Intel Burn Test & LL integrity

hj47 · 2010-01-25, 04:48

Sup dawgs

So I've been crunching at 3.2GHz on my i5 750 for a week or so now but have decided to crank up the clocks. I have the system on 3.8GHz with 1.312V, and it has passed the intel burn test (linx) successfully set on maximum memory saturation and ran through 50 runs (which took about 80 minutes).

Am I right to say I shouldn't have jeopardised the integrity of my (future) LL results?

retina · 2010-01-25, 05:23

I think if you want to ensure that your system is stable for Prime95 then you should be running Prime95. Running some other test program will only prove it to be stable for that other test program.

hj47 · 2010-01-25, 06:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by retina

I think if you want to ensure that your system is stable for Prime95 then you should be running Prime95. Running some other test program will only prove it to be stable for that other test program.

Yes but I have had prime95 run for an hour without error, then as soon as I use linx it often fails within the first or second test...

retina · 2010-01-25, 08:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by hj47

Yes but I have had prime95 run for an hour without error, then as soon as I use linx it often fails within the first or second test...

Well same thing applies I guess. If you want to ensure that your system is stable for Linx then you should run Linx. Running Prime95 will only prove it to be stable for Prime95. Other apps/OSes will use different resources/drivers/hardware etc. So even if Prime95 passes all tests perfectly for a week that still doesn't mean your X graphics driver is going to work perfectly when you start editing a PNG file.

hj47 · 2010-01-25, 10:52

In that case I guess doing 100 runs of linx + 12 hours of blend + 12 hours small FFT + 12 hours of large FFT's test should suffice?

garo · 2010-01-25, 13:59

Not really. It might find a problem or it might not find a problem. Your best bet would be to dedicate your hottest core to doublechecks and check if you get any errors/mismatches. BTW, 1.312 is a bit low. I got to 3.8 but had to up it to 1.375 to avoid once a week errors.

petrw1 · 2010-01-25, 14:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by garo

Not really. It might find a problem or it might not find a problem. Your best bet would be to dedicate your hottest core to doublechecks and check if you get any errors/mismatches. BTW, 1.312 is a bit low. I got to 3.8 but had to up it to 1.375 to avoid once a week errors.

So you've been running 3.8 since November without any errors?
I need to try to bump mine up more.

I used the stardard EasyTune which maxes at 3.2. I'm getting DC iteration times of 20 to 21 ms.

Thanks

Jeff Gilchrist · 2010-01-25, 18:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by hj47

In that case I guess doing 100 runs of linx + 12 hours of blend + 12 hours small FFT + 12 hours of large FFT's test should suffice?

As Garo said, the best thing to do is let Prime95 run in the OS you will be using to do double checks. If you are running say 4 double checks at the same time to stress all 4 of your physical cores, then when that set is done, you can check the Prime95 server to see if the results match the previous one. If they all match you should be good since it will take days to complete the test.

I have had cases where running a day of Intel Burn Test and a day of Prime95 torture tests did not find any problems but running something for days or weeks would error out. Turned out in my case the voltage was a little to low but not enough to notice any problems for every day stuff.

Jeff.

garo · 2010-01-25, 21:53

I was running 3.8GHz at 1.35V and I got errors. I have not had any errors since I upped the voltage to 1.375V. I still have a couple of unconfirmed results so I'll wait until they are confirmed/rejected before deciding to go down to 3.6V.

hj47 · 2010-01-26, 02:27

This is interesting, argh now I've gotta find the sweetspot for performance/voltage/temperature/reliability.

Doublechecking is the only way to go I guess.

Cheers

mdettweiler · 2010-01-26, 04:07

This thread may be of some relevance here--there's an example of a setup that passed Intel Burn Test but failed Prime95's Large and Blend tests. Perhaps the Intel Burn Test only does the equivalent of Prime95's small-FFT test? (Disclaimer: I've never used the IBT myself.)

2010-01-25, 04:48	#1
hj47 Oct 2008 2⁶ Posts	Intel Burn Test & LL integrity Sup dawgs So I've been crunching at 3.2GHz on my i5 750 for a week or so now but have decided to crank up the clocks. I have the system on 3.8GHz with 1.312V, and it has passed the intel burn test (linx) successfully set on maximum memory saturation and ran through 50 runs (which took about 80 minutes). Am I right to say I shouldn't have jeopardised the integrity of my (future) LL results? Last fiddled with by hj47 on 2010-01-25 at 04:49

2010-01-25, 10:52	#5
hj47 Oct 2008 2⁶ Posts	In that case I guess doing 100 runs of linx + 12 hours of blend + 12 hours small FFT + 12 hours of large FFT's test should suffice? Last fiddled with by hj47 on 2010-01-25 at 11:08

2010-01-26, 04:07	#11
mdettweiler A Sunny Moo Aug 2007 USA (GMT-5) 3·2,083 Posts	This thread may be of some relevance here--there's an example of a setup that passed Intel Burn Test but failed Prime95's Large and Blend tests. Perhaps the Intel Burn Test only does the equivalent of Prime95's small-FFT test? (Disclaimer: I've never used the IBT myself.) Last fiddled with by mdettweiler on 2010-01-26 at 04:07

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Modifying the Lucas Lehmer Primality Test into a fast test of nothing	Trilo	Miscellaneous Math	25	2018-03-11 23:20
Integrity check of Prime95 archive?	WaiCeeh	Software	18	2017-06-23 14:26
Intel software emulator lets you test drive AVX-512	tServo	Hardware	0	2016-04-01 15:31
Anomaly after ECM report; possible ECM data base integrity problem	cheesehead	PrimeNet	8	2013-09-01 04:27
A primality test for Fermat numbers faster than Pépin's test ?	T.Rex	Math	0	2004-10-26 21:37

2010-01-25, 05:23	#2
retina Undefined "The unspeakable one" Jun 2006 My evil lair 2²×1,549 Posts	I think if you want to ensure that your system is stable for Prime95 then you should be running Prime95. Running some other test program will only prove it to be stable for that other test program.

2010-01-25, 13:59	#6
garo Aug 2002 Termonfeckin, IE 101011001100₂ Posts	Not really. It might find a problem or it might not find a problem. Your best bet would be to dedicate your hottest core to doublechecks and check if you get any errors/mismatches. BTW, 1.312 is a bit low. I got to 3.8 but had to up it to 1.375 to avoid once a week errors.

2010-01-25, 21:53	#9
garo Aug 2002 Termonfeckin, IE 2²×691 Posts	I was running 3.8GHz at 1.35V and I got errors. I have not had any errors since I upped the voltage to 1.375V. I still have a couple of unconfirmed results so I'll wait until they are confirmed/rejected before deciding to go down to 3.6V.

2010-01-26, 02:27	#10
hj47 Oct 2008 1000000₂ Posts	This is interesting, argh now I've gotta find the sweetspot for performance/voltage/temperature/reliability. Doublechecking is the only way to go I guess. Cheers