I'm not sure how that applies. I use my system to do more than benchmark; I demand stability. An unstable overclock = an unstable system, and an unstable system = a worthless system.
And the answer is yes. I ran my 2.4GHz C2Q at 3.6GHz--a healthy overclock that still met my stability needs. I now run my Ci7-970 (6-core) 3.2GHz at 4.3GHz--another healthy bump with no sacrifice in stability. I go 30-40 days between reboots, and those are almost always just for Windows Updates. I don't remember the last BSOD I saw. You absolutely can attain healthy improvements without sacrificing stability. I'll never set any records, but that's fine--like I said, I don't own computers to run benchmarks. The only real downside for me is that it takes me far longer to find my max attainable clock than the idiots who run Prime95 for an hour and call it good. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anthony Q. Martin Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [H] Prime95 Good grief! It is even worth it to oc? On 6/28/2012 7:37 PM, Greg Sevart wrote: > My test for a stable overclock is 72 hours of Prime95 + 24 hours of > LinX (updated with newest Linpack assemblies) + massive 7-Zip file > creation with hash comparisons. I also try to run 18 hours of Memtest. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Naushad > Zulfiqar > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:18 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [H] Prime95 > > Occt comes to mind. > On Jun 29, 2012 2:16 AM, "Winterlight" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I have an Intel QX9650 CPU that I am testing with Prime95 Windows 64bit. >> The proccessor is not over clocked, but I am suspicious of it and I >> want to make sure it is up to specs before I try anything else. >> >> Is there a better way to test just the CPU, wasn't there a bootable >> version of Prime95, or am I thinking of something else? thanks >> >> > >
