Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

nuclearjock: TJMax is stored within each Core i7 CPU. This allows Intel to change it at any time without causing problems with temperature monitoring software.

All of the Core i7 CPUs I've seen so far are TJMax=100C.

burebista: Skulltrail isn't virtual cores, it's real cores. It's the platform that uses two QX9775 CPUs on the same motherboard so there are 8 different cores that you can read temperature info from. RealTemp has only been able to read the temps from the first CPU. I've added a new INI switch to help with this problem:

Skull=1
Skull=2

This will allow Skulltrail users to run two instances of RealTemp, one for each CPU. If this works then maybe I'll be motivated to write a special version of RealTemp that can read all 8 cores at once.

That's done and the Core i7 without hyperthreading bug has been fixed and should work properly now as well. I just need to do some more testing to make sure it's ready to upload.

@unclewebb

Im getting 71-71-65-65 on a linpak testing, would this indicate a mounting problem on my TRUE-120EX or just the surface of my cores ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

With hyperthreading turned on, RealTemp 2.85 should be reporting your core temperatures correctly.

Do you know if hyperthreading can only be turned on or off in the bios or is there a windows based program that can access hyperthreading. As far as I know, I think you can only adjust it in the bios.

Now that I understand what's going on, I should be able to come up with a fix. I have another feature I'd like to add at the same time that might allow the SkullTrail guys to access the temperatures of their other 4 cores.

When hyperthreading is enabled, the Core i7 Tester program shows the temperatures from all 8 threads. There are only 4 cores so threads 0/1 share the same temp data for core 0, threads 2/3 for core 1, threads 4/5 for core 2 and threads 6/7 for core 3. That should line up with what RealTemp 2.85 shows.

RealTemp 2.84 was only showing the data from threads 0/1/2/3.

---

I believe you're correct that with HT enable RealTemp 2.85 is reading the core temperature correctly.

If there's a windows based program to access HT I don't know about it. If anybody does please speak up!

When you compare these two images it's obvious what's happening!
Attachment 89380 Attachment 89381

I had my Core i7 at 3.8 GHz but Core 0 got up to 95 degrees using prime95. That was stable for 2 hours and then I tried to find some lower voltages that would work but all I've had was blue and black screens. I had to go back to default to get it running again.

So RealTemp is Nehalem ready and more accurate than CoreTemp, or?

New to this whole Intel thing. :rofl: This ain't my daddy's Celeron 450..

edit: http://www.isarapix.org/pix18/1227291023.png woops..

wow i just down loaded real temp and i run my e8400 at 4.45ghz 1.7500 Vcore and 1.4200 vtt..Real Temp is showing 22C idle and 41C at full load after 10 min of prime blend...((Core Temp says 27c idle and goes up to 49C on prime blend who do i believe))...41c at 100% percent load really makes my water cooling look worth it..:D really is this right should i trust Real Temp

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

msgclb: Here's a fix for the hiding cores when hyper threading is disabled.

Once again there have been a lot of changes during the last week so let me know about any problems.

Could you also post a comparison screen shot of RealTemp, CoreTemp and that Core i7 Testing utility. It works good if you run a few threads of Prime95 for a few seconds to try and get the cores at a bunch of different temperatures. That makes it easier to see what temp goes with which core.

As mentioned above, the other addition to this version is the Skull=1 or Skull=2 INI file option for Skulltrail users. Run some Prime threads on your second CPU only and see if starting RealTemp with Skull=1 or Skull=2 makes a difference.

Demo: A difference between the two Dual Cores within a Quad is typical. It's almost always that core0/core1 run up to 5C hotter than core2/core3. I did some testing a long time ago and when I had the CPU fan turned off while running Prime, the difference increased to about 10C between the sets of cores. Same Q6600 with better cooling and the difference is less than half of that. It seems to vary from one processor to the next. I'm not sure if this is related to how the IHS makes contact with the cores or how the sensors are calibrated by Intel or how you applied your thermal paste or ??? :shrug:

I think the manufacturing process and IHS were originally designed to be attached to a single core. With a Quad, the IHS might not make 100% equal contact with both dies so heat transfer and temps are slightly different which is mostly noticed at full load. Anything is possible.

bowman: Download v2.86 and post another screen shot showing CoreTemp and RealTemp and the Core i7 Testing utility.

CoreTemp was originally aware of 8 thread CPUs so maybe it is already working properly. I think RealTemp is too now. Post some screen shots so I can have a look.

VOID WARRANTY: Start by running the RealTemp CPU Cool Down Test to make sure your sensors are working properly. CoreTemp and RealTemp should both be using TJMax=100C for an E8400. You might have to hit the Defaults button in the Settings window if you've copied a new version of RealTemp into a previously used directory. These sensors are not known for great accuracy at lower temperatures when water cooling. Calibrating RealTemp to your CPU can help with that.

http://www.isarapix.org/pix9/1227295752.png

Thanks bowman.

On some Core 2 Duo motherboards, the APIC ID or the order that software sees the cores changes. I don't yet know if this is an issue with Core i7 but I've included some code in RealTemp to arrange the reported core temperatures into their correct physical order. If anyone ever sees Core i7 APIC in an order other than 01234567 or 0246 with hyperthreading off then let me know.

Now CoreTemp and I just have to get VID working for Core i7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

msgclb: Here's a fix for the hiding cores when hyper threading is disabled.

Once again there have been a lot of changes during the last week so let me know about any problems.

Could you also post a comparison screen shot of RealTemp, CoreTemp and that Core i7 Testing utility. It works good if you run a few threads of Prime95 for a few seconds to try and get the cores at a bunch of different temperatures. That makes it easier to see what temp goes with which core.

---

So far the only problem that I see is the Core VID. I ran Prime95 for about 5 minutes. When I next make BIOS changes I'll disable HT.

Attachment 89389

msgclb: Intel thoroughly documents core VID with a bunch of charts and numbers but they leave out a few details like what MSR contains the VID information and how to interpret it. If your hyperthreading issue has been fixed then I'll have some time to read the Intel docs a little closer. When you have 10 minutes to kill can you try doing a CPU Cool Down Test. Your CPU looks like a good candidate for some information since the temps don't line up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

msgclb: Intel thoroughly documents core VID with a bunch of charts and numbers but they leave out a few details like what MSR contains the VID information and how to interpret it. If your hyperthreading issue has been fixed then I'll have some time to read the Intel docs a little closer. When you have 10 minutes to kill can you try doing a CPU Cool Down Test. Your CPU looks like a good candidate for some information since the temps don't line up.

---

Is my HT fixed? It looks like it is.

Attachment 89393

I killed 10 minutes and he's my CPU Cool Down Test.

Attachment 89394

Here's what I'm looking for in VID category!
Attachment 89395

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

nuclearjock: TJMax is stored within each Core i7 CPU. This allows Intel to change it at any time without causing problems with temperature monitoring software.

All of the Core i7 CPUs I've seen so far are TJMax=100C.

---

Thanks unclewebb, but what I meant is what is the maximum allowable temperature for these chips???

My theory for all Intel Core C2D or Core i7 CPUs is to run them as hot as you like as long as they're stable.

TjMax means they will start to throttle when they get close to this number (usually 98C). Though not documented, the shutdown temperatue of Core 2 Duo Desktop processors is somewhere between 125C and 130C. Those are all big numbers but if Intel thought you were going to hurt your CPU by running it at those temperatures then they would lower TJMax and the thermal shut down point to prevent a pile of warranty claims. They obviously have a lot of confidence in the products they sell.

When overclocking C2D, I've always found that you will need to leave yourself more temperature headroom from TJMax the more you overclock to maintain stability. From what I've seen so far, Core i7 is similar but you can run them reliably a little hotter. I think when Kyle at [H]ard OCP was testing, he was losing stability and getting blue screens when the temps were around 90C. I think that's about 20C hotter than most Core 2 Duo chips like to run at when well overclocked.

Is that a more thorough answer and does it tell you what you need to know? :)

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==

I'm running WCG now, been running it for hours and some cores have been in the 87-89 range.. No issues so far.

@unclewebb,

Thank you for the speedy reply.

Wife and I did early Xmas...here is my i940. Only had up for few hours, so no clue what I am doing yet. 4ghz stable will be easy and my temp sensors seem to be accurate. speedfan hasnt quite got temp sensors down yet, reporting my load temps at 34C and weird reading.

Realtemp seems to be working well on mine for temps! My sensors read from 33C up, no sticking yet. Here is my test, mine seem accurate. When I get real wb in week or two, will IR this thing and compare to tjmax temps. I screwed up the idle test, thought it was finished, it would read 58C...but I was running prime through half of it.

This is on "water", crooked, homemade ugly bracket half** holding rotated old dtek in "place".

rge: You guys are making me jealous.
4GHz isn't too shabby for someone that doesn't know what they're doing yet. :D

Quote:

---

speedfan hasnt quite got temp sensors down yet, reporting my load temps at 34C and weird reading.

---

RealTemp was similarly borked early in the week. Glad I bust my balls all week getting it ready for you.

With that chip I don't think I'd be thinking about taking the IR gun to it, yet. At Ultra Idle type settings it might be easier to control without a heatsink on it because I think the idle cores get turned off and power consumption and heat are reduced.

I might need a helper later this weekend to use my MSR Tool to see if they can find anything that looks like VID info hiding in there. How about a quicky XS Bench to see how Core i7 compares to Core 2 Duo. I know one thread of XS Bench is not what Core i7 is all about but I still like seeing the numbers! Have you run a Super PI in the 9s yet?

CPU-Z 1.48.4 Beta

I definitely appreciate you getting realtemp working for these so quickly:up::up: And so far its telling me I need a real 1366 wb.

One quick bench before I hit sack...had marathon night, only 3 hrs sleep getting this built, reloading software, water etc...

superpi sub 10 is with my same so far 24/7 setting...this is still 22x182 4ghz, just turbo is kicked in with 23 multi. Tomorrow will bench for high mhz, maybe outside until I get better cooling.

Nice numbers after a day of playing with it. Looks like core temperatures are going to be the limiting factor when overclocking Core i7.

One thing I tried to fix earlier this week was this long time problem.
Here's a pic borrowed from Coolaler's site:

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/4198/degreecri6.png

If anyone knows if this is fixed then let me know. The degree C sign has been messed up since day 1 for a lot of users outside of North America. I think the RealTemp Thermal Status feature might come in handy with Core i7.

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/6...nsortl7.th.jpghttp://img118.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/6...tempmm8.th.jpghttp://img175.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif

Max Temp - 45c

Roomtemp - 21c

Where can I get the latest version of Real Temp?

Permanent RealTemp beta link:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

Version 2.86 is the current beta.

Dunderhoken: I would use TJMax=100C for your QX9650. I realize that Intel said at the IDF that the QX9650 has a TJ Target of 95C but I think for accurate temperatures you would be better off if you used TJMax=100C.

Hmm, my temps have been increasing over the past 8 months and i recently cleaned my TRUE-120x and Fan ( open case ) i've been searching my older posts for temp reference seems that i was getting 55-57c before now i seem to be getting 67-68 normally and 72c on very hot afternoons..

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

Just a couple of minor bug fixes to the Clock Modulation feature in the Settings Window. 0.0% is supposed to be an undefined state but a few of the Core i7 CPU screen shots were showing that number so I did some fixing.

VID information used to be stored in several different model specific register (MSR) locations but that information has disappeared in Core i7. With rge's help, I'm trying to find one register that contains this information. I haven't found any Intel documentation yet about how to extract this information so this is just a wild guess.

Edit: Locating VID info was not successful so I've blocked that for Core i7 users in version 2.88 which is now available. Without some help from Intel, I don't like my chances of figuring this out.

Demo: What CPU are you using. I know RealTemp bumped up TJMax by 5C for many CPUs. Is that part of the increase? If voltage and MHz haven't changed then that's hard to explain what's going on. The CPUs I've had have been pretty consistent.

Unclewebb ... I wanted to tell you that I ended up with the Xeon back in the Gigabyte mobo. I took the QX9770 out and I am waiting on a ASUS Rampage Formula to arrive. In the meantime, I did run the test on the Xeon, but was interrupted and never could finish. I didn't get the screenie. But do you know if it is normal to see a 6~10 degree difference between the two cores? (Core #0-#1, and Core#2-#3) Just curious and I will post one tomorrow for you to see. It's a little late for me to crank that rig up. ;)