[BillA]

“Those few users who have persisted with assessing waterblock performance between both different waterblocks and different IHS capped CPU's, and as such perhaps provide a clearer independent picture of the extent of the muddiness of the IHS->wb relationship, have found that reported waterblock performance is wholly dependent on the individual CPU+IHS being used. On one individual CPU, broad cooling patterned wb A can be found to be better than focused cooling patterned wb B. Switch out the CPU for another of the exact type, and the observable wb performances will trade places, as will achievable overclock.”

Stew, the above is the basis for our disagreement. I do not believe that it is accurate. It is beyond my understanding how such IHS performance variability could be seen in products so different, the TIM joints in AMD and Intel CPUs. And we are to accept that this variability applies to all past and future products having an IHS ?

I do not wish to pillory you about someone else’s data, but do not believe it correctly characterizes present products. Here is the problem in assessing the internal TIM joint variability; how does one distinguish between differences in the TIM joint and differences in the CPU ?
You would posit that all CPUs are the same, such that all differences are due to the TIM joint only ?

You have not supported your proposition that all factory TIM joints are different (apart from the absolute sense), but you are stating that any wb could equal any other depending on the CPU it was mounted on.
The random walk theory of wb cooling ?

“The use of IHS's provides a variant and inconsistent mechanism around which cooling device performance may be assessed. Where any individual gets "tripped up" in all of this is choosing to believe otherwise, or worse, choosing to base expensive business decisions on the results provided by a variant and inconsistent testing mechanism.”

DO note that you are saying that IHS users must expect inconsistent cooling performance.
I do not believe this is true.

As an intellectual exercise Stew, let us posit that the Intel internal TIM joint is consistent.
Your whole argument collapses, yes the IHS will compress the range of the apparent temps – but so what ?

You have not supported your assertion that Swiftech used “a variant and inconsistent testing mechanism” as you have not shown that it was inconsistent. In fact the opposite is true, the mechanism provides vastly more consistent results than my old heat die. Nor, using consistent in a different sense, should it be said that the testing mechanism was inconsistent between wbs; similar types of wbs had similar results (MCW55 and Apogee).

For those not aware of the larger issue, it is this:
If Stew is successful in characterizing ALL ”test mechanisms” using an IHS as being “inconsistent”, then no CPUs could be used as a “Stew approved” test mechanism.
I believe that a means can be devised to use a CPU as a so-so heat source and am attempting identify such.
bare die sim vs. CPU