Understanding stability of OS. Could hardware play a factor?

I am a long time computer user, but I am not remotely tech savvy. I use them, but like many, I really don't know what going on under the hood.

I am trying to learn a bit more, and one of the things I've been wondering about is OS stability. I was doing some reading about windows 8.1 vs 10, and I had a thought. Could the hardware play any role in OS stability? What I mean is, there are so many variables in hardware (drives, RAM, processor, video card, etc.) is it possible that a given hardware configuration could contribute to stability, or instability? Is it theoretically plausible that say one i7 CPU could be a bit slower than another i7 CPU, yet be more compatible with a given operating system and thus less prone to instability? One always reads about speed of processors, as if that is the only thing that defines them, but I'm wondering if there are other factors when speed is negligibly slower or faster for a given task.

 

Faulty hardware can cause OS instability and throw random errors out of the blue. So both SW and HW play a vital role for a healthy and efficient running system that does its tasks w/o breaking down.

 

Thanks for the reply. Sure, I could see where faulty hardware could affect stability, but I was referring more to chip architecture. My question restated is, is it plausible that an older or slower CPU could in fact perform better than a faster chip in certain real world conditions based on how that chip is integrated with all of the other hardware and the operating system?

I knew I had to ask the question when I read this webpage comparing the i7-5700HQ to the i7-5950HQ:

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-5950HQ-vs-Intel-Core-i7-5700HQ

... It is strange that the i7-5700HQ is not as good as i7-5950HQ in clock speed, Passmark Single Core and Passmark tests, but is "much better in 3D Mark 06 CPU." Now again, I am a complete novice at these things, but one can easily infer that each of these tests are conducted differently, with different criteria, and if the results are accurate, the i7-5700HQ performed much better in one specific test for some unidentified reason. I'd like to know what that reason is.

 

Edit: nevermind

 

Really? Any opinion contributes something to a discussion, even if you were just going to chide me for not knowing enough about computers Please reconsider. Besides, as a novice - albeit one with some good statistical intuition - I am already wondering if benchmarks can be incorrectly interpreted, especially with respect to real world conditions, and I'm also wondering if manufacturers use certain benchmarks as sales devices knowing that they might not have the kind of net effect a given user might hope for.

 

Please don't cry, I misread the specs and edited before you answered.

I think it's a typo, or a bug. The site shows no result for that benchmark when you look at the 5700HQ alone, only in comparisons.

http://cpuboss.com/cpu/Intel-Core-i7-5700HQ

 

Well, I'll concede that there's certainly typos on the page you linked. Geekbench 3 (AES single core) shows a difference of four orders of magnitude between the 5700HQ and 4720HQ. One doesn't have to be an expert to know that's impossible.

 

Let me state the facts, even 4930MQ or 4700 mobile CPUs whops my 6700HQ cpu like it was nothing. 5700HQ almost kill the same 6700HQ with higher boost clocks and in all round performance w/ amazing battery life.

 

Thanks for the reply.