Welcome to my pressure drop and thermal testing of the D-Tek Fuzion V2 CPU water block designed for a wide range of processors.
This is an actual production run copy.
I would like
to give special thanks to Gary from Sidewinder Computers for providing
me with a sample
to test. Sidewider Computers is one of my favorite places to shop
for water cooling gear. They carry a wide range of products and
typically the lowest prices. And what is even more important to
me, they are very committed to advancements in this industry and are
very active in the community. I highly recommend you giving
Sidewinder computer systems a visit on your next build!
I would also like to thank Daniel from D-Tek for his previous assistance with my GFX review. That was a test I ran
with another forum member's GFX block that unfortunately resulted in a
pin breaking on the base (likely my own fault for cleaning too
abruptly). I ended up buying that block from the forum member,
and D-Tek sent me a brand new base, no questions asked. That means alot
to me in showing D-Tek's high level of customer service, and I would
highly recommend them for that reason alone. They are also very
well know for the Fuzion series CPU and GPU blocks and have been
designing waterblocks for a very long time. Their extensive
experience is very apparent from the long term placement amongst the
best performing blocks out there.
The block is a cast copper micro round pin base design that is very well known for it's
extremely strong performance in the Fuzion V1. The top and
midblock are cast delrin which is a very popular and durable material
for water block production. The V2 also now has the middle block
fitted within the top block (insert) without the need of an exterior gasket like
V1. So the overall block has been simplified, you now have the
copper base, gasket and top block, the middle block is now sort of
snapped into place into the top block.
The new V2 takes on a more rounded top look with bottom fixed hold downs. Shown above is the pro-mount
The new V2 has made some appearance modifications. With the all
internal configuration of the midblock, you now have what appears from
the exterior as a single block on top of the copper base. D-Tek
has also made the block lines less blocky and a bit more round.
In addition as part of this change, the hold down plates are now
all bottom mounted.
The parts included were the block with pro-mount preinstalled, the universal hold down, back-plate!, and studs/springs/washers/nuts.
In my testing I believe having the hold down plate bolted on, provides
better consistency between mounts. I found the universal hold
down of the V1 was more difficult to ensure a nice level mount. While I
prefer the new pro-mount, I did not use it in my test because by
design(using the preinstalled screws), it requires you to remove the
motherboard every time and it's essential in testing that motherboard
removal is not required for speed. The pro-mount comes with
springs and screws to bolt through and thread into the back-plate that's
provided. I really appreciate the new bottom affixed hold down
designs, great improvement over V1.
The Base is nicely finished, straight edge shows it is very slightly bowed.
The base is nicely finished and
using a straight edge with a strong backlight the base does very
slightly bow when tightened down. My only issue with the bottom
side is the flat head allen screws used. They are fairly loose on a 2mm
allen wrench, nothing that can't be replaced, but be careful.
The interior reveals a similar midblock flow path as V1, but the mid-plate is now an insert into the top (O-Ring integrated!)
The new V2 adds an integrated
o-ring into the midblock to prevent any internal leaks between the
top block (this is an improvement over V1). In addition the
perimeter gasket provided was clean and tidy (improvement over V1).
The base is cast round micro-pins with perimeter channels, similar but slightly different from V1. Quality is very good.
Upon initial inspection of the new
V2 base I first noticed that they are now machine finishing the top of
the block (note the faint machining marks in the above photo). This should provide a more level and true surface for
the gasket to seat upon and removes any casting roughness at this critical
sealing area. Visually I really couldn't see any other
but using calipers brought forth more than meets the eye. To
break this down, I've created the next section that outlines the
differences between the two blocks that I noticed.
addition to the cosmetic changes, there have been a rather significant number of other physical changes, some of which are just
simplifying the design, but many of which are performance optimizations.
Hydraulics and Pressure Drop Testing
most scientific way to determine a blocks hydraulic resistance is to test
pressure drop. Pressure drop is a measurement of pressure loss across a block
that varies with flow rate. This is basically a measurement of energy loss, and
directly influences how much flow rate you will have.
Water Source - Household water pressure - 50PSI at >5GPM - Because flow
rate readings are instantaneous, household tap water and water pressure are a
good and powerful source for pressure drop testing.
First up is the actual recorded value charts for each configuration:
The quad nozzle is the least restrictive nozzle of the bunch.
This is intended for quad core users (I will try this soon on a
quad processor upgrade).
Just slightly lower restriction than the EK Supreme or Aqua Computers double impact.
I tested this nozzle thermally for my E6600, results below.
Now for some comparisons, first up...how does V2 compare to V1 you might ask:
LOWER IS BETTER, V2 is about 3.7X more restrictive than V1.
The new V2 with the shorter pins
and sealed mid/top block is approximately 3.7X more restrictive than
V1. It's still not high restriction, but it definitely is more of
an average restriction compared to the low restriction of V1 without
washer. The D-Tek Fuzion V2 stock is now very similar in restriction to the Apogee series blocks.
I also had some folks ask me to post
all of the V1 and V2 nozzles in one chart. The following is a
chart of that based on the equations I extracted from excel
representing the data trendlines:
So overall the smaller nozzles are roughly the same restriction in
either block as the nozzle becomes the significant restriction
dominating the result. Some of the results however are swapped
around like the 6.3mm nozzle, I suspect it may be the nozzle in the V2
result was not sitting entirely flush. One thing I noticed in
testing the nozzles in the V2, the nozzles were not quite as snug as
the V1 midblock so it was more difficult to make the nozzle sit down
Adding nozzles does increase restriction quickly. For example
somewhere between the 4.5mm and 5.5mm nozzle is roughly equal in
restriction to the high restriction blocks like the EK Supreme, Aqua
Computers double impact, etc. Here is a look at all of the
nozzles tested along with the Aqua Computers double impact and XSPC
Edge Acrylic for reference.
The V2 allows you to have an average to extreme restriction setup depending on the nozzle selected.
The 4.5 and 3.5mm nozzles are very restrictive and probably best suited
for experiments with very strong pumps such as dual pumps or Iwaki
RD-30s, you really need alot of pumping power to push through these
nozzles. For a quick test of the nozzles, I tried the stock
block, quad nozzle, and the 4.5mm for testing
which you can see in the following thermal section. The 4.5mm
nozzle was rumored to be one of the better nozzles on the V1, and the
quad nozzle was just more of an experiment.
So overall the restriction with nozzle option ranges from more of a
low/average with just the stock block to extreme depending on the
nozzle. To see these effects, I would recommend trying them out
in my new updated flow rate estimator, link below:
For thermal testing I decided to try and follow suit of some excellent
testing methods I've followed on xtremesystems.org. Forum member
Niksub1 has developed a method of testing where he remounts the block
several times to average out the error in mounting. I found his
testing to be exemplary and his results were always very revealing just
how important mounting multiple times is. I have some
differences in my own method, but I'm following the same TAT 100%
loading method and 5 mount process. Here are some of the
specifics in my testing method:
5 separate TIM applications and mounts averaged - This is
not common, but extremely important. It's not uncommon at all to
see mounting variations as high as 2 degrees or more, so with only one
mount, that error is 2 degrees. When you mount 5 times and
average those results, you've now reduced that error down a standard deviation of .8 to .4C.
This is an exhaustive step, but a necessary one to make any sort of conclusion about comparisons less than 2C apart.
Measure Core-Temp - Water In Delta - This factors out
the variable of an ever changing ambient air temperature (A must without
an environmental chamber).
Logging Water and Core-Temps - Core-temps reading from TAT
(Thermal Analysis Tool) or any other only have a resolution down to 1
degree and it's very common to see core temperatures fluctuate over
several degrees. The only way to accurately get a measurement
beyond the one degree posted resolution is to log those results over a
long period of time. I've chosen to log temperatures over a 30
minute increment after warm up.
Temperature Probes Deployed - I kept my sensors fairly
basic, but I did run a few extra's just for interesting information.
This includes a sensor for:
C2D Core1 and Core 2 Temps via TAT (Intel Thermal Analysis Tool)
DS18B20 Digital one-wire sensors
that were used as noted above have a specified absolute accuracy of .5C
with a .2C accuracy between 20 -30C temperature range. They also
have resolution down to .0625C which is very good, and because they are
digital they are not affected by the wiring or length of wire like
The CrystalFontz CFA-633
is an LCD with up to 32 channels of monitoring and logging capability.
It logs temperatures of each channel on a one second interval, so
over a 30 minute test, I'll have about 1,800 entries noting time and
temperature of each channel. These are then averaged for a fairly
Pump - Laing D5 (Swiftech MCP 655) Setting 5.
Stronger pumps tend to favor more restrictive blocks and smaller
pumps tend to favor low restriction blocks. The Laing D5 is a
very good and common pump, similar performance to a DDC with Top.
I think this pump represents the pumping power available to most
users and gives a fair comparison.
Radiator - Swiftech MCR320 with 5/8" x 3/8"NPT barbs,
Yate Loon D12SL12 (Petra Curved Blades) running at 12.0V. The
radiator selected is a good radiator, but nothing extremely restrictive
nor extremely free flowing, so I thought it fits well with the thought
of testing with equipment that most folks would have available.
In the end, since I measured water to core deltas, the actual
radiator thermal performance doesn't impact the end result, but the
data was collected regardless for information.
TIM Material - TIM Consultants T-C Grease 0098-
I wanted an easy to use past that performed well, and the T-C grease
is the best I've used that cures almost instantaneously and it provided
performance that was a good 3 degrees better than arctic ceramique in
my initial tests.
I used a thin layer method over the core area since the compound
comes in a small bottle as opposed to a syringe. This is
excellent TIM compound and I figured the better the compound, the more
consistency in mounting which is very important in testing. The
more I use this compound the better I like, I would highly recommend
trying this compound, it provides very good results and comes in either
a small jar or your typical syringe style applicator.
Scythe Scurk1 back-plate - This Scythe backplate
has been on my system for a while now, and I'm a firm believer in using
back-plates. Most blocks don't come with backplates, so this one
has served me well for some time.
Same mounting hardware. I
studs, nylon washers, and thumbscrews from a Danger Den mounting kit
that I like.
Each mount was done horizontally with the MB laying flat for good
centering and the block was mounted with the thumbscrews. I am
now using Danger Den springs which when measured on my scale fully
compress at just over 9lbs of force. Each of these springs is
tightened until just past being fully compressed so the overall block
pressure is roughly 40lbs of force.
TAT 100% processor Load - I use TAT 100%
simply because it
is the most severe testing of the processor available, many say it
typically loads a processor beyond it's normal power consumption
specification. This helps better measure small differences
between blocks, but it should also be noted is scaled for this extreme
loading scenario which might be similar to folding, but other common
applications would have lower differences. For example
a comparison difference of 1 degree at the test method would likely
only be .8 degrees in a more real world 80% processing power depending
on the task at hand.
Warm Up - Almost no curing was done for this
testing as I found there was almost no difference between 10 minutes of
warm-up and curing and 8 hours of curing using the T-C Grease 0098. I simply
mounted, turned the system on until all the normal processess were
started. Then I allowed a 10 minute warm-up of TAT running at 100%
before logging of temperatures was started.
Lapped IHS - My E6600 has been lapped flat down to 1000
grit to ensure a true and flat surface. The stock intel IHS can
be very irregular, some are convex, some are concave, some are wavy,
and some are fairly flat. Lapping a processor voids it's
warranty, but it ensures a nice flat surface for optimal heat transfer.
My particular processor has been lapped. A complete stock
IHS may benefit more from a bowed block than my samples because it is
Case Mounted - For testing I left my Evga 680i motherboard
mounted in my Thermaltake Armor case and simply put it on it's side on
blocks leaving the case top open. This allow me to access the CPU
block and mount on the horizontal which improve mounting consistency.
Test Run Sample, this is just one sample of the data collected
for a single mount test over time. Over a 30 minute period all of
the above noted sensors are continually logged, here is a small portion
of just one test. One run typically generates over 1800 logged
water and air results and roughly 500 core temp results logged by TAT.
Both of these are time stamped, so they can be correlated and
plotted as you can see below.
In the end I simply take the entire collection of data and average the results for each item measured.
Thermal Test Comparison
First up is the performance Tables for the Fuzion V2, this includes the
5 mounts that were tested for both the stock fuzion V2 as well as the
V2 with the 4.5mm nozzle. I didn't inlcude the results in my line
graph, but you can also see I tested the quad nozzle for two mounts
worth before giving up on the idea, it's clearly not something you want
to use for a dual core processor (quads only). As you can see my ambient
temperatures vary alot, but carefully logging all the temperatures
including water temperatures and only comparing the difference between
water/cores appears to correct for
that very well.
If you are interested in my other block tests tables, I have those tabular results posted here including the D-Tek Fuzion V1, the XSPC Edge Acrylic, and the Aqua Computers double impact.
The average core temperature differences overall seemed to be close
enough, typically one core would be 3 to 4 degrees cooler, but that chaged over several mounts so I believe this is more of a
variance from windows tasking one processor more than the other than cooling.
The overall average between processors was roughly within one
degree when averaged over 5 mounts so there's not really any preference to cooling one processor
more than the other from what I could gather. Water
In vs water out temperatures remained fairly low with the stock and
quad nozzle, but as you can see the 4.5mm nozzle and extreme
restriction did result in some increase, still very small, but
consistent with the pressure drop results.
And here are the 5 mounts plotted and compared to previous testing that was done using the same testing methods:
Mounting consistency is very much improved on the new solidly attached hold down plates.
And now to take the multiple mounts and average those to one single 5 mount average number:
The new V2 is performing exceptionally well in stock form on my lapped
dual core processor, it's also doing so with much higher consistency
than the old V1, so the changes in mounting hold down plates are
showing their advantages as well. Overall stock V1 to stock V2 is
showing nearly a full 3 degrees of improvement,
part of which I would
attribute to the internal midplate redesign with integrated o-ring, but
also the thermally optimized base changes in pin height
and base thickness surely play a big role in the improvements.
My Fuzion V1 with washer and nozzle only performed about .4C
better than the stock V1, so the base redesign is likely
So there you have it, the new D-Tek Fuzion V2 is performing extremely
well on a lapped dual core processor.
What about the nozzles?
I also did not see any
measurable benefit from using the 4.5mm nozzle, the net difference was
.17C higher temps using the nozzle, but that's within mounting
deviations of testing using 5 mounts.
It's possible there could be a very small gain, but it was not
measurable using the 5 mount method and the particular pump I used.
I initially intended to try more nozzles out and zero in on an
ideal for this pump, but I questioned the value after seeing the 4.5
and quad nozzle was not showing a measureable difference. Using a dual
core processor and pump similar to a Laing D5, I would simply recommend
using the stock block. Perhaps with a really strong pumping system
or quad cores, the nozzles have a more measurable improvement. I
would still encourage people with different pumping systems or
different cores to experiment with nozzles, I've only been able to show
you how it reacts with my particular setup. If I had an Iwaki or
running dual pumps in series I think it would be worthwhile trying some
of the smaller nozzles, quad cores I suspect the quad mid plate may
What about more bowing, a thicker o-ring?
I am currently working some runs to check what happens if the stock
o-ring is replaced with a larger/thicker o-ring. The first few
mounts are not showing any measurable improvement, so I suspect using a
flat lapped processor does not benefit from this mod. If your IHS
is convex or wavy, it may show some gains from doing so, but so far I
can not see improvement on my lapped flat processor.
The best dual core processor thermal performance tested to date.
Based on the previously outstanding D-Tek V1 block, but improved.
Average Restriction without nozzles -
Considering the high thermal performance, restriction is still fairly
small and would perform well in many setups.
Attached Hold Down Plate and Pro Mount included - Makes installation easier and provides more
consistently good mounts.
Back-plate is INCLUDED!!! VERY NICE!!
Delrin (Black Acetal) top, steel hold down, and brass screw inserts ensure long term durability.
High quality oversized D-Tek barbs with o-ring retainers to prevent o-ring displacement.
High quality fabrication, overall quality is superb except for the base screws.
Screws - I had trouble and had to be extremely careful with the bottom
allen head screws, I would suggest replacing them if you plan to take
it apart very often..
Average Restriction - 3.7X more restrictive than the V1 without washer.
Very restrictive when combined with smaller nozzles.
Extra accessory costs not included. Nozzles and quad midplate must be purchased separately.
Nozzle performance not measurable in tested setup - 4.5mm nozzle tested did not perform better than stock.
Pro mount requires motherboard removal if installed using front mounting screws preinstalled.
The new D-Tek V2 may at first look like a minor cosmetic top upgrade
which would be acceptable considering how well the V1 performs, but
it's much more than that. D-Tek has spent a fair amount of time
taking all the good from V1, building upon that work and making it even
better for the new version. The thermal performance gains in the new
version over V1 were surprising to me, and exceeded my expectations...I'm impressed!
Dual Core Testing Results
The V2 performed almost 3 degrees better in stock form than the V1 did
stock, that's a very substantial improvement! It is now more of
an average restriction block, so it's no longer extremely free flowing as
it once was. Overall the V2 fixes all of the little things that
the V1 missed, and the only downside left is those base screws.
For dual core processors, the D-Tek Fuzion V2 in a single CPU
only block loop will afford you the best thermal performance, it is
superb and I would recommend using the block stock without nozzles.
The D-Tek Fuzion V2 is the best thermal performing block I have tested on a dual core processor.
Quad Core Result (Coming Soon)
Unfortunately you can't always assume a block that
perform one way on a dual core will perform the same on a quad core.
I am however in the process of aquiring a quad core processor to
start testing with. When I complete those results I will update
my results here with that information. Stay tuned....