Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Fail intel burn test even at stock speed

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    69

    Fail intel burn test even at stock speed

    Hi,
    I had tired using Intel Burn Test tool to check my overclocking status. I had told by friend that this performs a much faster and provides better result than other tools. I performed overclocking and run the test. It might have run for 1 sec and then it fails. I am not able to get the reason behind this. How does this test fails. Does there is issue in my hardware.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    721

    Re: Fail intel burn test even at stock speed

    Intel Burn Test is a new tool allows to test the stability of your system and allows you to check the current situation of CPU or Ram. It is especially meant for the CPU). The value of this tool is that it stresses even more than OCCT. In your case your system might no be proper configured or the tool is not installed correctly due to which the test fails.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,134

    Re: Fail intel burn test even at stock speed

    Intel Burn Test allows for rapid testing of overclocking. Like for example you are overclocking your system and you want to test your new fsb. Before, it took hours of Prime, OCCT and co. Now it takes 10 minutes. Beware, the program is not infallible but will in most cases to detect errors before the other programs. It does not replace other tools. Indeed, it is not as efficient to test the RAM / Northbridge. It is advisable to make a OCCT after IntelBurnTest.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,974

    Re: Fail intel burn test even at stock speed

    There is a way by which you can detect errors quickly while performing Intel Burn Test. The tool uses a library of Intel they use themselves to test the CPU before the sale. It is unusual to use all CPU resources through a highly optimized code. It is recommended to use a 64bit system to achieve even more accurate and reliable. On 32bit system, due to a limitation of Windows, it is not possible to test more than 2GB of ram.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,865

    Re: Fail intel burn test even at stock speed

    For a better result used the maximum RAM if possible. IntelBurnTest the fact alone, the more memory used, the more reliable the result will be. Choose the number of times the test will be performed, in that 5 registered, 10 have more reliable results. Run the test. The window should display some similar tabs, unless the error detection is enabled.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    677

    Re: Fail intel burn test even at stock speed

    There can be various reason behind the instability of tool. The instability cannot necessarily occur at the beginning of the test. This can happen in the middle at the end. Having not even a single value clearly different from other system instability. Of course, if your system crashes like BSOD, freeze, etc. It also shows the instability of your system. So here you will need to locate the cause of issue. Either software or hardware.

Similar Threads

  1. Stressing overclocking on Intel Core i7 930 with Intel burn test
    By Sumeet.Pra in forum Overclocking & Computer Modification
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-04-2012, 11:42 AM
  2. Is 10 times enough on Intel Burn Test
    By aanand_s in forum Motherboard Processor & RAM
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 14-07-2010, 12:46 PM
  3. uTorrent Speed Test Fail
    By reetus in forum Windows Software
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 25-06-2010, 12:00 PM
  4. Intel Burn test - safe temps for a Q6600
    By Aldous in forum Overclocking & Computer Modification
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 17-04-2010, 03:23 AM
  5. Intel Burn Test
    By SpearMan in forum Tips & Tweaks
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-06-2009, 05:15 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Page generated in 1,713,279,623.87971 seconds with 16 queries