Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pHaestus
Let me get this straight:
Intel developed the TTV to help heatsink companies with PR? Now you're just being stupid and grasping at straws. Intel developed the ttv so that oems can have a reliable and repeatable test platform for heatsink development. They make new ttvs as new chips come out, and can send them to the many cooler mfgrs and oem PC mfgrs with mobo without concerns. Basically Intel knows the thermal properties of their CPUs before the production CPUs are available, and they send their best simulation of those thermal properties (including packaging/mounting/etc) to the companies that need to account for that information.
The above is publicly known! What makes a TTV running in a lab with engineers inferior to a copper hunk with a thermocouple in it again? You presume that you can better replicate the thermal characteristics of a CPU with a garage shop than the people who made the damn CPU!
And ask the mfgrs to defend themselves? Hah
|
I am going to assume this was directed in my direction. Not sure why as I care less about die sims anymore anyway...
I think you fell off your chair and hit your head or something pH. Maybe WoW is screwing with your interpretation of reality I am not sure.
What does the TTV have to do with all manufactures on the planet. Which I was referring to, not just heat sink outfits. Swiftech used the TTV but we have no clue what version of the TTV was used or how up to date it was. Bill claims he knows all yet was a praising and USING and CHARGING people using this now acclaimed chunk of copper made in a garage by us dumb ass enthusiests..... And he wants us to take his testing superiority seriously now and believe the Swiftechs TTV results because of why again?? Oh yeah because HE did the testing? I would be a lot more convinced of the results if it was done at Intel in their controlled lab with their engineers. But it was not.
I guess the next time a buy something I will forget going to review sites and reading up on real world examples of the product in use.
When is the last time you bought any piece of computer equipment based solely on what the manufacture data had to say about it? Get real pH. Manufacture data that is used for the general public is always the best case results. It is common knowledge and basic business practice.
Some businessman here would want us to believe that manufacture data should be the golden grail and not questioned. I wonder why that is...
And another thing.... Cathar made one of if not the best water block on the planet as of now and what equipment did he use? Certainly not a TTV. Not even the chunk of copper with probe attached.... Not even a CPU with hacked diode reader...
And another thing... When was the last time you seen Bill with a water cooling system installed on his computer? When was the last time you seen him show results of his overclocked computer? When was the last water block design you saw from him? When was the last time he has shown any interest at all as an enthusiast in this hobby?
I have never seen anything from him to indicate he has any interest at all in the hobby on a end user level like the rest of us.
I am not even sure why you keep backing the TTV. It doesn't matter to any of us. We will never use it. We know nothing about it so we cannot even begin to understand how right or wrong it is. Also was it the same engineers that designed the original P4 that sucked ass? And you want us to put faith in them? The original P4 was nothing but PR hype. Even with all their fancy specs and bull shit in the end it was crap and they knew it yet they hyped it up as the best CPU ever. Now you are telling me I should just believe everything they say because they should know what they are doing and blindly buy the CPU?
Anyway we can ramble on with thousands of examples of how PR seems to change the reality of performance of products but I guess it will not do any good.