Here is my Q6600 G0 with a FSB of 375, room temp 26 Celcius
Printable View
Here is my Q6600 G0 with a FSB of 375, room temp 26 Celcius
i43: If your ambient temperature is 23C then 7C to 9C above that would be 30C to 32C. Core 2 and core 3 are definitely stuck so you can't calibrate those sensors. The RealTemp calibration feature is designed to help with sensors that move at different rates. It can't do anything with sensors that don't move at all at idle.
If TJMax is actually 100C, that would boost your idle temps 5C from 25C to 30C which looks a lot more believable to me. There's not a lot of data from QX9650 owners so without testing with an IR thermometer or similar, it's impossible to say what TjMax really is.
Intel originally said the early E6x00 CPUs were TJMax=70C. When the Coolest and I complained, they bumped it up 10C and said they must have made a mistake. Now TJMax=80C for my E6400 but that's still 10C too low.
Intel documentation clearly shows how to carve up an IHS and properly mount a thermocouple to the center of the IHS. I know there has to be a lot more accurate information available than what they've decided to release to the enthusiast community so far. We need more documents from their engineering department, not their PR and fluff department. :)
Ambient is probably in the mid 20's, but I don't have a thermometer on me to check.
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...ensor_test.png
At least you can see in plain view how stupidly hot this CPU runs. And to think I once tried 1.75V :ROTF: Note that C1E was enabled, EIST was disabled and the CPU speed was 2.7GHz at load. Maximum 0.8C spread between the sensors.
There is no question unclewebbs E6400 tjmax is 90C based on 85C IHS at DTS=0. Randomizer, I wonder if your cpu runs that hot, or if it is proof that intel has used different tjmaxes. Would be interesting to IR that one. If your tjmax is lower, that would explain intel's 65nm tjmax releases (the one before unclewebb and coolest complained and the one after:D) and perhaps explain why some quads have significantly different temps even at high range.
The randomizer E6600 is definitely a curiosity. It seems to either have a different TJMax or someone didn't do a great job attaching the IHS to the cores. Have you tried using the OEM heatsink on it recently? If you ever get bored with it let me know and I'd probably buy it from you if the price was reasonable. I think rge and I could get the truth out of that CPU.
You better send it my way first though. rge seems to have a bad habit of venting the tops of his CPUs with a drill. :D
E8400 CO @ 3.6ghz
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...SensorTest.jpg
Intel said they kept the same Tj Max for the whole stepping. Given the backflip on the presentation and the inconsistencies with your testing, I think we'll run out of salt soon. A grain of sugar to sweeten the moment anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
I've been quite busy lately and haven't had a chance. I will do so shortly though. I'm not looking forward to ripping my rig apart just to change the heatsink but there's not much that can be done, unless the OEM heatsink can be used with a backplate. I haven't used it for so long I can't remember if it is even supposed to use a backplate.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
It started off being a pain, now it's actually interesting that it runs this hot. I only hope it isn't just a plain old heatsink mounting problem. If it turns out that the heatsink isn't the problem, I'll consider this. It's a shame you're from Canada, the 1AUD = 0.66USD exchange rate would be nice :DQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
unclewebb, are you implying that a 20% cpu survival rate for temp testing is low?:D
randomizer, if intel did not change tjmaxes within same stepping, then that leaves us with +10C calibration (same effect as 10C higher tjmax) or intel still has not given us correct tjmax. What is interesting is intels statement, that G0 stepping tjmax was increased 10C, correlates exactly with our testing, just that our testing shows 90/100 versus intel claims (now) 80/90.
The q6600 B stepping 90 tjmax correlates exactly with Unclewebb's testing, but q6600 G0 90 tjmax is 10C low with exact same testing. Also, intel is going against their own claim of 10C increase in G0 tjmax on this quad, and given unclewebbs test illustrating the 10C increase...I think they just goofed again on this one.
And then unclewebbs M0 E6x00 which had same effective tjmax as his ?b/l stepping E6x00 of 90C. That would imply that his M0 stepping correlated with intel and was not calibrated higher, but his other one was calibrated 10C higher, or with n of 1 that may have been an intel error...need to test a few to be sure. And my E6850 was clearly 98-100C, ie again the 10C higher "calibration".
I wonder if intel would be willing to supply the approximate tjmax calibration per stepping or give a range. Because as is, without IR results for guidance, those intel numbers are not very useful given the sometimes there sometimes not 10C "calibration."
Thanks kpo6969. The more data the better. Each one of these tests tells a story.
I found the Core i7 920 test on the previous page very interesting. Core 0/core 1 mirror each other and core 2 / core 3 mirror each other. This makes it look more like two separate Dual Cores similar to the previous generation and not 4 unique cores.
Between 12.5% and 75.0% the difference between sets of cores is very consistent at ~2.7C. This doesn't fit the previous generation's slope error model. All 4 cores are moving on the same slope, they're just offset by a couple of degrees. Is that a slight difference in TJMax due to calibration error at the factory or is it just normal behavior with one side of the CPU running slightly cooler? Many 65nm Core 2 Duo based Quads looked similar to this.
I hope I see a few more posts with examples of Core 2 Duo slope error. rge and I noticed during testing that by 30 degrees to TJMax, both cores of a Dual Core generally lined up and there wasn't any significant difference from 70C to TJMax. That's different than the graphs that Intel presented at IDF. Their model implies that slope error goes from idle to TJMax.
The other thing I noticed was a huge drop in temperature when Prime 95 was stopped compared to what a Core 2 Duo does. It looks like most of the cores have been turned off which I think is what happens at idle with Core i7.
It could be that the IHS pressure isn't quite uniform, more screenshots of Core i7 should give an indication on how common this is. We've all been fooled, Intel has released another cheesburger :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I thought it might be a sign when 1 or 2 cores are dead that they'll start warehousing these chips and then sell them in 3 to 6 months as a special Core i7 Dual Core model. It's always been good business to sell everything that comes down the assembly line. Make my Core i7 a Dual. I hate heat and fan noise.
Here's with the stock heatsink. PROCHOT in action people :D
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...nsor_test2.png
A bit of extra variation there. I'll run the test again tomorrow just to make sure nothing was skewing it.
Please add Dual Socket Support.
My crappy sensors.... :( E8400 C0 @3600.
randomizer: The Intel OEM cooler, when properly installed with an adequate amount of thermal paste and with all 4 push pins fully seated, should have no trouble keeping an E6600 a long ways from thermal throttling. If you have installed your CPU correctly then your recent test screams out to me that your cores and IHS are not making proper contact. Translation: your CPU is defective.
Edit: I just checked the [H]ard database and my best run with the OEM cooler was 3520 MHz at 1.525 volts bios (~1.45v actual). I think it was one of the top ranked CPUs using the Intel heatsink and fan. I guess no one else was crazy enough to run Prime small FFTs for 4 hours out in their garage in the middle of winter with that cooler. :D When inside I used to run it at 425x8 ~ 3400 MHz 24/7 with a little less voltage to keep the temps down.
Edit2: The above run was in my basement at ~12C. I didn't need the garage until I was trying to get over 3600 MHz.
I realize I was in a cooler environment but from what you've posted, I can only think that there is something physically wrong with your E6600. They have a 3 year warranty so why not send it back to Intel. Maybe they won't have any replacements left so they'll have to ship you a Core i7 and one of their new boards to go with it. An Intel board that overclocks decently. Who would have thunk it?
Ovidiu: Your sensors aren't bad at all. Neither one of them is sticking. If you calibrate them using RealTemp and this post by rge, you'll get some very accurate temperatures out of them. Your data will help me re-examine my slope correction formula.
RottenMutt: I've been thinking about adding Dual Socket support for a while now but I don't have a platform to test on. Do you have some time to do some testing for me? The quickest thing I can think of is to add a switch to the INI file so you could set that to read core 4 to core 7 and when it wasn't set it would read core 0 to core 3. You would need to run two instances of RealTemp. That would be fairly easy to program and would save me the hassle of totally redesigning the GUI for a very small percentage of users. If that works out then maybe some day in the future I'd think about doing an 8 core specific version. If you're serious then PM me and bug me about this project.
here are my temps.
Attachment 89009
if i got it right, at the sensor movement test the numbers should be close in order to have good calibrated sensors or i misunderstood?
what about my sensors?
and if someone has the time to explain what is TJMax i would be grateful!
sakis_the_fraud: Your sensors look great and your temps are well balanced between your two cores like they should be during this test. If you would like to calibrate your sensors then check out rge's post:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2429
TJMax is the maximum core temperature that these CPUs should be run at. The sensors do not output the temperature of the CPU. They only output how far you are away from TJMax. What RealTemp reports as Distance to TJMax it the raw data from these sensors. RealTemp, Core Temp etc., then take this number and try to convert it to an absolute core temperature. You need to accurately know TJMax so you can convert Distance to TJMax into a core temperature.
Unfortunately Intel hasn't shared this information with the user community until just recently and what they have shared recently is still open to interpretation and debate. There are many processors that don't seem to fit their estimation of TJMax.
Most processors when 2 or 3C away from TJMax will start to thermal throttle or slow down to control their heat output. A slow computer is not a good thing so it's best to leave yourself some temperature head room. You'll also have better stability if you can run your computer cooler.
Now head back and read the first 100 pages of this thread so you can get up to speed on this stuff. :D
Welcome to XS.
I was not satisfied with the lack of clicking I was getting from some of the pushpins so I decided to reseat it, I was strapped for time originally and didn't get a chance. I most certainly used enough TIM since installing the OEM heatsink. Upon removal I noticed that the TIM had not spread uniformly as I had expected given the temps, so I pulled it off and gave the push-pins some PCB-bending force to make sure I got them in. I retested with an ambient temp around 5C lower than yesterday (probably around 22-23C this time). It looks like no Core i7 for me :(Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...nsor_test3.png
I now remember why I got rid of this OEM heatsink originally. The constant ramping up and down of the fan just opening a new tab is so irritating.
EDIT: I just compared this to my original test, and considering the other heatsink is a Zalman 9500 clone it did a pretty poor job of cooling the CPU compared to the stock cooler. The real difference was the blissful constant fan speed.
Hi Dave
isn`t it nice ..brandnew 9550 E0 @3,2
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/7593/senswt2.jpg
Here's mine, Q9450 at 413x8=3.3Ghz:
This good or bad?
Realtemp keeps getting better and better, keep up the good work Unclewebb :up:
I managed to run the new Sensor Test on my QX9650 Extreme Sensor Edition Processor.
Prime95 was ran using the option for "Maximum Heat and Power Consumption"
http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/452/sensortest2vw2.jpg
Pretty shocking results?
Sensors all seem to be showing the same (or at least reporting) the same degree of movement, yet the values they output are completely random, only Core0 and Core1 show any relation to each other, the rest might as well be spitting out numbers for fun.
Or have I misinterpreted the results?
John
Here is my Q6600 G0. Under water. Room temp about 22C (guess). Look about right?
here is my e7200, looks like sensor on core 0 doesn't work if the load is 12.5% or lower
JohnZS: Your sensors are still near the top of my list of bizarre sensors so thanks for posting that. I originally came up with the idea that some of these sensors move along different slopes. At the IDF, Intel jumped on that band wagon and agreed with that theory. With your sensors, slope error might be a minor issue but it doesn't seem to be the major issue. The slopes for all 4 cores are quite similar and none of your sensors are sticking.
Your data would lead one to believe that during calibration by Intel, TJMax may only be accurate to something like plus or minus 5C. The 45nm Atom sensors have Intel documented error amounts similar to that at TJMax but my contact says that the 45nm Core 2 Duo based sensors are not like that at all. After looking at your data, I guess I'd disagree. It's too bad that Intel has decided not to share the amount of error at TJMax with enthusiasts.
I recommend using Prime95 Small FFTs when testing but I tried using "Maximum Heat and Power Consumption" like you did and the results were very similar to Small FFTs. On Max Heat, the power consumption is very consistent at each level just like Small FFTs is. The maximum power consumption at the wall was a few watts less so the peak temperature was about 2C less when I tested but each step down in power was unique and very consistent. Linpack testing creates more heat but it doesn't have the consistency that Prime95 has.
I'm still looking at data at the moment. When testing, you'll get the best results if you make sure that there isn't a lot of junk running in the background. Vista has a lot of background baggage like SuperFetch you need to watch out for.
How are my sensors? I am just starting to follow this thread and learn about this topic.