How can I produce high CPU load on Windows?












73















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?










share|improve this question




















  • 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


















73















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?










share|improve this question




















  • 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
















73












73








73


21






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?










share|improve this question
















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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








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 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
















  • 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










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












13 Answers
13






active

oldest

votes


















65














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).






share|improve this answer



















  • 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 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



















36














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.






share|improve this answer


























  • 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



















34














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.)






share|improve this answer



















  • 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



















27














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.






share|improve this answer
























  • 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





















5














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.






share|improve this answer





















  • 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



















4














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.






share|improve this answer
























  • 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



















3














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.






share|improve this answer


























  • 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 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



















3














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.






share|improve this answer
























  • 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





















1














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






share|improve this answer
























  • Same thing

    – Synetech
    Mar 28 '14 at 16:03



















1














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.






share|improve this answer
























  • 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



















1














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






share|improve this answer

































    0














    Use the built-in "calc" to calculate 10000! (10000 factorial). Use two or three instances to max out a Multi-core.






    share|improve this answer


























    • 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



















    0














    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






    share|improve this answer






















      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









      65














      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).






      share|improve this answer



















      • 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 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
















      65














      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).






      share|improve this answer



















      • 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 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














      65












      65








      65







      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).






      share|improve this answer













      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).







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      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 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














      • 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 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








      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













      36














      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.






      share|improve this answer


























      • 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
















      36














      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.






      share|improve this answer


























      • 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














      36












      36








      36







      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.






      share|improve this answer















      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.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      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 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

















      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











      34














      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.)






      share|improve this answer



















      • 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
















      34














      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.)






      share|improve this answer



















      • 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














      34












      34








      34







      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.)






      share|improve this answer













      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.)







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      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 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














      • 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








      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











      27














      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.






      share|improve this answer
























      • 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


















      27














      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.






      share|improve this answer
























      • 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
















      27












      27








      27







      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.






      share|improve this answer













      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.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      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





















      • 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













      5














      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.






      share|improve this answer





















      • 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
















      5














      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.






      share|improve this answer





















      • 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














      5












      5








      5







      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.






      share|improve this answer















      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.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      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














      • 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











      4














      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.






      share|improve this answer
























      • 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
















      4














      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.






      share|improve this answer
























      • 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














      4












      4








      4







      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.






      share|improve this answer













      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.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      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



















      • 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











      3














      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.






      share|improve this answer


























      • 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 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
















      3














      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.






      share|improve this answer


























      • 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 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














      3












      3








      3







      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.






      share|improve this answer















      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.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      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 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



















      • 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 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

















      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











      3














      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.






      share|improve this answer
























      • 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


















      3














      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.






      share|improve this answer
























      • 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
















      3












      3








      3







      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.






      share|improve this answer













      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.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      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





















      • 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













      1














      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






      share|improve this answer
























      • Same thing

        – Synetech
        Mar 28 '14 at 16:03
















      1














      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






      share|improve this answer
























      • Same thing

        – Synetech
        Mar 28 '14 at 16:03














      1












      1








      1







      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






      share|improve this answer













      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







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Mar 3 '12 at 14:30









      Journeyman GeekJourneyman Geek

      112k44217371




      112k44217371













      • 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





      Same thing

      – Synetech
      Mar 28 '14 at 16:03











      1














      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.






      share|improve this answer
























      • 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
















      1














      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.






      share|improve this answer
























      • 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














      1












      1








      1







      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.






      share|improve this answer













      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.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      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



















      • 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











      1














      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






      share|improve this answer






























        1














        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






        share|improve this answer




























          1












          1








          1







          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






          share|improve this answer















          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







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Jan 6 '17 at 14:11

























          answered Jan 26 '16 at 11:27









          ShaneCShaneC

          1316




          1316























              0














              Use the built-in "calc" to calculate 10000! (10000 factorial). Use two or three instances to max out a Multi-core.






              share|improve this answer


























              • 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
















              0














              Use the built-in "calc" to calculate 10000! (10000 factorial). Use two or three instances to max out a Multi-core.






              share|improve this answer


























              • 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














              0












              0








              0







              Use the built-in "calc" to calculate 10000! (10000 factorial). Use two or three instances to max out a Multi-core.






              share|improve this answer















              Use the built-in "calc" to calculate 10000! (10000 factorial). Use two or three instances to max out a Multi-core.







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              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



















              • 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











              0














              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






              share|improve this answer




























                0














                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






                share|improve this answer


























                  0












                  0








                  0







                  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






                  share|improve this answer













                  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







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Jan 2 at 13:44









                  figolufigolu

                  111




                  111

















                      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?



                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Terni

                      A new problem with tex4ht and tikz

                      Sun Ra