It is sad when we lose trusted testers that adhere to scientific principles when testing, and seek the truth. Leaves one less reliable source for testing.
It is also a shame for honest testers to have to deal with some of crap though from marketing hype on some forums (not this one). Martin posted that one day after dealing with one individual apparently trying to market the AMS rad on another forum. I think he was retiring anyways, but that nonsense wouldnt help persuade him to continue testing.
Swiftech has published whitepapers on rad efficiency single pass vs double pass, and Marci, one of originals at Thermochill also commented, you get at max 15% increase in performance with double pass vs single pass rad, since both using same cooling area, but get slightly more efficient use with double pass if done properly. A quad pass rad at best, because of diminishing returns, would increase another 5-8% assuming you could get around the severe flow restriction issues which most dont manage, and automotive usually stick with dual pass/single pass for a reason. Then PureOC posts that AMS review with nonsense of 100% increase in heat dissipation going from dual pass to quad, using roughly same cooling area/material, which defies the laws of physics, in fact it would defy physics going from single to dual, let alone dual to quad. Both martin and bundymania properly tested AMS rad, and found not surprisingly that AMS quad pass rad (which used less efficient heat transfer of round tubules probably to reduce the restriction) not only didnt magically double rad efficiency of dual pass (which would be worth millions in car industry), but in fact did not perform even as well as other top dual pass rads. Always good to see innovation, just dont like that type of testing.
Then the heavy um.. "
posting" by one person that only signed up to post in that thread and calls martin out on his testing with utter nonsense and pseudoscience like "tuning flow for cpu block performance" etc to back up the AMS 2x other rads performance.
That type of behavior would make testing get old quickly. I am a little surprised that aquacomputer would even allow someone to make claims of 100% improvement in heat dissipation with their product given the implication, but then again the rads did sell out quickly after that initial review. That would be like intel allowing a site to claim IVY overclocks to 8ghz prime stable, and posting comments in the same thread. Though most wont have accurate testing equipment to refute rad testing as easily as OC cpu, so perhaps not apples to apples.
