Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cy4n1d3

Does the program detect throttling due to signals sent by the cpu or simply by comparing temps to tjmax?

---

Good question. The PROCHOT# flags that will be displayed in RealTemp are based on reading that specific data from the CPU. For the techy types, this info comes from reading MSR 0x19C. Bits [22:16] contain the 7 bits of DTS data and bits 0 and 1 in that same MSR contain the flags for PROCHOT#.

You can read all about what they mean by downloading volume 3A of the Intel manuals and reading this chapter:

13.4.2.5 Thermal Status Information

This feature was tested and it definitely works. The interesting thing is that the History flag gets set just before the Status flag gets set as shown in this picture and throttling gets flagged just before DTS reaches zero.

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/296/prochot1ux4.png

That's a good thing since if there is any throttling at all, this bit will remain set until you reboot. You don't even need to have RealTemp running since this bit is set within the processor and will remain set even after the processor cools down.

When you get more carried away then they'll all light up.

http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/4913/rtbakedjy4.png

But if your brother thinks he can turn off RealTemp to cover up the evidence then you can still catch him by starting up RealTemp.

http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/124/rtflaghotyh4.png

The evidence is there even though RealTemp doesn't show any unusual temperatures in the Maximum columns.

Richard Dower: This round of beta testing is pretty much done so RealTemp 2.5 should be available by tomorrow.

Ah ok, I see.
Was just curious how my cpu was able to reach throttling-temp with ~1.35 volts on air cooling :rolleyes:

RealTemp 2.5 has been released.

I've moved the download and documentation over to TechPowerUp.

http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/

I warned them that they might need to upgrade their servers. The XS guys take their temps pretty seriously. :D

Now that RealTemp has a home and a Tray Icon and a separate webpage with documentation, what's next? I need some feedback here.

Some things that I've been thinking about are RealTemp for dual CPU systems. Either a small button to display 4 cores at a time or a super size version to display all 8. Maybe a special Dual Core specific version with a cleaned up GUI so you don't have to look at a bunch of empty space. Maybe a larger temp readout in that version similar to TAT. Maybe the temp number displayed in the System Tray instead of the icon.

Anything you can think of beside Logitech G15 support? I'm still thinking about that one!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Now that RealTemp has a home and a Tray Icon and a separate webpage with documentation, what's next? I need some feedback here.

---

How about a link to a donations page for you!!!

I think this is worth a little something personally! :up: :yepp:

Sorry if this has been asked but my idle calibration settings won't stick with 2.5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uberbob102000

Sorry if this has been asked but my idle calibration settings won't stick with 2.5.

---

I just downloaded the version that is available at the link I posted and it works for me.

Have a look in your INI file and make sure there isn't a leading semi-colon.

;Idle0=1

is wrong. The ; will block this setting.

Idle0=1

should work fine.

Quote:

---

jas420221: How about a link to a donations page for you!!!

---

Thanks for the thumbs up. I'm very happy with all of the free software on my computer and being able to give something back to the community for a change is great.

Oh wow, That was stupid on my part, Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laragirl83

Niiiice!!
Under Small FFT's test, now real temp shows 10C lower temps than coretemp, is that right?:)
I am happy now!

---

me 2 :):):) e8400 at 1.12 v stock on my water 29-31c :up: oc time!! now that i can somewhat trust something temp wise

Before I wrote a single line of code for RealTemp, I did some initial testing with an E8400. CoreTemp assuming that TjMax=105C for my E8400 is wrong. I plan to re-install my E8400 next week and do a real thorough test. Previously, 35C measured with the Fluke 62 IR thermometer was being reported as 50C by CoreTemp.

RealTemp was only an idea during that previous test. Time for some pictures of RealTemp vs CoreTemp along side the IR thermometer and you can decide which program is giving you values closest to the truth.

Hey guys,

I've been using RealTemp for a while, but I noticed something interesting. When my Intel Q9300 (overclocked to 3,45GHz) is under 100% load (Orthos), RealTemp says that core temperatures are 60 to 64. But, HWMonitor, Everest and Coretemp say that core temperatures are like 70 to 74.

Should I believe Realtemp? It seems to be a better program, but this is 3 vs. 1. I'm little bit confused with this now, so would somebody tell me, which is right.

RedAlert: If 3 guys ahead of you jumped off a bridge would you follow them and be #4? There's a reason why no one has been too happy with their core temps since the introduction of these chips. The 10C difference you are seeing is because these programs use a different TjMax. 95C vs 105C means their results will always be 10C different. Read the post above yours about how far off CoreTemp is with my 45nm E8400. Ask those other programmers to show you their research. Read the last 37 pages of this and you will see some of my research.

@unclewebb:

Thanks for the new version :)

Two suggestions :
1. Make the app show temps in tray instead of an icon
OR
2. Make an option to disable the tray icon when realtemp shows temps in taskbar (when minimized) which is what I am using. I am just one of those who always likes to have an eye on the temps :D

PS. In this version (compared to 2.49) I have that problem with idle0/idle1 -2 setting. 2.49 was fine (?!) but 2.5 is like like 2.41(I think it was that one), it showing -3 ~-4C lower instead of -2. (idle0=0 is 40C, idle0 -2 is 36C, strange)

Best regards ! :)

I´d like to know is TjMax= 85 C correct value for Intel Quad Q6600 Revision B3?:rolleyes:

Best regards

Version 2.5 here working fine, Thank you Very much yet again :)
Vid;
Coretemp; 0.9875v
Realtemp; 1.1000v

Larry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

RealTemp 2.5 has been released.

I've moved the download and documentation over to TechPowerUp.

http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/

I warned them that they might need to upgrade their servers. The XS guys take their temps pretty seriously. :D

---

something is wrong with the download link after jumping over to techpowerup.com...when you click on the download link it diverts me to a comcast.net advertisement for high speed internet...in order to circumvent that ad, i had to click on the download link at the very top and then click on real temp for downloading...all worked fine going the cirumvention route.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedAlert-

RealTemp says that core temperatures are 60 to 64. But, HWMonitor, Everest and Coretemp say that core temperatures are like 70 to 74.

Should I believe Realtemp? It seems to be a better program, but this is 3 vs. 1. I'm little bit confused with this now, so would somebody tell me, which is right.

---

HWMonitor, Everest, and Coretemp are all using tjmax of 105 for E8400 and all from the same one faulty source of information, and presumably based on 45nm mobile cpus, so it is really 1 vs 1...but...

Mathematically, using intels own formulas and specs, you can show a tjmax of 105 is not plausible for E8400.

known facts
1) (see pic of intel formula)
2) at idle EIST enabled state TDP = 6-8W (intel specs)
3) thus at idle 6x200 mhz, .95vcore, TDP<6-8W
4) casing temps measured by multiple fluke measurements of E8400 is 95C when DTS=0.
5) casing temps are going to be equal or slightly lower than Tcase measurements, they can not be higher.

Suppose 105 tjmax
- Solving for theta (core to case) = 0.5 C/W
- At 0.5C/W, max gradient from casing to tjmax at 6x200 mhz and vcore .95 is 0.5C/W x 6W or 3C, more likely gradient .5x4W or 2C, plus or minus 1-2C error.
- therefore if 105 tjmax is correct, casing temps would have to be 102C to 103C, plus or minus 1 or 2C error, which is not the case.
- Or for 105 tjmax to be correct, at 6x200mhz and vcore .95, TDP would have to equal 20W, which is not even close.
- Without a heat sink, the gradient would be even less, which makes 105 again, highly unlikely.

105 is not plausible unless some of intels specs are way off.

Suppose 95 tjmax
-Solving for theta (core to case) = 0.35C/W (which as an aside is a similar value to whats listed in intel research papers)
- At 0.35C/W, max gradient from casing to tjmax at 6x200 mhz and vcore .95 is 0.35C/W x 6W or 2C, more likely gradient .35x4 = 1.4C.
- For 95 tjmax to be correct, casing temps would have to be 93-94C +/- 1-2C error. Casing temps of 95, as measured, would be within 1-2C error.

95 tjmax is possible based on intel specs and formulas. Also with no heatsink, the gradient should be less than 1.4C, and has been measured by independents to be around .5C, making 95 not only possible, but likely.

I would not argue with anyone who claims tjmax is 94-98, but 105 contradicts known intel specs and formulas and is way outside measurement error.

Here's a comparison of the VID as read by different monitoring programs.

Looks like CoreTemp and Everest are off on this one.

@Uncle:

is there any way to marry up the"Distance to TjMax" for four cores?...i've tried everything, including the individual adjustment of TjMax in the "ini" file....if i increase or drecrease the individual TjMax's, all that happens is the actual core temp goes up or down, not the distance to TjMax values...

i am happy that i can marry up the actual core temps but i would like to also marry up the "Distance to TjMax" too!...anyway of doing that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ace-a-Rue

is there any way to marry up the"Distance to TjMax" for four cores?

---

The Distance to TjMax displayed by RealTemp can not be changed, now or ever. It is a direct reading of the sensors within all Core processors. RealTemp then takes that raw data and tries to convert it to some meaningful temperatures as best it can after considering the limitations of the sensors as well as the limited documentation supplied by Intel.

The reason I call it a Distance is because there is not a direct, linear relationship between the data coming out of the digital thermal sensors and how many degrees you are away from TjMax, especially at idle.

Let me know if I didn't understand your question or the reason why you would want this directly read information to be altered.

As for advertising on websites, I use Firefox with Adblock Plus. I rarely see any ads. TechPowerUp wants to make some money to cover their cost of hosting RealTemp. Now that RealTemp is a pretty decent little app, I decided to go with them for some more exposure. If things don't work out, I might go back to hosting it myself.

Quote:

---

k4vz0024: I´d like to know is TjMax= 85 C correct value for Intel Quad Q6600 Revision B3?

---

I'll admit that this is one of the few processors that I am not 100% sure about. I wish I could get my hands on one for proper testing. I have a Q6600 G0 and it showed TjMax=95C when tested with the IR thermometer. The two main reasons I went with TjMax=85C for the B3 Quad is because a B3 Quad consists of two B2 dual processors. I've tested my E6400 - B2 and it showed TjMax=85C.

The next item is that the B2 Dual Core and the B3 Quad core have very similar Tcase temperature ratings published by Intel while the B3 is about 10C lower than the G0. My G0 tested at TjMax=95C so about 10C less is 85C.

http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SL9UM
http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLACR

There were also early reports of some B3 Quads easily getting up to or near the thermal throttling point when used with the retail heatsink and fan. Intel might have raised TjMax when they went to the G0 stepping to reduce the chance of this happening.

I have been questioned on this before but so far only one user with a B3 has done any testing and when his results started to show that I might be right, he decided to dismiss his results.

I've found that the typical Dual Core B2 with a top notch air cooler ( Thermalright extreme ) will show idle readings a couple of degrees below the room temperature. That's impossible which is why I introduced the Idle calibration factors in RealTemp. When locked to 1600 MHz and about 1.10 volts, a B3 Quad should idle a couple of degrees higher than that If my pick for TjMax is correct, RealTemp should display a number very close to your room temperature during this test. If I'm wrong, I'm more than willing to swap my G0 for a B3, straight across, to prove this. We need some B3 owners to give this test a try.

@uncle: hope these help... CPU-Z sensor turned OFF

using RealTemp v2.48 & CoreTemp v0.98.1

using RealTemp v2.5 & CoreTemp v0.99

thanks for the program again! :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emoners

@uncle: hope these help... CPU-Z sensor turned OFF

thanks for the program again! :up:

---

why don't you change the ini file for coretemp and set value -10 giving exact same temps then as real temp

http://users.pandora.be/OAP/981.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeghoofd

why don't you change the ini file for coretemp and set value -10 giving exact same temps then as real temp

---

I remember the early days when people wanted to change RealTemp by 10C so it could look just like CoreTemp.
I'm glad to see the logic on that has changed. :yepp:

Here's what mine look like. CoreTemp and Everest adjusted to TjMax 95c.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...69/Temps36.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cy4n1d3

Don't know if this has been asked before..
Does the program detect throttling due to signals sent by the cpu or simply by comparing temps to tjmax?

---

From what i know it detects throttling based on the CPU signal w/c is not dependent on the TjMAX

Heres my Q6600 G0 at 15mins into prime v25.6 SmallFFT test

Its a VERY cold evening here thats why max temp is 51c, i usually get 61~63 during scorching afternoons...

http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/3...mpq6600ol7.jpg
http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/3...2d1b69a647.jpg


Windows vista ultimate 64bit
Q6600 G0
Bios voltage 1.335v
Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme

[QUOTE=The next item is that the B2 Dual Core and the B3 Quad core have very similar Tcase temperature ratings published by Intel while the B3 is about 10C lower than the G0. My G0 tested at TjMax=95C so about 10C less is 85C.[/QUOTE]

What about fact that B3 Quad core have Thermal Design Power to 105W?

Best regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

I remember the early days when people wanted to change RealTemp by 10C so it could look just like CoreTemp.
I'm glad to see the logic on that has changed. :yepp:

---

Does the VID readout function work properly ?

Reads out this E8400 at 1.2250 VID while Coremtemp says it is 1.1125 :shrug:

Kpo6969 also has an E8400 and his screen gives the same VID readout as I am experiencing... any user getting same readouts via coretemp and Realtemp ?

I'll 2nd that problem w/ the VID in the current release:http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/607/image2rd2.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ace-a-Rue

@Uncle:

is there any way to marry up the "Distance to TjMax" for four cores?...i've tried everything, including the individual adjustment of TjMax in the "ini" file....if i increase or drecrease the individual TjMax's, all that happens is the actual core temp goes up or down, not the distance to TjMax values...

i am happy that i can marry up the actual core temps but i would like to also marry up the "Distance to TjMax" too!...anyway of doing that?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

The Distance to TjMax displayed by RealTemp can not be changed, now or ever. It is a direct reading of the sensors within all Core processors. RealTemp then takes that raw data and tries to convert it to some meaningful temperatures as best it can after considering the limitations of the sensors as well as the limited documentation supplied by Intel.

The reason I call it a Distance is because there is not a direct, linear relationship between the data coming out of the digital thermal sensors and how many degrees you are away from TjMax, especially at idle.

Let me know if I didn't understand your question or the reason why you would want this directly read information to be altered.

---

i can live with that disparity in distance to TjMax....it would have a nice finesse item if you could work that out.

i am using a FreezOne Elite with the Pelts running full bore at idle...so, i have two cores about 8-9C below system temp and the other two cores are just about the same as system temp...i assumed the lower temps were more accurate than the other two since my heatsink is not an air cooling system (chilled water).

Quote:

---

As for advertising on websites, I use Firefox with Adblock Plus. I rarely see any ads. TechPowerUp wants to make some money to cover their cost of hosting RealTemp. Now that RealTemp is a pretty decent little app, I decided to go with them for some more exposure. If things don't work out, I might go back to hosting it myself.

---

i use Maxthon 1.x version...i have all the ad items enabled...what i didn't do was to crank in my zip code to check for comcast service in my area since i HAVE comcast:D...probably if i cranked the zip address in, it would have directed me to your RealTemp download.

Whats wrong with the VID? It says the VID on my 9450 is 1.2250. I thought that was correct?

Well, CPUZ and RealTemp are the same on VID while CoreTemp is not.

Interesting problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zlojack

Well, CPUZ and RealTemp are the same on VID while CoreTemp is not.

Interesting problem.

---

where do you get the VID with CPU-Z ?

You have to go into the CPUZ config file and set sensor=OFF

Then instead of sensing your current voltage, it gives you your VID.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeghoofd

where do you get the VID with CPU-Z ?

---

If you run from the commandline like so you'll get it:

Code:

---

cpuz -txt=system_details

---

Mine gave:

Code:

---

max VID 1.225 V

---

K did it indeed realtemp and CPU-z are alike 1.225, coretemp reports 1.125... bad bad coretemp :)

thx for the tip guys

The formula I'm using for VID came from CrystalCPUID but with a few mods. It seems to line up well with CPU-Z, which was my goal and the info makes more sense on the laptop I tried it on as well as other processors. I strongly believe that CPU-Z is getting this right considering their close relationship with Intel.

Quote:

---

k4vz0024: What about fact that B3 Quad core have Thermal Design Power to 105W?

---

I don't think that has anything to do with TjMax. Try my test as outlined in the docs. It only takes 5 minutes, if that, and has not hurt any of the processors I've tried it on. Lowering the core voltage and MHz is exactly what the Intel C1E function does automatically to reduce power and heat in the core chips. Post a CPU-Z / RealTemp screen shot. If you totally believe that RealTemp is wrong and don't wish to do any testing to prove it one way or the other than go into the RealTemp.ini file and set it like this:

TjMax0=2
TjMax1=2
TjMax2=2
TjMax3=2

That will give you TjMax=95C and if you think TjMax=100C like CoreTemp uses then set TjMax to 3 for all 4 cores instead. I don't know of any desktop processors that actually use TjMax=100C which I realize is contrary to the popular belief for the last year or so. I also don't believe CoreTemp reports VID correctly but users have been comparing that data for the last year too like it was written in stone.

unclewebb,

I have a q6600 B3 stepping and I'm wondering if the 85 tj max is correct?
At 85tj max, my idle temps (speedstep and C1E on at 2.0Ghz) are only 3-4 degrees higher than ambient. I'm running an OCZ Vendetta2 lapped and ihs lapped with tim consultants. here is a screenshot. My ambient is about 29-30deg.C measured by an ir thermometer. Do you think this about right or I need to calibrate to a few degrees higher?

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t...t/realtemp.jpg

GamingAddict: We need to first try and prove what TjMax is for your B3. When C1E is working properly on a motherboard it is designed to lower the multiplier to 6.0 and it should also lower the core voltage down to about 1.10 to 1.15 volts. I know my Asus board will ignore the request from the processor to lower the core voltage if I am overclocking. Your 333 MHz FSB might be blocking the core voltage from dropping.

The best way to test is to go into the bios and set it manually to 266 MHz or AUTO and to lock the multiplier at 6.0 and set the core voltage manually as low as it will go. After you boot up, run CPU-Z to confirm what your settings are.

I came up with these settings so users could have a common baseline to compare to other users and to compare to what I have tested. When set at the above settings, if you have a good air cooler, you will typically see reported core temperatures that are about equal to your room temperature for a B3 Quad.

If TjMax is wrong, then during this test your reported temperature will be about 10C different than your room temperature. Once you have this determined, then we can start working on appropriate Idle calibration factors for you. The data you are showing so far makes TjMax=85C look correct but we need someone to try and prove or disprove it.

unclewebb,

Here's the data, I manually set to 266MHz, 6 multiplier, vcore lowered. My ambient air is about 29c.

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t...realtemp-1.jpg

Hmmm, this is odd... Why is RealTemps reporting a different frequency than other programs?

http://www.picgarage.net/images/Weird_72821_816.jpeg

From the graphic and discussion at techpowerup, the idle calibration should only affect the idle temps leaving the full load temps untouched, no? I used an idle of +1 for all most cores after first booting my X3360 @ 6x266 @ 0.9 Vcc. I found that the untouched values matched exactly the thermometer in the case (that read 18.4 &#176;C). My untouched idle temps were 18,18,18,20. So I added +1 to the idle for all 4 fours making the new idle read 22,22,22,25 which were ~4 &#176;C above room temp.

When I reset to 8.5x400 and ran p95, here's what I got when the thermometer in case read 22.0 &#176;C
http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/4986/65031630yc3.gif

As you can see, I dropped Coretemp's tjmax to 95 to match realtemp (remember real temp has a +1 for idle calibration). Anyway, as you can see, fully loaded with p95 small fft's, Realtemp is +2 &#176;C on each core compared to CT with the 95 tjmax. HWMon is also pictured and matches exactly CT's except with an offset of +10 &#176;C since it uses a tjmax of 105.

What's up with this?

Looks like we're not far away from a tray icon core temp monitoring "Real Temp" :D

Realtemp has gotten really popular, i see your program in alot of reviews with these newer processors. Go realtemp! blows away any other program i've used for monitoring CPU temp. Simple, yet extremely useful. Thats the way everything should be! :up::up::up:

does this program not like working with dual cores or non 45nm c2ds? it keeps telling me my oc'd 2140 is running at ambient or below

nezzari: I'll admit, the MHz feature is a work in progress. I plan to do a few tweaks to it in the next day or so but I need some user feedback. There is a feature built into RealTemp that if you right click the mouse on an empty part of the dialog, it will try to re-calculate your MHz. If that gets it right or if that still doesn't help then let me know. Calculating MHz is easy but getting it to work properly with ClockGen and SetFSB takes a little more work. It seems to be working properly on a lot of computers.

Graysky: Maybe I should rename the Idle calibration feature because for a lot of users with low load temps, the Idle calibration feature will effect your load temps as well. That is not a mistake on my part. The reason for this is that according to my graph in the documentation, the DTS is only linear with changes in core temperature within approximately 35C of TjMax. At your load temps, you are outside the range where the DTS is 100&#37; accurate so you still need a slight calibration factor. I have a couple of minor fixes to do and I also plan to add temperatures to the Tray icon this week to keep the fans happy. After that I will do some more extensive testing to see if the idle calibration feature needs any adjustments. I know it is very close as is if you select the right factor but I also know it is never going to be perfect because I can't test every processor. It will definitely help get your temperatures closer to the truth.

GamingAddict: Your average reported temperature across your 4 cores is 28.5C which is about equal to your room temperature of 29C. That is exactly what I was expecting to see and helps prove that TjMax really is 85C for your B3 Quad. I know people will continue to doubt this because they have been brainwashed with TjMax=100C by the competition. I'll show you some pics tomorrow of my G0 Q6600 which shows the same core temp vs ambient temp during this test when using TjMax=95C for it.

My E6400 - B2, which is very similar to the Dual Cores contained in your B3 Quad, needed a +2 idle calibration. I think +2 on core0 for you would be perfect and the other 3 cores should probably have a correction of about 2.5 to get them in line with core0. We don't have that feature yet but I will add it this week for you since you actually took the time to do some proper testing. When you see some very similar results from my E6400 this week, you will start to believe TjMax=85C is correct.

If TjMax=100C like CoreTemp claims, your processor is idling at 14C to 15C above your room temperature during this test which I have not seen on any processor I've tested and definitely not on my very similar Q6600.

Flip_Lx: Have you read the documentation yet or calibrated your idle temps? Try that first. My E2160 also reports below ambient temperatures at idle but that isn't a good reason to adjust TjMax like some programs do. Post some pics and give me something that I can see.

Here's a good test of my E8400:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=573

and a very thorough test of an E2160:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=423

I'm not just making this stuff up. I did a lot of research before writing a single line of code and then have done far more testing after that to continue to back up my theories. I don't think any other programmer has put a fraction of the amount of time into this as I have. Anyone can guess randomly at TjMax and continue to assume that the DTS data is linear even though Intel and test after test confirms that it's not.

Furi&#248;&#249;s: Thanks for the thumbs up. I enjoy all feedback but I seem to like the positive stuff more! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

nezzari: I'll admit, the MHz feature is a work in progress. I plan to do a few tweaks to it in the next day or so but I need some user feedback. There is a feature built into RealTemp that if you right click the mouse on an empty part of the dialog, it will try to re-calculate your MHz. If that gets it right or if that still doesn't help then let me know. Calculating MHz is easy but getting it to work properly with ClockGen and SetFSB takes a little more work. It seems to be working properly on a lot of computers.

---

It says "calibrating" but then reports the same incorrect frequency.

The Mhz is little off on the Gaming ring in my sig, recalibrating shows the same result.

http://i26.tinypic.com/29pok10.jpg

great job so far on the program :yepp:

I find your numbers really interesting. RealTemp reports the MHz very accurately on many different computers. The two computers listed on this page that are not being reported accurately are both off by exactly 2.96&#37; and both computers are using Asus motherboards. Is there any performance setting in the bios that you might have turned on? It would be interesting to try your computers at default MHz without any performance options turned on. Years ago some manufacturers found ways to overclock their boards internally that couldn't be detected by most software which made them look really good when benchmarking. They'd always win! I've either uncovered another secret or I don't know what the hell I'm doing when it comes to calculating MHz. :shrug: I might have to leave this up to the expert, CPU-Z.

It would be very interesting if there are any non Asus boards that are not being reported properly compared to what CPU-Z is saying.

Add mine to that list unclewebb.

I'm at 9.5x421 for 4.0 (3999.5 MHz) and it's reporting it as 4118.4 MHz in RealTemp.

zlojack: Your MHz is off by 2.97&#37; compared to the other two that are off by 2.96%. All 3 of you are using Asus motherboards. I hope a few more users can post their results with RealTemp compared to CPU-Z. Calculating MHz isn't rocket science and I find it quite odd that the way I calculate MHz is exactly right on some boards but not on others.

In the Asus bios is a setting called Ai Clock Twister. It is only supposed to effect the memory but you could try setting it to Light and then Strong to see if that effects the MHz RealTemp is reporting.

I do not have this issue on maximus formula w/ rampage bios. CPU-Z and RealTemp report the same thing.

Which Rampage bios cadaveca?

I use the Rampage as well.

Here are the settings with everything stock (restored default motherboard settings)
http://www.picgarage.net/images/stock_46157_637.jpeg

I have the Maximus w/ Rampage Bios(0308) as well. Real temp reported high Mhz the first time(sorry dont remember #) but after calculating has read fine since:shrug:
oh and clock twister was on strong

same as above, for me.

These are the results from my qx6700. With the Tjmax set to 90 thermal shutdown ocurred at 85c.
Attachment 77909
I did get a screen with 3 cores showing84 max and 1 showing 83, but I thought I'd try again without taking a screenshot and thermal shutdown occured.

nezzari: Once again if you divide the MHz that RealTemp shows by the MHz CPU-Z shows for your first pic you get 2750.6 / 2671.5 = 1.0296 or a 2.96% difference. For your second pic it is a 2.95% difference. Hard to understand why this is happening on your board but not on others. Another test you can try is set the upper right window to MHz, right click the mouse a few times to see that the MHz is consistent then run the XS Bench feature. After the bench is done the MHz window will automatically be updated. Does it change any then. Trying to find an accurate timer in Windows is a bit of a joke. The XS Bench forces a longer MHz calibration period so it would be interesting to see if your results change.

PCTwin: When you are overclocking with additional core voltage, the thermal shutdown point will be greatly reduced. If you drop your MHz down to 1600 MHz and lower your core voltage, the thermal shutdown won't happen until approximately 125C. Is there any reason you set TjMax=90C? I've seen people using TjMax=85C and 95C and 100C and 105C but I think you're the first to use 90C. I'm just curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

nezzari: Once again if you divide the MHz that RealTemp shows by the MHz CPU-Z shows for your first pic you get 2750.6 / 2671.5 = 1.0296 or a 2.96&#37; difference. For your second pic it is a 2.95% difference. Hard to understand why this is happening on your board but not on others. Another test you can try is set the upper right window to MHz, right click the mouse a few times to see that the MHz is consistent then run the XS Bench feature. After the bench is done the MHz window will automatically be updated. Does it change any then. Trying to find an accurate timer in Windows is a bit of a joke. The XS Bench forces a longer MHz calibration period so it would be interesting to see if your results change.

---

Huh...This is interesting... I did what you said and got the following result. I found it odd so I right clicked to calculte the Mhz and it went back to the original incorrect 3920
http://www.picgarage.net/images/ODD71_53303_406.jpeg

Okay, here's my attempt to do the calibration of my QX6700 quad. I reduced the multiplier from 10 to 6 and reduced core voltage down to 1.1. TJMax is at the default, 85C. Ambient temperature in my compter room was 24C. Can you suggest what idle temps I should set?

I've been using TJMax of 95C, which I suspect is about right, but I don't really know. I sure would like to know what it really is for this cpu.

http://members.cox.net/wifeometer/qx6700_1600x6.jpg

Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

...Is there any performance setting in the bios that you might have turned on?

It would be very interesting if there are any non Asus boards that are not being reported properly compared to what CPU-Z is saying.

---

bios settings that were in use with my screenshot above:

(didn't realize lighting was so bad)

http://i28.tinypic.com/10ym8f7.jpg

http://i29.tinypic.com/i6gzl0.jpg

stock settings:

http://i27.tinypic.com/24qsod4.jpg

http://i30.tinypic.com/9s3s6h.jpg

@stock resulting RealTemp

http://i32.tinypic.com/15gxfd2.jpg

i also tested clock overcharging and it had no affect on results from RealTemp.

I'm also having an issue with it reading my cpu clock wrong using a qx9650 on a evga 780i

Actual clock is 3.8ghz while realtemp shows it a 3912.5

On a Q6600 G0 at what distance to TjMax will CPU throttle kick in ?

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/22...perature-guide

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djnoob

Actual clock is 3.8ghz while realtemp shows it at 3912.5

---

Once again the difference is exactly 2.96%. At least when RealTemp is wrong, it's consistent! I'll try a couple of things to see if I can get this sorted out. I might have to concede accurate MHz to CPU-Z for the moment. He's been at it a lot longer than I have and I'm 99.9999% sure that Franck is doing it right.

For the moment, I'll concentrate on more important stuff like:

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/1640/rt251betabr5.png

Anyone notice anything interesting in this picture? I'll give you a hint. Follow the red arrow!
I think the list of reasons to use CoreTemp for Intel Core processors is about to shrink, again. I'll release a fresh beta as soon as I have a chance to look into a few other minor issues.

Uncle, is there a way to get the CPU temp on screen (top right corner) in games like Rivatuner does for GPU temps?

For me the IDle temp using read temp is always 34 c (at any voltage or frequency) . but load temp is ok .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb;2965684
[B

PCTwin:[/B] When you are overclocking with additional core voltage, the thermal shutdown point will be greatly reduced. If you drop your MHz down to 1600 MHz and lower your core voltage, the thermal shutdown won't happen until approximately 125C. Is there any reason you set TjMax=90C? I've seen people using TjMax=85C and 95C and 100C and 105C but I think you're the first to use 90C. I'm just curious.

---

No reason as such. It's just a point of refernce for my current setup. With coretemp using tjmax100 thermal shutdown ocurred at 95c, with realtemp using tjmax85 shutdown ocurred at 80c. Also my temps look more reasonable with this setting. I know about the variables involved when overclocking, so long as I have a reference point I can stay below it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Anything you can think of beside Logitech G15 support?

---

Triggers.

Whenever the temperature reaches the treshold (as set by user), RealTemp could execute (also user defined) external program. For example a WAV or MP3 tune sounding an alarm, or simply initiate system shutdown, or whatever.

Best!

You can do that via BIOS already. Just see how much you should compensate for the difference between CPU case temp (which BIOS is reading) and core temp ;)

FullSky: Thanks for doing my test. Once again, TjMax=85C seems appropriate for your QX6700 B3. If you use TjMax=95C or 100C instead, your temperatures during this test would be reported way too high.

You should get pretty good results with these factors which are quite typical for B2 processors:

Idle0=1
Idle1=2
Idle2=1
Idle3=2

I think I need to re-test my B2 E6400 so B3 owners can see that there isn't much difference between it and the B3, at least when it comes to temps.

makaka: As soon as you said that your idle temperature never changes my first thought was, "He must be using a 45nm processor!" Sure enough, the very first word in your sig says "E8500". Overclock and be happy. :D At least your load temps are working for you. Does the Test Sensors feature in RealTemp report any problems?

Quote:

---

Milamber: Uncle, is there a way to get the CPU temp on screen?

---

There is always a way! I have already thought about doing that. Once I get finished with the basics like trying to get MHz working properly for everyone and temps in the Tray area, then I can start working on some of these other ideas.

Could you show core usage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PCTwin

Could you show core usage?

---

I saw that in recent versions of CoreTemp and I kind of like the idea. I need to find some room in the GUI for it though. The PROCHOT# information is useful but is rarely needed. I might move that into a separate window in the future to make some room for CPU usage or ?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

I saw that in recent versions of CoreTemp and I kind of like the idea. I need to find some room in the GUI for it though. The PROCHOT# information is useful but is rarely needed. I might move that into a separate window in the future to make some room for CPU usage or ?????

---

Yeah, perhaps a side bar that you can click to extend out a little with a graph for CPU usage - that way it wont take the focus of the main real temp screen?

Also Uncle, what calibration do you use for your E8400? I have a feeling that my E8500 would be the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

I have an E8400 installed at the moment and it is the whole reason that I decided to write RealTemp. The reported temperatures for it just didn't seem right.

http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/4091/testbedse9.jpg

Some users might think that without a heatsink attached that core temperatures would be out of control but far from it.

http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/9...400idlesn8.png

---

Its pictures like that which you need on your website to convince the brain washed majority that your "real Temp" application is accurate and should be what people need to install to measure the CPU temps.

Quote:

---

makaka: As soon as you said that your idle temperature never changes my first thought was, "He must be using a 45nm processor!" Sure enough, the very first word in your sig says "E8500". Overclock and be happy. :D At least your load temps are working for you. Does the Test Sensors feature in RealTemp report any problems?

---

it show usually 15 for the first core and 6 for the second

Milamber: Thanks for posting that picture. I re-posted a link to that test today in the E8400 thread. Even with overwhelming evidence, some users still like having CoreTemp report their 45nm chips at least 10C hotter than reality. I hear things like, it's better to go with the higher temp because that is safer. I think they're afraid that RealTemp might be proven to be a big hoax next week or next year. I think my tests speak for themselves.

The picture you posted was of an older version of RealTemp that shows the Idle calibration factor used. Both cores of my E8400 need a minus 2 because it reads too high. Both cores read pretty evenly from idle to TjMax which seems better than many pictures I've seen posted.

In the near future, I plan to allow numbers after the decimal point for choosing correction factors. This should give XS type users a little more flexibility without scaring anyone off. Thanks for spreading the word about RealTemp. It has caught on well during the last couple of months, mostly through word of mouth.

Pardon my noob :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:ness but why is there a masking tape on your CPU ?

The best way to get consistent results with an IR thermometer is to use a thin piece of masking tape to take the shine away from a metallic surface like the IHS. It doesn't seem to change the results in any significant way and yes I did test for that.

unclewebb, i take high temps from CoreTemp as realtemp reports sub-ambient temps @ idle. I prefer your program, however, I cannot accept 10C sub-ambient reporting.

But i will be clear, this problem is not yours..cpu sensor is not accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadaveca

unclewebb, i take high temps from CoreTemp as realtemp reports sub-ambient temps @ idle. I prefer your program, however, I cannot accept 10C sub-ambient reporting.

But i will be clear, this problem is not yours..cpu sensor is not accurate.

---

Why not just calibrate the ini file in realtemp?

Because then it reads the same temps as Coretemp.

Coretemp ahs teh same problem at lower speeds/volts though...lower than ambient reported.

cadaveca: My E8400 when uncorrected at idle will report temperatures that are 8C too high in my cool basement but is dead on from 60C to 95C. It seems like a pretty average chip and I know there has to be ones out there that are both better and worse than that.

Everyone needs to accept the fact that the digital thermal sensors weren't designed or calibrated by Intel to provide accurate idle temperatures and the amount of error when you are a long ways from TjMax is significant. This isn't just a new 45nm issue either. It effects all Core based processors. My original B2 - E6400 also has an error of 7C or 8C. My E8400 reads too high and the E6400 reads too low like many other B2 processors. The only difference between 45nm and 65nm is that the 45nm chips are having sticking sensor issues in the temperature range where many people use them. There have been reports of the 65nm series also getting stuck but it seemed to happen at a lot colder temperatures so hardly anyone ever noticed.

I worked with a couple of users that had sensors that produced data along two totally different slopes but I was still able to come up with a unique correction factor to get their readings a lot closer to reality. RealTemp can't make every processor perfect but as long as your sensors aren't stuck, it can make a big difference and get your readings much closer to the actual temperature. Even really bunged up sensors still seem to move quite linearly even if they aren't moving along the line that they are supposed to be on.

If you would like me to work with you then just send me a PM with a few details and then I can tell you what data I need.

To see two bizarre corrections that were needed, go into the INI file and type in User=1 or User=2. It will really mess up your reported temps when you use one of these calibration curves on a normal processor. :eek:

I totally agree with you about the sensors 100%. I feel the same way about software readings for voltages...variations in process affect accuracy. I wonder how much extra work this has created for Intel!


I must say thanks very much for the offer of your time...that's mighty awesome of you! :up:

In the end, temps aren't that important to me, so I'll save your time for someone who really needs it...I know my cpu is not overheating, and my cooling is up to snuff...

I am in no alluding or hint at any issues with realtemp...I use both it and coretemp(obviously, to have made comparisons). The problem is my cpu, but in the end, it's not that big of an issue for me. I'm more interested in the variation from idle to load, and not exact readings...they just can't be had easily in some instances!

The only voltages I trust are ones that are displayed on my digital volt meter. The ones coming from software that reads iffy data are never as accurate.

My offer to help any user with really messed up sensors stands. As long as the sensors aren't sticking, you can significantly improve the accuracy with a tweak or two.

Quote:

---

In the end, temps aren't that important to me

---

I agree with you 100%. When the 45nm series came out I almost said, "Why bother writing another temperature utility program?" For 24/7 use, even at 4 GHz, my E8400 runs so cool that temps really aren't important. With CoreTemp grossly exaggerating my E8400 temps and then the sticking sensor issue showed up so I said, "What the hell and this project has kind of grown from there."

Has the core temp author been in here and say "G'day" or been in contact?

By tweak I mean actually using the Idle calibration factors to get one's idle temperatures a little closer to the real temperature. Most users don't seem to bother with this and if you are only interested in your load temps and your load temps are at least 60C then I guess it's not that important. If your processor is really out to lunch and can't be fixed up with these simple adjustments then you can ask me to have a look at your data and I will try to create a custom calibration curve for you. This is rarely necessary but is a nice option to have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milamber

Has the core temp author been in here and say "G'day" or been in contact?

---

I'm sure he's been quietly around here once or twice. ;)

I check out CoreTemp. He has some ideas I like and competition is good for both programs. He's been making a few changes lately and so have I.

I like CoreTemp's ability to show the temps of all 4 cores in the System Tray so I've taken that one step further. A user will get to choose exactly what core or cores he would like to see in the system tray. With a Quad you might only want to see one of the first two cores and one of the second pair of cores. It will be easy to configure so a user can see just what he wants. I've only got two colors so far but you could do something like set one pair of cores to black and the other pair to white. I like software that you can set up however you like.

I'm presently working on the option to show Minimum, Maximum and maybe even the average core temp in the Tray since the last Reset.

I've also simplified entering TjMax adjustment values. In the next version you will be able to simply enter in TjMax0=97 or whatever number you like. I still don't believe most users need to adjust TjMax but I decided to make it simpler for those that do.

I'll also be including one digit after the decimal point for the Idle factors. Sometimes you don't know if -2 or -3 would be best so you'll be able to split the difference and use -2.5 or -2.3 or -2.7 or whatever.

The best way to find out what's appropriate for your processor is to do the 1600 MHz / 1.10 volt test and compare your reported temps to your room temperature or water temperature. This was the simplest thing I could come up with and it seems to work good. It's explained more thoroughly in the docs.

The last thing that needs to be looked at is trying to get the MHz display 100% as accurate as CPU-Z. It works great on my computers but my simple solution is not yet perfect for all users. The problem is that Windows doesn't come with any accurate way to measure elapsed time. You sometimes have to use multiple timers and compare the results to try and find which one is telling the truth. I like starting simple and only making it as complicated as it needs to be to get the job done. Less coding that way!

New mobo, Heatsink & fan...

DFI LanParty P35 Dark, Thermalright 120 Ultra Extreme & Noctua P12

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...2/Dsc06875.jpg

Ambient temp 24.5&#186;
Noctua @ MAX (1350rpms)
TRUE & E4300 lapped

IDLE:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1..._Dibujo-79.png

EDIT:

65 (core temp) / 50&#186; (real temp) on FULL with OCCT ......... :shakes::down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Unrealer

Ambient temp 24.5º
Noctua @ MAX (1350rpms)
TRUE & E4300 lapped


50 (core temp) / 65º (real temp) on FULL with OCCT ......... :shakes::down:

---

Typo?... thats backwards, it would be 50C load with real temp, and 65C load with core temp.

But that one is easy, with EIST enabled at idle and low volts with good cooling like you have, you would expect core temperature to be just above ambient like real temp reports using tjmax 85, and not 16C above ambient as core temp reports using tjmax 100.

I think that is simply more evidence that tjmax is 85....meaning your correct load temp is closer to 50C (within the usual DTS error of reporting at that range)

And your bios did the typically crappy job of calibrating the diode for cpu temp...as it is reporting 3.5C below ambient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rge

Typo?... thats backwards, it would be 50C load with real temp, and 65C load with core temp.

---

Yeah, sorry :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rge

But that one is easy, with EIST enabled at idle and low volts with good cooling like you have, you would expect core temperature to be just above ambient like real temp reports using tjmax 85, and not 16C above ambient as core temp reports using tjmax 100.

---

I must try that, cause i don´t know what programa is lying.. ¬¬

Quote:

---

I think that is simply more evidence that tjmax is 85....meaning your correct load temp is closer to 50C (within the usual DTS error of reporting at that range)

---

So, it´s 50C it´s the real temp, i think is good...

Anyone with a 4300?? :(


EDIT: the same full temp with a 120CFM FAN :ROTF::ROTF::ROTF::ROTF::ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Unrealer

EDIT: the same full temp with a 120CFM FAN :ROTF::ROTF::ROTF::ROTF::ROTF:

---

Download speedfan and make sure your 120CFM fan is actually going any faster. I am assuming you did not plug this fan into cpu fan slot, where it will spin slower until temps get much higher.

But, since both programs accurately read DTS sensor output, if load temp was measured the same with faster fan, the really funny thing is the temp WAS THE SAME.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rge

Download speedfan and make sure your 120CFM fan is actually going any faster. I am assuming you did not plug this fan into cpu fan slot, where it will spin slower until temps get much higher.

---

:confused::confused: i plugged it to the PSU... is spinnings @ max RPMs.

EDIT:

IDLE 1.2GHz 1.2v

Core Temp: 40&#186;C
Real Temp: 25&#186;C

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1.../th_idle-2.jpg

FULL 1.8GHz 1.3v

Core Temp: 50&#186;C
Real Temp: 35&#186;C

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1.../th_full-2.jpg




****Ambient temp : 24.5&#186;
****TRUE with a 120CFM FAN

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...2/Dsc06896.jpg

With fan spinning at max on your setup, at 1.2Ghz 6x200, and 1.2V, your core temp should be closer to ambient, not 15C above. So again, looks like real temp with tjmax of 85 is going to give you the most accurate temps. No way is <6W TDP going to idle 15C above ambient with that cooling.

Hello,

Here are my idle temps on my Q6600 @3.62Ghz 1.32v (CPUZ)

Core Temp...35,35,32,33
Real Temp...30,30,27,28
Everest Ultimate...35,35,32,33

Everest and Core Temp report the same and your program shows the temps much lower?

SiGfever: Read through the documentation for RealTemp so you can learn a little more about what RealTemp is all about.

Reported Temperature = TjMax - DTS

DTS is the reading from the digital thermal sensors which all programs don't have a problem reading. Everest and CoreTemp assume TjMax=100C which seems to be based on some old, irrelevant and non-existent Intel documentation for their mobile processors. RealTemp uses TjMax=95C for your GO Q6600 because I actually have a G0 Q6600 and the first day I got it I ran it without a heatsink and measured the core temperature with an IR thermometer and discovered that TjMax=100C was not true.

If you don't have any faith in my testing then head into the RealTemp.ini file and set this:

TjMax0=1
TjMax1=1
TjMax2=1
TjMax3=1

and then RealTemp and those other two programs will report the exact same thing.

Unrealer: Thanks for testing the E4300. The original version of CoreTemp used TjMax=85C for the E4300 and then users complained about sub-ambient temperatures due to the inaccuracies in these sensors at idle so the programmer caved in and boosted it up to 100C to keep everyone happy and quiet. I don't think TjMax=100C applies to any desktop processors but back then it was like flipping a coin. If 85C isn't right then we'll make it 100C. After that, every other program followed along with out doing any proper testing, until RealTemp came along that is.

Quote:

---

50º (real temp) on FULL with OCCT .........:shakes: :down:

---

Thanks for your vote of confidence before doing any testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

SiGfever: Read through the documentation for RealTemp so you can learn a little more about what RealTemp is all about.

Reported Temperature = TjMax - DTS

DTS is the reading from the digital thermal sensors which all programs don't have a problem reading. Everest and CoreTemp assume TjMax=100C which seems to be based on some old, irrelevant and non-existent Intel documentation for their mobile processors. RealTemp uses TjMax=95C for your GO Q6600 because I actually have a G0 Q6600 and the first day I got it I ran it without a heatsink and measured the core temperature with an IR thermometer and discovered that TjMax=100C was not true.

If you don't have any faith in my testing then head into the RealTemp.ini file and set this:

TjMax0=1
TjMax1=1
TjMax2=1
TjMax3=1

and then RealTemp and those other two programs will report the exact same thing.

Unrealer: Thanks for testing the E4300. The original version of CoreTemp used TjMax=85C for the E4300 and then users complained about sub-ambient temperatures due to the inaccuracies in these sensors at idle so the programmer caved in and boosted it up to 100C to keep everyone happy and quiet. I don't think TjMax=100C applies to any desktop processors but back then it was like flipping a coin. If 85C isn't right then we'll make it 100C. After that, every other program followed along with out doing any proper testing, until RealTemp came along that is.



Thanks for your vote of confidence before doing any testing.

---

I was not saying I did not have faith in your program, I just wanted to understand the different readings. I like your temps much better. :D

Thanks for taking the time to address my question. Also what version allows the temps to be displayed in the Systray?
John

SiGfever: The version that shows temps in the System Tray should be available sometime in the next few days.

Just noticed that 2.5 is out, thanks for the update. keep up the good work uncle ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demo

Just noticed that 2.5 is out, thanks for the update. keep up the good work uncle ;)

---

You're falling behind here. I'm almost ready to release 2.6 with lots of additions and new features like temps in the tray area, finally. In house testing is looking good. Maybe there will be a beta for the XS guys this weekend. Anyone still hanging around here after 40 pages deserves something. :up:

I've given time to read all the posts ive missed for the 30days that ive been out of town.. this thread is extremely informative to me even though i dont have a 45nm CPU but its a good read for stock knowledge.

This is the most informative thread I've ever read. Thank You :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpo6969

This is the most informative thread I've ever read. Thank You :up:

---

true...not only has it given info about RealTemp per se, but also about DTS & stuff. +1 for unclewebb!:up: