Quote:
Originally posted by pHaestus
If you can't control the variables and you can't measure them with any certainty then you will end up seeing whatever you want to see. I have a testbed that is about as good as one can have that is still "real world", but I would still prefer to eliminate the radiator from the equation and use something to provide a constant inlet temperature. Simulators are used in place of processors when people want to actually quantify the power (and heat) that is going into the system. That is really the only way to compare different heatsinks or blocks.
If you look at AMD's technical documents, they use die simulators that are very advanced (monitor heat in several places) and do not bother with socket probes to draw their conclusions. Why wouldn't you expect the same from an "expert" reviewer?
|
True, but there is control, and there is CONTROL. What you describe is what someone would do in a lab environment, not what the typical person would use in his home or office.
If you eliminate the radiator from the equation, then you actually skew the numbers as this wouldn't be a real world situation (at least I haven't seen anybodys watercooling rig without a radiator). So in effect you would be saying, that given a constant temperature water (hmmm, what would you consider a normal temperature for water?) WaterBlock-A can keep CPU-X at Y temperature while WaterBlock-B functions at Y+5 degrees. While this sounds like a good test, what you may miss is, that given a higer water temp, WaterBlock-B may be able to keep the CPU-X temp at it's original temperature, but WaterBlock-A actually could perform worse.