Also, I have found LinX/Prime95 to be useless for stability testing, because even after passing long tests succesfully there would still be WHEA errors in Windows event viewer.
LinX/Prime95 are indeed
stability testers, but do not confuse stability testing with validation testing.
Validation testing confirms each instruction in the ISA (there are >700 instructions) performs correctly, does the math right, does not generate computational errors.
Stability testing merely confirms the CPU doesn't lock up, hang, or otherwise cause such a critically fatal computing error as to reboot the system when performing calculations with a very small subset of the total ISA. (LinX probably tests maybe 30 instructions at most)
You can't have validation without being stable, but you can be stable while failing validation.
The problem with enthusiast OC'ing is that we are technically amateurs using amateur tools, whereas the engineers at Intel and AMD are professionals equipped with the expensive tools needed to fully validate a processor at any given point on the shmoo plot.
So we rely on freely available stability testers like LinX, Prime95, F@H, etc to confirm stability...but we are blind to validation.
The only way to have some level of insight into whether or not your CPU would pass validation at a given OC setting is to do things like what you are doing, taking note of errors generated by other programs, programs that access a larger (or simply different) set of instructions than the limited set used by the stability tester programs themselves.
When it comes to overclocking, as laymen enthusiasts we have absolutely no way of knowing whether our OC'ed rig would pass validation (hence the silent data corruption risk and concern, hence the advice to never OC a work computer or anything that is critical) nor do we even have a way to test and claim the rig is stable.
All we can do is use stability test tools like LinX and Prime95 to confirm when our rigs are unstable, but we can't prove they are stable (let alone valid).
