How can I produce high CPU load on Windows?
For testing purposes I need to generate high CPU load on a Windows Server 2003.
I cannot install any software but have to make do with what Windows provides.
What would be the best way to achieve that?
windows performance cpu-usage
add a comment |
For testing purposes I need to generate high CPU load on a Windows Server 2003.
I cannot install any software but have to make do with what Windows provides.
What would be the best way to achieve that?
windows performance cpu-usage
4
I usually just launch a bunch of cmd.exe instances withdir /s C:. Get 10 or so of those running at once and you get very high CPU use (70%+ across all cores of my i7-2600k) in addition to lots of disk I/O. Not perfect, but it gets the job done.
– Andrew Lambert
Mar 4 '12 at 10:59
add a comment |
For testing purposes I need to generate high CPU load on a Windows Server 2003.
I cannot install any software but have to make do with what Windows provides.
What would be the best way to achieve that?
windows performance cpu-usage
For testing purposes I need to generate high CPU load on a Windows Server 2003.
I cannot install any software but have to make do with what Windows provides.
What would be the best way to achieve that?
windows performance cpu-usage
windows performance cpu-usage
edited May 12 '15 at 13:53
Braiam
4,04631851
4,04631851
asked Mar 3 '12 at 13:18
MorgonMorgon
366133
366133
4
I usually just launch a bunch of cmd.exe instances withdir /s C:. Get 10 or so of those running at once and you get very high CPU use (70%+ across all cores of my i7-2600k) in addition to lots of disk I/O. Not perfect, but it gets the job done.
– Andrew Lambert
Mar 4 '12 at 10:59
add a comment |
4
I usually just launch a bunch of cmd.exe instances withdir /s C:. Get 10 or so of those running at once and you get very high CPU use (70%+ across all cores of my i7-2600k) in addition to lots of disk I/O. Not perfect, but it gets the job done.
– Andrew Lambert
Mar 4 '12 at 10:59
4
4
I usually just launch a bunch of cmd.exe instances with
dir /s C:. Get 10 or so of those running at once and you get very high CPU use (70%+ across all cores of my i7-2600k) in addition to lots of disk I/O. Not perfect, but it gets the job done.– Andrew Lambert
Mar 4 '12 at 10:59
I usually just launch a bunch of cmd.exe instances with
dir /s C:. Get 10 or so of those running at once and you get very high CPU use (70%+ across all cores of my i7-2600k) in addition to lots of disk I/O. Not perfect, but it gets the job done.– Andrew Lambert
Mar 4 '12 at 10:59
add a comment |
13 Answers
13
active
oldest
votes
consume.exe from the Windows Server 2003 Resource Toolkit can do this easily.
C:Program FilesMicrosoft SDKsWindowsv7.1Binx64>consume -cpu-time -time 5
Consume: Message: Time out after 5 seconds.
Consume: Message: Successfully assigned process to a job object.
Consume: Message: Attempting to start 256 threads ...
................................................................................
................................................................................
................................................................................
................
Consume: Message: Sleeping...
Uses 100% CPU time on all cores as long as it runs. It can also consume other resources (as the name implies).
18
The Resource Toolkit isn't installed by default.
– HaydnWVN
Mar 9 '12 at 13:44
What about a 2008 server ?
– Jonathan Rioux
Nov 4 '13 at 21:30
@JonathanRioux: Same solution, download the resource toolkit linked in the answer and useconsume.exe. The application isn't included in any version of Windows Server by default.
– Der Hochstapler
Nov 4 '13 at 21:42
Theconsume.execan also be used to consume all your disk space usingconsume -disk-space -time 60. It's a very handy tool! When installing it as part of the Resource Toolkit, then it will be installed toC:Program Files (x86)Windows Resource KitsToolsby default.
– Benny Neugebauer
Nov 19 '18 at 14:58
add a comment |
The following batch file does it:
@echo off
:loop
goto loop
However, if you have multiple cores, you have start multiple instances.
To stop, press Ctrl+C in the console.
That was perfect. Just one execution per core. Best solutions remains simple. Thank you. BUT, i can't figure out how to check for n cores not watching for 1st loop instance %, because i got physical and cores, but not threads counter on my Windows7. (wmic cpu get NumberOfCoreswould be 2, and i have 4 threads, 2 cores). Im guessing to create an auto batch that fully fit the 100% CPU capacity. Best regards.
– erm3nda
Apr 5 '15 at 23:53
add a comment |
IntelBurnTest and Prime95 are known for doing just this. They don't really require installation, as they can be run by unpacking their respective zips, but it doesn't fulfill your "must be native" requirement. I'm an overclocker, and these are the tools I use to ensure absolute system stability, they will generate the utmost load from your computer.
As for your want for it to be a native piece of software - windows doesn't really come with the tools to do such a thing, except for maybe the above batch file, which is going to be a mess to handle if it goes haywire. (Infinite loops can be messy.)
1
As for your want for it to be a native piece of software - windows doesn't really come with the tools to do such a thingBut that’s the requirement of the question. The tools you suggested don’t fit that and so should be comments, not an answer.except for maybe the above batch file, which is going to be a mess to handle if it goes haywire. (Infinite loops can be messyHardly. Windows includes several programming options which could easily be made to consume CPU cycles while still providing control.
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:01
add a comment |
A tight loop in VBS with no I/O will do it. You'll need as many processes as cores. The following will use 100% on my Win2k3 VM, or 50% on my dual-core host (100% if I launch 2)
c:test>copy con thing.vbs
While True
Wend
^z
c:test>thing.vbs
You'll have to kill wscript.exe in the task manager to end it.
I really don't understand the code you put. Did u test it before test it? How do i need to test it. You put no so much info. I like that way, but explain a bit. No prize for laziness.
– erm3nda
Apr 5 '15 at 23:44
That's the output of creating the script and running it.
– mgjk
Apr 6 '15 at 13:12
And where is the script?
– erm3nda
Apr 6 '15 at 22:58
It's line 2 and 3.
– mgjk
Apr 7 '15 at 1:33
Im sorry, this is vbs not bat. My fail. This wscript takes exactly 1 thread. You'll need to run multiple instances like the bat :goto script. It's the vbs counterpart. Nice. thanks.
– erm3nda
Apr 8 '15 at 6:56
add a comment |
HyperPi (GUI to run SuperPi on multiple cores) can be run without installing just copy it to the server and run it from any location. Even on something fast you can load up all the cores for few hours doing say 16 simultaneous 32M place calculations.
1
HyperPi (GUI to run SuperPi on multiple cores) can be run without installing just copy it to the server and run it from any location.That’s a technicality and a nitpick. When someone says “cannot install anything”, that doesn’t necessarily mean actually installing, they may not be able to run anything new. For example, there may be a system policy that blocks all programs except for those on a white-list. That would prevent even “portable” apps from running, so saying that you don’t have to install it doesn’t work.
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:03
add a comment |
CPUSTRES.EXE
There is an old SysInternals tool from 1996 called "CPU Stress" that still works. (I just tried it on my Windows 10 laptop.)
Custom CPU load
It's GUI based and allows you to run up to four threads at custom intensities. This allows you to tune the desired CPU load. As a rule of thumb: One thread with Activity set to Maximum will consume about 25% CPU. So as an example: If you run three threads at Maximum, your CPU load goes to about 75%.
Portable
CPUSTRES.EXE is a portable download and does not require installation.
CPUSTRES.EXE is also recommended by Microsoft: blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vijaysk/2012/10/26/… - Very good tool!
– Benny Neugebauer
Dec 18 '15 at 22:12
add a comment |
Running for /l %a in (0,0,1) do echo a in a command prompt (infinite loop printing a) has the observed effect of starting a conhost.exe running at 10-20% CPU load on Windows 7 on a low-end mobile i5. You could try running several of these in parallel, for example the following in a batch file:
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
That could have your CPU running at 100%. Lines can be added/removed to adjust.
Warning: Those are infinite loops, which you may have trouble closing. The numbers inside the parentheses can be replaced, e.g. (0,1,10000), for a finite loop. The last number (in the finite loop) can be adjusted to adjust the running time. In case you are wondering, it basically means "start at number 0, increment by 1 until it reaches 10000", which translates to 10000 loop cycles.
Have you tested this? This is IO bound so I think it probably won't reach 100% CPU utilization, no matter how many instances you launch.
– Ben Richards
Mar 3 '12 at 16:18
1
It could very well be system dependent. For me, it was consistently above 97% total, though withdwm.exeat 25% and all the conhosts hovering about 5-10%. In any case, mgjk's vbscript solution is more elegant.
– Bob
Mar 3 '12 at 16:29
The windows console is exceptionally slow when it comes to flooding the console. It also cause significant GUI lag that might not allow you to kill it with task manager. Note that Ctrl-C or Ctrl-Break won't work because of the data that's already out.
– quantum
Jul 12 '12 at 15:38
add a comment |
I have recently discovered and can recommend the free version of HeavyLoad:
http://www.jam-software.com/heavyload/
Does an effective job at pumping up the CPU levels to see how applications cope under duress.
Like they said:can’t install/run any third-party software; only built into Windows
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:08
I found that prograt program very interesting. It simply works and you can also get 100% CPU using only 256Mb of ram (I do on a i5 4gb ram to your reference). The only option i miss is the GPU stress that the software promises. @AndyUK, did u found that option?
– erm3nda
Apr 6 '15 at 0:24
add a comment |
The way most people do it is to run something that does a load of processing - I was recommended superpi, though hyperpi might work better for a modern system. Calculate absurdly large value of pi, and it'll effectively run the processor at full load.
Alternatively you can run StressCPU which is based off folding@home
If you need to keep high loads for longer periods of time, consider something like folding@home
Same thing
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:03
add a comment |
If you have no internet for that pc or can't remember the website for that cpu test, and you don't feel like scripting you can use the windows built in zip feature to compress a bunch of files or folders a bunch of times simultaneously.
Right-click the file or folder, point to Send To, and then click Compressed (zipped) Folder
You can do the same files/folder multiple times at the same time, I suggest using the windows or program files folders.
You can then unzip the files to another location and do a file compare with the fc command to check to see that all calculations occurred correctly. Though I would suggest that you use a single big file for this as the command syntax for file comparison of a lot of files with standard windows tools is annoying.
Impressed with that. The :goto loop on a bat sounds so much easier. And avoid the nonsense I/O usage.
– erm3nda
Apr 6 '15 at 0:31
add a comment |
Quick, easy, PowerShell
while ($true){}
An infinite loop with no inputs or outputs; similar to Quantum's answer, if you have multiple cores, you have to start multiple instances of PowerShell running this script
add a comment |
Use the built-in "calc" to calculate 10000! (10000 factorial). Use two or three instances to max out a Multi-core.
Actually it will overflow calc.... there is a maximum value that calc would calculate, it is less than 10000 but more than 1000.
– Diogo
Mar 6 '12 at 22:19
@DiogoRocha Didn't overflow: I got 2.8462596809170545189064132121199e+35659. However, did it in less than a second on my computer.
– quantum
Apr 8 '12 at 20:39
hmmm. Mine did overflow, actually a factorial on a digital calc is made matemathically reducing to a truncated series... it is an aproximation that will reduce cpu loads. this is thee reason because you left less than 1 sec of processing..
– Diogo
Apr 9 '12 at 0:50
I suspect whether it overflows or not may depend on whether the CPU is 32-bit or 64-bit. Either way, I don’t see how that would take up much CPU cycles. I just performed several factorials and the highest I could go was 3248!, but none of them made even a blip on Task Manager’s CPU graph, and why should it? Factorials are a very easy, very cheap mathematical operation.
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:07
@Synetech Mine overflowed, using Windows 7 64 bit. I used a biginteger calculator and got this as an answer though: pastebin.com/AeCf1s9c
– starbeamrainbowlabs
Sep 4 '14 at 18:36
add a comment |
I publish such a tool named MultiCpuLoad.
- Selectable load from 20% up to 90%.
- Selectable CPUs.
- No installation.
- No admin rights required.
Requires .NET Framework 2.0
http://www.ristaino.net/Software/MultiCpuLoad
add a comment |
protected by Community♦ May 12 '15 at 13:58
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
13 Answers
13
active
oldest
votes
13 Answers
13
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
consume.exe from the Windows Server 2003 Resource Toolkit can do this easily.
C:Program FilesMicrosoft SDKsWindowsv7.1Binx64>consume -cpu-time -time 5
Consume: Message: Time out after 5 seconds.
Consume: Message: Successfully assigned process to a job object.
Consume: Message: Attempting to start 256 threads ...
................................................................................
................................................................................
................................................................................
................
Consume: Message: Sleeping...
Uses 100% CPU time on all cores as long as it runs. It can also consume other resources (as the name implies).
18
The Resource Toolkit isn't installed by default.
– HaydnWVN
Mar 9 '12 at 13:44
What about a 2008 server ?
– Jonathan Rioux
Nov 4 '13 at 21:30
@JonathanRioux: Same solution, download the resource toolkit linked in the answer and useconsume.exe. The application isn't included in any version of Windows Server by default.
– Der Hochstapler
Nov 4 '13 at 21:42
Theconsume.execan also be used to consume all your disk space usingconsume -disk-space -time 60. It's a very handy tool! When installing it as part of the Resource Toolkit, then it will be installed toC:Program Files (x86)Windows Resource KitsToolsby default.
– Benny Neugebauer
Nov 19 '18 at 14:58
add a comment |
consume.exe from the Windows Server 2003 Resource Toolkit can do this easily.
C:Program FilesMicrosoft SDKsWindowsv7.1Binx64>consume -cpu-time -time 5
Consume: Message: Time out after 5 seconds.
Consume: Message: Successfully assigned process to a job object.
Consume: Message: Attempting to start 256 threads ...
................................................................................
................................................................................
................................................................................
................
Consume: Message: Sleeping...
Uses 100% CPU time on all cores as long as it runs. It can also consume other resources (as the name implies).
18
The Resource Toolkit isn't installed by default.
– HaydnWVN
Mar 9 '12 at 13:44
What about a 2008 server ?
– Jonathan Rioux
Nov 4 '13 at 21:30
@JonathanRioux: Same solution, download the resource toolkit linked in the answer and useconsume.exe. The application isn't included in any version of Windows Server by default.
– Der Hochstapler
Nov 4 '13 at 21:42
Theconsume.execan also be used to consume all your disk space usingconsume -disk-space -time 60. It's a very handy tool! When installing it as part of the Resource Toolkit, then it will be installed toC:Program Files (x86)Windows Resource KitsToolsby default.
– Benny Neugebauer
Nov 19 '18 at 14:58
add a comment |
consume.exe from the Windows Server 2003 Resource Toolkit can do this easily.
C:Program FilesMicrosoft SDKsWindowsv7.1Binx64>consume -cpu-time -time 5
Consume: Message: Time out after 5 seconds.
Consume: Message: Successfully assigned process to a job object.
Consume: Message: Attempting to start 256 threads ...
................................................................................
................................................................................
................................................................................
................
Consume: Message: Sleeping...
Uses 100% CPU time on all cores as long as it runs. It can also consume other resources (as the name implies).
consume.exe from the Windows Server 2003 Resource Toolkit can do this easily.
C:Program FilesMicrosoft SDKsWindowsv7.1Binx64>consume -cpu-time -time 5
Consume: Message: Time out after 5 seconds.
Consume: Message: Successfully assigned process to a job object.
Consume: Message: Attempting to start 256 threads ...
................................................................................
................................................................................
................................................................................
................
Consume: Message: Sleeping...
Uses 100% CPU time on all cores as long as it runs. It can also consume other resources (as the name implies).
answered Mar 3 '12 at 17:04
Der HochstaplerDer Hochstapler
67.8k49230284
67.8k49230284
18
The Resource Toolkit isn't installed by default.
– HaydnWVN
Mar 9 '12 at 13:44
What about a 2008 server ?
– Jonathan Rioux
Nov 4 '13 at 21:30
@JonathanRioux: Same solution, download the resource toolkit linked in the answer and useconsume.exe. The application isn't included in any version of Windows Server by default.
– Der Hochstapler
Nov 4 '13 at 21:42
Theconsume.execan also be used to consume all your disk space usingconsume -disk-space -time 60. It's a very handy tool! When installing it as part of the Resource Toolkit, then it will be installed toC:Program Files (x86)Windows Resource KitsToolsby default.
– Benny Neugebauer
Nov 19 '18 at 14:58
add a comment |
18
The Resource Toolkit isn't installed by default.
– HaydnWVN
Mar 9 '12 at 13:44
What about a 2008 server ?
– Jonathan Rioux
Nov 4 '13 at 21:30
@JonathanRioux: Same solution, download the resource toolkit linked in the answer and useconsume.exe. The application isn't included in any version of Windows Server by default.
– Der Hochstapler
Nov 4 '13 at 21:42
Theconsume.execan also be used to consume all your disk space usingconsume -disk-space -time 60. It's a very handy tool! When installing it as part of the Resource Toolkit, then it will be installed toC:Program Files (x86)Windows Resource KitsToolsby default.
– Benny Neugebauer
Nov 19 '18 at 14:58
18
18
The Resource Toolkit isn't installed by default.
– HaydnWVN
Mar 9 '12 at 13:44
The Resource Toolkit isn't installed by default.
– HaydnWVN
Mar 9 '12 at 13:44
What about a 2008 server ?
– Jonathan Rioux
Nov 4 '13 at 21:30
What about a 2008 server ?
– Jonathan Rioux
Nov 4 '13 at 21:30
@JonathanRioux: Same solution, download the resource toolkit linked in the answer and use
consume.exe. The application isn't included in any version of Windows Server by default.– Der Hochstapler
Nov 4 '13 at 21:42
@JonathanRioux: Same solution, download the resource toolkit linked in the answer and use
consume.exe. The application isn't included in any version of Windows Server by default.– Der Hochstapler
Nov 4 '13 at 21:42
The
consume.exe can also be used to consume all your disk space using consume -disk-space -time 60. It's a very handy tool! When installing it as part of the Resource Toolkit, then it will be installed to C:Program Files (x86)Windows Resource KitsTools by default.– Benny Neugebauer
Nov 19 '18 at 14:58
The
consume.exe can also be used to consume all your disk space using consume -disk-space -time 60. It's a very handy tool! When installing it as part of the Resource Toolkit, then it will be installed to C:Program Files (x86)Windows Resource KitsTools by default.– Benny Neugebauer
Nov 19 '18 at 14:58
add a comment |
The following batch file does it:
@echo off
:loop
goto loop
However, if you have multiple cores, you have start multiple instances.
To stop, press Ctrl+C in the console.
That was perfect. Just one execution per core. Best solutions remains simple. Thank you. BUT, i can't figure out how to check for n cores not watching for 1st loop instance %, because i got physical and cores, but not threads counter on my Windows7. (wmic cpu get NumberOfCoreswould be 2, and i have 4 threads, 2 cores). Im guessing to create an auto batch that fully fit the 100% CPU capacity. Best regards.
– erm3nda
Apr 5 '15 at 23:53
add a comment |
The following batch file does it:
@echo off
:loop
goto loop
However, if you have multiple cores, you have start multiple instances.
To stop, press Ctrl+C in the console.
That was perfect. Just one execution per core. Best solutions remains simple. Thank you. BUT, i can't figure out how to check for n cores not watching for 1st loop instance %, because i got physical and cores, but not threads counter on my Windows7. (wmic cpu get NumberOfCoreswould be 2, and i have 4 threads, 2 cores). Im guessing to create an auto batch that fully fit the 100% CPU capacity. Best regards.
– erm3nda
Apr 5 '15 at 23:53
add a comment |
The following batch file does it:
@echo off
:loop
goto loop
However, if you have multiple cores, you have start multiple instances.
To stop, press Ctrl+C in the console.
The following batch file does it:
@echo off
:loop
goto loop
However, if you have multiple cores, you have start multiple instances.
To stop, press Ctrl+C in the console.
edited Mar 15 '12 at 16:42
Diogo
22k56132210
22k56132210
answered Mar 3 '12 at 17:20
quantumquantum
583410
583410
That was perfect. Just one execution per core. Best solutions remains simple. Thank you. BUT, i can't figure out how to check for n cores not watching for 1st loop instance %, because i got physical and cores, but not threads counter on my Windows7. (wmic cpu get NumberOfCoreswould be 2, and i have 4 threads, 2 cores). Im guessing to create an auto batch that fully fit the 100% CPU capacity. Best regards.
– erm3nda
Apr 5 '15 at 23:53
add a comment |
That was perfect. Just one execution per core. Best solutions remains simple. Thank you. BUT, i can't figure out how to check for n cores not watching for 1st loop instance %, because i got physical and cores, but not threads counter on my Windows7. (wmic cpu get NumberOfCoreswould be 2, and i have 4 threads, 2 cores). Im guessing to create an auto batch that fully fit the 100% CPU capacity. Best regards.
– erm3nda
Apr 5 '15 at 23:53
That was perfect. Just one execution per core. Best solutions remains simple. Thank you. BUT, i can't figure out how to check for n cores not watching for 1st loop instance %, because i got physical and cores, but not threads counter on my Windows7. (
wmic cpu get NumberOfCores would be 2, and i have 4 threads, 2 cores). Im guessing to create an auto batch that fully fit the 100% CPU capacity. Best regards.– erm3nda
Apr 5 '15 at 23:53
That was perfect. Just one execution per core. Best solutions remains simple. Thank you. BUT, i can't figure out how to check for n cores not watching for 1st loop instance %, because i got physical and cores, but not threads counter on my Windows7. (
wmic cpu get NumberOfCores would be 2, and i have 4 threads, 2 cores). Im guessing to create an auto batch that fully fit the 100% CPU capacity. Best regards.– erm3nda
Apr 5 '15 at 23:53
add a comment |
IntelBurnTest and Prime95 are known for doing just this. They don't really require installation, as they can be run by unpacking their respective zips, but it doesn't fulfill your "must be native" requirement. I'm an overclocker, and these are the tools I use to ensure absolute system stability, they will generate the utmost load from your computer.
As for your want for it to be a native piece of software - windows doesn't really come with the tools to do such a thing, except for maybe the above batch file, which is going to be a mess to handle if it goes haywire. (Infinite loops can be messy.)
1
As for your want for it to be a native piece of software - windows doesn't really come with the tools to do such a thingBut that’s the requirement of the question. The tools you suggested don’t fit that and so should be comments, not an answer.except for maybe the above batch file, which is going to be a mess to handle if it goes haywire. (Infinite loops can be messyHardly. Windows includes several programming options which could easily be made to consume CPU cycles while still providing control.
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:01
add a comment |
IntelBurnTest and Prime95 are known for doing just this. They don't really require installation, as they can be run by unpacking their respective zips, but it doesn't fulfill your "must be native" requirement. I'm an overclocker, and these are the tools I use to ensure absolute system stability, they will generate the utmost load from your computer.
As for your want for it to be a native piece of software - windows doesn't really come with the tools to do such a thing, except for maybe the above batch file, which is going to be a mess to handle if it goes haywire. (Infinite loops can be messy.)
1
As for your want for it to be a native piece of software - windows doesn't really come with the tools to do such a thingBut that’s the requirement of the question. The tools you suggested don’t fit that and so should be comments, not an answer.except for maybe the above batch file, which is going to be a mess to handle if it goes haywire. (Infinite loops can be messyHardly. Windows includes several programming options which could easily be made to consume CPU cycles while still providing control.
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:01
add a comment |
IntelBurnTest and Prime95 are known for doing just this. They don't really require installation, as they can be run by unpacking their respective zips, but it doesn't fulfill your "must be native" requirement. I'm an overclocker, and these are the tools I use to ensure absolute system stability, they will generate the utmost load from your computer.
As for your want for it to be a native piece of software - windows doesn't really come with the tools to do such a thing, except for maybe the above batch file, which is going to be a mess to handle if it goes haywire. (Infinite loops can be messy.)
IntelBurnTest and Prime95 are known for doing just this. They don't really require installation, as they can be run by unpacking their respective zips, but it doesn't fulfill your "must be native" requirement. I'm an overclocker, and these are the tools I use to ensure absolute system stability, they will generate the utmost load from your computer.
As for your want for it to be a native piece of software - windows doesn't really come with the tools to do such a thing, except for maybe the above batch file, which is going to be a mess to handle if it goes haywire. (Infinite loops can be messy.)
answered Mar 3 '12 at 15:21
xenithorbxenithorb
46536
46536
1
As for your want for it to be a native piece of software - windows doesn't really come with the tools to do such a thingBut that’s the requirement of the question. The tools you suggested don’t fit that and so should be comments, not an answer.except for maybe the above batch file, which is going to be a mess to handle if it goes haywire. (Infinite loops can be messyHardly. Windows includes several programming options which could easily be made to consume CPU cycles while still providing control.
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:01
add a comment |
1
As for your want for it to be a native piece of software - windows doesn't really come with the tools to do such a thingBut that’s the requirement of the question. The tools you suggested don’t fit that and so should be comments, not an answer.except for maybe the above batch file, which is going to be a mess to handle if it goes haywire. (Infinite loops can be messyHardly. Windows includes several programming options which could easily be made to consume CPU cycles while still providing control.
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:01
1
1
As for your want for it to be a native piece of software - windows doesn't really come with the tools to do such a thing But that’s the requirement of the question. The tools you suggested don’t fit that and so should be comments, not an answer. except for maybe the above batch file, which is going to be a mess to handle if it goes haywire. (Infinite loops can be messy Hardly. Windows includes several programming options which could easily be made to consume CPU cycles while still providing control.– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:01
As for your want for it to be a native piece of software - windows doesn't really come with the tools to do such a thing But that’s the requirement of the question. The tools you suggested don’t fit that and so should be comments, not an answer. except for maybe the above batch file, which is going to be a mess to handle if it goes haywire. (Infinite loops can be messy Hardly. Windows includes several programming options which could easily be made to consume CPU cycles while still providing control.– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:01
add a comment |
A tight loop in VBS with no I/O will do it. You'll need as many processes as cores. The following will use 100% on my Win2k3 VM, or 50% on my dual-core host (100% if I launch 2)
c:test>copy con thing.vbs
While True
Wend
^z
c:test>thing.vbs
You'll have to kill wscript.exe in the task manager to end it.
I really don't understand the code you put. Did u test it before test it? How do i need to test it. You put no so much info. I like that way, but explain a bit. No prize for laziness.
– erm3nda
Apr 5 '15 at 23:44
That's the output of creating the script and running it.
– mgjk
Apr 6 '15 at 13:12
And where is the script?
– erm3nda
Apr 6 '15 at 22:58
It's line 2 and 3.
– mgjk
Apr 7 '15 at 1:33
Im sorry, this is vbs not bat. My fail. This wscript takes exactly 1 thread. You'll need to run multiple instances like the bat :goto script. It's the vbs counterpart. Nice. thanks.
– erm3nda
Apr 8 '15 at 6:56
add a comment |
A tight loop in VBS with no I/O will do it. You'll need as many processes as cores. The following will use 100% on my Win2k3 VM, or 50% on my dual-core host (100% if I launch 2)
c:test>copy con thing.vbs
While True
Wend
^z
c:test>thing.vbs
You'll have to kill wscript.exe in the task manager to end it.
I really don't understand the code you put. Did u test it before test it? How do i need to test it. You put no so much info. I like that way, but explain a bit. No prize for laziness.
– erm3nda
Apr 5 '15 at 23:44
That's the output of creating the script and running it.
– mgjk
Apr 6 '15 at 13:12
And where is the script?
– erm3nda
Apr 6 '15 at 22:58
It's line 2 and 3.
– mgjk
Apr 7 '15 at 1:33
Im sorry, this is vbs not bat. My fail. This wscript takes exactly 1 thread. You'll need to run multiple instances like the bat :goto script. It's the vbs counterpart. Nice. thanks.
– erm3nda
Apr 8 '15 at 6:56
add a comment |
A tight loop in VBS with no I/O will do it. You'll need as many processes as cores. The following will use 100% on my Win2k3 VM, or 50% on my dual-core host (100% if I launch 2)
c:test>copy con thing.vbs
While True
Wend
^z
c:test>thing.vbs
You'll have to kill wscript.exe in the task manager to end it.
A tight loop in VBS with no I/O will do it. You'll need as many processes as cores. The following will use 100% on my Win2k3 VM, or 50% on my dual-core host (100% if I launch 2)
c:test>copy con thing.vbs
While True
Wend
^z
c:test>thing.vbs
You'll have to kill wscript.exe in the task manager to end it.
answered Mar 3 '12 at 16:14
mgjkmgjk
1,23711018
1,23711018
I really don't understand the code you put. Did u test it before test it? How do i need to test it. You put no so much info. I like that way, but explain a bit. No prize for laziness.
– erm3nda
Apr 5 '15 at 23:44
That's the output of creating the script and running it.
– mgjk
Apr 6 '15 at 13:12
And where is the script?
– erm3nda
Apr 6 '15 at 22:58
It's line 2 and 3.
– mgjk
Apr 7 '15 at 1:33
Im sorry, this is vbs not bat. My fail. This wscript takes exactly 1 thread. You'll need to run multiple instances like the bat :goto script. It's the vbs counterpart. Nice. thanks.
– erm3nda
Apr 8 '15 at 6:56
add a comment |
I really don't understand the code you put. Did u test it before test it? How do i need to test it. You put no so much info. I like that way, but explain a bit. No prize for laziness.
– erm3nda
Apr 5 '15 at 23:44
That's the output of creating the script and running it.
– mgjk
Apr 6 '15 at 13:12
And where is the script?
– erm3nda
Apr 6 '15 at 22:58
It's line 2 and 3.
– mgjk
Apr 7 '15 at 1:33
Im sorry, this is vbs not bat. My fail. This wscript takes exactly 1 thread. You'll need to run multiple instances like the bat :goto script. It's the vbs counterpart. Nice. thanks.
– erm3nda
Apr 8 '15 at 6:56
I really don't understand the code you put. Did u test it before test it? How do i need to test it. You put no so much info. I like that way, but explain a bit. No prize for laziness.
– erm3nda
Apr 5 '15 at 23:44
I really don't understand the code you put. Did u test it before test it? How do i need to test it. You put no so much info. I like that way, but explain a bit. No prize for laziness.
– erm3nda
Apr 5 '15 at 23:44
That's the output of creating the script and running it.
– mgjk
Apr 6 '15 at 13:12
That's the output of creating the script and running it.
– mgjk
Apr 6 '15 at 13:12
And where is the script?
– erm3nda
Apr 6 '15 at 22:58
And where is the script?
– erm3nda
Apr 6 '15 at 22:58
It's line 2 and 3.
– mgjk
Apr 7 '15 at 1:33
It's line 2 and 3.
– mgjk
Apr 7 '15 at 1:33
Im sorry, this is vbs not bat. My fail. This wscript takes exactly 1 thread. You'll need to run multiple instances like the bat :goto script. It's the vbs counterpart. Nice. thanks.
– erm3nda
Apr 8 '15 at 6:56
Im sorry, this is vbs not bat. My fail. This wscript takes exactly 1 thread. You'll need to run multiple instances like the bat :goto script. It's the vbs counterpart. Nice. thanks.
– erm3nda
Apr 8 '15 at 6:56
add a comment |
HyperPi (GUI to run SuperPi on multiple cores) can be run without installing just copy it to the server and run it from any location. Even on something fast you can load up all the cores for few hours doing say 16 simultaneous 32M place calculations.
1
HyperPi (GUI to run SuperPi on multiple cores) can be run without installing just copy it to the server and run it from any location.That’s a technicality and a nitpick. When someone says “cannot install anything”, that doesn’t necessarily mean actually installing, they may not be able to run anything new. For example, there may be a system policy that blocks all programs except for those on a white-list. That would prevent even “portable” apps from running, so saying that you don’t have to install it doesn’t work.
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:03
add a comment |
HyperPi (GUI to run SuperPi on multiple cores) can be run without installing just copy it to the server and run it from any location. Even on something fast you can load up all the cores for few hours doing say 16 simultaneous 32M place calculations.
1
HyperPi (GUI to run SuperPi on multiple cores) can be run without installing just copy it to the server and run it from any location.That’s a technicality and a nitpick. When someone says “cannot install anything”, that doesn’t necessarily mean actually installing, they may not be able to run anything new. For example, there may be a system policy that blocks all programs except for those on a white-list. That would prevent even “portable” apps from running, so saying that you don’t have to install it doesn’t work.
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:03
add a comment |
HyperPi (GUI to run SuperPi on multiple cores) can be run without installing just copy it to the server and run it from any location. Even on something fast you can load up all the cores for few hours doing say 16 simultaneous 32M place calculations.
HyperPi (GUI to run SuperPi on multiple cores) can be run without installing just copy it to the server and run it from any location. Even on something fast you can load up all the cores for few hours doing say 16 simultaneous 32M place calculations.
edited Mar 3 '12 at 20:26
Simon Sheehan
7,665124268
7,665124268
answered Mar 3 '12 at 19:44
JTothamJTotham
864
864
1
HyperPi (GUI to run SuperPi on multiple cores) can be run without installing just copy it to the server and run it from any location.That’s a technicality and a nitpick. When someone says “cannot install anything”, that doesn’t necessarily mean actually installing, they may not be able to run anything new. For example, there may be a system policy that blocks all programs except for those on a white-list. That would prevent even “portable” apps from running, so saying that you don’t have to install it doesn’t work.
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:03
add a comment |
1
HyperPi (GUI to run SuperPi on multiple cores) can be run without installing just copy it to the server and run it from any location.That’s a technicality and a nitpick. When someone says “cannot install anything”, that doesn’t necessarily mean actually installing, they may not be able to run anything new. For example, there may be a system policy that blocks all programs except for those on a white-list. That would prevent even “portable” apps from running, so saying that you don’t have to install it doesn’t work.
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:03
1
1
HyperPi (GUI to run SuperPi on multiple cores) can be run without installing just copy it to the server and run it from any location. That’s a technicality and a nitpick. When someone says “cannot install anything”, that doesn’t necessarily mean actually installing, they may not be able to run anything new. For example, there may be a system policy that blocks all programs except for those on a white-list. That would prevent even “portable” apps from running, so saying that you don’t have to install it doesn’t work.– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:03
HyperPi (GUI to run SuperPi on multiple cores) can be run without installing just copy it to the server and run it from any location. That’s a technicality and a nitpick. When someone says “cannot install anything”, that doesn’t necessarily mean actually installing, they may not be able to run anything new. For example, there may be a system policy that blocks all programs except for those on a white-list. That would prevent even “portable” apps from running, so saying that you don’t have to install it doesn’t work.– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:03
add a comment |
CPUSTRES.EXE
There is an old SysInternals tool from 1996 called "CPU Stress" that still works. (I just tried it on my Windows 10 laptop.)
Custom CPU load
It's GUI based and allows you to run up to four threads at custom intensities. This allows you to tune the desired CPU load. As a rule of thumb: One thread with Activity set to Maximum will consume about 25% CPU. So as an example: If you run three threads at Maximum, your CPU load goes to about 75%.
Portable
CPUSTRES.EXE is a portable download and does not require installation.
CPUSTRES.EXE is also recommended by Microsoft: blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vijaysk/2012/10/26/… - Very good tool!
– Benny Neugebauer
Dec 18 '15 at 22:12
add a comment |
CPUSTRES.EXE
There is an old SysInternals tool from 1996 called "CPU Stress" that still works. (I just tried it on my Windows 10 laptop.)
Custom CPU load
It's GUI based and allows you to run up to four threads at custom intensities. This allows you to tune the desired CPU load. As a rule of thumb: One thread with Activity set to Maximum will consume about 25% CPU. So as an example: If you run three threads at Maximum, your CPU load goes to about 75%.
Portable
CPUSTRES.EXE is a portable download and does not require installation.
CPUSTRES.EXE is also recommended by Microsoft: blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vijaysk/2012/10/26/… - Very good tool!
– Benny Neugebauer
Dec 18 '15 at 22:12
add a comment |
CPUSTRES.EXE
There is an old SysInternals tool from 1996 called "CPU Stress" that still works. (I just tried it on my Windows 10 laptop.)
Custom CPU load
It's GUI based and allows you to run up to four threads at custom intensities. This allows you to tune the desired CPU load. As a rule of thumb: One thread with Activity set to Maximum will consume about 25% CPU. So as an example: If you run three threads at Maximum, your CPU load goes to about 75%.
Portable
CPUSTRES.EXE is a portable download and does not require installation.
CPUSTRES.EXE
There is an old SysInternals tool from 1996 called "CPU Stress" that still works. (I just tried it on my Windows 10 laptop.)
Custom CPU load
It's GUI based and allows you to run up to four threads at custom intensities. This allows you to tune the desired CPU load. As a rule of thumb: One thread with Activity set to Maximum will consume about 25% CPU. So as an example: If you run three threads at Maximum, your CPU load goes to about 75%.
Portable
CPUSTRES.EXE is a portable download and does not require installation.
answered Dec 3 '15 at 10:57
StackzOfZtuffStackzOfZtuff
996718
996718
CPUSTRES.EXE is also recommended by Microsoft: blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vijaysk/2012/10/26/… - Very good tool!
– Benny Neugebauer
Dec 18 '15 at 22:12
add a comment |
CPUSTRES.EXE is also recommended by Microsoft: blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vijaysk/2012/10/26/… - Very good tool!
– Benny Neugebauer
Dec 18 '15 at 22:12
CPUSTRES.EXE is also recommended by Microsoft: blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vijaysk/2012/10/26/… - Very good tool!
– Benny Neugebauer
Dec 18 '15 at 22:12
CPUSTRES.EXE is also recommended by Microsoft: blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vijaysk/2012/10/26/… - Very good tool!
– Benny Neugebauer
Dec 18 '15 at 22:12
add a comment |
Running for /l %a in (0,0,1) do echo a in a command prompt (infinite loop printing a) has the observed effect of starting a conhost.exe running at 10-20% CPU load on Windows 7 on a low-end mobile i5. You could try running several of these in parallel, for example the following in a batch file:
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
That could have your CPU running at 100%. Lines can be added/removed to adjust.
Warning: Those are infinite loops, which you may have trouble closing. The numbers inside the parentheses can be replaced, e.g. (0,1,10000), for a finite loop. The last number (in the finite loop) can be adjusted to adjust the running time. In case you are wondering, it basically means "start at number 0, increment by 1 until it reaches 10000", which translates to 10000 loop cycles.
Have you tested this? This is IO bound so I think it probably won't reach 100% CPU utilization, no matter how many instances you launch.
– Ben Richards
Mar 3 '12 at 16:18
1
It could very well be system dependent. For me, it was consistently above 97% total, though withdwm.exeat 25% and all the conhosts hovering about 5-10%. In any case, mgjk's vbscript solution is more elegant.
– Bob
Mar 3 '12 at 16:29
The windows console is exceptionally slow when it comes to flooding the console. It also cause significant GUI lag that might not allow you to kill it with task manager. Note that Ctrl-C or Ctrl-Break won't work because of the data that's already out.
– quantum
Jul 12 '12 at 15:38
add a comment |
Running for /l %a in (0,0,1) do echo a in a command prompt (infinite loop printing a) has the observed effect of starting a conhost.exe running at 10-20% CPU load on Windows 7 on a low-end mobile i5. You could try running several of these in parallel, for example the following in a batch file:
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
That could have your CPU running at 100%. Lines can be added/removed to adjust.
Warning: Those are infinite loops, which you may have trouble closing. The numbers inside the parentheses can be replaced, e.g. (0,1,10000), for a finite loop. The last number (in the finite loop) can be adjusted to adjust the running time. In case you are wondering, it basically means "start at number 0, increment by 1 until it reaches 10000", which translates to 10000 loop cycles.
Have you tested this? This is IO bound so I think it probably won't reach 100% CPU utilization, no matter how many instances you launch.
– Ben Richards
Mar 3 '12 at 16:18
1
It could very well be system dependent. For me, it was consistently above 97% total, though withdwm.exeat 25% and all the conhosts hovering about 5-10%. In any case, mgjk's vbscript solution is more elegant.
– Bob
Mar 3 '12 at 16:29
The windows console is exceptionally slow when it comes to flooding the console. It also cause significant GUI lag that might not allow you to kill it with task manager. Note that Ctrl-C or Ctrl-Break won't work because of the data that's already out.
– quantum
Jul 12 '12 at 15:38
add a comment |
Running for /l %a in (0,0,1) do echo a in a command prompt (infinite loop printing a) has the observed effect of starting a conhost.exe running at 10-20% CPU load on Windows 7 on a low-end mobile i5. You could try running several of these in parallel, for example the following in a batch file:
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
That could have your CPU running at 100%. Lines can be added/removed to adjust.
Warning: Those are infinite loops, which you may have trouble closing. The numbers inside the parentheses can be replaced, e.g. (0,1,10000), for a finite loop. The last number (in the finite loop) can be adjusted to adjust the running time. In case you are wondering, it basically means "start at number 0, increment by 1 until it reaches 10000", which translates to 10000 loop cycles.
Running for /l %a in (0,0,1) do echo a in a command prompt (infinite loop printing a) has the observed effect of starting a conhost.exe running at 10-20% CPU load on Windows 7 on a low-end mobile i5. You could try running several of these in parallel, for example the following in a batch file:
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
start for /l %%a in (0,0,1) do echo a
That could have your CPU running at 100%. Lines can be added/removed to adjust.
Warning: Those are infinite loops, which you may have trouble closing. The numbers inside the parentheses can be replaced, e.g. (0,1,10000), for a finite loop. The last number (in the finite loop) can be adjusted to adjust the running time. In case you are wondering, it basically means "start at number 0, increment by 1 until it reaches 10000", which translates to 10000 loop cycles.
edited Mar 3 '12 at 15:07
answered Mar 3 '12 at 13:41
BobBob
45.6k20137172
45.6k20137172
Have you tested this? This is IO bound so I think it probably won't reach 100% CPU utilization, no matter how many instances you launch.
– Ben Richards
Mar 3 '12 at 16:18
1
It could very well be system dependent. For me, it was consistently above 97% total, though withdwm.exeat 25% and all the conhosts hovering about 5-10%. In any case, mgjk's vbscript solution is more elegant.
– Bob
Mar 3 '12 at 16:29
The windows console is exceptionally slow when it comes to flooding the console. It also cause significant GUI lag that might not allow you to kill it with task manager. Note that Ctrl-C or Ctrl-Break won't work because of the data that's already out.
– quantum
Jul 12 '12 at 15:38
add a comment |
Have you tested this? This is IO bound so I think it probably won't reach 100% CPU utilization, no matter how many instances you launch.
– Ben Richards
Mar 3 '12 at 16:18
1
It could very well be system dependent. For me, it was consistently above 97% total, though withdwm.exeat 25% and all the conhosts hovering about 5-10%. In any case, mgjk's vbscript solution is more elegant.
– Bob
Mar 3 '12 at 16:29
The windows console is exceptionally slow when it comes to flooding the console. It also cause significant GUI lag that might not allow you to kill it with task manager. Note that Ctrl-C or Ctrl-Break won't work because of the data that's already out.
– quantum
Jul 12 '12 at 15:38
Have you tested this? This is IO bound so I think it probably won't reach 100% CPU utilization, no matter how many instances you launch.
– Ben Richards
Mar 3 '12 at 16:18
Have you tested this? This is IO bound so I think it probably won't reach 100% CPU utilization, no matter how many instances you launch.
– Ben Richards
Mar 3 '12 at 16:18
1
1
It could very well be system dependent. For me, it was consistently above 97% total, though with
dwm.exe at 25% and all the conhosts hovering about 5-10%. In any case, mgjk's vbscript solution is more elegant.– Bob
Mar 3 '12 at 16:29
It could very well be system dependent. For me, it was consistently above 97% total, though with
dwm.exe at 25% and all the conhosts hovering about 5-10%. In any case, mgjk's vbscript solution is more elegant.– Bob
Mar 3 '12 at 16:29
The windows console is exceptionally slow when it comes to flooding the console. It also cause significant GUI lag that might not allow you to kill it with task manager. Note that Ctrl-C or Ctrl-Break won't work because of the data that's already out.
– quantum
Jul 12 '12 at 15:38
The windows console is exceptionally slow when it comes to flooding the console. It also cause significant GUI lag that might not allow you to kill it with task manager. Note that Ctrl-C or Ctrl-Break won't work because of the data that's already out.
– quantum
Jul 12 '12 at 15:38
add a comment |
I have recently discovered and can recommend the free version of HeavyLoad:
http://www.jam-software.com/heavyload/
Does an effective job at pumping up the CPU levels to see how applications cope under duress.
Like they said:can’t install/run any third-party software; only built into Windows
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:08
I found that prograt program very interesting. It simply works and you can also get 100% CPU using only 256Mb of ram (I do on a i5 4gb ram to your reference). The only option i miss is the GPU stress that the software promises. @AndyUK, did u found that option?
– erm3nda
Apr 6 '15 at 0:24
add a comment |
I have recently discovered and can recommend the free version of HeavyLoad:
http://www.jam-software.com/heavyload/
Does an effective job at pumping up the CPU levels to see how applications cope under duress.
Like they said:can’t install/run any third-party software; only built into Windows
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:08
I found that prograt program very interesting. It simply works and you can also get 100% CPU using only 256Mb of ram (I do on a i5 4gb ram to your reference). The only option i miss is the GPU stress that the software promises. @AndyUK, did u found that option?
– erm3nda
Apr 6 '15 at 0:24
add a comment |
I have recently discovered and can recommend the free version of HeavyLoad:
http://www.jam-software.com/heavyload/
Does an effective job at pumping up the CPU levels to see how applications cope under duress.
I have recently discovered and can recommend the free version of HeavyLoad:
http://www.jam-software.com/heavyload/
Does an effective job at pumping up the CPU levels to see how applications cope under duress.
answered Feb 7 '14 at 12:08
AndyUKAndyUK
1393
1393
Like they said:can’t install/run any third-party software; only built into Windows
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:08
I found that prograt program very interesting. It simply works and you can also get 100% CPU using only 256Mb of ram (I do on a i5 4gb ram to your reference). The only option i miss is the GPU stress that the software promises. @AndyUK, did u found that option?
– erm3nda
Apr 6 '15 at 0:24
add a comment |
Like they said:can’t install/run any third-party software; only built into Windows
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:08
I found that prograt program very interesting. It simply works and you can also get 100% CPU using only 256Mb of ram (I do on a i5 4gb ram to your reference). The only option i miss is the GPU stress that the software promises. @AndyUK, did u found that option?
– erm3nda
Apr 6 '15 at 0:24
Like they said:
can’t install/run any third-party software; only built into Windows– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:08
Like they said:
can’t install/run any third-party software; only built into Windows– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:08
I found that prograt program very interesting. It simply works and you can also get 100% CPU using only 256Mb of ram (I do on a i5 4gb ram to your reference). The only option i miss is the GPU stress that the software promises. @AndyUK, did u found that option?
– erm3nda
Apr 6 '15 at 0:24
I found that prograt program very interesting. It simply works and you can also get 100% CPU using only 256Mb of ram (I do on a i5 4gb ram to your reference). The only option i miss is the GPU stress that the software promises. @AndyUK, did u found that option?
– erm3nda
Apr 6 '15 at 0:24
add a comment |
The way most people do it is to run something that does a load of processing - I was recommended superpi, though hyperpi might work better for a modern system. Calculate absurdly large value of pi, and it'll effectively run the processor at full load.
Alternatively you can run StressCPU which is based off folding@home
If you need to keep high loads for longer periods of time, consider something like folding@home
Same thing
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:03
add a comment |
The way most people do it is to run something that does a load of processing - I was recommended superpi, though hyperpi might work better for a modern system. Calculate absurdly large value of pi, and it'll effectively run the processor at full load.
Alternatively you can run StressCPU which is based off folding@home
If you need to keep high loads for longer periods of time, consider something like folding@home
Same thing
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:03
add a comment |
The way most people do it is to run something that does a load of processing - I was recommended superpi, though hyperpi might work better for a modern system. Calculate absurdly large value of pi, and it'll effectively run the processor at full load.
Alternatively you can run StressCPU which is based off folding@home
If you need to keep high loads for longer periods of time, consider something like folding@home
The way most people do it is to run something that does a load of processing - I was recommended superpi, though hyperpi might work better for a modern system. Calculate absurdly large value of pi, and it'll effectively run the processor at full load.
Alternatively you can run StressCPU which is based off folding@home
If you need to keep high loads for longer periods of time, consider something like folding@home
answered Mar 3 '12 at 14:30
Journeyman Geek♦Journeyman Geek
112k44217371
112k44217371
Same thing
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:03
add a comment |
Same thing
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:03
Same thing
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:03
Same thing
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:03
add a comment |
If you have no internet for that pc or can't remember the website for that cpu test, and you don't feel like scripting you can use the windows built in zip feature to compress a bunch of files or folders a bunch of times simultaneously.
Right-click the file or folder, point to Send To, and then click Compressed (zipped) Folder
You can do the same files/folder multiple times at the same time, I suggest using the windows or program files folders.
You can then unzip the files to another location and do a file compare with the fc command to check to see that all calculations occurred correctly. Though I would suggest that you use a single big file for this as the command syntax for file comparison of a lot of files with standard windows tools is annoying.
Impressed with that. The :goto loop on a bat sounds so much easier. And avoid the nonsense I/O usage.
– erm3nda
Apr 6 '15 at 0:31
add a comment |
If you have no internet for that pc or can't remember the website for that cpu test, and you don't feel like scripting you can use the windows built in zip feature to compress a bunch of files or folders a bunch of times simultaneously.
Right-click the file or folder, point to Send To, and then click Compressed (zipped) Folder
You can do the same files/folder multiple times at the same time, I suggest using the windows or program files folders.
You can then unzip the files to another location and do a file compare with the fc command to check to see that all calculations occurred correctly. Though I would suggest that you use a single big file for this as the command syntax for file comparison of a lot of files with standard windows tools is annoying.
Impressed with that. The :goto loop on a bat sounds so much easier. And avoid the nonsense I/O usage.
– erm3nda
Apr 6 '15 at 0:31
add a comment |
If you have no internet for that pc or can't remember the website for that cpu test, and you don't feel like scripting you can use the windows built in zip feature to compress a bunch of files or folders a bunch of times simultaneously.
Right-click the file or folder, point to Send To, and then click Compressed (zipped) Folder
You can do the same files/folder multiple times at the same time, I suggest using the windows or program files folders.
You can then unzip the files to another location and do a file compare with the fc command to check to see that all calculations occurred correctly. Though I would suggest that you use a single big file for this as the command syntax for file comparison of a lot of files with standard windows tools is annoying.
If you have no internet for that pc or can't remember the website for that cpu test, and you don't feel like scripting you can use the windows built in zip feature to compress a bunch of files or folders a bunch of times simultaneously.
Right-click the file or folder, point to Send To, and then click Compressed (zipped) Folder
You can do the same files/folder multiple times at the same time, I suggest using the windows or program files folders.
You can then unzip the files to another location and do a file compare with the fc command to check to see that all calculations occurred correctly. Though I would suggest that you use a single big file for this as the command syntax for file comparison of a lot of files with standard windows tools is annoying.
answered Jul 1 '13 at 6:12
BeowulfNode42BeowulfNode42
1,43411219
1,43411219
Impressed with that. The :goto loop on a bat sounds so much easier. And avoid the nonsense I/O usage.
– erm3nda
Apr 6 '15 at 0:31
add a comment |
Impressed with that. The :goto loop on a bat sounds so much easier. And avoid the nonsense I/O usage.
– erm3nda
Apr 6 '15 at 0:31
Impressed with that. The :goto loop on a bat sounds so much easier. And avoid the nonsense I/O usage.
– erm3nda
Apr 6 '15 at 0:31
Impressed with that. The :goto loop on a bat sounds so much easier. And avoid the nonsense I/O usage.
– erm3nda
Apr 6 '15 at 0:31
add a comment |
Quick, easy, PowerShell
while ($true){}
An infinite loop with no inputs or outputs; similar to Quantum's answer, if you have multiple cores, you have to start multiple instances of PowerShell running this script
add a comment |
Quick, easy, PowerShell
while ($true){}
An infinite loop with no inputs or outputs; similar to Quantum's answer, if you have multiple cores, you have to start multiple instances of PowerShell running this script
add a comment |
Quick, easy, PowerShell
while ($true){}
An infinite loop with no inputs or outputs; similar to Quantum's answer, if you have multiple cores, you have to start multiple instances of PowerShell running this script
Quick, easy, PowerShell
while ($true){}
An infinite loop with no inputs or outputs; similar to Quantum's answer, if you have multiple cores, you have to start multiple instances of PowerShell running this script
edited Jan 6 '17 at 14:11
answered Jan 26 '16 at 11:27
ShaneCShaneC
1316
1316
add a comment |
add a comment |
Use the built-in "calc" to calculate 10000! (10000 factorial). Use two or three instances to max out a Multi-core.
Actually it will overflow calc.... there is a maximum value that calc would calculate, it is less than 10000 but more than 1000.
– Diogo
Mar 6 '12 at 22:19
@DiogoRocha Didn't overflow: I got 2.8462596809170545189064132121199e+35659. However, did it in less than a second on my computer.
– quantum
Apr 8 '12 at 20:39
hmmm. Mine did overflow, actually a factorial on a digital calc is made matemathically reducing to a truncated series... it is an aproximation that will reduce cpu loads. this is thee reason because you left less than 1 sec of processing..
– Diogo
Apr 9 '12 at 0:50
I suspect whether it overflows or not may depend on whether the CPU is 32-bit or 64-bit. Either way, I don’t see how that would take up much CPU cycles. I just performed several factorials and the highest I could go was 3248!, but none of them made even a blip on Task Manager’s CPU graph, and why should it? Factorials are a very easy, very cheap mathematical operation.
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:07
@Synetech Mine overflowed, using Windows 7 64 bit. I used a biginteger calculator and got this as an answer though: pastebin.com/AeCf1s9c
– starbeamrainbowlabs
Sep 4 '14 at 18:36
add a comment |
Use the built-in "calc" to calculate 10000! (10000 factorial). Use two or three instances to max out a Multi-core.
Actually it will overflow calc.... there is a maximum value that calc would calculate, it is less than 10000 but more than 1000.
– Diogo
Mar 6 '12 at 22:19
@DiogoRocha Didn't overflow: I got 2.8462596809170545189064132121199e+35659. However, did it in less than a second on my computer.
– quantum
Apr 8 '12 at 20:39
hmmm. Mine did overflow, actually a factorial on a digital calc is made matemathically reducing to a truncated series... it is an aproximation that will reduce cpu loads. this is thee reason because you left less than 1 sec of processing..
– Diogo
Apr 9 '12 at 0:50
I suspect whether it overflows or not may depend on whether the CPU is 32-bit or 64-bit. Either way, I don’t see how that would take up much CPU cycles. I just performed several factorials and the highest I could go was 3248!, but none of them made even a blip on Task Manager’s CPU graph, and why should it? Factorials are a very easy, very cheap mathematical operation.
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:07
@Synetech Mine overflowed, using Windows 7 64 bit. I used a biginteger calculator and got this as an answer though: pastebin.com/AeCf1s9c
– starbeamrainbowlabs
Sep 4 '14 at 18:36
add a comment |
Use the built-in "calc" to calculate 10000! (10000 factorial). Use two or three instances to max out a Multi-core.
Use the built-in "calc" to calculate 10000! (10000 factorial). Use two or three instances to max out a Multi-core.
edited Sep 12 '17 at 22:38
ExillustX
94
94
answered Mar 6 '12 at 22:07
awayandawayand
171
171
Actually it will overflow calc.... there is a maximum value that calc would calculate, it is less than 10000 but more than 1000.
– Diogo
Mar 6 '12 at 22:19
@DiogoRocha Didn't overflow: I got 2.8462596809170545189064132121199e+35659. However, did it in less than a second on my computer.
– quantum
Apr 8 '12 at 20:39
hmmm. Mine did overflow, actually a factorial on a digital calc is made matemathically reducing to a truncated series... it is an aproximation that will reduce cpu loads. this is thee reason because you left less than 1 sec of processing..
– Diogo
Apr 9 '12 at 0:50
I suspect whether it overflows or not may depend on whether the CPU is 32-bit or 64-bit. Either way, I don’t see how that would take up much CPU cycles. I just performed several factorials and the highest I could go was 3248!, but none of them made even a blip on Task Manager’s CPU graph, and why should it? Factorials are a very easy, very cheap mathematical operation.
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:07
@Synetech Mine overflowed, using Windows 7 64 bit. I used a biginteger calculator and got this as an answer though: pastebin.com/AeCf1s9c
– starbeamrainbowlabs
Sep 4 '14 at 18:36
add a comment |
Actually it will overflow calc.... there is a maximum value that calc would calculate, it is less than 10000 but more than 1000.
– Diogo
Mar 6 '12 at 22:19
@DiogoRocha Didn't overflow: I got 2.8462596809170545189064132121199e+35659. However, did it in less than a second on my computer.
– quantum
Apr 8 '12 at 20:39
hmmm. Mine did overflow, actually a factorial on a digital calc is made matemathically reducing to a truncated series... it is an aproximation that will reduce cpu loads. this is thee reason because you left less than 1 sec of processing..
– Diogo
Apr 9 '12 at 0:50
I suspect whether it overflows or not may depend on whether the CPU is 32-bit or 64-bit. Either way, I don’t see how that would take up much CPU cycles. I just performed several factorials and the highest I could go was 3248!, but none of them made even a blip on Task Manager’s CPU graph, and why should it? Factorials are a very easy, very cheap mathematical operation.
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:07
@Synetech Mine overflowed, using Windows 7 64 bit. I used a biginteger calculator and got this as an answer though: pastebin.com/AeCf1s9c
– starbeamrainbowlabs
Sep 4 '14 at 18:36
Actually it will overflow calc.... there is a maximum value that calc would calculate, it is less than 10000 but more than 1000.
– Diogo
Mar 6 '12 at 22:19
Actually it will overflow calc.... there is a maximum value that calc would calculate, it is less than 10000 but more than 1000.
– Diogo
Mar 6 '12 at 22:19
@DiogoRocha Didn't overflow: I got 2.8462596809170545189064132121199e+35659. However, did it in less than a second on my computer.
– quantum
Apr 8 '12 at 20:39
@DiogoRocha Didn't overflow: I got 2.8462596809170545189064132121199e+35659. However, did it in less than a second on my computer.
– quantum
Apr 8 '12 at 20:39
hmmm. Mine did overflow, actually a factorial on a digital calc is made matemathically reducing to a truncated series... it is an aproximation that will reduce cpu loads. this is thee reason because you left less than 1 sec of processing..
– Diogo
Apr 9 '12 at 0:50
hmmm. Mine did overflow, actually a factorial on a digital calc is made matemathically reducing to a truncated series... it is an aproximation that will reduce cpu loads. this is thee reason because you left less than 1 sec of processing..
– Diogo
Apr 9 '12 at 0:50
I suspect whether it overflows or not may depend on whether the CPU is 32-bit or 64-bit. Either way, I don’t see how that would take up much CPU cycles. I just performed several factorials and the highest I could go was 3248!, but none of them made even a blip on Task Manager’s CPU graph, and why should it? Factorials are a very easy, very cheap mathematical operation.
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:07
I suspect whether it overflows or not may depend on whether the CPU is 32-bit or 64-bit. Either way, I don’t see how that would take up much CPU cycles. I just performed several factorials and the highest I could go was 3248!, but none of them made even a blip on Task Manager’s CPU graph, and why should it? Factorials are a very easy, very cheap mathematical operation.
– Synetech
Mar 28 '14 at 16:07
@Synetech Mine overflowed, using Windows 7 64 bit. I used a biginteger calculator and got this as an answer though: pastebin.com/AeCf1s9c
– starbeamrainbowlabs
Sep 4 '14 at 18:36
@Synetech Mine overflowed, using Windows 7 64 bit. I used a biginteger calculator and got this as an answer though: pastebin.com/AeCf1s9c
– starbeamrainbowlabs
Sep 4 '14 at 18:36
add a comment |
I publish such a tool named MultiCpuLoad.
- Selectable load from 20% up to 90%.
- Selectable CPUs.
- No installation.
- No admin rights required.
Requires .NET Framework 2.0
http://www.ristaino.net/Software/MultiCpuLoad
add a comment |
I publish such a tool named MultiCpuLoad.
- Selectable load from 20% up to 90%.
- Selectable CPUs.
- No installation.
- No admin rights required.
Requires .NET Framework 2.0
http://www.ristaino.net/Software/MultiCpuLoad
add a comment |
I publish such a tool named MultiCpuLoad.
- Selectable load from 20% up to 90%.
- Selectable CPUs.
- No installation.
- No admin rights required.
Requires .NET Framework 2.0
http://www.ristaino.net/Software/MultiCpuLoad
I publish such a tool named MultiCpuLoad.
- Selectable load from 20% up to 90%.
- Selectable CPUs.
- No installation.
- No admin rights required.
Requires .NET Framework 2.0
http://www.ristaino.net/Software/MultiCpuLoad
answered Jan 2 at 13:44
figolufigolu
111
111
add a comment |
add a comment |
protected by Community♦ May 12 '15 at 13:58
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
4
I usually just launch a bunch of cmd.exe instances with
dir /s C:. Get 10 or so of those running at once and you get very high CPU use (70%+ across all cores of my i7-2600k) in addition to lots of disk I/O. Not perfect, but it gets the job done.– Andrew Lambert
Mar 4 '12 at 10:59