nicely stated pH

--Matt

well..i lurk in [H]|F a lot.. just came here cause of the thread @ OC & Cooling..

first off i must say the review isn't so complete.. i'm getting my maze 3 soon..my Black Ice Pro Evo (in coolmetal blue! w00t!) arond next week..

and i was wondering what tubing was used in the tests (size..) and they didn't even mention that part..

i dont really know what happened until so many of you got banned.. but it would be bad if they banned you just cause you say the review isn't good or up to par in a polite manner (if you go in shouting "THE REVIEW SUCKS" then i think i know why you got banned.. else i dont think you deserved to get banned..and sarcasm and personal attacks will get you banned as well)

i do love [H]|F because there's a lot of guys who knows his stuff that hangs around there...

anyhow do try and understand that hardocp is catering to -not only- extreme watercooling enthusiasts... they cater to everybody in the hardware - computing - ocing scene.. since they dont look into watercooling so in depht like you guys do...

still..mentioning the tubing used really does makes a big diffrence..and its just a small portion.. u just gotta say what tubing you used..and it was overlooked. :(

The CPU diode accuracy depends on two things: the diode itself, and the chip that reads it. It will have an error margin of one deg C, at the very least.

Flow restriction is an important factor, and should have been included in the roundup. BillA would be ashamed to see this (I suspect he's reading from a distance, laughing at us all). As he pointed out so often, some blocks are extremely restrictive at higher flow rates, which makes them a bad choice. Also, some block designs do not offer much more performance with a higher flow rate, some do. Where's that data?

A lot of people pick a block based on the barb sizes (not terribly accurate, but a requirement). Where's that data?

Air flow rate through the rad is also critical, especially at higher flow rates. Where's that data?

There are many, many other blocks out there. Excluding the Innovatech was a no-no, as it is a top performing block.


Like I said before, kudos to Steve for rounding up 19 blocks... but all we got is that the BTMS is bad, and a long list for us all to go surf the net with.

the problem is no one was really making personal attacks or saying "THE REVIEW SUCKS." We were merely pointing out it's flaws.

--Matt

interesting data

but how would you incorporate that into a round-up?

it's simply unfeasible.

this takes a middle grade pump (300 GPH is what most people use in htere systems) and compares the waterblocks

the review was meant to show you a mid - high end watercooling rig and which blocks performed best.

tailoring the blocks to your particular flowrate is unfeasible because your waterblock is one of the things that greatly affects flowrates (along with the rad)

what you guys want is just unfeasible

then HONESTLY, if what you state was true, i personally think you guys don't deserve to get banned.

but do understand there's a diffrence between

choice 1 "your review had a lot of flaws and its not that good"

and

choice 2 "the review was not bad, but i think the it lacked more in-depth data and certain criterias were overlooked"

altho its referreing to the same matter, it does give the admin (in this case kyle or steve) a very diffrent effect.. if you said choice 1 then maybe their thinking your shitting on their review or something.. but if you said something like choice 2..then i don't think the ban was fair nor necessary :(

so basically you jsut want the specifics from the set-up
like the fan CFM and the bard size which were the same and therfore eliminated

waht steve did was use the scientific process to lower the variables down to 1 - the waterblock

flow restriction was taken into account as waterblocks that restricted flow more performed worse than those that did not

of course flow rates matter, but flowrates are dictated by the pump (kept the same) rad (kept the same) and the waterblock (the variable) so blocks with better designs performed better than those with worse designs who restricted flow

That about sums up my feelings on this whole saga, but even if they were shouting "the review sucks" they didn't just register to do that, they are helpful and contributing members so I think some thread locking and warnings would have been a much better solution.

Thats true, but only useful to *Steve*.. Everyone else reading the review has a *different* setup and will get different results... Because what he showed was ABSOLUTE results and not RELATIVE results. There goes the "scientific methodology"...

keepsing all that stuff the same doesnt help the blocks at all the point of the round up is to show the delta between block and watertemp if you keep all this the same then i block that runs good on the setup will run good but a block on a diffrent setup that also runs good will not run good on the prev setup the point of the round up is to show what is max atanible for the block you can not do that if you dont change any thing kind of like the goviner in a car it stops you at 139.9 yet if removed the car can go faster useing the same setup for every block you may be bottle necking the block in some fassion

so your suggesting he sets-up a ton of different set-ups and tests each of hte 19 blocks on each set-up?

it's unfeasible

the best he can do is give an absolute result

the review is not a be all end all of reviews

but it was certiainly very informative and the results very valid and useable

Flowrate does matter, and it was certainly not eliminated as a factor, that's the whole point! Flow rates are dictated by the pump, but are not kept the same.

The specifics for the setup was a requirement. All I saw was an unshrouded mislabelled pic of a BIX (and a bunch of other things that we've all seen). That alone tells me that he wasn't up to speed on a few things, and that goes to the credibility of the entire article.

Flow restriction alone, cannot be equated with performance. Cathar's block is very restrictive, but it will beat all of those blocks. Volenti has a similar design, but less restrictive.

yes i am saying just that that to test the block each one must be setup for it optimum setup it is not has hard or a task as you think nor as such as a long task hell i could do it if the rents would let me but they dont like the fact that i play around any way

http://24.218.60.52/pics/computers

It is feasible. We never said it was easy.

The results (load, no tec) show the first half of all waterblocks to be within 4 deg C of each other. What was the error margin of the tests?

if you think you can do better than by all means contact steve and see if he will let you borrow his waterblocks

if you present him with a good plan and are nice and offer to pay the shipping he might let you borrow them for your testing

my rig pics: www.jerom.com/romie/case if you wanna see em (the inside components are different now but the case and watercooling is the same. it's not the best set-up in the world (it predates spiral blocks) but it works for cooling my p4 more than well enough

i would rather not be affilated with any thing that kyle or steve is becase they would **** me some how i just know it i dont trust ppl that offen and did you just not read i would if my parents would let me my job ended 9/27/02 due to lack of work so i have nothing better to do with my time

lemme do a little math here

to test all optimal set-ups we would have to have about let's say 4 different pumps to respressent certain flow rates

let's say 12 rads to test (including a heatercore or two)

and then you'd need to test the 19 waterblocks on each set-up

which means 912 different combinations

testing each 3 times for elimating sources of error like mounting

that is 2736 tests

now take that and let's say 1 hour per test to test load temps and take measurements and put on the block

that's 2736 hours of testing or 114 days of 24/7 testing of waterblocks

unfeasible

so leave it down to 1 variable
then you gotta run 19 tests at 3 times each

which mean alot less work and results that may not reflect all possible results but does give a very good indication of which blocks are the best performers

How about Steve take the time to check with a few people, on how to do a good roundup, before he just jumps to it? We would have been more than happy to have helped out.

Nice case. I like the window mod.

1 good core
1 pump at 10 different flow rates
repeated 3 times
19 blocks

That's 57 mountings of a block, followed by 10 different flow rate tests for each.

Who ever said that only one person had to do this?

Why are you changing all of those pumps and rads? You are making things too hard to manage. Control the water temperature to remove it as a variable. Use a single powerful pump and use valves to adjust flow rates to preset points. Then monitor CPU performance. Not rocket science to devise; very difficult to do well.

Testing 3x to avoid errors in mounting? That would presume that you control mounting pressure in the first place (a good idea eh?).

The real rub is that the thermal paste will kick you in the nut sac once you get the resolution to see its effects.

If I can actually get my PC-50 finished I will try and get my testbed set up. No promises though :)

one pump like a hydro 1000 and then like a tvalve or some thign to variat the flow a flow meeter to monitor and then a good rad / core why use 12 diff pumps when you only want to achive diff flow just use a bigger one and regulate it and when the temps start to suck regualte it the other way then find its sweet spot\

actually, a single rad and pump could account for all flow rates. There are adjustable pumps available. Joe's testbed(Deemed crap by Steve) has an adjustable flow pump in it. And testing 19 different rads is unnecessary. The flow could be measured with a flowmeter and recorded with a single rad with flow rate numbers for each.

--Matt

hmm, now that I think about it. Steve saying Joe's setup is crap is a blind comment with no backing and is the most "this is crap" thing that has been said.

--Matt

so basically you wanted him to compare flowrates - performance on all the blocks?


and yeah that post i made was exageration (but hey it worked)

that means that block design matters alot less since someone who wants higher flowrates through his block to perform better gets the lower performance and the guy who designed his block to perform at low flow rates gets the better results. it's flawed testing. give them all the same pump and see if who comes out on top is the best way to show accurate results

I don't think you understand how important accuracy and methoodology are when reviewing things like this. There are more variables also not mentioned. Like the lack of a shroud on that BIX(labeled BI Pro), or the airflow of that chrome fan on it. Where is that info? How can anyone even begin to try to replicate that setup to get those results with misinformation and missing information even if they did want to?

--Matt

zCereal

You say you don't want to start a Forum war...

Then why did you post a link(that was deleted earlier by Steve and the user banned) to this place about you "defending" the round up?

why is it false to test a block in its optimun conditsion why would you test all the blocks on all the same plane inf they are not designed to even run at that would you test 2 subs one designed for 1000 watts and the other desgned for 1000 but only give one of them 75rms and the other 500 rms?

sorry for the dealy had to break for dinner

or would you give a 200watt load to a 80watt tweeter or even better yet would you give 2 watts to a 100 watt tweeter keeping in mind that you dont kill shit from over powering for the most part you kill it from under power it and dont tell me that this is apples to oranges the point is that shit dont run right and you cant expect any type of sound q if you stuff isnt running to spec same goes for whatcooling you HAVE to run it at what it was desgined for and dont dare call it design flaw testing of somet thing when it is running out of spec as far ass cooling goes no dont bring in benchmarking for ocing that is far diffrent

is this helping you to understand"?

i posted it for kyle's sake

and i am not starting a forum war

i am reasonably talking about what the beefs are with the testing procedure and my views on why it is valid

if we really wanted to start a forum war i wouldn;t go about it this way

i removed the link to this post from my post

now i do agree that more info about the specific set-up is needed and maybe some pics of the set-up

we do welcome kyle/steve to come and talk with us becase unlike him i dont think that joe will start banning acounts on constuctive critisisum no that is not a personal attack and no i am not being biased just going on what i have in front of me and what has happend to me etc...

Well since we are left with posting across forums, here is a comment to Steve:

Kinda funny that Steve reviews the same exact blocks many months later and it somehow becomes a positive thing just because it is a big number.

What's that word? Hypocrite?


It's also kinda funny that Steve was silent until he banned all the people criticizing his review. THEN he starts posting to the remaining [H fanboys. Here is a personal opinion and I dont mean it as an attack: Steve has some issues.

c'est la vie