as a noob looking to get into watercooling as either an AIO or possibly custom down the road, i liked the data but also see the some of what ryan is saying. in a perfect world if this testing was done just for me (by me for my own use even)
i'd run it on a cpu at stock settings to start with to get a baseline. then all the sweet testing you did after for the wonderful thermal load graphs.
as someone trying to educate users (like me) this baseline readings of the cooler and what it does on a specific cpu in a specific setting is part of the knowledge. knowing the rough tdp the cpu brings in, paired with the then exact delta numbers you are able to measure once it is broken down and controlled better helps paint the whole picture. some ending analysis of what you were able to read on a cpu and then helping me see how the delta graph you made relates to and can be extended to any cpu is the final exam of the overall lesson.
does this make sense? as thorough as all you did is, it is partially missing the connection to an actual result on a cpu. i know in your mind the connection is there, but as a student, the aha moment of comparing the graph to what we measured on the cpu and seeing how some of the variables effect that delta graph is the icing on the cake. i love the graph and feel i understand it's purpose, but the other variables that i now know mean a lot to actual real world performance could be explained a lot with a real world test and some insight on what is happening. you are the master and sometimes you have to do some initial hand holding and spoon feeding to get the lesson to stick. in science class, most theory is taught with a specific single experiment and then expanded from there to include the theory and effects represented by that single experiment.
either way i love it but i think ryan has a point, though he may not have explained it as well as he may have. remember i am actually an experienced teacher and it took me years to figure out how to take all the vast deep math knowledge i have and present it to a total novice in a useful digestible way. so i offer some insight from that perspective to you 😀
![Smile :) :)](/data/assets/smilies/smile.gif)
as someone trying to educate users (like me) this baseline readings of the cooler and what it does on a specific cpu in a specific setting is part of the knowledge. knowing the rough tdp the cpu brings in, paired with the then exact delta numbers you are able to measure once it is broken down and controlled better helps paint the whole picture. some ending analysis of what you were able to read on a cpu and then helping me see how the delta graph you made relates to and can be extended to any cpu is the final exam of the overall lesson.
does this make sense? as thorough as all you did is, it is partially missing the connection to an actual result on a cpu. i know in your mind the connection is there, but as a student, the aha moment of comparing the graph to what we measured on the cpu and seeing how some of the variables effect that delta graph is the icing on the cake. i love the graph and feel i understand it's purpose, but the other variables that i now know mean a lot to actual real world performance could be explained a lot with a real world test and some insight on what is happening. you are the master and sometimes you have to do some initial hand holding and spoon feeding to get the lesson to stick. in science class, most theory is taught with a specific single experiment and then expanded from there to include the theory and effects represented by that single experiment.
either way i love it but i think ryan has a point, though he may not have explained it as well as he may have. remember i am actually an experienced teacher and it took me years to figure out how to take all the vast deep math knowledge i have and present it to a total novice in a useful digestible way. so i offer some insight from that perspective to you 😀