Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

Friends don't let friends use the OEM cooler on Core i7. :D

stasio: When people tell me about bugs they've found, I work with them one on one to get things sorted out. RC4 is the current release and RC5 was so rge could do some testing for me. I just noticed the first post. You're right, it definitely needs some updating! I guess I prefer to spend my time making RealTemp work better. The next official release is coming. I'm just waiting for some feedback about the MHz being displayed since that chunk of code was recently overhauled.

Edit: The beta link on the First page of this thread always downloads the latest beta, even when I haven't updated the version number for a while.

Not sure what the exact issues are, haven't been following the thread as well as I should.. But it certainly beats CPU-Z:

http://www.isarapix.org/pix9/1230396012.png

That's a lotta jiggamahurtz right there. :rofl: It spikes like that for less than a second a few times per minute. No such thing in RealTemp that I can see..

RealTemp competing with the king of MHz, CPU-Z, is good but RealTemp finally beating CPU-Z is time for a celebration.
:party:

I guess all that development time with rge and burebista is starting to pay off.

Your screen shot is very unusual. I've never seen CPU-Z reporting anything like that before. You better post that screen shot on EBay and tell the world that you have a secret Intel CPU that can overclock to a gazillion MHz, on air!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

RealTemp competing with the king of MHz, CPU-Z, is good but RealTemp finally beating CPU-Z is time for a celebration.
:party:

I guess all that development time with rge and burebista is starting to pay off.

Your screen shot is very unusual. I've never seen CPU-Z reporting anything like that before. You better post that screen shot on EBay and tell the world that you have a secret Intel CPU that can overclock to a gazillion MHz, on air!

---

Well, yeah. The number is so high it doesn't fit in the box, so I don't really know how much we're talking about. I think we're beyond the point where Doc Brown tells us we're about to see some serious :banana::banana::banana::banana:, though.

It might be because I enabled a couple of the special sauce voodoo options in the BIOS to get the clock stable. I can't even remember their name. You know the ones, clock skew, load line calibration, spectrum spread, magic dust, god knows what. I enabled two of those. I'll have to check to remember what they're called. :yawn:

bowman, you should do a cpuz validation at that mhz...and submit it.:D You might have a world record for a couple days til someone pulls it down.:rofl:

The cpuz bug worked for spyros, he had world record at cpuz with E8400 OC'ed with 9x935+ FSB, until they finally deleted it, it was another cpuz bug.
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=468500

And congrats to Unclewebb for hopping quickly on core i7 compatibility, definitely shows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rge

And congrats to Unclewebb for hopping quickly on core i7 compatibility, definitely shows.

---

I couldn't have done it without you rge and that Intel Turbo white paper you sent my way. Thanks for all of your testing and help.

I'd also liked to thank burebista who has sent me 984MB of video clips of the funny things that RealTemp used to do on his unique system. He sent me an updated video this morning and RT is looking good on his Core 2, even with 101 different power management options all fighting against each other. :D

What is interesting, someone was asking about calibrating realtemp with a core i7 in another thread....I just turned my computer off for a while to let water cool to room temp, then fired it up at stock/auto/loaded default settings, and let idle for 15 minutes, then started realtemp and everest to monitor watts. This is with EIST/C1E enabled, says Im at 6.75W idle (all c6 etc deeper sleep states are disabled by default), and with 25C ambient, 26C internal case ambient with IR gun, here is reading in realtemp, 8C above ambient, 7C above internal case temps, nearly same to what we figured with quads/core duos. pic 1

In pic 2 I disabled hyperthreading, and enabled c3/c5/c6 deeper sleep states, and watts down to 3W, and temps now 7C above ambient, 6C above internal case temps.

It was always my theory that there wasn't a lot of difference in temperatures at idle between a wide range of Core 2 based CPUs. From Dual Cores with 1MB of cache to 65nm Quads, the difference only seems to be about +/- 1C at ultra idle. Interesting to see that Core i7 is following that trend. With the minimal number of watts being consumed, it's difficult to get a significantly better delta than what you're seeing.

Can you try running the XS Bench a couple of times with your Core i7 locked at a common speed like 20x200. I want to include a new baseline on this screen for Core i7 since they run faster clock for clock compared to Core 2. This benchmark is single threaded and small enough so that it fits in the cache. Any Core 2 at the same frequency should score pretty much the same thing. It's just a quick test to make sure your computer is running properly without having to find Super Pi. :)

On my dual boot system it shows Vista running about 0.5% faster than XP. I get very consistent results from run to run when I push the Enter key quickly twice when it's sitting at this screen:

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/8084/xsbenchtl9.png

I added the MHz to this screen last night. Almost time for a new RC release.

rge: Try enabling Mobile in the power options to see if that gets your multi down to 12. You might need to do that to get all of the advanced C states working at their best.

You can always tell when a program starts getting good. Cracks for it start to appear on the internet.

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/8...pcracksea8.png

It's FREE you dumb asses. :rofl:

The most ridiculous thing is that it says 52931 have downloaded this file. I wanted to see what they were downloading but when I clicked on the link they told me to get out my credit card. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Are there really this many dumb asses in the world? :am:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

You can always tell when a program starts getting good. Cracks for it start to appear on the internet.

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/8...pcracksea8.png

It's FREE you dumb asses. :rofl:

The most ridiculous thing is that it says 52931 have downloaded this file. I wanted to see what they were downloading but when I clicked on the link they told me to get out my credit card. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Are there really this many dumb asses in the world? :am:

---

Nope, it's just a bot page designed to scam credit cards.

At least it means your app is popular enough to make the bots grab the name and make a page. :p:

I changed laptop power and it sat on 12 multi, but watts stays same reads between 2W min and 3-4W max. Hard to catch watts reading though because lower half of sensor page in everest keeps disappearing, pops off whenever deeper sleeps are enabled...weird bug. Have to restart everest, hit sensor reading, wait 1 sec as it goes to idle watts then print screen...just before all sensor readings disappear.

I ran XS test on RT 4x at 20x200, UC 18x, mem 8X, 1600 ram, and results were 1607x3, 1606x1.

With my 24/7 settings, 21x200, UC 18x, mem 8x, 1600 ram results were 1688x3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bowman

Nope, it's just a bot page designed to scam credit cards.

---

That's good to know. I thought the world was being taken over by idiots. More so than usual!

Thanks for the numbers rge.

Edit: You boosted your overclock by 5% and ended up with a 4.99% difference in performance based on your two Time values in your screen shot. How's that for a benchmark that is directly proportional to CPU performance?

At 4200 MHz your Core i7 can crunch numbers in a single threaded app 67.8% quicker compared to my Q6600 at 3000 MHz. A Core 2 would need to be running at 5 GHz to compete with that. It would definitely mop the floor with my Q6600 if this bench had 8 threads to keep your i7 busy. Do you have any Core 2 SuperPi times at about that speed to compare to your Core i7?

Here's the official release of RC5.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

A couple of minor fixes so the MHz will continue to be updated correctly during a CPU Cool Down Test. Also included the MHz in the XS Bench window so you can collect these little windows like football or hockey cards. You can check back a month later to make sure your CPU is not degrading.

1610 is the number to shoot for with your Core i7 at 4GHz. :up:

i have real temp 2.5 and beta 2.9 the new one when cpu is idleing doesn't
matter if its running 3.3GHz default speed or 4.2 always shows 30ºc

unclewebb can you explain why?

and congratulations for the popularity of your work
thank you :up:

:clap:

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/2...ymenii1kn3.jpg

Thanks for the update.

Mr Hydes: At idle with good cooling, there isn't much change in temperature even when there are some very big changes in MHz. There are also lots of sticking sensors with the 45nm chips. With version 2.90 do a CPU Cool Down Test and post your results. That usually tells me everything I need to know. Try running it at your default MHz and core voltage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/8...pcracksea8.png

---

Ooo... Realtemp with serial. What does that unlock? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randomizer

Ooo... Realtemp with serial. What does that unlock? :D

---

I wish those guys would send me some of the money they're scamming by using RealTemp's good name.
Maybe with a serial your temps will drop a couple of degrees. Cheaper than buying a better cooler. :D

Congratulations for your excellent work on the programm unclewebb! :up:

I suggest you to stop updating the versions with RC1,2,3 etc because at the realtemp window they appear the same, as a 2.90 version :)

So you can't tell the difference between realtemp 2.90 RC2 and realtemp 2.90 RC5. ;) Keep this in mind for the next update.

Hi unclewebb. I've been running my qx6700@3.6 for a while now with no probs but rc5 seems to not recognise my multi setting. I don't know exactly wich version it went wrong on, but rc1 is fine.

Any way you could implement temperature graphing? I got the idea when I got up this morning and saw when it hit the lowest temperature.. I'd love to have a graph of each core's temperature along the timeline. Perhaps with load graphs snatched from the task manager above it?

Just, you know, if it's feasible it'd be really neat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sakis_the_fraud

So you can't tell the difference between realtemp 2.90 RC2 and realtemp 2.90 RC5. ;)

---

With a little detective work you can. :p:

Attachment 91618

Silly me. I've just caught up with the last three pages. I still don't get it. I have disabled c1e and all that in bios and I don't use software to oc. So does this mean all 4 cores are not @ 3.6.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PCTwin

Silly me. I've just caught up with the last three pages. I still don't get it. I have disabled c1e and all that in bios and I don't use software to oc. So does this mean all 4 cores are not @ 3.6.

---

Do you have EIST disabled as well?

PCTWin: I've decided to let RealTemp report the average multiplier. I realized that some users weren't going to like seeing the truth because it's not what they're used to seeing. We've all been led to believe that the multiplier is a nice fixed number but I found out during testing that depending on how you have your computer set up, the multiplier might be jumping up and down like a yo-yo. RealTemp displays the average multiplier over a 1 second time interval. If it does not show a stable number then your multiplier is not stable.

On my motherboard, EIST (aka. Enhanced Intel SpeedStep®) is mostly in control of this. Depending on your bios and 101 other things, you might need to go into the Windows Power Options and adjust your Minimum processor state in Vista. Make sure that EIST is disabled and your Minimum processor state is set to 100% and then your multiplier should be steady at 8.0. If you want your Core 2 multiplier steady at 6.0 when your computer is idle then enable EIST and set your Minimum processor state to whatever percentage it takes to get the multi steady at 6.0. When using Vista, my Q6600 needs a setting of 66% (6.0 / 9.0) or lower. In Windows XP you might need to set your Power Options -> Power Scheme to Portable / Laptop to get your multi steady at 6.0.

sakis_the_fraud: I wasn't originally planning for all these RC versions. :) The last official release has been out for 5 months without an update so I wanted to make sure that version 2.90 Final was a good one with lots of new features and not too many bugs. I think we've reached that point. I'm just waiting to hear back from one user that had problems with MHz but I'm pretty sure that only happened when he was doing a CPU Cool Down Test which used to temporarily suspend updating the MHz. If all goes well, the official 2.90 will be released in a day or two. Next time I go off on an RC tangent I'll include the RC label in the title bar so it's clearer.

bowman: My good friend burebista has been twisting my arm for months trying to get me to write a RivaTuner plug-in for RealTemp. He says if I did this then RivaTuner could be used to handle the graphing. I haven't written a plug in before. If I don't get too confused then I'll probably do that next. If I get confused then maybe I'll just write my own graphing code. For me, that would be easier. I hate running SpeedFan just to see a temperature graph.

If I have enough time I might do both in the New Year. I like RivaTuner and I'm interested in that project but I'd also like some more advanced graphing abilities. I think it might be easier to calibrate RealTemp if you could see what your temperature curve for each core looked like. Being able to visually see the effects of adjustments to TJMax and the Calibration settings would be great.