Printable View
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...7&postcount=52
intel stating error in presentation for 65nm tjmaxes...new numbers look better, but still 5C lower than IHS temps, but guess can wait a few days and see. Still confirming numbers after two weeks:shrug:...by....hey joe you remember the tjmax on that one?...80?...mmm sounds low....mmm 90?....eh close enough. Ok how about...
tjmax issue apparently is not going to get much better until most are no longer using 65nm.
Monday night football and the kids on a 4 day weekend kind of slowed me down but the new Test Sensor feature is finally ready for some testing.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
If you are lucky and have some decent sensors then you might end up with something that looks like this:
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/9...sortestjo3.png
I can only imagine what crappy sensors are going to look like. :)
I added a lot of extra code to try to make setting up this test as simple as possible but for best results it will still help if you follow a few directions.
This test uses Prime95 - Small FFTs to create a consistent amount of heat. If you don't already have it installed then click on the Download Prime95 button and it will take you to the website where you can download either a 32 or 64 bit version. Scroll down to Step3 when the Mersenne - Prime95 web page pops up for a download link.
If you have a Dual Core then you could probably use Orthos Small FFTs instead but I haven't tried that yet. Prime95 has recently been updated to version 25.7 build 3 so I'm recommending that.
You need to let RealTemp start up Prime95. This will give RealTemp full control of Prime95 so it can shut Prime95 down automatically when it reaches the 0.0% level of this test. The CPU Cool Down Test won't start if you already have Prime95 running. You will need to shut it down first before starting this test.
Before clicking on the Sensor Test button, make sure your computer is as idle as possible for best results. Give Vista some time to calm down before starting a test. The first thing it will do is run the previous sensor movement test to give you a quick idea of how your sensors are doing.
To begin the more thorough CPU Cool Down Test click on the Start button and navigate to the directory where you have prime95.exe installed.
When Prime95 starts up, select the Small FFTs option at the top and click on OK to begin the heat up phase. There is plenty of feedback in the info window so you don't have to remember too much of this.
That's about all there is to it to get this test started. Go for a coffee or kick back for about 10 minutes and RealTemp will do the rest. You can Stop or cancel this test at any time if you get bored. When the test is done it should look like the picture above.
What you're looking for are sensors that show movement at each stage of this test. If there isn't movement then you might have a sticking sensor or two. If both sensors are moving but moving at different rates then that would show "slope error" that Intel has warned us about.
I haven't tried this on a Quad yet but it should work OK. Post some results and lets see if we can figure out anything new about these sensors.
thanks uncle good job! :)
keep up the good work :up:
Thanks DJSUB. Some :up: are what keeps me going on this project.
I just had a PM from burebista who wanted to know if he could use Orthos Small FFTs instead. If you have a Dual Core then that should be OK. I'm just testing that at the moment to make sure.
If you have a Quad then running Prime95 is easiest. RealTemp isn't set up to manage two instances of Orthos.
Edit: It seems to work. I caught this screen shot just before RealTemp shut down Orthos for some idle testing.
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8972/orthosev6.png
And here's when it finished:
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/5677/orthos2qr6.png
here's a test with my crappy stuck sensor E8400
http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/1...ube8400vt1.jpg
very nice tool ;)
Wow!!! Mega work is done! Thank you very much!
Looks like this test makes it VERY easy to spot a stuck sensor. Above the sticking point your sensors look very well balanced like they should be.
is there a way to fix that stuck sensor?
i will sell my e8400 if there's nothing special with this proc.
but this one does 626x7fsb on aircooling. stuck sensor is my only problem :D
Ya, it's called EBay!Quote:
Originally Posted by DJSUB
Unfortunately there is no fix for this. Stuck sensors rarely become unstuck. Intel doesn't consider this to be a problem because these sensors were not designed for reporting core temperatures. At 626x7, I'd keep it.
Many great overclocking chips have lousy sensors. At least you have one sensor you can trust.
unclewebb
Mate. You do a great job man. Really hat off. But I have a little wish. Can you create a custom version of your program with graphic design?
WaterFlex: I'm always open to suggestions. Tell me what you'd like to see and I'll think about it. Time for a snooze.
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
my highest clock on air on that proc is 4.907ghz not bad for a C0 revision E8400Quote:
Unfortunately there is no fix for this. Stuck sensors rarely become unstuck. Intel doesn't consider this to be a problem because these sensors were not designed for reporting core temperatures. At 626x7, I'd keep it.
Many great overclocking chips have lousy sensors. At least you have one sensor you can trust.
that's the reason why i keep it. :D
Well 80C would make my E6600 look more normal, but per the thread that The Coolest posted the numbers in, people are still getting sub-ambient temps and rge's readings are still higher than the DTS is reporting. Bah! :shrug:
is this accurate for Core i7???
I hope I'll have an answer tonight. ;)
LE: Hehe, it looks like my friend brings me tonight earlier today. :ROTF:
This is how it looks on i7 920
Attachment 88907
Hope it helps :)
Yeah man, thanks a lot for your work. ;)
Hello again, Unclewebb.
I've just downloaded the 2.84 beta and at first glance I could tell the default TJmax on Q6600 (or at least, on G0's) has been put back up to 100°C from 95°C. In essence, was this intentional and due to some of your recent findings? Or a mistake?
Nice sensor test, by the way. As far as I can tell no stuck sensors over here.
Unclewebb, awesome sensor test :up:
That will make it easy to spot stuck ones...also will be great for temp testing at different temps/loads...if I get urge again.
My E8600 actually has accurate sensors.
WOW rge, perfect sensors. :eek:
Those are mine on E8400
Attachment 88928
Pretty decent for a 45 nm CPU. :D
Anyway, thanks uncle for this new and unique feature for testing Intel sensors.
Awesome job. :clap:
Slay0r: The original versions of RealTemp used TjMax=95C for the Q6600 G0. Based on rge's testing, which I fully agree with, 95C is too conservative. The actual core temperature is probably about 5C higher than the temperature I was measuring on top of the IHS with the IR thermometer. I originally didn't take into account that not having a heatsink installed changes the pressure between the cores and the IHS which changes the heat transfer. I also didn't take into account that the IHS heat spreader does an excellent job of spreading heat away from the cores. I think rge proved that point very well when his E7200 went nuclear.
It makes sense that the actual core temperature is going to have to be slightly warmer than the IHS temperature that I measured.
In theory, RealTemp should be reasonably accurate for Core i7. These new CPUs have TjMax information stored within them which RealTemp is able to read so that can't be argued about any more.Quote:
is this accurate for Core i7???
If you look at the screen shot above it's obvious that Core i7 still has slope error where the sensors move at slightly different rates compared to the actual core temperature. It's easy enough to correct for slope error with RealTemp.
rge showed us how to calibrate a Core 2 Duo here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2429
I believe a Core i7 Quad can turn off 3 of its 4 cores at idle and power consumption is about half as much at idle as a previous 45nm Dual Core. When calibrating a new Core i7, the gradient between your reported idle temps and your air or water temp is probably going to be a couple of degrees less than what rge found when testing his Dual Core. If someone wants to buy him a board and a Core i7 to do some testing with, I'm sure he won't complain. :up:
rge and I also agree that Intel's explanation of slope error in their recent presentations is a little misleading. We've both found that the original RealTemp graph in the documentation is a much closer approximation to what these sensors actually do.
In order to come up with a more accurate calibration formula, I need a few people with some seriously messed up 45nm sensors to post a screen shot of the new Sensor Test. Two sensors on the same die moving at vastly different rates from idle to full load is what I'd like to see. :yepp:
The Core i7 sensors are looking very similar to the previous 65nm temperature sensors which were a lot better than many of the Core 2 Duo 45nm sensors. My best guess is that even without any calibration, Core i7 reported temperatures from 70C to 100C are likely within a degree or two of the actual temperature.
Uncle, thanks for the explanation. I'll have to take your word for it since I can't do measurement myself, though what you say seems reasonable.
The sensors test kinda reminded me my pc needed a serious dust removal, :D
Q66 @ 420x8 1.280V, EIST/C1E on
before
http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/8113/dustonri2.jpg
after
http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/1219/dustoffcp1.jpg
Thanks Unclewebb :up:
just run a new RT2.84 sensor test on XP pro 32bit
Qx9650 /@ (stock) 3.0Ghz / everithing on (auto) Rampage Extrem (Bios v0601)
air cooled / Noctua NH-C12P / Open Air (table stand) |
No idle calibration in RealTemp - TjMax (Auto) - 95C for 45nm qx9650
C1E , SpeedStep -Disabled
CPU TM Func - Enabled / all other by intel spec. / Ambient 23C
seems ok .. shows that same difference between dies ~6-8C
what have read from my earlier tests, but this method seems much more comfortable to use .. no need to mess with bios and different clocks speeds or what so ever ! :) and run several tests etc ... nice work , well done :)
here my test screen:
Your welcome i43. Do you know what I like about this new test? One quick look at that screen shot tells me exactly what I need to know.
Core2 is stuck at 74 and Core3 is stuck at 68. Core0 and core1 are very well balanced like they should be and have a full range of motion from idle to TjMax. ie. no sticking issues.
If you followed rge's calibration procedure, you could get some very accurate core temperatures out of those two sensors. Have you tried running at low MHz and voltage to see how close your reported temps are to your air or water temp?
Intel may have said that TJMax=95C for your CPU but they said a lot of things about TJMax for 65nm that wasn't accurate at all. Even their recent correction doesn't appear to be accurate so I'm starting to question everything they've said about TJMax recently since the August IDF news release.
Edit: Looking at your ambient, I'd definitely be using TJMax=100C for your CPU regardless of Intel's fancy presentations.
Thanks Unclewebb
here my low voltage run all same HW as my earlier post
except (adjustements followed by ' mr. rge ' instructions )
voltage set 1.1000v in bios (rather it show /jump/ 1.085 ~1.096 in everest /cpu-z but hope no deal with this )
C1E , SpeedStep - Enabled ( though ? i do see only C1E available in bios - i don't see SpeedStep (may be due to the lowest multi already set manual ? )
CPU TM Func - Enabled
Qx9650 /@ 2.0Ghz(6x333) / all other (auto) Rampage Extreme (Bios v0601)
Ambient - 23 C
Air cooled / Noctua NH-C12P / Open Air (table stand) |
(as mobo lay (flat) on the table, there shouldn't be any additional heat coming from VGA card or what so ever .. what may happen on normal desktop box/chassis)
still No manual idle calibration in RealTemp - leaved it for now .. TjMax (Auto) - 95C for 45nm qx9650
any way - these sensors never go below these values (25-25-21-27) since i first fired up this Yorkie
sure i will do some '' ghetto'' open window cooling '' later on a.s.a.p, just need some exact timing :) when left ''home alone '':rofl: and weather gets colder :)
about idle calibration from ' mr. rge ' post (for dual core)
he recommends to add current ambient /( for High end air (1fan).........................7C ) so consider quad at my scenario - then add more few degrees .. let say 9C .. OK i will tray later ... so do you think this is correct if i will calibrate al cores 34-34-34-34 C ?
I will try to calibrate for test purposes .. will see..
well, personally i am not much worried about these values/numbers
or have get used to live with them as they are..
--
not calibrated low volt screen shot attached
i shrink the attched screen .. but added also an external img. hosting links.
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/3...44lchx8.th.pnghttp://img521.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif
http://img521.imageshack.us/my.php?i...25244lchx8.png