Pro/Forums - View Single Post

Cathar · 11-05-2003, 05:33 PM

I don't know about what you guys think about the following, but here's my view on it.

I don't want my name/pseudonym associated with the RBX block, or the hat even tipped to me, at least not in public.

If the RBX block was for private use, then sure, it'd be a nice gesture.

If the RBX block is to be sold commercially, then I'd personally feel a whole lot more "dirty and used" if my name were used in conjunction with a product that started out as "essentially a WW clone", and then gets on-sold to someone else and everyone's making money except I.

Not that I really care about the money, but the last thing I feel that I would want is to then have my name or pseudonym attached to something to be used as a cynical marketing ploy, because that is essentially what it would be, added marketing impact. That would grate a whole lot more to me.

I also still fail to see how "better than a White Water" comments can be made though, especially since a White Water was not used in testing. It is only a hypothesis to suggest such, but it cannot be a firm statement.

The Cascade really comes into its own as one ramps the volts and clock speeds. At default voltages and speeds there is probably about as much separating it and the White Water, as Player0's tests indicate as a separation between the RBX and the Cascade.

Ideally I would've like to have seen a peak overclock/over-volt test as the distributed point cooling of the Cascade provides a more uniform mechanism across the die area. However I believe that Player0 already sold the Cascade that he tested about two weeks ago (the person who bought it has already contacted me asking for some advice).

In any review I would also like to see CPU temp minus water temp deltas as this better factors out issues in the ambient temperature variations.

In any test between two blocks I always like to mount them in opposition to each other (alternate between blocks) to gain some sort of sanity checking. This is needed less for more exacting test beds like BillA's, but for system based test beds I find it's a useful consistency checking tool after an episode during the Cascade development when I had gathered some results and two weeks later could not reproduce them, setting me back quite a bit until I figured out what had changed.

11-05-2003, 05:33 PM	#88
Cathar Thermophile Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,538	I don't know about what you guys think about the following, but here's my view on it. I don't want my name/pseudonym associated with the RBX block, or the hat even tipped to me, at least not in public. If the RBX block was for private use, then sure, it'd be a nice gesture. If the RBX block is to be sold commercially, then I'd personally feel a whole lot more "dirty and used" if my name were used in conjunction with a product that started out as "essentially a WW clone", and then gets on-sold to someone else and everyone's making money except I. Not that I really care about the money, but the last thing I feel that I would want is to then have my name or pseudonym attached to something to be used as a cynical marketing ploy, because that is essentially what it would be, added marketing impact. That would grate a whole lot more to me. I also still fail to see how "better than a White Water" comments can be made though, especially since a White Water was not used in testing. It is only a hypothesis to suggest such, but it cannot be a firm statement. The Cascade really comes into its own as one ramps the volts and clock speeds. At default voltages and speeds there is probably about as much separating it and the White Water, as Player0's tests indicate as a separation between the RBX and the Cascade. Ideally I would've like to have seen a peak overclock/over-volt test as the distributed point cooling of the Cascade provides a more uniform mechanism across the die area. However I believe that Player0 already sold the Cascade that he tested about two weeks ago (the person who bought it has already contacted me asking for some advice). In any review I would also like to see CPU temp minus water temp deltas as this better factors out issues in the ambient temperature variations. In any test between two blocks I always like to mount them in opposition to each other (alternate between blocks) to gain some sort of sanity checking. This is needed less for more exacting test beds like BillA's, but for system based test beds I find it's a useful consistency checking tool after an episode during the Cascade development when I had gathered some results and two weeks later could not reproduce them, setting me back quite a bit until I figured out what had changed.