|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mojo1340
UberTweaker
Joined: 19 Jun 2004
Posts: 1022
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ham_fisT wrote: | I noticed that one of those reviews states that the intel unit was tested with "Stock thermal compound", and the other test didn't even specify, so I assume it used that stock stuff as well.
the stuff Intel calls "Thermal Compound" is about as effective as a stick of bubble-gum.
they really should not be posting results obtained using dissimiliar testing methods. |
That's an excellent point, Ham. When testing HSFs the same thermal compound should be used, as Nathan did.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Google
Sponsor
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:04 pm Post subject: Advertisement |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael_qrt
TweakNOOB
Joined: 18 Jan 2005
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | Also realise, I am using a 3.46Ghz 1066FSB Intel P4.
Very hot running processor and one of the hottest P4's on the market, if not THE hottest.
My results were checked and rechecked and rechecked.
There is no way a heatpipe setup like this will beat a stock copper core Intel cooler active cooler with the heatsink directly mounted on the heatspreader.
Thermodynamics and physics back that theory.
Both sites state a 10c difference from stock to this cooler???!!!!!
Although I am no one to judge, I will firmly state that I don't find there results correct or legit. There is NO WAY this cooler will outperform the already good performing stock cooler by that margin.
No way whatsoever. |
OK, look. I'm not trying to belittle your ability to test a heatsink. But I am suggesting that there is a large discrapancy between your results and the results of others, a possible explanation being that you got a dud sample.
I find your statements about the ability of a heatpipe cooler to beat the intel stock cooler to be very rash and silly. And to back them up you cry out that physics is on your side. Then you call the integrity of the results found in other reviews into question. Very professional.
If you don't like those reviews then here are another couple which contradict your results,
http://www.insanetek.com/index.php?page=arcticcf64
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=113&num=1
Now the insanetek review is of the arctic cooling freezer 64, however the only difference between this and the freezer 7 is that the 64 has a slightly slower fan and has a mounting clip for an athlon64 system. In that review the freezer 64 is tested against a XP90 with a fairly high speed fan, which is a top noch air cooling setup. The freezer 64 only looses by a few degrees. The testing methodology also details how thermal compound was applied. This objective test shows that the freezer series of coolers is at the high end of air coolers, not lack lustre at all.
Further, if you say that physics supports your conclusion that the freezer 7 should be unable to beat the stock cooler then you are wrong. Heatpipes have a much lower thermal resistance than pure copper and the freezer coolers have about 5000 square centimetres of fin area. I don't know how much fin area the stock intel cooler has but it is much less than this. So the freezer coolers have a more efficient method of moving heat to their larger heat dissipation area. Why is it so hard for you to believe that it can beat the stock cooler.
The only explanation I can come up with for your results is that your test unit was somehow faulty. Considering that all 4 other reviews I have found and the annecdotal experience of one forum member, who has the same processor as you tested with, are all at odds with your results I'd say you were just keeping your head in the sand if you refuse to investigate why that might be the case. Or you should at least make a note in your review that others have had much better results with the cooler.
I'm not trying to flame you or anything. I thought that the idea of a discussion thread for a review was for people to ask questions about the review and to raise any issues they had with it. Now I believe you that the sample you reviewed gave you the results you reported, I'm just raising the issue that your sample does not seem to be representative of the product. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[TN] Nathan
ALMIGHTY PWNER!
Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 7406
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Product is not faulty and is in perfect condition.
Again, you are not noting that I am using a higher end processor than what they are using. With all the websites you have given, one was using a 2.8, one a 3.0 and one a 3.2Ghz. You can't compare their results to mine.
You can state all the sites in the world and I am NOT going to change my results. They are as they stand.
I tested the heatsink fairly, without bias, and on an even playground.
You can spout all the review in the world, but you are not going to compare my review to the A64 version and then claim I am wrong.
Also, seeing you don't even own the cooler, how can you stand their arguing with me? I have the cooler hooked up right here and I am again, testing it to be sure.
Yep, same result.
For some reason you think the stock Intel unit is some sort of low end cooler or something, this couldn't be farther from the truth. It is an exceptional cooler with a copper core, an efficient design and a lot or surface area.
I am not going to argue about this with a person with no intimate knowledge of this product other than a google search.
My results will stand firm.
_________________
Owner & Administrator
www.Tweaknews.net
www.Pocketbookpinch.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JayDubya
TWEAKGURU
Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Posts: 5496
Location: ames, ia
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Results are results. You can't compare apples with oranges (too many variables from one reviewer to the next =/ ) You can't time how long it takes an ice cube to melt in canada and compare it accurately to the rate an ice cube melts in the gobi desert.
The results are the results. Nathan kept as many of these variables constant as he could. Same thermal interface, same platform, same chip . . .
Its a good review. Nate reported his findings. You cannot argue with results. You can ask questions as to why they may be different but thats about all you can do. 
_________________
JayDubya aka JW Jay JD ^> ﺵ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael_qrt
TweakNOOB
Joined: 18 Jan 2005
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JayDubya wrote: | | You cannot argue with results. You can ask questions as to why they may be different but thats about all you can do. |
Exactly, Nathan measured what he measured, and no one, not even god himself can change that. What daffy and I have been trying to do is question why Nathan's results are so different from the results of others. So far each question has been met with hostility from Nathan, as if we are trying to personally slight him.
I have been trying to make a case that Nathan's results are different enough from those found elsewhere so as one might think of investigating why that is the case. That is why I have brought forward the results of other reviewers. Even if they have not the exact same test setup or methodology, I can see no obvious variables between the different tests which would cause the discrepancy in results. Daffy in fact claims to have the same processor as was used by Nathan, and I wonder if he is still around whether he would be williing to perform some tests of his own.
If one was to investigate the discrepancy, then for me, the most obvious thing to do would be to try to recreate the conditions of the other reviews (except with the same thermal compound). Now I don't know what resources Nathan has and whether he (or anyone else) would be willing to spend the time to do more tests, but the reason I'd be interested is that I am thinking of using this heatsink in a new build in the next few months. I first saw a couple of very positive reviews and then came across this review where the results obtained were much worse than in other reviews. This is why I want to know why there is a difference in results. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[TN] Nathan
ALMIGHTY PWNER!
Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 7406
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael_qrt wrote: | | JayDubya wrote: | | You cannot argue with results. You can ask questions as to why they may be different but thats about all you can do. |
Exactly, Nathan measured what he measured, and no one, not even god himself can change that. What daffy and I have been trying to do is question why Nathan's results are so different from the results of others. So far each question has been met with hostility from Nathan, as if we are trying to personally slight him.
I have been trying to make a case that Nathan's results are different enough from those found elsewhere so as one might think of investigating why that is the case. That is why I have brought forward the results of other reviewers. Even if they have not the exact same test setup or methodology, I can see no obvious variables between the different tests which would cause the discrepancy in results. Daffy in fact claims to have the same processor as was used by Nathan, and I wonder if he is still around whether he would be williing to perform some tests of his own.
If one was to investigate the discrepancy, then for me, the most obvious thing to do would be to try to recreate the conditions of the other reviews (except with the same thermal compound). Now I don't know what resources Nathan has and whether he (or anyone else) would be willing to spend the time to do more tests, but the reason I'd be interested is that I am thinking of using this heatsink in a new build in the next few months. I first saw a couple of very positive reviews and then came across this review where the results obtained were much worse than in other reviews. This is why I want to know why there is a difference in results. |
I am not being hostile, I am defending my results, I have that right.
I am not going to conform to other websites seeing that they got better results than me. Also, my results cannot be compared to them, it is apples and oranges. Different cpus, different ambient conditions, different thermal compounds, different testing methods.
I have EVERY on a level playing field. Everything was EXACTLY the same other than the heatsink.
The results have been different across the board. No one has tested this processor with this heatsink. So therefore you cannot say that because mine is higher, that I am wrong.
The thremal output alone of the 3.46 Extreme Edition P4 is higher than teh standard P4.
Maybe I found a weakness? Maybe it won't handle the hotter processors?
How about you have the others defend there claims? Why do I have to defend mine?
Since when is those other two small sites the measuring ruler for my reviews and testing?
_________________
Owner & Administrator
www.Tweaknews.net
www.Pocketbookpinch.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael_qrt
TweakNOOB
Joined: 18 Jan 2005
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| [TN] Nathan wrote: |
I am not being hostile, I am defending my results, I have that right.
I am not going to conform to other websites seeing that they got better results than me. Also, my results cannot be compared to them, it is apples and oranges. Different cpus, different ambient conditions, different thermal compounds, different testing methods.
I have EVERY on a level playing field. Everything was EXACTLY the same other than the heatsink.
The results have been different across the board. No one has tested this processor with this heatsink. So therefore you cannot say that because mine is higher, that I am wrong.
The thremal output alone of the 3.46 Extreme Edition P4 is higher than teh standard P4.
Maybe I found a weakness? Maybe it won't handle the hotter processors?
How about you have the others defend there claims? Why do I have to defend mine?
Since when is those other two small sites the measuring ruler for my reviews and testing? |
If not hostile, then unaccomodating and unwelcoming. From the beginning I have not been trying to criticize your experimental method, and I have not doubted that you have presented the results as you measured them. So you can stop defending yourself on these counts.
What I am trying to do is understand why the 4 other reviews I have found have shown positive results for the cooler and you have found negative results. It is indeed a possibility that the cooler did not perform well because you were using a higher heat processor, but this is just a theory and to confirm it you would need to perform more tests and the one I suggested was to try to reproduce the good results of other reviews using a lower heat processor. As I said I don't know what resources you have available or whether you could be bothered to spend the time but it was just a suggestion as to how we might learn more about the properties of the cooler. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[TN] Nathan
ALMIGHTY PWNER!
Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 7406
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael_qrt wrote: | | [TN] Nathan wrote: |
I am not being hostile, I am defending my results, I have that right.
I am not going to conform to other websites seeing that they got better results than me. Also, my results cannot be compared to them, it is apples and oranges. Different cpus, different ambient conditions, different thermal compounds, different testing methods.
I have EVERY on a level playing field. Everything was EXACTLY the same other than the heatsink.
The results have been different across the board. No one has tested this processor with this heatsink. So therefore you cannot say that because mine is higher, that I am wrong.
The thremal output alone of the 3.46 Extreme Edition P4 is higher than teh standard P4.
Maybe I found a weakness? Maybe it won't handle the hotter processors?
How about you have the others defend there claims? Why do I have to defend mine?
Since when is those other two small sites the measuring ruler for my reviews and testing? |
If not hostile, then unaccomodating and unwelcoming. From the beginning I have not been trying to criticize your experimental method, and I have not doubted that you have presented the results as you measured them. So you can stop defending yourself on these counts.
What I am trying to do is understand why the 4 other reviews I have found have shown positive results for the cooler and you have found negative results. It is indeed a possibility that the cooler did not perform well because you were using a higher heat processor, but this is just a theory and to confirm it you would need to perform more tests and the one I suggested was to try to reproduce the good results of other reviews using a lower heat processor. As I said I don't know what resources you have available or whether you could be bothered to spend the time but it was just a suggestion as to how we might learn more about the properties of the cooler. |
Sorry, but I am not going to go through a slew of processors to find one where it performs better.
I picked a hot processor for the testing for a reason, if it can't handle this one, how can it handle the 4+Ghz it is supposed to handle? I am not going to defend my results just because another site found something different. My testing methods were sound, I tested it honestly and the results are in the review.
Also, I WILL STATE AGAIN, I am NOT going to compare my results with a heatsink for the Athlon64. So please stop thinking that somehow that heatsink compares to the same situation I am in.
I just check the other review you stated.
Some stated that they used prime95, but did they use the maximum heat setting for the torture test?
Some used a combination of Stress Prime 2004 and 3DMark 2005?
Some used the stock thermal paste on the stock cooler?
Some had a idle temp of 43c? I had an idle temp of what, 37c?
You see, these variables alone could change their results drastically.
There is no set program or methods used in any of the reviews.
How you deem my even testing as the problem baffles me?
_________________
Owner & Administrator
www.Tweaknews.net
www.Pocketbookpinch.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael_qrt
TweakNOOB
Joined: 18 Jan 2005
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK, that's fine. If you do not want to investigate the cooler any further then I can't make you sit there and do extra testing to satisfy my curiosity.
As I have already said I was not asking you to defend the results of your specific experiment, I believe them. I was hoping you may investigate why they were different from the results of others.
Also, though one of the reviews I pointed out was indeed for the athlon64 version, it should be noted that the heatsink design is identical, the only differences being the mounting clip and a slightly slower fan on the 64 version. I do not expect you to compare this directly to your results but I think it is valid to say that that review shows the heatsink design in a positive light. The very same design you tested in your review. Even if you ignore that review there is still 3 others on p4 prescotts (albeit slower ones) and daffy who claims he got good results with the freezer 7 on his p4EE 3.46. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[TN] Nathan
ALMIGHTY PWNER!
Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 7406
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
also, you should note, the Athlon64 wattage output is also a lot different than what I tested, so in essence, the results are not comparable.
Look at their testing methods, look closely, there is a lot of information missing in their reviews (aka BIOS fan speed setting) and the thermal compounds being different etc...
Everything with my testing was EXACT other than the heatsink.
_________________
Owner & Administrator
www.Tweaknews.net
www.Pocketbookpinch.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sally
UberTweaker
Joined: 31 Mar 2004
Posts: 1158
Location: WA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
OKI DOKI FRIENDS,
If we all agree that the results are true and without flaw (because they are), we haven't a reason to speculate unless someone has the time and energy to analyze all the variences between the TN test and all others on an individual basis and recreate each with the EXACT same hardware in the EXACT same conditions. The results are not difficult to understand because there is but one variable in the TN test.
Daffy, Michael, and anyone else who refuses to do anything but dwell on speculations of "why????" and "how/?????" needs to do so on their own time and not waste our time/server space repeating themselves. By reading this ridiculous thread, everyone else can see that the Intel HSF outperforms the aftermarket specimine in this particular instance. I suggest that instead of putting your sheer confusions and frustration with these results into typed redundancies, you research the topic ON YOUR OWN and satisfy your own curiosity. If that is not good enough, perhaps it would be in your best interest to plaster a similar (but reversed) thread into the several other websites that have run SIMILAR, but DIFFERENT tests. Hostile? No. Annoyed? Getting there.
A reply now restating what you have already repeated so very much is not required. 
_________________
|¤| |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[KoG]^weaZel
TWEAKGURU
Joined: 31 Oct 2003
Posts: 3296
Location: IRC ETG #kog
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
after reading the reviews of this product, it seems to be a mediocre heatsink. And it doesnt seem to be able to handle the higher wattage heat output of the EE. While the testing done on other sites did put this hsf up against other hsf combos they didnt use the copper cored boxed cooler that comes with the EE. Which I have to say is a very good heatsink in and of itself.
The design of the heatpipes on this heatsink leave alot to be desired. They should start in the copper base and terminate in the fins. But in this case they are a "U", this doesnt lead to very efficient heatpipe use. The base is rather small as well.
Nathan stated in his review that there could have been more done with this heatsink. There is much that they can work on and then this could become a good unit but as it stands now I dont think its all that great.
_________________
I tweaked and it tweaked back! So I Tweaked some more!
"Barney is like the Michael Jackson of PBS." - James Tybeerious |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moobar
TweakNOOB
Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This was the first review I came across when researching this cooler and just like a giddy school boy I was anxious to see the results. I quickly skipped forward only to find an unexpected result. I then went back to read the entire review.
Still not satisfied I went googling to find other results. I found the same reviews posted above, but while reading them I noticed those differences that were mentioned before. One was almost similar except for lack of AS on the stock fan, probably other differences too. But none the less still confused I decided to read this review over again.
This review was very thorough, unlike the others. I spose if I had read those reviews first my opinion would be different now.
Anyone notice the samples from the other reviews were had by the manufacturer? That must account for some bias, no? You know, save face or else they wont send us any more free stuff.
I am just as baffled as Michael_qrt and daffy, and since its only a few bucks I think I might just spring for one and give it a go myself because Im curious as hell.
But then again I wonder if the problem is between the copper base and the cooling fins, it seems an awful long distance between there, could there be a bottleneck? We'll see I guess.
regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[TN] Nathan
ALMIGHTY PWNER!
Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 7406
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for understanding.
The review has gotten the attention of the manufacturer and they are currently sending me a sample from their headquarters to retest and see if I can find any difference.
I will update the review with my finding although I can almost guarantee you they will be the same.
_________________
Owner & Administrator
www.Tweaknews.net
www.Pocketbookpinch.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[KoG]^weaZel
TWEAKGURU
Joined: 31 Oct 2003
Posts: 3296
Location: IRC ETG #kog
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^^^now thats what I like to see. A manufacturer stepping up and seeing if the one that was tested was a dud or what. And also that our beloved site is getting the attention of manufacturers! cant wait to see if there is an improvement
_________________
I tweaked and it tweaked back! So I Tweaked some more!
"Barney is like the Michael Jackson of PBS." - James Tybeerious |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xal
Lord of the Tweak
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 2858
Location: Tweaknation =P
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ham_fisT wrote: | I noticed that one of those reviews states that the intel unit was tested with "Stock thermal compound", and the other test didn't even specify, so I assume it used that stock stuff as well.
the stuff Intel calls "Thermal Compound" is about as effective as a stick of bubble-gum.
they really should not be posting results obtained using dissimiliar testing methods. |
Damn right, with the stock heat paste or pad or whatever intel calls it MOST HSFs will kick its ass if they are using AS5 or similar. Nate always checks and rechecks everything. It is also a possibility that the other reviews tested with the non copper intel HSF.
We here all stick by Nate on this.
Daffy, does your psu have an extractor just above the hsf?
If it does then OBVIOSLY you will get better cooling as it works in a push pull system whereas intels design would not benifit as much from such a system.
_________________
Phenom II x4 955 @ Stock
Asus M3N78-EM
4gb Corsair XMS2 DDR2 667 @ 800
1gb Powercolor Radeon HD 5850 @ Stock
X-fi Extreme Audio PCI E
Nexus 600W Silent PSU
Nexus Fans
Custom case |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xal
Lord of the Tweak
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 2858
Location: Tweaknation =P
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, I didn't notice that the thread had a 2nd page 
But I stand by what I said.
_________________
Phenom II x4 955 @ Stock
Asus M3N78-EM
4gb Corsair XMS2 DDR2 667 @ 800
1gb Powercolor Radeon HD 5850 @ Stock
X-fi Extreme Audio PCI E
Nexus 600W Silent PSU
Nexus Fans
Custom case |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
