"Burning In" your CPU
- Thread starter pac1085
- Start date
Don't do this.
I happen to belive that Burning in to a point helps some,(it worked that way for me). But what you're doing is just retarded.
Set it at your desired overclock, and set your voltage till it is stable. Then do your testing,(Seti,Prime95,3DMark,Quake3,etc..) This will tell if you are stable. Run it this way for a couple of weeks. If you are comfortable with this or you want a little more then you can start bumping it up, using the same procedure.
If you find that your processor needs unusually high voltage to be stable at the first overclock, then you can run the testing programs for a couple of weeks. Sometimes after being run this way, some can then lower the voltage and maintain stablility. They were not able to run at this before the burning in process. This worked for me and several others.
Most on this board do not belive in burning in of any kind. The phenomenon I described I belive in, and many others do, because it happened to me and to them. But what you are describing is just dumb and can be very harmful.
I happen to belive that Burning in to a point helps some,(it worked that way for me). But what you're doing is just retarded.
Set it at your desired overclock, and set your voltage till it is stable. Then do your testing,(Seti,Prime95,3DMark,Quake3,etc..) This will tell if you are stable. Run it this way for a couple of weeks. If you are comfortable with this or you want a little more then you can start bumping it up, using the same procedure.
If you find that your processor needs unusually high voltage to be stable at the first overclock, then you can run the testing programs for a couple of weeks. Sometimes after being run this way, some can then lower the voltage and maintain stablility. They were not able to run at this before the burning in process. This worked for me and several others.
Most on this board do not belive in burning in of any kind. The phenomenon I described I belive in, and many others do, because it happened to me and to them. But what you are describing is just dumb and can be very harmful.
I'm not stupid or anything, somone told me it could possibly help, so I gave it a try...Im not gonna leave it like that for 2 weeks, because im not very paitent, and it runs 950/1.85 volts stable right now 
No, when you do a full and proper burn in, you want LOW frequency. The last thing you want to do is burn in with lots of heat, thus the lower clock speed.
Let's take a look at this. Running a CPU at an over-spec and harmful voltage for an extended period of time is beneficial? What retard thought this up? God, I wish people around here had some kind of brain matter to use. If you believed this and actually did "burn in" your processor, you are just as stupid, or worse, than the person who told you to do it.
Intel (and AMD - and every chip manufacturer that I've ever heard of) performs burn-in at the packaging facility after packaging. Burn-in involves elevated voltages and elevated temperatures (hence the 'burn-in') for a period of time substantially less than two weeks. The idea behind this is to kill marginal parts before they hit the street. So, we are intentionally trying to kill/destroy any parts which are marginal enough that they would die within a brief period of time of in-system use by an end-consumer.
There are graphs of number of unit failures (y-axis) versus time (x-axis) and these show a "U" characteristic. So initially a high number of parts may be expected to fail, this number falls off to a low value for a long period of time (years) and then the number of failures increases near the end of life. So we elevate voltages and temperatures to accelerate the degradation of the processor to the point where we are now selling units that are in the area of the graph where the number of failures is low.
End-users do not need to do this. Not only will you reduce the expected life of your processor dramatically, but older processors are slower than newer ones. This is a fact - statistically all degradation mechanisms in silicon slow down transistors. There are people who claim that a form of "burn-in" enabled them to overclock farther and I'm not calling these people liars, but based on my decade worth of experience designing and testing microprocessors for Intel, HP and SGS Thompson, I can say with assurance that whatever is going on has nothing to do with the silicon. It may be a chemical reaction with the package/thermal grease, or it may be mechnically based (ie. in the fan), but it is definitely not silicon related. Statistically speaking, silicon only gets slower with time.
Having said this, it is worth doing a stress test of your system after you have assembled it. Run a program that stresses the system in many ways (HD, memory, processor, CDROM, sound, etc.) in order to check that the system works well together simply so that you can determine that you have a problem quickly while it's easy to do returns. I would recommend running it straight for 24 to 72 hours running a variety of demanding tasks to expose problems with the system as quickly as possible.
Patrick Mahoney
IA64 Microprocessor Design.
Intel Corp.
There are graphs of number of unit failures (y-axis) versus time (x-axis) and these show a "U" characteristic. So initially a high number of parts may be expected to fail, this number falls off to a low value for a long period of time (years) and then the number of failures increases near the end of life. So we elevate voltages and temperatures to accelerate the degradation of the processor to the point where we are now selling units that are in the area of the graph where the number of failures is low.
End-users do not need to do this. Not only will you reduce the expected life of your processor dramatically, but older processors are slower than newer ones. This is a fact - statistically all degradation mechanisms in silicon slow down transistors. There are people who claim that a form of "burn-in" enabled them to overclock farther and I'm not calling these people liars, but based on my decade worth of experience designing and testing microprocessors for Intel, HP and SGS Thompson, I can say with assurance that whatever is going on has nothing to do with the silicon. It may be a chemical reaction with the package/thermal grease, or it may be mechnically based (ie. in the fan), but it is definitely not silicon related. Statistically speaking, silicon only gets slower with time.
Having said this, it is worth doing a stress test of your system after you have assembled it. Run a program that stresses the system in many ways (HD, memory, processor, CDROM, sound, etc.) in order to check that the system works well together simply so that you can determine that you have a problem quickly while it's easy to do returns. I would recommend running it straight for 24 to 72 hours running a variety of demanding tasks to expose problems with the system as quickly as possible.
Patrick Mahoney
IA64 Microprocessor Design.
Intel Corp.
One thing that I will add - despite the fact that Vortex changed the subject and his question - is that this name calling was very silly. It was not a stupid or retarded question - it's actually a fairly complex and controversial issue.
There have been large discussions on this BBS about burn-in and whether or not it helps with overclocking with one side claiming that burn-in helps and the other side (which usually includes me) saying that it shouldn't/can't/doesn't help, but I don't ever recall anyone insulting the others' intelligence in an effort to bolster their claim.
There have been large discussions on this BBS about burn-in and whether or not it helps with overclocking with one side claiming that burn-in helps and the other side (which usually includes me) saying that it shouldn't/can't/doesn't help, but I don't ever recall anyone insulting the others' intelligence in an effort to bolster their claim.
pm, I've often wondered if there was any truth to the "burn in" rumours. To tell the truth I always thought that it was bull but just the same retained some doubt because of the number of people who "swear by it".
Recently I noticed that a cpu that I had run for several months did in fact appear to overclock slightly better than it had originally done (when new). This made me wonder even more if some form of "burn in" might really be true. (Then again it could have been a different temperature day or any number of other random effects). But it started me trying to think of any possible logical explanation that could account for this effect.
The only thing I could think of was that if Silicon is annealed after ion implantation or some other processing steps, that the very early initial use of the device might perhaps allow the annealing process to continue a little more. I haven't had any direct experience with semiconductor processing so I'm just asking is this even remotely possible.
Note that I'm not necessarily talking about "burn in" in the sense that it is often used here (eg overvoltage). I really mean just some amount of continuous use under normal operating conditions.
Recently I noticed that a cpu that I had run for several months did in fact appear to overclock slightly better than it had originally done (when new). This made me wonder even more if some form of "burn in" might really be true. (Then again it could have been a different temperature day or any number of other random effects). But it started me trying to think of any possible logical explanation that could account for this effect.
The only thing I could think of was that if Silicon is annealed after ion implantation or some other processing steps, that the very early initial use of the device might perhaps allow the annealing process to continue a little more. I haven't had any direct experience with semiconductor processing so I'm just asking is this even remotely possible.
Note that I'm not necessarily talking about "burn in" in the sense that it is often used here (eg overvoltage). I really mean just some amount of continuous use under normal operating conditions.
Greetings Everyone,
PM is right on target. I always let me CPU "burn-in" (using the NORMAL voltage and frequency settings) for at least 36 hours (remember to disable your power saving stuff or this will defeat the purpose). As very general rule, the chance of an electronic device failing after the first 20 days of operation goes down to about NIL (PM had a really good explanation for this). Besides, this is a good pratice because many of the CPU we purchase are OEM and generaly only have a 15-day warranty period.
I also agree with this name calling bit, people need to ease up. If you don't agree with a reply, then that is OK (it is a free country) but I don't see the need to waste bandwidth.....
End of public service message
PM is right on target. I always let me CPU "burn-in" (using the NORMAL voltage and frequency settings) for at least 36 hours (remember to disable your power saving stuff or this will defeat the purpose). As very general rule, the chance of an electronic device failing after the first 20 days of operation goes down to about NIL (PM had a really good explanation for this). Besides, this is a good pratice because many of the CPU we purchase are OEM and generaly only have a 15-day warranty period.
I also agree with this name calling bit, people need to ease up. If you don't agree with a reply, then that is OK (it is a free country) but I don't see the need to waste bandwidth.....
End of public service message
I think it helped my CPU, I have better overclocking after I burn in a cpu. I guess it what each person thinks, so if you think it help do it if you don't forget it.
Celeron 566MHz @ 850Mhz
wj
Celeron 566MHz @ 850Mhz
wj
All I know is that I worked in the test lab for Harris Semiconductor for 5 years. We burned in almost every part we made. The parts, once packaged and tested to a certain degree were mounted in racks and then stuck in a burn-in oven for 168 hours (that's exactly 1 week) or more. Each part was different so the temps and voltages were different. Once the burn-in was done the parts were re-tested in the test lab.
So, I would say today's CPUs are no different in that they have been subjected to a certain level of heat for a long period of time then tested for functionality.
So, I would say today's CPUs are no different in that they have been subjected to a certain level of heat for a long period of time then tested for functionality.
<< Intel (and AMD - and every chip manufacturer that I've ever heard of) performs burn-in at the packaging facility after packaging >>
How do you test a shrinkwrapped chip?
I have seen pictures of Kyle burning them in but I am not sure if that is what you are talking about??? I don't think it got hot enough for flames however but it was definitely elevated temps.
Remember we all can be Forgiven
Remember we all can be Forgiven
There seems to be two separate meanings of "burn-in" that are getting mixed up here.
One is the perfectly legitimate practice of manufacturers stress testing their devices before sale to weed out marginal units and thereby drastically reduce "infant mortality" of in service devices. There is absolutely no controversy here.
The other is the user process of running a new cpu under various arduous conditions (which vary depending on which particular "witch doctor" you consult). This is not primarily aimed at inducing "infant mortality" but rather it is believed to increase the cpu?s overclocking potential.
Only the later is controversial. As I said before I would have thought it complete nonsense if not for the large amount of anecdotal evidence floating around. Personally I have not experienced any strong evidence either for or against it so I?m going on what overs have reported.
Of course you can?t believe everything you read, I once saw a guy claiming that for the 7 days he looped some timedemo to burn in his Celeron that his benchmarks improved every day. LOL, the guy was using the same clock and multiplier throughout
pm, if you are still reading this could you comment on whether "continued annealing" might possibly explain some initial in service improvements.
One is the perfectly legitimate practice of manufacturers stress testing their devices before sale to weed out marginal units and thereby drastically reduce "infant mortality" of in service devices. There is absolutely no controversy here.
The other is the user process of running a new cpu under various arduous conditions (which vary depending on which particular "witch doctor" you consult). This is not primarily aimed at inducing "infant mortality" but rather it is believed to increase the cpu?s overclocking potential.
Only the later is controversial. As I said before I would have thought it complete nonsense if not for the large amount of anecdotal evidence floating around. Personally I have not experienced any strong evidence either for or against it so I?m going on what overs have reported.
Of course you can?t believe everything you read, I once saw a guy claiming that for the 7 days he looped some timedemo to burn in his Celeron that his benchmarks improved every day. LOL, the guy was using the same clock and multiplier throughout
pm, if you are still reading this could you comment on whether "continued annealing" might possibly explain some initial in service improvements.
read what pm wrote...
everytime burn in comes up, that msg pops up...and it always seems to be the most logical answer
everytime burn in comes up, that msg pops up...and it always seems to be the most logical answer
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter