Pro/Forums - View Single Post

Cathar · 10-11-2003, 10:58 PM

I've been monitoring the P4 situation and there are a few issues:

P4's are bizarre things when it comes to reporting temperatures, and the temperature that they report does not seem to be indicative of the peak temperature that the die itself will reach.

I've been in contact with a number of people who have been reviewing the Cascade on P4's against other blocks. In some circumstances the Cascade will report equal, or sometimes even higher temperatures than a competing block, and the reviewers quiz me on why this would be the case. I then ask that they do a peak overclock comparison, and lo and behold, the Cascade is allowing the P4's to remain stable at higher reported temperatures.

Why is this so? The reported temperature is the same or slightly higher, but the CPU is clearly being cooled better.

This leads to confusion. People who trust just the reported temperatures seem to think that the Cascade isn't doing its job, but almost invariably, it's doing a better job than what's indicated by temperature alone.

This also confused me a bit too. I was under the impression that perhaps the Cascade could be doing better on a P4 with an IHS, but it seems that its super-focused approach is doing the job properly, just that the temperatures don't always seem to indicate it. Blocks that focus more on cooling the entire IHS, rather than just the central hot CPU die area can achieve comparative temperatures to the Cascade, yet the Cascade still allows an equal or higher overclock, even at higher ambient temperatures.

So I'm left with the evidence that's available pointing to the Cascade doing its job quite well with the IHS CPU's.

There's also a second slant to this. I'm a hobbyist. I want a waterblock that can cool the CPU as well as possible. If you're passionate about water-cooling, like I am, then cooling a CPU with an IHS is like making love with a 1.5mm thick rubber condom on. Sure, you're doing the job and protection is provided, but there's so much more on offer with a bare experience.

So here's my approach to this. The current Cascade revision really is doing its job just fine for IHS CPUs, arguably still the best at the job presently despite what current IHS P4 reported temperatures say. If, however, you want the most out of your block (and CPU) then take the IHS off, and you will have a block that is purpose built for that particular scenario.

I choose not to make my blocks specifically to cater for the lowering of reported temperatures for some scenarios, and instead choose to focus on making blocks by the design methodology that I still believe very firmly in, and that there's plenty of evidence to support my stance.

BTW, the current Cascade's are Rev 2. Rev 1 never made it into "production".

The GPU block is on indefinite hold as I am drastically short of time to even attend to handling Cascade orders, let alone a second line of blocks. Having a real job and a family tends to eat most of one's week.

10-11-2003, 10:58 PM	#2
Cathar Thermophile Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,538	I've been monitoring the P4 situation and there are a few issues: P4's are bizarre things when it comes to reporting temperatures, and the temperature that they report does not seem to be indicative of the peak temperature that the die itself will reach. I've been in contact with a number of people who have been reviewing the Cascade on P4's against other blocks. In some circumstances the Cascade will report equal, or sometimes even higher temperatures than a competing block, and the reviewers quiz me on why this would be the case. I then ask that they do a peak overclock comparison, and lo and behold, the Cascade is allowing the P4's to remain stable at higher reported temperatures. Why is this so? The reported temperature is the same or slightly higher, but the CPU is clearly being cooled better. This leads to confusion. People who trust just the reported temperatures seem to think that the Cascade isn't doing its job, but almost invariably, it's doing a better job than what's indicated by temperature alone. This also confused me a bit too. I was under the impression that perhaps the Cascade could be doing better on a P4 with an IHS, but it seems that its super-focused approach is doing the job properly, just that the temperatures don't always seem to indicate it. Blocks that focus more on cooling the entire IHS, rather than just the central hot CPU die area can achieve comparative temperatures to the Cascade, yet the Cascade still allows an equal or higher overclock, even at higher ambient temperatures. So I'm left with the evidence that's available pointing to the Cascade doing its job quite well with the IHS CPU's. There's also a second slant to this. I'm a hobbyist. I want a waterblock that can cool the CPU as well as possible. If you're passionate about water-cooling, like I am, then cooling a CPU with an IHS is like making love with a 1.5mm thick rubber condom on. Sure, you're doing the job and protection is provided, but there's so much more on offer with a bare experience. So here's my approach to this. The current Cascade revision really is doing its job just fine for IHS CPUs, arguably still the best at the job presently despite what current IHS P4 reported temperatures say. If, however, you want the most out of your block (and CPU) then take the IHS off, and you will have a block that is purpose built for that particular scenario. I choose not to make my blocks specifically to cater for the lowering of reported temperatures for some scenarios, and instead choose to focus on making blocks by the design methodology that I still believe very firmly in, and that there's plenty of evidence to support my stance. BTW, the current Cascade's are Rev 2. Rev 1 never made it into "production". The GPU block is on indefinite hold as I am drastically short of time to even attend to handling Cascade orders, let alone a second line of blocks. Having a real job and a family tends to eat most of one's week.