The AVERAGE temp is NOT Peak temp inication, it shows how STABLE the block is. Stability is something a value more than Peak temps. Averages also help null out any sudden and mommentary peaks or valleys.
I fell the warm up/cool down cycles are very valid to show how heat soaked that block gets
I did also post in one of the blocks, that the .1 - .5 C temp range that held the first 3 blocks was withing the margin for error with the ambient temps. If I wanted to, narrowing down the data set to given areas I could make it seem like any block won. So using on estandard time length for the avreage is sorta key.
I do understand what you are saying, and I was going to do a Delta between Ambient/Core. I dont know why I didnt. I think I did on the HSF reviews or Radaitor round up reviews. I think I was just tired and afraid of just overwhelming people with too much data.
Quote:
Originally posted by newbie
Joe,
You wrote
I understood that which is why I selected the data tail.
Take a look at the graph for becool. The last 20 minutes of the data show an oscillation between 41 and 42 degrees. That's 200 readings of nothing but 41's and 42's. But the average temp for becool is listed as 40.63 . The only way it can be that low is if you use data from the warm up phase of the test.
My point in recasting the data is that I didn't think the warmup phase is material to the performance of the block. I don't care if the block reaches a steady state quickly or slowly, what I care about is the steady state temperature. The graphs say that all the blocks seemed to have stabilised by the last 15 minutes of the test so that's the data I used.
Since there was a slight difference in the ambients I went for a delta analysis. You're right - it's amazing they were as stable as they were over the testing period.
Thanks for posting the data - it's very enlightening. Combined with the radiator analysis over at overclockers.com it's clear that the radiators are the biggest factor in bottom line performance but the waterblocks do matter somewhat.
|