Pro/Forums - View Single Post - Water Block Roundup Part 1

pHaestus · 02-17-2002, 11:21 AM

I don't think that the issue with C/W is that great; the maximum heat wattages (which is what radiate uses) are right from the AMD technical documents, and if you read up on some of the stress programs then they usually agree that ~ 89% of the theoretical max load is what they can generate. Here is a nice post about that:

http://www.benchtest.com/calc.html

Looking at the AMD technical document for the XP, then they also come up with 89% as the typical load temp. Anyway, the point of reporting C/W isn't to try to pull the wool over everyone's eyes or to add another fudge factor; it is designed to make results comparable between users more readily. If I see you have a TBird at 1600MHz and I have a 1600+ XP at stock, I can still estimate quite well what delta T that I would get from a waterblock by looking at your roundup. To do this though I have to normalize to the heat load and like it or not that means C/W. As long as I go get the heat wattage from the same place (AMD tech documents are good sources for this) then the comparison is perfectly valid.

The good news is that there aren't a lot of different programs out there that do this; Radiate is pretty widely accepted and seems to be pretty close to the 100% load numbers in the AMD pdfs. I personally use the 89% heat wattage for C/W as per the benchtest.com page, but the wattage I use in the equation is always right there in the review or article.

02-17-2002, 11:21 AM	#95
pHaestus Big Player Making Big Money Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com Posts: 4,782	I don't think that the issue with C/W is that great; the maximum heat wattages (which is what radiate uses) are right from the AMD technical documents, and if you read up on some of the stress programs then they usually agree that ~ 89% of the theoretical max load is what they can generate. Here is a nice post about that: http://www.benchtest.com/calc.html Looking at the AMD technical document for the XP, then they also come up with 89% as the typical load temp. Anyway, the point of reporting C/W isn't to try to pull the wool over everyone's eyes or to add another fudge factor; it is designed to make results comparable between users more readily. If I see you have a TBird at 1600MHz and I have a 1600+ XP at stock, I can still estimate quite well what delta T that I would get from a waterblock by looking at your roundup. To do this though I have to normalize to the heat load and like it or not that means C/W. As long as I go get the heat wattage from the same place (AMD tech documents are good sources for this) then the comparison is perfectly valid. The good news is that there aren't a lot of different programs out there that do this; Radiate is pretty widely accepted and seems to be pretty close to the 100% load numbers in the AMD pdfs. I personally use the 89% heat wattage for C/W as per the benchtest.com page, but the wattage I use in the equation is always right there in the review or article.