uncleweb but i did run the cooldown test , look @ the 2 screenshot, and i changed tjmax after reading in here that idle temp should be 8 to 9c more than room temperature. Senzor are missreporting below 25%
Printable View
uncleweb but i did run the cooldown test , look @ the 2 screenshot, and i changed tjmax after reading in here that idle temp should be 8 to 9c more than room temperature. Senzor are missreporting below 25%
If you enable SpeedStep and C1E and set your voltage to Auto, it might drop lower than that. Make sure your Power Options are also set correctly to get your board to drop down to the lowest voltate and multi.
Hardc0r3: Now I see your Cool Down Test. Your screen shot was so big it was hard to see it. :)
It shows that core0 is getting stuck at 58 and core1 might be sticking at 61. Try running your computer at low volts and low MHz. 2000 MHz and 1.10 volts if possible. You need to see if your core1 sensor can go to a bigger number than 61 ( if core1 can report a cooler temperature).
Rule 1 is you can't calibrate a stuck sensor and you shouldn't adjust TJMax lower to try and compensate for a stuck sensor either.
i did, look @ the last screenshot is idle temp , in bios as i said minimum which can be set is 1.215, but even with c1e and eist, cpu default fsb 333 and multi 6x, and vid going down to 1.03 (everest is the only software that can read corectly my cpu vcore together with abit uguru app on my MB Abit ab9 quadgt ), the temperature won't go below 37 with 34(the stupid core 1 senzor is stuck @ 58 distance to tjmax), which is the exact same idle temperature when i am @ 3600 1.215v without c1e and eist.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Later edit:
should i put it back to 100? cause then, instead of having 37 with 34 which is 10c more than my room temp when idle, i will get 42 with 39 minimum and that is 15c more than room temp?
SOrry everyone for my shots i am running on 24" monitor i will adjust those from now on.
If your sensor(s) are stuck then your idle temperatures will not be correct. These sensors aren't designed for accurate idle temperatures anyhow. Set TJMax back to 100 and ignore your idle temperatures. At least your load temperatures will be fairly accurate if you do this.
My i7 920 using stock settings/cooler. Temps are way too high and I'm not sure what the problem is.
Anyone got any advice?
Well good job unclewebb, looks like real temp 2.89.5 gets to be the first to accurately read mhz and multi correct on i7:up:
turbo on 182x22 bios. So should read 182x23 with light load on 1-2cores and idle. And 182x22 at full load.
At idle, turbo on, both cpuz and realtemp read accurately at 182x23, coretemp is bugged/not reading mhz/bclk correctly.
At full load all 4 cores loaded, realtemp and cpuz read correctly at 182x22, coretemp bugged.
But at only partial load with turbo enabled only realtemp is reading correctly, see pic. cpuz is reading half multis/quarter multis...not really sure what. Coretemp again is bugged.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Thank you rge. I couldn't have done it without the documentation you found for me and all of the testing you've contributed to getting this working right. Core i7 is a little different than Core 2 so it took a while to find out what's changed. If you notice any other issues just let me know.
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/2323/newmathht4.png
:up:
kasio: My opinion is that the Intel OEM cooler is barely adequate for Core i7. If you are interested in getting more out of your CPU then I would highly recommend an aftermarket cooler. There was a reason that Intel was handing out Thermalright Ultra eXtremes to testers when they introduced Core i7.
You can try remounting your cooler and maybe pull your board if you're not sure if the push pins have seated properly. For what it costs for an i7 and a motherboard and some DDR3, you might as well blow the budget a little more and get a decent cooler. You're already within a couple of degrees of thermal throttling starting to kick in.
Thanks unclewebb, I probably will get a new cooler anyway but I was worried that these temperatures were not normal. I did try remounting the cooler with new thermal compound but there was no improvement. I need to clarify that these temps are normal for a stock cooler and that my CPU is not faulty.
Oops :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
I always liked the CPU Load feature in Core Temp so I added this today.
http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/294/cpuload6lg9.png
It compares the time your CPU spends in C0 vs C1 and seems to give a good approximation of CPU Load without needing much overhead to calculate this. My Quad with two threads of Prime looks about right.
Now the question. Is this important information?
Should I update RealTemp and make it look like this.
http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/6770/cpuloadzu5.png
or should I try to add some progress bars like SpeedFan uses?
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/1118/speedfanne4.png
What do users want to see? It might also look better balanced with CPU Load put in the middle between Distance to TJMax and Minimum
Maybe above Temperature and make it progress bars.
I just tried Core Temp with 1, 2 or 3 threads of Prime. The load gets shared amongst all 4 cores so the percentages are constantly jumping up and down and it looks like useless information to me. I kind of like the single load number which was nice and constant when testing. I might keep it as is. You can never go too wrong by keeping things clean and simple.
Edit: I've noticed one interesting thing so far. The CPU Load percentages in the CPU Cool Down Test are approximations based on the Intel documentation. If you have the main RealTemp window set to CPU Load while you do a cool down test, you'll notice a big difference for some of the lower steps between theoretical CPU Load and actual CPU load. I think I will update the Cool Down test to display the actual percentages. A graph of the temperature curve might be more interesting now.
after days of trying to get an answer, it just doesn't seem like its going to be possible...
here is the history:
initial email:
Is there a chart out there anywhere that shows the TJmax settings for core 2 duo e8600's? I am using core temp 2.7 to monitor my temperatures and there is a variable setting called TJmax that I can change. I can't get an answer from anyone that is consistent. Some people say 90, 95, 100 etc etc. I have searched the intel site but I can't find any info there either. Could you please tell me where i should have this set?
I'm also curious about the TJmax setting for the e6600 that is in my wife's computer.
response:
Since there are many variables to determine the Thermal Junction, we do not have a fixed value. Furthermore, you can review the information in the following link for instructions on how to determine the value:
http://www.intel.com/support/process.../CS-011039.htm
Please do not hesitate to contact us again if you need further assistance.
Sincerely,
Cindy J.
Intel(R) Technical Support
my reply:
ok, well can you give me some sort of value??? is 85 too low??? is 110 too high???
their reply:
We would not be able to give a value range since that depends on many variables. We suggest reviewing the information in the website provided before.
Please do not hesitate to contact us again if you need further assistance.
Sincerely,
Cindy J.
Intel Technical Support
my reply:
well can you help me narrow down the setting??? what variables are involved??? i looked through the documentation you provided and i don't understand 90% of it... im not an engineer and most of that stuff is way over my head...
their reply:
The calculation of the thermal junction is not a simple task, and it involves all the variables mentioned in the website. Therefore, what we can do is point you to the formulas and instructions that are properly documented in our website.
Sincerely,
Cindy J.
Intel Technical Support
my reply:
so what is the most popular setting that people use for the e8600??? can you just give me a value that i can go by?? are you afraid of your legal department or something?
by the way, you have to have a degree in calculus to read the documentation provided.
their reply:
Perhaps you can check with the software developer if the thermal specification of the processor would be usefule for the utility. For the processor in question, it is of 72.4°C. This is not the value for the thermal junction, but the highest temperature at which the processor could operate without any problems. This is all the information we can provide.
Regards,
Cindy J.
Intel Technical Support
my reply:
here is the thing
maybe you can shed some light on this and help me decide what the appropriate setting is:
right now, my overall CPU temp is at 41c. this temperature remains the same no matter what i change the tjmax setting to.
here is where it gets tricky. the following temps are what appears for the individual cores when i change the TJmax setting.
tjmax 90:
core 1 = 26
core 2 = 26
tjmax 95:
core 1 = 31
core 2 = 31
tjmax 100:
core 1 = 36
core 2 = 36
tjmax 105:
core 1 = 41
core 2 = 41
tjmax 110:
core 1 = 46
core 2 = 46
it makes the most sense that in my case that the tjmax setting should be 100-110 seeing that those temps are the closest to overall cpu temp reading.
their reply:
The core temperature will, in most of teh cases, be higher than the overall processor temperature. This is because the cooling solution does not act on the cores directly, but on the heatspreader of the processor.
The first recommendation would be for you to contact the software developer and verify the software is designed to give accurate readings on processors with two cores. Most of the applications used for this purpose cannot differentiate the readings from the thermal diode and the electronic thermometer, which are the 2 sensors on the processor. Therefore, the readings will be inaccurate and misleading.
To conclude, since we do not recommend any specific value for the thermal junction, we do not agree with your assumption.
Please do not hesitate to contact us again if you need further assistance.
Sincerely,
Cindy J.
Intel Technical Support
I think TJMax=100C is a good default value to use and Intel agrees. That is their TJ Target for the E8600. If you use that and your sensors aren't stuck, you'll get some pretty accurate temperatures. Do a CPU Cool Down Test to make sure your sensors don't stop moving at lower temperatures.
Temperatures aren't that important anyhow. These things run great so enjoy your CPU. That's a lot more fun than trying to get any information out of an Intel rep. Do you think Cindy is human or a bot? :D
Edit: Your CPU temp comes from a different sensor and there's no guarantee that it is accurate either. It's just another number unless its accuracy can be proved. The core temp sensors aren't very accurate at lower temperatures so don't base your decision about TJMax on what your idle temps say.
Love this program. Just downloaded the new 2.89.6 and it has many features I love and glad you added to it. Also like the sensor test.
Thanks HuffPCair. I'm planning to add the actual CPU Load % to the Cool Down Test tonight. It will make it a lot easier to see when people have too much junk running in the background on their system to do an accurate cool down test.
Way to go hounding Intel there benniebeeker :up: You are contacting the wrong people if you want any useful information though. Tech support are meant to answer as vaguely as possible until you give up.
Love the new 2.89.6! I've always wanted a feature for CPU load. I think progress bars would be unnecessary as I prefer to have as little overhead as possible in my temp monitoring software. Instead of the little rectangular button that lets you cycle between different info given, I'd prefer a settings area where I could tick off which fields I want displayed in the top two lines. So for example, I would like to see on my system:
Code:Intel Quad Q6600 400 x 8.0 MHz (3200 MHz)
VID = 1.3000 T = 0:06:34
what about a gadget for the sidebar n Vista ?
i'am asking too much ? ok :p
I've been thinking about expanding the upper section to two lines.
Good idea about letting a user decide what he wants to see. Maybe a right mouse click and a small pop-up menu where you can select what you want to see for each box. Customizable software is always a good thing. I'll keep that in mind.
I'm just not a big Vista gadget fan. I had that feature on for the first week but lost interest after that and turned it off. I have a clock on my wall and a watch and I can see the time in the system tray so I found I really didn't need to see one on my desktop. I spend too much time on the computer anyhow. I don't need to be constantly reminded. I also look outside when I want to know the weather. It changes pretty quick around here. :D
I know there are some gadget fans out there so I'll continue to think about that too.
Hey man glad I could offer some feedback! Would it be possible to also add a VCore reading? That way I wouldn't need to have CPU-Z running either just for that one value.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
There was a bug or two in 2.89.6 that if two instances of it were running, they would fight each other and screw up the Load % reported so here's a quick fix.
I also added more accurate Load Percentage reporting to the Sensor Test. The previous values were Intel theoretical values. I like the actual values better. I think they change depending on what multiplier your CPU has. It's also a lot easier to see if a users computer is truly idle. Some users complain about high idle temperatures when they actually have too much junk running in the background.
http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/4...owntestvz2.png
When I ask, "What are your idle temps?", 0.0% load is what you should be shooting for. :D
I added a digit after the decimal point because it seemed to be giving me useful information. Even something simple like TaskManager bumps it up 0.5% and changing the update rate of TaskManager bumps it up another 0.5% or so. RT is low stress so it might help isolate and find junk running on your system that you didn't know about. Vista isn't too big of a CPU hog at idle as long as you have it set up properly.
This version should work better picking up the lower multis when Core i7 is idle. Lots of changes today so let me know if I screwed anything up. :up:
read closely... cindy made typos... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
YEEEEEEES! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
progress bars would be perfect, but numbers is a good upgrade, too! ;)
totally agree!Quote:
Originally Posted by wongnog
an option to disable the lower part of the realtemp where it says "thermal status" would be useful too.
I would also like a changelog every time you update realtemp in order to know exactly what changes have been made. :)
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/7177/rt290rc1ko7.png
It's been a long, long time since the last official release so I want to get something out the door in the next day or two if there are no major problems.
Here is version 2.90 release candidate 1 (RC1). I like Microsoft speak. :)
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
RejZoR and fellow haters of my unlabeled toggle button will be happy with its retirement. I added an extra line of information at the top so we can see what needs to be seen without too much extra work. The APIC ID never changes so it's written into the INI file if you are interested in finding out the order of your cores. Real time VID has been sacrificed but the Min and Max VID are still available in the Settings window for Core 2 based CPUs.
sakis_the_fraud: I'm holding off on the progress bars for CPU load. When a CPU isn't fully loaded, it's pretty much random data as the load moves around from core to core. I like the single CPU Load number better.
I'm what you'd call a manic programmer. When I start madly programming, I can barely remember what the hell I've done. It's always a surprise the next morning when I wake up. :DQuote:
I would also like a change log every time you update realtemp in order to know exactly what changes have been made
With the official version more or less done, I can now go back through 4+ months of XS posts and try to sort out what all of the new additions are. I love to program but documenting everything is kind of boring.
The Thermal Status is going to stay as is. It doesn't take up too much room, it would be a hassle hiding it and it should be easy to see so if your heatsink ever falls off, you might notice. The Core i7 runs so hot with the OEM cooler that Thermal Status is becoming a more important feature.