Testing discussion was the end of ProCooling in my opinion a few years back. Re-reading some of those threads leads me to people (testers/reviewers) looking for different results and ultimately giving up.
I never lost the desire to test and review coolers but I did loose the desire to argue about how to go about it and what constitutes usable results and exactly what the target was.
I have thought about it a lot the last few months and gone as far as starting
http://www.customcooledpc.com back up and start reviews going. I was thinking about submitting them here but I think the goals are different.
It seems to me analytical testing was the goal here and nothing else mattered or was good enough. The question being good enough for WHO? In my opinion the goal we were setting was far and away past review level testing. Sure we want to do a better review and we did get many reviewers to upgrade their testing methods and equipment. However the end results still remain pretty consistent. No matter what style or equipment used the end results still came out pretty much the same. The order of what coolers are best seemed to stay unchanged.
Also the time to do the testing we were discussing is not really an option for most people even without lifes.
So what I propose is lowing the standards for reviews and start getting some done. Continue the more analytical testing as desired but separate it from the standard reviews. The gear some of us have is already superior to most review sites so why not make use of it?
One reason I feel less guilty for suggesting such is modern CPU's seem much less effected by better cooling. Especially in the 2-5C range which most liquid coolers differences fall in. So there really isn't any major necessity for such a high level of testing for standard reviews.
Here is a quote from Robotech (Lee Garbutt) about is new perspective on testing.
Quote:
Editor’s note: Long time readers may remember that I used to do analytical waterblock testing where I used a custom built waterblock test bench to accurately measure each block’s thermal resistance using a thermal die simulator and a lot of fancy equipment. I also measured the pressure drop versus flow rate for each waterblock like you see above. Well I don’t do that anymore for several reasons. What started out as a challenge and learning experience turned into an obsession that required way more time, money and space than I was willing to keep investing. At about the same time, the incorporation of Integrated Heat Spreaders (IHS) on both Intel and AMD CPUs leveled the playing field considerably. On the test bench I could measure slight differences in performance between waterblocks but when placed on a real-world CPU, the results were virtually the same.
Yes, there are performance differences between different brands and styles of waterblocks. However, in addition to raw performance what really differentiates one waterblock from another are things like quality materials and construction, ease of installation and especially the mounting hardware. Actual waterblock performance will in most cases be affected more by the installed clamping force than the subtle design differences inside. So with that new perspective, our current reviews focus less on simulated performance and more on real-world application.
|
Source:
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...e=expert&pid=5
Also air coolers are now so good there should be plenty of air coolers to review without all the water cooling gear needed. Only reason not to get reviews and content going is lack of interest or laziness.
I am going to continue reviews on my site with my equipment. However it would be good to see ProCooling get more active with reviews and articles.
Thoughts?