# Being OCCT Stable: Does it matter?



## MaxAwesome (Jun 30, 2009)

Hey everyone,

What brings me here is the question whether or not we should let OCCT (overclocking Checking Tool) tells us if our system is stable or not.

Here is my case: Currently have E8400 @ 4ghz @ 1.4v BIOS (1.376v CPU-Z). 

The computer is rock solid and stable AT ANYTHING. I play games for hours (CPU demanding games like GTA 4 and Prototype), I run countless loops of 3Dmark06 and Vantage, I run prime95 for hours... all stable.

Yet, it fails OCCT within minutes. Should I let this bother me?

*NOTE*: As I understand it, OCCT really pushes the system unlike anything else. I mean, _really_ pushes and it seems to me that any real life application/game will NEVER push the computer this hard. Not even close.

So... Should I try to make it stable? Or just let it go? I don't really want to increase Vcore anymore.


----------



## PaulieG (Jun 30, 2009)

Are you "old school" or "new school" when it comes to overclocking? What I mean is, do you care if your machine is truly stable, or stable enough? Old school overclocking demands total stability. Some of us hold true to this, because overclocking IS the hobby. For me this it true. It's seems like many of the younger, less experienced overclockers care less about this.


----------



## MaxAwesome (Jun 30, 2009)

Well, the fact that it fails OCCT keeps poking at the back of my head... but it really is stable for ANYTHING else. Really, anything.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 30, 2009)

I wouldn't trust a computer that isn't Linpack/Prime 95/benchmark stable.


----------



## erocker (Jun 30, 2009)

Paulieg said:


> Are you "old school" or "new school" when it comes to overclocking? What I mean is, do you care if your machine is truly stable, or stable enough? Old school overclocking demands total stability. Some of us hold true to this, because overclocking IS the hobby. For me this it true. It's seems like many of the younger, less experienced overclockers care less about this.



Some older experienced users also know when excessive stability testing is slowly ruining their processors which seems to be the case with many people. My computer is 1 hour Linpack stable and four months (so far) daily use stable. I trust the latter statistic over anything.


----------



## kyle2020 (Jun 30, 2009)

I run an hour of 95 then game. If its stable after that, fine by me.


----------



## Evo85 (Jun 30, 2009)

If OCCT finds an error, you CPU has a vulnerability. Now, it may never affect you. You may never notice it. 

Or, you may be gaming one day, and get a BSOD that destroys your OS (yes, it HAS happened to me)... Never know.


----------



## Kursah (Jun 30, 2009)

erocker said:


> Some older experienced users also know when excessive stability testing is slowly ruining their processors.



Or wasting valuable gaming time which is another great way to test for stability overall. Especially with modern games utilizing 2-4 cores and running gpu's harder than ever! 

I do prefer total stability, but I won't spend a week finding it/verifying it either. I've had times where stress tests have passed, yet while gaming I'd get a crash..doesn't mean there wasn't another issue with the game, but if it ran fine prior to the OC, that's always a good sign. But if I can pass OCCT's 1 hour stress anymore I'm pretty happy, then I'll run some furmark for the vid (have for a while, never killed a card, plus it's a great artifact tester), the usual memtest, and then use it for it's purpose and ultimately the stress test that matters most to me, being able to play all my games nice and smooth.


----------



## PaulieG (Jun 30, 2009)

erocker said:


> Some older experienced users also know when excessive stability testing is slowly ruining their processors which seems to be the case with many people. My computer is 1 hour Linpack stable and four months (so far) daily use stable. I trust the latter statistic over anything.



Obviously you can go too far. I was never a fan of the prime 12 hour runs. However, I do demand at least an hour of OCCT linpack or 20 cycles of LinX. If it can't handle that, the overclock is worthless to me. Then again, that's the hobby for me, finding the highest stable overclock. To each their own.


----------



## etrigan420 (Jun 30, 2009)

lolol, I went through this SAME EXACT scenario about a month ago...

e8400 @ 4.05 @ just over 1.3v.  The ONLY way I could get it OCCT stable was to up the maximum temp that OCCT fails out at.  I upped it from 80C to 90C, and it passed after an hour long run (at a max temp of 81C )  

But you know what?  I've had RealTemp running for about 2 weeks on this thing, and during NORMAL use, the most it's seen is 61C, which I'm comfortable with.

The fact is this:  *I've had it running at 4.05 for the entire month and have had exactly 0 issues with it. *  No blue screens, no lock-ups, no restarts, no alarms, no errors.

Am I justifying my lack of faith in hardcore benching because I (probably) couldn't run it for 27.5 hours?  Maybe...but where does the line get drawn?  I've seen everything from 1 hour to 12 hours being used as "It's not 'stable' unless you can run it for..." scenarios.

As such, I've come up with my own benchmark, it's like this:

<sarcasm>

Take a 3lb sledgehammer and drop it from a distance of 3 feet directly onto your processor, if it still works, you pass.  Now we can argue about the weight of the hammer or the drop distance...but 3lbs. and 3 feet seem like the sweet spot.

</sarcasm>

That's what hardcore benching feels like to me...but I'm fucking weird anyway 

End result?  If it's stable...run with it!


----------



## MaxAwesome (Jun 30, 2009)

I tend to agree with everyone here. 

But what's bothering me is that this CPU can handle anything for hours on end, just not OCCT.

Perhaps OCCT pushes it just a tiny bit beyond what the current vcore can supply to the cpu, and it fails.


----------



## MaxAwesome (Jun 30, 2009)

etrigan420 said:


> lolol, I went through this SAME EXACT scenario about a month ago...
> 
> e8400 @ 4.05 @ just over 1.3v.  The ONLY way I could get it OCCT stable was to up the maximum temp that OCCT fails out at.  I upped it from 80C to 90C, and it passed after an hour long run (at a max temp of 81C )
> 
> ...



Oh man, you're awesome! lol


----------



## Darknova (Jun 30, 2009)

MaxAwesome said:


> I tend to agree with everyone here.
> 
> But what's bothering me is that this CPU can handle anything for hours on end, just not OCCT.
> 
> Perhaps OCCT pushes it just a tiny bit beyond what the current vcore can supply to the cpu, and it fails.



I don't trust OCCT at all, Linpack, Prime95, all manner of stability tests show my PC as being 100% stable, OCCT fails in minutes.

I've been gaming for months on this overclock, I watch HD movies, I encode audio and video, nothing lets me down, but OCCT seems to think it's unstable.

I may not be "old school", but I do do some type of stability testing, but my version is a few minutes of prime95 or linpack to pick up on any major instabilities, then I game, and I game hard and long, if it fails or crashes, I tweak the overclock.

Why waste time using a synthetic stability test when the best stability test is using your PC how you normally use it?


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 30, 2009)

I say, linpack for 2 hours or it's not stable. I need my clocks to be 100% stable because I don't want my games crashing or anything like that


----------



## kyle2020 (Jun 30, 2009)

^ a huge +1 on that (what nova said) . These synthetic tests OVERSTRESS your system, in reality, you will never push your system that hard.


----------



## hat (Jun 30, 2009)

I'm an oldschool 17 year old... heh
That said Linpack for 4 hours is super stable, which is what I need. I don't like when there's a stability hole anywhere.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jun 30, 2009)

i dont know ive never had a cpu that failed OCCT and was very stable, ive had overclocks where i though it was stable but it would be random run sometimes fine for hours then crash or just bsod straight away at desktop

if its OCCT stable its usually 99% stable, ive never had an oc that passed OCCT and bsod due to stability

if it fails OCCT i find it hard to believe it is going to be stable for hours of gaming or using intensive programs because that is the experience for me its allways stable if it passes OCCT


----------



## MaxAwesome (Jun 30, 2009)

MilkyWay said:


> i dont know ive never had a cpu that failed OCCT and was very stable, ive had overclocks where i though it was stable but it would be random run sometimes fine for hours then crash or just bsod straight away at desktop
> 
> if its OCCT stable its usually 99% stable, ive never had an oc that passed OCCT and bsod due to stability
> 
> if it fails OCCT i find it hard to believe it is going to be stable for hours of gaming or using intensive programs because that is the experience for me its allways stable if it passes OCCT



I'm not going to force feed you, but I assure you, i have left 3dmark looping for an entire afternoon while i was at work, i have left prime95 running overnight... never crashed, rebooted whatever.


it just doesnt seem to like occt


----------



## Tau (Jun 30, 2009)

I'm sorry but 2 hours of linpack and calling a machine stable?  using games for stability tests?

When did this become acceptable?

Anyone who has been overclocking for anylength of time will tell you that unless your ATLEAST 12 hour (but 24 hour is the standard) stable then your PC is not 100% stable.

What people fail to realise is that the blanket term "my computer is 100% stable"  after 4 hours of prime95/occt is garbage. Or the fact that you can "game for hours" without a crash means nothing.  if you run OCCT and it crashes in minutes that tells you somethign right away, that an aspect of your machine is NOT stable.  

Running a machine that is not 100% stable (by 100% i mean 24 hours of prime/occt/linepack (not just one, all of them) can actually cause harm to your hardware.  Not haveing the correct voltage/skews can cause all kinds of issues, data corruption, at both the hardware, and kernal level.  Why do you think your retail CPU has a 10%fudge factor in the vcore/coreclock?  so that there can be no doubt its 100% stable.  

And the argument that running the CPU @ 100% degrades it is an age old argument... personally one that i dont beleave, as i have cpus that are more than 10 years old and have been running 100% load for most of their lives (8+ years)

You also need to have a feel for diffrent stress tests.... thats were us oldschool people kind of have the advantage, i can pick out exactly what part of my machine is not stable based on how the test failed.  As Prime95, OCCT, and Linpack are all used not JUST for stress testing, but for component stress testing.  sure they test the overall stability, but each also tests its own segment of your machine more than the others and can give you faster quick tune results, and better long term results when used correctly.

Now im sure alot of the youth clockers will go ahead and tell me that their 3 hours of call of duty 5, or crysis, and 2 hours of linpack means their computer is stable. And you know that may be true you MAY have lucked out and set your machine up right in that short ammount of testing and have it turn out to be 24 hour stable.  But the VAST majority of clocks will not be.


/end rant

I just dont like how everyone magically decided one day that "gaming, and a few hours of prime" constitute a machine as being stable.


----------



## kyle2020 (Jun 30, 2009)

*Back away youth members, we've got a seasoned overclocker on our hands*

Different people deem different levels of stressing / testing to be stable. It doesnt mean that one is right and the rest are wrong, however. Personally, I couldnt run my rig for 24 hours straight stability testing - why? A. Heat. B. Electricity. C. Conscience.

Nobody 'magically' decided anything, its just a shared opinion.


----------



## Tau (Jun 30, 2009)

kyle2020 said:


> *Back away youth members, we've got a seasoned overclocker on our hands*
> 
> Different people deem different levels of stressing / testing to be stable. It doesnt mean that one is right and the rest are wrong, however. Personally, I couldnt run my rig for 24 hours straight stability testing - why? A. Heat. B. Electricity. C. Conscience.
> 
> Nobody 'magically' decided anything, its just a shared opinion.




You cant affoard the extra $1 it would cost to run it at full load for 24 hours?


As for stresses overstressing your components, what do you think the wafers are run through at the factory before they pass out into the public?  I'm sure its a hell of alot more than what we put them through in a day.


----------



## kyle2020 (Jun 30, 2009)

Its not me that pays the electricity bill, neither am I in the states, so it adds up and can produce some angry parents


----------



## etrigan420 (Jun 30, 2009)

Tau said:


> I'm sorry but 2 hours of linpack and calling a machine stable?  using games for stability tests?
> 
> When did this become acceptable?
> 
> ...



Wow man...just...wow.  This is exactly what I was talking about.  

Tell you what, when referring to my rig...just to fit into your definitions, I'll use the term "Stable Enough".  Would that work?

And until you do the 3lbs. at 3 feet test, I'd appreciate it if you did the same.


----------



## Tau (Jun 30, 2009)

Tau said:


> You cant affoard the extra $1 it would cost to run it at full load for 24 hours?
> 
> 
> As for stresses overstressing your components, what do you think the wafers are run through at the factory before they pass out into the public?  I'm sure its a hell of alot more than what we put them through in a day.





etrigan420 said:


> Wow man...just...wow.  This is exactly what I was talking about.
> 
> Tell you what, when referring to my rig...just to fit into your definitions, I'll use the term "Stable Enough".  Would that work?
> 
> And until you do the 3lbs. at 3 feet test, I'd appreciate it if you did the same.



Stable Enough would be fine, but why settle for stable enough?  I see it as lazyness and a copout.

People expect to be able to overclock their computer in a day maybe 2, then wounder why it doesent work, then decide to settle for "good enough"

For a SOLID overclock (heavy tweeking) i would expect to spend a week or two at it, granted most of this is in testing single changes (omg ram timings suck) but this way you actually KNOW what is going on and can dial your machine in to whatever you want basically.


And i dont understand your 3lb 3 foot reference


----------



## hat (Jun 30, 2009)

Tau is correct, this is an unarguable absolute. When something fails, wether it fails only on the extreme outer limits of the occt linpack test or fails something as simple as superpi 1m, it is not stable.


----------



## Iarwain (Jun 30, 2009)

In my expeience, typically, if the CPU can handle 15 minutes of stress testing it is unlikely that more testing will find a real vulnerability.  Maybe it will have an error, but it will likely be caused by heat.

My GPU I'm much less strict with.  If it's game stable, with no artifacts, it's stable.  I'm not putting it on Furmark to watch it go to 100C and then crash.

The question really is, what level of stability are you comfortable with?  If your CPU crashes only after being at 100% for two hours, is that okay with you?  My machine is a gaming rig, strictly.  I do nothing else on it, so stability is not my holy grail.  As long as it never crashes on me when I'm doing what I normally do, it's stable enough for my purposes.

But I agree that true stability only comes after at least 12 hours of rigourous stress testing.  but I would only care for this in zero-fail environment (in which you probably wouldn't want to OC anyway.)


----------



## hat (Jun 30, 2009)

I just tested my rig and it's 6hrs linpack stable. =)

As for 15 minutes of stability testing... I've had Orthos fail shortly after 7 hours, and it certianly was not because of heat.


----------



## Tau (Jun 30, 2009)

I have had machines that fail fail prime95 after 22 hours (tweeking RAM settings)  sure this is close to my 24 hour goal....  still not stable though, and 15 minutes is insane IMO.


----------



## Iarwain (Jun 30, 2009)

As I said.  It's what level of stability are you comfortable with?  If I pass my 15 minutes of stress testing, and I crash in a game after an hour, of course I'm gonna back down.  But my point is, on my gaming machine, I only care to be as stable as my purpose requires.

Because while it is a fun hobby, I do not enjoy the fine tuning at the end of it.  I know for you guys it may be a hobby, just getting the 24 hour stable setting, but it frustrates me.  OCing for me, is primarily a means to an end.  Getting a few more FPS out of what I have.


----------



## etrigan420 (Jun 30, 2009)

Tau said:


> Stable Enough would be fine, but why settle for stable enough?  I see it as lazyness and a copout.
> 
> People expect to be able to overclock their computer in a day maybe 2, then wounder why it doesent work, then decide to settle for "good enough"
> 
> ...



I think what you're failing to see here is that different people have different reasons for OC'ing their systems.  You, and the other hardcore folk, do it for the sake of doing it...and I can understand that.  I can also understand the need to get that 24 hour run to prove the validity of the clocks, but not everyone sees things that way.  

Some people, like me, OC for the sole purpose of getting a little extra from their machine.  I don't ever plan on running my proc at 100% for extended periods of time...ever.  So why would I run, or put any faith in, a benchmark that does the same?  I do the average things with my comp...surf, game, listen to music, edit videos, etc...if my OC is stable whilst doing these things, then how is it "unstable"?  

This is where I was going with the 3lb sledge reference.  Would it make any sense to drop a 3lb sledge on your proc?  Probably not, unless that's what you're using it for...which would be cool, but I digress ...but why would it make sense to test your machine FAR FAR above and beyond any use it would ever be put to?

I just think that calling someone elses OC "lazyness and a copout" is a bit disingenuous, simply because it doesn't fit into *your* definition of "stable".


----------



## Homeless (Jun 30, 2009)

I usually do 24 hours of prime blend, and 100 linpacks with full memory.  I find if both of those successfully pass, OCCT on large passes also


----------



## Tau (Jun 30, 2009)

etrigan420 said:


> I think what you're failing to see here is that different people have different reasons for OC'ing their systems.  You, and the other hardcore folk, do it for the sake of doing it...and I can understand that.  I can also understand the need to get that 24 hour run to prove the validity of the clocks, but not everyone sees things that way.
> 
> Some people, like me, OC for the sole purpose of getting a little extra from their machine.  I don't ever plan on running my proc at 100% for extended periods of time...ever.  So why would I run, or put any faith in, a benchmark that does the same?  I do the average things with my comp...surf, game, listen to music, edit videos, etc...if my OC is stable whilst doing these things, then how is it "unstable"?
> 
> ...





See I still dont agree with you there, if its "somewhat" stable for what you use it for there is STILL the chance of instability.  Now when i say instability  it doesenet always mean just the CPU.  if your ram is unstable you can look at data corruption any time you access a file, Stability also effects all other aspects of your computer, northbridge/southbridge, How would you like it if your computer after 3 months of being "stable" BSODs and you find out half your hard drive just corrupted and your data is now worthless?   Lets not even talk about the effects of silent data corruption when your NB/SB are out of wack....  These are the things alot of people dont understand (im not bashing you here.)  Is the fact that most people see overclocking as, either my cpu is stable or its not.... but what you also need to realise is that the other aspects of your clock may be causeing horrendus issues.

As for why i overclock?  I do it for the same reasons you do, to make my $200 CPU out perform a $1200 CPU.  And to get as much power out of it as i can, be this for a few extra fps in games, or so i can encode/decode video a little bit faster.

Do I see it as a hobby?  Yes I do, its just like drag racing except with computers basically.  But for the average person that isent interested in shaving 5 ms off their super pi times it doesent mean that there is a diffrent level of acceptable stability.

Its black and white, your either stable, or your not.


Personally I wouldent have an confidence in my computer at all if i knew there was even a chance the SB was corrupting data on write because i dident want to test my computer for an extra 12 hours....  Its just not worth it no matter what way you look at it.

(Again not trying to flame)


----------



## NastyHabits (Jun 30, 2009)

Interesting discussion.  I agree 15 minutes of anything does not mean stability.  I had my PC stable.  I had backed down to where I could run orthos or TAT, or whatever for 24 hours, and nothing went wrong.  I got all everything - fan speeds, memory timings, voltages, etc - set right at a sweet spot where everything hummed along just swell, stable temps and all.  Then I found the MaxStable club or whatever it's called, downloaded OCCT, and just like MaxAwesome, my PC tanked in 20 minutes. 

Just wondering what it is about OCCT that stresses the CPU so much?  (I got stupid hot temp readings, and I'm liquid cooled)


----------



## Iarwain (Jun 30, 2009)

Tau said:


> See I still dont agree with you there, if its "somewhat" stable for what you use it for there is STILL the chance of instability.  Now when i say instability  it doesenet always mean just the CPU.  if your ram is unstable you can look at data corruption any time you access a file, Stability also effects all other aspects of your computer, northbridge/southbridge, How would you like it if your computer after 3 months of being "stable" BSODs and you find out half your hard drive just corrupted and your data is now worthless?   Lets not even talk about the effects of silent data corruption when your NB/SB are out of wack....  These are the things alot of people dont understand (im not bashing you here.)  Is the fact that most people see overclocking as, either my cpu is stable or its not.... but what you also need to realise is that the other aspects of your clock may be causeing horrendus issues.
> 
> As for why i overclock?  I do it for the same reasons you do, to make my $200 CPU out perform a $1200 CPU.  And to get as much power out of it as i can, be this for a few extra fps in games, or so i can encode/decode video a little bit faster.
> 
> ...



On the opposite side of the token, if I can play any game I want, for an indefinite period of time, and my computer's use is solely for gaming, without much care for what happens to the data on my hard drive, isn't that stable?  I've had this current setup and it's current clocks up for 3 months now without a single crash or hitch  Maybe, if I left it on for 24 hours of prime95 I would crash, but so what?  What does that mean?  If I back it down to become prime95 stable for 24 hours, what have I gained?  I've lost clock speed, that's all, I've gained 0 real-world stability.


----------



## Tau (Jun 30, 2009)

Iarwain said:


> On the opposite side of the token, if I can play any game I want, for an indefinite period of time, and my computer's use is solely for gaming, without much care for what happens to the data on my hard drive, isn't that stable?  I've had this current setup and it's current clocks up for 3 months now without a single crash or hitch  Maybe, if I left it on for 24 hours of prime95 I would crash, but so what?  What does that mean?  If I back it down to become prime95 stable for 24 hours, what have I gained?  I've lost clock speed, that's all, I've gained 0 real-world stability.



You have gained time, and reasurrance.

but you might have been lucky and nailed a setup that is long term stable.  But if you havent and you get a random issue in say 3 months, then you have to go back and A) fix your clock, B) reload.  then when it happens again you have to do the same.  So spending the extra 2 days in the beginning saves you time in and headache in the long run.

You also have to remember that needs change, there will be a time were you do not just "game" on your computer.  WHat then?  What if you still assume your machine is stable, and are working on a work related project then your PC BSODs, wont turn back on becuase you blew up your motherboard and corrupted your HDD.  Then your out $200 for a new motherboard (+ setup time) and the contents of your HDD.

I have seen this happen, poorly tested overclocks destroy motherboards and CPUs.

You can also factor in effiecency.  As you tune your system in you can usually knock a few notches of vCPU off, and end up saving a bit of power, your computer will also run cooler.

In essence i can name LOADS of cons for no extended OC testing, yet cant name a single pro...

It is basically lazyness if your not willing to put the work into making sure your computer is stable, your getting off between stops and calling it good enough.  (no flame intended here im just stating how it is)


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 30, 2009)

I agree with Shadowfold, 2 hrs or 20 runs of linpack at maximum and im good... If i have to lower the clock then be it.

A 50-100Mhz difference is nothing for the CPU - especially for gaming, which is GPU limited.


----------



## r9 (Jun 30, 2009)

I don`t care. Being stable in what I do is enough for me.


----------



## mike047 (Jun 30, 2009)

I haven't heard any comments from the "crunching" crowd.  Some of their computers run 24/7 at 100%.

I am a long time cruncher but will hold my comments for awhile yet before I give my shabby 2 cents


----------



## LagunaX (Jun 30, 2009)

mike047 said:


> I haven't heard any comments from the "crunching" crowd.  Some of their computers run 24/7 at 100%.
> 
> I am a long time cruncher but will hold my comments for awhile yet before I give my shabby 2 cents



I bought an used e8400 with a little extra premium price that could do 4.5ghz. The seller didn't have any screenies of orthos/prime readily available but did have a screen of extended crunching - that was good enuf for me.


----------



## Tau (Jun 30, 2009)

mike047 said:


> I haven't heard any comments from the "crunching" crowd.  Some of their computers run 24/7 at 100%.
> 
> I am a long time cruncher but will hold my comments for awhile yet before I give my shabby 2 cents





LagunaX said:


> I bought an used e8400 with a little extra premium price that could do 4.5ghz. The seller didn't have any screenies of orthos/prime readily available but did have a screen of extended crunching - that was good enuf for me.




Agreed, Another reason to have your machine totally stable, iv been Folding for along time, and i cant affoard to have any hisckups.


----------



## etrigan420 (Jun 30, 2009)

Tau said:


> See I still dont agree with you there, if its "somewhat" stable for what you use it for there is STILL the chance of instability.  Now when i say instability  it doesenet always mean just the CPU.  if your ram is unstable you can look at data corruption any time you access a file, Stability also effects all other aspects of your computer, northbridge/southbridge, How would you like it if your computer after 3 months of being "stable" BSODs and you find out half your hard drive just corrupted and your data is now worthless?   Lets not even talk about the effects of silent data corruption when your NB/SB are out of wack....  These are the things alot of people dont understand (im not bashing you here.)  Is the fact that most people see overclocking as, either my cpu is stable or its not.... but what you also need to realise is that the other aspects of your clock may be causeing horrendus issues.
> 
> As for why i overclock?  I do it for the same reasons you do, to make my $200 CPU out perform a $1200 CPU.  And to get as much power out of it as i can, be this for a few extra fps in games, or so i can encode/decode video a little bit faster.
> 
> ...



(SIDE NOTE: No flames taken, and none are directed at you either, just a friendly convo!  )

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then.  

I know that my computer, and my OC, is stable...whether others think it is or not really means nothing to me, and I certainly don't need to run my system at percentages that it will never see in the real world to tell me that it is.

Let me ask you this though...If I were of the opinion that a system had to run OCCT for 10 years to be stable, and you hadn't done so, wouldn't you be a tad offended if I called your OC "unstable"?

As far as data corruption goes, that can happen at any time, for a multitude of reasons.  Regardless of a 24/48/72 hour test run.  Anyone not having the foresight to back up their important data deserves what they get.  Do you stress test your hard drives?


----------



## Iarwain (Jun 30, 2009)

I actually did a full system stress test a while back, hard drives included.

Was a mistaken, lol, computer become almost totally unresponsive for obvious reasons.


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 30, 2009)

I like to put my hard drives in the dryer for at least 72 hours.


----------



## etrigan420 (Jun 30, 2009)

mike047 said:


> I haven't heard any comments from the "crunching" crowd.  Some of their computers run 24/7 at 100%.
> 
> I am a long time cruncher but will hold my comments for awhile yet before I give my shabby 2 cents



Very good point Mike, and one of the scenarios in which I could totally understand using a 24 hour run as a benchmark.

My only point is that what defines "stable" for one persons use does not necessarily define "stable" for another persons use.

Would love to hear your thoughts on it.


----------



## etrigan420 (Jun 30, 2009)

phanbuey said:


> I like to put my hard drives in the dryer for at least 72 hours.




lolol, HARDCORE!!!


----------



## Bundy (Jun 30, 2009)

My rig is heaps better since I went for Linpack stable. It forced me to consider every component, it's speed and it's voltage. I am very happy with the results but I do use a variety of other tests as well (e.g. small fft) so I can target individual components.

Previously, I used my 6 year old son as a stability tester. Put him on any FPS and he can crash in no time. It would never crash for me for some reason (prolly coz I'm old and slow). When he crashed the system though, I had no idea what might have been the cause. 

He can't crash my rig any more because I reset the whole computer back to stock and re started my OC from scratch and this time, I did it properly and confirmed the OC using linpack.


----------



## mrhuggles (Jun 30, 2009)

something interesting, when i overclock to 3.4ghz i get the exact opposite going on, i can pass 4 hours of linpack no problem but then it will randomly crash within a day or so, i think because its so close to the cpu side FSB wall, so i keep it at 3.2ghz


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 30, 2009)

mrhuggles said:


> something interesting, when i overclock to 3.4ghz i get the exact opposite going on, i can pass 4 hours of linpack no problem but then it will randomly crash within a day or so, i think because its so close to the cpu side FSB wall, so i keep it at 3.2ghz



That would be NB instability - something linpack isn't too keen on finding.  Up your NB volts/relax your mem settings and it should go away - Ive had the same thing where it passes 4 hours of OCCT linpack but then BSODs while torrenting...erm... Idling after 24-48 hours.


----------



## Tau (Jun 30, 2009)

etrigan420 said:


> (SIDE NOTE: No flames taken, and none are directed at you either, just a friendly convo!  )
> 
> I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then.
> 
> ...




I can agree with you there   And totally see were your argument is coming from.  10 year OCCT is a bit insane though, how about F@H for years?  lol.

True about data corruption, though its even more prevelant on an overclocked machine that is not really stable.  It was especially bad back when the first 939 CPUs came out with the onchip memorycontroller... lots and lots of corruption issues.    But again to each his own i guess, i know personally i wouldent be able to sleep at night knowing my computer was not 24hour stable.

And I do stress new harddrives   Barts test on the windowss one for 3 days before i trust any data to them.  THough again i have a backup plan in effect so i wouldent lose anything (except a couple hours worth of work if that)  And most of my machines are running some form of redundant raid.

Its always nice to hear opinions from the other side of the fence... even if i dont agree with them


----------



## Yukikaze (Jul 1, 2009)

Stability is subjective. 

I've been overclocking for a while, and a long time ago I was from the tweak-it-burn-it crowd (Albeit not the 24 hour one, just the 10 hour one). Nowdays, if it does 20 loops of LinX it is more than enough for me.

I have better things to do than burn my computer for 24 hours, like play games. My time is much more valuable to me nowdays, and as such I often pass my 20 loops, then drop another 100Mhz just to be sure and call it a day. Sometimes I still get the bug, especially when bored, to tweak the system to the absolute limit and burn it for a few hours, but it happens more and more rarely, and even then three hours is good enough for me.

I guess it all depends on whether overclocking is the means or the goal, and what you do with your system. I do not crunch on my rigs, nor do I plan to, but if I did total stability would probably be more important to me. So far, my 3D renderings have been flawless, and I have not seen a BSoD (Aside of during an overclocking session) in more than two years (except on my laptop when my HDD was dying) - So I guess my method works and as it stands now, I see absolutely no reason to burn a system for 24 hours.


----------



## PaulieG (Jul 1, 2009)

Yukikaze said:


> Stability is subjective.
> 
> I've been overclocking for a while, and a long time ago I was from the tweak-it-burn-it crowd (Albeit not the 24 hour one, just the 10 hour one). Nowdays, if it does 20 loops of LinX it is more than enough for me.
> 
> ...



This is exactly where I'm at. no need to go extreme with stability testing, but there are some general minimums that I look for to really consider an overclock stable. These are my minimum requirements, and I think they are quite reasonable for anyone to do:

10 cycles of LinX or 1 hour OCCT Linpack
1 hour loop of 3dmark06

I've never seen a system BSOD, if they could do that. Pretty reasonable huh?


----------



## Mussels (Jul 1, 2009)

just to say something to a few comments that made me laugh: If you fold, crunch, or game constantly withotu ever crashing... ummm, that means your system is more than likely stable. 

the OCCT linpack test is an automated way to confirm that, without having to spend 10 hours straight playing games every day.


----------



## PaulieG (Jul 1, 2009)

Mussels said:


> just to say something to a few comments that made me laugh: If you fold, crunch, or game constantly withotu ever crashing... ummm, that means your system is more than likely stable.
> 
> the OCCT linpack test is an automated way to confirm that, without having to spend 10 hours straight playing games every day.



One of my crunching rigs would crunch 24/7 with no errors, but the overclock I had at the time would fail on the 6th cycle of LinX, so this isn't always the case.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 1, 2009)

Paulieg said:


> One of my crunching rigs would crunch 24/7 with no errors, but the overclock I had at the time would fail on the 6th cycle of LinX, so this isn't always the case.



and thats a good example of why we use these programs.


----------



## mike047 (Jul 1, 2009)

Stability is subjective.

I will/can not condemn one as "lazy" or another for being "anal" relating to OC stability.

If it runs adequately for your intended purpose, it matters little if it pass xx passes of xxxx utility.

I have always used OCCT[long before this "linpac" thing].  One hour OCCT and it's good to go is the parameter that I used.  I started farming with socket A mobiles and moved to 754 and to 939 and eventually to 775.  I always had multiples of each platform and knew that I could take an X2-939, set it a 10x260, bump the voltage and 1 hour OCCT was a solid cruncher.  Every platform had an area like that that I used.  775 quads ran 8x400, etc.  

I don't have BSOD nor do I end up with work errors related to my equipment.

For a real solid test of a boxes capabilities, run PrimeGrid "LLR" units for a week, if you have an issue this will bring it to it's knees


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 1, 2009)

Paulieg said:


> This is exactly where I'm at. no need to go extreme with stability testing, but there are some general minimums that I look for to really consider an overclock stable. These are my minimum requirements, and I think they are quite reasonable for anyone to do:
> 
> 10 cycles of LinX or 1 hour OCCT Linpack
> 1 hour loop of 3dmark06
> ...



If my system doesn't BSOD with an hour of OCCT I consider it stable. Nothing will stress a system like that for over an hour in normal use. Sure I can get it up to 3.8 all day however it isn't stable in OCCT. To me that makes the OC useless. This is why I stuck at my little 3.45Ghz. @1.44v


----------



## Mussels (Jul 1, 2009)

i agree, 1 hour is all thats needed with the modern tests. I like 4 hours personally, but odds are a system that lasts 1 hour, will very rarely crash.

The entire reason people are in the habit of doing 8, 16 and 24 hour tests is because the *old tests sucked*. the modern ones, find the errors a hell of a lot faster so you need to run them for a lot less time.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 1, 2009)

The old tests didn't suck, they just weren't designed to ruin processors like Linpack is.  It has been thee benchmark for computing performance since the 1970s.


I'll state what I said before: For me, it is about trust.  Some systems, I don't trust until I see 24 hours of whatever benchmark.  Some systems, I trust in an hour.  It depends on recent problems, machine history, etc.

For instance, my server has been running almost two years (most of which at 100% CPU load) now with no stability interruptions.  An hour of Linpack would tell me as much as four hours or 72 hours (basically, that I'm wasting my time).


----------

