Since87 said:
I don't see any point in waterblock comparisons that are going to be so full of holes that they are nearly meaningless.
did I not say this? or did I read this rong?
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Since87 said:
I don't see any point in waterblock comparisons that are going to be so full of holes that they are nearly meaningless.
JFettig said:
did I not say this? or did I read this rong?
NeoMoses said:If I do decide to conduct this test, I will not publish the data obtained from my block. I will use it only for my own good. That way I will have no personal interest on the outcome of the test.
NeoMoses said:OK people, I'll agree with you on a few points. I have no grudges against Bill. Bill may be a good tester. He has some very good equipment, and seems to have very good techniques. That's where my agreement ends.
Bill is not the only person in the world who can sufficiently test these blocks.
Yes, it's true, some other person/lab/institution may be qualified. I would venture to say that I'm one of those people. No, I don't have the equipment that Bill does, but I do have the knowledge, skill, and experience necessary. I have worked as a test engineer for years, and I know exactly what it takes to eliminate as many variables as possible to get valuable results from a test. Testing/Validating an automoblile is infinitely more complicated than testing waterblocks. There are many, many more variables in automobiles than in waterblocks. If I can succesfully test/validate cars, waterblocks will not be a challenge.
For this test, Bill's equipment may give very good empirical results. However, when doing A-B-C... comparisons, ultra accurate equipment is not always needed. A good control of all the necessary variables is needed, and also a good test procedure needs to be followed with all specimens. By doing this, it will be possible to rank the waterblocks, even though the temperatures/performances may not match the values you get on your particular system.
If I do decide to conduct this test, I will not publish the data obtained from my block. I will use it only for my own good. That way I will have no personal interest on the outcome of the test.
Cathar said:
So if I submitted the "White Water" for testing, which seems to be the one that everyone wants to "beat", including yourself, then you're saying you would not publish the results of a test of your block versus mine?
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of what you wanted to achieve as stated in the first post in this thread?
Since you have a vested interest, as stated by yourself, in achieving the goal of besting the "White Water", wouldn't that automatically disqualify you from conducting the tests, even if you didn't publish the results of your own block?
I'm sorry, but if you want to be truly impartial and above suspicion, you can't have a vested interest (whether private or public) in the ranking of the final contestants, and retain credibility. This has nothing to do with your personal honour, and everything to do with what the response will be of anyone who submits their blocks to you, no matter where they finally ranked.
I also think you're underestimating the difficulty of measuring waterblock performance.
I don't wish to stop you from trying, but an initial attitude of "How hard can it be?" to me describes someone who has no idea of what they're about to undertake, and this is coming from someone who has spent the last 9 months analysing water-block performance and still appreciates that he doesn't even come close to doing it properly.
As a test engineer then you must agree completely that uncalibrated and low resolution equipment is OKNeoMoses said:OK people, I'll agree with you on a few points. I have no grudges against Bill. Bill may be a good tester. He has some very good equipment, and seems to have very good techniques. That's where my agreement ends.
Bill is not the only person in the world who can sufficiently test these blocks.
Yes, it's true, some other person/lab/institution may be qualified. I would venture to say that I'm one of those people. No, I don't have the equipment that Bill does, but I do have the knowledge, skill, and experience necessary. I have worked as a test engineer for years, and I know exactly what it takes to eliminate as many variables as possible to get valuable results from a test. Testing/Validating an automoblile is infinitely more complicated than testing waterblocks. There are many, many more variables in automobiles than in waterblocks. If I can succesfully test/validate cars, waterblocks will not be a challenge.
JFettig said:the sheep have been lead astray............
NeoMoses said:Well at least this thread has been led astray. Rest assured, this testing will be accurate and reliable. Even if it is not done on the world's greatest equipment, the results will be repeatable. We're not looking to publish this test or its results, only to compare a given set of waterblocks to each other.
pHaestus said:oooh the "good enough" crowd have carried the day.
Be wary of those who promise reeatability and thorough and well-thought out, and "good enough" with no partiiculars.