True or BS?

[Penguin4x4]

http://www.procooling.com/articles/html/5_myths_about_cooling__-_phaes.shtml

Based on experience, how much of this is BS, and how much of it is actually true? Especially this:

"C/W values for heatsinks uses radiate to determine the heat produced by their CPUs. Unfortunately, the numbers that come out of it have little grounding in reality."

Thanks!
:)

[grim]

i would like to know if its bs also...so bump

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Penguin4x4
"C/W values for heatsinks uses radiate to determine the heat produced by their CPUs. Unfortunately, the numbers that come out of it have little grounding in reality."Since he is refering to "Radiate" which is a program that is based on less than accurate data this particular statement is true.

[Diggrr]

True.
There's only one way to have accurate wattage values for your cpu, and that's by measuring it while it's running.

Every psu is different, every mobo is different, every cpu is different, etc..............The power that goes to your cpu may pass through 50 different components on the motherboard alone before actually reaching the cpu, and each of those components has a tolerance of +\- 10% (some more some less). Even given that alone, I'd say (and have before) that noone can guess right on numbers, not even AMD.

I don't think it's supposed to be the end all truth anyway, it just gets you within a lawn-dart's toss of actual, so you can plan your cooling appropriately. Anything more would be expecting far too much. As far as I know, only BillA's die simulator (and others like it, appropriately used) can be the real judge of C/W.

*edit* And by the way, this is my opinion...subject to change without notice. I've not seen this tested to refute what Radiate says. Show me.

[canibalpenguin]

Very well put diggrr, bravo, bravo.
and I like the idiot thing too

[flounder43]

RE: "Myth #2. Copper absorbs heat better than aluminum, but aluminum "gives up" heat better than copper."

There is a difference when it comes to specific heat capacity, that is the amount of heat it takes to raise the temperature of the subject metal. It does take less energy to raise the temperature of Copper than aluminum.

More info here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/spht.html

There is also the issue of thermal capacity.
More info on that here: http://www.overclockers.com/tips670/

I think what he is getting at is that once the system is hot, and at equilibrium, it really doesn't matter how long it takes to get there...what is really important is how it conducts heat. In that area, copper is superior.

[JFettig]

Originally posted by flounder43
RE: "Myth #2. Copper absorbs heat better than aluminum, but aluminum "gives up" heat better than copper."

There is a difference when it comes to specific heat capacity, that is the amount of heat it takes to raise the temperature of the subject metal. It does take less energy to raise the temperature of Copper than aluminum.

More info here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/spht.html

There is also the issue of thermal capacity.
More info on that here: http://www.overclockers.com/tips670/

I think what he is getting at is that once the system is hot, and at equilibrium, it really doesn't matter how long it takes to get there...what is really important is how it conducts heat. In that area, copper is superior.


"copper is superior" actually it is... pretty much in theory, but in real life situations of watercooling it really isnt as superior as people may think, maby 1-5c better cooling, thats basicly what it is.... people are just so stuck on copper, if all the waterblocks were aluminum they would be close to half the price....

[The Overclocker]

everything on the page is ture, except the myths.

It is backed up by hard evedence and the link should be made a sticky at the top of the page.