I understand this point of view, but when do we decide a program is not a good representation of a stressful environment?
It is not about representing stressful environments. It is about testing environments representing "real-world" environments. They rarely do.
I am NOT saying stress testing is always bad or misleading. On the contrary, when comparing
competing/comparable products in a laboratory environment, in order to make a purchasing decision, it is probably one of the best. It is just not ideal and for sure, I don't know what is.
The best comparison testing occurs with a large number of sample units conducting a large variety of real world tests over a long period of time. But who has the resources to do that? Consumer Reports, maybe, but not tech support sites like TPU.
The problem I see is users failing to do their homework, then failing to understand their own expectations and the limits of their own hardware. If the computer is providing great game play, no stuttering, freezes, sudden reboots, or crashes, its working fine. Yet some run these stress tests, do not get the same results as they read on line, then think something is wrong.
Or maybe we should accept neither Intel or AMD top CPU SKU can turbo to their max clocks and "pass" prime95.
No doubt some of this special tweaking happens. The company marketing weenies get their grubby fingers in there and force changes just to peak out with such and such test so it can be used for marketing fodder - even though those tweaks often compromise other just as, if not more important practical areas.
It is just like when Windows Defender first came out. Microsoft announced they would be coding Defender to thwart today's real-world threats - not score well on the "simulated real-world" tests done in those testing labs. Defender being free and already in there, Microsoft does not need the marketing fodder of high test scores. Do they decided not to waste resources defending against 10,000 bits of malware from 10-20 years ago that no longer exists out in the wild.
And what happened? All the 3rd party programs, as well as the anti-MS media slammed Defender for doing poorly on the simulated tests while the 3rd party programs boasted about their scores.
But what was (and still is) the "real" real-world impact? Users of Windows Defender were NOT getting infected at higher rates than any of the programs that scored tops in the "simulated" real-world tests. Surprise surprise.
Point being, does a higher score in Prime95 automatically indicate better game play in the latest Halo or whatever? Nope.
I think one of the bigger issues is with gamers who believe the PC industry centers around them. That is not true by any means. Gaming is certainly important and for sure is a driving force in PC technology advancement. But gaming by gaming PC enthusiasts is actually a small segment of the entire PC industry.