The VID numbers listed for the Core i7 965 on the Intel Proc Spec Finder were 0.85-1.3625v
CPUID String - was listed as 106A4h
Thermal Spec - was not listed
Thermal Design Power (TDP) - was 130w
Printable View
The VID numbers listed for the Core i7 965 on the Intel Proc Spec Finder were 0.85-1.3625v
CPUID String - was listed as 106A4h
Thermal Spec - was not listed
Thermal Design Power (TDP) - was 130w
Should you be seeing a 6C to 10C difference? Probably not. Is it normal? Unfortunately it does seem to be the norm.
Intel has talked about slope error but my Cool Down Test is leading me to believe that TJMax isn't nearly as fixed as we all once assumed. There could be as much as 10C of error at TJMax so two similar CPUs or similar cores could report vastly different temperatures. I'm still learning about this stuff so when you get a chance tomorrow post a screen shot of that test. It helps me see what the biggest contributor to the differences in temperatures is.
Thanks T_Flight. There are some nice charts about VID in the documentation but they don't include what register in the CPU you're supposed to read that value from or how you're supposed to interpret it. Anyone with a Core i7 should post a screen shot so I can see if I did good or bad.
Section 2.5 of Volume 1 of the Core i7 Datasheet tells me almost everything I need to know, almost.
http://download.intel.com/design/pro...hts/320834.pdf
@unclewebb
Same everything for the last 8 months, i actually forgot if those temps i posted before were already at 100C TjMAX or still at 95TjMax, well at 65c right now im at 35 away to TjMax, anything above 25 to TjMax is presumed safe right ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Will post screens when i get mine up and running. I've run into a few roadblocks one of which is my burner died and the new one in my sig might get here wednesday...maybe. If not it might be thursaday.
I will post screens of that as soon as I can get the dive all setup and get it running. I'm at that phase now where this thing is slowly killing me. It on the table setup, but needs a couple parts, and then when i go to slipstream my Win install I find my burner is crapped out.
The good news is everything will be neew and fully compliant though. :up: :D
Demo: Thermal throttling usually happens when the Distance to TJMax is down to about 2 or 3. In my opinion, as long as your CPU is not throttling then it's perfectly safe. The problem I found when overclocking Core 2 Duo is that when your CPU is near its maximum 24/7 overclock, you won't be able to run Prime stable anywhere near TJMax. Your Distance to TJMax might need to be 30 or even 40 to maintain Prime stability. My air cooled E8400 needs closer to 40 when I'm using 1.40 volts to remain stable but at default MHz and voltage I can run Prime right up to TJMax.
Every CPU is unique so I hate to draw a line in the sand and say, "Don't go past here, or else." If you're Prime stable and not throttling, you don't need to worry about temperatures.
T_Flight: Good luck with your build. Nothing more frustrating than having to wait for that one last part. I look forward to seeing some more Core i7 screen shots.
Edit: I just found out that VID for Core i7 is still broken. This info that is located in several places within Core 2 Duo chips has disappeared from Core i7. I'll keep working trying to find where this information has gone to.
Edit #2: I wanted to back up what I said before about thermal throttling so here's a good example.
At 4 GHz, my E8400 can't run at these temperatures but by backing my overclock down to 3.6 GHz, I had no stability issues while running Prime95 Small FFTs for 3 hours with my Tuniq fan turned off.
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/276/hote8400fw5.png
Only once did it get hot enough that it actually hit TJMax at 100C which you can see in the SpeedFan graph. The rest of the time it would intermittently throttle when hitting a Distance to TJMax of 2. This cycled the multi down to 6.0 (2400 MHz) which kept the temps from getting too out of control.
I've always thought the CPU sensor reads a little high on this board and with it showing 107C, that kind of confirms it.
At 4 GHz, I think Core i7 has more temperature head room than a Core 2 Quad at 4 GHz. The bottom line is that if you're stable and not throttling, you really don't have to worry about your core temperature.
Hi Unclewebb
I braved a bit of a small overclock.
QX9650 @ 3.4Ghz 1600Mhz FSB. In order to obtain PRIME and Intelburntest Stability I had to raise my V-Core to 1.25V. (stock is 1.12V).
Sensors are now moving.....at different rates?
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/1...ts34ghzlq1.jpg
Seems at stock V-Core the sensors move uniformly (all 9) yet with raised V-Core they become more independent.
Have you seen this before?
Or is this another example of how bizarre my sensors are?
Thanks
Regards
John
JohnZS, you're just the guy I like seeing data from. My goal is to turn your random number generator into some meaningful temperatures and I think I'm very close to that goal.
This new Cool Down Test is really helping me see what's going on. I took the Intel IDF presentations at face value but all they initially did was get me off track. Intel's graph of slope error was more of a generic line on a piece of paper than the engineering type data I was hoping to see.
With my test, when checking for slope error, I like to compare the 87.5% level to the 12.5% level. I shortened the heat up phase of my test so users wouldn't have to wait too long for the results. For that reason, the 100% level is not your maximum Prime95 temperature but it's usually pretty close to it. The 100% level is also a maximum temperature where 87.5% and lower are averaged temperatures. That's why I like to start by looking at the 87.5% level first.
Anyhow, when comparing 87.5% to 12.5% on your CPU I get the following temperature deltas:
Core 0 = 16.5°C
Core 1 = 15.3°C
Core 2 = 16.1°C
Core 3 = 16.4°C
This shows that slope error is only playing a very minor part in your wildly looking random temperatures. The majority of error in your sensors is at TJMax. The biggest problem is that each core has a slightly different TJMax.
Intel publicly stated at IDF that there is error at TJMax but has only been willing to define that number as plus or minus X for the 45nm Dual and Quad Core CPUs.
Here's the published spec for the 45nm Intel Atom N270 sensors as listed in the datasheet:
5.3 Digital Thermal Sensor
The digital thermal sensor (DTS) accuracy is in the order of -5°C ~ +10°C around 90°C; it deteriorates to ±10°C at 50°C.
If this spec has nothing to do with the 45nm Dual and Quad core CPUs then in their IDF presentation they should have defined exactly what this spec is. They admitted that there is some error at TJMax but have only been willing to refer to the amount of error as 'X'.
Based on the Atom spec and the data coming from sensors like yours, I think assuming that X is somewhere around 5°C is reasonable. That means the Intel calibration point that TJMax is based off of might only be accurate to plus or minus 5°C.
The values released at the IDF conference are referred to as TJ Targets. TJMax is defined as always being equal to or above that Target value. In this case, TJMax would be more accurately defined as 105°C ± 5°C or somewhere between 100°C and 110°C. That range is a lot closer to the truth than the single TJMax=100C number.
That's the problem. Users including myself have always taken TJMax as a very fixed value with virtually no error in that number. The endless argument about what is the correct TJMax has always been flawed. There is no single TJMax number for every QX9650 processor or for any processor. The 65nm sensors may have had a little tighter thermal sensor specs or they might have been able to do a better job of matching similar sensors with each other on the same CPU but there is always going to be some error. Each processor within a given line is always going to have a range of correct TJMax values. Early testing shows the Core i7 is continuing this tradition.
Knowing this, some users are simply going to give up and say, "Accurate temperatures from these sensors simply aren't possible. There are too many unknown variables." That's what Intel has been hinting at since day 1 but the user community has never been willing to accept that.
My opinion is that 100% accurate reported temperatures may not be possible due to the limitations of these sensors but with a simple calibration, and a few tweaks, you're going to get a lot closer to an accurate temperature than what some of these sensors give you out of the box.
rge's recent testing gives us a point of reference at the low end and reading between the lines of what Intel has recently said gives us more flexibility at the top end.
The present RealTemp calibration formula needs to be reworked and users are going to have to be willing to adjust TJMax on a core by core basis in some situations. I'll come up with a new formula and some calibration numbers you can try later this week. I'm hoping for 4 temperature curves that look more like mirror images than random numbers.
My E8400 is listed as 1.225 volts on the box so there's nothing wrong with 1.25 volts. Didn't my previous post show you that these CPUs can take a licking! :)
Aren't those sensors more closely related to (but not the same as) the 45nm desktop chips, ie. the ones which we aren't complaining about as much any more? Clearly the DTS is not the same in both 65nm and 45nm chips.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
It's somewhat amusing that we've gone from praising the 65nm chips to hating them :rolleyes:
You must have misread my extra long post. The 65nm sensors are definitely better than the sensors used on the 45nm Quad processors. JohnZS has one of the more extreme examples but he's not the only 45nm Quad owner with reported temperatures all over the place.Quote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
His CPU doesn't seem to follow the "slope error" theory that Intel has talked about though. Plus or minus half a degree of slope error over a run of 16 degrees is pretty minor. The only other explanation for the vast differences in his temperatures is error at TJMax which Intel fully agrees does exist.
This graph provided by Intel at the IDF helps show the problem:
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/10/variationet8.png
Intel should have released how big X really is. In JohnZS's case, you can blame a couple of degrees of error on slope error but the other 10 degrees of error is because of differences in TJMax between cores.
Users have never been willing to mess with TJMax but in this case, I think John would have far more accurate temperatures if he did. I plan to come up with some numbers for him to see if we can get those 4 cores tracking a lot more closely then what they are now.
Perhaps I should have said "hating what Intel is telling us, or isn't telling us, about them." That would have been closer to the intended meaning.
JohnZS's sensors contradict what Intel was saying about the 45nm sensors having better calibration than the 65nm ones because they're all over the place. It makes it all the more likely that the Tj Targets for 65nm are simply not right rather than the sensors just being more poorly calibrated. But why they released numbers that are way too low, and then "fixed" them, when the 45nm ones aren't is just plain strange as I mentioned before.
I wanna know the correct TjMAX for : e6850 65nm
Intel says 90C, RealTemp uses 100C.Quote:
Originally Posted by elmysterio
The best thing to do is to do your own test. Open you case, crank up your CPU fan it it's adjustable and go into the bios and set your CPU to 266 MHz x 6.0 and set the core voltage to approximately 1.10 volts. Now boot up and compare your reported idle temperatures to your room temperature. Try each TJMax value above and see which one is more believable. Post a screen shot or two of your results.
Intel's IDF presentation originally used 80C for your CPU but when the complaints started coming in, they admitted that it was a mistake and decided to bump it up to 90C. In my opinion, even that is too low. They also call this a TJ Target and admit that the actual TJMax can be higher than the spec that they released. I like 100C better based on IR thermometer testing but I'm interested in what your testing shows.
Users have to get away from the idea that TJMax is some sort of exact value. Intel fully admits that it is not. So far they haven't been willing to release how big a range it might fall into. I'm guessing at plus or minus 5C for the 45nm chips and maybe a little tighter than that for the 65nm sensors.
That's pretty much my opinion but I'm just one voice against the giant corporation. These processors run and overclock well so the average users isn't too concerned if their reported temperatures are off by a few degrees.Quote:
It makes it all the more likely that the Tj Targets for 65nm are simply not right rather than the sensors just being more poorly calibrated.
rge came up with a great post a while ago about how to calibrate RealTemp.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2429
The numbers he came up with were using his E8400 and right away the question was, "What about a Quad?"
I did some testing today at the recommended calibration point of ~1600 MHz and 1.10 volts. My E8400 was consuming 133 watts as measured with a Kill A Watt meter.
I swapped in my Q6600 - G0, and at the same settings and temperature, the meter showed 137 watts. During a CPU Cool Down Test with a Tuniq Tower, I've been seeing a 3 watt change of power consumption at the wall equaling a 1C change in core temperature. For a 45nm Dual Core that would be 1.5 watts per core per degree C.
If a Q6600 is only consuming an extra 4 watts at this setting (137w vs 133w) that works out to only 1 watt per core extra.
What this means is that a Q6600 at ultra idle should have core temperatures no more than 1C higher than the numbers that rge came up with.
I also put in my 65nm E2160 which only has 1MB of cache and it was using 129 watts in this test. In theory it should idle approximately 1C cooler than an E8400.
That's the thing about the ultra idle test. It doesn't matter too much what CPU you have, your results are going to be very similar to what rge found during his test plus or minus a degree.
If the Intel stock cooler is supposed to keep it around 10-11C above ambient, that would mean 31-34C (ambient is about low 20s but I'm not certain as my only thermometer was shattered). Perhaps this combined with the wide margin of variation at Tj Max could be the reason why my DTS reports high temps. It might be at the extreme end of the calibration range.
Kyle who runs [H]ard OCP had this to say today in a forum:
"Hopefully will have an i7 milled to Intel spec so I can put thermistor in between it and the HSF in the next week or two."
I've wanted to see this sort of testing for a long time now. :yepp:
I think Kyle can't believe how hot Core i7 is reporting its temps so he wants to see some numbers.
I was hoping for a test like this on a Core 2 Duo but the Core i7 sensors are far from perfect so this should give us some new info about how these sensors perform.
Unless he's buying it, he'll probably get a cherry-picked chip with near-perfect sensors ;)
hi there :) like i promise here are my sensors ... what you think Uncle?
however it was weird cause @ default i had the core1 died ... it's normal?
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/7...2151ad3.th.jpg
If you're running 4 GHz with 1.072 volts then there's no need to be concerned about the sensors. Your CPU looks like a good one. :up:
At your normal overclocked MHz and core voltage, these sensors will be fine for reporting reasonably accurate core temperatures. All of the 45nm sensors stick at some point. When you get lucky, they only stick outside of your normal temperature range. Not many sensors can read reliably when you are more than 69 away from TJMax. That might be the sticking point for Core 0.
Most of the tweaks to RealTemp lately have been for better Core i7 support but it never hurts to have the latest version:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
yes Uncle, but the core1's sensor was really died @ default frequency (333mhz) with 0 movements ... BUT not when i launch PRIME cause @ FULL (100%) to 62,5% it lives, but not under this percentage ...
anyway, another question: in the previous post you can see that the second core has 7 movements (@4000 obviously) but when i tried to reboot the sensor has only 5 movements ... why this happens?
thx for your support ;)
edit: this is my latest shot :)
http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/9...2312km8.th.jpg
In your previous screen shot, both sensors move from top to bottom. Usually the sticking point is consistent from day to day but it's possible that it can change.
The Cool Down Test should be consistent after a reboot if you are using the same settings and haven't changed your cooling any between runs. Post two screen shots so I can have a look. For maximum consistency you also need to make sure you're not using your computer while the test is running and that there is nothing significant running in the background changing your results. Run at default MHz with C1E / SpeedStep enabled and it might be easier to see your official sticking points.
@unclewebb
i changed my 8400 C0 to an 8400 E0 and after a fast run of the sensor movement test i noticed that the movement was stuck at 0! :confused:
C0
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...95#post3429195
E0
Attachment 89743
bug of realtemp, or something is wrong with my proccessor?
unclewebb, The X33xx series CPU is not auto detected correctly, They should have a TJmax of 95c.
About VID reading, i think that the VID_max should be at IA32_PERF_STATUS MSR (address 198H), bits 32-39. VID_max shoud be the VID of the processor at P0 (maximum performance level).Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
The actual voltage in mv should be:
V_mv=V_min+VID_max*6.25
V_min should be 0.5 V from the core i7 VID table, but in this case i think that the V_min is the minimum voltage obtained with VID7=0 (the same logic in fact applies to core duo mobile processors), so V_min shoud be 0.81875.
So in the end the correct formula shoud be:
V_mv=818.75+VID_max*6.25
I can`t understand. What is TJmax for Xeon E3110?
sakis_the_fraud: Readings of 0 0 in the Sensor Movement Test is the first sign that your sensors may get stuck at lower temperatures and the CPU Cool Down Test seems to confirm that. From 62.5% down to Idle, both of your sensors are stuck at 56 away from TJMax. Here is what sensors that don't get stuck will look like during this test:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2489
You can buy a Kill A Watt meter on EBay for about $15. Plug your computer into that and monitor its power consumption. During each step of the CPU Cool Down Test, you will see power consumption decrease. If the power your CPU is consuming goes down then its heat output and core temperature will also go down as long as your CPU fan speed, cooling capacity and room temperature are all kept constant.
Intel has said that when these sensors get 50 or more away from TJMax, they have a tendency to become saturated which is another way to say that they get stuck. E0 does not always equal better sensors.
I went to Tom's and had a look at the TJ Target tables which is based on information Intel released at the last IDF. The first table is for 65nm Desktop CPUs and as far as I can tell, every value in that first table is wrong. By wrong I mean that using Intel's TJ Target values as TJMax will, for most users, give you less accurate core temperatures, not more accurate.Quote:
Warboy: The X33xx series CPU is not auto detected correctly...
At IDF, Intel also showed that TJMax is not a fixed value. TJMax for any individual processor within a series can fall into a wide range of different temperatures. For 45nm CPUs the range might be plus or minus 5C. The range for 65nm sensors might be the same or it might be different. TJ Target for 45nm CPUs might be closer to the average TJMax for 45nm. TJ Target might represent the low end of TJMax for 65nm. Are you confused yet? Me too.
I've spent a lot of time during the last few months going over Intel's IDF news releases, reading between the lines, asking questions, doing some more testing and trying to understand what is really meant by TJ Target. My conclusion is that if you use the Intel released TJ Target values as TJMax, your reported core temperatures, in most cases, will be wrong.
That's just the first table I'm looking at. If using any value in that first table as TJMax results in less accurate core temperatures, then it's impossible for me to pick through the rest of this information trying to find out which values are correct and which ones aren't.
RealTemp, Core Temp and Everest let you use whatever TJMax you want so if you believe that the information released by Intel accurately represents TJMax then use it. I disagree with that and won't be changing TJMax that RealTemp uses based on information from Intel's IDF news releases.
astaris: IA32_PERF_STATUS MSR (address 198H) used to contain information about VID for Core 2 Duo processors but it does not seem to contain VID information for Core i7 CPUs. The one Core i7 that I saw didn't seem to have anything stored in the upper 32 bits of that register. The lower 32 bits have also changed compared to Core 2 Duo.
RT MSR Tool
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/621/0x198lm2.png
I think the lowest 5 bits contain the CPU multiplier for Core i7.
0x17 = 23 decimal
That's from a Core i7 940 in Turbo mode which has a multi of 22 + 1 for the Turbo.
This value changes by 1 depending on load and if Turbo mode is being used but it doesn't seem to have any relationship to VID anymore. Core i7 owners can download my tool and test their own CPU. Post a screen shot if you see something other than your multi hiding in there.
Bits [63..16] of this register are listed as Reserved and are not publicly documented by Intel and the bottom 16 bits are not clearly documented by Intel either. The docs only say "Current performance State Value" but it doesn't explain how to interpret those bits. I have a plan B to try and find where VID info has moved to but I don't like my chances at the moment.
WaterFlex: I'd like to know what TJMax is for your E3110 too. :)
If I could find an E0 stepping at a good price I'd probably buy one and do some testing with it.
I think Intel's IDF presentation says TJ Target = 95C and RealTemp probably uses TJMax = 100C. Try running your CPU at 1600 to 2000 MHz with the core voltage set to approximately 1.10 volts. If your sensors aren't stuck then compare your reported temperatures to your room or water temperature with your case open and it might become obvious what your TJMax is or isn't. Post some screen shots and I'll help you out.