Because this program is far more optimized than Prime95 is.
Printable View
Because this program is far more optimized than Prime95 is.
I lurk a lot more than I post (obviously), but I wanted to report that this has been a huge help in IDing voltage deficiencies quickly.
A couple feature requests/suggestions:
1) Output between cycles? Since I'm running 8 GB of RAM full tests take a while, & large numbers of them take a very long time. It would be nice to have some indication of where I am in the process, even if it's just a simple "x out of y" text progress indicator.
2) Output results as they come rather than as a single dump at the end. This way if I have a failure midway through my multi-hour run I don't have to wait for the remainder to further my tweaking.
3) Possible to restrict to specific cores? Even if this was as simple as Core 0/1 for dual cores and 0+1 and 2+3 for quads (for GTL tuning on quads).
Very, very helpful program though, I wish I had the programming skills to contribute to a project like this.
Viper GTS
Thank you very much for making up this program in an easy to use interface. You have saved me at least 20 hours using orthos to sort out some issues I was having getting my new rig stable. Orthos took 2.5hrs to fail the large FFT test (sometimes just causing the system to reboot which didn't help me at all unless I was timing the run on my watch) whereas I only passed 2 out of the 5 tests I ran for the first run using this app, taking only 8 minutes to see instability. After some tweaking, I got it to pass 15/15 tests, now I'm going for 20/20.
I'm aware this can't show complete stability, but I just progressed days in a couple of hours. Brilliant.
As said before, it would be nice to have the output of each test displayed as it finished rather than waiting until the end, so you could stop a run and tweak more immediately upon finding an error to expediate the tweaking process (although just letting it finish gives you a better idea of just how unstable the system is and that definitely has it's merits), and a simple progress bar/meter of some sort would also help 'dress up' the interface, but apart from that I think it's great. Cheers.
Thank you for your kind words.
As this program stands right now, you can have it display the output as it goes by sacrificing error-detection. In the future, I might implement outputting-as-it-goes with error-detection on.
No problem, it's a great program :up: I'd prefer to leave error detection on, in case my often tired eyes miss something ;)
What would you consider a decent length run with this app? I got my system to pass 20/20 just now, very happy.
http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/i...865-5-5-15.jpg
Personally, I use 10 runs, and give it 3.3 GB of memory to use (on 64-bit XP, of course).
Congratulations on 4 GHz stable :up:.
With my 32 bit O.S. (XP sp3), there is a small issue detecting the available memory.
I have 4 Gb onboard, total memory is 3.4 Gb and available memory is 2.74 Gb (windows task manager).
IntelBurnTest detects correctly the 2.74 Gb of free memory but if I use this value or anything higher than 2.1 Gb, the program exits with the error: "Linpack32.exe not enough memory".
If I want to test completely my 2.74 Gb of available memory, I have to start 2 istances of IntelBurnTest and put 2100 Mb on one and 600 Mb on other or any figure which sum is less than 2.74 Gb.
Is it a limitation of the 32 bit O.S. or what?
Yeah, it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brama
Great tool, thanks!
I'd also vote for seeing the intermediate results with error checking on.
Any chance of compiling a 64 bit version of the executable? I tend to test under Windows PE and the 64bit version won't run 32bit executables.
Thanks again.
It already works for 64-bit XP/Vista. I don't know about WinPE or BartPE, haven't tried either.Quote:
Originally Posted by gtj
It works under normal 64 bit OS's because they'll run 32 bit executables as well as 64 bit. The skinny versions like WinPE and BartPE will only run matching executables. So, linpack itself will run because there's a 64 bit version but IntelBurnTest.exe will only run on 32 bit WinPE. It's not a big deal, really. I can run linpack directly if I need to.Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentGOD
This program is so awesome I wish It was stickied. No1 elses temps are in the 70's under water?
You can try this native 64-bit version of IntelBurnTest v1.4:Quote:
Originally Posted by gtj
http://www.ultimate-filez.com/files/...rnTest-x64.zip
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justintoxicated
WOW! This is the best stress test ever. My temps are higher than I have ever seen in prime. I thought I had a stuck sensor for 3 months. I have never seen core#1 so high. My cores stayed even the whole time. I have a max temp of 55c 55c in real temp.
This doesn't work on AMD does it? I just tried it on my dad's socket A system and it errored out.
Works great! Thanks for doing this.Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentGOD
Intel claimed that it should work with AMD processors as well, but from my testing, it didn't. It just crashed upon starting the test on my AMD Opteron rig. I had a friend test it on his Socket AM2 rig as well, and he got the same thing, unfortunately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobalt
You're welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by gtj
Okay, thanks for the response!Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentGOD
Awesome program. This has been very helpful for me to find stable settings much faster. I generally leave error detection off as I like to see if there is an error right away. I have been using 10 runs. There have been several times when things have been stable up to 6 or 7 runs and then will error. All in all much faster tweaking though.
I generally have been using option 1 (maximum stress). When would I want to use one of the other options?
As in the options other than Max and Custom? They are there for less accurate, but quick testing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razmatazz
AgentGOD - Thank you very much for this amazing application, now I started to use a specific phrase If someone asks how to test their CPU if it's stable , I usually answer "only AgentGOD Knows How to do it right" :D Fast, precise , thanks again
I'd also like to thank the author of this programme, as it certainly speeds up error detection by a massive amount! I guess the only thing I could ask to be added to the programme is some kind of GUI in the manner that Orthos has. I think that would make it nicer to use and easier to see errors.
How many passes do you think are intended to give a reliable stability? yesterday i've used 10 passes, wich took me less than 8 min. of running with cores near to 80°C and got no errors, but then i run prim95 and system freezed after 2 hrs. do i have to give it a longer run, like 15-20 or more passes? it is safe to keep the cpu at those temps for so long time?
IMHO 80*C is too hot for full load temp - is your TRUE mounted firmly and your TIM spread evenly and thinly? I would have expected it to do a better job than that.
Well, i've got max 65-66°C running prime95 and occt for hours, but this utility pushes in another 15°C so i'm ending at 78-79°C. Also, my room temp are very high: in this moment i'm reading 29.8°C.