Overclock.net › Forums › Cooling › Water Cooling › (56K Warning)*NEW* AQUACOMPUTER Airplex Modularity System Radiators
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

(56K Warning)*NEW* AQUACOMPUTER Airplex Modularity System Radiators - Page 16

post #151 of 279
Look at SR1 360 vs AMS at 1800rpms in both tests.

--According to PureOC testing, at 1800rpms the AMS dissipates 1000W at 1.96gpm, ie 2x !!! that of SR1 at 3.1gpm ~500W. Nearly unbelievable in itself. Doesnt seem like the increased flow of SR1 is helping SR1 performance in that test.

--Martins tests show at 1800rpm the SR1 at ~1.3gpm dissipates about 6% more (249w) than AMS at 0.8gpm (235w).
(used ratios from pureOC for flows)

So you want us to believe that by decreasing flow in both rads by ~60%, that AMS rad went from performing 2x better than SR1, to now performing worse?

Completely unbelievable. Rad performance is affected by flow rate, but no where near to that extent, and 1 rad is not going to suffer such logarithmic/catastrophic performance decrease vs another when both flows decreased, when lowest flow is still at a fairly decent flow rate of 0.8gpm.

The 2x performance seemed incredulous, and now we know why.
Edited by opt33 - 6/5/12 at 2:11pm
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6900K 4.4ghz  MSI X99A Krait Titan XP Gskill 32GB 3200 C14 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 960 Pro 1TB OS Samsung 850 pro 1TB games D5, XT45 280 rad, Nemesis 280 rad,  Windows 10 64bit 
MonitorPowerCase
Acer Predator XB271HU 144hz Seasonic Prime Titanium 850 Fractal Design R5 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6900K 4.4ghz  MSI X99A Krait Titan XP Gskill 32GB 3200 C14 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 960 Pro 1TB OS Samsung 850 pro 1TB games D5, XT45 280 rad, Nemesis 280 rad,  Windows 10 64bit 
MonitorPowerCase
Acer Predator XB271HU 144hz Seasonic Prime Titanium 850 Fractal Design R5 
  hide details  
Reply
post #152 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by opt33 View Post

Look at SR1 360 vs AMS at 1800rpms in both tests.
--According to PureOC testing, at 1800rpms the AMS dissipates 1000W at 1.96gpm, ie 2x !!! that of SR1 at 3.1gpm ~500W. Nearly unbelievable in itself. Doesnt seem like the increased flow of SR1 is helping SR1 performance in that test.
--Martins tests show at 1800rpm the SR1 at ~1.3gpm dissipates about 6% more (249w) than AMS at 0.8gpm (235w).
(used ratios from pureOC for flows)
So you want us to believe that by decreasing flow in both rads by ~60%, that AMS rad went from performing 2x better than SR1, to now performing worse?
Completely unbelievable. Rad performance is affected by flow rate, but no where near to that extent, and 1 rad is not going to suffer such logarithmic/catastrophic performance decrease vs another when both flows decreased, when lowest flow is still at a fairly decent flow rate of 0.8gpm.
The 2x performance seemed incredulous, and now we know why.
LOL I don't trust anyones reviews period. IIts just that my results are inline with the other reviewers results . Even if he screws up in favo ofr a one company over anothers consistantly than ya that reviewer is trash . My results I can't compare because as far as I know I am the only one in the world using a balance bar and likely the only one that knows what it is . But after I have tested a few more months I am going to gift the tech to AquaComputer .

Say what . its not the flow thur the rad . its keeping up with the heat dump at low flow. Rad is cooling the water fine thats going threw it. Its at the heat dump source were problem is flow isn't keeping up with heat dump. Thats were you see the lower efficiency . Until you can buld a 2,000psi hydralic system water cooled and make all 600 pumps /motors run exactly at the same speed with pressure drop all the way down thw loop . I am afraid it is you who doesn't understand the concept . Even thow the tested Rad was shown its restrictions . The flow was not equilized . The flow was so slow the water blocks couldn't remove the heat fast enough.

Flow threw a rad can be to high if air threw rad is low. Water threw a block if high enouch shouldn't matter in mod racing and we have to restrict water flow to keep engines cool . A poorly desighned block at high pressure high flow may not work at efficiency . alot of variables.

As above you clearly see the flow that the Aqua Rad being run at . Now you go do some water block reviews were they test at .8gpm and see if the block can keep up with the heat dump. The more efficient the water block the greater will be the heat dump build up at the block with low flow.
Edited by YOUDFDO - 6/5/12 at 3:24pm
post #153 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by YOUDFDO View Post

LOL I don't trust anyones reviews period.

And if you dont always trust reviewers, how likely do you think others are going to trust some person rambling about how good some rad is, when a reliable tester such as martin (whom others have duplicated and validated his testing on many components) has shown otherwise?

You keep believing the rad works well, happy for you. But frankly I lost permanent interest in both the rad, and the ramblings.
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6900K 4.4ghz  MSI X99A Krait Titan XP Gskill 32GB 3200 C14 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 960 Pro 1TB OS Samsung 850 pro 1TB games D5, XT45 280 rad, Nemesis 280 rad,  Windows 10 64bit 
MonitorPowerCase
Acer Predator XB271HU 144hz Seasonic Prime Titanium 850 Fractal Design R5 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6900K 4.4ghz  MSI X99A Krait Titan XP Gskill 32GB 3200 C14 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 960 Pro 1TB OS Samsung 850 pro 1TB games D5, XT45 280 rad, Nemesis 280 rad,  Windows 10 64bit 
MonitorPowerCase
Acer Predator XB271HU 144hz Seasonic Prime Titanium 850 Fractal Design R5 
  hide details  
Reply
post #154 of 279
Again were back to relyable . When it comes to watercooling unless the test is performed inside the case being used . There are NO legit water cooling reviews . Hay I have a 360 single setting here. If this site would like to do an in case review . I will send them the aqua rad like martin tested sadly mine had perfect threads . If seeing is believing than so be it . This site does nice test . here an oppertunity to test the Aqua ams . Than when its over you can apolagize to the other reviewer . I already know the incase results . If This rad isn't better than Martins review shows the site can keep the rad . That my friend is putting money were mouth is.
post #155 of 279
There is room here for both sides to be right. Personally, I have read every test Martin has done for the past few years. He is transparent, meticulous, and detailed. His results are never biased toward a certain product or brand, and I trust what he puts out.

But YOUDFDO is right about the flow thing. Martin's testing proved that the AMS did not perform as well as competition under the same pumping power. But if a certain rad, like the AMS, is only designed to excel under much higher pumping power because of its restrictiveness, then Martin's test was not designed to showcase what the rad might really be able to do, and it never would. What if you made a speed comparison between a $100,000 speed boat and a paddle boat. Clearly the $100,000 speed boat is better, right? Well, what if you made the comparison in a small river that was only 12 inches deep? Then the speed boat wouldn't be able to even run, and the paddle boat would come out better in the tests. Get it? In a 12 inch deep river...the paddle boat is better. Well, maybe in a 12 inch deep river (or low flow environment) then the AMS sucks wind. But that doesn't mean that it is worse than the competition...just that it needs more pumping power (or a deeper river) to show-off what it can do.

Now I don't know anything about the guy over at PureOC, and I'm definitely not trying to vouch for him. But there is room for both sides to be right...and move on. I trust Martin's testing procedures and his results. But I'd also love to see the AMS tested with equalized flow against the competition. If I were considering popping $200-$300 for one of their rads, I'd also be willing to drop in another pump in my loop if that is what made the AMS really shine against other rads.

Agree with opt33....lets stop rambling and move on.
post #156 of 279
I read all martins stuff . Skinnys also skinny is just down the road abit from me. If you read all Martins reviews . Than The fan test I suppose you agree with them . Puting a fan on top of a box and using smoke isn't going to tell you alot . Or doing sound test with the propellars within a 1/4" of rad . or sound testing outside the case . The one test he did on a fan I won't name it but the results were goofy . Martin came to conclusion it was faulty fan . But kept it in the review anyway. That I have a little problem with . All companies p[roduce lemons . ALL companies.
post #157 of 279
did we switch topics without me knowing about it? What fan are you talking about?
post #158 of 279

Holy crap that is awesome!

 
Gsvlip Dudyrm
(15 items)
 
Oda'maksv
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3770k @ 4.5 1.312 load Zotac Z77 ITX Wifi GTX 1070 Gaming 2126/2249 w/ Hybrid cooler TridentX 16GB 2400MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Samsung 850 Pro 1TB Seagate 2TB H105 EVGA Hybrid GPU cooler 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Asus MG279Q - 24" 144Hz 1080p Filco Majestic II w/ Cherry Reds Seasonic X 760W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Bitfelix Prodigy Logitech G400 Razer Goliath AKG A701 
AudioAudio
JDS Labs Objective 2 JDS Labs ODAC 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 750 3.99 (190x21) 1.376v Load ASUS P7P55d-E Pro GTX 670 FTW <- Poor overclocker :( 8GB (4x2GB) G.Skill DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
Samsung 830 Evo 128GB 2x 2TB  Some DVD drive OSX 10.10.4 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Asus 1080P Crap TX 750 HAF 922 G400s 
Mouse PadOther
Apple Keyboard Xbox One controler 
CPURAMHard DriveHard Drive
C2D 2,26GHz under volted @ .978v 8GB  Crucial M4 64GB SSD 500GB Scorpio Black 
OSMonitorKeyboardMouse
OS X 10.0 1280x800 Built-in Trackpad 
Audio
Built-in 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Gsvlip Dudyrm
(15 items)
 
Oda'maksv
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3770k @ 4.5 1.312 load Zotac Z77 ITX Wifi GTX 1070 Gaming 2126/2249 w/ Hybrid cooler TridentX 16GB 2400MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Samsung 850 Pro 1TB Seagate 2TB H105 EVGA Hybrid GPU cooler 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Asus MG279Q - 24" 144Hz 1080p Filco Majestic II w/ Cherry Reds Seasonic X 760W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Bitfelix Prodigy Logitech G400 Razer Goliath AKG A701 
AudioAudio
JDS Labs Objective 2 JDS Labs ODAC 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 750 3.99 (190x21) 1.376v Load ASUS P7P55d-E Pro GTX 670 FTW <- Poor overclocker :( 8GB (4x2GB) G.Skill DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
Samsung 830 Evo 128GB 2x 2TB  Some DVD drive OSX 10.10.4 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Asus 1080P Crap TX 750 HAF 922 G400s 
Mouse PadOther
Apple Keyboard Xbox One controler 
CPURAMHard DriveHard Drive
C2D 2,26GHz under volted @ .978v 8GB  Crucial M4 64GB SSD 500GB Scorpio Black 
OSMonitorKeyboardMouse
OS X 10.0 1280x800 Built-in Trackpad 
Audio
Built-in 
  hide details  
Reply
post #159 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpachris View Post

did we switch topics without me knowing about it? What fan are you talking about?

The fan maker name not important . The scewed results were. No we didn't go offtopic . Just talking testing methods . That some use that do not transfer over to real world . Testing fans outside the Box testing watercoooling outside the box . These are not good testing methods . In a true water cooling test . The rad/ blocks and the CASE all need to be tested at same time . The lian li PCX2000x case for example full of sound dampening mareials . Makes a real world differance . The three front 140 case fans are unrestricted if remove bottom drive bay . The airflow threw this case is exceptional . It makes a REAL world differance. Relying on out of the box test to make your water cooling purchase is a foolish move . as the case has alot to do with sound control and water cooling efficiency
post #160 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by YOUDFDO View Post

I am not saying that this Rad is the one rad for all . But you can not test a restrictive Rad against a none restrictive rad and run the pumps at the same setting . You want to know the true value of a rad you test both systems or all systems at the same flow rate . Just as you do the fan speeds. Air threw the rad vs. water threw the blocks same thing , So yes this test by martin is completely useless other than telling you . That ya need some good pumps . Thats the only downside to the Aqua Rad . Works the pumps hard . I can live with that . But others may not like the rads restrictive nature. Martin knows and understands flow . So I find it hard to understand Why WATER FLOW wasn't equalized. This test showed that restriction and thats all it showed..

Again, you are wrong. As far as I'm concerned, there is no label on the AMS stating that it requires a very high pumping power to run at the same level other rads do, right? So, as all the other rads in the world are tested with the same pumping power (and NOT with the same flow), so should the AMS be. So, the true value of the rad is a value nobody cares about. Why? Because nobody is going to get another pump (that, besides, adds more heat to the system) so that they win 1ºC Delta... because its totally stupid. And it's stupid because if you have the money to buy an AMS and another pump then you have the money to buy a bigger case and have double the rad surface...and get even better results. See? Results should show something realistic: aka have the same pump for all rads and present what results you are expected to show... and I'm sure that if Aquacomputer asked Martin that tests should have done with another pump he would have done it no problem, because he is the most methodical reviewer I have ever seen in my entire life wink.gif

So, no, the Aquacomputer doesn't work the pump hard. Your statement makes absolutely no sense from any logic standpoint... seriously, have you looked to any graph whatsoever????

aquacomputerams-pd2.png?w=614

At any given gpm it DOUBLES the restriction....and if you compare to some rads that aren't restrictive at all, we are talking about 6x more restriction. How is that supposed to be a good rad? And how are we supposed to normalize such bad performance when the normal thing to do is to change nothing but the rad? You are asking the same as if we were tesing cars on a race track and asked the better cars to be tested under rain so that the grip would be as bad. Seriously, no damn sense.

I'll repeat: bad flow = bad performance for any cpu block. So, not only the AMS are UBER expensive, they are poorly performing rads... and I mean it, because for the prize you pay for a 360mm copper AMS rad, you get 2 x Alphacool UT60 rads that are SUPER performing rads.

Again, you can argue whatever you want, but you are in the wrong here. The AMS have been proven to be poorly designed rads that doesn't perform as they should. They just don't, and stop looking for lame excuses when Martin's method is just top of the line. If we talk about blocks, you can argue with him that he doesn't do enough mounting and thus may add mistakes to their final data... but when talking about radiators, I can say without any doubt that his methodology is second to none, and is even better that what most designers do as per their in-house testing.

PS: what is a balance bar? I imagine It would be some sort of way to limit yourself the flow... which, IMO, is as stupid as it gets.


@cpachris: Martin is such a good reviewer that should the AMS be tested with higher pumping power, he would have stated it CLEARLY. I don't know Martin personally, but a person that does such a high professional job just for the sake of it, is somebody so unique that will make sure, on himself, to present only the data he can bet money onto it. And that includes the respect he may have for all the parties in the Watercooling hobby. Seriously: if you do something at such a high level... you do it because you feel like doing it, and there is no other intention behind it, just the pure fun and scientific evidence you leave behind it.

Again, I've never seen any other reviewer (not even the ones that get paid of it... or have ads on their sites) have such care for the data nor the results he shows. Actually, I believe Martin were one of those people that made the actual LC hobby a little less "esoteric" and bit more scientific. All of it without EVER showing even the smallest bias towards any brand... heck, he is even retiring from it, when he should be making money off of his testing... so good it is.
My System
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i5 2500k MSI P67 GD65 GTX460 1GB GTX460 1GB 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
G. Skill Ripjaws Crucial C300 Prolimatech Megahalems + 2 x GT AP15 Win 7 x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2311H Noppoo Choc mini Corsair HX620 Microcool Banchetto rev. 2.0 black aluminium 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Zowie EC1 Zowie Fiio E7 + E9 / Sennheiser HD 25 1 II 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i5 2500k MSI P67 GD65 GTX460 1GB GTX460 1GB 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
G. Skill Ripjaws Crucial C300 Prolimatech Megahalems + 2 x GT AP15 Win 7 x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2311H Noppoo Choc mini Corsair HX620 Microcool Banchetto rev. 2.0 black aluminium 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Zowie EC1 Zowie Fiio E7 + E9 / Sennheiser HD 25 1 II 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Water Cooling
Overclock.net › Forums › Cooling › Water Cooling › (56K Warning)*NEW* AQUACOMPUTER Airplex Modularity System Radiators