Printable View
what about removing this 0x6fb or the timer that i have no idea what they do :p: and put in it's place a vcore reading something like Cpu-Z ?
also it would be nice to have the ability to hide some line of information with something like this http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...r/resize_1.gif
0x6FB is the CPUID. If you are looking for your CPU specs at the Intel site it might come in handy. I wish I had data for the 101,000 different motherboards out there that use 1001 different monitoring chips. CPU core voltage would be a big plus. Show me how to do it and I'll get to work on it. :)
CPU-Z gets the core voltage more or less correct on the vast majority of motherboards so I doubt RT will ever get that feature.
oh ok then :p i have no idea of programming just requesting i'am getting greedy :p:
If it was simple to do, I would have done it yesterday. CPU-Z has been around for a lot of years and has better connections than I do to new hardware.
A timer is a handy feature. Now I can see how much time I spent on the computer today. You must not have kids that always want their fair share of computer time. :)
It's also handy when you want to keep track of how long you've been doing a stress test for. I put the CPUID label back on so it's a little less cryptic. Thanks for the feedback.
ok i give up :D it's nice this way :) i still love it :D
2.90 RC-1 looks great! Especially love the top 2 lines. One change I'd like in the System Tray Settings is a choice for Display Core which is Highest Temperature Core. For my system it is always Core 0 or 1, but just in case it ever changes it would be nice if RT would always show the hottest core. It's a setting I miss from that "other" temp monitoring program... ;)
Hmmm, in that case, I'll see what I can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by wongnog
i don't think it's 100... if you set the tjmax to 100, the actual core temps are lower then the overall cpu temp which cindy pointed out is the contact on the actual ihs... i think it should be 105 or 110... it makes sense because with those settings the individual core temps are slightly higher than that of the IHS...Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
just my 2 cents... i would love to hear your opinion on this theory webb..
::EDIT::
also, after an hour or so of running prime95 with the tjmax at 100, the cores and the cpu temp even out across the board... at least from my experience...
cool down test @ 4ghz
(sorry for the unintentional double post)
That's true in theory but you're assuming that your CPU temperature sensor is 100% accurate. It's not. None of these sensors are 100% accurate across their entire operating range and none of them are properly calibrated.Quote:
Originally Posted by benniebeeker
All sensors have issues. They all have slope error where they change at different rates than the core temperature changes at. None of these sensors are "space shuttle" or military spec. Some are more more like consumer / home hobbyist spec. Many of these are about the equivalent of what you'd find in a $10 science kit.
Your sensors are not sticking down to 34C. That's better than most.
Try calibrating them using rge's method outlined here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2429
That's an example of slope error with different sensors moving at different rates as the CPU changes temperature.Quote:
also, after an hour or so of running prime95 with the tjmax at 100, the cores and the cpu temp even out across the board... at least from my experience...
Here's a good example of how my CPU temp compares to my core temperature readings when wide open.
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/276/hote8400fw5.png
At lower temperatures my CPU sensor equals or goes under the core sensors. Depends on the mood it's in. I don't trust any of these things without checking their calibration. The numbers rge has come up with will get you very accurate reported temperatures
Still even with 90C on my Q6600 G0 and 100C on my E8200's, they still run much warmer than ambient with a good HSF. The temperatures seem exactly as I would expect them to be. Except possibly the Q6600 G0 spec may be low, could be around 95C or so instead of 90C.
RealTemp uses 100C for the Q6600 G0 based on IR thermometer testing. It's reasonable to assume that the core temperature is ~5C higher than the IHS temperature. The heat spreader does a really good job at spreading heat. I think rge fried an E7200 learning that lesson when he removed the IHS and tried to do some IR testing.
I have a theory that Intel might deliberately use a slightly different TJMax in the two Dual Cores within a Quad. Screen shot after screen shot I've seen has core0/core1 reporting a slightly higher temperature compared to core2/core3. The difference as the temperature approaches TJMax is usually 0C to 5C higher on the first two cores. It goes way beyond just a coincidence but is difficult to clearly prove. RealTemp is still one of the few programs that orders the displayed data from Quads into its correct physical order. Go check out as many Prime full load Quad screen shots as you can find. You'll be surprised how many are like this.
With the new version 2.9 out I take the opportunity to say THANK YOU for this sweet little tool!
As for myself, I think using RealTemp together with the linpack intelburntest made Core2-OCing both a lot more reliable AND less time consuming (or leaving more time for some more thorough testing).
So again, thank you, and keep up the good work mate !
+1 :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by l!kw!dskw!d
Thanks guys. I'm pretty happy too with how RealTemp has shaped up.
I have plans for a few more useful features as well.
I just finally finished putting my rig together and immediately installed this tool to be sure my temps are proper before I do any kind of OC'ing.
I've read through the documentation provided (particularly the calibration section) as well as through a myriad of pages in this thread. Based on what I've read, it seems normal for 45 nm Quad cores to have temperature readings that are off and more commonly where the Core 0 and Core 1 are close to each other, and Core 2 and Core 3 are close to each other, with a potential difference of 5-10 degrees Celsius between the first two cores against the second two cores.
In that case, is it far too unusual that these were what my temp readings were (w/o calibration):
Core 0: 30
Core 1: 33
Core 2: 10
Core 3: 14
I downloaded Core Temp as well just to see what it showed and it was in fact relatively the same.
Through my readings, I know this could be caused by a number of factors such as:
a) Bad sensors as Intel did not calibrate based on idle temps
b) IHS is not seated properly and/or contact points are not even
Sorry for the long-winded background, but my question is, has anyone seen variance this drastic? If so, would it be more probable that my IHS is not seated properly or bad sensors?
System Specifications:
Asus P5Q-E
Intel Q9450 Engineering Sample Stepping C1
Lapped True 120 Extreme w/ Push/Pull
Antec P180
Ambient Temperature: 21 degrees celsius
Thank you everyone for your insight, especially Unclewebb.
Try a CPU Cool Down Test to see if you have some stuck sensor(s).
Brian75: Nice timing. I just wrote yesterday how there is a lot of evidence to suggest that Intel is using different TJMax values on core0/core1 than what they use on core2/core3 in many Quads. 45nm and 65nm. It almost seems when they are building a Quad they reach into one bin and pull out a Dual Core with a near normal TJMax for core0/core1 and use a high TJMax Dual Core in the other side.
Your results are certainly at the extreme end of the normal curve and you likely have a difference in TJMax, maybe a stuck sensor or two and probably a fair amount of slope error as well. You've definitely come to the right place to try and make some sense out of your sensors. :)
Most other temperature monitoring software has decided it's easier to simply ignore these issues that Intel readily admits do exist.
Start by downloading the latest beta if you haven't already.
RealTemp 2.90RC1
At default MHz and core voltage, run the CPU Cool Down Test and post your results. This simple test quickly tells me a pile of information about your sensors. If you're allowed to post images then upload it to Imageshack and post a link to it here or else you can send it to me at:
Real_Temp@yahoo.ca
Also try running your CPU idle at ~2000 MHz and 1.10 volts. Manually adjust it to these settings in your bios if you can or else just make sure C1E and SpeedStep are enabled. Send a screen shot of CPU-Z and RealTemp so I can have a look. Include your room temperature and make sure your case is open for best results. Try to get your CPU as cool as possible is the goal so we can compare that to your air or water temperature. Be specific about what cooling you're using.
Processors like yours can provide me with a lot of information about just how crazy sensor data can get. Once I know what's going on, I'll come up with some recommendations for calibration. I should have lots of time tomorrow for this.
Unclewebb, is there a quad esitmator for idle temps like RGE completed in your link on the last page?
RealTemp 2.90RC1 link didn't workQuote:
Start by downloading the latest beta if you haven't already.
RealTemp 2.90RC1
Try this link.
Thanks for the super quick response. Also, though I've read through a myriad of pages in this thread, if I missed some procedure or recommendation previously on using Real Temp, I apologize.
Per your request UncleWebb, I've done the following:
1) Opened up case
2) Set case on it's side so that the TRUE is upright (I know this wasn't requested, but just wanted to be sure gravity wasn't playing a factor).
3) Bios settings:
vCore (manual): 1.10
FSB (manual): 266
CPU ratio (manual): 6.0
Speedstep and C1E: Enabled
Ambient temperature is appoximately: 21 degrees celsius
Cooling (Air): Thermalright Ultra Extreme 120 w/ 2 Scythe Fans Push/Pull
Screenshots of Real Temp and CPU-Z:
1) Pre-Cool Down Test - http://www.idealabs.net/RealTemp/temp1.jpg
2) Post-Cool Down Test - http://www.idealabs.net/RealTemp/temp3.jpg
Thanks again for all of your help!
Wow, that's just... wow. Sticking sensors at 98.7% load?
jas420221: I ran a Q6600 G0 at 1600 MHz and 1.08 volts and I ran an E8400 C0 at the exact same settings on the same motherboard, etc. The difference at the wall was only 4 watts more for the Quad. Based on other testing, my best guess is that a difference in power consumption of 4 watts at idle is going to translate into a difference of only 1C higher for a Quad compared to rge's testing of an E8400.
That's the good thing about using low volts and low MHz. The difference between the majority of CPUs that Intel produces is very minimal. My 65nm E2160 with 1MB of cache at these same settings was 4 watts less than an E8400 so for a processor similar to that, I would use 1C less than rge's recommendations.
Brian75: At least you took some time and did your homework before showing up to class here at XS. I appreciate that and I also understand that not many people have time to read 110+ pages.
Can you try doing a second cool down test at your normal core voltage and MHz. If you overclock, that's fine. Run a test at those settings. That will help give me a better picture of your sensors. I need some data from higher up in the temperature curve. I think randomizer is impressed by your core0 sensor. That's typically the good one!
Unclewebb, thanks for all of your insight thus far. I was quite impressed with Core 0 too...haha.
Anyway, I don't have any original voltages or clocks as I did not begin to overclock yet. My reasoning was that I wanted the temperature gauges to be somewhat accurate for me before I do so.
Do you suggest me go ahead and proceed with my attempts overclock then report back with the Cool Down Test then?
Naturally, this may take some time, but as I am eager to get things moving, I don't mind spending the time to get the data ASAP.
I know there's no way for you to really tell, but could this be any indication that the IHS is not seated properly? My original hunch is no, because that's the whole point of having idle temps in that they should be close to each other in the first place given ideal sensors.
Brian