Well it's pretty much official now, see http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=108Originally Posted by HESmelaugh
Mounting systems:
I concur. In fact, I would even go further: most of the blocks you have tested wouldn't have a problem. The explanation is simple: except for the GTZ, they use unlimited travel mounting systems. For the record, in my personal opinion and professional experience, I find that to the majority of users these systems are potentially dangerous, not to mention hard to adjust properly. To the small manufacturer, they are the only option available (I know, I've been there) because of the high costs associated with making custom hardware. But what about the larger manufacturers? Oversight, cost cutting measures, lack of understanding? lack of care? For example, I read in another post (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...3&postcount=45) that a leading manufacturer recommends up to 74 lbf mounting pressure for example. This is way over Intel's 60 lbf spec for socket 1366 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_1366 and also http://download.intel.com/design/pro...nex/320837.pdf page 24). How responsible is that?
Anyways, back to subject of testing methodology. In an email dated 5/6/09, you wrote to me: "CPU-waterblocks: Yes, all the tests are done on a lapped CPU. I opted for lapping the CPU since it's usually warped in an asymmetrical manner and that could mean an unfair advantage or disadvantage for some blocks."
So I would like to to try to reconcile what you wrote to me with what you are saying in this post. In your email to me, you explain that you didn't want an unfair advantage or disadvantage for some blocks, and in the above post you say "I don't think many blocks should have a great disadvantage". I see a contradiction here. I am just curious if your latest statement reflects a change in opinion on your part lately.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks