What are the latest recommended programs for burn-in testing of CPUs and
RAM?
I will be running them at stock speeds.

Thanks,
QZ

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 15:07:54 -0400, "QZ" <nothing> wrote:

>What are the latest recommended programs for burn-in testing of CPUs and
>RAM?
>I will be running them at stock speeds.

On a new machine I run memtest86+ www.memtest.org first for a couple of
hours, then the hard drive mfr's full scan. Both of those run without an
OS installed of course. That gives enough confidence to install the OS
after which I run Prime95's Torture Test www.mersenne.org.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

QZ <nothing> wrote:
> What are the latest recommended programs for burn-in testing
> of CPUs and RAM? I will be running them at stock speeds.

Perhaps I shouldn't toot my own horn, but I _progressively_
validate the system by testing outwards from proven components:

1) Test CPU, cooling, PSU & mobo PS with `burnK7` 30min
2) Test L1 with `burnMMX F` 15min - optional
3) Test L2 with `burnMMX H` 15min - optional
4) Test Northbridge, RAM busses & 3.3V PSU with `burnMMX P` 6hr
5) Test RAM cells with `memtest86` 16hr
6) Test HD (& 5V PSU) with looping md5sums 8hr

Obviously any early failure stops the series. Failure
isolation is important, and one reason I leave `cpuburn`
as a collection of pesky small pgms.

-- Robert author `cpuburn` http://pages.sbcglobal.net/redelm

http://tinyurl.com/dv2ue

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On a new machine I run memtest86+ www.memtest.org first for a couple of
> hours, then the hard drive mfr's full scan. Both of those run without an
> OS installed of course. That gives enough confidence to install the OS
> after which I run Prime95's Torture Test www.mersenne.org.

Well, I am using an existing HDD, so that part is optional.

As far as memtest86+ is concerned, last year, I couldn't get it to run.
IIRC, it runs from a floppy. So, I used memtest+ instead. But, I would like
advice on memtest86+.

And I used Prime95.

"Robert Redelmeier" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:uT7Se.442$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Perhaps I shouldn't toot my own horn, but I _progressively_
> validate the system by testing outwards from proven components:
>
> 1) Test CPU, cooling, PSU & mobo PS with `burnK7` 30min
> 2) Test L1 with `burnMMX F` 15min - optional
> 3) Test L2 with `burnMMX H` 15min - optional
> 4) Test Northbridge, RAM busses & 3.3V PSU with `burnMMX P` 6hr
> 5) Test RAM cells with `memtest86` 16hr
> 6) Test HD (& 5V PSU) with looping md5sums 8hr
>
> Obviously any early failure stops the series. Failure
> isolation is important, and one reason I leave `cpuburn`
> as a collection of pesky small pgms.

I guess since the HDD test is last, these are all tested w/o WinXP
installed?
This just a Celeron D CPU; is burnK7 still recommended?

QZ wrote:

" What are the latest recommended programs for burn-in testing of CPUs
and RAM? I will be running them at stock speeds. "


There's a few here: http://www.benchmarkhq.ru/english.html?/be_cpu.html

....but I tend to like SuperPi and S&M.

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 14:33:44 -0400, "QZ" <nothing> wrote:

>"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On a new machine I run memtest86+ www.memtest.org first for a couple of
>> hours, then the hard drive mfr's full scan. Both of those run without an
>> OS installed of course. That gives enough confidence to install the OS
>> after which I run Prime95's Torture Test www.mersenne.org.
>
>Well, I am using an existing HDD, so that part is optional.

Does a chkdsk show any bad sectors?

>As far as memtest86+ is concerned, last year, I couldn't get it to run.
>IIRC, it runs from a floppy. So, I used memtest+ instead. But, I would like
>advice on memtest86+.

Memtest86+ has run fine for me on recent systems - sometimes it takes them
a couple of goes to get a new memory controller/chipset just right. You can
run it from a floppy, a USB memory key or a CD-R.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 14:33:44 -0400, "QZ" <nothing> wrote:
> >Well, I am using an existing HDD, so that part is optional.
>
> Does a chkdsk show any bad sectors?

How do you recommend checking the HDD in WinME?
It appears chkdsk only works in WinXP, which they won't have installed until
the new parts are installed.
It is an IBM Deskstar, I think they are Hitachi now, if they have a utility
would it work?
I guess it is a good idea to check the HDD and CD-ROM, (the latter is only
used for installs), so I could get replacements at the same time, if
necessary.
For CD-ROM (read only) testing, I would assume to just open files from
install CDs.

Thanks,
QZ

Bitstring <O-2dnfjB7oGyHbneRVn-(E-Mail Removed)>, from the wonderful
person QZ <nothing@?.?.invalid> said
>"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 14:33:44 -0400, "QZ" <nothing> wrote:
>> >Well, I am using an existing HDD, so that part is optional.
>>
>> Does a chkdsk show any bad sectors?
>
>How do you recommend checking the HDD in WinME?
>It appears chkdsk only works in WinXP, which they won't have installed until
>the new parts are installed.

You run 'scan disc' instead.

>It is an IBM Deskstar, I think they are Hitachi now, if they have a utility
>would it work?

Yes, but only if the drive is attached to an IDE channel which is one of
the two main one on the motherboard. If the drive is on a Promise
(etc.) RAID controller card (or secondary controller on the
motherboard), or (last time I looked) SATA controller, the
IBM^H^H^HHitachi utility won't be any use.

<snip>

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.