Ok now a real reply:
There are 2 topics, which don’t line up at all... all being compared against each other.
- Hobbyist looking to build a better rig and make their stuff run cooler
- Testers looking for the best way to bench in a repeatable way.
Any discussion about how the Hobbyist angle should leave this thread. You don’t see the auto industry going to the guys who tune their cars asking "would it be better if we dyno cars with a SAE HP/Torque or a "STD" HP/TORQUE curve?" Why? because the MFG's have only one responsibility, getting clear repeatable data.
Edit: a better comparison is a MFG doing a Hp at the wheels test vs what they all do is at the crank which is VERY innacurate for real world numbers. But people still are fine hearing what power is at the crank because it gives them what they want when choosing a product. Regardless of unknown losses in the driveline of a car that may change the numbers significantly in the real car.
Everyone knows that HP/Torque numbers are overall irrelevant compared to what the real world experience is of a product. But they find a way to quantify that data and still find it useful or get what they want from it.
In relation to the TTV discussion. IF that’s determined (or Intel chips) to be a repeatable and standard way of testing... the results may not be exactly what people want (simple enough and plug and play for all situations), but require some thought and quantification to get what you want from it. BUT... it will be repeatable, valid, and able to be cross compared.
What we need to do is get off the whole "hobbyist vs testing" thing.. .since they are not comparable, both are going after different goals.
Now I know its fun to raise conjecture about how evil Intel PR is, and how all their data is filtered, and cleaned up... but pH raises the perfect point... the TTV was never meant for any kind of PR prank... it was for engineering testing.