Aida64 vs Prime95

[tw33k]

Disclaimer: This thread is not an attempt to convince people that one is better than the other. These are my results and conclusions which I wanted to share so we could discuss and hopefully learn something

Test bench:
Intel 3770K @ 4.7GHz (each test required different settings for stability)
ASRock OC Formula
G-Skill Trident X F3-2400C10D-16GTX 16GB (2x8GB)
Corsair H100i
DMM is a DigiTech QM1571

Aida64
I ran Aida64 for 2 hours (my normal test time although Aida64 recommends 12 hours) with only Stress FPU selected (FPU stressing means AIDA64 System Stability Test will use a floating-point calculation task that stresses the FPU part of your processor. Modern processors all have an integrated FPU, and from all the components that are integrated, the FPU is the most complex one. Hence stressing only the FPU actually stresses most of your processor, and usually drives the processor to its maximum temperature)

Prime95
I ran Prime95 for 5 hours with the settings outlined in the Complete Overclocking Guide: Sandy Bridge & Ivy Bridge | *ASRock Edition* thread. People might complain that these are not "optimal" settings but they are what most people on this site who have this board would use.

Voltage (recorded with a DMM)
Aida64 requires slightly less voltage than Prime95.

Temperature
Aida64 causes higher temperatures

Conclusion
I have been overclocking CPUs for a number of years and I have never used Prime95 to test the stability of an overclock. I have never had a system crash that has passed a few hours stressed with Aida64 (and before that when it was Everest) I have, however, helped many people who have run Prime95 for many hours only to have their systems crash when they fire up a game (for example)

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

run Prime95 for many hours only to have their systems crash when they fire up a game (for example)

But Prime95 is intended (when it's not finding huge primes) to stress test the cpu (and to an extent memory). It won't necessarily pick up on issues with a dodgy/overclocked graphics card, or power supply which is not strong enough to power the graphics card at full blast.

Also, prime95 is free software, whereas AIDA64 seems to be either a time/feature limited trial or paid for.

But anyway, AIDA64 is interesting, especially as it stress tests the FPU (from what you have been saying).

I've overclocked and tested many computers over a long period of time, and had very good results with prime95. If the computer "crashes" during prime95, it has always been faulty or had bad/problematic ram. Similarly, prime95 working well for at least 12 hours has usually produced a reliable computer (although I like to find out the maximum overclock potential, and then back it down a fair amount, so that it will hopefully be stable for a long while).
But, I would use other means to test overclocked graphics cards and other causes of computer instabilty e.g. memtest86 (in addition to, and usually before) prime95, as problematic/faulty ram is a somewhat common problem in my experience.
These days, I try and avoid overclocking (except maybe for pure gaming machines). The days of buying a $50 Celeron, overclocking it up to the performance level of a $500 top of the range pentium, seem to be long gone.

 

[Ken g6]

Seriously, if you want high temperatures with Prime95, use the Small FFTs setting, not any kind of blend test.

 

[tw33k]

I'm pretty sure that the trial version of Aida64 has full functionality for the stress tests. It's just the benchmarking and diagnostics that are limited. No single solution is perfect so I suggest people try a few different options and see what works best for their system. For example, if I was to use Prime95 to test the stability of my overclocks then I would be running at a higher voltage than I currently am (as you can see in the results above) I have 2 PCs and a test bench and all 3 are rock solid. But again, everyone has different needs so it's best to try different options and not just use what everyone else is using.