Quote Originally Posted by tastymannatees View Post
Pressure and contact are both inextricably linked to TIM performance as well as being able to measure any result. So for me, the manufacturer to be able to provide guidance to those that can not observe a result is pretty valuable. People are constantly trying to add refinement to their equipment, so it's a benefit if you know what directions to focus energies rather than wasting energy on those things that have minimal impact.

Any one test is anecdotal with the current state of the art, reviews of paste (and cooling hardware) are for lack of a better word "squishy". Most buyers of products know this intuitively and read several reviews and consult the forums to see other user results and mentally average on their own to get a picture of performance. The whacks at it are pretty effective in the broader scope of averaging and trouble shooting.
Amen Tasty. I have bought CPU coolers on wonderful reviews only to find them not worth the powder to blow them you-know-where.

I think this entire experience has been very interesting. I know I've learned a lot. I just wish we could get Intel to properly calibrate parts and give us the missing specs. They would only help themselves out by doing so. I can't imagine it would be some kind of competitive disadvantage to do so. AMD already reverse engineers Intel stuff, and vice-versa.

I hope you have found this to be useful too. I've come to trust D7 after working with it. The mounts have all been very good, and consistent. I can't say that about other pastes I've used.

I'm now curious to see how my main rig performs on the D7 test. It has the consistent "sensor test" figures. It is also a dead flat lapped machine. I'm wondering how it will do pressure testing and with D7 temps.

Regards,
Bob