# Optimus Foundation CPU Block - AMD



## lorry (Feb 5, 2020)

Does anyone know of, or had an experience using their new blocks for Ryzen 3000? They make some pretty bold claims on their site, not only of the material that they use, but also the machining, electroless nickel, Spartech Cast acrylic, 6061-T6 Aluminium, MIL-A-8625 TYPE II ANODIZATION, etc. Reports of 4 - 6C less than Heat Killer IV etc, yet there seems to be a dearth of information about this product online. I know that it was going to be reviewed on here but I don't see anything? They state that their fin design and machining is generations ahead of anyone else ?









						Foundation CPU Block - AMD (AM5, AM4)
					

Optimus CPU water block for AMD Ryzen 7950x and 7000 series CPUs (Zen 4 generation, AM5 socket).




					optimuspc.com
				




There was also talk about some (majority?) blocks not being optimized at all for Ryzen 3000, as their fin area did not fully cover the positioning of the new chiplets and I/O die. I wasn't sure just how true that might be, as although the fins may not cover the entire chiplet areas, the block as a whole does and surely that is where the thermal paste / liquid metal / heat spreader come into play?









						Ryzen 3000 perfect cooling - a practical test series in search of the best water block for asymmetrical design with interesting results | Page 2 | igor'sLAB
					

The asymmetrical arrangement of the chiplets on the one side and the I/O die on the other side of the Ryzen CPUs of the third generation has it quite in itself. In a first video I had already captured…




					www.igorslab.de


----------



## Bones (Feb 5, 2020)

I'm not so sure - Any good CPU block is typically made from copper, not aluminum.
I can't say it woudn't work at all but the performance vs air at least is kinda expected. Probrably good for most typical desktop builds ran with a mild OC used for gaming, anymore would probrably be pushing things under load depending on the final setup itself.
It's just that copper is the better material to use for a block, hands down like most are.

TBH I'd have to have one in hand and try it myself to really know but that's how I see it from here based on my years of using watercooling for competitive benching.


----------



## lorry (Feb 5, 2020)

Bones said:


> I'm not so sure - Any good CPU block is typically made from copper, not aluminum.
> I can't say it woudn't work at all but the performance vs air at least is kinda expected. Probrably good for most typical desktop builds ran with a mild OC used for gaming, anymore would probrably be pushing things under load depending on the final setup itself.
> It's just that copper is the better material to use for a block, hands down like most are.
> 
> TBH I'd have to have one in hand and try it myself to really know but that's how I see it from here based on my years of using watercooling for competitive benching.



?
The cold plate is copper or electroless nickel copper, it's the bracket that is aluminium
"The Foundation block uses a 1/4" (6.3mm) CNC aluminum mounting plate, rather than stamped steel. This allows high pressure and accuracy when securing the block "


----------



## Bones (Feb 5, 2020)

Ah - That's good to hear then, it _sounded_ like the entire thing was aluminum at first.
With that it should be OK.
BTW I haven't had my coffee yet.....


----------



## lorry (Feb 5, 2020)

Bones said:


> BTW I haven't had my coffee yet.....



I've had loads and i still have no excuse, lol.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 5, 2020)

Bones said:


> I'm not so sure - Any good CPU block is typically made from copper, not aluminum.
> I can't say it woudn't work at all but the performance vs air at least is kinda expected. Probrably good for most typical desktop builds ran with a mild OC used for gaming, anymore would probrably be pushing things under load depending on the final setup itself.
> It's just that copper is the better material to use for a block, hands down like most are.
> 
> TBH I'd have to have one in hand and try it myself to really know but that's how I see it from here based on my years of using watercooling for competitive benching.



Aluminum is cheaper...


----------



## lorry (Feb 5, 2020)

eidairaman1 said:


> Aluminum is cheaper...



The block is copper, it is the bracket that is made from cnc'd alluminium


----------



## sneekypeet (Feb 5, 2020)

Hard to say...seems to good to be true.

"Reviews" or "quotes" about performance were from a forum thread, where for all we know, they got free blocks to say something nice about them.

I did not look, but until professionally reviewed, and compared head to head in a non-normalized environment,  I would take anything outside of the block descriptions and specs with a huge block if salt.


----------



## mrthanhnguyen (Feb 5, 2020)

I’m using the v2 signature for Intel and I don’t know if its much better than other blocks or not but its heavy and good.


----------



## lorry (Feb 5, 2020)

it does seem too good to be true, but maybe this is the age of 'old' champs' being usurped? First Noctua, now heat Killer?
yes i have searched and not found any review of it that looks anything halfway 'professional' and unbiased. I did see in a thread on Bitspower premium block that @VSG might have got one to review but I've not seen that in a search. The spec looks impressive but a lot of that may well be down to a good PR dept. it's a reasonably expensive part and then adding $24 shipping on top doesn't help, hence my seeing if anyone knows anything.



mrthanhnguyen said:


> I’m using the v2 signature for Intel and I don’t know if its much better than other blocks or not but its heavy and good.



yes, their Intel block looks far beefier, being made from a single piece of brass.


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 5, 2020)

Hey guys, Optimus here. Happy to answer any questions. 

Yes, we're working on reviews. The word of mouth has been really strong, so we haven't been able to make enough blocks to justify reviews just yet. 

And, yeah, big performance claims. Really, we avoided making specific claims, rather letting users who bought the blocks give their experiences. The crowd over at OCN is pretty serious. If you read through the thread, there were lots of super skeptical people who bought blocks and saw the gains. 

The reason we're able to have better performance is entirely up to surface area. Like the difference between a 120mm and 360mm radiator -- surface area matters. For blocks, it's all about the fins. It took approx 4 years to develop the fins, not easy stuff. We spent zero time on LEDs, DRGBs, whatever. Just raw performance. And reliability., which is just as big for us.


----------



## lorry (Feb 5, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> Hey guys, Optimus here. Happy to answer any questions.
> 
> Yes, we're working on reviews. The word of mouth has been really strong, so we haven't been able to make enough blocks to justify reviews just yet.
> 
> ...



Whats the turn around time now then, do you have much stock in?


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 5, 2020)

Yes, we can ship out everything (except Threadripper and GPU, those are still in the works). When we get reviews we get a lot more publicity and orders, and we want to make sure everyone can get the blocks in those situations


----------



## lorry (Feb 5, 2020)

@Optimus Water Cooling i've msg'd you

Well, I've just grabbed one, I'll let folk know of course how I get on


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Feb 5, 2020)

I think it is probably not true. Notice on their web page they do not show the actual contact patch for the CPU, there is a reason for that. 

I haven't look into much into this brand but I had many different block on my loop. Currently a HeatKiller on my GPU and a EK on my CPU. Those are 2 brands that have always been solid performs(there are also others). Before I ordered my Heatkiller for my GPU I got the new Corsair XG7 for my 2080ti just to try it out as the reviews and images were good. It was IMO junk compared to the craftsmanship and component quality of HeatKiller and EK.

Look at the EK block on https://www.ekwb.com/shop/ek-velocity-str4-d-rgb-nickel - now that is a nice contact point.


----------



## lorry (Feb 5, 2020)

That's a threadripper though ?


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Feb 5, 2020)

That wasn't my point. It was the craftsmanship and quality that I was pointing out.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Feb 5, 2020)

Is there any of these made without the acrylic top? Is there a version thats all copper??


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Feb 5, 2020)

Yes, most Block manufactures have a full coverage all copper version that is usually cheaper. But I would always suggest getting the nickel coated copper to avoid tarnished copper and mixing metals in the water.


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 5, 2020)

Our cold plates and fin areas are absolutely massive compared to typical blocks. We designed it that way to handle the increase thermals of modern CPUs. For example, our AM4 Foundation block has more fin surface area than the top Threadripper block on the market. 






The all metal block is our Signature block. It's a massive monolithic block machined out of a single piece of brass. Brass is better than copper for top blocks and tight tolerances (copper is softer but much better thermal properties). 

Our cast acrylic isn't like typical acrylic. It's the same stuff as bulletproof "glass" and giant public aquariums. It's incredibly strong and won't crack. 

After the Absolute Threadripper, we'll probably do a more expensive all-metal Signature block. Possibly with a copper finish if people really want it.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Feb 5, 2020)

No the reason for the inquire was not about the acrylic cracking at all. It's an insulator and I don't typically purchase waterblocks in this design. 

I really like the size of the cold plate. Nice and heavy. Just as any decent waterblock should be. 

The fins, well the surface area only carries to far. We know this from the many various designs through the years. 

I run a lot of Lid-Less processors (all of them actually) since AMD Phenom and AMD 6400+ AM2 days. I've always needed a nice heavy waterblock with plenty of mass. 

Not on the market to purchase a waterblock at this time, but would definitely be interested in the full copper block for my particular uses which does include TEC cooling and direct die cooling.


----------



## VSG (Feb 5, 2020)

lorry said:


> it does seem too good to be true, but maybe this is the age of 'old' champs' being usurped? First Noctua, now heat Killer?
> yes i have searched and not found any review of it that looks anything halfway 'professional' and unbiased. I did see in a thread on Bitspower premium block that @VSG might have got one to review but I've not seen that in a search. The spec looks impressive but a lot of that may well be down to a good PR dept. it's a reasonably expensive part and then adding $24 shipping on top doesn't help, hence my seeing if anyone knows anything.
> 
> 
> ...



Nothing here yet, I did email them again to see.


----------



## lorry (Feb 5, 2020)

VSG said:


> Nothing here yet, I did email them again to see.



Thanks. 
They are on this thread now, maybe ask them direct?


----------



## phill (Feb 5, 2020)

Definitely worth keeping an eye on as I love the look of the Heatkiller block in silver (I'm not such a fan of the RGB stuff just yet) so definitely looking forward to hearing all about these blocks, Threadripper ones included.  

@lorry when you receive yours through, please do let us know what you think   I need a water block for my AM4 build (currently a 3900X, would have preferred a 3950X in there but never mind...)  If these blocks are better than the current EK and Heatkiller, I'd be very interested


----------



## lorry (Feb 5, 2020)

phill said:


> Definitely worth keeping an eye on as I love the look of the Heatkiller block in silver (I'm not such a fan of the RGB stuff just yet) so definitely looking forward to hearing all about these blocks, Threadripper ones included.
> 
> @lorry when you receive yours through, please do let us know what you think   I need a water block for my AM4 build (currently a 3900X, would have preferred a 3950X in there but never mind...)  If these blocks are better than the current EK and Heatkiller, I'd be very interested



I have a 3900x myself


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 5, 2020)

FYI, VSG will be getting the review samples in a few days


----------



## VSG (Feb 5, 2020)

Haha yeah was just about to say they emailed me back promptly. Honestly, I would rather paying customers get their units before me, but there's also something to be said about making an informed decision so I am just as split about this, as no doubt they were in allocating samples.


----------



## phill (Feb 5, 2020)

I need something better since the Freezer Duo I have isn't bad but not brilliant and even the 14D I have isn't that much better on top, so custom water it needs to be....


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Feb 5, 2020)

I really like the look of this block. 
Please review a.s.a.p. @VSG would help me to decide on this one.


----------



## VSG (Feb 5, 2020)

ShrimpBrime said:


> I really like the look of this block.
> Please review a.s.a.p. @VSG would help me to decide on this one.
> 
> View attachment 144130



That looks like their AMD block, so don't hold your breath. I don't have AMD hardware here, unfortunately. The general impressions from their Intel Signature block should be valid across platforms, however.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Feb 5, 2020)

VSG said:


> That looks like their AMD block, so don't hold your breath. I don't have AMD hardware here, unfortunately. The general impressions from their Intel Signature block should be valid across platforms, however.


14nm Intel testing will be great for pretty much all Intel. However I have a 2700x and an 8700k. Both are very thermally different from each other. Wont be good for comparisons really.


----------



## VSG (Feb 5, 2020)

ShrimpBrime said:


> 14nm Intel testing will be great for pretty much all Intel. However I have a 2700x and an 8700k. Both are very thermally different from each other. Wont be good for comparisons really.



Yup, that's why I said the specific performance numbers won't directly help you, but you can see trends as well as other common features including packaging, build quality etc. In general, a company with a good cooling performance on Intel has enough data and design to have a good block on AMD too, especially with the Zen chiplet design years old now. My 9900K is also soldered, so that's another thing in common vs. the older Intel mainstream CPU flagships.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Feb 6, 2020)

I look forward to the review no matter what platform you use it for. 
I have no doubt with this design, it will do well on either platform. 
However,
For AMD, the performance really matters for the SenseMi technology vs user overclocks which you dont see with AMD beyond "tweaking" SenseMi settings and is what will be interesting while lower temps help sustain boosted clocks. 

No argument about the general idea of water cooling, the packaging and other small features like eye candy, the real claim is in the performance, please emphasize this as much as possible. 

Goal, average 5-6c lower temps.


----------



## VSG (Feb 6, 2020)

ShrimpBrime said:


> I look forward to the review no matter what platform you use it for.
> I have no doubt with this design, it will do well on either platform.
> However,
> For AMD, the performance really matters for the SenseMi technology vs user overclocks which you dont see with AMD beyond "tweaking" SenseMi settings and is what will be interesting while lower temps help sustain boosted clocks.
> ...



I would be shocked if this is multiple °C lower than any other block, but let's see. I am happy to make my judgement until after testing is done


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 6, 2020)

VSG said:


> I would be shocked if this is multiple °C lower than any other block, but let's see. I am happy to make my judgement until after testing is done


Hope to test it real soon!
But even if you find that on Intel CPUs is not offering a 5~6°C reduction, doesn't mean that this would be the case with Ryzen too. At least for 3000.
I really like the idea of the ZEN2 chiplet oriented fins of these blocks. Could make some difference...


----------



## lorry (Feb 6, 2020)

One thing I would like to know @Optimus Water Cooling  is -  how much is enough pressure and how much is too much, when tightening up the thumb nuts?


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 6, 2020)

The easy rule is the tightest you can get the thumb nuts by hand. Using tools will be too much pressure. But using max finger tightening will give perfect pressure.

In the future we want to include a torque wrench like the Threadripper one, but they're super difficult to source at a reasonable price.


----------



## lorry (Feb 6, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> The easy rule is the tightest you can get the thumb nuts by hand. Using tools will be too much pressure. But using max finger tightening will give perfect pressure.
> 
> In the future we want to include a torque wrench like the Threadripper one, but they're super difficult to source at a reasonable price.



Now that is something i would be interested in!
Any idea where you could buy one for ourselves?


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 6, 2020)

So the thumb nuts are blank, so they can't be used with a screwdriver. We've destroyed mobos using screwdrivers, it's very easy to over tighten when you can put your full weight behind it. So to prevent a bunch of returns, we're going with blank top thumb nuts for the time being. Except for our Threadripper block


----------



## lorry (Feb 6, 2020)

Those SSD heatsinks are neat


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 6, 2020)

Also, we make all our own mounting hardware, so it's not exactly standard stuff. That said, the mounting system is very simple and clean, if you wanted to mount the block the old fashioned way -- bolts and washers -- it's super easy to do. 

But we haven't done the full testing to have a recommended NM for torque drivers with the blocks on all platforms. 

Really, just tighten with fingers until you can't go any more and it'll be perfect. There is some tech design in the block that makes this work more so than other blocks.


----------



## lorry (Feb 6, 2020)

Mind you decent torque drivers worth having aren't exactly cheap either, so unless you would be using one on a regular basis not exactly cost effective


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Feb 6, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> Also, we make all our own mounting hardware, so it's not exactly standard stuff. That said, the mounting system is very simple and clean, if you wanted to mount the block the old fashioned way -- bolts and washers -- it's super easy to do.
> 
> But we haven't done the full testing to have a recommended NM for torque drivers with the blocks on all platforms.
> 
> Really, just tighten with fingers until you can't go any more and it'll be perfect. There is some tech design in the block that makes this work more so than other blocks.



If these are set up properly, the springs under the screws are to supply the correct amount of clamping force per screw. This specification will vary with screw length and diameter and also the material stainless vs non-stainless for example. 

Machine screws for example.
surface area » 40mm = 1.575" so 1.575 x 1.575 = 2.481 square inches
(0.2) X (0.138) X (125) X (2.481) / (2) = 4.28 in-lbs.

I use these examples for my Peltier cooling. Pretty accurate (enough) provides somewhere around 125 inch lbs of clamping force over the 2.481 inches squared. 
This is particularly important for me personally while running naked chips. Can't have the waterblock leaning to one side, the temps are horrible then.

Harbor Freight, 20$ 1/4" torque wrench 20-200 inch pounds made by pitsburg tools.


----------



## lorry (Feb 6, 2020)

ShrimpBrime said:


> If these are set up properly, the springs under the screws are to supply the correct amount of clamping force per screw. This specification will vary with screw length and diameter and also the material stainless vs non-stainless for example.
> 
> Machine screws for example.
> surface area » 40mm = 1.575" so 1.575 x 1.575 = 2.481 square inches
> ...



Yeah, Now I know what to look for, I can see plenty here in the UK for about £20 as well


----------



## Bones (Feb 7, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> So the thumb nuts are blank, so they can't be used with a screwdriver. We've destroyed mobos using screwdrivers, it's very easy to over tighten when you can put your full weight behind it. So to prevent a bunch of returns, we're going with blank top thumb nuts for the time being. Except for our Threadripper block
> 
> View attachment 144181


I'll be honest - I understand why you've decided to leave the thumbscrews blank on top but I also know with certain boards some of the spaces a block goes into is tight around the corners where these screws would normally be.
One reason has to do with the VRM heatsinks on some sticking out towards the CPU socket area and can make it a really tight area to work in. My Z77 OCF is an example of this, it is very hard to work the upper-left corner due to how close the mounting hole is to part of the VRM cooler's body.

I'd suggest a mounting setup with a thumbscrew going down onto a threaded hollow stud and tension springs - This way you can only run the screws down so far before it hits this machined "Stop" and with the spring underneath the screw itself it would set the downward tension on the corner of the block once it gets there.

I have a block setup with just that and it sets the correct tension everytime.
By it's design it also keeps the block level to the CPU lid's surface once all four screws are snugged in place.


----------



## lorry (Feb 7, 2020)

@Optimus Water Cooling I'm double checking here, am I right in thinking that you are saying that not even the motherboard's standard backplate is used?

Just your bolts going through the holes in the motherboard and then your back-nuts underneath, with no backing plate at all behind?


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 7, 2020)

That's correct. Sounds strange, but there is no reason for the backplate and, because motherboards these days are weird, some backplates will actually hit critical areas on the back. The area for the standoffs is part of the specification clearance areas so there is zero issue for hitting anything. Also, monoblocks and gpus work this way, it's only certain cpus that still use a backplate. The massive thread over on OCN has whole sections going back and forth about this. But the end result is that the springless simplified mounting is actually better performance.


----------



## Bones (Feb 7, 2020)

I've setup LN2 pots in similar fashion using all-thread with no backplate and it did fine.
I'll admit a pot will always be upright with the board lying flat. 

Many systems these blocks would be used for will have the board "Standing" in the case when set in, this making the block have to hang in place to an extent.

As long as you have something such as a washer to help spread out the stress from the stud being torqued it's OK.... And of course with no one going stupid with torquing them in the first place.
When I do mine I normally have a washer on both sides of the mounting hole, acting with a sandwich-effect of the board material there when these are tightened to hold.

Spreads the load out over more of the board's material so it holds better with less stress to the board itself.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Feb 7, 2020)

No back plate..... ??

Dont most boards come with a back plate from the factory? Why would there be a need to include a back plate?
And if the board comes equipped, why should there be a need to remove this?
I dont think I could mount 125 inch pounds to a board without that back plate installed.....

So what is the mounting pressure without this back plate then?
Hoping for a response this time......


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 7, 2020)

I'd need to check with the engineers to get those numbers. Though worthwhile to check this thread: https://www.overclock.net/forum/61-water-cooling/1733810-optimus-waterblock-152.html

You'll see everyone is recommending the springless solution. The Signature has optional spring/backplate setup but the overclockers over there recommend using the springless foundation setup for achieving best numbers and hitting oc records. 

Here's overclocker JPMboy using both foundation and signature to hit 5.0 on 10980XE: https://www.overclock.net/forum/5-i...9-10980xe-5-ghz-18-cores-66.html#post28318460

Yeah, these threads are insanely long, I know  The only way to damage a mobo or cpu is to use tools to overtighten and then something will break. This is true for mobos with and without backplates, like Threadripper and 20XX. In fact, it's actually easier to damage the threaded inserts on the TR socket than a AMT or 115X mobo. At least, in our recent experience


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 7, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> That's correct. Sounds strange, but there is no reason for the backplate and, because motherboards these days are weird, some backplates will actually hit critical areas on the back. The area for the standoffs is part of the specification clearance areas so there is zero issue for hitting anything. Also, monoblocks and gpus work this way, it's only certain cpus that still use a backplate. The massive thread over on OCN has whole sections going back and forth about this. But the end result is that the springless simplified mounting is actually better performance.


What is you opinion on this sir:

Backplate usage/need
1. To support the board's socket area against bending due to a large and heavy aircooler tower
2. To support the board's socket area against bending due to mounting pressure of whatever cooler
3. Both of the above

Or you can state your own opinion about this. Im interested into this.

Mind that most here are interested in a long term application for their system, and its not for like a competion for a day or two.
Mounting pressure is not going to play any role long term to board bending?
I can understand that today boards are more solid constructions than the past ones due to thicker and more copper layers and more trace layers, but still its a valid question I think.


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 7, 2020)

Good questions.

We don't see any warping with our mounting system. And backplates have all kinds of potential problems because the "keep out" area on motherboards is only around the mounting holes, not the entire area where a backplate would create contact. For example, here's a random mobo I have with tons of additional bits of different heights on the back. Many back plates will actually hit them and won't wit well. You don't want your pressure to be on any of the mobo electronics, just the PCB itself. So any backplate that isn't only touching the mounting holes is actually a bad design, because it's potentially damaging the mobo electronics. Really, you only want pressure around the mounting holes, otherwise you're inviting bigger serious problems.






Also, the distance between the holes and the socket mounts is like 20mm or 3/4" or less, so it's really not in any sort of danger area for serious warping, even if you were to go crazy on it.

So mega heavy air coolers are a different story, though they will, regardless of backplates, warp the motherboard socket area by just putting so much force across the entire top of the mobo. I've seen PCs shipped with air coolers that break free and absolutely obliterate the insides of a PC. Insane stuff.

Also, we've done tests on PCB warping and it has zero factor on motherboards. On GPUs, it's different, and warping can cause the GPU to become unstable pretty quickly.

But, overall, we've not only tested this like crazy, but the hardcore guys over at OCN have as well, going from insanely skeptical to testing and seeing great results for themselves.

All that said, AM4 motherboards are weird as well. AMD needs to redo their AM4 socket, hopefully AM5 will ditch the pins-on-CPU style and finally go with LGA like Threadripper. The AM4 socket is really bad, and causes all kinds of problems, mostly people breaking pins when removing CPU coolers (use the twist method!).

We didn't make our block compatible with the stock AM4 backplate because the backplate has standoffs that come through the mobo and are too high for applying correct pressure.

Also some AM4 mobos have massive mounting holes, which have caused some annoyance. We're including washers but will be working on a really nice custom AMD solution for mounting in the future that we'll send out to all Foundation AMD owners at no cost.


----------



## lorry (Feb 7, 2020)

This is the back of my motherboard, a Gigabyte Aorus X470 Gaming 7 wifi


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 7, 2020)

Looks good, the foundation block will work great


----------



## lorry (Feb 7, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> Looks good, the foundation block will work great



Hope so,

LMAO! just edited, as I was asking you re when mine might ship, look at my emails and saw the notify lol


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 7, 2020)

Can't No4 in the above pic, be replaced with the backplate down below?
Why the need to be replaced? Isnt the same in terms of screw hole? (sorry for bad English). Or if it isnt why didnt you make it usable with your middle section (3), so it can bolt to stock backplate (instead of 4 I mean)
Am I missing something? And the stock backplate isnt going to hurt anything to the back.
Its there to touch and support the board.






*EDIT:*


Optimus Water Cooling said:


> We didn't make our block compatible with the stock AM4 backplate because the backplate has standoffs that come through the mobo and are too high for applying correct pressure.


Sorry, just notice this...
The standoffs come through the board all the way up to the block mount hole? If it is then ok I understand


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 7, 2020)

Good question. The issue with the AM4 backplate is there are standoffs that go through the motherboard and stick up on the other side. Unfortunately, those standoffs hit our bracket. There are probably 20 pages worth of discussion about this over at OCN, and the upshot is, while it seems like using the backplate would work, it's ultimately easier to use our standard solution.

That said, we're working on a slightly modified AM4 mounting system that really is only about convenience and not performance. And we'll send that out free to anyone who wants it.


----------



## lorry (Feb 7, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> Good question. The issue with the AM4 backplate is there are standoffs that go through the motherboard and stick up on the other side. Unfortunately, those standoffs hit our bracket. There are probably 20 pages worth of discussion about this over at OCN, and the upshot is, while it seems like using the backplate would work, it's ultimately easier to use our standard solution.
> 
> That said, we're working on a slightly modified AM4 mounting system that really is only about convenience and not performance. And we'll send that out free to anyone who wants it.



I would be interested in one of those please, so if you could put my name down for one I would be grateful, thanks.

Sure my next thought will have been covered already in that thread, but couldn't a user either use washers to raise the backplate slightly, or even grind/file off the standoff enough so that it doesn't foul your bracket?


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 7, 2020)

Yup, all those solutions work, but then it's more work for no benefit. Adding washers means the pressure is simply in the same place as our thumb nuts on the back, so it would apply pressure in the same way as no back plate (which is how plastic backplates work and any backplate that doesn't make contact directly with the area on the CPU. One could modify our block brackets in any way they like, though, it's still more work for a less ideal solution than our stock mounting hardware


----------



## lorry (Feb 7, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> Yup, all those solutions work, but then it's more work for no benefit. Adding washers means the pressure is simply in the same place as our thumb nuts on the back, so it would apply pressure in the same way as no back plate (which is how plastic backplates work and any backplate that doesn't make contact directly with the area on the CPU. One could modify our block brackets in any way they like, though, it's still more work for a less ideal solution than our stock mounting hardware



Oh i wasn't thinking of modifying your bracket (haven't got the tools for that), I was thinking more about simply grinding off the protruding amount from the integral standoffs of the backplate?


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 7, 2020)

Not sure the threads are the same or there would be enough to grip onto if they were removed. 

Really though, there's zero reason to do this unless the motherboard is in a location that simply cannot be accessed from the back (like an installed server or something). Save time, use our stock mounting


----------



## lorry (Feb 7, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> Not sure the threads are the same or there would be enough to grip onto if they were removed.
> 
> Really though, there's zero reason to do this unless the motherboard is in a location that simply cannot be accessed from the back (like an installed server or something). Save time, use our stock mounting



All AMD MB come with the standard AMD backplate and therefore will have the same threading. I just don't see the point in adding extra nuts and whatever thread you use on your bolts. I would have thought that machining a small area on the underside of your mounting bracket so that the standouffs do not foul your bracket to be cheaper than adding in the extra cost of machining your own rear-side nuts?


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 7, 2020)

You make a very good point  We went that way for consistency of testing and performance. But we'll revisit if we need to in the future. Really, this is just about convenience, though easy install is important. We're working on some even more interesting types of mounting for future blocks, so we're definitely taking in all the feedback to make sure we have the best solutions going forward


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 7, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> Good question. The issue with the AM4 backplate is there are standoffs that go through the motherboard and stick up on the other side. Unfortunately, those standoffs hit our bracket. There are probably 20 pages worth of discussion about this over at OCN, and the upshot is, while it seems like using the backplate would work, it's ultimately easier to use our standard solution.
> 
> That said, we're working on a slightly modified AM4 mounting system that really is only about convenience and not performance. And we'll send that out free to anyone who wants it.


Could you not counter sink hole each hole on the back of the Am4 bracket to allow the backing bracket fitted nuts to sink into it in use.
I have bent motherboards into oblivion in the past trying to get clamp pressure right with half rubbish setups(years ago in my PC nesbitry) admittedly my fault, but even recently using full cover blocks on this rig, initially I did not fit a rear bracket by accident onto the GPU when I added metal Tim, temperature variations suffered and my GPU hotspot temp became an issue, so I fitted the spring bracket back on and the temps were better especially the hotspot indicating more even and consistent heat transfer with the clamp.
I've drilled those nut stands out of a back mount, they're hardened and stubborn shits but if I had to I would do it again, because I prefer less flex tension all round, personally.
I like the look of your wares though and will consider them in the future.


----------



## lorry (Feb 7, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> You make a very good point  We went that way for consistency of testing and performance. But we'll revisit if we need to in the future. Really, this is just about convenience, though easy install is important. We're working on some even more interesting types of mounting for future blocks, so we're definitely taking in all the feedback to make sure we have the best solutions going forward



i feel that anything that means that the MB backplate does not require to be removed advantageous. Also, for those that are more adventurous, say like @Bones that like to adapt and have the tools to do so, they should be able to mod as they wished anyway.

I understand what you are saying, but your thinking might limit your sales as well - I know that removing a backplate is hardly difficult but may put some off?
And as I said, if you used the AMD AM4 standard threading, it would lower your production costs somewhat, as there would be no need for any custom-made rear-side nuts



theoneandonlymrk said:


> Could you not counter sink hole each hole on the back of the Am4 bracket to allow the backing bracket fitted nuts to sink into it in use.



Exactly this And standard AMD AM4 threading would then make it a far easier mounting process, one that i could not see affecting your optimum mounting procedure, although there of course you are the obvious experts


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 7, 2020)

All good points  The truth is the AMD block is so popular through just word of mouth we're working crazy overtime to keep up with demand. Yes, the mounting is different but the performance is where it's at. We'll revise the mounting in future versions.


----------



## VSG (Feb 7, 2020)

I will have to concur with the others. You have the benefit of the word-of-mouth hype for now, but when the first round of customers have already purchased your blocks, then other factors will come in to compete against less-expensive alternatives. Ease of installation is high on the priority list here, as is alternatives when it comes to aesthetics and customization.


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 7, 2020)

Definitely! We're push performance-first designs to start. While also listing and already designing/building upgrades based on feedback. We definitely want to be the company that can move quickly and meet the community needs. We are a tiny company right now, so new features/changes will only get faster as we grow


----------



## lorry (Feb 7, 2020)

@Optimus Water Cooling sorry to be a pain about it but do you know what thread type and size it is that you use in your bolts please?
Just wondered, because if they are the same as the AM4, I may try and source another backplate and grind the standoffs down a little, that way the original backplate could still be used for other coolers still


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Feb 7, 2020)

Im not concerned with breaking boards with mounting hardware, but rather the actual clamping force provided with the plateless design.

Ive read a good deal of the thread, theres a lot of useless back and forth there at OCN with many opinions lacking information. So ive probably skipped some useful information there. During free time Ill continue browsing the thread.


----------



## lorry (Feb 7, 2020)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Im not concerned with breaking boards with mounting hardware, but rather the actual clamping force provided with the plateless design.
> 
> Ive read a good deal of the thread, theres a lot of useless back and forth there at OCN with many opinions lacking information. So ive probably skipped some useful information there. During free time Ill continue browsing the thread.



Thanks, as you will surely be able to follow things a lot better than I will ATM, only finished a weeks worth of treatment today and brainfog doesn't even begin to describe it

If you were able to accommodate the height of the backplates stand offs into the posts, that might then go some way towards offsetting the extra large holes that you said some of the MBs have, requiring you to make use of differently sized washers.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Feb 7, 2020)

lorry said:


> Thanks, as you will surely be able to follow things a lot better than I will ATM, only finished a weeks worth of treatment today and brainfog doesn't even begin to describe it


That sucks man. Hoping the treatments do more good than bad. 

A lot of OCN'ers seem to think rather than "know" something. A lot of back and forth dribble over the thoughts of this or that more so than any real evidence provided by any of them, I don't mean technical users, but the ones that I would call "far from extreme" and that's kinda where I land myself when it comes to cooling and some very important facts and details that may pertain to me more so than 98% of the PC population.

Where mounting pressure does make a difference, a lot of times, it's not that great or noticeable.

I mean, each time I reseat a water block, I wait at minimum 24 hours before taking the reported temps seriously. There's always push out, no matter how little. 
At this point, I always double check the mounting, especially spring-less design because of push out. I've come to considerably looser or lower over all clamping force and also un-even. Which is very important to keep an eye on for lid-less applications (where I'm 99.9% more extreme than the average user) and plays such a large role in the cooling effects of the apparatus being implemented to cool my hardwares.

Most factory mounting for my uses is quite low in clamping force that's needed for naked chips. Find useful information for me is very difficult and time consuming while there isn't a great deal out there from the lack of de-lidded chips because they are all soldered. 

So really for us to go back and forth over clamping force for chips with IHS plates isn't quite important here. I fully understand that. But it's good to give people some figures regardless.

For example, "our mounting design has an average higher clamping force of 130 inch pounds over leading competitors" for example.
Or another, "We can use a lighter clamping force because our waterblock cooling plate design is THAT efficient, this is where we can drop 5c" (I gather this is currently in use)

That's where a lot of criticism comes from I think. It's hard to make claims without  good information with numbers. I need data. It's how I am. 

So for example, the cold plate can hold X amount of BTU at X dissipation rate over X period of time. These are 3 very important figures to have and much better for people's understanding. 

I believe this water block design is top notch just simply for having some mass on that cold plate. It is important to have some BTU storage while water (with/without X amount of surface area) can only consume so much BTU at X temperature. We all know as water gets warmer, it can conduct BTU faster. That's a good thing in so many ways, but still limited to copper's BTU to water transfer time. Thus having copper mass creates a storage of BTU before dissipation increasing the cooling capability of the waterblock. 

The fin design is just an added perk. But like air, water always flows the easiest path. I sometimes wondered if surface area fin count plays a big role while having such little space between the small fins. Having even space between the sides and center with enough to have the same flow through all passes is important. You want even flow throughout the entire inside of that waterblock. This is difficult to measure, but if the fins are too close together, it cause more restriction and possible rise in temps. This is the reason on custom loops, you buy a nice big variable speed water pump. Flow matters. 

Having a claim of 5c drop in temps is going to be rather difficult in systems that use less radiator, be it the design and passes or just the number of rads and which processor, voltage used ect ect. From a marketing stand point, I'd remove this just to save face and possible BS later. 
The technical information will sell the waterblock. It just needs to be organized in Lehman's terms for the average people.


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 8, 2020)

Love the technical talk! Definitely good to get into how cooling and the industry works  



ShrimpBrime said:


> ...A lot of OCN'ers seem to think rather than "know" something. A lot of back and forth dribble over the thoughts of this or that more so than any real evidence provided by any of them...



Many of the guys over there are known overclockers or SIs who build high performance systems for business customers. And they've done some pretty extensive testing on on our blocks, on different CPUs, and the results, while variable, are very positive and very real. Some of the builders are more serious than others, but they'll post screenshots and detailed test setups so you know it's legit. Here's a link to the user benchmarking list with sources linked: https://optimuspc.com/pages/reviews

And here's a pretty clean test by user Nory:







ShrimpBrime said:


> Where mounting pressure does make a difference, a lot of times, it's not that great or noticeable.



We'll quibble here. Mounting pressure 100% makes a difference across any waterblock mating to the IHS. On our blocks especially, strong mounting pressure makes a great difference. The reason is you want the best contact between the cold plate and the IHS. And to push out the thermal paste as much as possible. The difference between weak and strong pressure with our blocks can be around 5c or so. 



ShrimpBrime said:


> For example, "our mounting design has an average higher clamping force of 130 inch pounds over leading competitors" for example.
> Or another, "We can use a lighter clamping force because our waterblock cooling plate design is THAT efficient, this is where we can drop 5c" (I gather this is currently in use)
> That's where a lot of criticism comes from I think. It's hard to make claims without  good information with numbers. I need data. It's how I am.



Clearly those aren't our quotes  So not sure who's criticizing us for making a claim like that, since we don't say anything about lighter clamping force, etc.

As for data, we love data  That's why we've listed far more information about our product than any other water cooling company. Our product pages are MASSIVE. Details about fin sizes, materials used, everything. No other company comes close to giving the details that we do. I imagine we could add heat maps and some other calculations, but there really isn't anything to compare it to. Because not sure what company (in this water cooling space) provides information like that. It's mostly about RGBs these days. 



ShrimpBrime said:


> So for example, the cold plate can hold X amount of BTU at X dissipation rate over X period of time. These are 3 very important figures to have and much better for people's understanding.



Do you have an example for that BTU metric used by cooling companies? The industry typically uses watts per meter kelvin (W/mK), like with thermal pads, higher W/mK, better thermal conductivity. Also, BTU isn't the ideal metric for measuring heat storage or heat transfer since BTU = unit of heat/energy. If you're talking about "specific heat capacity" aka the amount of heat a material can hold joule/ gram C  is the right metric.

And interestingly water is 4.19 J/gC while copper is 0.39 J/gC.



ShrimpBrime said:


> I believe this water block design is top notch just simply for having some mass on that cold plate. It is important to have some BTU storage while water (with/without X amount of surface area) can only consume so much BTU at X temperature. We all know as water gets warmer, it can conduct BTU faster. That's a good thing in so many ways, but still limited to copper's BTU to water transfer time. Thus having copper mass creates a storage of BTU before dissipation increasing the cooling capability of the waterblock.



Hmmm, this isn't how heat transfer works. Having cold plate mass -- aka big ol' thick cold plate -- will transfer heat less efficiently and is the opposite of what is desired.

You don't want copper to hold any heat, it needs to transfer the heat super fast. Otherwise your CPU would heat up and throttle instantly. 

Thus, the thinner cold plate is better. Otherwise, mega thick cold plates from back in the day would work better. And removing the IHS, which is copper, would hurt, not help, performance when it's removed. 

Instead, bare die with a thin plate with high surface area transfers the most heat away from the die. Because thicker copper acts as an insulator to the die. 

Our plates look thicker because the outside is thicker for mounting, but the insides are much thinner.



ShrimpBrime said:


> The fin design is just an added perk. But like air, water always flows the easiest path. I sometimes wondered if surface area fin count plays a big role while having such little space between the small fins. Having even space between the sides and center with enough to have the same flow through all passes is important. You want even flow throughout the entire inside of that waterblock. This is difficult to measure, but if the fins are too close together, it cause more restriction and possible rise in temps. This is the reason on custom loops, you buy a nice big variable speed water pump. Flow matters.



This is definitely way off  "fin design is just an added perk" -- nothing is farther from the truth, fins are the entire ball game  Surface area is 10000% the most important metric in cooling. That's why radiators need massive surface area. A radiator made out of a solid block of copper wouldn't do squat  Better fin area, better flow, better cooling.

Also, you make the classic mistake of assuming more fins = reduced flow rate. 

Our blocks have similar flow to other top blocks, we just have far more fins and, thus, far greater surface area. How? The total space between the fins is similar. 

And if this wasn't true, the old school waterblocks with like 4 giant fins would cool better. But this is clearly not the case. Also, we haven't come close to reaching the point where water molecules can't fit through the fins. Turbulence is interesting to think about, but that would have to do with the surface finish on the fins themselves, not the distance between them. Yes, flow matters 100%, but assuming flow and fin count are tied that closely is incorrect. 



ShrimpBrime said:


> Having a claim of 5c drop in temps is going to be rather difficult in systems that use less radiator, be it the design and passes or just the number of rads and which processor, voltage used ect ect. From a marketing stand point, I'd remove this just to save face and possible BS later.



Again, we never claimed 5c drop in every scenario. We're giving general numbers and only listing user comments from real people who have done real world testing on real systems. Like the example above on the 9900k bare die, he tested it like crazy and saw a 6c improvement. Of course, results will vary between users. Using a 15w CPU? Yeah, you're not gonna see any difference. Pushing 400w through an intel 18 core? Big difference.



ShrimpBrime said:


> The technical information will sell the waterblock. It just needs to be organized in Lehman's terms for the average people.



Definitely don't agree here  RGBs sell blocks, marketing sells blocks, cannot see how BTU numbers would mean anything to average buyers. If technical numbers sold blocks, then the industry would look really different (a lot less rainbow bright). Also, I think we've explained why our blocks work pretty well: more surface area = better performance. 

In any case, appreciate the feedback and thoughts, good to dive into this stuff


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Feb 8, 2020)

Right I see some misconception of what I mean when I use the word "example" meaning not directly or pointing fingers at lol.

Actually yes, retaining BTU before dissipation is exactly how it works. BTU doesn't transfer through any material instantly, there's a set time limit. Obviously we are not measuring it. We only measure the temps (average user = we) and therfor don't need an understanding.

It sucks being an iron worker and understanding the basic fundamentals of metals physics. The time it takes to heat a material up, is not always reflected by the amount of time it takes to cool off.

So again, we only cool a cpu in a single 2 dimensional angle. Straight up. We don't utilize water to cool all of the copper surface area, that's why waterblock developers all make water blocks that cool nearly identical to each other.

No one's thinking outside the box.



> Again, we never claimed 5c drop in every scenario.



You say it, people think it. "every scenario" need not apply.



> RGBs sell blocks


like bell bottoms, here today, gone tomorrow.... just like the massive heatsinks on old motherboards.
Big heavy and neat looking. Now they plate the PCB and shit. Just a fad for now.



> why our blocks work pretty well: more surface area = better performance.



You are taking advantage of just a tad more surface area. You are still only cooling copper on one surface of the waterblock. I have many design ideas for waterblocks that greatly differ from traditional.
On average, most cold plates are only being cooled by liquid on perhaps 30% of the potential cold plate surface area.
You can further drop temps with full metal blocks by simply cooling the remaining surface area.... with a fan.

No the extra copper doesn't help? Hmm, I'd beg to differ that statement while you are cooling maybe 1-2% more surface area than perhaps competition compared to your water block.

Metals store heat. Some can store more heat than others, some dissipate it faster than others. There's another thread here that would be of some interest while talking about an increased temperature gradient. Metals and liquids move heat faster with higher temps, your goal producing a waterblock is to lower the temps.

This is a traditional waterblock design. It's good.

I have an old school block. It's got a lot of copper. Doesn't even have fins, but I bet it weighs as much as yours (within 5%) and within 5c temps a decade plus old.




> Also, you make the classic mistake of assuming more fins = reduced flow rate.



Not assuming, knowing. There's a difference.

If there is space between the fins and the top plate, the water will take this path if it's greater than between the fins.
Water flowing through the fins will slow down from the friction against the fins.




> Instead, bare die with a thin plate with high surface area transfers the most heat away from the die. Because thicker copper acts as an insulator to the die.



I'd beg to differ and offer my lid-less PGA 2700x as proof this claim is totally false.


----------



## VSG (Feb 8, 2020)

lol your idea of cooling a block with a fan reminded me of this: https://forums.evga.com/Finally-Air-Cooled-CPU-Waterblock-m395778.aspx


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Feb 8, 2020)

VSG said:


> lol your idea of cooling a block with a fan reminded me of this: https://forums.evga.com/Finally-Air-Cooled-CPU-Waterblock-m395778.aspx



Pretty efficient design example, thank you. 

So also strengthens the point of traditional waterblock cooling.  Your only adding surface area inside a small water chamber. This does not utilize all of the copper effectively. 
Then put Acrylic on top which is an insulator, while copper is never an insulator. It will absorb the heat and most evenly disperse this heat over most other metals.

With copper on copper blocks, some heat transfer and dissipation is lost from the bottom half to the top while there is a lack of a thermal interface material, perhaps some thermal padding to increase conductivity between the two halfs, then a fan on top like the one in the link there. 

It's sad to solely rely on traditional waterblock designs. Most of them far from impressive in the sense that they are all basically the same. 
Some use this fin count, some use just a small plate, some full copper..... but all of them actually utilize a small portion of the copper to water transfer.


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 8, 2020)

Hey there, happy to discuss this, want to keep it casual and fun like liquid cooling should be  

Much of this is based on our experience. For general reference of where we're coming from, we have a background in aerospace, hydraulic and medical manufacturing with some fancy engineering degrees. 

Also, I thought it was general knowledge that more surface area is better for cooling. Bigger air coolers are better than small air coolers. Same with waterblocks. Same with radiators. Same with any kind of cooling. The entire world of cooling works with cooling like this -- PCs, cars, air conditioners, etc. 

Maybe I'm missing something your points or not understanding what's being disputed here? Any competing products you can point to that illuminate what you're talking about?



ShrimpBrime said:


> Actually yes, retaining BTU before dissipation is exactly how it works. BTU doesn't transfer through any material instantly, there's a set time limit. ...he time it takes to heat a material up, is not always reflected by the amount of time it takes to cool off.



The heat retention of a block of copper will be reached nearly immediately. A cold plate could be an inch thick, that CPU will shut itself off instantly. That's why it has to be cooled, right? More surface area cools faster.

As for the idea that holding more BTU is better, with liquid cooling blocks, it's not like a battery that trickles up with heat, holds it, then dumps the heat. The goal is to get the heat to the water as fast as possible BEFORE the copper heats up to the point of causing the CPU to shut itself off. 



ShrimpBrime said:


> So again, we only cool a cpu in a single 2 dimensional angle. Straight up. We don't utilize water to cool all of the copper surface area, that's why waterblock developers all make water blocks that cool nearly identical to each other.



2 dimensions? Fins on cold plates are 3 dimensions. CPUs are flat, we increase the surface area by going into the z axis with fins aka the 3rd dimension. 



ShrimpBrime said:


> No one's thinking outside the box.



Beg to differ 



ShrimpBrime said:


> You are taking advantage of just a tad more surface area. You are still only cooling copper on one surface of the waterblock. I have many design ideas for waterblocks that greatly differ from traditional.
> On average, most cold plates are only being cooled by liquid on perhaps 30% of the potential cold plate surface area.
> You can further drop temps with full metal blocks by simply cooling the remaining surface area.... with a fan.



Our cold plate fin surface area is 21.8 square inches. The rest of the plate is roughly 7.7in^2. So water is touching ~ 75% of the surface. 5.5in^2 touches the CPU. 

So the only area that can be cooled with a fan is 0.99in^2.



ShrimpBrime said:


> No the extra copper doesn't help? Hmm, I'd beg to differ that statement while you are cooling maybe 1-2% more surface area than perhaps competition compared to your water block.



Definitely more than 1-2%  This is our upcoming threadripper block vs the top performing current block. You'll also notice our regular CPU block has MORE surface area than the competing threadripper block shown. 








ShrimpBrime said:


> Metals store heat. Some can store more heat than others, some dissipate it faster than others. There's another thread here that would be of some interest while talking about an increased temperature gradient. Metals and liquids move heat faster with higher temps, your goal producing a waterblock is to lower the temps.



Not sure what you're advocating. Higher water temps?



ShrimpBrime said:


> I have an old school block. It's got a lot of copper. Doesn't even have fins, but I bet it weighs as much as yours (within 5%) and within 5c temps a decade plus old.



I'm not sure I understand. If your logic holds, then your old mega block with zero fins would perform better, right? I'm not sure what your liquid loop looks like now, but I'm guessing it has fins. 

It seems strange you're arguing that surface area doesn't really matter. 



ShrimpBrime said:


> Not assuming, knowing. There's a difference.
> If there is space between the fins and the top plate, the water will take this path if it's greater than between the fins.
> Water flowing through the fins will slow down from the friction against the fins.



The assumption then is there is a space between the fins and top plate. No waterblock has that space open. We definitely don't. Jet plates press down on that area.

Also, our fins are polished super smooth on the sides (impossible to see, of course) but the friction still wouldn't matter nearly enough to outweigh the massive increase in surface area from microfins. 



ShrimpBrime said:


> I'd beg to differ and offer my lid-less PGA 2700x as proof this claim is totally false.


What are you basing this on? After all, you removed the copper IHS to achieve better performance. Less copper = better.



ShrimpBrime said:


> Pretty efficient design example, thank you.
> 
> So also strengthens the point of traditional waterblock cooling.  Your only adding surface area inside a small water chamber. This does not utilize all of the copper effectively.
> Then put Acrylic on top which is an insulator, while copper is never an insulator. It will absorb the heat and most evenly disperse this heat over most other metals.
> ...



So basically you're saying to add an air cooler on top of an all copper waterblock? Yes, that would improve surface area. And surface area matters. It sounds though like you don't believe water cooling surface area matters, only air cooling surface area?


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Feb 8, 2020)

So many divided quotes, I'll refrain from picking too much here and there.

The picture is super awesome for reference to my point.

You're still cooling yet vertically. The water is on only ONE surface of the 3 dimensions see. You'd not running water over any other of the 6 in total surfaces of the cold plate.

That is what I mean by 2D cooling, you are literally using only one surface of 6 surfaces.

Hopefully this enlightens what I'm trying to point out.

_______________

I really like the cold plate size. I understand fully the accomplishment. I am not in any way trying to bash the waterblock, I'd love to have one trust me.

______________

So now the deal with surface area. I'll give you generously, a design I've always wanted to design myself, but lack the funding and resources.

A simple Cube design with Honey comb passages vs the traditional cold plate flat style with some radiator fins. This would greatly increase the surface area water to copper contact. 50mm x 50mm by 30-40mm tall with my silly imagination.

Hopefully I am not disrespecting you in any way. Not my intentions.



> What are you basing this on? After all, you removed the copper IHS to achieve better performance. Less copper = better.



On the contrary. I REPLACED the IHS plate for a larger plate. Nearly the same dimensions as yours. My TEC cooling experiences help me define what a good amount of cooper would be.

Unlike most all users, that use additional copper as well. This is called stacking. The loss and difference in performance is a lot from transfer slowed by use of solder then IHS plate, then TIM, then waterblock. It becomes a slowed down process to any amount of copper when you stack it. This is an issue with all waterblocks.

But since nobody is running naked..... It doesn't really matter. You all are stuck to using multiple plates of cooper. No way around it. So nobody is actually ever using less copper. ever.

If mass didn't matter, Aluminum would do just as well. But obviously... lacks mass/density (and conductivity although not bad considering)


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 8, 2020)

Hey no worries, happy to discuss crazy liquid cooling ideas and Optimus products, my two favorite things  

And your idea sounds cool. I'm sure the engineers/machinists just had a heart attack, seems super challenging to make!


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Feb 8, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> Hey no worries, happy to discuss crazy liquid cooling ideas and Optimus products, my two favorite things
> 
> And your idea sounds cool. I'm sure the engineers/machinists just had a heart attack, seems super challenging to make!



Hey thanks, I really appreciate that. Really do.

Not sure exactly the go about way of doing it. For a lot of my thoughts, I have all these crazy ideas and nobody to really talk to about them. In many cases, I find my self looking at nature and try to implement that into my PC cooling projects.

For example, I use tap to drain liquid cooling. No radiators pumps, fans.... just 8c water flow at the flick of a faucet. I've found it to be very economical for competitive benchmarking (It's main use).

Would it knock your socks off if I told you I'm using the stock cooler with a naked chip??


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 8, 2020)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Hey thanks, I really appreciate that. Really do.
> 
> Not sure exactly the go about way of doing it. For a lot of my thoughts, I have all these crazy ideas and nobody to really talk to about them. In many cases, I find my self looking at nature and try to implement that into my PC cooling projects.
> 
> ...



Yeah, lots of crazy ideas, no doubt we have tons that didn't turn into anything. But it's a fun hobby, always changing


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Feb 8, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> Yeah, lots of crazy ideas, no doubt we have tons that didn't turn into anything. But it's a fun hobby, always changing



Well another crazy idea was to design a cold plate where the IHS plate recessed into it, the plate just a mm or two off the PCB and line that portion with felt.

The idea is to utilize the TIM pushout and make contact to the IHS plate to cold plate surfaces on 5 sides rather than one.

That one would be super easy to do with basic machining. But you know what? All these years, water blocks are all the same. Utilizing a single side (or two rather) to transfer any of the heat from the IHS plate. So in design, you'd be needing to have additional copper to accommodate utilization of 5 surfaces to cool.

Just crazy stupid silly outrageous ideas I tell ya...... But so simple, It'd probably just might work..... but no one's tired much "outside the box thinking" through the years.

It's always this AIO fad that drives me up a wall lol.

The Optimus water block has enough copper for me to give a thumbs up without ever trying one. Love the additional increase in water to plate surface area. I'd put it against any other top block made of the same materials and don't even need to try it out


----------



## lorry (Feb 8, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> Definitely don't agree here  RGBs sell blocks, marketing sells blocks, cannot see how BTU numbers would mean anything to average buyers. If technical numbers sold blocks, then the industry would look really different (a lot less rainbow bright). Also, I think we've explained why our blocks work pretty well: more surface area = better performance.



i feel that RGB sells blocks on the mainstream manufacturers sites and general PC gear sites, however once a user moves away from those 'general purpose' sites their requirements shifts as well. Whilst RGB _added_ to a product _without_ impacting performance  is a good marketing point, it is not a 'given'. Many do not want the hassle of extra wiring / cable management, extra point of failure (raystorm anyone?). I also feel that once a user visits a specialist manufacturer's site they expect to see technical data and are put off from buying if they don't see it.

Example: unless a site show airflow And static pressure data for a fan it either gets dismissed by myself, or I will try to find out from elsewhere before I even consider placing it on a 'maybe list'.

I've sourced a generic metal AMD AM4 backplate bracket cheaply enough, to see_ if _ the threading can be used with your posts. Even if it doesn't I have a local precision engineers that are happy to accept 'beer money' jobs and get them to drill out the threads in the backplate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An interesting report that I came across BTW









						Ryzen 3000 perfect cooling - a practical test series in search of the best water block for asymmetrical design with interesting results | Page 2 | igor'sLAB
					

The asymmetrical arrangement of the chiplets on the one side and the I/O die on the other side of the Ryzen CPUs of the third generation has it quite in itself. In a first video I had already captured…




					www.igorslab.de
				




And another showing coldplate coverage


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/watercooling/comments/dwywev


----------



## AsRock (Feb 8, 2020)

lorry said:


> The block is copper, it is the bracket that is made from cnc'd alluminium



Wouldn't the bracket be better of being steel ?.


----------



## Bones (Feb 8, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> Hey no worries, happy to discuss *crazy liquid cooling ideas* and Optimus products, my two favorite things
> 
> And your idea sounds cool. I'm sure the engineers/machinists just had a heart attack, seems super challenging to make!


I've had a couple of those in my time.
Evaporative Cooling Tower - YouTube


----------



## lorry (Feb 8, 2020)

AsRock said:


> Wouldn't the bracket be better of being steel ?.



from their page "the Foundation block uses a 1/4" (6.3mm) CNC aluminum mounting plate, rather than stamped steel. This allows high pressure and accuracy when securing the block. "


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 8, 2020)

My opinion onto the block material, size, mass and surface area is that the main goal and principal is to pass heat from die to water.
Copper while is high heat transfer material is way lower than water. You don’t need high mass block but high surface area to rapidly transfer heat to water. I can agree that acrylic top is not the best and I prefer to be all copper. But in order for the top of the block to work as dissipation surface, to water(downward) and to air(upward and sideways) one must find a way to send heat up there around water chamber. Increasing the cold plate mass is no guarantee that this will work.
I mean that if the increased in mass cold plate is heated enough in order to pass heat from 4 sides towards the top, it would instantly mean less heat gradient between silicon and cold plate.

You need high temp gradient ONLY by keeping cold plate as cold as possible. That  mean in an ideal world that there would be no heat left behind by water to start passing through the 4 sides towards the top.

Given the size of the ZEN2 chiplets going lidless even making things worst from spreading heat perspective (to the 4 sides of cold plate). You have high concentration of heat right under the fins. Increasing the surface (fins) right on top of the die is the only way to go.

Using IHS will help spreading heat towards the sides of cold plate but still the best way is take that heat away, right from the cold plate before it starts soak and pass through the sides to the top. More surface (fins) on the entire IHS is the best way.

I really don’t know how much coldplate area the other blocks have for fins but if you make smaller channels but increase their number to analogy or even greater (to compensate the per channel turbulence) the flow of a block should not be affected, at least negatively.

Conclusion for me...
Thinnest possible coldplate on the IHS and high as possible channels/fins to the entire inner surface of it. Achieve inner surface fins/channels) temps closest as possible to water is ideal to keep temp gradient as high as possible for heat to transfer quickly.
TIM with the thinnest layer as possible with the highest heat transfer as possible (see liquid metal).

*EDIT:*

What I believe and state above is for "normal" applications of water cooling.
Insert a TEC between CPU and cold plate and all this need re-evaluation. Using a TEC means that the heat towards cold plate could double or even more. Then yes I agree that a special made block is a requirement. One that will use all inside and outside surface for dissipation, because size of coldplate of normal socket like AM4 is rather small to absorb and dissipate on water 250W or 450W depending the TEC in use.

Threadripper's dissipated heat to those (TEC) levels of 250~300++W while it seems like you will need that special made block I mention above, lets not forget that the IHS and cold plate size is at least doubled from AM4, so a full and dense fin/channel inner surface coldplate is the best way. Like AM4. Again using TEC is another story...

I wonder what would be the result of using a large TEC on top of AM4, and under a Theadripper block...
Mount would be an issue I presume.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Feb 8, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> My opinion onto the block material, size, mass and surface area is that the main goal and principal is to pass heat from die to water.
> Copper while is high heat transfer material is way lower than water. You don’t need high mass block but high surface area to rapidly transfer heat to water. I can agree that acrylic top is not the best and I prefer to be all copper. But in order for the top of the block to work as dissipation surface, to water(downward) and to air(upward and sideways) one must find a way to send heat up there around water chamber. Increasing the cold plate mass is no guarantee that this will work.
> I mean that if the increased in mass cold plate is heated enough in order to pass heat from 4 sides towards the top, it would instantly mean less heat gradient between silicon and cold plate.
> 
> ...



Additional surface area is good.

Will ambient water with additional surface area going to be THAT much better?
Not really. End cooling is the atmosphere. 
We are talking a few degree in temp difference between most high end water blocks.
Same thing with thermal paste. 

And result to a water loop is the ambient air temps.

Nothing else becomes impressive just for that sole reason. 

You are only considering the water block surface are and the liquid that touches it.

But theres a lot of stored BTU in the liquid which needs dissipation also.

End result still.... Atmosphere.

The AMD IHS plate hasnt changed since socket 754. The difference now is all the chips are soldered.

TEC cooling is different. We are not trying to remove a heat but rather apply it. 

Still rely on capability to cool the TEC. This phase change process is still the same , must remove BTU in order to phase change. A good heavy water block on the hot side of the TEC is required.


----------



## PolRoger (Feb 8, 2020)

I was in the market for a new AMD block as I was needing another one for an additional Ryzen 3000 series setup. Performance PC was running a Superbowl discount code over the weekend and I stumbled across the "new to me" Optimus water-cooling blocks on Monday. I decided to try one out and placed an order for one which ended up going to back-order status. Additional stock came in and PPC shipped the order out on Wednesday and it arrived in the mail today. 

I'll probably match this new block up to a 3950X and ASRock X570 Taichi. I'm not quite sure about the radiator size? It will be either a thick 420, a thick 360 or a thin 400? I may have to swap some parts around... The other water blocks on my Ryzen setups are an older original Raystorm and a more recent Alphacool Eisblock XPX and a Corsair XC7. I also have some various older blocks from previous pc generations but they are not with AM4 compatible mounts.


----------



## lorry (Feb 8, 2020)

Looks great!

Do let us all know how you get on Please!

Bit of fun
lapping a 3970x


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 9, 2020)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Additional surface area is good.
> 
> Will ambient water with additional surface area going to be THAT much better?
> Not really. End cooling is the atmosphere.
> ...


Yes, in conventional cooling the end is the atmosphere/ambient. And the goal is to have coldplate as close as possible to ambient temp. High surfaced coldplate but thin as possible, high water flow and high surfaced radiator with fast fans to keep water with less stored heat as possible. 1+1=2 its that simple...


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Feb 9, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Yes, in conventional cooling the end is the atmosphere/ambient. And the goal is to have coldplate as close as possible to ambient temp. High surfaced coldplate but thin as possible, high water flow and high surfaced radiator with fast fans to keep water with less stored heat as possible. 1+1=2 its that simple...



Interesting.

So really it's not about the water block so much as it is getting the water delta lowered as much as possible.

I better understand how ambient water cooling works now!!!

The water block matters less than people expect and thus why AIO coolers are so popular at the given price range.

Thanks for that incite, I never thought about it that way before.


----------



## PolRoger (Feb 9, 2020)

I mounted the AMD Foundation block to a previous test bed system yesterday. I swapped out an older Swiftech Apogee XT water block for the new Optimus block. Flushed the system, mounted the block and refilled with fresh distilled water. Radiator is a Phobya Xtreme 400 (thin) along with a Swiftech MCP655 pump.


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 9, 2020)

PolRoger said:


> I mounted the AMD Foundation block to a previous test bed system yesterday. I swapped out an older Swiftech Apogee XT water block for the new Optimus block. Flushed the system, mounted the block and refilled with fresh distilled water. Radiator is a Phobya Xtreme 400 (thin) along with a Swiftech MCP655 pump.



Love the CorkBench, definitely pro level, no time here for cases  

How do those numbers compare to previous results?


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 9, 2020)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Interesting.
> 
> So really it's not about the water block so much as it is getting the water delta lowered as much as possible.
> 
> ...


Keeping water/ambient delta lower instantly means water/silicon delta high = higher gradient = higher heat transfer between silicon and water. The problem is to preserve low water temp because of the low gradient between water and ambient. You need a rad long enough, with the right surface and fans to keep water as close as possible to ambient on its exit.

But for sure this is not all of it. Everything is important. Block, flow, rad and the forsaken by many... TIM.

Heat by nature wants to travel to material with less heat and be equalized. Temp delta is one of the factors for this “movement“. The other is the thermal conductivity of the materials.

Heat is transfered through a material from point A(one side) to B(other side).
A=70C to B=30C
This will transfer heat by X amount depending on the thermal conductivity and surface between sides.

Reducing delta of A and B by half (20C instead of 40C) but change the material with one with doubled conductivity and same surface will result the same heat transfer.

This is why when I change my old normal paste with liquid metal my water temp got up by ~2 degrees but CPU temp has drop by ~3C. Fan speed the same. Increasing fan speed drop water by 1C and CPU temp another 2C.

To keep reducing CPU temp now I need a better block(higher water surface), and larger rad. To increase heat transfer from IHS to water, and then from water to ambient to keep it as low as possible.


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 9, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> To keep reducing CPU temp now I need a better block(higher water surface)...



*raising hand emoji*


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Feb 10, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Keeping water/ambient delta lower instantly means water/silicon delta high = higher gradient = higher heat transfer between silicon and water. The problem is to preserve low water temp because of the low gradient between water and ambient. You need a rad long enough, with the right surface and fans to keep water as close as possible to ambient on its exit.
> 
> But for sure this is not all of it. Everything is important. Block, flow, rad and the forsaken by many... TIM.
> 
> ...



20c? No I'm around 8c water Delta. It's pretty constant. I don't see 2c swings from evening to evening. Great for testing purposes. 

My atmosphere reliant liquid cooling system is null and void for my uses. 

All my AMD rigs clock the same on Air, liquid ambient, and liquid chilled, and TEC chilled. I was able to find the greatest reduction in processor leakage going with much colder and pretty consistent temps.
The same thermal paste was used in all the testing.
Tested 3 cold plate sizes on naked chips, with and without the IHS plate. Very different outcomes.

2c drop in any temps to me is nothing. Let me adjust my furnace by 4f. I don't care what waterblock or TIM you guys use really. There's really no stable figures here. 
Dude in canada is 10c cooler in temps then the identical system build in Texas lol. 

Anyhoot. It's fun. I love liquid cooling. Bucket of Ice water and my Apogee block kick some ass lol. 

I gotta go. 
You guys stay sharp!! 
Be well and take care of each other.


----------



## lorry (Feb 10, 2020)

This is slightly related, in that it is about hard tubing. An interesting tool is used here and I don't know if any of you have considered it, it is a Harbor Freight "DRILL MASTER" 2 Inch Mini Bench Top Cut-Off Saw, for cutting tubes properly and it only costs $35 / £35


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 10, 2020)

ShrimpBrime said:


> 20c? No I'm around 8c water Delta. It's pretty constant. I don't see 2c swings from evening to evening. Great for testing purposes.
> 
> My atmosphere reliant liquid cooling system is null and void for my uses.
> 
> ...


Well that 40C/20C delta was just for reference to express my understanding and knowledge of heat dissipation and extraction.
And talking about the 2~3C reduction was also into the explanation of how things work. Wasnt stating my "achievement"... cause there isnt any!
I hope you didnt miss the point.
Using TEC in between CPU and block its not all that different exept for the temps produced by the cold/hot sides, or by using a bucket of ice to dip the rad. The principles are exactly the same. Using sub ambient temp cooling is just for increasing deltas... increasing heat transfer.



lorry said:


> This is slightly related, in that it is about hard tubing. An interesting tool is used here and I don't know if any of you have considered it, it is a Harbor Freight "DRILL MASTER" 2 Inch Mini Bench Top Cut-Off Saw, for cutting tubes properly and it only costs $35 / £35


I've been watching Paul since the biginning of this project... So wierd case...


----------



## lorry (Feb 10, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> I've been watching Paul since the biginning of this project... So wierd case...




it is, not sure why he agreed to use it?

*Elaborating on how lower temperatures can improve voltage tolerance.*


----------



## VSG (Feb 10, 2020)

Look at what we have here


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 10, 2020)

Intel blocks, yes?
When will you build a Ry-ZEN2 test bench?


----------



## lorry (Feb 10, 2020)

he goes through what you have just been discussing @Zach_01



VSG said:


> Look at what we have here



They don't look very 'zen' like


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 10, 2020)

lorry said:


> *Elaborating on how lower temperatures can improve voltage tolerance.*


Oh this is even better than last one about degradation.
One should all watch and especially the ZEN2 overclockers


----------



## VSG (Feb 10, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Intel blocks, yes?
> When will you build a Ry-ZEN2 test bench?



When someone gives me the hardware for that, can't afford to buy new stuff myself all the time


----------



## PolRoger (Feb 10, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> Love the CorkBench, definitely pro level, no time here for cases
> 
> How do those numbers compare to previous results?



Most of my setups are run open bench style down in my basement computer room (my wife dislikes the cluttered "man-cave" with spare parts/boxes all about on shelves etc.). Her computer is in regular mid sized ATX tower and I also have a mini-ITX cube box running upstairs in the kitchen/family room.

I'll have to do more testing regarding the temps between various setups.

Before installing the Optimus block I was running this 3900X/ASRock X570 Taichi combo with a stock Prism cooler at 3.8GHz all core and 1.1v fixed vcore. While running WCG...  The full load temps were running middle to upper 60's C. while default PBO ran too hot... ~ mid to upper 80's C.

Previous screen shot was running the two (200mm) fans on the Phobya 400 rad with 5v adapters. Here is a default PBO and DOCP memory settings (bumped up to 3333 from 3200) and LLC set to full/max droop. The 200mm fans are also running full speed 12v (~900RPM).

PBO Temp/Voltage/Power WCG load:






PBO effective clocks WCG load:







The quality of the Optimus block and mounting hardware is very nice but I think the mounting process for AMD board is currently  a little "fiddly"...

My criticism relates to the fact that I think you all are using the same mounting posts (#3) in the supplied mounting diagram for both Intel 115X and AMD AM4.

I believe that Intel 115X motherboards have smaller holes when the bottom bracket is removed while AM4 motherboard have larger holes. The bracket posts seems like they were designed for Intel 115X as the collar of the mounting stud/post is too small for the larger AM4 holes. That collar and or bottom threaded portion of the stud needs to be of a larger diameter so the post doesn't fit loosely in the larger AM4 holes. I did utilize the included plastic washer on the top side of the motherboard holes. The provided bottom nuts (#4) are large enough in diameter and smoothly finished that I chose not to install plastic washers on the bottom side of the motherboard.

I think if I were running an Intel Optimus Foundation block on a an 115X motherboard... I believe your current mounting solution would work fine.


----------



## lorry (Feb 10, 2020)

PolRoger said:


> The quality of the Optimus block and mounting hardware is very nice but I think the mounting process for AMD board is currently  a little "fiddly"...
> 
> My criticism relates to the fact that I think you all are using the same mounting posts (#3) in the supplied mounting diagram for both Intel 115X and AMD AM4.
> 
> ...




Would something like electrical tape be a work-around for that?
Shouldn't need to be done I know, but...


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 10, 2020)

And, yes, the AMD mounting isn't as convenient, we're working on an update.

Really, once mounted, the performance is identical. Because the pressure applied is then on the back thumb nuts and on the IHS itself, the pressure isn't on the standoff.

So really unless one is having trouble mounting the block (like in some super heavy case or server or something), there isn't any need to get modding the mounting. The current mounting will provide excellent performance, just not as easily as it could be


----------



## lorry (Feb 10, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> And, yes, the AMD mounting isn't as convenient, we're working on an update.
> 
> Really, once mounted, the performance is identical. Because the pressure applied is then on the back thumb nuts and on the IHS itself, the pressure isn't on the standoff.
> 
> So really unless one is having trouble mounting the block (like in some super heavy case or server or something), there isn't any need to get modding the mounting. The current mounting will provide excellent performance, just not as easily as it could be



Why go to all the effort of producing a new high quality product and then finish it off with suboptimum parts though? That now smacks of 'cheapening' the products and your company by reusing a part that wasn't designed for it's intended use here.
Surely that defeats your efforts in trying to put out a top of the line product that will get talked about by word of mouth?
(I would also suggest adding some written instructions to the pictures as well for the future line-ups, helps to promote a higher image of the company)


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 10, 2020)

I'd say a little perspective would be helpful because the AMD mounting discussion is really blown way out of proportion 

First, the Foundation AMD block with the included mounting hardware proved to be the best block in the world, and not by a little (mileage will vary, of course). 

Also, while the mounting isn't as user friendly as it theoretically could be, it is, in my opinion, far easier than mounting systems with tons of little parts and washers and springs that are just a pain to make work. 

Plus, our mounting just performs better than the classic spring/backplate design  

VSG might be able to speak to this eventually. 

So we're making constant improvements as we go along and get feedback. I'd say we're way faster than most anyone else for responding and addressing concerns. But here, there is absolutely zero reason not to use the included mounting system in its stock configuration. This was discussed at crazy lengths over at OCN in that massive thread around 1600 posts now. Switching to anything else (like another brands' mounting) would be a step back for performance, though might be easier to assemble. 

At the same time, this is one of those things where we're a tiny company compared to everyone else (or to the world, lol). There is just one engineer/machinist mastermind who develops everything, and that will be the way it is going forward. We don't have an army of people to work on this stuff. So if we revise mounting hardware, that takes away from releasing the Threadripper and GPU blocks. 

Again, this is an issue with zero performance repercussions and is purely about ease of assembly. 

So we're trying hard to keep up with changes, new products and actual manufacturing. We'd like to get even faster, but overall I think we're doing pretty good 

Also, here are the instructions included with blocks:


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 10, 2020)

PolRoger said:


> PBO Temp/Voltage/Power WCG load:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thats great results, and I'm talking about the temperature, and clock of 4150+MHz.
I can see the CPU is hitting almost all stock PBO limits of PPT:142/TDC:95/EDC:140 and that is because of your sub-70°C temp. Not often to see this. Because of relatively low temps the silicon manager is pushing CPU to the registered limits. Low temps give more headroom for all the limits but they stop at their factory sets.
Have you consider releasing them? It will give you potential more clock. And this is still within the stock silicon parameters.

May I suggest a few settings to try?

1. Just limits release (this may increase clocks marginally)
PPT: 147W
TDC:100A
EDC: 145A
PBOscalar: Auto

2. EDC capping (this will give more clocking)
PPT: 145W
TDC:100A
EDC: 130A (feel free to reduce it more)
PBOscalar: Auto

3. EDC capping and clock/voltage preservation (this certainly will give better clocking)
PPT: 145W
TDC:100A
EDC: 130A (feel free to reduce it more)
PBOscalar: X2 (Auto is X1, X2 mean longer and sustained clock and voltage. May increase temp a few degrees = 3~4C)

Nothing of this will have any dangerous outcome for the CPU, as you still relay on the internal silicon manager to adjust clock and voltage, known also as FIT (Silicon FITness controller).
This has nothing to do with manual/static OC which is disabling FIT.


----------



## PolRoger (Feb 10, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> Thats great results, and I'm talking about the temperature, and clock of 4150+MHz.
> I can see the CPU is hitting almost all stock PBO limits of PPT:142/TDC:95/EDC:140 and that is because of your sub-70°C temp. Not often to see this. Because of relatively low temps the silicon manager is pushing CPU to the registered limits. Low temps give more headroom for all the limits but they stop at their factory sets.
> Have you consider releasing them? It will give you potential more clock. And this is still within the stock silicon parameters.
> 
> ...



Here is #1 PBO with PPT/TDC/EDC adjustments made via Ryzen Master and memory speed set to 3600C16...
Cinebench R20:






 Currently... I'm not really sure that I understand how EDC capping in #2 and #3 can improve PBO clocks?


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 11, 2020)

PolRoger said:


> Here is #1 PBO with PPT/TDC/EDC adjustments made via Ryzen Master and memory speed set to 3600C16...
> Cinebench R20:
> 
> 
> ...


Ok, the shot shows that you hit the EDC limit of 145A but, did this improve anything from previous stock condition? Is that 7459 ->> 7517 a gain out of this?
Do you have values of PPT/TDC/EDC running R20 with stock PBO settings?

To capture the R20 run into screenshot the best possible way, do the following if you like.
Open HWiNFO window in a way that are visible all "Core X VID", "Core X effective clock" including the "Average Eff Clock", CPU temps (Tctl/Tdie and CCDs) and the PPT/TDC/EDC values(W/A) and limits(%).
Open R20 in a way that you can see the "reset values" button (Clock down right) of HW.
Start the R20 run and wait for squares to start filling. When the first batch of squares appears wait 2 secs and hit the clock to reset values and time. Your CPU will finish in about 38~40sec from start. Without doing anything else wait until the HW clock reads 33~34sec and while HW window is the active one of all, take the shot with Ctrl+PrtScr. Paste it into Paint and save...
This way you will capture only the (during) workload values and nothing else.
You can do exactly the same with stock settings and the #1/2/3 I suggested for direct comparison of core voltages, clocks, effective clocks, temps, and PBO limits. Only this way you will understand better how your CPU behaves under different PBO settings and it will answer (partially) your question about how EDC reduction works. R20 scores can be very inconsistent and its not easy to draw conclusions from that alone.

About your question...
Silicon FITness controller constantly monitoring the CPU parameters and adjusting boost algorithm, of course in conjunction with temp, BUT... its job also is to keep certain factors tamed like current (EDC) and power (PPT). Higher temp result to high current which "kills" high clock and voltage. High current is the most stressfull condition for the silicon that is keeping it from auto clock/voltage higher. Your temps are maybe the best I've seen so far with so high clocks and with these levels of power draw and current. *Your water block and the entire loop is working well I assume.* What TIM are you using?

I cant really tell you how this works, cause I lack the technical definitions and terminology of these matters but out of testing of my own EDC reduction has made headroom for clock and voltage.
This video is very informative about current











...and see for your self

Stock PBO, regular TIM (red boxed points of interest)




Stock PBO, Liquid metal




Stock PBO for limits, PBO scalar X2, Liquid metal




EDC capped, PPT +7, PBO scalar X2, Liquid metal



EDC capped, PPT +7, PBO scalar X3, Liquid metal



-----------------
*If you just use PBO scalar (X2/3) without cap EDC but instead released as PPT, you will only raise current and eventually temp which will result in lowering clock.*


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 11, 2020)

@Optimus Water Cooling ussend @ShrimpBrime an AMD block for testing


----------



## PolRoger (Feb 11, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> About your question...
> Silicon FITness controller constantly monitoring the CPU parameters and adjusting boost algorithm, of course in conjunction with temp, BUT... its job also is to keep certain factors tamed like current (EDC) and power (PPT). Higher temp result to high current which "kills" high clock and voltage. High current is the most stressful condition for the silicon that is keeping it from auto clock/voltage higher. Your temps are maybe the best I've seen so far with so high clocks and with these levels of power draw and current. *Your water block and the entire loop is working well I assume.* What TIM are you using?
> 
> I cant really tell you how this works, cause I lack the technical definitions and terminology of these matters but out of testing of my own EDC reduction has made headroom for clock and voltage.



A lot to think about as well as explore with some further PBO parameter testing. For running with longer term continuous full core loads (WCG)... I prefer using a static per/CCX overclock with a lower fixed vcore voltage. I tend to achieve better load temps @ ~4100/4150MHz vs. having PBO and the Silicon FITness controller parameters settle clock speeds down to ~4000/4100(+)MHz. Of course no additional core boosting with that method.

I'm using the previous version of Artic MX-4 not the newer revised 2019 edition. 

I ran another CB R20 with further changes to PBO settings (#3) and will post a screen shot to Lorry's "Trying to understanding Ryzen 3000 boost speed variations" thread. We seem to be getting off-topic from the original AMD Foundation block heading.


----------



## lorry (Feb 11, 2020)

I have no problems with that @PolRoger either way, as it is all inter-linked in my way of thinking, but I know that others may not think so.
This is All new to me so Any learning for me is good, but i can see why others may want to keep topics more 'streamlined'


----------



## lorry (Feb 15, 2020)

An interesting report here






						Dotting For Better Ryzen 3000 Thermals?
					

Enough of our users on the forum have reported better temps with the "3 dots" method. Do a better job than I did for the video though. Even though "looks wise" I rolled about a 3 on that paste job, that pase job allowed the 3800x to boost up to 4525 on the ASRock X570 Creator. I enabled XMP, set...




					level1techs.com
				




Arrived



http://imgur.com/gnGsVNa




http://imgur.com/kSuGPXl


With the Noctua NH DI-15S  I applied the Kryonaut as they suggested, covering the die and it does pretty good as far as I can tell, so,

Do the same with the block or 1 dot, or 3 as level one is now suggesting @Optimus Water Cooling   ?


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 15, 2020)

Awesome!

For applications, we recommend going as thin as possible with the paste. The easiest way to do that is using the spatula spread method. It's really hard to say what kind of performance changes you'll see based on your current method. The multi-dot methods seem...suspicious, at least for liquid cooling. Because those air coolers are not at all at the same level of quality or accuracy as our blocks. There are many other factors involved, including a big mechanical difference between heat pipe cold plate and a microfin ultra thin cold plate. 

But if you do some testing, let us know how it goes


----------



## lorry (Feb 15, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> Awesome!
> 
> For applications, we recommend going as thin as possible with the paste. The easiest way to do that is using the spatula spread method. It's really hard to say what kind of performance changes you'll see based on your current method. The multi-dot methods seem...suspicious, at least for liquid cooling. Because those air coolers are not at all at the same level of quality or accuracy as our blocks. There are many other factors involved, including a big mechanical difference between heat pipe cold plate and a microfin ultra thin cold plate.
> 
> But if you do some testing, let us know how it goes



I actually used the cover the entire heatshield method using a spatula, as Noctua suggests.
I was wondering though about what various folk (bearded hardware etc) have said about the AMD heatshield, that being that they really need lapping, as it sinks in from the corners


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 15, 2020)

We have ways to compensate for the AMD IHS. And our block on the stock IHS is better than our block on a lapped IHS. 

In the future (AM5?) AMD should make some improvements to their IHS design and socket mount. Fingers crossed.


----------



## lorry (Feb 15, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> We have ways to compensate for the AMD IHS. And our block on the stock IHS is better than our block on a lapped IHS.
> 
> In the future (AM5?) AMD should make some improvements to their IHS design and socket mount. Fingers crossed.



Eh? How does that fit in with your 'worlds flattest cold plate' though?  If the AMD IHS is concave and your coldplate is flat then surely there is less contact?
Or am I missing something? Explain please if you will, as I'm a bit lost, thanks


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 15, 2020)

Yes, so the cold plate is the world's flattest and smoothest when it's machined. So the surface smoothness is measured in microinches, which is super super small. 

Then, the final block assembly adds a bow to the cold plate with pressure to make it match the IHS. Without the IHS bow, the contact wouldn't be ideal. 

So really the idea of a super smooth cold plate is about achieving that perfect mirror finish on a raw copper cold plate, as opposed to cold plates with machine marks or ones that aren't perfectly smooth. Better contact = better thermal transfer.


----------



## lorry (Feb 15, 2020)

I will be honest, I at first thought that was BS, so I checked.
I placed it onto a sheet of glass, if I lightly press on one edge of the top it will lift on the opposite edge
You can the bow here -



http://imgur.com/ti3RKzE


But tell me, it seems that the bow looks to be greater across the shorter sides of the bracket than the longer sides. How come please?

That point should be in your advertising, otherwise some might lap their IHS thinking that they are doing the right thing


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 15, 2020)

The bow is defined by the center jet slot area. Because the die areas on CPUs aren't uniform square, they're all a rectangle shape, though they have a different shape depending on the cpu and generation. The rectangular bow on our blocks helps match the shape of the IHS bows. Nothing is exact, though, until Intel/AMD decide to release bare die cpus


----------



## lorry (Feb 15, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> The bow is defined by the center jet slot area. Because the die areas on CPUs aren't uniform square, they're all a rectangle shape, though they have a different shape depending on the cpu and generation. The rectangular bow on our blocks helps match the shape of the IHS bows. Nothing is exact, though, until Intel/AMD decide to release bare die cpus



Heh, fair point. Thought I was seeing things when I first realised that the bow wasn't equal.
Still feel that should be included though in your advertising on the page, as I don't recall any other block having that feature?


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 21, 2020)

@Optimus Water Cooling, I wonder if this slight curvature of block surface is related with the mount system, not using a backplate.
We already know the bow surface is helping with AMD’s IHS specificity, but is it also the mount system without backplate in that direction?


----------



## INSTG8R (Feb 21, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> @Optimus Water Cooling, I wonder if this slight curvature of block surface is related with the mount system, not using a backplate.
> We already know the bow surface is helping with AMD’s IHS specificity, but is it also the mount system without backplate in that direction?


It’s pretty  normal Aqua Computer supplies 2 different O Rings one for more bow


----------



## ThrashZone (Feb 21, 2020)

lorry said:


> Heh, fair point. Thought I was seeing things when I first realised that the bow wasn't equal.
> Still feel that should be included though in your advertising on the page, as I don't recall any other block having that feature?


Hi,
Foundations Intel or amd have the same pressure points that create the bow it's more like a barrel not a ball because it only has two pressure points not four 
If it had four two would be crushing the cooling fins




Hi,
I guess i should add the opposing pressure points to alter the barrel bow would be the actual cpu shoulders 
That's why tightening can be tricky 
Too much pressure and you'll flatten the cold plate entirely creating a hollow area in the center of the chip because the center of the cold plate is now not making contact with the chip.


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 21, 2020)

Hey Thrash, good thoughts, but the block actually works differently  

TIGHTENING: Tightening is actually easy -- just go as tight as possible. 
CONTACT AREA: you'll have better contact the tighter it goes, because there is conforming between the IHS and the cold plate. If you do a thermal paste test, you'll see this is the case. 
FINS: won't ever get crushed, they can't because they're on the same surface plane as the whole cold plate, not raised like on a skived cold plate
PRESSURE POINTS: There aren't just two pressure points, It makes contact across the entire center plateau. Once it makes contact with the IHS, there is flex

Don't want anyone to get confused here


----------



## lorry (Feb 21, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> Hey Thrash, good thoughts, but the block actually works differently
> 
> TIGHTENING: Tightening is actually easy -- just go as tight as possible.
> CONTACT AREA: you'll have better contact the tighter it goes, because there is conforming between the IHS and the cold plate. If you do a thermal paste test, you'll see this is the case.
> ...



I still do not get why you do not include a back plate though, I must be missing something for sure.
I understand what you say about the stock plate and it protruding past the mounting holes, but why not then something similar to the Noctua backplate which is flat, so would add strength and spread the pressure over a far greater area?

Picture here, ignore their mounting brackets though, I mean Just their backing plate



http://imgur.com/nTCCuOY


----------



## ThrashZone (Feb 21, 2020)

Hi,
Unfortunately bow is useless if it's flatted by the top by over tightening.
Proven everytime I see o-rings with fin markings


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 21, 2020)

FINS: You'll notice there are also fin marks on the foundation o-ring as well. If we did a full size gasket, there would be fin marks across the whole thing. Everything is not as rigid as one imagines. 

BOW: So the bow is real and works well  From the simple fact that both blocks have world's best performance. If the bow was useless, then the performance would be terrible, but it's not  There is more mechanically going on, it's not as simple as it may seem from the beginning. 

BACKPLATE: We're always about making future improvements. As VSG showed, our non-backplate mounting has the best performance in the world right now. This conversation is similar to the whole spring vs no spring conversation, which now VSG has proven that springs aren't as good. So performance and reliability are our first priorities. Any risk of not using a backplate is wildly overblown with zero (as far as I can tell) real world examples of any adverse negatives. Backplates like AMD's are part of their OG aircooler setup. And just like springs, just because everyone still uses springs doesn't mean it's the best solution, we're all about doing the right thing not following the industry trends because that's just what everyone has done  

Also, we're a tiny company and only been around 6 mos, so knocking out a custom backplate is easier said than done  The people waiting on Threadripper and GPUs will kill me lol


----------



## lorry (Feb 21, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> Also, we're a tiny company and only been around 6 mos, so knocking out a custom backplate is easier said than done  The people waiting on Threadripper and GPUs will kill me lol



Fair point, I just wondered as I saw the Noctua backplate and wondered if it was worth getting?


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 21, 2020)

lorry said:


> Fair point, I just wondered as I saw the Noctua backplate and wondered if it was worth getting?


You can definitely get it, but not a big diff either way I imagine. VSG also tested the backplate with springs design (in the Sig review) and showed it performed worse. We'll revisit the backplate in the future, really do some deep testing to see if any performance can be pulled from it, but right now, it's hard to argue with the ~4-6c improvement many are seeing on Ryzen


----------



## lorry (Feb 21, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> You can definitely get it, but not a big diff either way I imagine. VSG also tested the backplate with springs design (in the Sig review) and showed it performed worse. We'll revisit the backplate in the future, really do some deep testing to see if any performance can be pulled from it, but right now, it's hard to argue with the ~4-6c improvement many are seeing on Ryzen



I was thinking more from peace of mind than anything else really. Wasn't expecting to see any performance increase at all, all about spreading the pressure over a larger area than anything else.


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 21, 2020)

lorry said:


> I was thinking more from peace of mind than anything else really. Wasn't expecting to see any performance increase at all, all about spreading the pressure over a larger area than anything else.


It makes logical sense. But our blocks are counter intuitive, we basically reevaluated every part of liquid cooling. There's just so much legacy tech and design, it's crazy. Like springs, molex (instead of sata) pumps, etc.


----------



## heky (Feb 21, 2020)

So where can we see the temperature gains on Ryzen 2nd gen? Really interested to see the 4-6° improvement you speak of...Also, a waterblock mounting system without springs is nothing new...not bashing, just saying, its been done many times before.


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 21, 2020)

heky said:


> So where can we see the temperature gains on Ryzen 2nd gen? Really interested to see the 4-6° improvement you speak of...Also, a waterblock mounting system without springs is nothing new...not bashing, just saying, its been done many times before.



Here are a bunch of the user reviews with links: https://optimuspc.com/products/foundation-cpu-block-amd

We'll be having professional reviews soon. But those users sure didn't pull any punches, lol, they thrashed the blocks hard. 

For mounting, you're correct, of course! It's more about where the industry is now and the expectation that everything should have springs and backplates because that's how 99% of blocks and coolers ship today.


----------



## heky (Feb 21, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> It's more about where the industry is now and the expectation that everything should have springs and backplates because that's how 99% of blocks and coolers ship today.


Sure, but i think there is a good reason for that. For example, how do you compensate for the difference in PCB thicknesses of different motherboards (4 layers is not the same as 8) and for de-lided cpus? (Or is my thinking completely wrong)


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Feb 21, 2020)

heky said:


> Sure, but i think there is a good reason for that. For example, how do you compensate for the difference in PCB thicknesses of different motherboards (4 layers is not the same as 8) and for de-lided cpus? (Or is my thinking completely wrong)


Good points. WIth ours there aren't hard stops on the mounting, meaning pressure can be applied to any IHS/die height. The mounting systems with stops have the issues you're describing and it's nearly impossible to account for everything. And springs then apply their own force, though almost always the springs get compressed all the way, thus becoming hard annoying thumb nuts. 
Really, springs are useful for basic applications. But when going for precision mounting, the way springs can buckle or slip bend is just not ideal.


----------



## JesseL (Feb 24, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> I'd say a little perspective would be helpful because the AMD mounting discussion is really blown way out of proportion
> 
> First, the Foundation AMD block with the included mounting hardware proved to be the best block in the world, and not by a little (mileage will vary, of course).
> 
> ...




@Optimus Water Cooling  I just got the Fouundation AMD block and am wondering what's the ETA on the improved mounting system?  I'm getting 4 6-32 socket head cap screws so I can use the original backing plate. I'll put 1/4 inch of heat shrink on the screws to act as indexing spacers in the slots on the water block. The heat shrink will hold washers captive too. I don' think I'll need the improved version.


----------



## lorry (Feb 24, 2020)

JesseL said:


> @Optimus Water Cooling  I just got the Fouundation AMD block and am wondering what's the ETA on the improved mounting system?  I'm getting 4 6-32 socket head cap screws so I can use the original backing plate. I'll put 1/4 inch of heat shrink on the screws to act as indexing spacers in the slots on the water block. The heat shrink will hold washers captive too. I don' think I'll need the improved version.



Noctua look like they do a AM4 backplate for their fan that would fit



http://imgur.com/nTCCuOY


----------



## JesseL (Feb 25, 2020)

Test fit!

I should have said this is an MSI X570 Godlike and the backing plate has 6-32 threads in it.   Anyway, I put SS 6-32 x 1"  socket head cap screws in through the original back plate from the back, and on the front used 6-32 nickel plated brass acorn nuts with SS washers.

Very simple, fits tight in the waterblock slots without any heat shrink . Socket head cap screws can be put through the water block from the front if preferred with original backplate.

I can tighten the acorn nuts with a 1/4 drive socket and it would be about the same torque as the knurled nuts that came with the waterblock.

I'm happy!

The M-4 threads on the original nuts at the same torque as the 6-32 would have more clamping force because the M-4 threads are higher threads/length. M-4 is like shifting down a gear from 6-32. Not sure if that will be an issue or not. I'd think not.


----------



## lorry (Feb 25, 2020)

JesseL said:


> Test fit!
> 
> I should have said this is an MSI X570 Godlike and the backing plate has 6-32 threads in it.   Anyway, I put SS 6-32 x 1"  socket head cap screws in through the original back plate from the back, and on the front used 6-32 nickel plated brass acorn nuts with SS washers.
> 
> ...



I'm wondering if you live in the USA, as you quote your thread sizes not in metric and I wonder if the threading is only an MSI thing or universal?
I believe that @Optimus Water Cooling stated that the AM4 block was M3.5 not M4 ?
For giggles, I ordered a couple of AM4 stock backplates and both of those use a M3.5 thread. Interestingly they came with different standoff lengths, one being a good 2mm longer than the other but I will try a set of SS cap screws and acorn nuts.


----------



## JesseL (Feb 25, 2020)

Yes I'm in the USA. The MSI backplate threads are 6-32. 

I think the Optimus double ended fastener is M4 on the block side, and M3 on the motherboard side. It measures 3.95 mm x 2.91mm.

If the back plate is threaded, and the socket head cap screws bottom out in the acorn nuts, the screws will simply back out of the threads in the back plate. In this case the socket head cap screw is acting like a piece of all-thread.


----------



## lorry (Feb 25, 2020)

JesseL said:


> Yes I'm in the USA. The MSI backplate threads are 6-32.
> 
> I think the Optimus double ended fastener is M4 on the block side, and M3 on the motherboard side. It measures 3.95 mm x 2.91mm.
> 
> If the back plate is threaded, and the socket head cap screws bottom out in the acorn nuts, the screws will simply back out of the threads in the back plate. In this case the socket head cap screw is acting like a piece of all-thread.



My backplate is M3.5 but I am in the UK, so possibly the MB manufacturers use 6-32 for US boards and metric for the rest of the world?

Ideally though you do not want the acorn (or dome nuts are they are mostly known as over here) to bottom out, because if the socket head screws back out then there surely will be enough play for the potential for them to loosen back the other way and loose mounting pressure.

Might have been better to use nylon locking nuts rather than dome/acorn? I know they wouldn't look as nice but it's thermal performance that is the first consideration, not looks surely?


----------



## JesseL (Feb 25, 2020)

I'll use loctite on the threads.


----------



## lorry (Feb 25, 2020)

Yes I am considering doing the same. isn't there a heat version of Loctite for that?


----------



## JesseL (Feb 25, 2020)

I've used a lot of loctite blue on engines and never had that amount of heat bother it. There might be a specialty version I'm not sure. 

The best setup might be the screw head on the waterblock side and nylon insert locknuts on the screws where they stick out of the backing plate threads. You wouldn't tighten the locknuts until the waterblock is clamped down, then locknuts would hold everything tight.


----------



## lorry (Feb 25, 2020)

JesseL said:


> I've used a lot of loctite blue on engines and never had that amount of heat bother it. There might be a specialty version I'm not sure.
> 
> The best setup might be the screw head on the waterblock side and nylon insert locknuts on the screws where they stick out of the backing plate threads. You wouldn't tighten the locknuts until the waterblock is clamped down, then locknuts would hold everything tight.



That Might be the best way to go, IF there was enough space on the reverse side, those MB standoffs aren't all That high though, 6mm or 1/4 inch being the standard height (M3 x 6+6).
Although I know that you can get different height sized standoffs which would alleviate that problem, might be worth investing in them as a just in case?

In the UK this would be the sort of thing you might need to do, they do from 4mm up to 30mm standoffs






						Standoffs, Standoff Screws, Threaded Spacers | RS
					

Shop our range of Threaded Standoffs supplies & accessories. Free Next Day Delivery. Browse our latest Threaded Standoffs offers.




					uk.rs-online.com
				




Just had a thought! They would be quite handy to allow cable routing as well !


----------



## JesseL (Feb 25, 2020)

The case I'm using has a big opening on the back side of the CPU area of the motherboard. It's a BeQuiet 900 rev2.    It's not really a case for a bling setup, I didn't know that when I bought it, but it's turning out to have a pretty clean look anyway.


----------



## lorry (Feb 25, 2020)

\yes the Thermaltake view 7 that i Will be using for my build has the same, come to think of it, most cases do These days so forget my previous thoughts then, cept that idea re cable routing, lol!


----------



## terroralpha (Feb 26, 2020)

i saw their prices. f**king insane. modern amd CPUs don't need NASA grade cooling. my gaming rig has an OC 3900X cooled by an EK supremacy evo, which was like $50. works fine. i used this same block on a 7960X, worked fine there too. my current workstation, the 7960X replacement, has a threadripper 3960X, using PBO with raised power limits (drawing 350W vs 280W stock). it's cooled by a $80 XSPC waterblock. again, works perfectly fine.

i don't know how many people they think will shell out $135 per block. if i was going for aesthetics , i'd go for watercool. no matter how i look at these blocks, they just don't appeal to me.


----------



## lorry (Feb 26, 2020)

terroralpha said:


> i saw their prices. f**king insane. modern amd CPUs don't need NASA grade cooling. my gaming rig has an OC 3900X cooled by an EK supremacy evo, which was like $50. works fine. i used this same block on a 7960X, worked fine there too. my current workstation, the 7960X replacement, has a threadripper 3960X, using PBO with raised power limits (drawing 350W vs 280W stock). it's cooled by a $80 XSPC waterblock. again, works perfectly fine.
> 
> i don't know how many people they think will shell out $135 per block. if i was going for aesthetics , i'd go for watercool. no matter how i look at these blocks, they just don't appeal to me.



watercool? Got a link?


----------



## phill (Feb 26, 2020)

Well that was a heck of a quick read and catch up on this thread!!  

I'm currently considering an air cooler for my 3900X or to go out and grab some new water cooling parts cos, I'd like to think that would be the better way forward..  Considering a decent air cooler (to replace my 14D that's just sat on top of the CPU right now) is going to be about the £80 mark at best, CPU blocks are getting to be close to that or a little cheaper depending on what you prefer 

I need to do a little saving up first and then I can try and get some parts.  I have a case in mind for this project which I've had for ages and not used so, it's about time I got things in gear and got it sorted and up and running!!  

The block does look nice and is one on my possible list   All the results seem pretty decent in the thread as well, so I'm eager to try I think


----------



## lorry (Feb 26, 2020)

phill said:


> Well that was a heck of a quick read and catch up on this thread!!
> 
> I'm currently considering an air cooler for my 3900X or to go out and grab some new water cooling parts cos, I'd like to think that would be the better way forward..  Considering a decent air cooler (to replace my 14D that's just sat on top of the CPU right now) is going to be about the £80 mark at best, CPU blocks are getting to be close to that or a little cheaper depending on what you prefer
> 
> ...



Which case out of interest?


----------



## phill (Feb 26, 2020)

Oh I bought it back in 2016 I think...  It's a Thermaltake WP100 I think the model is, it's one of the knock offs that look like a Caselabs case that costs a 1/4 of the price  

Time for some 560mm rads in there I was thinking.....


----------



## lorry (Feb 26, 2020)

Looks a bit of a beast


----------



## phill (Feb 26, 2020)

lorry said:


> Looks a bit of a beast


It is, funnily enough when Isabelle was 4 years old, I had a picture with her sat in the main part of the case    I just hope I have enough cooling capacity.....


----------



## lorry (Feb 26, 2020)

What can it fit? You mentioned a 560, so I'm sure that whatever you throw at it will fit in it


----------



## phill (Feb 26, 2020)

lorry said:


> What can it fit? You mentioned a 560, so I'm sure that whatever you throw at it will fit in it


I'll be putting a few things in my project link if you'd like to take a look sometime, link is in my signature


----------



## lorry (Feb 27, 2020)

Just so that no one else makes the same Costly mistake that I have made, AM4 backplate thread size is NOT M3.5. As in it is a 3.5mm diameter thread, but Not a standard metric pitch, seems to be 6/32 thread


----------



## terroralpha (Feb 27, 2020)

lorry said:


> watercool? Got a link?


oh wow, if you don't know about watercool and their "heatkiller" series then you've been missing out. they are consistently rated as the best performing blocks on the market by every review i've seen 









						CPU Kühler
					






					shop.watercool.de


----------



## lorry (Feb 27, 2020)

terroralpha said:


> oh wow, if you don't know about watercool and their "heatkiller" series then you've been missing out. they are consistently rated as the best performing blocks on the market by every review i've seen
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh yeah know heat killer, just wasn't aware that was its full name



terroralpha said:


> oh wow, if you don't know about watercool and their "heatkiller" series then you've been missing out. they are consistently rated as the best performing blocks on the market by every review i've seen
> 
> 
> 
> ...



if what is being said about the latest Optimus blocks, then they won't be saying that about heatkiller in the future.
If you don't know that one check out threads on here and elsewhere


----------



## lorry (Feb 28, 2020)

See that EK are now adding a bow to their coldplate as well now.
Looks to be the next 'in' thing


----------



## heky (Feb 29, 2020)

lorry said:


> See that EK are now adding a bow to their coldplate as well now.
> Looks to be the next 'in' thing


FYI, EK (and others) have been doing it years before Optimus even existed. Its nothing new.


----------



## lorry (Feb 29, 2020)

Yet reviewers are only now mentioning it. Either the makers need to up their marketing, inform reviewers, or something then, as I've Not seen that mentioned on any site before, I could have missed it I guess but on Every makers site that does that?


----------



## PolRoger (Mar 1, 2020)

Hey "lorry"

You posted that your block arrived back on Feb 15th...

Have you had a chance to mount/test your AMD Foundation block yet? Any thoughts/results as compared to what you were previously running?


----------



## lorry (Mar 1, 2020)

PolRoger said:


> Hey "lorry"
> 
> You posted that your block arrived back on Feb 15th...
> 
> Have you had a chance to mount/test your AMD Foundation block yet? Any thoughts/results as compared to what you were previously running?



I've not as yet mate, nor will I for a while sadly. 
Had some personal shyt come up that needs attention first. 
About as bad a timing as it can get, new case, new block, can't touch for now.


----------



## ThrashZone (Mar 1, 2020)

Hi,
Too bad I've really grown into my Intel foundation so I'm sure when ever you get a chance you'll enjoy yours too.

3950x listed for 699.99 locally too


----------



## JesseL (Mar 12, 2020)

It's running!

Some were concerned that the Optimus block restricts flow, I don't see that as a problem at all. I have the whole pump curve under 45%. At 100% CPU load the pump runs about 2180rpm, the CPU runs 71C, and the water out of the block runs 30C. I could turn the pump down even more.

I can see the actual flow from the waterblock in the internal tube of the upper water cylinder. It's very low flow as I type this. The water in that internal tube is T_SEN1 on the no load screenshot below;


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Mar 12, 2020)

JesseL said:


> It's running!
> 
> Some were concerned that the Optimus block restricts flow, I don't see that as a problem at all. I have the whole pump curve under 45%. At 100% CPU load the pump runs about 2180rpm, the CPU runs 71C, and the water out of the block runs 30C. I could turn the pump down even more.
> 
> I can see the actual flow from the waterblock in the internal tube of the upper water cylinder. It's very low flow as I type this. The water in that internal tube is T_SEN1 on the no load screenshot below;



Right on! Nice looking build there as well, cool to see our reservoir with clear coolant, really clean  And, yeah, restriction isn't as big a deal as some would think. After all, the numbers speak for themselves


----------



## JesseL (Mar 12, 2020)

If I can cool a R9 3950X at under 2200 pump RPM during a 100% CPU stress test and the water out of the block is 40 degrees less than the CPU, there's not a restriction problem. I'm in an industry were we use various water to water and water to air cooling systems and hi velocity is not a proper cure for cooling problems. We've cut down impeller diameters to slow down flow to improve retention time and cooling.

We started with the pump curve topped at around 80% and dropped it to 45% during stress tests without the CPU temp going up at all. It's always run 70-72C.

The pump will run 4740 rpm!


----------



## Robot Menace (Apr 25, 2020)

I'm waiting for my Foundation AMD block to be shipped but seeing as I'm currently furloughed I have plenty of time to run before and after tests for those wanting the comparison. If anyone has specific tests they want running please let me know.

The (what I think are) relevant parts of the system I'm using for this are a 3950x running on an X570 Aorus Master, an XT45 360 rad with NF-F12s in push, EK Kinetic D5 res-pump combo, and most importantly an Eisblock XPX CPU block.


----------



## terroralpha (Apr 25, 2020)

JesseL said:


> If I can cool a R9 3950X at under 2200 pump RPM during a 100% CPU stress test and the water out of the block is 40 degrees less than the CPU, there's not a restriction problem. I'm in an industry were we use various water to water and water to air cooling systems and hi velocity is not a proper cure for cooling problems. We've cut down impeller diameters to slow down flow to improve retention time and cooling.
> 
> We started with the pump curve topped at around 80% and dropped it to 45% during stress tests without the CPU temp going up at all. It's always run 70-72C.
> 
> The pump will run 4740 rpm!


Judging by the max RPM, I’m guessing it’s a D5 or DDC pump. If you have to run the pump faster than that, then you have a problem. I’m running my D5 pump at around 2000RPM. The water goes through two 360mm rads, a threadripper block, an RTX 2080ti block, and (this will sound crazy) but a block that cools my intel X550-T2. All are middle of the road water blocks. Nothing fancy here. See system specs for exact parts. 

I had to put a block on that NIC because the factory intel cooler can’t keep it cool for longer than 5 minutes of continuous use (go figure).


----------



## lorry (Apr 26, 2020)

FINALLY!
Had an annoying few months when nothing was going right, least of all the swap over of cases and getting the Optimus block and co. up and running!
Did try my mounting method and it was as fiddly as hell, If your bolts were just 5mm or so longer i could have used the Noctua backplate for sure, as doesn't have any threaded ports through to the top of the PCB.
Anyway I did end up using your mounting and as I said if you wanted to you could include a backplate and just simply your bolts 5mm or so longer @Optimus Water Cooling
Not the best of pics, sorry



http://imgur.com/ctUHYGG


here's the lows n highs 69C high and a low of 33, but the water never went above 25C ? Is that how it's meant to be or is something AWOL? 
EC_TEMP1 is the water temp after just exiting the pump then entering the block



http://imgur.com/3ITXUct


And this is when under full load



http://imgur.com/G8VdwKq


Totally new to water cooling, in fact this is my very first build using it, so if I'm messing something up, Please let me know

Oh and @Optimus Water Cooling  can I suggest that you look at the positioning of the holes on the bracket please?
I had to slightly loosen the back nut a fraction to allow the block to slip over the bolts



http://imgur.com/fL8VXZw


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 26, 2020)

lorry said:


> here's the lows n highs 69C high and a low of 33



That is similar to my Raystorm Pro numbers with a 240.  Not sure about my water temp.  What are your ambients?


----------



## Cranky5150 (Apr 26, 2020)

Looks like the install on that block was a nightmare !


----------



## lorry (Apr 26, 2020)

moproblems99 said:


> That is similar to my Raystorm Pro numbers with a 240.  Not sure about my water temp.  What are your ambients?



about 23C



Cranky5150 said:


> Looks like the install on that block was a nightmare !



Using their mounting bolts it was quite a straightforward procedure, just a tight fit, needs a bit more tolerance to my mind


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 26, 2020)

So my ambient is about 25-26c and my avg high is 68c and my peak max is 72-74c.

What do you have for a rad?


----------



## lorry (Apr 26, 2020)

moproblems99 said:


> So my ambient is about 25-26c and my avg high is 68c and my peak max is 72-74c.
> 
> What do you have for a rad?



believe it or not an Alphacool NexXxoS XT45 Full Copper 420mm Radiator V.2 and a EKWB EK-Quantum Kinetic TBE 200 D5 PWM D-RGB Pump Reservoir - Plexi with a 250 tube (205mm)


----------



## Cranky5150 (Apr 26, 2020)

For a first time setup, that a nice bit of kit Mate !


----------



## lorry (Apr 26, 2020)

Cranky5150 said:


> For a first time setup, that a nice bit of kit Mate !



Tankee! I've built before, but decades ago now, nothing like this of course. Still got Masses to learn, @Zach_01 has helped me a fair bit, as have others.


----------



## Cranky5150 (Apr 26, 2020)

LOL I hear ya mate! I just did my first hard tube build a couple of months ago. I was so scared to do it but it worked out well  1


----------



## lorry (Apr 26, 2020)

Cranky5150 said:


> LOL I hear ya mate! I just did my first hard tube build a couple of months ago. I was so scared to do it but it worked out well  1



That will be my next target, although for that I'll want to WC the GPU as well. Flexible is good but hard just looks way better, want to get these temps down somewhat though first.
I like fairgrounds, lol



http://imgur.com/2xrNtqg


----------



## Cranky5150 (Apr 26, 2020)

lorry said:


> That will be my next target, although for that I'll want to WC the GPU as well. Flexible is good but hard just looks way better, want to get these temps down somewhat though first.
> I like fairgrounds, lol
> 
> 
> ...




Absolutely i agree! I love soft tube for the simplicity of ease of installation, changing components etc..  But, yes rigid tube looks way nicer !


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Apr 26, 2020)

lorry said:


> This is slightly related, in that it is about hard tubing. An interesting tool is used here and I don't know if any of you have considered it, it is a Harbor Freight "DRILL MASTER" 2 Inch Mini Bench Top Cut-Off Saw, for cutting tubes properly and it only costs $35 / £35



This is what i ended up buying for my first hard line build last week. Soooo much better and faster than using a hack saw. I used frosted acrylic tubing for mine.


----------



## lorry (Apr 26, 2020)

If I could get the lines to look like hard tubing I would, but you need so many angled adapters and to my way of thinking, each adapter is a potential point of failure you are adding into the equation


----------



## Cranky5150 (Apr 26, 2020)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> This is what i ended up buying for my first hard line build last week. Soooo much better and faster than using a hack saw. I used frosted acrylic tubing for mine.



Yeas i have seen that and for acrylic tube its a great tool to use. I used PETG for my first build so mu cutter worked fine.



lorry said:


> If I could get the lines to look like hard tubing I would, but you need so many angled adapters and to my way of thinking, each adapter is a potential point of failure you are adding into the equation



Yes, way too many adapters for soft tube is a waste of cost and time IMO. When your ready to try Rigid tube look me up for advice and ideas mate.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Apr 26, 2020)

That a custom PSU shroud? @lorry


----------



## lorry (Apr 26, 2020)

oxrufiioxo said:


> That a custom PSU shroud? @lorry



Well spotted! Cut it out of aluminium, two bends  to form the basic shape (pretty much copied the idea from my cooler master H500M), then used that expanding Gorilla glue to seal the diagonal seam, sanded it down and then sprayed it. Had to cut it a bit afterwards as various cable routes changed a bit though



http://imgur.com/6QVs4i2




Cranky5150 said:


> Yes, way too many adapters for soft tube is a waste of cost and time IMO. When your ready to try Rigid tube look me up for advice and ideas mate.



Will do, thanks. Won't be for a little while though as I'll need to save for the GPU block and that's not going to be cheap I know, around £100 plus most likely


----------



## Bavor (May 8, 2020)

lorry said:


> And this is when under full load
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/G8VdwKq



What do you mean by full load?  What program(s) are you using to create the full load?  I'm asking because I noticed differences in temperatures on my 3950X depending on the software used to create 100% CPU load.  For example, Prime 95, Intel Burn Test, Encoding 4K 60 FPS video, 3D rendering, etc... all produce different temperatures at 100% CPU usage.


----------



## lorry (May 8, 2020)

Bavor said:


> What do you mean by full load?  What program(s) are you using to create the full load?  I'm asking because I noticed differences in temperatures on my 3950X depending on the software used to create 100% CPU load.  For example, Prime 95, Intel Burn Test, Encoding 4K 60 FPS video, 3D rendering, etc... all produce different temperatures at 100% CPU usage.



Pretty sure that was Prime95, as that was what I was using that day I think


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (May 12, 2020)

lorry said:


> That will be my next target, although for that I'll want to WC the GPU as well. Flexible is good but hard just looks way better, want to get these temps down somewhat though first.
> I like fairgrounds, lol
> 
> 
> ...



Great build!! Glad it worked out for you  And those temps are pretty dang good


----------



## Bavor (Jun 17, 2020)

I did a comparison of the Optimus Foundation AM4 block to the Corsair XC7 RGB CPU block in the same system.  

When I built my open loop, the Optimus Foundation AM4 block I ordered was on back order.  I wasn't going to wait an unknown amount of time for the CPU block to arrive to wait to finish the loop since it was the last part I ordered, so, I bought a Corsair XC7 RGB CPU block to use until the Optimus CPU block arrived.  I figured I could resell the Corsair CPU block later.

My Optimus Foundation AM4 block arrived recently.  Since I now have the two CPU blocks available, I decided to compare them in the same system.  My open loop has EKWB quick disconnect fittings for the GPU blocks and CPU block.  That way I can remove components to add NVMe SSDs, reach wiring connectors, or change components without draining the loop.  It also makes it easy to fill the new parts with coolant when I swap parts.  

The loop consists of a Corsair XD5 RGB pump/res combo, EKWB EK-CoolStream XE 360 360mm 60mm thick radiator with six 120mm fans in push pull, EKWB EK-CoolStream CE 280 280mm 45mm thick radiator with 2 140mm fans, and 2 GPU water blocks.  GPUs were idle during the test.  I use EKWB ZMT 10/16 tubing for the loop.  I use EK Cryofuel Clear coolant.  The system is in a Fractal Design Define R6 case with the front door open.

The rest of the system:
CPU: AMD Ryzen R9 3950X
Motherboard: MSI MEG ACE X570
RAM: 64GB DDR4 3600 MHz Corsair Vengance RGB PRO
GPUs: 2x EVGA RTX 2080 Super with EKWB GPU blocks

I ran Intel Burn Test, Prime 95 small FFT, and AIDA64 for over 20 minutes each with the Corsair CPU block installed and a fixed pump speed and fan speed.  I recorded the temperatures in an Excel spreadsheet.  Then I removed the Corsair block, swapped the tubing and fittings onto the Optimus block, and filled the optimums block and attached tubing with new coolant.  I installed the Optimus Foundation AM4 block and tightened the thumb nuts by hand as tight as I could with my fingers, per their instructions earlier in this thread.  After installing the Optimus Foundation AM4 block and making sure I had no air bubbles in the block by having the pump run at full speed as I moved the system around in various positions then I also varied the pump speed high and low with the system sitting on the desk.  

I ran the same test for the same time period with the same fixed pump speed(3700 RPM) and same fixed fan speed(1800 RPM for 120mm fans and 1600 RPM for 140mm fans).  Room temperature was controlled with the home central air conditioning system and a digital thermometer on my desk monitored ambient air temperatures.  I used the same thermal paste(Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut) for both blocks.  

These are my results:






Temperatures are in degrees Celsius. 

I thought that maybe the Optimus AM4 block has higher flow resistance than the Corsair block and requires more coolant flow, so I set the pump to the maximum speed and ran the tests again.  However, there was no difference in results.  I expected a larger temperature difference between the two CPU blocks considering the design differences between the two blocks.


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Jun 18, 2020)

Bavor said:


> I did a comparison of the Optimus Foundation AM4 block to the Corsair XC7 RGB CPU block in the same system...



Hey there, sounds like a good system  And nice testing, love the accounting for variables!

So, yes, you should be seeing a pretty big difference between blocks. First, did you do any OC? I believe you can push it even harder and then you'll see a larger spread between blocks. Like really go nuts. If it's not OC and just stock, then your numbers make more sense. 

As for other potential causes, people have reported that not all AMD CPUs are made the same. Some have mad TIM, some have wonky IHS, etc. Also, we've seen some damaged CPUs because of AMD's bad socket design. A lot of factors. 

All that said, we can typically find the culprit. Please send pis of your system so we can get some eyes on it.


----------



## Bavor (Jun 19, 2020)

I tried a 4.25 GHz all core overclock with the Optimus block and the CPU drew just under 220 watts running AIDA64 stability test before it hits the thermal limit. With Prime 95 it hits 286 watts and also hits the the thermal limit.

I tried a video format conversion in Handbrake converting a .ts file to H.265(the .ts file used for the handbrake benchmark on the Anandtech forums) and the CPU hit the thermal limit, yet the coolant temperature peaked at 31.6C at the end of the process.  As soon as handbrake was finished, the CPU temperature dropped rapidly down to 45C.






That is with all fans at 100% and the pump at 3700 RPM. I tried the maximum RPM on the pump and it didn't make a difference in temperatures.

I'm going to take the block off and check the thermal paste spread then remount the block.

I have to charge my camera battery so that I can get good pictures.


----------



## lorry (Jun 19, 2020)

Bavor said:


> I tried a 4.25 GHz all core overclock with the Optimus block and the CPU drew just under 220 watts running AIDA64 stability test before it hits the thermal limit. With Prime 95 it hits 286 watts and also hits the the thermal limit.
> 
> I tried a video format conversion in Handbrake converting a .ts file to H.265(the .ts file used for the handbrake benchmark on the Anandtech forums) and the CPU hit the thermal limit, yet the coolant temperature peaked at 31.6C at the end of the process.  As soon as handbrake was finished, the CPU temperature dropped rapidly down to 45C.
> 
> ...



Can I suggest that you split the pictures up as well, currently they are unreadable even when zoomed 300%


----------



## Bavor (Jun 19, 2020)

lorry said:


> Can I suggest that you split the pictures up as well, currently they are unreadable even when zoomed 300%



Its one picture, a screenshot of a two monitor desktop.  When I click on the picture and the magnifying glass in the upper right, its readable.  I assumed others can read it also.  Next time I'll do screenshots of the individual windows.


----------



## lorry (Jun 19, 2020)

Bavor said:


> Its one picture, a screenshot of a two monitor desktop.  When I click on the picture and the magnifying glass in the upper right, its readable.  I assumed others can read it also.  Next time I'll do screenshots of the individual windows.



DOH!
DO you know I never noticed that!
I'd make a great witness, Not


----------



## Bavor (Jun 20, 2020)

Optimus Water Cooling said:


> All that said, we can typically find the culprit. Please send pis of your system so we can get some eyes on it.



I can't find the charger for my camera batteries, so I had to resort to cell phone pictures.

Here is the thermal paste spread on the CPU:





I forgot to take a picture of the CPU block before cleaning the old paste off of it, but it was an even spread of paste in the shape of the CPU.

Once I put the top radiator back in it was difficult to get a picture that showed the top mounting nuts.  I tightened all 4 nuts in a crisscross pattern turning each one a few turns at a time the same way you would tighten the lug nuts on a car wheel that had 4 lug nuts.





Here is the system in the Define R6 case:





I removed one of the top radiator fans for the block removal and re-installation and to have a better view of the CPU block area for the photo.

Someone on another forum suggested that a single D5 pump is insufficient(too little head pressure) for the GPU blocks in parallel, the Optimus CPU block, and two radiators if you all up all the pressure drop.  However I've seen 3 radiator setups run form a single D5 pump with the Intel Optimus block without issues.  I'm not sure if there is a difference in pressure drop between the Intel and AMD Optimus CPU blocks.

I can bypass the GPU blocks and remove the GPUs then put in an air cooled GPU to see if there is a difference in CPU cooling performance.


----------



## Caring1 (Jun 20, 2020)

Perhaps you can explain the flow setup you have.
I would do pump > cpu > radiator > gpu > radiator > pump.
You appear to have pump > gpu > cpu > radiator > radiator > pump.


----------



## Bavor (Jun 21, 2020)

Caring1 said:


> Perhaps you can explain the flow setup you have.
> I would do pump > cpu > radiator > gpu > radiator > pump.
> You appear to have pump > gpu > cpu > radiator > radiator > pump.



I've read many places that it makes no significant difference based on testing of component order in the loop as long as you have sufficient radiator capacity and don't have a weak pump.  I've also seen people who moved a radiator in loop order from after all the components to between the GPU and CPU and it made no difference in component temperatures before and after.  The amount of time the coolant has in contact with either block is relatively short and the loop heats up and cools down as a whole.  The pump is pushing about 4 liters per minute of coolant through the loop and the loop has a little over 1 liter in it.  So its passing through the radiators a little less than 4 times per minute.  Loop order only really matters if you run the pump at a low speed or you have a weak pump.

It seemed easier and also shorter run to go to the GPUs first.  That's why I have the GPUs first.

Also, all the CPU temperature testing was done with the GPUs idle, so it wouldn't make a significant difference in CPU temperatures.

I tried taking out the GPUs and putting in the GT 1030 I have in their place. Then I reconnected the the tubing with the quick disconnect fittings I had before and after the GPUs. 

I ran AIDA64 stress test, Prime95 small FFT, and Intel Burn Test on the Very High preset. The temperature differences were either 0C or 1C in the tests compared to running the same tests with the GPUs in the loop. It doesn't look like the D5 is insufficient in flow or head pressure if removing the GPU blocks make no significant difference.


----------



## Bavor (Jul 23, 2020)

I think I found out why the Optimus AM4 CPU block didn't perform well.  It seem that the Corsair XD5 pump doesn't perform similar to other D5 pumps.

I decided to build another water cooled PC using my old PC. I was going to use the corsair XD5 in that system and bought an EKWB D5 PWM pump for my current system. The EK pump and mount matched the all black theme better than the Corsair pump and mount.

When I swapped in the EK D5 pump into my current system and ran the same tests at both 3700 RPM and full pump speed, my CPU temperatures dropped by 6C in both AIDA 64 and the Intel Burn Test. My CPU temperature dropped 8C in Prime 95. It was obvious that the XD5 pump has much less head pressure or flow at the same RPM and at full speed when compared to the EK D5 pump.

EK D5 PWM pump specs state 1500l/min at 3.9m head pressure
Corsair for the same pump states 800l/min at 2.1m head pressure
https://www.corsair.com/us/en/Categ...eservoir-Combo/p/CX-9040002-WW#tab-tech-specs

I set the EK D5 pump to 1850 RPM and ran Prime95, AIDA64, and Intel Burn Test and recorded the temperature results.  The results with the EK D5 pump at 1850 RPM were within 1C of the Corsair XD5 pump at 3700 RPM. So it looks like the Corsair D5 pump does have a much lower flow rate than the EK D5 pump.

I'm not sure why the Corsair D5 pump performs so much worse than the E5 D5 pump.  I did see a YouTube video with a comparison of D5 pump/res combos and the Corsair XD5 did perform the worst of the pumps tested.


----------



## Optimus Water Cooling (Jul 24, 2020)

Wow, that's some bad D5 performance there, 8c by swapping a pump is no joke. Congrats for figuring that out


----------



## ThrashZone (Jul 24, 2020)

Hi,
Yeah I noticed the spec's difference long ago it's just not a D5
Some don't believe flow matters all that much but it really does it just depends on the chip being cooled how much it matters.


----------



## Bavor (Jul 28, 2020)

ThrashZone said:


> Yeah I noticed the spec's difference long ago it's just not a D5



I think Corsair has a very poor pump top design.

Also Corsair and EK rate their D5's under different conditions.

Also, I don't know if my Corsair pump is defective or if the Corsair pump top design is really just that bad.



ThrashZone said:


> Some don't believe flow matters all that much but it really does it just depends on the chip being cooled how much it matters.



Flow matters more than people think it does.  Especially with higher wattage CPUs and/or GPUs.  Lower wattage systems can much more easily get away with poor flow.



Optimus Water Cooling said:


> Wow, that's some bad D5 performance there, 8c by swapping a pump is no joke. Congrats for figuring that out



I'm still trying to figure out why the Corsair pump performs so much worse.  The pump makes no indications of being defective.  It sounds the same as the EK D5 pump at the same RPM.  I'll contact Corsair support to see if they have any ideas.  The difference is huge.


----------

