View Single Post
Old 03-01-09, 08:42 AM   #12
Ducking & Dodging
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,948
Default Re: Intel Burn-in Test

Originally Posted by methimpikehoses View Post
So I was running my new Q9650 at 4.0 stable in Prime95... but when I tried the Intel Burn in Test, I got errors almost immediately. So, I backed it down some to 3.6 and still got errors... and then down some more to stock speeds and still errors.

So now I'm wondering if my board can even really get this chip stable... Intel Burn in test doesn't even pass at default settings.

The vdroop on my board is probably the culprit. When I was OCing, I set it at 1.39vcore, which reads at about 1.35 on cpu-z. The trouble is that it drops down to 1.27-28 when stress testing, making the system unstable.

Wondering if I should RMA the chip. Any ideas?
I've owned a bunch of 45nm chips, they are flakey at best. Last night I came home, ran a quick 20 pass LinX at my 24/7 OC of 4.0Ghz it failed 9 seconds. Immediately ran it again and passed twice more. Rebooted and passed, then failed twice. I have found similar results using Prime95. It will pass 12 hours, stop it, restart it and fails within a minute.

I've had 5 E8400s C1 and E0s and this Q9550. My 65nm chips, which I also owned a multitude of were either stable or they werent but there wasnt any random instability like the 45nm chips exhibit.

The 45nm are still faster and have more cache, get your 12 hours of prime95 then just use it. Trying to prove it's stable over and over is an adventure in insanity. I've had 6 different 775 motherboard, 4 kits of ram and about 10 CPUs in the last year. The amount of random instability the 45nm chip exhibit is frustrating. However, I've never had issues using it to encode or game, its just the stress tests that cause this to happen.
i7-2600k @ 4.6Ghz, Zotac GTX 680 (1310/7000), 16GB DDR3 1600, 2 x 1TB Samsung F3 RAID 0, Windows 7 x64, CPU and GPU custom watercooled

Originally Posted by General Lee View Post
Oh, if the whole world had only one neck for me to squeeze in my hands...
mailman2 is offline   Reply With Quote