Quote Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle View Post
Nah, that car analogy is spot on. However, it depends on your understanding of it. What's being implied here is what the device's intended and expected use is (IE: the intended or expected use of a corvette). Once you understand that should it be clear why it was used in that context.

Edit:
Oh BTW, it's not programs that initially stress CPUs beyond spec that determines stability. It''s the applications and games you use that will determine stability. As that is (or should be) the focus of why you are trying to OC to begin with. And, those everyday applications and games are usually the real reason why you decided to overclock to begin with .
Nah, the car analogy has its flaws. It has a point as well, but the car implied by the analogy is a commuter vehicle it seems, not anything meant to tow (or the ability).

A small truck vs large truck towing capacity would make for a better analogy. Both were bought with the capability to tow, but one is meant to tow a heavier load. Both can tow a heavy load but only one can do it "legally" or without sustaining damage from the work load.

That said, when I buy a piece of hardware I expect it to perform to its full advertised level when I want and for the warrantied time period. CPU's and GPU's are not sold as performing at 80% (number from the air) of their maximum performance... in fact there is no documentation provided which states that running your CPU/GPU at maximum performance could damage it and no software provided to tell you if you are going over the limit..

I dont disagree that furmark is a torture test that pushes things to their limit, but I believe it is a disservice to advertise a performance product as such if it is not capable of running at peak performance for its expected life cycle (realistically there will be down/idle time). Furmark is not the only application which can stress a GPU to full or very near full capacity.