Good Lord I guess only parts and pieces of my posts are read.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jaydee
I am not sure why we are even concerned with TTV results. None of use have access to one and the results of it are only used in Swiftechs specs. How many of you take manufacture data 100% seriously? I sure don't. Not saying the data is bad or wrong just saying PR could possibly contaminate such data or maybe they are out right lying. Who knows?
What pH, Robotech and any other reviewers role IMO was is verifying that the manufacture data is reasonable. Not necessarily accurate but reasonable to think it is.
As pH said any way you test there are flaws. Just have to decide if those flaws are acceptable or not.
|
Am I wrong here? Does pH know all about the TTV to make his claims that it is the best thing out there to test with? If none of us have the info then how do we know? I am saying it doesn't matter one bit about the TTV because no one here will be able to use one or share info about it so it is not worth bickering over.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jaydee
Knowing those variables is nice to. The TTV is pretty unknown to most of us. That is why manufacture data should be taken with a grain of salt. We don't know if they used variables that are positive for their PR. Many do many don't. We just have no real way to know until it is independently verified that their data has the possibility of being correct.
Some here (will not mention names) would seem to have us think that manufacture data should be taken as fact until proven wrong. I see it the other way around. It is wrong until proven right. Especially in industry such as this that has no real regulations on it.
|
Pretty much what I said in the last quote. Added that a few people here would like us to believe their results should not be questioned because they are elite and/or business men trying to push into the market or have in the past.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jaydee
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.
|
Can't see how I discredit Intel here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jaydee
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?
|
Here I am not specifically jabbing their engineers but pointing out that they are not nearly as perfect as pH would like us to think. It is well known the original P4 was junk and the P3 was better. How am I supposed to know they didn't make the same mistake on the TTV? I don't. Do I think they did? No, I think they did better than anyone else but I have no way to PROVE it. Which is my point. Who is to say the failed P4 was even the engineers fault and not some pencil pushing fool wanting a new product out fast? I don't. There for I have to no believe any of there info UNTIL IT IS PROVEN. I am just asking for proof.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Yeah really bitching about Intel here.... I don't see how I am wrong here either. Who has a TTV at their disposal for all us to learn about?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jaydee
I think we can all agree Intel would not make a high tech test bench to skew results. They have no reason to. We are saying other companies that use the device may not use the most valid results or simply may not know how to work it properly. The thing must have some sort of learning curve to it. Also there are several different models from what I understand. Which one is being used for testing and how is it different than the other? Does the manufacture even know if they are screwing up or not?
To think we can just take manufacture data as perfect is not a good thing.
|
Still fail to see were I discredit Intel.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jaydee
|
Read the article. He gather info from the event he was at from the display from Intel. I don't think he made all that much of it up. Still not discrediting Intel's engineers just Intel's PR as a point companies bloat their products up no matter how big they are.
I thought we were here do decide FOR OUR SELFS with OUR OWN testing procedures and equipment how well something works. Not blindly take manufacture data at face value. If that is the case why bother reviewing anything at all?
Ok, that will be my last post in this thread. I don't even see a argument really. Just a disagreement.