Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

The calibration factor makes it appear that the TJMax is changing from idle to TJMax. The Distance to TJMax data is the raw data coming from the sensors so I can't change that.

The basic formula is this:

Reported Temperature = TJMax - ( Distance to TJMax )

Since TJMax is a fixed number and the other value is raw data that I don't change, I added an extra part onto this formula. That's the calibration factor part.

If it appears that your TJMax has just dropped 20C at idle, that's because the calibration factor is giving you 20 degrees of correction at idle. As the temperature increases, the amount of correction the calibration contributes will decrease. A negative calibration factor will make it look like TJMax is less than 100C and a positive calibration factor will do the opposite and make it look like RealTemp is using a TJMax greater than 100C. If everything goes right, the amount of calibration will continue to decrease towards zero as these two curves finally meet.

Okay sounds good.

Here are the cool down test results after calibration ( +2.0 for core 1 and -18.0 for core 0)

http://www.bleedinedge.com/crew/snaf...mpcooldown.JPG

The results show that the lines are more parallel with each other. There still is a gap of ~25C but the lines are more parallel (graphed in excel).

Here is an idle shot (FYI) with both temps at 23C.

http://www.bleedinedge.com/crew/snaf...s/realtemp.JPG

Now to start playing around.

I upgraded to the latest; RealTemp 2.90 beta, Rivatuner 2.22, Everest 4.60,
,,,but the OSD wont work in Crysis any more, it worked before with Rivatuner 2.11

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f3...eRivaRT-1a.jpg

When I upgraded RealTemp the calibrationfactors showed up as 0 0 0 0 which puzzled me somewhat as I had manually added them from the previous ini-file.

I noticed there were quite abit that had changed in layout of Realtemp, the APIC ID that showed core order is now gone, I´m just wondering if the calibrationfactors was set in the same way as before as the temperature looks different now, or is it just me


Will it help if I do a Prime 95 and post a screenshot of that?

X-hellfire: I hope all your problems are just you. :)

When you upgraded RivaTuner it looks like you put it in a different directory than what you were using before. You'll need to open up the Settings window in RealTemp, click on the RivaTuner button then click on Cancel to get rid of the previous link. Click on RivaTuner a second time and tell RealTemp where your new RivaTuner.exe is located now. After you exit the Settings window by clicking on OK, RealTemp will save your calibration factors and TJMax values into the correct RivaTuner Monitoring directory.

I'm using RivaTuner 2.22 and RealTemp 2.90 and the temps are showing up correctly on my G15. If they show up there but not on screen during a game then that sounds like a RivaTuner setup problem. Is it just Crysis that you are having this problem with or is it all games?

I have a Q6600 G0 like yours and I think TJMax = 100C is the best place to start.

Snafu: The cool down test is only showing the uncorrected data from your sensors so any calibrations you make won't change what that data looks like. Calibration is designed to make your reported temps look a little closer to reality. You can run a log file at a 1 second interval without the Excel option. Run a minute of idle, followed by a couple of minutes of Prime 95 Small FFTs, followed by a minute of idle. You should see your reported core temperatures of both cores move at a much more similar rate.

You can post that data here by using the code html tags surrounded by square brackets [].

use [c o d e] without the spaces, copy and paste in some data and then follow it by [/c o d e] again without the spaces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

X-hellfire: I hope all your problems are just you. :)

When you upgraded RivaTuner it looks like you put it in a different directory than what you were using before. You'll need to open up the Settings window in RealTemp, click on the RivaTuner button then click on Cancel to get rid of the previous link. Click on RivaTuner a second time and tell RealTemp where your new RivaTuner.exe is located now. After you exit the Settings window by clicking on OK, RealTemp will save your calibration factors and TJMax values into the correct RivaTuner Monitoring directory.

I'm using RivaTuner 2.22 and RealTemp 2.90 and the temps are showing up correctly on my G15. If they show up there but not on screen during a game then that sounds like a RivaTuner setup problem. Is it just Crysis that you are having this problem with or is it all games?

I have a Q6600 G0 like yours and I think TJMax = 100C is the best place to start.

---

Me too, but it's probably more people that upgraded Rivatuner etc, maybe I did something not so good, think I started Rivatuner and thought it would upgrade itself, but I aborted the installation when it said it wanted to make a Rivatuner 2.22 folder. Uninstalled 2.11 and restarted 2.11 installation but when it was started it froze, maybe some leftovers were left in the registry?
...anyway did a fix with Registry Mechanic, restarted and it worked like a charm, except the OSD thing

Upgraded Everest, but didnt uninstall it, it was installed in another directory, there was alot of textcolors etc that I didnt know how to save or migrate into the new one, might been the culprit to this problem, I really hate selecting textcolor one by one over and over again


I had already done the Rivatuner plugin selection in RealTemp and it was pointing to the new 2.22,

Tried Crysis and GRID with Rivatuner 2.11, but it only worked in Crysis, and then none of them


Okej, will change TJMax to 100 again, all the previous versions 2.69.5 had was set to 95, I might have missed something in this thread, tl;dr ;)

Should I do a recalibration?

@UncleWebb

Do these temperature variations look correct from core to core? If not could you suggest a tjmax/idle calibration based on this?

http://bayimg.com/image/ganpiaabf.jpg

I originally used TJMax = 95C for the Q6600 G0 based on my IHS surface temperature measurement. With the help of rge's testing, I agree that number is likely too low and in order for the IHS to be at 95C, the actual core temperature has to be higher and 5C higher seems reasonable to me. That's where I originally went wrong and that's why I bumped it up to 100C.

For the G0, Intel lists the TJ Target as 90C. For my G0, that number doesn't seem to have anything to do with the actual TJMax. On core 0 and core 1, TJMax = 100C is reasonable but on core 2 and core 3, I think the actual TJMax is closer to 105C.

Intel's presentations last year confirmed that TJMax is not a fixed number and there is some variation from one CPU to the next of the same model. The 45nm Quads make it obvious that TJMax isn't fixed from one core to the next on the same CPU. I've seen variations of 10C from one core to the next which can't be explained by "slope error." If you take the time to post a Cool Down Test, I'll have a look at it and let you know what I see. If you've changed TJMax then you should check your calibration based on what rge found in this post:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2429

With slope error and TJMax not being a fixed number, checking one's calibration is recommended. Even if the TJMax you use is not exact, calibrating RealTemp based on rge's guidelines will help minimize the amount of error in your normal temperature range.

When you abort an installation, it's hard to say what file and what version went where. Sometimes, depending on the installer used, System Restore can save your butt in a situation like this. The registry is the weakest link in Windows and is the reason why I avoid storing anything there. I like being able to delete or move folders without my registry getting confused.

Trigunflame: I don't own a Core i7 so I haven't played around with one yet. When I look at your results, core 0 and core 1 have almost a constant difference of 5C from top to bottom. My opinion is that actual TJMax for core 1 is likely 5C higher than core 0. If this was a slope error issue, this difference would narrow as you got closer to TJMax but in this case, it stays very consistent.

With Core i7, slope error seems to be a lot less of a problem but I think TJMax can still vary by up to 5C from core to core. Most of the screen shots I've seen, it's usually core 3 that reports the lowest temperatures, with core 0 the highest but yours is a little different.

For your CPU I'd just do a simple adjustment and set TJMax to 100, 105, 100, 101. After that you could try running at low MHz and core voltage and see how your reported core temperatures compare to your air or water temperature as mentioned in rge's post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Trigunflame: I don't own a Core i7 so I haven't played around with one yet. When I look at your results, core 0 and core 1 have almost a constant difference of 5C from top to bottom. My opinion is that actual TJMax for core 1 is likely 5C higher than core 0. If this was a slope error issue, this difference would narrow as you got closer to TJMax but in this case, it stays very consistent.

With Core i7, slope error seems to be a lot less of a problem but I think TJMax can still vary by up to 5C from core to core. Most of the screen shots I've seen, it's usually core 3 that reports the lowest temperatures, with core 0 the highest but yours is a little different.

For your CPU I'd just do a simple adjustment and set TJMax to 100, 105, 100, 101. After that you could try running at low MHz and core voltage and see how your reported core temperatures compare to your air or water temperature as mentioned in rge's post.

---

It had just seemed odd to me that there would be a 5c difference between cores; I didn't know if it was a problem on my end as far as seating and what not; being that I had lapped the IHS/HSF prior. Thanks for the enlightenment and program.

I appreciate the suggestion, I'll be sure to try those changes and frequency/vcore modification and monitor the results.

Finally was motivated to measure core i7 IHS with calibrated thermocouple versus realtemp. Showed the same ~5C gradient from IHS to core as on E8400 and old pentium, using known tmax on core i7...though really was not surprised. Tried it at 4 different temps, but as usual only a few of 20 pics I took turned out with legible lighting for both computer screen and FLUKE thermocouple. At 70C RT, IHS was 65C. With heatsink on (hole drilled through heatsink with thermocouple on IHS), did not get temps higher than that...but was looking pretty linear.

IR was a no go...a heatsink is mandatory, these thing are up to 100+C even at .9vcore and 12x133, with just booting.

Quote:

---

IR was a no go...a heatsink is mandatory, these thing are up to 100+C even at .9vcore and 12x133, with just booting.

---

Holy Carp!

Quote:

---

With heatsink on (hole drilled through heatsink with thermocouple on IHS

---

Do you have a close up shot of the base. I would like to give this a try. Thanks.

Apologies for the OT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

I originally used TJMax = 95C for the Q6600 G0 based on my IHS surface temperature measurement. With the help of rge's testing, I agree that number is likely too low and in order for the IHS to be at 95C, the actual core temperature has to be higher and 5C higher seems reasonable to me. That's where I originally went wrong and that's why I bumped it up to 100C.

For the G0, Intel lists the TJ Target as 90C. For my G0, that number doesn't seem to have anything to do with the actual TJMax. On core 0 and core 1, TJMax = 100C is reasonable but on core 2 and core 3, I think the actual TJMax is closer to 105C.

Intel's presentations last year confirmed that TJMax is not a fixed number and there is some variation from one CPU to the next of the same model. The 45nm Quads make it obvious that TJMax isn't fixed from one core to the next on the same CPU. I've seen variations of 10C from one core to the next which can't be explained by "slope error." If you take the time to post a Cool Down Test, I'll have a look at it and let you know what I see. If you've changed TJMax then you should check your calibration based on what rge found in this post:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2429

With slope error and TJMax not being a fixed number, checking one's calibration is recommended. Even if the TJMax you use is not exact, calibrating RealTemp based on rge's guidelines will help minimize the amount of error in your normal temperature range.

When you abort an installation, it's hard to say what file and what version went where. Sometimes, depending on the installer used, System Restore can save your butt in a situation like this. The registry is the weakest link in Windows and is the reason why I avoid storing anything there. I like being able to delete or move folders without my registry getting confused.

---

Thank you for clarifying this unclewebb


I have now done two Prime95 test, first one with many apps running then I thought maybe they influence the results and it would be interesting to see the difference with as few apps as possible, basically firewall & antivirus

I set the TJ Max to 100 and calibration factors to 0 0 0 0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snafu

Holy Carp!


Do you have a close up shot of the base. I would like to give this a try. Thanks.

Apologies for the OT

---

Just put a power drill right in middle of the stock intel heatsink....drillbit will naturally stay in the middle as it is like a cup. Takes a couple minutes to get through the copper.

This pic i posted earlier in this thread when testing E8400..but couldnt find the post...but here it is.

Thermocouple needs to be calibrated. And need to use thermal paste like mx2, whatever to coat tip thermocouple to make good thermal contact with IHS.

-X-hellfire: In case you don't know, a Core 2 Quad consists of two separate Core 2 Dual cores. Your data looks very similar to my Q6600 where I am about 99% certain that TJMax on core 2 and core 3 is set 5C higher than core 0 and core 1. I have seen too many similar screen shots to believe that this is all just random chance. I don't believe that Intel has told users the whole story about how they set TJMax on their 65nm Quads.

For your CPU I'd try TJMax 100, 100, 105, 105 and then use slightly different calibration factors on core 2 and core 3 to balance out the temps at idle. I think after this, your 4 cores should track each other very closely from idle to TJMax when running Prime 95 Small FFTs. I like that program and test because of its consistency. My Quad still shows this 5C difference between the two sets of cores even when the temperature is at 90C or 95C. That doesn't seem like slope error. That seems like TJMax is being set differently by Intel. Once calibrated, you can do the low MHz / low voltage test and compare your reported temps to your room / water temp.

Snafu: Talking temps is never off topic on this thread. It hasn't always been easy turning a couple of lines of code into a 127 page story. :)

Thanks rge and unclewebb.

RealTemp 3.00 released:

• Core i7 temperature and frequency support including Turbo mode.
• NVIDIA temperature reporting with highest GPU temperature displayed in SLI mode.
• Ability to run a file or shutdown based on user defined alarm temperature.
• Updated interface with modern XP / Vista style and border in Mini Mode.
• Start Minimized Vista issues finally fixed.
• New RivaTuner plug-in support.
• Extra information on the main screen and the retirement of the toggle button.
• Switch to UNICODE for better international support.
• Adjustable GUI colors and bold System Tray font option.
• TJMax updated based on new Intel documentation and further testing.
• Calibration formula simplified.
• All new CPU Cool Down Test for a more thorough look at your sensors.
• Clock Modulation & Minimize on Close options.
• New CPU Load meter, log file headings and Distance to TJMax in the System Tray.
• 101 other improvements including initial Windows 7 Beta support.

Download: http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads...Temp_3.00.html

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3352/screen1oo3.jpg

It took 6 months but it's finally official. :up:

Time to put the TechPowerUp servers to work.
Maybe this version will someday reach a quarter of a million downloads like the last version did.

Congrats man for your masterpiece. :worship:
Now you deserve a little rest. Or not? :D

The W1zzard has dangled the AMD carrot in front of my nose.
Rest? What's that. :D

Great work unclewebb ... I hope you'll continue with the awesome work in the feature.
Thank you for new version again :up:

Thanks Unclewebb!!

Now all we need is someone to do a gadget for this and it'll be perfect. Too bad I'm useless at that kind of stuff or I'd give it a shot myself.

Yes indeed, thank you very much for all your help, time, and inovation with Real Temp! Its one of the most helpful temp utilities I've ever used, keep pushing it!

Congrats Webb. Now how about that beer? hehe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ol'Baditude

Congrats Webb. Now how about that beer? hehe.

---

That depends. Who's buying? :toast:

Edit: One user seems to have some missing cores with the latest version.

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/8733/realtemp300ra8.jpg

He's in Romania I believe so I haven't been able to contact him yet.

If I'm lucky, maybe he had two cores turned off in his bios. Let me know if your Quad has lost a couple of cores.
My Q6600 is fine.

unclewebb
Thanks again for you great work, mate :up:

nope all the cores are here :p

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9892/shot0001tv9.jpg