Just curious..I have an old E6600 overclocked to 3ghz with a very tiny voltage bump over stock. It fails Orthos and any other stress test in about 40 seconds however I never get any blue screens or random reboots during normal use. I've had the same XP installation on the machine for 3 years with the same overclock. Temps are nice and cool and I can play all modern games on high settings with no crashes.. Is there any reason at all to worry about getting a 100% "stable" OC? It seems rather pointless to bump up the voltage and increase temperatures just to pass an arbitrary test. Shouldn't the only factor in overclocking be functionality? If the machine is OCd and doesn't crash during normal use, why bother increasing voltage to pass a stress test?
Overclock has never been "stable" under stress tests, but why should I care?
- Thread starter totalnoob
- Start date
varying opinions on this i think. if it crashes then obv something is wrong somewhere. i personally would up the voltage to try and stabilize it. but, others wouldn't. no right answer since in the end, only your view matters really
eternalone
Golden Member
- Sep 10, 2008
- 1,500
- 2
- 81
In order to get completely stable I'll need to bump the vcore up to 1.45ish which makes the temps skyrocket in to the high 60s under load. No real world game or application will push a PC as hard as a stress test does, so it seems pointless to raise voltage until you are "Orthos-stable" or "Prime-stable". Why melt your CPU with a high (but "stable") Vcore when it is completely unnecessary for regular use?
That's like saying you don't believe in driving more than 30mph in a 50mph zone. Why the heck not?
You are giving up free performance by not doing it.Originally posted by: totalnoob
That's like saying you don't believe in driving 50mph in a 30mph zone. Why the heck not?
Fixed.
The thing is that by passing the stress test, you can ensure that the data calculated by the CPU is correct, which is critical in certain situations such as encoding, distributed computing, probably excel etc. One of the reason for stress testing is that by passing the test, the cpu will be stable and it would not be a factor in crashing the computer anymore.
It all depends on the end user, if the computer didn't crash and doesn't run data critical applications then go ahead. But if the machine isn't stable Prime/Orthos wise and still using it to run distributed computing software then you'll be doing more harm than good, bad data hurts those projects.
It all depends on the end user, if the computer didn't crash and doesn't run data critical applications then go ahead. But if the machine isn't stable Prime/Orthos wise and still using it to run distributed computing software then you'll be doing more harm than good, bad data hurts those projects.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
The simple answer to your dilemma is this:
Sure OCCT program warms up the CPU perfectly well, and Prime95 in Blend mode tests not only the CPU but also the memory. However, they cannot give you a 100% stability guarantee anyway. However, by testing your system under these scenarios you at least find out to which extent it will be stable (in other words 2 hours is surely better than 40 seconds). But realistically, no program will test your CPU like OCCT Linpack or Prime95.
To determine the maximum voltage setting you can use any other ?heavy? applications from those that you work with on a regular basis or from time to time. In this case the maximum temperature will most likely be lower than with OCCT/Prime95 and you will be able to push the CPU even further, or use lower voltages as you have. However, this approach may be suitable only for you, but not for others. If you intend to sell your computer in overclocked form or someone else uses it other than you, I have no idea what applications they intend to run on your system. Therefore by using these stress test programs, you allow to leave a slight reserve loading the system to its maximum (since you'll be forced to back down your overclock or increase voltage).
But, if no one else but you uses this computer, you will most likely get a well overclocked system that will work stably under any load for the most heavy applications you use. In that case, getting Prime95 stable is just something that may make you feel a lot safer about your system, but is not necessary.
I personally never test Prime95 for 24 hours since I find those results meaningless for me based on what I use my computer for. I will never stress my system for 24 hours to that extent. However, some people may come close depending on what applications they use. For that reason, Prime95 testing should never follow "But is it 24 hours stable?" criteria, because system usage by everyone over 24 hours is different. So for some people 40 seconds prime95 stable is enough for achieving stability, for others 10 hours is required since they may run 4 heavy usage applications at night. It's subjective.
Sure OCCT program warms up the CPU perfectly well, and Prime95 in Blend mode tests not only the CPU but also the memory. However, they cannot give you a 100% stability guarantee anyway. However, by testing your system under these scenarios you at least find out to which extent it will be stable (in other words 2 hours is surely better than 40 seconds). But realistically, no program will test your CPU like OCCT Linpack or Prime95.
To determine the maximum voltage setting you can use any other ?heavy? applications from those that you work with on a regular basis or from time to time. In this case the maximum temperature will most likely be lower than with OCCT/Prime95 and you will be able to push the CPU even further, or use lower voltages as you have. However, this approach may be suitable only for you, but not for others. If you intend to sell your computer in overclocked form or someone else uses it other than you, I have no idea what applications they intend to run on your system. Therefore by using these stress test programs, you allow to leave a slight reserve loading the system to its maximum (since you'll be forced to back down your overclock or increase voltage).
But, if no one else but you uses this computer, you will most likely get a well overclocked system that will work stably under any load for the most heavy applications you use. In that case, getting Prime95 stable is just something that may make you feel a lot safer about your system, but is not necessary.
I personally never test Prime95 for 24 hours since I find those results meaningless for me based on what I use my computer for. I will never stress my system for 24 hours to that extent. However, some people may come close depending on what applications they use. For that reason, Prime95 testing should never follow "But is it 24 hours stable?" criteria, because system usage by everyone over 24 hours is different. So for some people 40 seconds prime95 stable is enough for achieving stability, for others 10 hours is required since they may run 4 heavy usage applications at night. It's subjective.
The reason I stress-test my overclocks for many hours (maybe not always 24 hours, because I find that if it's going to fail, it usually does so within a couple of minutes, and almost always within the first 20-30 minutes, but it happens) is because this eliminates the uncertainty.
If I have some weird crash down the road, and I know the overclock isn't quite 100% stable, I will never know if it was caused by a driver, OS or software bug, or if it was due to my overclock. A system that has failed the stress tests most certainly will crash now and then due to the overclock. Maybe only once every couple of weeks, but that's enough frustration for me.
Also, I've found that if a system is generally stable and can run Prime95 for a couple of minutes, you usually don't have to back of much to get 100% stability. The system is already on the edge of stability. You might just have to sacrifice 100 MHz to get a 100% stable system - well worth it IMO. You generally need a difference of 10% or more to be able to actually tell the difference.
If I have some weird crash down the road, and I know the overclock isn't quite 100% stable, I will never know if it was caused by a driver, OS or software bug, or if it was due to my overclock. A system that has failed the stress tests most certainly will crash now and then due to the overclock. Maybe only once every couple of weeks, but that's enough frustration for me.
Also, I've found that if a system is generally stable and can run Prime95 for a couple of minutes, you usually don't have to back of much to get 100% stability. The system is already on the edge of stability. You might just have to sacrifice 100 MHz to get a 100% stable system - well worth it IMO. You generally need a difference of 10% or more to be able to actually tell the difference.
With the way most processors now down clock natively, pushing your voltage to stable maximums is not a bad thing. Processors spend more time downclocked and undervolted these days than they do at full load. Most of my games don't break 30% CPU usage and at a higher voltage, that's still not anywhere near enough load to make overvolting a problem.
For me, stable is video encoding and gaming. If I'm stable in these apps I'll take every last bit of performance I can get (be it cooler temps or higher clock speed).
I do however like to make sure that all my cores are running effectively with prime. If all your cores don't complete the work at the same time, you know there are some pretty big errors going on.
In your case, I'd say get it stable if you plan on giving the computer to anyone.
For me, stable is video encoding and gaming. If I'm stable in these apps I'll take every last bit of performance I can get (be it cooler temps or higher clock speed).
I do however like to make sure that all my cores are running effectively with prime. If all your cores don't complete the work at the same time, you know there are some pretty big errors going on.
In your case, I'd say get it stable if you plan on giving the computer to anyone.
Three words: Silent data corruption
Every bit and byte that passes thru the circuits of your processor is all the more susceptible to corruption, its referred to as "silent" because the manner in which the corruption is occurring is not so critical to your system's function as to cause it to crash/fail/bomb-out nearly immediate to the time in which the corruption occurs.
(stability test programs look for immediate signs of corruption in addition to signs of outright catastrophic failure during execution)
By having your processor operate so close to the regime in which the corruption can become critically fatal (system crashes) it really puts your data all the closer to incurring silent data corruption whilst processing less aggressive programs.
And its not just the data your particular applications is creating/processing...if you have file indexing active in the background, or any kind of defrag program, etc, basically anything that is "touching" your existing data sitting on your hard-drive is then exposing your data to that higher elevated prospects of silent data corruption.
We can never rule out the possibility of silent data corruption, but we can do things that knowingly reduce the probability of it occurring. This is why doing longer longer prime95 runs, etc, has validity.
Knowing your rig is stable enough as to not incur critically disabling corruption in 8hrs if Prime95 small FFT processing means you are justified in expecting/assuming the probability of incurring silent data corruption is lower than the case where your rig is only 4hrs prime95 stable (or has only been tested for 4hrs).
Hence testing for 24hrs, and not generating a critically disabling corruption event, gives you justification (confidence) that your rig is even less probable to generate silent data corruption when operating a routine program versus the situation where you only had data to support concluding your rig is stable for 8hrs of prime95 testing. Etc.
If your day to day usage doesn't push the cpu that hard, why do you even need to overclock it that much?
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Overclocking is not for the faint at heart !
I have thousands of family photos, home video, and some financial spreadsheets that are irreplacable. Could these be corrupted by overclocking?
If so, I don't think an extra 5 fps is worth it.
Markfw
Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
- May 16, 2002
- 26,994
- 15,948
- 136
Originally posted by: Jumpem
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Overclocking is not for the faint at heart !
I have thousands of family photos, home video, and some financial spreadsheets that are irreplacable. Could these be corrupted by overclocking?
If so, I don't think an extra 5 fps is worth it.
Key word here....Stable
Second: Backups, all hardware can die and corrupt things, even not overclocked.
I don't even play FPS games, I just crunch for F@H....
The porblem is that if you corrupt files unkowingly and then backup over your previous backups. Now your backup is in the same bad state.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,570
- 10,202
- 126
Yes, easily, if you're not stable. Then again, HDs can fail any any time, stock speed or overclocked, so make sure to always have TWO OR MORE COPIES of valuable data.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,570
- 10,202
- 126
That's why I pull out previous backups, and do a binary file-compare against all of my files. If there are files that don't compare, but I don't recall changing them recently, then I investigate. I might have to restore those files from even earlier backups in order to get them back.
I discovered silent data-corruption on my old slot-1 440BX mobo, and a Promise Ultra66 IDE controller card. It turns out that there is a rare hardware bug in those controller cards that causes it.
I use BeyondCompare to compare my master drive to the three backups, and then use it to sync them.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,570
- 10,202
- 126
Don't forget to keep a set of optical media backups too. The EMP produced by the solar wind storms of 2012 might wipe out HDs.
What defines stability for those programs? The standard "no errors in 24 hours" rule being mentioned all over the internet?
Do you test your stock speed system to make sure it's Prime95, Orthos, OCCT, Intel Burn Test stable for 24 hours?
What if you find an error running at stock settings? Do you RMA cpu/motherboard to Newegg/Intel saying it's defective because it wasn't Prime95/OCCT stable for 24 hours running at stock which could lead to silent data corruption?
Do you increase voltage above the default settings which Intel/AMD engineers already feel is adequate?
Before Intel and AMD release a processor into the retail channels, do they test Prime95 and OCCT for 24 hours ensuring that their processor don't fail a test?
What if the CPU I'm about to order from Newegg/Micro Center passes Intel Burn test, but fails OCCT and Prime 95 running at stock? What should I do?
Also, why stop at 24 hours? Why not 168 hours?
I find the "24 hour" rule being mentioned all over the internet to be completely unnecessary. The most I've ever ran Prime95 for is 18 hours. I'd say about 12 hours is more than enough for my needs.
As is the case with all testing, the tester must first decide what question it is that they want to answer by running the stress test.
If you are running stress tests for arbitrary reasons (some dude on Internet said to run it this long) then you will find the answer to not really address any question you personally might have had.
There are valid reasons for running 24hr tests, that data answers questions that some people want answered. If you don't know the question that is being answered it would be ignorant of you to assume the question itself doesn't exist.
So the question for you is what question do you think you are answering by running an 8hr test, versus a 24hr test, versus a 168hr test? If you know the question you are trying to answer by running your stress test then it is self-evident.
If you aren't really sure why you are running stress tests then the data you are generating by doing so will be rather meaningless and as such you are more likely to conclude the exercise of generating the data is equally meaningless. Your deciding such doesn't actually make it so, just means you are operating within a certain regime of ignorance as to what people intend to accomplish by running longer and longer stress tests.
Those folks are seeking to generate an answer (the data) to a question they have. You might simply not have the desire to answer that question, or you may be unaware that the question exists or that it might be relevant to you.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,570
- 10,202
- 126
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter