- Sep 17, 2014
- 11,422 (5.65/day)
|Processor||i7 8700k 4.7Ghz @ 1.26v|
|Motherboard||AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370|
|Cooling||beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3|
|Memory||16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16|
|Video Card(s)||MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2100/5500|
|Storage||Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD|
|Display(s)||Eizo Foris FG2421|
|Case||Fractal Design Define C TG|
|Power Supply||EVGA G2 750w|
|Mouse||Logitech G502 Protheus Spectrum|
|Keyboard||Sharkoon MK80 (Brown)|
The only pro IBT really has is that you can get an idea of relative performance between settings/runs because it gives you a simple number, and heat. Lots of heat.That's what happens when you test the AC but your brakes are the issue.
Actually being serious, I hate IBT.. that is one of the more useless stress tests around.
its a bit like a Furmark with a bench score.
Personally still partial to OCCT for quick testing, and then on to real workloads until the OC falls apart, basically I do still think a synthetic test is essential because you need some sort of similar testing/starting situation to analyze stuff. And the graphs, OCCTs graphs are great.
I don't... I'll even happily back down another 100-200mhz if it means a big reduction in voltage/heat/noise. Given the actual clock, 200mhz is negligible anyway.Ok, I'm going full off-topic here, but do people really run their CPUs at max overclock? I mean, if a stress tool told me the CPU is stable at, say, 5GHz, I'd dial that back 5% or so if I was going for stability.