# Linpack Xtreme Released



## Regeneration (Sep 4, 2018)

Linpack Xtreme is a console front-end with the latest build of Linpack (Intel Math Kernel Library Benchmarks 2018.3.011) developed and maintained by ngohq.com. Linpack is a benchmark and the most aggressive stress testing software available today. Best used to test stability of overclocked PCs. Linpack tends to crash unstable PCs in a shorter period of time compared to other stress testing applications.

Linpack solves a dense (real*8) system of linear equations (Ax=b), measures the amount of time it takes to factor and solve the system, converts that time into a performance rate, and tests the results for accuracy. The generalization is in the number of equations (N) it can solve, which is not limited to 1000. Linpack uses partial pivoting to assure the accuracy of the results.

Linpack Xtreme was created because Prime95 is no longer effective like it used to be. LinX, IntelBurnTest, OCCT use outdated Linpack binaries from 2012. Modern hardware requires modern stress testing methodology with support for the latest instructions sets.

Linpack Xtreme is available for Windows, Linux, and as a bootable media. The bootable version is considered to be the most superior as the Linux SMP kernel is a lot more sensitive to hardware instabilities than Microsoft Windows. Watch this video for a short comparison of Prime95 vs. Linpack Xtreme.

Make sure to keep an eye on the temperatures as Linpack generates excessive amount of stress like never seen before.

*Changes (v1.1.5):*
* Additional optimization for AMD CPUs.

*Downloads:*
Linpack Xtreme for Windows | Mirror #1 | Mirror #2
Linpack Xtreme for Linux | Mirror #1 | Mirror #2
Linpack Xtreme Bootable Media


----------



## AlwaysHope (Sep 4, 2018)

Has this been tested on all Intel & AMD current platforms?


----------



## Regeneration (Sep 4, 2018)

It is intended for current Intel platforms. Don't have Ryzen system to test it on.


----------



## hat (Sep 4, 2018)

What happens if it finds an error?


----------



## AlwaysHope (Sep 4, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> It is intended for current Intel platforms. Don't have Ryzen system to test it on.



No problem, I'll give it a go when I get a chance.


----------



## Regeneration (Sep 4, 2018)

hat said:


> What happens if it finds an error?



You'll be notified, crash, or BSOD. But take in mind, this build of Linpack is very stressful for the CPU, watch the temps.


----------



## hat (Sep 4, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> You'll be notified, crash, or BSOD. But take in mind, this build of Linpack is very stressful for the CPU, watch the temps.



Just the way I like it. Does it halt on error though? Unfortunately, as my system has no OC capability, it would be silly to run it... but if I find myself at the helm of an overclockable system again, I'll be using this tool for sure. Got this page bookmarked.


----------



## Regeneration (Sep 4, 2018)

hat said:


> Just the way I like it. Does it halt on error though? Unfortunately, as my system has no OC capability, it would be silly to run it... but if I find myself at the helm of an overclockable system again, I'll be using this tool for sure. Got this page bookmarked.



It *supposes* to halt on error


----------



## robot zombie (Sep 4, 2018)

Ill try it on my 2600 system. Im finding IBT the most practical way to do preliminary testing. If anything is majorly wrong it has a way of letting you know quickly.


----------



## John Naylor (Sep 4, 2018)

Gratz on the work .... always great to have another tool in the box so to speak.  But I would like to encourage the community to consider tools that focus on creating an evern bigger heat / load than a;l; the other sythetic tests which produce conditions the CPU will never, ever see in it's useful life.

I guess the point Id like to speak to is related to the tool choices which are more relevant to how we actually use oir PCs.    Most synthetic stress tests place a single task load on all threads on a  CPU, the likes of which it will never see again.  So is the goal to "creat the most severe torture test " ?  Ot to create the most suitable test that represents how PC is used ?  Yes, in engineering we create factors of safety such that we are absolutely sure than say a cable in a chain engine hoist doesn't break and kill someone, the greater the risk to life, the greater the factor of safety warranted.

But what is the risk here ?  That someday under a certain combination of conditions, our PC might crash ?  When overclocking, is it worth having my OC limited to say a 4.8 GHz, using LinPack or another stress test when using something real world application based I can easily sustain 5.0 ?   To take it to the ridiculous, not many have responsibilities akin to putting NASA astonauts lives at risk because our PC is controlling their navigation and a crash might send them veering off into the sun.

There are many folks who enjoy the challenge of building a PC to run synthetic stress and trying ti do it better than others have done ... and proudly place their name on OC leader boards.   But most of us build PCs to run applications.    And for my goals, a stress test that tests in a mutitasking environment, using several extremely demanding real world applictaions (ones I actually use) at the same time is a more realistic, and therefore more useful, test mechanism.   And yes, I have had 24 hour stable OCs which tested all threads with synthetic loads later fail when using a multitasking applications based benchmark for 40 minutes.  If the OC can run apps, can't we be content with that 5.0 ... Do we need to know that we would  have to drop to 4.8 cause it generates too much heat under OCCT, IBT, P95 or Linpack ?  Relevance ?  That's not how I make my living.

Again, not bashing the work ...  offer my compliments to it for it in its own right.  Just throwing out that for those folks who are out there working on such projects, many of us would welcome some forays into applications based testing, perhaps even suites w/ subsets geared to particular industries .... animation and rendering .... 2D and 3D CAD .... number crunching ... video editing, etc.  As I have found int he past, sometimes with a number of threads running different types of tasks, using different modern instruction sets can present a condition which a synthetic might not produce.


----------



## MrGenius (Sep 4, 2018)

I like it. Pretty sure I'll be using this instead of IBT from now on. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## hat (Sep 4, 2018)

John Naylor said:


> Gratz on the work .... always great to have another tool in the box so to speak.  But I would like to encourage the community to consider tools that focus on creating an evern bigger heat / load than a;l; the other sythetic tests which produce conditions the CPU will never, ever see in it's useful life.
> 
> I guess the point Id like to speak to is related to the tool choices which are more relevant to how we actually use oir PCs.    Most synthetic stress tests place a single task load on all threads on a  CPU, the likes of which it will never see again.  So is the goal to "creat the most severe torture test " ?  Ot to create the most suitable test that represents how PC is used ?  Yes, in engineering we create factors of safety such that we are absolutely sure than say a cable in a chain engine hoist doesn't break and kill someone, the greater the risk to life, the greater the factor of safety warranted.
> 
> ...


Well, as for me, and others like me, I like to ensure my system is stable under any circumstances. I don't care if I can play games and encode video at 5GHz if it crashes under a stability test. It should never crash under any circumstances. If it does, it's not stable. Similarly, it's not stable if it passes the test and crashes in a game. That's why I run a few different tests to try to ensure as best as I can that it will be stable no matter what I do with it.


----------



## Regeneration (Sep 5, 2018)

I've released a new version. Fixed a problem with affinity/thread allocation and added support for AMD CPUs.

I like my overclocked systems 100% stable. I've had enough annoyances from overclocking over the years: silent data corruption, random errors.

My word of advice: run Linpack with maximum memory overnight and ensure the system is 100% stable.


----------



## AlwaysHope (Sep 5, 2018)

robot zombie said:


> Ill try it on my 2600 system. Im finding IBT the most practical way to do preliminary testing. If anything is majorly wrong it has a way of letting you know quickly.



I think it depends on what level one uses IBT at, that is how much ram is allocated & how many runs. Back in the day when it was 1st released, the author claimed 10 runs of standard was good enough, but OC enthusiasts & those with a propensity for obsesseive compulsion will run it many times more than 10 & max out all their ram. Then run p95 for 24 hrs...etc...etc... 

In the end it depends what level of stability one needs. I tend to agree with user "CJMitsuki" over on overclock.net > Link when he was asked about what stability tests to run on 2nd gen Ryzens. Imo, he seems to know his stuff going by his posts.



Regeneration said:


> I've released a new version. Fixed a problem with affinity/thread allocation and added support for AMD CPUs.



Thanks, I'll use this version.


----------



## delshay (Sep 5, 2018)

hat said:


> Well, as for me, and others like me, I like to ensure my system is stable under any circumstances. I don't care if I can play games and encode video at 5GHz if it crashes under a stability test. It should never crash under any circumstances. If it does, it's not stable. Similarly, it's not stable if it passes the test and crashes in a game. That's why I run a few different tests to try to ensure as best as I can that it will be stable no matter what I do with it.



I agree with you 100%. The best time to run a stress test is when ambient temperature is high, ie summer months.


----------



## robot zombie (Sep 5, 2018)

AlwaysHope said:


> I think it depends on what level one uses IBT at, that is how much ram is allocated & how many runs. Back in the day when it was 1st released, the author claimed 10 runs of standard was good enough, but OC enthusiasts & those with a propensity for obsesseive compulsion will run it many times more than 10 & max out all their ram. Then run p95 for 24 hrs...etc...etc...


Oh definitely. I dunno if I go that far, myself. My definition of preliminary is to start with 10 on standard. Not a guarantee in my book, but a good sign. If that passes I'll do 10 with RAM maxed. If temperatures look okay, I'll start upping how many runs I do until I'm satisfied. Maybe an hour, or maybe several... ...usually not much more than that. A couple of times I've done 12h. To me it's just going so far beyond anything I would ever put my CPU through normally. My real usage doesn't involve a lot of prolonged loads of that nature, though I see the benefit of establishing consistency time after time after time.

Honestly, even running them for extended periods of time, if I pull through the first 10 at maxed RAM, chances are good I'll pass as many as I want to run. In fact, I don't think I've ever had a long run fail on a config that already passed 10 or 20 at max RAM.

From there, I'll verify max temperature with Prime95. Over time, small FFT's seem better for showing problems there, but 24h seems excessive. That's too unrealistic for my tastes, for simply watching temps, anyway. I'm not doing 24h renders, or really 24h anything. I've never failed p95 after passing linpack - temperature determines pass or fail. And if it gets too high, it's back to the drawing board and then more linpacks. Probably not needed but I like to minimize temperature, even under lesser loads. More of an OCD thing than anything beneficial. But it probably does help stability.

Past that I'll run some other synths, a few realistic tests, benchmark, and call it a day. I've always done something like this and I've never had any stability issues or data loss. But it really does all start with linpacks for me. Just what's always worked for me and my usage 

I guess I'm set in my ways. At some point I will try other methods and see if the results are better, but at this point there's definitely an obsessive component to it. Like, "Oh sure I passed 24h of P95, but could it pass a long run of linpacks?" It'd eat away at me if it didn't pass or I didn't try.


----------



## Regeneration (Sep 5, 2018)

I've issued another update to this release. Now you can have unlimited runs, disable Windows' sleep mode (always annoyed me when stress testing), more RAM selection, and included (optional) CPUID HWMonitor for temp monitoring.


----------



## Flyboy_6cm (Sep 5, 2018)

Uhhhm.


----------



## hat (Sep 5, 2018)

Getting the same error here, too.

@Regeneration can't you just attach it to the OP?


----------



## Regeneration (Sep 5, 2018)

Got it fixed. Can't attach it here, the file too big.

I keep getting positive feedback for this.



> For the people with modern intel cpus.
> 
> Prepare to nuke your overclocks/VRMs/MOBO traces and et cetera.
> 
> ...


----------



## Athlonite (Sep 5, 2018)

erm why not just update the LinPak Binaries in IBT as the actual program doesn't really care what binary version your using


----------



## Regeneration (Sep 5, 2018)

IBT will not work with the latest binaries.


----------



## MrGenius (Sep 5, 2018)

Not correctly anyway. It does something with them. But not what it's supposed to. I tried it too.


----------



## Athlonite (Sep 5, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> IBT will not work with the latest binaries.





MrGenius said:


> Not correctly anyway. It does something with them. But not what it's supposed to. I tried it too.



Ah Ok I see it's just I remembered updating them for AMD CPU's and just thought why not update them with the newer binaries


----------



## Regeneration (Sep 6, 2018)

Version 0.6 brings better error detection. Linpack will now stop and beep on errors.

On another note... I found it my memory OC isn't that stable after all... the new Linpack crashed on me.


----------



## hutt132 (Sep 7, 2018)

@Regeneration If the Residual values do not match on all the runs, does that mean there is an instability?

i7 8700K


----------



## hat (Sep 7, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> Version 0.6 brings better error detection. Linpack will now stop and beep on errors.
> 
> On another note... I found it my memory OC isn't that stable after all... the new Linpack crashed on me.


Ha! I bet that came as a bit of a surprise.


----------



## Regeneration (Sep 7, 2018)

hutt132 said:


> @Regeneration If the Residual values do not match on all the runs, does that mean there is an instability?



Normally, yes, but there are freak occurrences. Intel MKL itself does the residual checksum checking.


----------



## johnspack (Sep 7, 2018)

Command line but still not for linux,  jeez....


----------



## Regeneration (Sep 10, 2018)

hutt132 said:


> @Regeneration If the Residual values do not match on all the runs, does that mean there is an instability?



After investgating... yes, it is memory-related instability.

A new version is now available.

v0.8
- Added benchmark feature.
- Added option to specify amount of threads.
- Changed the project name.


----------



## notb (Sep 10, 2018)

There's like literally ZERO chance that I'd consciously run a lonely "exe" file shared via an anonymous file sharing platform.
Wouldn't it be easier to put it on github or something?


----------



## Regeneration (Sep 10, 2018)

notb said:


> There's like literally ZERO chance that I'd consciously run a lonely "exe" file shared via an anonymous file sharing platform.
> Wouldn't it be easier to put it on github or something?



https://www.softpedia.com/get/System/Benchmarks/Linpack-Xtreme.shtml


----------



## notb (Sep 10, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> https://www.softpedia.com/get/System/Benchmarks/Linpack-Xtreme.shtml


Eee... I'll pass. 
You should really consider going "public" with the software. It seems you don't have any commercial plans anyway (unless it runs crypto mining during the benchmark :-D).


----------



## hutt132 (Sep 10, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> After investgating... yes, it is memory-related instability.
> 
> A new version is now available.
> 
> ...


Could a CPU overclock make the memory unstable? My memory is at stock clocks.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Sep 11, 2018)

I'm finding that it automatically closes after the last test that I run, ie if I do 25 runs, it will show the results for 24 and then when the 25th run is completed, the program automatically closes on me.


----------



## Regeneration (Sep 11, 2018)

Nuckles56 said:


> I'm finding that it automatically closes after the last test that I run, ie if I do 25 runs, it will show the results for 24 and then when the 25th run is completed, the program automatically closes on me.



Latest version?

Did you put files in a location that requires special permissions (Program Files)? In that case, try to run as administrator.

Or another option, the entire process crashed due to instability.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Sep 11, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> Latest version?
> 
> Did you put files in a location that requires special permissions (Program Files)? In that case, try to run as administrator.
> 
> Or another option, the entire process crashed due to instability.


Latest version, it is sitting in my downloads folder so that shouldn't be an issue. I hope it isn't that, as my system is running at fully stock speeds, and I can't change voltages for CPU or memory with my board.


----------



## Regeneration (Sep 11, 2018)

Nuckles56 said:


> Latest version, it is sitting in my downloads folder so that shouldn't be an issue. I hope it isn't that, as my system is running at fully stock speeds, and I can't change voltages for CPU or memory with my board.



Try the latest version (v0.9)... the 32-bit runs faster (less RAM), if it still occurs, maybe you have a key stuck on the keyboard.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Sep 11, 2018)

V0.9 worked successfully, so who know exactly went wrong.


----------



## AlwaysHope (Sep 12, 2018)

Oh all these versions & updating....  I dunno!


----------



## Regeneration (Sep 12, 2018)

hutt132 said:


> Could a CPU overclock make the memory unstable? My memory is at stock clocks.



Sorry, I wasn't paying attention, you said its on a 8700K.

On modern CPUs, it is not unusual to get different residual values.


----------



## Athlonite (Sep 13, 2018)

AlwaysHope said:


> Oh all these versions & updating....  I dunno!



Fair suck of the sav mate it's like having to choose between prawns or steak to put on the BBQ LOL


----------



## hat (Sep 13, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> Sorry, I wasn't paying attention, you said its on a 8700K.
> 
> On modern CPUs, it is not unusual to get different residual values.


That... sounds really odd. How can you get different values and it's stable?


----------



## AlwaysHope (Sep 14, 2018)

Athlonite said:


> Fair suck of the sav mate it's like having to choose between prawns or steak to put on the BBQ LOL



We volunteer to be beta testers here, so......


----------



## freeagent (Sep 16, 2018)

I've relied on IBT for a few years, and its been great for me. I just started using this, and its great. Too bad some of my overclocks weren't as stable as I thought, which would explain a few things. Its very sensitive, which is good. I haven't seen anything push my cpu the way this does, it loads the system pretty hard. Good job.


----------



## hat (Sep 17, 2018)

It's kinda unsettling how many overclocks this thing has broke...


----------



## kastriot (Sep 17, 2018)

Here are benchmarks with 0.9a ver and i needed to put static voltage for cpu because with adaptive would go up to 1.375V and was causing thermal throttle @100C, interesting this happens only with linpack libraries


----------



## Regeneration (Sep 17, 2018)

After days of stress testing, I finally got a stable overclock... and released a new version.

v0.9.2
- Added several optimizations for AMD CPUs.
- Improved multithreading efficiency for the benchmark.
- Fixed insufficient memory error on 32-bit systems.
- Updated CPUID HWMonitor to version 1.36.
- Some minor changes.


----------



## Athlonite (Sep 18, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> - Added several optimizations for AMD CPUs.



Performs worse than previous version 74 Gflops for 0.92 vs 76 Gflops for 0.91


----------



## Regeneration (Sep 18, 2018)

It will perform a lot better on new CPUs with lots of threads.

v0.9.1
66.1490 GFlops

v0.9.2
84.3079 GFlops

27.5 percent faster on 6c/12t CPU.


----------



## Regeneration (Sep 21, 2018)

With version 0.9.3, AMD Ryzen users can now bake their CPUs like never before. Thanks to .vodka from AnandTech forums for beta testing.


----------



## kastriot (Sep 23, 2018)

Here with latest build:


----------



## Regeneration (Sep 24, 2018)

Linux users and anyone who would like to stress test outside of Windows can now use the new Linpack Xtreme package for Linux.

It's not the same like the Windows' version, but hey that's better than nothing.


----------



## Regeneration (Sep 30, 2018)

A bootable version of Linpack Xtreme integrated on Porteus Linux is now available. Just 300MB in size to fit on CD/DVD/USB. Errors should appear faster since Linux SMP kernel is more sensitive to overclocking instability.


----------



## infected_ (Oct 9, 2018)

having a small bug with a Ryzen 2700X and Windows 10 1809



It detects 16 CPU's  it should be 1/8/16


----------



## Regeneration (Oct 9, 2018)

Incomplete detection on non-Intel CPUs is a known limitation.

Linpack originally designed to work only with Intel CPUs.

It should work perfectly on non-Intel CPUs as long as it detects the correct number of threads.

Everything seems to be in order according to your screenshot.


----------



## infected_ (Oct 10, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> Incomplete detection on non-Intel CPUs is a known limitation.
> 
> Linpack originally designed to work only with Intel CPUs.
> 
> ...



it's a windows thing, cause on linux it detects well.


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 1, 2018)

Linpack Xtreme v0.9.4 is now available.

* Improved thread affinity.
* Disabled HT/SMT on the benchmark mode.
* Updated CPUID HWMonitor to version 1.37.

Benchmark results are more accurate and efficient.


----------



## hat (Nov 2, 2018)

So, actually using this tool right now. It succeeded in crashing a messed up computer. Yay! I made some changes and running the test again. If it checks out, FWIW, this means that Linpack Xtreme broke a system that Memtest86+ failed to find issues with (even though that only ran for 3 passes...).

Got a few questions though. What's the difference between testing 2GB, 4GB etc? And why the limit at 9.6GB? Shouldn't ALL the RAM be tested, or does it all get tested eventually even with a small size like 2GB on a system with a huge amount of RAM like 128GB?

Also, if I may make a feature request: how about a counter that, erm, counts how many passes it has completed?


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 2, 2018)

RAM selection defines the size of the mathematical equation to solve.

Solving a problem size above 35,000 (RAM usage of 9.6GB - 12GB on most systems) reduces the stress efficiency. Therefore, it is not recommended.

On systems with 128GB, it will automatically adjust to use more RAM.

Linpack does stress the RAM and uses a lot of bandwidth. However, Linpack, Prime95 and rest of system-wide stress testing applications cannot detect minor RAM errors since both CPU and OS attempt to correct such errors on-the-fly even without ECC memory modules.

Linpack will catch most RAM issues, but MemTest64 and HCI MemTest are more suited to test for RAM errors and more likely to detect even minor ones.


----------



## XiGMAKiD (Nov 2, 2018)

I just found this great thread today, bookmarked just in case I accidentally build a new overclockable PC


----------



## baryluk (Nov 3, 2018)

Let me give a feedback about various issues with this tool, after experimenting for a day.

My system:

MSI X399 MEG Creation
AMD Threadripper 2950X (stock)
CPU cooling - Enermax Liqtech TR4 II RGB 360 with push-pull on front inlet fo the case
Case Fractal Define R6 USB-C Blackout,
Memory: 4x 16GB DDR4 UDIMM ECC (Samsung M391A2K43BB1-CRC - advertised by Samsung running as DDR4-2133, 1.2V, but my BIOS by default will run it at DDR4-2400, 1.35V), overclocked to 2933 MT/s, tCL=18 (12.3ns) in quad channel configuration
Linux 4.18.10-2 (gcc 7.3.0-29).

Problems:


The `LinpackXtreme.tgz` file is malformed:  
	
	



```
$ tar xf ../LinpackXtreme.tgztar: A lone zero block at 61218
$
```

The executable files `runme_*`, `xlinkpack_*` don't have proper permissions set, i.e. they lack executable bit set (they should be 0755 in octal).
`LinpackXtreme.tgz` is not packed correctly, and extracting makes it put files into current working directory. This is undesirable, and any respected tool that have more than one file should instead unpack to subdirectory (i.e. linpack-xtreme-1.2.3, aka with name, no spaces, and version included)
The `LinpackXtreme.tgz` is unversioned. I.e. neither distributed file has a version in it, nor there is changelog, nor the binary shows version and date.
Distributed archives do not provide checksum (i.e. SHA256SUM)
`.tgz` suffix is rather old way of naming archives. `.tar.gz` is much cleaner and used around the in the wild.
There is no source code or build scripts!!
`license.txt` file contains weird unprintable characters
`readme.txt` file uses non-UNIX line ending format
There is no information which compilers and libraries were used, by investigating binaries I believe `_intel64` is build with at least old year ICC, and _amd64 with pretty outdated gcc, and some sub-libraries even are few years old at least.
There is no indication if _amd64 binaries use function multi versioning, whatever they automatically select code paths depending on available cpu features (387 FPU, SSE2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, etc), or there is a way to override this autodetection
There is no information if _amd64 binaries used hand written assembly, BLAS/ATLAS, or autovectorization for the main computational kernels.
The tool doesn't tell if the computations are done in single or double precision, and if in single precision, what kind of accumulation techniques for dot products are utilized (i.e. extension of accumulator to double precision, Kahan summation, etc)
Binaries do not set affinity properly for individual threads
Between each pass there is substantial pause (~1 second), or work done by one thread only, that allows CPU to recover thermally
Default 20 passes is not enough to make system reach thermal steady state, especially with water cooling systems
`_intel64` binary does not run on Ryzen CPUs. Big issue.
It fails (only 145% of CPU used, instead of 3200%, probably live spinning forever on mutexes, and fails to actually run benchmarks) when run under `strace -e trace=!futex`, suggesting a race condition in barriers implementation
`report.txt` is overwritten by each run. `tee -a report.txt` would be better, or `report_$(date --iso-8601=seconds).txt` would be a better alternative.
It uses 32 threads on my 16 core CPU. But one of the messages before claims that it doesn't use SMT (so tries to restrict to actual cores in some way or number). It reports number of cores and threads in the system, but it doesn't report how many threads will be actually used during execution. `schedtool `ps --no-headers -C xlinpack_amd64 -L -o lwp`` shows same affinity for all threads and it is not restricting any thread or groups to specific cores, hyperthreads, it reads `AFFINITY 0xffffffff` for all threads.  (Update: I was observing top and for a moment I have seen it using 16 cores (every second "cpu"/hyperthread) without me touching anything, with GFlops actually increasing. I restarted it and it is doing 32 threads again. Strange!); (Update2: I believe part of each pass is using 32 threads, and the other is using 16 threads. The phase that is using 16 threads is somewhere in the middle of each pass, and lasts about 10% of entire run time of each pass. My guess phases are data generation, decomposition?, forward propagation, back propagation, solution verification, and they use different number of threads?).
If computations are done in double precission, outputing residuals to only 7 significant digits is not enough, 15-16 should be used. It is enough for single precision work tho.
GFlops column shows results with 4 decimal digits after decimal point (i.e. for a total of 7 significant digits), both for individual passes and for averages. That is wrong, and simply a bad statistical practice, considering time is only show to milisecond (for a total of 4-5 significant digits).
Would be nice for "Maximum memory request" to print size using human friendly units, i.e. `used=1613408096 bytes (1538.7 MiB)`
I would remove `runme_*` files completely. They are semi useless, and most people know how to redirect output to file. They setup of number of threads should be moved to main code, and set via settings file, or command line arguments, and default should be computed in main code automatically. It is trivial to find number of CPUs using `getconf(_NPROCESSORS_ONLN)` for example, or `sched_getaffinity(...)`.
It is GFLOPS or Gflops, GFLOPs/s, not GFlops.
Residual - is it a absolute-max (L0), absolute-sum (L1), sum? Residual(norm) - is it L1 or L2 norm?
Just initial thoughts.

I find prime95 stressing my system much better, it runs continually and makes my system reach steady state (temperature and frequencies on cores) in few minutes. It also reduces amount of inter thread communication to minimum, to really push CPU core to maximum, and not focus so much on cache, coherency or memory subsystem too much. While running LinpackXtreme I see 20 runs (for Size 14200 I actually run 40 runs, and for Size 31700 I run 30 runs), it shows my core frequencies are much higher than when running prime95, meaning LinpackXtreme doesn't actually stresses cores thermally enough. I can provide graphs.


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 6, 2018)

Version 0.9.6 released to address core count detection of MP/DP systems on Windows.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 7, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> Version 0.9.6 released to address core count detection of MP/DP systems on Windows.



OP links dont go to 0.9.6

So, a few things

1. Corsairs iCue software is a CPU hog to the max
2. my waterblock wasnt correctly mounted for a long time...


----------



## Mussels (Nov 8, 2018)

TPU page here
https://www.techpowerup.com/download/linpack-xtreme/

has outdated build


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 8, 2018)

v0.9.6 is a bug fix release, and still incomplete, I'm preparing a major update.


----------



## hat (Nov 9, 2018)

Prime95 just crashed my system (x101 bsod) after it passed 100 passes of Linpack Xtreme at 2GB and 6GB... granted I didn't use the bootable Linux test, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

I am trying the Linux version now real quick before run prime95 again, after making some adjustments. I'm super nooby at Linux, but I at least can mange to follow simple instructions...


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 9, 2018)

You may want to try the final version for Windows.


----------



## hat (Nov 9, 2018)

I believe I was running 0.9.6... I would have just downloaded it yesterday.

Anyway just passed in the bootable Linux version with default settings (20 passes at 4GB I believe) so moving on to prime95 again.

-ed I see we're up to version 1.0 for Windows. Gave that a quick run, 20 passes at 2GB and no error. Moving on to prime95 now. Hopefully no errors or crash this time...


----------



## Gorstak (Nov 9, 2018)

only detects two threads for my G4560


----------



## Mussels (Nov 9, 2018)

Gorstak said:


> only detects two threads for my G4560



Yes, it found two cores on a dual core CPU. Whats the problem?


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 9, 2018)

Gorstak said:


> only detects two threads for my G4560



Stress test or benchmark? this is normal when benchmarking.


----------



## INSTG8R (Nov 9, 2018)

Awesome program, terrifying temp spikes...


----------



## Gorstak (Nov 9, 2018)

Well, this program opened a VTRoot folder in my root drive, then made few subofolders and a "ytemp" folder, then tried to use attrib +h command to hide the file inside. It also made folders in temporary files and in my user folder. After that my cpu went to 100%, but each time I opened task manager, it would drop to 3%. Also, my cpu fan started making weird noises. Are you sure your program wasn't injected with a cryptominer or something? And then, the 64 bit version wouldn't start and said something about bad memory.


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 9, 2018)

Doesn't have any form of network connectivity. And definitely doesn't send a radio signal to the B29 sector in the north side of the galaxy.

The CPU usage monitor in Windows 10 task manager is somehow broken. Only the 'details' tab shows the real usage for all processes.

CPU running stress tests normally overheat and the motherboard increases the CPU fan speed to compensate. This is why your CPU fan making weird noises.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 10, 2018)

just got the 1.0 release

IMO be a lot better to have multiple passes, being able to see it slow down over time is fantastic for finding thermal throttling, or even just an errant process eating CPU power in the background

edit:
benching well these days


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 10, 2018)

Mussels said:


> just got the 1.0 release
> 
> IMO be a lot better to have multiple passes, being able to see it slow down over time is fantastic for finding thermal throttling, or even just an errant process eating CPU power in the backgroud



You can still run the 32-bit version on stress test for 1GB.

This is the reason for changing the benchmark preset. Background apps interfering with the benchmark. Windows 10 has a built-in process that eat CPU all the time: updater.exe.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 10, 2018)

i just find it very valuable to have the results from say 4 tests, where i can see if they've varied in any way. helpful to find out if somethings screwing with it, software or hardware


----------



## hat (Nov 10, 2018)

Is the Linux version still 0.9.5? Or were these Windows specific updates?


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 10, 2018)

hat said:


> Is the Linux version still 0.9.5? Or were these Windows specific updates?



Everything was updated, but the Linux changes are mostly related for core binding on MP systems.


----------



## Gorstak (Nov 10, 2018)

I wasn't even running the test when this happened? i spent whole afternoon cleaning up the mess. My task manager works like a charm usually. And no, it does not make network connections, however I wouldn't want to be in a workgroup when this happens.


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 10, 2018)

Gorstak said:


> I wasn't even running the test when this happened? i spent whole afternoon cleaning up the mess. And my task manager works like a charm.



VTRoot is related to Comodo Internet Security and its auto-sandbox feature.


----------



## Gorstak (Nov 10, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> VTRoot is related to Comodo Internet Security and its auto-sandbox feature.



Yes, it contained the batch file inside


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 10, 2018)

Gorstak said:


> Yes, it contained the batch file inside



If Linpack isn't running, it has nothing to do with your problem. Perhaps Windows 10 app updater that runs on startup.


----------



## Gorstak (Nov 10, 2018)

Well, problems started after first run, and it's the only untrusted software on my pc...


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 10, 2018)

Gorstak said:


> Well, problems started after first run, and it's the only untrusted software on my pc...



Check if the CPU fan is working normally. You can monitor CPU usage from CMD/PS with typeperf "\Process(*)\% Processor Time".

The task manager is somehow broken since Windows 10 October 2018 Update.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/ne...-cpu-usage-in-windows-10-october-2018-update/

https://news.softpedia.com/news/win...east-two-known-task-manager-bugs-523051.shtml

https://social.technet.microsoft.co...processes-tab-cpu-bug?forum=win10itprogeneral


----------



## Gorstak (Nov 10, 2018)

I'm still on 1803, and that update was pulled by Microsoft. I'm not saying it's your fault, just that stress test program probably shouldn't be doing all this.


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 10, 2018)

Again, this is nothing but a bug in Windows 10.

https://blogs.windows.com/windowsex...ncing-windows-10-insider-preview-build-17763/



> Known issues:
> 
> * Task Manager is not reporting accurate CPU usage.


----------



## Gorstak (Nov 10, 2018)

Well, before starting your app, my task manager worked correctly. And it is working correctly now.


----------



## RichF (Nov 10, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> The CPU usage monitor in Windows 10 task manager is somehow broken.


It's amazing that anything in Windows 10 functions. MS is so shoddy lately that I'm reminded of Windows 95, 98, and ME.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 10, 2018)

Gorstak said:


> Well, before starting your app, my task manager worked correctly. And it is working correctly now.



you're welcome to report bugs here, but when no one else can reproduce it - and your results are related to your antivirus/other running software, you may well have a problem on your system totally unrelated to this program.


----------



## Gorstak (Nov 10, 2018)

Mussels said:


> you're welcome to report bugs here, but when no one else can reproduce it - and your results are related to your antivirus/other running software, you may well have a problem on your system totally unrelated to this program.



Possibly, but if my system has issues, I'm failing to notice them.


----------



## storm-chaser (Nov 10, 2018)

RichF said:


> It's amazing that anything in Windows 10 functions. MS is so shoddy lately that I'm reminded of Windows 95, 98, and ME.


Not sure what problems you are having with Windows 10 but I personally think it's the best Windows to date and functions perfectly fine for my uses. Installed on countless PCs will almost zero driver problems or UI issues. I always set up my rigs with classic shell and quick launch toolbar to maximize the experience. I recommend doing the same. Sure, every now and then Microsoft releases an update that causes some issues but for the most part, it's been rock solid, at least for me. 

In regards to stress testing: I think it's a very subjective endeavor across the spectrum of users. Gamers tend to require the most stringent stress testing, followed by overclockers and then followed by the average enthusiast, ending with the basic end user. Some people seek out the maximum stress test for a myriad of reasons, while other's just choose to forgo stress testing completely. I think it's all depending on what you do with your computer and what you want from your overclock. For example, you wouldn't tow a 10,000lb trailer over mt. eagle with a Honda Fit, because that just plain wont work under even the best of circumstances. For me, I tend to stay away from stress testing and let the daily drive find flaws with my overclock. I have lots of experience with the Phenom II and some of the unlocked X6 CPUs will fail under prime, but stay completely rock solid under daily use. I can achieve a 4.0Ghz overclock with superb performance and that works for me. If I want rock solid stress testing, I'd have to disable two cores and downclock to 3.7Ghz, in some instances. Don't want that, I want to leave all the performance on the table. And if something goes wrong during my own use, I fix it on an individual basis. 

All that being said it is nice to have an alternative to prime and I'm eager to give this a shot on some of my overclocked rigs. But in summary, I'm generally not one to recommend the whole 24 hour stress test thing because I want to maximize performance. And some overclocks are never meant as a "daily driver" scenario and that's okay in my book.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 10, 2018)

@Regeneration 
Feature request!

how about a short and long benchmark? short one for a faster result, and a longer one (5x passes?)


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 11, 2018)

Mussels said:


> @Regeneration
> Feature request!
> 
> how about a short and long benchmark? short one for a faster result, and a longer one (5x passes?)



How's this build? we happy?


----------



## Mussels (Nov 11, 2018)

I like it, good implementation


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 12, 2018)

Great, because it is the TPU Special Edition available to download only on TPU.


----------



## Omegacain (Nov 13, 2018)

I got a question I got a 9900k and I'm getting low scores when it's overclock to 5ghz on all cores ... at stock I'm getting a 100 gflops more than my 5ghz oc ... what is goin on ?


----------



## hat (Nov 13, 2018)

Check temps. The 9900k is already notorious for overheating.


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 13, 2018)

Omegacain said:


> I got a question I got a 9900k and I'm getting low scores when it's overclock to 5ghz on all cores ... at stock I'm getting a 100 gflops more than my 5ghz oc ... what is goin on ?



Something is wrong with your OC configuration or overheating.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 13, 2018)

VRM's could be overheating too


----------



## hat (Nov 13, 2018)

Mussels said:


> VRM's could be overheating too


That's a very real possibility given the power draw of these things. You'd need a really robust cooling setup.


----------



## Omegacain (Nov 13, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> Something is wrong with your OC configuration or overheating.


It’s not temperature.... i know it has to do with the oc ... it passes the stress test with no errors but only at half the speed I checked hwinfo and all cores are at 100% and 5ghz ... so what in the bios would cause it to hold back .. I got power max out intel c state turn off turbo boost off with the 5ghz oc it’s 273 gflops with no oc just stock it’s like 364gflops


----------



## Mussels (Nov 13, 2018)

VRMs could easily explain that

Go blast a fan onto them, and see if it helps. If so, you know the issue


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 13, 2018)

It could be some kind of power limit or throttling. Are you using the same problem size (RAM usage)?


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 13, 2018)

Omegacain said:


> It’s not temperature.... i know it has to do with the oc ... it passes the stress test with no errors but only at half the speed I checked hwinfo and all cores are at 100% and 5ghz ... so what in the bios would cause it to hold back .. I got power max out intel c state turn off turbo boost off with the 5ghz oc it’s 273 gflops with no oc just stock it’s like 364gflops


its likely throttling. Have intel xtu up (just open) then run this program. At the bottom of xtu it has throttling reasons listed that will turn yellow when it is active. I'm betting it is vrm throttling ornpower limit of some sort.

My suggestion is to use something more in the realistic realm of loads... even p95. There's almost no reason to run something this stressful.

What motherboard are you using? Fill out your system specs bud...


----------



## Omegacain (Nov 13, 2018)

It’s not my vrm either that is nice and cool I’ll post pictures later ... I think it might have something to do with my motherboard... I just order another one .. z390 master is that a good board


----------



## Omegacain (Nov 13, 2018)

Here is a picture


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 13, 2018)

Jesus man... really? Throw money at it?


Do what I said first and see what it is! You'll likely have to change the same thing on that board as you would here, lol!


----------



## Omegacain (Nov 13, 2018)

I got power max out all settings ... I’m not a fan of the msi Meg ace their is something on the go with the board plus I got another 9900k on the way so


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 13, 2018)

Again, have Intel XTU up (nut not running a stress test or anything) and run Linkpack. Look at XTU and at the bottom in yellow will be your throttling reason. You may have missed something.

Does this happen nearly instantly or after some minutes? 10 minutes? 20?

This application is overkill and there is little point of using it when the reality is the loads are unrealistic. Maybe see if the same happen with Prime 95 (small FFT or blend) as well (have XTU up also here to compare).


I don't know why you want to chuck more money at it when you don't even know what the problem is... more money than sense isn't a good thing. 

EDIT: Are your radiator fans blowing IN the case? You may want to have them blow OUT of the case so you are not blowing CPU heated air across them.....front/sides = intake, top/rear - exhaust. Yes, the CPU will likely be a couple of C warmer, but if that isn't the issue here.... makes sense to setup the case for airFLOW.

Why is that bottom fan blowing out???? WTH? What are the fans in front doing???


----------



## Omegacain (Nov 13, 2018)

There is no front fans it’s the lian li 011

Side and top. Intake and bottom is Exhaust


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 13, 2018)

Omegacain said:


> There is no front fans it’s the lian li 011
> 
> Side and top. Intake and bottom is Exhaust


That case doesn't have great airflow. That will be a problem no matter what board you have in there. 

I am not sure what you said about how your fans are oriented, but your top fans are blowing in the case and the bottom fan is blowing out. You would want to switch that around.....



I'd still love to see a shot of this test with XTU running so you are able to see what is causing the throttling....................


----------



## Omegacain (Nov 13, 2018)

I’m going to try to put the aio on the side for intake but the pump head wouldn’t reach the cpu with the fans showing so I’m going to switch it to fans first then the rad and see if that would reach that way

I’ll download intel Utility tonight and post a picture with it


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 13, 2018)

If you actually think about it, that configuration is doing the same thing...blowing heated air into a case that has literally no exhaust.

If you put that rad on the side and the fans in pull, then you would want fans up top exhausting and the bottom flipped to intake.



Still.....the cart is before the horse man. You don't even know what the problem is and you are wanting to swap out parts and configs? For Pete's sake, find out what the issue is before you waste more of your time (and ours trying to help).


----------



## Omegacain (Nov 13, 2018)

Lian li 011 Dynamic has good airflow it’s like top five on gamers nexus list of airflow... the 011 air is the one that is bad


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 13, 2018)

Whatevs....... I don't see much intake on that thing (zero fans moving cool air in - 3 moving heated air in)......that really isn't the point though... this is getting dizzying.......


----------



## Omegacain (Nov 13, 2018)

I got five fans pulling cool air in and 2 Exhaust

Two on the side intake three on top intake two on bottom Exhaust


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 13, 2018)

I see 3 fans up top blowing warm air in the case. That isn't cool air intake (but is intake).

You have fans at the BOTTOM exhausting air... that doesn't make sense. Heat rises and all so you are fighting that natural thing...

If I was you, I would have that rad up top blowing out, your two fans on the side we cant see blowing in, and the bottom fans blowing up as intake. This will give you a good balance of airflow in that case and keep cooler air moving across the motherboard.


All this over a stress test that is 10x overkill, LOL...


----------



## Omegacain (Nov 13, 2018)

Ok I will change around the config later tonight



Regeneration said:


> It could be some kind of power limit or throttling. Are you using the same problem size (RAM usage)?


I’m using setting 5 for ram i think it’s the max


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 17, 2018)

Anyone using v1.0.0 with a modern Intel CPU should update to v1.1.0.

v1.0.0 throws false positive hardware faliures.


----------



## Obihoernchen (Nov 18, 2018)

Hey @Regeneration,

nice tool!
I have a questions regarding the "default" settings:

Why do you use logical (HT) threads by "default" (I think a lot of people will choose use all threads because they think it's better )?
Linpack should be used without HT. Running Linpack with HT threads just lowers the performance, power consumption and system strain.
Intel also mentions it in their developers guide: https://software.intel.com/en-us/mk...ions-of-the-intel-optimized-linpack-benchmark
For instance my 9900K has ~20% less performance ~10 less power consumption with 16 instead of 8 threads.

Furthermore, I get ~410 GFlops using the official Intel MKL binary with the same Size, LDA, Align, etc.
Using LinpackXtreme extended benchmark I only get ~180 GFlops.
Using LinpackXtreme stability test with 10GB with 16 threads I get ~320 GFlops.
Using LinpackXtreme stability test with 10GB and 8 threads I get ~410 GFlops, too.

The power consumption is also way lower.

Which KMP_AFFINITY settings do you use?


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 18, 2018)

Obihoernchen said:


> Hey @Regeneration,
> 
> nice tool!
> I have a questions regarding the "default" settings:
> ...



The benchmark runs only on true cores, but it uses a special binary to provide accurate comparable results vs. other CPUs, brands and OSes.

Most CPUs tend to crash quicker with HT, and therefore, it is enabled by default for stress testing. Especially, on Linux, Linpack with HT is considered brutal and tend to crash unstable OCs in no time.

I don't use KMP_AFFINITY at all, it doesn't work well on legacy CPUs and AMD. The OMP parameters work better.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 18, 2018)

Sounds like it is throttling your system....


----------



## Omegacain (Nov 18, 2018)

Same with me ... it ain’t throttling either


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 18, 2018)

How do you know?


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 18, 2018)

The latest hardware always ship with a brand new bugs.

Unexplained throttling can be result of a UEFI bug. It happened before.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 18, 2018)

Maybe.

But he didn't give any info. We were told performance dropped..  but not sure why. Clocks remain the same through testing?
Esit: he says they did.  But verify with other software. 

I like to have intel xtu up while running stress tests as it will show throttling reasons.


----------



## er557 (Nov 18, 2018)

ran the 1.1.0 ver on windows 64, result is 630gflops, but it states it detects 1 cpu, 18 cores, 36 threads, while I have 2 such cpus. So is this result reliable?


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 18, 2018)

er557 said:


> ran the 1.1.0 ver on windows 64, result is 630gflops, but it states it detects 1 cpu, 18 cores, 36 threads, while I have 2 such cpus. So is this result reliable?



If you ran it on benchmark mode, it is accurate and perfectly fine (36 threads for 36 cores).


----------



## hat (Nov 18, 2018)

Keep up the good work @Regeneration this tool already told me my rig won't be stable at anything over 4GHz (at this voltage) and did so pretty quickly. Most people will say if you can pass Linpack, you can pass anything, though there are strange cases where that's not 100% true... but it's true enough for me to run Linpack first, then I'll run Prime95 for a long ass time.


----------



## WoodyUK (Nov 18, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> Anyone using v1.0.0 with a modern Intel CPU should update to v1.1.0.
> 
> v1.0.0 throws false positive hardware faliures.




If only I had know this four days ago...


----------



## Omegacain (Nov 18, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> Maybe.
> 
> But he didn't give any info. We were told performance dropped..  but not sure why. Clocks remain the same through testing?
> Esit: he says they did.  But verify with other software.
> ...




NOT THROTTLING


----------



## hat (Nov 18, 2018)

That's weird. Why is it detecting 10 threads? You should have 16.


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 18, 2018)

hat said:


> That's weird. Why is it detecting 10 threads? You should have 16.



thats 1.0.0. Maybe detection is improved in 1.1.0?


----------



## Omegacain (Nov 18, 2018)

1.1.0 just crashes when i try to open it


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 19, 2018)

v1.1.1 is now available.

Users with non-modern Intel CPUs can use the /residualcheck switch to activate checking of residual checksum.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Nov 19, 2018)

Thank you for making this... did have the problem with 1.0.0 and false hardware failure warnings, but 1.1.0 seems to run fine now on my 5820K/X99 system. Both my 5820K and FX-8150 ended up being unstable and I likely fixed the FX-8150 with a 0.5x multi drop, but my 5820K has always been troublesome and still needs work (had to raise voltages to 1.23/1.2 for core/ring at 40x/30x and RAM is currently at 1600MHz to rule it out, and finally got a clean 100 runs this morning).

I used to use IBT but kind of drifted away due to crazy temps with non-soldered Intel chips and AVX, but will definitely be testing all of my overclocked machines with whatever the latest version is at that time and making sure they all survive at least a night of this.


----------



## hat (Nov 19, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> v1.1.1 is now available.
> 
> Users with non-modern Intel CPUs can use the /residualcheck switch to activate checking of residual checksum.


 How old is "non- modern"?


----------



## Omegacain (Nov 19, 2018)

I downloaded the new version... so what are the steps that you use for testing a 9900k ... act like I never use it before... thanks


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 19, 2018)

hat said:


> How old is "non-modern"?



Sandy Bridge and older, when the residual checksum doesn't change after several runs.



Omegacain said:


> I downloaded the new version... so what are the steps that you use for testing a 9900k ... act like I never use it before... thanks



Stress test > 10GB of RAM > try both all available threads and then custom 8 threads, see which one is more stressful (temperature and power output) and run it over-night.


----------



## baryluk (Nov 22, 2018)

It appears some of my various complains were addressed partially for Linux version I was testing.


tar files doesn't look to be corrupted anymore.
tar.gz file now unpacks to sub-directory. Nice!
Directory has a version number in the name. `linpack-xtreme-1.0.0`. Nice.
Files are executable. Nice. However for unknown reason, all files are executable, instead of only the exeuctables. I.e. `readme.txt`, `license.txt`, `settings`, `defaulti686`, `defaultx86_64`, shouldn't really be executable.

Still various issues remain:

No checksums (SHA-256 preferably) anywhere to be found. Neither in this thread or on homepage.
No version in the filename of the downloaded tar.gz file. `linpack-xtreme-1.0.0.tar.gz` would be awesome.
`read -p "Bleble..."` at the end of supplied scripts is weird for Linux. I guess this is because you expect people to double click it, which will launch a terminal emulator, that might auto close when the benchmark/test is finished? Still a bit weird, for general use.
Scripts now autodetect AMD vs Intel CPUs, however it will probably break on other manufacturers like Via or Hygon.
The tool outputs the version to the terminal now on Linux, but it doesn't tell you which version (Intel / Amd) it is running. It seams like not a problem, but it is, because when copying, pasting and sharing results (terminal output) on Internet, it is preferably to have this information included by default.
That is because on few of my Intel CPUs, the AMD (generic gcc compiled one) version is actually faster than Intel one!

The current Linux version is v1.0.0, which is out of sync with Windows.
There is no changelog included in the archive.
Other issues remain.


----------



## er557 (Nov 22, 2018)




----------



## Vlada011 (Nov 23, 2018)

Guys how you set Hyperthreading On?
He detect 6 cores, 12 threads but run only 6 core, 6 threads.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 23, 2018)

It's a setting in the bios. Typically found in the cpu features.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 23, 2018)

If you mean in this program, its off for benchmark, on for stress test


----------



## Vlada011 (Nov 23, 2018)

Mussels said:


> If you mean in this program, its off for benchmark, on for stress test



Thanks.


----------



## hat (Dec 17, 2018)

Still using this program to find what my 2600k can do. I can hit 4.6 but it takes some pretty insane voltage and temps are in the 90s... trying 4.4 with more sane voltage.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 17, 2018)

hat said:


> Still using this program to find what my 2600k can do. I can hit 4.6 but it takes some pretty insane voltage and temps are in the 90s... trying 4.4 with more sane voltage.



my 2500k did 5.1Ghz on a mere H80, and it stayed under 80C
Wish i could remember the settings, still got the chip with no board in the shed - try lower SA/DRAM voltages and see if it helps lower CPU temps?


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 17, 2018)

Two different chips.... but 2600k should be at least a 4.8ghz chip... even when cooled by a potato.


----------



## hat (Dec 17, 2018)

I haven't touched any other voltages. We're talking voltage required to keep it stable under Linpack Xtreme though, which is a pretty demanding test... it produces a magnificent amount of heat and requires some pretty high voltages to stay stable. The 2500k would be a lot cooler than the 2600k though due to the absence of HT...


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 17, 2018)

Maybe this rest is too much..too unrealistic of a load. There's a reason why people dont/shouldnt run Furmark on gpus.....this feels quite similar.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 17, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> Maybe this rest is too much..too unrealistic of a load. There's a reason why people dont/shouldnt run Furmark on gpus.....this feels quite similar.


nope, stress the shit out of it. Furmark exposed shitty hardware designs that could have been left alone otherwise, and forced GPU makers to design thermal and wattage limits into cards - it wouldnt have taken long for a game or program (think openCL) to expose those flaws and kill hardware.

If your hardware cant handle 100% load, you've bought faulty goods or really f*cked up your overclock.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 17, 2018)

Furmark is a power virus. Both amd and nvidia suggest not using it. Furmark doesnt even test the same clockspeeds you set. Games or programs would not have done that, sorry. 

This is also overkill. Unless you're a prosumer, this kind of 'stability' isnt needed. P95, also overkill, is plenty.  I stick with aida64 and it has worked fine for MY uses for years. This program leaves way too much meat on the bone if its holding sandy bridge to mid 4 ghz...


----------



## Regeneration (Dec 17, 2018)

Furmark just run an infinite loop of 3D text in OpenGL or Vulkan. It doesn't use VRAM much.




If your hardware can't take it, something is wrong with the design.

PUBG puts more stress on the GPU than Furmark. Uses a lot of VRAM and reloading textures all the time.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 17, 2018)

It may test more ram, pubg, but it isnt more stressful than furmark for the GPU and temperature/power wise. Modern hardware can take it...because both amd and nvidia throttle when using the application. For example, if my boost clocks normally hold at 2000 mhz for gaming, when running furmark, I'm back to stock base boost bin in the 1800s (will vary by card a bit). This, obviously, defeats the purpose of testing. Again, it's in the nvidia press deck for generations they suggest not using it.

But, this about linpack being overkill. To each their own but this is at least a step too far for my needs.


----------



## er557 (Dec 17, 2018)

If your hardware works fine in linpack on stock clocks, Linux or windows, it should equally pass it fine when overclocked. period. If it doesn't, something is somewhere wrong with the overclock. It is not overkill if it exposes hardware weakness.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 17, 2018)

er557 said:


> If your hardware works fine in linpack on stock clocks, Linux or windows, it should equally pass it fine when overclocked. period. If it doesn't, something is somewhere wrong with the overclock. It is not overkill if it exposes hardware weakness.




^ this is a good way of wording what i wrote earlier

If your hardwares VRMs cant handle 100% load at stock clocks, its faulty
if it cant handle it OCd, your OC is bad


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 17, 2018)

But what if it can handle things you normally do on a PC? It leaves a lot of meat on the bone (too much).  I see a point in overkill testing, but this seems to be in a whole new level. 

What I do see a use for this test is what I call blip stress testing....running it for 5 mins before I raise mutli/bclk/or lower voltage. At least it can identify problems faster. But yeah, I dont need this kind of stability on my daily rig when I know aida64 works for me and my uses.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 17, 2018)

Who cares if the test stresses things more than your usual load levels?

Its like saying your car does 60KM/h in normal use, so you dont care if it falls apart at 80KM/h - so you're fine with the manufacturer never testing it for it for safety.
Logically speaking, i want to know if i suddenly need it to go harder, it always can.

I feel like we're de-railing the thread a little bit now, however.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 17, 2018)

My point is that it's well above an already overkill stress test (p95) and this leaves too much meat on the bone being 'more' stressful. To me, for my uses (which I'd call a power user) this goes in the bin along with Furmark. This is more akin to testing your car at rev limiter/fuel cutoff than testing in normal situations (redline - which is what P95 and others do already). It is well pas the 'go harder' stage. P95, and others, do a solid job as it stands of 'testing it for when one 'suddenly' needs to go harder'.



er557 said:


> If your hardware works fine in linpack on stock clocks, Linux or windows, it should equally pass it fine when overclocked. period. If it doesn't, something is somewhere wrong with the overclock. It is not overkill if it exposes hardware weakness.


Is it really a weakness though when it is a situation you will never, I repeat, NEVER run into? What good is testing it like that when it isn't remotely realistic? Other programs are already overkill... this is a whoooooole 'nother level of stress testing. 



Apologies... I figured discussing the application (its merits and demerits) the thread is about was on topic...


----------



## phill (Dec 18, 2018)

I'm curious guys, what's the differences between this and the LinX I've used previously?  Tougher testing or extra tests for newer instruction sets?


----------



## Regeneration (Dec 18, 2018)

phill said:


> I'm curious guys, what's the differences between this and the LinX I've used previously?  Tougher testing or extra tests for newer instruction sets?



Both. LinX is no longer maintained by the developer.


----------



## phill (Dec 18, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> Both. LinX is no longer maintained by the developer.



Thanks 

I've had some funny experiences with stress testing software..  It seems that sometimes even stress testing for 16 hours, put it into WCG, it would crash inside of 30 seconds..  It was rather frustrating


----------



## Regeneration (Dec 18, 2018)

phill said:


> I've had some funny experiences with stress testing software..  It seems that sometimes even stress testing for 16 hours, put it into WCG, it would crash inside of 30 seconds..  It was rather frustrating



LLC, dynamic voltage and C-states (if enabled) are likely to blame for this.

It is wise to test stability of low and medium load (limit Linpack to 25 or 50 percent of available threads).


----------



## phill (Dec 18, 2018)

This was back in the day when I was using Orthos stress testing software and even Prime 95 I believe with Core 2 Duo CPUs   I think I went to WCG for stress testing as it just worked and soon showed an error but over time of learning pro benching and such, it's taught me a lot of little things that I have picked up


----------



## Regeneration (Dec 18, 2018)

On another note, German magazine PC Games Hardware (PCGH) tested 15 stress test apps and found Linpack Xtreme to be the most aggressive on both AMD Ryzen 7 2700X) and Intel i9-9900K CPUs.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/CPU-CPU-154106/Specials/CPU-Stresstests-im-Vergleich-1268667/


----------



## hutt132 (Dec 22, 2018)

Do these non-matching Residual values indicate there is an instability in the overclock?


----------



## Regeneration (Dec 22, 2018)

hutt132 said:


> Do these non-matching Residual values indicate there is an instability in the overclock?



Different residual values are normal on modern Intel CPUs.

Abnormal on AMD and legacy Intel CPUs (Sandy Bridge and older).


----------



## toyo (Dec 23, 2018)

Nice app. Gonna replace LinX and IBT with it I guess.
It makes my 8700K draw the same amount of power as the last p95 smallFFTs /w AVX, around 130W (uncapped power limits and undervolted but stock multis, i.e. 4.3GHz for this specific case). I like that I can test lots of RAM too however, I made the mistake of buying some cheaper RAM and fought to stabilize XMP for basically an entire year. Who would have thought that all I had to do was actually decrease voltages, not increase them. My 3000MHz CL16 RAM runs at 1.2V VDIMM and 1.15 SA, 1.10 IO. Tried for ages to get it stable with higher voltages and always failed (p95 Blend workers would crash very late, sometimes after 11 hrs, and some games would also crash, typically with some _0xc0000005_ (Access Violation) error.
Happily it's all in the past, but damn it was a struggle.


----------



## Solid (Dec 26, 2018)

Hello to everybody, I'm new member and I'm trying to undervolt my Dell XPS 9570 i7 8750h, 32 GB RAM using Throttlestop.
Even though I read a lot of tutorials about it, I still have some doubts.
I started to do tests from - 50mV with TS Bench built in, the machine didn't crash but i was able to get 0 errors at 1024M and 12 threads only around an undervolt of -113.3 mV for core and cache... if I try to undervolt less, i start to get a lot of errors and around -140 mV I get tons of errors despite no BSODs with Prime95 (for 12 hours) or Aida64.
After asking for some help, I discovered the great Linpack Xtreme to test the stability, but I'm not sure how to set it up...
I tried to set it using 30 GB of Ram (experimental) (problem size: 62897), with the maximum of trials (also if i could set something like 3) and all of cores.
Unfortunaly, most of times, my system gets freezes or Bsods before to finish the first trial, also with a voltage offset of -113mV or -105mV...
It seems i can't undervolt anything.
This looks like very strange... because with other stress test software like Prime95, I can continue the test also for 12 hours (I tried with -140mV) without any errors or Bsods.
I read that all the people who have this machine (with i7 8750h) are able to undervolt it also with -140mV ore more...  at least with -120mV.
Is there anything I do wrong? How should I set Linpack Extreme for my machine to be sure it is stable?
Or maybe isn't my laptop so lucky or has any issues? I don't know if an undervolt which is around -70 or - 80 mV still makes sense for this pc/cpu model.
I'm quite disappointed.
Thank you for your help.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 26, 2018)

Dont worry about this application. It's an unrealistic load. P95 or similar applications are fine. If you are stable using your machine after testing with those others, than its stable for you....which is the important part. Nkt trying to pass every stress test around, including this overkill app. 

Regarding undervolting, every cpu is different as to how far, if any, it can undervolt.


----------



## Regeneration (Dec 26, 2018)

Solid said:


> How should I set Linpack Extreme for my machine to be sure it is stable?
> Or maybe isn't my laptop so lucky or has any issues? I don't know if an undervolt which is around -70 or - 80 mV still makes sense for this pc/cpu model.



Undervolt is like overclock. A matter of luck.

The right way to run Linpack Xtreme: choose stress test, 10GB is sufficient enough, enter 10000 times and use all available threads.

For maximum stability, keep it running for 8-12 hours and ensure cooling is sufficient (20c below Tjunction, usually 80c).



EarthDog said:


> Dont worry about this application. It's an unrealistic load. P95 or similar applications are fine.



Both Linpack and Prime95 solve mathematical equations. Linpack just solves a larger equation and distributes the load between cores in a more balanced manner. On modern Intel CPUs, Linpack uses the latest AVX-512 instruction set to speed up the calculation.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 26, 2018)

80C is this application? That's like 70-75C using something that isnt overkill. The amount of meat left on the bone here by using this app AND saying a max of 80C leaves enough meat on the bone for a Xmas meal.


----------



## Solid (Dec 26, 2018)

Thank you to both, the machine goes in thermal throttling during the test, and throttlestop shows that some alarms are active, like PL1, PL2, VR Current and EDP OTHER. The Dell XPS is a hot pc.. so, the system provides to lower the temp around 84°C when it is throttling.
I know that every chip is different, but I've never heard of  an i7 8750H which is unstable at -100mV


----------



## Regeneration (Dec 26, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> 80C is this application? That's like 70-75C using something that isnt overkill. The amount of meat left on the bone here by using this app AND saying a max of 80C leaves enough meat on the bone for a Xmas meal.



Linpack and Prime95 (small FFTs) stress temperatures are in the same range. I was stating the maximum recommended temperature for most Intel CPUs is 80c.



Solid said:


> Thank you to both, the machine goes in thermal throttling during the test, and throttlestop shows that some alarms are active, like PL1, PL2, VR Current and EDP OTHER. The Dell XPS is a hot pc.. so, the system provides to lower the temp around 84°C when it is throttling.
> I know that every chip is different, but I've never heard of  an i7 8750H which is unstable at -100mV



You should ask other i7 8750H users which stress testing software they used. Perhaps, none of them are stable with Linpack.


----------



## Solid (Dec 26, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> Undervolt is like overclock. A matter of luck.
> 
> The right way to run Linpack Xtreme: choose stress test, 10GB is sufficient enough, enter 10000 times and use all available threads.
> 
> For maximum stability, keep it running for 8-12 hours and ensure cooling is sufficient (20c below Tjunction, usually 80c).



So, do you think I should redo the test at -140 or -130mV using 10 GB for 12 hours or... since I've already got crashes/freezes using 30 GB, I should try with around -100mV?


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 26, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> Linpack and Prime95 (small FFTs) stress temperatures are in the same range. I was stating the maximum recommended temperature for most Intel CPUs is 80c.
> 
> 
> 
> You should ask other i7 8750H users which stress testing software they used. Perhaps, none of them are stable with Linpack.


his cpu throttles at 100C. Many people say keep it under 90c during stress testing. Saying 80c fo a 100c chip is too much meat on the bone....especially for an app that runs a bit warmer than p95.


----------



## Regeneration (Dec 26, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> his cpu throttles at 100C. Many people say keep it under 90c during stress testing. Saying 80c fo a 100c chip is too much meat on the bone.



Most desktop CPUs start to take damage and degrade slowly above 80c.

In addition, chance of getting errors increase by 30 percent regardless of voltage.

The maximum safe 24/7 temperature for most Intel desktop CPUs is 80c.



Solid said:


> So, do you think I should redo the test at -140 or -130mV using 10 GB for 12 hours or... since I've already got crashes/freezes using 30 GB, I should try with around -100mV?



Run Linpack (bootable version) with a problem size of 35000 for 2-3 hours and be done with it.

If you passed Prime95 and other stress testing apps, it is possible the crashes are related to memory. Linpack is sensitive to memory errors.


----------



## Solid (Dec 26, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> his cpu throttles at 100C. Many people say keep it under 90c during stress testing. Saying 80c fo a 100c chip is too much meat on the bone.



yes the i7 8750H inside the Dell XPS 9570 starts to throttle around 97°C. At least on my machine.. but I think in every XPS.
If it throttles, the temps remain around 84, 85° C and the clock speed is reduced. 
If it doesn't throttles, under load,  the cpu clock is above 90°C, till 97°C and the clock speed is around 3,9 Ghz.
it is noway to test it maintaining the temp around 80° for 12 hours, unless it start to throttle all the time during test.


----------



## Regeneration (Dec 26, 2018)

Solid said:


> yes the i7 8750H inside the Dell XPS 9570 starts to throttle around 97°C. At least on my machine.. but I think in every XPS.
> If it throttles, the temps remain around 84, 85° C and the clock speed is reduced.
> If it doesn't throttles, under load,  the cpu clock is above 90°C, till 97°C and the clock speed is around 3,9 Ghz.
> it is noway to test it maintaining the temp around 80° for 12 hours, unless it start to throttle all the time during test.



Try to locate the laptop in a dry and cool place during the stress test. It is hard to ensure complete stability with the clock throttling.


----------



## Solid (Dec 26, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> Try to locate the laptop in a dry and cool place during the stress test. It is hard to ensure complete stability with the clock throttling.



Ok, thank you, i will try and I'll let you know.. also if I think that this cpu in a so thin case will go in thermal throttling anyway, and at any core voltage offset..


----------



## er557 (Dec 26, 2018)

-100mv is already a bit much and can generate whea errors and bsod in idle in the long run, even if passes quick stress test.
on another note, @Regeneration : you're saying even a server xeon with soldered ihs starts to degrade @89c linpack even though in real world it's nowhere near those temps-under 240mm AIO?


----------



## Solid (Dec 26, 2018)

er557 said:


> -100mv is already a bit much and can generate whea errors and bsod in idle in the long run, even if passes quick stress test.



Not for this cpu.. Online, every people who have this laptop were able to undervolt it of around -140 mV, someone of them also -170mV.
There are people who claim something about -180 or 200mV but I don't believe on them... anyway no one has problems at -100mV.
Also Notebookcheck undervolted this laptop of -115mV without any problems: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Dell-XPS-15-9570-15-more-performance-by-undervolting.317738.0.html


----------



## Regeneration (Dec 26, 2018)

er557 said:


> -100mv is already a bit much and can generate whea errors and bsod in idle in the long run, even if passes quick stress test.
> on another note, @Regeneration : you're saying even a server xeon with soldered ihs starts to degrade @89c linpack even though in real world it's nowhere near those temps-under 240mm AIO?



Xeons and Mobile CPUs have reinforced silicon designed to survive in higher temperatures.

Here is an example:

i7-980X (Tcase 67.9c)

Same clocks, same architecture:

Xeon X5680 (Tcase 78.5c)


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 26, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> Most desktop CPUs start to take damage and degrade slowly above 80c.
> 
> In addition, chance of getting errors increase by 30 percent regardless of voltage.
> 
> The maximum safe 24/7 temperature for most Intel desktop CPUs is 80c.


Links supporting these assertions please. Sounds like bologna.


----------



## er557 (Dec 26, 2018)

on intel's own specs, tCase is usually 75c, and 80c is agreed to be a tad uncomfortable for nehalem architecture, which is what all latest years chips are based on.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 26, 2018)

100c tjmax on the chip in question.

Nehelam was over 8 years ago and its temps were a lot lower, yes.


----------



## toyo (Dec 26, 2018)

er557 said:


> on intel's own specs, tCase is usually 75c, and 80c is agreed to be a tad uncomfortable for nehalem architecture, which is what all latest years chips are based on.


That changed, now they use Tjunction. I think Intel knows what's best for their latest CPUs. der8auer even ran a 8700K without ANY cooling at all, and the PC didn't shut down or anything, it just ran at minimal speeds and throttled as necessary when reaching Tjunction=100C .

There's also the thing that laptop CPUs all reach these temps very fast under more stressing workloads and Intel doesn't make them throttle at all even at 95C. Same is true for my 8700K. It will run in full speeds, only when it reaches 100C it starts some throttling. If Intel knew that degradation occurs at 90C, you can bet they would have takes steps to make the CPU throttle faster.


----------



## Solid (Dec 26, 2018)

There is the "Prochot function" which throttles the cpu if it is close to 100°C, to reduce the temp.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 26, 2018)

https://ark.intel.com/products/134906/Intel-Core-i7-8750H-Processor-9M-Cache-up-to-4-10-GHz-

TJMax is 100C. The CPU throttles around that point to protect itself. It has another measure later that shuts it down in throttling isn't doing it. Running that CPU at 80C during THIS test (and others like P95) is and saying 80C leaves a tremendous amount of meat left on the bone. Since few loads come close to This app and P95, That means temps are going to be on the order of some 10-20C lower if not more (read: gaming will be close to 30C less depending on the title).



toyo said:


> If Intel knew that degradation occurs at 90C, you can bet they would have takes steps to make the CPU throttle faster.


Exactly.

Now, I am sure a CPU degrades faster the warmer it runs, but, we are talking about a CPUs useful lifespan here it will be ok. I've run anything from P4 to Coffee-Lake and stayed ~10C under TJmax and all CPUs have led a long life. Hell, my C2Ds and C2Qs are still going strong at those were pegged temp wise and highly overclocked and over volted.

The bottom line is 80C is an ultra conservative temperature limit for stress testing (this CPU), and especially this type of overkill testing application. If you don't want your CPU to throttle, don't run this test... don't run P95. I doubt the laptop's cooling can keep up. Run AIDA64 stress test. If you want to push things through that, run CPU and FPU only to get things cooking.


----------



## toyo (Dec 26, 2018)

By the way, for the curious, you can see a 8700K without any cooler running here. Use captions for En subs. It will even run multithreaded Cinebench.


----------



## Regeneration (Dec 26, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> Links supporting these assertions please. Sounds like bologna.



https://www.intel.com/content/dam/w...orkstation-overclocking-risks-white-paper.pdf

See "Frequency Degradation" for a brief summary.

And to be a little more technical, let's pick a random CPU datasheet:

https://www.intel.com/content/dam/w...heets/8th-gen-core-family-datasheet-vol-1.pdf

"Operating the processor outside the specified limits may result in permanent damage."

The limits Intel is referring to is *Tcase *for lidded parts, *Tjunction* for bare die parts and according to TDP.

But let's make it easier for everyone to check for themselves:

If you stick your nose close to a desktop Intel CPU when its operating at 80c and above, you will smell something funny, and it gets worse with the temperature.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 26, 2018)

Thank you for the links.. if I may......



Regeneration said:


> See "Frequency Degradation" for a brief summary.


1. Nobody is overclocking.
2. We all know that overclocking will reduce the lifespan of a CPU.
3. This warning makes complete sense for enterprise solutions (who the article is for) where data integrity is key more than speed. On the consumer side, Intel offers a separate warranty which covers overclocking.


Tcase - How are we measuring this? Does HWmonitor (is it the package?). Realtemp..nope. Coretemp... nope. Do any others (this is some of the more common ones)?. How do you propose an average user finds this temperature? Coretemp even says TJmax as it reads the cores. Why would this long standing application say such a thing if TJmax doesn't matter and Tcase is what should matter? Nothing really monitors Tcase... so how important is it really when no(?) temp program monitors this value nor does Intel's throttling seem based on it, but responds of TJmax temps. If people kept their temps to Tcase and below, lol, this stress test and others would be impossible to run without breaking that value. Too much misplaced importance on Tcase here it seems.

*Are you able to explain why, if Tcase is so important, that the CPUs throttle using TJmax values regardless if has an IHS or not?* One would think if a worrisome amount of degradation where to occur above Tcase, Intel themselves would use that value rather than base it off of something nearly 30C higher. Intel papers on his chip say Tjmax.. 8700k Tjmax... 9900k tjmax... please explain why everything is based on TJmax if that temp is so bad...



Regeneration said:


> If you stick your nose close to a desktop Intel CPU when its operating at 80c and above, you will smell something funny.


LOL, Not true at all. I have benchmarked like this for decades and haven't smelled anything and ran at their max (below TJmax). This is bolgona.



Regeneration said:


> "Operating the processor outside the specified limits may result in permanent damage."


Of course this is true. Since we are under TJmax, which is the temperature at which modern intel CPUs throttle, There isn't a worry. That passage also considers voltage and frequency changes as well.


----------



## er557 (Dec 26, 2018)

I would be uncomfortable pushing my hardware close to tjMax, also it brings few benefits if at all.
Long term safety and longevity is far more important, more than a few more points in a benchmark. Cpu and gpu likewise


----------



## Solid (Dec 26, 2018)

mmh a question for @Regeneration: How can I test the stability from portable version (linux distro) if i can't start Throttlestop to undervolt the cpu from there? Can I use the normal version for windows instead?  If yes i think i should go with 10 GB of Ram for at least 2 hours, right?


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 26, 2018)

er557 said:


> I would be uncomfortable pushing my hardware close to tjMax, also it brings few benefits if at all.
> Long term safety and longevity is far more important, more than a few more points in a benchmark. Cpu and gpu likewise


You shouldn't be...

If we use this stress testing application and use Tcase as a max, that means CPUs may not be able to run stock without breaking that value. Same thing w/P95 (using AVX.FMA etc)...




er557 said:


> Long term safety and longevity is far more important, more than a few more points in a benchmark. Cpu and gpu likewise


I agree, but we aren't talking about the CPU lasting for a couple of years because of this. The CPU will still last through its usefull life. Also, you have to consider that most stress tests, and this one in particular, runs things 20-30C warmer in most situations. It is rare one will ever be able to reproduce the temps we see with most activities. Gaming can be 40C cooler than this stress test. I can run this thing and hit 90C and when I game after 4 hours, I peaked at 58C. I encoded something for over an hour... 65C. Rendered (blender) around there.

I guess what I am saying is if we followed Tcase, which it seems one piece of software monitors (and calls it by the name of package), People couldn't overclock anything.

I can't tell you how many CPUs over the last 20 years I have run at the a very edge and those same CPUs still ran through its useful lifespan. That isn't to say none died, but, hell, I had chips die at stock speeds too...


EDIT: Bone stock on a 9900K with a 2x120mm CLC cooler I'm already at 71C after like 2 mins... once this thing saturates, I'm well past a 72C Tcase value...

EDIT2: 76C and counting after 4 mins using this...


Should I stop the test? 76C -5C is Tcase...right?


----------



## Regeneration (Dec 26, 2018)

Solid said:


> mmh a question for @Regeneration: How can I test the stability from portable version (linux distro) if i can't start Throttlestop to undervolt the cpu from there? Can I use the normal version for windows instead?  If yes i think i should go with 10 GB of Ram for at least 2 hours, right?



Sorry, forgot about ThrottleStop. Yes, just run the Windows, for a few hours. No need to fry the laptop for 12 hours.



EarthDog said:


> I can't tell you how many CPUs over the last 20 years I have run at the a very edge and those same CPUs still ran through its useful lifespan. That isn't to say none died, but, hell, I had chips die at stock speeds too...



You don't know that, because you don't run 'overkill' stress testing software to test stability and integrity.

So unless the CPU is completely dead, there is no way for you to know.

Most of my CPUs hit 70-75c with Linpack.


----------



## MrGenius (Dec 26, 2018)

Tcase/Tcmax is a joke. Like if you can keep the lid under a certain temperature, the die can be run at any temperature(even well in excess of Tjmax). It's nonsense. The only thing that matters is Tjunction/Tjmax.


EarthDog said:


> ...Tcase, which it seems one piece of software monitors (and calls it by the name of package),...


It doesn't though. Unless you place a thermocouple directly on the lid of the processor you are not able to measure Tcase. Tcase = the temperature of the lid. Which is pretty much irrelevant as far as determining the temperature of the CPU die. Like I said, as if keeping the lid cool enough means you can run the CPU die hot enough to melt without issues. Tcase assumes way too much and is a stupid specification. I suggest everybody do like I do and completely ignore it.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 26, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> You don't know that, because you don't run 'overkill' stress testing software to test stability and integrity.
> 
> So unless the CPU is completely dead, there is no way for you to know.
> 
> Most of my CPUs hit 70-75c with Linpack.


Umm. Yes I do know that they still ran. They still ran F@H on the CPU, they still rendered and encoded... The stability and integrity was there for my uses, which was pretty heavy on the CPU at times (running weeks on end F@H for example or other distributed projects). Remember, stability is in the eye of the beholder. If the system doesn't crash/freeze/slow up (low benchmarks due to instability) for how a PC is used, then it is stable for that user.


EDIT: Regen - Can you answer some of my questions, please? Why do you place so much importance on this value when seemingly nothing else (talking temp/monitoring programs) do? What do you know that all these others seem not to?



MrGenius said:


> It doesn't though. Unless you place a thermocouple directly on the lid of the processor you are not able to measure Tcase. Tcase = the temperature of the lid. Which is pretty much irrelevant as far as determining the temperature of the CPU die. Like I said, as if keeping the lid cool enough means you can run the CPU die hot enough to melt without issues. Tcase assumes way too much and is a stupid specification. I suggest everybody do like I do and completely ignore it.


That is what I thought as well... but wasn't certain.

Either way, Tcase isn't even listed on processors I looked up (8750H, 8700K, 9900K just now - I know on some older processors it was, like Nehalem nearly a decade ago), it is only TJmax. The importance placed on this seemingly undefined (on modern processors) and elusive to measure value, seems waaaaaaaaaaaaay too high here.




I guess in the end is (my) fear of spreading misinformation to users. As with anything, running it out of specification is likely to reduce the lifespan of the item being run out of spec. It is why specs are there. What is important is to know the RIGHT specs to look at and what weight/relevance the specification is. The concern I have with Tcase and running his CPU under 80C is that I'm almost sure a laptop won't be able to do that stock. NOt to mention, that value seems not defined or tracked with any major temp program. 


Note... after ~15 min test using Linpack (10GB of 16GB RAM use all c/t), I hit 78C with this CPU at stock. According to these 'rules' I would should not overclock at all as I will break 80C which causes degradation significant enough to warrant a warning about. I'm sorry... but that is just hooey. According to 'my' rules, that leaves 10C headroom to overclock... which is not a lot. This program is too much for the average user to do long term OC stability testing. If some prosumer number cruncher  came through and needs 99.9999999999999999999% stabilty instead of 99.999999999999999999% stability I'd say, yeah, use this... pound it. But its overkill for the average user leaving too much meat on the bone. IMO, its usefulness for the average joe overclocker is perhaps with maybe 5 min runs......enough to get an idea of max temps (and then some) and see if its 'stable enough' to push forward one notch. Quick and dirty testing for the overclocker. 


Regen - what is a comparable setting in your app to say Small FFT and blend in P95?


----------



## Solid (Dec 26, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> Sorry, forgot about ThrottleStop. Yes, just run the Windows, for a few hours. No need to fry the laptop for 12 hours.



thank you, I will try again from -130mV for 10GB of Ram and i will see

I will post some screenshots then, I'm repeating the test with -130mv and 35.000 equations (problem size at 10 GB), locating the laptop over a base with a fan. At the moment, no problems but it is still early.
The curious thing I'd like to ask to you @EarthDog  and @Regeneration is: how is it possible that TS Bench built in Throttlestop gives tons of errors trying at 1024M with -130mV, but I'm going well (so far - 10 runs) with the equations of Linpack Xtreme??

This means that I shouldn't trust on TS Bench because it can give "false positives" or what??

PS: temperatures are around 75, 80°C but just because the system hits  97°C and start to throttle to reduce temps, with Thermals, VR Current , PL1, EDP OTHERS and PL2 alarms activated


----------



## Regeneration (Dec 26, 2018)

Solid said:


> thank you, I will try again from -130mV for 10GB of Ram and i will see
> 
> I will post some screenshots then, I'm repeating the test with -130mv and 35.000 equations (problem size at 10 GB), locating the laptop over a base with a fan. At the moment, no problems but it is still early.
> The curious thing I'd like to ask to you @EarthDog  and @Regeneration is: how is it possible that TS Bench built in Throttlestop gives tons of errors trying at 1024M with -130mV, but I'm going well (so far - 10 runs) with the equations of Linpack Xtreme??
> ...



I'm not familiar with TS Bench so I can't comment on it. I know the developer (@unclewebb) of ThrottleStop is also an active member on this forum.

It is possible the errors caused by memory or memory controller. But yet again, you should look at the time, rather then amount of runs.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 26, 2018)

Solid said:


> Thermals, VR Current , PL1, EDP OTHERS and PL2 alarms activated


Even undervolted... wowzas. Hate to say I called that when using this app.

You shouldn't be throttling when running a stress test at stock speeds. That isn't testing much of anything except the thorttled clocks and voltage. 
Your system simply can't handle what it is delivering. You are pinging hard against the wall on stock settings setting off multiple throttle reasons (thermals, VR current, Power limit 1/2, and EDP) even while undervolted. If that doesn't tell you to drop this program (and most likely a lot of laptop users)... not sure what does.


----------



## Solid (Dec 26, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> Even undervolted... wowzas. Hate to say I called that when using this app.
> 
> You shouldn't be throttling when running a stress test at stock speeds. That isn't testing much of anything except the thorttled clocks and voltage.
> Your system simply can't handle what it is delivering. You are pinging hard against the wall on stock settings setting off multiple throttle reasons (thermals, VR current, Power limit 1/2, and EDP) even while undervolted. If that doesn't tell you to drop this program (and most likely a lot of laptop users)... not sure what does.



Yes, Dell XPS 9570, like predecessors, is a beautiful machine but it suffers high temperature like macbook pro, which hits also TJunctons (100°) while under stress. This is the reason why a lot of XPS users need to undervolt their pc.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 26, 2018)

Solid said:


> Yes, Dell XPS 9570, like predecessors, is a beautiful machine but it suffers high temperature like macbook pro, which hits also TJunctons (100°) while under stress. This is the reason why a lot of XPS users need to undervolt their pc.


So why bother with a stress test that sets off all kinds of other throttling flags? That isn't right. Temps, fine... we know laptops generally run toasty... but its setting off a few other flags not related to temps and you are UNDERVOLTED!

Have you tried AIDA64 default stress test? Does it do the same thing (throw off several codes)? It may very well do that... but worth checking.


----------



## Solid (Dec 26, 2018)

Regeneration said:


> I'm not familiar with TS Bench so I can't comment on it. I know the developer (@unclewebb) of ThrottleStop is also an active member on this forum.
> 
> It is possible the errors caused by memory or memory controller. But yet again, you should look at the time, rather then amount of runs.



Yes I will leave it for 3 hours at least, i hope to talk with @unclewebb soon because it is an interesting question to understand at what  TS Bench looks for... It sounds very odd, like the laptop answers 2+2=5 at TS Bench but it can solve thousands of equations on Linpack Xtreme.



EarthDog said:


> So why bother with a stress test that sets off all kinds of other throttling flags? That isn't right. Temps, fine... we know laptops generally run toasty... but its setting off a few other flags not related to temps.
> 
> Have you tried AIDA64 default stress test? Does it do the same thing (throw off several codes)? It may very well do that... but worth checking.



i tried Aida and it stresses less the cpu. I'm trying with Linpack because of the incongruence with TS Bench.
I know that TS Bench isn't the best stress test available but how is it possible that at 1024M it gives a lot of errors at -130mV and under Linpack it can solve complex equations without errors (at least on calculation)?
In my case it's worth to undervolt the laptop because, doing it, my pc can gain around 15% of performance also it still throttles, like Notebookcheck said here: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Dell-XPS-15-9570-15-more-performance-by-undervolting.317738.0.html and how i can confirm using Cinebench R15


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 26, 2018)

Ive been in computing and overclocking and benchmarking and stress testing for decades. Don't chase after tests like this unless the work you are doing on your laptop specifically requires such heavy heavy 'stability'.

Undervolting is worth it... nobody is denying that. But stress testing it across a few applications and comparing one to the other is living in the minutia. Yes, AIDA does stress it less in default form. If you only check of CPU and FPU, it will be in the ballpark (though still likely less than this). Or, Try Realbench stress test... another good one with real world applications.

That said, You'll get nowhere with Linpack since its hammering your system and bringing up multiple throttling flags. It is clear that for laptops, this seemingly can't be run.......at least on your laptop as due to it smashing temp limits and other throttling flags due to its inherent nature of 'overkill'.


----------



## Solid (Dec 26, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> but its setting off a few other flags not related to temps and you are UNDERVOLTED!



All of this flags are related to temps.. VR CURRENT i think relates to VMR Mosfets and they are voltage regulators which become too hot due the high temp, for example.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 26, 2018)

Solid said:


> All of this flags are related to temps..


AFAIK, they are not related to temps outside of the thermal one. 

VR Current is the CURRENT going to the VRMs, yes. They are likely hot when trying to run this test, but the flag is for CURRENT. There is a relationship between current and temps, I get that, but we are seeing it tripping for CURRENT not VR temps (which it may be doing? But not sure throttlestop does that? Not sure). 

Power Limit 1/2 is the CPU crossing the default PL thresholds. Also not temp related.

EDP - I had to look that up and found Unclewebb himself explain what it is...  "If at full load, ThrottleStop Limit Reasons shows EDP lighting up in red, that confirms that the CPU is throttling because it has reached the Current Limit."  (LINK)

4/5 errors you listed have nothing (or little) to do with temperatures.


----------



## Solid (Dec 26, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> Ive been in computing and overclocking and benchmarking and stress testing for decades. Don't chase after tests like this unless the work you are doing on your laptop specifically requires such heavy heavy 'stability'.
> 
> Undervolting is worth it... nobody is denying that. But stress testing it across a few applications and comparing one to the other is living in the minutia. Yes, AIDA does stress it less in default form. If you only check of CPU and FPU, it will be in the ballpark (though still likely less than this). Or, Try Realbench stress test... another good one with real world applications.
> 
> That said, You'll get nowhere with Linpack since its hammering your system and bringing up multiple throttling flags. It is clear that for laptops, this seemingly can't be run.......at least on your laptop as due to it smashing temp limits and other throttling flags due to its inherent nature of 'overkill'.



Ok I understood what you are saying but it is really interesting the question I asked before: how can be possible that 2+2=5 in TS Bench 1024M with lots of errors at -130mV (and 0 errors with 0 offset) and passing at the same time a lot of equations on Linpack (at -130mV)...  maybe only @unclewebb can answer to this.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 26, 2018)

Different tests testing different things/methods is my guess. One may test more or less RAM or test it in a different manner. This is why I suggest finding a more simple test (TS is fine, if it works for you) and sticking to it as it is quite common to be stable in one app, but not in another. Chasing ghosts this way. 

The point of stress testing is to find one that works for you and your needs. And in the case of laptops, or at least your laptop, lol, Linpack is too stressful causing a whole bunch of flags to trip causing you to test lower than what would be tested in the real world.


----------



## Solid (Dec 26, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> AFAIK, they are not related to temps outside of the thermal one.
> 
> VR Current is the CURRENT going to the VRMs, yes. They are likely hot when trying to run this test, but the flag is for CURRENT. There is a relationship between current and temps, I get that, but we are seeing it tripping for CURRENT not VR temps (which it may be doing? But not sure throttlestop does that? Not sure).
> 
> ...



So, I'm not sure about what VR current and PL1/2 mean if they start to blink when the laptop is under stress and the temperature hits above 90°. Anyway I started to search another stress test app because I saw so many errors with TS Bench also if i try to undervolt the laptop of -115mv and TS bench is considered not very stressful as stress test.
I would like to know if it can generate also "false positives" because otherwise i get confused.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 26, 2018)

Solid said:


> So, I'm not sure about what VR current and PL1/2 mean if they start to blink when the laptop is under stress and the temperature hits above 90°.


It means the system is doing its job in regulating, power, temperature, and current trying to get below set thresholds. PL1/2 has nothing to do with temps... VR Current, nor apparently EDS either. You can get a PL/current limit flag with temps WELL under control.

I'll let you catch up to my posts... LOL.


----------



## Solid (Dec 26, 2018)

I'm trying to understand as well as i can, because I'm not an english speaking user 

Anyway, so far, no errors, no bsods, no freezes... with 10GB (35000 problems), if I had tried 30GB (62897 problem size) I would have got freezes or bsods for sure!! bah...

and it's been 2 and a half hours... I can say that my system is stable with Linpack Xtreme at 10GB (35000) with -130mV but NOT at 30 GB (62897) and not with TS Bench!


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 26, 2018)

Solid said:


> I can say that my system is stable


You can say its stable at the throttled values... that is all. This currently isn't testing the speeds and voltage the laptop will run outside of this stress test.

Edit: you should not be throttling when stress testing.


----------



## Regeneration (Dec 26, 2018)

Solid said:


> I'm trying to understand as well as i can, because I'm not an english speaking user
> 
> Anyway, so far, no errors, no bsods, no freezes... with 10GB (35000 problems), if I had tried 30GB (62897 problem size) I would have got freezes or bsods for sure!! bah...
> 
> and it's been 2 and a half hours... I can say that my system is stable with Linpack Xtreme at 10GB (35000) with -130mV but NOT at 30 GB (62897) and not with TS Bench!



Your processor is throttling and therefore the results are useless. You'll need to use something that produces less heat.

You're testing -130mV on 2893 MHz, you need to test -130mV on the highest clock.

Or try Linpack with the lowest amount of RAM to produce less heat. The 32-bit version allows 256MB and 512MB.


----------



## Solid (Dec 26, 2018)

Sorry but of course the pc throttles.. because it has a i7 8750h inside a thin case.. anyway the pc wasn’t in throttling for the entire test, it alternated 2,893 ghz with the 3,9 ghz full speed... I don’t have any problems if pc isn’t under stress. When I tried with 30GB the pc crashed also if it was throttling.

Cinebench R15 produces less heat with around 80° C at 3,9 ghz and the pc never crashes.


----------



## toyo (Dec 26, 2018)

The situation was never very good with laptops and cooling/OC. The 8700K which should be quite similar with your CPU is drawing 130W at stock (4.3GHz) under stress if you remove the power limit. Let's assume that the 8750H is much better binned and can run at way lower voltage, and you're still gonna look at a realistic 70W+ that need to be dissipated.  The OEMs lock power limits for a reason, as they understand how flimsy their thermal solutions are.

I would just run it at stock, and yeah sure, undervolt it, but don't expect to be able to run the usual stress tests to guarantee stability. Can try running an older non AVX prime95 or AIDA64, but i fear you'll run into either a power or thermal limit anyway. Could also try to buy a laptop cooler for it.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 26, 2018)

Solid said:


> anyway the pc wasn’t in throttling for the entire test, it alternated 2,893 ghz with the 3,9 ghz full speed...


this is expected... the PC throttles and bring it down, then loosens up once its cooler or doesnt hit PL/current limits. When it hits the throttling points again, it clocks down again. Normal. That and this isnt the same load throughout testing AFAIK.

As we said, you need to be running a stress test which doesn't throttle your PC. This isnt doing the job for you.


----------



## Solid (Dec 26, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> this is expected... the PC throttles and bring it down, then loosens up once its cooler or doesnt hit PL/current limits. When it hits the throttling points again, it clocks down again. Normal. That and this isnt the same load throughout testing AFAIK.
> 
> As we said, you need to be running a stress test which doesn't throttle your PC. This isnt doing the job for you.



I don’t think a stress test app which doesn’t throttle a Dell XPS exists... maybe you are used to look at desktop pc or laptop which are thick and heavy.. but it isn’t the case of Dell XPS.. look the reviews. Undervolting needs to be done to reduce the throttling time, not to eliminate it, anyway a difference must be if with 30GB of ram the pc crashes and with 10GB not. When I undervolt it I obtain 15% more in performance (cinebench R15). Anyway if I reduce the stress of course the pc doesn’t crash... my doubts regarded just the TS Bench and why I get errors

Have you ever had a MacBook Pro? What to say? This Dell is also a good step compared to it.. A MacBook Pro hits 100°C while it runs Cinebench R15 for some cores.


----------



## mouacyk (Dec 26, 2018)

After glimpsing Linpack Extreme shoot my temps to 95C at 5GHz on all cores in the stress test, I've fallen back to more practical testing.  That is -- actually looping encodes and compiles for several hours, which top out in the low 70's.

I do run some AVX workloads, but the GPU is enabled for those and can do it much quicker.  If you must use AVX/AVX2 for quality encoding, then that's what you have to do and test it -- although, there's a reason for the AVX offset to maintain a balance between temperature and throughput.


----------



## er557 (Dec 26, 2018)

As you can see, your overclock is a bit excessive, and your cooling is insufficient, especially if as you say it took a short time to reach those temps.
But then again, everyone has it's own view of what is stable enough


----------



## Solid (Dec 26, 2018)

I'm trying to undervolt a notebook, i78750H isn't overclockable.
I  wanted to know from @unclewebb why Ts Bench gives me a lot of errors at 1024M till -113mV, why Linpack Xtreme freezes my laptop when I use 30 Gb of Ram if I undervolt it also of -105mV but I can go without problems with 10GB also undervolting of -130mV.
Just to understand how much I can undervolt this machine.


----------



## freeagent (Dec 27, 2018)

Its a pretty heavy duty app, I cant say I am entirely surprised to see systems like Dells not being able to run it at full capacity. I was actually considering getting an XPS all done up it was such a good deal, especially with a 1070ti, even though you have to wait about 30 days for shipping vs 5 if you chose the 1060, 70, or 80. But I looked at the internal shots, and wasn't convinced.


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 27, 2018)

Solid said:


> why TS Bench gives me a lot of errors at 1024M


The TS Bench is a 32 bit benchmark which only uses x86 code so it does not use any AVX instructions.  Basically it is testing a completely different part of the CPU compared to where the 64 bit AVX instructions are running when Linpack testing. 

Interesting that the TS Bench needs slightly more voltage to run reliably compared to Linpack testing.  These are two completely different tests so when you think about it, slightly different voltage requirements should not be too surprising.  A couple of other users have reported that some quick TS Bench testing has helped them get their CPU voltage in the ball park a lot quicker compared to the more popular AVX based tests. 

The TS Bench does millions of calculations, stops, and then does the exact same calculations again.  The CPU cores are usually a little hotter second time around.  If it finds two different answers to the same question, it reports this as an error.  Any mathematical calculation should return the exact same answer no matter how many times you run the test, no matter what core the calculation is run on or where in memory the answer is saved.  A 100% stable computer should be able to pass any of these tests. 

You might also want to try doing some stability testing with turbo boost disabled.  The 8750H runs at only 2.20 GHz when Intel Turbo Boost is disabled so its offset voltage requirement at this speed could be significantly different compared to when it is running fully loaded at 3.90 GHz.  An offset voltage that passes full load, full speed testing, might be inadequate when running fully loaded at only 2.20 GHz.  Some single thread stability testing is also important.  This will allow the 8750H to hits its maximum speed of 4.10 GHz.  Watch the reported MHz in ThrottleStop closely since it is one of the few monitoring apps that reports single thread MHz testing like this correctly.



Solid said:


> I know that TS Bench isn't the best stress test available...


That is kind of an insult.  
Your testing has shown that the TS Bench can detect errors quicker compared to Linpack testing.  It also tests parts of your CPU that more popular testing software does not.    That sounds like a pretty good test to me.


----------



## Solid (Dec 28, 2018)

unclewebb said:


> The TS Bench is a 32 bit benchmark which only uses x86 code so it does not use any AVX instructions.  Basically it is testing a completely different part of the CPU compared to where the 64 bit AVX instructions are running when Linpack testing.
> 
> Interesting that the TS Bench needs slightly more voltage to run reliably compared to Linpack testing.  These are two completely different tests so when you think about it, slightly different voltage requirements should not be too surprising.  A couple of other users have reported that some quick TS Bench testing has helped them get their CPU voltage in the ball park a lot quicker compared to the more popular AVX based tests.
> 
> ...



Sorry of course i didn't want to insult your work, i've just heard this but I think Throttlestop is the best app to do this, otherwise I would't have chosen it.
Anyway @unclewebb, i just wanted to ask to you what do you suggest to me:
TS BENCH say to me 0 errors at 1024M if I undervolt my DELL of around -105mV for core and cache (it seems to me too few for this cpu), but I can undervolt core of -130mV and cache of -105mV and I obtain the same 0 errors.
Every people with this notebook claim an undervolt of around -140mV for core and cache.
If I run Linpack I can pass the test for 3 hours using 10GB of RAM (35.000 of problem size) with an undervolting of -140mV for core and cache, but my pc tends to freeze if i try also at -105mV with 30 GB of RAM (but i'm not sure why).
Looking at this situation, can you give me some advice?? How many mVs should I go with??
Thank you!



freeagent said:


> Its a pretty heavy duty app, I cant say I am entirely surprised to see systems like Dells not being able to run it at full capacity. I was actually considering getting an XPS all done up it was such a good deal, especially with a 1070ti, even though you have to wait about 30 days for shipping vs 5 if you chose the 1060, 70, or 80. But I looked at the internal shots, and wasn't convinced.



I'm satisfied with this machine, it's beautiful but Dell should solve heat problems.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 28, 2018)

Every cpu is different.  Just because one can undervolt a certain amount, doesnt mean yours will. They also may have used a different stress testing application (or none at all) which can get away with less voltage when running. Too many variables to worry about other results.

Pick your test and whatever it ends up at it does. It should be clear that this stress test isn't for you since you are getting all those throttling reasons...in particular the current limit and power limits.


----------



## Regeneration (Dec 28, 2018)

Solid said:


> Looking at this situation, can you give me some advice?? How many mVs should I go with??



Enough voltage for the computer to pass the test.

It is possible your CPU requires more voltage because you have 32GB of RAM.

More RAM puts more stress on the integrated memory controller.


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 29, 2018)

Solid said:


> Every people with this notebook claim an undervolt of around -140mV for core and cache.


The amount of voltage other people are using is nice to know and will give you some idea of where you can start testing but beyond that, it is not important.  When it comes to how much voltage your CPU needs to be 100% stable, do lots of testing and give your CPU as much voltage as it needs.  After initial break in, it might require a little more voltage.  Any errors in any reputable benchmark are telling you that your CPU is not stable.  Stability is important to me so I always give my CPUs a little bit of extra voltage so I can pass these tests.

The majority of users probably never run benchmarks or simply don't care if they are Linpack or Prime95 or TS Bench stable.   As long as their computer doesn't crash too often while playing a game, they are happy.  An undervolt of -140 mV might be fine for them and if this is how you mostly use your laptop, a less than 100% stable undervolt might be OK for you too.

It is totally up to you.  If you are running the local nuclear power plant with your laptop, don't be cheap with the voltage.  If you need to talk some more about voltage, you should start a new discussion thread.


----------



## Solid (Dec 29, 2018)

thank you


----------



## toyo (Jan 2, 2019)

@Regeneration: 
Windows Defender deleted the x64 executable yesterday. Can anything be done to remove it from the databases/heuristics? I assume it's just a false detection.


----------



## Regeneration (Jan 2, 2019)

Sent a false positive report to Microsoft.



Shows clean on their website with definition 1.283.1844.0.


----------



## toyo (Jan 2, 2019)

Thanks. I rebooted and updated Defender, and downloaded the file again, and no detection this time.


----------



## hat (Mar 6, 2019)

This thread needs a bump. Possibly a sticky? I thought of it again and the only way I found it was by using the Search function... of course, to do that, I already had to know what Linpack Xtreme was...


----------



## KWSW (Apr 9, 2019)

Was searching around on information on linpack xtreme and chanced upon this thread. Agree with the above poster that a sticky would be good 

Have a question, which problem size should I be choosing and how many runs to check for stability?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Regeneration (Apr 9, 2019)

80 percent of your RAM or maximum of 10GB. 1-4 hours for "basic" stability or 8-12 hours for "rock" stable. Just enter unlimited runs and stop it manually.


----------



## phill (Apr 9, 2019)

KWSW said:


> Was searching around on information on linpack xtreme and chanced upon this thread. Agree with the above poster that a sticky would be good
> 
> Have a question, which problem size should I be choosing and how many runs to check for stability?
> 
> Thanks in advance!



Firstly, welcome to TPU 

Secondly, depends on how well you wish to check your system to be honest.  Too small a problem size wouldn't really push the limits of it and too few a runs wouldn't test it or heat it up for long enough.  I'd go with a high problem size and then at least 10 to 15 runs of the test


----------



## KWSW (Apr 9, 2019)

Thank you Regeneration and phill for the replies! So i don't need to run the 30GB option?

I am just aiming for mild overclocks for mostly gaming with a side of photo post processing. Probably 3.9ghz on my 1800x cos leaving it at stock is kind of a waste and maybe just seeing how much I can tighten the timings on my Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB kit.

In this case, would 1 hour be good? And also would the test also check my rams at the same time? I do intent to still run a test with the google stress app test for safe checking.


----------



## phill (Apr 9, 2019)

Have you ever tried Memtest @KWSW ?   That might be a little better for just the RAM testing, when that's stable you could move on to the Linpack testing..  I'm not sure how much higher the 1800X's go but I'd do one thing at once with the overclocking and then you won't be pulling your hair out when it crashes out.   Do you know if the Corsair kit is B die based RAM or not?

I find doing some basic tests first always help, CB 15/20 etc, things like that which will stress the system a little, then using Linpack could finish the overclock testing off 

Feel free to post back if you get any issues, people here are always around to help


----------



## KWSW (Apr 9, 2019)

phill said:


> Have you ever tried Memtest @KWSW ?   That might be a little better for just the RAM testing, when that's stable you could move on to the Linpack testing..  I'm not sure how much higher the 1800X's go but I'd do one thing at once with the overclocking and then you won't be pulling your hair out when it crashes out.   Do you know if the Corsair kit is B die based RAM or not?
> 
> I find doing some basic tests first always help, CB 15/20 etc, things like that which will stress the system a little, then using Linpack could finish the overclock testing off
> 
> Feel free to post back if you get any issues, people here are always around to help



would that be memtest86 or hci memtest? there is also y-cruncher and testmem5. which one in your experience would be the best to test stability?

I know stability is also subjective based on what I read on the internet, for me since my PC is not for "mission critical" work, as long as can play my games and do some light photo editing, do I really need to run these programs like linpack xtreme overnight or 1-2 hours is good enough for most everyday workload?


----------



## Guest1 (May 19, 2019)

unclewebb said:


> Your testing has shown that the TS Bench can detect errors quicker compared to Linpack testing.  It also tests parts of your CPU that more popular testing software does not.    That sounds like a pretty good test to me.


Kind of having the opposite experience here, TS Bench is working fine while Linpack Xtreme Benchmark fails even with default CPU settings.

```
Size   LDA    Align. Time(s)    GFlops   Residual     Residual(norm) Check
20000  20000  4      25.338     210.5182 6.102235e-005 5.401815e+003   FAIL
20000  20000  4      25.430     209.7547 2.380633e-010 2.107382e-002   pass
```

Using a 8700K on Windows 1903, maybe a problem with the microcode update?


----------



## toyo (May 19, 2019)

Guest1 said:


> Kind of having the opposite experience here, TS Bench is working fine while Linpack Xtreme Benchmark fails even with default CPU settings.
> 
> ```
> Size   LDA    Align. Time(s)    GFlops   Residual     Residual(norm) Check
> ...


I have the same(ish) config (new microcode 0xB4, new MDS mitigations enabled, 1903), I can try a quick test. Will edit in 10-20 mins.

Took me a few tries to realize you're running the 3GB bench, not the stability tests. Here's my stock 8700K on that. I think the microcode is fine, no crashes, no stability issues, no BSODs.

PS: not only your PC is unstable, but you also seem to have some sort of performance issue, there's shouldn't be 45-ish Gflops between the same stock CPUs. Could be that you have power capped in BIOS.


----------



## Guest1 (May 19, 2019)

toyo said:


> PS: not only your PC is unstable, but you also seem to have some sort of performance issue, there's shouldn't be 45-ish Gflops between the same stock CPUs. Could be that you have power capped in BIOS.


That's the AVX offset reducing the clock, but the thing is that TS Bench and Prime95 works fine for me, only Linpack causes problems. (Currently testing OCCT Linpack with AVX).
Not sure if this is a hardware or software issue.


----------



## toyo (May 19, 2019)

Guest1 said:


> That's the AVX offset reducing the clock, but the thing is that TS Bench and Prime95 works fine for me, only Linpack causes problems.
> Not sure if this is a hardware or software issue.


You shouldn't need to use an AVX offset for stock operation. That for high OCs where the CPU starts to draw insane amounts of power and it becomes almost impossible to cool. You can cool a 8700K under stress testing, with a very cheap cooler (30$), up to about 150W drawn. That's about 4.5-4-7GHz under prime95, depending on your silicon lottery luck. At stock it should run 4.3GHz when under stress. If you see the clocks going down, and you haven't manually set the AVX offset, you need to take a look at the power limits, those can be set at 95W (as it should as per Intel spec, yet some manufacturers remove the limits). If that's the case, under very heavy load the clocks will drop to around 3.8-4.0GHz so the power limit is respected.

As for what's causing instability, could be anything from the typical unstable OCs or undervolts, to badly implemented XMPs. Poorly implemented XMP with stupid high voltages tormented me for almost a year, and I wasted hundreds of hours on stresstesting until I got it stable. Linpack itself, I'd exclude it from being the cause. Probably prime95 (with the correct settings to create the same amount of stress as linpack) would fail too.


----------



## Regeneration (May 19, 2019)

Guest1 said:


> That's the AVX offset reducing the clock, but the thing is that TS Bench and Prime95 works fine for me, only Linpack causes problems. (Currently testing OCCT Linpack with AVX).
> Not sure if this is a hardware or software issue.



Sounds like a memory / IMC problem.


----------



## ehume (Jul 8, 2019)

First of all, I'd like to thank OP for putting in the work to do this. I had to pass on OCCT because their stress test with AVX ran too cool -- about 10c cooler than LinX 0.6.5. LinX 0.6.5 advertised itself as running AVX2, so I thought that was the best you could get. 

I have looked through all 10 pages of this thread, and OP not once mentions what AVX this app uses, AVX2 or AVX-512. I would like to know.


----------



## freeagent (Jul 8, 2019)

Guest1 said:


> Kind of having the opposite experience here, TS Bench is working fine while Linpack Xtreme Benchmark fails even with default CPU settings.



Could be a bad setting for ram, might not like a certain divider you are using. Linpack is sensitive to these things. But a fail is a fail, you need to fix it, as its not linpack, its your system. Could be more vcore, imc juice, mem juice, timings, who knows. All of these mitigations do a number to your rig. And you probably wouldn't know until you experience instability, like I did.

This is my favorite stress testing app, It hammers your rig like no other. Things that I passed before (like IBT, Linx 0.6.5) wasn't passing with this. Personally, I find if I can pass this, everything else is no problem. (so far)

Also, prime 95 can suck it. That app needs a trip to the glue factory.


----------



## Regeneration (Jul 9, 2019)

ehume said:


> First of all, I'd like to thank OP for putting in the work to do this. I had to pass on OCCT because their stress test with AVX ran too cool -- about 10c cooler than LinX 0.6.5. LinX 0.6.5 advertised itself as running AVX2, so I thought that was the best you could get.
> 
> I have looked through all 10 pages of this thread, and OP not once mentions what AVX this app uses, AVX2 or AVX-512. I would like to know.



AVX-512.


----------



## whitepuzzle (Jul 24, 2019)

Sometimes after running for a while, the console window goes black and I can't see anything. Test seems to continue running according to CPU usage, but without any information I have to just close and restart. Any fix? 

Also, if I have 16GB of RAM, should I use the 14GB option or stick to 10GB?


----------



## toyo (Jul 24, 2019)

whitepuzzle said:


> Sometimes after running for a while, the console window goes black and I can't see anything. Test seems to continue running according to CPU usage, but without any information I have to just close and restart. Any fix?
> 
> Also, if I have 16GB of RAM, should I use the 14GB option or stick to 10GB?


If you use 14GB on 16GB RAM it will spill in the pagefile. Windows and your software occupy some RAM too, quite a bit of it. If you're browsing or doing anything during the test, that will increase further.
As for the black window, that can be cause by running out of actual RAM, I've seen it on other testing apps. 

By the way, even 10GB might prove too much if you have browser with a few tabs open. Monitor the pagefile.


----------



## TesterMD (Jul 24, 2019)

@Regeneration Just curious if you will be updating this to use the most recent MKL binaries (2019.4.003)?


----------



## er557 (Jul 24, 2019)

this bench is pretty heavy on the ram as well, especially with the 8gb large benchmark, it's best to avoid it using the page file if at all possible,  it would be also more accurate to detect multi socket systems as two cpus, but it probably has to do with Hyperthreading detection


----------



## Regeneration (Jul 24, 2019)

TesterMD said:


> @Regeneration Just curious if you will be updating this to use the most recent MKL binaries (2019.4.003)?



The latest MKL binaries are somehow buggy with thread binding.


----------



## Regeneration (Aug 1, 2019)

There appears to be a problem with Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000 series) running Linpack with AVX support.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 1, 2019)

Regeneration said:


> There appears to be a problem with Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000 series) running Linpack with AVX support.


............do tell.............

AIDA64 and P95 seem to do OK...


----------



## Regeneration (Aug 1, 2019)

There are problems with other apps, Destiny 2, WHEA warnings in Windows.

hXXps://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cbls9g/the_final_word_on_idle_voltages_for_3rd_gen_ryzen/


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 1, 2019)

That's pretty old news, the WHEA errors, but that was attributed to PCIe 4.0 devices like NVMe's and such last I read about it.


----------



## er557 (Aug 1, 2019)

whea is a bad sign for a hardware part, next up: bsod


----------



## Mussels (Aug 2, 2019)

er557 said:


> whea is a bad sign for a hardware part, next up: bsod



no, driver bug that caused errors in the event log and nothing else, with fixes already on the way.


----------



## Arctucas (Aug 24, 2019)

Good, bad, otherwise...?


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 24, 2019)

Arctucas said:


> Good, bad, otherwise...?


This is a vomit of information in a post . Temps and voltages look good though if that is what you are asking. 

How long did you run the test?


----------



## Arctucas (Aug 24, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> This is a vomit of information in a post . Temps and voltages look good though if that is what you are asking.
> 
> How long did you run the test?



One pass.

Just relidded, wanted to see how it is doing.


----------



## Arctucas (Sep 2, 2019)

This is strange; I ran Linpack Extreme 1.1.1 again today, and it only used 8 threads. Linpack Extreme 1.0 only uses 8 as well. 

Yes, HT is on. Linpack Extreme 0.9 uses all 16 threads.

Other apps such as LinX, RealBench , AIDA64, OCCT, Prime95 use all 16 threads.

WTF?


----------



## Regeneration (Sep 2, 2019)

Arctucas said:


> This is strange; I ran Linpack Extreme 1.1.1 again today, and it only used 8 threads. Linpack Extreme 1.0 only uses 8 as well.
> 
> Yes, HT is on. Linpack Extreme 0.9 uses all 16 threads.
> 
> ...



Linpack delivers better scores without HT/SMT (benchmarking).

HT/SMT should be used only for stress testing.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 2, 2019)

Not sure he asked about a score... just that for some reason the latest version for him isnt running all c/t.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 3, 2019)

benchmark mode always limited the threads, stress test mode used them all


----------



## redux (Sep 12, 2019)

Regeneration said:


> Different residual values are normal on modern Intel CPUs.
> 
> Abnormal on AMD and legacy Intel CPUs (Sandy Bridge and older).



@Regeneration Do you still consider varying residuals normal? I'm asking because my 9900K calculates slightly different residuals on stock clocks, even if using memory at 2133 MHz. Most of the residuals are the same, but a small percentage of runs (like 10 %) give a residual that is between 0.5-1.5 x the normal residual.

I've had sandy bridge, ivy bridge and haswell-e systems. All of these have calculated the same residuals between runs.


----------



## Regeneration (Sep 12, 2019)

redux said:


> @Regeneration Do you still consider varying residuals normal? I'm asking because my 9900K calculates slightly different residuals on stock clocks, even if using memory at 2133 MHz. Most of the residuals are the same, but a small percentage of runs (like 10 %) give a residual that is between 0.5-1.5 x the normal residual.
> 
> I've had sandy bridge, ivy bridge and haswell-e systems. All of these have calculated the same residuals between runs.



It is normal. You probably ran old version of Linpack on those systems.


----------



## BoMbY (Sep 18, 2019)

Regeneration said:


> There appears to be a problem with Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000 series) running Linpack with AVX support.



Yes, the problem is it isn't running at all. For some reason your Linpack Extreme and IBT AVX Linpack are both crashing pretty much instantly on Ryzen 3000.


----------



## Tibor Hazafi (Oct 14, 2019)

Hi all,

I have an i7-6700K CPU @ 4.0GHz and 2*8GB 2133MHz DDR4 RAM. Which are the optimal settings for me to stress test both of them?

1. amount of RAM: *I don't know*
2. number of times to run: *I don't know*
3. all available thread: *I think YES*
4. disable sleep mode: *I think YES*
5. run CPUID HWMonitor in the backgrond: *I think NO, since I run it manually*

And what are the safe core voltage and temperature values, which I can still safely run the program without throttling or hardware damage with?

Thanks,
hazazs


----------



## Octopuss (Oct 15, 2019)

So why hasn't this been updated since 2018? Must be using outdated libraries just as well.


----------



## toyo (Oct 15, 2019)

Tibor Hazafi said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I have an i7-6700K CPU @ 4.0GHz and 2*8GB 2133MHz DDR4 RAM. Which are the optimal settings for me to stress test both of them?
> 
> ...


Added text to your questions.

Modern CPUs don't get damaged so easily. You'll have to test what's best for you step by step, incrementally. Also check a guide for Skylake, so you get a rough idea about how much it can OC on average. From what I remember 4.5-4.6 GHz were somewhat common. If it throttles, you'll need to either get better cooling or reduce voltage/frequency. I assume Skylakes have the horrible toothpaste TIM under the heatsink, which means you can probably delid them for better thermals. You'll have to have a decent VRM on the motherboard too if you start drawing a lot of power during the tests.

All in all, you'll have to test.

EDIT: noticed you seem to have a B250 chipset, which does not allow overclocking, I believe? So you will pretty much just stress-test the default config. I don't think it will even use XMP for the RAM above 2400 MHz. Depending on what's in the BIOS, you might try to increase the bus to OC slightly, since the multiplier is not there. You could also undervolt, which has pretty good results IMO, I undervolted my 8700K as well and reduced power consumption from approx. 135W to 118W (peak, under AVX2 stresstesting), it can have decent result on temps. 

All in all, with this motherboard, if everything is stable, there's not much you can do unless you feel like playing with it and trying to undervolt or do that small bus OC. You could also tighten the timings on the RAM I guess to make up for the lower frequency and lack of XMP above 2.4GHz, but I'm unsure if it's really worth your time. Up to you, of course.


----------



## Tibor Hazafi (Oct 16, 2019)

toyo said:


> EDIT: noticed you seem to have a B250 chipset, which does not allow overclocking, I believe? So you will pretty much just stress-test the default config. I don't think it will even use XMP for the RAM above 2400 MHz. Depending on what's in the BIOS, you might try to increase the bus to OC slightly, since the multiplier is not there. You could also undervolt, which has pretty good results IMO, I undervolted my 8700K as well and reduced power consumption from approx. 135W to 118W (peak, under AVX2 stresstesting), it can have decent result on temps.
> 
> All in all, with this motherboard, if everything is stable, there's not much you can do unless you feel like playing with it and trying to undervolt or do that small bus OC. You could also tighten the timings on the RAM I guess to make up for the lower frequency and lack of XMP above 2.4GHz, but I'm unsure if it's really worth your time. Up to you, of course.



Yes, I have a B250 chipset instead of Z270, because *I don't want to OC*, I just simply want to stress test my system at base clocks. The XMP profile settings for the RAM are:
2133MHz (highest frequency which are supported by the motherboard with a Skylake CPU)
1,2V
CL13
My result with 10GB RAM and 30 times to run >>LINK<<
Voltage, temperature and clock values under the test according to HWMonitor >>LINK<<

Again, I don't want to OC, but what I definiately want:
Keep all core at 4GHz minimum with the possibility of the 4,2GHz Turbo on one core if needed. For this I have set the minimum processor state to 100% by enabling the "High performance" power profile in Windows. Most of the time the CPU runs at 4GHz on each core, but monitoring the clocks for 3 hours this was the result according to CPUID HWMonitor: 






For some reason each core drops rarily to 800MHz, even if I set EIST to disabled. Core #0 drops to 800MHz even under the stress test. *Why? It should keep the 4GHz all the time, isn't it?* *Or what setting did I miss?*


----------



## phill (Oct 16, 2019)

Tibor Hazafi said:


> Yes, I have a B250 chipset instead of Z270, because *I don't want to OC*, I just simply want to stress test my system at base clocks. The XMP profile settings for the RAM are:
> 2133MHz (highest frequency which are supported by the motherboard with a Skylake CPU)
> 1,2V
> CL13
> ...



Just a quick check at this point but what are you're temps at the time of running the tests?  It might drop speeds when changing the tests very breifly I think?  Been a while since I used the software to be honest...  There could be other factors why your getting a drop but temps would be my first port of call


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 16, 2019)

Octopuss said:


> So why hasn't this been updated since 2018? Must be using outdated libraries just as well.





Regeneration said:


> The latest MKL binaries are somehow buggy with thread binding.


----------



## Tibor Hazafi (Oct 16, 2019)

phill said:


> There could be other factors why your getting a drop but temps would be my first port of call



The max temperature under the test is 69°C. Shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## toyo (Oct 16, 2019)

Tibor Hazafi said:


> Yes, I have a B250 chipset instead of Z270, because *I don't want to OC*, I just simply want to stress test my system at base clocks. The XMP profile settings for the RAM are:
> 2133MHz (highest frequency which are supported by the motherboard with a Skylake CPU)
> 1,2V
> CL13
> ...


It shouldn't drop to 800MHz. That is the typical idle frequency for the Skylakes (and Kaby/Coffee too I think). It's not a thermal throttle. Even with EIST disabled it should not drop. Do you have any apps that can change the power plan on the fly? Like Process Lasso? Some "game booster" types? Get rid of anything like that if yes, at least while you test. It might also be that you need a BIOS update to fix the boost behavior.

By the way, I'm unsure you need to keep it on High Performance, or be worried about idle clocks. At least for Cofffee Lake, which should be quite similar with Skylake, there's basically no performance gain in the benchmarks I tried with High Performance or even the Ultimate (workstation Windows 10) power plans. My 8700K is pretty much always on Balanced and idling at 800, with some cores making temporary jumps to their boost as needed, OS is snappy, games work normally.

I would download HWinfo64 if I were you. One section pretty much holds the reason why a CPU throttles, if it does. Since your temps are fine, another reason is power consumption, Intel most probably has set a Power Limit based on the TDP on the BIOS, so 91W. I have an MSI motherboard too, it should have something like:
Long Duration Power Limit (W) 
Long Duration Maintained (s)
Short Duration Power Limit (W)

HWinfo should tell you the package power and if it's capped at 91W. Even if you hit that cap, it should still not throttle to 800, but rather as high as possible while maintaining 91W, so it's still a mystery. Just get HWinfo and see what's causing the clocks to go down.


----------



## Tibor Hazafi (Oct 16, 2019)

toyo said:


> Do you have any apps that can change the power plan on the fly? Like Process Lasso? Some "game booster" types?



No, nothing like this at all. I always try to minimize running background programs, especially while gaming.



toyo said:


> It might also be that you need a BIOS update to fix the boost behavior.



I've already have the latest.



toyo said:


> By the way, I'm unsure you need to keep it on High Performance, or be worried about idle clocks.



Some games have stutters/unexplainable drops, and I always try to do everything to avoid it. One of my fear is (maybe absolutely nonsense) that when the CPU is return from a deeper C-State to C0 it may cause microstutter in games.



toyo said:


> Intel most probably has set a Power Limit based on the TDP on the BIOS, so 91W.







These are my settings in BIOS, everything at default. Should I set long and short duration to a higher value, than 91W?



toyo said:


> Just get HWinfo and see what's causing the clocks to go down.



I have found that section you're talking about (click on Sensors and scroll down). But what should I see? These informations tell me nothing :/


----------



## toyo (Oct 16, 2019)

Tibor Hazafi said:


> No, nothing like this at all. I always try to minimize running background programs, especially while gaming.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Game stutters are quite the complex and annoying issue. The causes can be very diverse, ranging from the rather common and easily fixable Standby Cache problem in later Windows 10 builds, to reports that CFG (Control Flow Guard in Windows Defender) causes some of the problems, to engines that are basically defective (Batman Arkham Knight for example, the game famously stutters quite heavily especially when driving, Digital Foundry has a video on it), to engines that are very demanding on hardware (AC Odyssey can be hardcore on the CPU especially in populated areas, the 8700K can spike to 100% with ease with just a 1070ti @1080p Ultra), to games that were released quite unoptimized and with features that are not working well (Metro Exodus comes to mind; i was never able to make it run without stutters, even though I can maintain 90-100 fps in most areas at Ultra settings; some have blamed Hairworks and PhysX, and while turning them off alleviates the issue a bit, it never fully goes away).

At the same time, there are games that run nearly flawlessly. Strange Brigade, for example, is a great showcase of what Vulkan can achieve. Overwatch is a great example of esports optimization. DOOM 2016 runs beautifully.

To complicate things further, all depends on your particular setup. At one point, I started experiencing periodic frame drops each minute, with regularity. It drove me mad for a day or two. Then I discovered a new Windows theme set the desktop wallpaper to change every minute - and each change was accompanied by an ingame frametime spike. It's that easy to break a game engine.

So your stuttering might, or might not be related to the CPU, but I would suspect it is not. Also, inside a game, the CPU should pretty much be stuck at its boost clocks, with rare exceptions like a cutscene. You should make a habit from monitoring and logging your game sessions. MSI AB/RTSS and HWinfo64 and indispensable tools. 

Now, for the BIOS settings.

Before you do anything, run a torture test and see if you cap at 91W. Package Power should be visible in HWinfo. Even if you remove/increase the power caps in BIOS, it will likely not change your gaming experience, as you will not reach 91W when gaming on the 4 core CPU at default settings. Most games will hover around 30-50W, with rare spikes into the 60-80W range. The power cap will only get rid of power throttling under stresstesting, basically. 

As for that section in HWinfo, it says a lot of things. It shows you what is the limiting factor for the CPU clocks. On my image, you can see Max Turbo Limit and Turbo Attenuation as "Yes". That is basically saying that the CPU is idling and not boosting to max multiplier, and also that it respects a turbo bin set in BIOS. If I would start a stress test, it would boost to 4.3GHz and the Turbo Attenuation will be on No, but Max Turbo Limit will still be there as the CPU will be restricted by the all core 43x multi which is the default setting. If I cap the Powers to 95W, I would get power throttling, which would result in the RING/IA: Package-Level RAPL settings switching to Yes. IA are the cores, Ring is the uncore, and GT is the iGPU.

TLDR: your stuttering will probably be difficult to troubleshoot, and probably you should open a separate topic for that, and the CPU should not have cores going into power saving C states while inside games. There is a C-State residency section in HWinfo64 to monitor that too, seems to go from C7 to C3 to C0 for me, C7 is idling, and C0 is triggered when I launch a stresstest. Not all games result in significant usage of the C0 state for me. Trine 4 barely uses the CPU, but AC Odyssey is quite stressful. 

You'll have to kind of discover all these things through testing and monitoring.


----------



## phill (Oct 16, 2019)

Tibor Hazafi said:


> The max temperature under the test is 69°C. Shouldn't be a problem.



What sort of test are you doing?  A blend test or a small FT or whatever it's called?  I must admit, I've never really looked at the CPU usage when Prime has run as I just thought it ran 100% all the time... Maybe it's changed a bit since I last used it


----------



## Tibor Hazafi (Oct 16, 2019)

toyo said:


> Game stutters are quite the complex and annoying issue. The causes can be very diverse, ranging from the rather common and easily fixable Standby Cache problem in later Windows 10 builds, to reports that CFG (Control Flow Guard in Windows Defender) causes some of the problems, to engines that are basically defective (Batman Arkham Knight for example, the game famously stutters quite heavily especially when driving, Digital Foundry has a video on it), to engines that are very demanding on hardware (AC Odyssey can be hardcore on the CPU especially in populated areas, the 8700K can spike to 100% with ease with just a 1070ti @1080p Ultra), to games that were released quite unoptimized and with features that are not working well (Metro Exodus comes to mind; i was never able to make it run without stutters, even though I can maintain 90-100 fps in most areas at Ultra settings; some have blamed Hairworks and PhysX, and while turning them off alleviates the issue a bit, it never fully goes away).
> 
> At the same time, there are games that run nearly flawlessly. Strange Brigade, for example, is a great showcase of what Vulkan can achieve. Overwatch is a great example of esports optimization. DOOM 2016 runs beautifully.
> 
> ...



Yeah, luckily there are titles that run smoothly like butter, for example Shadow of War for me right now. It runs without any stutters. By the way for some reason it freezes for 1-2 seconds when I investigate a clue, but it's not annoying so much since it happens once per hour.

I have been using Afterburner&RTSS for a long time to monitor, but I never found a connection between the stutters and the loads/clocks/voltages/temps etc., so I hope it is usually game related.

"The power cap will only get rid of power throttling under stresstesting, basically."
But this drop to 800MHz happened in Windows as well on each core, even when I went away for 3 hours and do nothing, while during the 1,5 hours stress test only core0 dropped.

All in all, then when I go home, I will do some test, screenshot the results and post it tomorrow. So far thanks for the information and have a nice day!



phill said:


> What sort of test are you doing? A blend test or a small FT or whatever it's called? I must admit, I've never really looked at the CPU usage when Prime has run as I just thought it ran 100% all the time... Maybe it's changed a bit since I last used it



Linpack Xtreme with 10GB and 30times.


----------



## Octopuss (Oct 17, 2019)

@Regeneration 
I tried the Linux bootable version and it's great.
1) Can you add timestamps into the output window by chance?
2) What do I change in the settings for infinite loop?

For the Windows version, is there any permanent settings file? It's annoying to type everything over and over. The linpack.ini that's created gets deleted when you exit.


----------



## Tibor Hazafi (Oct 17, 2019)

@toyo
Hi there,

I played Shadow of War about 2,5 hours yesterday. I logged it into a .csv file (which I converted to .xlsx later) and found out a couple of things.
Core #1,2,3 dropped to 800MHz multiple times, core #0 kept 4GHz all the time. *However these drops didn't cause any visible stutter in the game at all.*
In the "Core #0,1,2,3 Power Limit Exceeded" columns all values are *NO*.
In the "Performance Limit - Power" column all values are *NO*.
Max "CPU Package Power" was 57.755W
In the Performance Limit Reasons section (from "IA: PROCHOT" to "RING: Package-Level RAPL/PBM PL2,PL3") everything was *NO*, exept:
  -"IA: Max Turbo Limit" (always *YES*)
  -"IA: Turbo Attenuation (MCT)" (*YES*/*NO*)

So I didn't find the reason of the drops. But if you think and provide me an e-mail address, I can send the log file to you, maybe you can see something what I didn't.


----------



## Arctucas (Oct 19, 2019)

Bootable version (on USB) not working properly.

Boots, but resolution is stuck on 640x480, and after 10 seconds or so, PC locks up, requiring power off. Reset button does not work.

Also, when run in Windows, GFlops very low.

WTF?


----------



## Arctucas (Oct 26, 2019)

No-one?

I was hoping that at least the author might offer some suggestions...


----------



## Octopuss (Oct 26, 2019)

The author seems to be gone.


----------



## Regeneration (Oct 26, 2019)

Arctucas said:


> Bootable version (on USB) not working properly.
> 
> Boots, but resolution is stuck on 640x480, and after 10 seconds or so, PC locks up, requiring power off. Reset button does not work.
> 
> ...



You can try to run the bootable verison in text mode. But it is likely you'll get similar benchmark results.

Perhaps wrong memory timings, throttling, or some other bad setting in the BIOS.


----------



## Arctucas (Oct 27, 2019)

Regeneration said:


> You can try to run the bootable verison in text mode. But it is likely you'll get similar benchmark results.
> 
> Perhaps wrong memory timings, throttling, or some other bad setting in the BIOS.



Reinstalled Windows, got the bootable version to work. Same GFlops.

Using XMP memory timings.

What type of throttling?

BIOS seetings pretty much on Auto.


----------



## Transalpin (Nov 21, 2019)

Regeneration said:


> There appears to be a problem with Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000 series) running Linpack with AVX support.


Hi, 
first post here but been reading this site for a couple of years already; thanks for the news, reviews and SW tools!

Regarding the quote above, is this still an open issue? Everytime I run LinpackXtreme stress test (even on the smallest possible settings: 2GB, 1 run, 1 thread) on my Ryzen 3700X it will end with  "Hardware failure detected. System failed to maintain stability."

Thx + br,
Transalpin


----------



## basco (Nov 21, 2019)

Welcome Mister Transalpin to TPU


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 22, 2019)

Transalpin said:


> Hi,
> first post here but been reading this site for a couple of years already; thanks for the news, reviews and SW tools!
> 
> Regarding the quote above, is this still an open issue? Everytime I run LinpackXtreme stress test (even on the smallest possible settings: 2GB, 1 run, 1 thread) on my Ryzen 3700X it will end with  "Hardware failure detected. System failed to maintain stability."
> ...



Ryzen 3000 series are incompatible with Linpack. Needs a firmware update from AMD.


----------



## Transalpin (Nov 22, 2019)

@Regeneration 
Thanks for the feedback/confirmation. Would it be possible to add a note regarding this incompatibility to the download site? Perhaps this will save some others from going through what I did the last few days. (*)

@basco 
Thanks for the welcome. 
>> Location: austria
Hallo, Landsmann! 

(*)
I built my PC last weekend. Imagine my dismay when LinpackXtreme failed; I thought had bought a lemon. I went on with testing every RAM stick individually, underclocking the CPU, running other stress tests like Prime95, y-cruncher, Karhu for hours only to have them come up blank and wondering if LinpackXtreme is really that much more effective at detecting hardware faults. ;-)


----------



## Octopuss (Nov 22, 2019)

Octopuss said:


> @Regeneration
> I tried the Linux bootable version and it's great.
> 1) Can you add timestamps into the output window by chance?
> 2) What do I change in the settings for infinite loop?
> ...


Bump.


----------



## pipes (Nov 23, 2019)

linux version is not 1.1.1 version updated, who can tell me how can stress 16 gb of ram, in readme.txt stress test amount ram untill 9,6 GB


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 24, 2019)

pipes said:


> linux version is not 1.1.1 version updated, who can tell me how can stress 16 gb of ram, in readme.txt stress test amount ram untill 9,6 GB



Set problem size to 43000



Octopuss said:


> @Regeneration
> I tried the Linux bootable version and it's great.
> 1) Can you add timestamps into the output window by chance?
> 2) What do I change in the settings for infinite loop?
> ...



Improved logging (timestamp) is scheduled for the next Linux release.

You can quickly press "2, 5, 1000, y, n, n enter". But I'll consider adding batch run to the command line.


----------



## pipes (Nov 24, 2019)

what version of intel mkl does it use?


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 25, 2019)

Already noted on the 1st post: 2018.3.011.

I don't recommend using anything else.


----------



## pipes (Nov 25, 2019)

There Is no possibility to update mkl in Linux versione but Is bot importante because is more food the prime95 then not find an instabile in my oc


----------



## Transalpin (Nov 25, 2019)

Regeneration said:


> Ryzen 3000 series are incompatible with Linpack. Needs a firmware update from AMD.


Hi, 
status update: I am able to run LinpackXtreme now on my Ryzen 3700X after adding the following system variable in Windows 10:

MKL_DEBUG_CPU_TYPE=5

Hint provided by computerbase forum member "HITCHER_I" related to this article regarding improving Ryzen performance on the Intel MKL.


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 26, 2019)

Transalpin said:


> Hi,
> status update: I am able to run LinpackXtreme now on my Ryzen 3700X after adding the following system variable in Windows 10:
> 
> MKL_DEBUG_CPU_TYPE=5
> ...



Thanks for the confirmation. Included this workaround in the latest release.

Please let me know if you get false positive errors on AMD.


----------



## pipes (Nov 26, 2019)

this is a good software, pla u a new version for linux?


----------



## Transalpin (Nov 26, 2019)

Regeneration said:


> Included this workaround in the latest release.


Great, thank you!  



Regeneration said:


> Please let me know if you get false positive errors on AMD.


How do I tell a false positive from a real error?


----------



## Regeneration (Nov 26, 2019)

Transalpin said:


> How do I tell a false positive from a real error?



Run it first without any overclocking for a few hours.


----------



## Octopuss (Nov 27, 2019)

Why are the settings reset on every boot on the Linux version? It says things about filesystems I don't understand at all.


----------



## pipes (Nov 27, 2019)

what's message write?


----------



## Transalpin (Dec 1, 2019)

Regeneration said:


> Run it first without any overclocking for a few hours.


Sorry, took me a little while to find some time for this. Done now; no errors reported on XMP Settings. Also no errors reported on my RAM OC attempt. 
Thanks!


----------



## Regeneration (Dec 1, 2019)

Transalpin said:


> Sorry, took me a little while to find some time for this. Done now; no errors reported on XMP Settings. Also no errors reported on my RAM OC attempt.
> Thanks!



Looks fine to me, but you should also test with MemTest64.


----------



## Monstieur (Dec 4, 2019)

AVX-512 offsets aren't triggering on my i9-10900X. It runs at AVX-2 frequency.


----------



## VPII (Dec 29, 2019)

Regeneration said:


> Run it first without any overclocking for a few hours.



Hi there, I have an AMD Ryzen 9 3950X which I have tested with Linpack Extreme stress testing running 20 iterations to begin with and it passed without an issue.  My concern is when I run IBT I cannot get my system stable and temps are higher than when I run Linpack Extreme.  Is this normal? Or am I maybe doing something wrong.  It also state that I have 32 processors with 32 threads which seems a little off but it seems to work non the less.

Oh and another question with 16gb memory installed how much should I select for the stress test.  At first I selected 8gb, now running with 10gb but when I tried 14gb is was ridiculously slow but temps appear to be going higher so it might be better.

Okay so I ran Linpack Extreme Stress test 20 iterations which took roughly 2 hours just to get an idea where it is at.  I'm happy to say it passed without an issue, more than I could say for Prime95 or IBT.


----------



## umeng2002 (Dec 30, 2019)

Latest version 1.1.2 doesn't load up my 2700x like 1.1.1 and prior.

Does this have to do with the fact that Ryzen 1 and 2 have only 128 bit FPUs and need to split up 256 bit operations?

If that's the case, why would that be forced on for Zen1 and Zen+ CPUs?

It's not in my head either. v1.1.1 is 5 degrees hotter than v1.1.2


----------



## VPII (Dec 30, 2019)

umeng2002 said:


> Latest version 1.1.2 doesn't load up my 2700x like 1.1.1 and prior.
> 
> Does this have to do with the fact that Ryzen 1 and 2 have only 128 bit FPUs and need to split up 256 bit operations?
> 
> ...


Funny enough I just tried v1.1.1 taken your comment.  I'm running it on a Ryzen 9 3950X and it would fail in a couple of seconds, even at stock.  I will try it now with my memory running stock to see if the failure persist and report back.

Okay, just tried it with the memory running stock and processor running stock and it still fails.


----------



## Regeneration (Dec 30, 2019)

Version 1.1.2 forces the use of AVX2 instructions for Ryzen CPUs to remain compatible with the 3000 series.

Prime95 uses AVX, and IBT uses SSE. If you crash with these, your OC is probably unstable.

In the next version, I'll add an option to select instruction set.


----------



## umeng2002 (Dec 30, 2019)

Thank you very much.


----------



## b33f (Dec 31, 2019)

Just want to confirm that it is perfectly normal to have different residual results on the 8700K.


----------



## VPII (Jan 4, 2020)

Regeneration said:


> Version 1.1.2 forces the use of AVX2 instructions for Ryzen CPUs to remain compatible with the 3000 series.
> 
> Prime95 uses AVX, and IBT uses SSE. If you crash with these, your OC is probably unstable.
> 
> In the next version, I'll add an option to select instruction set.




Okay I picked up another 3950X after selling the first one I bought and this chip is a little better even though it is also from week 45 of 2019.  This one pass IBT very high mem preset at 4.2ghz using 1.225vcore so I am happy.


----------



## brezeljohannes (Feb 15, 2020)

Is there any chance that the bootable version gets the newest Linpack with forced AVX2 support too? Because right now the bootable one fails on 3950X CPUs because of the AVX2 quirks.


----------



## purecain (Mar 12, 2020)

ok I just tried this software on 3900x, these were the results on benchmark mode as an initial test.no bugs or quirks though so it could be your motherboard bios settings giving you an issue @brezeljohannes
Great stability tool. Thanks a lot to the OP!!!! 
BTW my cpu was using up 1.4vcore... stayed cool though from 60% to 78%.
well decided to follow DerBauer's tips for the 570x series motherboards and changed my memory speed up to 3600mhz from 3466mhz and the power draw limit.
Also upped to ppt limit to 300amps 
tdc and edc to 230amps 
the initial settings gave me a fail each time in linpack. 
Went back in to the bios and worked on the timings and afterwards I received passes... I also used 1.45v for my 3466mhz clocked to 3600mhz sticks of B-Die. FCLK auto set to 1800mhz.
The pc is noticeably quicker... I almost cant believe it. 
Heres the results.


----------



## Danny_G13 (Mar 14, 2020)

Hi, first-time poster!

So I'm trying to get to the bottom of general system instability I've had lately, and I've been running some different Linpack apps.

This was one.

I tried LinX and it passed that no problem, and this too, but there was a discrepancy.

In LinX the Residual had to remain the same calculation, otherwise the run broke down - it would also mean residual norm was wrong too.

On these events, the pass stopped and it was a fail.

But in Linpack Extreme it's not reporting a wrong calculation as an error and says that's fine?

Surely the residual and norm both have to remain consistent otherwise it's a fail?

Can someone kindly clarify this oddity?


----------



## Regeneration (Mar 14, 2020)

Danny_G13 said:


> But in Linpack Extreme it's not reporting a wrong calculation as an error and says that's fine?



Different residuals is a normal thing on hardware that supports AVX instructions.


----------



## Danny_G13 (Mar 14, 2020)

Regeneration said:


> Different residuals is a normal thing on hardware that supports AVX instructions.



Interesting, didn't know that. I'm a 9600K which obviously does. Thanks for the update.


----------



## brezeljohannes (Apr 22, 2020)

purecain said:


> ok I just tried this software on 3900x, these were the results on benchmark mode as an initial test.no bugs or quirks though so it could be your motherboard bios settings giving you an issue @brezeljohannes
> Great stability tool. Thanks a lot to the OP!!!!
> BTW my cpu was using up 1.4vcore... stayed cool though from 60% to 78%.
> well decided to follow DerBauer's tips for the 570x series motherboards and changed my memory speed up to 3600mhz from 3466mhz and the power draw limit.
> ...



Thanks, but as said in my post, I am talking about the BOOTABLE LINUX VERSION that is having this issue with AVX on the Ryzen 3 CPUs (3950X, etc.). The Windows version works fine here too, but the bootable version fails to run with any Ryzen 3 CPU and hence I´ve asked for an update of that one. The bootable version tends to find errors that passes just fine if running it on Windows, as the Linux kernel is a lot more sensitive to this kind of stuff.


----------



## Regeneration (Apr 22, 2020)

brezeljohannes said:


> Thanks, but as said in my post, I am talking about the BOOTABLE LINUX VERSION that is having this issue with AVX on the Ryzen 3 CPUs (3950X, etc.). The Windows version works fine here too, but the bootable version fails to run with any Ryzen 3 CPU and hence I´ve asked for an update of that one. The bootable version tends to find errors that passes just fine if running it on Windows, as the Linux kernel is a lot more sensitive to this kind of stuff.



Edit run_stress_test, add "export MKL_DEBUG_CPU_TYPE=5" after "export MKL_DYNAMIC=FALSE".


----------



## liujohn6571 (Apr 23, 2020)

Hi there. My 9900K@5.0 only got around 230 GFLOPS, which is ridiculous. I've seen people getting at least 500 GFLOPS or more.
Also, how come my 9900K only has 8 threads? And why is my maximum CPU usage only 52%?


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 23, 2020)

Hyperthreading disabled?


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 23, 2020)

Caring1 said:


> Hyperthreading disabled?


Hwmonitor shows 16 threads... HT appears to be enabled but the program didnt pick it up.


----------



## Regeneration (Apr 23, 2020)

liujohn6571 said:


> Hi there. My 9900K@5.0 only got around 230 GFLOPS, which is ridiculous. I've seen people getting at least 500 GFLOPS or more.
> Also, how come my 9900K only has 8 threads? And why is my maximum CPU usage only 52%?



Linpack benchmark runs faster and more effective only on real cores (not virtual ones).

Your score is the result of throttling or slow memory.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 23, 2020)

Regeneration said:


> Linpack benchmark runs faster and more effective only on real cores (not virtual ones).
> 
> Your score is the result of throttling or slow memory.


This doesnt use HT to stress test??

...or the benchmark only doesnt?


----------



## toyo (Apr 23, 2020)

liujohn6571 said:


> Hi there. My 9900K@5.0 only got around 230 GFLOPS, which is ridiculous. I've seen people getting at least 500 GFLOPS or more.
> Also, how come my 9900K only has 8 threads? And why is my maximum CPU usage only 52%?


You need to see what is causing your chip to throttle under the stresstest, could be VRMs heating up, CPU thermals, power limits in BIOS. You should have also finished the Windows update process before stresstesting.
You can see the throttling reasons in HWinfo64.


----------



## liujohn6571 (Apr 23, 2020)

Regeneration said:


> Linpack benchmark runs faster and more effective only on real cores (not virtual ones).
> 
> Your score is the result of throttling or slow memory.


But there's no throttling since the highest temperature of my CPU is only 80°c. And I'm using DDR4 4400 17-17-17-37 Dual Channel, which is not slow at all.



toyo said:


> You need to see what is causing your chip to throttle under the stresstest, could be VRMs heating up, CPU thermals, power limits in BIOS. You should have also finished the Windows update process before stresstesting.
> You can see the throttling reasons in HWinfo64.


I'm using the ASUS ROG Maximus XI APEX, which shouldn't have any VRMs overheat issue. Both of the Tjmax and CPU power limit have been adjusted to their maximum value.


----------



## Regeneration (Apr 23, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> This doesnt use HT to stress test??
> 
> ...or the benchmark only doesnt?



Only the benchmark doesn't. Better scores that way.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 23, 2020)

Regeneration said:


> Only the benchmark doesn't. Better scores that way.


That doesnt make sense to me why you would make the bench not use HT/SMT...but ok. Who cares about faster... you care about how it performs with all cores and threads...since most dont shut off HT/SMT.


----------



## toyo (Apr 23, 2020)

liujohn6571 said:


> But there's no throttling since the highest temperature of my CPU is only 80°c. And I'm using DDR4 4400 17-17-17-37 Dual Channel, which is not slow at all.
> I'm using the ASUS ROG Maximus XI APEX, which shouldn't have any VRMs overheat issue. Both of the Tjmax and CPU power limit have been adjusted to their maximum value.


I think I know what the "issue" is. You're likely comparing the results from the benchmark to those from stresstesting, which uses all the threads. I'm getting 232 Gflops from the bench, but 340 Gflops on the stresstest with 8GB RAM used that runs on all threads.


----------



## borandi (May 10, 2020)

Is there a list of benchmark flags so I can call the benchmark from a batch file without having to input keys ? Also a flag to output the results file? I can't see any FAQ/readme on any of the command line flags


----------



## Regeneration (May 11, 2020)

borandi said:


> Is there a list of benchmark flags so I can call the benchmark from a batch file without having to input keys ? Also a flag to output the results file? I can't see any FAQ/readme on any of the command line flags



Batch run is supported on Linux, but not on Windows. I'll consider adding it in the next version.

There is only a single command line for Windows: /residualcheck

Forces check of residual values for processors without AVX.


----------



## borandi (May 11, 2020)

Thanks for the answer!
Just to clarify, by batch file I don't mean batch run. I just want to automate it as a series of tests and get the GFLOPs data out. None of the current LinX derivatives seem to work on Zen2 CPUs.

As it stands with the request for user input, that doesn't allow for automation.
You could make it so if it already detects the ini file present, it doesn't present options, it just runs what's in the ini file.


----------



## Pop000100 (Jul 9, 2020)

So does using /residualcheck on a AVX capable CPU cause false positives?


----------



## Regeneration (Jul 9, 2020)

Pop000100 said:


> So does using /residualcheck on a AVX capable CPU cause false positives?



Yes.


----------



## buildzoid (Jul 30, 2020)

Hi I've been seeing some conflicting info on the residuals having to all be the same and so I was wondering if you could provide a link to an article/documentation on why AVX float math isn't always consistent.


----------



## Mezilkree (Aug 2, 2020)

buildzoid said:


> Hi I've been seeing some conflicting info on the residuals having to all be the same and so I was wondering if you could provide a link to an article/documentation on why AVX float math isn't always consistent.











						Introduction to Conditional Numerical Reproducibility (CNR)
					

Starting with 11.0 release,  Intel® MKL introduces a feature called Conditional Numerical Reproducibility (CNR) which provide




					software.intel.com


----------



## mrthanhnguyen (Aug 22, 2020)

When it shows pass is pass or all residuals need to be the same.


----------



## pipes (Oct 11, 2020)

after testing a stress test with the bootable version, again from that version I launched a test with the linpack libraries and the system crashed

I think is more good an update with last linpack library intel for find problem accuracy


----------



## Athlonite (Oct 11, 2020)

mrthanhnguyen said:


> When it shows pass is pass or all residuals need to be the same.




All residuals should technically be the same if they're not then there's a problem with one or more cores depending on how many have different residuals but not bad enough to cause a crash so it gets a pass


----------



## pipes (Oct 16, 2020)

I need password root for launch mprime on live usb distro


----------



## sp00n (Dec 13, 2020)

Is it broken again on Ryzen 5000? I'm receiving that hardware failure error every time, which was mentioned for Ryzen 3000.

I'm running a Ryzen 5900x on an MSI MAG X570 Tomahawk with the latest BIOS (2020-11-16).


----------



## Regeneration (Dec 13, 2020)

sp00n said:


> Is it broken again on Ryzen 5000? I'm receiving that hardware failure error every time, which was mentioned for Ryzen 3000.
> 
> I'm running a Ryzen 5900x on an MSI MAG X570 Tomahawk with the latest BIOS (2020-11-16).



Fixed in the latest version.


----------



## Octopuss (Dec 13, 2020)

Can you update the bootable one too?

You should also update the TPU download links, they still have the old version.


----------



## sp00n (Dec 29, 2020)

I'm a bit confused. Back on my Ryzen 1700x Linpack Xtreme v1.1.1 used to generate the most heat and draw the most power of all the stress tests. Now on my new Ryzen 5900x the new version 1.1.4 doesn't come anywhere near Prime 95 Small FFT regarding CPU Package Power, the temperature is also around 15°K lower. It also doesn't seem to detect errors as fast.


----------



## RJARRRPCGP (Dec 29, 2020)

Do the Gflops seem unusually low? If so, it could be the same issue that I had with another Linpack test (LinX, IIRC) 
(Where when I was using LinX, IIRC, it would randomly fail to fully load the CPU and I would get ridiculously low Gflops, until I restarted the test.)


----------



## sp00n (Dec 29, 2020)

RJARRRPCGP said:


> Do the Gflops seem unusually low? If so, it could be the same issue that I had with another Linpack test (LinX, IIRC)
> (Where when I was using LinX, IIRC, it would randomly fail to fully load the CPU and I would get ridiculously low Gflops, until I restarted the test.)


I don't know if the Gflops are low, I have nothing to compare to. But it happened across multiple runs with different RAM settings (2GB, 8GB, and max). Also in the task manager all cores appear as 100% used.


----------



## Regeneration (Dec 29, 2020)

sp00n said:


> I'm a bit confused. Back on my Ryzen 1700x Linpack Xtreme v1.1.1 used to generate the most heat and draw the most power of all the stress tests. Now on my new Ryzen 5900x the new version 1.1.4 doesn't come anywhere near Prime 95 Small FFT regarding CPU Package Power, the temperature is also around 15°K lower. It also doesn't seem to detect errors as fast.



I mostly use Intel lately with no access to the latest Ryzen processors. I'll send you a beta build later to test if interested.


----------



## sp00n (Dec 29, 2020)

Regeneration said:


> I mostly use Intel lately with no access to the latest Ryzen processors. I'll send you a beta build later to test if interested.


Yes, I'd be happy to test this, though I'm off to bed now.


----------



## Octopuss (Dec 30, 2020)

Regeneration said:


> I mostly use Intel lately with no access to the latest Ryzen processors. I'll send you a beta build later to test if interested.





Octopuss said:


> Can you update the bootable one too?
> 
> You should also update the TPU download links, they still have the old version.


----------



## sp00n (Dec 30, 2020)

RJARRRPCGP said:


> Do the Gflops seem unusually low? If so, it could be the same issue that I had with another Linpack test (LinX, IIRC)
> (Where when I was using LinX, IIRC, it would randomly fail to fully load the CPU and I would get ridiculously low Gflops, until I restarted the test.)


I have now tried OCCT which also includes a Linpack test, and have actually noticed this behaviour there. When allocating the memory, it will load all cores 100%, but after that some cores are not fully loaded anymore, until the next round starts and it all starts over again. At least for its 2019 implementation, the 2012 one seems to work, at least for loading the cores. It uses much lower power though (probably missing AVX2 or something).

I also wanted to take a look at LinX, but it seems to have been discontinued for AMD due to the incompatibilities: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://hwtips.tistory.com/1611


----------



## RJARRRPCGP (Dec 31, 2020)

Well, in this case, I wasn't talking about where there is usually a pause for some seconds before going to the next round. (when the round is about to end)
It's when it fails to fully load the CPU and I have to close and relaunch it. One day, I was wondering why my core temps were lower than usual.


----------



## Regeneration (Dec 31, 2020)

Thanks to @sp00n for beta testing, there are some improvements on Zen 2 and 3 CPUs in version 1.1.5.

Also updated bootable media, and such.


----------



## CiTay (Jan 16, 2021)

For some reason, Microsoft's inbuilt Antivirus in Windows 10 keeps detecting LinpackXtreme_x32.exe as "Trojan:Win32/CryptInject!ml" or as "Trojan:Win32/Wacatac.DB!ml".

Anyone else have that problem?


----------



## Regeneration (Jan 16, 2021)

CiTay said:


> For some reason, Microsoft's inbuilt Antivirus in Windows 10 keeps detecting LinpackXtreme_x32.exe as "Trojan:Win32/CryptInject!ml" or as "Trojan:Win32/Wacatac.DB!ml".
> 
> Anyone else have that problem?


Make sure to update to the latest definitions.


----------



## CiTay (Jan 16, 2021)

Regeneration said:


> Make sure to update to the latest definitions.



It seems that MSAV detected LinpackXtreme_x32.exe version 1.1.4 as a trojan, which is the version i kept, since initially it detected 1.1.5 as a trojan when it came out. Now i re-downloaded 1.1.5 and there's nothing detected anymore.

There are still some false positives though:





						VirusTotal
					

VirusTotal




					www.virustotal.com
				








						VirusTotal
					

VirusTotal




					www.virustotal.com


----------



## Regeneration (Jan 16, 2021)




----------



## CiTay (Jan 16, 2021)

Thanks, yeah it definitely seemed like a false positive from the start. Glad it's sorted now.


----------



## freeagent (Jan 16, 2021)

I used Linpack Xtreme on my Intel systems for the last few years, before that I used IBT. When I moved to my new AMD system, Linpack Xtreme loaded my CPU running at 4400 to 60c.. I thought man these chips run cool lol. I tried 1.1.5 and yup, back in business making good heat and rockin the flops. Big difference from 60c fans on quiet to 80c fans working hard.. Nice..


----------



## Regeneration (Jan 16, 2021)

CiTay said:


> Thanks, yeah it definitely seemed like a false positive from the start. Glad it's sorted now.


Didn't expect otherwise. After all...



The antivirus lists AutoKMS and keygen as the biggest computer threats in the world.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 16, 2021)

Regeneration said:


> Didn't expect otherwise. After all...
> 
> View attachment 184261
> 
> The antivirus lists AutoKMS and keygen as the biggest computer threats in the world.



keygens and windows cracks: the scourge of the digital seas


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jan 16, 2021)

Mussels said:


> keygens and windows cracks: the scourge of the digital seas



It ain't a crack Mussels... activation server emulation is very far from it. A properly cracked software? I can recall some Adobe products, in my books they deserve it with that concept that basically you cannot own their product without that cloud software affinity. Even games are not that properly cracked on most parts to call it a clean job.

The fun fact is that mining trojan and that's a plague indeed on many levels no matter how we look at it.

I ran hard this this tool for a half a day... my old system is kicking the bucket slowly. OC has degraded. It didn't actually need more vcore voltage actually, but after tinkering few hours it ended up to be VCCSAA and it needed to be raised to be linpack stable, at least for a while... My Ryzen CPU is still on my way...


----------



## Mussels (Jan 17, 2021)

Yarrrr, ye sounds like a pirate!
Time to walk the... thread? back on topic?

It's sad when OC's go bad and parts need to retire.


----------



## TensorVortex (Feb 15, 2021)

Hi I have a question, I just built a PC with 10850k and Z490, mem 3600C16. CPU set to 1.4v mid LLC 5.0Ghz. (also tried default and other settings)

But my linpack is really low, Im getting ~270 GFLOPS, where I seen 10700k reach 470GFLOPS easy.

Im really confused what's going on, is my power limited? Im on Aorus Elite Z490. During my run of Linpack xtreme, I seen my POUT to max at 200w.

I attached an screenshot of my result and hwinfo.


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 15, 2021)

TensorVortex said:


> I seen 10700k reach 470GFLOPS easy


Can you post a screenshot or a link with that information? I know LinX reports some really high GFlops.



http://imgur.com/XVWR35u


----------



## Arctucas (Feb 15, 2021)

TensorVortex said:


> Hi I have a question, I just built a PC with 10850k and Z490, mem 3600C16. CPU set to 1.4v mid LLC 5.0Ghz. (also tried default and other settings)
> 
> But my linpack is really low, Im getting ~270 GFLOPS, where I seen 10700k reach 470GFLOPS easy.
> 
> ...


Is your tFAW at 16?


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 15, 2021)

I found this run from a 9900K. In Linpack Xtreme it hit 558 GFlops. Looks like something has changed. 



			https://preview.redd.it/ud6t84fts8n51.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=1f96c6e44219c2b60830bfb10b323f8ff2d0bc45


----------



## Arctucas (Feb 15, 2021)

A run I did last October.


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 15, 2021)

Arctucas said:


> A run I did last October.


Can you try running the latest version, 1.15

I have a 10 core 10850K at 5.0 GHz and scores are way down compared to what people were getting with 8 core CPUs and version 1.13.

Time to check the TPU archives for an older version.

Edit - Sad times on the 10850K. The benchmark test only loads 10 of the 20 threads. Score looks terrible.





When I switched to the larger problem size, the scores got worse.
Edit - The multiplier drops down when AVX Offset is used so it must be using AVX instructions.
CPU runs at a steady 5000 MHz for the entire test so no throttling.





The numbers look a little better in a 20 Thread stress test but still well off from where they should be.


----------



## CiTay (Feb 16, 2021)

TensorVortex said:


> Hi I have a question, I just built a PC with 10850k and Z490, mem 3600C16. CPU set to 1.4v mid LLC 5.0Ghz. (also tried default and other settings)
> 
> But my linpack is really low, Im getting ~270 GFLOPS, where I seen 10700k reach 470GFLOPS easy.
> 
> ...




In my opinion, with 1.4V, you are way past the range in which the CPU works efficiently. You are squeezing a rock at this point. Remember, the 10850K only got released because so few CPUs can reach the requirements for the 10900K during the binning. The yield rate for 5.3 GHz maximum turbo clocks (not all-core!) is supposedly very low.

The big downside you're getting is the massively increased power consumption.
And if you don't remove the PL1/PL2/Tau limits in the BIOS, and if you don't have excellent watercooling, you are hitting several limits at once with extreme AVX load.





Let's first look at the 10850K clock frequencies for three different types of load: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-10850k/20.html

Although advertised at 5.2 GHz max. boost, it will never actually hit the 5.2 GHz. Maybe the turbo budget doesn't allow it, or the TVB implementation is too conservative in the BIOS. I heard that ASUS released a new BIOS with TVB modifications to make the 10900K actually hit the 5.3 GHz, because when it initially was given to reviewers, they said they never observed 5.3 GHz. And since they wanted to avoid a Ryzen 3000 situation, which at the start also never hit the maximum boost, they made some modifications.

Anyway, this is only about single-core turbo, there's the only chance to hit 5.2 GHz. All-core 5.2 GHz would require massively more voltage.

Now, on to why overclocking the 10850K/10900K might not be that wise.

For calculating efficiency, we have to consider 1) performance, and 2) power consumption (which results in heat production). Ideally, you'd want to look at "energy spent per time spent per calculating task", but for a rough estimation, it is enough to compare benchmark results and the momentary power consumption during that load.

1) Performance:




So let's compare the 10900K at all-core 5.2 GHz (VCore 1.385V, first bar) vs. the 10900K with no PL1/PL2/Tau limits in the BIOS (second bar) vs. stock performance with limits in place (third bar).
We have 6616 vs. 6375 points in CineBench R20 multicore (which almost exclusively responds to CPU performance). This is a 3.7% increase in performance.


2) Power consumption:




Here is the big downside. The CPU gobbles up 384.7W at all-core 5.2 GHz. This is a 70.45% increase (!) over stock with all power limits removed.

For each single percent of performance improvement over stock, you basically have to take a 20% increase in power consumption. This is almost unheard of in previous CPU generations, and it demonstrates that Intel put this CPU right at the limit of efficiency by default. Going above it simply makes no sense. Like i said, Intel released the 10850K, supposedly because they don't even have enough yield from their wafers to bin enough dies as 10900K. But the 10850K is equally close to its limit, it's just a slightly lower binning (less handpicked CPU quality), so the limit is slightly lower. But Intel got 99% out of the CPU already.

By the way, these are the voltages they needed during OC:





Their cooling was a custom Alphacool water cooler with 360mm radiator.

Today, RAM OC is way more useful than CPU OC. And it won't lead to huge increases in power consumption and heat production. Overclocking the CPU isn't what it used to be, certainly not with the top-of-the-line CPUs. With the RAM, you can still squeeze a lot out of it. Even above 3600 MHz you still can get quite some additional bandwidth.


All that being said, i won't put so much focus on the GFLOPS value of Linpack Xtreme. It is not a benchmark. If you want to benchmark CPU speed, use something like Cinebench, it gives comparable numbers and almost only looks at CPU speed. If you want to see what happens during Linpack Xtreme that may cause your performance to be low, look closely at the CPU package power consumption, at the start and during a run, for example with AIDA64 which produces nice graphs. It will also corellate with temperature and even fan speeds. There you can see a power limit in effect.

Here is an example with a 9600K with the 95W power limit enabled in the BIOS. You can observe that it hits over 100W power consumption, i don't remember exactly, maybe 115W, then after PL1 hits, it goes down to the 95W limit. Visible from the temps...



...as well as the fans:





The Intel defaults, meaning, setting PL1, PL2 and Tau limits according to spec, are actually not hampering real-world performance much. It may show an impact in certain benchmarks, but they are fully loading every core to the maximum. This is sort of artificial. In normal use, for example games, even if they heavily use multithreading, you will see a much lower power consumption (package power) of the CPU, hence the limits don't really "limit" much there. And with other applications, you won't have extremely long full load on all cores.

Maximum multi-core AVX load is the most artificial you can get, that's why it doesn't make much sense to try to solve this. The actual problem is that Intel made the fastest CPU they could, by any means necessary. With the 10900K they released a CPU that, if you remove the limits, behaves like a factory-overclocked CPU, in power consumption as well as heat production. The 10850K is only a slightly toned down version of it. If you OC them, you're overclocking on top of what would've been an overclock with any previous CPU models. Without the Intel limits applied in the BIOS, they go way beyond where any of their previous CPU models have gone, except maybe the 9900K in a more tame form. That's why it can make sense to actually set those limits.

Do you get any kind of limiting in normal benchmarks which stress the CPU? And i mean long benchmarks like Cinebench R23 which you can set for more than a minute or so. Because TAU, the Turbo Time Parameter, is 56 seconds with those CPUs. Even with the limit set to 4096W in the BIOS, the EMWA (Exponentially Weighted Moving Average) might still cause a 250W limit to be in effect.


----------



## Arctucas (Feb 16, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> Can you try running the latest version, 1.15
> 
> I have a 10 core 10850K at 5.0 GHz and scores are way down compared to what people were getting with 8 core CPUs and version 1.13.
> 
> ...


----------



## CiTay (Feb 16, 2021)

As i said, it's not a benchmark, don't focus on the GFLOPS. It is not meant to produce a number that's comparable among different systems or settings.

If you have wildly lower results than what other people get with your CPU in actual _benchmarks_, that's a reason to worry. Then we can do a deep-dive as to what causes it. A too ambitious overclock for example can cause many unwanted things, yes, even lower performance. It's counter-intuitive, but it's been shown on the latest high-end CPUs of both Intel and AMD. They each have perfected their turbo algorithms to where you can hardly do better manually, and they each tend to run so closely at their limit that you can easily cause reason for throttling or limiting during OC.


----------



## TensorVortex (Feb 16, 2021)

UPDATE:

I put 4x8gb samsung b die 3600 16-16-16-36 ram in the 10850k pc, and now linpack xtreme reports around 490Gflops.

So it's the ram but no idea why. anyway that was bothering me a lot yesterday, glad it's not my pc issue.

Now I'm going to try oc my ram see what it can do. 

Thanks for all the help.




Arctucas said:


> Is your tFAW at 16?


Hi sorry I been busy yesterday, my ram is 3600 16-19-19-39 Hynix.



CiTay said:


> In my opinion, with 1.4V, you are way past the range in which the CPU works efficiently. You are squeezing a rock at this point. Remember, the 10850K only got released because so few CPUs can reach the requirements for the 10900K during the binning. The yield rate for 5.3 GHz maximum turbo clocks (not all-core!) is supposedly very low.
> 
> The big downside you're getting is the massively increased power consumption.
> And if you don't remove the PL1/PL2/Tau limits in the BIOS, and if you don't have excellent watercooling, you are hitting several limits at once with extreme AVX load.
> ...


Hi Thanks for the info. Im at 1.4 mid LLC, so full load AVX2 is around 250w with 1.3v core. Still have no idea why my score is that low tho.


----------



## CiTay (Feb 16, 2021)

There is no score, it's not a benchmark. It's a program to maximally stress the CPU with AVX instructions, which also causes the maximum power consumption and heat, and check for any miscalculations/instability. The GFLOPS number is only there for reference, not to compare different PCs among each other in a benchmark table.

Like i said, as soon as you observe bad performance in an actual CPU benchmark, then we can take a look at it. I wouldn't worry about the GFLOPS in Linpack at all. If you suspect something is wrong, i gave you several pointers what to look for (possibly some kind of limiting or throttling), and how to look for it. It could be a safety mechanism of the CPU+mobo, because if there was no limiting, you'd exceed certain power/temp parameters with your overclock.


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 16, 2021)

TensorVortex said:


> linpack xtreme reports around 490Gflops


What test are you running? How much memory did you originally have during your first test?


----------



## TensorVortex (Feb 16, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> What test are you running? How much memory did you originally have during your first test?



I was just doing stresstest with 4gb 3 pass. had 2x8gb 3600 16-19-19-39 hynic d die in there before, right now have 4x8gb 3600-16-16-16-36 samsung b die in there.



CiTay said:


> There is no score, it's not a benchmark. It's a program to maximally stress the CPU with AVX instructions, which also causes the maximum power consumption and heat, and check for any miscalculations/instability. The GFLOPS number is only there for reference, not to compare different PCs among each other in a benchmark table.
> 
> Like i said, as soon as you observe bad performance in an actual CPU benchmark, then we can take a look at it. I wouldn't worry about the GFLOPS in Linpack at all. If you suspect something is wrong, i gave you several pointers what to look for (possibly some kind of limiting or throttling), and how to look for it. It could be a safety mechanism of the CPU+mobo, because if there was no limiting, you'd exceed certain power/temp parameters with your overclock.



Yah I got that from the previous post, thanks for letting me know. I was more just trying to understand the difference and why im seeing the gflops low.


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 16, 2021)

TensorVortex said:


> had 2x8gb


That is what I have. Definitely seem to get lower GFlops with 16 GB vs 32 GB. 
Good to know.


----------



## Arctucas (Feb 16, 2021)

TensorVortex said:


> UPDATE:
> 
> I put 4x8gb samsung b die 3600 16-16-16-36 ram in the 10850k pc, and now linpack xtreme reports around 490Gflops.
> 
> ...



It is probably your RAM, or more correctly, your timings.

Post a screenshot of AsRock Timing Configurator, please.


----------



## Yachtie2020 (Feb 19, 2021)

Hey

Does anyone know why LinpackXtreme hangs when my monitor enters power saving mode? If I change "Turn off monitor after" to "never" it runs fine, but when screen turns off, Linpack just seems to hang/freeze and do nothing. I can still use PC and don't see any WHEA errors.

Yes I can run Linpack without it enabled, but it is concerning me that it hangs Linpack, is this a sign instability? I've tested non OC settings and same issue.

I am using onboard graphics as awaiting 3080 still.

Update: I tested starting PC and letting the PC turn monitor off, then started Linpack and it doesn't run the test, just sits there? I have to restart to run it.

Tx


----------



## Regeneration (Feb 19, 2021)

Yachtie2020 said:


> Hey
> 
> Does anyone know why LinpackXtreme hangs when my monitor enters power saving mode? If I change "Turn off monitor after" to "never" it runs fine, but when screen turns off, Linpack just seems to hang/freeze and do nothing. I can still use PC and don't see any WHEA errors.
> 
> ...


Display driver timeout, bug, or instability. Try the bootable version.


----------



## Yachtie2020 (Feb 22, 2021)

Turns out it is the G.Skill Trident RGB App. Turning this off and rerunning Linpack resolves it.


----------



## rsabatino20 (Feb 26, 2021)

it works with Ryzen 5 3600


----------



## reeven (Apr 23, 2021)

My 8700k@4.7ghz all core work for years at 1.18-1.20v(load voltage in prime95 etc), was at offset + 0.005mv llc2 on asus z370.Tested with linpack, crash in 3-4 minutes. Then I put 4.4ghz all core, 1.18-1.20v load voltages, and it pass hours of linpack.
But in those years I never seen an freeze, shutdown, blue screen.
I begin to test with linpack because I bought some micron e die chips.
But what I don't get is huge vccio vccsa set by xmp for 3200 ram and the same problem on 10900k with 64gb 3600, 1.3-1.4v.


----------



## CiTay (Apr 23, 2021)

reeven said:


> But what I don't get is huge vccio vccsa set by xmp for 3200 ram and the same problem on 10900k with 64gb 3600, 1.3-1.4v.



That seems to be the norm. Enabling the XMP profile makes the board raise certain voltages, namely VCCSA, VCCIO, and for Rocket Lake, also VCCIO 2. They can be set crazy high sometimes, which is not necessary at all though, unless you go way above DDR4-3600.

The board makers like to use a very high safety margin for those voltages, which just isn't needed. At DDR4-3600 and especially below, you can most likely set the same low standard voltages as it sets without XMP at DDR4-2133.

Do the following: Disable XMP, reboot, and if it uses DDR4-2133 frequency now, note the SA and IO voltages in the BIOS. Now set them manually to the values that are active. Here are my standard values with Rocket Lake for a lower RAM frequency, which i manually enforced for DDR4-3200:





By the way, you can press F12 to save a clean screenshot like this to a FAT32 USB Stick in the BIOS.

Note that i - for the time being - use a kit of older Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 that only needs 1.2V DRAM Voltage to reach that frequency, albeit at looser timings than normal. I will soon use this as my main system and put my DDR4-3600 in there which will require the more common 1.35V for its XMP frequency.

Now it should still run like a charm, without elevated SA and IO voltages. You can do some RAM stress-testing now.

On my Z390 board, i'm even running at DDR4-3600 with stock SA and IO voltages. It just doesn't need more for stability. This is a good way to save a couple Watts.


----------



## toyo (Apr 23, 2021)

reeven said:


> My 8700k@4.7ghz all core work for years at 1.18-1.20v(load voltage in prime95 etc), was at offset + 0.005mv llc2 on asus z370.Tested with linpack, crash in 3-4 minutes. Then I put 4.4ghz all core, 1.18-1.20v load voltages, and it pass hours of linpack.
> But in those years I never seen an freeze, shutdown, blue screen.
> I begin to test with linpack because I bought some micron e die chips.
> But what I don't get is huge vccio vccsa set by xmp for 3200 ram and the same problem on 10900k with 64gb 3600, 1.3-1.4v.


Common occurrence.
If it crashes in linpack or p95, it's simply not completely stable. This might or might not show in BSODs and the sort. For me, such borderline instability showed in application/games occassional crashes. Let's say 2 times/week some more CPU intensive title like Assassin's Creed would crash to desktop.
Once I got my 8700K fully stable, all crashes went away. Used to be a saw line in the View Reliability History thing in Windows 10. Now it's a line that sticks to the top without any "red" i.e. crashes.


----------



## reeven (Apr 24, 2021)

În linpack, 64gb corsair 3600c18 m-die hynix not stable at xmp 1 or 2 with 10900k with 1.4 vcio vccsa.
Those other 32gb 3200c16 micron e-die double sided /8700k seems stable at xmp but with 2t.
And my oem 32gb c-die Samsung goes stable even at 3200c16 1t with 1.21.
I miss old micron days like bh5 ddr1, or ddr3 micron that went 6-6-6 or 7-7-7 1600. Those just work.

Edit: with 8700k 1.0 vcssa vccio auto at 2400mhz. Same for 10900k.
Those aren't stable in linpack at all at xmp speed. Not stable even at 1.15, 1.20, 1.25. Those are bios voltages, în hwinfo is higher.


----------



## toyo (Apr 24, 2021)

reeven said:


> În linpack, 64gb corsair 3600c18 m-die hynix not stable at xmp 1 or 2 with 10900k with 1.4 vcio vccsa.
> Those other 32gb 3200c16 micron e-die double sided /8700k seems stable at xmp but with 2t.
> And my oem 32gb c-die Samsung goes stable even at 3200c16 1t with 1.21.
> I miss old micron days like bh5 ddr1, or ddr3 micron that went 6-6-6 or 7-7-7 1600. Those just work.
> ...


RAM stability is a pain.
In my case, with some SpekTek chips, the RAM was unstable because of the high XMP DDR voltage. I literally had to reduce voltage, against all previous experience, from 1.35V to 1.20 for the XMP at 3GHz to work. For a 3600 MHz RAM OC to be stable, anything from 1.25 to 1.32V would do. Around 1.34V instability starts to creep up.
As for the VCCSA and VCCIO voltages, the motherboard would set them at huge values for XMP or OCs, like 1.33 and 1.25V. For my CPU and RAM it was useless. I am now keeping it around 1.15 and 1.10 and I could probably reduce them further (3500MHz OC on RAM), but I got bored a while ago with the tweaking.
Took me a year of running Blend and Linpack on and off over night to figure out this weird stuff. Sometimes I'd have workers stop after 10 hrs as the PC was close to stability. Much more annoying to stabilize the RAM compared to CPU OCs.


----------



## reeven (Apr 26, 2021)

I find the culprit. It was 1t vs 2t. I put it 1t, but my micron hate this. 2t pass linpack and karhu over 20.000%, memtest hci over 1500%.
I have now 1.1 vccsa vccio manual set, along with 2t on ram on 8700. I can't acces pc with 10900k till next week to test it as well.
I always use 1t on any ram...so this 2t is weird for micron e-die.


----------



## bulldog147 (Apr 26, 2021)

Very odd using this software linpack xtreme  v1.1.5 on my Ryzen 7 3700X all passed but linx v0.9.5 for AMD has failed (not enough memory) did try that on clean windows 10 pro with no other app running. Still the same error not enough memory (is that linx v0.9.5 don't work for Zen2 CPU?)


----------



## CiTay (Apr 26, 2021)

Both LinX and Linpack Xtreme are basically interfaces for Linpack. I know back in the day when i used LinX, it was quickly outdated, and some forum members provided updated Linpack binaries etc... but it was all unofficial. So in the end i just switched to Linpack Xtreme and never looked back.

They are doing one and the same thing, just with a different UI. So if Linpack Xtreme works and confirms the stability, there's no need to use LinX in addition. That "not enough memory" is probably just a bug of LinX.


----------



## bulldog147 (Apr 26, 2021)

CiTay said:


> Both LinX and Linpack Xtreme are basically interfaces for Linpack. I know back in the day when i used LinX, it was quickly outdated, and some forum members provided updated Linpack binaries etc... but it was all unofficial. So in the end i just switched to Linpack Xtreme and never looked back.
> 
> They are doing one and the same thing, just with a different UI. So if Linpack Xtreme works and confirms the stability, there's no need to use LinX in addition. That "not enough memory" is probably just a bug of LinX.


That's good to know.


----------



## Nokia_3250 (Apr 29, 2021)

Optiplex 9020 USFF, Delided CPU
Stock Fan+Heatpipe
All system max at 134.4W by Watt Meter


----------



## Arctucas (Apr 29, 2021)




----------



## Det0x (Jun 12, 2021)

Have done some benching for my 5950x with different core amounts in Linpack Xtreme_x64 1.15 downloaded from here


5950x @ custom water+TechN block with latest CTR running.
SMT enabled for all runs
4x8GB (gskill 3600 cl16) running flat 14-14-14 timings running on T1 setup-time (no GDM)
Minimum required vdimm = 1.54v (maxtemp below 40degress even when gaming with a 3090)




Benchmark 3GB numbers with 6 cores

6 cores at 4.5ghz static OC = 266 Gflops
6 cores at PBO CO -30 = 281 Gflops
*6 cores maxed (static 4.85ghz) = 286 Gflops*

Benchmark 8GB extended numbers with 6 cores

6 cores at PBO CO -30 = 283 Gflops
*6 cores maxed (static 4.85ghz) = 287 Gflops*


Benchmark 3GB numbers with 16 cores

16 cores at 4.5ghz static OC = 641 Gflops
*16 cores maxed (static ~4750/4600mhz) = 654 Gflops*

Benchmark 8GB extended numbers with 16 cores

16 cores at 4.5ghz static OC = 668 Gflops
*16 cores maxed (static ~4750/4600mhz) = 680 Gflops*


Have numbers for my cpu at 8 and 12 corecount also if anyone are interested in those

*edit*

Aha, i see!
I'm was using "benchmark" while you guys is using "stresstest" 


Static OC @ 4675/4500mhz, 1.31v set = ~1.24 vcore get
Around 320watt usage (maxtemp = 93)

*Stresstest 10GB = ~700 Gflops*


----------



## mrthanhnguyen (Jun 18, 2021)




----------



## pipes (Sep 6, 2021)

it can possible to know the root password for distro of linpak?


----------



## Regeneration (Sep 7, 2021)

pipes said:


> it can possible to know the root password for distro of linpak?


toor


----------



## Det0x (Dec 27, 2021)

701.6337 GFlops average


----------



## AlwaysHope (Jan 23, 2022)

Det0x said:


> 701.6337 GFlops average
> View attachment 230395


Interesting, cpu package power max = 322w! what kind of cooling?


----------



## Det0x (Jan 23, 2022)

AlwaysHope said:


> Interesting, cpu package power max = 322w! what kind of cooling?


Cooling is TechN AM4 block with liquid metal on custom watercooling.
Thinking about doing a new run with cold air in a few days..


----------



## AlwaysHope (Jan 30, 2022)

Wondering how accurate the GFLOPS measurement is in this app? I did some testing today with MSI's unique feature for applying auto volts to CPU with their "CPU lite mode" option in bios. 


As you can see from the results, around runs 7-8 it drops off. This is with 10GB ram option.


----------



## Regeneration (Jan 30, 2022)

AlwaysHope said:


> Wondering how accurate the GFLOPS measurement is in this app? I did some testing today with MSI's unique feature for applying auto volts to CPU with their "CPU lite mode" option in bios.
> View attachment 234569
> As you can see from the results, around runs 7-8 it drops off. This is with 10GB ram option.


Accurate when you use benchmark mode.


----------



## Octopuss (Jan 31, 2022)

Are there going to be any updates?


----------



## Regeneration (Jan 31, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> Are there going to be any updates?


When i get more free time on my hands. I have a girlfriend, wrist problems, and neighbor wars.


----------



## Athlonite (Feb 1, 2022)

Regeneration said:


> When i get more free time on my hands. I have a girlfriend, wrist problems, and neighbor wars.


Well atleast now that you have a GF the wrist problem should be alleviated significantly  /Jk


----------



## AlwaysHope (Feb 4, 2022)

Regeneration said:


> When i get more free time on my hands. I have a girlfriend, wrist problems, and neighbor wars.


It would be greatly appreciated if you could take out of experimental, memory capacities higher than 10GB.  
I think its fair to ask this considering most systems today have 16GB or more.


----------



## freeagent (Feb 4, 2022)

AlwaysHope said:


> It would be greatly appreciated if you could take out of experimental, memory capacities higher than 10GB.
> I think its fair to ask this considering most systems today have 16GB or more.


How much do you hate your CPU?


----------



## AlwaysHope (Feb 4, 2022)

freeagent said:


> How much do you hate your CPU?


Nah, if it can pass 10 runs with whatever component OC I throw at it, it'll pass NEARLY anything. Was OC testing couple days back & it passed LinpackXtreme but BSOD in CB! So throw every bit of code variety you can at an OC test.... just to be sure!


----------



## freeagent (Feb 4, 2022)

AlwaysHope said:


> Nah, if it can pass 10 runs with whatever component OC I throw at it, it'll pass NEARLY anything. Was OC testing couple days back & it passed LinpackXtreme but BSOD in CB! So throw every bit of code variety you can at an OC test.... just to be sure!


I usually set 8-10GB for 25 passes, I do hate my fans


----------



## AlwaysHope (Feb 4, 2022)

freeagent said:


> I usually set 8-10GB for 25 passes, I do hate my fans


Fans?? tell me about them ..... Should hear mine! but it's only during extreme AVX testing that this app does, don't think you'll get that kind of intensity in most apps today unless your running very specific heavy AVX, especially AVX512.
Y-Cruncher is good for AVX512.


----------



## freeagent (Feb 4, 2022)

AlwaysHope said:


> Fans?? tell me about them ..... Should hear mine! but it's only during extreme AVX testing that this app does, don't think you'll get that kind of intensity in most apps today unless your running very specific heavy AVX, especially AVX512.
> Y-Cruncher is good for AVX512.


NF-A14 iPPC 3K x2, NF-F12 iPPC 3K, TY-143 

I don’t even hear the 143 anymore, it’s the quietest fan in my system


----------



## Arctucas (Feb 4, 2022)

freeagent said:


> NF-A14 iPPC 3K x2, NF-F12 iPPC 3K, TY-143
> 
> I don’t even hear the 143 anymore, it’s the quietest fan in my system



I know what you mean, running 4 @ iPPC 140mm 3K, 7 @ iPPC 140mm 2K, 1 @ iPPC 120mm 2K. 

All are connected directly to PSU, 100% all the time.

I rather enjoy the white noise.


----------



## freeagent (Feb 4, 2022)

I have mine on a controller because I am soft


----------



## Det0x (Feb 22, 2022)

*730 GFLOPS average*


----------



## Solid State Brain (May 17, 2022)

Does anybody have a source for the statement according to which it's "normal" for Linpack residuals to occasionally mismatch on modern Intel processors?
I'm not convinced that this is accurate or representative of fully stable operating conditions.

*EDIT*: it looks like I get lots of residual mismatches, although the tests pass, if I enable AVX in BIOS and the problem size is relatively small (10000). If I disable AVX, all residuals match.

I tried increasing CPU voltage or decreasing RAM speed but this didn't affect the results, so it could be due to some quirk with AVX instructions. The system appears to be stable otherwise.


*EDIT2*: below are results with AVX disabled.

Note that I'm testing under Linux with an i7-12700K and limiting the test on certain cores with taskset (this is mostly for consistency with other tests I was doing to check whether some core was giving bad results):


```
user@linux:~/bin/LinpackXtreme-1.1.5/linpack-xtreme-1.1.5-amd64> taskset -c 0-8 ./run_stress_test
Linpack Xtreme v1.1.5 by Regeneration

Current date/time: Tue May 17 16:30:13 2022

CPU frequency:    4.987 GHz
Number of CPUs: 1
Number of cores: 12
Number of threads: 20

Parameters are set to:

Number of tests: 1
Number of equations to solve (problem size) : 10000
Leading dimension of array                  : 10000
Number of trials to run                     : 30
Data alignment value (in Kbytes)            : 4

Maximum memory requested that can be used=800204096, at the size=10000

=================== Timing linear equation system solver ===================

Size   LDA    Align. Time(s)    GFlops   Residual     Residual(norm) Check
10000  10000  4      5.773      115.5059 1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      9.378      71.1131  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      6.873      97.0332  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      8.773      76.0137  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      8.950      74.5140  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      9.465      70.4527  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      9.311      71.6240  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      9.066      73.5599  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      9.207      72.4315  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      8.854      75.3170  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      9.003      74.0711  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      9.471      70.4097  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      8.897      74.9565  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      8.588      77.6499  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      9.467      70.4429  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      9.414      70.8402  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      9.259      72.0257  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      9.220      72.3274  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      8.072      82.6146  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      9.346      71.3538  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      9.228      72.2691  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      9.230      72.2502  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      7.142      93.3674  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      8.868      75.1982  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      5.569      119.7422 1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      9.056      73.6392  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      9.178      72.6626  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      9.259      72.0251  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      8.932      74.6572  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      8.590      77.6374  1.012665e-10 3.570760e-02   pass

Performance Summary (GFlops)

Size   LDA    Align.  Average  Maximal
10000  10000  4       77.9235  119.7422

Residual checks PASSED

End of tests

Press [Enter] key to continue...
```

This is with AVX enabled. I get lower GFLOPS, higher times and residuals all mismatch (although they pass).


```
user@localhost:~/bin/LinpackXtreme-1.1.5/linpack-xtreme-1.1.5-amd64> taskset -c 0-8 ./run_stress_test
Linpack Xtreme v1.1.5 by Regeneration

Current date/time: Tue May 17 13:55:54 2022

CPU frequency:    4.987 GHz
Number of CPUs: 1
Number of cores: 12
Number of threads: 20

Parameters are set to:

Number of tests: 1
Number of equations to solve (problem size) : 10000
Leading dimension of array                  : 10000
Number of trials to run                     : 30  
Data alignment value (in Kbytes)            : 4   

Maximum memory requested that can be used=800204096, at the size=10000

=================== Timing linear equation system solver ===================

Size   LDA    Align. Time(s)    GFlops   Residual     Residual(norm) Check
10000  10000  4      10.198     65.3891  8.936940e-11 3.151256e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.546     57.7549  1.207682e-10 4.258408e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      10.163     65.6191  9.546952e-11 3.366352e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      10.173     65.5510  8.508394e-11 3.000146e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.553     57.7213  1.075682e-10 3.792964e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.564     57.6674  9.443812e-11 3.329984e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.539     57.7935  9.973072e-11 3.516606e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.556     57.7051  8.705343e-11 3.069592e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.573     57.6211  9.485529e-11 3.344694e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.590     57.5406  1.019788e-10 3.595876e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.724     56.8805  1.007526e-10 3.552638e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.565     57.6623  1.101995e-10 3.885746e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.583     57.5753  9.029810e-11 3.184002e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.581     57.5821  9.781812e-11 3.449166e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.530     57.8359  9.533982e-11 3.361779e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.601     57.4835  8.729871e-11 3.078241e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.651     57.2361  9.254220e-11 3.263132e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.636     57.3083  9.643886e-11 3.400532e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.515     57.9115  1.078766e-10 3.803838e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      10.155     65.6679  9.228884e-11 3.254198e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.601     57.4824  9.546830e-11 3.366309e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.633     57.3234  9.761916e-11 3.442150e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.584     57.5661  1.053115e-10 3.713390e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.592     57.5285  9.667123e-11 3.408725e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.605     57.4642  9.761894e-11 3.442143e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.619     57.3963  9.895956e-11 3.489414e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.593     57.5237  9.235229e-11 3.256435e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.611     57.4319  9.445195e-11 3.330471e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      11.586     57.5567  1.007096e-10 3.551123e-02   pass
10000  10000  4      10.151     65.6946  9.080495e-11 3.201874e-02   pass

Performance Summary (GFlops)

Size   LDA    Align.  Average  Maximal
10000  10000  4       58.8825  65.6946

Residual checks PASSED

End of tests

Press [Enter] key to continue...
```


----------



## CiTay (May 17, 2022)

To me, this is not normal, and i would consider it a kind of instability. Not as severe as a "fail" on a pass, but it would certainly raise an eyebrow and prompt me to do a bunch of further tinkering and testing.

Do you have any inkling of problems in things like Prime95 or so?


----------



## Regeneration (May 17, 2022)

Solid State Brain said:


> Does anybody have a source for the statement according to which it's "normal" for Linpack residuals to occasionally mismatch on modern Intel processors?
> I'm not convinced that this is accurate or representative of fully stable operating conditions.



On AVX2+ hardware, it is normal to get different residuals since Linpack switches between the AVX modes and extensions.

Run it on stock clocks and see for yourself.


----------



## CiTay (May 17, 2022)

That's good to know.


----------



## Solid State Brain (May 17, 2022)

CiTay said:


> To me, this is not normal, and i would consider it a kind of instability. Not as severe as a "fail" on a pass, but it would certainly raise an eyebrow and prompt me to do a bunch of further tinkering and testing.
> 
> Do you have any inkling of problems in things like Prime95 or so?



I rarely observed random crashes in other programs which I thought could have potentially been due to the slight overclock I'm running, but it turned out that what I'm observing with Linpack Xtreme does not depend on the overclock, just its use of AVX instructions.



Regeneration said:


> On AVX2+ hardware, it is normal to get different residuals since Linpack switches between the AVX modes and extensions.
> 
> Run it on stock clocks and see for yourself.



After more tests (as I added in an edit to the previous message), I did narrow down this oddity to AVX instructions. Disabling AVX in BIOS makes all residuals equal.

CPU or memory clocks did not seem to make a difference. However, running Linpack Xtreme with a small problem size (< 1GB memory) made this much clearer. With a large problem size, residual mismatches do not occur often.

*EDIT:* FYI, I tried the latest version of Linpack from the Intel website, and using the same test settings I don't get the same issue with it. It also has slightly higher performance and generates somewhat more heat:









						Intel® Math Kernel Library (Intel® MKL) Benchmarks Suite
					

Intel® Math Kernel Library (Intel® MKL) Benchmarks package includes Intel® Distribution for LINPACK* Benchmark,  Intel® Distr




					www.intel.com


----------



## cyh (Jun 12, 2022)

Any recommendations on how many times to run linpack extreme stress test after overclocking?


----------



## Regeneration (Jun 12, 2022)

cyh said:


> Any recommendations on how many times to run linpack extreme stress test after overclocking?


Enough times for it to run overnight (8-12 hours) if you want 1000% stable system.


----------



## Blaeza (Jun 12, 2022)

With how demanding your program is Mr Regeneration, I'm a bit scared to run it!  It's not going to damage anything is it?


----------



## Regeneration (Jun 12, 2022)

JKRsega said:


> With how demanding your program is Mr Regeneration, I'm a bit scared to run it!  It's not going to damage anything is it?


Not as long as the CPU cores temperatures are below Tjunction by at least 10c/50f.


----------



## Blaeza (Jun 12, 2022)

Regeneration said:


> Not as long as the CPU cores temperatures are below Tjunction.


I'm a n00b! Erm, where would I see that information?


----------



## Regeneration (Jun 12, 2022)

JKRsega said:


> I'm a n00b! Erm, where would I see that information?


On Intel/AMD website, just Google your CPU name. If its Ryzen 5 3600, then Tjmax is 95c, so your should aim for maximum of 85-90c/185f-194f.

You can use software like AIDA64 / HWMonitor / HWinfo / Ryzen Master to  monitor the CPU temperature.


----------



## Blaeza (Jun 12, 2022)

I've ran it about 10 times now and my computer hasn't turned into a ball of flames, so all good and it got to 83 degrees with no crashes.  Stable, unlike me, lol.

So I did the stress test and got scared when my cpu got to 93C so quit the test.  Need better cooling.


----------



## Octopuss (Jun 13, 2022)

Are there going to be any updates, @Regeneration ? It's been a long time since last version. The linpack libraries must have been updated a few times since then?


----------



## Regeneration (Jun 13, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> Are there going to be any updates, @Regeneration ? It's been a long time since last version. The linpack libraries must have been updated a few times since then?



I didn't like the MKL 2020-2021 binaries and that's why I didn't update. The recent ones are much better, so maybe in the near future.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 14, 2022)

JKRsega said:


> With how demanding your program is Mr Regeneration, I'm a bit scared to run it!  It's not going to damage anything is it?


If it damages your system, then your system was setup incredibly badly.... like overclocking to 400W and unplugging your AIO's pump with all safety features disabled.


----------



## Blaeza (Jun 14, 2022)

Mussels said:


> If it damages your system, then your system was setup incredibly badly.... like overclocking to 400W and unplugging your AIO's pump with all safety features disabled.


Hasn't damaged mine, but it got too hot for my liking, so I CTRL and break'd it.


----------



## Octopuss (Jun 14, 2022)

Regeneration said:


> I didn't like the MKL 2020-2021 binaries and that's why I didn't update. The recent ones are much better, so maybe in the near future.


Oh? Could you elaborate? I'm curious.


----------



## Regeneration (Jun 14, 2022)

Octopuss said:


> Oh? Could you elaborate? I'm curious.



Buggy, not fully optimized, and not worth updating to. The latest version isn't always the greatest.


----------



## Eiswolf93 (Jul 27, 2022)

Hi, 
i was trying Linpack Extreme because i want to find a Stress Test with "scores" while it is running. Also i need a benchmark that works on Windows and Linux.

On Ubuntu 22.04, Kernel 5.19rc8 i don't get the benchmark to perform right. I missing 20% of performance. Also, the system get not near that hot like on windows. 

Is there something on the linux version to take care of? The permission, normal, sudo, root does not make any difference. Disabling all mitigations gets me around 10 Gflop/s more.

My System: i7-8086k, 16GB DDR4 4000, Maximus XI Apex, RTX 3080.

Thanks for your benchmark!


----------



## Det0x (Oct 6, 2022)

Regeneration said:


> I didn't like the MKL 2020-2021 binaries and that's why I didn't update. The recent ones are much better, so maybe in the near future.


We need Zen4 AVX512 support 

Can do 829 gflops atm


----------



## glnn_23 (Oct 19, 2022)




----------



## glnn_23 (Oct 20, 2022)

849


----------



## Det0x (Oct 21, 2022)

*849.8194 average gflops   *


----------



## glnn_23 (Nov 1, 2022)

850.77


----------



## Petar666 (Dec 9, 2022)

24/7 -882.48


----------



## Det0x (Dec 26, 2022)

I can also play that game 

24/7 rock stable settings

907 average gflops




875 averag gflops when using the benchmark-part (3200 problem size)


----------

