An End to the Insanity.

[pHaestus]

Flip it around though.

Subject MY test system to the same scrutiny. It would fail. How do you know the temperature measured is actually anything like the "hot" part of the CPU? Do I have any idea about the heat spreading through the silicon itself? How do you correlate that number with die sims; with other types of CPUs; with other CPUs of the same types in different systems? Why should anyone trust it at all? You can come up with a million "deal breakers" about why a particular test method is invalid for a particular waterblock or a particular class of coolers.

But what makes you think Intel and OEMs have never tested a waterblock on the TTV? What makes you think that our forum is SO much more clever than all these engineers? Cause one guy whose waterblock didn't perform all that well said so? A guy using an onboard diode reading to take temps?

Where's the scrutiny and evaluation of commercial motivations and questioning of appropriateness of THAT?

//edit: What I'm really trying to say is that blind trust IS bad. Sure it's a bad idea to think that the results from an Intel TTV-based test platform are 100% correct for all CPUs. But um the tester providing the results never said that! However, it's also bad to throw out all testing done by people with access to OEM labs and thousands of dollars in equipment because the results didnt agree with one waterblock mfgrs expectation of performance. Everyone is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but the issue is so muddied and poisoned with personal stuff now it isn't salvageable.

Did you read my article about testing? If you want to test with an IHS present, then the Intel TTV is the BEST platform in a lot of ways. The only problem with it in my eyes is that it's not available to me (and even if it were I couldn't afford it). Barring that platform then an Intel 775 chip is the next best thing. Yea the ttv has to be corrolated with other kinds of CPUs and other die sim results, but uh SO DOES EVERY OTHER TEST METHOD. Nobody ever bothered to bitch at me for not performing statistical correlations with JoeC or BillA; why all the sudden is the TTV held to this standard?

What it comes down to is that with a simulator (if you're smart) you'll trade some small bit of real world relevance for a large gain in accuracy, robustness, and repeatability. Look at the ttv compared to copper dies and CPUs now in that framework. The ONLY disadvantage I can see is the 0.1C res of the tcs compared to pRTDs. Everything else can be handled in the correlations I think.

Noone talks about the fact that I had to swap motherboards several times over a year of testing due to leaks, bad caps, dead parts. I had to change CPUs once, and I had to resolder wires once. I had to recalibrate a few times because of moving the system around and "tweaking" the wires on CPU diode pins. ALL changes resulted in a couple of weeks of recalibration and retesting of "reference" blocks. Every time I'd take a week off, I'd have to revalidate the entire thing. The TTV and all systems based upon case temps will not have the same problems. OK they may have other ones but what makes everyone so quick to dismiss them out of hand? You guys who haven't done the kind of testing I did on SocketA have no idea the amount of trust you're placing in a reviewer to not bias the outcomes and not work with out-of-calibration parts.

[bigben2k]

Outstanding point pHaestus; are you proposing that

-these concerns should be addressed as the reviews are posted, by the tester.

-discuss these concerns here, and find and implement a solution, before a review is posted

-or what?

[pHaestus]

I'm actually suggesting that anyone with sense would avoid posting technical reviews altogether because regardless of the decisions you make at the frontend in designing the tests, there are problems. And if someone decides they don't like your results because they don't agree with their marketing then they can denigrate you on the internet until you're marginalized and move on to the next "up and coming" tester. Basically this whole shit-slinging has turned technical reviewing into a popularity contest in my eyes.

A popularity contest that one can only win if the results agree with the popular performance perception of the product before testing. So why even bother?

Name the "ideal" test solution and I'll find the flaws with it. Feel free to say "test with an AMD64 bare and IHS, Intel 775, die sim, AND ttv" and I'll point out it'd take about 50 hours per waterblock review.

[Etacovda]

Personally, id just like to see the variables on the TTV explored PROPERLY, which is what a few of us have been pushing from the start, only to be faced with 'intel did it, it must be right'.

You're making out like this is entirely about popularity - hey, some of us have inside knowledge of blocks tested on the TTV which performed EXTREMELY questionably, yet it was never explored nor quantified.

"of trust you're placing in a reviewer to not bias the outcomes and not work with out-of-calibration parts"

The major question is, why would a tester not validate variables? and now you're questioning people questioning that? why SHOULD we put our faith into someone who refuses to explore the possible problems with the test bed? you (and others) attempted to, corrolations mathematically were made between your bed, billa's and joes, as well as emperically, just never officially. You've pretty much answered all my questions, as well as enforcing some of the things that others have said.

The issue with the TTV is the blind faith, 'intel cant do wrong', no validation of any of the varibles event that happened. NOT with the 'omg, this block cant be that bad in this circumstance!' crowd (well, not on my end, anyway).

"But what makes you think Intel and OEMs have never tested a waterblock on the TTV?"

how can you be sure they have? how can you be sure that they didnt just slap one on, and go 'yep, it works' with no other data to corrolate back to?

The reason the TTV is held to this 'standard' is that it takes its temperature a huge distance away from the die, and doesnt take into account other variables which werent present in your test bed.

I could go on, but i think ive made my point enough times now...

[bigben2k]

I see what you mean Etacovda, but given the (lack of) availability of the Intel TTV, I think that's out.

I'm all for exploring the errors/flaws in any testing method, and trying to find a way around it.

[bobo5195]

Did have a long post about engineering ethics and all that but wouldn’t of helped so I’m just going to say it’s a pitty.

I was similarly going to say loads about testing procedures and this whole TTV nosense. There is no one true test for performance and both methods are valid. Personally I am happy with repeatable results to a good standard of error that can easily be compared over many years. Cpu A is better than cpu B is all any test, on any test bed is going to tell you. The rest is just getting error bars smaller. Scaling of results to CPUs would be good but to be honest hand on heart who here can tell me how much my processor sitting by me here (a 3500+ Newcastle in a shuttle sn95g5) is dissipating to within 1w? 5w’s? And even then what about the IHS etc. pfft you can’t. You can tell me that this block is better than this one though.

Personally I like being an enthusiast (and I call myself and enthusiast), enthusiasts get it wrong more than the professionals but the best and newest ideas always come from a guy tinkering in his shed in his spare time. Doing something professionally sucks and I would never do a hobby and a job at the same time.

[bigben2k]

I am planning a vacuum test to look further into the secondary losses. Not a complete look, but should be interesting. I'm still looking for a good pump and vacuum chamber.

[jaydee]

I am not sure why we are even concerned with TTV results. None of use have access to one and the results of it are only used in Swiftechs specs. How many of you take manufacture data 100% seriously? I sure don't. Not saying the data is bad or wrong just saying PR could possibly contaminate such data or maybe they are out right lying. Who knows?

What pH, Robotech and any other reviewers role IMO was is verifying that the manufacture data is reasonable. Not necessarily accurate but reasonable to think it is.

As pH said any way you test there are flaws. Just have to decide if those flaws are acceptable or not.

[Etacovda]

Well, i believe that any testbed with an important variable not explored is nothing to put huge amounts of faith in...

Im not saying quantify every single variable, but the outright refusal to believe there is a problem is absolutely useless and as i said earlier, it flys in the face of standard scientific procedure.

[bigben2k]

I agree Etacovda. If something is going to be dismissed, it should be stated. That way, there's no confusion.

Of course it'd be better to make some kind of effort, i.e. the vacuum test I'm proposing; it's a one-time test only.

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by Etacovda

Well, i believe that any testbed with an important variable not explored is nothing to put huge amounts of faith in...

Im not saying quantify every single variable, but the outright refusal to believe there is a problem is absolutely useless and as i said earlier, it flys in the face of standard scientific procedure.

Knowing those variables is nice to. The TTV is pretty unknown to most of us. That is why manufacture data should ba taken with a grain of salt. We don't know if they used variables that are positive for their PR. Many do many don't. We just have no real way to know untill it is independantly verified that their data has the possibility of being correct.

Some here (will not mention names) would seem to have us think that manufacture data should be taken as fact until proven wrong. I see it the other way around. It is wrong untill proven right. Especially in industry such as this that has no real regulations on it.

[pHaestus]

Let me get this straight:

Intel developed the TTV to help heatsink companies with PR? Now you're just being stupid and grasping at straws. Intel developed the ttv so that oems can have a reliable and repeatable test platform for heatsink development. They make new ttvs as new chips come out, and can send them to the many cooler mfgrs and oem PC mfgrs with mobo without concerns. Basically Intel knows the thermal properties of their CPUs before the production CPUs are available, and they send their best simulation of those thermal properties (including packaging/mounting/etc) to the companies that need to account for that information.

The above is publicly known! What makes a TTV running in a lab with engineers inferior to a copper hunk with a thermocouple in it again? You presume that you can better replicate the thermal characteristics of a CPU with a garage shop than the people who made the damn CPU!

And ask the mfgrs to defend themselves? Hah

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

Let me get this straight:

Intel developed the TTV to help heatsink companies with PR? Now you're just being stupid and grasping at straws. Intel developed the ttv so that oems can have a reliable and repeatable test platform for heatsink development. They make new ttvs as new chips come out, and can send them to the many cooler mfgrs and oem PC mfgrs with mobo without concerns. Basically Intel knows the thermal properties of their CPUs before the production CPUs are available, and they send their best simulation of those thermal properties (including packaging/mounting/etc) to the companies that need to account for that information.

The above is publicly known! What makes a TTV running in a lab with engineers inferior to a copper hunk with a thermocouple in it again? You presume that you can better replicate the thermal characteristics of a CPU with a garage shop than the people who made the damn CPU!

And ask the mfgrs to defend themselves? Hah

I am going to assume this was directed in my direction. Not sure why as I care less about die sims anymore anyway...

I think you fell off your chair and hit your head or something pH. Maybe WoW is screwing with your interpretation of reality I am not sure.

What does the TTV have to do with all manufactures on the planet. Which I was referring to, not just heat sink outfits. Swiftech used the TTV but we have no clue what version of the TTV was used or how up to date it was. Bill claims he knows all yet was a praising and USING and CHARGING people using this now acclaimed chunk of copper made in a garage by us dumb ass enthusiests..... And he wants us to take his testing superiority seriously now and believe the Swiftechs TTV results because of why again?? Oh yeah because HE did the testing? I would be a lot more convinced of the results if it was done at Intel in their controlled lab with their engineers. But it was not.

I guess the next time a buy something I will forget going to review sites and reading up on real world examples of the product in use.

When is the last time you bought any piece of computer equipment based solely on what the manufacture data had to say about it? Get real pH. Manufacture data that is used for the general public is always the best case results. It is common knowledge and basic business practice.

Some businessman here would want us to believe that manufacture data should be the golden grail and not questioned. I wonder why that is...

And another thing.... Cathar made one of if not the best water block on the planet as of now and what equipment did he use? Certainly not a TTV. Not even the chunk of copper with probe attached.... Not even a CPU with hacked diode reader...


And another thing... When was the last time you seen Bill with a water cooling system installed on his computer? When was the last time you seen him show results of his overclocked computer? When was the last water block design you saw from him? When was the last time he has shown any interest at all as an enthusiast in this hobby?

I have never seen anything from him to indicate he has any interest at all in the hobby on a end user level like the rest of us.

I am not even sure why you keep backing the TTV. It doesn't matter to any of us. We will never use it. We know nothing about it so we cannot even begin to understand how right or wrong it is. Also was it the same engineers that designed the original P4 that sucked ass? And you want us to put faith in them? The original P4 was nothing but PR hype. Even with all their fancy specs and bull shit in the end it was crap and they knew it yet they hyped it up as the best CPU ever. Now you are telling me I should just believe everything they say because they should know what they are doing and blindly buy the CPU?

Anyway we can ramble on with thousands of examples of how PR seems to change the reality of performance of products but I guess it will not do any good.

[pHaestus]

Oh and since the idea that Intel would be producing these for PR or fluff purposes goes:

As a condition of use, it is EXPRESSLY forbidden to reference a TTV in any advertising or PR. Intel doesn't WANT ttv wars or PR hassles; they want acceptable cooling performance available on their next-gen systems and launches that go off without a hitch.

[pHaestus]

The ttv vs Cathar-style testing debate is actually a "should you test things analytically or do a half ass job but market the **** out of it on forums" debate. Obviously you like the latter; you've made it clear that you don't even see the purpose of temperatures in evaluation of cooling products.

FYI my PCs were all air-cooled when I was testing waterblocks constantly (no time to mess with them) but now that I am more or less idle I have a couple of wced systems.

To be honest Jaydee if your opinion is the majority one here, then I don't think that I have anything else to contribute to this site either. I suppose I'm not your breed of hobbiest either.

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

Oh and since the idea that Intel would be producing these for PR or fluff purposes goes:

As a condition of use, it is EXPRESSLY forbidden to reference a TTV in any advertising or PR. Intel doesn't WANT ttv wars or PR hassles; they want acceptable cooling performance available on their next-gen systems and launches that go off without a hitch.

You are making this PR debate issue up yourself. I am not dismissing the capability of the testbed. Not even the tester for the most part. Just saying the results that are published by the manufacture may not be as consistent with the actual results of said test bench. They will filter through the data and take the best results found even if it cannot be replicated and publish it. if the results are questioned (which you seem to be against? defies the entire purpose of reviews IMO) then they whip out that small bit of data and say see what our high tech bench told us.

Originally Posted by pHaestus

The ttv vs Cathar-style testing debate is actually a "should you test things analytically or do a half ass job but market the **** out of it on forums" debate. Obviously you like the latter; you've made it clear that you don't even see the purpose of temperatures in evaluation of cooling products.

FYI my PCs were all air-cooled when I was testing waterblocks constantly (no time to mess with them) but now that I am more or less idle I have a couple of wced systems.

To be honest Jaydee if your opinion is the majority one here, then I don't think that I have anything else to contribute to this site either. I suppose I'm not your breed of hobbiest either.

Answer me this then pH. Does Cathars blocks not perform top of the line? Are you going to deny that? Now how can they perform top of the line if your version of half assed testing isn't good enough? It was good enough to put out a top of the line product.

Also are you denying that Cathar has not shared any usefull design info while doing this forum marketing as you call it? Are you saying all his posts were spam? A lot of us that actualy build water blocks would disagree.

As for the hobby maybe the hobby should be defined. I always thought of it as apart of building better performing computers that we actualy use.

It seems to me there are 4-5 guys that feel the hobby is testing water cooling equipment and that is what this site is about? Not really using the equipment just testing it for whatever reason or agenda that dosn't really reflect end users of that equipment.

Maybe I am wrong and that is why Joe started this site. To discuss testing of water cooling gear and not computers using water cooling gear.

Hell if I know anymore.

[Joe]

Anyone else see the brick wall here?

What a stupidly corrosive topic. I just dont see why its so hard to just have a reasonable discussion, and why its so hard for people to open their minds.

[Joe]

Ok now a real reply:

There are 2 topics, which don’t line up at all... all being compared against each other.

1. Hobbyist looking to build a better rig and make their stuff run cooler
2. Testers looking for the best way to bench in a repeatable way.

Any discussion about how the Hobbyist angle should leave this thread. You don’t see the auto industry going to the guys who tune their cars asking "would it be better if we dyno cars with a SAE HP/Torque or a "STD" HP/TORQUE curve?" Why? because the MFG's have only one responsibility, getting clear repeatable data.

Edit: a better comparison is a MFG doing a Hp at the wheels test vs what they all do is at the crank which is VERY innacurate for real world numbers. But people still are fine hearing what power is at the crank because it gives them what they want when choosing a product. Regardless of unknown losses in the driveline of a car that may change the numbers significantly in the real car.

Everyone knows that HP/Torque numbers are overall irrelevant compared to what the real world experience is of a product. But they find a way to quantify that data and still find it useful or get what they want from it.

In relation to the TTV discussion. IF that’s determined (or Intel chips) to be a repeatable and standard way of testing... the results may not be exactly what people want (simple enough and plug and play for all situations), but require some thought and quantification to get what you want from it. BUT... it will be repeatable, valid, and able to be cross compared.

What we need to do is get off the whole "hobbyist vs testing" thing.. .since they are not comparable, both are going after different goals.

Now I know its fun to raise conjecture about how evil Intel PR is, and how all their data is filtered, and cleaned up... but pH raises the perfect point... the TTV was never meant for any kind of PR prank... it was for engineering testing.

[pHaestus]

Um you say all mfgr data is worthless and suspect. Yea it's good to be skeptical, esp of companies that run out of garages or drop ship everything. But the real world in general has standards and governing boards to narrowly define methods and materials and the entire procedure of performance validation.

See ASTM; IEEE; many others. What do they all share in common? A group of educated technical people with common interest and seeking a standard way to address technical problems and objectively evaluate performance.

That is exactly what Intel provided; and it gets thrown out by our panel of experts here in favor of methods that we've already dismissed as unacceptable 5 years ago (Cathar's MBM temp measurements are being held as the superior method?). Viewed a year ago this would've been laughed off of our forums. But now it takes hold and instead it's the educated posters who keep quiet.

If you want to be a Luddite then fine. But don't try to drag me along with you.

[Joe]

Im guessing you are talking to jaydee, since my point while maybe badly presented, was essentially what you said. Pointing out that a standard testing method isnt allways the best for the end user or hobbiest to get instant "my implementation" info. But it is data that is standardized, consistent, and repeatable.

Maybe people just got used to being spoon fed all to often with stuff that was easily comparible to their implementation. (which in reality was still not that simple... but people wanted it to be...)

[Etacovda]

jesus christ pH, all that has been asked is that the TTV's variables be quantified and not ignored 'because intel made it'. Thats it.

What the fu<k is this so hard to understand?

[jaydee]

I guess I can not make a post understandable as non of these responses seem to respond to what I am getting at or at very best parts are being taken and argued out of the context I meant.

One last time and I give up.

Yes I am saying ALL manufacture data is SUSPECT. NOT worthless. I have seen only a few things EVER that lived up to the manufacture data about it. Not just computers parts but anything.

There is a reason ASTM and IEEE exist. It is because companies would consistency falsify their product info to gain sales and/or those products were safety hazards. These groups and standards are there to keep them in check and make them comply with reasonable set of rules/standards. Companies still push the limits of those standards. If you deny that then I guess you live in world not called Earth.

This is not just about Intel but every company there is. You guys remember all the controversy about vid cards and 3D Mark? How they put out drivers specifically to do good for 3D Mark but not so much for what the card would really be used for........... All companies pull off shit like that. Just go through all the threads we had in the past flamming stupid products.... Who is to say Swiftech didn't use a TTV version that makes their blocks look better than a different TTV version that may be more accurate and the blocks perform worse? I am not saying they did this but there is a "what if" that should not be ignored.

I still don't understand why you keep on with what Intel povided.... I am not arguing it maybe the best test bench ever. I am simply saying it doesn't matter. What does it have to do with you, me or anyone else here? No one here is going to be able to make such a bench or even use one for that matter. Even if they did use it they can't disclose anything of it. It is irrelevant and that is what I am saying. We should completely ignore the fact that Swiftech used it IMO and just take the data provided and try to prove it reasonable or not. That is all we can really do isn't it?

I have no problem with a repeatable and standard way of testing. I thought pH was on a good track. It seems to me HE is the one that has issues with his test bench and not so much the rest of us.

No Cathars way of testing is not being held as superior. Sheesh... It is being held as a way that seems to work half way decently. Same as what I was suggesting in another thread with performance based tests. If we keep worrying about what is superior then we will not get anything done. There is more than one way to test things. I don;t see why we have to concentrate on one of them.

People will say whatever they will. So what? Stop everything and do nothing? That seems the attitude.

We have many ways we can start getting content going here that can be useful and beneficial. It seems to me your guys attitude is those ways are not perfect so to hell with it all.

Joe I completely agree with your comparisons above. BUT it works BOTH ways. We don't need perfection to get things out. We just need to know the limits of what we are doing and make people aware of it (unlike many other reviewers). If pH and laxman want to go with testing based on temps with higher precision and accuracy more power to them! Why can we not have basic testing that covers more than just temps? Hell that way we can compare the results of the benches to see how much difference the higher level of testing provides. Not to mention cover other area such as noise and look and over all usability in real world situations.

Joe asked why people can't open their minds and that is exactly what I am saying. Everyone here doesn't have to do things the same way as everyone else. Everyone shouldn't have to agree with the other person that their way of doing things is the way it should be done.

I am just tired of all this bickering and no one wanting to do anything because of what others might say. To hell with what they say, just do it!

Anyway sorry I can not make my point any clearer. I get side tracked with other ramblings that don't seem to get interpreted the way I was thinking it would.

[Joe]

But someone does know the variables... Intel and possibly the people who get these TTV's to use. Because we (DIY'ists) will never get a TTV to reaserch on... why would they tell us the variables?

Variables on a regular intel 775 based CPU or the new Conroe is something that people should be looking at, and should be able to quantify.

Have people actually quantified the variables in an AMD based test setup yet? (accurately?) what about the accurate variables in joe bobs custom die sim?

Why ask for something from intel which they have no reason to give you, that you dont get from any other testing platform?

[Brians256]

It'd be interesting to answer this question. Who's going to come up with the money and time to design and run the test? Etacovada, can you use your contacts to get some testing time on a TTV? Intel won't talk to me.

Just so people don't misunderstand me: I am not throwing the question out. What I want to do is focus the energy into solving the issue instead of bickering. Now, let's get those checkbooks out if you really think this is an important question. If you don't think it's important, I understand. My parents certainly don't.

[talcum]

pH,
Have you got any data on the performance differences on the TTV for AMD IHS and Intel IHS devices? I'm trying to understand if the differences in bonding tech the two companies use have been explored using a TTV and did it produce relevant info.

As far as the original thread, it is too bad for procooling that bill and cather are fighting. The new materials: diamond nanotubes, 38 degree phase change fluid, and copper/diamond matrix solids are going to need testing and a bit of a feel to be optimised in WB designs, much as heatpipes needed in aircooled designs. They are experts who might point the way. If the elder gods fight, where's a simple engineer to go?

I guess I'll go order that XBox 360 now.....