Posted 12/11/2007 at 02:52:34pm

Alright I must have done a poor job of explaining what I meant by Delta T. It is supposed to make your job easier not harder. In my experience harder is usually but not exclusively the way I want to work. Let’s use the example of the review here. The numbers are handy and you can see where I am going with this. Using an interpreted ambient temperature of 15°C (59°F Damn cold lab by the way). Your Stock Cooler would have Delta results like this. CPU Idle Delta T 11°C CPU Burn In Delta T 37°C The Swiftec would have Delta results like this. CPU Idle Delta T 4°C CPU Burn In Delta T 31°C To add to this let’s say you tested another cooling system (Mondo X) next month but someone at the lab got tired of freezing at 59°F and turned up the thermostat to an unseasonably warm 65°F (18.33°C) The raw data comes back from your testing for the Mondo X looking like this. CPU Idle 24°C CPU Burn In 45°C Now you can run the stock cooler set up again. Your results will run approximately 3 degrees Celsius higher and you can publish those results from your testing. You can also publish the results using the Delta T of these testing temperatures. Your results will now look like this. I rounded them up to the nearest degree. The reader can now directly compare the performance of the Swiftec to the mythical Mondo. CPU Idle Delta T 6°C CPU Burn In Delta T 27°C You aren’t favoring one manufacturer over another. In fact you are giving them as level a playing field as you can. Your testing can be replicated easily by anyone who cares to. And their Delta T results should easily be within a small margin for error. Using this method would allow the reader to compare cooling systems from several articles and easily derive meaningful results. It also allows you to test a system in a less ambiguous way. And it may be the only way to compare convection based cooling systems to that of an active cooling systems or at least hybrid cooling systems. Your counter argument will likely be that if you publish the stock cooler results each and every time then the same information is out there anyway. But will the reader go back and check previous reviews so that they can figure out what cooler is actually the best. As you have said that these coolers often have only a modest difference in actual performance when compared to each other. So if the effect of the testing environment can be removed from the equation then why shouldn’t you? FA Master of all I survey!

Posted 12/10/2007 at 02:58:50pm

Well I guess that settles the issue, at least for me. If you had actually read my “diatribe” you would realize that using a Delta T standard would remove the ambiguities of ambient temperatures from your scores. No cooler would be slammed by using it. It would simply make the testing data more useful and transparent. I have been a loyal reader of your magazine for several years now. Trust me renewing my subscription is something I will be giving due consideration after these communiqués. I will leave you in possession of the battlefield, although your victory is pyrrhic it is still a victory so you should revel while you can. FA Master of all I survey!

Posted 12/10/2007 at 09:52:35am

So if I get the gist of your reply. There is no need for you to publish an ambient temperature reading for water cooling performance testing because you test them against a standard set up. The Stock Cooler. I will only note that this is not described in detail in the review in question. Considering the temperatures reported I would surmise that the Stock Cooler is a simple fan heat sink design. So permit to further critique your water cooling testing methodology. 1. The standard is not described. 2. Conditions of testing are not described. 3. Testing methodology is not delineated. Let us review these three issues as they reflect on your reviews. 1. With no described standard we have no criteria to draw logical, even if theoretical, conclusions from about standard cooler performance. e.g. My system uses a standard Intel heat sink fan combo the tested system would do X for my system. 2. Since testing conditions are not described the reader is left to wonder as to how the reviewed system or equipment will perform for them. e.g. Hey I have use the reviewed system and my performance is markedly different from the results. Why is that? 3. I would like to test my system so I know how well it is working in comparison to Maximum PC’s system. Or. I would like to know how to achieve a reliable and repeatable testing result from my cooling system. If I do that I can make sure my system is working correctly. How does Maximum PC do their testing? Or. I want to believe the testing from Maximum PC about the performance of this cooling system but I want to know how they tested it first. So the conclusion I draw from your reply to my post is that Maximum PC is not concerned with the validity, accessibility, or reliability of the cooling system testing done here because it isn’t as important as other testing we do. Which I find absolutely mind boggling. You folks beat yourselves to death testing every system that comes through your door. You publish the testing methods. You publish the benchmark system parameters. You publish the testing done and why you chose those tests. You go to great lengths to produce repeatable and reliable results for system testing. During your recent testing of Draft N routers you went to great lengths to realistically test the routers. A product that has a purchase price of approximately $150. You do not have to go far to find a water cooling system that would cost double that amount. I find this puzzling. Is it simply because the routers are shiny and new that they get more testing credence than the lowly system cooling? It is obvious to me that by the tone of your reply that you, perhaps personally, do not want to engage in rigorous reliable testing of water cooling or for that mater other cooling systems. Perhaps it would cut into your time publishing a magazine that you are already cramped for time to publish each month. I sympathize with your time management issues. My solution to this is to ask you to publish a Delta Temperature (Delta T) with your cooling system ratings. This Delta T would be the temperature difference from your standard system temperature regardless of ambient temperatures. This would provide a benchmark that anyone could relate to their system. e.g. They used system X and got a Delta T of 15°C from the stock cooler (or standard cooler). I should be able to get the same or very similar results. Use of a Delta T standard would also allow you to compare system to system without having to retest systems each time. You could also compare systems that are not obviously comparable. e.g. Intel or NVIDIA to AMD. I will close this with only one more comment. I found your reply to be both dismissive in tone and content. If you were one of my employees I would chastise you smartly for treating a potential or paying customer like that. FA Master of all I survey!

Posted 12/06/2007 at 07:35:56am

I must preface this comment. I take temperatures for a living. I work in the pharma sector and not surprisingly we take temperature very seriously. We use NIST traceable equipment and standards for all qualified testing. And we will test a system to death. I have used as many as fifteen temperature locations measured at 10 second intervals for over a day on something as small as a pc. So I have some familiarity with the methodology and reasoning used in temperature mapping. I must say it drives me nuts when you publish a temperature study without measuring the ambient temperature! Passive water cooling systems are dependent on ambient temperatures for temperature performance. If you don't include those readings then your testing is meaningless. Absolutely meaningless. Because I was raised right I am not going to point out your flaws without offering a solution. You need to purchase some equipment to assist you in your temperature measurement endeavors. I offer my services as consultant for this effort. Yes for free. FA Master of all I survey!