I guess I can not make a post understandable as non of these responses seem to respond to what I am getting at or at very best parts are being taken and argued out of the context I meant.
One last time and I give up.
Yes I am saying ALL manufacture data is SUSPECT. NOT worthless. I have seen only a few things EVER that lived up to the manufacture data about it. Not just computers parts but anything.
There is a reason ASTM and IEEE exist. It is because companies would consistency falsify their product info to gain sales and/or those products were safety hazards. These groups and standards are there to keep them in check and make them comply with reasonable set of rules/standards. Companies still push the limits of those standards. If you deny that then I guess you live in world not called Earth.
This is not just about Intel but every company there is. You guys remember all the controversy about vid cards and 3D Mark? How they put out drivers specifically to do good for 3D Mark but not so much for what the card would really be used for........... All companies pull off shit like that. Just go through all the threads we had in the past flamming stupid products.... Who is to say Swiftech didn't use a TTV version that makes their blocks look better than a different TTV version that may be more accurate and the blocks perform worse? I am not saying they did this but there is a "what if" that should not be ignored.
I still don't understand why you keep on with what Intel povided.... I am not arguing it maybe the best test bench ever. I am simply saying it doesn't matter. What does it have to do with you, me or anyone else here? No one here is going to be able to make such a bench or even use one for that matter. Even if they did use it they can't disclose anything of it. It is irrelevant and that is what I am saying. We should completely ignore the fact that Swiftech used it IMO and just take the data provided and try to prove it reasonable or not. That is all we can really do isn't it?
I have no problem with a repeatable and standard way of testing. I thought pH was on a good track. It seems to me HE is the one that has issues with his test bench and not so much the rest of us.
No Cathars way of testing is not being held as superior. Sheesh... It is being held as a way that seems to work half way decently. Same as what I was suggesting in another thread with performance based tests. If we keep worrying about what is superior then we will not get anything done. There is more than one way to test things. I don;t see why we have to concentrate on one of them.
People will say whatever they will. So what? Stop everything and do nothing? That seems the attitude.
We have many ways we can start getting content going here that can be useful and beneficial. It seems to me your guys attitude is those ways are not perfect so to hell with it all.
Joe I completely agree with your comparisons above. BUT it works BOTH ways. We don't need perfection to get things out. We just need to know the limits of what we are doing and make people aware of it (unlike many other reviewers). If pH and laxman want to go with testing based on temps with higher precision and accuracy more power to them! Why can we not have basic testing that covers more than just temps? Hell that way we can compare the results of the benches to see how much difference the higher level of testing provides. Not to mention cover other area such as noise and look and over all usability in real world situations.
Joe asked why people can't open their minds and that is exactly what I am saying. Everyone here doesn't have to do things the same way as everyone else. Everyone shouldn't have to agree with the other person that their way of doing things is the way it should be done.
I am just tired of all this bickering and no one wanting to do anything because of what others might say. To hell with what they say, just do it!
Anyway sorry I can not make my point any clearer. I get side tracked with other ramblings that don't seem to get interpreted the way I was thinking it would.