Question for Mikewarrior2

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Biggs

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2000
3,010
0
0
Mike, the review at Ocworkbench didn't have a FOP32. I just wanna know your thoughts on how does it compare to a Volcano II? Thanks.
 

Mikewarrior2

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 1999
7,132
0
0
Rockhammer,

no, Kyle is not lying. His MB, however, is lying to him... As are all socket-thermistor Motherboards.

Bigggs,

Not sure, but I'd guess that the FOP is a bit better.


Mike
 

arod324

Golden Member
Jan 21, 2001
1,182
0
0
Mike,
The only problem that I am having with these benchmarks, is that they use the Delta Black Label fan on all of the heatsinks. So it does not really give me a picture of stock heatsink to another. Would you say the Taisol CGK742 or the Fop32-1 will have better performance?
 

Mikewarrior2

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 1999
7,132
0
0
My personal list, above, is with stock-heatsinks/fans, save the alpha's which were equiped with Y.S. Tech 27.2 CFM fans.

The taisol CGK742092 with the base heatsink is so-darn close to FOP32-1 performance that it shouldn't make a difference in your overclocking. Choosing between the two would depend on your tolerance of noise levels.


Mike
 

Mikewarrior2

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 1999
7,132
0
0
Hedgehog, FOP38, Vantec: Delta 38CFM.

Taisol CEK733092, CGK742092: Delta 20CFM

Alpha's: Y.S. Tech 27.2 CFM

The rest were stock fans... I haven't had a chance to complete testing with different fans yet.


mike
 

Rockhammer

Member
Aug 25, 2000
148
0
0
Actually Kyle tested 'em both ways..with the stock fans and with the Delta BL. And yes I've read Mike's page, I just don't agree with everything he contends on his page.
 

Mikewarrior2

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 1999
7,132
0
0
All I can say is the 2cooltek and OCWorkbench tests, which use alternative methods of temp measurement, only go to reaffirm my page. As do the www.trainwrecker.com and www.frostytech.com tests.

The bototm line is socket-thermistors are innaccurate, and they are inaccurate to due to temperature compression, usually by factor of 4-6X. So a 4C core temp change may only register as a 1C socket-thermistor temp.


Mike

Here are some direct links: Frosty Tech Vantec Review. Yes it is synthetic testing, but Kyle's "bench" setup is no better since the mb is just laying on the table anyways. The 4C difference between vantec and super-orb at hardocp's review turns into a 11C difference on a lower wattage platform.

Some more: 2Cooltek Test Rig. Again, a synthetic test enviroment, but still valid compared to kyle's since his setup is open air anyways.

And another one:OCworkBench Reviews .This time non-syntethic, and despite the processor only putting out some 42-45W with his testing method, and the side-thermistor contacting not only core edge but also cpu pcb, it is a good test. Even here, he shows a bigger Delta between different heatsinks despite the fact that he is at a much lower wattage than the hardocp review.

So, even if you disagree with me, independant testing is showing that socket-thermistors are flawed. PERIOD. As a note, Kyle's T-bird is running at roughly 67.1W.
 

Rockhammer

Member
Aug 25, 2000
148
0
0
Mike,

I don't disagree that socket thermistors are flawed. There is no doubt they under-report actual core temps. I still contend however that they suffice for testing since the results will be relative to each other. I just don't understand how they could reasonably be otherwise.

I like the methodology by which ocworkbench tried to test the HSFUs but it sure looks to me like they had a hard time controlling ambient temps during their testing. It looks like they had about a 3-5 degree C flux over the course of the testing. Then, check out the ambient temp fluctions during the testing of the FOP38. It was bouncing all over the place. IMO, they should have re-run that test. It's too bad really, that could have been a really great piece.

It is a royal pain in the ass controlling ambients during testing like this, I know that from my waterwetter and flowrate testing. I had stop and restart thoses tests many times to control ambients.

 

Mikewarrior2

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 1999
7,132
0
0
Just look at the super-orb matching the top-tier heatsinks in socket-thermistor testing, but not matching it when testing otherwise. The reason?: Socket-thermistors are not isolated measurements, they measure mb temp, socket-air, any air going into the socket(yes, this happens, I can manipulate oscket-thermistor readings by 10C by aiming a fan at the socket-gap, and backside PCB temp.


Mike
 

Rockhammer

Member
Aug 25, 2000
148
0
0
2cooltek? I just have a problem with testing done by retailers that are selling the units they are testing.
 

Mikewarrior2

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 1999
7,132
0
0
The other problem with socket-thermistors deals with how a heatsink "cools" the mb.. .these heatsinks tend to skew socket-thermistors in their own favor...

Compression is hte main issue, though... relative performance isn't shown because a 15C difference can be a 5C tested difference...


Mike
 

Rockhammer

Member
Aug 25, 2000
148
0
0


<< Socket-thermistors are not isolated measurements, they measure mb temp, socket-air, any air going into the socket(yes, this happens, I can manipulate oscket-thermistor readings by 10C by aiming a fan at the socket-gap, and backside PCB temp. >>



True, but again, as long as the conditions are the same for all tests, the tests should be relative. Or are saying that testers are deliberately manipulating the results?
 

Rockhammer

Member
Aug 25, 2000
148
0
0


<< Compression is hte main issue, though... relative performance isn't shown because a 15C difference can be a 5C tested difference >>



Sorry I'm not following that, can you explain...but wait till tomorrow...I'm going to bed, lol. Cheers!
 

Mikewarrior2

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 1999
7,132
0
0
Okay, take the frostytech versus hardocp Super-Orb versus Vantec heatsinks.

The frostytech(@50W) shows an 11C delta, whereas the HardOCP review only shows 4C. If frostytech's setup was around 65W, you could expect a delta between the two heatsinks of around 15C. So, between the socket-thermistor and a lab-core reading, the compression factor is around 4X. So a 4X core temp change would show up as a 1C socket-thermistor temp change.

Or the Anandtech Roundup where on a 56W test setup, a Super-Orb Matched Alpha PAL6035 Performance, and a Chrome ORb was only 2C behind. Yet, in actual core temp performance, the super and chrome orbs are far behind the alpha in actual performance.


Mike
 

johncar

Senior member
Jul 18, 2000
523
0
0
Rockhammer,
http://members.nbci.com/candjac/index.htm Thermistor article explains with 3 simple electrical circuits analagous to heat flow circuits. Problem is the &quot;location&quot; of the sensor in a secondary heat flow path, not the sensor itself. The &quot;socket&quot; thermistor &quot;tracks&quot; the cpu temp up or down....but &quot;never&quot; to the same &quot;degrees of change&quot; when testing interfaces or heatsinks. That's where the term &quot;compression&quot; comes from. Read and enjoy.
John C.
 

Rockhammer

Member
Aug 25, 2000
148
0
0
Agreed to both! Like I said, I don't dispute the fact that socket thermistors under report CPU temps, but I still contend that as long as they always under report temps they are valid for basic comparison purposes. Precision is the key here, not accuracy.

If we are going to contend that socket thermistors are not a valid means of testing HSFUs, we must find the mechanism by which one particular HSFU will cause the thermistor to under report to a greater degree than another HSFU. Once we?ve identified a potential mechanism, perhaps we can design an experiment to test the theory.

 

johncar

Senior member
Jul 18, 2000
523
0
0
Rockhammer, You wrote...
>Agreed to both! Like I said, I don't dispute the fact that socket >thermistors under report CPU temps, but I still contend that as long >as they always under report temps they are valid for basic comparison >purposes. Precision is the key here, not accuracy.

Yes, precision is the key if the &quot;basic comparison&quot; is simply to &quot;rank&quot; the heatsinks or interface materials being tested. But most testers claim that the temperature &quot;differences&quot; reported by socket thermistors are the &quot;same&quot; as what the cpu sees, and that is &quot;not accurate&quot;, it's wrong. That's what we hope you got from the DC circuit analog models.

>If we are going to contend that socket thermistors are not a valid >means of testing HSFUs, we must find the mechanism by which one >particular HSFU will cause the thermistor to under report to a >greater degree than another HSFU. Once we?ve identified a potential >mechanism, perhaps we can design an experiment to test the theory.

The mechanism which causes the problem is that the measurement is being made in a secondary heat flow path instead of inside the cpu.
The reported &quot;compression&quot; of cpu temp differences is the nature of the heat flow circuits, it's not a measurement error. It's an error of interpretation by people who do not understand the physics nor the issue.

And the issue is not the &quot;degree of under reporting&quot; of various heatsinks or interfaces. The issue is the &quot;inaccurate&quot; reporting of how much the internal cpu temp changes from one hs or interface to another. Accurate cpu temp change is what's important to overclockers.

For example, many testers using socket thermistoprs report Arctic Silver only improves cpu temp about 1 or 2C, which they say is not enough to justify its cost...and that might be a reasonable opinion if that is all the cpu temp changed. But tests using the &quot;internal&quot; thermal diode of Intel chips show improvement of around 6C.

Which covers your last comment about designing a suitable experiment,
test components and materials on systems running Intel chips with internal thermal diodes. Nevin House of Arctic Silver has done so and we have also co-operated with him in establishing a method for calibrating thermal diodes...though calibration is not essential as they do tell the same lies every day...they are precise even when not accurate, so they do report &quot;accurate differences&quot;.

We don't see the data at www.arcticsilver.com from tests Nevin ran using thermal diodes, but you can write to him from his site. Sure he'd be glad to send you the same results he sent to Mike and us.
(Calibration article is at site).

Hope this clarifies all the issues, and glad to see the knowledgeable interest in them.
John C.
 

Biggs

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2000
3,010
0
0
Mike, d'you still think the FOP32-1 is better than the Volcano II? The latter has been getting good reviews lately. Some even say it's almost at par with the FOP38. Your thoughts?
 

Rockhammer

Member
Aug 25, 2000
148
0
0
John C.,

It sounds to me like we are in pretty close agreement on several issues after all. Based on your last post I think you would be in agreement with these two statements (tell me if I?m wrong):

1) Socket thermistors are a precise, but not accurate, indicator of relative CPU temperature. To use your analogy, they lie, but the always tell the same lie.

2) HSFU comparison testing done using a socket thermistor is a valid means of compiling a relative ranking of their overall efficacy (i.e. the HardOCP article), but not for calculation of hard performance data.

One thing I don?t agree with this statement:

?But most testers claim that the temperature &quot;differences&quot; reported by socket thermistors are the &quot;same&quot; as what the cpu sees, and that is &quot;not accurate&quot;, it's wrong.?

Yes it would be wrong to contend that, but from what I?ve seen, most reputable testers have at least made some effort, if not gone out of their way, to point out the limitations of the socket thermistors.

Also, you said:

?The mechanism which causes the problem is that the measurement is being made in a secondary heat flow path instead of inside the cpu. The reported &quot;compression&quot; of cpu temp differences is the nature of the heat flow circuits, it's not a measurement error. It's an error of interpretation by people who do not understand the physics nor the issue.?

I partially agree with that. Measuring a secondary pathway is often not the ideal, but many times it is all we have and occasionally it can yield superior results. Check out this quote from the Pentium III spec sheet:

?Note: The reading of the thermal sensor connected to the thermal diode will not necessarily reflect the temperature of the hottest location on the die. This is due to inaccuracies in the thermal sensor, on-die temperature gradients between the location of the thermal diode and the hottest location on the die at a given point in time, and time based variations in the die temperature measurement. Time based variations can occur when the sampling rate of the thermal diode (by the thermal sensor) is slower than the rate at which the T junction temperature can change.?

That is from Page 48 of this document: ftp://download.intel.com/design/PentiumIII/datashts/24526407.pdf. Given that statement, it might be argued that it is actually be better to measure a secondary pathway since it will tend to average out the temporal and spatial variations that Intel?s internal diode is unable to quantify.
 

mikef208

Banned
Nov 30, 2000
3,227
0
0
How did you get the Taisol CGK to perform so badly, in every other review I have seen, it was dang near the best?
 

Rockhammer

Member
Aug 25, 2000
148
0
0
&quot;How did you get the Taisol CGK to perform so badly, in every other review I have seen, it was dang near the best?&quot;

Was that question directed to me? I haven't done any HSFU testing.

 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |