I will have to agree to the above.
I see the argument for "stability" pop up constantly. Why? Usually people use it to back out of silly arguments like using prime over linx. It is an arbitrary argument. You can't toss a dictionary result of the word "stability," slap some makeup on it, and have it hit the town. It is a circular argument that nets nothing.
So lets look at it in a way that is rare in this world, objectively. You are overclocking. Overclocking itself is a singular variable of change. I'm not going to bring in the scientific method here so lets latch on to the concept of changing variables. Encapsulated in overclocking is a plethora of variables that only further add to the analysis for stability.
What does all this mean? Unless you hit default settings and go back to square one your idea of stability will never be concrete. Is the earth's environment stable? Hey we are breathing and living right so it is stable. We apply an exponential amount of chemicals into this environment, similar to stressing the environment, and we are still living right? While that may be stable to some, it certainly may not be stable to others.
Now that the the arbitrary argument is defined here comes the objective viewpoint. We have a set of tools that are mathmatically based; there is no stress component type software. But do you have any other tools all of you stability wiseguys?
You use what you have and test accordingly. You have the next best thing so use it. Linx for i7 has been proven to be more stressful on the new architecture. Use it. Simple, done, nothing more to say. To argue otherwise is just going to have you running in a circle with your head down until you finally stick it up your own ***.





Reply With Quote
Bookmarks