Article at Geeksonline

[HammerSandwich]

Here it is.

Favorite quotes:

1) Concerning the Maze 4: "It does not require a 300+ GPH pump like the RBX..."

2) About the MCW5000: "Their best waterblock to date in my opinion. Even though there is a newer version, this one seems to perform better."

[jaydee]

Another attempt at "hits" over "accuracy" IMO. If the guy is such a pro to able to write these articles then surely he knows of the MCW6000 which is better than the other Swifty blocks he tested in the article?

[firtol88]

That was worth a good laugh :shrug:

[BalefireX]

I'd be interested to know where he gets his information, other than the marketing pictures. There doesn't seem to be any indication that he tested any of these blocks, so where is he getting the information from? Other site's reviews? If so, wouldn't it be important to cite his sources?

[SlaterSpeed]

Hehe good old AZN . I guess that must just be his oppinion??? who knows. I also guess that by 3rotor he means our own #rotor ?

Cathar got a good review there, not sure how the cascade faired tho

Apparently '3 barbs kill your waterflow' :shrug:

[killernoodle]

I like how he described the Cascade, calling it similar to the RBX 5 nozzle in that it has holes in it that shoot into cups. Not really.

[BillA]

another site not needing Swiftech products for review (already knows everything, incorrectly)

keep it up fellas, pretty soon I won't need more than 3 or 4 samples for review

[modenaf1]

Favorite quotes:

1) Concerning the Maze 4: "It does not require a 300+ GPH pump like the RBX..."

2) About the MCW5000: "Their best waterblock to date in my opinion. Even though there is a newer version, this one seems to perform better."

Hello, I am modenaf1, staff at Geeksonline. Due to the unavailability of actual test products, that guide was based off of research and opinion. Articles often times have opinions in them, while reviews are fact based upon actual test results. AZN's opinion may not be your own, but his opinions are based on his knowledge of watercooling, his own expiriences and loads of research. Watercooling and computing in general is not always an exact science and different people have different results with the same products. You do not have to agree and I am glad to hear some feedback on the article, even if it is negative.

Seeing that you post your favorite quotes and a link to our article you must find it humorous. Stay tuned...we actually might have several semi-humor articles in the works that might make it to the front page, but oh well, if you are having an adequete laugh at our current content, just keep laughing I hope once I start doing reviews you will be entertained as well *blows kiss*.
In all seriousness, Geeks Online is planning to do some funny content, keep an eye out. Also, make sure to check out our other articles, the "Help My PC Won't Boot! Troubleshooting Guide" is one of my personal favorites. It has helped me with pc problems many a time. We love feedback at Geeks Online, it is the only way to learn what we need to improve.

As for the confusion about the #rotor/3rotor issue, it could have been an editing error becuase the # is on the 3 key, but I do beleive 3 rotor is correct becuase the URL to the website uses 3 rotor. Unfortunatly the site is down at the moment. I have also seen posts in this very forum made by a member named #rotor and other members asking if he was 3rotor. That leaves me to beleive there is such a thing as "3rotor" as stated in AZN's Watercooling Basics Part 2 article.

-f1
GeeksOnline.org staff

[HammerSandwich]

Glad to have you, f1. For the record, I did email AZN when starting the thread to invite his participation.

[modenaf1]

Originally Posted by HammerSandwich

Glad to have you, f1. For the record, I did email AZN when starting the thread to invite his participation.

Thank you. I just edited my post with some more info on the 3rotor/#rotor issue raised by Slater.

And thank you for emailing AZN to invite him to participate in this thread, I apreciate it and that was the right thing to do before starting a thread like this. Have a good one!
-f1

[AngryAlpaca]

It seems that you've missed a very vital part of the watercooling scene, that being the 6000. I find a lot of the temperatures odd as they do not match other, calibrated testing. Also, he should clarify a lot of his statements with actual numbers (I'm thinking the Maze 4 comment largely, that one about pressure drop is pretty bad too)

[pHaestus]

You can't use # in a URL; there is only one fellow: #rotor. He's in the middle of a move still or he'd come in and set you straight himself

[BillA]

modenaf1

as the designer of the MCW5000 r2 and the MCW6000, I take pointed exception to the comments made regarding the relative performance of the 2 wbs

would you be so kind as to ask your writer on what factual basis he arrived at those conclusions ?

his test data, someone else's data, even a crappy review - what is the support for this 'opinion' ?

yes he is entitled to his opinion, but if not based on some facts then I will object

one less mfgr that bit tech will 'need' to test
pointless remark above, they don't even need to test to have an opinion

[modenaf1]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

You can't use # in a URL; there is only one fellow: #rotor. He's in the middle of a move still or he'd come in and set you straight himself

Ahahahaha! Thanks for the information. There is no need for him to "set me straight himself." I will look into the matter and fix the typo.

[modenaf1]

Originally Posted by unregistered

modenaf1

as the designer of the MCW5000 r2 and the MCW6000, I take pointed exception to the comments made regarding the relative performance of the 2 wbs

would you be so kind as to ask your writer on what factual basis he arrived at those conclusions ?

his test data, someone else's data, even a crappy review - what is the support for this 'opinion' ?

yes he is entitled to his opinion, but if not based on some facts then I will object

one less mfgr that bit tech will 'need' to test
pointless remark above, they don't even need to test to have an opinion

I am very sorry, but my knowledge on watercooling is very limited. If you need to discuss the rating of these Swiftech blocks in our article I suggest you talk to the editor or some of our other staff that knows about watercooling.

another site not needing Swiftech products for review (already knows everything, incorrectly)

keep it up fellas, pretty soon I won't need more than 3 or 4 samples for review

Would you mind clarifying on what exactly you are saying here? Thanks.

From what I am assuming you are with Swiftech in some way and that post is bassically telling me that our site will not get a swiftech product for review if needed? I apologize I am not sure if I am understanding you.

Thank you all for your comments on our article

f1

[Cathar]

Originally Posted by modenaf1

From what I am assuming you are with Swiftech in some way

Given that he said he was the designer of the MCW5000 Rev 2, and the MCW600x, I reckon it'd be a pretty good bet that he was with Swiftech in some way.

[Cathar]

On a different note I have a serious issue with all the statements about "requiring a strong pump" for the White Water and the Cascade (and a number of other blocks). Those statements are utterly false. Sadly I do attribute most of these false-hoods to a certain fairly well respected reviewer who seems insistent on saying the opposite of what his results are telling him. However, it would seem that many people just read the commentary, rather than analysing the results for themselves and making up their own minds.

...and so the internet urban legend rumour mill rolls on.

[firtol88]

modenaf1 do you consider yourselves The New York Times or The Daily Mirror...

At the very least the article should start with a disclaimer

[pHaestus]

Nothing wrong with synthesizing other people's test results. Why not cite them and then make sure that your synopsis is accurate though?

[BillA]

modenaf1

just lost a lengthy response and am bummed, will take another pass tomorrow

I am the VP of Engn at Swiftech so you may be assured that I have some comments about grossly inaccurate product descriptions.

And, consistant with my responsibilities, I do act to reduce the number of such mis-leading 'reviews'. I believe you understood me correctly.

[modenaf1]

Originally Posted by unregistered

modenaf1

just lost a lengthy response and am bummed, will take another pass tomorrow

I am the VP of Engn at Swiftech so you may be assured that I have some comments about grossly inaccurate product descriptions.

And, consistant with my responsibilities, I do act to reduce the number of such mis-leading 'reviews'. I believe you understood me correctly.

Ok, thank you for clarifying. As I stated before this was an article, not a review. Over at geeksonline we have not officially "reviewed" any waterblocks yet. An official "review" in my opinion at least, would consist of listing the system used, the watercooling setup, the thermal compound, ambient temperature, and actually getting a block to put on the system and listing the CPU diode temp, then testing sevral other blocks in comparison under the same conditions and listing their diode temp.

There could be more to that, again, I am not into watercooling.

I can understand where you are coming from here, but if sevral people on random forums, lets call it person A on forum X and person b on forum y. If both person A and B said something you did not like about your blocks perhaps inacurate, but maybe accurate under their testing situation, would you refuse to send a block to review to the front page of forum X and forum Y? Just think about it.

just lost a lengthy response and am bummed, will take another pass tomorrow

Don't bother, you clarified perfectly what I need to know. Thank you.

BTW, anything over 10 lines or so I usually Ctrl-C it. After losing many (unfortunatly ) lengthy responses to things I made it a habbit.

[modenaf1]

Originally Posted by firtol88

modenaf1 do you consider yourselves The New York Times or The Daily Mirror...

At the very least the article should start with a disclaimer

Perhaps that could be an idea for the future. Thanks for the suggestion .

[HammerSandwich]

Originally Posted by modenaf1

Over at geeksonline we have not officially "reviewed" any waterblocks yet.

I vote for the disclaimer as well, then. Your article charts block performance; readers should definitely be told that the blocks were not actually tested.

[modenaf1]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

Nothing wrong with synthesizing other people's test results.

Nothing wrong indeed.

Originally Posted by pHaestus

Why not cite them and then make sure that your synopsis is accurate though?

I am sure this mistake will not happen again. As for why we have not made sure our synopsis is accurate? I am not sure, again, I have no clue about watercooling, but I do beleive that would be a question/advice for the author of the article. I do not beleive he is following this however. The opinion of the author is his opinion, whether it is true or not, but I do beleive there is truth in this "watercooling basics" guide however you guys may think.

Originally Posted by HammerSandwich

Favorite quotes:

1) Concerning the Maze 4: "It does not require a 300+ GPH pump like the RBX..."

2) About the MCW5000: "Their best waterblock to date in my opinion. Even though there is a newer version, this one seems to perform better."

1.) Just using that as an example, (I have done my homework on this ) the Maze 4 is relatively free flowing and it really does not require a 300+GPH pump. Perhaps the RBX does not "Require" a 300+ GPH pump, but it is very heavily recomended that you have a strong pump for a fairly restrictive block. How many people buy RBX's and put a 66GPH pump with 1 inch head on it? I am exagerating, but you get the point.

2.) High praise towards your swifty block eh?

About the MCW5000: "Their best waterblock to date in my opinion. Even though there is a newer version, this one seems to perform better."

I think that was clearly his opinion, and he said it seems, not it DID. Seems could be in maybe 1 test it performed better, perhaps in 10 tests it performed better? Maybe it performed better with a stronger pump? A weaker pump? In a waterchiller setup? With a pelt? With a pentium2 throwing off 20 thermal watts? With an overclocked presscott throwing off 175 thermal watts?

There are too many variables. Maybe with high heat CPUs (this is an example) the 5000 performs better, or low low low heat CPUs the 5000 performs better.

He never stated it DID perform better.

Now do you guys see what I am getting at? I just used those 2 quotes as examples......maybe there is truth in this guide...

Thanks for listening.
-f1

[modenaf1]

Originally Posted by HammerSandwich

I vote for the disclaimer as well, then. Your article charts block performance; readers should definitely be told that the blocks were not actually tested.

I am not speaking for geeksonline, but I personally feel that just a simple little "this is an article, not a review" type of thing will hopefully prevent future confusion and make some of makers of these products feel a little more secure about what is said in any article / guide.

I greatly apreciate all of the feedback from every single person here about our site and its content.

Thank you.
-f1


*edit* Sorry for the multiple posts. I am not spamming to get into any hidden classifides or something (man was that a disaster a long long long long long time ago some place else). I just think it makes it all more organized as to what issue and or person I am adressing in the post.