Quote:
Originally posted by freeloadingbum
The biggest problem I have with the test is the difference in order between the PolarFlo and the split edge waterblock. On BillA's tests the spilt edge is 2C better than the PolarFlo while Joe's test has the PolarFlo 1C better than the split edge block. If the order of blocks aren't consistant on die simulators, then what chance do they have of being consistant on actual cpu's? If there is no consistancy, then what good is the data?
|
This has been discussed before. BillA's test of the PolarFlo was with the initial versions with the rather "casually" lapped bases which weren't that flat, as was noted in Bill's review of the block. Joe tested the PolarFlo with the new "superfinish". The difference between the two blocks in terms of the lapping would easily explain a ~2C difference.
Quote:
Originally posted by freeloadingbum
Another problem I have is that the temperature gradient across the surface of the cpu may be alot greater than with a die simulator. It may possibly even change patterns with different load programs. One block could perform better than another with prime95 and perform worse with cpuburn. I haven't seen any data that proves the cpu temp gradient is consistant. [/b]
|
Temperature patterns are not consistent across a CPU die at all, however this tends to be more of an effect on the final overclock, which is something that cannot be measured. One block may deal better with "CPU hot spot" activity than another block (typically due to using finer scale "furniture" within the block), yet both may give fairly similar CPU temperatures. Since CPU overclock stability is often closely linked to how hot the hottest bit of the CPU gets, then this is probably the real side-effect of measuring different blocks on a fixed die-simulator.
Unsure of how large such an effect is. I know that Les has made a few efforts of calculating such for different block design types.
For now though that's a problem that's probably best left in the "too hard" basket.