# CPU stress test tool?



## Carsomyr (Aug 7, 2019)

I used to stress test my i7 7700k with the x264 tool... 

Now I've got a i7 9700k to test and cannot find that tool. I find that prime 95 is a bit too intense and doesn't represent the kind of load the CPU will be under. 

What do you guys use for stress testing CPUs nowadays?


----------



## sneekypeet (Aug 7, 2019)

AIDA64 is pretty typical.


----------



## Thefumigator (Aug 7, 2019)

you won't believe this but I coded my own CPU stress test utility several years ago, because I never found an appropiate test soft for what I wanted.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Aug 7, 2019)

OCCT 2019 Linpack 
IBT AVX


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 7, 2019)

This is quite good, as you can set how many cores you want to test and you can stress other aspects of the system than just the CPU.








						Free Stress Test Tool HeavyLoad | JAM Software
					

HeavyLoad - Benchmark tool for a stress test on your PC.




					mobile.jam-software.com


----------



## johnny-r (Aug 7, 2019)

Aida64 is ok and I like CPU-Z benchmark and stress test, like to have it aside while I monitor the temps or fan speeds in Coretemp or Speed Fan.


----------



## londiste (Aug 7, 2019)

Prime95 is pretty much the definition of a stresstest. If you feel it is too heavy, turn off AVX2.


----------



## johnny-r (Aug 7, 2019)

It is to heavy IMHO, I rather use a new title game to see what my temps do...


----------



## londiste (Aug 7, 2019)

Battlefield 5 is probably the best bet for CPU-heavy testing in an actual game.


----------



## johnny-r (Aug 7, 2019)

Rage 2 also not bad, especially in a fire fight !


----------



## Jetster (Aug 7, 2019)

How about the Intel Extreme Tuning Utility?


----------



## Mussels (Aug 7, 2019)

Linpack Xtreme (1.1.5) Download
					

Linpack is a benchmark and the most aggressive stress testing software available today. Best used to test stability of overclocked PCs. Linpack tends




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## Outback Bronze (Aug 7, 2019)

RealBench


----------



## delshay (Aug 7, 2019)

Mussels said:


> Linpack Xtreme (1.1.5) Download
> 
> 
> Linpack is a benchmark and the most aggressive stress testing software available today. Best used to test stability of overclocked PCs. Linpack tends
> ...



I just downloaded this & when i go to install, windows 10 protection cuts in. I'm pretty sure it is safe but why don't someone fix this.

As for stress testing a CPU, it must generate as much errors as possible. Prime95 so-far is the only program that does this & meet my needs, but i'm willing to try other programs.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 7, 2019)

Aida64 or realbench.

If p95 is overkill to the op, why suggest that linpack extreme thing here which lights up the cpu even more? Linpack is ridiculous, honestly.

I also wouldnt just use a game to stress test...not enough stress in most cases... though BF5 will light up several cores.


----------



## bug (Aug 7, 2019)

Carsomyr said:


> I used to stress test my i7 7700k with the x264 tool...
> 
> Now I've got a i7 9700k to test and cannot find that tool. I find that prime 95 is a bit too intense and doesn't represent the kind of load the CPU will be under.
> 
> What do you guys use for stress testing CPUs nowadays?


Just keep casually mentioning you're considering replacing it with a Ryzen. That should stress it enough


----------



## vega22 (Aug 7, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Aida64 or realbench.
> 
> If p95 is overkill to the op, why suggest that linpack extreme thing here which lights up the cpu even more? Linpack is ridiculous, honestly.
> 
> I also wouldnt just use a game to stress test...not enough stress in most cases... though BF5 will light up several cores.



This^^^^

Maybe crunch or fold a project too if you wanted to put your power to good use.

CPU tests in 3dmark ain't bad either but for a good real world test realbench is about as good as it gets. Aida is the same for synthetic, gives you control to test each subsystem to narrow down any issues you might have.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 7, 2019)

Folding or crunching isn't bad, but you do want to believe you are stable BEFORE going into those projects. They are not intended to be used as a stress test and failed WU's aren't a good thing for the research project.

CPU tests in 3DMark aren't bad, but they are like 30s long...


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 7, 2019)

I use a mix of OCCT and MeGUI encoding a 4k video in x265.


----------



## vega22 (Aug 7, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Folding or crunching isn't bad, but you do want to believe you are stable BEFORE going into those projects. They are not intended to be used as a stress test and failed WU's aren't a good thing for the research project.
> 
> CPU tests in 3DMark aren't bad, but they are like 30s long...



Forever an optimist me, I think shits stable till proven other wise


----------



## lsevald (Aug 7, 2019)

If there is some kind of CPU load I find too high, I find it useful to cap it in bios, by modifying Tjmax, max current and/or wattage, so that the CPU will throttle and not crash encountering such loads. I haven't dialed in my power hungry, naked 9900k properly yet, but from my early observations in hwinfo, I'm aiming for 90°C TJmax, 205A and ~250W. That is set slightly above what maximum power/heat P95 AVX runs at, and I don't want to push it further.


----------



## trog100 (Aug 7, 2019)

vega22 said:


> Forever an optimist me, I think shits stable till proven other wise



yep and if it isnt stable it will soon become apparent.. 

trog


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 7, 2019)

lsevald said:


> If there is some kind of CPU load I find too high, I find it useful to cap it in bios, by modifying Tjmax, max current and/or wattage, so that the CPU will throttle and not crash encountering such loads. I haven't dialed in my power hungry, naked 9900k properly yet, but from my early observations in hwinfo, I'm aiming for 90°C TJmax, 205A and ~250W. That is set slightly above what maximum power/heat P95 AVX runs at, and I don't want to push it further.


That's......that's a ummm, interesting way to do it...

Why is what I ask? You're limiting things by temps not stability. The chips TJMax is 100C and will throttle on its own. When stress testing if you keep your clock speed and voltage at appropriately levels for your cooling and stress test, then you test for CPU stability and not temps.

Unless I am missing something that method doesn't make much sense to me.


----------



## kapone32 (Aug 7, 2019)

I think CPU-Z has a stress test.


----------



## 27MaD (Aug 7, 2019)

Thefumigator said:


> you won't believe this but I coded my own CPU stress test utility several years ago, because I never found an appropiate test soft for what I wanted.


Good job man .


----------



## dirtyferret (Aug 7, 2019)

I use CPU-Z, Cinebench, and gaming sessions.  Really nothing more intense then that for my personal use.


----------



## trog100 (Aug 7, 2019)

i use the cpuburner that comes with furmark.. its small neat and seems to do the job..

the thing is with multiple cores/theads (9900k) it all come down to how many of them are in use and generating heat.. gaming for sure isnt a valid cpu test.. less than half the possible cpu power is in use.. 

but in the end  if the system is stable doing what the user normally does with it that is all that matters.. 

trog


----------



## lsevald (Aug 7, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> That's......that's a ummm, interesting way to do it...
> 
> Why is what I ask? You're limiting things by temps not stability. The chips TJMax is 100C and will throttle on its own. When stress testing if you keep your clock speed and voltage at appropriately levels for your cooling and stress test, then you test for CPU stability and not temps.
> 
> Unless I am missing something that method doesn't make much sense to me.


Instead of just ignoring the existence of some types of CPU loads, I will find the maximum loads I am fine with (stable and temps wise), and cap my CPU slightly above those limits. I guess I can just avoid running those apps, but I like to cap it so at least my machine doesn't crash during those loads. Let's call it a little extra protection, as I feel the built in ones often are set a little too high. At 100°C my CPU might compute, but I don't


----------



## cucker tarlson (Aug 7, 2019)

Carsomyr said:


> I used to stress test my i7 7700k with the x264 tool...
> 
> Now I've got a i7 9700k to test and cannot find that tool. I find that prime 95 is a bit too intense and doesn't represent the kind of load the CPU will be under.
> 
> What do you guys use for stress testing CPUs nowadays?


30 minute load in da vinci,then handbrake,then use some cpu heavy game and play for an hour or two at lower resolution.that's what I do.if I'm not borderline with voltage I keep the working settings and add 0,010-0,015v just to be sure.Mine is fine with everything I do at 1.29v but I run it 1.305v anyway for 4.2ghz.For 4.3ghz though it needs 1.385v but I'm not adding any more,but I'm only using it for gaming anyway.


----------



## Carsomyr (Aug 7, 2019)

bug said:


> Just keep casually mentioning you're considering replacing it with a Ryzen. That should stress it enough



lol that made me laugh, thank you, made my day lol


----------



## Enterprise24 (Aug 17, 2019)

Prime 95 26.6 1344K and ASUS Realbench are a good stress test for me. 
It draw the same current and power like my most demanding programs (V-Ray / PR). 
Important key for me is it must pass those test without WHEA error in HWInfo 64.


----------



## trog100 (Aug 17, 2019)

the thing is now we have more cores/threads than most people are going to use does it make sense to stress test with something that uses all cores and threads.. i am not so sure it does..

if all someone does is game stress testing with all cores firing is gonna limit real world performance in gaming for example.. which is why i am now running my 9900k at higher speeds with HT off.. 

trog


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Aug 17, 2019)

Aida64's built in one, CPU burner, Intel's extreme tuning utility, Prime 95, OCCT. There's plenty of good options out there.


----------



## Final_Fighter (Aug 17, 2019)

To start with, ill run intel processor diagnostics tool. Then ive found that running memtest with half your memory loaded up, a gpu-z render test and a cpu-z stress test all at the same time to work pretty good. It stresses every part of the system. from there ill usually do a run of prime95 for 15minutes after all this and if i have no bsod's or WHEA errors in the event log i call it good. prime95 is a good test because its comparing the answers your proc gets to known good answers. thats why its a must in my opinion.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 18, 2019)

trog100 said:


> the thing is now we have more cores/threads than most people are going to use does it make sense to stress test with something that uses all cores and threads.. i am not so sure it does..
> 
> if all someone does is game stress testing with all cores firing is gonna limit real world performance in gaming for example.. which is why i am now running my 9900k at higher speeds with HT off..
> 
> trog



Yes... windows bounces which cores are in use around, so you need to know they're all stable.
You also need to know your CPU and VRM cooling (and PSU) can handle the power draw of all the cores active at once, because it does happen.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 18, 2019)

Mussels said:


> Yes... windows bounces which cores are in use around, so you need to know they're all stable.
> You also need to know your CPU and VRM cooling (and PSU) can handle the power draw of all the cores active at once, because it does happen.


Absolutely! To not test using them all is a setup for failure eventually. 


Final_Fighter said:


> To start with, ill run intel processor diagnostics tool. Then ive found that running memtest with half your memory loaded up, a gpu-z render test and a cpu-z stress test all at the same time to work pretty good. It stresses every part of the system. from there ill usually do a run of prime95 for 15minutes after all this and if i have no bsod's or WHEA errors in the event log i call it good. prime95 is a good test because its comparing the answers your proc gets to known good answers. thats why its a must in my opinion.


wow... that's some overkill... are you mission critical to go through all that?


----------



## trog100 (Aug 21, 2019)

does anybody know how windows handles its cores/thread when running software that only uses lets say half of them.. 

trog


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 21, 2019)

trog100 said:


> does anybody know how windows handles its cores/thread when running software that only uses lets say half of them..
> 
> trog


What do you mean by this exactly? As in does it stay on the same cores and threads or rotates? Fire up an app and see. Chances are if the app is up, it will stay on the same cores. If you close and reopen, it will use different cores. There typically isn't a built in affinity if that is what you are getting at.....


----------



## bug (Aug 21, 2019)

trog100 said:


> does anybody know how windows handles its cores/thread when running software that only uses lets say half of them..
> 
> trog


I would start here: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/procthread/processor-groups


----------



## trog100 (Aug 21, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> What do you mean by this exactly? As in does it stay on the same cores and threads or rotates? Fire up an app and see. Chances are if the app is up, it will stay on the same cores. If you close and reopen, it will use different cores. There typically isn't a built in affinity if that is what you are getting at.....



what i am getting at is there maybe a downside to having more cores/threads than you are ever going to need.. one downside is price another is heat.. especially when stress testing with software than fires them all up when in real life nothing else ever will..

trog


----------



## bug (Aug 21, 2019)

trog100 said:


> what i am getting at is there maybe a downside to having more cores/threads than you are ever going to need.. one downside is price another is heat.. especially when stress testing with software than fires them all up when in real life nothing else ever will..
> 
> trog


Heat is not an issue. The issue is when threads migrate from core to core, you'll have to rebuild the cache. But schedulers are usually architecture aware, so they don't move threads to a "far away" core to avoid this.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 21, 2019)

trog100 said:


> what i am getting at is there maybe a downside to having more cores/threads than you are ever going to need.. one downside is price another is heat.. especially when stress testing with software than fires them all up when in real life nothing else ever will..
> 
> trog


That's the thing... in real life, they will all be used at some point so it all needs to be tested. If you have a 8c/16t processor and shut off HT, then 8c need to be tested. If you enable HT again, it all needs to be tested again. 

But, few (who are sane) would buy a CPU with HT and disable it. It makes more sense to buy the CPU w/o HT then to pay the premium and disable it. That said, I have a 16c/32t CPU and I disable HT because nothing I do uses more than 16c/t. If I paid for it though, I would use it. But, it's a review CPU so nothing is lost.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 21, 2019)

trog100 said:


> does anybody know how windows handles its cores/thread when running software that only uses lets say half of them..
> 
> trog



they bounce around unless you lock them, as an example the third gen ryzens have different max core clocks per core (so one may boost to 4Ghz while the others do 3.9) and windows has some complicated logic to shuffle things around for max performance - hence the logic updates in W10 1903, and the ryzen chipset drivers.

i dont thing anyone here on this forum can come close to guessing how it fully works, as it will vary depending on drivers, OS patches, other running apps, etc.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Aug 21, 2019)

Im a big advocate of realbench. One or two hours of that would be rock solid


----------



## dirtyferret (Aug 21, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> ... I have a 16c/32t CPU and I disable HT because nothing I do uses more than 16c/t....



Obviously you have never run Microsoft's powerful stress test


----------



## trog100 (Aug 21, 2019)

apart from cpu stress testing tools nothing i use needs more than 8 cores.. i have tried my 9900K in all configurations how hot it runs is a pretty good indicator of how many cores/threads are in use.. it games at less than 70C but the usual stress test will soon have it hitting 100C..

as for paying for something and then turning it off.. well once the deed is dont and lessons are learned its all academic to me.. 

with hyper thread off i can run my 9900k nicely at 5 gig.. with it on i am limited to 4.8.. so what i have is a better binned 9700K that will perform better for the things i do than if i run it with hyper threading on..

bear in mind i can always turn HT back on if my usage changes.. 

i did say when i bought the 9900k and gave it a few runs it was a waste of space.. but 8 real cores at  5 g and 1.232 core voltage will do me fine for now.. he he..

my current game is division 2.. my cpu temps at 5 gig never go over 68 C.. i happen to think that my cpu will do a better job just running real cores than having to figure out a bunch of virtual ones as well.. but i could be wrong.. 

trog


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Aug 22, 2019)

@trog100 I also run quite often with SMT disabled. Runs cooler, a little more epeen per core and as you mentioned, there's not much that really will scale beyond 8 cores/threads (gaming daily apps)
In the meanwhile, it also helps with a higher static overclock. I have a much easier time getting 4.3ghz stable (2700X) with SMT disabled. In fact 4.1ghz is about the best I can swing with SMT enabled.

Nice to see I'm not the only person that enjoys using a cpu with the HT/SMT feature disabled.


----------

