How Stable is Stable

Xionic · 11 Mar 2006 at 00:07

now i know this a debate that rubs some people the wrong way but HOW STABLE IS STABLE. because in my eyes a pc that dies after 12 hours of Dual Prime is still pretty stable. because if you 'burn' a cpu for long enough it will error at some point be it 12 hours or 12 months.

what lengh dual prime do you think is sufficiantly(?) stable?

as above i think 12hours is sufficiant as far as a gamers concerned. as no games will ever push it to the point that a dual-prime would.

Zefan · 11 Mar 2006 at 00:11

IMHO stable should be a VERY long time, say weeks. This is only really important if you run SETI or FAH or some sort of distributed computing application. If your CPU is outputting incorrect results, you could effectively be responsible for missing a cure for cancer or contact with alien lifeforms. I personally don't want to be responible for that, hence I like to be as stable as I can without making it silly.

Xionic · 11 Mar 2006 at 00:14

i do agree that if running F@H or SETI then yes it should be uBer stable. but i dont use these so in my eyes if it games its stable, doe any other gamers agree?

Zefan · 11 Mar 2006 at 00:17

Yeah I don't actually care that much for stability that much as I don't run SETI or FAH (Despite my previous post :\) ad I only try prime for about an hour max

.SJ · 11 Mar 2006 at 00:25

Zefan · 11 Mar 2006 at 00:26

True, I tend to run 3dMark05 and 01 to test my machine. Prime as a quick memory test and heat test.

4Qman · 11 Mar 2006 at 03:12

Stable 12Hrs Prime and BF2 without a glich,

I mean ive primed before for 8hrs and still had a crash in BF2 within the Hour. :mad:

I normally Run Memtest86/Super PI 32MB/Prime 4-12HRs/Then Game "BF2"

chopchop · 11 Mar 2006 at 13:37

stable = does everything without failing or giving an error

i love threads like these, cos you get to see all the idiots saying "my pc fails p95 after x hours, p95 must be faulty, but i still stay at the same speed" :rolleyes:

*edit* 8-12hrs p95 is generally ok, but you may still get errors that take a while to show up (or bf2 will show them rather quickly). 24hrs on blend is reccomended.

NathanE · 11 Mar 2006 at 13:49

Screenshot of stability. And I'm still not sure if its 100% :~/

12 hours is definately not stable. Nor is a week. A couple months can be considered stable, for all intents and purposes.

Amp34 · 11 Mar 2006 at 15:44

Unfortunatly not many Ocers are going to leave prime on their main pc for a few weeks or months.

welshtom · 11 Mar 2006 at 16:10

as long as it does what you want thats stable. mine hasnt crashed in months yet its not "stable".

I hold no valuable data on it and its purely a gaming/video rig so its my preference to run it like this.

Tom

Kesnel · 11 Mar 2006 at 16:24

welshtom said:
as long as it does what you want thats stable. mine hasnt crashed in months yet its not "stable".

I hold no valuable data on it and its purely a gaming/video rig so its my preference to run it like this.

Tom

I'm inclinded to agree.

It really depends on what you want to do with your system. Particularly if you're benching then as long as it is stable enough for the benchmark you're concentrating on then it's fine.

I prefer the term "benchable at..." rather than "stable" personally.

welshtom · 11 Mar 2006 at 16:26

yea, whenever i post stuff i always say i can bench at.... etc.

i never know what my system is stable at tbh

turbotoaster · 12 Mar 2006 at 00:51

Kesnel said:
I'm inclinded to agree.

It really depends on what you want to do with your system. Particularly if you're benching then as long as it is stable enough for the benchmark you're concentrating on then it's fine.

I prefer the term "benchable at..." rather than "stable" personally.

spot on

rich99million · 12 Mar 2006 at 11:29

Xionic said:
now i know this a debate that rubs some people the wrong way

so why post it then?

I think it's a personal thing - some people are happy to have a machine that is a little unstable - others pride themselves in knowing that other machine is rock solid

Personally I'd much rather have a milder OC which I know is very stable than getting an extra 100-200MHz at the risk of stability, needing a lot more electricity and producing a lot more heat. The extra 5% speed might get FAH work done that little bit quicker but if you then lose 1/20 work units due to instability you're back where you started anyway

So if you're happy with your machine then that's what matters most

mmj_uk · 12 Mar 2006 at 11:32

Xionic said:
now i know this a debate that rubs some people the wrong way but HOW STABLE IS STABLE.

it should be no less stable than than at default speeds.

easyrider · 12 Mar 2006 at 11:45

mmj_uk said:
it should be no less stable than than at default speeds.

Agreed.

simple answer for the win!

Junk · 13 Mar 2006 at 11:23

stable is NEVER falling over. ever. after initial setup.

geeza · 13 Mar 2006 at 11:53

stable is as stable as you need it to be.

A server of a large company with databases etc on will need to be stable all year round.

A home pc designed for running the internet and occasional porno doesnt need to be as stable.

welshtom · 13 Mar 2006 at 12:04

hardly running critical systems are we, that need to have a downtime of less than 2 mins a year. as long as it does its job its fine.

Tom