None of this is helpful unless we stay on topic and try to get some new info. And I don't think the interesting info is how to test a chip, that's been done to death. It makes me want to puke how often I read arguments about what "stable" is.
There are plenty of short tests that will work to see what a chip can do at a certain clock with a certain voltage. Using those, I can identify just how much my chip has degraded.
An interesting data set could be - chip's vid, what it's baseline clocks and req. voltage were out of the box, what was done to it out of spec (benchmarks used & how much v) and what vcore it takes after degradation to meet the previous clocks and pass the same tests.
Another set could be used to illustrate whether the chips continue to degrade, or can sustain a bit of damage and then act as normal, just needing a tad more vcore. I've been testing mine with the same methods as before and after degradation and it seems to be holding its own at the same clocks/vcore as just after degrading. That tells me it's not still sliding downhill.
The $hitty part about this is that noone wants to believe that these chips degrade, or that they didn't take readings on the way up, and have no way to compare. Everyone who bought one of these chips is an early adopter and has to expect grey areas with overclocking them. Another road block are the armchair quarterbacks who don't even own a 45nm chip and derail the discussion with an attempt at a debate about how long to stress test a chip.
Crazy Nuts or anyone else with a chip that's degraded - how is it holding up weeks down the road? Still sliding down? Holding its ground? This is the stuff that's going to interest me at least.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks