TechPowerUp! Official IC Diamond Test

[SonDa5]

I'm not saying you're lying. I'm saying we need more people and we need more pictures from before and after ICD use. Something clear cut so we can move on in confidence to determine the cause. And I think we need a strong foundation like that because I'm imagining getting to the bottom of this will be expensive and require a lot real world testing. So the motivation for ICD or someone independent to expend the effort has to be there.

Has no one sent in their tube for testing or tried the warm water and smearing it thing yet?

I'm just sharing my experience. I have learned my lesson with IC Diamond. I have a little IC Diamond left in a tube and I have been using it sparingly mixed with alcohol and spreading it thin being careful that it doesn't have any hard diamonds in it. Spreading thin with alcohol and inspecting it I haven't had any problems with it yet.


I like the performance of diamond material TIM and hope IC Diamond can fix the formula/production problem.

 

[SonDa5]

Despite no replies or responses from the company to various PM's to date sadly, it's been decided only fair to re-open, please keep things civil and constructive.

Have you heard anything from IC Diamond?

 

[Tatty_Two]

Have you heard anything from IC Diamond?

Negative, since I last updated and said that he visits almost daily but has not updated us on his tests on returned coolers he has either stopped coming (last visit 26th Feb) or he comes to look as a guest and does not log on, I can only imagine there is a good reason why he does not want to provide the evidence to support the products integrity that he went to great lengths earlier to defend..... I dunno, perhaps tests do take more than 2 months.

I will probably give him until the end of the month and then close the thread.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

I for one hopes he comes back - even though I didnt take part in the test. But I get the feeling that theres a lot of behind the scenes cloak and dagger going on with an over-proportioned serving of bashing that would make clubbing baby seals seem like mashing small balls of play-doh with a toy mallet.

All the community can ask is that the rep be upfront and honest about his findings when he comes back....*if* he comes back, and hopefully put all the negativity around this product to rest because this is public forum and even if the members effected dont go spreading negative feedback in other forums about IC Diamond, people will eventually google for reviews and find this thread as well about the possible shortcomings of using IC Diamond which shouldnt be happening.

Unless W1zzard decides to delete the thread or bury it somewhere in the forum where members or guests cant get to it then that would be a very sad day in the history of TPU.


If you were wrong and your product did cause damage then at least be a man, be honest and apologise for it, not just for yourself but also for the company you are representing.

 

[cadaveca]

Why would he need W1zzard's response to deal with "customers" he sent product to that are now having issues?

That's rather funny. It only takes a moment to post "still working on it, will update with more info", and that'd be more than enough.

People having issues is no big deal...shit happens. It's how you deal with the issues that matters, and that's really that's made everything else questionable. I think this could have been wrapped up and settled many months ago.

 

[fullinfusion]

Why would he need W1zzard's response to deal with "customers" he sent product to that are now having issues?

That's rather funny. It only takes a moment to post "still working on it, will update with more info", and that'd be more than enough.

People having issues is no big deal...shit happens. It's how you deal with the issues that matters, and that's really that's made everything else questionable. I think this could have been wrapped up and settled many months ago.

Duno, send him a pm and ask him for yourself. I know no answers

 

[damric]

My experience was pretty much a failure.

I'm not sure if something is wrong with my tube, or if I'm just an idiot, but that shit was hard as clay and difficult to even squeeze out of the syringe, and that was only part of my problem. I tried several spreading methods, including dot method, line method, crack fill method, credit card method, and a combination of them all to no avail. The shit just doesn't spread. I could be a spoiled noob, but I'm used to much creamier compounds. I don't get it, I guess.

 

[Kaynar]

My experience was pretty much a failure.

I'm not sure if something is wrong with my tube, or if I'm just an idiot, but that shit was hard as clay and difficult to even squeeze out of the syringe, and that was only part of my problem. I tried several spreading methods, including dot method, line method, crack fill method, credit card method, and a combination of them all to no avail. The shit just doesn't spread. I could be a spoiled noob, but I'm used to much creamier compounds. I don't get it, I guess.

Just heat it in hot water (would say water at around 40-50c) for about a minute, it will be much softer after. Pea size in middle of CPU is the only method that works easily.

 

[damric]

Just heat it in hot water (would say water at around 40-50c) for about a minute, it will be much softer after. Pea size in middle of CPU is the only method that works easily.

Thanks for the tip. I'll retry

 

[IC Diamond]

I had an independent analysis done on the photos posted on the IC Diamond Giveaway of alleged damage caused by IC Diamond by the forum members

TRWOV
SonDa5
natr0n

On the following pages

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=170121&page=20



http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=170121&page=12

The third Party report can be found here

http://innovationcooling.com/image/Innovationcoolingreport.pdf


This was a particularly nasty bit of business doctoring photos to denigrate and slander our product and company.

This was most likely an orchestrated event and not an idle adolescent bid for attention and as such and due to the seriousness of the malicious intent they should be banned permanently from the website. I have already identified some connections between a couple of the users and believe other deeper connections will follow soon on a number of forum members.

The company that did the analysis can be found here

http://www.fmsconsultation.com/Image.html

 

[sneekypeet]

HAHAHAHAHAH your report shows that the pictures aren't taken with the cameras claimed by the customers (in the image details), why would they lie? Try suing someone then if you feel slandered!!!!!!! You can't win just denying everything.

 

[t_ski]

Sounds like it was "Hey FMS - Here's a big check to do an "analysis" on these pics and say it wasn't our fault. Thanks."

Also, big lol here:

10) The DCT Map revealed no particularities of interest. Other than the label in lower right hand corner which reads “Free image hosting by www.techpowerup.com”.

So FMS did an analysis of the images that were downloaded from the site, most of which had to be reduced in size by some form of image editor in order to meet the site's posting guidelines. Why did ICD not request the original images to do the study?

 

[cadaveca]

Sounds like it was "Hey FMS - Here's a big check to do an "analysis" on these pics and say it wasn't our fault. Thanks."

Also, big lol here:



So FMS did an analysis of the images that were downloaded from the site, most of which had to be reduced in size by some form of image editor in order to meet the site's posting guidelines. Why did ICD not request the original images to do the study?

I read the report. It basically says that all they could do was confirm that the images posted were not the original image files. Our image host has size limits. Break out the tin hats!

also:

11) Testing for defective pixels requires the suspect camera to be available.

Sounds like wasted money, and improper testing. I don't think this would be something that would hold up in court.

 

[sneekypeet]

I read the report. It basically says that all they could do was confirm that the images posted were not the original image files. Our image host has size limits. Break out the tin hats!

So what exactly has ICD proved here? Right, the same nothing they have proved this whole time!

 

[cadaveca]

So what exactly has ICD proved here?

That the pictures were re-sized.

 

[t_ski]

11) Testing for defective pixels requires the suspect camera to be available.

So they need us to send in the cameras we took the pictures with, too? Kinda like the heatsinks that were sent in?

 

[cadaveca]

So they need us to send in the cameras we took the pictures with, too? Kinda like the heatsinks that were sent in?

It looks like ICD is trying to say that the pictures were faked, but I see no evidence of this, and that report generally indicates the same. There are a couple of images were it seems the picture quality was adjusted, and they mentioned that this could cause artifacting to appear. Also, there are traces of photoshop (GASP!!!) in some image files.


I think all this proves is that ICD is paranoid.

I asked someone who got one of these samples about how it was now...he said it smells funny. I agree..something is DEFINITELY fishy here...and if you sent in a heatsink damaged by this, you can guarantee that it's been destroyed or that you'll enver get it back....so it can't be used in court against them, IMHO. I'd be looking at "Nefarious Device" lawsuits had I received a sample. lol

 

[TRWOV]

1) The file format data indicates that the digital image is a JPEG file and the digital camera used to create the image
is a Canon PowerShot A2200. Pixel dimensions equal 600 x 800, these dimensions are not consistent with the
resolution capabilities of the Canon PowerShotA2200 digital camera. For this reason img0922ns’s file format is not
consistent with an authentic digital image created by this camera.
2) The digital image Hex Data contains traces of http://ns.adobe.com, http://ns.adobe.com/xap/, adobe, and
http://www.w3.org. As well as traces that support the hypothesis of JPEG image re-compression.

duh? Of course it was resized. The forum's recomended picture resolution is 800x600 (if your image is larger it resizes it automatically) and I always resize my pictures since imageshack only provides 5GB of storage.

I don't recall if I resized the original images or if I used imageshack's built in resizer but if it's the former I'll be happy to provide the original pictures as soon as I get home.

So you know now guys: resizing = doctoring.

This is really disappointing Andrew. I was even standing up for you guys (as seen here and here) and now I'm part of a conspiracy to bring IC down :shadedshu

 

[cadaveca]

duh? Of course it was resized. The forum's recomended picture resolution is 800x600 (if your image is larger it resizes it automatically).

I don't recall if I resized the original images or if I used imageshack's built in resizer but I'll be happy to provide the original pictures as soon as I get home.

So you know now guys: resizing = doctoring.

Seems like he's looking to show ways to disprove stuff in court, make "evidence" inadmissible. Except that tpu isn't court. XD Sounds like someone trying to cover their ass.


BTW, I am gathering samples of ICD. I'll hand it off to a friend working at the local university for forensics. Gonna get some of the "stinky" stuff too.

 

[sneekypeet]

BTW people, feel free to go to their Facebook page and post what you found. They are on that channel claiming this is all slander and that we as a group at TPU staged this just to put ICD in a bad light...

https://www.facebook.com/pages/IC-Diamond-by-Innovation-Cooling-LLC/178676248816485

 

[Ahhzz]

Eh, if he'd spent any time at all checking out the users he's pointing fingers at (and several he ignored), he'd see that they've been here a pretty sizeable time, and have no obvious reason to "sabotage" his test bed. Now, I'll buy into possibly passing comments made by some, as they've been here only a couple of years. Not a good reason, but in light of the extreme paranoia, fine. But Pete, Dave and Ski? Really? What possible reason would they have for scuffing and pitting their personal items, and then blaming ICD? Not to mention, most of the original comments said NOTHING about requesting reimbursement or anything like it, just pointed to a peculiarity, and requested more info and someone to look into it. Eh, Blow him off.

 

[cadaveca]

I don't think ICD realizes that with that Facebook post, they are now liable for slander.

 

[IC Diamond]

HAHAHAHAHAH your report shows that the pictures aren't taken with the cameras claimed by the customers (in the image details), why would they lie? Try suing someone then if you feel slandered!!!!!!! You can't win just denying everything.

Does not matter what the users say - Fact: each Picture contains an EXIF file about the camera. It can contain GPS Data as to where the picture was taken, model of camera, and what software was used to edit the picture plus a lot more information.

EXIF data has a long history of acceptable evidence in numerous court cases.

 

[Random Murderer]

BTW, I am gathering samples of ICD. I'll hand it off to a friend working at the local university for forensics. Gonna get some of the "stinky" stuff too.

You can have my tube. I peeled the label off to check for particles, but that's it. It does have a fishy smell to it, though.

For the rep to come in here and blame us for "doctoring photos to denigrate and slander" is ridiculous and upsetting.

Last time I repasted, I cleaned off all the ICD and went back to the old standby: AC MX-2.
I will never use ICD again.

Does not matter what the users say - Fact: each Picture contains an EXIF file about the camera. It can contain GPS Data as to where the picture was taken, model of camera, and what software was used to edit the picture plus a lot more information.

EXIF data has a long history of acceptable evidence in numerous court cases.

But it's only relevant when checking the ORIGINAL photo, not a resized image.

 

[cadaveca]

EXIF data has a long history of acceptable evidence in numerous court cases.

Sure. But when these guys show up in court with their cameras and the original pictures and sue you for slander, your ass is toast. Understand that you've simply "set the bar" to disprove your "proof", and prove that your Facebook posting is slanderous.

You should have not posted that public, and saved it for court, as how to disprove that this pictures have been "doctored" is clearly listed in the "report". You might want to hire a lawyer...the court case, appeals and all, each case by individuals so you have to handle them one by one in each individual's state, will ruin you.