EIST is also disabled. It just seems that any setting other than the default multi doesn't add up. I'm now on 10x multi and it's showing correct speed, but if I move the multi either up or down the cpu speed isn't right.
Printable View
EIST is also disabled. It just seems that any setting other than the default multi doesn't add up. I'm now on 10x multi and it's showing correct speed, but if I move the multi either up or down the cpu speed isn't right.
At full load, does CPU-Z and RealTemp show the same FSB MHz and the same multiplier no matter what multiplier you're using?
I think some motherboard and bios versions simply do not handle EIST correctly. Turning EIST off in the bios may not actually turn it off when you are in Windows. Try using RMClock 2.30 to check for that. I had problems with a newer version so I've stuck with version 2.30.
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4561/rmclockhu9.png
On my board, I can't toggle EIST with this program but it does correctly read if EIST is enabled or not. If the problem you are having with RealTemp is because of your bios, then I will provide a switch in RealTemp that you can use so it reports the multiplier the way it used to. If the problem is because of RealTemp, then I will provide a switch in RealTemp that you can use so it reports the multiplier the way it used to. :D
Either way I'll get things fixed up for you. It will be interesting to see what the bug really is. I'm hoping to blame this one on the Abit bios. Post a few pics of CPU-Z vs RealTemp while running Prime with your multi locked at 10 and above or below 10. Your Extreme processor might be working a little differently than what I'm used to seeing and what I've tested on so far.
Edit: I just went into my bios. EIST was disabled but as soon as I manually set a multiplier, the EIST option disappeared and when I booted up, it showed that EIST was enabled. There doesn't seem to be a way to turn it off when a multiplier is entered manually.
I get this when the multiplier is set to Auto in the bios and EIST is disabled.
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/4551/eist2ce2.png
It might also be an Intel design spec that whenever a multi is manually entered that EIST must be on.
Is there a reason why the readings don't go lower then 28c ?
First test results. Will update my sig soon. Water cooled cpu, 18c ambient but I dont know the ambient of the water. Got to fit a sensor soon. Reset all bios settings to auto and ran a sensor test. C1E, EIST enabled, will do some more tests tomorrow.
My calibration and sensor test results.
Most of the 45nm sensors stop moving by that point. That's just the way they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by X.T.R.E.M.E_ICE
Theoretically, if the sensors didn't get stuck, they should be able to read down to -27C.
The CPU Cool Down Test might show your sticking point.
PCTwin: changing TJMax to 90C for your B3 Quad recently looks like a good decision. Your 25C idle temps in an 18C room don't look like they are too far off. It will be interesting to see when you get a reading of your water temp.
Unclewebb. Just a quickie before bedtime, what do you think of the calibration settings.
PCTwin: When I first started this project I assumed that TJMax was a fixed value across all 4 cores. It's definitely not and Intel agrees with that. 90C is a TJ Target that Intel was aiming for but due to manufacturing tolerances, actual TJ Max can be slightly higher.
Now that I'm not afraid to change TJMax, why not try this calibration instead. For TJMax use 90, 90, 93, 91 and now you won't need any Idle Calibration for cores 0, 1 and 3. Core 2 on 65nm Quads frequently reads lower than the rest. The slope of the curve is slightly different than the other ones so I'd still use an Idle Calibration setting of about 0.6.
The end result isn't going to be much different than what you have. It might be a degree or two more accurate but given the quality and limitations of these sensors, it's not that important to have a perfect calibration. At least you're in the ball park. It's the 45nm Quads that need some fancy math to try to decipher what their sensors are saying.
When done, try running Prime95 Small FFTs with the log file set to 1 second. Start and stop Prime a few times every 30 seconds so the temperatures can cycle up and down. Afterwards have a look at the log file and you'll probably see your 4 cores tracking each other pretty closely from idle to full load.
One thing I was going to mention since your screen shot shows the problem is that with the old Visual C++ compiler I'm using, there's a bug and no way to change the heading colors when you adjust the GUI colors. There's a few minor things like that I'd like to try and fix in the future. That's the sacrifice I had to make to get the buttons with the rounded corners that I like.
Had to break in RC5 Realtemp XS bench and update my sig:D
Results @3.4g 8xmulti 426 fsb. Cpu-z and Realtemp dont show the same clock loaded or idle. EIST,C1E disabled in bios. With rm, EIST shaws as enabled even though disabled in bios. Changed my calibration, set tj to 90 90 94 91. There's no cpu function in control panel power options.
Calibration and sensor test result. Will do 10 multi soon.
rge: Congratulations for setting the XS Bench record. :up:
I'm going to use that number in the XS Bench window to give users something to shoot for.
PCTwin: Interesting results. I'm going to play around with multipliers today to see if this method of calculating the average multiplier is defective.
Can you try a couple of tests when you get the chance. How about running your computer at about 3400 MHz with a 10X multiplier and then try to run at that same speed using an 8X multiplier. Use CPU-Z to confirm your MHz. At both settings run a SuperPI bench and maybe an XS Bench as well. Try to have your memory at similar speed and timings for both runs. I just want to make sure that your CPU is running at the same speed. Your bench scores should be very similar if you are and will be quite a bit different if you're not.
If this average multiplier method does not work on a QX processor then I'll scrap it. Thanks for your help.
Edit: I was also wondering what program you're using to load your CPU? Can you use Prime95 Small FFTs?
Great work rge. You're the current XS Bench WR holder for the water cooled category! :up:
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/3528/thebarwm9.png
The competition better post their numbers before 2.90 gets finalized.
Sweet:DQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
If you've got a Core 2 you better bring your LN to the party to run a 7.915 second XS Bench. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by rge
Another obscure RealTemp bug was squashed today. Alberto was having a hell of a time getting RealTemp running on his computer. It would try to start up but then he would have to re-boot his Q6600 Vista 32 computer. I spent a few hours digging through the code but I couldn't find anything that would cause this. It turned out that Outpost Firewall was going above and beyond the call of duty keeping his PC safe. It must not have liked the open source, WinRing0 driver that RealTemp depends on.
I can understand when nanny software blocks a program but it's a little excessive when things start locking up and you can't get Task Manager or anything else running to see what's really going on. A big :down: for nanny software.
Just 2 words: Comodo Firewall. No problems whatsoever on XP 32 SP1-2-3 and now on Vista64 SP1 (yeah, long time Comodo user here).Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
/OT
+1 for Windows Firewall! It doesn't block anything!
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
I gave up on firewall with hips/nannyware years ago. I would rather have malware on my computer, less buggy and easier to get rid of. Router for inbound, and firefox with noscript is all I need... cant get infected if u dont let it run in first place. Have AV, dont know why, hasnt made a peep in all the years been using noscript.
I've been out of the loop for a while, but I finally got myself back together and built all of my parts that have been accumulated from impulse buys the past 6 months.
I forgot I was using RealTemp before I dropped off the face of the planet, so I downloaded Core Temp 0.99.3. I noticed my temp was in the high 30s, and was dumbfounded as I'm running watercooling on my +0.05vcore stock clocked e8400 with a d-tek fuzion.
I found the latest realtemp (v2.7) and I seem to be at 32/28 right now idle.
Now that's more like it. :) THANKS!!
There have been a LOT of upgrades to RealTemp since version 2.70.
The latest beta is always available here:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
The new CPU Cool Down Test looks perfect for you. Post your results. You probably have a stuck sensor.
You probably won't be too happy. RealTemp uses TJMax=100C now just like Core Temp does so your temps just went up 5C. :(
First test @3.4 Multi x8 mem @ 1022. Used XSbench to save time.
Second test @ 3.4 Multi x10. mem @1020. The results look pretty close. I would expect the 10 Multi to be a bit slower due to the lower fsb. With 3.4 x8 when I tried to set the bus speed to 425 for an even 3.4 it defaulted to 426 and 3.408. A slight difference.
PCTwin: Thanks for taking the time to test that. I'll go back to the old way of doing things so the multiplier on your QX is displayed properly at full load. At idle, when you have EIST enabled, it might not show the same number as CPU-Z but at full load it should be the same. The Core i7 based code I was using works for most Core 2 CPUs but obviously not for the QX series. Your board is like my board that as soon as you enter in a multiplier manually, EIST gets enabled whether you like it or not.
Thank you, Unclewebb, for such a great program. The latest version is looking good for me so far. Will play with my settings again later.