I just happen to be doing some memory tests when your MSR Tool popped up. Here's an 920 using x12 multi. I believe C is 12.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Attachment 89757
Printable View
I just happen to be doing some memory tests when your MSR Tool popped up. Here's an 920 using x12 multi. I believe C is 12.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Attachment 89757
Thanks msgclb. 0x0C is equal to 12 decimal so MSR 0x198 does seem to contain the multi for Core i7 but not much of anything else that I can see.
With Core 2 Duo/Quad when you used CPU-Z and went into the cpuz.ini file and set
Sensor=0
it would report VID instead of your core voltage. That's the number zero and not the letter O. If it is set to 1 then it reads and displays your real time Core Voltage in that box.
Can you give that a try to see if CPU-Z can be used to report VID for Core i7 users? So far, Core Temp and RealTemp are in the dark about VID for Core i7.
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/3462/cpuzvidme7.png
With Core Duo based processors, VID and multis could be found in MSR 0x198
http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/582...sr0x198ck1.png
but Intel has obviously moved where the multi is located and eliminated the VID data in here. They are allowed to do stuff like this without issuing any documentation of the changes. By using the word Reserved throughout their documentation, that allows Intel to change the meaning of MSRs however they like, whenever they like. We call this, "a monopoly" :D
No, intel says 80C.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I changed my multiplier to 14. As you see the MSR changed from C to E. Also I change CPU-Z option to Sensor=0. From the image it's clear that this doesn't work with a Core i7.
Attachment 89760
Here's my CPU-Z v1.48.5 register dump.
Attachment 89761
Ok, i'm wondering if register IA32_PERF_Control (0X199) changed too, because in the old processors it stored the target vid+fid, so in performance 0 level it should store the default vid of the processor.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
nope, i asked a friend with 920 to read the MSR: it contains only the target multiQuote:
Originally Posted by astaris
That's what I'm finding. There used to be several MSR locations where VID information used to hide but with Core i7 they're all gone. It's almost as if Intel doesn't want us knowing what VID our new chips are so users don't RMA them for some lame reason. I plan to come up with a small program in the near future that will try to automatically sniff out where VID info might be hiding now in Core i7. If not even CPU-Z knows where VID is hiding then we might have trouble figuring this out. Since TJMax can now be read from each Core i7 CPU, maybe Intel thought they needed to hide a new specification that enthusiasts like to know. ;)
elmysterio: When word got out that Intel's original choices for TJMax for 65nm were a little out to lunch, Intel decided to bump a lot of them up by 10C. As far as I know, they only released their new and improved TJMax values to the Coolest (aka. Core Temp developer).
It goes beyond believable when they prepare a presentation with slides and PDF documents to finally release TJMax to the public after 2 years of hiding this information and no one in charge notices that most of the important TJMax values for 65nm are wrong. Even after the presentation, they don't correct anything until the complaints start to come in. For some reason, in my eyes, their credibility is about zilch.
Users will have to flip a coin and decide who they're going to believe. If you think Intel is giving you the straight goods then set TJMax in RealTemp or the program of your choice to that value. Be prepared for some real low ball temperatures.
When I got to line 1 in the first table and saw that TJMax is 70C for my E6400, I laughed a little, :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: , and then decided to take the rest of this news release with a grain of salt. Users have been reporting sub ambient idle temperatures for the B2 series since they were first released and that's when most software was using TJMax = 85C. TJMax = 90C for my E6400 B2 is a lot closer to the truth than 70C, 80C or 85C.
That's a screenshot of the tables on Tom's, which haven't been updated with the "correct" values. Since nobody believes the new ones either, there doesn't really seem to be a need to "fix" those tables up.Quote:
Originally Posted by elmysterio
Hi uncle :) and Thx for updates
i was just checking latest public? beta RT v2.88 - is it correct now it auto-detect TjMax 100C for 45nm. QX9650 CPU's?
is this 100C official now? .. just to be sure ?
For the QX9650, Intel says TJ Target = 95C. RealTemp will be using TJMax = 100C. I don't own a QX9650 and I've never tested a QX9650. My decision to set TJMax the same as the rest of the 45nm Dual and Quad Core processors is based on user testing and my general belief that the disclosure of TJ Target by Intel does not accurately represent TJMax for a lot of processors. Intel did not release any information about the range of error in TJMax so TJ Target numbers that TJMax is based on are meaningless. They say that TJ Target and TJMax should be about the same but for many 65nm processors, these two values are different by 10C.
I wish things were clearer. I wish Intel had released some actual engineering type documentation to back up their news release but they chose not to. Overall, there are too many inconsistencies in the documentation that's been released that I've decided not to trust any of it.
If you let your QX9650 idle at 2000 MHz and ~1.10 volts, I think your reported core temperatures are more accurate when TJMax is set to 100C.
Is the TjMax information some kind of a trade secret or something ?
Following that TjMax of 90 for the Q6000 series results me in getting lower than ambient temps in 1 of my cores so either 95~100c is the real Tj for the Q6600
edit:
heres my sensor test at 3.2Ghz(400*8) 1.335v at bios, 1.304 windows idle and 1.248~1.256v on 100% load.
http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/2...testuk5.th.jpg
sensor test at 1.2Ghz(200*6) 1.275v at bios, 1.240 windows idle and 1.224v on 100% load.
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/9...testzz0.th.jpg
Guys, I really don't understand why you want to know/rely on that pesky TJMax? Any software reads DTS which shows distance to TJMax (whatever TJMax it is). Keep it >20-30 and forget TJMax value.
Thanks for reply Unclewebb :up:
Thanks burebista :)Quote:
Originally Posted by burebista
actually no problems for me :)
reason why was asking - was /i am in a situation, i am in the middle of testing different coolers
and diff. brands of thermal grease (tim) and so far my logs and graphs was on base Realtemp v2.85 output data.
ok nothing serious testing, but just for my own .. trying to sort out the best of choices/options
( just bought new chassis and at this time have to cancel '' my 'open air' "table stand" testing curve '' with this board /setup )
so this base value change (up +5 ) numeric in RT output - just mess up my calculated graphs and actual screens shots
as already said i can use that earlier version .. or set it what ever value .. in new ver. no big deal :)
My low-speed /low voltage run with RT 2.84 (TjMax=95) was here ->http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2525
------ Attach
ok one quick Sensor Check run qx9650@4Ghz / 1.336 vCore (bios) RT v2.88beta (TjMax=100)
( ambient 23C / ''open Air'' / qx9650 air-cooled Noctua NH-C12P heat sink / !original fan replaced to Scythe minebea 1600rpm !
( well seems like need some more volts to wake up those dead sensors LOL :p:
Its not a real issue to me, i just want to see believable temp values.Quote:
Originally Posted by burebista
TJMax is not an exact number. I always had this belief that once we found exactly what TJMax was then this problem would all be solved and we'd have 100% accurate core temperatures but that's not true.
Intel's TJ Target number that they released does not directly translate into a TJMax number. Maybe TJ Target is some sort of design goal they were shooting for. Depending on whether you have a 45nm, 65nm, QX or Xeon CPU will somewhat determine how close TJ Target is to your actual TJMax.
The E8x00 45nm Dual Core series is a good example. Users agree that TJMax = 100C but there is a certain amount of manufacturing error in that number so actual TJMax for each CPU will be different than that theoretical TJMax. There is no available documentation which shows what the average, minimum or maximum TJMax is for a CPU line and no documentation showing how much that average value varies by.
You would think that Intel would have some information somewhere which shows how much error is typical for each CPU but if they do, they're not willing to share it. Telling us that the amount of error equals X is pretty useless information.
Slope error only explains a small part of what's going on here. There are 45nm Quads where actual TJMax is different for each set of cores. I think JohnZS has one of the more extreme examples where TJMax seems to be different for each individual core.
i43: I apologize for confusing your testing. ;)
I just don't believe that the 95C Intel TJ Target number accurately reflects your actual TJMax. RealTemp is getting ready for the next official release so I wanted to get that adjusted and taken care of.
I had a look at this picture of yours:
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/3...25244lchx8.png
It shows during the Cool Down Test that core0/core1 changes by about 7. Core 3 is firmly stuck at 68 so I'll ignore that one. Core 2 is moving at the start of the test but gets stuck at 74. In theory it should move a similar amount to core0/core1 during this test or maybe a degree or two less. Quads tend to do that.
Instead of moving 7, if it didn't get stuck, I think it would move at least 5 so it should be reading about 76 at the Idle stage. If you were to use TJMax = 95C, your reported core temperature for this core would be 19C or 4C below your room temperature which isn't very believable. With your cooler and room temperature, it should be reading somewhere around 31C so it is off by 12C.
The difference in slope between your two sets of cores is minimal. It's not the cause of that much error. If it was my CPU, I'd set core0/core1 to TJMax = 100C and now here's the crazy part. I'd set TJMax = 105C for core2/core3. After doing this I think your reported core temperatures for all 4 cores would be a lot closer to the actual temperature. Far closer than using Intel's TJ Target value of 95.
I can't ever see users willing to accept different TJMax values on the same CPU but that's the only logical explanation for the data I'm seeing. It also agrees with what Intel has told us about the manufacturing process and the errors that occur when calibrating TJMax for each CPU in an assembly line environment.
Of course burebista's idea about forgetting about accurate core temperatures and just going by Distance to TJMax is probably the smartest thing to do.
After Unclewebb and Coolest complained about the impossible temps using 65nm tjmaxes from the initial IDF in Taiwan, intel corrected the tjmax values, the attached slide is the corrected presentation slide from intels idf site, recently released. It was privately communicated to coolest though while back.Quote:
Originally Posted by elmysterio
Also came a response that all 65nm DTS sensors have been calibrated 5+C higher than listed tjmax to prevent throttling below tcasemax, and given the ones tested in E6xxx G0 series and Q6600 G0's are clearly 8-10C higher (and intel confirmed that 8-10C higher is certainly possible in calibration)... setting tjmax 100 for those would be in accordance with testing and with intels newest information.
rge
Can you give a link where I can find such info including tjmax values for 45nm xeon?
Will try it soon. Thanks for help ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I dont have a rapidshare account...but uploaded here, it says it can be downloaded 10x. need someone with rapidshare account to upload it. To get directly from intel idf....I cant give u link, it will ask u for password.
Have to search google... idf, click on idf tawian content keynotes...then download tpws002. As soon as many start downloading, it usually disappears however.
http://rapidshare.com/files/16834366..._1006.pdf.html
rge
Thank you very much, bro.
My latest idea that core2/core3 of some Quads might actually have a TJMax set 5C higher than core0/core1 sounds a little crazy but have a look at how my 4 cores track each other when TJMax is set to 100C/105C. I set the idle calibration for core0/core1 to zero and used a little bit of negative calibration on core2/3 to balance the idle temps. The result is more believable than using TJMax = 100C for all 4 cores. From idle to full load running Prime the core temperature movement looks a lot more real when you consider that the same load is being run on each core.
Here's the same CPU with no calibration.Code:11/28/08 14:36:10 35 35 35 34
11/28/08 14:36:15 35 35 35 34
11/28/08 14:36:18 35 35 35 34
11/28/08 14:36:19 35 35 35 34
11/28/08 14:36:20 35 35 35 35
11/28/08 14:36:21 35 35 35 35
11/28/08 14:36:22 34 34 35 35
11/28/08 14:36:23 35 35 35 35
11/28/08 14:36:24 35 35 35 34
11/28/08 14:36:25 35 35 35 34
11/28/08 14:36:26 35 35 35 34
11/28/08 14:36:27 35 35 35 34
11/28/08 14:36:28 35 35 35 34
11/28/08 14:36:29 36 37 39 38
11/28/08 14:36:30 48 48 47 47
11/28/08 14:36:31 50 50 48 48
11/28/08 14:36:32 51 51 49 48
11/28/08 14:36:33 51 51 49 49
11/28/08 14:36:34 51 51 50 49
11/28/08 14:36:35 51 51 50 49
11/28/08 14:36:36 52 52 50 50
11/28/08 14:36:37 52 52 50 50
11/28/08 14:36:38 52 52 50 50
11/28/08 14:36:39 52 52 51 50
11/28/08 14:36:40 52 52 51 50
11/28/08 14:36:41 52 52 51 51
11/28/08 14:36:42 52 52 51 51
11/28/08 14:36:43 52 52 51 51
11/28/08 14:36:44 54 54 51 51
11/28/08 14:36:45 54 54 52 51
11/28/08 14:36:46 54 54 52 51
11/28/08 14:36:47 54 54 52 51
11/28/08 14:36:48 54 54 52 51
11/28/08 14:36:49 54 54 52 51
11/28/08 14:36:50 54 54 52 52
11/28/08 14:36:51 54 54 52 52
11/28/08 14:36:52 55 55 52 52
11/28/08 14:36:53 55 55 53 52
11/28/08 14:36:54 55 55 53 52
11/28/08 14:36:55 55 55 53 52
11/28/08 14:36:56 55 55 53 52
11/28/08 14:36:57 55 55 53 52
11/28/08 14:36:58 55 55 53 52
11/28/08 14:36:59 55 55 53 53
11/28/08 14:37:00 55 55 53 53
11/28/08 14:37:01 55 55 53 53
11/28/08 14:37:02 56 56 54 53
11/28/08 14:37:03 56 56 54 53
11/28/08 14:37:04 56 56 54 53
11/28/08 14:37:05 56 56 54 53
11/28/08 14:37:06 56 56 54 53
11/28/08 14:37:07 56 56 54 53
11/28/08 14:37:08 56 56 54 53
11/28/08 14:37:09 56 56 54 53
11/28/08 14:37:10 56 56 54 55
11/28/08 14:37:11 56 56 54 55
11/28/08 14:37:12 56 56 54 55
11/28/08 14:37:13 56 56 54 55
11/28/08 14:37:14 57 57 54 55
11/28/08 14:37:15 57 57 54 55
11/28/08 14:37:16 57 57 56 55
11/28/08 14:37:17 57 57 56 55
11/28/08 14:37:18 57 57 56 55
11/28/08 14:37:19 57 57 56 55
11/28/08 14:37:20 57 57 56 55
11/28/08 14:37:21 57 57 56 55
11/28/08 14:37:22 57 57 56 55
11/28/08 14:37:23 57 57 56 55
11/28/08 14:37:24 58 58 56 55
11/28/08 14:37:25 58 58 56 55
11/28/08 14:37:26 58 58 56 57
11/28/08 14:37:27 58 58 56 57
11/28/08 14:37:29 58 58 56 57
11/28/08 14:37:30 58 58 56 57
11/28/08 14:37:31 58 58 56 57
11/28/08 14:37:32 58 58 57 57
11/28/08 14:37:33 58 58 57 57
11/28/08 14:37:34 58 58 57 57
11/28/08 14:37:35 58 58 57 57
11/28/08 14:37:36 58 58 57 57
11/28/08 14:37:37 58 58 57 57
11/28/08 14:37:38 58 58 57 57
11/28/08 14:37:39 58 58 57 57
11/28/08 14:37:40 58 58 57 58
11/28/08 14:37:41 58 58 57 58
11/28/08 14:37:42 58 58 57 58
11/28/08 14:37:43 58 58 57 58
11/28/08 14:37:44 59 59 57 58
11/28/08 14:37:45 59 59 57 58
11/28/08 14:37:46 59 59 59 58
11/28/08 14:37:47 59 59 59 58
11/28/08 14:37:48 59 59 59 58
11/28/08 14:37:49 59 59 59 58
11/28/08 14:37:50 59 59 59 58
11/28/08 14:37:51 59 59 59 58
11/28/08 14:37:52 59 59 59 58
11/28/08 14:37:53 59 59 59 58
11/28/08 14:37:54 59 59 59 58
11/28/08 14:37:55 59 59 59 58
11/28/08 14:37:56 59 59 59 58
11/28/08 14:37:57 59 59 59 58
11/28/08 14:37:58 59 59 59 59
11/28/08 14:37:59 59 59 59 59
11/28/08 14:38:00 59 59 59 58
11/28/08 14:38:01 59 59 59 59
11/28/08 14:38:02 59 59 59 59
11/28/08 14:38:03 59 59 59 59
11/28/08 14:38:04 59 59 59 59
11/28/08 14:38:05 60 59 59 59
11/28/08 14:38:06 60 59 59 59
11/28/08 14:38:07 60 59 59 59
11/28/08 14:38:08 60 60 59 59
11/28/08 14:38:09 60 60 59 59
11/28/08 14:38:10 60 60 60 59
11/28/08 14:38:11 60 60 60 59
11/28/08 14:38:12 60 60 60 59
11/28/08 14:38:13 60 60 60 59
11/28/08 14:38:14 60 60 60 59
11/28/08 14:38:15 60 60 60 59
11/28/08 14:38:16 60 60 60 59
11/28/08 14:38:17 60 60 60 59
11/28/08 14:38:18 60 60 60 59
11/28/08 14:38:19 60 60 60 59
11/28/08 14:38:20 60 60 60 59
11/28/08 14:38:21 60 60 60 59
11/28/08 14:38:22 60 60 60 59
11/28/08 14:38:23 60 60 60 60
11/28/08 14:38:24 60 60 60 60
11/28/08 14:38:25 60 60 60 60
11/28/08 14:38:26 60 60 60 60
11/28/08 14:38:27 60 60 60 60
11/28/08 14:38:28 60 60 60 60
11/28/08 14:38:29 60 60 60 60
11/28/08 14:38:30 60 60 60 60
11/28/08 14:38:31 60 60 60 60
11/28/08 14:38:32 60 60 60 60
11/28/08 14:38:33 60 60 60 60
11/28/08 14:38:34 60 60 60 60
11/28/08 14:38:35 49 48 48 48
11/28/08 14:38:36 46 46 46 47
11/28/08 14:38:37 46 45 44 46
11/28/08 14:38:38 45 45 44 46
11/28/08 14:38:39 45 45 44 46
11/28/08 14:38:40 45 45 44 45
11/28/08 14:38:42 44 44 43 45
11/28/08 14:38:43 44 44 43 45
11/28/08 14:38:44 44 44 43 45
11/28/08 14:38:45 44 44 43 45
11/28/08 14:38:46 43 43 43 44
11/28/08 14:38:47 43 43 42 44
11/28/08 14:38:48 43 43 42 44
11/28/08 14:38:49 43 43 42 44
11/28/08 14:38:50 43 43 42 44
11/28/08 14:38:51 43 43 42 44
11/28/08 14:38:52 43 43 42 44
11/28/08 14:38:53 42 42 42 42
11/28/08 14:38:54 42 42 41 42
11/28/08 14:38:55 42 42 41 42
11/28/08 14:38:56 42 42 41 42
11/28/08 14:38:57 42 42 41 42
11/28/08 14:38:58 42 42 41 42
11/28/08 14:38:59 42 42 41 42
11/28/08 14:39:00 42 42 41 42
11/28/08 14:39:01 42 42 41 42
11/28/08 14:39:02 42 42 41 42
11/28/08 14:39:03 40 40 41 42
11/28/08 14:39:04 40 40 40 40
11/28/08 14:39:05 40 40 40 40
11/28/08 14:39:06 40 40 40 40
11/28/08 14:39:07 40 40 40 40
11/28/08 14:39:08 40 40 40 40
11/28/08 14:39:09 40 40 40 40
11/28/08 14:39:10 40 40 40 40
11/28/08 14:39:11 40 40 40 40
11/28/08 14:39:12 40 40 40 40
11/28/08 14:39:13 40 40 40 40
11/28/08 14:39:14 40 40 40 40
11/28/08 14:39:15 40 40 39 40
11/28/08 14:39:16 39 39 40 40
11/28/08 14:39:17 40 40 39 39
11/28/08 14:39:18 39 39 39 40
11/28/08 14:39:19 39 39 39 39
11/28/08 14:39:20 39 39 39 39
11/28/08 14:39:21 39 39 39 39
11/28/08 14:39:22 39 39 39 39
11/28/08 14:39:23 39 39 39 39
11/28/08 14:39:24 39 39 39 39
11/28/08 14:39:25 39 39 39 39
11/28/08 14:39:26 39 39 39 39
11/28/08 14:39:27 39 39 39 39
11/28/08 14:39:28 38 38 39 39
11/28/08 14:39:29 39 39 39 39
11/28/08 14:39:30 39 39 39 39
11/28/08 14:39:31 39 39 39 39
11/28/08 14:39:32 38 38 39 39
11/28/08 14:39:33 38 38 39 38
11/28/08 14:39:34 38 38 38 38
11/28/08 14:39:35 38 38 38 38
11/28/08 14:39:36 38 38 38 38
11/28/08 14:39:37 38 38 38 38
11/28/08 14:39:38 38 38 38 38
11/28/08 14:39:39 38 38 38 38
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/5...torturexg6.png
When the fan is turned off the difference between sets of cores grows to 9. I thought this difference might have something to do with a heavy air cooler and gravity but I pulled my computer out and turned it upside down and got pretty much the same thing within 1C. There goes that theory. :)
As soon as I turned the CPU fan back on, the difference immediately dropped to 5C as all the temperatures started dropping. It sure looks like a 5C difference in TJMax.
Here's how the log file looks when TJMax=100C for all 4 cores. At these higher temperatures, Intel's slope error is a lot less of a factor. The vast majority of Quad screen shots at high temperatures always show core0/core1 as hotter than core2/core3. Could the reason be that TJMax is set differently for these two cores? I've learned that pretty much anything is possible.
That's a pretty consistent 4C to 5C difference which is hard to explain given that all cores are doing the exact same thing.
I brought the heat up with the fan off and then turned it back on and let it cool down as Prime Small FFTs continued to run on all 4 cores.Code:11/28/08 15:13:00 87 87 82 82
11/28/08 15:14:32 93 93 89 89
11/28/08 15:14:33 93 93 89 89
11/28/08 15:14:34 93 93 89 89
11/28/08 15:14:35 94 94 89 89
11/28/08 15:14:36 94 94 89 89
11/28/08 15:14:37 94 94 89 89
11/28/08 15:14:38 94 94 89 89
11/28/08 15:14:39 94 94 89 89
11/28/08 15:14:40 94 94 89 89
11/28/08 15:14:41 94 94 89 89
11/28/08 15:14:42 94 94 89 89
11/28/08 15:14:43 94 94 89 89
11/28/08 15:14:44 94 94 89 89
11/28/08 15:14:45 94 94 89 89
11/28/08 15:14:46 94 94 89 89
11/28/08 15:14:47 94 94 89 89
11/28/08 15:14:48 94 94 89 89
11/28/08 15:14:49 94 94 89 89
11/28/08 15:14:50 94 94 89 89
11/28/08 15:14:51 94 94 90 90
11/28/08 15:14:52 94 94 90 90
11/28/08 15:14:53 95 94 90 90
11/28/08 15:14:54 95 94 90 90
11/28/08 15:14:55 95 94 90 90
11/28/08 15:14:56 95 94 90 90
11/28/08 15:14:57 95 94 89 89
11/28/08 15:14:58 94 94 89 89
11/28/08 15:14:59 94 94 89 89
11/28/08 15:15:00 94 94 89 89
11/28/08 15:15:01 94 93 89 89
11/28/08 15:15:02 93 93 87 87
11/28/08 15:15:04 93 93 87 87
11/28/08 15:15:05 93 93 87 87
11/28/08 15:15:06 92 92 87 87
11/28/08 15:15:07 92 92 86 86
11/28/08 15:15:08 92 92 86 86
11/28/08 15:15:09 92 92 86 86
11/28/08 15:15:10 91 91 86 86
11/28/08 15:15:11 91 91 85 85
11/28/08 15:15:12 91 91 85 85
11/28/08 15:15:13 91 91 85 85
11/28/08 15:15:14 90 90 85 85
11/28/08 15:15:15 90 90 85 85
11/28/08 15:15:16 90 90 84 84
11/28/08 15:15:17 90 89 84 84
11/28/08 15:15:18 89 89 84 84
11/28/08 15:15:19 89 89 84 84
11/28/08 15:15:20 89 89 84 84
11/28/08 15:15:21 89 89 83 83
11/28/08 15:15:22 87 87 83 83
11/28/08 15:15:23 87 87 83 83
11/28/08 15:15:24 87 87 83 83
11/28/08 15:15:25 87 87 83 83
11/28/08 15:15:26 87 87 82 82
11/28/08 15:15:27 86 86 82 82
11/28/08 15:15:28 86 86 82 82
11/28/08 15:15:29 86 86 82 82
11/28/08 15:15:30 86 86 82 82
11/28/08 15:15:31 85 85 81 82
11/28/08 15:15:32 85 85 81 81
11/28/08 15:15:33 85 85 81 81
11/28/08 15:15:34 85 85 81 81
11/28/08 15:15:35 85 85 81 81
11/28/08 15:15:36 84 84 80 81
11/28/08 15:15:37 84 84 80 81
11/28/08 15:15:38 84 84 80 80
11/28/08 15:15:39 84 84 80 80
11/28/08 15:15:40 84 84 80 80
11/28/08 15:15:41 84 84 79 80
11/28/08 15:15:42 83 83 79 80
11/28/08 15:15:43 83 83 79 79
11/28/08 15:15:44 83 83 79 79
11/28/08 15:15:45 83 83 79 79
11/28/08 15:15:46 83 83 79 79
11/28/08 15:15:47 83 83 78 79
11/28/08 15:15:48 82 82 78 79
11/28/08 15:15:49 82 82 78 78
11/28/08 15:15:50 82 82 78 78
11/28/08 15:15:51 82 82 78 78
11/28/08 15:15:52 82 82 78 78
11/28/08 15:15:53 82 82 77 78
11/28/08 15:15:54 81 81 77 78
11/28/08 15:15:55 81 81 77 78
11/28/08 15:15:56 81 81 77 78
11/28/08 15:15:57 81 80 77 77
11/28/08 15:15:58 81 81 77 77
11/28/08 15:15:59 81 81 75 77
11/28/08 15:16:00 81 80 75 77
11/28/08 15:16:01 81 80 75 77
11/28/08 15:16:02 80 80 75 77
11/28/08 15:16:03 80 80 75 77
11/28/08 15:16:04 80 80 75 77
11/28/08 15:16:05 80 80 75 75
In case you didn't see it, I asked about Core VID in this Cpu-z 1.48 thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...3&postcount=24
I got this reply...
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&postcount=28
and this one from cpuz...
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...3&postcount=29
:(
Thanks msgclb. rge forwarded that to me as well. Looking through the MSRs it sure looks like VID information has disappeared from Core i7 CPUs and I guess that confirms it. I still plan to have a look for it just in case it's hiding in some MSR. It's fun trying to uncover Intel's secrets. :D
This requires a shift in thinking that will confuse many users. Most users assume that lower is better, so suddenly trying to increase their "temps" is just going to sound stupid. Then we'll need to go through the explanation of what the delta to Tj Max actually is so that it makes sense to them. Given the number of threads on forums about temps, you better keep a copy of your explanation that you can just copy/paste ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by burebista
In CPU-Z,the corei7 reports no VID :(Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb