Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

12-26-2008, 12:35 AM
IcemaN22

Quote:

Originally Posted by unclewebb

The OEM cooler is barely adequate. Your temps look like it might not be seated correctly. Have a look at that and run CPU-Z to make sure the core voltage isn't too high. You've already got two cores thermal throttling which isn't good.

IcemaN22: What CPU? Download the latest RealTemp version from a couple of posts ago and click on the Defaults button in the Settings window to see if that changes it. TJMax documentation does not seem to be 100% accurate.

Anyone that doesn't like to see their multiplier jumping up and down should head to their bios and turn off SpeedStep and C1E or head into their Power Options and set it properly so these features work as intended.

http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/4...optionsek7.png

On my E6600 default TJ max accoring to real temp is 85 and on E8400 95.
Both of them are around 35 degre idle, not sure what is wrong or correct...
I used to follow this: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-...ews-29460.html
12-26-2008, 12:38 AM
unclewebb

Download the latest version of RealTemp and it should be using different TJMax values than that as Defaults. That information by Intel has been somewhat corrected. Unfortunately there are 101 errors in that data.
12-26-2008, 12:38 AM
thaw

Well Cpu-z is showing voltage is jumping around 1.152-1.232 around full load. As well I did cover the entire contact of the cpu with artic silver 5 with a flat edge, trying to get it as thin as possible. I just took a look at the instructions on artic's site and they suggest running a thin line across the cores and letting the heatsink spread it out properly and thin. I'll give that a try and hope it shows somewhat of a improvement.
12-26-2008, 12:47 AM
IcemaN22

Quote:

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Download the latest version of RealTemp and it should be using different TJMax values than that as Defaults. That information by Intel has been somewhat corrected. Unfortunately there are 101 errors in that data.

The new beta looks good, It gave 100 to the E8400 that probably is correct... but it gave my E6600 to much, 90 ! That can't be right...
12-26-2008, 01:22 AM
carepolice

Quote:

Originally Posted by IcemaN22

The new beta looks good, It gave 100 to the E8400 that probably is correct... but it gave my E6600 to much, 90 ! That can't be right...

You can always change TJmax value from settings :up:
12-26-2008, 02:41 AM
randomizer

Quote:

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Download the latest version of RealTemp and it should be using different TJMax values than that as Defaults. That information by Intel has been somewhat corrected. Unfortunately there are 101 errors in that data.

People need to ignore the data in that article, it's way off. Even if it was "fixed" it wouldn't really be fixed. *grumbles* :mad:
12-26-2008, 02:44 AM
IcemaN22

Quote:

Originally Posted by carepolice

You can always change TJmax value from settings :up:

yeah, only problem is that I dont know what value is right for e6600. My article sucks and the beta is giving wrong too... :clap:
12-26-2008, 02:52 AM
randomizer

Regarding the power management settings in Windows, I don't actually have "Processor Power Management" in there. It doesn't require EIST to be enabled for it to show up does it? I only use C1E.

RC4 looks great unclewebb (once I got it to stop downloading the old one like last time ;)). It seems my average multi doesn't go below 6.5x and occassionally spikes up to 7-8.5x with no active programs running.
12-26-2008, 10:40 AM
jerreece

Quote:

Originally Posted by unclewebb

jerreece: Intel told the world that the Q6600 has a TJ Target of 90C and that TJMax might actually be higher than that number. With this new play on words, I guess TJMax could be just about anything.

The Q6600 G0 is a popular processor so I bought one, retail box, and tested it with an IR thermometer. For my CPU, there isn't a snow ball's chance in hell that it is TJMax = 90C. rge's extensive testing showed that the core temperature has to be about 5C hotter than the IHS temperature. Things cool down very quickly as you move even a small distance away from the hottest point on the core so that sounds reasonable to me.

When the IHS of my Q6600 measures 80C, to get RealTemp to display 85C, I have to use TJMax = 100C. If I use TJMax = 90C then my core temperature is going to be displayed as being 5C cooler than my IHS surface temperature which is impossible. If TJMax = 95C then the reported core temperature and the measured IHS temperature would be exactly the same which isn't very likely either. It makes the most sense if the core creating the heat is hotter than the IHS.

Intel has also stated that TJMax is not a fixed value. It varies from one CPU to another even with the same model number but they haven't stated how big the range of TJMax might be for an individual processor. This range seems larger for 45nm than 65nm but I'm just guessing at that.

Awesome, thank you for the timely response. :) I'll be leaving my TJMax setting as 100c then. What you've said makes complete sense. It's just to bad Intel can't be more accurate for forthcoming with their data. :( CompuTronix over at Tom's Hardware has confirmed my SpeedFan Calibration is correct, so I'm just going to go with what it's showing me now, and continue on with life.

Thanks again. :)
12-26-2008, 10:53 AM
unclewebb

Quote:

Originally Posted by IcemaN22

yeah, only problem is that I dont know what value is right for e6600. My article sucks and the beta is giving wrong too... :clap:

The updated TJMax news release from Intel shows that TJ Target for an E6600 is 80C. I believe that the actual TJMax is higher than that number and that's why RealTemp is set to use 90C by default.

That number is based on IR thermometer testing of my E6400 B2 stepping which is very similar to your E6600 B2 stepping except the E6400 has half of the L2 cache disabled. The cores are identical beyond that.

I tested my E6400 the same way I tested the Q6600 I mentioned above. For both the E6400 and the Q6600, Intel's TJ Target number is 10C lower than the actual TJMax.

Flip a coin and pick whatever TJMax you wish. You can even average those two numbers and use 85C like I believe Core Temp and most other programs are still using. It's really not that important. As long as your CPU is stable and not thermal throttling, then there's no need to be concerned about the core temperature of the CPU. It's just a semi-random number coming from poorly documented sensors that were never designed to give out accurate temperature information.

Quote:

Regarding the power management settings in Windows, I don't actually have "Processor Power Management" in there. It doesn't require EIST to be enabled for it to show up does it? I only use C1E.

I think that option disappears if you don't have EIST enabled. If you want your multiplier steady at 6.0 when idle, you need to enable C1E and EIST and set up Windows appropriately. If I have the Minimum processor state set to 100%, my 4 cores on my Q6600 will continuously dance between 6.0 and 9.0. Depending on your setup, your multiplier might not be as stable as you've always thought it was. I've decided to let RealTemp tell it like it is so users can make adjustments to their settings to get the multi they like.
12-26-2008, 11:53 AM
unclewebb

My friend rge sent me some info about a new program that is designed to create some serious heat in those cores.

With a name like Core Damage, I should have known better.
Here's what happens to my Q6600 after running Core Damage for two minutes.

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/6...edamagefl9.png

I'll have to remember to plug in the CPU fan next time. I guess that means the thermal throttling flag is definitely working in RealTemp. :D

During earlier testing, as it sat at the maximum temperature, the reported multiplier slowly decreased from 9.0 to 6.0 in a gradual, more believable fashion.

I'll think twice next time before accepting software from a guy that considers drilling holes in the top of his IHS a hobby. ;)
12-26-2008, 12:26 PM
rge

1 Attachment(s)

coredamage worked pretty well for sensor test, raised temps 10C higher than prime previous test in link...but I left my fans on:D
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2877
12-26-2008, 03:59 PM
Hoss331

1 Attachment(s)

Let me know if this is right. At 1600mhz and about 1.1v my temps come down to 37 37 38 38 at 24 amb., so going by RGEs chart I should probably use TJmax 95 instead of 100? My temps come pretty close to each other at max temps but the first two cores always seem to lag behind at lower settings, mainly core 1 which is usually a few degrees lower. Ive ran the cool down test at lower settings and I know core 1 gets stuck at 63. Would setting TJmax to 95 and correcting core0 +1 and core1 +2 be right?
12-26-2008, 04:21 PM
unclewebb

Intel says TJMax for your Q9550 is 100C so I'd leave that as is. Your full load temps look nicely balanced compared to many Quads.

If you've tested with your case open at 1600 to 2000 MHz and 1.10 volts for the core and your idle temps seem 5C too high then you can go into the Settings window and set some negative idle calibration factors. I try to balance out my idle temps during this test which seems to work pretty good.

Personally, if I had a Quad running over 4.1GHz, I wouldn't worry too much about trying to get the idle temps perfect. Nice OC. :up:
12-26-2008, 04:43 PM
cky2k6

With my core i7 920, real temp reads the bclock 10mhz too low. It happens at stock as well as my oc.
12-26-2008, 04:51 PM
unclewebb

I just changed the MHz code to try to get better Mobile CPU support. I tried not to screw anything up but anything is possible.
Post a screen shot if you can of RealTemp and CPU-Z at full load to show the problem.
12-26-2008, 04:55 PM
rge

Quote:

Originally Posted by cky2k6

With my core i7 920, real temp reads the bclock 10mhz too low. It happens at stock as well as my oc.

Can you post a pic/print screen up so can see?

Edit: I must be really slow typist:p:
12-26-2008, 05:55 PM
unclewebb

rge found one issue where the MHz isn't updated during the Sensor movement or CPU Cool Down Test. That was by design. I did this for more accurate results during these tests but I think I can leave this on now without it causing a problem. rge is testing this out at the moment.

The MHz code is more discriminating now when it sees a MHz number it doesn't like. This was put in there to help out the Mobile processors but it might need a little bit of fine tuning. If anyone is having problems and has some time to do some testing just let me know.
12-26-2008, 06:33 PM
rge

RC5 seems to have solved the problem. It was only during the idle part of test where mhz went awry, but the new version reads correctly 4.2 whole time.
12-26-2008, 06:46 PM
randomizer

Quote:

Originally Posted by unclewebb

I think that option disappears if you don't have EIST enabled. If you want your multiplier steady at 6.0 when idle, you need to enable C1E and EIST and set up Windows appropriately. If I have the Minimum processor state set to 100%, my 4 cores on my Q6600 will continuously dance between 6.0 and 9.0. Depending on your setup, your multiplier might not be as stable as you've always thought it was. I've decided to let RealTemp tell it like it is so users can make adjustments to their settings to get the multi they like.

Last time I had both enabled, CPU-Z reported my multi at a constant 6x. :down: I really don't need either enabled I guess, but C1E allows higher overclocks... strangely. I guess that turns most OC guides on their head :)
12-26-2008, 07:02 PM
unclewebb

I did some more testing today and found my board has no problem sitting stable at 6.0 when idle with EIST enabled and C1E disabled or 9.0 with EIST disabled and C1E disabled. When both C1E and EIST are enabled, then I have to go into the power options to make sure that is set appropriately or else I'll get the dancing multipliers.

Thanks rge for testing that out. :up:

On my old P5B board, the reported MHz are a hair more stable compared to a couple of RC versions ago, especially when running SetFSB. Very accurate as well.
12-26-2008, 07:16 PM
rge

Quote:

Originally Posted by unclewebb

I did some more testing today and found my board has no problem sitting stable at 6.0 when idle with EIST enabled and C1E disabled or 9.0 with EIST disabled and C1E disabled. When both C1E and EIST are enabled, then I have to go into the power options to make sure that is set appropriately or else I'll get the dancing multipliers.

Thanks rge for testing that out. :up:

On my old P5B board, the reported MHz are a hair more stable compared to a couple of RC versions ago, especially when running SetFSB. Very accurate as well.

Interesting...I tried that with my core i7 and XP. With C1E enabled +/- EIST enabled I get dancing multi. With C1E disabled and EIST enabled I get 21 multi (bios setting). Seems C1E has to be enabled for my mobo, i7, XP combo to see any decrease in multi...at least in standard desktop power option.
12-26-2008, 08:24 PM
stasio

It's RC4 or RC5?
Btw,Uncle must update first post
12-26-2008, 09:29 PM
randomizer

Quote:

Originally Posted by stasio

It's RC4 or RC5?
Btw,Uncle must update first post

I think he needs to add a big red message in the OP saying:

"Refer to this post (which will be a link) if you have questions about which Tj Max to use". Then he wouldn't have to keep repeating himself ;)
12-27-2008, 03:27 AM
bowman

Finally got the TRUE on there..

http://www.isarapix.org/pix30/1230377191.png

Yep, that's nearly a 30 degree delta in load temperatures between the stock cooler and stock paste vs. the TRUE, 120mmx38mm and AS5. :rofl: The stock paste looked and felt like concrete when I pulled that crap off. No CPU of mine ever going near a stock heatsink again..

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page