Note to the QA testers:
I personally do not overclock, but from time to time I do upgrade
motherboards. I have seen opinions on this mailing list that the
existing 16-hour self-test might not be enough to bring hardware
deficiencies to light. Someone suggested running the torture
test - but is that more "rigorous" than the self-test? And why
should running the torture test for a week be any more definitive
than already running Lucas-Lehmer on an assigned exponent?
My suggestion is that the QA people should "update" the built-in
self-test to make it more likely to provoke hardware deficiencies.
(Also, now that we are in the realm of "large" FFTs, is it still
useful for the self-test to spend so much time on "short" FFTs ?)
mikus
In article <000001beb17a$0e5dfe40$5deabfa8@buster>,
"Ethan Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It is also possible to have an overclocked CPU pass the full self test
> suite, but later exhibit problems. The likely culprit is simple wearout --
> the CPU initially was barely functional at the overclocked speed, but slowed
> enough that it no longer runs. If this happens, you usually can still run
> the CPU at the rated speed.
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
