product testing today – who is being served ?

[BillA]

As a number of recent threads have revealed, there is little consensus as to how products, wbs in this instance, should be tested. In all instances the ‘equipment required’ exceeds that needed to operate the device and observe it such as the end user would with their own computer. Is it not appropriate, given finite resources, to consider the cost/benefit ratio of various testing methodologies as applied to their intended audience(s) ?

Do we need a Testarossa to buy groceries ? I submit not (but max bling eh ?).

Procooling is understood to cater to extremists and in no area may this be seen more clearly than watercooling. And my contribution has been ever increasing levels of sophistication of test equipment and procedures (which is still on-going), leading to the distinction of ever smaller increments; the specification wars. These very small increments are of interest to three groups; product designers, those purchasing based on specs, and gearhead enthusiasts doing some armchair engineering.

Admittedly at some point the differences fall below what a user could detect even if all else in their system remained the same (which is never the case even if it seems so). Additionally most users are unfamiliar with the jargon and equipment of thermal management and are not seeking technical enlightenment; they want to be told that which is ‘the best product’. Many users prefer simple information even at the risk of it being incorrect, they have no choice if the other explanations are beyond their understanding (users, remember).

Can the procoolers here not define, and validate, a CPU based thermal test system that is not so complex or expensive that review sites, and enthusiasts, would be able to use and reference a common platform ? Review sites are not going to spend thousands for a bench, but some hundreds for several key pieces may be more palatable. Yes it is understood that if “C” and “W” are not both known with precision the value is, ahem, uncertain; but perhaps if the uncertainties were similar then the results would be at least comparable in the ‘real world’ sense.

We are good at creating confusion, can we bring some clarity also ?

An Addendum
Lets leave the high-resolution totally out of this discussion; system based testing, not bench.
I am aware of only 6 high-end testers, let them figure out what is practical as they actually have to make it work. Other threads to instruct the high-end testers please.

some suggestions:
what measurements are essential ? (sink performance relative to that platform)
what resolution ? (related to users)
what measurement method(s) ? (define procedure, calibration, base-line definition, etc.)
what 'special' equip ? (list sources and equivalents, nominal prices)

can procooling draft a test procedure for review sites ?
(can we solicit their input after abusing them so ?, lol)

[pHaestus]

A question about drafting a test procedure for review sites:

How big of a parameter is "doing a thorough job" in the final numbers? You can't stop kids from pestering companies for free stuff and then doing a halfassed job testing it. Companies will usually give people coolers to start with (relatively cheap yes?). My gut instinct is that half-assedry (lol) probably makes their results far more worthless than an extra digit of resolution ever could help. Or even a standard testbed.

I don't think you could do even the most rudimentary water cooling system testing without:

1) Measuring CPU temp reliably (0.125C res seemed ok to me but you have to be able to tap into the diode with external readers). IHS case temp would be good enough for general reviewers? Better than MBM, but then whether the TCs stay in spec is a problem. Onboard temp readers from mobo are worthless and I ignore any testing that relies solely upon them.

2a) Water temp inlet side. The other part of the dT measurement if you're testing a waterblock. I guess 0.125C is again ok, but if you want to estimate Watts you MUST have 0.01C resolution and then collect water in and out of the block.

2b) Air into the radiator. The other part of the dT measurement if you're testing a system. I guess 0.125C is ok. This is a very very hard measurement to do well.

What kind of testing could you do with that though? Pretty show and tell stuff:

"in this standard system with xyz components the waterblock performed as so. This can be compared to other waterblocks in the same system as follows"

Can't really make buying recommendations for people unless they too use the same rad, pump, tubing, loop setup. Is that ok? Maybe so for complete systems?

[pHaestus]

OK so here's a draft test system that would be a little bit more sophisticated. It would be capable of doing what my old test bench did more or less but at a slightly lower resolution:

Crystalfontz 633 DOW reader/logger/controller ($100US)

-DOW probe modified for water inlet
-DOW probe modified for water outlet
-Array of 4 DOW probes in a cirble for air inlet

Use the fan headers for monitoring fan rpms/PWMing the radiator fans to reach a set water inlet temp (as close as possible anyway).

Use the fan header to also record flow rates of the system using a Swissflow flowmeter ($100US)

Groove the IHS and use a small tc to read CPU temp? $200ish?

Calibrate all the probes in the same water bath from 0-50C or so and then go to town.

What about incoherent's old thermistor-based setup? It measured dP I think instead of flow, but in principle could be used as well?

[BillA]

yes, this would have to be simple to and past the point of losing some data

lets consider kit and component testing apart

kit testing:
1) some reality in "C" is essential, I would opt for grooving the IHS
not hard to qualify TC thermal connection
- cons: not cheap, groovemust be 'on spec'

2a) Watt determination is not possible w/o GOOD flow rates and high res/accuracy temps
-> by virtue of the needed equipment, I have no difficulty in saying that the calculation of the heat load is outside of the normal review site's capability
- need a dyno to test engines, eh ?

2b) quite agreed, if most reviewers understood the (unobserved) variations in their air temps I suspect they would not publish
-> but we could define a procedure, no ?

keeping kits apart from components, I see no technical difficulties in kit testing with a 'qualified mobo/CPU/TC TIM joint'

component testing requires a separate determination of essential parameters
where, for example, a procedure calls for the determination of the flow rate, differential pressure, or small temperature differences then I (again, sorry) would say clearly that such testing is outside the province of those not having suitable equipment

my thought was to define an acceptable means of testing with a CPU,
not at all to 'qualify' CPUs as a source (alone) that would then enable anyone to test anything, right tools for the job

[pHaestus]

OK to simplify things for reviewers a bit...

At this point in time I actually see a justification for lots of reviewers doing "best they can" with different CPUs: SocketA still in usage, P4s, AMD64s, Opterons, and then dual cores. IHS or running naked, the list goes on and on. We can actually use the info to try and see where things stand better than any single die simulator testing could do.

But the dP vs. Q curves that we all desire for component testing are not system dependent, are they? Why shouldn't we just have a repository for this information in a format like the old Pro/testing site that all reviewers could link to and use? No sense in everyone being limited by that piece of equipment

PROVIDED their own flow measurement tools are in clibration I guess?

[BillA]

here is the problem as I see it, the dP vs. Q curves cannot be (well) made w/o a bunch of quality equip
one could postulate a lesser 'grade' of equip, and guarantee shit results (been there, done that Thanks)
this type of testing is not, to me, the reasonable province of typical review sites

no reason not to collect and 'bank' the data

good reason to question data, look at that cal thread - and I am STILL in the middle of all that

[pHaestus]

Yup just trying to remove that barrier of entry from testing.

Saves me some work too (unless I am the one stuck doing it)

[Joe]

I am a bit late to the party, but I really like the direction this is going. It sounds like this could move review testing to an area where its attainable by more for less. Resulting in faster turn around on reviews, and more goodie for our readers.

[BillA]

OK so here's a draft test system that would be a little bit more sophisticated. It would be capable of doing what my old test bench did more or less but at a slightly lower resolution:

Crystalfontz 633 DOW reader/logger/controller ($100US)

-DOW probe modified for water inlet
-DOW probe modified for water outlet
-Array of 4 DOW probes in a circle for air inlet

Use the fan headers for monitoring fan rpms/PWMing the radiator fans to reach a set water inlet temp (as close as possible anyway).

Use the fan header to also record flow rates of the system using a Swissflow flowmeter ($100US)

Groove the IHS and use a small tc to read CPU temp? $200ish?

Calibrate all the probes in the same water bath from 0-50C or so and then go to town.

What about incoherent's old thermistor-based setup? It measured dP I think instead of flow, but in principle could be used as well?
answering in no particular order:

any sensor type yielding an indicated 0.1°C resolution can be used IF it can be caled
but we should not recommend sensors with known durability problems, coolant sensors need to be in a moisture impenetrable sheath (ck Omega, not a deal breaker)

I still have reservations about a Swissflo
-> anyone want to loan me one and I'll ck it against a 0.2" dia mag meter (with head loss) ?

I think grooving the IHS is the challange
the groove depth and width should barely exceed the dimensions of 40ga TFA coated TC wire laid flat, a dwg is needed
note that the plane of the IHS surface from the edge to the center must be established to avoid cutting too deeply into the crowned central area
- the real dificulty may be to find a machine shop willing to do such as one-offs

I'm probably at the limit of being able to speak as I have no mobo testing exp at all
got a link to Incoherent's thermistor post/thread ? (I'm not clever enough to search here)

[pHaestus]

The advantage of the DOW sensors is that the entire digital thermometer is contained in the transistor packaging. So the wiring solder quality doesn't matter one bit. This is really the big advantage of them. Well that and the whole logging can be done in one setup.

My Swissflow seemed to report numbers within spec of my GPI flowmeter over the 0.5-3 range. I had some electrical issues with it though and it is about 4-5 years old from Joe's old test system. I can see if I can dig it up and I'll send it to you but I am not sure it's a good measure of general swissflow performance.

They are not a problem to submerge in water, but the wiring IS. No factory sheathing for them; gotta rig something up.

Ya the grooving is gonna be a pita for everyone who tries it. Could we switch to a copper shunt instead like your old TIM testing? Would that be a dealbreaker? Not sure.

[nikhsub1]

got a link to Incoherent's thermistor post/thread ? (I'm not clever enough to search here)
You mean this? http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=12247

[Joe]

The advantage of the DOW sensors is that the entire digital thermometer is contained in the transistor packaging. So the wiring solder quality doesn't matter one bit. This is really the big advantage of them. Well that and the whole logging can be done in one setup.

My Swissflow seemed to report numbers within spec of my GPI flowmeter over the 0.5-3 range. I had some electrical issues with it though and it is about 4-5 years old from Joe's old test system. I can see if I can dig it up and I'll send it to you but I am not sure it's a good measure of general swissflow performance.

They are not a problem to submerge in water, but the wiring IS. No factory sheathing for them; gotta rig something up.

Ya the grooving is gonna be a pita for everyone who tries it. Could we switch to a copper shunt instead like your old TIM testing? Would that be a dealbreaker? Not sure.

What I found with the turbine style flow meeter is that if you dont filter the water, they seem to act as the filter. That was my second Swissflow, the first one got some hair in it or fibers from something and got gummed up.

[BillA]

turbine or paddlewheel ? (the latter I think)
I and pH used a (larger - GPI) paddlewheel with some success, fouling is a problem though

but understand that a flow meter is useful only for WCing component tests which cannot be done w/o also measuring the pressure drop (witness pH's difficulties)
-> now a new difficulty; while 0.1°C resolution is sufficient for kit testing, is it sufficient for component testing ?
no
if I truncate my input data it yields 'noise' at low flow/power levels

while I see a need/place for sink and WCing kit testing using a CPU as a heat source, I am most unsure that a CPU is also suitable to test components
- I am not saying that components could not be tested by substitution into a system being tested as a kit (noting the difference etc.),
just that component parametric performance curves will necessitate equipment having more resolution (high-end, elsewhere)

In summation, I am suggesting that review sites not having a high-end calibrated test bench avoid parametric testing as they have not the tools
test cooling solutions, components only by substitution

[Joe]

by components you mean Radiators, and Pumps correct?

I for one still want to see a good way of testing radiators... I mean I tried it before, you tried it before (better than me), but still there has to be a better way.

[BillA]

link to the DOW sensor ?
ever cal one ?

that TIM test was terrible (by my stds of today),
no - really do need to groove the IHS if that temp is to be used

EDIT
yes, wbs, rads, and pumps
nothing about rad testing lends itself to casual activity, look at this review
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=328&num=1
please give us your comments

[pHaestus]

DOW Sensors (http://www.maxim-ic.com/quick_view2.cfm?qv_pk=2812)

They are not bad for casual usage; I replaced all thermistors in my normal PCs with these for temp monitoring.

[Joe]

Here are some of the DOW sensors:
Econo:
http://www.maxim-ic.com/quick_view2.cfm/qv_pk/2795

"High Precision":
http://www.maxim-ic.com/quick_view2.cfm/qv_pk/2812

Both will work with a CF633, CF635 and CF631

[Joe]

The swissflow is a turbine style, and I had fibers or hair get wrapped around the central hub causing it to bind slightly.

[Joe]

link to the DOW sensor ?
yes, wbs, rads, and pumps
nothing about rad testing lends itself to casual activity, look at this review
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=328&num=1
please give us your comments

Hmm... I feel a little better about myself now... I mean theres about 2 dozen things I could point out that are wrong with that reivew.

I mean mine was even better ;) Atleast I showed who the competitors were...

[BillA]

Here are some of the DOW sensors:
Econo:
http://www.maxim-ic.com/quick_view2.cfm/qv_pk/2795

"High Precision":
http://www.maxim-ic.com/quick_view2.cfm/qv_pk/2812

Both will work with a CF633, CF635 and CF631
it would seem a TO-92 package could be potted into a 1/4"OD ss sheath,
lead extension is no biggie in that dia

anyone have some in a TO-92 package they want to test ?

how did you use these pH ?
dip them ?

[pHaestus]

I have lots in TO-92 packaging Bill. Maybe 20 or 30?

You're gonna make fun of me when I tell you this but for water readings I just gooped them up as well as I could and then stuck them into a T. Not recommended for long term usage.

I found these most useful for logging air temps around the case really but if the 1/4" SS sheath isn't expensive then I'd add some in for water for sure.

[Joe]

http://www.procooling.com/index.php?func=articles&disp=103

thats the review where pH breaks down the TO-92 hackage ;)

[BillA]

ok, send me a dozen
I'll get the sheaths and send you some
should we standardize on a potting compound ? (McMaster or Omega ?)
epoxy seal the end, heat shrink as the strain relief
wire ga ?

[pHaestus]

Bill:
Matrix Orbital and CrystalFontz both sell these DOW readers to the water cooling/overclocking crowd. If you make a few and can explain the process then we can probably get them into their regular product catalog.

How short can the sheath be though? Those 6-12" lengths I get on RTDs and thermistors are a bit excessive for plumbing into most people's PCs...

//edit: The nice thing about the probes is that since the entire thermometer is in the IC that wire gauge doesn't matter. I think both mfgrs that sell them to PC users use wire similar to fans, but that's overkill. Whatever works and will not affect the reading in anyway. I've used wrapping wire without problem.

[Joe]

I had some 3M potting compound I bought back in the DH2 days... it was supposed to be someof the best around. I bought it from Graybar.

[Joe]

Yeh in that article linked you can see pH used what looks like ~30GA

[bigben2k]

I've got a Swissflow on the way from the UK (on a slow shipment); Bill, i'd be more than happy to loan it to you, before I even use it.

Was going to use it to corelate some flow readings from my turbine beast (Sponsler). ( http://wbta.us/forums/index.php?topic=57.0 ). You're welcome to borrow that one too.

[BillA]

would be interesting to see the 3 compared
you going to provide the attachment pieces ?
sure, let me know

are we 'qualifying' a low cost flow meter ?
what do these cost Ben ?

[BillA]

Bill:
Matrix Orbital and CrystalFontz both sell these DOW readers to the water cooling/overclocking crowd. If you make a few and can explain the process then we can probably get them into their regular product catalog.

How short can the sheath be though? Those 6-12" lengths I get on RTDs and thermistors are a bit excessive for plumbing into most people's PCs...

//edit: The nice thing about the probes is that since the entire thermometer is in the IC that wire gauge doesn't matter. I think both mfgrs that sell them to PC users use wire similar to fans, but that's overkill. Whatever works and will not affect the reading in anyway. I've used wrapping wire without problem.
4" sheath length leaves 3/4" protruding from those crosses in the cal thread
and those crosses would have to be used if caling them is to be avoided
I'm thinking of this as a test setup and not an end user device

not sure of the method to ensure a void free potting of the sensor in the tip
anyone done such ?

[Joe]

If you had a vacuum chamber it would be easy. apply the potting compound, suck it to a vacuum. It should pull most if not all air out of the compound.

[bigben2k]

would be interesting to see the 3 compared
you going to provide the attachment pieces ?
sure, let me know

are we 'qualifying' a low cost flow meter ?
what do these cost Ben ?
Does the Swissflow needs special attachments? Otherwise yes, I'll find attachments for the Sponsler.

Swissflow can be had for ~$50 US, got mine in a group buy for $32 (+ shipping from the UK).

I know of no other reasonably priced flowmeters that is commonly available, and economical.

The Sponsler was a lucky find on eBay at $42.

I'll advise once I have both the Swissflow and the fittings for the Sponsler.

[jaydee]

The Swissflows I got have BSP threads. They sent me some BSP to NPT adapters. They used to sell a barbed version but I don't know if they still do. I like my Swissflow other than it is restrictive and they recommend a 20 micron filter. I would be very interested in the results.

I pretty much have all this stuff mentioned in pH post and already used it in previous testing. Another bonus of the CF633 is it will read and log the Swissflow flow meter output aswell.

Only thing I disliked about the CF633 is the speed of the temp changes. That is why I ended up not using it for temps. I use my ColeParmer Unit with the YSI probe to help mount blocks. It scans so fast you can see the temps changing when adjusting the mounting pressure. Helps point out to much or to little pressure on one side.

The biggest problem I have with CPU testing is getting the CPU temp. Not to many can just get the IHS milled.

[bigben2k]

Darn, mine's not going to have any fittings. On to McMaster...

I hear you about milling the IHS. It's not an easy job, simply because you have to have a solid mill, and a beefy motor, to run a 1mm endmill, even though it's only a 0.6mm depth. I only know that Fettig is so equipped.

I suggested contracting someone to groove all of these IHS for us...

[jaydee]

Darn, mine's not going to have any fittings. On to McMaster...

I hear you about milling the IHS. It's not an easy job, simply because you have to have a solid mill, and a beefy motor, to run a 1mm endmill, even though it's only a 0.6mm depth. I only know that Fettig is so equipped.

I suggested contracting someone to groove all of these IHS for us...
I could do it on mine but I am not going to simply because of liability and I don't have the time.

This brings me to the next question of the cost of the probe and the meter that it will take for this measurement?

[Joe]

I have a CF635 coming in the mail that I will get reviewed and posted in the next couple weeks (focusing on getting site work done still until then)

[BillA]

reality ck guys
look at those DOW sensor packages, good for air and water (in a sheath)
not gonna work in Incoherent's die sim or inlet into the top of an IHS
- there may be a thermistor soln, there is a known TC soln

jd
I buy Fluke 2190As all the time off eBay, avg ~$50 inc shipping plus $75 or so to cal
compare specs, best deal on the planet
you are presumably a more serious tester, but if you are unwilling to groove your test CPU; then with a guesstimated C and a guesstimated W what are your efforts worth ?
the whole point of this is to have a known temp related to the CPU temp on a known platform

an approach from the other side ?, what is a 'reasonable' cost for a CPU based thermal test setup ?

and if grooving the CPU is a deal-breaker, we should probably let this be and consider it a higher-end testing activity
note that the 775 has no pins, less fragile, and 'no known' internal TIM joint problems
(a CPU heat source, not your product endorsement jd)

[pHaestus]

"and if grooving the CPU is a deal-breaker, we should probably let this be and consider it a higher-end testing activity"

Hmm I thought avoiding higher end testing activity was the whole point?

For AMD you can tap into the diode like I do. Works ok I guess; I see nothing wrong with it anyway (lol?). My plan is to get an AMD64 "grooved" on top as per your specs and then publish offsets between die and IHS temps and watch them over time while I'm testing on this platform. Cost of that setup is $100 plus being able to solder and not being skeered to desolder pins from your 939 chip and resolder wires on it.

//edit: HONESTLY my old socketA setup was a pretty good example of a readily attainable test platform for everyone. Nothing too expensive in that package; it worked well enough for general use. It required a lot of fiddling of course and an eye for whether the instrumentation was still working properly I guess.

[BillA]

the 'fiddling part' is what we need to avoid
there must be a staight-forward means to verify a baseline, and very stable operation thereafter
the troubleshooting ability of 'reviewers' should be considered zip, yours is a high-end system by that definition pH

my comment about dropping this was intended for jd, if he won't consider grooving his IHS then he can make a heat die
(that will make a groove seem pretty attractive)

[jaydee]

I think you need to see what people use now and get a feel for what they will do to improve it.

I can pretty much guarantee they will not:

1) Spend more than what is in their pocket
2) Send anything out for calibration or calibrate what they have
3) Mill their IHS
4) Solder pins
5) Use any methodology that takes more than an hour to test a block

The sites/people that are actually whiling to do anything to improve their test bench already do so. The rest just don't care. That is the way I see it anyway. I think the problem isn't so much in the test setup but the willingness to build it and learn how to troubleshoot it. pH has already laid the ground work for what can be done with his Socket A bench and it has been out for a year or 2 now? How many have adopted his work or have done similar? Can count the one's I know on one hand.

Let's face it most reviewers have no clue how to get anything resembling consistent results and many simply claim they need not bother with better methods.

Anyway we are already deep into the pockets for this setup not counting the computer itself. Already to much money.

CF633 + probes $150
Used Fluke calibrated $150
Usable pump $100
Flow meter $50
Radiator/Fan $25 (heater core style)
Misc. valves/plumbing $25

guess we are throwing out dP all together?

You are already at $500 conservatively.

Then add in a dedicated computer....

[jaydee]

the 'fiddling part' is what we need to avoid
there must be a staight-forward means to verify a baseline, and very stable operation thereafter
the troubleshooting ability of 'reviewers' should be considered zip, yours is a high-end system by that definition pH

my comment about dropping this was intended for jd, if he won't consider grooving his IHS then he can make a heat die
(that will make a groove seem pretty attractive)
I am not saying I won't (although I won't because I don't need to), I am saying most don't have the ability to get it done. I don't think it is an option.

[Joe]

Not being willing to take more than an hour to test a block to me seems rather lame... to test a HSF I would assume it would take 3 or 4 hours of testing... to test a waterblock I would assume the same to do repeated tests to make sure your moutning is not fubar.

[jaydee]

Not being willing to take more than an hour to test a block to me seems rather lame... to test a HSF I would assume it would take 3 or 4 hours of testing... to test a waterblock I would assume the same to do repeated tests to make sure your moutning is not fubar.
Exactly my point. However most tests I see done (that actually state times) are done in less than an hour. 30 mins usually. I don't even start taking temps for a hour or 2 on each mount. Have to get equilibrium established.

This brings me to my next question on who exactly is this thread intended for?

[Joe]

This thread is intended to help bring an acceptable testing solution so that reviewer can get comparible data across websites, without having the massive expense and days of time it takes to test something.

3 or 4 hours are nothing compared to what a block would take to test at R+D levels. Hell it would take 3 hours to setup a test on high end gear.

[jaydee]

This thread is intended to help bring an acceptable testing solution so that reviewer can get comparible data across websites, without having the massive expense and days of time it takes to test something.

3 or 4 hours are nothing compared to what a block would take to test at R+D levels. Hell it would take 3 hours to setup a test on high end gear.
Ok so who are we talking to? Shouldn't the reviewers interested in such a bench be in the conversation? Otherwise we are talking to ourselfs with our own biases.

We need outside reviewers with their perspective on what they will and will not do and then work with that info. What seems simple to us is not so for them. That not only will give us a better idea what to look for but may also educate the reviewer on better methods to get the desired results. We can design this bench but out of 10 people using it you will get 10 different results if the testing methods/conditions are not the same.

[BillA]

last line, post #1

but before we try to sell something we need to know if what we would propose:
works
is repeatable
at a tolerable cost

THEN address the notions of the reviewers

[jaydee]

$500 is already more than most will pay IMO but carry on. We can give e-bay lessons I guess.

What happens if the CPU and socket gets discontinued?

[pHaestus]

Well what of an open source testing rig similar to the setup incoherent made? We provide CNC drwgs and circuitboard schematics/parts lists/etc? We provide test results for a few reference blocks? Like the innovatek system but with better parts? In some ways this is actually easier than testing with a real CPU. And with a single platform then we have the ability to write detailed directions and usage notes too.

The problem I see there is what happens when a measurement is out of calibration? It's very hard to make this into a black box that'd run for years.

And if you send people to ebay as a start for surplus/used parts with no experience then I think they're doomed anyway.

[bigben2k]

Hum... I see a digression in this thread, from one statement:
I could do it on mine but I am not going to simply because of liability and I don't have the time.
Maybe you can expand on that JD?

You already have a heat die, we're just proposing to cap it off with a salvaged IHS. It has the advantage of reducing/eliminating the maintenance on the top surface of the CPU simulator. Plus, the temp measurement is done through an inexpensive thermocouple (measuring instrument aside).

If someone (another reviewer) wants to run tests with a real CPU, he can have it grooved, and wire into the CPU temp diode, just as pHaestus did.

I don't understand the objection here.

Bill suggests:
I buy Fluke 2190As all the time off eBay, avg ~$50 inc shipping plus $75 or so to cal
Picking up the 2190A is easy. Having it calibrated is certainly up to the owner of the equipment, but it's relatively inexpensive, and validates the measurements. Heck, as stingy as I can be, even I would do it! Running a calibration procedure oneself is possible, but I've never done it, so I can't say with any kind of certainty that I would be able to do it successfully.

What I do know, is that we all need a starting point, e.g. a reference temperature measurement; ONE calibrated instrument does that. If you want to run your calibration procedure yourself after that, knock yourself out. I'm (barely) starting out with a 0.1 C graduated mercury thermometer, ranged from 19 to 27 deg C. $30, and I haven't taken a single temp measurement yet...

[jaydee]

Hum... I see a digression in this thread, from one statement:

Maybe you can expand on that JD?

You already have a heat die, we're just proposing to cap it off with a salvaged IHS. It has the advantage of reducing/eliminating the maintenance on the top surface of the CPU simulator. Plus, the temp measurement is done through an inexpensive thermocouple (measuring instrument aside).

If someone (another reviewer) wants to run tests with a real CPU, he can have it grooved, and wire into the CPU temp diode, just as pHaestus did.

I don't understand the objection here.

Bill suggests:

Picking up the 2190A is easy. Having it calibrated is certainly up to the owner of the equipment, but it's relatively inexpensive, and validates the measurements. Heck, as stingy as I can be, even I would do it! Running a calibration procedure oneself is possible, but I've never done it, so I can't say with any kind of certainty that I would be able to do it successfully.

What I do know, is that we all need a starting point, e.g. a reference temperature measurement; ONE calibrated instrument does that. If you want to run your calibration procedure yourself after that, knock yourself out. I'm (barely) starting out with a 0.1 C graduated mercury thermometer, ranged from 19 to 27 deg C. $30, and I haven't taken a single temp measurement yet...
I thought we were trying to put together a CPU based test bench all reviewers could afford and operate.

[Albigger]

Well what of an open source testing rig similar to the setup incoherent made? We provide CNC drwgs and circuitboard schematics/parts lists/etc? We provide test results for a few reference blocks? Like the innovatek system but with better parts? ...

Yeah agreed, but then reviewers have to spend time testing the ref. blocks (even if they have done so previously) and then spend time pulling their hair out when their setup gives diff. results?

Are you guys going to provide troubleshooting/support for them too?

[bigben2k]

I thought we were trying to put together a CPU based test bench all reviewers could afford and operate.
I don't think that we excluded a heat die just yet. In fact, I believe that a heat die is still preferable, but true CPU as a heat die would allow us to figure out what offset to apply to our results, to give out data that a user can relate to, i.e. :

I have an (AMD/Intel) proccy model XXX and I'm considering ABC cooling solution. Our testing results show that one would be able to get temperature X, but apply correction Y to figure out what one would actually read.

I'm not suggesting that we do both, but rather that we get together; one does real CPU, another a die sim. This requires that we measure temps the same way, so that we can relate. Grooved IHS measurement can be done by every tester.

Al, I'd be more than happy to assist anyone that has testing issues.

[BillA]

no Ben, no heat die is any part of this discussion
no pH, ditto

you are not going to get anyone at all to make a convoluted heat die (even me probably)

if a TC is put on the IHS it will have to be read with a thermometer
anyone with a good price/performance suggestion (not off eBay) ?

refocus
if the goal is a CPU based testing system, then it could be considered in 2 parts:
1) grooved CPU and TC thermometer, CFxxx and DOW sensors for air (water optional) - suitable for sink or kit testing, components by substitution
2) as above plus flow and pressure measurement capability - to create parametric performance curves for components

lets focus on #1 only for now

[jaydee]

Be noted the CF633 and sensors need serious calibration. In my experience the probes are far from consistent from each other. I got 8 probes with mine and only 3 would read somewhat close together. Others were off .5 to 5C. Also had one that would not scale liner to the others. For ever 10C on the others it would raise 9C for example. I found it to be a pain in the ass but it worked out ok after cherry picking the probes. Kinds sucks to have to buy a bunch of probes and hand pick though. Also the probes are far from water tight. They need good water proofing.

I still don't see people grooving their IHS's though.

[Albigger]

...
I'm not suggesting that we do both, but rather that we get together; one does real CPU, another a die sim. This requires that we measure temps the same way, so that we can relate. Grooved IHS measurement can be done by every tester.
...


I'd like to see this also, but with both setups as professional as can be, so as to correlate/interpret the data. i.e. not what we're after in this thread.


...
I still don't see people grooving their IHS's though.

Not in house, for sure. May be easier if we source a machinist or two, even better if we get mulitple reviewers to commit and send many procs to be done at the same time. I fear this may be unlikely, depends on cost though...

--Jay

[BillA]

re TCs
http://cgi.ebay.com/Fluke-2190A-Digital-Thermometer_W0QQitemZ7568778899QQcategoryZ50974QQs sPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
these things are not difficult to find

[Joe]

Bill whats that wrong with the one I currently have (or if you think it will work for a test - it would seem that the resolution is similar to the fluke)

http://www.procooling.com/index.php?func=articles&disp=100

[Joe]

I was pondering last time when I was testing with TC's to pick up a calibrator such as : http://www.extech.com/instrument/products/400_450/datasheets/433201data.pdf

seems to be a "cheap" way to make sure your gear is still returning valid data.

[BillA]

same resolution, the accuracy/uncertanty ~1/2 that of the Fluke (±0.5 vs. 0.3 or so, as I recall)
yes, a calibrator will work as a ck (eBay ?)

[Jag]

no Ben, no heat die is any part of this discussion
no pH, ditto
...
refocus
if the goal is a CPU based testing system, then it could be considered in 2 parts:
1) grooved CPU and TC thermometer, CFxxx and DOW sensors for air (water optional) - suitable for sink or kit testing, components by substitution
2) as above plus flow and pressure measurement capability - to create parametric performance curves for components

lets focus on #1 only for now


Not in house, for sure. May be easier if we source a machinist or two, even better if we get mulitple reviewers to commit and send many procs to be done at the same time. I fear this may be unlikely, depends on cost though...

Then could it be an option to provide custom made IHS, and already grooved, according to specs?
People would then cap off their AMD 64 cpu's, substitute their original IHS for these, and the fear of damaging the processor if one would attempt to groove the IHS would disappear.

[BillA]

Then could it be an option to provide custom made IHS, and already grooved, according to specs?
People would then cap off their AMD 64 cpu's, substitute their original IHS for these, and the fear of damaging the processor if one would attempt to groove the IHS would disappear.
so a DIY TIM joint is automagically better than a factory one ?
in your dreams, going to take some data to convince me

my effort is to 'qualify' an existing CPU as a heat source,
not to make a heat die with an IHS as I do not think that such is within anyone's budget, talk this one to death

IF a CPU is to be selected for use as a heat source, why on earth pick a CPU with known TIM joint reliability issues ?

it seems the 'problem' with this idea is that using an Intel CPU is out of favor with the OCing community, though how Intel CPU heat differs from AMD heat is unclear

lets revisit die temps
what are the silicon temp 'limits' ? (not the 'case' (IHS) temp given in the thermal design gides eh)
I happen to know a number of these values, short term, long term, etc. but this info is not public
why the pursuit of die temps when the limits are unknown ?

[Joe]

Bill, I must have missed it in the other thread, is there factual data on the TIM joint reliability issues with AMD? is there actual data behind that?

And is there any factual data bout Intels TIM joint reliability? From what I understood most of this is all assumptions still.

Just looking to get more smart on that topic.

[Les]

Is the diode to be read known to be in the "hotspot"or is it still location unknown?
If the later; is the relation between it's temperature and IHS(Case) the relation which is sought
Think Incoherent's future Iron Age die may be more informative, it potentially being easier to model.

[Marci]

is there factual data on the TIM joint reliability issues with AMD? is there actual data behind that?

uncollated - factual as in a chunk of folks with first hand tales of the issue, inc myself altho I seem to be one of few who has had CPUs with duff IHS contact from new. No figures... just "know" of it happening and it's existence.

Never heard of issues with P4's...

[BillA]

Joe,
Marci had some good anecdotal AMD 'problem descriptions', a phase change guy (Eric K) said the AMD thermal cycling problem was well known, plus my observations on the (non)removal of the Intel IHS with the absence of reported issues - different mfgn process

the assumption that the Intel internal TIM joint is stable seems quite valid

Les
2 courses here, CPU and die
I agree that the die is more suitable for modeling (w/o a long ton of assumptions re the CPU, mobo, etc)
a die will always yield more and better data as that is its purpose,
but as an alternative to the cost and complexity of a die I wish to explore using a real CPU in some fashion

something that we can recommend to those scorned and despised review sites

agreed there is a temp relationship between the IHS and the silicon (lol), but as you say where ? and what is it ?
seems simple, assume a TIM joint value and add a bit for IHS conduction and calc a die temp

[Les]

(lol), but as you say where ? and what is it ?
seems simple, assume a TIM joint value and add a bit for IHS conduction and calc a die temp

If it is the "what" of interest, the power region,yes, should be simple.
But if not the high power then the so called compression is probably only known by the manufacturer. It will just add another temperature to the "unknown offset" list.

[BillA]

"But if not the high power then the so called compression is probably only known by the manufacturer"

not understood

[Les]

Yes, can calc a die temperature but if not the temperature in "region of max power dissipation" then another offset is required. Our(pH's) temperature will only be the temperature that processor manufacturer allows us to see.
Still worth having - but I am not doing the work.
The difference in temperature of our(pH's) position of measurement and the temperature in the region of maximum power dissipation will be unknown to us.
I only guess that this is the temperature of "max power region"to which "well documented thermal characteristics of the TTV" applies (quote from memory).

[PaulDriver]

Why is it necessary to test with a CPU and not a calibrated heatsource as a simulated CPU?

[Albigger]

Why is it necessary to test with a CPU and not a calibrated heatsource as a simulated CPU?


I think because that would cost money and Bill was trying to see what could be done by 'typical' review sites without laying out too much cash (which they would be unlikely to do).

[PaulDriver]

So what is the projected budget?

[Marci]

undecided / unfixed. Budget will be whatever it costs once parts are decided. No matter how it's done, real CPU testing should still work out cheaper to produce than diesim etc... in theory...

and just for clarity to other readers...

Anecdotal evidence is unreliable evidence based on personal observations and experiences (often recounted by way of anecdote) that has not been empirically tested, and which is often used in an argument as if it had been scientifically or statistically proven. The person using anecdotal evidence may or may not be aware of the fact that, by doing so, they are generalizing.

In my case, aware of generalisation and lack of empiricism when statement made...

[BillA]

as the use of a CPU with an IHS to test cooling solutions has been roundly denounced as unacceptable in the Apogee thread; it is time to close this topic, at least for procooling

it seems that while there is considerable interest in rather exotic testing hardware, this does not extend to consideration of a test method utilizing a CPU with an IHS (as bought)
by declining the challenge of defining a CPU based testing system, used for 99% (?) of all 'reviews', procooling forfeits the opportunity to shape, and assist those doing, that type of testing

is procooling only to address the absolute high-end ? (as seen from within procooling)

[Joe]

Bill... the more I look at it the more it makes no sense to test with more unknown variables than are needed to do a simple, inexpensive (relatively) test. Since you cant prove that the Intel TTV's or CPU's are 100% consistent, since no one can prove for fact what kind of inconsistencies are seen with AMD cpu over a range of CPU's and different plants (same goes for Intel)...

I think in large the IHS is a liability to the testing no matter who makes the chip. Since we are discussing testing something that there are few facts about (just lots of assumptions and word of mouth observations from friends of friends of friends), and little confidence in getting real tangible results from on a consistent basis... It just seems to go against the logic that got us to the point of testing the way we are.

I mean look at the review industry as a whole, its all moving to better ways and methods. Think 5 years ago when most sites used mobo probes and MBM to do review testing with. Someones gotta move testing forward... or present different ideas and ways of doing it. Being happy with the variability in an IHS as "real world" gets us back to MBM days.

I don't buy that testing without an IHS is an absolute high end, to me if you are an enthusiast, you probably are going to remove an IHS to get your moneys worth out of the cooling system. I just see us as catering to our audience: enthusiasts.

If procooling stands on its own to test in a way that is logically more sound than other sites, I guess thats what happens. We've been there before. If other sites want to join in and start testing sans IHS, then so be it.

[BillA]

I've no real objection Joe, I just think we are walking away from something that is potentially useful - even with limitations
no mechanic discards a tool

[TerraMex]

no mechanic discards a tool

... but his main tool is still a hammer (http://doityourself.com/store/6721633.htm) . ;)

[BillA]

yup, a bfh is almost as useful as a heat wrench

[Joe]

Being someone who does work on cars for fun, I never discard a tool... but if a tool proves troublesome (rounding bolts, etc...) it goes back to sears ;)

[bigben2k]

It's not an easy discussion.

...but before we try to sell something we need to know if what we would propose:
works
is repeatable
at a tolerable cost...

...and...
http://overclockers.com/articles638/

If we break down the above, we can list the issues:

1) temperature measurement

So we fix the temp measurement issue with pH's solution, but it's "too high end", so we switch to the IHS groove, but not all like it.:bawling: The IHS issue is bypassed this way.

2) Power

...there must be a straight-forward means to verify a baseline, and very stable operation thereafter...

pH has been sucessfull in repeating a steady heatload, using the appropriate program.

It's understood that the power isn't measured, just repeated. The IHS issue does not affect the power applied.

3) need to measure flow

Use a Swissflow flowmeter.


Am I just beating a dead horse here, or did we have something all along?:hammer:

Who's approval does this need?:uhh:

[PaulDriver]

no mechanic discards a tool... but his main tool is still a hammer (http://doityourself.com/store/6721633.htm) . ;)

I must disagree, the primary tool, in any endeavour, is the mind.

[jaydee]

I must disagree, the primary tool, in any endeavour, is the mind.
You haven't had to work with the design engineers I have to work with. You might change your "mind" on that. :)

AS for this test bench I would suggest this to start with:

-Intel Soldered on IHS CPU and compatible mobo with overclocking options.

-Use the onboard probe (bare with me)

-Use a swissflow flowmeter

-ignore all variables

-Forget dP for now

Take a series of tests with 3 known different performing blocks. Like a Maze 4, TDX and MP-05SP.

Compare these results with a more sophisticated test bench at same flow rates and see how the order of blocks are performance wise. If the order at each flow rate is consistent between both benches then you have a bench capable of usable results.

If the order is way off you can start changing things starting with a better temp monitoring system and start to figure out what exactly is needed to be done and work out how to do it.

It would be preferable that the tests were done by the same person at the same place I would imagine.

Anyway that is my simplistic way of looking at it. Start simple and move more complex until you get your desired result.

[bigben2k]

dP can be done the old fashion way; vinyl tubing in a manometer arrangement. Very easy to do (I've done it, ask Thykingdomecome).

[jaydee]

dP can be done the old fashion way; vinyl tubing in a manometer arrangement. Very easy to do (I've done it, ask Thykingdomecome).
Not really. I tried it once. Don't have high enough wall height for all that tubing. You need like 138" of vertical rise to get 5PSI worth of measurment. That is 11.5 feet. After my bench was setup I only had about 3.5 feet of height for tubing as standard walls are not much higher than 8 feet.

Unless I am doing something wrong.

[bigben2k]

No, you're right, but many block's dP fall "near" 3 feet.

The dP test doesn't have to be run while testing; set it on the ground for a bit more height. ;)

[jaydee]

No, you're right, but many block's dP fall "near" 3 feet.

The dP test doesn't have to be run while testing; set it on the ground for a bit more height. ;)
Do you want to take dP at the same flow rates you tested the block at? If so you would need the flow meter and valve still.

[bigben2k]

Yeah, but you're measuring the dP across the block, right?

[jaydee]

Yeah, but you're measuring the dP across the block, right?
I would hope so.

[bigben2k]

Right. So you run the benchmarks while measuring flow then when you're done, take the block off, put it on the ground and run a simple loop, and measure both flow and pressure (nothing else).

You only need the flow or the pressure, while benchmarking; not both.

You then need to run the pressure and flow test on the side (off the bench). With the data that you collect, you can translate your benchmark results to dP instead of flow (or vice versa). ;)

[jaydee]

Right. So you run the benchmarks while measuring flow then when you're done, take the block off, put it on the ground and run a simple loop, and measure both flow and pressure (nothing else).

You only need the flow or the pressure, while benchmarking; not both.

You then need to run the pressure and flow test on the side (off the bench). With the data that you collect, you can translate your benchmark results to dP instead of flow (or vice versa). ;)
To much of a pain in the ass. Now you have to unplumb the flow meter and pump, plumb it into the manometer, unplumb it and plumb it back into the test bench. Or buy another pump an flowmeter that would cost more than a digital manometer like Robo uses.

Anyway the options are there.

[jaydee]

So how do we setup for these Intel Preslers? :hammer:

[BillA]

no idea jd (not true)
the only co that was providing such you guys just vilified for so doing
congrats

the die sim folks gonna make dual independant sources ? (not too hard; 2 sizes, 1 big and 1 small)
lol

[jaydee]

no idea jd (not true)
the only co that was providing such you guys just vilified for so doing
congrats

the die sim folks gonna make dual independant sources ? (not too hard; 2 sizes, 1 big and 1 small)
lol
You want to separate yourself from "we" now you bunch us as "you guys". If you want to be separate from "us" then please go somewhere else as you are not adding anything to "us guys" that we can use to better what we are trying to do. You consistently let us carry on with what we think is correct (for years) and then come out and shoot us down like we should have known better yet over those years you added nothing to change it.

Yes Bill I am getting rather tired of it. If you know better then quit starting threads like this and just go strait to the answer. I (we) don't have the time to become scientists and I don't care to be or have time for it.

I am no longer searching for a way to test. Will wait for it from someone who knows better. We (as in not you) obviously do not and will not on our own.

[BillA]

jd
Look at the date this thread was started, much has transpired since then.
I rule nothing, share some experience and data, and offer suggestions;
of late my suggestions find little favor for a variety of reasons.

As I find myself repeatedly 'doing battle' with the same group (those with little to no die sim testing experience), do excuse me for failing to identify with them.

Nothing is static in this business, testing is little different; always a search for the best tool for the evolving job. The manner in which procooling 'evaluated' sink testing methodologies was crude and ugly; pH wrote a good summary which should have been the starting point for a discussion, rather than the anticlimactic conclusion to a pissing contest.

this is sad from you jd
"Yes Bill I am getting rather tired of it. If you know better then quit starting threads like this and just go strait to the answer. I (we) don't have the time to become scientists and I don't care to be or have time for it."

Yes, often the answer is known (to me, in my mind) but we both know often rejected here too; I do presume you recall the contents of this thread. Do you recognize jd that very many (most ?) of your very vocal opinions you have morphed into as you started listening and learning a bit ?

If you, and others, do not have the time and/or inclination to 'get technical', it is you jd who need to seek less demanding reading and discussion.
May I suggest the censored forum for a good mix of opinion and fantasy.

Since I began some years back I have been raising the bar for the technical analysis of WCing gear, I intend to continue doing so.
Joe invited me to run a blog here, it is technically driven and will continue to be so; this thread is in that area, no ?

Perhaps you are tired of seeing me post in the 'public' threads ?
that is doable:
-> Do others prefer for me to limit my posting to threads in this section ?

My next project is building a wind tunnel. It will be a procooling version, you will not like it for its theoretical basis.

[bigben2k]

...-> Do others prefer for me to limit my posting to threads in this section ?...
No. I have made it my new year's resolution to fire up my testbench and I'm sure that I, along with many others, would benefit greatly from your input.

"Something" is going to be measured by me, this year.:cool:

[jaydee]

Bill your input is always welcomed by me. You just leave people hanging to much. This is my main bitch. You jump in a thread and say some stuff but don't elaborate enough for anyone to understand what to do.

I am working 50-60hrs a week and have a 2 hour drive every work day. That leaves me about 3 hrs a day to do whatever (go to store, eat, shower, get gas, whatever). Weekends are booked with the kid and a few other projects. I don't have the time to become an engineer and design a test bed and testing method for water blocks. That is the reality of it. I have been hopeing people with extensively more experience would come up with the design and methods so people like me (which is 95% of people that test blocks) can have something to build on. I thought the die sim was it but now see the last 2 years of my building those has been wasted....

I think people are more bent on you about the TTV thing. I really don't care about it simply because we will never have the cash to build such a device. Especially one to cover all CPU designs.

Also what exactly has changed since this thread started? Seems to me we (including you) are no closer to finding a useful testing method than we were?

And I have lost focus on this Bill. Big time. Don't take anything personal as I do respect you and what you have done. Just finding myself wondering why we even bother testing water blocks anymore. Maybe my goals in testing have disappeared. Seems like it is all about commercial intrests now.

[BillA]

I do answer questions, ?
not all problems have facile answers though

That technical bits are put to commercial use is fine by me, who is to pay the bills ?
The reality is that DIY testing on-the-cheap won't produce 'acceptable' results.
I attempted to define some test beds wrt cost/performance but there was no possible discussion here due to the absolute positions taken. Only with pH's article were the alt approaches reasonably described, time will tell what happens - I think we lost the opportunity to 'shape' the testing scene.

commercial interests ? sure, most do consider the price/performance of products compared
fancy testing benefits product design, not quite so essential for product comparisons

[jaydee]

I have asked many questions that have gone unanswered. I never really expect an answer though but do feel disappointed when I don't get one. Even if it is a "I have no good answer".

When is the line drawn from on-the-cheap to not-on-the-cheap? I have a couple G's worth of test equipment and don't see a logical solution for testing with it. This is the problem.

You know I think I even forgot what the goal was.

1) Cheap testing solution all reviewers can use and get consistent results?
2) Lab quality results from a cheap testing solution all reviewers can use?
3) Expensive testing solution that only a company with a R&D budget can afford and use?
4) ???

1 and 2 seem very unlikely. 3 has been proven to exist but few like TTV results. Is there a 4? Don't think so.

This leaves a endless debate of what is right and wrong that will not end. So I ask what is the point other than commercial interests?

It just seems things have got so complicated for little reason. Cathar had pretty good results from his testing methods. His results were pretty consistant with most end user results. pH's Socket A results seem to also back Cathars and many other end users. The IHS seems to be the main issue and now the double die CPU's with an IHS are coming out and may be standard in the future. The only way I can see testing right now is from an on die temp probe even with it's issues. Call close enough close enough and be done with it. Or just not bother and get a life. :laugh2:

At this point though if block A, B, C, D and E are good blocks then testing them is probably useless anyway. The end users results are all going to be within the performance difference of those blocks. So why should the DIY tester spend so much time and money on a test bench?

We (as in DIY'ers) need to find the "call it good enough" point and be done with it and actually get something done.

[BillA]

"We (as in DIY'ers) need to find the "call it good enough" point and be done with it and actually get something done."
unfortunate you did not see fit to support my effort
it is doable, someone else will have to spearhead it as I lost too much credibility for naught

[jaydee]

"We (as in DIY'ers) need to find the "call it good enough" point and be done with it and actually get something done."
unfortunate you did not see fit to support my effort
it is doable, someone else will have to spearhead it as I lost too much credibility for naught
Not sure I didn't support it? Will have to re-read things and get some focus again.

[bigben2k]

..."call it good enough" point ...
I still see it as split:

-comparative testing (i.e. being able to tell which one is better, with some certainty)
and
-analytical testing (i.e. being able to characterize the C/W)

If we start with one target, i.e. being able to measure a die/cpu temp accurately and repeatably within 1.0 deg C (which is rough, but it's a start), then I believe that the discussion can proceed.

I see both confused when this topic is brought up; any discussion is messed up with the above. I've even wondered if a Forum format lends itself to such a discussion, and what other format would. A forum by nature allows anyone and everyone to contribute something, anything, wether it's relevant, digressive, an opinion, or a position, but at the end, there is no leadership.

Why would leadership be needed? Because bringing up the topic is for the simple purpose of achieving a consensus. Why do we need consensus? So that we can satisfy our need to have a justified position, and proceed with whatever everyone is doing.

We have no leadership.

We have no consensus.

We have no position.

To be frank, I'm frustrated. I'm frustrated because we bring all these topics up again and again, but in the end, the only thing that we achieve is that someone contributes an additional small piece of data (i.e. IHS thickness, tim joint characterization, uncertainty issue with tim joint, ...), and it's easily lost. I have over 150 thread subscriptions to track it all.

If someone is going to lead such an effort here, then they need to be nominated.

If people are going to be contributing, then we need to know who and why; are they testing, planning to test, or just want to contribute?


Does any of this sound familiar already?


Some have opted to reject the WBTA; fine, I challenge someone else to take leadership, and do it here.

There, I said it.:hammer:

[BillA]

"If we start with one target, i.e. being able to measure a die/cpu temp accurately and repeatably within 1.0 deg C (which is rough, but it's a start), then I believe that the discussion can proceed."

3 lines of text and you fell off the rails
properly define the goal please

Ben
procooling does not need a position (there is no single CORRECT solution)
those wanting to do something will gather what info they need and proceed
you will have to make your own choices, then do battle with those wanting the temp from a different spot

[jaydee]

"If we start with one target, i.e. being able to measure a die/cpu temp accurately and repeatably within 1.0 deg C (which is rough, but it's a start), then I believe that the discussion can proceed."

3 lines of text and you fell off the rails
properly define the goal please

Ben
procooling does not need a position (there is no single CORRECT solution)
those wanting to do something will gather what info they need and proceed
you will have to make your own choices, then do battle with those wanting the temp from a different spot
Yes, the goal needs to be defined. What is the goal and why. I can think of 3 different goals all requiring 3 different solutions.

I thought the goal was posted in the first post by Bill of this thread. A platform all reviewers can use that is reasonably affordable.

The reasonably affordable part is the huge issue though. Some think $0 is reasonable and other may think $2K+ is reasonable.

This is why I stated what I did on post 44 http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/showpost.php?p=150303&postcount=44

Then Bill states what he did in post 45 that really makes no sense to me. If we don't know what people are whiling to pay then how can we establish a platform?

Tolerable cost is in the eye of the reviewer not us. That is why I suggested getting the reviewers perspective on what they would pay for and then average the results and work with that.

As far as I can tell from reading hundreds of reviews over the years the reviewer is going to spend about $100 more than the cost of the computer at most. That is why I said what I said in post 39. We are at $500 in that post + the computer - dP. I do not see people spending that kind of money on their review bench.

If we are going to cater a bench to the reviewers then it will pretty much have to be a method to get the best results with just the computer itself with no additional hardware. Let's face it, most reviewers are not pH, BillA, Robotech or Roscal caliber and have no desire to be or have the time or resources to be.

[BillA]

I do not view $400 as unreasonable for a good temp
- Fluke 2190A plus TC plus cal = ~$150
- addl TCs for immersion and air plus selector switch = ~$50
groove IHS = $200 ?

to test wbs an addl $200 to 300 is needed for flow and pressure drop
- Foxboro 823DP plus cal = ~$100
- mag flow meter = $100 - 200

no bs on the mag meters, many available on eBay

if this is too much money, they can skip the testing part ?

[jaydee]

I do not view $400 as unreasonable for a good temp
- Fluke 2190A plus TC plus cal = ~$150
- addl TCs for immersion and air plus selector switch = ~$50
groove IHS = $200 ?

to test wbs an addl $200 to 300 is needed for flow and pressure drop
- Foxboro 823DP plus cal = ~$100
- mag flow meter = $100 - 200

no bs on the mag meters, many available on eBay

if this is too much money, they can skip the testing part ?
Who will pay $400-$500-$600 though. You I and a hand full others have no problem with that amount but we already paid that amount. If they could afford it they already would have IMO.

I agree they should skip testing but they are not going to.

[bigben2k]

The plan as presented by Bill is good; I approve.

The pricing might be off, but to each his own, for shopping around, and drawing on traded favors. It's $200 at a minimum, and there's no way around it. Any less would not have any kind of accuracy.

What you have then, is a platform for kit testing. A comparative kit testbench.

What's missing from the setup is an estimation of the accuracy and repeatability.

[BillA]

you are referring to W ?
lol

[bigben2k]

Am referring to:
- Fluke 2190A plus TC plus cal = ~$150
- addl TCs for immersion and air plus selector switch = ~$50
groove IHS = $200 ?...

[BillA]

inst + TC,
mounting,
the normal stuff

[jaydee]

Not sure why I didn't think of this sooner but a cheap and easy way to get the IHS milled would be to take it to an engraving shop. We would have charged about $20 at the shop I used to run with CPU still attached and probably $5-$10 with the IHS only. Local areas will very though.

[BillA]

indeed you were not thinking
did you look at the dwg ?
to spec ?

more half-assed 'work'
listen jd, do it your way and you will have the scrambled eggs you deserve
stop trying to define things that you do not understand (testing)
got that ?

select dark blue as your type color when posting

[jaydee]

indeed you were not thinking
did you look at the dwg ?
to spec ?

more half-assed 'work'
listen jd, do it your way and you will have the scrambled eggs you deserve
stop trying to define things that you do not understand (testing)
got that ?

select dark blue as your type color when posting
Have you lost your mind Bill? Do you have any idea at all what engraving shops do? Obviously not. If we could put 1/32" lettering on a $10,000 gold ring 1/64" deep we could easily handle a small groove in a piece of copper. And I have hundreds of times. In fact engravers are much better setup for fine detailed work than machine shops. I can't even begin to understand what you are thinking with those comments.

I am starting to wonder why you even bother here? You seem to know more than all of us on every subject so why waste your time here? Who are YOU serving? You continuously try to separate yourself from we and us so why do you keep posting at all?

Why not just answer the ****ing questions if you already know the answers? Why let us all wonder in ignorance for years and then come out and say we are ignorant?


If you honestly think IHS temp = die temp and all blocks cool the die the same through the IHS then ok. Prove it. IHS is nothing more than making the base of the block thicker and you of all should know how base thickness changes block performance.

Yes, I will do you favor and not bother wasting anymore of my time following your lead on testing as I have wasted in the past. If I listened to everyone else 4 years ago and stuck with CPU based testing and didn't follow your lead on Die sims I would be much further along on a better CPU based test bench.

Now I say **** it. There is no set of test results that you or anyone else can create that will tell me how well such and such set of parts will work in my or anyone else's computer. That is the only test results anyone really wants to know and that is the results they will know only when they install those parts. All your hi tech industry standard bull shit tests will not and never have.

Also your die sims have been half ass from the start and you were charging people for testing on them so don't go off on people half assing. Especially DIY'ers.

I will do you a favor and quit wasting my time on the testing subject.

[BillA]

I was not aware that jewelers used dwgs , my error
I have a hottie and tomorrow I will hit the jewelers
I'll let you know what $20 will buy

re testing, good idea

[PaulDriver]

ouch?

(Jaydee spanking BillA) :)

[jaydee]

I was not aware that jewelers used dwgs , my error
I have a hottie and tomorrow I will hit the jewelers
I'll let you know what $20 will buy

re testing, good idea
Think Stamp and Engraving shop. Even Engraving and Sign shop. Not jeweler really all though we did plenty of that. The machinery I used was a rotary engraver. Basically a high speed precision CNC mill. I assumed you followed some of the water blocks I made on the equipment there. Have no idea what prices will be elsewhere but the 3 shops here in town would be around $20. Hard to find a good engraving shop anymore though whiling to do odd ball stuff. They may just laugh at you.

[BillA]

do they work to dwgs ?
-> have YOU looked at that Intel dwg (if not, do so before responding)

[jaydee]

do they work to dwgs ?
-> have YOU looked at that Intel dwg (if not, do so before responding)
I can't speak for all engraving shops but we worked from drawing and in fact imported .dxf's from customers.

I assume the drawing you are speaking of is the same or similar to the one in the frosty article (http://www.frostytech.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1915)? If so then a strait cut at those specs should be no problem. If they choose to do it is another issue though. Hell we even traced PCB boards with it. We would do stuff like this aswell: http://www.modernengraving.co.uk/dies.htm Lot more intricate than a strait slot cut in a piece of copper.

Anyway just a suggestion.

[BillA]

do you know a shop that will accept this work ?
do you have contacts through which you could find a shop ?
(very easy to mail a CPU)

not a simple slot btw, see the step at its end ?

[jaydee]

do you know a shop that will accept this work ?
do you have contacts through which you could find a shop ?
(very easy to mail a CPU)

not a simple slot btw, see the step at its end ?
Yeah the step should be no problem. Will take 2 passes instead of one.

Starts description on page 76: http://developer.intel.ru/download/design/pentium4/guides/30255301.pdf

Pics attached.

I lost all my contacts back in 2002 when they sold the business and I went back to their construction company. You would probably have better luck locally if you are in a large city.

Here is a few links:
http://www.precisionengraving.com/index.html
http://www.gsmgraphicarts.com/engraving.html

Google for precision engraving and such.

[bigben2k]

Wow, nice info Jaydee! I'm definitely going to use this!

[BillA]

jeez Ben, thats the Intel doc we've been discussing all along

jd, thanks for copying the dwgs, was stuck with their encryption

[jaydee]

Another pic of the drawing with more details.

[Etacovda]

jeez Ben, thats the Intel doc we've been discussing all along

jd, thanks for copying the dwgs, was stuck with their encryption

printscreen button?

[BillA]

could not find
what color is it ?

[PaulDriver]

Bill?

Come one...

You're baiting, right?

uhhhhh, musn't take the bait....

ahhh.

The printscreen on 'most' keyboards is next to the F12

It copies the video frame buffer into the clipboard so you can paste it into another application (say MSPAINT)

OK, you got me, I couldn't take it.

p.d.

[TerraMex]

what color is it ?

lazy color.

[jaydee]

I used Paint Shop Pro 8's screen grabber for the record. Can just put a window around the important part and save it.

[BillA]

Thanks guys
(should I say jk, or not ? lol)
yup,lazy color, picked it right out (but so many this color)

I see it is a fn button under home
I wonder what else is on this keyboard ?

jd's seems cleaner

[TerraMex]

I wonder what else is on this keyboard ?

just don't press any red buttons.

just for the record, http://www.daskeyboard.com/
explains alot eh?

[BillA]

well I have a Maltron keyboard so I do not expect the normal
the fn is on a HP laptop that I use for internet stuff
confused, sop

[TerraMex]

maltron? sounds like a decepticon,
probably is.

http://www.maltron.com/ ?
which?
last time i checked ergo's they costed (here) $250. Way out.

[BillA]

have 2, spent more than that
Type E