EK Supreme HF CPU Block

[Bulldog]

http://www.pureoverclock.com/images/review/cooling/ek_supremehf/ek_supremehf_preview.jpg
“Water cooling a CPU has been around for quite some time and EK Water Blocks has been on the scene for over eleven years now. No stranger to us, we’ve seen many of their designs across our testing bench. EKWB is finally releasing the Supreme HF (high flow) CPU block, the successor of the popular EK Supreme, so let's take a closer look at see how this water block performs.”

Review URL: http://www.pureoverclock.com/article909.html

[Wizard]

I'm actually a little confused by this article (not really, but I'm going to introduce a few paradoxical figures for you).

In the world of watercooling, all the experts will tell you its all about flow... So (and generally speaking) - the more flow, the better the capacity for cooling.

Yet this review shows conflicting information regarding that. First, let's look at what they show for flow.

http://www.pureoverclock.com/images/review/cooling/ek_supremehf/ek_supremehf_flow.jpg

Let's read what they said about this:

Here we see that the EK Supreme HF has almost double the flows compared to the Apogee XT and it has only 6% flow lost at stock jet plate (#3). That’s impressive but how does it stacks up in thermal performance against one of the current best CPU blocks on the market?

Ok, so let's see how a waterblock with almost twice the flow rate does:
http://www.pureoverclock.com/images/review/cooling/ek_supremehf/ek_supremehf_tempst.jpg

Ex-squeeze me?
:eek:

What's wrong with these pictures? Their figures show that this waterblock, even though enjoying twice as much flow as an Apogee XT, doesn't cool it nearly as efficiently... Yet they still tout it as a "great" waterblock - How can that possibly be?

Unless... Their testing methodology is... Wrong...?

Which it is.

This is exactly why you (yes YOU, the reader) cannot trust reviews that attempt to use temperature comparisons for gauging performance.
Chances are, the methodologies employed are inconsistent and/or flawed. Which in turn means their data is garbage.
Only a select few review sites actually know what is needed in order to properly take (and thus compare) temperature measurements.
So please, do yourselves a favor - don't believe everything you read, and ask questions when in doubt.

So what's wrong with this particular review site's methodology? Well, here's one hint: They might as well have used toothpaste.
:thinking: