How would you re-structure ProCooling?

[k|ngp|n]

Cool deal man!

[resago]

my 2cents
free case of beer to new members.
OR procooling branded beer and energy drink

I see we have google ads, but they link to sears and stuff.
see if there are any good affiliate programs that are cooling related at cj.com
even if it was a few links to buy.com for HSF, it would be good revenue for the site.

[Joe]

Funny enough the Google ad's bring in more revenue than the site has ever had before! we are actually running a bit above our operating costs now! (IN THE BLACK BABY!)

and yeh as we go I am looking at more sponsor options. To be honest I am strapped for time right now. I am working 1 full time job, 1 part time job, and helping start another company. So stuff is going to move at the pace of what I can put into it. Until we get more writers, theres no reason for me to go and get more sponsors.

You all need to email phaestus@procooling.com and badger that guy to get over that stupid WoW thing already

[resago]

yeah, I know about adsense. I've started a site of my own called labor finder.
Its like the moster.com for the average joe without a huge resume.
I'll not post the link, but its in my sig for anyone interested.
adsense makes back about 1/2 of what I spend on adwords.
I'm trying to offset the rest by using links from cj.

[jaydee]

Seems to me we are all to concerned with temps when testing cooling products. I am losing focus on why temps are such a big concern. Sure the cooling system is supposed to cool your system and finding out which one cool better has been the focus all this time...... But why?

Why don't we base our opinions on how well a computer performs with the cooling system as opposed to what a temp probe tells us? In this day and age it would be hard to find a cooler that simply did not work to the point your system will not work under normal conditions with a stock system. If the plain all aluminum heat sink and fan that comes stock with the CPU works fine then I can't see how even cheap after market cooler wouldn't work.


So I guess my question is why not just do simple performance tests with cooling products for reviews instead of highly technical orientated reviews that most don't understand and the results are, in reality, not all that useful for most if any in the end?

Run normal computer tasks to games and then maybe CPU Burn and other benchmarks. Overclock and then repeat.

Base performance on noise, ease of install, looks, construction, cost and over all usability.

It just seems to me temps are not as relevant anymore. The 3 comps I got setup now I haven't even checked the temps and honestly don't care until I have to.


I think these reviews would be easier for staff and more useful for the end user.

And speaking of end users we could setup a data base of user reviews of product parts and even service from the company.

If someone still wants to try and figure out the thermal capacity and performance of a cooler on what ever test bed they choose then fine to. I just don't see it useful or relevant to most.

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by BillA

2 current examples suffice:
http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/sho...2&postcount=30 - here we have a long-term poster who does not have a clue, and no one has corrected him

Including yourself. I would love to hear how a CPU temp measurment is more important than the computers performance. After all why do we have computers? For the majority of the world it isn't to see how cold we can get the CPU. The temp of the CPU dosn't concern me if the system is stable and does everything I want it to.

If water block A can get me an overclock of 200mhz and water block B can get me an overclock of 150mhz but block A is $20 more expensive then why bother with block A?


If water cooling system A keeps my comp quiet and running stable and fast but water cooling system B keeps the system running stable and fast but is louder and they are close to the same price then why bother with system B?

After all my testing ventres and piles of useless data I can pretty much confirm there is no reason for such highly technical testing. My computer runs the same...

[gmat]

You're right on one point, most people content themselves with a "running computer".
But we're in the hardcore fringe of community. It's by pushing the things to their limit that we make progress. Emergence of new designs, or refinement of others, are the result. Think car racing, it serves no purpose really (entertainment set aside) but the fallout from racing is more refined engineering techniques, better engines for everyone, etc... Maybe the comparison is a bit stretched by you see my point, or i hope so.
(edit) oh snap, someone made a better answer than me here:
http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/sho...970#post154970

[pHaestus]

You are like a bipolar person jaydee, but you flip-flop from the "good enough" to "get it right" crowd instead. Why monitor temperatures? Cooling performance is evaluated by measuring temperatures and properly analyzing their meaning. Why to bother?

Ok let's assume (here's a big one) that commercial water cooling systems are engineered and optimized to perform as well as possible at a given price point given typical space/mounting limitations. In other words that the commercial mfgrs know what they are doing. OK operate on that assumption and decide you want to build a DIY cooling loop to save money and have more fun.

Given say half the budget of the commercial kit, would you want that DIY loop to perform 50%, 75%, or 90% as well as that totally optimized commercial system? The way you improve performance is by matching components, and one cannot do that without reliable test results. That is the value of properly conducted testing in my eyes.

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

You are like a bipolar person jaydee, but you flip-flop from the "good enough" to "get it right" crowd instead. Why monitor temperatures? Cooling performance is evaluated by measuring temperatures and properly analyzing their meaning. Why to bother?

Bipolar, that is a considerable mental problem? Anyway not nearly as bad as Bill changing from die sims to CPU test benches pretty rapidly. What is right though? No one here is capable of such obviously. We have to settle for good enough. The last 6 years here has more than proven that as we are no were closer to the answer of what is "getting it right". From your level of testing and the standard run of the mill testing the order of performance is still pretty much the same.

Ok let's assume (here's a big one) that commercial water cooling systems are engineered and optimized to perform as well as possible at a given price point given typical space/mounting limitations. In other words that the commercial mfgrs know what they are doing. OK operate on that assumption and decide you want to build a DIY cooling loop to save money and have more fun.

I am going to assume you mean DIY as combining commercial products to make a loop as opposed to real DIY loop in constructing the entire loop yourself from parts you built. Anyway the tests I described will easily tell how well each work. If computer performance is degraded in any way then you have your answer.

Given say half the budget of the commercial kit, would you want that DIY loop to perform 50%, 75%, or 90% as well as that totally optimized commercial system? The way you improve performance is by matching components, and one cannot do that without reliable test results. That is the value of properly conducted testing in my eyes.

But is that 50%, 75% or 90% actually benifiting the computer or your performance goals such as noise ect...? If not the question is meaningless. As said with the tests based on computer performance you will come up with IMO better answers. Instead of results based of temps they are based on actual computer performance. If the coolng system has a 75% better cooling capacity than another but the computer performance is unchanged then who cares? By the time CPU's get hot enough to were that 75% might be benificial you will have to buy a new water block at least anyway because the mounting system will probably change.

gmat mentioned cars. Lets use that for example. How are cars tested for the average end user? They are run through performance tests on a track (like overclocking and using CPU burn on a comp) and in actual driving conditions (like playing games or running vid editiong software on a comp).

How can you base the performance of a cooling kit over the performance of the complete computer system? Is the cooling system not just a part of the computer system? Why should we base performance on the capability of the cooling system as opposed to how well the cooling system actual benifits the computer?

Back to cars... After market parts are not rated on what the part is capable of but what it is capable of on the car it is designed for. Only way to find out how well that part really works is to use it on the car and see what performance increase it gives the car.

You can run all the tests you want on that part alone but in the end its real value comes with what performance gain it adds to the product it is attached to and that is the information most of the readers of reviews are looking for IMO.

More technical data can be useful for product designers but how many of those are here anymore? and what percentage of them are capable of finding the restults on their own?

[gmat]

The problem is about the same for car performance parts. Let's say i want a header for my engine. There are reviews, dynos and so on. But this header will give huge gains with high lift cams, and almost no gains (or losses) with stock cams.
It all comes back to what we've always said: think about the whole system, not individual parts. Still, testing each individual part to see how it performs under controlled circumstances, is very important, to engineer the whole system in a coherent manner. Back to my header. If i take it, it means i'm upgrading the cams, putting a decent intake, and sizing the exhaust properly. I wont focus on the individual gains of the header, since i know that will ALL parts sized properly the whole setup will do what i want (like, +25 whp for example in my case).
The same goes for computer "aftermarket" parts: each must be tested in all circumstances to see how they fit into a whole system. And which complete system produces "good" results. By "good" in our case it will mean higher OC, and less noise (maybe define a noise vs OC ratio ? in dBA per % of OC, no real unit i know ?)

[Brians256]

Exactly. If I might paraphrase you, gmat, test each part so that you know the items to use in a system "design".

I was going to say more, but it's just a rehash of stuff I've said already.

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by gmat

The problem is about the same for car performance parts. Let's say i want a header for my engine. There are reviews, dynos and so on. But this header will give huge gains with high lift cams, and almost no gains (or losses) with stock cams.
It all comes back to what we've always said: think about the whole system, not individual parts. Still, testing each individual part to see how it performs under controlled circumstances, is very important, to engineer the whole system in a coherent manner. Back to my header. If i take it, it means i'm upgrading the cams, putting a decent intake, and sizing the exhaust properly. I wont focus on the individual gains of the header, since i know that will ALL parts sized properly the whole setup will do what i want (like, +25 whp for example in my case).
The same goes for computer "aftermarket" parts: each must be tested in all circumstances to see how they fit into a whole system. And which complete system produces "good" results. By "good" in our case it will mean higher OC, and less noise (maybe define a noise vs OC ratio ? in dBA per % of OC, no real unit i know ?)

I am not seeing how this is any different then what I am suggesting. Only difference is I am taking the main focus off temps and placing it on performance.

There are only 3 main parts to a water cooling system for a PC. Pump, rad and water block (or multiples of each). It has been pretty well proven replacing any one of those parts and swapping in another is not going to drastically change things and if it does my tests will prove it anyway.

Your head example doesn't fit the bill in this day and age. You can gain huge amounts of performance from changing parts on a head. Changing from a Apogee to Strom Rev. 2 will get you hardly anything. Changing from a BI to a BIX will hardly gain you anything. Changing from a Ehime 1260 to a MD30 with hardly gain you anything..... Changing all 3 will hardly gain you anything. Temp wise that is. So why focus on temps instead of over all performance, noise, looks and over all ease of use?

You can interchange all the modern water cooling parts you want in any order you want and you will be hard pressed to notice any significant changes in computer performance.

Also how is testing each part on a test bench not designed for what the part was made for telling us how that part will work on the thing it was made for? Also how is testing these parts on a Intel 775 CPU that no one uses going to tell us any different?

We can test how ever we want but the end results are not going to be consistent for every type of comp out there. The temp difference from one cooling system to another is hardly relevant over noise and ease of use these days.

From en engineering stand point I can certainly understand the higher level of testing and that is the standpoint I have had the last few years. Now I don't really care about that and looking at it from and end users perspective. I don't really care about all the tech stuff, just want to know if the cooling system is reliable, quiet and cost effective. Not concerned about 1-6C temp difference. Just doesn't matter in reality. Games still play the same, internet is just as fast and my OC will hardly matter with that small temp swing.

Back in the day it was a lot more important. When you could take a Duron 600 and OC it to 1100mhz. That was a useful overclock! Today you can add 1000mhz to a 2000mhz CPU to get 3000mhz and it is hardly noticeable. And you can do it with air cooling. Water cooling might add a 100mhz or so but what does it matter? Only to the uber geeks that have nothing better to have a dick size contest about.


Just seems some of us take testing way to seriously. Certainly has not done anyone any good here lately.

[pHaestus]

So what is your point exactly?

That this hobby no longer interests you? I fail to see how one reviews in a way that gets around that sticking point.

[bigben2k]

No, his point is that the way that testing is done (i.e. with a heater) doesn't necessarily reflect the processor. Even Bill's admitted that a Storm type design can perform in a way that a heater test might not be able to reflect.

There's a gap gents, and we're not addressing it.

I've given some thought (on spare brain power) about slicing up the heat die surface in a grid, then trying to figure out if there's any way to heat each pin individually, but I haven't come to any kind of idea.

The IHS throws another curve into the equation, since it effectively smooths things out, to some? extent.

Maybe there's a way to create a whole new type of (Incoherent style) flux block?

I'm too busy to define the parameters; someone else please take this.

[jaydee]

On the right track Ben. I just can't understand why it is such a ridiculous idea to do the testing in a real world situation and environment. Why are temps so important when the difference between the top 6 water blocks is less than 6C? We have proven how hard it is to accurately get valid and accurate temps on a CPU based system. I am also suggesting it is not really necessary to do so in the first place. If the computer systems performance is unnoticeably changed with a 6C + temp change then why put all the emphasis on temps as opposed to noise, ease of use and over all appearance?

Why pH is acting like Bill I am not sure. His response is odd. Can't answer the questions or refuses to or thinks the questions are to low class to bother with and then attack the poster. Sounds oddly familiar.


Anyway Joe, good luck man. I tried to suggest a method that would give usable results and will not take such a load of cash and high learning curve to do so maybe someone would do something here but I forget we are to holy for such. Could simply add to the review temp measurements are on board and not to be taken to seriously and all major performance data is based on computer performance and not temps. At least you could get some content going and if nothing else let people know how well the products looks, sounds and how easy it instals. Lots of people would prefer ease of use and looks over a couple extra C cooler. But whatever.

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by jaydee

After all my testing ventres and piles of useless data I can pretty much confirm there is no reason for such highly technical testing. My computer runs the same...

I didn't word this to well. Maybe that is why pH replied as he did. I was speaking for myself when I said that and not anyone else who does highly technical testing. Every tester has a reason to test as they do. It just seems to me we could add a different angle to the content here that is not as technical and more user friendly.

I think people would like to see parts on a comp and running not only to see what the computer system can do with the cooling system but to see how it was put together.

Anyway just a little carification (maybe more so for myself).

[bigben2k]

You know, the funny thing is that if we were testing HSF, the test setup would look a lot more like a PC (heater mounted in a typical case, to replicate the ambient temp, see frostytech article, or Intel specs).

Water cooling on the other hand doesn't depend on the ambient temperature inside the case.

[BillA]

ahem, think environmental chamber
come on Ben, a case is still used in a chamber to replicate the in-case air flow path
(why mine is that odd shape, eh ?)
the Intel spec has a plate on top (the case side) and is hell on recirculation, most vexing

[bigben2k]

Yes, but about water cooling testing; "we don't need no stinkin' case" (just a water chiller). (Radiator testing aside).

[BillA]

when I tested WCing systems it was in a case, why not ?
get as real as possible, no big deal

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by BillA

when I tested WCing systems it was in a case, why not ?
get as real as possible, no big deal

Originally Posted by BillA

come on Ben, a case is still used in a chamber to replicate the in-case air flow path

I completly agree.

[gmat]

Yes, you have to consider secondary heat paths, and in case temps are relevant for this i think.