SP2004 vs. Prime 95

Simply, what is the difference between using SP2004 or Prime 95? It was my understanding that SP2004 is basically Prime 95 with a different graphical interface, but it seems I will be getting different indications of stability between the 2 of them. I will need to do further testing as I have not done any congruent clocks testing.

So far, Prime fails at 2.95 gHz, 1.52 V in BIOS (1.49 V in win) within 17 minutes.
3.0 gHz, any voltage up to around 1.65 V, fails Prime within 3 minutes.

With Sp2004, last night using small FFT I went for 14 hours+ at 2.92 gHz, 1.52 V in BIOS(1.49 V in win).

So it seems that SP2004 will indicate that I am more stable than Prime 95 indicates when I attempt at higher clocks.

If you set them the same there's no difference

I will post results tomorrow after testing tonight...it just seems intuitively that if I pass 2.92 gHz at 1.5V for 14 hours+ (I stopped the test myself) with a 0.1 V bump in Voltage I will be passing at 3.0 gHz for more than 3 minutes.

In the next few days I will test another hypothesis as well...perhaps my mem or mem controller is flaking out. I have been using divider such that below 3.0 gHz I am below mem rated speed but at 3.0 gHz I am at rated speed, DDR 500. I will use a different divider such that mem is well below rated when testing CPU frequencies. I had done this previously by using 11 x multi putting my mem at DDR 45X but I will go even lower, around DDR 400. I assumed that my mem would be stable at or below rated speed. I had problems with the VX previously and thought that they had been resolved; perhaps not?

Thanks for the quick input Rattle.

your welcome.

I find sp2004 easier to use cuz you can get affinity easily with dual cores and I like the timer lol. As far as I know running blend on both is identical.

Good luck in your search for 3g's. my 146 did it, was nice

Well I did some testing at 3.0 gHz with SP2004...it did work out the same as Prime 95. I tested again with Voltage varying from 1.47 in BIOS to 1.62 in BIOS...also tested with divider running mem at DDR 400. No beans...this 148 won't do 3.0 gHz stable. In preliminary testing I could 32M at 3.0 gHz (not max) and 1M at around 3.12 gHz (max). But stable looks like around 2.92-2.95 gHz is all its got. I had hoped for more seeing that my previous Venice was good for 2.8 gHz stable...but I guess its not to shabby.

I think temps may be the problem...at 3.0 gHz it primed longer at 1.52 V than it did at higher voltages. Mobo reports temps don't exceed 50C by much but this must be innaccurate. In the next few weeks I will be ~doubling the airflow over my XP 90c...maybe this will help. The IHS may be removed as well. What was your cooling solution Rattle? Thanks again for the assistance.

I have an XP 120 and delta triblade, mine did 3.0 at 1.5-1.55 depending on temps, the 146 I had was a good candidate for IHS removal, its been since sold. It did 50c-55c at 3.0ghz

jpersinger said:

Simply, what is the difference between using SP2004 or Prime 95? It was my understanding that SP2004 is basically Prime 95 with a different graphical interface, but it seems I will be getting different indications of stability between the 2 of them. I will need to do further testing as I have not done any congruent clocks testing.

So far, Prime fails at 2.95 gHz, 1.52 V in BIOS (1.49 V in win) within 17 minutes.
3.0 gHz, any voltage up to around 1.65 V, fails Prime within 3 minutes.

With Sp2004, last night using small FFT I went for 14 hours+ at 2.92 gHz, 1.52 V in BIOS(1.49 V in win).

So it seems that SP2004 will indicate that I am more stable than Prime 95 indicates when I attempt at higher clocks.

Click to expand...

IMO if the new will miss the errors the old saw the new is not as good

D