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.
Don't run prime95 on Ryzen processors—it doesn't function properly. Try this alternative: http://www.majorgeeks.com/mg/getmirror/i...est,1.html
By the way, my 1700 achieves 1780cb at 4GHz.
IBT is a poor testing tool, similar to using furmark for GPU evaluation. Disgusting...../smh
For light tasks, use Realbench; for heavy testing, consider OCCT or AIDA64.
Vellinious:
Finstar :
Avoid running prime95 on Ryzen processors—it doesn't function properly. Try this alternative:
http://www.majorgeeks.com/mg/getmirror/i...est,1.html
By the way, my 1700 achieves 1780cb at 4GHz.
IBT is a heat test tool... similar to using that furmark software for GPU evaluation. Disgusting..../smh
For light tasks, use Realbench; for heavy testing, OCCT or AIDA64 are better options.
Whether you like it or not, IBT and FurMark remain the most dependable and quick methods to spot unstable overclocking.
You shouldn't test a winch rated for 2 tons with just 1 ton load to ensure safety.
Finstar:
Vellinious:
Finstar:
Avoid running prime95 on Ryzen processors—it doesn't function properly. Try this alternative:
http://www.majorgeeks.com/mg/getmirror/i...est,1.html
By the way, my 1700 achieves 1780cb at 4GHz.
IBT is a poor tool... just like using that furmark test to check GPUs. Ugh..../smh
For light tasks, stick with Realbench; for heavy testing, use OCCT or AIDA64.
Whether you like it or not, IBT and FurMark are the most dependable and quick methods to spot unstable overclocking.
You shouldn't test a winch rated for 2 tons under 1 ton load to ensure safety.
OCCT and AIDA64 handle heavy loads well, even better than IBT. IBT is useful only for brief stability checks to fine-tune settings before overclocking, but it's not suitable for extended testing. FurMark is similarly limited.
Vellinious :
OCCT and AIDA64 are well suited for heavy load testing, even better than IBT. IBT is great for short stability checks to fine-tune settings before overclocking, but using it for extended testing is really risky. The same goes for furmark.
I've seen many cases where hours of Aida64 testing didn't reveal any instability.
Aida64 was once my top choice until I noticed it would crash during games even though it never did with AIDA64.
OCCT is a bit better but still not as strong as IBT.
And please clarify: why is using IBT or furmark for long-term testing considered catastrophic stupidity?
I've never seen a system that was stable confirmed by either tool crash.
Finnish testing perspectives:
OCCT and AIDA64 prove highly effective for demanding load scenarios, surpassing even IBT in certain cases. IBT remains suitable only for brief stability checks aimed at fine-tuning overclock parameters; prolonged use is clearly risky. The same applies to furmark.
I’ve encountered numerous instances where extended Aida64 sessions didn’t reveal any instability issues. Aida64 was once my primary choice until I discovered it frequently caused crashes on my system despite never failing itself. OCCT appears slightly more reliable, though still not as robust as IBT.
Could you clarify why relying on IBT or furmark for long-term testing is considered reckless? I’ve never observed a system that proved stable fail under sustained AIDA64 or furmark evaluation. There’s no single test that guarantees absolute stability across all scenarios (especially with IBT and furmark), and no amount of testing can ensure perfection. Using varied tools—such as AIDA64, OCCT for heavy loads, and Realbench for lighter tasks—always yields better results. These platforms handle diverse instruction sets, avoid excessive heat generation, and are regularly updated to support newer AVX instructions. IBT hasn’t kept pace since around 2012.
For GPU stability, my preferred setup combines Superposition on 1080 Extreme, Firestrike Ultra (with continuous graphics loops), and Time Spy Extreme (also with loops). Running each for at least an hour helps detect any instability in overclocking. Furmark is mainly useful for general GPU stress, but any extra testing should occur within the game or hashing software—since no program can catch every possible issue.
In short, unless you’re targeting specialized tasks like data mining or video editing, most users don’t push their systems as hard as these tests require. For casual gaming or light computing, Realbench for a few hours is sufficient. However, if precision and stability matter—especially for overclocking—avoid IBT and furmark, as they can introduce unnecessary risks.
Vellinious :
If you're suggesting those are the ultimate, unbeatable stability checks, you're completely mistaken. There aren't any tests that cover everything—especially IBT and Furmark—and no amount of testing can ensure total stability. That's why employing various tests, ones that work with a broader range of instruction sets, is ALWAYS the wisest choice. Platforms like AIDA64 and OCCT for intense load testing, and Realbench for lighter loads (some even claim it handles heavy loads due to AVX support), are all better options. They won't just generate excessive heat for a LINPACK benchmark.
Of course, both AIDA64 and OCCT rely on LINPACK, but they also support other instruction sets and stay updated with new AVX features. IBT hasn't made similar updates since around 2012.
For GPU stability, my top picks are Superposition on 1080 Extreme, Firestrike Ultra (with graphics tests 1 and 2 running continuously), and Time Spy Extreme (graphics tests 1 and 2 for at least an hour). These can help uncover issues in your overclock without exposing your GPU to the extreme conditions FurMark provides.
The only exception is when you're pushing your rig for specialized tasks like data mining or video editing—then stability becomes crucial. In those cases, Realbench for a few hours is more than sufficient. But if you're mainly gaming or doing light computing, sticking to Realbench for short periods is perfectly adequate.
However, if you need precision and stability for data mining, video editing, or similar tasks, overclocking could be detrimental. I've built a rig tailored for data mining with both CPU and GPU power, and I know better than to push it beyond its limits... because stability testing simply doesn't exist in one-size-fits-all form.
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.