Pro/Forums - View Single Post

ricecrispi · 10-03-2005, 02:13 PM

Noise level
Needs more material in this area. Due to subjective nature of this area he needs data. Spend more time in this area and compare to other products. Have a comparision graph. Obviously this product is targeted towards the silent enthusiast and this would help that audience.

Test result and organization
This is the most important part of the review. Everyone talks about the results and will forgive a okay review if it has good test results section.
That graph is horrible to read and compare temps. Needs better increments or something to help out. Maybe have larger graphs and bars?

Multiple graphs instead of a single one. He should have one graph for CNP 9500 at different settings and compare the different hotizontal and vertical setups. Use the better setup to compare to other products.

Mhz/voltage chart is a nice touch. I haven't seen that yet. He should setup his Delta T results and sound levels like this or on a table. Just minor organization helps

Testbed/setup

Procooling loves to eat this up

As maxsaleen pointed out, the IHS can change results so he should've just done a test with IHS before removing it. Most AMD 64 use the IHS so he should have IHS test data.

Repeat mountings. Helps eliminate bad results due to a bad mount. Usually to keep from getting bad results but the results look normal. I have no beef here because most mainstream reviews don't do this.

Aerogate, not the best but good enough for mainstream review. This is not really indepth testbed and using aerogate for delta T is basic enough. No beef here....

He should test the vertical setup by moving his card to a lower slot. By having the intake directly above the VGA card, it is getting heated air from the back of the card and also blocking intake. That affects temps a lot. A sneak peek into how that affect gpu temps would be a nice little extra surprise.

Overall very good review but lacks info on noise levels and lack of organization of test data and results hurts the review. Hurts the review a lot.

10-03-2005, 02:13 PM	#3
ricecrispi Cooling Savant Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: california Posts: 429	Noise level Needs more material in this area. Due to subjective nature of this area he needs data. Spend more time in this area and compare to other products. Have a comparision graph. Obviously this product is targeted towards the silent enthusiast and this would help that audience. Test result and organization This is the most important part of the review. Everyone talks about the results and will forgive a okay review if it has good test results section. That graph is horrible to read and compare temps. Needs better increments or something to help out. Maybe have larger graphs and bars? Multiple graphs instead of a single one. He should have one graph for CNP 9500 at different settings and compare the different hotizontal and vertical setups. Use the better setup to compare to other products. Mhz/voltage chart is a nice touch. I haven't seen that yet. He should setup his Delta T results and sound levels like this or on a table. Just minor organization helps Testbed/setup Procooling loves to eat this up As maxsaleen pointed out, the IHS can change results so he should've just done a test with IHS before removing it. Most AMD 64 use the IHS so he should have IHS test data. Repeat mountings. Helps eliminate bad results due to a bad mount. Usually to keep from getting bad results but the results look normal. I have no beef here because most mainstream reviews don't do this. Aerogate, not the best but good enough for mainstream review. This is not really indepth testbed and using aerogate for delta T is basic enough. No beef here.... He should test the vertical setup by moving his card to a lower slot. By having the intake directly above the VGA card, it is getting heated air from the back of the card and also blocking intake. That affects temps a lot. A sneak peek into how that affect gpu temps would be a nice little extra surprise. Overall very good review but lacks info on noise levels and lack of organization of test data and results hurts the review. Hurts the review a lot. Last edited by ricecrispi; 10-03-2005 at 03:33 PM.