- Jun 30, 2004
- 16,765
- 2,108
- 126
Has anyone with a Z68 mobo and i7-2600k or i5-2500k obtained strange results, infinite loops or system "freeze" with the PLUS ("+") version?
I have G.SKILL RipJaws "-GBRL" RAM, which tested fine on an earlier version MEMTEST86 or "+", but did not report cache and other information. I had set the RAM voltage at 1.51V; had installed OS, OC'd cautiously to 4.6 Ghz; tested stability for 8+ hours on PRIME95 and through 35 iterations of IntelBurnTest at "Very High" stress.
I wanted to attempt changing the command-rate to CMD=1. Running MEMTEST86+ 4.2, it continued looping through the same test indefinitely either before or after the 2nd "pass." That is, it just kept running Test #8 perpetually, without moving on to the next pass.
So I reset the command-rate to CMD=2. Decided later to run the MemTest "Plus" version again. This time, the system just froze after starting the second pass.
Downloaded the Brady version MEMTEST86 v.4.0a. [the "non-Plus" version and basis for the "plus" version]. Doesn't present as much info as the "plus" version, but . . . no errors.
Who . . . or what . . . can you trust these days?
I have G.SKILL RipJaws "-GBRL" RAM, which tested fine on an earlier version MEMTEST86 or "+", but did not report cache and other information. I had set the RAM voltage at 1.51V; had installed OS, OC'd cautiously to 4.6 Ghz; tested stability for 8+ hours on PRIME95 and through 35 iterations of IntelBurnTest at "Very High" stress.
I wanted to attempt changing the command-rate to CMD=1. Running MEMTEST86+ 4.2, it continued looping through the same test indefinitely either before or after the 2nd "pass." That is, it just kept running Test #8 perpetually, without moving on to the next pass.
So I reset the command-rate to CMD=2. Decided later to run the MemTest "Plus" version again. This time, the system just froze after starting the second pass.
Downloaded the Brady version MEMTEST86 v.4.0a. [the "non-Plus" version and basis for the "plus" version]. Doesn't present as much info as the "plus" version, but . . . no errors.
Who . . . or what . . . can you trust these days?
