
Originally Posted by
Particle
If I mandated people use calibrated DMMs to measure vCore under load, we'd have virtually no entries where people could be classified as "stable". It would be even less useful than what we've got now, which I believe is a reasonable compromise. Since we don't exist as members of a laboratory, I just use the highest number I'm presented with. When people say "xV BIOS / xV load" or whatever, I pick whichever is higher so that the chart errors as much as possible on the side of worst case scenario. As for heat, if you're going to fail at due to thermals, you'll probably be caught within 8 hours. It's not uncommon for a CPU to fail only after extended durations even way beyond 8 hours. My personal standard is 24 hours with 48 being better, and I've seen failures at 25-26 hours for example. It doesn't take that long for things to heat up and saturate thermal solutions. Maybe your chip is on the fence. If it is, you're not stable regardless of the cause. Your definition of stable, beep, is more of a definition of stable-ish, and that's not good enough for me.
Blend is better than small or large FFTs imo. Who cares if your CPU is stable if the memory system isn't. It's an unusable system either way, you know?
No, the system isn't perfect, but it would be unrealistic to expect members of a forum like this to contribute better information on average. This is an informal setting.
Bookmarks