What i like to see if possible is the GFLOP's again as that also goes to show what GPU's and system builds can do compared to others, but of course the memory free used will also factor in the score.
Printable View
What i like to see if possible is the GFLOP's again as that also goes to show what GPU's and system builds can do compared to others, but of course the memory free used will also factor in the score.
You can still see the GFLOPs by running IntelBurnTest with error-checking disabled.
Well then why have the error checking in.... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentGOD
I know it is there for those who can't read the numbers to understand if they passed or not.
Cool then we can still see them if error checking is off ... thats good.
Update to my previous post.
After my system being stable after 30 passes, I then ram Prime95 using large FFTs. After 2Hrs and 15 mins, my system crashed.
I have now raised my PLL, FSB Term and NB voltages.
I quickly ran prime for 3Hr and 20 mins with no problems.
Will run it overnight (16 hours ) to test it.
Just goes to show, no one test alone stresses everything.
But, it is still a great stress testing program.
The benefit of this program, besides finding not stable machines, is to do a stress test in a QUICK timeframe, 10-15mins compared to the over 2h required in orthos and occt to find errors.
Besides, I do agree with unclewebb that what matters in the end is stability in YOUR daily use.
I agree, at least on my setup, it would help to quickly find unstable OC's using the max setting. I am not sure if it's from the code or fact that it raises my load temp an additional 10C over prime to 66 from 56. I will still prime/orthos overnight to be sure.
On my previous post with pics, at 2 notches below stability, orthos failed in 3.5 hours versus both runs of 15 intelburntest on max setting failed in 21 mins each.
I just finished testing 1 notch below stability, where orthos 10ffts and prime small ffts has failed at 8 and 10hrs. Intelburntest failed one 30 run at max and passed one. It made 2 errors in first 60 run, and 1 error in second 60 run but not until line 49, so may well pass a 60 run if ran enough times. Odds are also unlikely it would pass 2 60 runs (3 hours total) in a row and odds are it would fail the first run.
But at both one notch and two notches of vcore below stable, this version of linpack was quicker than orthos/prime at finding instability, so it seems useful prior to running prime overnight, for those like me that do so.
I like this software, for sure. It help me to finding errors in my new rig that prime95/OCCT have not found in many dozens of hours of test. For reaching stability in my windows xp x86 i need less volts (for Vcore, NB and Vtt Cpu), two o three notches less, that for reaching stability in my windows x64 (4 hours of test). With x86 i use custom level, 2GB of RAM. With x64 i use level 1 (3.5GB). So, i have a question: It´s strictly necessary to use the bios settings for max stability in x64 if we will only use the x86 version for 24/7?
I will say again: it is highly recommended to use the most memory possible in a 64-bit Windows environment for the most accurate test.
True, I thought better and you have absolutely right.
Great Little program.
I'm still trying out to see how sensible is it.
I'm using Vista Business x64 SP1 with 8GB, Q6600 GO VID 1.3000 @ 3.1GHz.
I can report that using Max I get lower GFlop numbers and much lower CPU stress, CPU Temp (with Real/CoreTemp) report around 55C using custom with 6000-6500MB or mid settings I get 68-69C.
After first fews runs look like prime95 but more stressfull, cpu temps are nearly 10C hotter:
Running low memory high numbers -> Small FFT
Running mid memory high numbers -> Large FFT
Running high memory mid numbers -> Blend.
Sometimes I get a slight different residual in the first round of test (5 test) but nothing in the next 2-3 rounds.
I've tested my new rig without any problem at 3.1GHz 1.2875V 24h prime95 (latest beta), a mix of prime95/3DMark03 for 12h, Othos/OCCT whatever I've throw at it, stable like a rock, after the first round of LinPack in 5 min I've uncover that my CPU is not stable, up the vcore a notch, nearly stable, at vcore=VID=1.3 look stable.
My goal is 3.0Ghz so I've attained it, yes not extreme, but it'll be my main rig and I want absolute stability, without pushing too far.
BTW the q6600 GO are an absolute steal, not as fast as penryn clock-for-clock, but less problem with the board, mature process 65mm, more cheap, the next big things is the tock version of i7 (aka Nehalem) next summers not the penrys
I noticed that this is a really good program to find VTT problems. Prime/Orthos needs really long runs but this does it in minutes. :)
Exactly the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by janolle
cool
Need some help with this program.
I'm trying to get my system stable but aparently it is not even stable when underclocked...
One strange thing I keep noticing is that burn tests always reports my CPU as 3.2 ghz wven when it is underclock to 2.4 ghz.
Can I really trust this program to provide accurate results when the CPU clock is not even reported correctly?
I think it's defaulting to standard multi, but the FSB is correct.
No . . . Hot!Quote:
cool
75 degrees !!! Orthos only gave me 67.
Not good, I knew it was too good to be true when I purchased computer parts and all of them worked without having a single RMA. I Always get a defective part ALWAYS. Now to figure out what is defective is going to take a long long time! :( Whats my best bet to try next in a situation like this?Quote:
Originally Posted by WoZZeR999
edit:
Memory passes in slot 1, and slot 3, but not when using 1 & 3 together. WTH!
i have skimmed through many of the posts but have not read all 9 pages yet. i did it on 32bit, so i'm wondering why 64bit is more accurate, and how much more accurate? temps on this is actually lower than using orthos with small ftts, so this must mean it's not accurate?
64-bit is more accurate because the cpu is workings at full capacity, in 32bit a lot of registers, cache lines, FPU/ALU only working on half of the bits that they're capable to calculate, so hidding some potential instability.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteFireDragon
CPUBurn Also passes when running memory in slots 1 & 2 (single channel) but again fails when running dual channel. Does this indicate a problem with the CPU or the Motherboard? I'd assume it indicates a problem with the motherboard?
Well, returned today from holiday and found the 1.4 were out. So i've downloaded it and found that all issues that i had with v1.1 were off. In fact with v1.1, even if the residual(norm) values were identical, my system went crazy, with nb and sb temp going from -64 to 0 and then dying, the lcd poster starting blinking and the usb wireless dongle connecting and disconnecting. Now with v1.4 all these issues are gone, and i found very useful the auto detection of free ram. Great work!
BTW, it seems to me or the v1.4 runs MUCH hotter than the previous one? running a brief 5 passes test, i saw 78°C on the hottest core while a week ago with v1.1 after a 10 passes test i've touched 75°C and the ambient temp were hotter than today...so the question is: does someone have already burnt their CPU running this test? How much longer can i keep the cpu near or over 80°C before it melts down?
Since none of you replied to my other thread...
Try running this and Orthos together. I can run both seperately and not get over 75 degrees with either one. I tried running them together for grins and my temps shot up over 100 degrees and my whole box shut off.
Give it a shot if you wanna test your cooling. I've never seen something quite like it!
if i'm only using a 32bit OS, how can i maximize the usage?
If it's passing with memory or just slot 1, and just slot 3, then you need to play around with your memory timings/voltages and the NB/GTL voltages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justintoxicated
10°C higher temperatures as with Prime95 Large-FFT after houres. :eek:
http://i38.tinypic.com/307tauc.jpg
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.
mine does (e8400 4ghz 1.38v)Quote:
Originally Posted by Justintoxicated
75 upwards sometimes.
orthos just takes it to 65º tops
I think the only reason you're not getting an accurate test is because you're not using 64-bit Windows. As far as accuracy goes, it is recommended to use 10 or 20.Quote:
Originally Posted by panheimer
Mine hits 91*C on two cores, and 85*C on the other two. All measured with RealTemp. It doesn't matter for me, since I'm not running it at that temp 24/7.
He has a 65nm quad-core like me, and you have a 45nm dual-core... big difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by CryptiK
I would give it a shot, but ouch 80c might be too hot for comfort. Guess your not 100% stable just yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by panheimer
I can't seem to get my PC stable either. I can run through 10 passes fine, perfect results.
But if I should try for 20 passes even though I'm getting perfect results on screen my PC will suddenly power itself down. I tried to increase the thermal shutdown temp to 90c so I don't think that is the issue. Could it be my PSU is starting to overheat after some time? My 12v rail drops from 11.97 to 11.84v when using intel CPU burn where prime 95 only drops it to 11.90. I have been priming for hours now, with no issues but I can't pass 20 passes of IntelBurnTest..
thanks AgentGOD! for now i'll stick with xp 32 bit even if it won't be as accurate as 64 bit os, don't plan to switch to vista 64 bit: costs too much in term of money and performance loss in gaming. maybe when dx10 will really make difference i'll give it a chance.
i'll still keep using this utility as it is really time saving, will try using longer test with 15 or 20 passes, but not today: i've got 32.3°C in room!
btw, i've found that the issues with lcd poster, everest nb &sb temps, usb wireless dongle going crazy and so on was caused by my logitech g15 and it displays of everest readings: dectivating everest or the lcd plugin i have no more issue! i'm curious if someone else with g15 and using everst for temps readings can confirm this.
I have no plans to downgrade to Vista. I love XP x64 Edition with SP2.Quote:
Originally Posted by panheimer
I cant even get everest to launch it shuts down my PC as well. No idea why :( I have a G15 maybe that is why?Quote:
Originally Posted by panheimer
Also Vista 64 isnt as bad as people make it out to be. Other than the signed drivers thing that really PISSES me off! I like it better than XP these days, im fully switched over so long as the machien has at least 4GB memory.
!! didn't noticed your sign, it's very uncommon to see a xp64 bit installed! don't you have issue with programs compatibility and drivers?
agree with you! don't like vista at all, hope the next ms os will be better!
I really don't know why XP x64 has such a bad reputation, I've run it on my workstation at work for nearly 2 years now. I have yet to find anything that wouldn't work properly. The only real complaint I have is because I'm essentially the only 64-bit user in the building none of the print servers have x64 drivers installed. Every time I get moved to a new cube I have to have IT setup whatever printer I'm supposed to print to & I'm stuck walking to the old printer until then. :( Other than that XP x64 is great (at least for business/dev virtualization purposes).Quote:
Originally Posted by panheimer
Viper GTS
Not really, the only programs I can't run are 16-bit programs. Other than that, not really any compatibility issues anymore with XP X64 SP2.Quote:
Originally Posted by panheimer
Every device I have has official non-beta 64-bit XP drivers, so I'm good there.
The only thing that makes me mad is that the tcpip.sys EvId4226 patch doesn't work on SP2 X64, so I'm stuck with using an older tcpip.sys from SP1, because I do a lot of P2P.
justintoxicated
some months ago over every forum were people spreading that enermax psu and dfi mobo didn't works well together, especially the liberty series so maybe it's your case...said that, i've had a dfi nf3 with an enermax coolergiant eg701, and dfi rs482 with a enermax liberty 500, and my actual enermax galaxy with a dfi lt680: all worked fawlessly!
my old dfi lt680 had some issue with pwm getting too hot causing the pc shut off with high vcore and high loads on cpu, and as you have your cp watercooled i'm wondering if you already have put a fan over the pwn heatsink.
or maybe it is something wrong with your settings!
I have a crappy 60mm fan with broken blade ziptied (sorta) in place, what is the best way to mount one and what size? I wish here was a water block for this thing.... I have a better 60 but its a bit noisy and has no connectors but I could solder one up if needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by panheimer
Haven't had any real issues withthe libery 620 (other than being on my 3rd or 4th one) The new one has been flawless. My last DFI had the switch bounce issue with an older version of the liberty but not with the new one (DFI expert) or the new one except when running IntelBurnTest. Funny thing is Enermax used to be on DFI's safe list!
I have a Thermaltake Toughpower 1200 watt on the way from Europe!
Prime has been running for 5 hours no issues so far. I think something is overheating and the PWM (large black heatsink right?) is very hot so it may very well be that
Well, after 5 hrs of priming you should have already reached any overheating issues, so maybe it's not an heat issue that cause your problems - think it's something wrong with your settings, so you'll have to tweak with fsb term, gtls and so on. i don't have an dfi x48 nor a q9450, so can't help you, sorry!
btw, it seems to me that there will be space for a 80 mm fan instead of a noisy 60mm one, or you may get an antec spot cool to direct airflow where you need it!
well my max temp in prime is 64C thats over 10C different when using IntelBurnTest... So it could certainly be a heat issue? Plus I'm passing the IntelBurnTest without issues acording to results I have done over 10 passes but when trying for 20 the PC just shuts off, no blue screen no lockup. Just compleatly turns off....Quote:
Originally Posted by panheimer
edit: spoke too soon, looks like the PC shut off after 5 hours. Something must be getting too hot. probably the Vtt is too high for it :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentGOD
So you are using the custom option then? How does the custom option become more accurate? For example you use 3.3 GB of memory as opposed to option 1 which is max available. If the custom option does allow one to achieve more accuracy/stability, how should we use this option?Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentGOD
I use the "maximum stress" option, and it detects and uses 3.3 GB of memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razmatazz
64°C doesn't seems too high for me....as stated before, i've nearly touched 80°C and AgentGOD reached 90°C on his rig. still maybe pwn zone overheating that causes your pc to shut off, but i'm convinced that you have to tweak settings in bios, disabling unused function like eist, spread sprectrum, throttle management and so on, and then focusing on vtt, pll and gtls wich are the key to stability with quads.
Will it go 20 runs? I can do 10 runs but not 20.Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentGOD
I played with PLL settings but it does not seem to help anything? How would I know what to set it to? I disabled all the above things you mentioned so all that is left is the GTL's since I can't get stable with less than 1.503 Vtt.
Just an update on my testing.
System
ASUS P5E WS -PRO
Q6600 G0 (VID 1.325) VCore 1.31250, Idle 1.304, Load 1.320
FSB 345 x 9
DDR2 2 x 2GB OCZ 6400 5-4-4-15 @1.9V 829MHz
Voltages - PLL 1.60, SB 1.15, FSB Term 1.30, NB 1.31
Vista Ultimate 64Bit
Case - CoolerMaster Cosmos S
PSU - Corsair HX1000
Prime64 bit Large FFTs - ran for 25 hours, max temp by Realtemp 48
then after a few hours of useful work I ran IntelBurnTest V1.4
IntelBurnTest 400 passes (39772 seconds) max temp 55
Room temp 22-24
I got a question.. How reliable is this program for memory testing only?. Also, what test should I run for this purpose. Real good program BTW :up:
Memtest+...
Memtest 86+ version 2.01Quote:
Originally Posted by monza1412
http://www.memtest.org
Any memory problem will cause it to not completely pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by monza1412
Just for fun I ran this on my lenovo x61s Laptop (its a 1.8ghz C2D Low Voltage Processor).
Before the first pass was finished the program was causing the CPU to Thermal Throttle once it hit 85C the processor speed would reduce to 1600mhz. I was getting about 10 GFlops though :)
The laptop runs pretty hot alot of the time now that I have realtemp installed it seems to get up to 70c quite often...
Also just for fun, I ran it on my Vostro 400 at work w/ E6750 CPU. I thought the PC was quiet but this program got the fan spinning up nice. It actualy handled the heat very well around 65c under load, even better than my liquid cooled PC at home. Then again I''m running an overclocked quad and my ambient is much higher as well. Unfortunately the dell got between 13 and 14 Gflops only!
I would try at least 20 runs if not more, my CPU easily passes 5 runs, usualy it seems to fail before 10, but sometimes after 10 passes as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcoffey
I guess, but I dont see any purpose in running the test at all if you don't care lol. It's not like it takes as long as prime 95. I can run prime for 4-5 hours and be stable but burn test throws errors in first 10 interations usualy. Anyways it was just more of an FYI in case you give it another shot later.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcoffey
Don't be afraid, this just makes the long and painful process of running Prime95 much shorter.
I get access violation when I try to run it, even at stock speeds.
Attachment 83998
Windows XP SP3 32bit, up to date. DEP=AlwaysOff.
EDIT:
Might be cause of PAE enabling... if I choose level 2 (1/2 mem) it runs fine and passes 10 iterations.
This is a small bug when you use a 32 bit O.S. with more than 2 Gb of memory available and you "TURN ON ERROR DETECTION" and use "Stress level #1"Quote:
Originally Posted by Fungus
any chance of being able to use flags/switches on a shortcut to run the app quickly without having to answer the questions for error detection etc. please? (no error detect, max stress, 'X' loops)
also, is it possible to list the number of the run (similar to pi) as it would make it a lot easier to quickly see how far it's gotten without having to count the lines when doing 200 loops
TIA
Anyway we can add time stamps and iteration number? It would be nice to know how long this runs for before becoming unstable! I set mine for 100 runs but since I have 8GB memory it takes hours n hours(vs days and days or never in prime?)...This is why I don't just run 20 interations (takes like an hour with 8GB memory for 20 passes). I left this on overnight, it didn't have any errors for several hours. But I guess I'm still not stable. This program has given a new definition of a stable intel system! You can pass prime for 24 hours....But are you really stable at 4.0ghz on a quadcore?
8GB mememory tresting seems to take exponentialy longer than 4GB testing.
Before I made some Adjustments I was prime stable for 12 hours, IntelBurnTest errored on the 7th pass. Added some voltage to memory, and now this. I would bet that I can pqass prime95 for over 24 hours in this state.
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/c...Untitled-2.jpg
I love this program. Thank you, AgentGOD. Great work.
Justintoxicated that long run is still 2 errors in it so it is still not 100% ultimate stable, but yeah i bet prime95 or Otrthos will be stable in that state 24hrs or more as they are less harsher, but linpack seems to be the best tester for Ultimate Stability for long usage at full load.
In only 5-10 passes and i fold all day with no issues so far and game play too no issues so far.
yea I bumped the memory another .015v this morning running another 100 passes!Quote:
Originally Posted by BeastNotro
I just got through decreasing Vcore until I got an error. I was running 10 iterations. After I got an error I increased Vcore back up 1 notch just to be sure that things remained stable for 10 iterations. I then tried prime95 and get an error within 15 seconds. I tried bumping up Vcore a couple of notches. I am not Prime95 stable and get errors within seconds. Any thoughts/suggestions? Am running Vista64.
Yeah I was experiencing the same thing when only selecting less than 30 iterations. It would pass IntelBurnTest version 1.4 option 1 (max memory used) on XP x64-edition but error out with prime95 v2.56. Another word is I now make sure that it passes at least 30 iterations with IntelBurnTest v1.4 option 1 and prime95 (@ the very least 12 hours ) stable before considering that my system is good to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razmatazz
Without a doubt this program is perfect for short testing your oc (thanks to the aurthor :up:), but I still use the good ol prime95 for final testing.
Ok I am incredibly bummed. I have as of this point still not truly had a stable overclock ever so it would seem. I have been trying for many hours. I am stable FSB 400 MHz which is default for this processor. Memory is at 1600 MHz. I tried to bump the FSB to 425 MHz and Memory to 1700 MHz. I had thought that I was stable according to BurnTest. I adjusted voltages and found that I needed to add a little VTT and Pll voltage and I also needed to up the NB voltage. I initally pushed up the Vcore a few notches and Burntest ran great. I then decreased the NB voltage until I found where errors occured and went back up one notch on the NB. Burntest was again stable times 10 iterations. I then decreased Vcore until I got an unstable run. I then bumped up the Vcore one notch and again I was Burntest stable times 10 iterations. Now for the frusterating part. I have to question the whole quick test idea. With BurnTest I was stable many times at 10 iterations as I was decreasing Vcore and NB. I would recieve error in Prime95 v25.6 in seconds. I then tried increasing all of the voltages that I had just got done decreasing. I increased Vcore, NB, VTT, Pll and each time I would get errors in Prime95 within 10 seconds on multiple cores. I then put the system back to FSB 400 MHz and now both BurnTest and Prime95 both run without errors. I would love to be able to overclock this rig but man, this has been a real headache. I would be most grateful for assistance.
There isn't an end all test... if even one test fails, it means your system isn't stable.
But, don't complain that this is an issue with a specific stress test... post you own thread if you need help with an overclock.
Only thing I can say is I don't think prime95 tests the memory as much as burntest. Or the CPU really, but I don't know what burntest is doing at all (magical). But thats my experience and aparently others vary. Make sure you have another program open like realtemp so can can make sure your CPU is not thermal throtteling or varying in speed while running these stress tests.
After running (and passing with NO errors) Prime95 for 25 hours, then 400 passes of Intelburntest V1.4 ( 10.5 hrs) and 5 runs of 3DMark06 my system was still not stable in normal use.
My PC had been on for nearly 50 hours, a few hours after both those tests I went to open something and my PC froze.
See picture.
I have sinced upp'd the NB, PLL, FSB Term voltages and will only be satisfied when in normal use my system does not hang. :(
The above programs are great :) for getting the VCore correct but I find that nothing compares to actually using the system in daily use.
Previously when my FSB was 380 (now 345) and my NB etc Volts were a lot higher, this type of system freeze could occur when opening a window, opening a program or even when shutting down the system.
In that case, have you tried a clean install of Windows? It sure sounds like software issue, not hardware. Also, did you try Memtest86+ to test for memory issue(s), and ATITool to test for GPU artifacting?
and what os are you usingQuote:
Originally Posted by martymonster
i testet my system with 8 gb with burntest several times. its allways stable but with prim95 i get a crash with a reboot. :shrug:
You my friend have missed the point. This is exactly the place to post our experiences with this program and how it compares to other tests, especially if the program is behaving differently then expected. I'm sure the author of this program and others would like to know even if you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loser777
So it would seem that BurnTest should give an error sooner than other stess testing programs. I only increased a small amount from default 3.2 GHz to 3.4 GHZ and was BurnTest stable (multiple runs of 10 iterations). I, however, get Prime95 errors in multiple cores within seconds at this speed. Any thoughts here?Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentGOD
Are you using 32-bit or 64-bit Windows?
Have you tried using the "Custom" option, and entering 3100 MB for testing?Quote:
Originally Posted by BAR*B*Q
billdavis, very nice, I wish I could get my Q9450 stable at 3400MHZ 425FSB...I can't pass 30 interations of Burntest with 8GB memory, with 4Gb it passes fine though. Really struggeling with this I need to get this PC working I have alot of other thigns to do. It's driving me crazy, I seem to be prime stable I just can't pass teh burn test.
AgentGOD
Thank you very much ! U make my life faster and more interesting ;)