Pro/Forums - View Single Post

BalefireX · 05-06-2004, 04:32 PM

Well, it appears that the review has been changed to remove the concerns in the article re: future mounting issues, but the score has not been changed - I don't think that a 65% compatability rating is particularly realistic for a block which supports Sockets 462, 478, 603, 754, 775, 939, and 940. In fact, I'd give that a 100% compatability, which would change the overall score from 74.6% to 81.6% - considering they gave the Thermaltake system an 80%, I don't think thats much to ask.

Reading that review makes it ever so clear why real scientific testing and product research should be required for waterblock testing - I'm actually wondering why Swiftech sent those guys a block to review after reading some of the site's other stuff. Long story short, I'd throw in some cash for a better procooling testbed -- worth it to have a review that isnt a "bs-article" (taken conveniently from the URL of the review)

05-06-2004, 04:32 PM	#9
BalefireX Cooling Savant Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Isle of Man Posts: 269	Well, it appears that the review has been changed to remove the concerns in the article re: future mounting issues, but the score has not been changed - I don't think that a 65% compatability rating is particularly realistic for a block which supports Sockets 462, 478, 603, 754, 775, 939, and 940. In fact, I'd give that a 100% compatability, which would change the overall score from 74.6% to 81.6% - considering they gave the Thermaltake system an 80%, I don't think thats much to ask. Reading that review makes it ever so clear why real scientific testing and product research should be required for waterblock testing - I'm actually wondering why Swiftech sent those guys a block to review after reading some of the site's other stuff. Long story short, I'd throw in some cash for a better procooling testbed -- worth it to have a review that isnt a "bs-article" (taken conveniently from the URL of the review) __________________ If not, why not?