Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › Aida64 vs Prime95
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Aida64 vs Prime95

post #1 of 64
Thread Starter 
Disclaimer: This thread is not an attempt to convince people that one is better than the other. These are my results and conclusions which I wanted to share so we could discuss and hopefully learn something

Test bench:
Intel 3770K @ 4.7GHz (each test required different settings for stability)
ASRock OC Formula
G-Skill Trident X F3-2400C10D-16GTX 16GB (2x8GB) 2400MHz
Corsair H100i
DMM is a DigiTech QM1571

Aida64
I ran Aida64 for 2 hours (my normal test time although Aida64 recommends 12 hours) with only Stress FPU selected (FPU stressing means AIDA64 System Stability Test will use a floating-point calculation task that stresses the FPU part of your processor. Modern processors all have an integrated FPU, and from all the components that are integrated, the FPU is the most complex one. Hence stressing only the FPU actually stresses most of your processor, and usually drives the processor to its maximum temperature)



Prime95
I ran Prime95 for 5 hours with the settings outlined in the Complete Overclocking Guide: Sandy Bridge & Ivy Bridge | *ASRock Edition* thread. People might complain that these are not "optimal" settings but they are what most people on this site who have this board would use.



Voltage (recorded with a DMM)
Aida64 requires slightly less voltage than Prime95.



Temperature
Aida64 causes higher temperatures



Conclusion
I have been overclocking CPUs for a number of years and I have never used Prime95 to test the stability of an overclock. I have never had a system crash that has passed a few hours stressed with Aida64 (and before that when it was Everest) I have, however, helped many people who have run Prime95 for many hours only to have their systems crash when they fire up a game (for example)
Edited by tw33k - 5/21/13 at 11:43pm
post #2 of 64

Interesting read.

thecultofpat
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
1090T X6 | 3.2ghz  ASUS Sabertooth 990FX MSI 6970 Lightning | 940/1375 G.Skill Snipers 8gb 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 840 Evo  Seagate ST31000524AS  Hitachi HDS5C3020BLE630 None 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
CM TPC 812 Windows 7 Ultimate  HP w19e: 1440x900 | Sony KDL40S-5100 1920x1080 CMStorm Quick Fire. 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
CM 1050w  Cooler Master Cosmos II RAZER Naga Nascar Dale E 
  hide details  
Reply
thecultofpat
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
1090T X6 | 3.2ghz  ASUS Sabertooth 990FX MSI 6970 Lightning | 940/1375 G.Skill Snipers 8gb 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 840 Evo  Seagate ST31000524AS  Hitachi HDS5C3020BLE630 None 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
CM TPC 812 Windows 7 Ultimate  HP w19e: 1440x900 | Sony KDL40S-5100 1920x1080 CMStorm Quick Fire. 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
CM 1050w  Cooler Master Cosmos II RAZER Naga Nascar Dale E 
  hide details  
Reply
post #3 of 64
umm

I use Aida.. mabe that's why my temps seem high for the voltage I have....rolleyes.gif

Compared to others on here!!!
post #4 of 64
Fanboy flames incoming
post #5 of 64
I've been using Intel Burn In Test, and the voltages in CPUZ look low 1.18 @ 4.2 for a 3570k. However, it seems similar to Aida64 in results. IBT will find a flaw very quickly.

The other thing I noticed is that IBT, it will throttle the CPU up and down as it ramps each test. I think that this is key for catching instabilities under transient loads. EG, firing up a game. Using Openhardwaremonitor.org I can actually watch what load vs TDP vs temp looks like real time. 100% processor doesn't equal 100% load, you can watch the temp load up with each test as they queue up. The tools from the motherboard mfgs suck and don't seem to post real time data. I was using Overclockix and Mprime and that just simply couldn't catch anything. Once stable results in Mprime=prime95 in Linux wouldn't even boot into Windows.
post #6 of 64
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SynchronicBoost View Post

I've been using Intel Burn In Test, and the voltages in CPUZ look low 1.18 @ 4.2 for a 3570k. However, it seems similar to Aida64 in results. IBT will find a flaw very quickly.

The other thing I noticed is that IBT, it will throttle the CPU up and down as it ramps each test. I think that this is key for catching instabilities under transient loads. EG, firing up a game. Using Openhardwaremonitor.org I can actually watch what load vs TDP vs temp looks like real time. 100% processor doesn't equal 100% load, you can watch the temp load up with each test as they queue up. The tools from the motherboard mfgs suck and don't seem to post real time data. I was using Overclockix and Mprime and that just simply couldn't catch anything. Once stable results in Mprime=prime95 in Linux wouldn't even boot into Windows.

Interesting. I haven't used IBT a whole lot myself but know people who prefer it
post #7 of 64
Interestingly my conclusion is opposite of yours. I've had more overclocks fail on me after passing AIDA64 than with Prime95. Both are not fail-safe
post #8 of 64
I was running stress testing after that last post and I can confirm that Prime 95 can't load up and put temp into the CPU like IBT can, nearly 16c differential. With IBT I've also found that you can pass with the smaller RAM tests at 1024 and fail by the time you get to the highest stress level.

A side benefit I've found with IBT, don't know about AIDA64, but IBT will catch over voltage. So if you are running too high CPU core V, it will BSOD 124.
post #9 of 64
Thread Starter 
I think the lesson to be learned is that there is not a single solution that will work for everyone. The best thing to do is try a variety of stress tests and see what works for your system
post #10 of 64
Interesting.....thumb.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › Aida64 vs Prime95