Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cathar
So where does that leave us? Between a rock and a hard place. Damned if we do (use IHS's for measurement) and damned if we don't (queue cries of "NOT REAL WORLD!").
The real world sucks (IHS use). In a world where IHS's pollute results, the best any of use can do is fall back to the one thing that is providing consistent results, and that is bare-die simulation testbeds. It may not simulate the real world, but I'll be damned if someone can convince me that using a mechanism that introduces a multitude of variables for purposes of assessing wb design performance can ever be described as "a good step forwards".
|
Cathar that was a great post.
While I know there will never be a uniform agreement on anything... as you said we are damned either way... I think you touched on many areas I was wondering about.
I mean its simple to figure out that an IHS hurts cooling... there are at least 2 more layers of material to go through for an IHS so it makes very good sense that an IHS will always be a handicap for the best cooling. I couldn't imagine dropping $300.00 on a cooling system and keeping the IHS on the CPU.
From my point of view... and this is just me talking out my butt I guess... But for REAL results in my eyes I would want one that came from a bare die than results obscured by a IHS.