This Ryzen 7 1700 at 3.75ghz and 1.32v Cinebench R15 1627cb performance is quite impressive.
This Ryzen 7 1700 at 3.75ghz and 1.32v Cinebench R15 1627cb performance is quite impressive.
Vellinious :
Finstar :
Vellinious :
If you're implying that either of those are the end all, beat all stability test, you couldn't be more wrong. There are no stability tests that cover everything (especially IBT and Furmark), and no amount of testing will guarantee complete stability. Which is why using multiple different tests, that test on a wider variety of instruction sets, it's ALWAYS the best option. Configurable testing platforms like AIDA64 and OCCT for heavy load testing, and Realbench for lighter load testing (some will even argue that it can be used for heavy load testing, because it does include AVX instrucitons), are all superior, and won't JUST create an ungodly amount of heat for a LINPACK based test. Granted, both AIDA64 AND OCCT both use LINPACK, but also have other instruction sets, and are also kept updated with new AVX instruction sets. Something IBT hasn't done....as it hasn't been updated since like 2012.
For GPU stability, I've found the best combination to be Superposition on 1080 extreme, Firestrike Ultra (graphics test 1 and 2 on loop), and Time Spy Extreme (graphics test 1 and 2 on loop)...each for at least an hour. If there's instability in your overclock, that'll very likely find it, without submitting your GPU to such harsh environs that furmark offers. The only thing furmark is good for, is cooking eggs...and GPUs. Any additional testing should be done in the game you're playing, or the hashing program that you're using...because as I stated before, there are NO stability testing programs that will catch everything. None.
The thing is....unless you're building a rig for a very specific purpose, like data mining or video editing, you aren't going to be pushing your rig as hard as ANY of these stress tests will. Most people are just gaming, and doing light compute work, so Realbench for a few hours is MORE than enough. But if you're data mining, video editing or doing anything else that requires precision and stability, overclocking is probably the worst thing you could possibly do. I have a rig built specifically for data mining using both CPU and GPU compute, and I know better than to overclock it....because there is one simple truth to overclocking stability, and that is, that there is NO test that will guarantee it.
You're putting words in my mouth here.
All i was saying is that 24h Aida64 tests are pointless when IBT does the same thing in literally 10 minutes.
Same thing for FurMark, i often have it running in the background while i overclock so that the gpu crashes instantly when i go too high.
No matter how much you want to prove me wrong, I never said that there's a single program that can determine stability. It's just that running the heaviest workload available shows a pretty well which direction to go to, especially if you're looking for a stable voltage.
There's no such thing as a 10 minute stability test, period...doesn't matter what program you're using. If you're stability testing for 10 minutes, and calling it good, you're doing it wrong.
Did i say that 10 mins will tell if your pc is stable?
OR
did i say that IBT does in 10 minutes what Aida64 does in 24 hours?
Maybe you should learn to read before trying to argue with someone.
RYZEN 1700 3.7ghz 1.2875v cinernbench r15 achieves a score of 1941, features a single core with 177 cores, and comes with a stock cooler.
Finstar :
Vellinious :
Finstar :
Vellinious :
If you're implying that either of those are the end all, beat all stability test, you couldn't be more wrong. There are no stability tests that cover everything (especially IBT and Furmark), and no amount of testing will guarantee complete stability. Which is why using multiple different tests, that test on a wider variety of instruction sets, it's ALWAYS the best option. Configurable testing platforms like AIDA64 and OCCT for heavy load testing, and Realbench for lighter load testing (some will even argue that it can be used for heavy load testing, because it does include AVX instrucitons), are all superior, and won't JUST create an ungodly amount of heat for a LINPACK based test. Granted, both AIDA64 AND OCCT both use LINPACK, but also have other instruction sets, and are also kept updated with new AVX instruction sets. Something IBT hasn't done....as it hasn't been updated since like 2012.
For GPU stability, I've found the best combination to be Superposition on 1080 extreme, Firestrike Ultra (graphics test 1 and 2 on loop), and Time Spy Extreme (graphics test 1 and 2 on loop)...each for at least an hour. If there's instability in your overclock, that'll very likely find it, without submitting your GPU to such harsh environs that furmark offers. The only thing furmark is good for, is cooking eggs...and GPUs. Any additional testing should be done in the game you're playing, or the hashing program that you're using...because as I stated before, there are NO stability testing programs that will catch everything. None.
The thing is....unless you're building a rig for a very specific purpose, like data mining or video editing, you aren't going to be pushing your rig as hard as ANY of these stress tests will. Most people are just gaming, and doing light compute work, so Realbench for a few hours is MORE than enough. But if you're data mining, video editing or doing anything else that requires precision and stability, overclocking is probably the worst thing you could possibly do. I have a rig built specifically for data mining using both CPU and GPU compute, and I know better than to overclock it....because there is one simple truth to overclocking stability, and that is, that there is NO test that will guarantee it.
You're putting words in my mouth here.
All i was saying is that 24h Aida64 tests are pointless when IBT does the same thing in literally 10 minutes.
Same thing for FurMark, i often have it running in the background while i overclock so that the gpu crashes instantly when i go too high.
No matter how much you want to prove me wrong, I never said that there's a single program that can determine stability. It's just that running the heaviest workload available shows a pretty well which direction to go to, especially if you're looking for a stable voltage.
There's no such thing as a 10 minute stability test, period...doesn't matter what program you're using. If you're stability testing for 10 minutes, and calling it good, you're doing it wrong.
Did i say that 10 mins will tell if your pc is stable?
OR
did i say that IBT does in 10 minutes what Aida64 does in 24 hours?
Maybe you should learn to read before trying to argue with someone.
Man...you LITERALLY said exactly that.
"All i was saying is that 24h Aida64 tests are pointless when IBT does the same thing in literally 10 minutes."