Pro/Forums - View Single Post - New Method For Testing Water Block Performance

GlassMan · 12-15-2005, 11:21 AM

I don't know, I was refering to the Robotech results. I didn't mean to imply you couldn't do better than that. When you do the testing and can resolve differences between water blocks we will know if your system is useful.
There are compression issues and resolution issues. (It's been a while since I read your method, I'll read it again). Also as you mention losing pins is always a threat. (Perhaps use 2 hold down plates , the lower with widened holes so you can slowly twist the block till TIM lets loose, the upper to positively locate the block). (I lost my best s754, tear).
I'm all for A64 testing. If the results of northwood IHS on, off corralate with yours, it increases the reliance IHS users can put in your IHS off results.

I think my system has potential*, as we are working directly with the hottest part of the cpu, and the wattage levels generated by FSB adjustments are very small and calcula(ta)ble (% anyway) resulting in a finely graduated scale. Even if the scale doesn't workout, it should answer if block a>b>c, at least on the relevent intels.

I suggest it as a way of verifying the results gotten by other methods more than a replacement. That is possible, but we don't even know if it works. If results can't be corralated, they are all questionable.

* definately with the same cpu, and as I believe the calibration procedure intel refers to is to a set temperature, not to specific cpu's as has been speculated. Trying to get exact heat flux of each cpu and setting the TCC to that is let's say counter to mass production)

12-15-2005, 11:21 AM	#7
GlassMan Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Kentucky USA Posts: 64	Re: New Method For Testing Water Block Performance I don't know, I was refering to the Robotech results. I didn't mean to imply you couldn't do better than that. When you do the testing and can resolve differences between water blocks we will know if your system is useful. There are compression issues and resolution issues. (It's been a while since I read your method, I'll read it again). Also as you mention losing pins is always a threat. (Perhaps use 2 hold down plates , the lower with widened holes so you can slowly twist the block till TIM lets loose, the upper to positively locate the block). (I lost my best s754, tear). I'm all for A64 testing. If the results of northwood IHS on, off corralate with yours, it increases the reliance IHS users can put in your IHS off results. I think my system has potential, as we are working directly with the hottest part of the cpu, and the wattage levels generated by FSB adjustments are very small and calcula(ta)ble (% anyway) resulting in a finely graduated scale. Even if the scale doesn't workout, it should answer if block a>b>c, at least on the relevent intels. I suggest it as a way of verifying the results gotten by other methods more than a replacement. That is possible, but we don't even know if it works. If results can't be corralated, they are all questionable. definately with the same cpu, and as I believe the calibration procedure intel refers to is to a set temperature, not to specific cpu's as has been speculated. Trying to get exact heat flux of each cpu and setting the TCC to that is let's say counter to mass production)