Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cathar
The ability to water-cool the GPU as well and boost its overclock will typically play a much larger factor in the computer's perceived speed for gaming ......
Arbitrarily sticking a GPU block in the test though seems rather odd. Fine if it's just for a "complete kit test". Not everyone water-cools their GPU.
|
This will be a test of two differant "system" approaches to water cooling of a rig. Pumps chosen along with blocks and rads are often differant than those used to build a DIY performance rig. So a addition of the GPU seems reasonable to get a added bit of perspective and information. knipex's system with it's many added water cooled points, has I think, a number more water cooled elements than most do in low flow systems. Yet the use of a higher average number of water cooled components does seem to be a trait of low flow rigs, from what I've read of differant peeps systems. (please correct me on this if I'm in error.) And some performance peeps include the NB in rigs as well, although most do not. So the addition of a GPU, seems to make for a "fairer" and more complete test between the two system types.
Other means to add restriction to the loop could be used to simulate the use of added blocks effect on flow rates, but such would not include the added heat to the system of the actual extra blocks.
But as you point out, not everyone water cools the GPU, which is why I suggested it be left as a last test so as not to distract from the CPU only results.
I'm also interested in seeing the selection of the pumps, rads, fans & max line size to be allowed and used.
BTW,
I enjoyed reading this thread much more than the earlier one regarding this sort of comparison.
Edited:
To remove redundant ideas, comes of posting without reading what was posted while away from my puter.