Swiftech Apogee Review.

Reading around on various forums I see a lot of rhetoric revolving around "real world" vs "artificial" performance. I also see some incorrect assumptions and parallels being drawn. Please allow me to explain the reasons why die simulators are better.

First, let's start with the issues with "real world" CPU's, and just why when we stick different blocks on a CPU, and then we see them all read the same. As we all know the temperatures that get reported by the CPU are being read from thermal probes often located in the coolest portion of the CPU die. A document from Intel details this fact: here (sadly the document has been removed - rehosted here). While I have no link to show AMD is doing the same thing, if one does enough testing we can observe a similar pattern of behavior. The location of the diode means that often what it reports is totally "numb" to what's really going on in the hottest portions of the CPU. It works much like this. If you have a long rod of metal, and you heat it at one end with a flame, and then run cold water over it in the middle, and then measure the temperature at the other end, how representative is that of how hot the flame enveloped end of the rod is getting? This is precisely what occurs when you stick effective water-cooling on top of CPU's. The CPU may be getting hot, and waterblock are pretty good at removing that heat, so by the time the heat gets to where the user readable thermal probe is located, you're seeing a "numbed" picture of what's going on in the hottest sections.

Incidentally, as stated in that paper, Intel have a second TCC probe that control critical thermal shutdown of the CPU if it gets too hot, and that probe is located in the hottest section of the CPU, but the users can never see what it reports. However, we can get an idea of what's going on. Intel states that the TCC probe is specifically calibrated set to thermally shut-down the CPU when it reads 135C. XBitLabs conducted an experiment, here, which demonstrates the differences between what the user sees via the cool thermal probe, vs what the calibrated TCC probe is doing by slowing/shutting down the CPU at calibrated internal temperatures. This experiment by XBitLabs demonstrates the vast differences between what CPU's report to the user, vs what is actually going on.

Okay, so now that we understand why different waterblocks can report the same temperature on the same CPU, now let's understand why we want to use die sims, and more specifically, bare-die sim (no IHS involved).

When developing waterblock designs, the designer focuses on extracting the maximum possible thermal transfer rate between the metal of the waterblock, and the water flowing through the block. This transfer rate is commonly referred to as the "effective thermal convection transfer efficiency", and is denoted by the letter h in many engineering texts. Its units are W/m²K, or watts of energy, per unit area and degree kelvin (celcius) rise.

By using die sims of known size, and known even thermal output spread and applied to the base of the waterblock, and by calculating the temperature rise of that die sim we can arrive at a fairly confident approximative value for h. The higher the value of h, the more effective the waterblock is at transferring heat into the water flowing through it. When it comes to designing waterblocks for pure performance only, h is about the ONLY thing that matters. Get h up high, then tweak the base-plate thickness of the waterblock to suit your value of h, and you have your high performance waterblock. This is a simplistic description of the design process, but in a nutshell, that's what a waterblock designer/engineer does.

So how does a high h value help? It tells us how well that the waterblock will transfer heat into the water, regardless of what's making that heat, and whether or not an IHS is involved or not.

Where IHS's come into their own little world of confusion is this. The waterblock may be doing a fantastic job of transferring heat into the water, but the IHS may not be making even contact between the CPU die and/or the waterblock. How many times have we all seen people with very unflat IHS's? Lots. Almost every single CPU has a non-flat IHS because it is a mechanical joint. Variations in the glue that holds the IHS against the CPU packaging, the manufacturing process and the way that the IHS is formed, and cools, thereby causing warping, all adds up to a piece of metal that sits between your CPU and your waterblock that isn't likely to be contacting both evenly.

This is where testing with IHS's, even on die-sims, becomes an issue. Because the IHS can never be guaranteed to be sitting evenly, it will then be applying heat load to the waterblock in an uneven fashion. As you can imagine, trying to determine what a waterblock's h value is, when there's no guarantee that the surface area that the heat is being applied to is being spread evenly is a total nightmare. This is the sort of stuff that causes people to think that they have a fantastic performing waterblock, especially if they measure only the IHS temperature, and not what's going on at the CPU die level. If you're measuring what's going on at the CPU die level by using a real CPU's on-die diode, then read above. It's also telling you next to nothing.

The thing here is that a good waterblock will maximise the convectional transfer co-efficient where the heat is at its strongest. Then it doesn't really matter whether or not people use an IHS, if the waterblock can soak up the heat well, then even though the IHS may be warped you can be sure that your CPU is still be kept cool. Ideally we don't want the IHS there because it can flex, cooling only the edges of your CPU, or cooling only the center and not the edges, and then not transfer the heat evenly to the waterblock either. What is the best waterblock for gnarly IHS's is the subject of another debate, but I can tell you now that IHS's introduce such variability that they can make one block look crap, and another look good. Put the blocks onto a different CPU and the stories can change. That's not consistent enough around which to judge or even design waterblocks with. That's just rolling the dice.

Designers use bare-die's because it is good science, and because it provides the clearest and most succinct indication of how well the waterblock design is performing and how well it is transferring heat into the water. The use of IHS's, even in testing, and the reliance upon "real world" testing with "numb" thermal probes has heavily clouded this very important point, and that's purely because there are no guarantees with IHS's. They're random. You can form any conclusion you like with IHS's, because every tester will likely come up with a different conclusion on a different CPU. Does that serve the public?

In the end, it's up to the individual to understand the difference between marketing and good science. I hope that some of the above provides further information for people to chew on when considering how relevent "real world" and "IHS bound" tests are.
 
Cathar said:
Designers use bare-die's because it is good science, and because it provides the clearest and most succinct indication of how well the waterblock design is performing and how well it is transferring heat into the water. The use of IHS's, even in testing, and the reliance upon "real world" testing with "numb" thermal probes has heavily clouded this very important point, and that's purely because there are no guarantees with IHS's. They're random. You can form any conclusion you like with IHS's, because every tester will likely come up with a different conclusion on a different CPU. Does that serve the public?

In the end, it's up to the individual to understand the difference between marketing and good science. I hope that some of the above provides further information for people to chew on when considering how relevent "real world" and "IHS bound" tests are.

Thanks for the excellent post Cathar. Appreciate the info about on die thermister placement. And totally agree on bare die as the best way to test blocks.

Unfortunately, most individuals do not want to invest the time nor the energy that is needed to differentiate between marketing crap and good science. And then when you have a few "respected" individuals also backing up marketing crap it makes informed decision making that much harder...
 
Normally i'd made a switch to Bare Die. But I have no intentions on ruining my CPU chip =\. Did they start using thermal expoxy on the Northwoods or the Prescotts?
 
TehRoflcopter said:
Normally i'd made a switch to Bare Die. But I have no intentions on ruining my CPU chip =\. Did they start using thermal expoxy on the Northwoods or the Prescotts?


Prescotts...
 
plywood99 said:
Thanks for the excellent post Cathar. Appreciate the info about on die thermister placement. And totally agree on bare die as the best way to test blocks.

Unfortunately, most individuals do not want to invest the time nor the energy that is needed to differentiate between marketing crap and good science. And then when you have a few "respected" individuals also backing up marketing crap it makes informed decision making that much harder...

Well, some of us went into Accounting instead of Engineering so we gotta go with information that is available. I choose Swiftech because I get reliable parts that I know work. All of this IHS stuff and "best waterblock" is over my head, I just gotta go with what is known to work.
 
Great read Cathar. Clear and to the point, as usual. As the consumer, I would rather see how the block will perform in my system rather than in an envoirnment which the block will never see outside the lab.

This is why I would love to see reviews based on a CPU known to overclock like no other and see how far each block can push the limits. This tells me what block is cooling the important parts of the core/cores. This is impossible but is on my "wish list". I equate it to when you would release overclocking results based on your blocks on your own rig.
 
i just ordered the Apex kit from Voyeurmods and its supposed to be the non Ultra one. I called em up after ordering and they said it was being drop shipped from Swiftech. Im gonna be pissed if it gets here an i see an Apogee inside rather than a Storm. I told her on the phone that i ordered it because it is advertised as the Extreme Edition with the Storm not the Ultra. She said if thats what it said then thats what should come. Im skeptical...
 
R1ckCa1n said:
Great read Cathar. Clear and to the point, as usual. As the consumer, I would rather see how the block will perform in my system rather than in an envoirnment which the block will never see outside the lab.

This is why I would love to see reviews based on a CPU known to overclock like no other and see how far each block can push the limits. This tells me what block is cooling the important parts of the core/cores. This is impossible but is on my "wish list". I equate it to when you would release overclocking results based on your blocks on your own rig.

Only if it is a bare CPU. If the CPU has an IHS you can still run into the same inconsistencies that Cathar talked about earlier. One block may work well on that particular IHS, while another doesn't. That is no guarantee that will always be the case, so unless you send the reviewer your own rig you have no way of knowing whether the results will be duplicated on your own system.
 
Erasmus354 said:
Only if it is a bare CPU. If the CPU has an IHS you can still run into the same inconsistencies that Cathar talked about earlier. One block may work well on that particular IHS, while another doesn't. That is no guarantee that will always be the case, so unless you send the reviewer your own rig you have no way of knowing whether the results will be duplicated on your own system.
Which is why I called it my wish list :rolleyes:

The aurgument can always be made that you can not purchase a retail bare CPU so why test with it off. I almost consider it false adertising when perfomances are stated/advertise under unrealistic conditions.
 
Rev-
Integrated heat spreader.

Got my shiny new h2o Apex ultra today. Was more than pissed to find an Apogee inside instead of the storm I had desired this kit for, Swiftech marketing strikes again. They developed a top shelf high end product, only to dump it for a cheaper to make block whose performance and design are a bit circumspect….far from the Apex of cooling in my book. Snagged a Storm from CrazyPc anyway. I guess I can do a side by side comparo......I can't imagine using the Apogee with its growing pains not yet worked out.
 
R1ckCa1n said:
The aurgument can always be made that you can not purchase a retail bare CPU so why test with it off. I almost consider it false adertising when perfomances are stated/advertise under unrealistic conditions.

The idea is to obtain an indication of waterblock performance independent of the variations that an IHS will give.

What is more realistic? A consistent accurate indication of a waterblock's ability to soak up heat? Or some reading based on a motherboard where the temps are being fiddled in the BIOS, the reported temperatures are "numb" to how hot the CPU is getting, and depending on the exact CPU/IHS being used, different waterblocks can swap ranks. Switch out the CPU for another one, and the waterblocks swap ranks again. So which block is better?

One indication of performance is clear, concise and accurate. The other is a dogs breakfast of variables that suits people with a marketing agenda.

If you still disagree, then that's cool. That's your choice. Everyone has their own priorities.
 
To be honest I can see that what you are saying is probably correct. However, the but and it is a big but is that if there is such a wide variable in IHS thermal transference then who really cares? We can test to any standard we want till the cows come home, but in the final analysis of what John Q. Public cares about it doesn't really matter correct? It seems to me that other than an exercise in mental gymnastics about what something might be, in perfect conditions that doesn't exist outside a carefully controlled laboratory situation, we really have nothing to base what we might expect to see in the wild.

I think R1ckCa1n had the right idea of building a computer that OC's to the wall and once you reach the highest stable heat you start popping waterblocks on and see which one gets it and which ones don't. What we are looking for is a discernible meaningful difference and not laboratory differences. The fact that it may not be repeatable is just the way the cookies crumble. How do you think they test parts on the Orbiter when you only got so many parts or the thing doesn't fly for a few years? Best guess and hope it doesn't go kaboom on re-entry. ;)
 
It's not merely a "mental exercise". How else does one ever know that they're making forwards progress? After all, isn't that what we really want? The CPU makers will get the IHS thing right someday, but in the meantime we shouldn't stop trying to make forwards progress just because present day IHS's have sloppy thermal characteristics.

For those who truly care about consistent performance, popping the IHS is the first port of call anyway.
 
Cathar said:
It's not merely a "mental exercise". How else does one ever know that they're making forwards progress? After all, isn't that what we really want? The CPU makers will get the IHS thing right someday, but in the meantime we shouldn't stop trying to make forwards progress just because present day IHS's have sloppy thermal characteristics.

For those who truly care about consistent performance, popping the IHS is the first port of call anyway.

Yes that is what we want, but how do you know if where you are going is where the CPU is going? Intel and AMD might just decide to ditch the IHS down the line and then again they may come up with something that is a quantum jump in fixing the problem. I think trying to second guess CPU makers is almost as crazy as trying to figure out what they are presently doing. ;)

Actually since my Winchester 3500 has probably devalued severely since I bought it last January I was thinking of lapping the top of the IHS as you wouldn't believe what it does to my silver block everytime I mount it. :( I think the IHS is actually high on the edges and concave in the center of all things. Either that or the corners are just sitting high. :confused: IN any case I get a bit squeamish <sp?> about taking the IHS off when one slip and it's hang it on the wall time or turn it in to a wind chime. :D
 
Gotta move ahead in the right direction. All I know is, attempting to quantify waterblock performance using a "numb" thermal die and a variable laden interface is nigh on impossible. Let me know if you don't agree with that.

If you do agree with that, then the rest of my argument wholly stands on its own merit.
 
Top Nurse said:
To be honest I can see that what you are saying is probably correct. However, the but and it is a big but is that if there is such a wide variable in IHS thermal transference then who really cares? We can test to any standard we want till the cows come home, but in the final analysis of what John Q. Public cares about it doesn't really matter correct? It seems to me that other than an exercise in mental gymnastics about what something might be, in perfect conditions that doesn't exist outside a carefully controlled laboratory situation, we really have nothing to base what we might expect to see in the wild.

I think R1ckCa1n had the right idea of building a computer that OC's to the wall and once you reach the highest stable heat you start popping waterblocks on and see which one gets it and which ones don't. What we are looking for is a discernible meaningful difference and not laboratory differences. The fact that it may not be repeatable is just the way the cookies crumble. How do you think they test parts on the Orbiter when you only got so many parts or the thing doesn't fly for a few years? Best guess and hope it doesn't go kaboom on re-entry. ;)


If there is a wide variable of IHS and what not, then wouldn't you want to start off with the best performing block? At least you know that it will be the best at sucking heat away from the IHS, which means depending upon how the IHS flexes and makes contact with your core it will likely be the best at cooling the core.

The overclocking scenario is not a good test. Only if they were to test it with 10 different CPU's on all the different blocks. And frankly that is way too much work to ask anyone to do. And that many different mounts is bound to introduce a few bad ones, and hence erroneous data into the mix. With the variances in IHS just because a review shows waterblock A as beating waterblock B in overclocking, it could be the opposite on your rig and your cpu. It really tells you nothing about the waterblock, and more about that particular CPU.
 
Erasmus354 said:
With the variances in IHS just because a review shows waterblock A as beating waterblock B in overclocking, it could be the opposite on your rig and your cpu. It really tells you nothing about the waterblock, and more about that particular CPU.

In fact there have been individuals who have seen just that. Block A overclocks better than Block B on CPU X, verified after about 8 mounts on each. Introduce CPU Y, and now Block B overclocks CPU Y better than Block A.

Which precisely demonstrates the reasons why "building/designing for IHS's" is as pointless as trying to shoot holes in clouds with a slingshot. Might make you feel good, but you're kidding yourself if you think you're achieving anything tangible and definite.
 
Yes that is what we want, but how do you know if where you are going is where the CPU is going? Intel and AMD might just decide to ditch the IHS down the line and then again they may come up with something that is a quantum jump in fixing the problem. I think trying to second guess CPU makers is almost as crazy as trying to figure out what they are presently doing.

if they decide to get rid of the IHS (unlikely) then that would be best for all parties, the waterblock makers aren't trying to design around the ihs, that's what he is saying. they are trying to make a block with as high an h value as possible. the ihs just gets in the way from there. Also a "quantum jump" isn't what we need, we need a HUGE jump, not the smallest possible jump in terms of improving the IHS.
 
For any commercial interest to be raised in a watercooling product, necessary graphs etc must all be produced. As a for instance, as I can only speak from a Radiator-Producer's perspective...

Whenever any major company contacts us for the integration of our products into a commerically viable system, the first thing they ask for is c/w figures and curves relative to a fixed definable, characterized heatsource. NOT a CPU. Bear in mind radiators are sold not only to the watercooling market.... they are also implemented in laser cooling systems and various other industry sectors.

The solution that makes the retail customers happy - ie: cpu testing - is useless to anyone other than retail customers.

If a manufacturer wants to be able to sell to these commercial companies, then the testing data must be of the calibre that they require. Based off CPU as a heatsource, it is not. The data isn't accurate enough in that the heatsource isn't suitably defined.

Manufacturers need to determine to what market their data is aimed, and that data should be produced via a method suitable for that market... whilst also being able to confirm that data / verify that data with results obtained via other methods...

In an ideal world such commercial companies wouldn't rely on provided data - they'd have their own testbed to obtain the data, however, they won't buy on-a-limb so to speak... they can only test after they've obtained the product. They want some pre-guarantees that they're in at least the right ballpark before they even get in touch with the manufacturer. Conversations at these companies are between engineers... who don't give a toss for CPUs as a defined heatsource...

One dataset is not suitable for all and will not (ever) satisfy all - that much is strongly apparent.
 
revlimit said:
This is a stupid question, but what is IHS?
here's something that i can actually speak to. :)

Integral
Heat
Spreader

that metal plate on the top of your CPU.
 
yay. im gonna make a series of posts cuz this is another one of those argument threads that was special enough to actual have some valid info at some point in the thread... which means i can jump in without feeling like a flaming retard like the rest of my comrades on both sides of hte fence.
let it be known that if i could afford it, and they were easily available, i WOULD probably be using AC gear. haah with that said i absolutely love my storm block and lets say the apogee did come out, hav no cracking probs AND actually outtperformed the storm.. i prolly WOULD NOT switch to it... why? cuz it looks like shit. its a bastardized version of the very elegant design of the storm block. just like hte ONLY other commercial cpu block i like is the newest cuplex. with that sexy heh xbox360 inhale shape. ok im gettin very abstract.

Top Nurse said:
I don't think avid gamers would tend to agree with you.

as for hte quote above: im an avid gamer and i agree with him. i was even a competetive gamer for my college years and after. we OC cuz yea, CS was dominated with the concept of "MUST HAVE 100FPS ARGHGHJK" and when we were using geforce 3's 4's and FX's, we did our best to get there. then of course the 9800 pro came out and it was easy as pie. but yea we OC'ed to get to 100fps cuz we were TOLD thats how the pros play. but now, as an avid gamer... OC'ing dont show me much more... what it DOES however is "smoothen out" the plaable graph that [H] reviews always show... makes the dips less noticable... not relaly makes the game tons better. the highs dont get higher is what im saying. its less about FPS. oh and this mostly has a lot less to do with the CPU OC than the GPU OC.
we do it for fun and cuz we can, plus it lets our winrar files unrar quicker.... and not have ot wait as long to install the games. the graphics card OC's is where its at.

so again TN im gonna have to counter what you said a few pages back. i AM an avid gamer and im surrounded by them + a watercooler and OC'er and for hte most part its less noticable as the years pass.
 
Top Nurse said:
*snip

Seems like a pretty popular subject if you ask me. :D

Who Posted?
Total Posts: 1,018
User Name Posts
Top Nurse 365
R1ckCa1n 61
Shoggy 56
Dillusion 51
J-Mag 47
WarlordBB 39
el rolio 34
Happy Hopping 28
J-Pepper 28
ShoNuff 25
Toonage 25
Aviddigi tamsco 20
theseeker 16
shoney 15

*snip

WOOOO! ALL UP IN IT!
:cool:
 
anyhoo yea im with the folks on the concept that i want to know what the capabilities of my WB is across a range of repeatable variables (like flow / pump speed) and thats where i start and end my concept of "performance" for hte block with respect to a purchasing decision.

then i start to think about looks. something has to REALLY be far better than another thing for me to choose hte uglier block. ha!

and i'm gonna go with the fact that im not gonna sitdown and watch temps as closely as others OR watch an OC to tell me what block was better... i just cant subscrbe to that school of thought so i guess thats where me n rick would disagree. or maybe its jsut rick WANTS to be able to get a better OC and wants to base block preference on that, where as thats not even a process of thought for me.

rather where real life block performance is concered is i want to run quieter and cooler at a given speed i spose..... i think that drives my particular purchasing decisions. and to look pretty at it. so i buy things ot make my cabling better... i changed motherboard and psu to be able to feed more stable voltage to my cpu... so i could run it with LESS vcore and thus: cooler. oh and in a direct comparison... the neo2 mobo reported idle of 48deg and loads of 55 deg and after switching to the dfi mobo... now im 32 idle 38 load at damn near same speeds / voltages... yea... your mobo is reporting it crazy. but i thought we all knew this. that right there i think throws out non SIM BLOCK testing. plus the mount might be different too.
 
R1ckCa1n said:
See to me a die sim means dick in the real world...... Why isn't everyone interested in how well the block interacts with a CPU instead of some artificial hot surface that will show exactly nothing about cooling a CPU? Another focus that is dumb, IMHO, is temps. What good are temps if the block doesn't allow you to push your CPU further?

So to recap, if block A allows the same overclock as block B but at 1c higher, does that make block B a better block?
Well, just as I suspected, on the CPU test, I asked Lee if he would test his Maze 3 on the CPU. He did. Results are as I expected. Almost identical to the Storm, Apogee and the 6002. http://www.systemcooling.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=3903&view=findpost&p=33173
A die sim might mean dick to you, but it is the best way we have currently to judge true WB efficiency.
 
Well I suppose you are right in one sense, but incorrect in another sense. I posted my thoughts on the SystemCooling forum.
 
Top Nurse said:
Well I suppose you are right in one sense, but incorrect in another sense. I posted my thoughts on the SystemCooling forum.


So why not just use the die sim? You mention testing gpu cores, you know even some of them have ihs on them, aka Nvidia fx series.

All those people proposing testing on current cpu's with an ihs are setting back water blocks 3 years...
 
Top Nurse said:
Well I suppose you are right in one sense, but incorrect in another sense. I posted my thoughts on the SystemCooling forum.

Ok well after your post in the other thread I dont get the one sense you think they are incorrect lol. It seems we agree that testing a waterblock on a CPU with an IHS is pointless. You are better off not performing any test and saying "get whichever block is the cheapest" at that point. (Or what you would love "get whichever block looks the shiniest") Actually, if you are to think about it logically, GPU's are bare. That means they will see measurable differences between different blocks (theoretically). Also theoretically they will see performance benefits from increased flow. Therefore it is in your best interest (if you follow this whole IHS waterblock doesn't matter nonsense) that the best waterblock for your CPU is the one that is least restrictive. Something like a Maze3. This less restrictive CPU block will allow more overall flow in the loop, which then means the GPU will see more flow and hence a tangible benefit. Meanwhile since the CPU has an IHS on it you can concieve yourself into believing it is getting cooling equal to that of every other block out there.


As you can see this thinking really doesn't make much sense when you take a step back, which is why taking the dampening effects of the IHS on measured CPU temps into effect makes no sense. Judge a waterblock based on its ACTUAL performance numbers, and go from there.
 
Erasmus354 said:
As you can see this thinking really doesn't make much sense when you take a step back, which is why taking the dampening effects of the IHS on measured CPU temps into effect makes no sense. Judge a waterblock based on its ACTUAL performance numbers, and go from there.
Finally someone who gets it.
 
I do get it, but I think you guys don't. Obviously there are some here who care about the finite numbers that one can get in a laboratory and there are others who care about what you get in real life. Seems to me I am in the latter category so I am not too concerned with what you guys think unless you can come up with a testing methodology that will have data that will easily transfer into real life situations. When you get there please announce it. ;)
 
Top Nurse said:
I do get it, but I think you guys don't. Obviously there are some here who care about the finite numbers that one can get in a laboratory and there are others who care about what you get in real life.
No you don't even come close to getting it TN, sorry. You see, your last statement is an impossibility, it can't be done as seen by Lee and the Maze 3.
 
nikhsub1 said:
No you don't even come close to getting it TN, sorry. You see, your last statement is an impossibility, it can't be done as seen by Lee and the Maze 3.

From what I read of that post by Lee it inclines me to think heavily on Occam's Razor. IOW, if there isn't any measurable difference between waterblocks on the IHS CPU then either the testing methodology you are using is not correct or simply there is no measurable real difference occuring in the real world.
 
nikhsub1 said:
Well, just as I suspected, on the CPU test, I asked Lee if he would test his Maze 3 on the CPU. He did. Results are as I expected. Almost identical to the Storm, Apogee and the 6002. http://www.systemcooling.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=3903&view=findpost&p=33173
A die sim might mean dick to you, but it is the best way we have currently to judge true WB efficiency.
But was Lee able to overclock more with either block or did he simply slap the block and and test? Shouldn't that matter most? Again, what good is 1c if it doesn't result in better overclocks?
 
Top Nurse said:
From what I read of that post by Lee it inclines me to think heavily on Occam's Razor. IOW, if there isn't any measurable difference between waterblocks on the IHS CPU then either the testing methodology you are using is not correct or simply there is no measurable real difference occuring in the real world.
and, once again, the point regarding software temp readings: the core of that CPU could have been 33C or 40C just as easily as it could have been the reported 37C and we will never know because the thermal diode in there is not calibrated well enough to tell the difference.

it's the conditions of the real world affecting the measurements, not the conditions of the real world affecting the temperatures.
 
Back
Top