OCCT - New Intel C2D Stabiltiy Testing application

BillR said:
Actually your English is pretty good.

I believe the phenomenon you are calling “bubbles” is actually “wait states” where the processor is actually looking for something to do. During those wait times, as a rule I believe most of the transistors are turned off. Also keep in mind RAM wait states add into the equation as well and these days of DDR2 I keep larger and larger numbers in RAM timings because the RAM can’t keep up with the CPU, not to mention the cache memory in the CPU is subject to these same latencies.

That being said, it looks like the stress tests simply turn on as many transistors as possible using complex code.

So, at what point does a given stress test ask more of the processor then any real world application, which again brings up what really is 100% CPU usage?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's wait states. You can have at least 2 different wait states i know of : one which is because of latency, i.e. cache reading delay, memory, HDD... if every instruction depend on that, the CPU will be forced to "IDLE"... and won't be able to do a thing meanwhile.

The other is induced by the CPU emptying its pipeline because one branching prediction was wrong. It's not really idling this time, but i think there will be one stage in the pipeline where nothing will be done.

Then, you can have much more wait states, especially if you look deep into the CPU architecture(there's an excellent article on xbitlabs about the "replay" feature in the netburst architecture, and how this can induce alot of delay).

Anyway, as it is now, i can't think of any other "real world" application that will be more demanding than OCCT, but for other stress tests. According to my tests, even encoding a movie is less demanding (i didn't test all the codecs !). And games have too many branching usually to be more demanding than OCCT. They are however more demanding on the power supply side however (CPU +GPU under full load).

So i guess 100% as displayed in Windows is viewed at the OS viewpoint : it does not scan what the CPU is actually really doing, it only reports that with the curret tasklist, the CPU is busy 100% of the time. It ignores the fact that the CPU can be busy... waiting ;)

I personally think this is right, as a regular user doesn't really care about the efficiency of a code, and thus doesn't care if the CPU is reported as 80%, as it is already under full load (the 100% under Windows/linux).

As for stability testing, your goal is, among others, to use as many transistors as you can. A good way is by using SSE, as it is using one of the biggest unit in the CPU, and doing repeatedly CPU cache hits (it is not that bad in terms on latency, if the code is done right, and you can see in any CPU blueprint how big the L2 cache is).

In fact, the more trasitors are involved, the more likely :
-You'll find a part that cannot take the current frequency (you're using as many parts as possible)
-You'll generate more heat (more transistors used = more heat, "Joule effect" (effet joule in french)), and that impacts stability as well
-You'll use more electricity, which in turns may point out a failing power supply.

In later versions of OCCT, i plan to add a module for testing the graphic card as well. The goal isn't to clone ATITool in artifact scanning, but just to load the power supply and see how it behaves when CPU and GPU(s) are both under full load.

And thanks for your remark about my english being good, i appreciate it :) I'm happy i am understandable :)
 
Props for creating this test and your English is better then good you are able to communicate this to me in a way that I can understand it when in truth I am a novice when it comes to code and architecture.(and I'm sure I spelled something wrong but you can still make out what I meant to say.) My only suggestion and keep in mind I am a novice and don't know if this is possible but if you could come up with a test to test the Memory such as Memtest that would be outstanding, as far as I know Memtest is the only program designed to stress the Memory OC and test for errors.
 
Nice program. Orthos was stable for 8 hours... but this thing failed after 3 minutes. Brought the voltage up one notch and passed this test. Very nice. PLEASE try to make a gpu OCing program thats compatible with Vista. I would seriously pay for it...

-juce
 
Great app. Nice work, its a great addition to the toolkit.

I still feel that these are not "stability" testers. They are extreme math accuracy testers. Under high strain and high heat, math accuracy *may* break down. Whether or not this effects actual system stability depends on a lot of variables.

People have chose to make this the meaure because it is easy for bragging rights and, to be honest, most people (I think) dont fully understand what is going on. They sort of fly generally blind with forum guidance and look for something easy like "24hrs Prime Stable" that sounds good.

Personally, I like the reassurance and validation that knowing an OCd machine managed to run one of these apps at 100% for dozens of hours. That said, if I took a web server that had run 24x7x365 for 3 years and it failed Prime in 3 mins, we're saying that machine was "unstable". No.

Similarly, if someone is able to complete all of their tasks as they need - gaming, ripping, surfing, what have you, and never crash (this is VERY likely), but bombs in Prime, how is that machine being fairly characterized as "unstable"?

I had a machine just like that. FX-60 pushed to 2.8. It would NEVER crash and could sail through EVERY "stability" test for days. Except Prime 95. That it would bomb in LITERALLY 4 seconds EVERY time. If you ran it at 2.7, it could run Prime for months.

So what are you building? A machine that runs Prime95 and nothing else? Some people seem to care more about Prime95 (or what have you), then really running the machine. If you're building a dedicated prime number calculator then thats a perfectly valid approach. For any machine that is going to get real-world usage, its really questionable how much effort and energy should be poured into it.
 
mlambert890 said:
Great app. Nice work, its a great addition to the toolkit.

I still feel that these are not "stability" testers. They are extreme math accuracy testers. Under high strain and high heat, math accuracy *may* break down. Whether or not this effects actual system stability depends on a lot of variables.

People have chose to make this the meaure because it is easy for bragging rights and, to be honest, most people (I think) dont fully understand what is going on. They sort of fly generally blind with forum guidance and look for something easy like "24hrs Prime Stable" that sounds good.

Personally, I like the reassurance and validation that knowing an OCd machine managed to run one of these apps at 100% for dozens of hours. That said, if I took a web server that had run 24x7x365 for 3 years and it failed Prime in 3 mins, we're saying that machine was "unstable". No.

Similarly, if someone is able to complete all of their tasks as they need - gaming, ripping, surfing, what have you, and never crash (this is VERY likely), but bombs in Prime, how is that machine being fairly characterized as "unstable"?

I had a machine just like that. FX-60 pushed to 2.8. It would NEVER crash and could sail through EVERY "stability" test for days. Except Prime 95. That it would bomb in LITERALLY 4 seconds EVERY time. If you ran it at 2.7, it could run Prime for months.

So what are you building? A machine that runs Prime95 and nothing else? Some people seem to care more about Prime95 (or what have you), then really running the machine. If you're building a dedicated prime number calculator then thats a perfectly valid approach. For any machine that is going to get real-world usage, its really questionable how much effort and energy should be poured into it.
Click to expand...

Excellent points, mlambert, though I think you struck on the reason for ppl being so caught up in Prime testing and didn't realize it :) If your rig can survive a 24 hour burn-in, you essentially have a completely rock-solid, infallible setup that can run at the extreme. By the same token, a setup that can't run Prime95 that long (your server example for instance) may very well be completely stable during real-world usage but that's because real-world usage doesn't push a machine anywhere near as hard as torture testing. Enthusiasts simply want that extra assurance that their setups aren't going to crash during long intensive periods. After all, if you can survive Prime for 24 hours then you can pretty much survive anything. There's stable and then there's stable and it's the latter that Prime testers are trying to achieve.
 
Fair points and I do think that these tools are an invaluable resource (I use them all). Im just a stickler for folks who may be learning from what they see on enthusiast sites not being left with an incorrect impression. Of course Im sure that most posters on [H] "get it" though, so Ill hop off my soap box :D
 
valid points, but the problem for some (just some) is that real world usage does mean 100% loads and that is what prime and other torture tests check.

I do video encoding and lots of compressing/extracting work on my machine (lots of data moving around :p) and a "stable" machine for real world is not good enough as when put with the task of encoding or something like that it will fail as well or just plane freeze/screwup. Prime is an easy way to check for the issues before they crop up in critical areas.



On another note, some feedback on OCCT. For OCing my C2Ds (e6400 and e6600) I have found it works out very nicely to find crashes early. What before took me maybe 3hrs to find that it was instable now usually pops up in the 30mins of a OCCT test.

I do still run Orthos after i get stable in OCCT for 30mins as Orthos can still fail even if OCCT says the processor is good for 30 mins.

OCCT is priceless though in its ability to find instability quicker for a quick check while trying to find the sweet spot for an OC :)
 
shmitty said:
Props for creating this test and your English is better then good you are able to communicate this to me in a way that I can understand it when in truth I am a novice when it comes to code and architecture.(and I'm sure I spelled something wrong but you can still make out what I meant to say.) My only suggestion and keep in mind I am a novice and don't know if this is possible but if you could come up with a test to test the Memory such as Memtest that would be outstanding, as far as I know Memtest is the only program designed to stress the Memory OC and test for errors.
Click to expand...


It is planned and "almost" there (the algorithm is done, it is compiled, running, and working internally, now it has to work everywhere, and that takes much longer).

I hope to have that in a beta in 2 to 3 weeks from now. It'll probably be included in the new "auto" test.
 
mlambert890 said:
Great app. Nice work, its a great addition to the toolkit.

I still feel that these are not "stability" testers. They are extreme math accuracy testers. Under high strain and high heat, math accuracy *may* break down. Whether or not this effects actual system stability depends on a lot of variables.

People have chose to make this the meaure because it is easy for bragging rights and, to be honest, most people (I think) dont fully understand what is going on. They sort of fly generally blind with forum guidance and look for something easy like "24hrs Prime Stable" that sounds good.

Personally, I like the reassurance and validation that knowing an OCd machine managed to run one of these apps at 100% for dozens of hours. That said, if I took a web server that had run 24x7x365 for 3 years and it failed Prime in 3 mins, we're saying that machine was "unstable". No.

Similarly, if someone is able to complete all of their tasks as they need - gaming, ripping, surfing, what have you, and never crash (this is VERY likely), but bombs in Prime, how is that machine being fairly characterized as "unstable"?

I had a machine just like that. FX-60 pushed to 2.8. It would NEVER crash and could sail through EVERY "stability" test for days. Except Prime 95. That it would bomb in LITERALLY 4 seconds EVERY time. If you ran it at 2.7, it could run Prime for months.

So what are you building? A machine that runs Prime95 and nothing else? Some people seem to care more about Prime95 (or what have you), then really running the machine. If you're building a dedicated prime number calculator then thats a perfectly valid approach. For any machine that is going to get real-world usage, its really questionable how much effort and energy should be poured into it.
Click to expand...

You really have some points here. That's the main reason i keep the Auto test to 30 min :No "real world" app is going to make your CPU fail if OCCT can last 25min of its very demanding test.

But again, everything inside your CPU is math. Every program is. Problem is when OCCT fails, there's ALWAYS a slight prbability that the error will occur during a regular program. Always. The probability may be the very same as winning a national lottery 1st prize, but it *CAN* happens.

Often, when you have OCCT's error, all it takes is a few less MHz to make it OCCT stable. That is : make the probability virtually disappear. That a crash will never occur. And will you see the few Mhz less ? Probably not.

Personally, i pick the OCCT stable case for my own computer (everything would be ridiculous though :D :D ). The main reason is i *HATE* crashes, and i prefer loosing 2 seconds in encoding a whole movie, or 0.01fps in Prey, in order to make sure the movie isn't corrupted (even if it is not likely to happen), or having my game crash when i'm kicking the final boss's ass :D

Everything in stability checking is probabilities. OCCT will help you in detecting the small probabilities. But then, it's up to you to decide if it does matter or not.

I'm developing under VMWare, and i know the physical limits of my own CPU. Sometimes, i'm developing and testing when my computer is OCCT unstable. Everything goes fine, but it is unstable. I'm always a bit scared when i do that :D

Finally (Teammates are waiting for me for a meeting :/ I've got to conclude ), i'd say that your stability test would be... using your own computer, and see if it crashes ;) That only can give you a real insight on how stable your computer is for your own usage. I canot think of any test being able to test it that way and seeding the process, unfortunatly... OCCT is for people who never want their overclock to generate an error ever, and i think it is good at what it does :)
 
(Posting while in a meeting is bad : don't do it).

If you a way to spread OCCT in the US, not for fame or anything but to help people overclocking, please do so :) OCCT being free, it's just a matter of it getting known, nothing else ;)

Thanks if you can spread it a tad :)
 
Ardrid said:
After all, if you can survive Prime for 24 hours then you can pretty much survive anything. There's stable and then there's stable and it's the latter that Prime testers are trying to achieve.
Click to expand...

IME that's not quite true - I have a machine that can pass any of the common stress testers for 24+ hours at a time, Prime95, Orthos, OCCT, even the [H] stress test (triple Prime95, looping 3DMark06 and looping IOMeter). However, I would get errors when burning DVDs (using verify function in Nero and MD5 hash checking - no errors viewable on a played DVD) and errors in Quickpar where certain files needed 30-40% more PARs to recover than usual. After retreating to stock speeds and finding everything worked fine, I concluded that I needed more VCore, and what do you know, a slight, 0.05V bump resulted in no DVD burning errors and no errors in Quickpar. Both of those programs are VERY low "stress" - neither results in more than 50% CPU usage at most - however I traced errors in both programs to a supposedly stable overclock.

The point that mlambert890 brings up is spot on IMO - the common CPU stress testing software are extreme math accuracy checkers, and CPU heat inducers, not necessarily real-world "perfection" (no errors) checkers. I mean, I bet AMD/Intel don't use prime number generators to test their CPUs. That's one reason why overclocking works - if overclockers used the same tests as AMD/Intel, then nothing would pass - but IMO after the "simple" stress testers (Orthos, Prime95, OCCT, etc.) you need to run a system in daily use and see what (if anything) happens.
 
theelectic said:
IME that's not quite true - I have a machine that can pass any of the common stress testers for 24+ hours at a time, Prime95, Orthos, OCCT, even the [H] stress test (triple Prime95, looping 3DMark06 and looping IOMeter). However, I would get errors when burning DVDs (using verify function in Nero and MD5 hash checking - no errors viewable on a played DVD) and errors in Quickpar where certain files needed 30-40% more PARs to recover than usual. After retreating to stock speeds and finding everything worked fine, I concluded that I needed more VCore, and what do you know, a slight, 0.05V bump resulted in no DVD burning errors and no errors in Quickpar. Both of those programs are VERY low "stress" - neither results in more than 50% CPU usage at most - however I traced errors in both programs to a supposedly stable overclock.

The point that mlambert890 brings up is spot on IMO - the common CPU stress testing software are extreme math accuracy checkers, and CPU heat inducers, not necessarily real-world "perfection" (no errors) checkers. I mean, I bet AMD/Intel don't use prime number generators to test their CPUs. That's one reason why overclocking works - if overclockers used the same tests as AMD/Intel, then nothing would pass - but IMO after the "simple" stress testers (Orthos, Prime95, OCCT, etc.) you need to run a system in daily use and see what (if anything) happens.
Click to expand...

Not really. What can happen is the faulty unit is different than the stressed one. OCCT is stressing alot the FPU (SSE unit in fact). If there's a problem with the ALU or with a specific chain of command in your overclock in the ALU, OCCT won't necessarily detect it. It's all probabilistic, as i said earlier.

Torough testing of every error case is simply impossible. Unless you want to run a 48 hours long test for the cases OCCT won't detect.

And there are number of cases where "real world" app will run fine somewhat (or would take a long time running before detecting errors), and OCCT will detect quickly an error :)

Stress testing the SSE unit is the most efficient way yet known to detect a instability in your CPU. It will generate alot of heat, use alot of transistors, well, it's efficient and quick; However, it's not 100% accurate.

That's why i always say that what OCCT does best is reporting an error. if OCCT reports an error, you are SURE your computer is unstable. If it does not, it probably is stable, but that's not 100% sure...
 
Tetedeiench said:
That's why i always say that what OCCT does best is reporting an error. if OCCT reports an error, you are SURE your computer is unstable. If it does not, it probably is stable, but that's not 100% sure...
Click to expand...

OCCT is the best tool I have seen for quickly detecting BAD overclocks. But as you point out that is not the same as guaranteeing good overclocks. But for overclocking you are going through many combinations of settings to find an optimal solution, so your tool is the best I have found for quickly eliminating the bad overclocks. In my experience OCCT is more useful for the real world than a purely arithmetic benchmark like Orthos.
 
Love OCCT, great tool as others have said for the quick tweaks to see if stability improves/decreases.

Your website's forum isnt exactly up right now so maybe I'll get your attention here:

OCCT is reporting my QX6700(es)'s default clocks as 2400 and 200. It is running a 12x multiplier right now, perhaps that could be it too. I also have an out of whack 12v reading but thats everest's fault.
 
4DoorGTZ said:
Love OCCT, great tool as others have said for the quick tweaks to see if stability improves/decreases.

Your website's forum isnt exactly up right now so maybe I'll get your attention here:

OCCT is reporting my QX6700(es)'s default clocks as 2400 and 200. It is running a 12x multiplier right now, perhaps that could be it too. I also have an out of whack 12v reading but thats everest's fault.
Click to expand...

In order to guess the default clock values and such, OCCT relies mostly on the fact you can't change the multiplier...

So if you do have an engineering sample, OCCT will probably report bad original frequencies.

Unfortunatly, there isn't much i can do here :/

As for everest : can't do much here either...

Sorry !
 
Hey guys, when i told you OCCT is one piece of software :D Look at that :



2xQuad Core Xeon Clovertown + 24GB of memory (yes 24).

OCCT rans fine on it, 30mins now :D
 
Some news about that bi-quad-core server...

I got an error in CPU & RAM mode after 1h15min. Running it again and again (trying to see if there was a problem with OCCT) always gave an error in 15 to 1h15mins.

I tried the RAM mode : errors within the first 5 min range.

I was afraid that there might be a problem with OCCT at that point. Really.

I tried other stability checking programs : Super PI, Orthos : always fine.

I then tried OCCT in CPU mode : 8 hours, flawless.

What does that proves ?

OCCT is using the same algorithm for all 3 modes, only the test data is different. CPU runs OK, CPU&RAM fails after 35min average, RAM fails in 5 mins =====> OCCT reports an instability in the CPU cache <=> chipset <=> Memory link. Nothing else did report anything !

:)

Yeeeeeha !

OCCT is now, tested, the most efficient in detecting bi-quad-core errors program in the world. That is, i know of :)

*proud*
 
occtoctopro3ss5.jpg
 
Nice program :) I always like new toys to play with when im testing my oc.

I have noticed that most overclocks fail only when playing intensive 3d games coupled with same prime95 running in the background. Running just the stability testing app usually wont do it.

I look forward to thoroughly testing your app in the new few months ;)

Thanks for the hard work!
 
Motley (OP): Thanks for bringing this program to the attention of your fellow C2D owners/users.

Tetedeiench: I've been a big fan of your program for some time now, love the updates! I appreciate all the work you've put into this application! Keep up the excellent work! OCCT even showed me when to replace my aging power supply. The 3.3v and 5v charts logged by OCCT showed some serious ripple during testing (ripple that wasn't there when the PS was new). I went out and got a replacement PS, and used the "weaker" one in my wife's system... it died less than a month later.

For those of you new to this application.... it's been around for awhile. If you have ever visited "DFI-Street" and looked at the A64 overclocking guide, you'd notice that OCCT is a recommended application to use for testing your overclocks.

Actually, when testing for the CPU maximum, the DFI overclocking guide suggested
1. Super Pi
2. OCCT
3. Prime95

When your system can pass all 3 tests, you can proceed to increase your OC by the next increment. Many times I have found that if the system passes OCCT, I could be assured that Prime95 would pass as well (8 hour minimum). I've found OCCT to be an excellent gauge of system stability even without running Prime95 and used it as the determining factor to increase my overclocks.
 
Something weird happens here with my machine. If I run Prime 95 4x (one for each core of my Q6600), torture test, in-place large FFTs and then start OCCT, temps are normal as long as OCCT is monitoring, but once it starts testing, temps DROP by more than 5C. I tried that seveal times, and it always happens. It's very obvious if you follow the temps in speedfan's charts. And no, it's not thermal throttling, the CPU is nowhere near tjunction throttling temp... :eek:
 
I too have been using OCCT to determin the top of my OC, it worked like a charm when I was very safe or very unstable.... However near the borderline I think I have to institute more programs like superpi and orthos to be sure.

My Qx6700es passes OCCT at 3480 (1.450bios, 1.416actual, 1.408load) 12x290 ddr2-967. However running 2 virtual machines and folding SMP units it was unable to last the night (dunno how long it actually lasted) Perhaps I could just run the 1hr test when I'm near the bordeline of stable/unstable:confused:
 
Damn. My stable rig fails only after 5 min. using occt, should I raise the voltage a step? any ideas?
 
^ Depends what you use it for. My rig crunches SMP Folding@home units 24/7 so I need something that wont hiccup after running 24hrs straight. If you simply game and/or run video editing/encoding you might not need 24/7 stability.

More Vcore might help, but will also raise your temps. If you really want it stable without more heat you know what you have to do (turn down the OC a bit) :mad:
 
Jadawin said:
Something weird happens here with my machine. If I run Prime 95 4x (one for each core of my Q6600), torture test, in-place large FFTs and then start OCCT, temps are normal as long as OCCT is monitoring, but once it starts testing, temps DROP by more than 5C. I tried that seveal times, and it always happens. It's very obvious if you follow the temps in speedfan's charts. And no, it's not thermal throttling, the CPU is nowhere near tjunction throttling temp... :eek:
Click to expand...

What can happen is your memory is full, and OCCT and/or prime are running in the swap file...

Is it the case ?

And it has no use stareting both at the same time ;) What it will most likely do is hinder OCCT and prime capability of detecting computations errors...
 
candyraver said:
Damn. My stable rig fails only after 5 min. using occt, should I raise the voltage a step? any ideas?
Click to expand...

If it's not too high already, give it a shot !

And if OCCT reports an error, it is not OCCT-stable ;) And with all the reports i've gotten, no "false error" has been reported yet since the early-betas...
 
4DoorGTZ said:
I too have been using OCCT to determin the top of my OC, it worked like a charm when I was very safe or very unstable.... However near the borderline I think I have to institute more programs like superpi and orthos to be sure.

My Qx6700es passes OCCT at 3480 (1.450bios, 1.416actual, 1.408load) 12x290 ddr2-967. However running 2 virtual machines and folding SMP units it was unable to last the night (dunno how long it actually lasted) Perhaps I could just run the 1hr test when I'm near the bordeline of stable/unstable:confused:
Click to expand...

30min test is a quick test, designed to detect quickly errors.

You want to give OCCT a job ? Make it run for the whole night. Be sure to give it a shot in CPU, and in RAM mode... let's say for at least 4 hours each. As you have very high demands on your hardware, it has to be tested thoroughly... i'm sure OCCT will report an error after a few hours ;)

What i usually advise, is to find the limits of your own hardware using the auto test (30min) and when you've got a clear idea of them, make it stable, and for that, don't be afraid to run 4-hours long tests. Just to be sure :) Most of the errors will be caught by the 30min test, but sometimes, it is not enough, and the longer the test, the more likely OCCT will find a problem if there's one.
 
i love this program i have a question though how would i go about narrowing down what crashed the machine thanks
 
morpheus6d9 said:
i love this program i have a question though how would i go about narrowing down what crashed the machine thanks
Click to expand...

It's hard to be done, but you can.

Just try to run the 2 tests : RAM mode and CPU mode. If CPU fails first, the problem is most likely in your CPU. If RAM fails first, the probem is probably with your L2Cache/Chipset/Bus/Memory.

It is not possible to do better with any program at the moment, though :(
 
Tetedeiench said:
It's hard to be done, but you can.

Just try to run the 2 tests : RAM mode and CPU mode. If CPU fails first, the problem is most likely in your CPU. If RAM fails first, the probem is probably with your L2Cache/Chipset/Bus/Memory.

It is not possible to do better with any program at the moment, though :(
Click to expand...

thanks for the help ive been running memtest for 24hrs no errors so im going to run occt when i get home tonite
 
mlambert890 said:
Great app. Nice work, its a great addition to the toolkit.

I still feel that these are not "stability" testers. They are extreme math accuracy testers. Under high strain and high heat, math accuracy *may* break down. Whether or not this effects actual system stability depends on a lot of variables.

People have chose to make this the meaure because it is easy for bragging rights and, to be honest, most people (I think) dont fully understand what is going on. They sort of fly generally blind with forum guidance and look for something easy like "24hrs Prime Stable" that sounds good.

Personally, I like the reassurance and validation that knowing an OCd machine managed to run one of these apps at 100% for dozens of hours. That said, if I took a web server that had run 24x7x365 for 3 years and it failed Prime in 3 mins, we're saying that machine was "unstable". No.

Similarly, if someone is able to complete all of their tasks as they need - gaming, ripping, surfing, what have you, and never crash (this is VERY likely), but bombs in Prime, how is that machine being fairly characterized as "unstable"?

I had a machine just like that. FX-60 pushed to 2.8. It would NEVER crash and could sail through EVERY "stability" test for days. Except Prime 95. That it would bomb in LITERALLY 4 seconds EVERY time. If you ran it at 2.7, it could run Prime for months.

So what are you building? A machine that runs Prime95 and nothing else? Some people seem to care more about Prime95 (or what have you), then really running the machine. If you're building a dedicated prime number calculator then thats a perfectly valid approach. For any machine that is going to get real-world usage, its really questionable how much effort and energy should be poured into it.
Click to expand...

Excellent points mlambert. One (valid) reason that enthusiasts have gravitated to these tests is - they give a standard for comparison. Without them, anyone could claim anything as "stable." Can you imagine the arguments we'd have then? :)

DE
 
My 9 hrs orthos stable 6400 @ 3.5ghz failed OCCT in 1 min. Wow, what can i say....
 
I installed the latest version, ran it and it crashed in ten seconds after running the monitor stage. I then raised the cpu volts a notch, and it ran for 2 min. and crashed. I turned off the ram option and ran only the cpu and it went the whole 30 min. no problem. I had run memtest the day before, and found no errors. I'll try it again and play a little with ram voltage and timings and see what happens. Right now, I am running the ram at all stock volts and timing, and my E6600 is at 3.0 Ghz at 1.2125v in bios and at 1.168 in CPUz.

My main question is, however, when I click on the tools button (gear icon), I'm into a window where I can't change, or insert anything. I tried every menu, option, and anywhere else I might see something show up in the custom or any other places where I could insert anything. Am I missing something here?

Thanks,

Mike
 
This is fantastic! I just happened to stumble on this today while testing my new OC. I love how it scales up to 16 cores.

I have one feature request, though, and I don't know if it's possible. Can you integrate CoreTemp (http://www.thecoolest.zerobrains.com/CoreTemp/) into the program for reading temperatures. Intel's TAT may be the best for C2D, but for us A64 folk, CoreTemp is the best we have. Its minimal interface and accurate results seem to make it one of the best temperature-monitoring programs you could integrate into OCCT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top