If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Intel Burn is the Best OC Test SW!
I just tried Intel Burn and wow. In just 5 minutes I found that my system
had many CPU errors. I ran tests like Memtest86 and Prime95 for hours and they did not find any problems. The system seemed fine for months. Once I raised the CPU voltage 0.05 everything was fixed. It makes sense that Intel would make the best CPU error detection software. http://www.ultimate-filez.com/?page=downloads Using anything else is just a waste of time. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Intel Burn is the Best OC Test SW!
"Kent_Diego" wrote in message ... I just tried Intel Burn and wow. In just 5 minutes I found that my system had many CPU errors. I ran tests like Memtest86 and Prime95 for hours and they did not find any problems. The system seemed fine for months. Once I raised the CPU voltage 0.05 everything was fixed. It makes sense that Intel would make the best CPU error detection software. http://www.ultimate-filez.com/?page=downloads Using anything else is just a waste of time. If your system is running Prime95 and Memtest86 for hours and hours without errors, and this test is finding them immediately while no others are, it should tell you that Intel Burn is overly sensitive and not finding errors of any real consequence. Using it is more of a waste of time. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Intel Burn is the Best OC Test SW!
"Augustus" wrote in message news:P_uRk.1304$xJ3.863@edtnps83... "Kent_Diego" wrote in message ... I just tried Intel Burn and wow. In just 5 minutes I found that my system had many CPU errors. I ran tests like Memtest86 and Prime95 for hours and they did not find any problems. The system seemed fine for months. Once I raised the CPU voltage 0.05 everything was fixed. It makes sense that Intel would make the best CPU error detection software. http://www.ultimate-filez.com/?page=downloads Using anything else is just a waste of time. If your system is running Prime95 and Memtest86 for hours and hours without errors, and this test is finding them immediately while no others are, it should tell you that Intel Burn is overly sensitive and not finding errors of any real consequence. Using it is more of a waste of time. Follow up: My system is an E8400 running at 3.8Ghz / WinXP32 SP3....a Gigabyte EP35-DSR3 with a C0 Wolfdale E8400 and a matched set (2x2Gig) 4 Gig OCZ Platinum DDR 1066. The system runs with the FSB set a 422, with no other BIOS setting tweaks for memory or voltage. That's it. It runs 24/7, and has done runs of 5-7 days (when I'm on holiday usually) on Prime95, Orthos and Memtest. It has never generated a single error during any of these runs. It doesn't locked up, crash or reboot. I ran Intel Burn....and it instantly did a hard reboot. I tried it again at 3.6Ghz, 3.4Ghz, 3.3Ghz, etc....same thing. It generated errors at 3.2Ghz and was error free at 3.1 Ghz. Boosting core voltage to the point where it and generating unacceptable heat levels (with decent Scythe hs/f and Antec P180 case with great air flow in a 22C room ) allowed error free operation at just under 3.3Ghz. So by this stress test, I should drop my overclock by 600Mhz and have the E8400 run 5-7 degrees C hotter at 3.2Ghz than it does running error free at 3.8Ghz according to every other stress test. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Intel Burn is the Best OC Test SW!
.....
... So by this stress test, I should drop my overclock by 600Mhz and have the E8400 run 5-7 degrees C hotter at 3.2Ghz than it does running error free at 3.8Ghz according to every other stress test. I would. It is not that you are not error free at 3.8 GHz, they just occur (very) infrequently. Some day every system will crash and you are left with the question; is it was from the overclock or some other reason? If you can go 20 minutes with Intel Burn then you know you have a stable overclock. Another reason is I have seen systems that appeared OK, but really had RAM instabilities, corrupt the hard drive. So some day when your system refuses to boot you will always be asking yourself if it was the unstable overclock? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Intel Burn is the Best OC Test SW!
'Augustus'
If your system is running Prime95 and Memtest86 for hours and hours without errors, and this test is finding them immediately while no others are, it should tell you that Intel Burn is overly sensitive and not finding errors of any real consequence. Using it is more of a waste of time. Since a 0.05 voltage increase was all it took for 'Kent_Diego' to get an error free run with Intel Burn, I'd say Intel Burn did a very good job. And is MUCH more useful than Prime95 and Memtest86 for overclocking purposes. Intel Burn would seem to be much more sensitive to overclocking errors and especially the effect of heat, EXACTLY what is needed as a guide when making changes to parameters and cooling to increase overclocking. After all, a sensitive, small grained test for the smallest changes in overclocking is the goal, NOT proper calculations or even less, memory parity checks. I'd say your comment on Intel Burn is exactly backwards. It is not 'errors of real consequence' that are the most useful in a fine grained approach to overclocking, but rather any errors, and most especially errors of the least consequence that are most useful. Phil Weldon (who may have to skip the 'Nehalem' because he just bought a Meade LX200 GPS 12" telescope - on the other hand, it will be USB'ed to my T7400 notebook for control and digital image transfer which may require semi-heroic digital manipulation, so...) But I'll never leave a.c.h.o; the level of participation here has about the highest tone and deepest knowledge base of any Usenet group I've seen. - despite Augustus' momentary lapse B^) "Augustus" wrote in message news:P_uRk.1304$xJ3.863@edtnps83... "Kent_Diego" wrote in message ... I just tried Intel Burn and wow. In just 5 minutes I found that my system had many CPU errors. I ran tests like Memtest86 and Prime95 for hours and they did not find any problems. The system seemed fine for months. Once I raised the CPU voltage 0.05 everything was fixed. It makes sense that Intel would make the best CPU error detection software. http://www.ultimate-filez.com/?page=downloads Using anything else is just a waste of time. If your system is running Prime95 and Memtest86 for hours and hours without errors, and this test is finding them immediately while no others are, it should tell you that Intel Burn is overly sensitive and not finding errors of any real consequence. Using it is more of a waste of time. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Intel Burn is the Best OC Test SW!
'Kent_Diego' wrote:
I just tried Intel Burn and wow. In just 5 minutes I found that my system had many CPU errors. I ran tests like Memtest86 and Prime95 for hours and they did not find any problems. The system seemed fine for months. Once I raised the CPU voltage 0.05 everything was fixed. It makes sense that Intel would make the best CPU error detection software. http://www.ultimate-filez.com/?page=downloads Using anything else is just a waste of time. _____ Thanks for your very useful post. Check my reply to 'Augustus', he and I are of opposite opinions on your results. Please post additional details; I see a very good discussion resulting. (Something we really need while waiting for Nehalem. Phil Weldon "Kent_Diego" wrote in message ... I just tried Intel Burn and wow. In just 5 minutes I found that my system had many CPU errors. I ran tests like Memtest86 and Prime95 for hours and they did not find any problems. The system seemed fine for months. Once I raised the CPU voltage 0.05 everything was fixed. It makes sense that Intel would make the best CPU error detection software. http://www.ultimate-filez.com/?page=downloads Using anything else is just a waste of time. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Intel Burn is the Best OC Test SW!
"Phil Weldon" wrote in message m... 'Augustus' If your system is running Prime95 and Memtest86 for hours and hours without errors, and this test is finding them immediately while no others are, it should tell you that Intel Burn is overly sensitive and not finding errors of any real consequence. Using it is more of a waste of time. Since a 0.05 voltage increase was all it took for 'Kent_Diego' to get an error free run with Intel Burn, I'd say Intel Burn did a very good job. And is MUCH more useful than Prime95 and Memtest86 for overclocking purposes. Intel Burn would seem to be much more sensitive to overclocking errors and especially the effect of heat, EXACTLY what is needed as a guide when making changes to parameters and cooling to increase overclocking. After all, a sensitive, small grained test for the smallest changes in overclocking is the goal, NOT proper calculations or even less, memory parity checks. I'd say your comment on Intel Burn is exactly backwards. It is not 'errors of real consequence' that are the most useful in a fine grained approach to overclocking, but rather any errors, and most especially errors of the least consequence that are most useful. Phil Weldon (who may have to skip the 'Nehalem' because he just bought a Meade LX200 GPS 12" telescope - on the other hand, it will be USB'ed to my T7400 notebook for control and digital image transfer which may require semi-heroic digital manipulation, so...) But I'll never leave a.c.h.o; the level of participation here has about the highest tone and deepest knowledge base of any Usenet group I've een. - despite Augustus' momentary lapse B^) I like it too. It does exactly what I would want when overclocking since my goal is to go as high as possible without "any" errors. I will still probably do a Nehalem build in early '09. I hinted about doing some astronomy to my wife and she didn't make any negative comments so I am looking around at what I may need. It is almost Greek to me at this point, but I will see how your setup goes and let you lead the way.......:-). Ed |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Intel Burn is the Best OC Test SW!
'Ed Medlin' wrote:
I like it too. It does exactly what I would want when overclocking since my goal is to go as high as possible without "any" errors. I will still probably do a Nehalem build in early '09. I hinted about doing some astronomy to my wife and she didn't make any negative comments so I am looking around at what I may need. It is almost Greek to me at this point, but I will see how your setup goes and let you lead the way.......:-). _____ As soon as I can find my digital camera I'll post some pictures of my telescope. The camera is probably some were under the blizzard of packing material from the two hundred pounds of telescope and accessory parts B^) Just to give you an idea of mass, the tripod legs are 3 inch steel tubes. Meade still uses RS232 connections, four on the fork mount. I think I'll need only one RS232 to USB convertor for my notebook to control tracking. The Meade LPI imager is a jumped-up web cam that, of course, has USB out. It's useful for planets, the moon, and artificial satellites - usually 1/10 second or shorter exposures with multiple frames stacked for noise reduction. Don't think I'll have to worry about my notebook overheating in the cold nights ahead. In fact, it might be a good time to try some overclocking B^) Phil Weldon "Ed Medlin" ed@ edmedlin.com wrote in message ... "Phil Weldon" wrote in message m... 'Augustus' If your system is running Prime95 and Memtest86 for hours and hours without errors, and this test is finding them immediately while no others are, it should tell you that Intel Burn is overly sensitive and not finding errors of any real consequence. Using it is more of a waste of time. Since a 0.05 voltage increase was all it took for 'Kent_Diego' to get an error free run with Intel Burn, I'd say Intel Burn did a very good job. And is MUCH more useful than Prime95 and Memtest86 for overclocking purposes. Intel Burn would seem to be much more sensitive to overclocking errors and especially the effect of heat, EXACTLY what is needed as a guide when making changes to parameters and cooling to increase overclocking. After all, a sensitive, small grained test for the smallest changes in overclocking is the goal, NOT proper calculations or even less, memory parity checks. I'd say your comment on Intel Burn is exactly backwards. It is not 'errors of real consequence' that are the most useful in a fine grained approach to overclocking, but rather any errors, and most especially errors of the least consequence that are most useful. Phil Weldon (who may have to skip the 'Nehalem' because he just bought a Meade LX200 GPS 12" telescope - on the other hand, it will be USB'ed to my T7400 notebook for control and digital image transfer which may require semi-heroic digital manipulation, so...) But I'll never leave a.c.h.o; the level of participation here has about the highest tone and deepest knowledge base of any Usenet group I've en. - despite Augustus' momentary lapse B^) I like it too. It does exactly what I would want when overclocking since my goal is to go as high as possible without "any" errors. I will still probably do a Nehalem build in early '09. I hinted about doing some astronomy to my wife and she didn't make any negative comments so I am looking around at what I may need. It is almost Greek to me at this point, but I will see how your setup goes and let you lead the way.......:-). Ed |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Intel Burn is the Best OC Test SW!
But I'll never leave a.c.h.o; the level of participation here has about
the highest tone and deepest knowledge base of any Usenet group I've een. - despite Augustus' momentary lapse B^) My lapse, if I may elabortae, was simply this: If my system is being 100% stable running the games and software that i use, and not generating errors at 3.8Ghz with any of the tried and true standard o/c stress tests done over rather lengthy time periods, why would I wish to raise the CPU voltage and drop the FSB and speed based on the results of this one stress test which seemingly (to me, anyway, but feel free to enlighten me) does not relate to the stable o/c operation of my current system or software. The heat generated on my E8400 dramatically increases with increasing voltage. This test on my system indicates continual errors in operation with less than a 10% o/c and fair amount of vcore boost. Yet the system is error free, cooler and stable at much higher speeds and stock vcore on EVERY other stress test and the apps/games I run. What am I not getting here? Seriously...... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Intel Burn is the Best OC Test SW!
I found that connector you were looking for Cindy, is this the thing you were looking for? www.liangdianup.com/computeraccessories_1.htm It's on the list of computer accessories and parts. They have the DVI video thing to convert that jap monitor to work with your other computer. Just about any other kind of wire adaptor, usb connectors, monitor extension wires, ps2 extention wires, and all kinds of female and male swap connectors and things that I think would help your shop. If that above link don't work then goto www.lducompany.com and click on computer accessories. Let me know if that is what you need and give me your email address again. -- hdmyg8586 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Plextor 708A & 716A Won't burn CDR but will burn DVD | Brum1969 | Cdr | 5 | June 14th 05 06:58 PM |
Maxtor PowerMax "Burn In" Test - Destructive? | Paul Moloney | Storage (alternative) | 1 | August 7th 04 08:34 PM |
Call for a test on the D865PBZ Intel motherboard. | Giuseppe Vitillaro | Intel | 0 | July 26th 04 05:35 PM |
AMD vs Intel in stability test | nardia | Intel | 12 | November 17th 03 09:41 PM |
Nebie Overcloker burn baby burn! | Mr. Nangla | Overclocking AMD Processors | 1 | June 29th 03 11:38 PM |