Quote:
|
Originally Posted by unregistered
and now we can look forward to endless carping from those that want bare CPU data vs. those using CPUs as sold by AMD and Intel
- and already some describe a 'true' enthusiast as (only) one who removes the IHS
|
Personally I think anyone who is brave enough to hazard a combination of electricity and water near a $1000+ investment is an enthusiast.
As far as popping the IHS off, well for some its important for that extra cooling, others just to say they did it, and some just want to see whats inside. Personally after spending 800+ Euros on a processor, there is no way in hell that Im going to pry the thing off and risk frying the thing after sucessfully voiding the warranty beyond repair. If that makes me a non-enthusiast, well call me Mr. Boring then.
Seems to me that the gist of the issue is (IMHO):
1. Swiftech bought the rights to the G4, manufactured it, and sold it by its history/name more than anything else.
2. Swiftech already had something in the wings that probably costs less to produce, hence more profit for them.
3. What better way to bring in that product than to compare it favourably to something that they already produce/own. And there is no one that can honestly say they are flawed in that, because all the data is produced within Swiftech, comparing 2 of Swiftechs products. Unless people can replicate the exact setup that Swiftech uses, Its one persons word against another, as I see mostly in all debates concerning watercooling.
I think this is just purely marketing(not neccessarily bad, and it remains to be seen) on Swiftechs part and Im not sure what the problem is in recognizing that. If...."IF" they have headed down that road that so many others have headed, then just take everything with a grain of salt, market speak always comes to light eventually. But if they have a good waterblock that is worth speaking highly of, then that should be brought to light also.
As far as this whole IHS or no IHS, hey...the damn things are sold with the IHS on them, and 99.9 percent of the people who have the things leave them on. I leave mine on because Im not willing to void the warranty on a computer that I expect to last me a couple of years, not because Im scared of crushing the core. So yea, I would like to know how the waterblock Im buying is going to cool that, not some theoretical situation. Athlon XP's shouldnt be the testbed anymore for waterblocks anymore than a 286-6, unless your planning on putting the block on an XP.
Dont get me wrong... I enjoy seeing the results of people who do the testing here, and I based alot of my decisions on my current build in progress, on what is said here. On the other hand, I dont see alot of concensus on much, especially on testbeds, so I just take X this and Y that and come up with Z...the enthusiasm level of the testers over a certain product, and comments by people who use them on a regular basis. Then I make a decision.
What seems to be happening anymore in watercooling (IMHO) is what I observed when "CPU and GPU Benchmarking" became all the fad. It is inherently flawed from the start. Take 2 "Identical" computers, same components software etc, down to the case, and you will still end up with widely differing "scores". Its impossible to use any of the information except on a average and even then its useless..again in my opinion. Yea I know that the test setups a lot of people usein watercooling are more stringent (less variables to contend with) but you get my point/concern.