistant with milling the holes.

You haven't been keeping up on the threads lately.

Summary of the graphs: The Cuplex XT not only performs worse at every flow rate than the Storm, but it's more difficult to get the same flow rate between the two. So much for the whole "optimized for low flow" bull that's been claimed over and over.

 

[el rolio]

im glad they finished the review and that it at least should be able to finish / clear up some of the arguable points.

1. more restrictive than the storm

2. benefits from larger bore (6mm vs the larger 3/8")

3. benefits from more flow

4. better than most blocks but second to the storm

but it makes me happy for this reason: i love both the storm and the cuplex XT, and hate every other block. i think they are both, the most beautiful bits of design and engineering AND excellent performers worthy of their price premium.

so now we can scale all the bickering back to shit like "why do you spend so much money on your setup!?!?!" and "gosh your setup is loud! get a better radiator / fan combo sheesh!!!"

 

[thewhiteguy]

Here's an interesting comparison:

My RBX gets 0.138 C/W at 2.9GPM. That flow rate corresponds to a 4.6 PSI differential.
The XT gets 0.14 C/W at 2GPM. That flow rate corresponds to a 5.6 PSI differential.

I may be wrong, but that looks to me like if you have a pump that can get 2GPM through the XT then it should be capable of at least 2.9GPM through the RBX, and get you better performance. So the XT can't even beat the old (ripped-off design ) unless you've got a really small pump.

Likewise that same pump (doing 2GPM through the XT) would also be enough to make the Storm (of course) and Antarctica perform better than the XT. (Possibly others but those two are obvious).

 

[Erasmus354]

Here's an interesting comparison:

My RBX gets 0.138 C/W at 2.9GPM. That flow rate corresponds to a 4.6 PSI differential.
The XT gets 0.14 C/W at 2GPM. That flow rate corresponds to a 5.6 PSI differential.

I may be wrong, but that looks to me like if you have a pump that can get 2GPM through the XT then it should be capable of at least 2.9GPM through the RBX, and get you better performance. So the XT can't even beat the old (ripped-off design ) unless you've got a really small pump.

Likewise that same pump (doing 2GPM through the XT) would also be enough to make the Storm (of course) and Antarctica perform better than the XT. (Possibly others but those two are obvious).

That is exactly what many people are ignoring (very conveniently I might add), and a common misinterpretation of these graphs. It is also why I said earlier that I would have liked to see some more graphs, specifically C/W vs. Hydraulic Pumping Power.

 

[BioPort]

well, i can think of at least one good thing that will come of this:

quite a few anal retentive people will be offloading their AC gear in the FS/FT forums which i can then buy at a decent price.

 

[taqueso]

--First: I am in no way qualified to comment on the results of this review. So I'll just ask a question-- I'm surprised by the similarity of all the real-world test numbers. Is the testbed CPU just not enough of a power-sucking pig to show a diff? Is there really that little difference between any modern block in a real-world situation?


PS You are all quite entertaining, especially now that the review is out and everyone is attempting to justify what they claimed before...

 

[el rolio]

well, i can think of at least one good thing that will come of this:

quite a few anal retentive people will be offloading their AC gear in the FS/FT forums which i can then buy at a decent price.

hahah for a good price i'd buy a XT block just to LOOK AT! hahaha

but yea im hopin to swipe some papst fans myself :O
RACE YA TO IT BIO!

 

[thewhiteguy]

--First: I am in no way qualified to comment on the results of this review. So I'll just ask a question-- I'm surprised by the similarity of all the real-world test numbers. Is the testbed CPU just not enough of a power-sucking pig to show a diff? Is there really that little difference between any modern block in a real-world situation?

A water cooling block is pretty simple. You've got copper that touches the CPU and moving water that touches the copper. There isn't really anything you can do to make a drastic difference. The best you can hope for are those little differences you see in the graphs. If the wattage output of CPUs was much, much (much) higher than so would be the termperature difference between the different blocks, but that's not the case.

 

[Erasmus354]

--First: I am in no way qualified to comment on the results of this review. So I'll just ask a question-- I'm surprised by the similarity of all the real-world test numbers. Is the testbed CPU just not enough of a power-sucking pig to show a diff? Is there really that little difference between any modern block in a real-world situation?


PS You are all quite entertaining, especially now that the review is out and everyone is attempting to justify what they claimed before...

As with just about everything in the computer world (be it harddrives, graphics cards, CPUs, RAM etc...) once you start getting towards the highend the differences distinguishing solutions become smaller and smaller. Also you start to hit a wall where that little bit of extra performance start costing that much more.

 

[theseeker]

As with just about everything in the computer world (be it harddrives, graphics cards, CPUs, RAM etc...) once you start getting towards the highend the differences distinguishing solutions become smaller and smaller. Also you start to hit a wall where that little bit of extra performance start costing that much more.

That really sums it up nicely.

 

[thewhiteguy]

but yea im hopin to swipe some papst fans myself :O

My radiator has these, and I'm very happy with them:
http://www.bgmicro.com/prodinfo.asp...94153&prodid=FAN1084&page=1&cri=Papst&stype=3

 

[el rolio]

are they quiet? how slow do you run them? etc etc etc

 

[nikhsub1]

Well very interesting. What does the review show in a quick summary?

1. Small tubing sucks ass, sorry folks, it just does. 6mm to 3/8" = 3C alone, that is huge IMO.
2. The Cuplex is a very decent block, only bested by the Storm and MP-05
3. The Cuplex is not as restrictive as I would have thought.
4 The AC kit got pwnd hard by an XP-120 which is air cooling.
5. The AC kit gets pwnd by every other water kit tested, even WITH 3/8" tubing.
6. No doubt the "Kit" is sucking due to the horrible rad.
7. Wish Lee would have also test the AC gear with another rad, BIP2 or so.
8. The saga will continue, although I just don't care one way or the other, it is all about preference IMO.

 

[madmat]

What I don't understand is if the XT is in second or third on the graphs, how does that make it a bad block and worthy of ridicual?

I haven't ridiculed the block personally so I can't say that I'd know the answer to that one man. I have said it's overpriced and considering that the 2 blocks that trump it are about $20 less I still stand by that. The RBX is close to it and it's nearly half the price. Before you go off about DD stuff look at it from the standpoint of someone that doesn't have an axe to grind. I can get the same basic config via DD for nearly 1/3 less so to me (a man living on a budget as are 90% of the mortals in the U.S.) it makes more sense to go with a setup that will give me the same performance at X flow rate for $200 as opposed to another setup that will give me the same performance at Y flow rate for $350.

 

[ikellensbro]

I had a longer post made last night, but the [H]forums were nice enough to stop working, as they did at several other points yesterday. Anyway, good review overall, it showed that yes, AC loops can perform, just not exceptionally well. The kit had some poorly chosen components though, which seems to plague many un-thoughtout AC loops:

• As others have said, a weak radiator (very old design)
• A weak pump paired with a restrictive block (exageration: it wouldn't matter if the XT performed better than everything else, if it gets 0.25gpm while everything else gets 1gpm, it's going to lose).
• 6mm (1/4"id) tubing definately shows that it severely restricts a loop's flow: if switching to 10mm (3/8"id) tubing lowered temperatures by 2.5*C, then we're looking at (assuming just the XT is affected) more than a 1gpm flow increase. In fact, if the 3200+ Newcastle produces 100 watts of heat (I think it's a little less), and assuming Lee's C/W vs. Flow graph is accurate, the XT was getting less than 0.5gpm with the 6mm tubing.

I forget right now which site used to do them (I hope someone did/does), but if Lee has time to do a full review of the XT (or extended review of the kit), it would be nice to see what flow rates the XT and/or AC kit gets with various pumps (XT, with the radiator held constant) and various radiators (the kit, with the XT and Aquastream). This way, we could have actual numbers to show how restrictive the Evo/XT are, and how comparatively weak/strong the Aquastream is.

If anything, this showed that AC can, and does design good products, if put into a properly designed loop. A Cuples XT in a loop that has 7 90* elbows, 6mm tubing, a triple 120mm Evo, chipset, gpu, mosfet, and ram blocks, and an Aquatube (the Aquainlet is somewhat restrictive) is not going to get much flow from an Aquastream, OC'd or not. That was an exaggeration of course, but most wouldn't put a Storm in a loop with an Eheim 1048 and anything smaller than 3/8" tubing, because to perform well, the Storm (slightly more so the XT) needs a strong pump that can provide a lot of flow and get past the block's restrictiveness.

 

[ikellensbro]

I haven't ridiculed the block personally so I can't say that I'd know the answer to that one man. I have said it's overpriced and considering that the 2 blocks that trump it are about $20 less I still stand by that. The RBX is close to it and it's nearly half the price. Before you go off about DD stuff look at it from the standpoint of someone that doesn't have an axe to grind. I can get the same basic config via DD for nearly 1/3 less so to me (a man living on a budget as are 90% of the mortals in the U.S.) it makes more sense to go with a setup that will give me the same performance at X flow rate for $200 as opposed to another setup that will give me the same performance at Y flow rate for $350.

Not to defend AC (and its supporters) too much, but the higher price of AC components comes from the assumption that you're paying (somewhat) for its looks. Otherwise, as you pointed out, yes, it would make a lot more sense to just go buy an MP-05 SP or Storm for $20-$30 (or more) less.
(Yes, I don't like people taking 4 posts to reply to other people's comments, but I didn't want to edit my previous post to add even more length to it. Plus, I'm lazy.)

 

[CCUABIDExORxDIE]

What I don't understand is if the XT is in second or third on the graphs, how does that make it a bad block and worthy of ridicual?

because a block...the Whitewater... which costs 1/4 of the Cuplex performs as good as it. and gets performance damn near it.

 

[phide]

I forget right now which site used to do them (I hope someone did/does), but if Lee has time to do a full review of the XT (or extended review of the kit), it would be nice to see what flow rates the XT and/or AC kit gets with various pumps (XT, with the radiator held constant) and various radiators (the kit, with the XT and Aquastream).

There's a gentlemen by the name of Long Haired Git that posts over at ProCooling and OCAU who built a simple Excel-based flowrate approximator. You supply him with a PQ curve of a pump and multiple flowrate points of a block, he plugs everything into his approximator, and voila - you have what, in my opinion, is a very reasonable estimation of flowrate through components. He can factor in multiple blocks, lengths of tubing and radiators and make these controlled variables. If you're really interested, you might want to look him up.

ProCooling, I believe, has a good pump round-up that you may want to check out. You can take some basic data of your radiator, the pump and the Cuplex and approximate the expected flowrate yourself.

On the subject of the review, I think too many of you are looking at price and trying to compare performance directly to the price. The Cuplex XT is far more expensive than other blocks that perform capably, but this doesn't mean the Cuplex XT is not a block to consider. Its performance does not scale with price, but its position in a typical user's "Block to Get" list would be much lower than that of a Storm or other similar block due to the price. If it meets someone's criteria, price included, then it's a great block. If not, it's still a great block. I don't believe it's fair to look at the block as a failure or as inadequate simply because AC grossly overcharges, but I do believe that a $90 block should not ship with excessive build errors. Lee received what looks to be a correctly manufacturered piece, but this has not been the experience of some, and that's something AC most certainly needs to resolve.

The AC kit deserves the same treatment. It's excessive in price, and the peformance is horrid (compared with other water cooling solutions), but if it suits the user's taste exactly, then it's exactly what the user should get. It seems obvious that AC does not intend to market their products to the 90% of the budget market and this is something that we're going to accept. AquaComputer could make a number of small changes to the products it offers (one of which being larger ID tubing), and I think they know what the outcome of that would be, but I don't imagine they're going to change their line-up to better match the performance/dollar ratio of other kits/configurations any time soon.

And no, I'm not quite happy with the way I've arranged my different discussion points in this post.

 

[ikellensbro]

because a block...the Whitewater... which costs 1/4 of the Cuplex performs as good as it. and gets performance damn near it.

A little less than 1/3 http://sharkacomputers.com/aqcocuxtcpub.html
http://www.dtekcustoms.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=137

Something good that you pointed out: By your reasoning (which has vildity, the WW is less restrictive than the XT, so it should get migher flow rates), the Antarctica (which, in Lee's testing, is less restrictive and 1*C better at every flow rate) is very close performance wise (1/4-1/3*C off at the same flow rates) while being much less restrictive (check out the XT's PSI at 2gpm vs. the Antarctica's). By Lee's testing, the Antarctica is probably better than the XT (in a real loop), and slightly below the Storm.

 

[CCUABIDExORxDIE]

nope. 1/4th http://www.cooltechnica.com/Merchan...duct_Code=AQX-WW-AL-USMA&Category_Code=AMD-WB

and a friend pointed that out to me recently. he basically put it like this "the TDX with a d5 will give lets say 3gpm, the storm with that same d5 will give you 1.5gpm. and that wont just affect your cpu temps...itll affect your GPU temps too."

its all about smart watercooling.

 

[zer0signal667]

--First: I am in no way qualified to comment on the results of this review. So I'll just ask a question-- I'm surprised by the similarity of all the real-world test numbers. Is the testbed CPU just not enough of a power-sucking pig to show a diff? Is there really that little difference between any modern block in a real-world situation?

The test method is not dependent on power consumption unless it's so little that measurement tolerances becomes meaningful or so large that the system changes (block begins losing heat to air, melting, etc...). The property being measured is temperature difference normalized to power dissipation. Watts increase --> temp diff increase, meanwhile C/W is the same number, or ratio.

 

[phide]

and a friend pointed that out to me recently. he basically put it like this "the TDX with a d5 will give lets say 3gpm, the storm with that same d5 will give you 1.5gpm. and that wont just affect your cpu temps...itll affect your GPU temps too." its all about smart watercooling.

Obviously, reducing flowrate in one restrictive block will affect the peformance of another block in the same loop, but displaying this isn't the objective of the review. Smart water cooling is about picking components that will work well together. If you're using only one block, like myself, you choose the highest performing block (or the best looking, or whatever) without much consideration to flow restriction. I'd question your friend's numbers, but I understand that it's probably not intended to be abso-correct (just an example).

A water cooling block is pretty simple. You've got copper that touches the CPU and moving water that touches the copper. There isn't really anything you can do to make a drastic difference.

Kind of a silly statement here.

 

[CCUABIDExORxDIE]

Obviously, reducing flowrate in one restrictive block will affect the peformance of another block in the same loop, but displaying this isn't the objective of the review. Smart water cooling is about picking components that will work well together. If you're using only one block, like myself, you choose the highest performing block (or the best looking, or whatever) without much consideration to flow restriction. I'd question your friend's numbers, but I understand that it's probably not intended to be abso-correct (just an example).

the numbers are wrong...but thats why i put lets say. but what i said is not to obvious to most. they think "ill get a strong pump...itll hand the storm." but they dont take into consideration what it does to the rest of their loops.

 

[thewhiteguy]

Kind of a silly statement here.

Look at the results. Very different blocks with very different flow rates, but the difference between the very worst and the very best is roughly .08 C/W, which on a 100W CPU (Prescott gets close, but even it isn't this hot) is a measly 8 degree difference. Not enough to truly matter except in the very extreme overclocking cases. 8 degrees is perhaps enough to brag about in a forum such as this, but all things considered it's not really that big of a deal.

So what's so silly about that?