New version OCCT stability test

I thought this deserves to be in news. One of the best quick stability tests is OCCT. New version 2.0 with built-in monitoring and improved error detection.

From my experience if you pass custom test 1-2hours then you will be 99.9% stable on every other normal application such as gaming, encoding etc.

If you have error in this, prime will fail after as long as 10+ hours, so it detects error much sooner :)

http://www.ocbase.com/perestroika_en/

Direct download link:
http://www.ocbase.com/download.php?fileext=zip

Thanks for the heads up. I have always preferred this to orthos.

thnks!

yep , I always liked this program too !


already instaled and working like a charm:

http://aycu06.webshots.com/image/472...0527289_rs.jpg


regards

THanks for the heads up.

Nice, I use OCCT as my main stability testing program. No need of Linpack and others.

I'm already using 2.0.0a Beta 1

nice!@

I always use it for stability ,really a great program

This has been my favorite program for stability testing. :clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy

I'm already using 2.0.0a Beta 1

---

http://www.ocbase.com/download.php?fileext=beta

:D

I used to use Orthos before but OCCT is now the only CPU/system stability test I need. Why settle for something that would need to be run longer when u can get it quickly checked with 30 ~ 1hr with this app and it will be stable enough for my comp usage.

Which setting is best?, Auto (1h) or Custom (2h)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Dower

Which setting is best?, Auto (1h) or Custom (2h)?

---

Custom simply unlocks the drop down menu. Of those, the cpu test is probably the best but others may argue that multiple methods are needed to detect instability.

Great, thanks for this. Too bad they dropped the 'slider' from the previous release where you could choose the amount of memory to be tested at a given session.

I used this overnight. The in-built monitoring is brilliant... tells me I need a new PSU :(

excellent program.

I found that if OCCT is at least 20 minutes stable on RAM/CPU I'll get at least 8 hours of prime stability, did anyone else notice this? So what is it in OCCT that lets it find errors earlier? I think it's very convenient because you don't have to wait hours and hours just to realize that something is going wrong.. big :up:

Thanks for your cheers, guys, it makes me proud and happy people are finding OCCT useful :)

I just released OCCT 2.0.0a today, fixing a few bugs in monitoring. And it should detect much more sensors on laptop (should you want to run OCCT on a laptop).

As for the tests, the RAM test proved much more prone to "generate" errors than the CPU test... yes, it generates less heat, but it stresses the whole CPU-Memory chain, and errors tends to appear in such an environment.

Mind you, CPU is still effective, but errors in RAM tends to appear faster.

Okay - just to let you know, the ZIP archive download doesnt work....gets to 1.65mb of 2.5mb and then its apparrently 'done' downloading in FF. Archive is corrupt.

i always really liked occt and i am happy to see multi core support now.
think I will give it a go very soon :)

@kai works fine for me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kai Robinson

Okay - just to let you know, the ZIP archive download doesnt work....gets to 1.65mb of 2.5mb and then its apparrently 'done' downloading in FF. Archive is corrupt.

---

Worked fine for me too... i did reupload it, just in case... give it another shot ?

The Zip still does the whole thing of getting to 1.65mb out of 2.5mb (as reported by the download manager) and just stops. Archive is corrupt.

I ended up getting the auto-installer, that worked fine :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kai Robinson

The Zip still does the whole thing of getting to 1.65mb out of 2.5mb (as reported by the download manager) and just stops. Archive is corrupt.

I ended up getting the auto-installer, that worked fine :)

---

It's fine here, try it with IE or Opera...

looks like the download stops after a minute or something like that
so if you have a fast connection and manage to dl it quickly it works but I have no way do dl it with my 56k (tried ff, ie, reget)

Is there an official link to the 2.0.0a? I know there was a beta posted above, is this the same one or have you now made it official and not beta?

Kai, the zip archive worked for me as well as other ppl, so maybe something is wrong with your dl-manager? I downloaded via FreeDownloadManager..

cantankerous, I believe the OP lists the official downloads.

Cool going to give it a whirl.

Cheers.

Thanks Tetedeiench for your great work :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cantankerous

Is there an official link to the 2.0.0a? I know there was a beta posted above, is this the same one or have you now made it official and not beta?

---

http://www.ocbase.com/OpenBeta/OCCTPT2.0.0a.b01.zip

Im gonna give it a try. Is the tests more cruel then the other programs? how does it operates more quickly?

There's only one download link to OCCT :)

http://www.ocbase.com/download.php?fileext=exe for the .exe version
http://www.ocbase.com/download.php?fileext=zip for the zip version

You'll always get the latest stable version (now is 2.0.0a, which is 2.0.0a.b01 promoted to stable).

As for the minute-long DL... seems my provider is messing a bit up at the moment, it should be better soon :)

Ok I had it when it was labelled a beta. I just re-grabbed it to get the final.

I take it this is the one and only version to use now? No more 1.2.0b06/b07? I had them both cause both offered different things like the slider etc. If you say 2.0.0a is the only one to use now I will erase the others off my drive.

Thanks again!

Great News ( i don't remember the oldest OCCT showed the CPU Temp) .

Downloading now, I much prefer the OCCT Interface to Orthos, and the ugly Prime95!

the .ZIP is working great on DFI 790FX board with a Phenom in Vista x64. working perfect for finding fully stable and un-stable setups nice and quick. really appreciate the update :up:

Great stuff!...Tetedeiench, can you update XS members as and when you have any new betas or official releases here?, as and when they are ready etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Dower

Great stuff!...Tetedeiench, can you update XS members as and when you have any new betas or official releases here?, as and when they are ready etc.

---

I'll try to ;) It means more work for me (as i usually release the changelogs of every betas in french) but i'll give it a shot.

Next beta release should be in the next few hours. It'll probably be promoted stable quickly, as it deals with a problem with speedstep (graphs are generated in some cases with the speedstep frequency on it... i'd rather have the "real" frequency on it).

It cannot detect the overclock percentage very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spyrus

It cannot detect the overclock percentage very well.

---

OCCT will report the current CPU Frequency. If you have Intel Speedstep enabled, then OCCT will display the frequency modified by Speedstep.

Speedstep is an intel feature that changes the CPU Multiplier "on the fly" when your CPU is unused, in order to save energy. Your CPU will be downlocked, thus using less power.

The CPU FSB will remain the same, though.

When a test is launched and the CPU is busy (i.e. after a minute in Auto and Custom (fixed) tests, and immediatly after launching a Custom(Infinite) test), the CPU Multiplier will be restored and OCCT should display the real overclock %.

Does this explain your problem ? If not, just tell me what is your setup (CPU, motherboard) and tell me the values OCCT detects (a screenshot is more than enough).

I agree with the OP, I've always preferred OCCT to Orthos - in 30 minutes it can pick up errors that may take many hours to occur in Orthos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tetedeiench

OCCT will report the current CPU Frequency. If you have Intel Speedstep enabled, then OCCT will display the frequency modified by Speedstep.

Speedstep is an intel feature that changes the CPU Multiplier "on the fly" when your CPU is unused, in order to save energy. Your CPU will be downlocked, thus using less power.

The CPU FSB will remain the same, though.

When a test is launched and the CPU is busy (i.e. after a minute in Auto and Custom (fixed) tests, and immediatly after launching a Custom(Infinite) test), the CPU Multiplier will be restored and OCCT should display the real overclock %.

Does this explain your problem ? If not, just tell me what is your setup (CPU, motherboard) and tell me the values OCCT detects (a screenshot is more than enough).

---

Nope i have disabled the cpu features. Later on this day i will post screenshots ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spyrus

It cannot detect the overclock percentage very well.

---

Displays correctly on the P35 and X38 DFI boards. With C1E enabled or disabled. And by the way, thanks for the update to the program.

As promised :

OCCT PT 2.0.0b.b01 OUT !

Changelog :
* It should be much harder to trick OCCT with SetFSB and such programs to get a higher frequency displayed in the graphs
* Added japanese and bambara (malaysian/indonesian language). Italian language was updated as well

Enjoy !

http://www.ocbase.com/download.php?fileext=beta

Great thanks! I really appreciate you personally visiting us here at XS with these updates.

Would you say 2.0 should totally replace the use of 1.20b06/b07 in terms of accurate results while testing?

Tetedeiench, questions for you :)

What do the error codes mean? I remember code 4 was calculation error but code 1 and other?

Why does OCCT sometimes terminates closing window without showing any error? So it simply exits in the middle of testing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwi

Tetedeiench, questions for you :)

What do the error codes mean? I remember code 4 was calculation error but code 1 and other?

Why does OCCT sometimes terminates closing window without showing any error? So it simply exits in the middle of testing

---

I know you didn't ask me but Code 1 simply means that one of the other cores failed, for me it was mostly Code 4 on another core. But I don't know why it doesn't display the error code for the failed core instead of another that was fine. Go to the occt directory and search through the ThreadX.txt and you'll find what you're searching for. :)

I don't know about the program closing in the middle of a test run. I'm guessing unstable overclock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwi

Tetedeiench, questions for you :)

What do the error codes mean? I remember code 4 was calculation error but code 1 and other?

Why does OCCT sometimes terminates closing window without showing any error? So it simply exits in the middle of testing

---

I'm working on getting the error codes on the main frame - it should be available soon.

The error codes are explained in the file OCCT.chm shipped with OCCT - this help is just too basic right now for me to include a éhelp" button in OCCT ;)

As for occt "crashing" : yes, i guess it's related to an unstable overclock.

As for the error codes :
1- Thread stopped because another thread has stopped for some reason (mostly an error 4)
2- User interrupt
3- Not enough memory to run the test (should never happens as the GUI is taking care of that)
4- Calculation error detected

And yes, this version should replace 1.2.0.b06...

I have used OCCT for ~2 years but have found it to be an invaluable tool.

However, I still use prime too just to be sure everything is rock solid, I have had an occt stable oc fail in prime and vice-versa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tetedeiench

As promised :

OCCT PT 2.0.0b.b01 OUT !

Changelog :
* It should be much harder to trick OCCT with SetFSB and such programs to get a higher frequency displayed in the graphs
* Added japanese and bambara (malaysian/indonesian language). Italian language was updated as well

Enjoy !

http://www.ocbase.com/download.php?fileext=beta

---

Legend! :up:

My mistake it is ok.

How does OCCT work?

When I used it, based on the way it loaded my system and the noise coils would make under load, it seemed to cycle through calculations almost exactly the same way Prime95 goes through FFT calculations.

Is it not using the same or very similar calculation methods as Prime95?

i think in the new OCCT they use the same as P95 code for testing the CPU. which is a good thing.

are you guys using this version OCCT PT 2.0.0b.b01?

I love this version. They took one of the best products for stress testing and made it alot better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flexy

i think in the new OCCT they use the same as P95 code for testing the CPU. which is a good thing.

---

We do share some code, yes. i'm using the same libraries (gwnum) and some code for the CPU test was taken out of Prime95 ( which reminds me i completly forgot to mention that in the thanks.txt file). That's why you see a huge *bump* in temperature in the cpu test from 1.1.1b and 2.0.0.

However, the calculations are radically different, using different home-made algorithm which uses a part of the routines of Prime95 (they have proved very effective).

You could call that a "mix" between proven routines and home-made code :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fragmasterMax

I love this version. They took one of the best products for stress testing and made it alot better.

---

Many thanks for your cheers guys, i have to say i'm really proud of what OCCT has become ;) I'm not earning a single $ on OCCT, i'm just going on for "fun", so those cheers are really appreciated :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tetedeiench

Many thanks for your cheers guys, i have to say i'm really proud of what OCCT has become ;) I'm not earning a single $ on OCCT, i'm just going on for "fun", so those cheers are really appreciated :)

---

I'm sure many here would donate some money to thank you your superb work :up:

PS: Including me of course :up:

I know I would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tetedeiench

We do share some code, yes. i'm using the same libraries (gwnum) and some code for the CPU test was taken out of Prime95 ( which reminds me i completly forgot to mention that in the thanks.txt file). That's why you see a huge *bump* in temperature in the cpu test from 1.1.1b and 2.0.0.

However, the calculations are radically different, using different home-made algorithm which uses a part of the routines of Prime95 (they have proved very effective).

You could call that a "mix" between proven routines and home-made code :)

---

Can you explain how you feel that OCCT is better at stress testing than PRIME95? I'm just trying to understand the differences and how they translate into what people perceive as finding instability sooner. I'm somewhat skeptical of this claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by virtualrain

Can you explain how you feel that OCCT is better at stress testing than PRIME95? I'm just trying to understand the differences and how they translate into what people perceive as finding instability sooner. I'm somewhat skeptical of this claim.

---

Really tough question, and pertinent as well ;)

OCCT uses some, not all, routines of P95. That does not mean OCCT and P95 are the same tools. Think of those routines as an engine : you won't say that every car with the same engine is the same, right ? Some will still be faster, more comfortable, etc.

Well, to begin with, OCCT has 2 engines, Prime95 has only one. RAM and CPU tests are drastically different in OCCT, P95's tests are alike, except datum. OCCT and P95 do not share any data either : we're not working on the same number sets, and the routines working with those sets are a bit different in OCCT CPU, and really different in OCCT RAM.

OCCT comes with alot of features that P95 doesn't have (graphs, monitoring,...). But that's not the topic, just mentioning it.

Problem is i can't answer you with a mathematical proof showing you OCCT is faster.

The errors generated in a CPU are random. You don't have any rule governing that, or rather the rules are so complicated, random and impossible to design at the moment. So we can't predict when or what will make a computation error happen. What P95 and OCCT do is make those errors likely to happen, that's about it.

And how do we do that ? Well, by the old empirical method : try, try, and try, and sometimes, you'll stumble on something good. For example, a number you're working on that has a higher probability to raise errors, for some reason. Do not ask me why ! It's just a fact.

And thus i'll be using this number.

And so on.

OCCT has been around for... em, i don't even remember. I'd say 5 years now. In those 5 years, i've worked on gathering those data, taking beta testers results and "feelings", and improved OCCT.

So yes, i can't prove you that OCCT is better. There will always be cases where a failure will be detected by one program and not by the other. Prime95 is still a great tool, and i don't deny its value here. I'm just saying that, in general, OCCT tends to be faster at making errors happen. And i can't prove it. It's just reports of people who say that OCCT is faster, and there have been alot of them.

OCCT and Prime95, even if they share some code, are completly different tools, and i always advise people to use several tools, as to get a better idea at how stable their computer is.

I won't say my tool is the best, i'd just say that right now OCCT seems to be a bit faster according to user experience, and comes with more features.

The more tools the merrier !

My goal is not to steal anything from prime95... i'm just working on another tool for people to get a better idea of how stable their overclock is.

PS : dunno if i said it here, but i'm french, so if you see some spelling mistakes and such, just ignore them, english is not my native language ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

I'm sure many here would donate some money to thank you your superb work :up:

PS: Including me of course :up:

---

Thanks ;)

I didn't post that to get some money in fact... i'm happy as i am ;) There are some things OCCT gives me that are priceless (for instance, it's on my resume, and, as you can guess, this draws alot of attention).

There's a donate link on my website, but it is not visible enough. It's shown on " http://www.ocbase.com ", before choosing your language.

I'll try to make a news about that... we'll see.

Still, sometimes, fun things happen. I was working on OCCT in a train (i had a 1 hour-long trip to do), and i was debugging. The guy that was sitting next to me told me (i'm translating, so it won't be 100% accurate) :
- "Wow, you're not afraid of stress testing your laptop when it's on battery ? I'd rather avoid it if i were you"
- "Well, i'm not stress-testing, i'm debugging"
*** 3 seconds pause ***
- "debugging ?"
- "That's my own tool, i made some modifications and i'm testing them"
- "You mean you're tetedeiench ?"
- "Yes, that's me. I'm amazed you know my nickname"

Turned out the guy had been using OCCT for 2 years, and had been using it the previous week ;) I gave him a tour of the code and stuff, and that was one of the shortest trip i've ever done ;)

That as fun ;)

Thanks Tetedeiench, <3 OCCT. :)

Haha what a coincidence, at least the trip was short and you enjoyed it :up:

Thanks for the overview!

It may be that your tool is better at uncovering CPU instability quicker, but it's nearly impossible to prove and I still am skeptical of any such claims. As you say, CPU errors are random.

At any rate, I will add this to my overclocking tool chest again. I used it previously on my current OC and found that I was OCCT stable for an hour when PRIME95 would fail in about 15 seconds. I also found that none of the monitoring worked in x64 due to unsigned drivers.

I really agree with using multiple tools... PRIME95, OCCT, 3dMark, Memtest, Games, etc.

Side story... I remember back in the 80's and early 90's that the way you could test if your PC was "IBM Compatible" was to run Microsoft Flight Simulator (most current version of the day). I guess MS Flight Sim was one of the first stability tests! :D

Great story, the world truly is a small place!

I have a question if you don't mind. With cpu errors being 'random', would you say there is a certain amount of time that should pass before one should feel the 'random error' should have occurred by now if one were to happen at all? People say you should prime a minimum of 8+h before you can be sure of stability, what would you say a duration of time should be when using OCCT? Have you found that after a certain amount of time passing, no errors would appear if the system truly was stable and passed that threshold of when an error would/should have occured if the system truly was unstable? In CPU testing mode how long would you personally feel your system is 100&#37; stable as long as OCCT passed successfully? And in RAM mode?

Very impressive program, many thanks for all the hard work put into the creation of this tool.

If I had any money to spare I'd donate some as well haha! Sadly, I have approximately $7 in the bank :P

Why I'm getting a black screen during the test if I don't disable the screensaver ?? Running on vista 32bit

thanks for the heads up on this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cantankerous

Great story, the world truly is a small place!

I have a question if you don't mind. With cpu errors being 'random', would you say there is a certain amount of time that should pass before one should feel the 'random error' should have occurred by now if one were to happen at all? People say you should prime a minimum of 8+h before you can be sure of stability, what would you say a duration of time should be when using OCCT? Have you found that after a certain amount of time passing, no errors would appear if the system truly was stable and passed that threshold of when an error would/should have occured if the system truly was unstable? In CPU testing mode how long would you personally feel your system is 100&#37; stable as long as OCCT passed successfully? And in RAM mode?

---

I can't give you a 100% accurate answer, but personally, i think 4 hours of P95 is enough. Thus i'd advise you to run OCCT for 4 hours, Mix test or CPU followed by RAM. Mind you, this advice is as good as any other given by anybody... it's just my own opinion ;)

Seems a bug was dicovered with very long tests where monitoring never updates its value, after some time... I'm working on it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icecpu

Why I'm getting a black screen during the test if I don't disable the screensaver ?? Running on vista 32bit

---

It just means that your screensaver is trying to launch, and as OCCT is taking all the CPU, it can't.

nothing to worry about ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by virtualrain

Thanks for the overview!

It may be that your tool is better at uncovering CPU instability quicker, but it's nearly impossible to prove and I still am skeptical of any such claims. As you say, CPU errors are random.

At any rate, I will add this to my overclocking tool chest again. I used it previously on my current OC and found that I was OCCT stable for an hour when PRIME95 would fail in about 15 seconds. I also found that none of the monitoring worked in x64 due to unsigned drivers.

I really agree with using multiple tools... PRIME95, OCCT, 3dMark, Memtest, Games, etc.

Side story... I remember back in the 80's and early 90's that the way you could test if your PC was "IBM Compatible" was to run Microsoft Flight Simulator (most current version of the day). I guess MS Flight Sim was one of the first stability tests! :D

---

Yes, it's entirely impossible to prove.. and thus user experience is the only way to get an idea of what's going on.

My personal view of this stuff is "Don't give alot of credit to a test passed, but trust the tool that detected an instability". OCCT will, in its stable versions, never report a "false positive", that is an error detected when everything was fine with the hardware.

An error detected is a 100% accurate report, no error detected is just... probability that your computer is stable. The longer the test, the better the probability is. But it's only a probability ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by virtualrain

Thanks for the overview!

It may be that your tool is better at uncovering CPU instability quicker, but it's nearly impossible to prove and I still am skeptical of any such claims. As you say, CPU errors are random.

At any rate, I will add this to my overclocking tool chest again. I used it previously on my current OC and found that I was OCCT stable for an hour when PRIME95 would fail in about 15 seconds. I also found that none of the monitoring worked in x64 due to unsigned drivers.

I really agree with using multiple tools... PRIME95, OCCT, 3dMark, Memtest, Games, etc.

Side story... I remember back in the 80's and early 90's that the way you could test if your PC was "IBM Compatible" was to run Microsoft Flight Simulator (most current version of the day). I guess MS Flight Sim was one of the first stability tests! :D

---

I also used to trust prime95 small FFT for CPU only testing. Now, that OCCT in CPU mode loads the CPU as much as Prime95, I use both of them. But who wins, I won't be able to answer it, maybe none would be able to do.

However, Small FFT is no longer enough to say an overclock is stable or not. Small FFT/CPOU test will let you adjust the vcore, vPLL and vFSB.

The RAM mode of OCCT gives overclock stability testing a big boost. People often wonder why Prime95 small FFT is stable while games crash in few minutes and F@H bugs. RAM and NB stability account a big part in an overclock. Many people know it well and use Prime95 Blend test for that, or even memtest.
OCCT in RAM mode really outperforms Prime95 Blend/large FFT and memtest (memtest is still the only program testing the whole RAM integrity because it runs in a dos mode, but it won't heat the RAM or NB as OCCT or Prime95 Blend). Prime95 Blend can be stable for 10h when OCCT in RAM mode will fail in few minutes, usually in less than 20mn, and rarely above 2h. Anandtech now also use OCCT in their tests rather than Prime95, must be a reason there, right?

OCCT in mix mode will alternate CPU and RAM tests, so it will be much more efficient in detecting instabilities than Prime95.

If you read some of the other threads in Intel section, you'll see that many people noted it, Blend mode in Prime95 eating banana comapred to OCCT in RAM mode

And yes, I do agree that people looking for ultimate stability should use many benchmarking programs not only one

I would like to give my thanks to the creator of this magnificent tool.

I just tried it a few hours ago, and it took only 30 minutes to give errors where Orthos never reported anything after 28 hours. I know it sounds almost impossible I guess but it is the truth. I've changed a few new settings in the BIOS after that, and it ran for 2 hours and 15 minutes under High Priority, CPU & RAM testing without a single error.

I'll be using this program from now on.

Are there any new updates to the program?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tetedeiench

Thanks ;)

I didn't post that to get some money in fact... i'm happy as i am ;) There are some things OCCT gives me that are priceless (for instance, it's on my resume, and, as you can guess, this draws alot of attention).

There's a donate link on my website, but it is not visible enough. It's shown on " http://www.ocbase.com ", before choosing your language.

I'll try to make a news about that... we'll see.

Still, sometimes, fun things happen. I was working on OCCT in a train (i had a 1 hour-long trip to do), and i was debugging. The guy that was sitting next to me told me (i'm translating, so it won't be 100% accurate) :
- "Wow, you're not afraid of stress testing your laptop when it's on battery ? I'd rather avoid it if i were you"
- "Well, i'm not stress-testing, i'm debugging"
*** 3 seconds pause ***
- "debugging ?"
- "That's my own tool, i made some modifications and i'm testing them"
- "You mean you're tetedeiench ?"
- "Yes, that's me. I'm amazed you know my nickname"

Turned out the guy had been using OCCT for 2 years, and had been using it the previous week ;) I gave him a tour of the code and stuff, and that was one of the shortest trip i've ever done ;)

That as fun ;)

---

Cheers for your great tool m8. Been using it for quite a while now :)
Too bad there's no OCCT Pro anymore ...

i am using OCCT for a long time already, long before mayn even knew about it :) ( I could dig out some old threads where i posted on various forums that i found this great stabilty testing tool which finds errors faster than P95 :) This was like 4+ years ago, i think.

For me OCCT is the "standard" OC testing tool and it gotten even better now - although it's like a love/hate relationship since my nerves surely got wrecked more than one time getting some OC stable...so i "hate" OCCT every time it stops and gives me an error .)

I also agree that a whole range of *selected* tools is best for testing, eg. windows memtest is very good for memory testing. But OCCT is very compact, and 2hrs +/- on "mix" or "CPU" followed by "MEM" is a very good, compact stability test already.

Yea many thanks for this nice tool Tetedeiench, your long time efforts are very appriciated! By answering in this thread it's obvious to me it's not only your application that is good but I think you have a really great personality as a coder too. :up:

While it's impossible to give proof of this application is better at finding errors than others, for me it's enough that it has detected errors in less than 30 mins when Prime ran a couple of hours. OCCT to me is clearly the #1 Stresstest I will continue using for years to come.

PS, yes I wouldn't say no to a small donation either from my side either, people like you deserve to get paid no matter they're interested in what they're doing or not.

This program makes explorer crash on vista 64, but program is still going and passing the test fine, same setup works fine on XP....so its not the overclock, the program doesnt work well on Vista 64

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GAR

...the program doesnt work well on Vista 64

---

Running now under Vista x64, no explorer crashes for me. Neat program running it now, never heard of it before.

I can't get the program to put a load on my system (q9450), is it a gradual load or something? Using the 2.0.0a release.

It is a good program for testing stability quickly but it is not as good as Prime/Orthos. On two different CPUs I found I can pass the 2h OCCT stability test, yet fail Prime between 10-20 minutes. I needed an additional 0.02V to make it 12+ hour Prime stable.

same applys for peeps yet they will be 2 hours prime stable and fail OCCT within 10-20min, therefore u should use both:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tranceaddict

It is a good program for testing stability quickly but it is not as good as Prime/Orthos. On two different CPUs I found I can pass the 2h OCCT stability test, yet fail Prime between 10-20 minutes. I needed an additional 0.02V to make it 12+ hour Prime stable.

---

what version do you use?

I use OCCT 2.0.0.b b1 - very senstive.

Use MEM for NB/memory timings...use "CPU" for CPU.

Any new version of this program out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flexy

what version do you use?

I use OCCT 2.0.0.b b1 - very senstive.

Use MEM for NB/memory timings...use "CPU" for CPU.

---

Same version as you, the latest one.

Anyone know why I can't get the program to stress? Is there somthing I can do to troubleshoot? prime95 25.6 works just fine...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GAR

This program makes explorer crash on vista 64, but program is still going and passing the test fine, same setup works fine on XP....so its not the overclock, the program doesnt work well on Vista 64

---

If explorer crashes, in X64 envirement, it means memory is getting corrupted despite the X64 protection architecture. This means your PC is unstable while stressing it with that tool. But, you can choose to ignore it and live with random lockups/errors

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicksterr

I can't get the program to put a load on my system (q9450), is it a gradual load or something? Using the 2.0.0a release.

---

It is only a display bug on latest versions appearing when you choose a setting with the 1mn idle monitor feature. Check load in taskmanager, it should be the right display of 99%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tranceaddict

It is a good program for testing stability quickly but it is not as good as Prime/Orthos. On two different CPUs I found I can pass the 2h OCCT stability test, yet fail Prime between 10-20 minutes. I needed an additional 0.02V to make it 12+ hour Prime stable.

---

Compare what can be compared: Prime95 in small FFT mode to OCCT in CPU mode (they are the same, with OCCT better managing priorities in my expierience and from what the author said. This is proven by a same load temperatures on all cores for both programs, but achieved faster in OCCT) and Prime95 Blend to OCCT in RAM mode
If you use different modes, you can't compare

E2160 + X cooler at 3000 Mhz (or more):

-what cooler do you use?
-how high those the temp go in *C at 98&#37; CPU usage?

Hello all, just like to start by saying that I find OCCT invaluable, I am using the 2.0a ATM and one thing I have noticed is that it reports the cores of my Q6600 differently than all other info apps, CoreTemp, RealTemp and Everest Ultimate. I set the cores as 0,1,2,3 meaning core 1,2,3,4 but core 4 always reads as core 3 in the other apps I mentioned. Doesn't amount to a hill of beans really but i have just wondered has anyone else noticed this or have this small issue. I am hoping that OCCT is correct as my core temps for most apps under load seem to give the high,low,low,high readings with the cores pinned as 1-4 but OCCT gives high,low,high,low with cores pinned as 0-3.
I have to say the inbuilt temp monitoring was a sgreat addition, and the graphs at the end of the test are good for determining PSU performance also, totally a 10/10 testing app.

Peace
Branjo

Hi,

I wish to undervolt my T7300 CPU on my laptop (other settings left default), which OCCT v2.0.0a test (CPU, RAM or Mix) should I run to check for stability?

Thanks.

Will this fully test an 8-core 5400/Harpertown system?

I would like to thank Tetedeiench very much for this nice program!!!! +1 credits :D

I just overclocked my comp. and I'am using this tool at the moment to test for stability. I like it most of all because it's just so much faster in finding errors instead of waiting for hours to pass. And eventually ending up that a voltage setting only needed one notch up.

I have only two questions tho. I'm using version 2.0.0a and is it correct that the temp. monitor reports 10 degrees higher than is actually is? And in addition is it normal that your comp. makes some weird noises when testing in mix mode?

That it reports 10c higher is becouse tjunction is set to 105c instead of 95c as it "should" be.

its not THAT weird that its coming some sounds from your components, probably its your psu, i dont know the word for the component in english that makes the sound, its those small things with copper wired around them, sometimes, when they are bad insulated, or are toughing something thats beside it, they make small vibrations during heavy load, this is very annoying and if you have this problem you should RMA your psu or whatever is making the sound, almost all hardware have this component. But its mostly common that its the psu or vga card, when you're making load the them.

I stress tested my comp. for 8 hours with OCCT but when I start Orthos it will fail in all modes within 10 min. While playing Call of Duty 4 for 1 hour isn't a problem. What could cause this problem? Wrong Orthos maybe? I have a beta version by some guy called Johnson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pisklink

I stress tested my comp. for 8 hours with OCCT but when I start Orthos it will fail in all modes within 10 min. While playing Call of Duty 4 for 1 hour isn't a problem. What could cause this problem? Wrong Orthos maybe? I have a beta version by some guy called Johnson.

---

I just had a similar problem. Orthos would pass the 1h Mix test but Orthos / Prime95 would fail within seconds. It was my RAM which was not stable. It seems Orthos even in Mix mode is not stressing the RAM a lot.

The latest beta version is OCCT 2.1.0 beta 02 dated 19.Jun 2008
DOWNLOAD

http://www.yourpicbox.com/images/oIbSgIjUG37548.png

Thanks. Works fine ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stasio

The latest beta version is OCCT 2.1.0 beta 02 dated 19.Jun 2008
DOWNLOAD
http://www.yourpicbox.com/images/oIbSgIjUG37548.png

---

Ok, I will give it a try but what if it is stable with OCCT and not with orthos? Could somebody provide a link to the correct Orthos version for testing dual cores? Thanks. :)

Code:

---

Could somebody provide a link to the correct Orthos version for testing dual cores?

---

Orthos version for testing dual cores dated 20.April 2006
SP2004 Orthos Edition

Thank you very much!!!! I will try both Orthos and OCCT as soon as I'm home from work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pisklink

Ok, I will give it a try but what if it is stable with OCCT and not with orthos? Could somebody provide a link to the correct Orthos version for testing dual cores? Thanks. :)

---

It means it is not stable. But if it's not OCCT stable, orthos will fail for sure :)

Better run newer prime instead of orthos:
http://mersenne.org/gimps/p95v256.zip