#Intel burn test winn 10 software#
#Intel burn test winn 10 free#

Linpack byIntel(R) is an extremely stressful program that will put even the most pow-erful X86/X64 CPU in the world at its knees.

#Intel burn test winn 10 software#

Load temp under Linpack will be up to 22*C higher than the competing software Prime95.Р”Р„ program that simplifies the usage of Intel(R) Linpack. If I could raise Vtt beyond 1.21 as those of you with x58 machines can, then I'd bet there would be a different (higher) levels at which vcore increases would remain somewhat linear with newly enabled performance.This is an extremely stressful program that will put even the most powerful X86/X64 CPU in the world at its knees. I suspect this is partly caused by the unfortunate limitation I accept for max Vtt of 1.21.

#Intel burn test winn 10 free#

Thus, I suspect that 1.3125v vcore (LLC Disabled) is near a point of inflection on a curve that relates required vcore vs error free performance at a given bclk. I don't wish to see higher temps than this. Both 174x21 and 171x21 conditions presented here, produce core temps of between 65 and 70c. Previous testing suggests that vcore increases beyond 1.3125v must be ever higher to produce higher clock stabilities and I pay the price in power consumption and heat dissipation. Both tests used a vcore of 1.3125v (LLC Disabled), vtt of 1.21v, vpll of 1.86v, vdimm of 1.6v. Reducing bclk to 171x21 allowed me to pass a 500min test. At 174mhz bclk x 21 I was able to pass 50 min of LinX, but failed 90minutes into a 500min test.

Having said that, I'm happy to describe my own special circumstance between failing LinX at 90 min, and passing at 500min.

Please correct me If I have misunderstood.Р”Р„s I mentioned in my last post, my writing was not about a problem I had, just examples to make my point that all testing periods chosen are a persons own common sense, and that any test interval can be found to be insufficient. We all just evaluate according to our own version of 'common sense'.Р”В¬lick to expand.errors happen because of user error, not because of the program/programs that we use. My points all along are simple: There is no basis to determine the 'proper' test regimen before we call our situation 'stable'. If you have an unstable overclock, does the error in prime95 show up at the same time point test after test? I don't know myself, but I'll bet it doesn't. I suppose that's something, but I suspect that errors caused by overclocking are a bit more random than that. The only solid basis I've heard is from the folks that consider the length of time you use a computer should compare to the length of time you stress test. You think 8-10 hrs of large FFTs is best, but others may think 12 hrs is best.no one can pin their 'feelings' on any solid basis. All I'm saying is that you choose your length of time for testing, and you do so without any definitive science behind it. Of course I may be wrong here, im just pointing out what has worked for me I dont see the point of 24hrs unless you are running a 'blend' test with a new build. Once a CPU can achieve 8-10 hours of large FFT's with 0 errors you are done. Not sure what went wrong with your test since you stated that the first run produced an error but the second one didnt.Р”В¬orrect but it would not matter if indeed it failed at the 25th hour because nobody is going to stress thier CPU for that length of time or shall I say nobody needs to stress thier CPU's more than 24hrs at a time. When a test goes bad it is usually due to wrong values (bios), CPU overheat or too high of a CPU clock. Thus, what tool we use and how long becomes a gut reaction choice, with no rigorous logic to support it.Р”В«ob, im sorry but I do not see the point or logic of your post, what was the exact issue that you were having and what clock did you have issues with? Until we see that study, we'll always be at some undefined risk that an error will occur in the very next hour after we stop the test, no matter how long we test, and no matter what tool we use. What we're missing is the study that provides a probability distribution for future stability based on length of error free testing per test tool.

My second test succeeded to run without error for 500minutes.Р”В¬learly the second is more stable than the first. My first run produced an error after 95 minutes. Once I thought I was there, I upped the time for LinX to overnight (500minutes). Andy, I had been using 50 minutes of LinX as a preliminary indication.