[Powerhouse]

Originally posted by bigben2k
PowerHouse: I completely disagree with you, and on more level than one! But I do agree that testing on a typical computer is necessary.

Now, here's why I disagree:
1- The existing line of CPU's constantly change, so to keep the same testing rig throughout all tests would NOT give us a result for the greatest/latest computer. You know how fast they go out of style... I still use a Pentium 166!!! (among others)

I do agree with this, Which is why I recommend a base system. Just as the AthlonXP runs cooler than the original Athlon, and so will the AthlonT-Bred run cooler than the XP. If you have a base system, you could just compare the difference with the new CPU and adjust all you numbers accordingly.

2-CPU temps can vary, depending on the load that is put on them (regardless of over-volting). You can argue that one can use some benchmarking software, but the problem is that every computer configuration is different, and I've seen too many people run the test, then read the temperature right away and report it, when in fact, a completely assembled system could take many hours to stabilize. (One factor is the volume of water)

You could run Prime95 (or folding@home, etc), which should be sufficent to heat up your system for the testing phase. And, as you said, you would probably have to run each test overnight to get accurate numbers. However, this puts a worse case scenario as the baseline (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), but some people don't work there PC this hard all the time, so perhaps a mix of Idle, Medium, and Full loaded CPU testing would be in order.

3-That being said, given the choice between using a $750-$1000 system to test, which has to be dedicated for that purpose, with the hope that it will never break down
VERSUS
using a $25.00 high-power resistor, a power supply, and some measuring instruments (flow-meter, temp probes, volt meters, etc...)
Well, you do the math, and honestly tell me which one you would trust the most.

I take all the tests I see on various websites with a grain of salt, but they do give you a general idea of what's best on the market, which is what we are all interested in. (which is why I bought my SK6 heatsink, everybody gave it a great review on performance).

4-Given the above info, and what you propose, you need to understand that the time required to test all those configurations would take days, if not weeks, and that sometimes, the guys reviewing that stuff, don't have the item in their hands all that time.

True, the tests would take a long time, but isn't that what you want to see anyway. Would you trust a huge test like this that was done in only a day or two, or one that spent a couple weeks working on? Besides you could release a few test subjects at a time, and drag the review out over a month or two (keeps people coming back to your site).

5-What you are proposing comes down to testing a complete configuration, not an individual component.

Yes, I want a complete system (but of the best stuff, not a Koolance or Swiftech system). I have yet to see any review like this, but I do believe its what people have been waiting for. However, you could break it down to just testing one component at a time also (all WB's, All Rad's, etc).

6-The pump: it's very simple, use an industrial (or big) model, slap a flow restrictor, and a flow sensor, along with a pressure gauge. This would allow for a lot more usefull data, and would be much simpler than trying to install different pumps.

As for testing a pump, the specs are already available everywhere, so don't see the point in testing them, except for reliability, and mods.

I have read too many posts about people using a larger pump and getting better numbers etc. This was just an Idea to see if different pumps actually make a difference or not. Plus you wouldn't just have to use Eheim, you could use Rio, Danner, or others. I know the pumps specs are listed, but they perform different given the tubing size, radiator type, number of elbows etc.

You're also forgetting that regardless of the optimal setup someone puts together for a "typical" system, as you would put it, there may be other configurations that could be just as effective (i.e. a DD Maze3 with a BIX versus a Gemini HF-spiral with a Big Momma). The thing to keep in mind, is that people like to have a choice. I'd rather know that I can get a Swiftech with a Bix, using an Eheim 1048, because the optimal flow rate of each component is the same.

This review wouldn't limit the choice, on the contrary, it would provide numbers for each item, so you would at least have somekind of baseline to go on. So although your Swiftech with a Bix using an 1048 might have an optimal flow rate, if the performance of a Innovatech with a Dangerden cube, using a Eheim 1046 had better performance, wouldn't you consider switching (assuming the performance difference was enough to make you spend the extra money).

Now if there is someone out there than can do all that, THEN test it in a typical (at press time) system, then I would worship them!

I know what you mean, I would love to see a review like this (even a partial review like this would just be awesome). Maybe Birrman54's review will provide us with some answer's. Any other takers on this one?