EPTComputer Build Resource Thread - Page 954
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
When using this resource, please read FragKrag's opening post. The Tech Support forum regulars have helped create countless of desktop systems without any compensation. The least you can do is provide all of the information required for them to help you properly. | ||
|
Josh_rakoons
United Kingdom1158 Posts
| ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
I think Nvidia has confirmed Kepler won't make an appearance at Cebit a nd Intel won't be announcing any release date for Ivybridge. | ||
|
Josh_rakoons
United Kingdom1158 Posts
| ||
|
kunstderfugue
Mexico375 Posts
| ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
| ||
|
kunstderfugue
Mexico375 Posts
| ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
kunstderfugue
Mexico375 Posts
| ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
kunstderfugue
Mexico375 Posts
| ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + nVidia wants to make money. | ||
|
kunstderfugue
Mexico375 Posts
| ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
| ||
|
iKill[ShocK]
Vietnam3530 Posts
| ||
|
kunstderfugue
Mexico375 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On February 28 2012 13:23 iKill[ShocK] wrote: is furmark a reliable software to test graphic card overclocking stability? Debatable. It overstresses cards beyond what most games do, letting you be absolutely certain about stability and temps, but it's also entirely plausible it will make your hardware look like it's closer to melting than it will be under real world cases. Also, it's not ideal for certain types of testing. It's good enough for the vast majority, though, and if you're good in Furmark you should be good in anything else. For some people, something like looping a 3dmark test is preferable for stressing, or even doing that with a few threads of P95 for a total stress environment with more advanced DX features in use. Oh, and sometimes there's issues with certain cards, furmark, and drivers all together allowing circumstances that are physically unhealthy for your card. Pretty rare now, though. Was a bigger issue for certain 4000 series Radeons, some of which exploded due to hardware that couldn't handle what it was supposed to. | ||
|
iKill[ShocK]
Vietnam3530 Posts
| ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
I'd suggest looking some 3DMark over Furmark anyway, as that's more of a realistic worst-case load, and also one that changes over time and may catch some more oddities. | ||
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
Prime 95 takes years to find errors while Intel Burn Test should find errors fairly quickly. Furmark is a completely unrealistic test that does nothing but try and fry your GPU; nVidia and AMD know that so the cards automatically throttle themselves to stop that. The fact that AMD cards in the past died to it is enough proof that its a completely stupid test considering GPUs are over-engineered and can generally handle extremely stressful loads without struggling. | ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
On February 28 2012 12:36 skyR wrote: You mean Ivybridge and GTX 700 (Kepler). I think Nvidia has confirmed Kepler won't make an appearance at Cebit a nd Intel won't be announcing any release date for Ivybridge. I thought ivy bridge was 29th april? | ||
| ||
