That means you will have to buy it. Ugh the HORROR!Originally Posted by nikhsub1
That means you will have to buy it. Ugh the HORROR!
Expecting joe public to figure it out on their own seems a bit odd to me.
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....
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..
Last edited by Martinm210; 07-18-2008 at 05:35 PM.
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?
Please note: I am not here to provide any kind of official NCIX support on these forums.
For faster (and official) service please contact me at Linus@ncix.com, or please contact our customer care team at wvvw.NCIX.com (Canada) or wvvw.NCIXUS.com (America)
Heatware: http://heatware.com/eval.php?id=25647
I would..
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..
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..
/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.
Last edited by AllAgainstPaul; 07-18-2008 at 11:43 PM.
__________________
Budgets, Bling, We Need Not These. We Have Science!
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!
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.
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
GTZ --> MCW-NBMAX --> EK FC --> PA 120.3 --> PA 160.1 --> 2x DDC Ultras in Series --> Custom Clear Res
"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity."
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
nvm
I don't see it on the swiftech site yet!
Release is planed on or before 7/31I don't see it on the swiftech site yet!
CEO Swiftech
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!"
Crunch with us, the XS WCG team
The XS WCG team needs your support.
A good project with good goals.
Come join us,get that warm fuzzy feeling that you've done something good for mankind.
Can't wait to see what it can do!
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.
<gets off soap box>
XSWCG Disclaimer:
We are not responsible for the large sums of money that you WILL want to spend to upgrade and add additional equipment. This is an addiction and the forum takes no responsibility morally or financially for the equipment and therapy cost. Thank you and have a great day.
Sigmund Freud said... "Failure to CRUNCH is a sign of Sexual Inadequacies".
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.
<gets off soap box>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).Alright guys, I think it goes without saying that testing just sucks. You get people trying to influence you from all angles
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?
If it ain't watercooled, I don't wanna know.
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...
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.
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
GTZ --> MCW-NBMAX --> EK FC --> PA 120.3 --> PA 160.1 --> 2x DDC Ultras in Series --> Custom Clear Res
"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity."
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
Gabe, send me a GTZ for review.
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 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.
<gets off soap box>
CEO Swiftech
Can't wait to see these results...Thanks Martin for all your hard work.
- Case : Silverstone TJ07 Black
- Sound : Asus Xonar Essence STX
- Video : Asus GTX 680 4gb w/ Ek Nickel Block
- Board : ASUS Maximus V Formula Z77
- CPU : Core i5-3570K @ 4.5 Ghz
- CPU Cooler : EK-Supreme HF w/Plexi Top
- Memory : 16GB Samsung 2133mhz 10-9-10-29
- PSU: Enermax Revolution 85+ 1050w
- HDD : Crucial 250gb M4 Raid 0
- Radiator : Thermochill PA 120.3
- Reservoir : EK-Multioption Res 250 Rev.2
- Water Pump : Laing DDC-3.2 w/XSPC Top
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.
Last edited by gabe; 07-27-2008 at 11:19 AM.
CEO Swiftech
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks