Introduction:

Before beginning any project, goals and objectives should be clearly defined. Otherwise a lot of money and effort can be spent without getting the desired outcomes. This is particularly true with putting together a test setup for waterblocks; performance of the top blocks is close enough to require fairly sophisticated equipment to differentiate. In my case, test results need to be of high enough quality to answer two questions:

(1) How do relatively small changes in waterblock designs affect final performance?

(2) How do a large number of waterblocks perform relative to one another?

These questions are due to the fact that ProCooling's audience is mostly serious water cooling enthusiasts and DIY/small scale waterblock builders. Accordingly, I think the ProCooling review process differs from what one will find elsewhere because of extensive discussion on how waterblock design choices affect performance.

Keep in mind that the key issue in the above questions is performance. The majority of waterblock reviews use a "system testing" approach where the same pump, radiator, and tubing are used to test different waterblocks. That may work reasonably well for that individual system, but as soon as you change any of the components (perhaps adding a GPU block or changing pump) then the relative performance of the waterblocks being tested may change (due to differences in loop resistance). Since it is unlikely that end users will have EXACTLY the same cooling loop as a reviewer, it is far more useful to determine how well the waterblock will perform in many different scenarios.

The guiding philosophy for my testing is:

1) I want to be sure I publish performance results that represent the best I could achieve with the waterblock while testing it. I have a strategy (to be described below) for discarding bad mounts and repeat testing when I get that odd "good" mount until that performance is the norm.

2) I want to make sure my results are reproducible enough to be able to test the block again in several months and get results that are statistically the same. This involves regular testing and calibration of the diode reader, going back and rerunning a standard waterblock (one I have fiddled with for many months off and on) when things look funky, and generally just being careful. With a PC being still used for testing this is HARD to accomplish.

3) I want to be certain that any issues with waterblock mounting and block usability are exposed in my testing so that consumers do not buy a waterblock that performs excellently on a die simulator but poorly (due to hassles) in real systems. This is, in fact, one of the things I worry most about when making buying recommendations to friends. You will see that the goals and my testing philosophy have a large effect on the equipment and methods I have chosen. Other testers will have different priorities and may make somewhat different choices.

Accuracy, Resolution, and Reproducibility

This is an important issue and perhaps the one least understood by the average reader of a hardware website. All measurements have error (random or otherwise), and that means that there is always some uncertainty associated with any measurement.

I deal with my need for small uncertainties in a manner that might be of interest to some of you. My water probes and CPU diode are all cross-calibrated to one another by using a water bath over a large temperature range (5 to 55C). I recorded the offsets necessary to make all three temperature probes read equally in this water bath and can adjust the raw data from all the thermometers in all my tests. This means that the YSI water temperature probes will report the same number (to 0.01C resolution) and for the CPU diode that means it will be within 0.125C of the same reading of the YSI probes (its resolution) if temperatures are the same. This makes the accuracy of the dT readings that I report MUCH better than the stated accuracy of the instruments I am using

Testing Methods

My testing methods have evolved slightly over the 6 months I have been doing waterblock testing. Fundamentally, though, the principles have remained the same. My testing is a two part process:

(1) Repeated waterblock mountings at 1.50 GPM flow rate. This testing is done to verify that my test results are reproducible and representative of the waterblock's performance when properly installed. This testing is also very useful in identifying problems with waterblock mounting and ease of use. The following procedure is used:

1. CPU and waterblock baseplate are cleaned of residual thermal paste using 99% ethanol and a lint free linen.
2. A thin layer of thermal paste is applied to CPU. I use a special "quick settling" formulation of thermal paste provided kindly by Arctic Silver.
3. Waterblock is remounted carefully, hoses are propped up so that they are perpendicular to motherboard and level, and PC is powered on.
4. Flow rate is adjusted if necessary to 1.50 GPM.
5. CPUBurn is run at high priority for 60 minutes and then temperatures are monitored for one minute. CPU diode temperature is logged using the Maxim software (2Hz sampling rate), water inlet and outlet temperatures are recorded at 10 second intervals

This procedure has been used throughout all testing, but my thoughts on how to best characterize variability and reproducibility have somewhat changed. My initial philosophy was to simply repeat the above tests 10 times and record an average and standard deviation. In principle, this works well enough. I also found it sensible to throw away anomalously bad results (1-2C higher than normal) as being due to user error in mounting. What I found in some cases, though, was that a single test run would give anomalously good results (that PERFECT mount is a bit like the fish that got away).

(2) Waterblock testing as a function of flow rate at 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2.0, 2.25, and 2.5 GPM to describe how waterblock performance changes with flow rate. Here are the test results from waterblocks we have tested here so far:

Checks on Test Results

It's a good idea to have a "standard" waterblock that you can return to in the event that there are changes in your setup or if you run into problems. In my case I use an aluminum top DTek Whitewater for this purpose. It's also possible to have some internal checks within your testing. For example, the CPU should always generate the same power at a given multiplier, FSB, and VCore. You can make an estimate of the CPU's power (in W) from the following equation:

W = [WB outlet temp (C) - WB inlet temp (C)] * flow rate (L/min) * 69.767

This number should be fairly constant across all your tests unless you change CPU frequency or voltage.

Here is a little diagram of what the test loop looks like at this moment:

It is a lot easier to see what's going on with a schematic like that than with the actual system which is a mess of wires and hose.

The results that come out of the test loop are compiled in a spreadsheet for later analysis. The difference in temperature (dT) between the CPU diode and the water inlet temperature is the main value that is reported in our waterblock reviews as this term characterizes how well that a waterblock is cooling the CPU. This dT value is affected by the flow rate of the solution and so graphs of dT vs. flow rate are required to fully describe a waterblock's performance (no single point will do it).

Digitec 5810 HT thermometers w/ YSI 700 series probes: The Digitec 5810 HTs are guaranteed 0.3C accuracy and 0.01C resolution. This isn't bad by itself, but the repeatability of their measurements is far better, and I have two 703A probes for immersion in water that read exactly 0.02C apart from one another over a large temperature range. This makes measuring dT across the waterblock or radiators (useful for calculating W) very accurate. These are fairly inexpensive thermometers (I now have 3) and it's possible to find NIB thermistors on ebay from time to time with NIST traceable certs. I am quite partial to my Digitecs because they "just work" and are very linear. The only drawback I can see with them is that there is no small diameter 700 series probe for using with a die simulator or in a waterblock baseplate. I use all three thermometers when testing: one for waterblock inlet water temperature, one for waterblock outlet water temperature, and one for radiator intake air temperature.

GPI flowmeter: I am using a Great Plains turbine style flowmeter model number xxx. It has 0.01GPM resolution and 1% accuracy from 0.5-3 GPM. This unit has been very reliable but does not have a digital or analog output for automation and it does introduce a fairly substantial pressure drop. This makes it difficult for me to generate performance numbers above 2.5 GPM in many cases.

Maxim 6655 EVSYS diode reader: For CPU diode readings I use a Maxim MAX6655 EVSYS diode reader system. This package was chosen simply because it allows me to get 0.125C resolution from the diode reader; when connecting Maxim ICs to motherboards and using MBM or Speedfan all I could manage was 1C. The MAX6655 EVSYS is a two piece system: one PCB for the 6655 diode reader and one for a SMBus to parallel port converter. I use a separate notebook PC to log diode readings from this unit

.Modified AMD 1700+ (TBredB) CPU: The CPU diode modifications are actually fairly unique in our community. I soldered copper twisted pair (from CAT5E cable) to the base of the CPU's diode pins (S-7 and U-7). The CPU used was a 1700+ TBredB (JIUHB 0320), and this rather drastic measure was taken so that I could then calibrate the complete diode/diode reader system by putting the CPU in saran wrap and dropping it into a water bath. Water temperatures were measured by both a YSI 703A probe and the MAX6655 (both inside the Saran Wrap) and a calibration curve was constructed by changing water temperature with either boiling water or ice. It was found that the CPU diode reads 0.428 C higher than the YSI 703A probe used for the waterblock inlet over a wide range of temperature. This is why 0.428C is subtracted from all raw diode readings in my testing.

Test PC: Epox 8K3A+ motherboard that has been modified so that diode pins are not connected to its onboard diode reading circuit, 128mb generic ram (at 2.8V), 12GB 5400rpm HDD, Windows XP Professional SP1, Leadtek GF3 Ti200 video card. A 40mm Sunon fan was added to stock passive HS/fan to assist in northbridge cooling. Power supply is a 350W Enermax PSU; PSU voltages are now monitored w/ maxim EVSYS.

This section is in fact undergoing a huge upgrade at the moment. I have purchased a recirculating water chiller, a Rosemount differential pressure transmitter and both a HP 5.5 digit DMM and scanner. A Fluke RTD thermometer has been donated, and a die simulator is being built as well. Most importantly, the entire test procedure is being automated with LabView. This upgrade is expected to be completed by late summer/early fall. When it is completed I should be able to more or less test 24/7 and just remount waterblocks two or three times per day. These purchases were made possible by the generosity of our forum members (you guys rock!).

A Word on Automation

Automation of test equipment and digital logging can make your live easier in several ways. First of all it's a lot more convenient to just dump instrument readings to a text file than it is to constantly monitor the display of an instrument and manually enter the readouts. It also makes it possible to collect far more points and get a more statistically meaningful average and standard deviation. One can also look at temperature changes in log files over time and determine if there was some deviation in the test setup (perhaps your central air kicked on or someone opened a window in winter) or if steady state conditions have indeed been reached. Finally, it's important to keep backups of unaltered, timestamped data logs if at all possible. Then, when some wacko calls your testing biased (hey the internet's a scary place), you can simply whip out your raw data as needed (external #2 in logs is diode temp), call them a libelous buffoon, and emerge with credibility unscathed.

If you have any comments or Questions please Email pHaestus@ProCooling.com