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.
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.