Quote (Incendiary @ Aug 13 2018 10:47am)
'I must pass all stress tests!'
So if I made a program that crashes you at stock clocks, you would feel compelled to underclock your CPU, even if that application in no way represents real-world usage? Passing "all stress tests" really means passing "all stress tests that people happen to have made". If nobody decided to make ultra-mega-Prime95, you would think your overclock is stable. That seems like a random, haphazard way to figuring out if your overclock is stable or not. Computers are built for using, and whether you crash at Prime95, what really matters is whether you crash often enough while using it normally. Forcing yourself to pass a stress test "just in case you use it to its limits" makes no sense either. No point in going down "what ifs" which have no signs of ever happening. And if it does, work it out when it does.
Run 2 different types of stressing programs, and then use your computer normally. If you crash, then it's not stable. What's stable for you might not be stable enough for me. Some people need 100% reliability because of their jobs.
Let's not get into a semantic debate about the word 'stability'. If you define stability as 'never crashes on anything, ever', then I don't care about your notion of stability. That criteria makes no sense either because the only way to be sure you are stable forever is to test your CPU forever. The world doesn't end if your CPU crashes on you. Run a stress test overnight, then go play video games to test things out. If you ever end up crashing in the heat of the moment, lower the multiplier by one and you should be perfectly stable.
That's the whole point of stock speeds... safe at 100% load for extended time, as verified as warrantied by the manufacturer.
Something like aida64 can run high end server processors at 100%, so I'm pretty sure they have plenty more than what your i7/R7 take advantage of.