March 19, 20179 yr Updating my list of essential SW (free or paywhere) for: 1) CPU temp monitoring 2) System monitoring 3) Stress testing 4) Benchmarking Usually I use: 1) CoreTemp 2) CPU-Z + HWMonitor 3) Prime95 + IntelBurnTest + OCCT 4) ? What are you using??? Regards, Django EGLL. | BMS | DCS OB | A-10C II | AV-8B | F-16C | F/A-18C | FC3 | Persian Gulf | Supercarrier | Tacview | XP11 | FF A320 | FF 757 | | I7-9700K + NH-D15 | RTX3080Ti 12GB | DDR4-3200 16GB | Aorus Z390 Ultra | 2X Evo 860 1TB | 850W | Torrent Case | | Warthog HOTAS + CH Pedals | 32" TV 1080p 60Hz | TrackIR5 |
March 20, 20179 yr I only use RealBench for stress testing these days. It has consistently demonstrated to me that once stable in RealBench, my system is stable 24/7 in everything else I run. I would never touch Prime95 or IBT anymore, too vicious and not necessary. RealTemp for temperature, but CoreTemp just as good. CPUZ GPUZ Have used Aida 64 trail version. Useful at the time. Intel XTU is worth downloading too.
March 27, 20179 yr Author Thanks for the responses... but doesn't anyone else use monitoring / OC tools???! Regards, Django EGLL. | BMS | DCS OB | A-10C II | AV-8B | F-16C | F/A-18C | FC3 | Persian Gulf | Supercarrier | Tacview | XP11 | FF A320 | FF 757 | | I7-9700K + NH-D15 | RTX3080Ti 12GB | DDR4-3200 16GB | Aorus Z390 Ultra | 2X Evo 860 1TB | 850W | Torrent Case | | Warthog HOTAS + CH Pedals | 32" TV 1080p 60Hz | TrackIR5 |
March 27, 20179 yr 1) Core Temp (at boot up) and HWMonitor (when I'm finding the overclock/stress testing) 2) CPU-Z and GPU-Z 3) OCCT (and sometimes AIDA 64) 4) AIDA 64
April 1, 20179 yr Author On 27/03/2017 at 8:51 PM, lownslo said: 3) OCCT (and sometimes AIDA 64) 4) AIDA 64 What made you settle for AIDA 64 for benchmarking? Regards, Django EGLL. | BMS | DCS OB | A-10C II | AV-8B | F-16C | F/A-18C | FC3 | Persian Gulf | Supercarrier | Tacview | XP11 | FF A320 | FF 757 | | I7-9700K + NH-D15 | RTX3080Ti 12GB | DDR4-3200 16GB | Aorus Z390 Ultra | 2X Evo 860 1TB | 850W | Torrent Case | | Warthog HOTAS + CH Pedals | 32" TV 1080p 60Hz | TrackIR5 |
April 2, 20179 yr On 3/27/2017 at 5:48 AM, Boomer said: Agreed on p95, never was a realistic burn in, far too aggressive. I never understood (or saw viable), why people would use such an 'unreal' CPU burner 24/7 to know if their system is stable. For the past 15 years all I've done is do my research and make sure I setup and configured my system in a known working condition. Next I use my computer with the same tools I need it for like P3D.. fly around for an hour and if the computer gives no errors or fails, then I know it;s fine. And, so I have build and use my computers over the past 15 years. May sound contrary to others approach, but don't see the need to run such a stressful tool for hours and hours, when even that you could find out the results in 30 minutes or less. Today's computers and OS are pretty smart.. Give them a bad hardware or software configuration, and they will almost instantly reject it and error out... no need to wait 24 hours. ( Am I am too simple or too ssssmmmaaarrrrtttt ?) lol- don't know. (and to avoid being thrown tomatoes at my forehead, I'll play non-computer-savvy)
April 2, 20179 yr 5 hours ago, Djang0 said: What made you settle for AIDA 64 for benchmarking? I started using Everest (the predecessor to AIDA64) when it first came out 10-11 years ago, and AIDA64 about 5 years or so ago. I don't game, so gaming benchmarks wouldn't interest me. Same for video/audio benchmarks. AIDA64 gives me the essential tools I wish for... guess you could say it just works for me. Cheers, Greg
April 2, 20179 yr 10 hours ago, joemiller said: I never understood (or saw viable), why people would use such an 'unreal' CPU burner 24/7 to know if their system is stable. For the past 15 years all I've done is do my research and make sure I setup and configured my system in a known working condition. Next I use my computer with the same tools I need it for like P3D.. fly around for an hour and if the computer gives no errors or fails, then I know it;s fine. And, so I have build and use my computers over the past 15 years. May sound contrary to others approach, but don't see the need to run such a stressful tool for hours and hours, when even that you could find out the results in 30 minutes or less. Today's computers and OS are pretty smart.. Give them a bad hardware or software configuration, and they will almost instantly reject it and error out... no need to wait 24 hours. ( Am I am too simple or too ssssmmmaaarrrrtttt ?) lol- don't know. (and to avoid being thrown tomatoes at my forehead, I'll play non-computer-savvy) Pretty much agree with you Joe. Running something like Prime95 for 24 hours is pointless in my view, and only serves to increase CPU wear unnecessarily. In fact I don't think it's done so much these days. It's also a synthetic stress test that bears no resemblance to how we use our PC's in reality. We build PC's to run the sim, games and all our applications, we don't build a "synthetic stress test PC". All I run these days is RealBench for 1 - 2 hours and every time I've been 100% stable if it's stable in RealBench.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.