I like that. Makes the interface cleaner and not as intimidating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
Printable View
I like that. Makes the interface cleaner and not as intimidating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
I like it!
This is a good program :up:. Check the pics and temps: Prime 95 or OCCT gets my E8400 to 42C, LinX max's @ 48C, but I haven't dusted out my PC in a few weeks so who knows. Actually, looking @ 2 other SS's I took, avg temp during LinX was 43-45C for 100% load, I'm not sure about the 48C peak. :p:
Ninja Edit: Going from 2x1GB to 4x1GB ram soon (Ballistix 800 to HyperX 1066)
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g3...inComplete.png
Thanks. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyr7.62
Now overclock it and the difference in temps will be more evident. ;)
I also like it with the spartan interface
OK, thanks, now we'll see if I can find a good compromise. :)
I've been using IntelBurnTest, but I really like LinX. Great work!
Perhaps someone can help here...
I've just built my Core i7 920 system and I am running at 20x200 1.44 V load QPI=1.3875V and 6G Corsair 1600 8,8,8-24 This passes LinX just fine with 20 passes on all memory. However, if I run Prime95, it fails rather quickly. It seems that in most cases it is the otherway around. Anybody know where I should look next?
I am running Prime96 right now at DDR31400 or so to see if this is a memory issue. But the memory will pass Memtest86 many times at 4GHz and full DDR31600 speeds no problem. Is this a QPI voltage issue? Or the dreaded 20x200 issue? I hope not cause I can't get over Bclk=204 on this system.
Thanks for your help.
Which Prime95 test did it fail? Look like a QPI voltage issue to me. Trying raising it to see if it goes away.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomb18
I don't have a i7 yet, but here is some interesting reading:
Core i7 - Is High VDimm really a Problem?
http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=3426
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/806/1/
INTREPID, thanks. :)
If the system passes Linpack it shouldn't fail in Prime due to CPU (in a short period of time at least), so this is IMO some memory or NB issue with 1st being more likely. I, however, too am not very familiar with i7 overclocking specifics.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomb18
Thanks for the information. I have noticed that on my way to stability, I had to raise the QPI voltage one step of the time. AT one point, increasing Vcore did nothing, but increasing QPI did result in a stable linx session. Perhaps I need more QPI.
I'am now prining at a lower memory speed but won't know until I get home at the end of the day if this worked.
It fails on the first 1024k tests.Quote:
Originally Posted by auchkoenig
I did try changing from 8-8-8-24 1T to 9-9-9-24 2T and it made no difference. Next is QPI voltage. I'm currently at 1.3875
One other item. In the past on my Core 2 Quad platform, stability testing with |Linx usually ended up with a error in the residuals. In Prime95, the error was a stopped thread. Now, I never get these errors only BSOD's. Any idea of the difference? Does Linx stress other areas beyond the CPU and RAM?
Definitely low VTT voltage ("QPI voltage" is CPU VTT really) or failing ram. Check your ram with memtest first, then move on to LinX/prime.
Well, the only reason I see is the new architecture of Nehalems with lots of new stuff moved to the chip.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomb18
I have also wondered why people report only BSODs in Linpack on i7. It seems that the very core itself isn't the reason for BSOD. IIRC nehalem's computational core is similar to the one of Conroe/Penryn. If we don't see any non-matching resuduals prior to BSOD like on Core 2s then maybe we can conclude that it is not the cores that are holding Nehalems back but something from that uncore (which is pretty big on chip space- and trainsistor-wise AFAIK)? Only an assumption, I may be totally wrong here. :)
Maybe i5 without QPI would be even better? :rolleyes:
Yes it is interesting that there are no residual errors. However, the uncore is to a large degree memory logic (l3 cache, memory controller, and QPI). Now on my previous Core 2 Quad system, I almost always had residual errors and I knew this was from my memory since I was running 8G under high clocks.
If I lowered the clocks it would pass. Never a BSOD.
Now, if there is any parallel with the Nehalem, one would think that if the uncore was failing then you would get the same type of failure of residuals.
Now perhaps the BSOD's are a hint? I get 0x00000101 'A Clock interrupt was not received on a secondary processor within the
allocated time interval'.
"
This is probably just a general error or it perhaps could be related to the memory controller which I presume is a "processor" of sorts.
Anyways, I solved my problem as I mentioned previously...I bought a 940:)
Interestingly, again it was linx stable but not prime95. Upping the voltage 1 notch from auto values fixed the problem even at lowered memory latencies. It seems that it may be a cpu issue afterall...Are you sure that linx doesn't stress memory more than prime 95?
No, I'm not. :) It is just based on people's experience. LinX does stress memory and detect serious memory errors but Prime and especially MemTest are believed to be much more sensitive to memory instability.
Residual errors are indication of CPU instability too. When the wrong residual is close to others (correct ones) it is normally a CPU fault. Big difference in residuals often indicates memory or NB issues. At least this is what was observed on Core 2s.
As a side note, 64-bit Linpack often causes BSODs on my E8500. Where 32-bit version always has wrong residuals, 64-bit one would sometimes BSOD.
Hmmm I seem to remember a thread in the Extreme Bandwidth section where "Cronos" was pushing linpack hard. I think he thought that it was mostly memory stressing.
Anyways, very good tool you've made!
Nothing really new, just cosmetic changes and some small fixes: LinX 0.5.7
Changes:
- slight UI redesign: some options moved to the Settings window
- added a better About window
This is the "new" look:
Attachment 95134
Cronos is Linpack's pioneer. It was him who promoted it and made it popular. Haven't seen his posts for a long while now though. I actually only remember him saying that Linpack stresses CPU very hard (There was a Linpack thread in Intel section too :D).Quote:
Originally Posted by tomb18
Thanks!
I liked 0.5.6 better.. oh well, I'll just stick with it for now :)
People experience varies Dualist, but I'll guarantee you mate, Linx using all available memory with large problem sizes is wicked on the memory controller. We're even using it in our warranty department :up: We've seen memtest86 pass memory that fails in Linx repeatedly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
Awesome tool
So whats the verdict with regards to best memory stress tool, Linpack code, Prime 95 or Memtest??
I've been using non-gui Linpack for many months and never had an issue with my system OC. Don't see the point in running its competitors.
Maybe you're right. Some people say Linpack is enough for both RAM and CPU testing, some prefer running additional, more specific tests like Memtest. If I pass Linpack at full or near full memory I'm usually stable in MemTest too, but I still prefer to run it just to be sure. This might be different on different rigs/processors/chipsets, etc., so it's better to decide for yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tekxpert
It is of course good to have an all-in-one testing program. And even if Linpack isn't the best memory checking tool it is definitely not the worst one either.
Maybe we'll hear some other opinions here. :)
I run LinX, Prime95, HCI Memtest and Memtest86+.
Once I get a certain amount of stability in those plus crunching for a couple of days, then I deem my rig stable.
Hey Dua|ist,
Any thoughts on this particular issue?
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...36&postcount=9
As soon as I have 2 GPUs in the motherboard LinX will crash at 21 or 38 seconds. If I pull it its stable for 20 passes. Does LinX stress the motherboard that much? I'm thinking its just a bad motherboard?
Any ideas would be appreciated. Thanks.
I agree with you totally. But personally I think Linpack running @ full stress eg. 1 value with the OS underneath in real time gives the best checking in my opinion. Memtest runs before OS loads so there is only a certain kind of I/O from MCH (at least on LGA775 boards) Its better to runs stress testing in as real world conditions as possible for most reliable results. :) In other words - when the OS is loaded and application(s) are running.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
The purpose of memtest86+ is to see if you can *load* the OS without instantly corrupting it. Without memtest available, there would be a LOT more corrupted OS's out there requiring reinstallation and overclocking would be nowhere as popular.
Funny thing is, for i7 this doesn't seem to apply. I can run memtest+ for hours at DDR3-2000 but I can't even load the OS properly with ram at 1600. It seems memtest focuses on the ram ICs and only fails if they are at fault, while the OS fails to load because the IMC isn't up to snuff.
okorop
LinX is OK at memory testing. Not sure if it can be compared with MemTest, but it definitely does detect serious memory errors. And according to ReverendMaynard it even outperforms Memtest86. :)
Falkentyne
Well, MemTest is a nice tool, but the chance of corrupting the OS completely due to memory overclock is not that high. And, honestly, I don't think it had such a great impact on OCing's popularity. ;)
jcool
i7 seem to be very different from previous CPU generations. No wonder that stress-testing apps act weird on them. I'm sure i7's specifics will be taken into account in newer stress-testing software.
I can be 100 iterations stable in linpak, pass 300 trials of memtext-hcl and still fail prime95 blend. I now use 15 cycles of linpak as a quick test of CPU stability then move on to prime95 for the real testing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tekxpert
What? Even with the "All" Memory to use option enabled in Linx?Quote:
Originally Posted by davidk21770
Thats what I found with Linpack non-gui too. System can be error free for 15 runs but can't run Prime95 for more than 5 minutes without error. I know this debate about the best System OC stress testing tool has been regurgitated before many times on OC forums. But stability means different things to different users. At the end of the day if your system does'nt crash or lockup etc due to the applications you personally run when OC then its stable for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by davidk21770
:)
Thank's a lot for the answer :) so if I tested the pc with linx I can be sure that also the rams are ok, greatQuote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by GFORCE100
Similar findings here, memtest86 used to be very useful in DOS testing o'c stability on earlier platforms but not i7.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
If i can run Prime without problems but when i run Linx i get a bsod on the first two minutes (using 64bit/full mem), what voltage shall i tweak? Max core temp is around 81C when it crash.
Vcore, I'm afraid. But Nehalem owners might know better.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosAD
Could also be qpi/vtt voltage
but probably vcore
It is running too hot.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosAD
Here you go, a new version: LinX 0.5.8
What's new:
- now it is not necessary to run a test for current settings to be saved
- added saving of the settings at the start of testing to prevent loosing them in case of BSOD or hang
- added an option to save Linpack's log during testing, after every completed test (decreases performance a bit when selected)
- graphs can now be shown during testing in real-time
- improvements and enhancements to graph windows, graph window positions and sizes are now saved on exit
- About and Information windows are now joined
- small fixes/improvements
Hope you'll like it. :)
P. S. There is also another mirror now, just in case: http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/663563/LinX/en/LinX.7z
Well done, bro :up: Awesome program !
Very nice prog. thank you.
The only question i have.
To test stability of the System must i set something once started the program or i just start it and only set the number of tests to run ?
It will be great if you explain if there are some settings to perform.
Thank you.
The most common settings that you might want to set manually are in the main window : Problem size and corresponding amount of memory and number of runs.Quote:
Originally Posted by omiez
All other Linpack settings can usually be left as they are, LinX automatically enables 64-bit Linpack on 64-bit OSes and sets number of threads equal to the number of logical cores. Data Alignment and Leading Dimensions settings don't have much (if any) impact on testing/performance anyway, but by default they're also set to Intel's recommended values.
Advanced settings are there just to tweak consumed memory formula in case Linpack fails to start with no memory message, no need to tweak these if everything works ok.
Everything else is just LinX own settings. Their default values are also suitable for most cases.
There are hints to almost every setting, but if something is unclear, feel free to ask. :)
Hey Dualist
So basically now on 0.5.8 you can save the log (similar to what prime95 does) or is it something different? How bad is the impact? Do you mean less resources to use the PC for other things (surfing, listening music) while testing?
Thank You (Спасибо) !Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
Ok everything works fine, no changes made since first start.
What does Problem Size affect ?
What happens if i select Bigger or Smaller Problem Size ?
It is just like in some previous versions, Linpack's text log can be saved during testing, so one can see how far it went in case everything hangs or throws a blue screen. I think it was davidk21770 who missed this feature.Quote:
Originally Posted by slim142
No, the impact only affects GFlops numbers slightly. Shouldn't be noticeable at all (including error detection and heating effectiveness), but I've probably become too paranoid about those numbers during LinX' development while trying to minimize its impact on Linpack's performance. :D
This is probably the most important Linpack's setting. It determines the dimensions of a matrix (or a linear equations system, whichever you like best) that is to be solved. The higher the Problem Size number the more CPU stress, more memory consumption, longer time to solve each test.Quote:
Originally Posted by omiez
I really can not suggest you an universal value for it. Basically it is the higher the better, but in some cases you might want to run LinX with lower values of it, for example during initial OC attempts to avoid BSODs, etc. The default value of 10000 is, let's say, a recommended minimum. Maybe you should play with it a little and determine your own testing methodology. :)
It's OC'd, just not in that pic(was doing a lil stock clock undervolting ;)). When OC'd, LinX hits 48°C peak(usually 44°C). I just ran IBT for 30min which got me a max temp of 54°C. That's exactly 10°C higher than the 44°C OCCT gets my cpu to. I'm currently running OCCT at this moment, auto-mix test. OC'd to 3.6 (9*400) w/ 1.225V, 4x1GB KHX @ 1066 5-5-5-15 PL7(for now :hehe:) w/ 1.9V. Might drop the Voltage on 1 or both a notch or 2. Overclock hax ftw :lol:. :rocker:. I have a good E8400 C0(and my KHX Micron D9GKX might help. :up:). My E8400 before this one was OEM(and used) off Ebay. :shakes: That one could do 3.6 but needed maybe 1.235V (Also had a Ep35-DS3L w/ that proc so :shrug:).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
OCCT Done!.
P.S. Within the week when I get time I'll do a 20+ run of LinX and SS it. (latest version, 0.5.8).
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g3...T1hrStable.png
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g3...16h49-CPU1.png
Again awesome tool:up:
Using it on my Phenom II right now. I stopped using Prime95 a long time ago since that program is just a joke for stability, OCCT is ok but LinX really does it.
I don't consider a clock 100% stable unless it can pass hours of LinX at max RAM usage.
Keep it up I want to see this program becoming THE stability tester:cool:
I didnt know you removed that feature in recent versions. I also like it :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
Anyways, thanks for keeping it.
What is this difference between LinX and IntelBurnTest?
Which is better program?
Pretty much same stresswise, different user interface ;)
Guys, have a quick question. Want to move my testing from prime to LinX as its most likely a bit quicker at it, however having a few probs. When I select 'max memory' it either stops instantly, with a 'out of memory' error, or before I even start it tells me I dont have enough memory:
http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/1058/linx.jpg
The most I can run it at is about 3.9gb of data (I have 6gb as im on i7) but not sure if that gives me a high enough problem size to be 100% sure of stability.
In addition to this, the program doesnt seem to max my cores to 100% when Im running it. I do have HT on with my i7 - not sure if this is the problem, although prime doesnt have an issue with it?
LinX can load all 8 threads on the i7, IBT can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xerran
I also have 6GB but I run only 3072 problem size and 40 loops. Then windows memtest for full 6GB. That's it :)
MikeMK,
I'm not sure if I can do anything more to that «not enough memory» problem. LinX uses an approximated formula to calculate how much memory Linpack is going to consume at the given Problem Size. If the calculated amount of memory is bigger than what OS reports to be free memory then it shows that warning message saying that the values were corrected. When the «all mem» button is pressed LinX chooses the Problem Size value for Linpack to consume almost all free memory. But either that formula isn't correct enough for bigger numbers or Linpack doesn't like big numbers too. (Hopefully 2nd is the case as a 600 MB error doesn't make me a good mathematician and a programmer either)
I would be grateful if you could post or send me via PM a screenshot with LinX running at those 3.9 GB and a Task Manager window with a linpack_xeon64.exe process and its memory.
Linpack doesn't keep the cores always at 100%, its load is less consistent than that of Prime, especially at the beginning/end of each test. If that is what you experience then it's ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeMK
And yes, 3.9 GB is still quite enough for Linpack to check stability. :)
where did all of the previous posts go?
Wasn't me. :) That's probably due to the continuing XS server manipulations.
can you give me some instructions on how to use your program. I unzipped the file with 7z and installed it on my C drive and now everytime I get the error that was initially reported in the "lost posts" write error or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/6452/lintest2.th.jpg
Like the interface, nice and simple.
This may be a dumb question but how do I know if the oc is unstable while using LinX? Does the testing stop if a error is detected, or does it just keep running until it finishes the amount set to loop for then show if there's any error?
If there is any variation in the residual(norm) value for each pass that is completed, the OC is unstable.Quote:
Originally Posted by koei
Dear rge,Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
Where can I get the i7 load tester?
Is this both a stress test and a benchmark?
What is a good GFlops number?
http://chuckbam.com/i7_P6T-D/LinX0.5.8a.PNG
http://chuckbam.com/i7_P6T-D/LinX0.5.8b.PNG
chuckbam - GFlops depends on CPU.
I know, but, how are my numbers for 3.6 GHz?Quote:
Originally Posted by kuebk
I'm surprised that you have such low GFlops at 3.6GHz.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckbam
With my Q9450 at 3.6GHz and DDR 1199MHz I've got higher GFlops as you can see in the screen shot in my sig.
I will run it again with Power Management offQuote:
Originally Posted by A-Grey
Yes disable all these things in the BIOS and use 3450Mb Memory that's what I used, than you will see the actual difference between your i7 and my C2Q.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckbam
I7 with HT on and 12Gb of ram, if he uses only 4Gb of ram he will surpass ya for sureQuote:
Originally Posted by A-Grey
I don't doubt that. If he gets lower GFlops outcomes than I have with my Q9450 than there is something seriously wrong.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
I get around 49.5 with all the power management turned off and some TSRs disabled. Where the i7 excels is with multi thread processing. In some reviews, they have some benchmarks where the Yorkfield does beet the i7.
But, trust me, I have a very capable computer. How do you do with CINEBENCH R10?
Or, this one? http://chuckbam.com/i7_P6T-D/Bios2/SAN-ProcArith.PNG
Tom's Hardware
Compare Core i7 I7-920 Quad Core Processor, Core 2 Quad Q9450 Processor
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/d...d%5B2182%5D=on
If I see all these scores and the difference between them I can only say that the Core i7 only benefits from the higher bandwidth with the triple channel memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckbam
For me it isn't worth the upgrade from my Core2Quad to a Core i7. That's what I think of it but everyone has to decide this for his own.
I don't doubt that you have a very capable computer.;)
Shall we make a chart of top Linpack scores here at XS then? ;)
I just realized that Linpack could be quite a nice benchmark. Not only it shows CPU's performance but also guarantees that the result achieved is almost 99% stable. But the competition is too tough I guess. :)
FWIW, I get 53.6 GFlops with my setup with HT disabled.
No questions about that. It would be tough to show 20 passes stable. We would see a lot lower clocks.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
Number of passes is less important than the problem size in my opinion... I can run 2GB problems all day at 1.4v (LLC off) but 5GB problem sizes will always produce a BSoD in less than 10 minutes, go figure. 20 passes at 5GB takes around an hour and twenty minutes though.
Currently my setup is averaging anywhere between 53 and 55 Gflops. The more stuff fighting for memory space the lower the number will be.
How do you do with Prime95?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kougar
24 hours Prime95 blend stable at 1.42v. Link I didn't run Prime95 at 1.40v, but I probably should have just to see if it would show an error.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckbam
So far if LinX doesn't crash or error then Prime95 has not shown any errors either. Since then I've enabled Loadline Calibration and was able to drop my vcore down to the 1.36v in my sig, 20 runs of 5GB problem size LinX stable.
If I had a Q9450 (12MB L2) and a x48 MB, I would not have gone i7. But I had a Q6600 and and ASUS P5B-D 965-Express and was ready for a change. Plus, I had a buyer for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by A-Grey
I don't like changing Motherboards often. I hook to much to my system.I am not a gamer, but a big time 24/7 multi-tasker with two TV cards and Security Cameras for 2 properties. I won't talk about the 6 internal harddrives and 5 external.
You probably have read this, the LGA 1366 has not been advertised on TV by Intel and will be pushed aside as a workstation platform. Sure it was pushed by the performance parts vendors. And, the review sites need something to talk about. The Mainstream to Performance Desktop platform will soon be out as a LGA-1156
http://chuckbam.com/Post2/LGA-1156.PNG
And, this looks like the new D0 stepping i7 920 to me.
http://chuckbam.com/Post2/xeon.PNG
I ran this all Simultaneously and no crash or throttle down. I maxed out my 12 GBs of RAM Man. Prime95 does not stress an i7 very much on it's own. You can forget it is running. I ran this in my normal TSR setup. In-fact, PerfectDisk started defraging my drives at 10 PM.
I am done testing for a while.
http://chuckbam.com/i7_P6T-D/TT051409.PNG
What's the highest gigaflops anyone has churned out yet? I have an idea to log the top 20 or so into a database. This program is so hard on the system that it should level the playing field between exteme overclockers and stability nuts. Any ideas?
well i am at 64.5gigaflops atm..
i vote the database should be 100 runs max mem at 97 percent mem.
if a draw on flops the higher mem version is the higher placed.
Sounds like a plan. A hundred passes is too much, however. I'm thinking 25 should be enough so we don't dissuade too many paeople from participating. We'll see.
I just noticed your post; I've actually had this idea for about three months now; before XS went down to do some type of gigaflops competition. Back then I was on a socket 775 and from the results I'm getting with my i7 system, the differences aren't significant even with DDR3 and imc. All the same, we could have results for different platforms, or we could make it based on strictly users and their results regardless of system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
@chuckbam
Since you have your Core i7 920 running at 3.6GHz just like I'm running my Q9450@3.6GHz I was wondering what EVEREST reports as your CPU power consumption for your Core i7 920@3.6GHz.
Here's a link to a screen shot that I posted with the results.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2449
My maximum CPU power consumption is around 85-86 watt reported by EVEREST while LinX is running.
thought i may as well start things off with my q9550 @3.4hzQuote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
http://w7abnq.bay.livefilestore.com/...ity%20test.png
full spec:
q9550 running stock vid 1.2500 @3.4ghz
sunbeam core contact freezer with scythe sflex 1600fan.
4gb (4x1) corsair xms3 1600 @ 6-6-6-18 1280mhz
gigabyte p35t-dq6 f6 bios
corsair hx520
gainward gtx260 216 55nm
You could keep a database for each CPU type. There should be some rules like we all need to use the same amount of memory and passes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Maybe 1 or 1.5 Giga (for those with only 2 Giga memory) and the standard 20 passes. :shrug:
I really don't see the need to run alot of passes on LinX. It stresses the CPU so hard that if it's not stable, it's going to fail in short time.
I do see the need because we can all benefit from it. We can actually see what brand of board and memory can give us the best 24/7 stable clocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by MassiveOverkill
It's like I always say benchmarks doesn't mean nothing to me if I can't run it 24/7 stable like that. :D
Perhaps 20 passes with 1 Giga isn't enough and we have to use more passes. :shrug:
Ooh... Why I want it for each CPU type is that it's a lot easier to use an extreme edition processor and just raise the multiplier or any other processor with a higher multiplier. ;)
It will be hard to level the playing field, because the more memory you use, the more vcore is needed. Also using linx 32 bit vs 64 bit is a significant difference.
For 4.2ghz,
- I need 1.412 bios to make prime 95 stable for 14hrs see sig
- I can go 1-2 notches below that and run linx at 1Gb memory for 50 passes, as 1gb memory is near useless for testing imo
- linx using 2 gb memory, I need again 1.412 to pass 20 runs (have also passed 100 runs), and seems ~ equivalent in vcore requirement to prime 95 for 14hrs.
- linx 64 bit, using 4 gb memory, it will fail on 1st run at 1.412 (despite being prime stable 14+hrs). Need 1.425 vcore, ie 2 notches higher to pass 5 runs (and will also then pass 20 runs).
- linx 64 bit, using 5gb memory, I need 1.43 vcore to pass 5-10 runs (have also passed 30 runs). Using prime 14+hrs vcore of 1.412 = quick bsod everytime.
So not sure how you will level the playing field, when comparing 32 bit vs 64 bit linx, or comparing 1gb ram (worthless imo for testing) to 5 gb ram. Even comparing 2 to 5 gb ram will not be equivalent.
Since I now know if I can pass 5-10 passes of linx at 4-5GB, I can easily pass prime 95 (even using lower vcore), and given I have never crashed from too low vcore after being prime 14hrs stable...all my i7 stablility testing will be with quick 5 passes of linx using 4-5gb, and then a final pass of 10-20 runs using same. And times I have run much longer, it still passed, but again as already above prime stable where I have never had issues...not sure if even that much is needed.
And even if people all did such testing, all using 4-5gb with 5, 10, or 20 passes, you wont see lower overclocks, you might see a couple notches higher vcore, as to whether that is necessary or not, is another debate.
For me linx is just about efficiency. Why spend 14hrs testing with prime, when 15 mins of quick testing followed by a final ~ hr will suffice with linx.
I really like the database idea of yours. If you can accomplish it, I'm sure many would take part in that «competition». :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Agreed. At least, as rge noted, there should be x64 and x32 categories as the results and load differ much between those two.Quote:
Originally Posted by A-Grey
Same memory/problem size value is on the one hand a good way to get comparable results (say, between different CPUs, RAMs, maybe even NBs at different clocks) and to make it somewhat fair for those without much RAM, but on the other hand if it is gonna be some sort of Top-xx then maybe there is no point in imposing such limits. :shrug:
And rge is, as always, right. The more memory, the higher stress, the more vcore requirements.
I'm not sure about that. When you take less memory you need more passes. I think it's just the time that matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
If you take 20 passes with 1 Giga or you take 20 passes with 4 giga. The time to finish the 20 passes with 4 giga is much longer so you have more chance that it fails.
With 80 passes of 1 Giga the time to finish will be the same and you will have more chance of failure.
its not the no of passesQuote:
Originally Posted by A-Grey
its the length of each pass that increases the chance of failure..
so when u have both ure chances are even higher.
it test all the vtt,gtl's every dimm of ure chipset/imc etc....
more dimm higher density dram is harder.
Yes of course because when you use more memory you have more chance that your memory gives an error.Quote:
Originally Posted by cstkl1
When you use less memory and more passes you have more chance that your CPU is going to give an error because of more changes in CPU load.
It's just to have the same problem size for everyone.
As I stated in above post, at 1.412v I can pass 50 (and even 100 runs) of linx 1 gb, 100 runs are 50 minutes.
At 5 gb with 1.412v, it will fail always within 1 minute.
Running for 10 minutes at 5gb (3 passes) requires 2 notches higher vcore than running 50 minutes at 1gb (100 passes).
Best thing to do is try this yourself.
I had same issues with other cpus, which is why I stopped using small problem size testing even for initial testing to get approximate setting for different mhz's...larger problem size is more time efficient, I usually can hose an unstable OC in minutes using large problem size. Running very small problem sizes and you get the same time inefficiency as prime 95... ie, yes if you use 1000 passes with small problem size you will eventually get a failure, but then you might as well be using prime.
Than we keep only one rule and that is the amount of time to run LinX. ;)
the rule should beQuote:
Originally Posted by A-Grey
1. Must run in Diagnostic Mode
2. Must be X64
3. Must 97 -98 percent of mem available.
4. Must be 2 hours min.
About the more gb vs higher clocks..
Both gives higher gigaflops.
more cores, more ram, higher clocks gives the highest. HT makes it worse atm.
Rule 2 isn't necessary. We can see that if its 64 or 32 bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by cstkl1