The device was exposed to temperatures above 100°C during POST. Could this cause lasting harm?
The device was exposed to temperatures above 100°C during POST. Could this cause lasting harm?
When executing software that produces unexpected results—such as odd game behavior, broken web pages, or programs that refuse to launch—it is treated as a 'computation error.' This approach reflects real-world testing, focusing on actual issues rather than isolated stress scenarios.
For testing purposes, you require tools that reliably detect issues and provide feedback. It's clear there should be alternatives beyond Prime. I located another option, OCCT.
The program ensures smooth operation across different tasks. Any issues that arise are likely noticed by the user because they affect the results. However, errors that occur are important to address since they influence the machine's performance. AIDA64 is another tool designed to identify problems.
I don't think it really matters since data on the hard drive can get corrupted. Files might include photos, videos, programs, system updates, BIOS, and more. People used to run a test Windows install during overclocking or undervolting. That understanding seems to have faded. For important tasks, it's even more crucial. Around 2007 I had a work computer that caused numerical errors in GIS attribute tables calculations without any crashes or instability.
The device's performance changes and becomes apparent to the user. This doesn't have to happen instantly; delays would be considered unpredictable and unstable if they lead to wrong outcomes. I didn't assert anything about consistent operation or system failure. My statements were tied to evaluating how the 7800X3D behaves under high heat, focusing on stability when tasks fail. Running stress tests along a limited route isn't sufficient to gauge overall reliability. That's a solid foundation, but real-world use is essential to spot issues. Just because no errors surface doesn't guarantee they won't arise. I've noticed posts where memory problems appeared despite passing tests, showing the software may not be robust enough. Going through these checks is a beginning, yet actual usage in intended scenarios is necessary. Every program run involves processing, regardless of how clearly defined the task is. The machine is performing calculations to execute what it's designed to do.
It seems there might be some confusion about the accuracy and reliability of testing tools. I’m not sure if you’re asking about file corruption, calculation errors, or comparing software performance. Could you clarify what you mean by “better job testing”?
i mean that's true and all but reason why people use stuff like cb or p95 for troubleshooting is that there's a very high likelihood that if a component is damaged or otherwise malfunctioning that there'll be a crash or an error, basically a shortcut for long-term testing, especially useful after something that happened to op (possible heat damage) i would just *not* under no circumstances let these programs run for hours or "overnight" especially not when i think there might already be a damage... if there's no error after one run / 10 minutes that would be very much "good enough" to me. like no joke, 10 minutes p95 will get you very close to max heat output - no reason to let it run for hours, unless someone actually tries to find new prime numbers!
And similarly I had a shaky RAM (the notorious "vengeance" kind) and P95, CB, memtest, etc., all worked fine... but games would randomly crash quite often... Over the years, after upgrading to Trident Z Bodies, there have been no crashes since. So yes, these programs are handy but not super dependable either. They’re mainly useful when you intentionally trigger a crash or error, though no crash doesn’t guarantee everything is fine—it just shows the hardware can handle that specific, unrealistic task.
Shortcuts always have risk associated with them. The OP in this instance could say "hey I ran P95 for x period of time, and it's fine", and proceed to move forward with using the PC, and be totally fine. That doesn't invalidate my argument. It just means they weren't presented with a situation where that methodology is a problem. A company could also utilize the same methods and sell their products, and be fine for years. You don't get to pick and choose which ones have issues in specific instances. This is why you test across a wide range of tasks so you can ensure to yourself or your customers that the machine is totally acceptable - depending on the field, it would be called 'demonstrating compliance'. It's always a risk if you don't test the full range of the system's theoretical capability if you're going to sell it as such without proper verification.