"If the heat-die temperature were being monitored as well, then the TTV would be representative of CPU temperature, and would therefore be more suitable."
this is nonsense; apart from having an additional datum, what changed to then make the heat source acceptable ?
treat it as a black box, you know the heat input and the IHS (near) surface temp
not questioning the relevance of the source size, and its effects are shown in the very different wbs - the MCW6000 and the Storm
now there is an additional wb and all anyone can do is wring their hands about how to understand / interpret the numbers
- of course with the base assumption that the mfgr is lying
I am unable to predict the 'accuracy' of the Apogee curve as it is not 'mine'; but if Swiftech has not made fools of themselves, . . . .
"The wb is being manufactured to provide low temperature readings on a flawed testbed by exploiting the very same flaws that were observed to give erroneously low results. The data is the result of a system error."
how can the "flawed testbed" yield acceptable results for the MCW6000 and Storm, yet be unfit to measure the Apogee ?
did you compare the MCW50 and MCW55 data ? (same setup), so now you have more data sets
Cathar; you got a MCW55, how did it compare to the Storm ?
there are 2 testing people here telling everyone that an IHS temp is useful and the response is yap yap yap
and the same re testing with an IHS and there is more yap yap yap
should we split this into those popping the IHS and want data for bare CPUs ?
the other group uses CPU as packaged and wants data for the real applications ?
Cathar
I have no idea where this will land but if your theory will not accommodate the results, it is wrong
and you can resolve this yourself by testing the MCW55 you have
|