• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Sentential03's burn in's really do work for me.

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
enduro said:
Oh, deception. I got Prime to work, so I resign any point that I made about Prime vs 3DMark etc. :D

Now I have to find something new to disagree with you on, so now that I have prime running, I'll test the burn in, and see if it helps. The AS5 that I have on their has definitely settled, because it has been on there for about a month. I'll see if I can get my vcore needs to drop, or up my overclock.

What did you do to get prime to play nicely then?

Cheers

Oli
 
Holy crap this is working for me. I set it to the speed I always use 11x233 and set it to a voltage I know would load windows but wouldn't run anything and bam it's Folding and burning-in at realtime priority. It's been this way for 8 hours now I hope it keeps this up, if it does 2.7 here I come.
 
What did you do to get prime to play nicely then?

I set the priority to 10, and made sure that no other programs were running. I killed MBM, EMIII, and F@H. That seemed to help quite a bit, so I'll burn it in later tonight aka. when I'm asleep and not playing UT.
 
My chip has seen a total burn-in time of 18 hours now, at 2700 MHz, 1.85V.

I'm up to 4 minutes of Prime95, from the 2 minute wall where I started at this speed and voltage.

I'll add that this is at the same room temperature, so it likely isn't an environmental variable. I've also been testing the Prime95 run-limit by shutting my rig down, leaving it for an hour, and then rebooting, and running Prime. Consistantly, I've been getting 4 minutes out of it now, where I got 2 minutes consistantly before the burning in.

So, it looks like a tangible gain, albeit an extremely small one.

I'm going to keep at it; I don't see the harm, and there may actually be some degree of benefit to doing this.


deception``

Very few people believe that CPU burn-in's actually work. As a matter of fact, a majority of those who do practice such a technique are almost always referring to their memory and memtest. I for one have never seen a gain from burning in a cpu, and will never entertain such an idea. The gain that most people see from burning in a new cpu is that it helps the thermal paste to settle faster than one might see during normal usage. Aside from that, burning nets no gains whatsoever.

I've never seen a gain from burning in either (unless you count this one :D), although I still waste my time doing it to every chip I get. I think that a *lot* of people who try a burn-in are skeptics, who are doing it out of curiosity, or because they don't see the harm in trying.

Also, how would this help the TIM set faster? AS5 requires several heat-up and cool-down "cycles" to 'set' completely, which this isn't offering.

Older TIMs also don't just magically set after seeing a high heat load for several hours. In fact, "regular use", is likely to cause your TIM to set faster than running your computer at full heat load for 8+ hours straight.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Sen, some chips get good results from this, others don't.

I decided to try this, I had backed off my OC alot lately (180x12.5). I dropped my voltage down to 1.550 (lowest on my mobo) Prime failed after 4 minutes, burned it for 8 hours overnight, ran prime in the morning and it never failed.

Pretty good results if you ask me.
 
I'm just starting with my burn in, and have been completely skeptical, but after just one 8 hour session I went from 2min.(ran multiple time always failed within 10sec of each run) Prime stable to 21 min. Then I burned it for another 8 hours (left at same voltage - not following the rules :D ) and the time exactly doubled to 42 minutes prime stable. So while I can't rationalize this for the life of me, I am seeing results. :clap:
 
meh... been doing it for the past two days and not a damn thing; ever sice i have been doing it, all my voltages were out of whack in windows (vcore set @ 1.7ish in bios, but 3 programs reported it to be @ 1.6). As soon as I stopped it, it BSODs, so this was pretty worthless :-/
 
we tried burning in my buddies 2.6c which wont run stable @ anything more than 3.3 @ 1.65 vcore. We found the critical voltage to be around 1.6v so we burned it in for over 10 hours and reran prime and found no improvement on how long it would run. We tried instead to run the proc up to 3.4 @ 1.65 vcore and burned it in for another 8 hours and still did not see any improvement in prime.

I wonder how effective this is for a P4. I would be curious to hear if anyone has had any luck with them
 
I think prime is somwwhat not accurate..yesterday I could prime 248x10 @ 1.55 in bios for 4 min, tested a few things and after 10-15 hrs of burn-in, I could prime of 40 minutes..but few hours later prime failed every 5-6 minutes (tried 4 times and they all failed in about 4-6 minutes)

I am going do keep doing the burn in and see if this works out or not, hopfully to hig 2.6ghz stable soon :)
 
Once again... I kinda have to *stress* this. Burning a CPU in like this takes a long LONG time. This really should only be for the guys who would kill for another 100mhz.

Im glad that some of you are seeing good results with this. I too am seeing some benefit but as I said earlier, it takes awhile.

As for the sticky, Ill do one later today. There are alto of skeptics on this subject, so I want to see that this is helping more people, and a higher level of consistancy, before I try to get it stickied :cool:

felinusz said:
My chip has seen a total burn-in time of 18 hours now, at 2700 MHz, 1.85V.

I'm up to 4 minutes of Prime95, from the 2 minute wall where I started at this speed and voltage.

I'll add that this is at the same room temperature, so it likely isn't an environmental variable. I've also been testing the Prime95 run-limit by shutting my rig down, leaving it for an hour, and then rebooting, and running Prime. Consistantly, I've been getting 4 minutes out of it now, where I got 2 minutes consistantly before the burning in.

So, it looks like a tangible gain, albeit an extremely small one.
I hate to say it, but thats all you are gonna see from the first few cycles:( It generally takes me a week/month of this to see very noticable gains (50-100mhz)

One again, some are more responsive than others, so your results will very significantally. Also you must remember this works exponentially. I bet that if you prime it at your current speed / voltage, prime will then run @ 8 mins plus. It all depends on HOW unstable the CPU is. If you are really pushing it, you probably wont notice much change initally. However one you get it to a semi-stable speed you will see a great deal of benefit, since it works exponentially.

I personally prefer to push it as hard as I can then work my way from there. From my personal experience, doing this usually doubles stability. If you get yours to run @ 2-5mins, after the cycle it should run from 4-10 mins. Just enough to prove that it is working, which is why I suggested 2-5mins from the start

The greatest example is my old 2600+ and my new 3200+. My old AXP was very responsive to this. I shaved off a good .075v off of it, where as my A64 has gained maybe 30mhz thus far. Granted the 2600+ saw a great deal more of action than this one has, but the point remains the same.

However I have seen a trend. Good CPUs seem to benefit from this a hellova lot. Where as ****tier CPUs hadrly benefit at all

From ap personal perspective, stability tends to double or triple wiht each burn in (only successful ones, not each burn is) Your results fall in line almost exactally like mine. The reason why I suggested everyone to use 2-4 mins is that it is enough to show that stability has increased. If people decided to use 0-1, the stability gain would be so small it would appear as tho nothing had happened.

When you start getting into the 10mins stable range, that is where the most dramatic difference will occur (however it takes a long *** time to see such a difference since each prime now should last almost a half-hour)
 
Last edited:
Well, here are the results so far, from burning in overnight.

I was at 1.825V for absolute stability ( F@H for 15 days straight, 3DMark etc), just got prime to work, so I haven't tested it at 1.825V yet.

I started burning in at 1.75V, which passed prime when I started for 15 mins. After burning in, it lasted 24 mins. Dropped the vcore down to 1.725, where prime wouldn't even run before, and it lasted for 6 mins. It's burning in at that right now, so I'll post results later tonight when I get back from school. Seems to be lowering my voltage needs though, because when I tried 1.725V before, Prime said that there were over 100 (exactly) errors 2 secs after I started. I tried a pre run this morning and it lasted for over 6 min's. Not too bad.
 
I'm giving this a go with my new 2600 IQYHA mobile. I've done it with 'Enable error checking option' is this the right option or is the other one??

It's had a burn in of about 15 hours total. It's 3d stable at 220x11.5x1.95v [2vcore in bios] around 44-50'c full load. I can do UT2004 at 1.85-1.9cvore. I bunrt it in for 10 hours with Enable error checking at 1.81vcore... 40'c full load:)
 
enduro said:
Well, here are the results so far, from burning in overnight.

I was at 1.825V for absolute stability ( F@H for 15 days straight, 3DMark etc), just got prime to work, so I haven't tested it at 1.825V yet.

I started burning in at 1.75V, which passed prime when I started for 15 mins. After burning in, it lasted 24 mins. Dropped the vcore down to 1.725, where prime wouldn't even run before, and it lasted for 6 mins. It's burning in at that right now, so I'll post results later tonight when I get back from school. Seems to be lowering my voltage needs though, because when I tried 1.725V before, Prime said that there were over 100 (exactly) errors 2 secs after I started. I tried a pre run this morning and it lasted for over 6 min's. Not too bad.
Im glad your results are starting to look like mine. As I stated before, Burns tend to make your stability double with each successful pass, much like *YOUR* results have shown
 
Hey Rich, I'd turn that vcore down a bit. Try 1.9 max for these cpu's. It's been found that 2V on air can cause damage to the cpu if left at that for a good amount of time. Keep it below 1.9V on air. Try the burning in process at a lower voltage first, so you have more head room, it's probably a little dangerous to set it to the highest value and then go down.
 
ENDURO said:
I set the priority to 10, and made sure that no other programs were running. I killed MBM, EMIII, and F@H. That seemed to help quite a bit, so I'll burn it in later tonight aka. when I'm asleep and not playing UT.
 
I was reading Felinusz's Stress thread, and he mentioned that any program that refreshes often can cause errors in Prime. MBM and EMIII both refresh every 5 secs or so on my computer. That was probably the biggest cause right there. That and F@H also took like 50% of the cpu while prime was running, so setting the priority to 10 solved that problem.
 
enduro said:
I was reading Felinusz's Stress thread, and he mentioned that any program that refreshes often can cause errors in Prime. MBM and EMIII both refresh every 5 secs or so on my computer. That was probably the biggest cause right there. That and F@H also took like 50% of the cpu while prime was running, so setting the priority to 10 solved that problem.
Hmmmm thanks for the headsup Ill look into this
 
Back