[H] WB roundup - Page 4

clone · 10-03-2002, 04:44 PM

i would rather not be affilated with any thing that kyle or steve is becase they would **** me some how i just know it i dont trust ppl that offen and did you just not read i would if my parents would let me my job ended 9/27/02 due to lack of work so i have nothing better to do with my time

zCereal · 10-03-2002, 04:50 PM

lemme do a little math here

to test all optimal set-ups we would have to have about let's say 4 different pumps to respressent certain flow rates

let's say 12 rads to test (including a heatercore or two)

and then you'd need to test the 19 waterblocks on each set-up

which means 912 different combinations

testing each 3 times for elimating sources of error like mounting

that is 2736 tests

now take that and let's say 1 hour per test to test load temps and take measurements and put on the block

that's 2736 hours of testing or 114 days of 24/7 testing of waterblocks

unfeasible

so leave it down to 1 variable
then you gotta run 19 tests at 3 times each

which mean alot less work and results that may not reflect all possible results but does give a very good indication of which blocks are the best performers

bigben2k · 10-03-2002, 04:51 PM

How about Steve take the time to check with a few people, on how to do a good roundup, before he just jumps to it? We would have been more than happy to have helped out.

Nice case. I like the window mod.

bigben2k · 10-03-2002, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zCereal
lemme do a little math here

to test all optimal set-ups we would have to have about let's say 4 different pumps to respressent certain flow rates

let's say 12 rads to test (including a heatercore or two)

and then you'd need to test the 19 waterblocks on each set-up

which means 912 different combinations

testing each 3 times for elimating sources of error like mounting

that is 2736 tests

now take that and let's say 1 hour per test to test load temps and take measurements and put on the block

that's 2736 hours of testing or 114 days of 24/7 testing of waterblocks

unfeasible

so leave it down to 1 variable
then you gotta run 19 tests at 3 times each

which mean alot less work and results that may not reflect all possible results but does give a very good indication of which blocks are the best performers

1 good core
1 pump at 10 different flow rates
repeated 3 times
19 blocks

That's 57 mountings of a block, followed by 10 different flow rate tests for each.

Who ever said that only one person had to do this?

pHaestus · 10-03-2002, 04:55 PM

Why are you changing all of those pumps and rads? You are making things too hard to manage. Control the water temperature to remove it as a variable. Use a single powerful pump and use valves to adjust flow rates to preset points. Then monitor CPU performance. Not rocket science to devise; very difficult to do well.

Testing 3x to avoid errors in mounting? That would presume that you control mounting pressure in the first place (a good idea eh?).

The real rub is that the thermal paste will kick you in the nut sac once you get the resolution to see its effects.

If I can actually get my PC-50 finished I will try and get my testbed set up. No promises though

clone · 10-03-2002, 04:58 PM

one pump like a hydro 1000 and then like a tvalve or some thign to variat the flow a flow meeter to monitor and then a good rad / core why use 12 diff pumps when you only want to achive diff flow just use a bigger one and regulate it and when the temps start to suck regualte it the other way then find its sweet spot\

mkosem · 10-03-2002, 04:59 PM

actually, a single rad and pump could account for all flow rates. There are adjustable pumps available. Joe's testbed(Deemed crap by Steve) has an adjustable flow pump in it. And testing 19 different rads is unnecessary. The flow could be measured with a flowmeter and recorded with a single rad with flow rate numbers for each.

--Matt

mkosem · 10-03-2002, 05:01 PM

hmm, now that I think about it. Steve saying Joe's setup is crap is a blind comment with no backing and is the most "this is crap" thing that has been said.

--Matt

zCereal · 10-03-2002, 05:06 PM

so basically you wanted him to compare flowrates - performance on all the blocks?

and yeah that post i made was exageration (but hey it worked)

that means that block design matters alot less since someone who wants higher flowrates through his block to perform better gets the lower performance and the guy who designed his block to perform at low flow rates gets the better results. it's flawed testing. give them all the same pump and see if who comes out on top is the best way to show accurate results

mkosem · 10-03-2002, 05:10 PM

I don't think you understand how important accuracy and methoodology are when reviewing things like this. There are more variables also not mentioned. Like the lack of a shroud on that BIX(labeled BI Pro), or the airflow of that chrome fan on it. Where is that info? How can anyone even begin to try to replicate that setup to get those results with misinformation and missing information even if they did want to?

--Matt

mfpmax · 10-03-2002, 05:12 PM

zCereal

You say you don't want to start a Forum war...

Then why did you post a link(that was deleted earlier by Steve and the user banned) to this place about you "defending" the round up?

clone · 10-03-2002, 05:23 PM

why is it false to test a block in its optimun conditsion why would you test all the blocks on all the same plane inf they are not designed to even run at that would you test 2 subs one designed for 1000 watts and the other desgned for 1000 but only give one of them 75rms and the other 500 rms?

sorry for the dealy had to break for dinner

or would you give a 200watt load to a 80watt tweeter or even better yet would you give 2 watts to a 100 watt tweeter keeping in mind that you dont kill shit from over powering for the most part you kill it from under power it and dont tell me that this is apples to oranges the point is that shit dont run right and you cant expect any type of sound q if you stuff isnt running to spec same goes for whatcooling you HAVE to run it at what it was desgined for and dont dare call it design flaw testing of somet thing when it is running out of spec as far ass cooling goes no dont bring in benchmarking for ocing that is far diffrent

is this helping you to understand"?

zCereal · 10-03-2002, 05:26 PM

i posted it for kyle's sake

and i am not starting a forum war

i am reasonably talking about what the beefs are with the testing procedure and my views on why it is valid

if we really wanted to start a forum war i wouldn;t go about it this way

i removed the link to this post from my post

now i do agree that more info about the specific set-up is needed and maybe some pics of the set-up

clone · 10-03-2002, 05:29 PM

we do welcome kyle/steve to come and talk with us becase unlike him i dont think that joe will start banning acounts on constuctive critisisum no that is not a personal attack and no i am not being biased just going on what i have in front of me and what has happend to me etc...

pHaestus · 10-03-2002, 05:34 PM

Well since we are left with posting across forums, here is a comment to Steve:

Quote:

Originally posted by Steve

Actually ProCooling has not forgotten about that, the last waterblock review posted took 8 months to finish, and the blocks were seriously outdated by then.

Kinda funny that Steve reviews the same exact blocks many months later and it somehow becomes a positive thing just because it is a big number.

What's that word? Hypocrite?

It's also kinda funny that Steve was silent until he banned all the people criticizing his review. THEN he starts posting to the remaining [H fanboys. Here is a personal opinion and I dont mean it as an attack: Steve has some issues.

c'est la vie

zCereal · 10-03-2002, 05:36 PM

i can't comment on the bannings as i don't know what exactly was posted (and never will since it has been deleted)

Joe · 10-03-2002, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mkosem
hmm, now that I think about it. Steve saying Joe's setup is crap is a blind comment with no backing and is the most "this is crap" thing that has been said.

--Matt

I can verify, there was absolutely no poop in the setup, it was 100% turd free.

There was some ghetto stuff that was setup, but shit, you show me one setup that is somewhat controlled that DOESNT look ghetto??? Sorry Stevie, I don’t have 1,000,000$ to build a lab with a laminar flow air system, and stainless steel everything. That test rig is outdated by today’s standards that are being pushed by a few folks around the web ( JoeC, BillA, and our own pH), but if that setup is outdated and not valid today... what’s that say about the half assed setup Steve ran with NO accurate temp gathering tools any where on the machine? No controlled flow tests, and No accurate power stats for that lil PSU. Steve making fun of other peoples test setup is like a fat chick making fun of the beautiful people.

Steve's comments are funny at least. He seems to have mistaken comments that were meant to point out weaknesses in a review as personal insults. Someone who is in the same position as him should be able to see whats a personal rip or a rip on his work. You can see by the earlier post that I was not down on him as much as I am down on the lack of progression in the testing methods he used. He in turn responded with personal insults about me, the site, and others. Nice.

My second and third post in the thread that got axed were not even about Steve but about another hardocp minion who made the first attack on the site I happen to run.

In all honesty, before I read the article I was hoping that Steve/Kyle would start to do some better and more detailed reviews. I enjoy reading well done articles/reviews a lot. I have never said I was an expert in this field, I have maintained I am just an enthusiast who digs thermodynamics. Reading other sites and high end articles helps me learn more about the technology. When I heard about the Water block Roundup I went there ASAP to read it and see what kind of review this was. if the review was good, I would have posted that, if the review was crap ... well I just call em as I see em. I mean... that review (except for the products) could have been done 2 years ago and it would have been base line then for testing standards!.

The comments about speed of articles and reviews being posted is a moot point. Since I refuse to do a review if its not done to the best of my ability at the given time. I don’t pump out reviews just to give them a "top pick" icon or 9/10 rating as most sites do. We are slow at posting stuff, that’s no secret and is one of the biggest bitches the readers and myself have with the site... sucks but some of us work for a living, or do school. Also there are always a fair number of articles and reviews that are turned away by me. If it isn’t of quality it isn’t posted.

I am stranded here at work, so I thought I would post that while I wait for this Dell tech to finish fixing this damn Poweredge 6600 that died today.

I will finish the post with this, I think it’s accurate for how Steve must view watercooling stuff other sites do:
"We fear what we do not understand"

pHaestus · 10-03-2002, 09:52 PM

I have traded a few e-mails today with the Hard|OCP guys. In the end, they don't want Procooling people (at the very least our staff) in their forums. It is their site and that is their prerogative. That is the last I will say regarding this matter or their site (you can quote me on that).

clone · 10-03-2002, 09:57 PM

does [H] really expect all the procoling peeps to not post on there forums are they going to block all of us?

pHaestus · 10-03-2002, 10:04 PM

I would assume pretty much anyone discussing this issue or related items would be banned. Why bother? If we are not wanted then leave them be. They have a full day of flinging poop and eating ticks off each other's backs anyway.

clone · 10-03-2002, 10:09 PM

i dont make troulbe i have learnd hell i dont rember the last time i posted there any way o whell there los

the last time my name was used there was buy jason to sell some thing

Cyco-Dude · 10-03-2002, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe
I can verify, there was absolutely no poop in the setup, it was 100% turd free.

hehe

well jesus, i just posted a link and the sh*t hit the fan eh?? oh well.......move along people, theres nothing to see here.....

oh, and clone? punctuation is a good thing LOL!!

BillA · 10-03-2002, 10:32 PM

it has always entertained me (in a sorry way) to see OCers and WCers who do NOT want technical info

that was the forum on which I was told "we don't want all those numbers, just tell us which one is best"

and clearly, VERY clearly, that is the audience for which they write

both the author and his defenders have not the slightest interest in measurement or analysis; they are picking a winner

what should concern all of 'us', and all serious WCers, is the BIG message that has been sent to the manufacturers
"lookey here, shiny and purdy, and cools real good too"

such promotional articles kill the incentive of mfgrs to provide real data useful for the implementation of their products
- for sure bullshit is cheaper than testing

a sorry day for techies, understand how few we are
(and before the procoolers start patting themselves on the back, observe the abundance of Luddites here too)

opposable thumbs, indeed !!

Birrman54 · 10-03-2002, 11:03 PM

Hey,

I'm a new member, I've been a member at [H] for a year or so now, and I've been doing watercooling for about that time.

Although I'm a big fan of the forum at [H], I'd have to agree with you all in this matter. Most (if not all) of the bannings were, IMO, uncalled for, and the review, as a technical writeup, was poor at best.

I've been working on a roundup for Socket A blocks for quite some time now (delays in the Spiral Rev2 have significantly held back its publication).

I think that my reviews will be much better in terms of thoroughness, and hopefully I'll be able to produce numbers more useable by the general public.

I'd like suggestions on how to have the highest quality results possible, I'm using a simulated heat source, that so far has shown fairly good results, it's not entirely accurate as to what an actual Athlon might produce, but it is repeatable, and as many have said the Delta T from water/cpu is more important.

I've been taking inline water temps before and after the waterblock, however, they don't seem to have produced results that are significant in any way. I was using the inline probes from Dtek attached to a compunurse. Around the heat plate (that the waterblock is clamping onto), I have 3 thermistors, and I've been taking the average of these readings.

I planned on testing for flow restrictions, but how would I go about setting up a controlled flow restrictor (a valve of some sort, I suppose) that I could use to see waterblocks performance with lower flow rates (I've been using a 1250 as well).

The heatercore is from an Escort, and the fan is a 235cfm AC fan with a shroud.

Any suggestions, please email me birrman54@subzerotech.com

Thanks a lot,

birrman54

pHaestus · 10-03-2002, 11:15 PM

I took advice from BillA and use a T and a 90 degree elbow after my flowmeter to make a split in the outlet with parallel flow. Then I have needle valves (and also a gate valve) to adjust the flow on those lines. I use a big pump, however, to deal with the resistance of paddle-wheel type flowmeter, filter for flowmeter, and all the turns of the setup.

10-03-2002, 04:50 PM	#77
zCereal Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 12	lemme do a little math here to test all optimal set-ups we would have to have about let's say 4 different pumps to respressent certain flow rates let's say 12 rads to test (including a heatercore or two) and then you'd need to test the 19 waterblocks on each set-up which means 912 different combinations testing each 3 times for elimating sources of error like mounting that is 2736 tests now take that and let's say 1 hour per test to test load temps and take measurements and put on the block that's 2736 hours of testing or 114 days of 24/7 testing of waterblocks unfeasible so leave it down to 1 variable then you gotta run 19 tests at 3 times each which mean alot less work and results that may not reflect all possible results but does give a very good indication of which blocks are the best performers __________________ just visiting for a bit

10-03-2002, 04:51 PM	#78
bigben2k Responsible for 2% of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002 Location: Texas, U.S.A. Posts: 8,302	How about Steve take the time to check with a few people, on how to do a good roundup, before he just jumps to it? We would have been more than happy to have helped out. Nice case. I like the window mod. __________________ WBTA (Water Block Testing Alliance) Nordic Hardware WC 101

10-03-2002, 04:59 PM	#82
mkosem Cooling Savant Join Date: May 2001 Location: here Posts: 494	actually, a single rad and pump could account for all flow rates. There are adjustable pumps available. Joe's testbed(Deemed crap by Steve) has an adjustable flow pump in it. And testing 19 different rads is unnecessary. The flow could be measured with a flowmeter and recorded with a single rad with flow rate numbers for each. --Matt __________________ If you can't cool it, blow it up!! http://www.mattkosem.com

10-03-2002, 05:01 PM	#83
mkosem Cooling Savant Join Date: May 2001 Location: here Posts: 494	hmm, now that I think about it. Steve saying Joe's setup is crap is a blind comment with no backing and is the most "this is crap" thing that has been said. --Matt __________________ If you can't cool it, blow it up!! http://www.mattkosem.com

10-03-2002, 05:06 PM	#84
zCereal Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 12	so basically you wanted him to compare flowrates - performance on all the blocks? and yeah that post i made was exageration (but hey it worked) that means that block design matters alot less since someone who wants higher flowrates through his block to perform better gets the lower performance and the guy who designed his block to perform at low flow rates gets the better results. it's flawed testing. give them all the same pump and see if who comes out on top is the best way to show accurate results __________________ just visiting for a bit

10-03-2002, 04:44 PM	#76
clone Cooling Savant Join Date: May 2001 Location: West Springfield, MA Posts: 160	i would rather not be affilated with any thing that kyle or steve is becase they would **** me some how i just know it i dont trust ppl that offen and did you just not read i would if my parents would let me my job ended 9/27/02 due to lack of work so i have nothing better to do with my time

10-03-2002, 04:55 PM	#80
pHaestus Big Player Making Big Money Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com Posts: 4,782	Why are you changing all of those pumps and rads? You are making things too hard to manage. Control the water temperature to remove it as a variable. Use a single powerful pump and use valves to adjust flow rates to preset points. Then monitor CPU performance. Not rocket science to devise; very difficult to do well. Testing 3x to avoid errors in mounting? That would presume that you control mounting pressure in the first place (a good idea eh?). The real rub is that the thermal paste will kick you in the nut sac once you get the resolution to see its effects. If I can actually get my PC-50 finished I will try and get my testbed set up. No promises though

10-03-2002, 04:58 PM	#81
clone Cooling Savant Join Date: May 2001 Location: West Springfield, MA Posts: 160	one pump like a hydro 1000 and then like a tvalve or some thign to variat the flow a flow meeter to monitor and then a good rad / core why use 12 diff pumps when you only want to achive diff flow just use a bigger one and regulate it and when the temps start to suck regualte it the other way then find its sweet spot\

10-03-2002, 05:10 PM	#85
mkosem Cooling Savant Join Date: May 2001 Location: here Posts: 494	I don't think you understand how important accuracy and methoodology are when reviewing things like this. There are more variables also not mentioned. Like the lack of a shroud on that BIX(labeled BI Pro), or the airflow of that chrome fan on it. Where is that info? How can anyone even begin to try to replicate that setup to get those results with misinformation and missing information even if they did want to? --Matt __________________ If you can't cool it, blow it up!! http://www.mattkosem.com

10-03-2002, 05:12 PM	#86
mfpmax Cooling Savant Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Rockledge,FL,US Posts: 731	zCereal You say you don't want to start a Forum war... Then why did you post a link(that was deleted earlier by Steve and the user banned) to this place about you "defending" the round up? __________________ My old and retired watercooling setup. Watercooled K6-2 450 at 600 Also Retired - Watercooling an XP1800@1782MHz

10-03-2002, 05:23 PM	#87
clone Cooling Savant Join Date: May 2001 Location: West Springfield, MA Posts: 160	why is it false to test a block in its optimun conditsion why would you test all the blocks on all the same plane inf they are not designed to even run at that would you test 2 subs one designed for 1000 watts and the other desgned for 1000 but only give one of them 75rms and the other 500 rms? sorry for the dealy had to break for dinner or would you give a 200watt load to a 80watt tweeter or even better yet would you give 2 watts to a 100 watt tweeter keeping in mind that you dont kill shit from over powering for the most part you kill it from under power it and dont tell me that this is apples to oranges the point is that shit dont run right and you cant expect any type of sound q if you stuff isnt running to spec same goes for whatcooling you HAVE to run it at what it was desgined for and dont dare call it design flaw testing of somet thing when it is running out of spec as far ass cooling goes no dont bring in benchmarking for ocing that is far diffrent is this helping you to understand"?

10-03-2002, 05:26 PM	#88
zCereal Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 12	i posted it for kyle's sake and i am not starting a forum war i am reasonably talking about what the beefs are with the testing procedure and my views on why it is valid if we really wanted to start a forum war i wouldn;t go about it this way i removed the link to this post from my post now i do agree that more info about the specific set-up is needed and maybe some pics of the set-up __________________ just visiting for a bit

10-03-2002, 05:29 PM	#89
clone Cooling Savant Join Date: May 2001 Location: West Springfield, MA Posts: 160	we do welcome kyle/steve to come and talk with us becase unlike him i dont think that joe will start banning acounts on constuctive critisisum no that is not a personal attack and no i am not being biased just going on what i have in front of me and what has happend to me etc...

10-03-2002, 05:36 PM	#91
zCereal Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 12	i can't comment on the bannings as i don't know what exactly was posted (and never will since it has been deleted) __________________ just visiting for a bit

10-03-2002, 09:52 PM	#93
pHaestus Big Player Making Big Money Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com Posts: 4,782	I have traded a few e-mails today with the Hard\|OCP guys. In the end, they don't want Procooling people (at the very least our staff) in their forums. It is their site and that is their prerogative. That is the last I will say regarding this matter or their site (you can quote me on that).

10-03-2002, 09:57 PM	#94
clone Cooling Savant Join Date: May 2001 Location: West Springfield, MA Posts: 160	does [H] really expect all the procoling peeps to not post on there forums are they going to block all of us?

10-03-2002, 10:04 PM	#95
pHaestus Big Player Making Big Money Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com Posts: 4,782	I would assume pretty much anyone discussing this issue or related items would be banned. Why bother? If we are not wanted then leave them be. They have a full day of flinging poop and eating ticks off each other's backs anyway.

10-03-2002, 10:09 PM	#96
clone Cooling Savant Join Date: May 2001 Location: West Springfield, MA Posts: 160	i dont make troulbe i have learnd hell i dont rember the last time i posted there any way o whell there los the last time my name was used there was buy jason to sell some thing

10-03-2002, 10:32 PM	#98
BillA CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered" Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106 Posts: 4,440	it has always entertained me (in a sorry way) to see OCers and WCers who do NOT want technical info that was the forum on which I was told "we don't want all those numbers, just tell us which one is best" and clearly, VERY clearly, that is the audience for which they write both the author and his defenders have not the slightest interest in measurement or analysis; they are picking a winner what should concern all of 'us', and all serious WCers, is the BIG message that has been sent to the manufacturers "lookey here, shiny and purdy, and cools real good too" such promotional articles kill the incentive of mfgrs to provide real data useful for the implementation of their products - for sure bullshit is cheaper than testing a sorry day for techies, understand how few we are (and before the procoolers start patting themselves on the back, observe the abundance of Luddites here too) opposable thumbs, indeed !!

10-03-2002, 11:03 PM	#99
Birrman54 Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 1	Hey, I'm a new member, I've been a member at [H] for a year or so now, and I've been doing watercooling for about that time. Although I'm a big fan of the forum at [H], I'd have to agree with you all in this matter. Most (if not all) of the bannings were, IMO, uncalled for, and the review, as a technical writeup, was poor at best. I've been working on a roundup for Socket A blocks for quite some time now (delays in the Spiral Rev2 have significantly held back its publication). I think that my reviews will be much better in terms of thoroughness, and hopefully I'll be able to produce numbers more useable by the general public. I'd like suggestions on how to have the highest quality results possible, I'm using a simulated heat source, that so far has shown fairly good results, it's not entirely accurate as to what an actual Athlon might produce, but it is repeatable, and as many have said the Delta T from water/cpu is more important. I've been taking inline water temps before and after the waterblock, however, they don't seem to have produced results that are significant in any way. I was using the inline probes from Dtek attached to a compunurse. Around the heat plate (that the waterblock is clamping onto), I have 3 thermistors, and I've been taking the average of these readings. I planned on testing for flow restrictions, but how would I go about setting up a controlled flow restrictor (a valve of some sort, I suppose) that I could use to see waterblocks performance with lower flow rates (I've been using a 1250 as well). The heatercore is from an Escort, and the fan is a 235cfm AC fan with a shroud. Any suggestions, please email me birrman54@subzerotech.com Thanks a lot, birrman54

10-03-2002, 11:15 PM	#100
pHaestus Big Player Making Big Money Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com Posts: 4,782	I took advice from BillA and use a T and a 90 degree elbow after my flowmeter to make a split in the outlet with parallel flow. Then I have needle valves (and also a gate valve) to adjust the flow on those lines. I use a big pump, however, to deal with the resistance of paddle-wheel type flowmeter, filter for flowmeter, and all the turns of the setup.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)