Do you desire a program? Because Prime95 is pretty much the defacto standard. (Link)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pablo 54
Dunno if that's been posted already.
Printable View
Do you desire a program? Because Prime95 is pretty much the defacto standard. (Link)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pablo 54
Dunno if that's been posted already.
didn't know there was a 64bit version of Prime95! :-DQuote:
Originally Posted by TehYoyo
Hay hay! Learn something new everyday!Quote:
Originally Posted by CDsDontBurn
It makes sense I guess... most people OC'ing by now probably have 64-bit systems... although 64-bit for something as primitive as Prime95.... eh.
Quoted b/c it rhymes :DQuote:
Originally Posted by TehYoyo
Personally, I'm using Prime95 32-bit (or at least, whatever was around a few years ago). I don't think it really matters. I'm not really benchmarking in Prime95.
It doesn't matter. The point of the program for 99% of the people using it is stability. A 32bit program can address all the cores in todays modern systems when built specifically to address a load to each thread.
But would a 32bit burn-in program be able to address 64bit extensions of a CPU even if the program is coded to use all the cores? Perhaps a system would be able to run perfectly in 32bit environment but there might be something wrong in one of the cores' 64bit extensions that the user would not know about.Quote:
Originally Posted by PP Mguire
Most stability problems come from heat or lack of voltage. If it is stable in 32bit with those set right, usually the program will run perfectly fine in x64. I have never had specific crashing personally.
Considering 64bit programs usually are only made that way to utilize natively memory addresses beyond 32bit I don't see where it would make a difference.
Is the OP only looking for memory based testing?
for graphic card stress testing, there is also "FurMark" which is a burn in test for graphic cards :)
I find FurMark to be a controversial. Not sure if it's because of everything I've read or if it's because of how I do testing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDsDontBurn
What have you read about it?
Furmark puts more of a load on graphics cards than a normal load. It can sometimes cause weak cards to go poof. The same can be said on some of these CPU stress programs though.
And that's where I'm torn on this. I like to use FurMark because I want to ensure that the card is properly working and if it fails FurMark, then it won't continue any additional QA testing. But I've also read that FurMark will cause a good card's life span to be shortened as the stress on components caused by FurMark take their toll on the components and effectively reduces the card's lifespan. So, IDK. I'm personally torn on using FurMark because of this kind of stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by PP Mguire
For the card to have any damage to begin with it has to be defective or damaged really. The amount it may reduce lifespan is the same as regular gaming. These tests like Furmark are not meant to be left running in the least.
Yeah any burn in test will naturally reduce the life of your hardware. Its like leaving your system on for a long period. Only that it pushes it to the limit within a small time :-)
Well, thanks for the suggestions. I will use Prime95 64bit when I can wrestle the computer back from my wife, who does not think it is a problem to download every "free" coupon link on the d**n Internets. :givebeer: I now have four toolbars and some shopping popups. Once she is done, I am going to do a clean re-install and start over. On my F@H box, I found out that though the q9550 that I am using can take a lot of heat it can't run for more than 4 hours with even the slightest OC. The bump in PPD is not worth buying a water block etc.