Apogee GTZ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

Not better pressure drop than a stock fuzion, although it's getting pretty close to the newer Fuzion V2. Actually most of the center inlet types will have lower restriction because you split the flow and reduce the flow rate over the pins compared to a side to side or corner to corner flow path like the apogee series. There are many blocks with lower restriction though, DD MC-TDX, XSPC Edge Acrylic, Fuzion V1 stock, and I think the Fuzion V2 Stock.

---

I looked are your tests, you're right, thanks for the clarification indeed :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

Anyhow flow rate and restriction are not that important, I'd be much more interested in thermal performance.

---

well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

That we don't know, heck we don't even know what it looks like internally, so we don't know anyhthing other than it's a new product.:shrug:

---

that could be fixed [Edit: arranged]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

That we don't know, heck we don't even know what it looks like internally, so we don't know anyhthing other than it's a new product.:shrug:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

that could be fixed

---

You forgot to insert the picture, I think :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

that could be fixed

---

I think I need to call Jupiler
( If you haven't seen a pic of him think of Arrrrrnold only younger and not quite as "cut")
He'll do the holding, I'll do the tickling..
We'll get the pics out of you!:rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mankz_91

No offence intended to Gabe, but I think it looks naff and horrible. I don't like all of the black screws etc. and I especially don't like the black top. I think it would look alot better if the black top was silver coloured, and you kept the black background to the logo.

---

Tastes and colors never offend me. I am only glad you are the only one who does't - so far, but I am sure there will be others ;)

Irrespective, as it has been said very wisely in this thread, only performance will appeal to most XS members. I happen to like the looks it if matters any (I didn't design it, Stephen did) quite a bit. It looks like it means business, which it does.

For all I care, it could be lime green and purple, and shaped like my dog's turd. Makes no difference to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IanY

For all I care, it could be lime green and purple, and shaped like my dog's turd. Makes no difference to me.

---

I'm down as long as it doesn't smell like a dogs turd... :yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aspire.comptech

I'm down as long as it doesn't smell like a dogs turd... :yepp:

---

Smell like dog's turd? That's fine with me. The case is covered up, so I don't smell it and I don't care :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

well said.




that could be fixed [Edit: arranged]

---

Now you are talking, send one to Martin. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

I didn't design it, Stephen did

---

Then we know it will outperform anything prior to this from Swiftech.

Ouch! Can we all just get along?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcoffey

I'd prefer they looked nice as the GTZ does in the pics. I don't know, to me there's no "Water Cooling High Ground" to be taken by not having things look good. It's just when performance is sacrificed for looks that I detest. I don't think it's very hard to have it both ways and design a build with components that look good for a over all smooth and sharp look. The more I do this stuff, the more I appreciate good looking gear, and a build that reflects pride of ownership. With a lot of the new gear coming out, pretty easy to have both great performance and looks.

andyc

---

i totally agree

anyway when can we see the internal pics gabe?:D:D:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

Tastes and colors never offend me. I am only glad you are the only one who does't - so far, but I am sure there will be others ;)

Irrespective, as it has been said very wisely in this thread, only performance will appeal to most XS members. I happen to like the looks it if matters any (I didn't design it, Stephen did) quite a bit. It looks like it means business, which it does.

---

I understand where you are coming from as a company, so you have to appeal to the mass-market, so good luck!

And at the end of the day, it its an awesome block, I might just have to make a new top for it :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IanY

Ouch! Can we all just get along?

---

I guess that came out wrong (what else is new)... I meant it as a testament to Stephen, not a dig on Gabe or Swiftech.

Nobody mentioned the awesomeness of being able to fit compression fittings? (At least with that spacing it looks like it should be able to)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

I guess that came out wrong (what else is new)... I meant it as a testament to Stephen, not a dig on Gabe or Swiftech.

---

Understood. Thanks for clarifying.

My mistake.

so I guess the GTX will be discontinued right?
(sorry if this has been answered already, I haven't read all the posts in this thread)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IanY

Ouch! Can we all just get along?

---

:rofl:

Iany you dont understand how much of a oxymoron this is coming from you.

Almost like asking the taliban, hey can we all live the enlighten way of buddah?

You know what I don't like about it, not the block, the mount.
I think the outside mount should be a really nice piece of aluminum or muted steel, as well as flat.
The bevel makes it look weird in the picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos4

so I guess the GTX will be discontinued right?
(sorry if this has been answered already, I haven't read all the posts in this thread)

---

yes, we only have very few left though and they'll go on sale as soon as the GTZ starts shipping, ETA <2 weeks

Any guess on when we get to see the guts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eddie3dfx

You know what I don't like about it, not the block, the mount.
I think the outside mount should be a really nice piece of aluminum or muted steel, as well as flat.
The bevel makes it look weird in the picture.

---

The plate is probably curved for added rigidity - always a plus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaeKuh

:rofl:

Iany you dont understand how much of a oxymoron this is coming from you.

Almost like asking the taliban, hey can we all live the enlighten way of buddah?

---

The Taliban still must protect Brothere Osama from the diss :ROTF:

The enlightened way of the buddah is cool as long as there's continued access to the chix :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Man there are too many interested in the looks of things. I could give a rat's ass what something looks like as long as it performs (in this case, outperforms). My opinion is that the GTX was a dog (sales wise) because Swiftech was too interested in looks and used aluminum to achieve that goal. Looks are a far second place in my book.

---

Like I saw it said on here someplace, if a dog turd would cool a CPU better than any block on the market, it would be used :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SparkyJJO

Like I saw it said on here someplace, if a dog turd would cool a CPU better than any block on the market, it would be used :rofl:

---

Ok, then I'll change the GTZ description on the site [edited] accordingly.

hahahahaha

aww gabe, that edit wasnt necessary... who cares about PR anyway :P

Thanks for popping by Gabe, it looks pretty sweet to me. Would love to add this to my 2x MCW60's and 2x MCW30's. Now all that's left is for Martin to get his hands on one :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcoffey

I don't know, to me there's no "Water Cooling High Ground" to be taken by not having things look good. It's just when performance is sacrificed for looks that I detest. I don't think it's very hard to have it both ways and design a build with components that look good for a over all smooth and sharp look. The more I do this stuff, the more I appreciate good looking gear, and a build that reflects pride of ownership. With a lot of the new gear coming out, pretty easy to have both great performance and looks.

---

Yup! We like to have our cake and eat it too.:rofl: If the good looking components perform well, then everyone wins :yepp:

Gabe you have a PM and an email.
I'd be happy to test it with the other blocks. I'm about ready to take a break from the radiator testing so I'm getting ready to start back in on the CPU block testing pretty soon.
If not, no problem...

It's almost tuesday!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majestik

It's almost tuesday!

---

It's tuesday down here...;):D

Martin this test has priority over my stepped cuplex.

your results will dictate if i buy it or not. :rofl:


And once again thank you for your work martin :up:

/cricket

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SparkyJJO

Like I saw it said on here someplace, if a dog turd would cool a CPU better than any block on the market, it would be used :rofl:

---

I draw the line at dog crap. Even if it could cool better, the smell would make the computer so unusable I'd never sit there long enough to look at the temps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

Gabe you have a PM and an email.
I'd be happy to test it with the other blocks. I'm about ready to take a break from the radiator testing so I'm getting ready to start back in on the CPU block testing pretty soon.
If not, no problem...

---

Martin, any chance you will test the D5? it seems in accurate in your flow meter :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThrustSSC

Martin, any chance you will test the D5? it seems in accurate in your flow meter :)

---

have you read this test? http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=170217

Seeing as people are using this as a chance to bring up preferences (and seeing as various manufacturers are reading this) thought I'd mention my preferences (although as mentioned by several others, performance counts first, and then you can shop around for good looks). Personally, I think acrylic is waaaay overdone, but that's mostly because I want to do something more reserved in my builds (I do have to look at them regularly after all), so I rather not have the guts of my computer looking like something from a the Vegas strip. To a certain extent just sticking to two or three predominate colors goes a long way towards achieving that, but eliminating excessive acrylic helps a lot as well. In the case of my latest build I opted for clear tubing with acetel blocks. Had I opted for acrylic blocks I probably would have gone with black tubing (or some other solid color) just to mute the overall look of the system.

Which brings me to why I'm even mentioning it in this thread. I really like the way EK releases 2 versions of their blocks, one with a clear acrylic top, and one with a solid black acetel top. It gives the builder a way to fine tune the look of the system. That said I understand that in some cases it's not economically feasible to have multiple versions of essentially the same block, but even selling an alternative replacement top to a particular block can go a long way towards getting not just the performance you want, but the looks you want as well.

Really anxious to see the guts of this new block, as well as some performance metrics, but as far as looks go, it's not bad. Not the best looking block I've ever seen, but definitely not the worst either. For me personally, if I was going to change it, I'd probably replace the mounting brackets with something flat black, but over all I'd be happy with it in my case as is (assuming it performs well anyway).

The mental image just hit my funny bone.
I can see it now, you click on Swiftechs site and the first thing that greets you is this:
Welcome!
Swiftech is proud to release our new waterblock.
The DT1.. Better performance, formed from one solid block of 100% pure copper to satisfy Naekuh!
Try the new DT1 or Dog Turd as we call it!:up:

LOL! :rofl:

:rofl: That's a good one...

will there be a TEC version of this block to? that would be killer!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThrustSSC

Martin, any chance you will test the D5? it seems in accurate in your flow meter :)

---

I retested it a few weeks ago, I just need to create the new trendlines and plug it in. It's still not as strong as the DDCs with tops, but it may be a little better than the curve that's currently in there.

Ok, back on topic with the GTZ..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

Ok, back on topic with the GTZ..

---

go on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majestik

go on

---

Sorry guys, I turned down the offer on this sample. I had to take a good look at what I've got piled up around me from previous sample providers, and I've still got 12 weeks worth of samples and reviews to work through. It's just not fair to the previous sample providers to drop what's already been submitted..

Anyhow, you guys will have to sort this one out. I'm not taking any new samples until I get caught up with what I have and that'll be several months down the road.

My vote for best tester on this forum goes to Niksub1..:up:

He's the pioneer of the 5 mount method I've been following anyhow which I agree 100% is a must do for any worthwhile test results (Accuracy better than 2 degrees).

Wise move on your part, Martin :)

I agree Nihksub1 would be the right guy to do a proper testing :up:

You know, it's kind of funny, as I was reading your last post (martin) the first thought through my head was "Man, I would love to have piles of stuff from manufacturers to play with", which was followed shortly by "God I bet that gets mind numbing really fast". I figure it's probably a lot like video game testing, sure it sounds like a good idea at first, but when you're sitting there doing the same thing again for the 9,000 time in the last week it suddenly seems like a lot less fun. There's also the effect I've seen first hand where when something goes from a hobby to work you suddenly find you don't enjoy doing it nearly as much as you used to.

Edit: Forgot to say, you do really great work Martin, and I'm sure we all understand that you're only one guy and you can only do so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orclev

You know, it's kind of funny, as I was reading your last post (martin) the first thought through my head was "Man, I would love to have piles of stuff from manufacturers to play with", which was followed shortly by "God I bet that gets mind numbing really fast". I figure it's probably a lot like video game testing, sure it sounds like a good idea at first, but when you're sitting there doing the same thing again for the 9,000 time in the last week it suddenly seems like a lot less fun. There's also the effect I've seen first hand where when something goes from a hobby to work you suddenly find you don't enjoy doing it nearly as much as you used to.

Edit: Forgot to say, you do really great work Martin, and I'm sure we all understand that you're only one guy and you can only do so much.

---

Yeah it was fun at first, but I'm at the point now where it's become work.

Worst part is, I have a good job. I could go into work and net $30+/hr on overtime. Good testing on something like a radiator takes nearly 15 hours of testing. I could buy alot of radiators for that amount of time.:( I only do it because I enjoy helping people on these forums and I have fun when I'm not overly booked, but I have to take a step back now and then and get a reality check. I've got too much on the plate right now and have to back off for a while.

Martin, it is very hard for people to understand... heck, I've only tested BLOCKS and I can barely find the time. You are doing fans, rads, fittings, blocks, pumps etc, etc etc. People don't realize that it takes me about 12 hours to test one block with 5 mounts... If I make $100/hour you can see how it adds up... Manufacturers should really be PAYING people like you to independently test and validate data - of course this data would not be public but you would be PAID. This is what BillA tried to do at one time but never succeeded at it. I mean for a mfgr to pay a few hundred dollars for you to test and validate seems to be chump change.

/rant off

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

Yeah it was fun at first, but I'm at the point now where it's become work.

Worst part is, I have a good job. I could go into work and net $30+/hr on overtime. Good testing on something like a radiator takes nearly 15 hours of testing. I could buy alot of radiators for that amount of time.:( I only do it because I enjoy helping people on these forums and I have fun when I'm not overly booked, but I have to take a step back now and then and get a reality check. I've got too much on the plate right now and have to back off for a while.

---

Take a break. Once it turns into work, it's not fun anymore. Work and enjoy life and then when you get that itch to test, go back and do a few rounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xilikon

Wise move on your part, Martin :)

I agree Nihksub1 would be the right guy to do a proper testing :up:

---

Haha thanks for the kind words but Swiftech won't be sending me anything to test anytime soon... For some reason Gabe thinks I'm a 'Swiftech hater' which for the record I am not. I realize I can be a bit harsh and off the cuff but I have no hate or ill will toward ANY one or ANY mfgr.

Honestly martin, I think you need to charge companies for testing their products. It will make testing a lot more fun and motivating :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Haha thanks for the kind words but Swiftech won't be sending me anything to test anytime soon... For some reason Gabe thinks I'm a 'Swiftech hater' which for the record I am not. I realize I can be a bit harsh and off the cuff but I have no hate or ill will toward ANY one or ANY mfgr.

---

It's their loss, not yours ;) If Martin tell you can do that and Gabe ignore it, he is alienating a big market :ROTF:

I was sticking to my GT. Now, I think I'll stick to my Q6600. So, I need a new WB :D

With Martin's dropping the tests, it'll take weeks and weeks before we see any valid tests of this yet unreleased WB.

I'm one going to Enzotech Rev.A full copper new WB. The previous version is 1.5°C close to the EK Supreme, yet keeping a great flow. This Rev.A should solve the acrylic haters problem and at least, it is a sure value.

I must say, that for me, Martin's tests are of a major importance before to buy

Good luck Martin with your job and WB testing hobby, not easy to manage both :clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Haha thanks for the kind words but Swiftech won't be sending me anything to test anytime soon... For some reason Gabe thinks I'm a 'Swiftech hater' which for the record I am not. I realize I can be a bit harsh and off the cuff but I have no hate or ill will toward ANY one or ANY mfgr.

---

That means you will have to buy it. Ugh the HORROR! :p:

Expecting joe public to figure it out on their own seems a bit odd to me.:shrug:
That's like saying you need to buy a car to test and see what sort of gas mileage you can expect before you decide if it's the right car for you....:shakes:

I'm all for seeing even more manufacturer provided performance information, there's already a good amount going up, there's just not much detail on how it was determined..:up:

So are you guys saying you'd like to see the manufacturers start publishing comparative data if we don't have enough 3rd party testers out there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Linus@ncix

So are you guys saying you'd like to see the manufacturers start publishing comparative data if we don't have enough 3rd party testers out there?

---

I would..:up:

There's always going to be a place for 3rd party testing, but why not start with at least something performance related in the specs.

I would really appreciate if manufacturers would post at least pressure drop and some sort of c/w data. It doesn't even have to be comparative to be worthwhile. To me it only represents a good posotive image that the product is designed around performance (Not just for aesthetics) and they are willing to back that up with real scientific performance data. Even if many people don't understand it, it's still there saying "Hey, this is a performance product, here is how restrictive it is, and here is how thermally efficient it is".

I like it. I've always really appreciated the vendors that already do that..:up:

The only issue I have with c/w curves is there's never any explanation with how that c/w was developed and so it generally becomes something you can't really use for anything more than understanding how sensetive it is to flow rate, etc. Preferrably, there would be some sort of testing specification linked to that details out what the c/w value represents and how the testing was conducted and with what equipment, etc..:yepp:

/rant mode enable
It wouldn't matter if it was martin or someone who no-one ever heard of, if a 3rd party starts making manufactures pay them to test and review a product then their credibility will be questioned by the people. I'm not implying that martin or anyone else would fix the data but because money exchanges hands it would always be under scrutiny. Even if the 3rd party sets a fixed rate for each review the manufactures who don't send their products to the 3rd party may claim that they were reviewed unfairly.
/rant_mode disable

Now for a question: When testing a block's thermal capabilities, Coolant temperatures are inversely related to flow and pressure. Is there any way to graph a chart in three dimensions that show flow (X) and pressure (Z) are on the ground plane and thermal resistance (Y) be vertical? It's not entirely practical because of the difficulty reading data points but it would be visually impressive and people could see which is better to have, a loop with higher flow or higher pressure.

It's sad news, but Martin has already contributed so much. Let him have his life back. At least for a while. Now getting back on topic... any news on the possibility of a unisink for either the GTX280 or the HD4870x2? Or on whether there will be mounts compatible with the HD4870x2? I've vowed to stay away from those falling copper ramsinks approximately until hell freezes over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gojirasan

It's sad news, but Martin has already contributed so much. Let him have his life back. At least for a while. Now getting back on topic... any news on the possibility of a unisink for either the GTX280 or the HD4870x2? Or on whether there will be mounts compatible with the HD4870x2? I've vowed to stay away from those falling copper ramsinks approximately until hell freezes over.

---

You are in the wrong thread anyway but let me reply : <D-Tek released a uni-sink for the GTX 200 series cards to be used with the Fuzion GPU v2. I have one on hand and it's a damn nice piece. Expect pictures during the weekend.

I'm just posting here to give thanks to Martin for all his work. It was absolutely invaluable to me selecting the components for my first WC build.

So.. Thank you Martin!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllAgainstPaul

/rant mode enable
It wouldn't matter if it was martin or someone who no-one ever heard of, if a 3rd party starts making manufactures pay them to test and review a product then their credibility will be questioned by the people. I'm not implying that martin or anyone else would fix the data but because money exchanges hands it would always be under scrutiny. Even if the 3rd party sets a fixed rate for each review the manufactures who don't send their products to the 3rd party may claim that they were reviewed unfairly.
/rant_mode disable

---

Clearly you did not understand what I said/meant. I do not mean that mfgrs PAY for a review, that would be stupid. Lets say mfgr 'Widget' has a new block that they are developing. They have tested the thing in house but would like some 3rd party testing (note not a REVIEW) that would not be made public. They would also like some feedback on the block. This is what I believe mfgr's should pay for. I have actually done this more than once for a couple of different mfgrs and got bubkus in return. What they got in return was a set of tools to improve their product. This data that I collected via testing WAS NEVER MADE PUBLIC and was only available to the mfgr. Call me crazy but I for one and finished doing other people's R&D for FREE.

nvm

I don't see it on the swiftech site yet! :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gillbot

I don't see it on the swiftech site yet! :(

---

Release is planed on or before 7/31

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

Release is planed on or before 7/31

---

:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

Release is planed on or before 7/31

---

and here I was just about to post this:

Image of Gabe slaving away 7 days a week saying:
" Those bastages at XS won't even let me sleep!":rofl:

Can't wait to see what it can do!

:soap:

I for one see nothing wrong with "Third Party" testers being paid to test a product and report their findings. Independent testing is a great way to show data that the public can believe. People such as nikhsub1, Martinm210, and mcoffey are trusted on this forum and will give factual data on every test.

Their time is as valuable as anyone else's and should be compensated. And to you guys, thanks for all your hard work and your commitment to the science. :clap: :clap:

<gets off soap box>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiGfever

:soap:

I for one see nothing wrong with "Third Party" testers being paid to test a product and report their findings. Independent testing is a great way to show data that the public can believe. People such as nikhsub1, Martinm210, and mcoffey are trusted on this forum and will give factual data on every test.

Their time is as valuable as anyone else's and should be compensated. And to you guys, thanks for all your hard work and your commitment to the science. :clap: :clap:

<gets off soap box>

---

Quote:

---

Alright guys, I think it goes without saying that testing just sucks. You get people trying to influence you from all angles

---

That quote is from a well known, trusted tester. I believe the tests he did from which the quote refers was done by him for free (note the words, I believe).

If people try to influence someones tests when all they've done is provide blocks, it doesn't take a scientist to wonder what could happen if they're paying someone.

Would you pay someone to test your product, yet sit there and still hand over the cash if that very test would actually produce negative PR?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mekrel

That quote is from a well known, trusted tester. I believe the tests he did from which the quote refers was done by him for free (note the words, I believe).

If people try to influence someones tests when all they've done is provide blocks, it doesn't take a scientist to wonder what could happen if they're paying someone.

Would you pay someone to test your product, yet sit there and still hand over the cash if that very test would actually produce negative PR?

---

There is a diffrence from getting money for review, which in my opinion is wrong, and getting money for testing.

I see the influencing problem too. Our sponsors (who don't pay us but provide some samples) are always all over us when a review includes negative aspects. They try to get us to rephrase, omit or not publish a review. Some sponsors are better than others, of course, but I bet they'd put piles of pressure on the reviewers, if they paid them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mekrel

That quote is from a well known, trusted tester. I believe the tests he did from which the quote refers was done by him for free (note the words, I believe).

If people try to influence someones tests when all they've done is provide blocks, it doesn't take a scientist to wonder what could happen if they're paying someone.

Would you pay someone to test your product, yet sit there and still hand over the cash if that very test would actually produce negative PR?

---

No need to hide, I said that. What you are missing is that my 'tests' were to be made PUBLIC. What I was saying about being paid was obviously misunderstood completely. Maybe if we take the word 'testing' out if it, it will confuse less. If a person was contacted (say me or Martin) to validate results by a manufacturer and give unbiased opinion and ideas what is that worth to said manufacturer? I have done such things and never made my findings public. Again, manufacturers should NEVER pay for a review, and what I was suggesting they do pay for would be kept absolutely 100% private and would not be a review for anyone to see.

Gabe, send me a GTZ for review. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiGfever

:soap:

I for one see nothing wrong with "Third Party" testers being paid to test a product and report their findings. Independent testing is a great way to show data that the public can believe. People such as nikhsub1, Martinm210, and mcoffey are trusted on this forum and will give factual data on every test.

Their time is as valuable as anyone else's and should be compensated. And to you guys, thanks for all your hard work and your commitment to the science. :clap: :clap:

<gets off soap box>

---

The charter of a tester/reviewer is to serve the public; since the public is the beneficiary of this work, the public should compensate the reviewer for his work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

Gabe you have a PM and an email.
I'd be happy to test it with the other blocks. I'm about ready to take a break from the radiator testing so I'm getting ready to start back in on the CPU block testing pretty soon.
If not, no problem...

---

Can't wait to see these results...Thanks Martin for all your hard work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

The charter of a tester/reviewer is to serve the public; since the public is the beneficiary of this work, the public should compensate the reviewer for his work.

---

That's not entirely true, if you have a good product, and people can't tell how good it is, it's in your interest to have it reviewed. I mean that's the whole point of sending out review samples.
And as for the public compensating, it's more like the manufacturers compensating, because they're the ones paying for the ads that are needed to keep magazines and websites going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nickel020

That's not entirely true, if you have a good product, and people can't tell how good it is, it's in your interest to have it reviewed. I mean that's the whole point of sending out review samples.
And as for the public compensating, it's more like the manufacturers compensating, because they're the ones paying for the ads that are needed to keep magazines and websites going.

---

It is ENTIRELY true in context. Please read my post again: I am referring to the charter or mission if you will of a reviewer, not that of a manufacturer.

As to advertising it reflects the right of the Media to conduct a business which serves their own interest. Properly managed Media totally separate the adversiting activity from the product testing activity in order to prevent/alleviate/reduce the conflicts of interest. Sadly such conflicts still exist and abuse do take place in my opinion and experience. It then becomes a necessity for the public to exercise scrutiny in patronizing said media.

In an ideal world, and in my opinion, impartial product testing should be entirely sponsored by the Public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

The charter of a tester/reviewer is to serve the public; since the public is the beneficiary of this work, the public should compensate the reviewer for his work.

---

I guess you do like Free testing from trusted people, who wouldn't? :shrug: :)

I know what my stance would be if I were a manufacturer... caveat emptor. That'll probably why I would have no business :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiGfever

I guess you do like Free testing from trusted people, who wouldn't? :shrug: :)

---

Of course I do, when it is thorough, accurate, and unbiaised.

But if your remark intends to infer that I advocate the concept outlined earlier for self interest, then you are mistaken in fact it is exactly the opposite. I advocate such concept because it is one of the foundations of human society. The beneficiary of a good or service should be paying for such. In this case, an independant agent or representative of the public is conducting tests to help the public decide whether a product is worth using. Isn't it natural that the public should be compensating that person for these services? I thought really long and hard on that topic and to be completely honest, my first reaction when I read these posts was to say that I wouldn't mind paying for product validation, but then I realized that this would be advocating something that is fundamentally flawed. So I changed my comments 180 degrees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

Of course I do, when it is thorough, accurate, and unbiaised.

But if your remark intends to infer that I advocate the concept outlined earlier for self interest, then you are mistaken in fact it is exactly the opposite. I advocate such concept because it is one of the foundations of human society. The beneficiary of a good or service should be paying for such. In this case, an independant agent or representative of the public is conducting tests to help the public decide whether a product is worth using. Isn't it natural that the public should be compensating that person for these services? I thought really long and hard on that topic and to be completely honest, my first reaction when I read these posts was to say that I wouldn't mind paying for product validation, but then I realized that this would be advocating something that is fundamentally flawed. So I changed my comments 180 degrees.

---

so we can start a "martin, nik, etc" testing fund. If it wasn't taking so much of martin's time I would send every block I get to him and pay postage.

@ Gabe;
This is an interesting discussion in the theoretical but then there is the reality.
No one wants to write a negative review ever.
I have done three. The first was with your H20-220 kit.
You know how I felt about it. It was a joy to work with.
The second I did with some heatsinks.
The worst nightmare of my life.
Improperly designed and it took me 22 hours to redesign, reshape and make work.
Now do I want to slam a manufacturer? No.
Instead of posting a negative review I sat down and wrote out all the needed "fixes" that were needed and mailed to the manufacturer. As these were pre-release they incorporated the fixes I sent and the final shipped product is an excellent one.
This is where I think a reviewer can be usefull.
The product is out of the lab and into a real world situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

Of course I do, when it is thorough, accurate, and unbiaised.

But if your remark intends to infer that I advocate the concept outlined earlier for self interest, then you are mistaken in fact it is exactly the opposite. I advocate such concept because it is one of the foundations of human society. The beneficiary of a good or service should be paying for such. In this case, an independant agent or representative of the public is conducting tests to help the public decide whether a product is worth using. Isn't it natural that the public should be compensating that person for these services? I thought really long and hard on that topic and to be completely honest, my first reaction when I read these posts was to say that I wouldn't mind paying for product validation, but then I realized that this would be advocating something that is fundamentally flawed. So I changed my comments 180 degrees.

---

Gabe,

I was not directing my first post at you. I was merely stating that the time and effort for testing should be compensated. Certain people on this forum have EARNED the reputation for accurate, concise testing and their findings carry a lot of weight with the members. Paying an independent should never compromise your standards; have you ever had a piece of jewelery appraised by an independent? And if yes wasn't the reason you went to them was because they were not affiliated with a jewelry store? Same thing.

I like your products and use several of them in my rigs. Plus my next NB will probably be another MCW30 because my other one works so well. So please do not take my post personally as they were not meant to question your honesty or integrity.

I have written plenty a bad review in the past, however, I did give the product supplier every chance to correct issues before the review was made public. If the product was updated and I was sent the updated version, I redid the review and the process was repeated until I was notified that this would be the retail revision. I did put all of the revision progress in my review though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiGfever

Gabe,

I was not directing my first post at you. I was merely stating that the time and effort for testing should be compensated. Certain people on this forum have EARNED the reputation for accurate, concise testing and their findings carry a lot of weight with the members. Paying an independent should never compromise your standards; have you ever had a piece of jewelery appraised by an independent? And if yes wasn't the reason you went to them was because they were not affiliated with a jewelry store? Same thing.

I like your products and use several of them in my rigs. Plus my next NB will probably be another MCW30 because my other one works so well. So please do not take my post personally as they were not meant to question your honesty or integrity.

---

I stand corrected. The subject was brought up whether manufacturers should/could pay for validation testing, and your post merely said that they should be paid, without ever mentionning who should pay. I am sorry if I misunderstandood your position then. By the way, your example of paying an appraiser confirms precisely what I am advocating. The public (the client) is paying an appraiser (the reviewer) to certify a product that he intends to buy.

so, if we all agree that they should be paid, do you agree that the Public should?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KaptCrunch

word of mouth like the how the storm WB was invented not advertisement hype of big media. is that what you mean gabe?

---

this comment is unclear to me.. the Storm WB ownership was not uncovered by word of mouth, it was disclosed in the first paragraph of the product page .. http://www.swiftech.com/products/STORM.asp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

I stand corrected. The subject was brought up whether manufacturers should/could pay for validation testing, and your post merely said that they should be paid, without ever mentionning who should pay. I am sorry if I misunderstandood your position then. By the way, your example of paying an appraiser confirms precisely what I am advocating. The public (the client) is paying an appraiser (the reviewer) to certify a product that he intends to buy.

so, if we all agree that they should be paid, do you agree that the Public should?

---

What I meant was it might not be a bad idea for a manufacturer to hire an independent to test their product with all the information going to the paying company. Then it would be up to the company to release that information to the public to validate their product. just my $.015

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

@ Gabe;
This is an interesting discussion in the theoretical but then there is the reality.
No one wants to write a negative review ever.
I have done three. The first was with your H20-220 kit.
You know how I felt about it. It was a joy to work with.
The second I did with some heatsinks.
The worst nightmare of my life.
Improperly designed and it took me 22 hours to redesign, reshape and make work.
Now do I want to slam a manufacturer? No.
Instead of posting a negative review I sat down and wrote out all the needed "fixes" that were needed and mailed to the manufacturer. As these were pre-release they incorporated the fixes I sent and the final shipped product is an excellent one.
This is where I think a reviewer can be usefull.
The product is out of the lab and into a real world situation.

---

I fully agree, since you are talking about R&D testing rather than validation testing, which I clearly differentiate. To further clarify what I mean by validation testing " testing of a product that is in production for the purpose of validating it's actual performance for the benefit of potential users"

FYI

I completely agree with everyone regarding reviewers should not be paid, and I would even add to that and say to be completely unbiased they should not be paid by anyone....it's the way it should be.

My only complaint is the lack of performance related data on some websites, we only have a few now with c/w and pressure drop data and those don't go into detail on what c/w even means(testing specifications details), so testers are unable to even try and repeat that result. It's also very clear to me that c/w from one manufacturer was obtained differently from others. When that happens it means it's entirely left to the public to figure out for themselves, and that shouldn't be the case either.

I'd just like to see more manufacturer published performance results. At least it gives you a place to start and if there was enough detail about how those results were obtained, 3rd party testers might even be able to duplicate that.:up: