TDX vs MCW6002 LN

[Chew_Toy]

I think this has to be about the worst review of a two block shootout I have seen. I just wonder what you guys take is on it.
None of the numbers in it make a whole lot of sense to me.

LN does Danger Den TDX VS Swiftech MCW-6002

[jaydee]

Well if people are ignorant enough to see why his "real world" test is "real world" crap then that's their problem. To tired of having to explain it, bad review after bad review.... To hell with it. Board on the whole subject.

[WesM63]

Well hello

Someone linked me to this 'o so kind post and thought i'd drop by and say "Hi!", i'm so proud to have my review thrashed by the gods at Pro-Cooling . I've been anxously awaiting the day that my simple review would be taken out of context and thrashed. I was even told by a good friend and member here that as long as I stated its non-technecality and simpleness it wouldn't be thrashed. Guess he and I were both wrong.

Even though I told myself I wouldn't ask any questions here, I have to ask how my numbers don't make any sense? I mean I monitored them and recorded them. Whats so hard about that?

Oh well.. back to playing with my Mach I R507.

[snowwie]

Originally Posted by WesM63

Whats so hard about that?

nothing.

waterblock performance testing is simple, duh. Ph is just wasting his time with all the technicalness.

ok. fine. so it's more a "review", not a test.

TDX wins in bling anyway. and that's all that matters to the enthusiasts, no?

[Bignuts]

Post #1... "I think this has to be about the worst review of a two block shootout..."

Post #2... "Well if people are ignorant enough to see why is "real world" test is..."

Post #3..."Well hello

Someone linked me to this 'o so kind post and thought i'd drop by and say "Hi!", i'm so proud to have my review thrashed by the gods at Pro-Cooling . I've been anxously awaiting the day that my simple review would be taken out of context..."

My Post, Why bother responding then? I already know why. My take on it? Go **** yourself.

Someone had to say it.

[BalefireX]

Personal opinion: As a review (rather than a test) its a hell of a lot better than many - perhaps the performance section is a bit confusing and not particularly relevant, but apart from that, I thought it was pretty balanced, explained things simply, and came to reasonable conclusions.

If we were testing cars here, we wouldn't lambast every reviewer who didn't go through the process of independantly dynoing it and putting it on the skidpad and recording 0-60 times, etc. if they simply discussed their opinion on how it drove without making any statements blatantly out of touch with reality. There is a definate need for tests like the ones here at Procooling, but there is also a need for "soft" reviews - ones that offer more detail when it comes to installation/ease of use and focus less on every 0.01°C. Roscal's tests cover both of these aspects niceley, too bad I have to read them in googlese.

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by WesM63

Well hello

Someone linked me to this 'o so kind post and thought i'd drop by and say "Hi!", i'm so proud to have my review thrashed by the gods at Pro-Cooling . I've been anxously awaiting the day that my simple review would be taken out of context and thrashed. I was even told by a good friend and member here that as long as I stated its non-technecality and simpleness it wouldn't be thrashed. Guess he and I were both wrong.

Even though I told myself I wouldn't ask any questions here, I have to ask how my numbers don't make any sense? I mean I monitored them and recorded them. Whats so hard about that?

Oh well.. back to playing with my Mach I R507.

Gods? No. I speak for myself not ProCooling or it's members.

Look at this graph and it will tell you why your numbers are wrong. An no, it dosn't matter that it was in your system or not as it covers that. If you can't figure out why it covers that then you shouldn't be doing tests of any kind. I wouldn't bash your review if the testing was somewhat close to reality and your 9 pages of dribble couldn't be summed up in two paragraphs.

[flatline]

also how did gpu temp change in "test" as maybe your gpu block disterbed the "higher flow" of the swiftech block but not so with the tdx as its more restrictave did u record gpu temps?

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by flatline

also how did gpu temp change in "test" as maybe your gpu block disterbed the "higher flow" of the swiftech block but not so with the tdx as its more restrictave did u record gpu temps?

Look at the graph I just posted. Shouldn't matter. The MCW6002A does better then the TDX at lower flow rates. Being the TDX is more restrictive than the MCW6002a the GPU should have gave the TDX the disadvantage if anything. :shrug:

[flatline]

i stand corrected was just an idea

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by flatline

i stand corrected was just an idea

Not a bad one either.

[flatline]

how mutch flow can u actualy get thru a desent gpu block?

(looks at ph)

[BillA]

it is far below any threshold warranting a response from me

one has to recognize that every article is written for an intended audience, authors speaking from the first person are more accepted; so some measure of ignorance is needed for success in some markets

back to the 'net clue' factor, afraid this was a negative deposit

EDITed out some disparaging junk

[DarkJester]

Originally Posted by jaydee116

Being the TDX is more restrictive than the MCW6002a the GPU should have gave the TDX the disadvantage if anything. :shrug:

The TDX is less restricive than the MCW6002.

Originally Posted by pHaestus

First of all, the maximum flow rate attained with the MCW6002 was 2.67GPM

Originally Posted by pHaestus

With my test system, the maximum flow rate through the RBX was 2.58GPM whereas 3.05GPM was observed with the TDX.

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by DarkJester

The TDX is less restricive than the MCW6002.

My bad. Not enough to make a significant difference though. Also which nozzel was being used in this review on the TDX? Assumed the stock one? Same one used by pH? Being the TDX is less restrictive the GPU block would give a slight advantage over the MCW6000a, but not 6C. More like .06C. Notice in that graph the TDX was about 3C behind the MCW6000A at the lowest flow rate tested. So if anything the the TDX would still perform worst.

[BalefireX]

The guy reported what he saw. If that doesn't agree with the theory then we can try and figure out why that is, but unless you are going to take the step of suggesting he falsified numbers, there is no reason to abuse him over it. I'm all for scientific testing, but how does it help in any way when we push away anyone who shows an interest in the subject? We should be helping these people improve, not telling them to "**** off"

[Roscal]

Sure, 6°C is absolutly impossible between these 2 WB ! Poor mounting detected probably...

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by BalefireX

The guy reported what he saw. If that doesn't agree with the theory then we can try and figure out why that is, but unless you are going to take the step of suggesting he falsified numbers, there is no reason to abuse him over it. I'm all for scientific testing, but how does it help in any way when we push away anyone who shows an interest in the subject? We should be helping these people improve, not telling them to "**** off"

It isn't theory dude. You been here long enough and seen the empirical evidence. Are you saying pH's testing is theory?

I think we all know this guys numbers are not falsified, they are just simply wrong. The evidence is out there to prove it is wrong yet he continues to say it isn't and gives no hint that he is remotely interested in learning why or improving his methods. So yeah, he can **** off and quiet frankly you can to if you want to defend such shit (speaking for myself not ProCooling remember).

Roscal I would be inclined to agree. However he did say he mounted the block several times in the review.

From his review I can conclude he has very little idea what he is doing and has no business writing reviews (personal opinion) for all to see.

[9mmCensor]

Hey WesM63.

It would be cool if you posted your testing methologies (number of block remounts, temp sensor used, ect).

That way, they can "trash" your review, properly, and it would become constructive critism as you can fix the major flaws in your reviewing process.

[nikhsub1]

Originally Posted by Roscal

Sure, 6°C is absolutly impossible between these 2 WB ! Poor mounting detected probably...

Well, if you look
HERE he states that the ambient temps were 3.1C lower for the TDX testing, yet he claims the TDX's DT was 6c lower. In my book the DT is only 2.9C lower, he didnt bother to factor in the difference in ambient at all. Meaningless review. Bill, Swiftech actually sends people like this blocks to do reviews? :shrug:

[WesM63]

I think we all know this guys numbers are not falsified, they are just simply wrong. The evidence is out there to prove it is wrong yet he continues to say it isn't and gives no hint that he is remotely interested in learning why or improving his methods. So yeah, he can **** off and quiet frankly you can to if you want to defend such shit (speaking for myself not ProCooling remember).

Hey WesM63.

It would be cool if you posted your testing methologies (number of block remounts, temp sensor used, ect).

That way, they can "trash" your review, properly, and it would become constructive critism as you can fix the major flaws in your reviewing process.

All of the methologies are in the review! Sad people really looked over them. (Multiple re-mounts is 3 in my case)

So I used MBM to monitor temps the margin of error is great there. Get over it, not everyone has access to a digital thermometer. Think about it, how many people out there build a water-cooled system expecting to put a very expensive Fluke digital thermometer on it just to monitor temps? Slim to none actually. Thats why I clearly stated the "Real World" part of it. It went into a Real system not something layed out on a bench or only part of a system.

[BillA]

ns1
I can only control my actions

W63
apparently there is a fair amount more to this story
why don't you tell the folks here about it ?

[WesM63]

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Well, if you look
HERE he states that the ambient temps were 3.1C lower for the TDX testing, yet he claims the TDX's DT was 6c lower. In my book the DT is only 2.9C lower, he didnt bother to factor in the difference in ambient at all. Meaningless review. Bill, Swiftech actually sends people like this blocks to do reviews? :shrug:

Yes you are correct. I didn't factor in the diffrence in ambients, and no-one seemed to care or tell me about it untill after they ripped it apart. I'm just baffled that the other people that looked over it before it was posted on the web never noticed it either. (Untill today)

Very sorry, all is corrected on the review now. As I said at XS, thanks for pointing it out nikhsub1.

W63
apparently there is a fair amount more to this story
why don't you tell the folks here about it ?

Bill i assume you are refering to what I just stated? Sorry I got everyone's panties in a bunch over an honest mistake. I just whish I or someone else would of noticed it sooner.

[nikhsub1]

Originally Posted by WesM63

Yes you are correct. I didn't factor in the diffrence in ambients, and no-one seemed to care or tell me about it untill after they ripped it apart. I'm just baffled that the other people that looked over it before it was posted on the web never noticed it either. (Untill today)

Very sorry, all is corrected on the review now. As I said at XS, thanks for pointing it out nikhsub1.

W63
apparently there is a fair amount more to this story
why don't you tell the folks here about it ?

Bill i assume you are refering to what I just stated? Sorry I got everyone's panties in a bunch over an honest mistake. I just whish I or someone else would of noticed it sooner.

Perhaps LN needs a better editor? I mean, c'mon a simple guy like me (although anal, I am a Virgo afterall) to spot the 3.1c difference in ambient, shit, it is one of your graphs! I am amazed that got overlooked.

*Edit* to be fair, I would post a new 'money shot' graph. Most readers will only look at pictures/graphs and not read (lazy). I bet 90% will still walk away from the review saying the TDX is 6c better...

[BalefireX]

Originally Posted by jaydee116

It isn't theory dude. You been here long enough and seen the empirical evidence. Are you saying pH's testing is theory?

Nope, not at all - poor word choice

Originally Posted by jaydee116

I think we all know this guys numbers are not falsified, they are just simply wrong.

Agree here as well

Originally Posted by jaydee116

The evidence is out there to prove it is wrong yet he continues to say it isn't and gives no hint that he is remotely interested in learning why or improving his methods.

Dunno, he's here posting, IMO that's giving us a chance to discuss it with him and sort out why he's getting bad numbers so that he can improve his work for the future.

Originally Posted by jaydee116

From his review I can conclude he has very little idea what he is doing and has no business writing reviews (personal opinion) for all to see.

The fact that the internet permits basically unregulated publication means that people are going to write and post reviews with or without your permission. However, if you share your knowledge with them, the review they were going to write anyway will be better for it.