|
When using this resource, please read FragKrag's opening post. The Tech Support forum regulars have helped create countless of desktop systems without any compensation. The least you can do is provide all of the information required for them to help you properly. |
On December 11 2012 05:10 Marradron wrote:
Hey, I'm helping a friend in the US with a computer build. He is however not confident in putting the parts together himself. I know of a webshop in the netherlands that assembles your computer parts for 100 euro. Is there something equivalent in the US ?
Actually, no. In rare cases there are some local computer stores that will do it. But generally we Americans are out of luck. I suggest having him look at Hardware Canuck's computer build guide on youtube and explaining that it's not hard as long as he can read.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 11 2012 08:10 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +A mildly overclocked current generation Intel processor most definitely does not run anywhere near 150W. At 1.25V and at 4.7ghz, we're talking 180W power draw for the entire system from the wall. Good luck hitting 4.7 with 1.25v.... Here's more of that evidence that I've been posting over and over and seems to get ignored: http://www.overclock.net/t/1051733/the-official-intel-core-i5-2500k-i5-2550k-i7-2600k-i7-2700k-owners-club/0_100http://www.overclock.net/t/968053/official-the-sandy-stable-club-guides-voltages-temps-bios-templates-inc-spreadsheet/0_100You'd be lucky to get that 4.7 on 1.25v, less than 25% of people get that kind of overclock, especially on that voltage. A lot of 1.4v 24/7 overclocks and plenty of 1.5s. 1.2's and even 1.3's are not too common. Quoting a single overclock on a lucky chip by anandtech that wasn't even tested properly for stability, is not reliable data on this at all. I can hit 4ghz on my Phenom c2 at stock voltage or 5ghz on an i5-2500k at 1.25vcore and pass 10 minutes of testing, they surely won't hit 24 hour or even 1 hour though. Hell I can boot at 4.2ghz/phenom c2/stock volts or i5/5ghz/1.25 easily. You can't seriously use that as data for power draw in the real world. And it'd be more realistic to talk 24/7 overclocks rather than mild overclocks. If your going for a mild overclock, then no question just get a hyper 212 and have fun with 4ghz. Otherwise, you need something better, and a Logisys assassin at $39 is a better deal than anything else. That's what I'm arguing here. That the Assassin is the best heatsink to buy new, and that Jinglehell is crazy to think a Hyper 212 Evo is better in performance (and while it has a better performance to dollar simply because higher temp drops are harder to come by, it simply won't cool an i5 at 4.7+ enough). I think your very knowledgeable and smart Myrmidon, but I think evidence shows you can easily surpass 150w on an i5 or overclock in general. Show nested quote +If you want a shootout between all coolers combined with all your fans, go ahead and find one for this site. Otherwise, all the evidence we have available is only from reviews. And you're questioning the legitimacy of a site with no real evidence other than, "can't you see this doesn't make sense!" when everyone has already answered the claims of Frosty's not being legitimate. I've provided plenty of evidence showing that 150w is far below an actual 24/7 overclock's TDP, and that's why frostytech's benches are crap. I also provided a ton of benchmark review sites showing conflicting results with what Frostytech provided. There's also some common sense involved - there's less than a 5*C spread on the a 240mm radiator H100 vs single fan H212, can pretty clearly point out these results are pretty useless and definitely dont test the coolers at the higher power ranges, and everyone knows that idle and stock load and lower OC results are quite useless as relative cooling between heatsinks all changes when you test a higher overclock. I'm not asking for a review to test a ridiculous benchmark CPU/power, I'm just asking they at least simulate a standard 24/7 overclock. Show nested quote +You also seem to think that everyone only uses one source. If they say something, they've verified it makes sense or at least is mostly true over multiple sources. No one here is dumb enough to look at one source and make a conclusion. The good thing about Frostys is that it has a huge list of coolers so you can easily get a grasp on where something stands. JH has made the claim that the Hyper 212 EVO is better than the K2/Assassin, sourcing the Frostytech review. He's only using a single source and clearly ignoring every other, to cherrypick data on why he thinks the Assassin is a bad deal at $39, and is not one of the best heatsinks in the world. I'm not saying he's dumb but he's making the conclusion that the Assassin is a bad cooler. Frostys is absolutely useless, and everyone who benches knows their results are totalyl useless. You aren't getting a good grasp, your getting a misinformed grasp when you think the H212 is better than a Silver Arrow, or a 5HDT cooler Spire Thermax Eclipse II is the best heatsink in the world, better than high end closed loops, dual towers with direct contact with 2 x fans, et cetera. Show nested quote +I'm pretty sure I'm just mistaken here because you can't possibly be this wrong, but on both 150W and 85W comparisons, nothing with the words Stock or Intel come within 6 deg. C of the H100. Again, I'm probably wrong. But if I'm not...really? I mean the lower end coolers, it does show the stock as being quite low. A bit carried away. But a hyper 212, Deepcool gamerstorm, CNPS11X Extreme, TTC-NC15TZ (3 HDT!!!) as within 5*C of the best coolers, as defined by frostytech, in the world, is absurd. Show nested quote +In Frosty's, the H100 beats the H50. Stop posting absolutes, and if you're going to say something, back it up with hard evidence. Not this weak anecdotal bull. http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Cooler-Master-Hyper-212-EVO-CPU-Cooler-Review/1407/6Look, 1 deg. C difference between the Evo and the Noctua, which supposedly means 1 deg. C difference between the Silver Arrow and Noctua since they're basically the same like you've been saying, no? Immediately wrong, never mind the legitimacy of the source nor the tolerances on the coolers, just because you're being so extreme with your claims every time. Those are tests are on a stock CPU, and the differences are 50 vs 53. Those benches are fine if you are testing a stock system, but as we all know, stock results don't mean shit. No one is going to buy an aftermarket heatsink for a stock system, and heatsinks don't show differences until you get to higher temp ranges. I like Hardware secrets, but testing a heatsink on stock load doesn't mean much. An Antec Kuhler 620 is not a worse performer than the Hyper 212 evo, even though it is almost 10*C hotter on idle (as lclc's tend to be much hotter on idle than regular air), but according to the test results, on idle, it is. You can see that low clocks/ low load results dont matter, obviously, and 150w is not nearly hot enough to be a valid test result to make judgements on heatsink performance. Jinglehell defended Frostytech as a review site, which is absolutely absurd. Everyone has criticisms of every review site, so it's odd that he's defending the questionable and completely different and unique test results of a site, especially one that is universally agreed upon in overclock forums as questionable, if not complete trash, for their testing methodology and results. He says, in his post, that the K2/Assassin is NOT the best heatsink in the world, and makes it clear he doesnt think it's a top tier cooler at least, and he also commented saying the Hyper 212 Evo performs comparatively to the NH-D14. Which is absolutely absurd. I've posted much more evidence to why he's wrong than anyone else has saying that 150w hot plate tests is a reasonable testbed or the Assassin is not a top tier heatsink or the Hyper 212 EVO performs comparatively to top tier heatsinks, yet I'm the asshole. Even though I've posted plenty of material on overclocking forums and done plenty of benches, and even own a Hyper 212 and NH-D14, I'm the one who is wrong about heatsink performance, not the guy quoting an artificial benchmark that's questionable and completely opposite of every single benchmark out there on an OC load. Show nested quote +ot one comparison between the Evo and the Assassin. Why you've been pursuing this is beyond me. Assassin is similar to a NH-D14. JH actually thinks the Evo is comparative to an NH-D14. By extension.... not to mention quoting FT which says the Evo is close in performance to the NH-d14 and better than the SA/Assassin. You can argue that the Assassin isn't the best air cooler in the world. But you can't argue that the Assassin is not a top tier contender for best heatsink in the world, and is definitely among the top 5 heatsinks in the world, and that's it's leagues above the Hyper 212 Evo. To claim that the Assassin, or NH-D14, or Silver Arrow, are in the same league as the Hyper 212 EVO, is absurd. It's common sense, I would think, to see that a 4 HDT heatsink isn't going to compare to a 2 x fan dual tower with direct contact, but hey, that's just me. It's quite important to get an apples to apples test comparison to get an accurate view of the performance of a cooler, otherwise you could just buy any shit cooler and slap on 2 140mm fans and call it a day, which just isn't a good idea. Otherwise Hyper 212 EVO could outperform any cooler provided you havethe right fans on it. Hence, the best benchmarks are the ones that perform 'apples to apples' tests, as it's most commonly called by tech review sites as I've seen it (although plenty call it something different). Show nested quote +No one ever argued the Assassin was bad for its price.
No one will ever argue that the best testing would not be done on a consistent test bench with the same fans.
EVERYONE IS ARGUING AGAINST YOUR USE OF ABSOLUTES WHILE NOT PROVIDING (COMPLETE) EVIDENCE. I've provided plenty of evidence that testing on a 150w hot plate is crap, plenty of reviews showing that the relative performance list that FT puts up (and hardware secrets, although they are clearly testing just stock load) is absolutely contrary to everything every other site has tested. I've also provided plenty of reviews and benches showing the Hyper 212 Evo significantly worse in performance then the SA/K2/Assassin/NH-D14/Phanteks, and that the SA/k2/Assassin/Nh-D14/Phanteks are all very similar in performance and all arguably the best cooler in the world. I've provided a benchmark showing the Assassin as the best heatsink in the world, an actual real world test on a controlled testbed, in an apples to apples test, one that even tested a Hyper 212, yet somehow it's a questionable benchmark, even though the guy is extremely experienced and runs a benching team, yet FT's controversial benches are not questionable at all. Please, tell me the logic in that one. Nothing is misinterpreted. His comment is quite clear he's saying the Hyper 212 Evo is comparable to an NH-D14 and the Assassin is not a world class cooler. It'd be fine if he said "Whoa, I disagree, I think the Phanteks/Nh-D14/Silver Arrow/Everest is the best cooler in the world by 1-2*C, not the Assassin", but he didn't, he said it was 'good, not great'. Which is flat out wrong.
$39. Assassin. Best deal around for a new heatsink. You will find nothing better within $25 in performance new price (unless some sale price, but it'll still be $10-20+ for arguably 1-2*C at most). And way better than the Hyper 212 evo. way better. I have lots of respect for skyR, Myrmidon, Wom, and Jinglehell, but i have to respectfully disagree completely with their opinions that Frostytech is anything better than a questionable website, and that the Assassin is not a world class cooler, or the Hyper 212 EVO comes anywhere close in performance on a highly OC processor to an NH-D14 or similar dual tower. I've actually tested the Hyper 212 and dual tower heatsinks, as well as been a member of prominent member of OCN for a while now. I'm not saying I know better, but when it comes to heatsinks especially, I do know what I'm talking about.
Spoiled your long post. I only read the bit about overclocking and power draw.
Anandtech on overclocking Ivy Bridge. First of all, Ivy bridge runs at lower voltages than SB overall, so I don't know why you're linking to an article on SB overclocking.
Quotes:
Those wishing for 4.8GHz at 1.4 volts (similar to Sandy Bridge) will run into a lot of issues if they think that 1.4 volts is appropriate for Ivy Bridge. In comparison, you may end up with something more reasonable like 4.6GHz at 1.1 volts, or 4.8GHz at 1.2 volts
Ivy bridge runs at lower voltages than sandy bridge. Not only that, but they mention 4.8 Ghz at 1.2 volts.
This graph shows more on the overclocking... 4.7 Ghz at 1.2V. Yes, it's at 87 celsius, but this was 1) done just when ivy bridge came out (process should be better now, right?) and 2) done with Intel AiO liquid cooling, and I have neither the experience or the know how to know how well Intel's solution performs.
![[image loading]](http://images.anandtech.com/doci/5763/Temperature_575px.png)
Power draw of the entire system at 1.25V and 4.4 Ghz:
![[image loading]](http://images.anandtech.com/doci/5763/1.25%20volts_575px.png)
Power draw of the system at stock clocks and various voltage:
![[image loading]](http://images.anandtech.com/doci/5763/Stock%20Speed,%20Vary%20Voltage_575px.png)
And yes, it is the ENTIRE system. Unless Anandtech lied to us:
At stock speeds, power draw increases by an average of 6W per 0.05 volts initially, moving up to 10W per 0.05 volts as we increase the voltage. With 0.35 extra volts in the processor the system moves from 112W under load to 168W – an increase of 50%. Temperature also rises quickly, from 53C at 0.90 volts to 80C at 1.25 volts.
And yes, IVB is less than SB, because Anandtech acknowledges how common 1.4V clocks on SB is: Those wishing for 4.8GHz at 1.4 volts (similar to Sandy Bridge) will run into a lot of issues if they think that 1.4 volts is appropriate for Ivy Bridge. In comparison, you may end up with something more reasonable like 4.6GHz at 1.1 volts, or 4.8GHz at 1.2 volts
Again, IVB takes less voltage and less power draw. And are you really going to assert that Anandtech sticks their processors at an unstable clock, boots it, and then calls it a day without any thorough testing? Because I believe you just said that. Now you're even refuting Anandtech, even though you've said multiple times that they're one of the most reputable sites. I am pretty sure that Anandtech did reasonable testing on their PC's before publishing results, otherwise somebody would call them out on it. There's a reason they're reliable, you can believe most anything they say.
But in case you think they got a "lucky" chip that allowed them to publish those ludicrous clocks/voltages:
From Overclockers showing 4.7Ghz at 1.3V an "optimal setting you should aim to better" (It's in there, if you care to look). And note that even at 5Ghz, he's measuring 160 watts (to us at least). Seems relatively in line with what Anandtech is posting at load because one is idle, the other is load.
Ivy bridge is different from Sandy Bridge. Why are you giving sandy bridge articles on overclocking when they're different?
|
On December 11 2012 08:10 Belial88 wrote:
JH has made the claim that the Hyper 212 EVO is better than the K2/Assassin, sourcing the Frostytech review. He's only using a single source and clearly ignoring every other, to cherrypick data on why he thinks the Assassin is a bad deal at $39, and is not one of the best heatsinks in the world. I'm not saying he's dumb but he's making the conclusion that the Assassin is a bad cooler.
Actually, you're flat out lying if you say I've only provided a single source for anything. I used a minimum of two in my FIRST response, and Frosty was only to put the OTHER review in perspective. You promptly used that to try and drag my name through the mud.
+ Show Spoiler [First Response] +
That's ignoring literally every other source I've posted since.
+ Show Spoiler [Oops] +
Of course, the statements I made, and the list from FrostyTech, you seem to be getting those mixed up as well. The original statement I made was that your absolute statement regarding the Assassin was incorrect, provided a source, cross-referenced against a SECOND source, and you decided to question the cross-reference.
From there, it turned into the absolute default for you, an incomprehensible jumble of bullshit, anecdote, hyperbole, and ad hom attacks in an effort to muddy the water until it looked like you won an argument that should have been at most a civil debate, which, unfortunately, is something you're incapable of.
And, just to demonstrate how ludicrous you're being in the process, allow me a quote from you a good bit earlier...
+ Show Spoiler [And *I* cherry pick?] +
You clearly imply you don't trust Tom's, but if there's a forum discussion there agreeing with you, HOLY SHIT IT MUST BE TRUE!
|
On December 11 2012 08:10 Belial88 wrote:
I've provided plenty of evidence showing that 150w is far below an actual 24/7 overclock's TDP
No, where? Phenom II doesn't count. We all know that can go above 150W easily.
edit: spelling whoops
+ Show Spoiler [spoilering this crap] +First of all, you do realize there's a difference between system power draw and CPU power draw? Most review sites post system power draw? We're talking about CPU coolers, so what's of interest is CPU power draws. If you quote 150W from the wall, how much is from power supply losses, motherboard chips and VRMs, RAM, graphics card, drives, fans, etc., and how much is from the CPU? extreme.outervision calculator is retarded and thinks that chips consume as much as their entire TDP. Again, you think i5-3470 and i7-3770k use the same power stock? You think they use up to 77W with the IGP inactive? 1.4V is pretty high for 24/7 SB for long-term usage; i5-2500 draw is closer to 65W on full CPU load as pointed out earlier, not 95W like the PSU calc thinks. IVB draw is even less. Of course Phenom II / FX / SB-E can draw 150W easily with the higher core count versions, for a number of reasons. To start with, FX and SB-E are huge chips, while PII on 45nm with those kinds of volts and clocks... Go back to the previous post on SB / IVB power consumption, seriously. + Show Spoiler [other stuffs] +As for Frostytech, I don't particularly like their results either and never said they were that reliable. In general it should be mostly right, but the list is large; there are bound to be inconsistencies. Anybody expect CNPS10X Quiet to do better at 12 dB less than CNPS10X Performa? etc. I never really made any comments regarding the Deepcool Assassin either. $39 for that is clearly good, but note the width and relatively tight fin spacing meaning it's not going to be great for quiet operation. TBH with hot plate testing, one would expect that heatpipe direct touch coolers would do relatively well; HDT coolers do better with the heatpipes over an area that's actually hot. With an actual CPU underneath, particularly a smaller one, some heatpipes may miss the CPU core areas and thus the heatsink may not be as effective relative to other designs. And you see HDT coolers do relatively well on Frostytech: Hyper 212 series, Xigmatek Gaia, etc. How do you interpret this below other than as a dig at the TY-140? On December 10 2012 15:32 Belial88 wrote:
I mean the HR-02 is the quietest best heatsink around. But if you look at stock set-ups, you wouldn't know it's extremely quiet, you'd actually think it's just a loud piece of junk due to the stock fan (and at that price level, $10 for a high quality quiet fan is not asking too much). Okay, HR-02 doesn't come with a fan, so you're probably talking about HR-02 Macho, which comes with TY-140.
|
On December 11 2012 09:27 Myrmidon wrote:
TBH with hot plate testing, one would expect that heatpipe direct touch coolers would do relatively well; HDT coolers do better with the heatpipes over an area that's actually hot. With an actual CPU underneath, particularly a smaller one, some heatpipes may miss the CPU core areas and thus the heatsink may not be as effective relative to other designs. And you see HDT coolers do relatively well on Frostytech: Hyper 212 series, Xigmatek Gaia, etc.
Funny, I seem to recall saying earlier that if there was any reason to question their methodology, it would revolve around that.
Of course, any and all caveats other people use get ignored.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=137554¤tpage=1295#25883
On December 08 2012 05:56 JingleHell wrote:
Also, as to the heat plate, the worst part about that methodology isn't "real world temps", it's the fact that the plate may not be a perfect analog to real world CPU heat distribution, since the heat spreader doesn't spread heat 100% efficiently. And the vertical mount, but again, that's a common thing that probably doesn't affect reviews much.
Me saying something along those exact lines. With the link to the full post.
|
|
|
Getting an i5 to give you 150W takes a lot of effort. At that clockrate mine doesnt want to give me more than 100W or so from the package.
Also I didnt read everything that was said since there is a lot (lol) but lets all make sure we arent confusing the term "TDP" to mean something it doesnt actually mean. TDP is just how much heat dissipation the package is designed to dissipate, its not an actual measurement of anything.
|
Yes, you already posted that link. Of course, he seems to have closed his youtube account, so you can't see how he did the test, so you have to take his word for it, and as I said before, a variable ambient temperature makes me suspicious.
Hopefully I don't have to explain why having the air conditioning kick on or off during a test can screw with your results?
|
On December 11 2012 08:52 Alryk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 11 2012 08:10 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +A mildly overclocked current generation Intel processor most definitely does not run anywhere near 150W. At 1.25V and at 4.7ghz, we're talking 180W power draw for the entire system from the wall. Good luck hitting 4.7 with 1.25v.... Here's more of that evidence that I've been posting over and over and seems to get ignored: http://www.overclock.net/t/1051733/the-official-intel-core-i5-2500k-i5-2550k-i7-2600k-i7-2700k-owners-club/0_100http://www.overclock.net/t/968053/official-the-sandy-stable-club-guides-voltages-temps-bios-templates-inc-spreadsheet/0_100You'd be lucky to get that 4.7 on 1.25v, less than 25% of people get that kind of overclock, especially on that voltage. A lot of 1.4v 24/7 overclocks and plenty of 1.5s. 1.2's and even 1.3's are not too common. Quoting a single overclock on a lucky chip by anandtech that wasn't even tested properly for stability, is not reliable data on this at all. I can hit 4ghz on my Phenom c2 at stock voltage or 5ghz on an i5-2500k at 1.25vcore and pass 10 minutes of testing, they surely won't hit 24 hour or even 1 hour though. Hell I can boot at 4.2ghz/phenom c2/stock volts or i5/5ghz/1.25 easily. You can't seriously use that as data for power draw in the real world. And it'd be more realistic to talk 24/7 overclocks rather than mild overclocks. If your going for a mild overclock, then no question just get a hyper 212 and have fun with 4ghz. Otherwise, you need something better, and a Logisys assassin at $39 is a better deal than anything else. That's what I'm arguing here. That the Assassin is the best heatsink to buy new, and that Jinglehell is crazy to think a Hyper 212 Evo is better in performance (and while it has a better performance to dollar simply because higher temp drops are harder to come by, it simply won't cool an i5 at 4.7+ enough). I think your very knowledgeable and smart Myrmidon, but I think evidence shows you can easily surpass 150w on an i5 or overclock in general. Show nested quote +If you want a shootout between all coolers combined with all your fans, go ahead and find one for this site. Otherwise, all the evidence we have available is only from reviews. And you're questioning the legitimacy of a site with no real evidence other than, "can't you see this doesn't make sense!" when everyone has already answered the claims of Frosty's not being legitimate. I've provided plenty of evidence showing that 150w is far below an actual 24/7 overclock's TDP, and that's why frostytech's benches are crap. I also provided a ton of benchmark review sites showing conflicting results with what Frostytech provided. There's also some common sense involved - there's less than a 5*C spread on the a 240mm radiator H100 vs single fan H212, can pretty clearly point out these results are pretty useless and definitely dont test the coolers at the higher power ranges, and everyone knows that idle and stock load and lower OC results are quite useless as relative cooling between heatsinks all changes when you test a higher overclock. I'm not asking for a review to test a ridiculous benchmark CPU/power, I'm just asking they at least simulate a standard 24/7 overclock. Show nested quote +You also seem to think that everyone only uses one source. If they say something, they've verified it makes sense or at least is mostly true over multiple sources. No one here is dumb enough to look at one source and make a conclusion. The good thing about Frostys is that it has a huge list of coolers so you can easily get a grasp on where something stands. JH has made the claim that the Hyper 212 EVO is better than the K2/Assassin, sourcing the Frostytech review. He's only using a single source and clearly ignoring every other, to cherrypick data on why he thinks the Assassin is a bad deal at $39, and is not one of the best heatsinks in the world. I'm not saying he's dumb but he's making the conclusion that the Assassin is a bad cooler. Frostys is absolutely useless, and everyone who benches knows their results are totalyl useless. You aren't getting a good grasp, your getting a misinformed grasp when you think the H212 is better than a Silver Arrow, or a 5HDT cooler Spire Thermax Eclipse II is the best heatsink in the world, better than high end closed loops, dual towers with direct contact with 2 x fans, et cetera. Show nested quote +I'm pretty sure I'm just mistaken here because you can't possibly be this wrong, but on both 150W and 85W comparisons, nothing with the words Stock or Intel come within 6 deg. C of the H100. Again, I'm probably wrong. But if I'm not...really? I mean the lower end coolers, it does show the stock as being quite low. A bit carried away. But a hyper 212, Deepcool gamerstorm, CNPS11X Extreme, TTC-NC15TZ (3 HDT!!!) as within 5*C of the best coolers, as defined by frostytech, in the world, is absurd. Show nested quote +In Frosty's, the H100 beats the H50. Stop posting absolutes, and if you're going to say something, back it up with hard evidence. Not this weak anecdotal bull. http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Cooler-Master-Hyper-212-EVO-CPU-Cooler-Review/1407/6Look, 1 deg. C difference between the Evo and the Noctua, which supposedly means 1 deg. C difference between the Silver Arrow and Noctua since they're basically the same like you've been saying, no? Immediately wrong, never mind the legitimacy of the source nor the tolerances on the coolers, just because you're being so extreme with your claims every time. Those are tests are on a stock CPU, and the differences are 50 vs 53. Those benches are fine if you are testing a stock system, but as we all know, stock results don't mean shit. No one is going to buy an aftermarket heatsink for a stock system, and heatsinks don't show differences until you get to higher temp ranges. I like Hardware secrets, but testing a heatsink on stock load doesn't mean much. An Antec Kuhler 620 is not a worse performer than the Hyper 212 evo, even though it is almost 10*C hotter on idle (as lclc's tend to be much hotter on idle than regular air), but according to the test results, on idle, it is. You can see that low clocks/ low load results dont matter, obviously, and 150w is not nearly hot enough to be a valid test result to make judgements on heatsink performance. Jinglehell defended Frostytech as a review site, which is absolutely absurd. Everyone has criticisms of every review site, so it's odd that he's defending the questionable and completely different and unique test results of a site, especially one that is universally agreed upon in overclock forums as questionable, if not complete trash, for their testing methodology and results. He says, in his post, that the K2/Assassin is NOT the best heatsink in the world, and makes it clear he doesnt think it's a top tier cooler at least, and he also commented saying the Hyper 212 Evo performs comparatively to the NH-D14. Which is absolutely absurd. I've posted much more evidence to why he's wrong than anyone else has saying that 150w hot plate tests is a reasonable testbed or the Assassin is not a top tier heatsink or the Hyper 212 EVO performs comparatively to top tier heatsinks, yet I'm the asshole. Even though I've posted plenty of material on overclocking forums and done plenty of benches, and even own a Hyper 212 and NH-D14, I'm the one who is wrong about heatsink performance, not the guy quoting an artificial benchmark that's questionable and completely opposite of every single benchmark out there on an OC load. Show nested quote +ot one comparison between the Evo and the Assassin. Why you've been pursuing this is beyond me. Assassin is similar to a NH-D14. JH actually thinks the Evo is comparative to an NH-D14. By extension.... not to mention quoting FT which says the Evo is close in performance to the NH-d14 and better than the SA/Assassin. You can argue that the Assassin isn't the best air cooler in the world. But you can't argue that the Assassin is not a top tier contender for best heatsink in the world, and is definitely among the top 5 heatsinks in the world, and that's it's leagues above the Hyper 212 Evo. To claim that the Assassin, or NH-D14, or Silver Arrow, are in the same league as the Hyper 212 EVO, is absurd. It's common sense, I would think, to see that a 4 HDT heatsink isn't going to compare to a 2 x fan dual tower with direct contact, but hey, that's just me. It's quite important to get an apples to apples test comparison to get an accurate view of the performance of a cooler, otherwise you could just buy any shit cooler and slap on 2 140mm fans and call it a day, which just isn't a good idea. Otherwise Hyper 212 EVO could outperform any cooler provided you havethe right fans on it. Hence, the best benchmarks are the ones that perform 'apples to apples' tests, as it's most commonly called by tech review sites as I've seen it (although plenty call it something different). Show nested quote +No one ever argued the Assassin was bad for its price.
No one will ever argue that the best testing would not be done on a consistent test bench with the same fans.
EVERYONE IS ARGUING AGAINST YOUR USE OF ABSOLUTES WHILE NOT PROVIDING (COMPLETE) EVIDENCE. I've provided plenty of evidence that testing on a 150w hot plate is crap, plenty of reviews showing that the relative performance list that FT puts up (and hardware secrets, although they are clearly testing just stock load) is absolutely contrary to everything every other site has tested. I've also provided plenty of reviews and benches showing the Hyper 212 Evo significantly worse in performance then the SA/K2/Assassin/NH-D14/Phanteks, and that the SA/k2/Assassin/Nh-D14/Phanteks are all very similar in performance and all arguably the best cooler in the world. I've provided a benchmark showing the Assassin as the best heatsink in the world, an actual real world test on a controlled testbed, in an apples to apples test, one that even tested a Hyper 212, yet somehow it's a questionable benchmark, even though the guy is extremely experienced and runs a benching team, yet FT's controversial benches are not questionable at all. Please, tell me the logic in that one. Nothing is misinterpreted. His comment is quite clear he's saying the Hyper 212 Evo is comparable to an NH-D14 and the Assassin is not a world class cooler. It'd be fine if he said "Whoa, I disagree, I think the Phanteks/Nh-D14/Silver Arrow/Everest is the best cooler in the world by 1-2*C, not the Assassin", but he didn't, he said it was 'good, not great'. Which is flat out wrong.
$39. Assassin. Best deal around for a new heatsink. You will find nothing better within $25 in performance new price (unless some sale price, but it'll still be $10-20+ for arguably 1-2*C at most). And way better than the Hyper 212 evo. way better. I have lots of respect for skyR, Myrmidon, Wom, and Jinglehell, but i have to respectfully disagree completely with their opinions that Frostytech is anything better than a questionable website, and that the Assassin is not a world class cooler, or the Hyper 212 EVO comes anywhere close in performance on a highly OC processor to an NH-D14 or similar dual tower. I've actually tested the Hyper 212 and dual tower heatsinks, as well as been a member of prominent member of OCN for a while now. I'm not saying I know better, but when it comes to heatsinks especially, I do know what I'm talking about. Spoiled your long post. I only read the bit about overclocking and power draw. Anandtech on overclocking Ivy Bridge. First of all, Ivy bridge runs at lower voltages than SB overall, so I don't know why you're linking to an article on SB overclocking. Quotes: Show nested quote +
Those wishing for 4.8GHz at 1.4 volts (similar to Sandy Bridge) will run into a lot of issues if they think that 1.4 volts is appropriate for Ivy Bridge. In comparison, you may end up with something more reasonable like 4.6GHz at 1.1 volts, or 4.8GHz at 1.2 volts
Ivy bridge runs at lower voltages than sandy bridge. Not only that, but they mention 4.8 Ghz at 1.2 volts. This graph shows more on the overclocking... 4.7 Ghz at 1.2V. Yes, it's at 87 celsius, but this was 1) done just when ivy bridge came out (process should be better now, right?) and 2) done with Intel AiO liquid cooling, and I have neither the experience or the know how to know how well Intel's solution performs. Power draw of the entire system at 1.25V and 4.4 Ghz: Power draw of the system at stock clocks and various voltage: And yes, it is the ENTIRE system. Unless Anandtech lied to us: Show nested quote +At stock speeds, power draw increases by an average of 6W per 0.05 volts initially, moving up to 10W per 0.05 volts as we increase the voltage. With 0.35 extra volts in the processor the system moves from 112W under load to 168W – an increase of 50%. Temperature also rises quickly, from 53C at 0.90 volts to 80C at 1.25 volts. And yes, IVB is less than SB, because Anandtech acknowledges how common 1.4V clocks on SB is: Show nested quote +Those wishing for 4.8GHz at 1.4 volts (similar to Sandy Bridge) will run into a lot of issues if they think that 1.4 volts is appropriate for Ivy Bridge. In comparison, you may end up with something more reasonable like 4.6GHz at 1.1 volts, or 4.8GHz at 1.2 volts Again, IVB takes less voltage and less power draw. And are you really going to assert that Anandtech sticks their processors at an unstable clock, boots it, and then calls it a day without any thorough testing? Because I believe you just said that. Now you're even refuting Anandtech, even though you've said multiple times that they're one of the most reputable sites. I am pretty sure that Anandtech did reasonable testing on their PC's before publishing results, otherwise somebody would call them out on it. There's a reason they're reliable, you can believe most anything they say. But in case you think they got a "lucky" chip that allowed them to publish those ludicrous clocks/voltages: From Overclockers showing 4.7Ghz at 1.3V an "optimal setting you should aim to better" (It's in there, if you care to look). And note that even at 5Ghz, he's measuring 160 watts (to us at least). Seems relatively in line with what Anandtech is posting at load because one is idle, the other is load. Ivy bridge is different from Sandy Bridge. Why are you giving sandy bridge articles on overclocking when they're different?
I was just pointing out 150w as a test bed was too low on benching heatsink performance.
Also, chips can run hotter or lower at a given wattage. IB runs much hotter than SB on an overclock at a given voltage and/or clock, so a 150w thermal plate isn't going to be an appropriate test for IB heatsink comparison either. A Hyper 212 is not going to be enough for the higher overclock ranges on an IB either.
I wasn't particularly keen on using SB or IB, I was simply pointing out that they run a lot more than 150w on a standard overclock. Testing a 150w thermal plate is just as useful as testing stock load temps or even a low overclock - ie, useless.
|
You know, this probably counts as an ad hominem attack of some sort or other, but I find your username choice really amusing 
Edit: you did
On December 11 2012 09:53 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 08:52 Alryk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 11 2012 08:10 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +A mildly overclocked current generation Intel processor most definitely does not run anywhere near 150W. At 1.25V and at 4.7ghz, we're talking 180W power draw for the entire system from the wall. Good luck hitting 4.7 with 1.25v.... Here's more of that evidence that I've been posting over and over and seems to get ignored: http://www.overclock.net/t/1051733/the-official-intel-core-i5-2500k-i5-2550k-i7-2600k-i7-2700k-owners-club/0_100http://www.overclock.net/t/968053/official-the-sandy-stable-club-guides-voltages-temps-bios-templates-inc-spreadsheet/0_100You'd be lucky to get that 4.7 on 1.25v, less than 25% of people get that kind of overclock, especially on that voltage. A lot of 1.4v 24/7 overclocks and plenty of 1.5s. 1.2's and even 1.3's are not too common. Quoting a single overclock on a lucky chip by anandtech that wasn't even tested properly for stability, is not reliable data on this at all. I can hit 4ghz on my Phenom c2 at stock voltage or 5ghz on an i5-2500k at 1.25vcore and pass 10 minutes of testing, they surely won't hit 24 hour or even 1 hour though. Hell I can boot at 4.2ghz/phenom c2/stock volts or i5/5ghz/1.25 easily. You can't seriously use that as data for power draw in the real world. And it'd be more realistic to talk 24/7 overclocks rather than mild overclocks. If your going for a mild overclock, then no question just get a hyper 212 and have fun with 4ghz. Otherwise, you need something better, and a Logisys assassin at $39 is a better deal than anything else. That's what I'm arguing here. That the Assassin is the best heatsink to buy new, and that Jinglehell is crazy to think a Hyper 212 Evo is better in performance (and while it has a better performance to dollar simply because higher temp drops are harder to come by, it simply won't cool an i5 at 4.7+ enough). I think your very knowledgeable and smart Myrmidon, but I think evidence shows you can easily surpass 150w on an i5 or overclock in general. Show nested quote +If you want a shootout between all coolers combined with all your fans, go ahead and find one for this site. Otherwise, all the evidence we have available is only from reviews. And you're questioning the legitimacy of a site with no real evidence other than, "can't you see this doesn't make sense!" when everyone has already answered the claims of Frosty's not being legitimate. I've provided plenty of evidence showing that 150w is far below an actual 24/7 overclock's TDP, and that's why frostytech's benches are crap. I also provided a ton of benchmark review sites showing conflicting results with what Frostytech provided. There's also some common sense involved - there's less than a 5*C spread on the a 240mm radiator H100 vs single fan H212, can pretty clearly point out these results are pretty useless and definitely dont test the coolers at the higher power ranges, and everyone knows that idle and stock load and lower OC results are quite useless as relative cooling between heatsinks all changes when you test a higher overclock. I'm not asking for a review to test a ridiculous benchmark CPU/power, I'm just asking they at least simulate a standard 24/7 overclock. Show nested quote +You also seem to think that everyone only uses one source. If they say something, they've verified it makes sense or at least is mostly true over multiple sources. No one here is dumb enough to look at one source and make a conclusion. The good thing about Frostys is that it has a huge list of coolers so you can easily get a grasp on where something stands. JH has made the claim that the Hyper 212 EVO is better than the K2/Assassin, sourcing the Frostytech review. He's only using a single source and clearly ignoring every other, to cherrypick data on why he thinks the Assassin is a bad deal at $39, and is not one of the best heatsinks in the world. I'm not saying he's dumb but he's making the conclusion that the Assassin is a bad cooler. Frostys is absolutely useless, and everyone who benches knows their results are totalyl useless. You aren't getting a good grasp, your getting a misinformed grasp when you think the H212 is better than a Silver Arrow, or a 5HDT cooler Spire Thermax Eclipse II is the best heatsink in the world, better than high end closed loops, dual towers with direct contact with 2 x fans, et cetera. Show nested quote +I'm pretty sure I'm just mistaken here because you can't possibly be this wrong, but on both 150W and 85W comparisons, nothing with the words Stock or Intel come within 6 deg. C of the H100. Again, I'm probably wrong. But if I'm not...really? I mean the lower end coolers, it does show the stock as being quite low. A bit carried away. But a hyper 212, Deepcool gamerstorm, CNPS11X Extreme, TTC-NC15TZ (3 HDT!!!) as within 5*C of the best coolers, as defined by frostytech, in the world, is absurd. Show nested quote +In Frosty's, the H100 beats the H50. Stop posting absolutes, and if you're going to say something, back it up with hard evidence. Not this weak anecdotal bull. http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Cooler-Master-Hyper-212-EVO-CPU-Cooler-Review/1407/6Look, 1 deg. C difference between the Evo and the Noctua, which supposedly means 1 deg. C difference between the Silver Arrow and Noctua since they're basically the same like you've been saying, no? Immediately wrong, never mind the legitimacy of the source nor the tolerances on the coolers, just because you're being so extreme with your claims every time. Those are tests are on a stock CPU, and the differences are 50 vs 53. Those benches are fine if you are testing a stock system, but as we all know, stock results don't mean shit. No one is going to buy an aftermarket heatsink for a stock system, and heatsinks don't show differences until you get to higher temp ranges. I like Hardware secrets, but testing a heatsink on stock load doesn't mean much. An Antec Kuhler 620 is not a worse performer than the Hyper 212 evo, even though it is almost 10*C hotter on idle (as lclc's tend to be much hotter on idle than regular air), but according to the test results, on idle, it is. You can see that low clocks/ low load results dont matter, obviously, and 150w is not nearly hot enough to be a valid test result to make judgements on heatsink performance. Jinglehell defended Frostytech as a review site, which is absolutely absurd. Everyone has criticisms of every review site, so it's odd that he's defending the questionable and completely different and unique test results of a site, especially one that is universally agreed upon in overclock forums as questionable, if not complete trash, for their testing methodology and results. He says, in his post, that the K2/Assassin is NOT the best heatsink in the world, and makes it clear he doesnt think it's a top tier cooler at least, and he also commented saying the Hyper 212 Evo performs comparatively to the NH-D14. Which is absolutely absurd. I've posted much more evidence to why he's wrong than anyone else has saying that 150w hot plate tests is a reasonable testbed or the Assassin is not a top tier heatsink or the Hyper 212 EVO performs comparatively to top tier heatsinks, yet I'm the asshole. Even though I've posted plenty of material on overclocking forums and done plenty of benches, and even own a Hyper 212 and NH-D14, I'm the one who is wrong about heatsink performance, not the guy quoting an artificial benchmark that's questionable and completely opposite of every single benchmark out there on an OC load. Show nested quote +ot one comparison between the Evo and the Assassin. Why you've been pursuing this is beyond me. Assassin is similar to a NH-D14. JH actually thinks the Evo is comparative to an NH-D14. By extension.... not to mention quoting FT which says the Evo is close in performance to the NH-d14 and better than the SA/Assassin. You can argue that the Assassin isn't the best air cooler in the world. But you can't argue that the Assassin is not a top tier contender for best heatsink in the world, and is definitely among the top 5 heatsinks in the world, and that's it's leagues above the Hyper 212 Evo. To claim that the Assassin, or NH-D14, or Silver Arrow, are in the same league as the Hyper 212 EVO, is absurd. It's common sense, I would think, to see that a 4 HDT heatsink isn't going to compare to a 2 x fan dual tower with direct contact, but hey, that's just me. It's quite important to get an apples to apples test comparison to get an accurate view of the performance of a cooler, otherwise you could just buy any shit cooler and slap on 2 140mm fans and call it a day, which just isn't a good idea. Otherwise Hyper 212 EVO could outperform any cooler provided you havethe right fans on it. Hence, the best benchmarks are the ones that perform 'apples to apples' tests, as it's most commonly called by tech review sites as I've seen it (although plenty call it something different). Show nested quote +No one ever argued the Assassin was bad for its price.
No one will ever argue that the best testing would not be done on a consistent test bench with the same fans.
EVERYONE IS ARGUING AGAINST YOUR USE OF ABSOLUTES WHILE NOT PROVIDING (COMPLETE) EVIDENCE. I've provided plenty of evidence that testing on a 150w hot plate is crap, plenty of reviews showing that the relative performance list that FT puts up (and hardware secrets, although they are clearly testing just stock load) is absolutely contrary to everything every other site has tested. I've also provided plenty of reviews and benches showing the Hyper 212 Evo significantly worse in performance then the SA/K2/Assassin/NH-D14/Phanteks, and that the SA/k2/Assassin/Nh-D14/Phanteks are all very similar in performance and all arguably the best cooler in the world. I've provided a benchmark showing the Assassin as the best heatsink in the world, an actual real world test on a controlled testbed, in an apples to apples test, one that even tested a Hyper 212, yet somehow it's a questionable benchmark, even though the guy is extremely experienced and runs a benching team, yet FT's controversial benches are not questionable at all. Please, tell me the logic in that one. Nothing is misinterpreted. His comment is quite clear he's saying the Hyper 212 Evo is comparable to an NH-D14 and the Assassin is not a world class cooler. It'd be fine if he said "Whoa, I disagree, I think the Phanteks/Nh-D14/Silver Arrow/Everest is the best cooler in the world by 1-2*C, not the Assassin", but he didn't, he said it was 'good, not great'. Which is flat out wrong.
$39. Assassin. Best deal around for a new heatsink. You will find nothing better within $25 in performance new price (unless some sale price, but it'll still be $10-20+ for arguably 1-2*C at most). And way better than the Hyper 212 evo. way better. I have lots of respect for skyR, Myrmidon, Wom, and Jinglehell, but i have to respectfully disagree completely with their opinions that Frostytech is anything better than a questionable website, and that the Assassin is not a world class cooler, or the Hyper 212 EVO comes anywhere close in performance on a highly OC processor to an NH-D14 or similar dual tower. I've actually tested the Hyper 212 and dual tower heatsinks, as well as been a member of prominent member of OCN for a while now. I'm not saying I know better, but when it comes to heatsinks especially, I do know what I'm talking about. Spoiled your long post. I only read the bit about overclocking and power draw. Anandtech on overclocking Ivy Bridge. First of all, Ivy bridge runs at lower voltages than SB overall, so I don't know why you're linking to an article on SB overclocking. Quotes:
Those wishing for 4.8GHz at 1.4 volts (similar to Sandy Bridge) will run into a lot of issues if they think that 1.4 volts is appropriate for Ivy Bridge. In comparison, you may end up with something more reasonable like 4.6GHz at 1.1 volts, or 4.8GHz at 1.2 volts
Ivy bridge runs at lower voltages than sandy bridge. Not only that, but they mention 4.8 Ghz at 1.2 volts. This graph shows more on the overclocking... 4.7 Ghz at 1.2V. Yes, it's at 87 celsius, but this was 1) done just when ivy bridge came out (process should be better now, right?) and 2) done with Intel AiO liquid cooling, and I have neither the experience or the know how to know how well Intel's solution performs. Power draw of the entire system at 1.25V and 4.4 Ghz: Power draw of the system at stock clocks and various voltage: And yes, it is the ENTIRE system. Unless Anandtech lied to us: At stock speeds, power draw increases by an average of 6W per 0.05 volts initially, moving up to 10W per 0.05 volts as we increase the voltage. With 0.35 extra volts in the processor the system moves from 112W under load to 168W – an increase of 50%. Temperature also rises quickly, from 53C at 0.90 volts to 80C at 1.25 volts. And yes, IVB is less than SB, because Anandtech acknowledges how common 1.4V clocks on SB is: Those wishing for 4.8GHz at 1.4 volts (similar to Sandy Bridge) will run into a lot of issues if they think that 1.4 volts is appropriate for Ivy Bridge. In comparison, you may end up with something more reasonable like 4.6GHz at 1.1 volts, or 4.8GHz at 1.2 volts Again, IVB takes less voltage and less power draw. And are you really going to assert that Anandtech sticks their processors at an unstable clock, boots it, and then calls it a day without any thorough testing? Because I believe you just said that. Now you're even refuting Anandtech, even though you've said multiple times that they're one of the most reputable sites. I am pretty sure that Anandtech did reasonable testing on their PC's before publishing results, otherwise somebody would call them out on it. There's a reason they're reliable, you can believe most anything they say. But in case you think they got a "lucky" chip that allowed them to publish those ludicrous clocks/voltages: From Overclockers showing 4.7Ghz at 1.3V an "optimal setting you should aim to better" (It's in there, if you care to look). And note that even at 5Ghz, he's measuring 160 watts (to us at least). Seems relatively in line with what Anandtech is posting at load because one is idle, the other is load. Ivy bridge is different from Sandy Bridge. Why are you giving sandy bridge articles on overclocking when they're different? I was just pointing out 150w as a test bed was too low on benching heatsink performance. Also, chips can run hotter or lower at a given wattage. IB runs much hotter than SB on an overclock at a given voltage and/or clock, so a 150w thermal plate isn't going to be an appropriate test for IB heatsink comparison either. A Hyper 212 is not going to be enough for the higher overclock ranges on an IB either. I wasn't particularly keen on using SB or IB, I was simply pointing out that they run a lot more than 150w on a standard overclock. Testing a 150w thermal plate is just as useful as testing stock load temps or even a low overclock - ie, useless.
... You said "Good luck achieving 4.7 on 1.25V" and then linked an article on sandy bridge overclocking and pointed out how 1.4V was relevant. I am saying that it is not.
Well, assuming you mean wattage and not TDP (which isn't a unit as has been said), what does:
I've provided plenty of evidence showing that 150w is far below an actual 24/7 overclock's TDP, and that's why frostytech's benches are crap. I also provided a ton of benchmark review sites showing conflicting results with what Frostytech provided.
(with no mention of system draw, just an overclock, implying you mean the CPU).
AND
Which we've discussed has nothing to do with the CPU, since the CPU itself draws well under 100W. The irony is that you're quoting system power consumption yourself.
The EXTRA irony is that the source you posted yourself (bit-tech) even STATES that it's system draw, not CPU draw.
However, for the power consumption tests we re-enable everything in order to get a real-world power draw. The power draw is measured via a power meter at the wall, so the numbers below are of total system power draw from the mains, not the power consumption of a CPU itself. Measuring the power draw of any individual component in a PC is tricky to impossible to acheive.
Back to you.
Very clearly implying that you believe the 2500k alone is making 154W, considering you used it to counter Myrmidon's comment.
And then you said"
- 150tdp is not even an overclocked 24/7 CPU. An i5 sb/phenom x4 on a mild 24/7 overclock will be over 150tdp, and an i7/i5 ib/phenom x6/fx is going to run way hotter than 150tdp on an overclock.
And then you said:http://extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jspSeems to me that just even 4ghz on an i5-2500k is going close to 150W, and that's quite a conservative overclock. Get an IB-i5 or stronger, a phenom ii, an FX, or i5 on a more standard overclock, and your definitely pushing past 160.
I think I have enough evidence. Considering a heatsink is cooling the CPU, 150W isn't "not enough" (going back to the fact that the only problem is the meh analogy between heatsink and hotplate)
Myrmidon wrote about this forever ago: (spoiled cause its long)
+ Show Spoiler +We're talking about CPU power draw obviously, because we're talking about CPU heatsinks. We don't care about the power lost in any other system component like the motherboard / PSU / hard drives / RAM / etc. I hope you realize that the PSU calc is making a suggestion for a PSU, which is higher than total system draw, that's usually inaccurate, that furthermore also just looks up CPU TDPs in a table, and also that is not relevant because TDP figures are way off actual power consumption in many cases. I mean honestly, does anybody really think that an i7-3770k and i5-3350 use the same amount of power stock? Furthermore, TDP ratings are for the package; we're talking about full CPU loads with iGPU and video decode hardware (i.e. like a third of the chip) turned off. Ivy Bridge clearly uses even less power than Sandy Bridge—hopefully no surprise given the process change.
Here is some approximate CPU load consumption (i5-2500 @ 62.2W with 95W TDP listed, 106.8W from the wall for the system). Ivy Bridge clearly draws less power, as seen here and here at least by system power consumption. As for scaling under overclocking, see here, keeping in mind that 45W or so is lost in places other than the CPU for the stock i5-2500k, with the number scaling up with load because the power supply and CPU VRMs consume more power as the processor takes more.
With Phenom II and FX of course you can reach past 150W with a heavier overclock. Same for SB-E hex cores. These aren't the processors that are being overclocked on builds that make sense in general, particularly for users of this forum and not some kind of enthusiast hardware bencher communities.
edit: but yes I do get it. If you're interested in theory and more power-hungry processors, it's better to test with more than 150W. I'd think that a 150W figure is a hold over from a prior era. To challenge the big heatsinks, you need a bigger load than Ivy Bridge. Anyway, if we were interested in theory and practice, maybe somebody would have brought up fin spacing. If you want a heatsink to do better for high fan speeds, you make the spacing smaller, like for Hyper 212 series, at the expense of lower-speed performance.
I mean.... it's common sense that the Hyper 212 cannot compete with these coolers. Thus, linking a benchmark that does not use a CPU, but rather a heatplate that is well below the TDP of a standard, 24/7 overclocked CPU (only 150tdp, 3.8ghz+ phenoms and 4.5+ ghz i5-2500ks go well above 150 tdp according to extreme powercalc), and shows that the Hyper 212 is better than a silver arrow, just removes all credibility.
The irony of this is that it's common sense that 150W is certainly above the power draw of a CPU. And this is the ONLY comment about power draw that I found relevant to coolers in those posts that I linked. The rest were standalone arguments about the power draw of a CPU.
Yes, an overclocked i5 SYSTEM draws more than 150W, but what does the cpu heatsink have to do with power draw of the hard drive, ODD, GPU, etc? Because the CPU itself certainly does not, as you implied multiple times. So, now that we KNOW that an i5 IB consumes less than 100W in normal load, let alone 150W, where the hell have all of your posts been coming from, and why is a 150W heatplate not "enough" to test a CPU? (ignoring the fact that it's a heatplate).
|
I tried reading the spoilers above but couldn't really understand all the "technical information" such as the cpu and mother boards, how do i tell whats compatible with what? Here is what I am currently in the market for. a new computer but don't want to buy a pre-built model that i could find on any random website. Now my problem isn't how to put together the computer, but trying to find which pieces to buy that are compatible with the others. I am looking to spend somewhere between $1,000-$2,000 on a computer for myself and my wife. Things that we are interested in being able to do on the computer would mainly consist of:
Music Storage
Photo Storage
Photo Editing
Playing today's games on medium to high graphics settings
among your everyday internet usage.
Thanks for any help i might receive,
|
On December 11 2012 10:00 Mithix wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I tried reading the spoilers above but couldn't really understand all the "technical information" such as the cpu and mother boards, how do i tell whats compatible with what? Here is what I am currently in the market for. a new computer but don't want to buy a pre-built model that i could find on any random website. Now my problem isn't how to put together the computer, but trying to find which pieces to buy that are compatible with the others. I am looking to spend somewhere between $1,000-$2,000 on a computer for myself and my wife. Things that we are interested in being able to do on the computer would mainly consist of:
Music Storage
Photo Storage
Photo Editing
Playing today's games on medium to high graphics settings
among your everyday internet usage.
Thanks for any help i might receive,
Motherboards have CPU sockets, among other things. A given CPU socket only supports a certain family of processors. e.g. socket LGA 1155 supports code-named Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge Intel CPUs (Core i3, i5, and i7 2nd and 3rd generation and related Pentium / Celeron products). Sometimes there are exceptions, but usually any CPU for a given socket will work with all motherboards that have that socket. Check the motherboard manufacturer website for the CPU support list to make sure.
Music and photo storage is trivial. How much space do you need? Just buy a hard drive (or multiple) with enough capacity. Or better, buy double so you can back it up.
Professional photo editing? What software? For what most people are doing, not too much is required. For serious work, the main deal is probably a good monitor that supports the color space required and a color calibrator, though if that applies to you I'm sure you already know that.
Generically you could just get some Core i5 and a decent video card, which is enough for today's games on very high settings and should handle everything else easily.
|
Actually, you're flat out lying if you say I've only provided a single source for anything. I used a minimum of two in my FIRST response, and Frosty was only to put the OTHER review in perspective. You promptly used that to try and drag my name through the mud.
The first article you posted was from a good website, but it was only temps on stock load. I'd say that's totally irrelevant information, whereas the FT article is just total bullshit. No one cares what stock load temps are on an aftermarket heatsink and they don't tell you anything.
Like I said, you can't say the H100 or other closed loop coolers perform worse than low end air just because their idle temps or even stock load temps are lower.
You really only provided 1 article showing overclocked performance I believe, and even that 1 article isn't an overclocked chip test, it was a heat plate to simulate load temps on a very minor overclock... or something, who knows what they were trying to do using a thermal plate instead of a cpu.
The other articles you posted simply show the Assassin is not the best cooler in the world, but rather 1-2*C below the best or something else in apples to apples test (and a couple degrees lower in stock, which, its not secret, the stock fans on the assassin leave something to be desired). Which is within the margin of error, and is fine, I'm not going to argue against such tests. You'll find half the sites say the Assassin is worse, and half say the Assassin is better, than another heatsink. X-bit labs are great (funny how you dont use them for the hyper 212 evo comparisons though). But even the other articles and x-bit labs show that the Assassin is a world class cooler.
The overclockers club article you posted showed a significant difference between the Hyper 212 Evo and NH-D14, I have no idea why you say it shows little difference or 'just behind the nh-d14", maybe you dont understand benches properly. There's a 6*C difference where the worst aftermarket cooler (the hyper 212 evo, by the way) was only 6*C worse than the best cooler lined up, which is a significant difference, and would be even larger on an overclock higher than just 3.4ghz...
Of course, the statements I made, and the list from FrostyTech, you seem to be getting those mixed up as well. The original statement I made was that your absolute statement regarding the Assassin was incorrect, provided a source, cross-referenced against a SECOND source, and you decided to question the cross-reference.
You posted only a single bench that tried to simulate overclock results which is obvious bullshit (it says the hyper 212 evo is better than the Silver Arrow, for example). You really didn't post a single test of the heatsink reviewed on an actual, overclocked, processor.
Then I posted multiple articles showing the Assassin is, if not THE best cooler, but you've yet to respond to any of them. Apparently the OCN article I showed with the Assassin, showing it's THE best cooler in regards to delta temps on apples to apples (and at higher ambient temps than the other tested fans, so if anything that shows it's definitely the best heat sink in a real overclock setting), is not good enough, nor the multiple other articles I posted about it.
It's one of the best coolers in the world, inarguably. You apparently don't agree with that, because of a single review (or I guess 2, apparently you think stock load temps mean something when it comes to heatsinks.... that's like comparing idle temps, doesnt mean anything, you'll see a totally different relative performance chart on higher temp ranges). You also seem to think that the Hyper 212 evo is somewhere in the range of the nh-d14, even though the article you posted shows anything but.
You clearly imply you don't trust Tom's, but if there's a forum discussion there agreeing with you, HOLY SHIT IT MUST BE TRUE!
Yes, as my comment makes clear, "Even people at TH say it's a joke, that's saying something" imples how terrible FT is when even the people at TH think it's bad. It was simply the first google result. You know, to go along with what I've been saying this entire time.... just google it, you'll realize how bad FT is and how much worse the hyper 212 evo is than the nh-d14 in performance and how the assassin is truly one of the best coolers in the world, if not the best.
Or just take it out of context, that's fine. Here, I'll post some links showing people say FT is horrible, from places I respect:
http://www.overclock.net/t/490560/frostytech/0_100
http://www.overclock.net/t/763354/frostytech-lol/0_100
You know, just look at google results: "site:Overclock.net Frostytech"
http://www.overclock.net/newsearch/?search=frostytech&type=all
http://www.overclock.net/t/291459/do-you-trust-frosty-tech-reviews/0_100
Yes, you already posted that link. Of course, he seems to have closed his youtube account, so you can't see how he did the test, so you have to take his word for it, and as I said before, a variable ambient temperature makes me suspicious.
Hopefully I don't have to explain why having the air conditioning kick on or off during a test can screw with your results?
I'm pretty sure the guy isn't that stupid... He's a very well respected member of OCN, he's very likely smarter than half the people at sites like FT or TH or AT or any site, really. He knows what he's doing.
|
|
|
Would you see my post? I already covered this.
However, for the power consumption tests we re-enable everything in order to get a real-world power draw. The power draw is measured via a power meter at the wall, so the numbers below are of total system power draw from the mains, not the power consumption of a CPU itself. Measuring the power draw of any individual component in a PC is tricky to impossible to acheive.
I don't know how to make this even more clear for you. I can buy out a billboard ad in your hometown if that helps, but we'll have to split the costs. How the hell does total system draw have anything to do with a CPU heatsink?
|
First of all, kudos for actually posting something short. That is good.
Second, to quote the article you linked:
However, for the power consumption tests we re-enable everything in order to get a real-world power draw. The power draw is measured via a power meter at the wall, so the numbers below are of total system power draw from the mains, not the power consumption of a CPU itself. Measuring the power draw of any individual component in a PC is tricky to impossible to acheive.
Meaning, of course, that such a measurement is not very useful for determining the power use, or heat output, of a CPU. You read the article wrong. It is not saying an i5-3570k reaches above 150w total power draw easily. It is saying an i5-3570k + mobo + RAM + case fans + HDD + GTX 590 + Power Supply inefficiency easily surpasses 150w total power draw.
|
On December 11 2012 10:00 Mithix wrote:
I tried reading the spoilers above but couldn't really understand all the "technical information" such as the cpu and mother boards, how do i tell whats compatible with what? Here is what I am currently in the market for. a new computer but don't want to buy a pre-built model that i could find on any random website. Now my problem isn't how to put together the computer, but trying to find which pieces to buy that are compatible with the others. I am looking to spend somewhere between $1,000-$2,000 on a computer for myself and my wife. Things that we are interested in being able to do on the computer would mainly consist of:
Music Storage
Photo Storage
Photo Editing
Playing today's games on medium to high graphics settings
among your everyday internet usage.
Thanks for any help i might receive,
Generally it is helpful if you fill out the whole questionnaire included in the OP (original post). Then, if someone is feeling generous (which usually happens within a day), you'll get a full list of components what will work together. It is important to include any extra parts in addition to the tower you need (headphones? monitor?). And also to be more specific with what you want the computer to do (what photo editing software - is this professional work or just some home photoshopping; what games, etc).
|
On December 11 2012 10:28 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 10:00 Mithix wrote:
I tried reading the spoilers above but couldn't really understand all the "technical information" such as the cpu and mother boards, how do i tell whats compatible with what? Here is what I am currently in the market for. a new computer but don't want to buy a pre-built model that i could find on any random website. Now my problem isn't how to put together the computer, but trying to find which pieces to buy that are compatible with the others. I am looking to spend somewhere between $1,000-$2,000 on a computer for myself and my wife. Things that we are interested in being able to do on the computer would mainly consist of:
Music Storage
Photo Storage
Photo Editing
Playing today's games on medium to high graphics settings
among your everyday internet usage.
Thanks for any help i might receive, Generally it is helpful if you fill out the whole questionnaire included in the OP (original post). Then, if someone is feeling generous (which usually happens within a day), you'll get a full list of components what will work together. It is important to include any extra parts in addition to the tower you need (headphones? monitor?). And also to be more specific with what you want the computer to do (what photo editing software - is this professional work or just some home photoshopping; what games, etc).
^ This really. There's a lot of arguing currently (if you couldn't tell) but generally people try to address the questionnaire's within a day; if they don't you can probably just refresh it.
|
On December 11 2012 10:15 Belial88 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Actually, you're flat out lying if you say I've only provided a single source for anything. I used a minimum of two in my FIRST response, and Frosty was only to put the OTHER review in perspective. You promptly used that to try and drag my name through the mud. The first article you posted was from a good website, but it was only temps on stock load. I'd say that's totally irrelevant information, whereas the FT article is just total bullshit. No one cares what stock load temps are on an aftermarket heatsink and they don't tell you anything. Like I said, you can't say the H100 or other closed loop coolers perform worse than low end air just because their idle temps or even stock load temps are lower. You really only provided 1 article showing overclocked performance I believe, and even that 1 article isn't an overclocked chip test, it was a heat plate to simulate load temps on a very minor overclock... or something, who knows what they were trying to do using a thermal plate instead of a cpu. The other articles you posted simply show the Assassin is not the best cooler in the world, but rather 1-2*C below the best or something else in apples to apples test (and a couple degrees lower in stock, which, its not secret, the stock fans on the assassin leave something to be desired). Which is within the margin of error, and is fine, I'm not going to argue against such tests. You'll find half the sites say the Assassin is worse, and half say the Assassin is better, than another heatsink. X-bit labs are great (funny how you dont use them for the hyper 212 evo comparisons though). But even the other articles and x-bit labs show that the Assassin is a world class cooler. The overclockers club article you posted showed a significant difference between the Hyper 212 Evo and NH-D14, I have no idea why you say it shows little difference or 'just behind the nh-d14", maybe you dont understand benches properly. There's a 6*C difference where the worst aftermarket cooler (the hyper 212 evo, by the way) was only 6*C worse than the best cooler lined up, which is a significant difference, and would be even larger on an overclock higher than just 3.4ghz... Of course, the statements I made, and the list from FrostyTech, you seem to be getting those mixed up as well. The original statement I made was that your absolute statement regarding the Assassin was incorrect, provided a source, cross-referenced against a SECOND source, and you decided to question the cross-reference. You posted only a single bench that tried to simulate overclock results which is obvious bullshit (it says the hyper 212 evo is better than the Silver Arrow, for example). You really didn't post a single test of the heatsink reviewed on an actual, overclocked, processor. Then I posted multiple articles showing the Assassin is, if not THE best cooler, but you've yet to respond to any of them. Apparently the OCN article I showed with the Assassin, showing it's THE best cooler in regards to delta temps on apples to apples (and at higher ambient temps than the other tested fans, so if anything that shows it's definitely the best heat sink in a real overclock setting), is not good enough, nor the multiple other articles I posted about it. It's one of the best coolers in the world, inarguably. You apparently don't agree with that, because of a single review (or I guess 2, apparently you think stock load temps mean something when it comes to heatsinks.... that's like comparing idle temps, doesnt mean anything, you'll see a totally different relative performance chart on higher temp ranges). You also seem to think that the Hyper 212 evo is somewhere in the range of the nh-d14, even though the article you posted shows anything but. You clearly imply you don't trust Tom's, but if there's a forum discussion there agreeing with you, HOLY SHIT IT MUST BE TRUE! Yes, as my comment makes clear, "Even people at TH say it's a joke, that's saying something" imples how terrible FT is when even the people at TH think it's bad. It was simply the first google result. You know, to go along with what I've been saying this entire time.... just google it, you'll realize how bad FT is and how much worse the hyper 212 evo is than the nh-d14 in performance and how the assassin is truly one of the best coolers in the world, if not the best. Or just take it out of context, that's fine. Here, I'll post some links showing people say FT is horrible, from places I respect: http://www.overclock.net/t/490560/frostytech/0_100http://www.overclock.net/t/763354/frostytech-lol/0_100You know, just look at google results: "site:Overclock.net Frostytech" http://www.overclock.net/newsearch/?search=frostytech&type=allhttp://www.overclock.net/t/291459/do-you-trust-frosty-tech-reviews/0_100Yes, you already posted that link. Of course, he seems to have closed his youtube account, so you can't see how he did the test, so you have to take his word for it, and as I said before, a variable ambient temperature makes me suspicious.
Hopefully I don't have to explain why having the air conditioning kick on or off during a test can screw with your results? I'm pretty sure the guy isn't that stupid... He's a very well respected member of OCN, he's very likely smarter than half the people at sites like FT or TH or AT or any site, really. He knows what he's doing.
So, anecdotes, forum posts, and dismissing a valid comment about methodology, wrapped up in a nice wall of text. I'm done with this discussion, until and unless you bring something both new and relevant to the table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
