Techea

man, it could be very true.

Yes, the guy in the video explains clearly what's happening with the cpu temp when you decrease or increase pump speed. Exactly what I saying myself about the gpu temp that is directly related to the velocity of the fluid in the system. If you also increase the number of loops and add more radiators to the system maintaining the same velocity then the temperatures automatically go down.

Of course the longer the loop and the more radiators you mount in the system the lower the temp goes, obviously.

First I need to see a GPU block in reality, hook it up an do some tests. It really bothers me because I'm sure the velocity of the fluid changes in parallel setup and that's the only variable that moves the heat away from the card. That's why when you increase the speed of the pump the fluid travels faster and the temperatures obviously get lower and vice versa.

I have to admit these are ideal temperatures in idle and load mode.

So you went 10% down in pump speed when you used the series setup and still recorded temperatures lower than the parallel loop with the pump at 50%? Would you mind sharing numbers in idle and load mode? After reading all the inputs from everybody I'm inclined to believe something is definitely wrong with the gpu block design.

Would you mind sharing your idle temp and load temp and what TR processor you use?

In conclusion you are telling me there is no difference between the series and parallel configuration using identical gpu blocks. Temperatures are the same which means the velocity of the coolant is identical in both setups.

If you get the same temperatures when you mount them both in parallel and series configuration that means there is something very wrong with the design of the gpu block.

You really push me right now to spend $300 on two gpu blocks and another $400 on parts to show you there is a huge temp difference between series and parallel configuration of the gpu’s.

Why Jayz 2 cents didn’t do a comparison between the parallel and series configuration in the same video to show clearly to everybody there is no difference between those. In reality there is a huge difference and those 3 gpu’s had they have been put in series most likely they would have ran at 32 degrees instead of 50. I didn’t say there is no flowing in parallel but it’s almost half of the flowing one will get if the configuration will be series built. The same guy Jayz 2 cents will install the nuts on the cpu cooler using an electric screwdriver. I saw the video with my own eyes. He doesn’t look to me college educated. Does he look intelligent to you? Not taking any advice from him. Sorry.

True statement, thank you.

W-L I commend you for taking the time to explain your point of view which is undeniably logical and well formulated.

Thank you for putting this picture up because on the other thread I was trying to explain that I can very well go with the piping IN through the bottom and exit through the top GPU without any problems. But here is the issue with the parallel connection. The coolant will find rapidly the fastest channel to travel and one of the gpu will have parts where the coolant will simply have nonexistent movement.

This is exactly what I'm trying to convince everyone that in parallel the flow is almost nonexistent through one of the gpu. The parallel connection impedes the coolant from flowing unrestrained which subsequently reduces the cooling of the gpu. Do you agree with that?

Bottom line probably it doesn't really matter what hole you chose to enter and exit the gpu block the whole point was around the double connection between the gpu's called parallel bs connection which is totally wrong because in one of the gpu's the fluid will not move.

Sorry I was talking to two people in the same time and I was trying to make the argument that I can go with the flowing from the bottom left second gpu through right ek hole first gpu as exit and it will be just fine using only one connection between the two gpu's.

Yes I agree with you here. The flow goes counterclockwise as shown in the picture and the coolant enter first GPU through the right and exit bottom through the Tsplit hole. But that's the wrong itinerary chosen by the builder. It should enter through the left Tsplit hole and exit through the ek hole, and again enter through the Tsplit second gpu and exit through the ek hole to have a continuous unimpeded flow in order to cool both gpu's equally.

What I'm trying to convince everybody is that there is no such thing as parallel flow. Why would you design something with a parallel flow, whatever that means, and which by the definition will hinder the direct flow and prevent from cooling properly. Who is that genius who designed the parallel flow because I don't think that's the case and I don't believe there is an engineer out there who will design such absurdity.

There is no parallel flow in reality. It impedes flow and the cooling doesn't take place. The connection is simply wrong.

Yes, that's correct.

This is a double block especially built with the fluid routing this way to accommodate 2 gpu's. Are you saying if I go in the picture with the tube in bottom GPU through Tsplit hole - come out on the other side through the ek hole - enter top GPU through the Tsplit hole and exit through the ek hole it's not going to work?

I will not argue about that. That's perfectly right.

Definitely water should come in through the second GPU card on the Tsplit hole and come out through the EK hole. Is that right?

In the picture I posted water comes in through the EK hole on first GPU and comes out on the Tsplit sign or water comes in the second GPU Tsplit sign and comes out on the EK hole? Which one?