Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

Thanks everyone for bringing this issue to my attention. It was a pretty minor bug and easy to fix but I didn't notice it sooner because I've been using an Nvidia card lately. Version 3.20 looks like it's ready to be released next week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gymenii

No errors at all with win7100 x64.

---

Do you know if Windows 7 Build 7100 still changes the order of the icons in the system tray? In Vista and XP, RealTemp keeps the System Tray icons ordered so it is core 0, core 1, core 2, core 3, GPU but in Windows 7 the order is random. Unfortunately there is nothing I can do to fix this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Do you know if Windows 7 Build 7100 still changes the order of the icons in the system tray? In Vista and XP, RealTemp keeps the System Tray icons ordered so it is core 0, core 1, core 2, core 3, GPU but in Windows 7 the order is random. Unfortunately there is nothing I can do to fix this.

---

It's reversed, Core1,0. Not that it matters much since I only have 2 cores, but it might be annoying for quads.

All works now Uncle :)

Thanks Draxx.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gymenii

It's reversed, Core1,0.

---

That's a Windows 7 issue. In XP and Vista, when software inserts an icon into the system tray, it always gets inserted at the end of the line to the left of the previous icon. It's easy enough for RealTemp to insert icons in the reverse order so that they show up in the correct numerical order.

With Windows 7 they changed that. Now when you insert an icon it can randomly end up on the right side or on the left side of the previous icon so there's no easy way to predict or control the final order. Kind of a pain with Quads. Maybe Microsoft will come up with a fix for that in Win 7 SP1 but I doubt it. By then we'll all be using 8 core CPUs and then we'll have a real mess of unorganized icons to look at. :)

3.20 works fine :up:

Could someone explain to me why Realtemp is showing a lower cpu multiplier then what I have? I have 8x set in BIOS and Cpu-z and Everest show that but Realtemp shows 7x I have both C1E and EIST disabled. It doesn't change either when under load w\prime95 small ffts. I'm sorry if this has been explained before I couldn't find the answer in this thread after a bit of searching. I'm running Vista SP1 with a C2Q 9450 and the latest versions of these programs.

RyanH: Can you post a screen shot of CPU-Z and RealTemp while Prime95 Small FFTs is running?

You can upload it to www.imageshack.us and then post a link here.

At idle RealTemp is sometimes different based on settings in your Power Options but at full load they should show the same thing. If they don't then obviously there's a problem that I need to look into.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

Can you also check your multi with this tool:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/Turbo.zip

It's designed for Core i7 and is still a work in progress for Core 2 processors but should give me a clue as to what's going on.

Heres the info uncle thanks for the help. I'd also like some help on calibrating my TJMax as you can see my sensor test too. Should I change my idle calibration or raise my TJMax? I've read you believe that the TJMax values could be different on the 2 separate dies on Core2 Quad MCMs but I'm wondering if they could be different on each individual core as well what's your take on that? My core 0/1 are very close across the load spectrum but core 2 and 3 are :shrug: Also is it possible for TJMax or TJTarget to not be a factor of 5 like say 101 or 103 or something? Has Intel ever said anything on the matter? I don't know why the turbo program is showing EIST enabled I just double checked my BIOS still shows EIST and C1E disabled. I'm set to High Performance Power Plan but I haven't changed any of the advanced power settings.

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/301/mystatsi.th.jpg

The Turbo program reads the EIST (Enhanced Intel Speedstep) bit directly from your CPU and on your board, it's reporting that EIST is still enabled. I know there are a few boards and bios versions that do not turn EIST off correctly.

Could you try double checking EIST by using RMClock 2.30?

Version 2.35 seems to have a bug and doesn't close properly so I prefer:

RMClock 2.30
http://cpu.rightmark.org/download/rm...0_bin_upd1.exe

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4209/rightmark.png

It can also report your C1E status and will let you toggle that. EIST can only be displayed. When I turn EIST off in my bios, RMClock shows that it really did get turned off.

I don't have any ideas yet why RealTemp is only showing a multiplier of 7.0 while running Prime. I'm definitely interested to find out why though so I'll try to update my Turbo tool by tomorrow to properly support Core 2 CPUs so we can gather some more data.

Can you try using RealTemp 3.20? There's a link to it in my previous post.
I don't think this will fix it but then at least I know we're using the same version.

You've obviously read some of this thread so I guess you've read my opinion about 45nm Core CPUs and their sensors. The bottom line is that TJMax is not a fixed number. The information Intel released last year about TJMax was pretty much useless because they didn't include details like their calibration procedure or how much error is in their TJMax number. Calling it 'X' on their graphs only made me think that the amount of variation is a number larger than their lawyers would let them admit to. The Core i7 sensors are better so most users have given up on this issue.

My best guess at the truth based on what Intel stated last year in their IDF presentations and based on my testing and 101 user screen shots is that TJMax on 45nm Quad CPUs may have a range of 10C. If 100C is their target, I'm not sure if TJMax falls in the range of 90C to 100C or 95C to 105C or maybe 100C to 110C. I believe that this amount of variation can be from one CPU to the next of the same model number and it can also be from one core to the next on the same 45nm Quad CPU. The variation from core to core doesn't have to be an exact multiple of 5.

These sensors have multiple issues and weren't designed or intended to be used to report accurate core temperatures. They were only supposed to be used to control thermal throttling and for that purpose they work fine.

If I find where your 8.0 multi has gone to then I'll try to figure out if your core temps are reasonably accurate. Stay tuned for an updated tool or two. :)

Ok heres an update with the new beta. For some reason I couldn't get the RMclock app to run I get an error message as you can see on the left side. I have it installed in my Program Files (x86) folder as are all my other programs and I'm running in administrator mode so I don't see what the problem is. Am I suppossed to copy any of the .sys or .dll files anywhere or are these programs all self contained I'm talking about Realtemp and iTurbo as well.



http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/7932/mystats2g.th.jpg

With RealTemp and i7 Turbo, you can drag the folder where ever you want and it should work.

For RMClock, I'm using Vista 32 bit and didn't have a problem. I think the folder it creates in Program Files can be dragged to your desktop. You could try that in case it's some sort of permission issue.
Maybe I'll try it in Windows 7 x64 tomorrow to see if it works.

I did some testing with my Q6600 and here's what I got.

At idle with EIST and C1E enabled and with the Minimum processor state set to 50%, this CPU idles down and uses a multiplier of 6.0 like Intel intended.

The multiplier can be read from a model specific register (MSR) or it can be calculated using high performance timers within the CPU. The calculated method has a slight amount of error at idle on some CPUs but at full load during testing, it locks on one number and doesn't move. If you are using a Core i7 and the calculated multiplier starts to sag at full load then that is an excellent sign that Turbo mode is starting to cycle on and off.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/7610/idlez.png


For the second picture I started Prime95 Small FFTs. The calculated and multiplier read from the MSR were very steady at 9.000.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2064/primez.png


For the third picture I set the Minimum processor state to 100% and disabled C1E.
EIST was still enabled but on this board at idle, that's enough to get the multiplier steady at 9.0. There is a slight amount of variation in the calculated multi but not much.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4313/idle2.png


RyanH: I updated the Turbo tool tonight so it should work OK with Core 2 processors. I didn't see any issues when testing my Q6600.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/Turbo.zip

Maybe try running only a single thread of P95 Small FFTs and run the Turbo tool and see what it says. Hopefully another user with a Q9450 will post a screen shot or two for comparison purposes. RealTemp could be out to lunch but this is the first I've heard of this problem and it seems to work fine on my Quad so I'm not sure what's going on, yet. Have you updated your bios and does your bios support your 45nm Quad CPU?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyanH

For some reason I couldn't get the RMclock app to run I get an error message as you can see on the left side.

---

Replace your RTCore64.sys in RMClock install folder with this.

Here's a test I use to check how software deals with odd ball multipliers and situations that you don't read about in any book.

A Quad CPU has two Dual Core CPUs inside of it. Using MSR 0x199 you can trick it so that one of the Dual Cores uses one multiplier while the other Dual Core uses a completely different multiplier, even at full load running Prime95.

For my example I set core0 and core 1 to use a 9.0X multi and core2 and core3 to use a 6.0X multi. Right click on CPU-Z and you can get it to read any individual core.

It correctly shows one side of the CPU running at 3000 MHz and the other side at 2000 MHz so RealTemp averages that out and reports 2500 MHz. RealTemp also averages the 9.0 and 6.0 multipliers and displays 7.5.

The average multi read from the MSR is shown as 7.5 and the calculated multi also shows the correct 7.500. Not a lot of tools can handle this situation correctly. Hell, I'm not sure if any tools besides the ones in this screen shot can handle this situation correctly. :D

That's why I'm having a hard time understanding what's going on with your CPU. These tools are usually pretty good. When they display something odd, it's usually because something odd is going on.

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/3096/trickt.png

Thanks for showing up burebista. It's past my bedtime so you can take over trying to figure out what's going on.

Edit: Run 4 instances of CPU-Z and set each instance to monitor a different core. Maybe in your case two cores are running at 8.0 and two cores are running at 6.0 so the overall average really is 7.0. That's all I can think of at the moment. Everest 5.0 can also be used to read the individual cores. I need another clue to this mystery!

Edit: Thanks for the signed driver burebista. RMClock works in Windows 7 x64 after replacing that file.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Edit: Thanks for the signed driver burebista. RMClock works in Windows 7 x64 after replacing that file.

---

No problem Kevin. It's just RivaTuner/Precision signed driver. ;)

Ok first of all thank you as well burebista I can get my Rmclock to work now and just to clarify I am running Vista 64 bit SP1. Ok first things first, yes uncle you're right it's showing a 6 multiplier on both core 2 and 3 and an 8 multiplier on core 0 and 1 so that's why the Realtemp and turbo are showing a 7 multiplier because it's averaging it out to 7 just like you said. How would I go about changing the multiplier on core 2 and 3 then? In my bios it only shows one FSB and multiplier setting theres no option to change 2 separate cores. No I am not running the latest bios on my motherboard and after looking through the lengthy thread for my motherboard in these forums it's said that the new bios versions have increased 45nm capability among other things because my motherboard was released back in 2007 before the newer penryn 45nm was released. However I did not bother to change it because my OS recognizes all 4 cores and as you can see all these programs are showing 450FSB on all cores including core 2 and 3 and the default multiplier/FSB for this processor is 8/333mhz so obviously the bios is compatible at some level as it raised the FSB on all 4 cores but for some reason opted to have a different multi on core2/3 even though I have it set at 8 in the Bios settings. Is it possible the C1E or EIST is changing this? Another question I have is do most motherboard bios usually let you set different multipliers and FSB for the different dies on Quadcores?

As you can see I don't have a processor power management option in neither my advanced power settings or RMclock so I can't change my minimum processor state and I can't see wether my C1E or EIST is still on according to RMclock. Maybe once I update my bios this option will appear?

Also, I have my Vcore set at 1.3325 in bios but it shows roughly 1.29-1.3 when I boot up and then it goes down again to about 1.26 again once i start prime95. I believe this is attributed to Intel spec Vdrop and Vdroop.
If I do turn off C1E and EIST this is still suppossed to happen correct?

So it appears the best course of action would be to flash my bios to the latest version would you agree with me?

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/963/mystats3.th.jpg


Edit* I just wanted to add that both the FSB and multipliers for all 4 cores always stayed the same both at idle and while running prime95 small ffts, so core 0/1 were always at 8/450mhz and core 2/3 at 6/450mhz. However the FSB does go up or down .1 to 1mhz regularly but I'm guessing that's normal.

You said you were able to trick your quad into using 2 different multipliers using the MSR tool is there anyway to correct my situation using that tool? I guess it's supossed to be the same multiplier on all the cores at default though.

I have a problem with Real temp 3, after Blue screen of Death (BSOD). Every time when I run Real temp3 I got massage Driver not Loaded Try Run as Administrator. Before the computer crashed it’s working fine. How can I fix that in Vista?:confused:

I thought your first comment would be something like this.

"Thank-you RealTemp for showing me that my computer is borked!"

No bios lets you individually set the multipliers for each core but when a bios is working properly, when you set the multiplier, it gets set equally for all 4 cores. Your present bios has a problem.

If the bios you are using was written before the 45nm Penryn chips even existed then you shouldn't be surprised that it doesn't properly support them. You need to update your bios.

If you enable EIST and C1E in the bios then RMClock and the Power Options might show some more options. EIST and C1E have no effect on your multiplier problem at full load.

The vDrop and vDroop you are seeing is normal. In the thread for my motherboard I was able to find a "pencil mod trick" where you write on some components on your motherboard to slightly change the resistance which reduces or gets rid of this issue. I know it's part of the Intel design and there is a good reason for some vDroop but I don't like it so I fixed it.

Quote:

---

However the FSB does go up or down .1 to 1mhz regularly but I'm guessing that's normal.

---

You probably didn't see very much FSB fluctuating when using RealTemp. CPU-Z likes showing that random variation but clock generator chips are a lot steadier than that. CrystalCPUID seems to correctly report the FSB too.

Update your bios and if you can't get all 4 cores using the same multiplier then I'll add a line of code to try to fix this problem for you. If you use my MSR Tool then you can examine MSR 0x199. Type 0x199 into the MSR Number box and then click on Read MSR. Core 0 and core 1 will show an 8 in the third last digit and core 2 and core 3 will show a 6 in the third last digit. Go into the Copy To section and click on the Write button that is beside Core 2. Change the third last digit from 6 to 8 and then click on the Write MSR button and all 4 cores should now run at 3600 MHz.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/MSR.zip

If you enter numbers into this tool randomly and randomly click on the Write MSR button then your computer might crash or lock up but after a re-boot everything will be back to normal. Use at your own risk. If you follow my directions exactly, you won't have a problem.

Depending on various settings within Windows and whether you are idle or at full load, MSR 0x199 might change so don't plan to use this as a permanent solution.

k4vz0024: When you re-boot your computer a second time, does RealTemp work properly?

When you have a Blue Screen of Death (BSOD) it can screw up Windows or programs or drivers that programs depend on.

I would try RealTemp 3.20 to see if that makes any difference.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

The WinRing0 driver that RealTemp depends on is an open source, third party driver provided by http://openlibsys.org/
RealTemp 3.20 uses an updated version of this driver so maybe that will help.

If the WinRing0 library has a problem you might have to use a program like Autoruns to delete the start up entry for it.
Once that is deleted, re-boot and try reinstalling RealTemp. I've never had this issue before so try the above and see if it works.

If you don't like Autoruns you could try using Regedit and delete this key and then reboot.
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\WinRing0_1_2_0

I notice that, when I re-boot my computer and the system start up, than few minutes I can not run RealTemp and I got ”Driver not Loaded Try Run as Administrator”. However when is the system loaded completely (the hard disk not so busy so much) then some time take than I can run RealTemp and it’s work properly.

The Blue Screen of Death I think not caused by Real Temp

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6...kscheduler.png

I suggest that you try using the Task Scheduler. It can be used to start any program automatically when you start your computer. You can use it to add a small time delay to give your computer time to boot up before RealTemp starts. That might help.

Here is a good tutorial about adding new tasks to the Task Scheduler:

http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/13...eate-task.html

The Task Scheduler was introduced in Vista and is available in Windows 7 too.

Create Basic Task... is very easy to understand and to add a new task.
After you create a task you can go back and double click on it and edit the details.

You might also want to try disabling SuperFetch.
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windo...windows-vista/

On a computer with a slow hard drive it can make your computer feel very slow and take a long time to fully boot up and settle down.
Vista has a few more great ideas that can be disabled too.

Where can I find Real Temp 3.20 ?
Thx.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheungtsw

Where can I find Real Temp 3.20 ?
Thx.

---

Lol, unclewebb has posted his link several times already.

Anyways, here ya go: http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

looks like i finally got a cpu with decent temp sensors.there stuck at 27c/29c.
but thats alot better than my last one,they were stuck at 27c/39c.

http://i40.tinypic.com/23w4gp2.jpg

Looks like RT 3.20 works fine on i7. I have to mention again that CPU is under Scythe Ninja 2 fanless yet. Maybe when we'll have here 45°C outdoor I'll put a fan over, but I'm not sure. Yet :D

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/919/rt320i7.jpg

Just tried 3.20 and when running a sensor test it crashes when it tries to quit/shutdown prime95. My whole system just locks up/hangs and I have to hard reset my pc. Anyone else have this problem? (I'm using Prime95 25.9)