SkylakeX teasers (aka prime95 29.5) - Page 11

kriesel · 2019-01-04, 16:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prime95

Aaargh! Why can't I reproduce the hang! Makes debugging much harder.

For those that can reproduce it quickly, does a normal torture test or daily work ever hang? If you add "TortureTestThreads=<# of logical cores>" to prime.txt and then run a torture test with just one worker, does that hang?

In the meantime, I'll re-examine the bench code.

The same i7-8750H system I have that stalls or crashes in benchmark in 29.5b5 or b6 has passed double check in 29.4b8 and seems pretty solid in 83M PRP in 29.4b8, although I recall a crash in 29.4b8 a while back.

How do I limit it to one worker in Torture Test? It insists on running or at least displaying 6 workers. CPU utilization seems low. The system's power settings are for max performance.

Maybe you have rock solid hardware, and we don't?
Maybe it's a subtle cpu model difference?
We're using different benchmark settings?
I've downloaded the linux flavor and will try putting up a linux Virtualbox VM on the same system that's having stalls and an occasional crash on Windows. (Newest hardware I have, but that doesn't rule out it being a lemon, sheesh!)

Oops, "logical cores" = with hyperthreading? 6 --> 12 test coming

GP2 · 2019-01-04, 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prime95

Aaargh! Why can't I reproduce the hang! Makes debugging much harder.

Maybe try introducing delays of randomly-generated length on the fly in each of the various threads of a many-core machine. That should rapidly expose any underlying issue that implicitly relies on timing or timely release of resources.

chalsall · 2019-01-04, 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by kriesel

I've downloaded the linux flavor and will try putting up a linux Virtualbox VM on the same system that's having stalls and an occasional crash on Windows. (Newest hardware I have, but that doesn't rule out it being a lemon, sheesh!)

I would suggest against that (feel free to do it, but I don't think it Makes Sense ^(TM)).

Introducing an abstraction (read: virtualization) layer /probably/ won't tell us much. What I would suggest you do instead (if you're willing) is "dual-boot" your kit somehow. Sub-partition your hard-drive, "live-boot" from a CD/DVR and/or build a USB bootable stick with a native Linux environment.

We're trying to figure out the parameters of the manifestation of this bug. Being "bare metal" helps reducing variables (IMO)....

kladner · 2019-01-05, 02:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prime95

Aaargh! Why can't I reproduce the hang! Makes debugging much harder.

For those that can reproduce it quickly, does a normal torture test or daily work ever hang? If you add "TortureTestThreads=<# of logical cores>" to prime.txt and then run a torture test with just one worker, does that hang?

In the meantime, I'll re-examine the bench code.

I will run some tests and report.

Prime95 · 2019-01-05, 06:14

There is a small chance that setting "AffinityVerbosityBench=1" in prime.txt would shed some light on the benchmark problem.

tshinozk · 2019-01-05, 11:46

>The hangs reported in benchmarking. Please try again with this release.
In Windows 10, I still have the issue on v29.5b6 as well.

>I cannot get it to happen in Linux. Is this a Windows-only issue?
I have installed CentOS 7 in the machine few days ago.
In linux, I see that there is the issue.
In order to fluctuate the timings, I need to run two instances of prime95 simultaneously.
After the hung, to exit, I select 5. But I can not exit.

Code:

Your choice: 5

[Jan 5 19:47] Stopping all worker threads.
Waiting for worker threads to stop.

Waiting for worker threads to stop.
Waiting for worker threads to stop.
Waiting for worker threads to stop.
Waiting for worker threads to stop.
Waiting for worker threads to stop.
Waiting for worker threads to stop.
Waiting for worker threads to stop.
Waiting for worker threads to stop.
Waiting for worker threads to stop.
Waiting for worker threads to stop.
Waiting for worker threads to stop.
Waiting for worker threads to stop.

kriesel · 2019-01-05, 14:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

I would suggest against that (feel free to do it, but I don't think it Makes Sense ^(TM)).

Introducing an abstraction (read: virtualization) layer /probably/ won't tell us much. What I would suggest you do instead (if you're willing) is "dual-boot" your kit somehow. Sub-partition your hard-drive, "live-boot" from a CD/DVR and/or build a USB bootable stick with a native Linux environment.

We're trying to figure out the parameters of the manifestation of this bug. Being "bare metal" helps reducing variables (IMO)....

Point taken, separate/reduce/at least don't introduce lightly more variables. Might be interesting though, if Win 10 and linux act one way, linux on VB (or Win7 on VB) acts another, on the same physical kit.
I could experiment on another axis also; try v29.5b6 benchmark on multiple hardware models, same OS. (And one system already has Win 10 base, Win7 and linux on VB.)

On the same problematic i7-8750H/Win10 system, prime95 v29.5b6 passed torture tests of multiple hours duration each, with 6 threads, and with 12 threads hyperthreaded. May try a live CD or DVD or USB or second-HD located linux & mprime later.

FYI, almost all my usage of this Win 10 system is via TightVNC remote access.

The prime95 benchmark hangs on Win 10 exhibit similar won't terminate itself behavior as another poster described under linux; I have to kill the prime95 process with Task Manager to restart and retry, and upon benchmark stall, the cpu usage of the prime95 process is nil.

On the chance that user interaction plays a role in the benchmark stalls, I'm avoiding it while a benchmark runs, limiting activity to returning to the session and looking at the time stamps in the benchmark run or torture test.

"AffinityVerbosityBench=1" will retry with this in place.

kriesel · 2019-01-05, 16:06

Update:
"AffinityVerbosityBench=1" retry with this in place on the i7-8750H Win 10 system; 1024k-32768k benchmark attempt

Last portion of results.txt, after launching benchmark with the above in place, 1-4,6,12 workers attempted, 1-4,6 occurring; output/progress ceased at 9:21am local.
Test, Stop entered at 9:29am, still hadn't completed the stop action at 9:47, End Task with Task Manager had immediate effect. Apparently there's a very long timeout or no timeout on loss of contact with threads or whatever's going amiss.

Code:

[Sat Jan 05 09:17:04 2019]
Timings for 1680K FFT length (6 cores hyperthreaded, 6 workers): 31.42, 25.10, 25.07, 23.50, 26.00, 23.62 ms.  Throughput: 234.92 iter/sec.
Timings for 1728K FFT length (6 cores, 1 worker):  3.42 ms.  Throughput: 292.20 iter/sec.
Timings for 1728K FFT length (6 cores, 2 workers):  7.94,  7.56 ms.  Throughput: 258.22 iter/sec.
Timings for 1728K FFT length (6 cores, 3 workers): 11.85, 12.13, 11.83 ms.  Throughput: 251.29 iter/sec.
Timings for 1728K FFT length (6 cores, 4 workers): 24.83, 23.89, 12.09, 11.93 ms.  Throughput: 248.65 iter/sec.
Timings for 1728K FFT length (6 cores, 6 workers): 25.21, 24.22, 25.19, 24.52, 24.24, 24.63 ms.  Throughput: 243.27 iter/sec.
Timings for 1728K FFT length (6 cores hyperthreaded, 1 worker):  3.72 ms.  Throughput: 268.72 iter/sec.
Timings for 1728K FFT length (6 cores hyperthreaded, 2 workers):  8.77,  8.12 ms.  Throughput: 237.18 iter/sec.
Timings for 1728K FFT length (6 cores hyperthreaded, 3 workers): 13.57, 12.20, 12.84 ms.  Throughput: 233.53 iter/sec.
Timings for 1728K FFT length (6 cores hyperthreaded, 4 workers): 28.73, 26.19, 12.30, 12.53 ms.  Throughput: 234.05 iter/sec.
Timings for 1728K FFT length (6 cores hyperthreaded, 6 workers): 29.67, 25.68, 25.56, 24.46, 27.18, 24.33 ms.  Throughput: 230.56 iter/sec.
Timings for 1792K FFT length (6 cores, 1 worker):  3.56 ms.  Throughput: 280.56 iter/sec.
Timings for 1792K FFT length (6 cores, 2 workers):  8.32,  7.79 ms.  Throughput: 248.56 iter/sec.
Timings for 1792K FFT length (6 cores, 3 workers): 12.58, 12.72, 12.33 ms.  Throughput: 239.17 iter/sec.
Timings for 1792K FFT length (6 cores, 4 workers): 25.20, 24.58, 12.63, 12.48 ms.  Throughput: 239.67 iter/sec.
Timings for 1792K FFT length (6 cores, 6 workers): 25.35, 24.80, 25.69, 25.83, 25.07, 25.18 ms.  Throughput: 237.03 iter/sec.
Timings for 1792K FFT length (6 cores hyperthreaded, 1 worker):  3.83 ms.  Throughput: 261.34 iter/sec.
Timings for 1792K FFT length (6 cores hyperthreaded, 2 workers):  8.92,  8.50 ms.  Throughput: 229.80 iter/sec.
Timings for 1792K FFT length (6 cores hyperthreaded, 3 workers): 13.73, 13.03, 13.31 ms.  Throughput: 224.66 iter/sec.
Timings for 1792K FFT length (6 cores hyperthreaded, 4 workers): 29.14, 26.61, 13.06, 13.19 ms.  Throughput: 224.27 iter/sec.

Approx 8% cpu usage is task manager and GPU-Z sessions. George, let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to capture, attach, post, send, add, test...

Prime95 · 2019-01-06, 01:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by kriesel

\George, let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to capture, attach, post, send, add, test...

This bug is really annoying me. Still not reproducible here.

Good news, I did find a corruption bug. Bad news, it had nothing to do with the benchmark bug. Do not use TortureTestThreads until next build.

Ken, please download https://www.dropbox.com/s/sc4ib5v4f4...ime95.zip?dl=0 and try again. You'll need to maximize the worker window to display the blizzard of print statements. Send a screen shot once it hangs. Thanks

kriesel · 2019-01-06, 04:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prime95

This bug is really annoying me. Still not reproducible here.

Good news, I did find a corruption bug. Bad news, it had nothing to do with the benchmark bug. Do not use TortureTestThreads until next build.

Ken, please download https://www.dropbox.com/s/sc4ib5v4f4...ime95.zip?dl=0 and try again. You'll need to maximize the worker window to display the blizzard of print statements. Send a screen shot once it hangs. Thanks

Will do.
Meanwhile, I have the results of a benchmark run of v29.5b6 on a dual-e5645 Xeon Win 7 system. Sailed through 1024k-32768k first try.

Note, Total throughput text is still clipped off for some 12-worker cases in 12-core systems. If you switched the output form in the worker window from "Total throughput x.xx iter/sec" to "Total x.xx Iter/sec throughput" text would get clipped instead of numerical data. Or skip "Total " as you do in the results.txt format.

Code:

[Jan 5 20:36] Timing 21504K FFT, 12 cores, 1 worker.  Average times: 81.12 ms.  Total throughput: 12.33 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:37] Timing 21504K FFT, 12 cores, 2 workers.  Average times: 157.46, 157.35 ms.  Total throughput: 12.71 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:37] Timing 21504K FFT, 12 cores, 3 workers.  Average times: 311.79, 323.75, 165.02 ms.  Total throughput: 12.36 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:37] Timing 21504K FFT, 12 cores, 4 workers.  Average times: 312.67, 313.44, 348.35, 348.70 ms.  Total throughput: 12.13 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:38] Timing 21504K FFT, 12 cores, 6 workers.  Average times: 475.69, 484.02, 481.41, 480.96, 487.09, 486.43 ms.  Total throughput: 12.43 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:38] Timing 21504K FFT, 12 cores, 12 workers.  Average times: 971.08, 974.40, 974.18, 962.21, 943.88, 939.97, 954.09, 955.56, 956.75, 949.31, 963.49, 963.34 ms.  Total throughput: 12.51 iter
[Jan 5 20:39] Timing 22400K FFT, 12 cores, 1 worker.  Average times: 82.97 ms.  Total throughput: 12.05 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:39] Timing 22400K FFT, 12 cores, 2 workers.  Average times: 160.67, 160.41 ms.  Total throughput: 12.46 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:40] Timing 22400K FFT, 12 cores, 3 workers.  Average times: 322.66, 320.49, 160.98 ms.  Total throughput: 12.43 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:40] Timing 22400K FFT, 12 cores, 4 workers.  Average times: 327.14, 321.35, 320.77, 320.92 ms.  Total throughput: 12.40 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:40] Timing 22400K FFT, 12 cores, 6 workers.  Average times: 488.13, 488.01, 475.06, 476.70, 483.01, 483.20 ms.  Total throughput: 12.44 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:41] Timing 22400K FFT, 12 cores, 12 workers.  Average times: 1016.01, 1032.88, 984.82, 1028.24, 978.65, 1005.78, 1020.65, 1020.07, 1028.34, 1019.69, 1028.82, 990.20 ms.  Total throughput: 1
[Jan 5 20:41] Timing 23040K FFT, 12 cores, 1 worker.  Average times: 100.35 ms.  Total throughput:  9.97 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:42] Timing 23040K FFT, 12 cores, 2 workers.  Average times: 183.73, 183.17 ms.  Total throughput: 10.90 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:42] Timing 23040K FFT, 12 cores, 3 workers.  Average times: 371.46, 363.97, 181.37 ms.  Total throughput: 10.95 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:43] Timing 23040K FFT, 12 cores, 4 workers.  Average times: 363.03, 363.98, 361.34, 373.01 ms.  Total throughput: 10.95 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:43] Timing 23040K FFT, 12 cores, 6 workers.  Average times: 551.46, 540.77, 549.36, 534.70, 537.79, 570.63 ms.  Total throughput: 10.96 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:43] Timing 23040K FFT, 12 cores, 12 workers.  Average times: 1068.93, 1090.56, 1077.05, 1083.70, 1067.78, 1066.30, 1073.52, 1075.63, 1079.55, 1071.14, 1075.82, 1077.28 ms.  Total throughput
[Jan 5 20:44] Timing 24576K FFT, 12 cores, 1 worker.  Average times: 105.53 ms.  Total throughput:  9.48 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:44] Timing 24576K FFT, 12 cores, 2 workers.  Average times: 204.66, 204.39 ms.  Total throughput:  9.78 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:45] Timing 24576K FFT, 12 cores, 3 workers.  Average times: 406.34, 440.22, 241.51 ms.  Total throughput:  8.87 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:45] Timing 24576K FFT, 12 cores, 4 workers.  Average times: 405.03, 428.20, 430.56, 425.28 ms.  Total throughput:  9.48 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:46] Timing 24576K FFT, 12 cores, 6 workers.  Average times: 617.83, 630.41, 626.15, 625.74, 628.42, 629.42 ms.  Total throughput:  9.58 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:46] Timing 24576K FFT, 12 cores, 12 workers.  Average times: 1275.39, 1272.77, 1283.75, 1262.79, 1241.40, 1245.75, 1249.95, 1250.42, 1261.52, 1254.78, 1252.06, 1250.59 ms.  Total throughput
[Jan 5 20:47] Timing 25600K FFT, 12 cores, 1 worker.  Average times: 96.05 ms.  Total throughput: 10.41 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:47] Timing 25600K FFT, 12 cores, 2 workers.  Average times: 188.40, 186.79 ms.  Total throughput: 10.66 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:47] Timing 25600K FFT, 12 cores, 3 workers.  Average times: 378.71, 385.27, 186.03 ms.  Total throughput: 10.61 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:48] Timing 25600K FFT, 12 cores, 4 workers.  Average times: 391.74, 376.24, 394.70, 376.82 ms.  Total throughput: 10.40 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:48] Timing 25600K FFT, 12 cores, 6 workers.  Average times: 570.79, 577.88, 581.65, 563.69, 565.68, 579.46 ms.  Total throughput: 10.47 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:49] Timing 25600K FFT, 12 cores, 12 workers.  Average times: 1249.77, 1148.24, 1259.41, 1267.43, 1245.39, 1208.97, 1255.04, 1251.01, 1124.25, 1254.11, 1257.67, 1121.12 ms.  Total throughput
[Jan 5 20:49] Timing 26880K FFT, 12 cores, 1 worker.  Average times: 109.05 ms.  Total throughput:  9.17 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:50] Timing 26880K FFT, 12 cores, 2 workers.  Average times: 213.21, 212.27 ms.  Total throughput:  9.40 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:50] Timing 26880K FFT, 12 cores, 3 workers.  Average times: 419.27, 453.32, 225.28 ms.  Total throughput:  9.03 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:51] Timing 26880K FFT, 12 cores, 4 workers.  Average times: 428.17, 427.53, 432.34, 434.44 ms.  Total throughput:  9.29 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:51] Timing 26880K FFT, 12 cores, 6 workers.  Average times: 654.27, 647.46, 628.77, 634.22, 640.63, 646.56 ms.  Total throughput:  9.35 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:51] Timing 26880K FFT, 12 cores, 12 workers.  Average times: 1303.25, 1296.47, 1290.20, 1300.55, 1286.48, 1279.56, 1295.22, 1284.67, 1288.10, 1272.65, 1283.77, 1285.87 ms.  Total throughput
[Jan 5 20:52] Timing 27648K FFT, 12 cores, 1 worker.  Average times: 134.32 ms.  Total throughput:  7.44 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:52] Timing 27648K FFT, 12 cores, 2 workers.  Average times: 266.76, 266.56 ms.  Total throughput:  7.50 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:53] Timing 27648K FFT, 12 cores, 3 workers.  Average times: 531.02, 534.64, 267.37 ms.  Total throughput:  7.49 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:53] Timing 27648K FFT, 12 cores, 4 workers.  Average times: 534.11, 531.60, 520.13, 541.90 ms.  Total throughput:  7.52 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:54] Timing 27648K FFT, 12 cores, 6 workers.  Average times: 800.62, 799.37, 797.21, 805.42, 787.85, 792.13 ms.  Total throughput:  7.53 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:54] Timing 27648K FFT, 12 cores, 12 workers.  Average times: 1552.78, 1612.64, 1578.00, 1559.49, 1528.68, 1564.19, 1566.09, 1574.43, 1582.52, 1572.21, 1574.04, 1580.16 ms.  Total throughput
[Jan 5 20:55] Timing 28672K FFT, 12 cores, 1 worker.  Average times: 125.84 ms.  Total throughput:  7.95 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:55] Timing 28672K FFT, 12 cores, 2 workers.  Average times: 234.00, 232.80 ms.  Total throughput:  8.57 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:56] Timing 28672K FFT, 12 cores, 3 workers.  Average times: 461.12, 468.20, 235.35 ms.  Total throughput:  8.55 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:56] Timing 28672K FFT, 12 cores, 4 workers.  Average times: 465.00, 465.19, 466.49, 465.02 ms.  Total throughput:  8.59 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:56] Timing 28672K FFT, 12 cores, 6 workers.  Average times: 697.85, 700.89, 690.63, 698.31, 697.35, 697.49 ms.  Total throughput:  8.61 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:57] Timing 28672K FFT, 12 cores, 12 workers.  Average times: 1368.18, 1402.92, 1382.22, 1398.93, 1374.35, 1376.89, 1385.45, 1377.71, 1385.99, 1378.57, 1384.75, 1384.47 ms.  Total throughput
[Jan 5 20:57] Timing 30720K FFT, 12 cores, 1 worker.  Average times: 140.49 ms.  Total throughput:  7.12 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:58] Timing 30720K FFT, 12 cores, 2 workers.  Average times: 274.47, 274.16 ms.  Total throughput:  7.29 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:58] Timing 30720K FFT, 12 cores, 3 workers.  Average times: 544.92, 570.92, 286.47 ms.  Total throughput:  7.08 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:59] Timing 30720K FFT, 12 cores, 4 workers.  Average times: 545.28, 555.91, 548.20, 557.26 ms.  Total throughput:  7.25 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 20:59] Timing 30720K FFT, 12 cores, 6 workers.  Average times: 836.55, 835.95, 821.49, 827.23, 821.19, 821.73 ms.  Total throughput:  7.25 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 21:00] Timing 30720K FFT, 12 cores, 12 workers.  Average times: 1663.02, 1689.69, 1696.58, 1668.00, 1638.99, 1648.53, 1641.53, 1643.08, 1652.43, 1641.27, 1648.75, 1645.68 ms.  Total throughput
[Jan 5 21:00] Timing 32000K FFT, 12 cores, 1 worker.  Average times: 123.38 ms.  Total throughput:  8.11 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 21:01] Timing 32000K FFT, 12 cores, 2 workers.  Average times: 243.84, 243.11 ms.  Total throughput:  8.21 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 21:01] Timing 32000K FFT, 12 cores, 3 workers.  Average times: 520.20, 505.50, 244.08 ms.  Total throughput:  8.00 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 21:02] Timing 32000K FFT, 12 cores, 4 workers.  Average times: 489.42, 505.59, 496.57, 487.88 ms.  Total throughput:  8.08 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 21:02] Timing 32000K FFT, 12 cores, 6 workers.  Average times: 728.95, 727.52, 726.36, 793.27, 766.09, 732.92 ms.  Total throughput:  8.05 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 21:03] Timing 32000K FFT, 12 cores, 12 workers.  Average times: 1433.68, 1461.15, 1448.23, 1455.40, 1438.42, 1440.12, 1734.64, 1736.36, 1749.09, 1735.80, 1738.85, 1432.22 ms.  Total throughput
[Jan 5 21:03] Timing 32768K FFT, 12 cores, 1 worker.  Average times: 151.87 ms.  Total throughput:  6.58 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 21:04] Timing 32768K FFT, 12 cores, 2 workers.  Average times: 299.61, 299.12 ms.  Total throughput:  6.68 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 21:04] Timing 32768K FFT, 12 cores, 3 workers.  Average times: 596.61, 597.24, 299.28 ms.  Total throughput:  6.69 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 21:05] Timing 32768K FFT, 12 cores, 4 workers.  Average times: 598.63, 594.63, 704.11, 559.71 ms.  Total throughput:  6.56 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 21:05] Timing 32768K FFT, 12 cores, 6 workers.  Average times: 900.06, 895.47, 884.36, 890.30, 888.39, 894.85 ms.  Total throughput:  6.72 iter/sec.
[Jan 5 21:06] Timing 32768K FFT, 12 cores, 12 workers.  Average times: 1818.29, 1853.52, 1794.57, 1815.29, 1790.73, 1792.44, 1788.52, 1796.35, 1799.86, 1783.83, 1793.11, 1792.47 ms.  Total throughput
[Jan 5 21:06] 
[Jan 5 21:06] Throughput benchmark complete.
[Jan 5 21:06] Throughput benchmark complete.
 [Jan 5 21:06] Worker stopped.

Update: benchmark hang on i7-8750H Win10 didn't take long. See attachment.

ATH · 2019-01-06, 07:12

Core i7-8750H does not have AVX512 ? So it is freezing in AVX2 Benchmark using 29.5b6 ?

https://ark.intel.com/products/13490...p-to-4-10-GHz-

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us.../i7-8750h.html

2019-01-06, 07:12	#121
ATH Einyen Dec 2003 Denmark 2·1,579 Posts	Core i7-8750H does not have AVX512 ? So it is freezing in AVX2 Benchmark using 29.5b6 ? https://ark.intel.com/products/13490...p-to-4-10-GHz- https://www.intel.com/content/www/us.../i7-8750h.html Last fiddled with by ATH on 2019-01-06 at 07:13

2019-01-05, 06:14	#115
Prime95 P90 years forever! Aug 2002 Yeehaw, FL 2×3,767 Posts	There is a small chance that setting "AffinityVerbosityBench=1" in prime.txt would shed some light on the benchmark problem.