Printable View
Unclewebb, love your work :clap: You must be proud to have made such a great application for all of us to use :cool:
Quick one if you dont mind, this 3.07 version....it works for GPU as well ?? You you please explain :confused:
Ignore above, have read through your thread and understand now
oggie: Unfortunately, RealTemp only supports Nvidia GPUs at the moment. Nvidia makes it simple to read temperature data but it's more of a hassle with ATI cards. I might add ATI support someday.
No probs ;) Keep up your good work, all of us appreciate it :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
RealTemp 3.11 works well with i7. Thanks, much appreciated :up:
It seems that new version 3.11 doesn't work. Anyway, the big problem is my operating system which has an issue (I didn't found out what yet).
The missing core returns.:cool::up:
How accurate would these temperatures be considering the large distance to TjMax??
http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/v...oldowntest.jpg
Ambient is 15 degrees Celsius btw., before you guys start saying that these themps are impossible...
Running the 3.11 on a rig with Q6600 it shows load at 74% when all other programs show correct 100%??
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...h_RTLoadSS.jpg
Same here with 3.00.. must have got something to do with realtemp controlling prime95.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardass
Ow wait, you're not sensor testing... my bad.
Mine did just the same when sensor testing...
Mine is running F@H, but does same thing when running prime. Yes 3.00 did same.Quote:
Originally Posted by maGSImum
So if you're manually running prime95 it still displays 74%??Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardass
That's a problem I don't have.
It only occured to me that when sensortesting Realtemp is cutting the load and displays that correctly, but any other program is still displaying 100% (taskmanager etc.)
Mine looks fine. :shrug:
http://i44.tinypic.com/vd0ls1.png
Not sure about mine.
OCCT shows 99% utilisation
RealTemp 3.11 indicates 75%
& for what its worth, a Vista Gadget also shows 75%
Version 3.07 was just for you darkzone but trying to find your missing cores was causing problems for other users so I've gone back to my original code for versions 3.1x and above. There's no difference in features between 3.07 and 3.11 so run whatever version works for you.
The Load meter is accurate on my Q6600 G0.
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/1316/rt311load.png
It should show something like the above when running 4 threads of Prime95 Small FFTs.
This load meter is based on reading timers within the CPU. If you're only getting a reading of about 75% when running the above load then it looks like it's only reading 3 of the 4 cores correctly. Why? I don't know but if you have some time to do some testing I'll come up with a version for you to try to find out what's going on. Just send me a PM and tell me you want to do some testing.
Hardass: If you have RivaTuner installed you could try using the RTCore.dll plug-in. Just go into the RealTemp Settings window and click on the RivaTuner button and tell RealTemp where you have your RivaTuner.exe file located and it will install the plug-in in the correct directory for you. It shows individual core load now so it might help me find / understand where the problem is. The plug-in is burebista approved. :)
maGSImum: It looks like your sensors are reading a little low at idle which isn't uncommon. Try running Prime95 Small FFTs with some more core voltage to get your temps into a higher range if possible. I found my Q6600 likely has a higher actual TJMax on cores 2 and 3. TJMax = 100 / 100 / 105 / 105 seems more accurate for my CPU. At higher temperatures I have a very consistent 5C difference between the two sets of cores but yours look like your 4 cores would be well balanced at higher temperatures.
The best thing to do is use rge's calibration guide lines. Your sensors are functional at high Distance to TJMax values but you can improve their accuracy by calibrating them.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2429
Add on 1C for a Q6600 compared to his numbers.
DGill: I plan to make a separate Load utility using these timers to do some more testing of this. It's interesting that the Vista gadget is showing the same thing.
All 4 cores show 100% in RT:)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb;3703220
[B
Ahh ... I see. Prime95 works fine, runs 4 cores and RealTemp shows 100% utilisaion. Presumably when I ran OCCT it only identified/used 3 cores.
Can you try running Prime 95 Small FFTs? By default, Prime95 does its stress testing at the lowest priority so your computer is still usable while stress testing and usually RealTemp doesn't have a problem reading the correct Load %. Some other load testing programs run at a normal priority which can bog things down. RealTemp might be fighting with some of these stress programs to read the timers correctly.
I've seen this issue before with LinX which is why I boosted the priority of the RealTemp / RivaTuner plug-in above normal to try to correct for this. I might have to add the same code to RealTemp 3.11 if this is the issue.
You might also be able to go into the Task Manager and lower the priority of OCCT to see if that gives RealTemp enough time to read the timers.
Running Prime it reads correctly.:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Thanks for that test. I'll try bumping up the priority of RealTemp like I did to the plug-in to give it a better chance of reading the CPU timers correctly when fully loaded with LinX and OCCT and other stress programs that operate at normal or higher priority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardass
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
I boosted the priority one notch to see if that helps maintain the Load accuracy readings while running OCCT, LinX, etc. without RealTemp becoming a CPU hog. Can't have that. :)
I also put some modified darkzone code in there to try to help him without it screwing up the rest of us.
Place your vote.
Bugs Fixed: :up:
Bugs Created: :down:
No change while running F@H smp client.:(
Nope, still don't work for me :confused: Anyway, a fresh install of OS is planned when i7 940 arrives, and I'll see then if the problem is solved.
Maybe guys at TechPowerUp could help you.
http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/
They're the makers of GPU-Z which reads AMD cards temperature...
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Here's lucky 3.13. I boosted the priority up to the same as what the RealTemp / RivaTuner plug-in uses. In theory, you shouldn't have to ever boost the priority but other programs like OCCT boost the priority of their processes which can prevent RealTemp from accurately reading the CPU sensors. When Prime95 is stressing your CPU it drops its priority level down to rock bottom so other processes can still do their thing. That's the polite thing to do when you are fully loading a CPU. If this fix works, great, if not, I probably won't change it.
If you are still having problems then you can use the Task Manager and right click on RealTemp.exe and set the Priority sky high to see if that makes any difference. I'm curious.
RejZoR: I mentioned that to W1zzard but I don't think he wants to share. ;)
I wouldn't share that code either. This issue has become less of a priority for me since I installed a Nvidia 9800GTX+. I'm happy with RealTemp as is.
RT 3.13 does the job :up: