I really don't want to, but am compelled by the manisfest errors
this is the text sent to the reviewer:
You chose to test the MCW6000 with a Thermaltake Aquarius 3 watercooling kit, for which Thermaltake is no longer providing the pump specs. The pump rating on the (slightly smaller ?, unconfirmed) Aquarius II is 90 L/hr; note that this, like all pump ratings, is under 'free flow' conditions. The actual system flow rate will be 1/2 to 1/3 of the free flow rating. Optimistically, this translates to ~0.2 gpm. This value is 33% lower than the lowest flow rate we measure, 0.3 gpm.
My perspective on your test results is that the MCW6000 performed extraordinarily well, at an absurdly low flow rate. If you look at the MCW6000 performance curves on the website you could see that the performance improves markedly as the flow rate goes to 1 gpm and above.
As a reviewer I would expect you to understand such things, and to discuss them in your review.
You stated: "The one limitation could be my water cooling system that could be creating the illusion of lessened performance, but then again, no system will provide anywhere close to even 90% efficiency." This is a confused sentence, lets take it in two parts: "The one limitation could be my water cooling system that could be creating the illusion of lessened performance, . . . ". So where is the illusion ? The flow rate is a characteristic of your system, and it is so low that a wb designed for higher flow systems (quite the norm in the US) does less well than anticipated.
The second part is worse: "but then again, no system will provide anywhere close to even 90% efficiency". What does this mean, or even imply ? 90% of what ? Are you attempting to suggest that your (Thermaltake) system is the same as all other systems ? Trust me here Chris, it is not a high performance system. OK, what is the efficiency of your system ? And by substituting the MCW6000 the efficiency changed from what to what ? What is the efficiency of some other watercooling systems (for comparison) ?
Just for reference, my take on your review would be that:
The MCW6000 can provide a modest improvement to a Thermaltake Aquarius 3 system; to utilize the capability of the MCW6000 a larger pump and radiator are required than the Thermaltake kits provide.
The above comments are technical, but if you write a technical review of a Swiftech product you are expected to have a grasp of the fundamentals.
This is an incorrect statement: "My one concern for such a quality waterblock is that it isn’t currently compatible with the new lGA775 socket from Intel." Had you chosen to inquire of Swiftech, you would have found that this wb is good-to-go for a whole range of yet-to-be-released processors, in addition to being compatible with all present Intel and AMD mounting systems - excluding the 4 mobo holes with the socket 462..
Again incorrect: "All in all, the MCW6000 is a well designed waterblock, but it isn’t designed to work with future socket designs." Not true.
This kind of error damages directly our marketing activities.
If you have questions regarding the above, please contact me and we can discuss. It is hoped that the gravity of the misrepresentation (regarding future socket compatibility) might warrant some corrections in your review.
Regards, Bill Adams
|