[Etacovda]

Personally, id just like to see the variables on the TTV explored PROPERLY, which is what a few of us have been pushing from the start, only to be faced with 'intel did it, it must be right'.

You're making out like this is entirely about popularity - hey, some of us have inside knowledge of blocks tested on the TTV which performed EXTREMELY questionably, yet it was never explored nor quantified.

"of trust you're placing in a reviewer to not bias the outcomes and not work with out-of-calibration parts"

The major question is, why would a tester not validate variables? and now you're questioning people questioning that? why SHOULD we put our faith into someone who refuses to explore the possible problems with the test bed? you (and others) attempted to, corrolations mathematically were made between your bed, billa's and joes, as well as emperically, just never officially. You've pretty much answered all my questions, as well as enforcing some of the things that others have said.

The issue with the TTV is the blind faith, 'intel cant do wrong', no validation of any of the varibles event that happened. NOT with the 'omg, this block cant be that bad in this circumstance!' crowd (well, not on my end, anyway).

"But what makes you think Intel and OEMs have never tested a waterblock on the TTV?"

how can you be sure they have? how can you be sure that they didnt just slap one on, and go 'yep, it works' with no other data to corrolate back to?

The reason the TTV is held to this 'standard' is that it takes its temperature a huge distance away from the die, and doesnt take into account other variables which werent present in your test bed.

I could go on, but i think ive made my point enough times now...