I agree that maybe this is more noticeably effective with a newerr cpu....I think I had basically with all of my priming and testing achieved what this may have given me....I was "burning in" but went about it a different way....
I think this burn in program is kinda like a new pair of running shoes. Yes the cpu is the best it can be as soon as you get it from the store and slowly degrades from there out. This is also the same with shoes. You get a new pair and run or walk or do somthing in them for the first time and your feet might get a blister becuase there not worn in to your foot, but you use them more and soon the shoes gte use to your foot and become more comfurtable. So maybe this program gets the motherboard and mabe the ram more use to the cpu and this program also gets the cpu warmed up and helps set the thermal paste. I tried the program. I booted in at 2.55 at 1.4vcore prime failed in 45 sec. ran that program for 9 hours and then ran it agian with my cpu at 2.6 vcore 1.45 this also failed prime but after running that program i'm prime stable for 7 hours
Jeff7181
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2002
- 18,368
- 11
- 81
Until I see an explanation of WHY any type of "burn in" would do anything to increase overclockability, or allow lower voltages at the same speed I can't help dismissing all these "results" as coincidence. I suppose one could say I burned in my CPU and got an additional 75 MHz because during my initial testing I could only get to 2.4 GHz before it was unstable... a week or two later I decided to play with it more and now I'm running at 2.475 GHz. I don't believe it's because I "burned in" the CPU... or conditioned the transistors or anything silly like that. It's just because I didn't try all combinations of memory speed & voltage & timings and HTT speed and multiplier settings and CPU voltage, etc. etc.
I understand your skepticism but like I said...I just cant explain it other than "it works". I dont know how it just does. Im glad that Im helping to spread the word. I do this with every CPU I own and each and every time I do it, it has helped significantally
I view this the same as what native americans know about medicinal lore. They dont understand why said plant helps people in a certian way, all they know is that it works and works really well.
Just as a side note, THIS program isnt the reason why the CPU speed is being increased. Anything that keeps the CPU at 100% load without erroring out (like P95) will do the very same thing.
I just use CPU burn out of habit. S&M, Toast, K7 burn any many others serve the same purpose.
I just use CPU burn out of habit. S&M, Toast, K7 burn any many others serve the same purpose.
Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Got a link to those? I don't think I'd ever find S&M if I searched google for that.
S&M - http://www.benchmarkhq.ru/english.html?/be_cpu.html
Originally posted by: GML3G0
Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Got a link to those? I don't think I'd ever find S&M if I searched google for that.
S&M - http://www.benchmarkhq.ru/english.html?/be_cpu.html
Yea...anything that keeps a CPU at 100% load will do the job. The trick is to not let up on the CPU even if it produces minor errors. So long as you forcibly keep running it into the ground it will eventually get accustomed to it.
Jeff7181
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2002
- 18,368
- 11
- 81
Originally posted by: Sentential
Originally posted by: GML3G0
Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Got a link to those? I don't think I'd ever find S&M if I searched google for that.
S&M - http://www.benchmarkhq.ru/english.html?/be_cpu.html
Yea...anything that keeps a CPU at 100% load will do the job. The trick is to not let up on the CPU even if it produces minor errors. So long as you forcibly keep running it into the ground it will eventually get accustomed to it.
I guess it's possible that the CPU could "learn" to work with smaller voltage differentials. You would think that would require some logic built into the CPU though... wonder if anyone "in the know" could confirm or deny that.
There was a Intel guy at the beginning of the thread that said there's nothing to confirm or deny that this "burn-in" technique is true. Take it with a grain of salt and try it yourself. I haven't been able to improve my overclock yet, but I can run my CPU at the same o/c with a much lower voltage! I'm not totally convinced, but I think it's worth a try... if you don't mind the possible HD corruption.
HD corruption?!?! lol :shocked:
I would hope 1.5 vcore at 250 HTT is reasonable and would not lead to HD corruption.
I would hope 1.5 vcore at 250 HTT is reasonable and would not lead to HD corruption.
The method involves using lower the voltage to the point where your CPU is erroring, so it's possible you may be corrupting some files.
Burn-in is a quality control measure taken by producers of hardware. In the areospace biz, just about everything is burned in at each higher assembly level. In the semiconductor biz, burn-in is on a statistical sampling plan.
Its purpose is to promote ( to reveal ) any latent (non-obvious) defects in the product. That's called "infant mortality" and it's a step taken by Quality engineers employed at the producers of hardware. It's to accumulate data on recurring failure modes, for feedback into design of improvements.
Burn-in IS NOT in any way for the purpose of a customer enhancing performance of the product he bought. It's done at the semiconductor fab.
Its purpose is to promote ( to reveal ) any latent (non-obvious) defects in the product. That's called "infant mortality" and it's a step taken by Quality engineers employed at the producers of hardware. It's to accumulate data on recurring failure modes, for feedback into design of improvements.
Burn-in IS NOT in any way for the purpose of a customer enhancing performance of the product he bought. It's done at the semiconductor fab.
Did you even bother reading the thread? The process that Sen is proposing is not actually a burn-in, it's a misnomer.
Sen- Rename the process to "low-voltage conditioning" so people stop associating it with the "burn-in" that 99% of people believe doesn't work.
I'm afraid I just don't believe any of it. I've been OCing things since 1997 and I have in fact seen some mild improvement in OCs after a system is set up and runs for a while, but I tend to believe that any burn-in or conditioning that may happen is not at the CPU level. Heatsink compound cures and becomes more effective, we know that. Perhaps the motherboard's CPU power regulation circuits normalize somewhat after being run and stressed for a week or two. We had this same discussion on this same forum 5 years ago, and pm had the same things to say about it all back then.
Don't take me as closed minded though - I did give this thing a try. I turned the VCore on my CPU down to 1.4v (stock) from 1.545 while keeping my current OC setting (Winch 3000+ @ 2565) and ran the prog for a full 12 hours. Afterwards, I tried running Prime at various VCore settings below the 1.545 I was using to maintain my OC.
Results? Zip, Zilch, Nada. I still need 1.545v to stabilize my CPU at 2565... that's where I'm at... and that's probably where I'm going to stay with this particular CPU.
Don't take me as closed minded though - I did give this thing a try. I turned the VCore on my CPU down to 1.4v (stock) from 1.545 while keeping my current OC setting (Winch 3000+ @ 2565) and ran the prog for a full 12 hours. Afterwards, I tried running Prime at various VCore settings below the 1.545 I was using to maintain my OC.
Results? Zip, Zilch, Nada. I still need 1.545v to stabilize my CPU at 2565... that's where I'm at... and that's probably where I'm going to stay with this particular CPU.
a) You might want to work on your interpersonal communication manners.
Some people would take your offensive opening remark,"Did you even bother reading the thread?" as insulting.
Of course I did, duuuuh.
After long semiconductor industry career, I know what I am saying.
b) "burn-in" = "low-voltage conditioning" = word games = misguided, or perhaps sadly in your case, wrongheaded.
You will not improve CPU performance by exercising it.
Doesn't matter a hill of beans if you call it burn-in, stress testing, low voltage conditioning, or whatever silly thing you want to call it to try & make yourself sound technically smart.
Again, to pound it into that solid wood, you will not improve CPU performance by exercising it.
Has anyone mentioned the Arctic Silver HS compound "burn-in" detailed in their literature. It has NOTHING to do with the CPU, and they are clear that it has much to do with the HS compound.
Burn-in is a myth, just like so many overclocking myths. Remember the old myth that any HDD over 33 MHz would self destruct? I still have four of them running at 42.5 MHz after three years, in my unheated/air-conditioned garage. Then there was the Old myth that overclocking would greatly shorten CPU life (who really cares if thier obsolete CPU won't run after 6 years). I think three years of OC'ed XP 1600 @ 1749 MHz is pretty good (and it is still at the same voltage). I'm not alone in these feats. You get what you pay for, not jsut in money, but in time spent learning.
So many people rely on voodoo science and superstition in their systems. It's the reason that I have such great luck buying other peoples perfectly good setups for peanuts. My current setup was sold as "broken" by the owner for 150 dollars. It was a piece of junk PSU causing the instability. I replaced the PSU for 79 dollars and the rest is history.
Believe what you will, but CPU burn-in is junk science, like the Tornado people claim improve auto HP, or the magnets on the cars fuel fuel lines, or the crystals people hang around their necks...
Burn-in is a myth, just like so many overclocking myths. Remember the old myth that any HDD over 33 MHz would self destruct? I still have four of them running at 42.5 MHz after three years, in my unheated/air-conditioned garage. Then there was the Old myth that overclocking would greatly shorten CPU life (who really cares if thier obsolete CPU won't run after 6 years). I think three years of OC'ed XP 1600 @ 1749 MHz is pretty good (and it is still at the same voltage). I'm not alone in these feats. You get what you pay for, not jsut in money, but in time spent learning.
So many people rely on voodoo science and superstition in their systems. It's the reason that I have such great luck buying other peoples perfectly good setups for peanuts. My current setup was sold as "broken" by the owner for 150 dollars. It was a piece of junk PSU causing the instability. I replaced the PSU for 79 dollars and the rest is history.
Believe what you will, but CPU burn-in is junk science, like the Tornado people claim improve auto HP, or the magnets on the cars fuel fuel lines, or the crystals people hang around their necks...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter