Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

I was referring to his GB UD5 board/bios which is nearly same as my extreme:p: ...but that is interesting nonetheless, I never heard of any boards dropping vcore with C1E once you manually overclocked. Which board do you have? I would consider using C1E if it downclocked both the vcore and mhz on mine (providing it did not cause instability doing so), but all it does on mine is drop mhz...I would think it would cause system stability problems if vcore dropped too much, since mhz bounces around so much.

gotta love cool weather for overclocking :)

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3728/idle.jpg
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/idle.jpg/1/w315.png

darkzone: I'm trying to download Windows Server 2008 R2 Beta trial version at the moment. If I can get that working then maybe I can isolate the missing core problem easier. I should know more in a few days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

I'm trying to download Windows Server 2008 R2 Beta trial version at the moment. If I can get that working then maybe I can isolate the missing core problem easier. I should know more in a few days.

---

Now that is impressive dedication:up:
but I got to ask, how many OS's can you boot from one system:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rge

but I got to ask, how many OS's can you boot from one system:eek:

---

For me, the best thing is a box full of hard drives.
That's confusing enough! :confused:

It looks like there is either a bug in a Windows function or more likely, the function in Server 2008 doesn't have the permission to return the correct core count. Whatever the problem is, I'm curious enough to download a couple of gigabytes of data from Microsoft and do some testing.

OK, but previous version especially compiled for i7 (RT 2.82) is running just fine on Server 2008. I think there is some code changes from RT to 3.0 which bypass some routines of the operating system. Maybe I said something stupid but it's just an ideea :rolleyes:

You're right, there have been some code changes since 2.82. Lots of changes but the problem is that I'm not bypassing any operating system routines.

I'm using the Windows GetProcessAffinityMask() function and it is telling RealTemp 3.00 that it can only run on the first two cores of your Quad.

Why? I don't know but I'm hoping to find out some more by installing Server 2008. I might have to create an INI switch for you to bypass that function so RealTemp 3.00 is able to see all 4 of your cores or maybe the problem is in a different function. As I said before, I'm willing to do whatever it takes to solve this problem for you and other Server 2008 users.

Edit: Here's how testing went with RealTemp 3.00 downloaded from TechPowerUp and Server 2008 R2 downloaded from Microsoft.

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/2461/server2008r2.png

It found all 4 cores. The only issue was the same issue that Windows 7 has where the cores aren't organized properly in the System Tray. Other than that, everything worked as it should.
APIC ID also shows the proper 0123 core order.

I have no idea why RealTemp 3.00 doesn't work properly on your version of Server 2008 darkzone but I'll come up with a switch you can use to try and force it to see all 4 cores.

Well, here is a "small" problem. In my case, the version of operating system is Windows HPC Server 2008, an modified version of Windows Server 2008 x64. This could be the "annoying bug"?

On the other hand, this don't explain why earlier version runs without problems on my Server 2008 :shrug: Maybe new patch will fix this :up:

I'll see if I can download and install Windows HPC Server 2008 tonight and test it tomorrow.

If I can create the same bug as you have then I know it will be easy to fix properly. I'm as curious as you are to find out what the problem is.

Great little program. RealTemp and CoreTemp are reading temps accurate to each other and OCCT on the I7 (P6T). A hell of a lot better than Asus Probe (Asus Probe is running like 20 degrees Fahrenheit higher on my setup, I got rid of it).

I'd like to see an option to display Fahrenheit (my old mind doesn't work too well in Celius, heh heh).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rge

I was referring to his GB UD5 board/bios which is nearly same as my extreme:p: ...but that is interesting nonetheless, I never heard of any boards dropping vcore with C1E once you manually overclocked. Which board do you have? I would consider using C1E if it downclocked both the vcore and mhz on mine (providing it did not cause instability doing so), but all it does on mine is drop mhz...I would think it would cause system stability problems if vcore dropped too much, since mhz bounces around so much.

---

abit AB9 Pro. It may sound a little odd, but this board (or perhaps the CPU) seems to handle a ~15MHz higher FSB with C1E enabled and EIST disabled (haven't tried with both enabled). Although neither is stable, one locks up at 405-410FSB and the other can still do some things at 425FSB. :shrug:

Today's test was on Windows Server 2008 HPC like you're using darkzone and my results are the same:

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/6699/server2008hpc.png

RealTemp 3.00 found all 4 of my cores and it aligned them correctly in the System Tray.

I'll do some more testing but it's going to be hard to fix a problem that I can't recreate.

In this case, is how I thought, there is a problem with current OS installation. Well, I have work to do :D
Thanks for your time and patience, I'll keep you in touch about this :up:

Don't do nothing too drastic yet darkzone. Give me a day or two to get the RealTempBeta version back on track.
With all of the information you've provided me, I might be able to come up with a simple fix. If everything else is working fine on your computer then there's no use doing an OS re-install just yet.

Are you using the Administrator account as your main account or are you using a separate user account?

Yes, I use built-in Administrator account (yes, I know, that's stupid :) ) but I'm the only user on this machine. And no, I won't do anything drastic about this issue, just want to verify services and functions that I've stopped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bludd

Thank you. It has the same behaviour as 1.49 and 1.50

---

Just an update. CPU-Z 1.50 now shows 12x multiplier at idle, just as Real Temp. I think the change in power settings (to laptop) made all the difference.

Bludd: I think there are a lot of people running XP that don't realize that you might have to use the laptop power setting to get Speedstep to drop your multiplier down to its lowest value at idle. In Vista you have to go into the Power Options -> Processor power management and reduce the Minimum processor state to about 50%. I think CPU-Z 1.50 will still show you the full multiplier if you don't have laptop enabled. As far as I know, that's what Intel recommends should be displayed but I think showing the average multiplier gives a user a better idea of what's really going on.

On the Core 2 Dual and Quad Core chips that I've checked, dropping your multi down to 6.0 doesn't save you any power or create any less heat. At the wall, the difference is tough to measure. Usually less than 1 watt which is a normal fluctuation at idle anyhow.

The only way any of these power saving features will do you any good is if the core voltage drops down as well at idle. If you like to overclock then most boards won't drop your core voltage at idle so dropping the multi is kind of pointless. It doesn't really cost you anything but you also don't gain anything either.

darkzone: I know it's a bad idea and all that but I think a lot of users just use the Administrator account. Less hassle. I thought it was possible that maybe you had set up an account that had limited privileges or something like that. Hopefully that testing program I sent you will tell us something new.

Well, the situation is blue, as we have a word here în my country :)
With new version of Set Thread which you sent to me, I've had these results:

- at first run program is working on first two cores only
Attachment 95388

- at second run I started RT 3.00 to see what happens
Attachment 95389

- at third run I set the program to work on last two cores only
Attachment 95390

- at fourth run I set the program to work on all four cores
Attachment 95391

Now, I hope this screens will be helpful for you to find out what is wrong in here.

Your screen shots are very helpful. This bug finally makes sense. For some reason, when an application starts on your computer, by default, it is only being allowed to run on core 0 and core 1. I don't know why because the Server 2008 HPC SP1 that I tried does not work like that. Normally when an application starts, it automatically is allowed to run on all available cores. That's what RealTemp 3.00 assumes and in your case, that assumption is wrong. It doesn't try to read the temperatures from core 2 and core 3 because it thinks the operating system has blocked access to them.

I should have a fix ready for you to test by tomorrow morning your time.

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/8458/realtemp306.png

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

Edit: If you have mfc71u.dll on your system then you can try the Beta2 version:
burebista likes this one better because it's smaller and initially starts up quicker.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...lTempBeta2.zip

I'm hoping this beta is much better than the last one and that the missing cores have finally been located. :)
I also threw in an extra button for Nvidia owners to make it easier to see the Minimum and Maximum GPU temperatures.
Core i5 support has been added as well as support for some of the early Core i7 based Xeon (ES) processors.

OK, I'll check this tonight, and the new version of RT 3.00 also. I hope this time will work :D

But, a question still remains: why previous version, RT 2.82, runs just fine onto the same version of OS?

I just wanted to say, thanks for your hard work on this program :D

nigelke: You're welcome.

Quote:

---

But, a question still remains: why previous version, RT 2.82, runs just fine onto the same version of OS?

---

Good question. RT 2.82 did not ask the operating system what cores it's allowed to run on. RT 3.00 was trying to be more operating system friendly and decided to ask. Bad idea. :down:

On your operating system, for some unknown reason, when RealTemp starts up, it's only being given access to the first two cores. RT 3.06 tries to force its way onto the other two cores.

It only took me 3 weeks, 1 new utility program and the downloading of 5GB of operating systems from MS to figure this out. :)

It will be interesting to see if this fix finally works.

Edit: You should also see if you have any other apps that are being limited to only run on your first two cores when they start up.

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9108/limited.png

Finally ... runs. IT'S ALIVE! Maybe because this is the 13th screenshot? :D
Attachment 95427

Program started onto all four cores at first run.

OK, thanks for your support, help and patience, you're THE ONE :up:

It took a while but that dumb bug has finally been taken care of.

:shoot:

Now you can say good-bye to version 2.82.
Version 3.06 is much better.

When you start any program and look at SetAffinity... in the TaskManager it should automatically be running on all 4 cores. Have a look to see if you can find any other programs that are being limited to only your first two cores.

There might be something in your operating system / registry that needs a tweak so all of your cores, always get used.

Yes, as I suspect, there is something wrong in my OS configuration. I started WinRAR (which is known as multithreaded optimized) and SetAffinity shows that the program runs onto first two cores only:
Attachment 95469

Now, I have to find out why.

Besides, I manually set the affinity for each running program when the system was ready to "up an run". Since then, I didn't verified anymore, being sure that all is OK. So, it was a mistake :shakes: