• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

cpu burn in, tests and results

turbotoaster

turbotoaster

turbotoaster

Associate
Joined
29 Dec 2005
Posts
1,194
a lot of people believe that cpu burning in is a load of rubbish and makes no difference, im going to have a go at it, ill be putting my results on this thread, so people can see for themselves, dont know if it does work but well see



to start fx60@200x13, dropped voltage until it failed [email protected], it failed at 26minutes

left it to dual burn for 6 hours, im now priming@202x13 and up to 43 minutes and still going as i type this

not great increase up to yet but will slowly get more

at the moment my best prime stable was 2.85ghz and benchable is 3.03ghz before any burn in, will update this thread everyday

also if ya have any success stories post them up and let us know
 
prime is useless, iv explained this many times before on this forum. snm is by far the most effective tool to use.
i have done various program testing and all prime is good for is wasting your time.

snm 2 hours max is all you need to test if it passes then move on.
 
I've passed 8hours of S&M and yet failed prime instantly. I doubt you will ever find that the other way around. Prime is a lot more sensative than S&M imo. Don't get me wrong S&M is usefull in that it will create higher CPU temps and detect some stability problems but continue testing when it does so as a burn in tool it is good and probably the best but if you really want to KNOW your PC is stable then prime is the way to go imo.

As for burn-in, imo I think its just a myth tbh. Burning a CPU in will only serve to 'set' the thermal paste both between the core and the IHS and the IHS and the HS resulting in lower temps enabling a higher clock at lower volts. Also while tweaking the settings you are alos becomming more accustommed as to what the cpu 'likes' and 'dislikes' and therefore are increasing the chances of it clocking better without any need for burn-in. I really hope I'm wrong but I have tried the burn-in process on 4 different cpu's with no better results. I hope you have better results. GL :)
 
snm is the prefered cpu tester on the XS forums. those guys there know what they are on about and they don't say something is good without sufficient evidence.

iv passed prime before on my xp-m at 2.6ghz but failed snm in about 3 mins.
you have to setup snm properly for it to use 100% cpu usage and to do the fpu test only.

SNM also isolates your cpu in the test so thats why you may have passed snm but in prime your ram is also being tested so if there is a memory error prime will abort.

snm with goldmemory is a brilliant combination for system stability testing. imo you must be really dumb to overclock a system and boot straight into windows without testing the memory first. memtest test 5 and 8 are good to do and test 8 is good to isolate command rate issues.
 
Have you got a link to it?

EDIT: Well I found a link to it but when I try to run it, it says "Unable to extract IO.sys. Log in as a user who has such permission."
 
Last edited:
well 6 hrs of cpu burn in at 204x13 went from 5 minutes 30 second to 2 minutes 15 seconds, so its dropped stability

will move onto 206x13 and burn, then go back to 204x13 and prime and see what happens
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom