![]() Which is why using multiple different tests, that test on a wider variety of instruction sets, it's ALWAYS the best option. There are no stability tests that cover everything (especially IBT and Furmark), and no amount of testing will guarantee complete stability. If you're implying that either of those are the end all, beat all stability test, you couldn't be more wrong. If you're stability testing for 10 minutes, and calling it good, you're doing it wrong. There's no such thing as a 10 minute stability test, period.doesn't matter what program you're using. It's just that running the heaviest workload available shows a pretty well which direction to go to, especially if you're looking for a stable voltage. No matter how much you want to prove me wrong, I never said that there's a single program that can determine stability. Same thing for FurMark, i often have it running in the background while i overclock so that the gpu crashes instantly when i go too high. I have a rig built specifically for data mining using both CPU and GPU compute, and I know better than to overclock it.because there is one simple truth to overclocking stability, and that is, that there is NO test that will guarantee it.Īll i was saying is that 24h Aida64 tests are pointless when IBT does the same thing in literally 10 minutes. But if you're data mining, video editing or doing anything else that requires precision and stability, overclocking is probably the worst thing you could possibly do. Most people are just gaming, and doing light compute work, so Realbench for a few hours is MORE than enough. The thing is.unless you're building a rig for a very specific purpose, like data mining or video editing, you aren't going to be pushing your rig as hard as ANY of these stress tests will. Any additional testing should be done in the game you're playing, or the hashing program that you're using.because as I stated before, there are NO stability testing programs that will catch everything. The only thing furmark is good for, is cooking eggs.and GPUs. If there's instability in your overclock, that'll very likely find it, without submitting your GPU to such harsh environs that furmark offers. Something IBT hasn't done.as it hasn't been updated since like 2012.įor GPU stability, I've found the best combination to be Superposition on 1080 extreme, Firestrike Ultra (graphics test 1 and 2 on loop), and Time Spy Extreme (graphics test 1 and 2 on loop).each for at least an hour. Granted, both AIDA64 AND OCCT both use LINPACK, but also have other instruction sets, and are also kept updated with new AVX instruction sets. Configurable testing platforms like AIDA64 and OCCT for heavy load testing, and Realbench for lighter load testing (some will even argue that it can be used for heavy load testing, because it does include AVX instrucitons), are all superior, and won't JUST create an ungodly amount of heat for a LINPACK based test. ![]() I've so far never seen a crash on a system that was proven to be stable by either one. OCCT seems a bit better but still far from IBT.Īnd please explain to me: How is using IBT or FurMark for long term testing "catastrophic stupidity"? I know many cases of where several hours of Aida64 testing has not given away an unstable oc.Īida64 used to be my go to testing tool until i realized that it sucked when my pc kept crashing during games even though Aida64 would never crash. IBT has it's uses, for very short stability tests in order to dial in settings for an overclock, but to use it for any kind of long term testing is just catastrophic stupidity. ![]() OCCT and AIDA64 are more than capable for heavy load testing, even more so than IBT. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |