Prime 95 stress test problem

[Amaroque]

Looks like you are only loading one core. Try this... http://www.overclock.net/downl...-orthos-v20060420.html

 

[Finns14]

If you look in my last post I noted that I got the same results with orthos as I did with prime95

 

[Sylvanas]

If you have not already you'll want to reset the CMOS and load optimized defaults. Otherwise the settings used for your previous CPU most likely voltage related will still be being used in when the new X2 is in there. Additionally check your motherboard manufacturers website to ensure you are running an adequate BIOS to support the new CPU. To make sure it isn't your memory I'd recommend you first read Anands article on stability testing and then download and run memtest 86 (link in the article) which will identify any errors in the RAM. Most likely temp/voltage related though.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: ja1484
While that *definitely* could be the case, and the OP should *definitely* look into it, the blanket statement just isn't true. The OC in my sig is actually undervolted from stock, running on 1.30v, and it's 36 hour Orthos stable.

Edited to add: Also, the previous CPU I had in this machine, a 3000+ Winchester, ran @ 2.2Ghz (from 1.8ghz stock) on 1.325v, 24hr Prime stable.

Anyone can try undervolting any CPU, but no matter what lies AMD likes to tell, nearly 100% of all Skt. 939 CPU's require more than 1.30v (as evidenced by your 3000 Winchester), yet AMD told all of the motherboard manufacturers that they only require 1.30v, which is why nearly 100% of all Skt. 939 BIOS's default to 1.30v. BTW, 10,000 hours Orthos stable does not mean your system is stable.

Socket 939 BIOS's, in my experience, default to the default voltage of the detected CPU. If you take them on to manual settings, you'll usually end up with 1.3v, but then...you're on manual, so what it detects is immaterial.

And of course Winchester required more than 1.3v - it's specs note 1.35v at stock, just like they did with the Manny. Nevertheless, they're running OC'd and undervolted.

As for that bit about Orthos, that's just FUD - everyone knows Prime/Orthos is the standard stability test for OC'd CPUs. There can always be stability issues from other components, if that's what you're roundabout trying to get to, but the CPUs are not the problem in that situation. Hell, crashes can come from *bad code*, technically meaning your system is stable or not depending on what it's running. You're splitting hairs, and you knew damn well what I was getting at.

 

[Amaroque]

Any updates?

Just some repeated suggestions...

Install your motherboards latest (non beta) BIOS if you haven't already.

Are you seeing two cores in the device manager? "ACPI Multiprocessor PC"? If so, WinXP is seeing both cores.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

did u reset your CMOS?
did u load your Bios' (optimized) defaults?
highly suggest a complete reformat if the above 2 don't work.

i always do a complete reformat if i do a CPU upgrade on the same MB

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: ja1484
Socket 939 BIOS's, in my experience, default to the default voltage of the detected CPU. If you take them on to manual settings, you'll usually end up with 1.3v, but then...you're on manual, so what it detects is immaterial.

And of course Winchester required more than 1.3v - it's specs note 1.35v at stock, just like they did with the Manny. Nevertheless, they're running OC'd and undervolted.

As for that bit about Orthos, that's just FUD - everyone knows Prime/Orthos is the standard stability test for OC'd CPUs. There can always be stability issues from other components, if that's what you're roundabout trying to get to, but the CPUs are not the problem in that situation. Hell, crashes can come from *bad code*, technically meaning your system is stable or not depending on what it's running. You're splitting hairs, and you knew damn well what I was getting at.

Oh, from your experience. Exactly how many Skt. 939 CPU's have you owned so far? I've only owned 6 or 7. How many more than that have you owned? And the only FUD so far in this thread hasn't come from me, bub. If you actually knew much about overclocking, you'd already know that Prime95/Orthos stability guarantees nothing more than the ability to be able to run Prime95 or Orthos error free; it does not guarantee complete stability-- far from it. It only guarantees that your system isn't completely unstable. Sure, it's a good start, but it far from guarantees complete stability.

BTW, two of my 6 or 7 Skt. 939 CPU's would fail Prime95/Orthos in seconds, at 1.30v, and most of the others would fail in less than an hour, at the same voltage. Yet all magically passed for as long as I let them run, when given the proper voltage, 1.35v. Oh, and if I'm splitting hairs, why exactly did you post this:

Originally posted by: ja1484

The OC in my sig is actually undervolted from stock, running on 1.30v, and it's 36 hour Orthos stable.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

<Sigh>. My Athlon X2 4400 seems to need 1.525 V (in the BIOS anyway) to be stable at 11 x 220 (2.42 Ghz)

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: myocardia
Oh, from your experience. Exactly how many Skt. 939 CPU's have you owned so far? I've only owned 6 or 7.

Four, and I doubt that number will increase.
Regardless of the experience of either of us, the value is going to vary by manufacturer, so what happens "most of the time" really doesn't get any of us anywhere. It can go both ways, we might as well leave it at that.

And the only FUD so far in this thread hasn't come from me, bub. If you actually knew much about overclocking, you'd already know that Prime95/Orthos stability guarantees nothing more than the ability to be able to run Prime95 or Orthos error free; it does not guarantee complete stability-- far from it. It only guarantees that your system isn't completely unstable. Sure, it's a good start, but it far from guarantees complete stability.

Prime/Orthos is known as the standard initial stability test for an OC'd CPU after settings have been determined. You can use other items if you want, but nothing really counts until you get to real world usage, which is what matters most. FWIW, I haven't had any stability problems from any of my components either. Likely, I liked out with good chips, but it doesn't change the fact that your claim that "Socket 939 CPUs require 1.35v" was plain wrong. I've had two that didn't require that voltage level stock or OC'd.

And please stop talking about "system" stability. We're discussing the CPU here, not the wild, piss-stained swamp of entire build stability.

BTW, two of my 6 or 7 Skt. 939 CPU's would fail Prime95/Orthos in seconds, at 1.30v, and most of the others would fail in less than an hour, at the same voltage. Yet all magically passed for as long as I let them run, when given the proper voltage, 1.35v.

Get luckier when buying chips then.

Oh, and if I'm splitting hairs, why exactly did you post this:

Originally posted by: ja1484

The OC in my sig is actually undervolted from stock, running on 1.30v, and it's 36 hour Orthos stable.

Primarily to refute your erroneous claim above. We've been over this.

 

[Finns14]

Sorry gunna reset the CMOS tonight and flash the bio tonight But I really believe its a heat issue but I will keep you updated

 

[LOUISSSSS]

IF ITS A HEAT PROBLEM please post your CPU temps using coretemp 0.96.

and please use C, its the industry standard in measuring PC temperatures. You mentioned something about 102F (38.8C) thats FAR from any temperature problem. let us know if you see temps in the 66-70C range.

 

[Finns14]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Finns14
Ok well with the side of my case off and a room fan blow directly on it the stress test seems to be working better now, I made it to test 3 where as I was failing in about 1-2 mins for test 1. Do you think its because of my mistake with the thermal past or just the fact that I am using a crappy AMD stock HSF?

It's because you aren't giving your CPU enough vcore. Skt. 939 CPU's require 1.35v.

Should reseting my CMOS fix this problem or should I go into the BIOS and manually set the Vcore or will updating my BIOS help this?


Edit also when I am running prime95(the non Beta version) I am at 40 C when I am getting the error.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

u might want to reset the cmons THEN manually set the vcore in your bios

okay u need to be running version 25.4 or 25.5 (basically same program with 25.5 fixing a single problem:

**A bug that caused the torture test to hang on 256K FFTs on SSE2 machines with 128K of L2 cache was fixed.)

run that for about an hour (remember to check off "round off error checking") then if a worker thread stops then you need to give us the options in your bios so we can help you change certain settings

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: ja1484
It can go both ways, we might as well leave it at that.

Yes, I know that. That was exactly the reason that I told him to give his CPU 1.35v of vcore. Or have you already tested his CPU, and know that it's one of the few that runs fine @ 1.30v?

Prime/Orthos is known as the standard initial stability test for an OC'd CPU after settings have been determined.

Really? I didn't realize that. I've only been overclocking CPU's for about 17 years so far. You?

And please stop talking about "system" stability. We're discussing the CPU here, not the wild, piss-stained swamp of entire build stability.

What kind of idiot would want to make sure their CPU was stable, yet get 5-10 BSOD's per day, along with 3 or 4 reboots, just to mention two of the many things that can and do happen with an unstable computer? I don't think I know anyone that dumb. Do you?

Get luckier when buying chips then.

Does your mommy know you're using her computer?

Oh, and if I'm splitting hairs, why exactly did you post this:

Originally posted by: ja1484

The OC in my sig is actually undervolted from stock, running on 1.30v, and it's 36 hour Orthos stable.

Primarily to refute your erroneous claim above. We've been over this.

Yet you still don't get the point. Why exactly did you say that the CPU in your sig is undervolted, if you don't think it's undervolted? BTW, your CPU is undervolted, in case you were wondering. That's why your overclock is so low.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: myocardia
Yes, I know that. That was exactly the reason that I told him to give his CPU 1.35v of vcore. Or have you already tested his CPU, and know that it's one of the few that runs fine @ 1.30v?

No, you told him that all socket 939 CPUs require 1.35v. Not the case. Quit trying to confuse the subject.

Really? I didn't realize that. I've only been overclocking CPU's for about 17 years so far. You?

Go to any major tech community on the net and request advice on testing an OC'd CPU for stability. See what happens.

Length of experience doesn't really mean a damn thing because technology changes so radically so quickly in the field (experience with a 286 doesn't mean much on the ol' Core 2 platform), but if you're really that curious, I began earnestly working with computer tech in '94, so about 13.5 years now.

What kind of idiot would want to make sure their CPU was stable, yet get 5-10 BSOD's per day, along with 3 or 4 reboots, just to mention two of the many things that can and do happen with an unstable computer? I don't think I know anyone that dumb. Do you?

In order to troubleshoot a system with stability problems, you must rule out potential software and hardware causes, much like ruling out potential diagnoses in health care.

What we are trying to do here is determine whether or not the CPU is source of the OPs problems. We can do that two ways - swap the chip with a known good component, or try altering its functional method (more vcore, changing clocks, etc.) one at a time and seeing if the problems disappear. While correlation is not necessarily causation, the user doesn't tend to care if their problems no longer occur.

Yet you still don't get the point. Why exactly did you say that the CPU in your sig is undervolted, if you don't think it's undervolted?

Because it is running above stock clock frequencies at below stock voltage, which when using english, the language we've all agreed upon, means it is undervolted. Undervolted in 99% of contexts means less voltage than that provided at stock per the manufacturers specs.

In exceedingly rare cases, which is what you seem to be trying to do now, it can be used to describe a CPU receiving less voltage than it needs to function properly. I have no idea why you would try to claim to be using this context other than to try and weasel your way out of admitting you provided the statements that occurred previously in this discussion. But that's about the weakest attempt I can think of.

BTW, your CPU is undervolted, in case you were wondering. That's why your overclock is so low.

No, my OC is sow low for completely different reasons. One would be that the memory, garden variety Mushkin Green, doesn't really stay stable at clocks higher than 210Mhz. Coupled with the limited divider options on this motherboard, I must either run it there, or gain more speed from the CPU by bumping it up another multiplier level, which would result in 2640Mhz, which the chip is not stable at regardless of voltage.

Of course, there's always the option of bumping the HTT/FSB some more, but being that this is an early revision A8N-SLI, 250Mhz is the limit - the chips on these early boards are notorious for not running above 250 without issues, and all attempted fixes proved unsuccessful years ago.

So, as opposed to your erroneous attempt to question my e-penis size, the real reason my OC is "so low" is because that's what the other components in my system will allow at this time. After settling on the clock speeds I wanted, I THEN went back and adjusted voltage down to the minimum needed to keep the chip running at that speed stably.

A pretty standard case of isolate and consolidate.

Are you done here yet? This could've been a lot easier if you'd just said "Well, technically not all socket 939 CPUs need 1.35v, but that's the case with the majority of them."

But no, you had to go and make a blanket statement and then attempt to uphold the idea that there are no exceptions. You talk about ill-advised...

 

[Amaroque]

HEY! This thread is about one persons CPU, lets keep it that way guys!

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Amaroque

Originally posted by: Finns14
Ok well with the side of my case off and a room fan blow directly on it the stress test seems to be working better now, I made it to test 3 where as I was failing in about 1-2 mins for test 1. Do you think its because of my mistake with the thermal past or just the fact that I am using a crappy AMD stock HSF?

Could be your TIM application, or poor case ventilation. However, the stock HSF should be fine if you aren't overclocking.

FYI: Don't test system stability with Alpha, or Beta software as LOUIS suggests. Beta code has bugs that could be mistaken for hardware problems. That's why it is not available for download on the main page.

If you look at the latest version, people are having problems with it that could be interpreted as hardware problems.

THIS IS A PRE-BETA VERSION - NOT FOR EVERYDAY USE

There's nothing wrong with Prime95 version 25.5 that I know of. It's available at MajorGeeks.com for download.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: ja1484
While that *definitely* could be the case, and the OP should *definitely* look into it, the blanket statement just isn't true. The OC in my sig is actually undervolted from stock, running on 1.30v, and it's 36 hour Orthos stable.

Edited to add: Also, the previous CPU I had in this machine, a 3000+ Winchester, ran @ 2.2Ghz (from 1.8ghz stock) on 1.325v, 24hr Prime stable.

Anyone can try undervolting any CPU, but no matter what lies AMD likes to tell, nearly 100% of all Skt. 939 CPU's require more than 1.30v (as evidenced by your 3000 Winchester), yet AMD told all of the motherboard manufacturers that they only require 1.30v, which is why nearly 100% of all Skt. 939 BIOS's default to 1.30v. BTW, 10,000 hours Orthos stable does not mean your system is stable.

Don't AMD CPUs have VID info from the CPU itself? SocketA CPUs even had that, AFAIK.
I wouldn't blame the mobo mfgs just yet.

 

[Finns14]

Thank you so much for the help guy I reset the CMOS through the BIOS and the computer seems to be working with out any problems. While I haven't had enough free time with the computer to run ermos for a few hours I have yet to have any of the same issues since resetting the CMOS. Although I still feel like the CPU is under performing thats a separate issues so thank you for all the help.