<<
For sheer temperatures then CPUBurn is best, for sheer stability testing Prime95 is still much better though. >>
Rand, doesn't CPUBurn also test stability? I've seen the voltages are pushed to the max. My +12V rail goes upto 12.44 with it. Prime95 just pushes it upto 12.31 to 12.37. Sisoft stress test (CPU multimedia test) using normal priority also pushes it upto 12.31 to 12.37. So could CPUburn also be a great stability test because it pushes the system to the limits as observed with the voltages....[/i] >>
It does test stability also, in fact that's pretty much the whole point of CPUBurn.... that said temperatures and voltage are hardly a determinating factor for the amount of stress the processor is under. Prime95 is simply a much more well rounded and thurough test then is CPUBurn, and tests far more variables.
Voltage alone is but a vague indicator of stress the system is under, many factors can influence that considerably.
There is a reason AMD and Intel recommend Prime95 for stress testing
Short of NTBenchS*, or whatever program(s) Intel uses for in-house stress testing your not going to find a more consistently reliable stress test then Prime95.
BTW-NTBenchS is AMD's own in-house testing program of course.... though naturally it's not publically available.
If I want to test for adequate cooling then I run CPUBurn because it will evoke the highest temperature of any program I've yet seen.
But if I want to test sheer processor/RAM/motherboard stability then I'll definitely look towards Prime95 first.
I've found it will consistently error out long before any other program will show even the slightest signs of instability.