How do you define a stable system?

[Squishyface]

I'm wondering what other overclockers out there consider a stable system. I have three setups that i use and only one of them i consider stable.
1) 1.33 AXIA tbird on a kk266 board with rev3 mushkin pc133 memory, winME. I run this at 10.5x151 (1584MHz). It runs hot, can finish 3dmark2000, prime95 torture test. However can't even finisht he low detail truck part of 3dmark2001, and crashes in UT a few times per hour. The vid card is a leadtek geforce2 pro...not overclocked (have run it up to 230/400 with minimal artifacts. If i clock the system at 10x133 (its default), all the tests run the same...UT doesn't crash ever and 3dmark2001 can run once, but try to loop it and it doesn't start.

2) 1.2B Tbird run at 9x133 on an Abit kt7a-raid board with crucial pc133 ram, elsa gladiac geforce2 gts and win2k. I tried overclocking this cpu, but the chip is cracked (from previous adventures) and it doesn't function well when you get near 1300. I figure 33% overclock on the fsb is good enough. However, this system crashes all the time with benchmarks. Namely 3dmark2001. It seems to run prime95 torture test fine, 3dmark2000 can loop for a few hours without a crash, and cpu stability test and burn in test all run fine.

3) P3 550 (katmai) overclocked to 5.5x112 with run of the mill pc100 sdram, asus p3bf mobo and winME. This computer can run all my benchmarks all day, every day without ever crashing (including 3kmark2001). It won't post at a higher fsb :P, otherwise i would have tried that.

Now, Where do you draw the line for stability. Obviously system #3 is stable, by anyone's definition. And system #1 seems stable at 1.33 but not at 1.58, and system #2 (the one with win2k) doesn't seem very stable at all. Now, i haven't tried it at 12x100, its default, because i'd rather replace the chip than be forced to run it at that setting :P.

I'm just curious what others do to see if their ssytems are stable and where do they draw the line.

[Tron]

Nr.1 Sounds like a AGP Problem to me.
try (re)installing the via4in1-Agp-triver.
or/end maybe try to
install a new Vgatriver(DX8version!)


[This message has been edited by Tron (edited 05-21-2001).]

[paul233]

If you would daytrade stocks realtime with it, it is stable

[scotter]

unstable = will crash any program more than 1 time on a regular basis.

stable = can run all program's with out crashing.

that does not mean that a crash every now and then means your system is unstable all computers will crash sooner or later http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

for me at 1.5gig every thing runs fine if I go over that Counter strike will crash when playing on line so anything over 1.5 is unstable to me.

[This message has been edited by scotter (edited 05-21-2001).]

[Overkill[TBP]]

I agree with scotter, if one things crashes then bring it back a little, or increase the voltage, or else it's not worth trying to get that speed. You want your programs to run still.

[DanU]

Most of you will find this odd... but if it can have about 10 instances of Netscape running along with cpuburn, I've found that it will survive just about anything.

Of course netscape itself seems to be a buggy program no matter what computer I use it with. Maybe that's what makes it a good program to use... a really stable CPU will make up for some unstable programming http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif.

[Barney]

I had an Athlon 750 overclocked to 950mhz and it would lock up once a day and sometimes in a game. I got sick of it and set it back to 750mhz. I ran Windows 98SE for exactly a week without restarting it (it didn't lock up after that, I just turned the computer off). I ran RC5 (100% CPU load) the whole week, surfed the internet/played Counter-Strike online for about 12 hours a day. That's what I call ROCK STABLE.

[Roy]

I use the rendering of a 100MB graphic in PhotoDeluxe as a stability test. If it will do that, I'm happy.

[mrdisco]

A nice long linux kernel compile is a good stability test for me. I usually run a compile a few times while SETI@Home is running. This is a good 1-2 punch for Linux users. If the CPU lives through that then it's fine by me.

[otheos]

I do not understand the mentality of all computers will crash

No! only computers with bad hardware and/or software will crash.

You can have an application crashing but if the computer crashes, there is a problem! Be it windows or Abit or other low quality products, then the computer is just not stable. We run boxes for months without a crash or reboot (yes PC's that is -let's not talk Suns) that are used by all kinds of users and yet, never crash. The PC's I work on (home and work) never crash. My work box is up for 4 months (no reboot) running Linux (obviously).

Why do you take these things for granted?

[the corrupted]

I agree with otheos. if I could get my system to be like that,I'd be in heaven. With how it is now, my sister gets on & I have to shut almost everything down so she doesn't crash some program or another. I don't know how she does it (I suspect hotmail and MSN Chat), but she does. She did it to me tuesday night & crashed ICQ.

[UKLee]

otheos, I think what you don't understand is that not everyone has the knowledge/time/inclination/patience to set up and run a Linux-based machine. The majority of the world, and I'm talking business and home users here, is simply locked into Wintel.

I personally take these things for granted because I'm not particularly upset by my computer locking up a few times a day. I am more interested in the ease of use and range of choice of applications that I can use, and using a platform that is widely supported.

Sadly, that's the way it's going to stay for the time being. I would love to see the day when Linux breaks into the home market and I can run all the applications and games I want, but I fear that day is a long way off yet. For starters, Linux is going to have to become a lot more accessible to the semi/non-discretionary computer user http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[neo_otyugh]

i run win2k advanced server on a k6-2 400 with 320 megs of ram and i dont find it very stable. i mostly use it as a file server and router, and for some reason it will suddnely hit 100% processor usage for minutes at a time and it is running next to nothing. then i have had to run the win2k repair 3 times as well.

my 1 gig duron gaming machine only has problems when i forget to turn the fan on that blows into the case and the video overheats.

my last one was rock solid with win98, a celeron 566@850 with 256 megs of ram. i wiped it and put red hat 7.1 on and the only thing that bugs me is that if i leave KDE running and walk away it will crash after a while. gnome is fine...but i guess i should have done 7.0

[otheos]

even with windows, if you get two-three system crashes a day, I have to tell you there's something wrong with your system

Cheap parts, put together by usually inexperienced users, messing up IRQ's, mem timings and voltages are one big factor. Add to that poor software setup, bad driver implementation, total mess up of registry, careless overloading and lack of patience, and believe me the main difference between a linux user and a windows user is that the former has firstly avoided all the above (and learned to be patient).

No matter what OS you run, a badly built system will crash (especially cheap RAM!!!).

As for the patience part: have you ever left your PC there frozen for a couple of hours to see if it responds again? Well, 90% of all freezes are recovered after sometime (and thats only for windows)!!

Stability? it's either stable or not.

And talking about real life, my wife's system (not the most advanced user) runs W2K Pro, it's on 24/7 and hasn't crashed (at least since Xmas). Last time was rebooted a week and a half ago. (and she plays games, edits heavy photoshop files and a lot of abuse to the OS).

[Squishyface]

Well, here is a good lesson to learn.
Even though you reset your video card core and memory speeds to baseline, if you don't check the box that says to apply them at startup, your comp, being the obedient servant that it is, does exactly what you told it to.
So, the reason i couldn't run 3kmark2001 on my win2k system was because the p.o.s. elsa gladiac geforce 2 gts which whines if you run it much over its baseline of 200/333 was set to 215/358....boggle.
I'm an idiot :P
It is still gonna lockup, i predict. I'm running a few tests right now. The kicker is gonna be looping 3kmark2001 for hours and hours http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif...it'll never survive :P

[Andy_L]

I gotta side with Otheos, your PC can and should be stable. My work PC running NT does not crash, tho it eats video cards every 2 months for some reason, and Win 98 can also be very stable, my wife's PC (A7V133 1GTbird Win98)is rock solid, admittedly we turn it off every day. My sons shared a K6-2 450 for four months while I was away for work, despite never shutting it down properly and filling a 13 Gb HDD with Games and Game demos, it was stable and working when I returned (the scandisk log was rather large, lol). If you are not willing to put up with an occasional problem, then overclocking (at least extreme) may not be for you.