finally seen a review of the dangerden maze 4
 

just read a review on maze 4. reviewer seems happy with it, any comments? http://www.utilization.co.uk/index.p...3_introduction

I would like to see a comparison between the whitewater block Dtek and Maze4.

That review looks about as bogus as they get.

The reviewer actually provides graphs making it clear that he didn't allow time for temperatures to stabilize before recording the data.

There is no mention of ambient temperature at the time of the different tests.

Saddest of all is this graph:

http://www.utilization.co.uk/images/...mperatures.JPG

The power dissipation when the CPU is operating at 2.15V should be 65% higher than when the CPU is operating at 1.75V. The temperature differential between idle and load should be 65% higher for the 2.15V case than the 1.75V case. Yet as best I can tell eyeballing that graph, the idle/load temperature differentials are equal at the two voltage settings. I'm skeptical that this test was actually done.

hmm thats what i thought also. too much praising of danger den in the review. its a shame cuz i would luv to know how well the block actually performed.

I also did a test between maze3 and maze4 which I got the result of maze4 is on par with maze3.My conclusion is ppl with maze3 should stick to their block.

I posted my results here

12minutes to reach equlibrium?...

I think that review look sfor sh*t too. The guy posts his "max overclock" in plain text "just for fun"

not even a WCPUID screenshot, or even a POST screen.

I think it's BS.:rolleyes:

i wrote that review, and i can assure u the results are genuine and theres no bullshit:(

Ross

If you want i will update the review, im open for suggestions and try my best to give the reader what they want:rolleyes: ...

Ross

The problem is with how you tested it. Your results are severly flawed as your methods and equipment are poor. We are not questioning your integrity as much as how you did your testing.

Im open to suggestions, i apologise if its not up to scratch:( and will gladly add anything people want to see improved:rolleyes: ...

Thanks,

Ross

I would suggest:

recording ambient temps along with your cpu temps

use a temp probe if possible

provide a couple of screenshots of wcpuid/cpu-z along with MBM (in the same shot) with your temps

use the difference between ambient and Idle/Load temps to establish a Delta for the setup

Compare flow rate?

C/W?

To be honest, I'm not going to go back and read it, but just stuff you may want to consider in the future.
Although this is not nearly as technical/scientific as many of the people on this forum would probably prefer, I thinnk it would lend a bit of credibility to your review.

I would also like to reiterate what was said above, When I said I thought your review was bs, I did not necessarily mean it as an attack on your personal integrity, but as a mean spirited jab at your results. Pardon the sarcasm, but man, it just doesn't look believable the way it is presented; your results seem incomplete. You were on the right track with the comparisons, but one cannot assume that the room is the SAME EXACT temperature every day for EVERY test. this obviously, has to have had some impact on your results, be it maybe only 1-2ºC. If it is 1-2ºC in favor of the maze 4, then you have mislead your readers by claiming a 4ºC improvement in performance.

Also I think you should've spent more time on the RESULTS than the intro. most people know the history of the maze block and all that stuff that is the first 4 pages or so of your review, followed by your 2 pages of results.


I really don't mean to sound vindictive or malicious in any way, I'm just trying to point out what other people are noticing specifically, other than just saying "it sucks" and sending you on your way.

All that being said, congratulations on your site. I know there are a lot of people that would love to write for a hardware site, and I think your willingness to revise and update the review definately shows your passion for the genre, and room to grow as a journalist. I'm sure that you will make the most of your opportunity.

And don't roll your eyes at me:rolleyes:

thankyou for your honesty:) , i realise i can improve on my results and presentation, i will do my best to update them with your suggestions to meet peoples demands. As we are a very new hardware site, and its a project for myself and my friend to set it up and have a go, we are fairly in-experienced writers at the minutie but i hope to inprove alot.
We are currently in school at the minutie, and when i wrote this review i was sitting my exams lol, so i just wanted to get the bulk down before everyone had a maze 4 if u know what i mean...now i should have more time to put into the site and i will go over all the content in detail to upgrade it.

Thanks alot for the sugestions,

Ross

oops sorry about the above quote...nocked the return key by accident:rolleyes:

Ross

N/P I wish you all the best with your site. ;)

thanks for taking the constructive criticism well, and not biting my head off btw. :)

hehe thanks, nahh ive been the critic too u know:p

Ross

Wow, and [H] went on a banning spree when some people around here tried to help out.

Glad to hear some reviews out there care about their readers.


I'm not big on super in depth "number" reviews with lots of C/W values and such, just because I don't have the time to read through that - a couple nice C/W graphs are pretty good, more just - loses my interest sometimes.

I breifly read through your review a few days ago, and found it light on the numbers side. I think the beginning regarding the Maze history etc set the tone as something maybe a little less technical than it could have been. I thought the article was a good overview of the Maze4 and the Maze design pattern - it didn't strike me as an article about performace.

Rule number one in any testing.

Establish a sense of repeatability in your methodology (and therefore results).

Mount each block at least 10 times. Record the results of each mount under controlled conditions. Be extremely careful with the mounting. Be conscious of anything that could have changed other than the waterblock. This could be something as trivial as having the door to the room being open, closed, or half-open. As trivial as routing the hosing differently, or non-trivial such as the radiator being mounted in a different location, or a fan sitting differently or not turned on.

Measure the water-temperature at some fixed point for all tests. Measure the air temperature entering the radiator at some fixed point for all tests.

Good water-block testing is extremely time consuming.

Not saying that even doing all of the above will satisfy all, but if you establish repeatability and control your variances to a degree, you'll be somewhat on the path of getting a clearer picture.

I say to mount each block 10 times because variances of 3-5C are actually fairly easy to achieve between different mountings of a block, and that's more than the difference between the blocks that you've reported.

Once you've done all of the above, then consider lapping the bases of each block. The Maze 3's I know can be somewhat uneven on their bases, which affects both temperatures, but moreso, overclockability to a large degree.

Just some suggestions.

right, im gonna get onto theose suggestions as soon as possible, im in a little bit of trouble with the site at the moment as some people may have noticed...my web host has suddenly decided to pack up and now i need a new one. While the site is down i will have time to do some changes hopefully, thanks to all of you for your suggestions....out of interest, dont suppose anyone is familiar with a web hosting package wioth about 2gig space and 25-30gig transfer for around $35/month:rolleyes:

Thanks again,

Ross