Pick me, pick me. In fact I'm not at stock speeds, I'm underclocked/undervolted. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
Attachment 89972
PS. I just opened window and now are 2°C outside.
Printable View
Pick me, pick me. In fact I'm not at stock speeds, I'm underclocked/undervolted. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
Attachment 89972
PS. I just opened window and now are 2°C outside.
You musn't do much with your PC if you run it like that all the time :p: I can't lower my vcore except with the abit uGuru utility which overflows with fail.
For browsing/movies/music/office is overwhelming this way. EPU take care of my FSB and Vcore, and it does a wonderful job.
For games I put it at 3GHz and everything is fine.
The uGuru chip is not supported by 99% of software. Speedfan only recently added support for something that is at least 4-5 years old, and all it does is read fan speeds and temperatures, it can't even control fan speeds. Only the abit software fully supports it, but the software stinks; it takes forever to start and isn't very stable. Is it so hard for abit to add some vcore options in the BIOS below VID? :( Well all hope is lost now that they've pulled out of the market.
At least I always have Real Temp for checking temps that sort of matter :D
@unclewebb
It is possible to have in realtemp a measure of the percentage of the time a core is in C3 or C6 state for i7?
In the pdf linked by rge, Intel explains how to take these measures by using the counters MSR_CORE_C3_RESIDENCY and MSR_CORE_C6_RESIDENCY (core level MSRs that run at the package level frequency, the same one of the TSC).
my two machines:
first Q9650 E0 @4.1ghz
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/8...led1yr1.th.gifhttp://img372.imageshack.us/img372/708/76601224yn9.gif
second X3360 (Q9550 C1) @3.9ghz seems like it has one stuck sensor ... dont know what to do with it ?
http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/4...led2bl0.th.gifhttp://img143.imageshack.us/img143/9184/42327477sh2.gif
I read that too and it does seem very interesting. The Intel Turbo document, brought to us by rge, has some excellent information in there. I'm just working at the moment with rge getting the RealTemp MHz working 100% with Turbo and C1E. rge says there is no other software at the moment doing this 100% correctly so it would be great to be the first one. Once that is done, I will check out those other features. Since Core i7 users don't have VID to look at anymore, they need something new to fill in the blank space. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by astaris
The best and only thing to do with a stuck sensor is ignore it in the range that it gets stuck in. There's nothing else you can do. Intel doesn't approve of us trying to get core temperatures out of these sensors so if they all stick at lower temperatures, that's the user's problem and not Intel's. They're not designed for accurate core temperatures from idle to TJMax.
I had to create a separate little utility to understand what's going on with the multiplier in Core i7. MSR 0x198 that some software is reading for Core i7 is not accurate when using Turbo mode and C1E.
I followed Intel's guidelines and came up with this program to test things out.
Here's how my Q6600 looks at idle with C1E enabled and Vista Minimum processor state options at 66%
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/9...rbotestna5.png
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/Turbo.zip
This tool also leads me to believe that most software may not always be correctly reading the multiplier for Core 2 based CPUs. I found a bug with my Q6600 that when the Minimum Power Option in Vista is set to 100%, two cores get locked at 9.0 like they should be but the other two cores float between 6.0 and 9.0. This new tool picks this up and will show you your average multiplier. I'm not sure if this bug is motherboard specific or maybe it's a bug in XP and Vista.
When C1E is enabled and the Power Option is dropped to 66% or less, both Dual Cores within my Quad drop to 6.0 so the ratio is 0.667 like it should be.
Give it a try and see what it shows, especially Core i7 owners.
I plan to add what I've learned into RealTemp later today for more accurate MHz for Core i7 owners.
Edit: The tool doesn't include any support for the 0.5 multis in some 45nm Core 2 processors. If you need that then let me know. It's mostly an i7 learning / testing tool.
E8400, underclocked, undervolted, C1E/EIST/C-State Tech enabled in BIOS.
Attachment 89991
burebista: It seems to be the Quads where things can get screwy. You can end up with different multis on each Dual Core within a Quad. If you see a number in the top ratio box that seems to be half way between then that is what's going on. This tester is mostly for Core i7 but I learned something new about Core 2 as well.
Have you tried out the new RTShutDown.bat file in Vista x64? I assume that it works but I haven't tried it yet. One user here was curious so I told him to give it a try but I never heard back.
LOL, sorry man I've missed this. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Works like a charm, but I can't cancel because that cmd window disappears quickly. I've tried twice, but I can't catch the window open because it's closing too quick for me. :D
You're supposed to open the command window first.
You have to cancel the shutdown immediately after an alarm goes off or else your computer will go nuclear. :D
Thanks for testing.
My E6600 looks the same in XP with C1E enabled and EIST disabled. It floats around for a while but finally settles at 0.667
Both turbo programs worked well for core i7 with EIST/C1E disabled (2nd pic). But actually the first turbo program works better for reading with speedstep enabled (2nd pic), it is like the second keeps taking a reading and kicking it out of speedstep:D
But for calculating mhz, turbo on or off, both work, just the first one worked better for speedstep readings. Of course I have nothing to compare with for sure, since yours is only program reading multi correctly with speedstep on.
Like this? :shrug:
http://www.isarapix.org/pix69/1228180518.png
bowman: The way Core i7 works is it has a base multiplier and then if the Turbo option is being used, it will bump the multiplier up by +1 or +2. In your picture the tester shows 20 as your base and it has been bumped up from 20 to 21 which is 5% higher or (1.05 times) as much.
The problem that rge discovered with RealTemp 2.89 and Everest is that when he was manually setting a lower multiplier in the bios, when Turbo mode kicked in, it would boost his multi right up to the max in one step. This is how Intel designed this feature.
This would cause the actual multi to jump from say 16 to 23 but RealTemp and Everest were only reporting a +1 boost from 16 to 17. CPUZ is handling this problem OK but it's reporting half multis (0.5) for the Core i7 which I don't believe exist. That's more of an averaged multi.
Edit: The other problem is if you use C1E, then you need to set your Power Options appropriately for it to work properly with Core i7 or any Core processor for that matter.
Here's what happens in XP:
http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/8659/laptopyz1.png
http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/9448/homexc0.png
Unless you specifically set your Power Options / Power Schemes to Portable / Laptop, you may not get the full benefit of C1E if you are using a Quad or Core i7. When set to Home/Office Desk, the multipliers on my Q6600 are going back and forth from 6.0 to 9.0 on various cores continuously. Most software may report it as 6.0 on all cores or 9.0 but this testing program would disagree. Watching what's gong on in MSR 0x198 of a Core 2 CPU would also cause most users to disagree.
The same thing happens in Vista. With Vista you need to set your Minimum processor state to about 50% or lower to make sure it keeps all of your cores at the lowest possible multiplier when C1E kicks in.
Now that I fully understand what's going on, a solution for RealTemp will be easy.
Is this a problem only with quads?
is this normal ? almost 10 *C difference on the core 0 and core 3
tj @ 100 on all cores
http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/8...0005gl5.th.jpg
Oh right. The ASUS doesn't let me do that. Either Turbo on and multiplier at Auto, or new multiplier and no Turbo. I guess that's the reason they did that. :p:
This seems to be an issue for Quads or Core i7. To me it looks like a bug in the operating system.Quote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
Edit: For me I think it might also be a problem with my old motherboard not getting along with a Quad. When I turn SpeedStep off in the bios, the MSR Tool shows that it is only getting turned off for 2 of the 4 cores.
If your C1E / SpeedStep bios settings don't agree with your power profile within your operating system then the multiplier that you end up with might not be consistent and your actual multiplier will float around. If C1E / SpeedStep is enabled in your operating system and your bios, then a Core i7 at idle will be nice and steady with the correct 12 multiplier.
Vatos_locos: Your results look very normal. At full load where these sensors are a little more accurate, your screen shot only shows a difference of 2C. I'd say that's better than average. :up:
Post a screen shot of the CPU Cool Down Test if you want me to have a better look. Some sensors can get stuck at lower temperatures and it's common for them to move at different slopes. Your 45nm Quad is far better than some of the ones I've seen.
here are my readings from an intel e8400 e0 on abit ab9 quadgt official bios 17(cpu under test) idle with c1e and EIST, everest read and bios read 1.03v idle vcore and min settings in bios is 1.215v . Also@3600 mhz 1.215 vcore without c1e and EIST and room temperature 23.9 c. I manually set tjmax to 95 from 100 both on realtemp and on everest , cause with tjmax @ 100 i get stuck @ 42 ,39 , and it think its wrong, its 2 much . Scythe infinity fan.
Hardc0r3: If you have sticking sensors, you shouldn't adjust TJMax to make your temperatures look nice at idle. Try running the CPU Cool Down Test and post your results. It might show you exactly where your sensors stick. Irfanview is a good free program that will let you crop your screen shots down. ;) With the left mouse button draw a box and then go into the menu, Edit, Crop Selection
thanks unclewebb here is the cooldown test you asked but at difrent voltages/infrequences than before
the cpu and the chipset are under water with a triple rad if that helps
Vatos_locos: The slopes of core1, 2 and 3 are pretty similar. Core0 is a little different.
Intel uses slightly different TJMax values from one core to the next. I would recommend using TJMax=100, 100, 102, 102 for your 4 cores. I would also use -2.8 for a correction factor for core0.
If you want to test this calibration, at low MHz and low core voltage you should get something like rge outlined here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2429
For a water cooled Quad at 2000 MHz and 1.10 volts, about 7C over your water temperature near your CPU is typical.
None of your sensors are sticking in your screen shot.
ok thanks uncle :p i'll do those settings :)
the only problem is that the lower vcore i can set on my board is 1.2 :p but i'll try it :)