Overclock.net banner
1 - 20 of 440 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
247 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Over the last couple of days resp. weeks I've been working with the Curve Optimizer for Ryzen processors a bit more, but I hadn't found a good way to test the settings for stability. CineBench single threaded almost always worked fine, and getting Prime95 stable with load on all cores was also relatively quick. Waiting for crashes while idling or while playing a game wasn't so appealing either, and on Reddit someone even suggested using the Windows Repair as some kind of stability test... that didn't seem like a good idea to me.

So this sparked the idea for this tool. It's a PowerShell script which starts up an instance of Prime95 with only a single worker thread, stressing only a single physical CPU core. And it cycles through all the available cores after an adjustable time, so that you can run this tool e.g. over night, and then the next day you can check which cores have run fine and which ones have thrown an error in Prime95.

By now it looks polished enough for a release, however so far I'm the only one who has tested it, so additional reports are welcome.

You can find it here:


To execute it, simply double click the "Run CoreCycler.bat".
And be sure to read the included readme.txt as well as the config.ini (resp. config.default.ini) to get a grasp of what settings you can change.
(Note: the config.ini will be auto-generated on the first start from the config.default.ini)


Screenshots of the script in action:
Blue Computer Font Screenshot Display device Font Screenshot Electronic device Computer Multimedia

And here's an example for a summary, this is how the testing went for me during development. As you can see, this still takes quite some time to get stable. (And no, the summary will not be generated automatically, you'll still have to do this yourself ;)):
Rectangle Font Material property Parallel Pattern


Here's an excerpt from the readme.txt

This little script will run Prime95 with only one worker thread and sets the affinity of the Prime95 process alternating to each physical core, cycling through all of them. This way you can test the stability of your Curve Optimizer setting for each core individually, much more thoroughly than e.g. with Cinebench or the Windows Repair, and much easier than manually setting the affinity of the process via the Task Manager.
It will still need a lot of time though. If for example you're after a 12h "prime-stable" setup which is common for regular overvlocks, you'd need to run this script for 12x12 = 144 hours on a 5900X with 12 physical cores, because each core is tested individually, and so each core also needs to complete this 12 hour test individually. Respectively, on a 5600X with its 6 physical cores this would be "only" 6x12 = 72 hours.
Unfortunately such an all-core stress test with Prime95 is not effective for testing Curve Optimizer settings, because the cores cannot boost as high if all of them are stres tested, and therefore you won't be able to detect instabilities that occur at a higher clock speed. For example, with my CPU I was able to run a Prime95 all-core stress test for 24 hours with an additional Boost Override of +75 MHz and a Curve Optimizer setting of -30 on all cores. However, when using this script, and with +0 MHz Boost Override, I needed to go down to -9 on one core to have it run stable (on the other hand, another core was still happy with a -30 setting even in this case).

When you start the script for the first time, it will copy the included config.default.ini to config.ini, in which you then can change various settings, e.g. which mode Prime95 should run in (SSE, AVX, AVX2, CUSTOM, where SSE causes the highest boost clock, because it's the lightest load on the processor of all the settings), how long an individual core should be stressed for before it cycles to the next one, if certain cores should be ignored, etc. For each setting there's also a description in the config.ini file.

As a starting point you could set the Curve Optimizer to e.g. -15 or -20 for each core and then wait and see which core runs through fine and which throws an error. Then you could increase the setting for those that have thrown an error by e.g. 2 or 3 points (e.g. from -15 to -13) and decrease those that were fine by 2 or 3 further into the negative (-15 to -17). Once you've crossed a certain point however there is no way around modifying the value by a single point up/down and letting the script run for a long time to find the very last instabilities.

By the way, it is intended that only one thread is stressed for each core if Hyperthreading / SMT is enabled, as the boost clock is higher this way, compared to if both (virtual) threads would be stressed. However, there is a setting in the config.ini to enable two threads as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
After testing hours of y-cruncher/TM5 memory test and even Prime95 AVX multi thread without issues I tried your script without any modifications... To my surprise I got rounding errors at stock, after a clear CMOS + load defaults!

I was thinking my CPU was stable but it seems it's actually not!

Regarding the script it works well, thanks for sharing and keep the good work!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
626 Posts
Already been done.
Single core Prime95 test script for Zen 3 curve offset tuning
But that one focuses on a single FTT size with some reporting there CPU error quicker with different FTT which could be one advantage to your version of the test even if it takes a bit longer to run.

I find that after passing that single threaded prime95 test and y-cruncher it will still quickly blue screen with much lower curves when using AIDA64 cache benchmark on my 5800X so I will give your test a try and see what it finds thanks.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: sp00n82

·
Registered
Joined
·
247 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Already been done.
Single core Prime95 test script for Zen 3 curve offset tuning
But that one focuses on a single FTT size with some reporting there CPU error quicker with different FTT which could be one advantage to your version of the test even if it takes a bit longer to run.

I find that after passing that single threaded prime95 test and y-cruncher it will still quickly blue screen with much lower curves when using AIDA64 cache benchmark on my 5800X so I will give your test a try and see what it finds thanks.
Interesting, haven't seen that one before. And it's even a PowerShell script as well.
Two idiots with the same idea. 😅
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
This doesn't help you detect core problems at non peak frequency/voltages though.. so at best it only helps with a small range of the space of where undervolting can cause crashes. It seems like we'd really need AMD to provide us a way to "lock" a core at an arbitrary point on it's boost curve so we could test the whole range.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
626 Posts
Gave it a run for two passes of your prime but then today I gave AIDA64 cache bench another go and the system rebooted so I dropped the offset for all cores 1 notch below these values.
This 5800X seems to allow decent curves up to 4875MHz but at 4900MHz they plummet but that is what is required to hit the max WHEA free IF on this CPU.

101x48.5=4898.5MHz max and distance below max during per core prime95 single thread.
3x scaler LLC off
CORE #0 13 CPPC=150, Curve-11 =1304mV max 15.510W
CORE #1 9 CPPC=146, Curve+1 =1384mV -50MHz 18.136W
CORE #2 6 CPPC=139, Curve-5 =1385mV -10MHz 18.814W
CORE #3 0 CPPC=127, Curve-5 =1374mV -40MHz 18.276W
CORE #4 3 CPPC=135, Curve-6 =1386mV -20MHz 17.573W
CORE #5 5 CPPC=143, Curve-3 =1384mV -20MHz 17.499W
CORE #6 5 CPPC=131, Curve-2 =1364mV -100MHz 16.470W
CORE #7 12 CPPC=150, Curve-17 =1271mV max 15.179W

For comparison this is what was stable with just 50MHz less where prime95 stability testing was good enough as AIDA64 doesn't crash from tweaking curves till it goes over 4850MHz.
Core #1 seems to be the only one that errors in prime before crashing AIDA64 at higher frequency.
CORE #0 13 CPPC 150 -14 =1262mV
CORE #1 9 CPPC 146 -9 =1323mV
CORE #2 6 CPPC 139 -22 =1245mV
CORE #3 0 CPPC 127 -22 =1263mV
CORE #4 3 CPPC 135 -17 =1286mV
CORE #5 5 CPPC 143 -23 =1238mV
CORE #6 5 CPPC 131 -22 =1275mV
CORE #7 12 CPPC 150 -23 =1220mV
With these curves all cores were able to maintain 4850MHz during the single threaded prime95 test unlike at 4900MHz
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
Over the last couple of days resp. weeks I've been working with the Curve Optimizer for Ryzen processors a bit more, but I hadn't found a good way to test the settings for stability. CineBench single threaded almost always worked fine, and getting Prime95 stable with load on all cores was also relatively quick. Waiting for crashes while idling or while playing a game wasn't so appealing either, and on Reddit someone even suggested using the Windows Repair as some kind of stability test... that didn't seem like a good idea to me.

So this sparked the idea for this tool. It's a PowerShell script which starts up an instance of Prime95 with only a single worker thread, stressing only a single physical CPU core. And it cycles through all the available cores after an adjustable time, so that you can run this tool e.g. over night, and then the next day you can check which cores have run fine and which ones have thrown an error in Prime95.

By now it looks polished enough for a release, however so far I'm the only one who has tested it, so additional reports are welcome.

You can find it here:


To execute it, simply double click the "Run CoreCycler.bat".
And be sure to read the included readme.txt as well as the config.ini (resp. config.default.ini) to get a grasp of what settings you can change.
(Note: the config.ini will be auto-generated on the first start from the config.default.ini)


Screenshots of the script in action:
View attachment 2481473 View attachment 2481474

And here's an example for a summary, this is how the testing went for me during development. As you can see, this still takes quite some time to get stable. (And no, the summary will not be generated automatically, you'll still have to do this yourself ;)):
View attachment 2481475


Here's an excerpt from the readme.txt

This little script will run Prime95 with only one worker thread and sets the affinity of the Prime95 process alternating to each physical core, cycling through all of them. This way you can test the stability of your Curve Optimizer setting for each core individually, much more thoroughly than e.g. with Cinebench or the Windows Repair, and much easier than manually setting the affinity of the process via the Task Manager.
It will still need a lot of time though. If for example you're after a 12h "prime-stable" setup which is common for regular overvlocks, you'd need to run this script for 12x12 = 144 hours on a 5900X with 12 physical cores, because each core is tested individually, and so each core also needs to complete this 12 hour test individually. Respectively, on a 5600X with its 6 physical cores this would be "only" 6x12 = 72 hours.
Unfortunately such an all-core stress test with Prime95 is not effective for testing Curve Optimizer settings, because the cores cannot boost as high if all of them are stres tested, and therefore you won't be able to detect instabilities that occur at a higher clock speed. For example, with my CPU I was able to run a Prime95 all-core stress test for 24 hours with an additional Boost Override of +75 MHz and a Curve Optimizer setting of -30 on all cores. However, when using this script, and with +0 MHz Boost Override, I needed to go down to -9 on one core to have it run stable (on the other hand, another core was still happy with a -30 setting even in this case).

When you start the script for the first time, it will copy the included config.default.ini to config.ini, in which you then can change various settings, e.g. which mode Prime95 should run in (SSE, AVX, AVX2, CUSTOM, where SSE causes the highest boost clock, because it's the lightest load on the processor of all the settings), how long an individual core should be stressed for before it cycles to the next one, if certain cores should be ignored, etc. For each setting there's also a description in the config.ini file.

As a starting point you could set the Curve Optimizer to e.g. -15 or -20 for each core and then wait and see which core runs through fine and which throws an error. Then you could increase the setting for those that have thrown an error by e.g. 2 or 3 points (e.g. from -15 to -13) and decrease those that were fine by 2 or 3 further into the negative (-15 to -17). Once you've crossed a certain point however there is no way around modifying the value by a single point up/down and letting the script run for a long time to find the very last instabilities.

By the way, it is intended that only one thread is stressed for each core if Hyperthreading / SMT is enabled, as the boost clock is higher this way, compared to if both (virtual) threads would be stressed. However, there is a setting in the config.ini to enable two threads as well.
I'm using it !
Thank you!
 

·
Registered
Overclocking - latest technology
Joined
·
358 Posts
I ran core cycler several times in the last week. What’s found is that after one night passing all the test.. I canceled the script.. so I was on idle and then I ran CB20.. an then.. it reboot. No BSOD and nothing else. I don’t know but I guess core cycler would be fine to find some extreme values conflict but it doesn’t help to fix the reboot on idle issue. Has something similar happened to anyone?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
I ran core cycler several times in the last week. What’s found is that after one night passing all the test.. I canceled the script.. so I was on idle and then I ran CB20.. an then.. it reboot. No BSOD and nothing else. I don’t know but I guess core cycler would be fine to find some extreme values conflict but it doesn’t help to fix the reboot on idle issue. Has something similar happened to anyone?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Yes Core Cycler does not find that kind of instability.
It works on single core load scenarios.

That reboot you experienced originated any WHEA in the windows event log?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
Gave it a run for two passes of your prime but then today I gave AIDA64 cache bench another go and the system rebooted so I dropped the offset for all cores 1 notch below these values.
This 5800X seems to allow decent curves up to 4875MHz but at 4900MHz they plummet but that is what is required to hit the max WHEA free IF on this CPU.

101x48.5=4898.5MHz max and distance below max during per core prime95 single thread.
3x scaler LLC off
CORE #0 13 CPPC=150, Curve-11 =1304mV max 15.510W
CORE #1 9 CPPC=146, Curve+1 =1384mV -50MHz 18.136W
CORE #2 6 CPPC=139, Curve-5 =1385mV -10MHz 18.814W
CORE #3 0 CPPC=127, Curve-5 =1374mV -40MHz 18.276W
CORE #4 3 CPPC=135, Curve-6 =1386mV -20MHz 17.573W
CORE #5 5 CPPC=143, Curve-3 =1384mV -20MHz 17.499W
CORE #6 5 CPPC=131, Curve-2 =1364mV -100MHz 16.470W
CORE #7 12 CPPC=150, Curve-17 =1271mV max 15.179W

For comparison this is what was stable with just 50MHz less where prime95 stability testing was good enough as AIDA64 doesn't crash from tweaking curves till it goes over 4850MHz.
Core #1 seems to be the only one that errors in prime before crashing AIDA64 at higher frequency.
CORE #0 13 CPPC 150 -14 =1262mV
CORE #1 9 CPPC 146 -9 =1323mV
CORE #2 6 CPPC 139 -22 =1245mV
CORE #3 0 CPPC 127 -22 =1263mV
CORE #4 3 CPPC 135 -17 =1286mV
CORE #5 5 CPPC 143 -23 =1238mV
CORE #6 5 CPPC 131 -22 =1275mV
CORE #7 12 CPPC 150 -23 =1220mV
With these curves all cores were able to maintain 4850MHz during the single threaded prime95 test unlike at 4900MHz
My 5800X with the curve optimized/tested with Core Cycler is also able to maintain 4850MHz during the single core tests with Core Cycle/CB R20.

Single core at 4850Mhz seems to be a pattern with decent 5800X CPU's when not using PBO Boost Offset.

I can't squeeze any more MHz with the PBO Boost Offset (not even 25Mhz) without having to drop all curve values that leads to multi core performance loss.

In multi core running CB R20 I'm getting 4750 Mhz all core.

I prefer to leave it this way ( 4750 Mhz all core with zero PBO offset ) than having to lower all cores to get more 25/50MHz in single core.
It does not worth it.
Multi core scenarios are 90% of the use case scenarios this days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
247 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
With version 0.8 CoreCycler will support Aida64 and Y-Cruncher as additional stress tests. Although for Aida64 you'll need to manually download and extract the Portable Engineer version due to its license (I don't think I can include it).
There's also a new config switch which if set (which it is by default) will periodically suspend and restart the stress test, with which I hope to emulate the load change scenarios and therefore catch more instabilities. Also the test order can be changed, by default it's now alternating between core 1 on CCD1, core 1 on CCD2, core 2 on CCD1, etc for processors with more than 8 cores, or random for anything up to 8 cores. With that I hope to squeeze out some more MHz because the hot spots are distributed more evenly, which could lead to slightly higher boost clock as well.

It should be ready soon and I'm looking for beta testers for this version, so if you're interested, let me know. 🙃
 

·
Registered
Overclocking - latest technology
Joined
·
358 Posts
With version 0.8 CoreCycler will support Aida64 and Y-Cruncher as additional stress tests. Although for Aida64 you'll need to manually download and extract the Portable Engineer version due to its license (I don't think I can include it).
There's also a new config switch which if set (which it is by default) will periodically suspend and restart the stress test, with which I hope to emulate the load change scenarios and therefore catch more instabilities. Also the test order can be changed, by default it's now alternating between core 1 on CCD1, core 1 on CCD2, core 2 on CCD1, etc for processors with more than 8 cores, or random for anything up to 8 cores. With that I hope to squeeze out some more MHz because the hot spots are distributed more evenly, which could lead to slightly higher boost clock as well.

It should be ready soon and I'm looking for beta testers for this version, so if you're interested, let me know.
Yes! I’m definitely want to try the new version. Again, the y-cruncher helps me to find errors in the curve very easy. I think is by far better than P95 because I could run hours of P95 alone or even with the core cycler without any errors.. but there are errors.. and after having canceled the test I had a reboot on idle. So.. y-cruncher is very good but I think it put in consideration other factors like memory.. so if the new CC version stop and then start again it would be great. The other thing is to have some schedule .. you now, running a test for 144hs straight is almost impossible.. maybe if it can run for 12 hours.stop and continue .. would be fine, perhaps only test 1 core and then stop..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
247 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
The other thing is to have some schedule .. you now, running a test for 144hs straight is almost impossible.. maybe if it can run for 12 hours.stop and continue .. would be fine, perhaps only test 1 core and then stop..
I didn't necessarily mean you need to run it 144 hours non stop. I agree that's impracticable. But you can easily run it for 8+ hours over multiple nights, which then can sum up to this amount of stress test hours. After all, after a certain amount of time the test algorithms repeat anyway, so there's nothing really gained by running it for 144 hours in one session.
It's only a problem if your stress test session are so short that you don't encounter all possible test scenarios. Which is also why I suggest you not only run the default settings, but switch between SSE/AVX/AVX2 and the various FFT sizes (and Y-Cruncher & Aida64 beginning with v0.8).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Thanks for sharing!
y-cruncher seems to be the best and faster option for error detection
After 2 iterations 10m per core for each stress test y-cruncher both times failed on core 6, aida64 and prime95 no errors.
Changing core 6 curve from -23 to -22 and test with y cruncher again for 2 iterations 10m per core no errors

+ 22:00:10 - ...checking CPU usage: 4.17%
+ ...current CPU frequency: ~4815 MHz (130.1%)
+ Suspending the stress test process
+ Suspended: True
+ Resuming the stress test process
+ Resumed: True
+ 22:00:22 - ...checking CPU usage: 0%
+ 22:00:22 - ...the CPU usage was too low, waiting 2000ms for another check...
+ Process Id: 1368
+ 22:00:22 - ...checking CPU usage again: 0%
+ ...still not enough usage, throw an error
+ There has been an error with the stress test program!
ERROR: 22:00:28
ERROR: Y-Cruncher seems to have stopped with an error!
ERROR: At Core 6 (CPU 12)
ERROR MESSAGE: The Y-Cruncher process doesn't use enough CPU power anymore (only 0% instead of the expected 4.17%)
+ The stress test program is Y-Cruncher, no detailed error detection available
+ There has been some error in Test-ProcessUsage, checking
+ Trying to close the stress test program to re-start it
+ Trying to close the stress test program
+ Trying to close Y-Cruncher
+ Trying to gracefully close Y-Cruncher
+ Y-Cruncher closed
+ restartTestProgramForEachCore is not set, restarting the test program right away
22:00:28 - Trying to restart Y-Cruncher
+ Starting the stress test program
+ Starting Y-Cruncher
+ Trying to get the stress test program window handler
+ Looking for these window names:
+ ^.*00-x86\.exe$
+ 22:00:28 - Window found
+ Found the following window(s) with these names:
+ - WinTitle: Y-Cruncher - 00-x86.exe
+ ProcessId: 3820
+ Process Path: C:\Users\User\Desktop\CoreCycler-v0.8.0.0-RC3\test_programs\y-cruncher\Binaries\00-x86.exe
+ Filtering the windows for ".*00-x86.exe$":
+ - WinTitle: Y-Cruncher - 00-x86.exe
+ ProcessId: 3820
+ Process Path: C:\Users\User\Desktop\CoreCycler-v0.8.0.0-RC3\test_programs\y-cruncher\Binaries\00-x86.exe
+ Stress test window handler: 459910
+ Stress test window process ID: 3820
+ Stress test process: 00-x86
+ Stress test process ID: 3820
+ The Performance Process Counter Path for the ID:
+ \\desktop-nuhesut\process(00-x86)\id process
+ The Performance Process Counter Path for the Time:
+ \\desktop-nuhesut\process(00-x86)\% Processor Time
+ Y-Cruncher seems to have stopped with an error at Core 6 (CPU 12)
+ Alternating test order selected, getting the core to test...
+ Previous core: 6
+ The selected core to test: 1
22:00:30 - Set to Core 1 (CPU 2)
23:47:12 - Iteration 1
----------------------------------
+ Alternating test order selected, getting the core to test...
+ Previous core:
+ The selected core to test: 0
Notice!
Apparently Aida64 doesn't like running the stress test on the first thread of Core 0.
Setting it to thread 2 of Core 0 instead (Core 0 CPU 1).
23:47:12 - Set to Core 0 (CPU 1)
+ Setting the affinity to 2
+ Successfully set the affinity to 2
Additional stress tests for higher frequencies may improve error detection, y-cryncher 00-x86 test is one of the best option available compared to aida64 and prime95 but can't reach peak frequencies.

e.g.
5900x +150mhz

2484266


2484267
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
With version 0.8 CoreCycler will support Aida64 and Y-Cruncher as additional stress tests. Although for Aida64 you'll need to manually download and extract the Portable Engineer version due to its license (I don't think I can include it).
There's also a new config switch which if set (which it is by default) will periodically suspend and restart the stress test, with which I hope to emulate the load change scenarios and therefore catch more instabilities. Also the test order can be changed, by default it's now alternating between core 1 on CCD1, core 1 on CCD2, core 2 on CCD1, etc for processors with more than 8 cores, or random for anything up to 8 cores. With that I hope to squeeze out some more MHz because the hot spots are distributed more evenly, which could lead to slightly higher boost clock as well.

It should be ready soon and I'm looking for beta testers for this version, so if you're interested, let me know. 🙃
If possible, I would like to beta test the tool too. I've been using core cycler for a week and it's highly convenient. I'd be obliged if I can play any part in its further development.
Thanks and Regards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Thanks for sharing!
y-cruncher seems to be the best and faster option for error detection
After 2 iterations 10m per core for each stress test y-cruncher both times failed on core 6, aida64 and prime95 no errors.
Changing core 6 curve from -23 to -22 and test with y cruncher again for 2 iterations 10m per core no errors

+ 22:00:10 - ...checking CPU usage: 4.17%
+ ...current CPU frequency: ~4815 MHz (130.1%)
+ Suspending the stress test process
+ Suspended: True
+ Resuming the stress test process
+ Resumed: True
+ 22:00:22 - ...checking CPU usage: 0%
+ 22:00:22 - ...the CPU usage was too low, waiting 2000ms for another check...
+ Process Id: 1368
+ 22:00:22 - ...checking CPU usage again: 0%
+ ...still not enough usage, throw an error
+ There has been an error with the stress test program!
ERROR: 22:00:28
ERROR: Y-Cruncher seems to have stopped with an error!
ERROR: At Core 6 (CPU 12)
ERROR MESSAGE: The Y-Cruncher process doesn't use enough CPU power anymore (only 0% instead of the expected 4.17%)
+ The stress test program is Y-Cruncher, no detailed error detection available
+ There has been some error in Test-ProcessUsage, checking
+ Trying to close the stress test program to re-start it
+ Trying to close the stress test program
+ Trying to close Y-Cruncher
+ Trying to gracefully close Y-Cruncher
+ Y-Cruncher closed
+ restartTestProgramForEachCore is not set, restarting the test program right away
22:00:28 - Trying to restart Y-Cruncher
+ Starting the stress test program
+ Starting Y-Cruncher
+ Trying to get the stress test program window handler
+ Looking for these window names:
+ ^.*00-x86\.exe$
+ 22:00:28 - Window found
+ Found the following window(s) with these names:
+ - WinTitle: Y-Cruncher - 00-x86.exe
+ ProcessId: 3820
+ Process Path: C:\Users\User\Desktop\CoreCycler-v0.8.0.0-RC3\test_programs\y-cruncher\Binaries\00-x86.exe
+ Filtering the windows for ".*00-x86.exe$":
+ - WinTitle: Y-Cruncher - 00-x86.exe
+ ProcessId: 3820
+ Process Path: C:\Users\User\Desktop\CoreCycler-v0.8.0.0-RC3\test_programs\y-cruncher\Binaries\00-x86.exe
+ Stress test window handler: 459910
+ Stress test window process ID: 3820
+ Stress test process: 00-x86
+ Stress test process ID: 3820
+ The Performance Process Counter Path for the ID:
+ \\desktop-nuhesut\process(00-x86)\id process
+ The Performance Process Counter Path for the Time:
+ \\desktop-nuhesut\process(00-x86)\% Processor Time
+ Y-Cruncher seems to have stopped with an error at Core 6 (CPU 12)
+ Alternating test order selected, getting the core to test...
+ Previous core: 6
+ The selected core to test: 1
22:00:30 - Set to Core 1 (CPU 2)
23:47:12 - Iteration 1
----------------------------------
+ Alternating test order selected, getting the core to test...
+ Previous core:
+ The selected core to test: 0
Notice!
Apparently Aida64 doesn't like running the stress test on the first thread of Core 0.
Setting it to thread 2 of Core 0 instead (Core 0 CPU 1).
23:47:12 - Set to Core 0 (CPU 1)
+ Setting the affinity to 2
+ Successfully set the affinity to 2
Additional stress tests for higher frequencies may improve error detection, y-cryncher 00-x86 test is one of the best option available compared to aida64 and prime95 but can't reach peak frequencies.

e.g.
5900x +150mhz

View attachment 2484266

View attachment 2484267
Which exact tests did you use? Can you please share a screenshot of your y-cruncher settings?
Thanks :)
 
1 - 20 of 440 Posts
Top