Maxing out CPU
Seti (and others) are still running.
prime95 
nice cpu test
nice cpu test
Funny you started this thread Mav as i was only just thinking about max CPU strain recently myself.
My take on it is this: The CPU is constantly running / live anyway. When it's at 100%, windows tend to become sluggish yet oddly, the mouse pointer doesn't - it still moves around quite happily and this is being controlled directly by windows itself which is then renderring it onto the screen and overlaying it over any windows you have open.
From that, I concluded that CPU load isn't actually real physical strain on the CPU but the number of processes that windows is executing on it and trying to keep up with. With that in mind, windows itself must actually be controlling what it feels is an adequate load on the CPU while holding back enough CPU power for its own core to run with.
Sometimes though you'll get to the screensaver and it'll take a while to come back. The only thing I can think of is that windows has stopped prioritising the graphical display in order to keep up with other tasks.
Now with all that said, a CPU is basically millions of transistors all setup to pass signals between each other for various hexadecimal commands that are run through them. Now if you don't run a cpu intensive program, less of those transistors are going to be switching between high and low levels thousands - millions of times per second. If you do run a CPU intensive task then they will be maxed out and be switching constantly and like most electronic components they have a limited lifespan. That said, the CPU is smart enough to recognise it's own overheating and danger points and all the time it's happy, it should be ok. Most electronic compoenents also have a long lifespan and the few that do sizzle tend to be cheap chinese capacitors. CPUs tend to be developed in america
So while it's easy to think that Windows manages it all and holds the CPU time back enough to protect the CPU and that it's only virtual code / nothing real on the CPU, the CPU is still running billions of signals through its transistors per second and this does of course put strain on it. Then when you think it over some more the manufactuers will obviously know the limits of their hardware and delinberately limit it to a safe level anyway.
To be honest Mav, I'd say you're better off running it constantly rather than turning the machine on and off as the heating up and cooling down of the CPU core dies is more likely to cause long term damage if you ask me.
I once heard of a taxi with over 500k on the clock that barely had any engine hassle. Turned out it was shared between two blokes who both lived at the same address and did 12 hour shifts - they literally took the car home, left it running and switched over on the doorstep on most days meaning the car very rarely had its engine stopped. While I agree that maxing it out to the max RPM constantly wouldn't be a good idea, the constant running temp and lack of heating up, cooling down etc probably had a massive advantage.
My take on it is this: The CPU is constantly running / live anyway. When it's at 100%, windows tend to become sluggish yet oddly, the mouse pointer doesn't - it still moves around quite happily and this is being controlled directly by windows itself which is then renderring it onto the screen and overlaying it over any windows you have open.
From that, I concluded that CPU load isn't actually real physical strain on the CPU but the number of processes that windows is executing on it and trying to keep up with. With that in mind, windows itself must actually be controlling what it feels is an adequate load on the CPU while holding back enough CPU power for its own core to run with.
Sometimes though you'll get to the screensaver and it'll take a while to come back. The only thing I can think of is that windows has stopped prioritising the graphical display in order to keep up with other tasks.
Now with all that said, a CPU is basically millions of transistors all setup to pass signals between each other for various hexadecimal commands that are run through them. Now if you don't run a cpu intensive program, less of those transistors are going to be switching between high and low levels thousands - millions of times per second. If you do run a CPU intensive task then they will be maxed out and be switching constantly and like most electronic components they have a limited lifespan. That said, the CPU is smart enough to recognise it's own overheating and danger points and all the time it's happy, it should be ok. Most electronic compoenents also have a long lifespan and the few that do sizzle tend to be cheap chinese capacitors. CPUs tend to be developed in america
So while it's easy to think that Windows manages it all and holds the CPU time back enough to protect the CPU and that it's only virtual code / nothing real on the CPU, the CPU is still running billions of signals through its transistors per second and this does of course put strain on it. Then when you think it over some more the manufactuers will obviously know the limits of their hardware and delinberately limit it to a safe level anyway.
To be honest Mav, I'd say you're better off running it constantly rather than turning the machine on and off as the heating up and cooling down of the CPU core dies is more likely to cause long term damage if you ask me.
I once heard of a taxi with over 500k on the clock that barely had any engine hassle. Turned out it was shared between two blokes who both lived at the same address and did 12 hour shifts - they literally took the car home, left it running and switched over on the doorstep on most days meaning the car very rarely had its engine stopped. While I agree that maxing it out to the max RPM constantly wouldn't be a good idea, the constant running temp and lack of heating up, cooling down etc probably had a massive advantage.
