Originally Posted by Ized
I have a very strong opinion of this which people are free to disagree with.
Its either stable or its not! To me there really is no middleground. If you choose to believe otherwise you are simply running with a system thats ready to reboot at any given moment with zero warning. Will it be today? Tomorrow? During next months windows update?
If any userland application can crash my system then the OC is worthless. Sure it may not happen often, but thats why we run hours and hours of 100% cpu usage in multiple stress apps and tests. To be sure!
Otherwise you may as well shoot for 5Ghz+ at 1.55v with no testing, as long as you can login to windows and browse the web, or half an hour of your fav game...pretend all is fine.
I think theres a really warped vision of average achievable overclocks, between 'it works for me' and 'actually stable'.
This really messes with peoples expectations when they see dozens of people claiming to get 4.5Ghz+ 'stable' because they have run a BF3 benchmark for 20mins.
I can just about login to windows at 4.7Ghz, I can browse the web fine at 4.6Ghz and below, I can run hours of certain benchmarks/stress testing at 4.5Ghz. Even longer at 4.4Ghz! Do you know what I can run at 100% stable? Barely 4.2Ghz, im still not sure.
Really I think we need a new thread for results with 100% stable Results, using a selection of the most intensive testing apps that we have today for XX hours each. I saw such posts for other hardware here, would anyone be willing to start it?
Its very easy to become somewhat disapointed and convince yourself it will be ok instead of just settling for a lesser overclock. Thats a slippery slope.
And please Don't get me wrong, seeing what our absolute max clocks are is fun, just don't claim its stable when its not.
Tell us if you believe stable is a 1hour test in worthless aida when sharing results..