# 2 Pumps in 1 one set up



## FireFox (Aug 9, 2014)

Hi there.
It's almost 1 month since I have finished my watercooler set up, but I am not happy with it and I want to do some modifications to it, that's why I want to know  Which are the advantages of having two pumps in one set up?,  because I want to add one more radiator but I am afraid that one pump won't be enough to handle 3 radiators! 

Thanks in advance! 
Every advice will be appreciated


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Aug 9, 2014)

I had this issue with 3rads cooling two gpus and cpu, mem and mobo.
I built a loop that was too restricted for one pump (the pump was not a good one) I did get it working but not well as the flow rate was very poor. 
With two decent pumps you would have no issues.
My main rig is less restrictive now it has no gpu or memory wb in there but I still use two mostly because it is miles easier to refill due to a half way round repump and I get decent flow rates meaning I can run  my fans slower too.
Its a win idea since it offers a slight failsafe as well.

 My loop goes res-pump1-240rad-cpu-pump2-120rad-mobo-360rad-res, single loop all fans are independently controlled and managed by a mcube tballancer (good but corsair make a similar thing) no issues here and ive a silver nub as well as ptnuke and uv leds to limit any bio growth in my distilled water , hope that helps.


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 9, 2014)

I tested 2xD5s in a bathtub (literally).  Measured time to fill a 5 gal bucket with constant lift.  Flow rate with two elbows and tubing was roughly 50% higher vs.  1 pump.  Somewhere buried on a computer is a spread sheet of results and pictures.  It was 4-5 years ago.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 9, 2014)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> I had this issue with 3rads cooling two gpus and cpu, mem and mobo.
> I built a loop that was too restricted for one pump (the pump was not a good one) I did get it working but not well as the flow rate was very poor.
> With two decent pumps you would have no issues.
> My main rig is less restrictive now it has no gpu or memory wb in there but I still use two mostly because it is miles easier to refill due to a half way round repump and I get decent flow rates meaning I can run  my fans slower too.
> ...


when i come back from holiday i will be adding a new rad plus a pump, and thanks for your advices, it helps a lot


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 9, 2014)

What exactly are you cooling that you think you need another radiator for? What sizes are your current radiators?

Also what is your current pump?

When running 2 pumps in one loop, the pumps should be in a series or intandom. One after another. That is why they make pump tops for the DDC pumps that link them together to pretty much form one pump. 

http://www.performance-pcs.com/cata...oduct_info&cPath=59_439_775&products_id=33411


----------



## FireFox (Aug 9, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> What exactly are you cooling that you think you need another radiator for? What sizes are your current radiators?
> 
> Also what is your current pump?



Right now I am cooling my CPU and GPU I was thinking to cool the motherboard and Ram and maybe add one more Graphic Card.

my radiators are:
Black ICE GTX Extreme 480 and  Black ICE GTX Extreme 240

The pump is:
Alphacool VPP655


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 9, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> Right now I am cooling my CPU and GPU I was thinking to cool the motherboard and Ram and maybe add one more Graphics Card.
> 
> my radiators are:
> Black ICE GTX Extreme 480 and  Black ICE GTX Extreme 240
> ...



Not much of a point water cooling memory unless you are wanting to do it for aesthetic reasons (Also there are only a few memory sticks that are compatible with water cooling blocks). Motherboard probably isn't necessary as the VRMs probably dont run all that hot to make it worthwhile. Another graphics card sure.

How exactly do you have your pump and reservoir setup, because you might just need a performance top for that pump to boost its head pressure instead of getting a whole new pump. If you want a whole new pump, I would make two completely separate loops then.

I run 2 radiators and 2 water blocks in my loop and I am running a single MCP350 pump with a performance top/reservoir combo.

Also how do you plan to add another radiator for that CM HAF 932 case? Arent you already hanging one off the back?


----------



## FireFox (Aug 9, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Not much of a point water cooling memory unless you are wanting to do it for aesthetic reasons (Also there are only a few memory sticks that are compatible with water cooling blocks). Motherboard probably isn't necessary as the VRMs probably dont run all that hot to make it worthwhile. Another graphics card sure.
> 
> How exactly do you have your pump and reservoir setup, because you might just need a performance top for that pump to boost its head pressure instead of getting a whole new pump. If you want a whole new pump, I would make two completely separate loops then.
> 
> I run 2 radiators and 2 water blocks in my loop and I am running a single MCP350 pump with a performance top/reservoir combo.


My pump is right after the reservoir,  and then goes this way:
Reservoir, pump, rad 480, CPU, rad 240, GPU and back to the reservoir.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 9, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Not much of a point water cooling memory unless you are wanting to do it for aesthetic reasons (Also there are only a few memory sticks that are compatible with water cooling blocks). Motherboard probably isn't necessary as the VRMs probably dont run all that hot to make it worthwhile. Another graphics card sure.
> 
> How exactly do you have your pump and reservoir setup, because you might just need a performance top for that pump to boost its head pressure instead of getting a whole new pump. If you want a whole new pump, I would make two completely separate loops then.
> 
> ...


yes i already have one hanging off the back, another radiator would be fixed it in the left panel, and just in case that wouldnt possible then i would upgrade the case to a CM cosmo II


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 9, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> My pump is right after the reservoir,  and then goes this way:
> Reservoir, pump, rad 480, CPU, rad 240, GPU and back to the reservoir.



So its not connected to the reservoir as if the reservoir acts like a performance top?

Slap a performance top on it, you shouldn't need another pump.

You likely won't need another radiator either. Just save all the money you would be using by getting blocks for the memory and motherboard and get that second GPU and a top for the pump. Id also recommend running the loop where the lines go straight from the CPU to the GPUs instead of have the radiator inbetween them. So reservoir > pump > 480 > CPU > GPU1 > GPU2 > 240 rad > reservoir.



Knoxx29 said:


> yes i already have one hanging off the back, another radiator would be fixed it in the left panel, and just in case that wouldnt possible then i would upgrade the case to a CM cosmo II



Id upgrade to a Corsair 900D before a Cosmos II but thats just me.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 9, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> So its not connected to the reservoir as if the reservoir acts like a performance top?
> 
> Slap a performance top on it, you shouldn't need another pump.
> 
> ...


I have to check that one, maybe I like,

thats right, its not connected to the reservoir, are separate..


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 9, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> My pump is right after the reservoir,  and then goes this way:
> Reservoir, pump, rad 480, CPU, rad 240, GPU and back to the reservoir.



That's an interesting setup there, normally you want want the coolest water getting pulled into the pump and the hottest water go direct to the cooler for optimal thermal dissipation.

For example, right now you have: I will highlight heat absorbing and generating components in red and heat releasing components in blue with temperature neutral remaining black.

Reserve -> Pump -> Rad (480) -> CPU -> Rad (240) -> GPU ->

In reality, the pump isn't going to add much heat to the loop so it's almost black but a tiny bit red. CPU-wise, it looks good because you have the cooler directly after the CPU (largest Δt). I would suspect you might be increasing you overall loop temperature because of this part:

GPU -> Reserve -> Pump -> Rad (480)
...because it looks like (at least to me,) that you're mixing hot water from the GPU with luke-warm water in the reserve which is then getting pushed through the rad with a lower Δt than the CPU does, decreasing overall heat release in the system.

This loop might make more sense:

Reserve -> Pump -> CPU -> Rad (240) -> GPU -> Rad (480) -> Back to reserve


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 9, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> That's an interesting setup there, normally you want want the coolest water getting pulled into the pump and the hottest water go direct to the cooler for optimal thermal dissipation.
> 
> For example, right now you have: I will highlight heat absorbing and generating components in red and heat releasing components in blue with temperature neutral remaining black.
> 
> ...



Really it doesnt matter much but to get the cleanest shortest tube routes you want whatever you are cooling in a series. so CPU block straight to the GPU block. Have radiators in between blocks is a waste and doesn't effect anything in a positive way once the system hits equilibrium, which is pretty much a couple minutes after the system has been running.

For example mine is

Reservoir/pump > 360 > CPU > GPU > 240 > Reservoir/pump


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 9, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Really it doesnt matter much but to get the cleanest shortest tube routes you want whatever you are cooling in a series. so CPU block straight to the GPU block. Have radiators in between blocks is a waste and doesn't effect anything in a positive way once the system hits equilibrium, which is pretty much a couple minutes after the system has been running.
> 
> For example mine is
> 
> Reservoir/pump > 360 > CPU > GPU > 240 > Reservoir/pump



I don't know how you can say that, the heat in your loop generated by the CPU will obviously add heat to the water going to the GPU, the higher water temperature going into the GPU block will result in a lower Δt between the die and the water/block which means less heat is pulled away. You say it doesn't matter, but thermodynamically, it does it you're trying to keep temperatures similar throughout the loop otherwise, the GPU will always be running a bit warmer being the second heat emitting device in the loop.

I'm not saying it won't work or it doesn't work well. I'm just saying that a properly created loop can ensure consistent temperatures throughout the loop. The loop is always in equilibrium because it's a closed system, the question is how efficient is the heat transfer between any two stages of the loop. Unless you're talking about the "average" water temperature stabilizing once the machine is one which doesn't impact heat transfer efficiency if the GPU is still being fed warmer water.

Although I should also note, I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it gives cooling priority to the CPU, but I personally don't think it's optimally efficient.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 9, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Really it doesnt matter much but to get the cleanest shortest tube routes you want whatever you are cooling in a series. so CPU block straight to the GPU block. Have radiators in between blocks is a waste and doesn't effect anything in a positive way once the system hits equilibrium, which is pretty much a couple minutes after the system has been running.
> 
> For example mine is
> 
> Reservoir/pump > 360 > CPU > GPU > 240 > Reservoir/pump


both ideas are good, but i like to avoid going from CPU > GPU >


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 9, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> both ideas are good, but i like to avoid going from CPU > GPU >



Why?


----------



## FireFox (Aug 9, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> I don't know how you can say that, the heat in your loop generated by the CPU will obviously add heat to the water going to the GPU, the higher water temperature going into the GPU block will result in a lower Δt between the die and the water/block which means less heat is pulled away. You say it doesn't matter, but thermodynamically, it does it you're trying to keep temperatures similar throughout the loop otherwise, the GPU will always be running a bit warmer being the second heat emitting device in the loop.
> 
> I'm not saying it won't work or it doesn't work well. I'm just saying that a properly created loop can ensure consistent temperatures throughout the loop. The loop is always in equilibrium because it's a closed system, the question is how efficient is the heat transfer between any two stages of the loop. Unless you're talking about the "average" water temperature stabilizing once the machine is one which doesn't impact heat transfer efficiency if the GPU is still being fed warmer water.
> 
> Although I should also note, I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it gives cooling priority to the CPU, but I personally don't think it's optimally efficient.



agree with you about that, and that has been always my theory, from CPU to GPU i prefer to have in between one rad.
i am not a watercooler expert but for me so makes much more sense


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 9, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> I don't know how you can say that, the heat in your loop generated by the CPU will obviously add heat to the water going to the GPU, the higher water temperature going into the GPU block will result in a lower Δt between the die and the water/block which means less heat is pulled away. You say it doesn't matter, but thermodynamically, it does it you're trying to keep temperatures similar throughout the loop otherwise, the GPU will always be running a bit warmer being the second heat emitting device in the loop.
> 
> I'm not saying it won't work or it doesn't work well. I'm just saying that a properly created loop can ensure consistent temperatures throughout the loop. The loop is always in equilibrium because it's a closed system, the question is how efficient is the heat transfer between any two stages of the loop. Unless you're talking about the "average" water temperature stabilizing once the machine is one which doesn't impact heat transfer efficiency if the GPU is still being fed warmer water.
> 
> Although I should also note, I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it gives cooling priority to the CPU, but I personally don't think it's optimally efficient.





Knoxx29 said:


> agree with you about that, and that has been always my theory, from CPU to GPU i prefer to have in between one rad.
> i am not a watercooler expert but for me so makes much more sense



Yep, I had the same mentality when I started with water cooling till doing a lot more reading and @MT Alex  pretty much convinced me the other way.

Might as well just do completely separate loops if you want to have radiators in between each block.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 9, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Yep, I had the same mentality when I started with water cooling till doing a lot more reading and @MT Alex  pretty much convinced me the other way.
> 
> Might as well just do completely separate loops if you want to have radiators in between each block.


So here we go,
My GPU temperatures are 25 degrees, if I go from CPU to GPU I will be adding 1 or to degrees to the GPU and that is because the heat that comes from the CPU hit the GPU.

From the CPU comes hot water, and the GPU gets hot water.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 9, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> So here we go,
> My GPU temperatures are 25 degrees, if I go from CPU to GPU I will be adding 1 or to degrees to the GPU and that is because the heat that comes from the CPU hit the GPU.
> 
> From the CPU comes hot water, and the GPU gets hot water.



You should actually test that because you might be surprised.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 9, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> You should actually test that because you might be surprised.


so how many degrees less do you think i could get trying your theory?


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 9, 2014)

Not sure, ive never actually tested it myself. But with you and Aquinus theory, most if not all water cooled computers would be less than optimal......

I haven't seen many rigs that have radiators in between the blocks, if at all.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 9, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Not sure, ive never actually tested it myself. But with you and Aquinus theory, most if not all water cooled computers would be less than optimal......
> 
> I haven't seen many rigs that have radiators in between the blocks, if at all.



well i can't complain about my temperatures, i don't really know right now how many degrees are inside my house but as i can see right now inside the case are 28/27 degrees and my CPU temperatures are 32/33 degrees , my temperatures are just 5/6 degrees above the temperatures inside the case, i think are pretty good.

you havent seen many rigs that have radiators in between the blocks, but believe me there are many, i cant be the only one.

I forgot to mention:
*Intel Core i7-3770K OC 4.5GHz Ivybridge technology, hot processors*


----------



## GhostRyder (Aug 9, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> My pump is right after the reservoir,  and then goes this way:
> Reservoir, pump, rad 480, CPU, rad 240, GPU and back to the reservoir.


In all the years I have water cooled my machines in my experience alot of the nit-picking ways of running a cooling setup come down to low levels of differences in your over all system load.

In all honesty, for myself over the years I have adopted the idea of running a multi-radiator setup and putting one radiator minimum between the CPU and GPU's mostly for the sake of keeping a degree or two difference off the GPU's since I run a couple of GPU's in my rig.  Does it make a night and day difference though, not really.

For the sake of cooling, as long as you have an adequate cooling system in general with plenty of airflow through your radiators, normally running the loop pretty much any way you want to will still result in great temps.  I personally like having a radiator between my CPU and GPU's since the water has to then run and cool multiple GPU's just to keep any extra stress off the system in general.  I would say if its easy for you to do when putting it together like that then go for it but otherwise you can get away with not putting the radiators between every component.

As for RAM LC cooling, unless your doing some extreme ram OCing or just want the bling effect its not worth it.  Its similar to how there is now HDD and SSD LC cooling parts and to me does not offer any real benefits at the moment other than looks except in very rare situations.  Motherboard cooling is a bit of an odd spot because it can be beneficial but only when your running extreme systems with extreme overclocks and your airflow is not optimal on the heatsinks.

As for the Dual Pump question, having dual pumps is good for having a long list of components running through a loop.  I see you have a AlphaCool VPP655 which is a good pump overall and for your list even if you add an extra radiator I would think its more than enough.  I would say having dual pumps is more for having tons of GPU's, radiators, and other components in the loops where stretching out the system becomes an issue for it.  Your system should be fine as is but adding another radiator would not kill off your pump or be to weak in my opinion based on what I've read about the pump.

I am curious what your not satisfied temp wise because it sounds like its doing pretty well as is.  Plus with that current setup you have I feel its already pretty overkill for your system, is there a particular part that is running hotter than you like (CPU or GPU?)?


----------



## FireFox (Aug 9, 2014)

GhostRyder said:


> In all the years I have water cooled my machines in my experience alot of the nit-picking ways of running a cooling setup come down to low levels of differences in your over all system load.
> 
> In all honesty, for myself over the years I have adopted the idea of running a multi-radiator setup and putting one radiator minimum between the CPU and GPU's mostly for the sake of keeping a degree or two difference off the GPU's since I run a couple of GPU's in my rig.  Does it make a night and day difference though, not really.
> 
> ...


you convinced me.
that is good info, been honest i would like to run the CPU at lower temperatures.


----------



## erocker (Aug 10, 2014)

I prefer running two separate loops. Better for temps and if you need to remove a block or something from one loop, it doesn't affect the other. 

If you really want lower CPU temps, at this point you're going to want to de-lid it.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 10, 2014)

erocker said:


> I prefer running two separate loops. Better for temps and if you need to remove a block or something from one loop, it doesn't affect the other.
> 
> If you really want lower CPU temps, at this point you're going to want to de-lid it.


 
I was going to say, time for delid.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Aug 10, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Not sure, ive never actually tested it myself. But with you and Aquinus theory, most if not all water cooled computers would be less than optimal......
> 
> I haven't seen many rigs that have radiators in between the blocks, if at all.


I posted my single loop at the start I HAVE tried many many combos and routes and I can definitely state as FACT if you put gpus straight after cpu water blocks you Will lower the max oc of the gpu same occours with any two components , ,that's why mine are in the order they are , and ive had dual loops and many combinations of parts, rad sizes and blocks


----------



## FireFox (Aug 10, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> I was going to say, time for delid.



What a brilliant idea to lower temperatures, been honest terrorize me a bit but lower temperatures always has a price, it's easy to do, should be done carefully, but now my questions are:
Have you done something like that, would you do it, which are the disadvantages of doing it?


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 10, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> What a brilliant idea to lower temperatures, been honest terrorize me a bit but lower temperatures always has a price, it's easy to do, should be done carefully, but now my questions are:
> Have you done something like that, would you do it, which are the disadvantages of doing it?



if you have a vice, hammer, and piece of wood it takes 5 minutes. I haven't done it, but I would if I had a better chip.

but right now you won't see much of a drop in temps with any change to your watercooling. Delid is the next step if you want better temps.



theoneandonlymrk said:


> I posted my single loop at the start I HAVE tried many many combos and routes and I can definitely state as FACT if you put gpus straight after cpu water blocks you Will lower the max oc of the gpu same occours with any two components , ,that's why mine are in the order they are , and ive had dual loops and many combinations of parts, rad sizes and blocks



Okay! yet I have it going from CPU to GPU and have found that my max overclock is now limited by what the actual chip can do before temperatures are an issue.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 10, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> if you have a vice, hammer, and piece of wood it takes 5 minutes. I haven't done it, but I would if I had a better chip.
> 
> but right now you won't see much of a drop in temps with any change to your watercooling. Delid is the next step if you want better temps.


And which are the disadvantages?


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 10, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> And which are the disadvantages?



Well obvious the warranty is voided. Even if you have have the Intel Tuning Plan. 

If I were to delid, id buy another chip as back up if anything goes south.


----------



## RCoon (Aug 10, 2014)

Everyone here apart from MX is tripping balls.

It doesn't matter where you put components in what order in your loop, the entire loop will reach an equilibrium in temperature regardless. The order MIGHT make a difference in max temps for the first 10 minutes from a cold boot. After that, there is literally no difference. I've built plenty of loops, small and large. One of which had 3 GPU's, 1 CPU, 240+240+480 rad, and a single 750lph pump. I had put components wherever they were simpler and easier to install. *I did not put them in any mythological order to improve temps*. That whole ideal is a fallacy. Make it easy for yourself, connect the components in the easiest order, and the best order so they are even easier to maintain.

Either put them in separate loops, or put in a T junction connector with some quick disconnects so you can drain your loop easily.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 10, 2014)

RCoon said:


> Everyone here apart from MX is tripping balls.
> 
> It doesn't matter where you put components in what order in your loop, the entire loop will reach an equilibrium in temperature regardless. The order MIGHT make a difference in max temps for the first 10 minutes from a cold boot. After that, there is literally no difference. I've built plenty of loops, small and large. One of which had 3 GPU's, 1 CPU, 240+240+480 rad, and a single 750lph pump. I had put components wherever they were simpler and easier to install. *I did not put them in any mythological order to improve temps*. That whole ideal is a fallacy. Make it easy for yourself, connect the components in the easiest order, and the best order so they are even easier to maintain.
> 
> Either put them in separate loops, or put in a T junction connector with some quick disconnects so you can drain your loop easily.


Everything What you said it's right and I agree with you, but now we are talking about to delid the cpu and which are the  advantages and disadvantages of doing such a process.


----------



## RCoon (Aug 10, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> Everything What you said it's right and I agree with you, but now we are talking about to delid the cpu and which are the  advantages and disadvantages of doing such a process.



I delidded my 3570K and it reduced temps by almost 20 degrees. Unfortunately I had a crap chip for overclocking, so it required a tonne of voltage for a mere 4.4Ghz. Unfortunately all the watercooling in the world couldn't solve that.

I recommend CooLab ultra for delidding. I had to repaste my IHS every 6 months with MX-5.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 10, 2014)

RCoon said:


> I delidded my 3570K and it reduced temps by almost 20 degrees. Unfortunately I had a crap chip for overclocking, so it required a tonne of voltage for a mere 4.4Ghz. Unfortunately all the watercooling in the world couldn't solve that.
> 
> I recommend CooLab ultra for delidding. I had to repaste my IHS every 6 months with MX-5.



If he has an EK Supremacy CPU block, he can get the Naked kit.

Take the retention bracket off the CPU socket so you just use the block as the pressure for the cpu to make good contact with the pins. Sounds like a bad idea, but a ton of people are doing it with awesome results.

And then for that you can pretty much use any thermal paste you want.

http://www.frozencpu.com/products/1...on_Naked_Ivy.html?tl=g57c603s1910&id=EAQaKccu


----------



## FireFox (Aug 10, 2014)

RCoon said:


> I delidded my 3570K and it reduced temps by almost 20 degrees. Unfortunately I had a crap chip for overclocking, so it required a tonne of voltage for a mere 4.4Ghz. Unfortunately all the watercooling in the world couldn't solve that.
> 
> I recommend CooLab ultra for delidding. I had to repaste my IHS every 6 months with MX-5.


That's means I am lucky,  because I was able to run my cpu at 5.0Ghz with my actual watercooler getting 35 degrees in idle and 75/78 in full load with voltage 1.30 
Why did you repaste every six months?


----------



## FireFox (Aug 10, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> If he has an EK Supremacy CPU block, he can get the Naked kit.
> 
> Take the retention bracket off the CPU socket so you just use the block as the pressure for the cpu to make good contact with the pins. Sounds like a bad idea, but a ton of people are doing it with awesome results.
> 
> ...


My cpu block come already with that support.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Aug 10, 2014)

My water cooling methods work well and as I said on mine , worth noting though that my cpu is a dog and at 5ghz it was dumping a lot of heat into the loop and the max gpu clock limitation was with waterblock ed five series radeons , , even the heat from the first gpu in the loop altered tbe second cards max clock and I tried a rad between them , gueess what the result was 1050 on both gpus stable folding for three years , , without the rad gpu2 was 950 max,  the throttling system gpu makers use now is what's partially hiding this plus lower tdp cpus.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Aug 10, 2014)

a dissadvantage to the hammer and vice method...
dont have confirmation of what went wrong "although i suspect the wood split which cased that damage on the right of the chip"
But the guy now has a 4770k key ring so its not all bad i guess







Prehaps its a good idea to make sure you have some tough wood if your going to be doing it.
I still think the blade method is better if you dont use a really thin blade.

also i agree where the rad in the loop is makes no difference. "the pump has to be below your reservoir and the 1st thing supplied with water though"
what does matter is how much radiator space you have.
But if you use multiple radiators you will usually find that in a single loop its just neater to go res pump rad component rad component rad res.
(thats in a 3 radiator set up)
that is simply because of mounting options.
with 2 radiators you would usually go res pump component rad component rad res.
but that really is down to mounting options and how clean you can make your loop look. the temps for the system will be the same once its up and running regardless of where you have the radiators (unless you have a really slow flow rate. then the water can hang about a lot longer. and be hotter when it gets to the next component. but that would be your flow rate/restiction issues not rad mounting)

and its also a balance of flow rate/pump size.
you do want the best flow rate you can get At the smalest pump size you can get it at..

just for shizz n giggles.
if you had 2 pumps that do 700L/h
one of them is 12v 13w and the other is 12v 20w. they both have the exact same head and flow rate and all that. The 20w pump would have your system running hotter than the 12w pump because it transfers more heat energy in to the water it is pumping..


----------



## OneMoar (Aug 10, 2014)

save everybody some grief don't go hitting your cpu with a hammer use a plastic razor and some thermal persuasion
iv said this before the hammer and vice method is stupid as hell and way more risk then what is actually required
a plastic razor won't cut the CPU or damage it unless you are stupid with it
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0050P0PJQ/?tag=tec06d-20
all you need is a hair dryer and a couple of plastic razor's
heat the IHS with the hair dryer and then proceed to work the plastic razor under the IHS infact in most cases you can forgo the hairdryer


----------



## erocker (Aug 11, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> save everybody some grief don't go hitting your cpu with a hammer use a plastic razor and some thermal persuasion
> iv said this before the hammer and vice method is stupid as hell and way more risk then what is actually required
> a plastic razor won't cut the CPU or damage it unless you are stupid with it
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0050P0PJQ/?tag=tec06d-20
> ...


This is the way I'd do it. The hammer method can be too unpredictable. You could easily whack a resistor or something. A razor, lots of time and patience is deffinitely the better method.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 11, 2014)

O


erocker said:


> This is the way I'd do it. The hammer method can be too unpredictable. You could easily whack a resistor or something. A razor, lots of time and patience is deffinitely the better method.


In fact I would never use a hammer


----------



## RCoon (Aug 11, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> save everybody some grief don't go hitting your cpu with a hammer use a plastic razor and some thermal persuasion
> iv said this before the hammer and vice method is stupid as hell and way more risk then what is actually required
> a plastic razor won't cut the CPU or damage it unless you are stupid with it
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0050P0PJQ/?tag=tec06d-20
> ...



I actually found the heat that emanated from my hands was enough to soften the outer putty substance on the IHS. I just constantly scored the outside of the IHS with a razor until it popped off. Eventually you can feel the give of the IHS putty losing strength. It's a far more relaxing process.


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 12, 2014)

Another great idea is buying the cheapest IVB chip you can get your hands on, like a Pentium or a Celeron so you can learn on something other than an i7. That way you also have a backup CPU in case something ever happens to the i7 if you're successful both times. At least if you do it wrong with a cheap CPU, you're not destroying a significantly more costly CPU.


----------



## OneMoar (Aug 12, 2014)

if you gotta have the IHS off and don't wanna spend 15M doing it use some Brake-Clean .. available at any auto-parts store it will soften the RTV and *shouldn't* harm the CPU


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 12, 2014)

@LagunaX just posted in the Haswell Overclocking thread about his way of doing the vice method, hammerless.


----------



## Faye_Kane_girl_brain (Aug 12, 2014)

Sasqui said:


> Flow rate with two elbows and tubing was roughly 50% higher vs.  1 pump.


WOW! I'm thinking of adding a second pump when (and if) I add a second radiator. It never occurred to me that buying just the pump will improve things that much! For some reason, I was thinking that already-flowing water would not be speeded up more. But putting them in series is like putting AA batteries in series to double the voltage (electrical pressure).

That's the kind of info I come here for. THANX!

-flk


----------



## Faye_Kane_girl_brain (Aug 12, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> higher water temperature going into the GPU block will result in a lower Δt between the die and the block which means less heat is pulled away.


Ballocks! Ballocks, I say! 

What you said is true, but feeding cooler water into the GPU causes less heat to be pumped out the back of the case. Here's why:

Putting the radiator between the hot devices means the water entering the radiator will be much cooler than if it had GPU heat, too. You talk about thermodynamics. Because heat flow rate increases with temperature, feeding cooler water into the radiator causes *the total heat removed from the system* to be less.

If you put the radiator after both hot devices, then yes, you pay the price of a warmer GPU. But what you're buying is not just a cooler CPU, but a MUCH cooler CPU. That is more important. You're pulling a lot of heat out of the CPU and putting just a little of it into the water flowing across the GPU.



Aquinus said:


> CPU-wise, it looks good because you have the cooler directly after the CPU (largest Δt).



It's only the largest Δt between the intake and outflow of a hot device. But the user isn't interested in which device has the highest Δt; he cares about the  Δt of the radiator. And that is maximized by putting it after the hot devices.



Aquinus said:


> The loop is always in equilibrium because it's a closed system


Wrong again, Albert!

When you first turn the thing on, the CPU is hot and the water is cold. When it reaches equilibrium (which theoretically, it never actually does), the system is pulling much less heat from the CPU than it did at first.

Even if you diddle with the definitions of words to handwave that away, it's still only a closed system in terms of water leaking out. It's not closed thermodynamically  because you're feeding bigtime energy into it via the pump. That's what drives the water, and the water is the heat transfer medium. You're also feeding heat into the system via electric power to the two chips and pumping into in the air, which is outside the system.

That's not equilibrium, dude. It's like saying that the water in a firehose doesn't move because the amount going in one end is the same as what sprays out the other one.

The only time your PC is in thermal equilibrium is when the whole thing has been switched off for  while. 
___________

If past is indeed prologue, instead of saying "Well, I'll be damned, I was wrong!" you'll get mad at me.

-faye kane ♀ joule thief


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 12, 2014)

Faye_Kane_girl_brain said:


> Ballocks! Ballocks, I say!
> 
> What you said is true, but feeding cooler water into the GPU causes less heat to be pumped out the back of the case. Here's why:
> 
> Putting the radiator between the hot devices means the water entering the radiator will be much cooler than if it had GPU heat, too. You talk about thermodynamics. Because heat flow rate increases with temperature, feeding cooler water into the radiator causes *the total heat removed from the system* to be less.



If total heat removed decreased and heat generation remained the same you would have a run away thermal event. It's true that the average temperature of the loop climbs until it reaches a high enough temperature where the difference between the water temperature and air temperature would allow the heat to be moved out of the loop, but thermodynamics still applies inside the loop itself. The point is that if you keep heating already heated water, the difference in water temperature and GPU temperature are less, a smaller difference in temperature results in less heat transfer depending where the heat is coming from and where it is going.



Faye_Kane_girl_brain said:


> If you put the radiator after both hot devices, then yes, you pay the price of a warmer GPU. But what you're buying is not just a cooler CPU, but a MUCH cooler CPU. That is more important. You're pulling a lot of heat out of the CPU and putting just a little of it into the water flowing across the GPU.



That's not realistic, CPUs tend to consume less power than GPUs which would make sense to balance the loop out. It depends on what you consider needs more cooling in your loop, but the most efficient way would be to ensure the widest temperature gradient between each stage (water block or rad.) As I said, reheating water absorbs less heat from whatever device you're pulling heat from, just as the ambient temperature being higher will result in overall higher temps.



Faye_Kane_girl_brain said:


> It's only the largest Δt between the intake and outflow of a hot device. But the user isn't interested in which device has the highest Δt; he cares about the  Δt of the radiator. And that is maximized by putting it after the hot devices.


You're not trying to get the largest Δt unless only one device is producing that heat, you're trying to maintain a reasonable max temperature, but as I said before, a smaller Δt will mean less heat transfer into and out of the loop.




Faye_Kane_girl_brain said:


> Wrong again, Albert!
> 
> When you first turn the thing on, the CPU is hot and the water is cold. When it reaches equilibrium (which theoretically, it never actually does), the system is pulling much less heat from the CPU than it did at first.
> 
> ...


A fire horse isn't going in a loop nor is your example using it to transfer energy... your example is flawed. Liquid cooling is a loop, the water is moving in a circle. As far as the loop in concerned, the system in closed because you're never taking water out of the system except for maintenance. Also the pump is hardly adding heat to the system, the motor generates little heat in comparison to the CPU and GPU.

I should clarify my "equilibrium" thought though, when I say that I mean that the loop can't continuously hold more and more heat and that heat isn't being added or removed from the loop except at the blocks and rads, which theoretically when it's up to an operating temperature would ouput the same heat it takes in. However, as you said when you first turn the machine on, the water is air temperature, but when you turn the tower off the loop is also still heated. Despite the computer being turned off, there is still a temperature difference and heat will continue to be released albeit at a slower rate until the difference in temperature is nothing which only has to do with the medium temperature and its ability to transfer heat. If it's a closed system or not and when it's been running or not, it eventually acts as a closed loop in the sense that heat transfer become a zero sum between heat entering the loop and heat leaving the loop is at the same rate.

The simple fact is that cold water will absorb more heat than hot water and the recommendation I gave is if you care about cooling your CPU just as much as your GPU. While CPU temps might be a little higher, GPU temps will be lower because more heat can be moved from the GPU. I don't know about you, but I see GPUs being a lot more power hungry than CPUs, hence why I wouldn't do it the way you suggest.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Aug 12, 2014)

physics is simple, provided you remember every aspect of it..
with unlimited pressure restrictive passages pose no issues at all because you get the venturi effect.. (water passing through a narrower passage will have the same volume as the same water passing through a wider area.)
so 100l/m through a wide tube that gets narrower would still be 100l/m coming out the other end it would just be moving faster.
but with less pressure the restrictive areas will slow the flow rate of the whole loop. (its actaully the restrictions in crease the speed but lower the overall water pressure. but for this example i chose to say flow rate. figured id add this in before i get trolled for it)

its not a matter of 2 500/h pumps are 1000l/h when in series its simply they have more pressure so the restrictions do not slow it down so it can always achieve its 500l/h its still the same volume but it has higher pressure and a better head.
head is also determined by the total length of your run "not just the vertical" this can be combated by the position of your res though.

now back to the flow rate.
Physics clearly states that water traveling faster will be colder and can be at 0c "the tripple point of water" and not freeze.
it also clearly states that the colder said water is The more heat that can be transferred in to it easier.

So looking at that you would think well then i need a 12bar 6000l/h pump.
But you have the thermals of the pump to consider too. A BIG pump creates more heat and A lot of that heat is transferred in to your water.
So you have to figure out what is the smallest pump you can use to get the highest amount of pressure and flow rate.
a pump with a few watts more power may need to have a much higher flow rate to keep your system at the same temps as a smaller pump with lower flow rates. simply because of the heat transfer from the pump. (we are only talking 1-2c here though, maybe a bit more depending on the size of the pump)

to go back to the radiator placement.

if you have 3 radiators.  and you went
res pump rad component rad component rad component res.
or you went
res pump rad rad rad component component component.

After you have warmed the system up. the water temperature when it gets back to the res would be the same in both situations.

your flow rate should be enough so that the water at the component is never fully saturated with heat even after passing 3 components. and still has plenty of cooling capabilities when it reaches the res.
Obviously if your flow rate was so slow that your water was in the block for long enough to get to 90c then if it ever made it to a second component it would not really cool it down any.
But if your flow rate was that bad your pump is either dead/dying or you have like 1 10l/h pump running through a very restrictive loop.


any way all thats just physics. and i may be missing some aspects out of it. but at very basics of it thats how it works.


----------



## skline00 (Aug 12, 2014)

Knox 29, I'll throw my proverbial "2 cents" worth of "advice into this thread. Like you, I have a HAF 932 Adv case. You would think for as big as it is, it would be good for custom water cooling but in reality it is not. No problem with a 360 rad up top, but putting a 240 in front requires modding etc. I originally had a RX 360 at the top internally and a 120 rad internally to the rear without modding. It was real tight and I decided I wanted more rad space (obviously as described later I love extra rad space). My choices were to heavily mod the interior of the 932 or install a rad externally to the rear or buy a big case like the Corsair 900D.

I had just bought the 932 and didn't want to take a big loss. The top rear has punch outs for running hoses and I got over the fear of mounting the second rad externally (the XSPC mounting brackets sure helped).

I mounted a XSPC EX 360 in series with the internal RX 360. I mounted the EX 360 externally, vertically to the rear. Worked well.

Now for the fun, admittedly crazy rad part. Late last year I got the "itch" for a bigger rad (the curse of all custom water coolers) and spotted a new Watercool MO RA3-420 with fan enclosure and pedestal feet for sale on Ebay. I was hooked.

Made an offer which the buyer accepted and now I owned a "bruiser" external rad.  Nine 140 mm fans,2 sets of Koolance quick release couplings and tons of new tubing later I was ready.  I removed the external EX 360 and coupled the internal RX360 to the external MO RA3-420. I had always used a XSPC D5 bay/res. Again, due to the worry of "enough flow rate" I changed to a XSPC Twin D5 bay res where the pumps run in series.

From my experience, the single D5 was enough for the RX360/EX360 combo and even the RX360/MO RA3-420 combo but now there is no doubt the twin D5s in series helps the flow rate and in turn shaves a few degrees off the top end when stress testing, even with the MO RA3.

Bottom line is the HAF 932 case really doesn't have the room, internally, for a lot of rad space. If you want that much room, start with a Corsair 900D or spend the $$$ and buy a Caselabs case OR do what I did and mount an external rad ( if you can do it go 480).


----------



## FireFox (Aug 12, 2014)

skline00 said:


> Knox 29, I'll throw my proverbial "2 cents" worth of "advice into this thread. Like you, I have a HAF 932 Adv case. You would think for as big as it is, it would be good for custom water cooling but in reality it is not. No problem with a 360 rad up top, but putting a 240 in front requires modding etc. I originally had a RX 360 at the top internally and a 120 rad internally to the rear without modding. It was real tight and I decided I wanted more rad space (obviously as described later I love extra rad space). My choices were to heavily mod the interior of the 932 or install a rad externally to the rear or buy a big case like the Corsair 900D.
> 
> I had just bought the 932 and didn't want to take a big loss. The top rear has punch outs for running hoses and I got over the fear of mounting the second rad externally (the XSPC mounting brackets sure helped).
> 
> ...


Thanks a lot for your advice,
I know that the haf 932 adv its not that big but it does his job, for the radiators, I have 1 240 at the top internally and 1 480 at the back,

*


 *


----------



## FireFox (Aug 12, 2014)

so here is a pic

CPU delidded, i just have to clean it, i am just wating for the CooLab ultra that i ordered yesterday, when everythins is done then i post my results


----------



## skline00 (Aug 13, 2014)

How about trading out the Black ICE GTX Extreme 240 internally for a Black ICE GTX Extreme 360? If you move your CD player lower you'll have enough room. Not a huge increase in rad space but doable.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Aug 13, 2014)

Hmm I dabbled in watercooling for a while and found that it was not as effeciant as I had hoped for the price. I ran a 240 rad with 4 120mm fans push/pull and a XSPC 300LPH pump and a XSPC block that was lapped. It was even hotter than the thermaltake AIO cooler I reviewed.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 13, 2014)

skline00 said:


> How about trading out the Black ICE GTX Extreme 240 internally for a Black ICE GTX Extreme 360? If you move your CD player lower you'll have enough room. Not a huge increase in rad space but doable.


I wouldn't put a 360 rad internally because the third fan won't have way out where to push the air out because it's blocked by the top of the case


----------



## FireFox (Aug 13, 2014)

brandonwh64 said:


> Hmm I dabbled in watercooling for a while and found that it was not as effeciant as I had hoped for the price. I ran a 240 rad with 4 120mm fans push/pull and a XSPC 300LPH pump and a XSPC block that was lapped. It was even hotter than the thermaltake AIO cooler I reviewed.



Some people are lucky with their watercooler systems others are not so lucky, I'm very happy with mine, for the price that i paid, i got what i was expecting,
Before I discovered the watercooling world (it was 3 years ago) I was always upset with my temperatures for me were to high and one day I was searching in Google how to drop temperatures and there was where i found the watercooler solution, I never educated myself about how to build a watercooler system I just read that i needed a pump, rad, tubes  and some others components,  i bought what i needed and i put all together,  and since then I just can say I won't never ever go back to air cooler once again. ..

I'm very impressed with what I have achieved so far


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 13, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> I wouldn't put a 360 rad internally because the third fan won't have way out where to push the air out because it's blocked by the top of the case



No its not. I had the 932, and tore it completely down. That top little part comes off with 3 or 4 screws to reveal vent holes for the 3rd 120mm fan. and fan screw hole mounting. At the back of the little top part are vertical vents to escape the air.

The fact that people think the case has only 240mm radiator support natively in the top is a common misconception.

I know the ins and outs of that case.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 13, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> No its not. I had the 932, and tore it completely down. That top little part comes off with 3 or 4 screws to reveal vent holes for the 3rd 120mm fan. and fan screw hole mounting. At the back of the little top part are vertical vents to escape the air.
> 
> The fact that people think the case has only 240mm radiator support natively in the top is a common misconception.
> 
> I know the ins and outs of that case.


I never noticed that, I have to check it, but it wouldn't make any sense to add a 360 rad instead the 240, I have already too much rad for what I need


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 13, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> I never noticed that, I have to check it, but it wouldn't make any sense to add a 360 rad instead the 240, I have already too much rad for what I need



Arent you adding 2 gpus to the loop? Though 480 and 240 will handle that pretty well still.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 13, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Arent you adding 2 gpus to the loop? Though 480 and 240 will handle that pretty well still.


Yes I am, first I want to finish The delid thing, and soon I am going on holiday,  so it will be after I come back.

My concern is this thing about going from GPU direct to GPU


----------



## GhostRyder (Aug 13, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> Yes I am, first I want to finish The delid thing, and soon I am going on holiday,  so it will be after I come back.


Ah you are, sweet I was about to say you already have such an OP setup for cooling that you needed more inside it!

I run 3 R9 290X cards overclocked and an FX 9590 in a custom 360mm and 140mm Radiator loop so you should have a ton of room!


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 13, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> Yes I am, first I want to finish The delid thing, and soon I am going on holiday,  so it will be after I come back.
> 
> *My concern is this thing about going from GPU direct to GPU*



Seriously!? So what you want to get a little radiator and run it inbetween each GPU, again its not going to make a damn difference!! Put more stress on your pump due to the extra length of tubing it has to pump the water through, look really messy with tubing all over, and not benefit temperatures at all, I mean hell look at your current setup. That huge 3 ft long piece of tubing going from the 480 to the pump is something else.

Though this is not my system so what you do with it is your choice, but if you want to go for a good looking loop as well, you wouldnt be running radiators inbetween blocks. You would be doing the shortest most direct routes for a cleaner look.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 13, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Seriously!? So what you want to get a little radiator and run it inbetween each GPU, again its not going to make a damn difference!! Put more stress on your pump due to the extra length of tubing it has to pump the water through, look really messy with tubing all over, and not benefit temperatures at all, I mean hell look at your current setup. That huge 3 ft long piece of tubing going from the 480 to the pump is something else.
> 
> Though this is not my system so what you do with it is your choice, but if you want to go for a good looking loop as well, you wouldnt be running radiators inbetween blocks. You would be doing the shortest most direct routes for a cleaner look.


That was really funny.
I won't be adding any radiator between each GPU that would be ridiculous,  I am just thinking a way 
How to decrease the long tube that goes from the pump to the 480.

Will a 750W power supply handle 2 GPU?


----------



## GhostRyder (Aug 13, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> That was really funny.
> I won't be adding any radiator between each GPU that would be ridiculous,  I am just thinking a way
> How to decrease the long tube that goes from the pump to the 480.
> 
> Will a 750W power supply handle 2 GPU?


2 770 and an i7?  Yea should be fine!


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 13, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> That was really funny.
> I won't be adding any radiator between each GPU that would be ridiculous,  I am just thinking a way
> How to decrease the long tube that goes from the pump to the 480.
> 
> Will a 750W power supply handle 2 GPU?



If they are 770s yeah. 

Go like this. 

pump/reservoir > GPU(s) > 480 > CPU > 240 > Pump/res. So kind of in a clockwise motion. 

If you got a 900D id recommend setting up where 240 is up top, 480 is at the bottom and going

pump/res > 240 > CPU > GPU1 > GPU2 > 480 > pump/res 

Where everything is internal. Makes things a lot easier, and looks a lot better.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 13, 2014)

GhostRyder said:


> 2 770 and an i7?  Yea should be fine!


Yes 2 770 and i7


----------



## FireFox (Aug 14, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> If they are 770s yeah.
> 
> Go like this.
> 
> ...


How is called the small tube that connect the GPU each other?

Wait wait wait,
You meant reservoir/ Pump -GPU?


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 14, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> How is called the small tube that connect the GPU each other?
> 
> Wait wait wait,
> You meant reservoir/ Pump -GPU?



Yes.from the reservoir and pump to the gpus first then to the 480, back in to the CPU and up to the 240.

if you get EK water blocks, get the fc link thing they have for dual gpus


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Aug 14, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Seriously!? So what you want to get a little radiator and run it inbetween each GPU, again its not going to make a damn difference!! Put more stress on your pump due to the extra length of tubing it has to pump the water through, look really messy with tubing all over, and not benefit temperatures at all, I mean hell look at your current setup. That huge 3 ft long piece of tubing going from the 480 to the pump is something else.
> 
> Though this is not my system so what you do with it is your choice, but if you want to go for a good looking loop as well, you wouldnt be running radiators inbetween blocks. You would be doing the shortest most direct routes for a cleaner look.


Yep I even tried the ridiculous as I previously said , 120rad between two five series radeons folding 24/7 - the odd half hour to game and as I said the second card benifited  greatly 1050 hz when only 950 was doable without it, new cards aren't that much different in that the second one will throttle less than it might otherwise given the heat already dissipated into the water by gpu 1, quit with the absolutes about stuff you have not tried , for my use case it was win and well worth two pums and more effort since I got more ppd folding with them.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 14, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Yes.from the reservoir and pump to the gpus first then to the 480, back in to the CPU and up to the 240.
> 
> if you get EK water blocks, get the fc link thing they have for dual gpus


I have HEATKILLER water block


----------



## Faye_Kane_girl_brain (Aug 14, 2014)

Thanx, Shambles!  You're right; physics is exciting, when you get the Big Picture. 

One thing is, I don't know the slang very well. What is "head?" No dirty jokes, please!  ;-)

It sounds like some kind of pressure, but I never took fluid dynamics. 

-faye


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 14, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> I have HEATKILLER water block



For the GPUs? Didn't know you already got the blocks. Heatkiller also has a multi GPU link bridge.

http://www.performance-pcs.com/cata...info&cPath=59_971_1018_1083&products_id=36181



theoneandonlymrk said:


> Yep I even tried the ridiculous as I previously said , 120rad between two five series radeons folding 24/7 - the odd half hour to game and as I said the second card benifited  greatly 1050 hz when only 950 was doable without it, new cards aren't that much different in that the second one will throttle less than it might otherwise given the heat already dissipated into the water by gpu 1, quit with the absolutes about stuff you have not tried , for my use case it was win and well worth two pums and more effort since I got more ppd folding with them.



Okay dude!

LOL you actually put a radiator inbetween 2 GPUs........a 120mm radiator at that......


----------



## Shambles1980 (Aug 14, 2014)

really basically. head is the distance above the water line the pump can send water in a pipe vertically.
so if you had a pump and res at the same level (infinite water supply in the res but the water level is no higher than the pump.
and you had a pump with 13' head. 
if you attached a 14' vertical tube to the pump the water would never get pumped out of the end.
(it would not have enough pressure)

but if the reservoir was 13' above your pump that had 13' head. you could attache a 22' vertical tube to the pump and water would come out.. (the water would naturally want to get to the same level.) and then you had the additional 13' head.

but its not just vertical runs that you need to think about. all runs affect your head in some form or another. so its best to have your res as high as possible. or use those vertical tube reservoir's as they help increase the head


----------



## FireFox (Aug 14, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> For the GPUs? Didn't know you already got the blocks. Heatkiller also has a multi GPU link bridge.
> 
> http://www.performance-pcs.com/cata...info&cPath=59_971_1018_1083&products_id=36181
> 
> ...


I though that you knew that I am already running the GPU watercooled.


----------



## Faye_Kane_girl_brain (Aug 14, 2014)

skline00 said:


> I got over the fear of mounting the second rad externally



Why would you EVER mount the rad internally? That's where you're trying to keep cool! The northbridge and voltage regs and graphics cards are in there. God!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Aug 14, 2014)

To keep your pc in a tidy one box solution 《3 rads IN 1 pc


----------



## FireFox (Aug 14, 2014)

Faye_Kane_girl_brain said:


> Why would you EVER mount the rad internally? That's where you're trying to keep cool! The northbridge and voltage regs and graphics cards are in there. God!


Maybe I just explain my self wrong,  what i meant was that I don't want to add a bigger rad internally, I have a 240 internally and a 480 externally and that's enough. ...


----------



## RCoon (Aug 14, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> Maybe I just explain my self wrong,  what i meant was that I don't want to add a bigger rad internally, I have a 240 internally and a 480 externally and that's enough. ...



480 and 240 is more(way more) than enough for dual GPU and single CPU, I see no reason for you to add any radiators anywhere


----------



## FireFox (Aug 14, 2014)

RCoon said:


> 480 and 240 is more(way more) than enough for dual GPU and single CPU, I see no reason for you to add any radiators anywhere


That's what I was saying lol


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 14, 2014)

Aren't there flow meters you can buy for a liquid loop? It might be worth investing in just so you (@Knoxx29) can monitor it.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 14, 2014)

RCoon said:


> 480 and 240 is more(way more) than enough for dual GPU and single CPU, I see no reason for you to add any radiators anywhere



MxPhenom 216 recommend me the  
Watercool GPU-X Dual-Link for the dual GPU but it's to ugly,


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 14, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> MxPhenom 216 recommend me the
> Watercool GPU-X Dual-Link for the dual GPU but it's to ugly,



How I it ugly? I'd much prefer that one than EKs.

Could just go the normal tubing route.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 14, 2014)

Faye_Kane_girl_brain said:


> Why would you EVER mount the rad internally? That's where you're trying to keep cool! The northbridge and voltage regs and graphics cards are in there. God!



You should try doing a water cooling rig before you speak. Why do you think nearly every case released in the last 5 years has had support for nearly any radiator size to be mounted inside the case?


----------



## Shambles1980 (Aug 14, 2014)

I have NEVER liked to mount a radiator outside my case. 
also you can have them set up as intake or exhaust I prefer exhaust. but a lot of mfr's reccomend them as intake. 
With them set as intake. if your not running IBT for an hour at a time. the air coming in to the case is near enough ambient any way. Also as its not used for cooling the components as its water cooled it dosent matter that much. 
the top mounted radiator (if you have one) imo should always be exhausting though. 

if you think about it if the ambient temp of your room is 20c and the components in the system are at ~35c the simple process of the fans accelerating the air will have a slight wind chill factor any way so your over all delta temps are going to be the same if you set all your rads to exhaust or all of them to intake. 

personally i like to have them all exhausting with "at least" one preferably 200mm intake fan. 
With that set up the case temps "the air in the system" is not much higher than the room ambient temps. 
and as long as you have your intake lower down. and your exhaust higher up you will be drawing in the coolest possible air.

the argument of "why would you have a rad inside the case" is as redundant as "why would you have your air cooled heat sink inside the case" infact an air cooled heat sink is worse off being in the case than a radiator is (or multiple radiators are"

in terms of asthetics internal mounted radiators are Much better. in terms of performance it makes little to no difference. "provided you are exhausting air out of the case" 
What many people seem to be totally missing is the simple fact that the most important thing in water cooling is the radiator space you have. 
the more radiator space you have the easier it is to get the heat out of the water and get it back to ambient temps. 
as long as your not trying to blow the heat off the radiator with a hair dryer/heat gun set to the hottest setting. you will be able to get a lot of that heat out of the system. 

the actuall temps inside your case with water cooling could well be lower than the temps in your room. simply because all that heat your components crated is being expelled in to your room.. 
and if you set up your water cooling right. your room temps will be quite a bit hotter than they would be with a traditional heatsink and fan. they are just a lot more efficient at getting heat out of the case and in to the room.


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 14, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> No its not. I had the 932, and tore it completely down. That top little part comes off with 3 or 4 screws to reveal vent holes for the 3rd 120mm fan. and fan screw hole mounting. At the back of the little top part are vertical vents to escape the air.
> 
> The fact that people think the case has only 240mm radiator support natively in the top is a common misconception.
> 
> I know the ins and outs of that case.



Totally agree, take a peek at my specs.  Works wonderfully, the 3rd front fan is just partly obstructed, but there's an opening there just for it.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 14, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> How I it ugly? I'd much prefer that one than EKs.
> 
> Could just go the normal tubing route.


So i should pick the dual one?
the material is plastic.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 14, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> So i should pick the dual one?
> the material is plastic.



Its POM. Definitely not plastic.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 14, 2014)

In german its  called Kunststoff translated to Italian means plastic..
Btw I would like something likeb this


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 14, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> In german its  called Kunststoff translated to Italian means plastic..
> Btw I would like something likeb this
> 
> View attachment 58428



Sweet setup.  Where are the fans for the top radiator?


----------



## FireFox (Aug 14, 2014)

Sasqui said:


> Sweet setup.  Where are the fans for the top radiator?


That's not my rig, that's an example of what i want to do


----------



## FireFox (Aug 14, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> That's not my rig, that's an example of what i want to do





Sasqui said:


> Sweet setup.  Where are the fans for the top radiator?


Or maybe something like this


----------



## FireFox (Aug 14, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Its POM. Definitely not plastic.


I found something that I like and I would appreciate your help about it.

Which one can you recommen me?
Here is the link

http://www.aquatuning.de/wasserkuehlung/anschluesse/slicrossfire-adapter/?p=1


----------



## manofthem (Aug 14, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> I found something that I like and I would appreciate your help about it.
> 
> Which one can you recommen me?
> Here is the link
> ...




This is the fitting I use between my gpus Koolance SLI 2-3 slot.  I have the black one, and I've used it for quite a while now on several different cfx builds.  It works well enough, though I'm not in love with it by any means.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 15, 2014)

manofthem said:


> This is the fitting I use between my gpus Koolance SLI 2-3 slot.  I have the black one, and I've used it for quite a while now on several different cfx builds.  It works well enough, though I'm not in love with it by any means.


But is not compatible with the HEATKILLER waterblock....


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 15, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> But is not compatible with the HEATKILLER waterblock....



I can't even get the link to open so I have no idea what it is, but based on the link name, why don't you think its compatible with your block?

So you have gpu waterblocks already? Though you don't even have the 2nd card yet?


----------



## FireFox (Aug 15, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> I can't even get the link to open so I have no idea what it is, but based on the link name, why don't you think its compatible with your block?
> 
> So you have gpu waterblocks already? Though you don't even have the 2nd card yet?




this is my set up 





Koolance SLI VID Verbindungsnippel variabel G1/4" - 2-3 slot
Compatibility:   Koolance VID


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 15, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> View attachment 58458
> 
> Koolance SLI VID Verbindungsnippel variabel G1/4" - 2-3 slot
> Compatibility:   Koolance VID


Dear god do you have enough tubing going on there.......I think you might need a little more.


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 15, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> this is my set up
> 
> View attachment 58458
> 
> ...



Yeah, after seeing the picture a flow meter might be a good idea.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 15, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> Yeah, after seeing the picture a flow meter might be a good idea.



Not necessarily, how about just routing the tubing different and get some angle fittings.


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 15, 2014)

Is there a particular argument against getting a flow meter? Regardless if he redoes his loop, it would be nice to know how well water it circulating in it. Before and after would be even more useful because it would tell you if the changes really are any better or not.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 15, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> Is there a particular argument against getting a flow meter? Regardless if he redoes his loop, it would be nice to know how well water it circulating in it. Before and after would be even more useful because it would tell you if the changes really are any better or not.


I was thinking to change my loop order,
Maybe this way:
Reservoir/Pump/1 GPU/2 GPU/480 rad/CPU/240 rad/ back to reservoir.
would that work?


----------



## manofthem (Aug 15, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> I was thinking to change my loop order,
> Maybe this way:
> Reservoir/Pump/1 GPU/2 GPU/480 rad/CPU/240 rad/ back to reservoir.
> would that work?



Seems like it would work, but I think I'd change it a bit differently. I'd go res/pump/gpu1&2/480/240/cpu/res. It would give the cleanest look without extra tuning.

(another viable option with routing: flip that 240 around to the ports are on the right and then go res/pump/240/cpu/480/gpu1&2/res. That's pretty much exactly how I had my setup in my Haf 932, before  moving over to the 900D )

But @MxPhenom 216 was very right with what he said about angled fittings! They will save a lot of trouble and routing-related headache. When I finally got a bunch of 45s and 90s, it really made the routing so much cleaner and easier.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Aug 15, 2014)

the only 2 real argument against a flow meeter are.
1 you add extra resistance.
2 you add extra failure points to your loop.

then you have 3
it costs extra money.

you can get flow meeters which translate the flow in to a rpm tacho reading that a mother board can detect as a fan speed. the speed displayed in your pc isnt really the flow rate but its good enough to give you an idea if its faster slower or the same. Its also good because you can set up your bios to power down if it is at 0rpm They also come with a led temperature display..
or you can just go the old school little spinning wheel method which is only for a visual verification of flow.

as for the setup. 
its a matter of pump gets fed directly by gravity from the res. 
then everything els gets hooked up in the neatest cleanest way possible. with the shortest possible runs of tubing.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 15, 2014)

manofthem said:


> Seems like it would work, but I think I'd change it a bit differently. I'd go res/pump/gpu1&2/480/240/cpu/res. It would give the cleanest look without extra tuning.
> 
> (another viable option with routing: flip that 240 around to the ports are on the right and then go res/pump/240/cpu/480/gpu1&2/res. That's pretty much exactly how I had my setup in my Haf 932, before  moving over to the 900D )
> 
> But @MxPhenom 216 was very right with what he said about angled fittings! They will save a lot of trouble and routing-related headache. When I finally got a bunch of 45s and 90s, it really made the routing so  much cleaner and easier.


I would like to avoid that the last components water goes direct to the reservoir because it's hot, if I go for last GPU 1&2/reservoir/ Pump, that's means that the water that comes from the gpus is hot the reservoir get hot water, the pump get hot water and the 240 get hot water,
Would be good that the water that gets the reservoir is cooled by the 240, maybe going directly from pump/gpu1&2 wouldnt be so wrong because in case the reservoir get cold water and the pump get cold water from the reservoir the heat that comes from the pump won't increase that much the temperatures water that goes from the pump to the gpus.

One more point that must be considered about why I have a lot of tubes and i don't use the shortest possible runs of tubing.

The reason is:
if you saw the pic of my rig that i posted
You noticed that i have a 480 rad at the back of the case and there is no way how to reach that rad with a short tube, it doesn't mater how I run the tubes, the short way it's just one, from gpus to 480 rad instead direct from pump/480 rad.

So this should be the best for my loop:

Reservoir/Pump/gpu1&2/480 rad/CPU/240 rad/ back to reservoir


----------



## manofthem (Aug 16, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> I would like to avoid that the last components water goes direct to the reservoir because it's hot, if I go for last GPU 1&2/reservoir/ Pump, that's means that the water that comes from the gpus is hot the reservoir get hot water, the pump get hot water and the 240 get hot water,
> Would be good that the water that gets the reservoir is cooled by the 240, maybe going directly from pump/gpu1&2 wouldnt be so wrong because in case the reservoir get cold water and the pump get cold water from the reservoir the heat that comes from the pump won't increase that much the temperatures water that goes from the pump to the gpus.
> 
> One more point that must be considered about why I have a lot of tubes and i don't use the shortest possible runs of tubing.
> ...



While i have the water from my 2 gpus going directly to the res/pump and am cool with it, I understand the whole thing about you not wanting hot water going to the res and pump, though any thermal difference imo is small.



> So this should be the best for my loop:
> 
> Reservoir/Pump/gpu1&2/480 rad/CPU/240 rad/ back to reservoir



I think that will serve you very well indeed.  To do this, you may take advantage of some angled fittings, which will make your routing much easier.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 16, 2014)

manofthem said:


> While i have the water from my 2 gpus going directly to the res/pump and am cool with it, I understand the whole thing about you not wanting hot water going to the res and pump, though any thermal difference imo is small.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that will server you very well indeed.  To do this, you may take advantage of some angled fittings, which will make your routing much easier.


So you mean 90s and 45s?

From which point to which point of my loop 
You think that I will need the 90s and 45s?


----------



## manofthem (Aug 16, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> So you mean 90s and 45s?



Yes.  When I re-did my loop, I snagged a bunch of fittings ahead of time that I knew I would need to be able to make sharp turns.  Once you figure out the new loop order, map it out on paper to get an idea of what you will need.  It'll make it easier when it comes time to assemble.  

So, see if 45* or 90* angle fittings will help make bends or turns more efficiently and thus help cut down on excess tubing runs


----------



## FireFox (Aug 16, 2014)

manofthem said:


> Yes.  When I re-did my loop, I snagged a bunch of fittings ahead of time that I knew I would need to be able to make sharp turns.  Once you figure out the new loop order, map it out on paper to get an idea of what you will need.  It'll make it easier when it comes time to assemble.
> 
> So, see if 45* or 90* angle fittings will help make bends or turns more efficiently and thus help cut down on excess tubing runs



in my opinion excess tubing comes when components are too far from radiators


----------



## Shambles1980 (Aug 16, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> in my opinion excess tubing comes when components are too far from radiators


the thing is with tubing oif you want to go off at 90 degrees. you have to make this huge ass curve of tubing.. probably a good 5-6 inches 
if you had a 90 degree fitting then you would cut down about 5 or so inches.
if you have 3-4 of those thats over a foot of tubing your using less.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 16, 2014)

okay, just so its clear, loop order does not matter in the slightest. Just the fact that pump is after res. Go for the shortest cleanest most direct routes. It shouldn't matter if there's hot water going into the reservoir. As long as its cooled by a rad before going back to the system. This is probably all I have to say for the remainder of this thread. Keyword probably.


----------



## FireFox (Aug 16, 2014)

so the De-lid its finished and the CPU its back to its place, everything its working perfectly,

as i promised here are some pics of the results


----------



## manofthem (Aug 16, 2014)

Great work and great results!!  

BTW I love the background


----------



## FireFox (Aug 16, 2014)

manofthem said:


> Great work and great results!!
> 
> BTW I love the background


Thanks.

I am impressed. 

my full load temperatures fell to 20 degrees in less


----------

