32 bit seems less reliable then 64 bit
Printable View
32 bit seems less reliable then 64 bit
@Dua|ist
Could you add a feature to LinX for the competition that makes it possible to run LinX for the amount of time that will be needed to run LinX stable for a valid result.
Yes of course but that doesn't matter. With 32 bit you will have lower GFlops too so it will be harder to aim for the highest GFlops. It's just to give everyone the chance to compete.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
exactly what i have found. longer the pass takes the more chance of finding an error.Quote:
Originally Posted by cstkl1
Those of us with more RAM get a much heavier test, as the larger amount of memory tested, the larger the problem size, & the hotter things get.
http://ense7en.com/pics/q9650/Q9650%...s%20STABLE.JPG
Hey Dualist
Are you planning on upgrading LinX to 2.0 anytime soon? I just found out my RAM might be a problem Im having and when I read the changelog of Intel Burn Test 2.0, I thought it would be a great idea to stress my system with it, but I would really like the LinX interface :D:up:
There´s some serious rock solid stability :yepp: you have there, cstkl1, time is within 203.9 and GFlops is within 62.2, probably it was so through the whole 6hrs+ session, awesome :clap: :up:
above was with kingston hyperX t1
now with dominator GT 2k C7-7-7-20 at 1.6v
http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/l...inx16vdimm.jpg
One question
Does LinX stress the RAM enough to tell if they are 100% stable? or is only to check CPU stability?
If you use 5GB+ problem sizes so it uses ALL of your system RAM, I've found LinX to be a good test for memory stability. So far it's been spot on when I've had unstable memory settings. I still use Memtest just to double-check though.
Kougar
Linpack doesn`t stress RAM a lot.
Windows MemTest 3.8 is the best RAM<--->NB stability test program.
not for x58's i7Quote:
Originally Posted by WaterFlex
i can pass memtest for the above at 1.53v
which wont even boot into windows.
I mean Windows MemTest not Memtest 86+
well bothQuote:
Originally Posted by WaterFlex
its really unreliable
bet for x58's is using prime large fft 5.4gb
u can tell within the first 30 mins.
Is that really needed? Not that it is so hard to implement, but one could possibly just look at the status panel and then stop the test if the required time has passed. I think some sort of minimum time requirement will do, without any particular upper limit.Quote:
Originally Posted by A-Grey
IntelBurnTest and LinX are not connected in any manner, they're just based on the same Linpack engine by Intel. And I haven't found anything Linpack-related in that changelog to be honest. And there were no newer Linpack files released by Intel, so LinX is still using the latest ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by slim142
As for the memory, I'm sure that using higher problem sizes in LinX is still a good way to test memory too, and there always are such specialized tools like MemTest (both DOS and Windows-versions) which will most likely do the job even better. Or a good old Prime Blend. :)
But thanks for the info on IBT. It's nice to see the competition going. The «The original. All others are copycats.» motto sounds pretty weird now though. :rolleyes: ;)
Now that there's such feature in IBT, it would be interesting to compare the GFlops numbers...
And since we're talking about updates. Here's LinX 0.5.9. Alternate link works too.
I had plenty of time to make some thorough rearrangements in the code. Not much new to spot GUI-wise however:
- elapsed/remaining time is now synchronized to Windows time
- lots of inner bug fixes and optimizations
- cosmetic interface changes
Hopefully I didn't even break anything. :)
It isn't really necessary but it would be easier to have a one click button to run the competition test.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
I need som help here.
I have two computers here that I have been overclocking, and testing with LinX (newest verson). One of them has an Asus Commando P965 board, Q6600, 8GB mem and the other Asus P5Q Deluxe, Q9560 and 8GB mem.
The thing is that I get very inconsistent GFlops numbers with my Q9650 rigg. I get about 33 GFlops @ 3.82 Ghz, mem @ 1066 (266 strap). That is WAY to low!
With my Q6600 rigg @ 3.2 Ghz, mem @ 800 (266 strap) I get about 43 GFlops.
What can be the problem here? I'm really confused to why this happens.
Temps on the CPU is under control, so it is not throttling.
Edit : When I ran LinX I choose custom 6500MB of memory to use, and that seems to be causing my inconsistent GFlops numbers.
When I choose to use ALL memory, the resultes seem more correct. 43 GFlops for my Q6600 @ 3.2 Ghz and 54 for my Q9650 @ 3.82 Ghz.
Is this a bug or just how Linpack works?
Linpack indeed might be glitchy sometimes. For me it can repeatedly show 17-20 GFlops on some testing instead of usual 29-30 (pretty rarely though). LinX itself doesn't produce GFlops numbers, it takes them directly from Linpack's log.Quote:
Originally Posted by Betroz
I think that maybe it is the OS that has to be blamed. That is definitely not a common scenario for Windows memory manager when a process requests such huge amounts of memory at once. Maybe reducing background load will help stabilize the numbers.
Has a version of Linpack been released as a bootable ISO either for USB stick or CD yet?
If not I guess I have reason to go searching for my USB stick again and make a nice XP x64 teststick :)
cstkl1 :worship: those corsairs are no joke.
dualist, your app is really cool. if you are interested I can host your app for free . drop me a pm if interested!
Due to Duh's generousity we now have a new hosting for LinX. :up:
From now on the main download link is this: imagepedia.net/datajay/linx.zip :)
The FileDen link remains working, it just won't be updated anymore.
Dropbox link (2nd one) remains the same.
Btw, didn't anyone notice a performance decrease (GFlops-wise) in the 0.5.9? A guy at overclockers.ru reported a pretty huge drop of ~1GFlop on x32 version. Can anyone confirm this?