Thank you Dua|ist.
I Just installed und tried your latest version. Everything works out fine.
@slim142,
you are right. I have got yor on the wrong side. Sorry for that:fact:
Printable View
Thank you Dua|ist.
I Just installed und tried your latest version. Everything works out fine.
@slim142,
you are right. I have got yor on the wrong side. Sorry for that:fact:
NP man :D
An installer is always nice, I tried the installer version 0.6.2.1 and the about screen is bugged, its very bright and translucent.
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/1...4651321.th.png
GigaByte,
My bad, this was just some experimenting, and I assumed that if it works under Win7, it will also work under vista. I was wrong, it seems. I'll fix it in the next release, I hope you can live with this for a while. ;)
system looks less stable with 0.6.2..
had to bump vcore by 0.01v to pass 3 runs :)
0.6.0 was last version i tested.
thx 4 the update!
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/663563/Li...09%2019-30.png
Refreshing and modern? Or stupid and useless?
P. S. Sorry for the red glass color. It just matches the wallpaper well. :)
have some table with the errors and their causes due ?
thanks
The latter :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
Great! I like multicolored stuff! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
Let us use it when you already made it. Maybe some option to choose standard or other color.
I like it, but sometimes red is not a good color when your pc shows is not estable haha
Generally, if it's just non-matching residuals then it is most likely a cpu, especially when the difference is small, say, starting in 2nd or 3rd digit. If it bluescreens or freezes then it is probably something else (northbridge, uncore, maybe memory too). But it's still speculation, there are no exact symptoms.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugle
dejanh, donmarkoni, slim142,
Thanks for your responses regarding glass. I thought it'd be worse. :) I'm really thinking to make it an option for Vista/Win7 users.
Whoooooooo i want itttttttt! :shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
I can't believe this... Why couldn't it last another 2 minutes? :p:
Anyway, would you guys say that my temps and Vcore are okay for this processor (q9550, 1.392V)?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v404/adpr_02/WTF.png
Unfortunately my pc has to stay under my desk where a huge hot air pocket accumulates whenever I run the test so temps are toastier than they should be.
80C is HOT O.o but I run my X3370 (Q9650) at significantly higher vcore, and no issues so far (a couple months at 4.2 stable). Cooling needs to be better - time for a box fan? :)
What vcore do you use?
If I pull my pc from under the desk, temps drop 6-8C, so not much I can do in terms of cooling. During Prime I don't reach higher than 62C and idles are at 38C, but I do have a rather high ambient at 27C.
nice work Dualist!
Honestly I was really surprised when noted that guys here also use LinX to check OC stability. I am glad that your interface became so popular :up: Keep it up!
I wouldn't say 80C is that high. I mean, it's Linpack, one would hardly get 60-65C in any other software with those settings. But it's a matter of personal preference. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_
Thanks. You can't imagine how surprised I was when noted that someone uses LinX. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by aka_GK
i like this test stability, good job!
Nice! Please release this I love it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
does this program stress memory hard? I tighted my memory timmings and it passed memtest86+ 211 for 3 hours but it failed at pass 2 in LinX with max memory 5GB, if I change the memory timmings back, it will pass fine
I think you just answered that question yourself. :) For processors with integrated memory controller like i7 Linpack might be very stressful memory-wise, I guess. This only makes it more universal which is good IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by boldenc
stress to CPU Northbridge? (i have Phenom II)
Maybe. (I don't have Phenom II ;) ).Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Very nice program, first time I'm trying it because my Gigabyte P35 DS4 either got corrupt bios or died on me so switched motherboard to my backup Abit IP35 Pro. Turned out to VERY quickly error out if voltages weren't enough. It's like Orthos could run several hours but LinX fail after 2 or 3 passes of the default test settings! Saves so much time.
Certainly the stress test of choice from now on.
I have not searched the posts for this question.....but I'm getting a "Stopped upon error after 3 m 40 s!"
Is this a vcore, vtt issue or somwthing else? No BSOD or lockups ...
Everytime I had an error I had to increase the nb voltage or sometimes the vtt.Quote:
Originally Posted by gvansly1
You have to find it out by trial and error:shrug:
Version 0.6.3 has been released.
http://www.youwatched.com/datajay/linx(0.63).7z
Changelog:
- removed the easter egg and added an option to extend glass for Windows Vista and Windows 7 users with Aero on
- changed (raised) upper limit for 32-bit Linpack to 15500
- graph selection is now saved
- monitoring data (minimum and maximum values for each monitor) is now appended to the end of text log if graphs were enabled during testing
- fixed a possible bug when LinX would stop responding if Linpack quits due to lack of memory
- fixed a possible bug when running more than one instance of LinX simultaneously
- fixed a possible bug in graphs that would lead to an error message if Everest or Speedfan was shut down during testing
- fixed a bug with progressbar not visible on Classic theme
Small bug, when aero is enabled text at the top of the results chart acts weird, see screenshot.
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/h...29/linx063.png
He-he, looks like I don't have to do that part of the job, thanks! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by SimpleTECH
Updated 1st post then.
One more notice: If anyone ever had a problem with LinX «not noticing» that testing is finished and keeping running after all tests are complete, give this version a try. I'm still not sure what could have caused that (pretty rare) bug, but I think and hope that now it's gone.
GigaByte, thanks for the report. What OS are you using? Everything's fine on my Win7 x64.
EDIT: There's also a new permanent link for the latest version's installer if anyone needs it: http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/663563/LinX/LinX-setup.exe
Vista Ultimate x64 SP2.
Same system here and same bug when using glass effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by GigaByte
so wait what was the eastern egg in 0.6.2?
Glass. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by slim142
GigaByte, donmarkoni
Ok, I'll try to fix that.
Oh well I have XP so no point for me :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
suguestions to better my timings/volts/etc.. are welcome
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/7596/60010431.jpg
going test this litle baby out :D
looks very intresting ^^
i also have the glass bug on vista x64 SP1
Glass bug is fixed in the next version I hope. I'm a bit busy at the moment, so I count on your patience. There will be the ability to test for a specified number of minutes in the new version and maybe something else. We'll see. :)
Awesome, Dual|st, keep up the good work! Life is a busy thing, and I hope you have some free time to work on this at some point. I look forward to the next version!
@ Dual|st: we made many tests with your superb tool, but unfortunately we find out a difference between LINX and PRIME95, right now (for the Lynnfield processors) the better tool to test the stability of our system is Prime, normally if we were stable with Linx @ x (example 1.35) vCC we need to increase that voltage to 1.37/and over with Prime ... i think LINX need some improvements onto the DIMMs sector ...
just my opinion, obviously :)
KURTZ
Linpack doesn`t stress DRAM like 24hours running of PRIME and Windows MEMTEST 3.8 do.
i know that dude, but i saw many 'solid' test with 50 Linx's loops don't pass 5 mins with Prime ...Quote:
Originally Posted by WaterFlex
That can go both ways. You can have oc that passes Prime blend/small etc, and fails LinX, and you can have oc that passes LinX and fails Prime. Theres also cases where you pass both LinX and Prime and it will fail in some game or other application.
Typically LinX will fail before Prime if you are on the edge of what your cpu can do in Mhz / temps, Prime (Blend) will often fail before LinX if your on the edge of memory oc.
Both are valuable tools in verifying oc stability.
I would agree with Sniper, well said, everything's got its good points.
Anyway, I won't be able to do anything with error finding efficiency as it is Linpack that's responsible for that.
Dua|list, there seems to be some kind of bug with LinX if ran on a Gulftown CPU:
http://database.he-computer.de/Bilde...linpackwtf.jpg
No, that is not a waterchiller, it's not ready yet :p:
For comparison, temps with prime blend:
http://database.he-computer.de/Bilde...town/RTGT2.jpg
:shrug:
jcool
Wow. Thats interesting.
P.S.
omg, where do u find gulftowns ES???
Look at his sig :eek::shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by WaterFlex
Yep, no good indeed. Could you please a) check if the Linpack_xeon64.exe process is running when this happens and b) possibly try with some very low memory amount (like 256 MB or maybe even lwss) to check if this is consistent. I'd be very grateful if you could do that for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
Yes, Linpack_xeon64.exe is running. And yes, I believe you are correct... using 256MB, it spikes up to 60C max in the 1-2 seconds it takes the CPU to calculate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
Edit: It also goes to 60-61C hottest core with 512MB. 768MB only goes to ~55C. 1GB and up stay at ~52C. Lol? :D
jcool
I'd like to say that it might be Linpack's incompatibility with i9, but it might be my fault as well. :shrug:
Apart from these unusually low temps does everything else seem OK?
For running stability tests, do you normally run LinX while running a Prime95 stress test? Or 1 at a time?
jcool
That`s just a funny bug :)
I do believe Dualist will fix it ASAP ;)
No, of course not. One at a time is always better.Quote:
Originally Posted by McLaren__F1
Coz of it`s Windows :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
Jcool,
Are the i9s out in Germany already?
Jeolous!
For those of you running < 30000 problem and not being able to pass prime should really consider running a higher problem size.
I can run prime no problem, but when compared to linpack running >30000 prime does not push the system remotely close to Linpack.
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x...g?t=1256429105
The CPU is fine, yeah. Crunching happily at 4,3 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
Prime64 works BTW, "high" temps and also detects errors pretty quickly if you use >4GB if ram.
He, not bad at all for a 12-thread monster. :up: I actually wanted to ask whether there is some sort of «weird» behavior in LinX when testing (the screenshot you provided has no tests completed so it is hard to tell if everything's fine or not…). :)Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
Well I was running it for half an hour the other day before I noticed it was unstable at that setting (BOINC showed errors after 5 minutes while Linpack displayed none) so it's definitely not working correctly :(
Joschi, give Dualist some time ( I am tryig to communicate this the nice way, not the blatant way, of course ) :).You ll be amazed of what he can do. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D. Really, he can do whatever he pleases, he is just with plenty of stuff going on and needs a tad of time to work on updates.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
LinX 0.6.4
LinX 0.6.4-.exe
-added possibility to run tests on a given time interval and a new drop-down menu to switch between the two modes (times / minute)
-minor changes / improvements UI
-chart window will now properly retain their position when you exit the program
-fixed a bug is not very frequent errors LinX with heavy CPU
-Added new command line options, corrected mistakes found in the old (LinX.exe-help to display the available options)
-added a second in the file names to avoid renaming
(Google translate)
Hm... not sure but I have a feeling this still doesn't work properly with Gulftown. Gflops are definitely way low. Have a look. Water temps are kinda high ATM, so not comparable to my earlier screens.Quote:
Originally Posted by stasio
Unfair where can i get me one of them lol?
Thanks, stasio. :) You were faster once again.Quote:
Originally Posted by stasio
A more english-friendly version of the changelog:
LinX 0.6.4
- added an option to run tests for a specified period of time. Use the drop-down list to set minutes or times to run tests
- small UI redesign/enhancements
- graph windows now correctly save their positions on program close
- fixed a somewhat rare bug leading to false LinX errors when CPU usage was high
- added new command-line options, fixed found bugs in older ones (run LinX.exe -help to view the list of command-line options)
- added seconds to filenames to prevent overwriting
Will update the 1st post as well as main links later.
Gracias, amigo. You're too kind. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Duh
This is just what I needed. Well, bad news then. If it is working, then low temps & GFlops is most likely a Linpack issue. :( LinX seems to do its job just fine here. Maybe play with priorities a bit, or try 32-bit version (just out of curiosity)?Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
And BTW, the amount of envy accommodating in this thread is rising with every next screenshot of that i9 of yours. :D
Yep, sure looks like it. Temps with prime95 at the same time here, way higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
I better stop posting then eh? ;)Quote:
And BTW, the amount of envy accommodating in this thread is rising with every next screenshot of that i9 of yours. :D
1st post updated.
Links to the new 0.6.4 version:
LinX.7z
LinX.zip
LinX-setup.exe
No, no, didn't mean it in any way. :) You're always welcome here.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
My both friends ( jcool and Dualist) cant fight each other :). You both do great. . Nice to see 2 talented and good guys in this lovely forum :)
nice, first LinX Gulf:up:, what can this chip in LinX with 1.45-1.5V with air ,-)? 4400 MHz possible stable?Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
4,4 should be possible yeah. I won't feed it that much juice 24/7 though.
Having problems running 0.6.4 on my system. I'll start the test, and most of the time my cores are barely being used (looking at a windows gadget showing me the 8 threads). One time I went into the settings, I think I just turned on the Everest monitoring and the sound option, and after that I was able to run a test of 20 passes ok. But I haven't been able to get it to work since. I've tried going into the settings and making some changes to see if that's what made it work the first time, but there wasn't a change.
I had the same problem under windows xp x64. I rebooted and it went away I could not find the cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitgod
Never heard of this. I might give it a go.
I hate this «bug» but I still can't find out what's causing it. :( What's worse, it happens really rarely on my PC. I'll keep investigating, but the pattern is still unclear. Any suggestions/observations on low GFlops issue are welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitgod
I'm eager to hear your opinion (if you do give it a go, of course). :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveLord
Haha, so I got home, read this thread, decided to try Linx again, and of course, it's working this time without changing anything. :) Nothing with the program anyway., the 2 things I just changed was that I installed the latest beta version of Everest, and to do that, I turned off the %@!$@# UAC. (I don't mind that it's got a job to do, but if I can't even unrar files into a folder in Program Files, then you've become a PITA).
In the IntelBurnTest thread, it mentions doing 16 threads on i7s, is that recommended here also?
So finished one batch, quit the app, reopened, still working. I noticed when it's not working, it doesn't save changes you make to it like the settings, but it does remember the changes when it's working right, so it seems like it can't write to it's config file. I wonder if turning off UAC fixed something?
I always get low Gflops with HT enabled, I thought that was a Linpack general problem and "normal"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
Uhm, actually not. At least it isn't for Core i7 with HT on and Linpack being run in all 8 threads. Running Linpack on a Core i7 in only 4 threads, however, would indeed result in lower GFlops (this is normal).Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
LinX is supposed to detect the change in # of logical processors (when turning HT on/off) and set the number of Linpack threads to the actual value.
As for the i9 of yours, it looks really weird. Maybe it'll be possible to do some Linpack tweaking to see if anything changes. Once I implement this, you'll be the first to know. ;)
Sure, if you have HT on, 16 threads is way to go. As already mentioned, LinX should default to 16 threads on an i7 PC on the first run.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitgod
What you said about the settings not being saved is interesting indeed. Never heard of such an issue and never experienced it myself. I can't imagine what could be preventing it from saving a dozen of string into an ini-file… Thanks for the observation, I've gotta check it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitgod
UAC is turned off by me, but never heard of LinX having issues with it. Any chance you can turn it on and see if the bug you mentioned will re-appear?
0.6.4 looks okay here on win7 ultimate 64bit rtm with core i7 920 and asus p6t6 ws revo
http://fileshosts.com/intel/Asus/P6T...s_finished.png
Huh, it defaults to 8 threads on mine, I had to manually set it to 16, but maybe still a UAC issue...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
So I tested some more, tried it first tonight with UAC still off and it's still working. So turned UAC back to default, restart, test, it's NOT working. When it doesn't work, like I mentioned it doesn't save any changes you make and the stop button doesn't work either, I have to hit the close button and the app closes. At least it doesn't need to be force quit.
Anywho, restarted again to test it, still not working with UAC on. Turned UAC back off, restart, and it now works again.
Not using any 3rd party security SW at the moment, haven't gotten around to installing an anti-virus and frankly I'm enjoying the quick response of a new system. I dread slowing it down with some AV, heh. But I'll have to do that some day.
Really? I thought I even read about Linpack taking a perf hit with HT enabled.. because it's already making such efficient use of the CPU HT is counter-productive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
I am positive I get lower Gflopws with HT enabled (and Linpack running on 8 threads) vs. HT off and running 4 threads. This is with all Linpack based apps, from LinX to IBT right down to the original unmodified Intel linpack.
I just realized I said a nonsense in my previous post about those 16 threads (I've gotta sleep more). Sorry. 8 threads should be actually fine, since there are only 8 logical processors. Not sure whether increasing the # of threads beyond the # of logical CPUs improves error finding, but GFlops-wise it usually produces a bit lower results than with the number of threads equal to the number of logical CPUs (8 for an i7).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitgod
Now what you said about UAC is interesting. Will try to fix this, thanks a lot.
OT: I don't like AVs too. Haven't been using any for half a year now, still doing fine. :)
Yes, Linpack did take a performance hit back when i7s only entered the scene, but this was due to the fact that Linpack by default (I still don't get why Intel suggests this) runs in 4 threads on an i7 CPU, no matter HT on or off. While this is OK with HT off (4 cores, 4 threads), it is apparently not with it on (8 cores visible to Windows, but only 4 threads, causing perhaps a Windows thread manager to switch the threads between all 8 visible cores without regard to their nature, so that two threads may sometimes run on two logical processors from a single real core thus causing a performance hit). But then a way has been found to make it possible to override the number of threads Linpack creates and run it in 8 threads or even more on 8 logical cores on an i7.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
I never had a chance to run Linpack on Core i7 but I did run it on an old P4 Prescott and on Atom 270. On P4 with HT on running Linpack in 2 threads vs 1 thread as Intel suggests was counter-productive indeed (only a tad but still), while on Atom it produced a nice boost in GFlops (like 0.51 vs 0.37 or something like that). So I figure HT of our days isn't as bad as it was back in P4 times. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Hi,all!
I was running my E8500 @ 3,825 GHz @ 1.304V. Recently I tride Prime95 and it crashed after 20-minutes (before I could run it 24 hours). So I decided to lower my speed and my current speed is 3,375 GHz (7,5x450) @ 1.225V (default voltage). I read a lot about Linx, and manage to run it on this settings with maximum meomry usage, two threads and for 80 times (for around cca. 2 hours). Is this enough to test my stability or should I run Prime95 for 24 hours?
mskvorc1, I can't directly answer your question, but I reached 3,6GHz (9x400) at stock voltage fully Linx stable with ease on E8500 E0 :shrug:
Anyone has a hint for what may cause LinX to stop by error at same time every run (3m 7s) ? Could it just be a coincidence ( 11 runs ) , or just a temp problem ?
EDIT : Nevermind...ram was crappy...
linx .6.4 will NOT work for me...I tried with windows vista 32 bit and now windows 7 64 bit and it fails within the first run every time...and once I close the program...it never runs again, it turns on etc, but I start to test and the cores don't load up at all and the timer runs but nothing happens...ALSO with windows vista and xp I got it to load the cpu about 98.5-99.7 percent load...both were 32 bit systems, now I have windows 7 with 64 bits and it load the cpu 100 percent the whole test period except when it unloads between runs...has anyone else seen that difference in either windows 7 vs xp/vista or is it the 64 bit operating system or what??? I know it's testing it better technically but 99 percent is enough...100 is really pushing my temps a good several celcius higher and making stability significantly harder and no program will load this thing anywhere near 100 percent with almost 100 percent memory as well...is there any way to adjust how much it actually loads the cpu in linx's settings?
So I was wondering why I got 7-17Gflops sometimes when I run it and why it wouldn't heat up my CPU as much as it should then I figured out Linx was using too much RAM. Seems paging file activity significantly hurts Linx performance. I set Linx to 3GB and now I'm getting 21Gflops and temps were in the high 80s. So if you're having similar issues try leaving 1GB to the OS.
Edit: nvm still happens even when limiting it to 3GB. I don't know what's going on.
I noticed earlier today, when I use 1t command rate, I get much lower Gflops than I do when using 2t.
41.5642 when using 1t, and around 52.0000 when using 2t, my chip is o/ced to 4GHz atm.
Is this normal?
I thought I should have gotten higher Gflops using 1t?
I have a i7 DO clocked to 4ghz using win7 x64.
Here are a few problems/questions I have.
1) I get variable Gflop when I run Linx. It would always be consistant during the entire run, but would differ from one session to the next. The funny thing is that when th Gflop is lower, my temps don't heat up as much. Before you say that my CPU is throttling, i have i7 turbo loaded and noticed no drop in the multiplier. This also occured when I was on a q9550.
2) I get lower Gflop (by about 9), when I have HT on vs. Off. Any idea why?
Hey also i find something strange, i think it was mentioned somewhere before, lowering VTT volts results in higher Gflops...
I'm on i7 920 and evga E760, testing at 4.2ghz i get around 53 Gflops whit vtt 1.27v, and down to 48 Gflops just by raising vtt to 1.3v...
edit. nvm it reported 54 on second try at 1,3v, and seems it's not stable at all for me yet...
I think we should simply disregard the program's Gflops rating. It has never displayed reliable or reproducable results for me either. But it is a damn good stability tester, which is the program's intended use, after all. Not YAB (yet another benchmark) ;)
well, I don't disregard the Gflop ratings because (on same overclock settings) when I get higher Gflop, the temps are also higher (higher stress). If I had a run where the gflop was lower, the overclock may have passed that session because it wasn't stressed as much (kind of like using smaller amount of memory).Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
This is what I'm talking about. The amount of stress (Gflop) is veriable from one session to the next.Quote:
Originally Posted by sukebe
Now that's weird.. hmmm
Dualist? :shrug:
From the official release notes:Quote:
Originally Posted by autox
Everyone seems to get approximately 20% worse performance with HT enabled in Linpack.Quote:
Known Limitations
1. Intel(R) Optimized LINPACK Benchmark is threaded to effectively use multiple processors.
Therefore, in MP systems, best performance will be obtained with hyperthreading turned off.
This insures that the operating system assigns threads to physical processors only.
I have HT disabled always because:
1) Various benchmarks show that in general HT only helps encoding/rendering applications and hinders performance in many other things.
2) When all 8 logical CPU's are maxed it really feels like Windows is slower to respond in general than when HT is disabled and all 4 physical CPU's are maxed.
3) My CPU runs cooler and I get a higher overclock
That's right, when it produces higher Gflop numbers it's putting more stress therefore shows instabilities quicker... in my case the gflops can vary from 48 to 54 in different sessions with identical settings, which means it can take about 30 minutes more to get an error when gflops are at the lowest (compared to the highest)...Quote:
Originally Posted by autox
@sniggle
Interesting stuff, we've also seen many single-threaded benchmarks perform better with HT off. What i wonder now is if games can perform better without HT, considering that it's probably most demanding apps on i7 rigs nowadays :p:
From what I've seen games generally do better with it off. There was a very comprehensive benchmark somewhere but I don't have the link, but here's something I found with a quick search: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...-cpu-review/10Quote:
Originally Posted by sukebe
Bottom line is that unless you're running a video crunching box you're probably better off with HT off.
with Q9550, testing the 1024MB @ 4GHz gives me normally 50GFLops all the session but sometimes in other sessions it would drop to 30GFLops, I keep closing the program and reopening till the first test finish with normal GFLops and I leave it to continue the other runs. Also when producing 30GFLops, temps were lower by 20c compared to 50GFLOps and the CPU usage was 100% either with the 30 or 50 GFLops.
happens on Windows 7 x64 and Windows Vista x64
That's because something has crashed. Programs have bugs, that's what you are seeing.Quote:
Originally Posted by phsinc1
But as others have reported when you get lower gflops temps aren't as high which means it's not stressing your cpu as much. When I get 21gflops my oc'ed cpu heats up to the 80s but when I get 15-18gflops temps are in the 70s.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
Yes, folks, sorry for not being here and not doing anything about these GFlops issues. I am aware of them. And I too can't understand why it would work all right in some cases and show less GFlops and lower temps while keeping CPU usage at the same 100% in other cases.
Once I'll have free time, I'll get back to trying to fix these problems as well as looking for ways to make it i9 compatible.
For now (and for at least half a month) University is all I'm concerned about.
Hey mate,your studies is your priority.... :up: Good luck..Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist