http://i43.tinypic.com/j7vw1z.jpg
Quite a difference on idle, load seems alright I guess? It was 28, 28, 32, 32 on 2.70 (non-beta).
Printable View
http://i43.tinypic.com/j7vw1z.jpg
Quite a difference on idle, load seems alright I guess? It was 28, 28, 32, 32 on 2.70 (non-beta).
Kashii: When there is a large difference in Movement during the Sensor Movement Test, that's a warning sign of sticking sensors. The CPU Cool Dow Test confirms it. Between the 39% level and Idle, core0 and core1 move about 10 degrees while core2 and core3 only move 1 degree. You can see that both core2 and core3 get stuck at a Distance to TJMax of 63 so neither of those cores can be used for accurate idle temperatures. The first 2 cores look good and should give you reasonably accurate temperatures from Idle to TJMax.
bowman: If you have access to an N270, I'll send you a testing program that you can run to help me out. I had a look through the docs and some Atom processors have hyper threading and some don't. I've been ignoring hyper threading until the Core i7 came out. Looks like I need to account for that on the Atom line as well. The Atom doesn't put out a lot of heat but with passive cooling, I'm sure they can get toasty.
Draxx: Your Q6600 is a little different than most. Usually core0 and core1 line up pretty well. Try taking it down to 266 MHz x 6.0 and set the core voltage to about 1.10 volts. Open your case and see how your reported idle temperatures (when stabilized) compare to your room temperature near your CPU. That might give me some more info about whether core0 or core1 is the accurate one. It's also possible that this might be a thermal paste issue. I don't think it is but you might know better than me if you had any problems during installation.
What method do you use and what type of cooling are you using? AS5 recommends drawing a line from side to side on a Quad and from top to bottom on a Dual Core. I tend to put on a little more than that and then I spread it into a rectangular area over top of where the cores are underneath. Whatever works.
Now Load Temperatures seems more accurate but still i have never seen TJ-max distance of more than 55 on any of the cores , thanks for the tipQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
http://i43.tinypic.com/rrs213.jpg
I have a netbook with the chip in it. It's got a little fan of some sort, I can hear a light woosh if my desktop is switched off.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Sure, fire away, I can test. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Well I just put a blob in the centre like I have always done, so I guess it could be AS5 related. But regarding whatelse you suggested, temp near CPU is around 26~27°C with a cheap thermometer. Realtemp says :-
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/1016/lowrp5.jpg
kemo: It's possible that both your sensors are stuck at a Distance to TJMax of 55. Core 1 definitely is and core 0 is a maybe. You could try another Cool Down Test at a lower core voltage and MHz to try to get your CPU to run cooler to test this. In Cairo you probably don't have as many options like I have with my backyard sitting at -30C today. Core 0 looks usable.
Draxx: Here's a good picture of exactly where the cores sit under the IHS on a Quad CPU.
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/...ohne.40x30.jpg
It's a super sized picture but knowing where the cores are located helps when applying AS5. The old blob of AS5 in the middle might not give good coverage or heat transfer to the outer cores. When I have some more time tonight, I'll have a closer look at your numbers.
bowman: Thanks for your offer to help with Atom testing. I think I got things figured out today. It would have been easy to throw a quick band-aid at the problem but I decided to try and do things the correct way instead. I'll send you an RT update when it's ready for testing. 4 NFL playoff games is going to cut into my programming hobby this weekend. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptelles
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/f...p/basetemp.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Side case panels removed, 6x333, EIST enabled, default CPU voltage of 1.2250V. The D5400XS BIOS doesn't allow for the voltage to be lowered any further.
Tj Max was set to 95°C for Real Temp as well as Everest.
The ambient room temperature was fairly stable @ 25°C.
My idle degrees above ambient appear to be in the +14°C range.
With the case side panels on, overall cpu/mem temps increase approx. another 6°C.
Thanks mate, it was a bit blob so it should have coverered pretty much all the IHS. Thanks for looking over the numbers :)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Apparently my front intake fan has decided to fail which explains why Everest didn't list it in the screen cap. After manually encouraging it to crank over, it doesn't appear to have any impact on the closed case temps.Quote:
Originally Posted by ptelles
Alright here is the screen shot!
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/i...s/Desktop3.jpg
ptelles: It doesn't look like CPU-Z is reading the correct core voltage from your motherboard. Everest showing CPU1 at 1.21 volts is likely correct. Your testing shows that TJMax is not likely 100C. It also looks like Intel's TJ Target of 85C for your CPU would be too low.
Based on your testing, my best guess is that TJMax is likely closest to 90C. Intel says that TJMax is not an exact number but I think using 90C will get you accurate temperatures from idle to TJMax. That would put your reported temperatures above your room temperature at a similar amount to what rge found during his testing. rge tested a Dual Core, but based on power consumption at idle, a Quad would only be about 1C higher during this test. Your additional core voltage might also contribute another degree compared to rge's testing.
9C above your room temperature of 25C equals 34C. If you use TJMax = 90C, your reported idle temperatures are going to be right in the 34C range so I'd go with that.
Hi everyone...
My head hurts hehe... ive gone through every page of this thread trying to paint the picture of whats been going on and lookin for other people with similar hardware to mine... but anyway ive got here and learned a lot about the quirks of the q6600 in the process. I was wondering if a couple of you would lend me few moments to help me understand a few tests ive done.
First heres my system spec.
Q6600 at stock
Akasa 966 Blue aurara CPU cooler - http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...-blue-aurora/1
Gigabyte UD3R
Coolermaster RC-330 with 120mm (1200RPM) fans at front and at back
Corsair 550watt PSU
8Gb of corsair XMS2 ram (4x2gb)
Nvidia 9800GT
Running 64bit Vista
WD 640GB Hdisk
WD 200GB Hdisk
Seagate 300GB Hdisk
I have the 3 drives seperated by a bay each... its about as good as I can do for air flow without removing one of the drives... which could happen if needed I guess.... I could add a pic if that would help.
Case Closed for all of these tests, and ive used easytune6, speedfan and the new RealTemp 2.9 beta for reference.
.............
Settings for your calibration test (but no calibration used yet.. just to test)
at 266x6.0 (1600Mhz) (all fans going max)
Voltage to 1.1
Idle Core temps read 35 35 30 34
CPU temp reads 20
in a room thats at 21
Harddisks are reading (27,26,30) idle
GPU at 42 (fan goin full)
System temp 38
.............
.............
Default
at 266x9.0 (2400Mhz) (idle speed step down to 266x6.0)
Idle Core temps read 42 42 36 39 (fan doing 560rpm - can do 1700max)
CPU temp reads 25
in a room thats at 21
Harddisks are reading (29,26,30) idle
GPU at 42 (fan doing 75% duty cycle)
System temp 42
.............
.............
Prime95 for 30Min
at 266x9.0 (2400Mhz)
Core temps read 59 58 55 56 (fan doing 1024rpm using bios smartfan - can do 1700max)
CPU temp reads 44
in a room thats at 21
Harddisks are reading (27,26,30) idle
GPU at 44 (fan doing 75% duty cycle)
System temp 42
.............
.............
Prime95 for 3 hours 30 mins
at 266x9.0 (2400Mhz)
Core temps read 61 59 56 57 (fan doing 1070rpm using bios smartfan - can do 1700max)
CPU temp reads 45
in a room thats at 22
Harddisks are reading (29,28,31) idle
GPU at 45 (fan doing 75% duty cycle)
System temp 43
.............
Next day
.............
IntelBurn 2 tests at max stress stable
at 266x9.0 (2400Mhz)
Core temps read 66 66 61 61 (fan doing 1070rpm using bios smartfan - can do 1700max)
CPU temp reads 51
in a room thats at 20
Harddisks are reading (27,30,26) idle
GPU at 44 (fan doing 75% duty cycle)
System temp 41
.............
I know im not maxing out on the fan but I cant really change how smartfan is controling it... appart from dissabling it as in the first test.
From reading this thread Ive seen a few people talk about reseating there cooler - i must admit i did expect a little more for this HSF even taking into consideration the inaccurate sensor temps, but i could be wrong. I was a bit old school and smoothed out the supplyed thermal paste with a card - im not sure if i should get some AS5 and try and do a better job mounting it?
All this was done at stock - I have had it up to 3ghz stable but it required more volts and took it into the mid 70s which is a little high for my comfort. I do a lot of 3D work and altho Im not rendering all day long there are times at the end of project i will hammer the CPU quite hard for a lot 12-14 hours per day for a week or more, so stability is more important that a huge clock.
I guess Im just lookin for a bit of guidence from those who have written this hoooooge thread hehe - please excuse the long post just trying not to miss anything.
Thanks in advance :)
Hi guys,
I read a post somewhere, i think it was on this thread, about varying temps sometimes being the result of uneven contact on the cpu. Hypothetically speaking, if someone suspected that they had this situation, where perhaps one corner wasn't as tight as the others, which corner correlates to which core on the die?
For example, if my core 3 had 10c higher temps than the other cores, could i attempt to fix that by tightening the top right corner of my waterblock? Or maybe bottom left... you get the idea :D
Anyone know?
No wonder it's hard as hell to keep a Core i7 cool when cranking up the MHz and core voltage. There's no surface area to dissipate the heat.
Maybe Intel should come up with a perpendicular socket so a heatsink could be applied to both sides of that little CPU to keep it cool. :)
The upcoming 32nm version should put out less heat but with the reduced surface area, you might not be any further ahead.
Xello: I played around with heatsink tension once and the results to core temperature were pretty minimal when air cooled until the heatsink was about ready to fall off.
The slope error from one core to the next is usually not that much but TJMax seems to vary from one core to the next and this is especially noticeable on 45nm Quad core processors. Intel hasn't publicly documented what the typical TJMax variance is between cores on the same Quad. Most Core i7 screen shots I've seen seem to vary by about 5C with core0 reporting the hottest temperature and core3 the coolest. 65nm Quads can vary by 5C with core2 usually reporting the coolest temperature and I think 45nm Quads can vary by as much as 10C from one core to the next on the same Quad. Run a CPU Cool Down Test and post your results.
steelsky: If you read all 120+ pages then you deserve a gold star. ;)
rge and I usually do our testing with the case open. It sounds like you have good airflow but it's easier to make direct comparisons by taking the case and airflow out of the equation. Your idle temps at low MHz and low voltage might be a couple of degrees too high but nothing too out to lunch. Your method of applying heatsink paste may not be the AS5 way but it's probably not that bad either. My Q6600 is very similar. Core0 and core1 are typically equal, core3 is the same or 1C less and core 2 droops down about 5C less then the rest of them. This is more sensor error than user error.
How much core voltage does your Q6600 need to run Prime stable at 3000 MHz? My Q6600 has a Max VID of 1.3250 volts and not surprisingly, it's a crappy chip. I also have an early P965 motherboard that loves Dual Core chips but isn't that happy with the Quads. I'm a quiet freak so 3 GHz is pretty much my practical 24/7 limit with quiet air cooling for this CPU. There are better Quads and better motherboards that can probably run 3 GHz Prime stable with default voltage but I need about 1.39 volts which equals more heat. Post a Cool Down Test and hopefully by the end of the weekend I'll have a chance to get caught up and have a look at some data. Post a screen shot of CPU-Z as well so I can see your core voltage.
Uncle - first of all congrats again on a brilliant program.
I have 2 questions:
1. Have you thought of adding CPU Case temperature reading to your program ?
If you read my post here
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...15#post3548415
I am having huge problems trying to get an accurate Tcase reading from various software - as a way of testing the 'Tcase + 5C = Tjunction' theory.
2. Is there an accurate estimate yet of i7 Tjmax ?
Realtemp defaults to 100C, which I have heard is the i7 figure - but If I believe PC Probes Tcase readings on my system, and the formula above - it would indicate Tjmax is actually 105C on my CPU.
That is to say - under prime load I find PC Probe currently reading Tcase about the same as Realtemp core temps w/ Tjmax = 100C.
Alternatively, if I believe Everest Tcase reading - it is 5C+ below core temps w/ Tjmax = 100C
You can see my dilemma :)
I took the screenshot before the test was fully done because when I took it, I thought it was already done :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SFaznSpEEdSTeR
Besides that, the last two throttling TJMax distance has all the same numbers as the last throttling you see there so it wouldn't really matter anyways even if I run the test again. Unless I put my chip on a pretty good load, the last two core barely moves. For instance, they would be at 31/31/39/37 at idle and right when blend Prime95 starts, it only gets to 38/38/39/37.
My default TJMax is 100C because I have a craptastic 1.25V CPU VID and I have yet to adjust anytime.
One problem that I could think of is that right now on my S1283, there are dents on bottom of the HSF on my heatpipes showing the 4 corners of my CPU so it could probably be the lack of contact between my CPU and HSF and I don't think there is enough MX2 to fill that hole but I'm not sure
Ah ok, so the cores are all pretty much right next to each other in a line down the center of the IHS, i guess it's not that big of an issue then. Sometimes you forget how small the little blighters are :D
:D too bad i dont have -30C but all i can do is thisQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
2.4GHZ Vcore <1.1V Fan on Full , After Test 6 both cores will stuck on 55 and Core 1 is stuck from the beginning till the end , that CPU used to run for 3 months @ 80+C so i am not surprised if both sensors are damaged
http://i42.tinypic.com/2w6wbo9.jpg
kemo: That test proves it. Both sensors are stuck at a Distance to TJMax of 55 just like you thought.
I don't think that running your CPU at a hot temperature for months damaged anything. These sensors weren't designed to report accurate temperatures from idle to TJMax and it's likely that your sensors perform exactly the same as the day you bought your CPU. At least they're sort of accurate when the Distance to TJMax is 55 or less as long as you correct for the difference in TJMax for each core.
speckled10: Accurate TCase temperatures don't exist. That's the reason why Intel gave up on them and doesn't use TCase temperature information to control their CPUs anymore. Thermal throttling and thermal shut down is all based on the data coming from the core sensors. If your core sensors aren't sticking like kemo's and you check the calibration of the core sensors, most of them are quite usable. Don't make comparisons between TCase and core temperatures. Out of the box and as is, you're comparing two inaccurate sensors which is meaningless.
2) Starting with Core i7, Intel stores TJ Target information within each core of the CPU that RealTemp, Core Temp and Everest are able to read. The problem is that this number is still only the TJ Target and the actual TJMax for each core may not be exactly the same as the TJ Target. There is still slope error where these sensors move at a different rate than the temperature changes at as well as TJMax not being an exact number. Core i7 is a big improvement over the 45nm Core 2 sensors but there's no such thing as perfect sensors. All sensors need to have the calibration checked.
OK - I see from your post:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=1136
that Realtemp is reading Tj target - but is it being displayed in the program anywhere ? Can you tell us what it is ?
Or is it the Tjmax value that we see under settings (100C for all cores on my copy of Realtemp) ?
That's right. RealTemp reads the value from Core i7 processors and uses that value as TJMax.Quote:
Originally Posted by speckled10
Intel did the play on words with TJ Target not necessarily being the same as TJMax when they released this information for the previous 65nm processors.
By having this information stored within each Core i7 processor it would be possible for them to have a different TJ Max value for each core and software could read that and adjust accordingly. So far, all I've seen used is 100 for this value for all Core i7 processors but maybe in the future Intel will use this capability.
As far as I know this value is only a TJ Target number and actual TJMax may be slightly higher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptelles
Thanks Uncle. CPU-Z 1.49 apparently mistakes the empty second processor socket's vcore for that of the first processor.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Per your suggestion, I changed Tj Max to 90°C. I also determined that in fact my intake fan did not fail as I had originally thought. With the exception of the CPU cooler, all other fans were under BIOS control. Apparently the BIOS would randomly decide not to start the NB & intake fans at power-on.
I decided to disable BIOS fan control, add 3 exhaust fans to the left side of the case and increase my overclock from 2.83GHz to 2.9GHz. ;)
I ran an eight hour Prime95 blend torture test. Real Temp reported a high of 54°C and a low of 37°C. Ambient room temperature for the duration of the torture test varied between 25.33°C and 27.11°C. Not bad eh? Your thoughts?
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/f...rime95_8hr.jpg
Hello, I don't know if this was already reported but with last beta in my system (Xeon E3110), when the temperature goes over Tjmax, the "Tjmax distance" values are numbers starting from 128.
I explain better: I have Tjmax at 100 C°; when I reach 100 ° the "Tjmax distance" correctly displays 0; when the temperature goes over Tjmax, i.e. 103°, "Tjmax distance" displays strange numbers, from 128 and upper.
I suggest to display "over" or something like this, when the temperature go over Tjmax and not these strange numbers.