Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

Kept getting emails and PM's about this thread. Took a look. (sigh)

Will do my best to clear up some misunderstanding. I'll do it professionally, and I'll do it in point form so there's no confusion.

1) This TTV issue arose not over the Apogee vs Storm. That is a misconception. That was the catalyst that made it public. The discussion about it was occurring long before the Apogee was released, and well before I even knew about the Apogee. Some people seem hell bent on confusing the issue with Apogee vs Storm. It isn't about that, although some people have done their absolute best to paint that picture in order to dismiss the original concerns.

2) The TTV was generating incongruous results, well before the Apogee was even known about. Sadly, these results were not, and cannot, be made public, but the concerned parties have all acknowledges that these incongruous results existed, that is not in doubt.

3) While the reasons for these incongruous results was still being debated, the Apogee got released, as we all know, with accompanying TTV data. This is a just product release, whose timing seems to have clouded the real issue in many people's minds, and many people seem to think I have a problem due to the Apogee. I do not.

4) It was hypothesised that the reasons for the incongruous results was due to variability in the CPU->IHS interface (TIM1).

5) Intel, in internal testing (search for the relevant documents) use Tjunction and Tcase, to qualify TIM1 to a reasonably level of confidence for what appears to be assumed mechanical stresses (60-100lbs, very inflexible base-plated heat-sink).

6) The Intel TTV does not supply a Tjunction reading, even though it is used in internal testing during the design of CPU thermal solution (i.e. IHS + TIM1 design and validation). I suggested that what would be handy would be to have access to Tjunction as per Intel's testing.

7) I suggested that if Tjunction, as per Intel's internal testing, was provided, and that this could then be used by testers to validate TIM1 consistency on their test-beds, then this would be "a good thing".

8) I suggested that if TIM1 was provably consistent across different loading scenarios, then Tcase would be a perfectly acceptable approximation. However, the earlier incongruous results suggested that TIM1 was not consistent. What to do?

9) It was suggested by others that knowing Tjunction is pointless, and would achieve nothing. I vehemently disagree, and this is what I was being very pig-headed about. If it's good enough for Intel to use Tjunction and Tcase to validate TIM1 consistency, and it removes any doubt about that variable, then why should it not be used, and why should it not be available?

10) Secondarily, I was arguing that knowing the silicon temperature (approximated by Tjunction) is important for purposes of correlation with overlocking capability, and more important than Tcase. This argument is purely for the hobbyist/enthusiast overclocker point of view. Isn't that what we all are here?

I made no suggestions that any other test bed was better or more appropriate. I argued consistently for the clarification of unquantified variables using the same internal methods that Intel use. Where people suggested that this was not possible, I then suggested alternatives.

I was never saying that one method or another was better. I was only ever highlighting unknown variables, and suggesting ways in which they could be explored.

Isn't that what this site has always been about? Or at least the testing sections anyway?

This never was about Storm vs Apogee. Anyone who thinks that it is, well that's your problem right there. It never was, and if you still think that, then that is clouding your ability to think straight on this issue.

As for the resultant intensity of the debate over what I thought was such a seemingly simple request, that being "quantify the unknowns". I have absolutely zero idea why suggesting that was being fought so vehemently, and that's when I started questioning motivations.

Now, please. Take all of the preceding discussion, apply it to the facts of above, and then decide whether or not the argument still holds water.

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

The numbers you ask for (correlations/relating Tc back to other numbers) are already in the hands of people who possess ttvs. And not for public consumption (NDAs). Presumably you know this since you have a history of talking with ttv testers?

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

This statement confuses me.

A fixed correlation of Tc, back to some other number (Tjunction presumably), would be of little value given that it is suspected that the correlation is not consistent across different loading scenarios, as is suggested by the incongruent results.

You're asking if this could all be clarified, given access to such information (the correlations), when it is that very correlation itself which is in question. Those correlations, again if you dig up the original Intel documentation regarding their design of the IHS solutions, were all formed from analysis of Tjunction vs Tcase.

If, as is suggested, that correlation is not consistent then knowing the official Intel TTV correlation will not help to determine what is going on. Only having access to the same Tjunction measurement point that Intel used in the design and development phase would answer that question.

If testers don't have that, then all they have is essentially a leap of faith.

Derek, in all your testing, you sought to quantify and/or control every conceivable variable, and you did a fantastic job. Whether or not your result are still relevant to the modern CPU in the modern computer is not really the point. The point was that you followed good scientific practise and calibrated, quantified, and controlled all that you could.

What we have here is an uncontrolled/unquantified variable, for which the only qualification is that Intel says that it should be good enough for heatsink validation.

I believe that in the end, this has all distilled down to one fundamental question, and this is what splits people: Do you believe that Intel has designed a TIM1 solution such that the Tjunction->Tcase correlation is effectively a constant for testing purposes to a level that satisfies the desires of the average forum enthusiast?

Note: I do not believe that question applies to the average commercial organisation, they have clearly different criteria to satisfy. I believe that if one cannot easily distinguish the difference in satisfaction criteria between the forum enthusiast and mass commercialisation applications, then I would question why we even need the existence of enthusiast forums in the first place. We should all just be participating in whatever commercial thermal management forums there are about instead. We'll leave the chest beating debate over which is the better approach for elsewhere. The two satisfaction criterions are different, except in extremely rare cases, and arguing over which is better is pointless, anger inducing, and clearly volatile as we have already seen even in this thread.

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

One problem with the TTV was many of us didn't know the methods used. All we got was results and data. We know better to trust information presented in sucha format. How many times have companies misconstrued data for their benefit? Seems to be a fundamental part of human nature. On the flip side its human nature to question things. If we trusted CPU manufacture's then we wouldn't even be overclocking which is the foundation of pro-cooling and enthusiast community. That mind frames is why we don't trust the Intel TTV testbed.

Even with respected tester Bill Adams or any other tester at helm, we can't simply take their word that the data and results are accurate. We didn't know what was controlled, measured, or calibrated and how the testbed was configured. We don't have comparable data or results. So questioning TTV was natural. I think Bill got a lot of heat because many people were refuting the TTV and his hard work when they didn't even know what it was. Bill's stance was "you don't know what are talking about you non-professional so your opinion doesn't matter" attitude. The grounds for arguement was good but little evidence was presented other than "Apogee can't be better than Storm".

Many of us STILL dismiss the TTV but I bet most still don't have a full grasp of what TTV is. WE have the right not to accepted it but unfairly did so. It still might be a valid testbed if we understand how it works better and its limitations. Cathar seems to have a jump on it and we should consider the variablilty of the TIM to be important. Just a little more research and work to be done.

====================================
With pH's testbed we can all see what is controlled and the methods employed. That is why it is accepted. It has good scientific grounds and even when i started reading his stuff with no background or previous experience, I could understand his tests.

I strongly encourage you to resume testing pH.
Shying away from the issue won't solve anything. Test data from older AMD testbed, even if someone refutes its validity, might give us better insight and a different perspective on the current issue. If you won't do it I am sure someone will pick up the torch and do it because they wont care what people have to say.

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

Assume the TTV is good. Intel has no reason to do anything other than make it a good model of a real cpu. It is not in their benefit to skew it for marketing purposes.

keep testing pH at the end of the day two good test setups should be directly comparable.

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

No.

But I haven't proven to myself satisfactorily that they haven't either.

I will stop procrastinating one of these days and actually form a concrete opinion on it.
Meantime, I will say this.
I, meaning me at this time, would never use a TTV for the purposes that I originally built my die sim setup, namely, to design waterblocks. Testing waterblocks I have no opinion yet, and both opinions I will change if I or anyone else is able to build a concrete argument one way or the other.

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

I think we can all agree Intel would not make a high tech test bench to skew results. They have no reason to. We are saying other companies that use the device may not use the most valid results or simply may not know how to work it properly. The thing must have some sort of learning curve to it. Also there are several different models from what I understand. Which one is being used for testing and how is it different than the other? Does the manufacture even know if they are screwing up or not?

To think we can just take manufacture data as perfect is not a good thing.

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

So I guess your 127.0.0.1 thing didnt work out too good did it?

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

I give up

You're much more clever and wise than a team of Intel engineers with thermal management education AND access to the actual inner workings of the chips. And will remain so until they open up their entire vault of intellectual properties to clarify.

I cannot defend my position because I actually have no proof other than common sense that Intel thermal engineers actually know the thermal properties of their chips. I'm operating on intuition rather than a huge amount of classified data in front of me, it's true.

But blind faith? Intel IS a company with a pretty decent record of building complicated chips and presumably they have models of how they work. I am now remembering those pictures of heat densities on the Intel CPUs that everyone likes to point to about "hot spots" and then say that the Storm type wbs are better for ocing regardless of temperatures. Remember those? I would like to point out that um those aren't ****ing PHOTOS; they are model simulations from the same lab that Cathar is now denigrating incapable of simulating the thermal properties of their own product.

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

Now that's not terribly productive is it? :ha:

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

Just going down to the level that the whole discussion's been at for some time. Really how productive is 3 months of personal insults, conjecture, and insane theory?

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

I assume manufactures would been given clear instructions for testing. Also i don't think intel would be too happy if they did not follow these instructions and they might lose their accreditation / be open to legal jihad.

Personally i think (as an engineer, sort of) that despite some short comings current test methods used by BillA's enthusiasts that they are superior to the posh intel method for testing waterblock. I am writing something long and more bullet proof to show it right now but don’t think that insulting and belittling the work of intels engineers is the way to do it. Instead point out that some testing rigs already used are very very good and for waterblock testing more accurate for gauging true waterblock performance.

Surely personal insults, conjecture and crazy theories are all that a good engineering debate is, sadly this forum does not have a pub to go to latter to iron things out.

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

I guess if you don't work in a technical field then you have no concept of how Good Laboratory Practices and/or ISO documents can and do keep a check on things. The GLP-compliant equipment I have, for example, doesn't allow you to delete any information in the data files or manipulate it/edit it in any way. All instrument parameters are saved to that file along with the operator login and it's basically 100x more tamper-proof than a lab manual or a DMM in my basement with Excel open to type the numbers into. The whole purpose of the guidelines many industries have for R&D is to make the test results legally defensible in the case of court proceedings and the like.

I would assume that part of the fear related to trusting mfgrs and companies in general stems from a lack of understanding about how these issues can and are controlled in most industries. If Intel goes to the trouble to MAKE such a device for OEMs to validate their coolers with, then presumably they would have devised a standard test method (with a list of acceptable instrumentation) and then have some minimum number of replicates or a certain acceptable repeatability to consider the results valid on their end.

The idea that someone like myself publishing reviews with 20 year old digital thermometers and a homemade diode reading setup is gonna talk about oversight and data management to oems is just ridiculous. But that's where we're at I guess...

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

Ummmm ok, then explain all the bull shit products claimed to be the holy grail of cooling by the manufacture....

Oh and let's not forget this: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/03...liquid_cooler/ Are you telling me this is all it is hyped up to be by Intel?

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

marketing.

edit:
technical department is one thing,
sales and marketing other. Rest is dilbert related jokes.
does it work? yes, then define "good enough".

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

Jaydee seriously quit posting. Because some companies make wild claims about crappy products doesn't invalidate all mfgr-based testing in the real world. Here's the same logic:

Some women are prostitutes...therefore you're mother's a whore.

See the fallacy in logic THERE (well presumably)? Of course some companies make outrageous marketing claims (snake oil if you will). This isn't about that. You have basically attacked all testing and R&D as being invalid if there is some commercial interest, and I am saying that the real world doesn't work the way you claim it does where REPUTABLE companies are concerned.

Why don't you defend your position for a change instead of spouting bullshit and flawed comparisons?

Show me where Intel has misrepresented their products directly and published FALSE test results? Or a simpler question: Why don't you prove that the performance that is stated for that Intel-based prototype is impossible? As a counterpoint, the CPU in that presentation was 230W; a system C/W of 0.16 roughly. Here's an OCers review of a pretty unoptimized cooling setup with similar performance. Why is it impossible? Note the performance difference between the Swiftech MCW5000 and the Apogee. What was the difference? Oh yea engineers got involved with the design. Now give engineers a much larger budget and let them design a complete system. Is it so inconceivable that they could improve it 20-30% compared to people using crap from aquarium stores and auto shops? To be honest an engineer could probably eke that much performance boost out of existing systems by properly matching fans, pumps, and radiator sizing.

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

wow, i guess theres really no point in even bothering any more.

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

I guess not. Let's all buy the Intel cooler claiming to be able to overclock ALL Intel Extreme CPUs to 5gigs with ease. No point in wasting our time with any other water cooling gear or testing it as that statement means even phase change is pretty much useless and Intel made it so it can't be questioned.

Whatever.

I will stop posting pH.

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

Not going to bother supporting your side of things then Jaydee? Don't like it when YOU'RE asked to defend some sweeping generalization? I was kind in fact and front-loaded a reasonable response. Much easier to just make some sarcastic reply and then roll your eyes and give up.


Intel never said that; you did. And who's being disingenuous now? You are doing the same sort of misrepresentation and fact-twisting you condemn mfgrs of. And you're quick to do it too. What of YOUR credibility now? Grain of salt indeed.

I have no doubt that they have a particularly good CPU there to do 5GHz. But the fact of the matter is that IS a 230W heat load being water cooled with a very simple design.

What you SHOULD'VE taken out of their presentation was the importance of ducting/shrouding for the VRM circuitry and an eye to overall case airflow instead of just CPU cooling. But instead you missed the relevant bits for DIYers altogether.

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

Whoa!

It all comes down to such a simple thing:

"Quantify the unknowns"

No one (aside from jaydee) is slagging off Intel's engineers. Intel will not have purposely put out anything skewed. By the same token, are we really assuming that everything which they do is infallible, across all possible scenarios?

We seem to be looking past the fact that the device was putting out incongruous results. That is where the doubt arises. It is not arising from any personal agenda. It is not resulting from distrust in Intel engineers, or Intel marketing.

It is arising from factual observations. I will spell it out again - those observations were NOT NOT NOT the Storm vs Apogee data.

If we are not allowed to question the reasons for why factual observations are seen without getting into a huge stink and bun-fight, then really, what are we all doing here?

I really am having trouble understanding some of the angst and attitudes. This was a consistent point I raised, in return I was insulted continually until I reacted, and then I was the one who was being labelled the trouble maker.

Tell me please. Since when did good scientific practise in the face of incongruous data take a flying leap out the door, and when did everyone turn around and start developing blind faith that Intel's device always gets it right, regardless of the load scenarios that weren't even considered in the original design and development of the device?

It is NOT a case of slagging off on anyone or anything.

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

Title of article - "Intel invents 5ghz stock cooler"

"Intel has created a self-contained watercooling unit that will enable the latest Pentium Extreme Edition chips to hit 5GHz with ease."

Intel obviously didnt go to great lengths to change the claim. Id say its a Bit-tech slant on it, not Intel though. You're getting too personal on this pH, honestly.

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

Since when did 127.0.0.1 equate to posting here? You had your chance to sort this out now and decided you'd rather not. gtfo.

The bit-tech piece is retarded. I doubt Intel publicly came out and said any of those things. Try this site: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/295

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

And it is personal. This whole shit storm has become an us vs. them thing, and I am sorry but I am going to side with the people who have training, experience, and education in technical matters. We have a union, after all.

The crap about the ttv has poisoned what is, in my mind, the only realistically attainable way of CPU-based testing. That being the Socket 775 with TC in top of IHS. It's also run off or silenced pretty much all of the people I cared about interacting with in this hobby. So yea I'm an angry bitter man. Enjoy.

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

As I explained, I had people PM'ing and emailing me, asking me to participate again. I did. So what?

Is that the full extent of your response? Essentially telling me to "f**k off"?

Nice. To think. I was the one criticised for being immature for opting to take some time out when attitudes like this fly about.

Re: An End to the Insanity.
 

obviously if you cannot participate without being coloured by previous events, then you're not acting objectionably. Whats the point in posting? to look like a ****wit? well, you've succeeded.