IntelBurnTest - The new stress-testing program

[pest]

That happens because you have more than 2 GB of memory and you are using 32-bit Windows. To get around this, use less memory to test, or upgrade to XP 64-bit.

In one of the previous versions (1.3) i was able to test 2GB on my 32-Bit WinXP.
With 1.5 i'm not able to test more than 900mb

anyway thanks for the little proggie

[WaterFlex]

AgentGOD
Would u like to make the new interface and design for 1.5.1 ? I love 1.5.1

[SPDIF_IO]

Thanks agent will make a donation tonight when i get home

[ahmad]

Regardless, if I could do the same test in HCI and have it produce errors FASTER than this tool, why would I use this tool to begin with is my point.

I want a tool that produces errors the fastest. And for memory, this doesn't do it.

HCI - 1024MB errors out FASTER than this tool with 10 passes at 1500MB.

So like I said, its possible that this tool can detected CPU errors FASTER than Prime or SuperPI, but for RAM errors it needs MORE TIME.

If you not choose the error read out then you will see the output of the testing being done... the error out put is just to tell NEWBIES if they passed or not.

Its not a memory Error testing procedure only error of pass or fail.

Now as for it being CPU stability only = NO as it will test memory as well and it is always suggested and recommened to use ALL available memory to run the test and run it 10 loops (3-6) for a more aggressive testing.

AgentGod put something like i just posted within the testing TEXT so ppl don't get all confused... also actually take out the min and half memory options.

Just leave MAX or Custom .. thats all that is needed.

[Warboy]

I want a FLOPs printout like the old version had.

[BeastNotro]

I want a FLOPs printout like the old version had.

Just don't check off error reporting as all that is for is to tell you if you passed or not.

[Razmatazz]

Any ideas why I would be stable with BurnTest and get errors within seconds with Prime95? I am stable using both at default 3.2 GHz but get errors at 3.4 GHz with Prime95 even though BurnTest remains stable.

[AgentGOD]

Any ideas why I would be stable with BurnTest and get errors within seconds with Prime95? I am stable using both at default 3.2 GHz but get errors at 3.4 GHz with Prime95 even though BurnTest remains stable.

Use 64-bit OS (XP x64 SP2 preferred), test with maximum memory, and do 20 iterations.

[MaxT]

That happens because you have more than 2 GB of memory and you are using 32-bit Windows. To get around this, use less memory to test, or upgrade to XP 64-bit.

Got it. Thanks!

[WaterFlex]

AgentGOD, do u see my message above?

[Razmatazz]

Use 64-bit OS (XP x64 SP2 preferred), test with maximum memory, and do 20 iterations.

I am running 64 bit Vista. I have not run 20 iterations at one time but have run 10 iterations multiple times after minor changes and have been stable with BurnTest but still run into early error (less than 15 seconds) with Prime95 with only a minor overclock (3.2 GHz to 3.4 GHz). I had thought Burntest would find instability faster then other stress testing programs. Is this a 64-bit Vista issue? Any other thoughts?

[AgentGOD]

I am running 64 bit Vista. I have not run 20 iterations at one time but have run 10 iterations multiple times after minor changes and have been stable with BurnTest but still run into early error (less than 15 seconds) with Prime95 with only a minor overclock (3.2 GHz to 3.4 GHz). I had thought Burntest would find instability faster then other stress testing programs. Is this a 64-bit Vista issue? Any other thoughts?

Do you have voltage variations running IntelBurnTest vs running Prime95? (Talking about CPU voltage at load)

If so, that would be what I'd look into, especially with Load-Line Calibration on. It seems that some boards give the CPU different voltages during different loads. I have not tested Vista 64-bit on this PC, so I couldn't tell you if that's the reason. I've only tested XP x64 Edition SP2 (so I can't tell you how effective it is on Vista 64-bit), and from my experience, it's much much faster than Prime95. My original 10hr Prime95 stable CPU clock failed IntelBurnTest within 2 minutes. For that test, I used the 64-bit version of Prime95.

AgentGOD, do u see my message above?

Yeah, I saw your message about slapping a full Windows GUI on it vs console, but I decided to stick with the original style.

[WaterFlex]

Yeah, I saw your message about slapping a full Windows GUI on it vs console, but I decided to stick with the original style.

Good luck then! I`m fond of this test, i love to burn my PC .
I`m looking forward to the new versions

[Justintoxicated]

I am running 64 bit Vista. I have not run 20 iterations at one time but have run 10 iterations multiple times after minor changes and have been stable with BurnTest but still run into early error (less than 15 seconds) with Prime95 with only a minor overclock (3.2 GHz to 3.4 GHz). I had thought Burntest would find instability faster then other stress testing programs. Is this a 64-bit Vista issue? Any other thoughts?

Very odd! I have no idea! I hope someone can chime in!

[KoHaN69]

[AgentGOD]

"Weird events" can be caused by system instability as well. I learned my lesson with my AMD Opteron... it wasn't fully stable, and my Windows installations all eventually got screwy like yours (both XP and Vista [I had both installed in a dual-boot configuration, using 32-bit]).

Keep this in mind: neither IntelBurnTest nor Intel(R) LINPACK sets anything to start on Windows startup, nor start stress testing without the user's consent.

[squito]

Any ideas why I would be stable with BurnTest and get errors within seconds with Prime95? I am stable using both at default 3.2 GHz but get errors at 3.4 GHz with Prime95 even though BurnTest remains stable.

I'm good on both BurnTest and Prime95 at 3.6 GHz - no go on SuperPi 32M at any clock, stock or otherwise - 64 bit Vista here also

[AgentGOD]

Can you pass Memtest86+ for a few hours?

[ahmad]

I'm good on both BurnTest and Prime95 at 3.6 GHz - no go on SuperPi 32M at any clock, stock or otherwise - 64 bit Vista here also

run this: http://hcidesign.com/memtest/

use two instances, at 1024MB each (if you have more than 3GB of RAM), and do at least 300% coverage.

[RejZoR]

I'm good on both BurnTest and Prime95 at 3.6 GHz - no go on SuperPi 32M at any clock, stock or otherwise - 64 bit Vista here also

Thats because SuperPi isn't compatible with Vista (at all). Use HyperPi instead...
Same thing as SuperPi with some extra Vista compatibility fetaures.

[Razmatazz]

Do you have voltage variations running IntelBurnTest vs running Prime95? (Talking about CPU voltage at load)

If so, that would be what I'd look into, especially with Load-Line Calibration on. It seems that some boards give the CPU different voltages during different loads. I have not tested Vista 64-bit on this PC, so I couldn't tell you if that's the reason. I've only tested XP x64 Edition SP2 (so I can't tell you how effective it is on Vista 64-bit), and from my experience, it's much much faster than Prime95. My original 10hr Prime95 stable CPU clock failed IntelBurnTest within 2 minutes. For that test, I used the 64-bit version of Prime95.

Voltages are exactly the same when running BurnTest and Prime95. I'm still at a loss with this one. Perhaps it is a Vista issue?

I'm good on both BurnTest and Prime95 at 3.6 GHz - no go on SuperPi 32M at any clock, stock or otherwise - 64 bit Vista here also

Thats because SuperPi isn't compatible with Vista (at all). Use HyperPi instead...
Same thing as SuperPi with some extra Vista compatibility fetaures.

Thanks for the info on SuperPi vs HyperPi. I found that I was 3D unstable and SuperPi unstable until I adjusted clock skews. I am currently at a delay of 250ps for both channels. I am now SuperPi and 3D stable with 4GB memory at 1600 MHz.

[squito]

Can you pass Memtest86+ for a few hours?

I ran the through the whole test twice for what it's worth - seemed like it took couple of hours to yours truly

[squito]

run this: http://hcidesign.com/memtest/

use two instances, at 1024MB each (if you have more than 3GB of RAM), and do at least 300% coverage.

Thanks - I will give that a go

[squito]

Thats because SuperPi isn't compatible with Vista (at all). Use HyperPi instead...
Same thing as SuperPi with some extra Vista compatibility fetaures.

That's what I was thinking - however, I know people that have no issues with Vista 64 and SuperPi - I can run SuperPi 1M no problem

[WaterFlex]

Thanks - I will give that a go

I`ve already tested 600% coverage, no errors