Quote:
Originally posted by bigben2k
BillA: I have to admit, you come off a bit sharp sometimes, and it can be a distraction, but you are consistent, and there is always a clever thought in your posts. I for one am really glad that you check in with us once in a while! (and straighten me up too ).
|
Yeah, BillA (unregistered) is alright. I am on his ignore list so he will not see this but it probably doesn't matter to him anyway. pHaestus is alright to. We have are differences of opinions and our own pride to worsen our positions sometimes but it's all good. I am in the "It's Good Enough" croud myself so maybe I should be a [H] member instead of a procooling member.
And some of you probably wish I were!
I understand the reasoning for accurate measurements and see how they "could" be usefull. The problem I see is by the time this data is figured out for current blocks it will all be unusefull because of system changes that will not work with current blocks or just plain better blocks in the future. A possible never ending cycle untill CPU's get so small it will be impossible to mount a waterblock (which may not be all that far off). Seems to me like it is just a lost cause in the end. Non the less some of the manufactures would go out of business buying the needed equipment. Some of those are good manufactures to. I would like to see them do this aswell but unless it goes mainstream I don't see it happening to soon if at all.
Non the less if you are going to do a review now days it would be good to cover more bases I guess. As one that makes his own blocks I don't really rely on temps as a gauge on how well the block performs. The computer tells me how well it is performing (this is probably hard to grasp for some). Temps are a small guide but system performace is the true and final result IMO. Unfortunatly most either don't know how or have not the tools to make their own blocks and they do have to rely on a review or roundup. I can see both arguments from procooling veiw point and [H]'s about the review in question. The probelm I see is there is a block named the "Top Choice" or something to that effect. With a review as little detailed as the one in question it probably would be best not to name a top performer but to just let the people decide on which they perfer. Any of the 19 blocks can be tuned to give decent performance one way or another, but the top 5 will all probably be easier to get to perform better. The average water cooler is not going to be able to calculate all the variables of the system he plans to buy so he just works with what he decides from the info given which IMO is "Good Enough" to make a decent decision even if it isn't perfect. I really don't see how the user is going to go to wrong by buying one of the top 5-10 blocks in that roundup no matter what other parts he/she has. So in that view the review works by at least showing what is available and a general idea if it is decent or not. Even with the flawed testing method I belive it is "Good Enough" or at least better than nothing at all. Hell I like to look at roundups more to just see what is out there!!
As for the person who wrote the review I think he as a few issues he needs to work on, but who desn't. I know I do and I try to resolve them.
It is way to late for me to be thinking so I will stop rambling.
