Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

I was using an older version of Prime95 when I originally tested that so I'll go try it again with version 25.9.
What operating system are you running and what CPU and what MHz and etc. Give me some details so I can see if there is anything on my side that might be causing this problem. What temperature do you max out at when testing?

Edit: I just ran a Cool Down Test using Vista 32 bit and Prime95 25.9 and there weren't any problems.

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/2...ldownstart.png

At the end of Test #8, it displayed "Stopping Prime 95", Prime95 stopped and disappeared from the screen. The only thing left was the green Prime95 system tray icon but when I moused over it, that disappeared too. Test #9 started after that and then Test #10 and then it was done.

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/2057/cooldownend.png

I can't think of anything I changed recently that controls the shut down of Prime95 but I'll definitely have a look at the code. This is the first time I've heard of this issue. I'll also try and check Windows 7 x64 later tonight.

Edit: In Windows 7 beta Build 7000, the test ran fine as well. The only difference was that the system tray icon disappeared automatically like it is supposed to do.
Thanks MS for finally fixing that. :)

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9192/prime95test.png

If you have any more issues let me know.

i have just bought a e6400 to toy with. TJ is set at 100C for Coretemp and 85C for realtemp (or viceversa, cant remember, i'm not at home now). which one is the right one? Mind that with the 85C TJ i get 40C under Prime95, with a 7V HDT-1283. Isnt it too low? thanks in advance!

OdinEidolon: When you get home post some more details. A screen shot showing Core Temp, RealTemp and CPU-Z would help out. There is no one number fits all correct TJMax for a series of processors. Intel refers to this as a TJ Target with an unknown amount of error. All software and even Intel can only guess. Post some more details and I'll take my best guess too and explain this confusing mess further. Some Dual Core CPUs at default MHz and a low core voltage do not get very hot, even when running Prime95 when you have a good heatsink attached to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

I was using an older version of Prime95 when I originally tested that so I'll go try it again with version 25.9.
What operating system are you running and what CPU and what MHz and etc. Give me some details so I can see if there is anything on my side that might be causing this problem. What temperature do you max out at when testing?

Edit: I just ran a Cool Down Test using Vista 32 bit and Prime95 25.9 and there weren't any problems.

---

I'm running Vista Ultimate SP2 (32-bit) on a Q6600 @3200MHz, temperature maxes out at about 65C (ambient 25C).

>EDIT<
Disabled all startup programs and now it runs fine, I'll try to find the culprit tomorrow and let you know.
>EDIT<

After sensor test:shocked:
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/7447/bug1wxe.jpg

Someone finally noticed this CPU-Z Core i7 bug. Have a look at RealTemp. It's still reporting your MHz and multiplier correctly. They haven't changed.

RealTemp during the Cool Down Test uses the Intel Clock Modulation feature of the processor. Intel included this feature within their CPUs so if users are having trouble with too much heat, they can use software to thermal throttle their processor. That's what RealTemp does during this test to create the fixed power level steps. Technically speaking, the CPU is still running externally at the same speed but internally some of the clock generator's clock pulses are being ignored. CPU-Z gets confused and reports this as a lower multiplier which isn't accurate at all.

You can reproduce this behavior anytime. Just open up the Settings window in RealTemp and click on the Clock Modulation feature. Modulate your CPU down to 12.5% and watch CPU-Z go crazy. :)

The official term for this feature is On Demand Clock Modulation. This feature was first introduced during the Pentium 4 era to control heat. Here's an article from February 2005 that explains what's going on.

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/intel-thermal-features/

I sure new about it as it has reported these low MHz to me several times. It reported 12,00 soemthin MHz for eva200 once! All I got to say is thank god for unclewebb and his utilities. Best uncle in the world. :D

So according to pyongmu temp reading of inside the cpu should TJmax for the q6600 still be 100c or lower for accurate temps? It seems load difference in temp was 10c and more!

My best guess for Q6600 is:

Q6600 Stepping B3, TJMax=90C
Q6600 Stepping G0, TJMax=100C

Not even Intel publicly agrees with that opinion. They say that there is a TJ Target that they shoot for but actual TJMax might be a little different than that, usually higher. :shrug:

The best test is to run your CPU underclocked at 1600 MHz and 1.10 volts and compare your reported core temperature to your room temperature near your heatsink with your case open. Your reported core temperature should be 5C or so above your room temperature. Check out the RealTemp docs at TechPowerUp for more info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

The best test is to run your CPU underclocked at 1600 MHz and 1.10 volts and compare your reported core temperature to your room temperature near your heatsink with your case open. Your reported core temperature should be 5C or so above your room temperature. Check out the RealTemp docs at TechPowerUp for more info.

---

does this count for water as well as air cooling???

Cool thanks will do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benniebeeker

does this count for water as well as air cooling???

---

The documentation should contain that information and give you a range of values based on type of cooler or air or water. rge even made a nice chart too.

http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/docs.php

When you can't find that link, do an About... in RealTemp and it will be very easy to find the above page. :)

is there a version that works with Phenom IIs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iddqd

is there a version that works with Phenom IIs?

---

Unfortunately, no. Core Temp supports AMD.

It's been full time work just trying to keep up with Intel, especially when they start doing asinine things like recycle old model numbers for their new processors, not once but twice.

There was enough confusion with two steppings of the E6300 which were built using two totally different cores. Now they've decided to re-use that part number one more time for a CPU built with 45nm technology that runs at 2.80 GHz compared to the original 65nm E6300 CPUs that ran at 1.86 GHz. :shrug:

http://processorfinder.intel.com/Lis...earchKey=e6300

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...mpBeta_330.zip

-incorrect multiplier being reported when running CPUID HW Monitor was fixed.

-Disable Turbo Mode option added for Core i7

-added the ability to toggle C1E and added EIST reporting.

-updated the RivaTuner plugin. The individual Load Meters require the main load meter to be active as well.

-added MultiBoost=1 INI option for any Core i7 board that is stuck at a 12X multiplier when using Windows 7. (DFI / MSI)

-added AverageMulti=1 INI option for Core 2 based CPUs which uses the same timers as Core i7 uses to accurately calculate the average multiplier over 1 second intervals.

-got rid of the "Not Responding" message during the XS benchmark.

-initial Core i5 support.

Good job Uncle:up:

You ever thought about CPU voltage readout on Real Temp? Would be nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drnip

You ever thought about CPU voltage readout on Real Temp? Would be nice.

---

Then,will be no more "RealTemp":D

I´m rebuilding my computer, see sig, had my motherboard in for RMA but they
didn´t find anything but my SATA RAID 5 is still gone, for now I got a
SATA 1TB harddrive in IDE-mode and testing everything, don't even got any
nvidia forceware drivers installed running on an old 14" monitor @ 800x600
resolution (colors look ok) but seriously thinking of digging up the
old 21" Sony (colors is very grayish)



Did this test before I underclocked it as unclewebb described in post #3509
and Speedstep C1E idle @ 1.600 GHz and load @ 2.400Ghz,
test calibrated 0.0 0.0 4.5 2.5 (just some numbers dialed in)

idle @ 1.600 GHz and load @ 2.400Ghz, test calibrated 0.0 0.0 4.5 2.5
1b
1b-00-idle-C1E-2400-9x266-1V27-1x(000)-P95-MEM800-tcal
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/9...009x2661v2.jpg




I underclocked it as unclewebb described in post #3509 and Speedstep C1E
Prime95 with 25% load on 1 core @ 1.600Ghz, test calibrated 0.0 0.0 4.5 2.5
2a
2a-25-load-C1E-1600-6x266-1V10-1x(025)-P95-MEM800-tcal
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/1...006x2661v1.jpg

2b
2b-00-idle-C1E-1600-6x266-1V10-1x(000)-P95-MEM800-tcal
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/608...006x2661v1.jpg




test calibrated 0.0 0.0 4.5 2.5 (just some numbers dialed in)
2c
2c-00-idle-C1E-1600-6x266-1V10-1x(000)-P95-MEM800-tcal-sett
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/950...006x2661v1.jpg






1 x Prime95 with 25% load on core 0 @ 1.600Ghz
3 x Prime 2004 75% load on core 1, 2, 3 @ 1.600Ghz
PrintScreen at 99% "heatup load" as close as possible to 100%
Maximum cooling 5 fans at 100% and, topfan 50%
in: 2x120mm, door:80mm on gpu
cpu:120mm on TRUE, out:120mm, twin 2x80mm)
calibrated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (see 2c)

3a
3a-99-load-C1E-1600-6x266-1V10-4x(099)-P95-MEM800-0cal
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/804...006x2661v1.jpg





0 x Prime95 with idle on core 0 @ 1.600Ghz
3 x Prime 2004 75% load on core 1, 2, 3 @ 1.600Ghz
PrintScreen at 31.4% "CPU load" and "test #9"
calibrated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (see 2c)
3b
3b-75-load-C1E-1600-6x266-1V10-3x(075)-P95-MEM800-0cal
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/670...006x2661v1.jpg

3c
3c-00-idle-C1E-1600-6x266-1V10-0x(000)-P95-MEM800-0cal
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/665...006x2661v1.jpg

(btw 1V10 is 1.10V, 3x(075) is 75% x P95 is Prime95, MEM800 is memory @ 800 Mhz, 0cal is not calibrated at 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 etc )


What are good values for the calibration (see 2c) ?

Hello -X-hellfire. How the hell have you been? I haven't seen you around here for a while. :D

Since writing RealTemp, I have come to the conclusion that TJMax is not consistent on all 4 cores of a Quad core processor. Intel quietly agreed with this at their IDF news conference last year when they showed a graph that showed there is some error in how they set TJMax at the factory. They were too embarrassed to get into specific details though because with 45nm Quads, the TJMax difference core to core can be huge.

Before adjusting your temps with calibration factors, it's a good idea to try to estimate the difference in TJMax. On my Q6600 G0, my best guess is TJMax = 100C, 100C, 105C, 105C for the four cores.

The best test for this is to run Prime95 Small FFTs and heat your CPU up as much as possible. If you can get the core temperature up over 65C that would be great. By this point, the 4 sensors have very little if any slope error and most of the difference observed is differences in TJMax. For your CPU I would set core 0 and core 1 to TJMax = 100C and then you will need to adjust core 2 and core 3 to a higher TJMax so all 4 report pretty much the same thing during this Small FFT high temperature stress test.

After that is done then you can go back to idle and adjust core 2 and core 3 with calibration factors to equal out the idle temps. Your core 3 might be OK after TJMax is adjusted. Core 2 tends to sag the most and it will likely need a calibration boost even after TJMax is adjusted.

A lot of users don't like getting their core temperature up high enough to be able to find out this kind of information so I haven't talked too much about it. Lots of users probably don't agree with my different TJMax values from one core to the next but it's the only reasonable explanation I could come up with. The final result for my Q6600 is 4 cores that track each other very closely from idle to TJMax.

I took my CPU up to its max while running P95 Small FFTs to keep the load as equal as possible on all 4 cores.

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8119/heattest.png

Intel's IDF version of the truth where they blamed most of the issues on the slope error of these sensors only tells part of the story. To me, this screen shot is a clear sign that TJMax is simply not consistent for all 4 cores. I've seen so many screen shots that I'd also be willing to say that it is likely deliberately set higher on many Quad CPUs for core 2 and usually core 3 as well.

The Core i7 series is also a good example of this. When running P95 Small FFTs there is almost always an exact 5C difference in temperature from core 0 to core 3 after things have stabilized when the core temperature is above 70C. I think the end core is deliberately set to TJMax=105C but I have no way to prove this.

If you're curious, do some overclocking, add in some core voltage and get your core temps higher into the range where slope error is not a factor. Don't use any calibration factors and use the default TJMax and post a screen shot so I can have a look.

I wonder why they would set 2 cores higher, assuming they did. Perhaps it is to maintain decent performance when two cores begin to throttle. When two cores are throttling it will lower the heat output of the whole package so I guess it would help keep the remaining two cores in thermal "check" without lowering their processing power.

EDIT: It could be the layout of the die as well.

Hi randomizer. Nice to see another old timer drop by. :)

One test I did a long time ago was to run Prime 95 Small FFTs and then lock it by using Set Affinity... in the Task Manager so it would only run on core 0 and core 1 and then reverse it so the same load is only running on core 2 and core 3 with next to nothing on core 0 and core 1. With the shrink to 45nm, the difference between the two sets of cores during this kind of test is minimal. It shows that when you have 4 cores within a cm of each other, there isn't a hell of a lot of difference in the core temperature between any of them even when two cores are doing all the work and the other two are idle. When all 4 cores are working equally running Prime Small FFTs, the quick heat transfer between cores should have them all at pretty much the same temperature after Prime has been running for a while. There's just no reasonable explanation why they would be 10C different.

In testing, the reported temperatures are never equal which is one of the reasons I think TJMax is not consistent across the cores. If TJMax is not consistent then the "why" is an interesting thing to consider.

On the Q6600 it is possible to have the two Dual Cores running with two different multipliers. Maybe they offset the TJMax so if CPU 0 started to throttle, it would start to cycle down to a 6.0X multiplier, letting it cool off while CPU 1 would still be able to run at full speed using its 9.0X multiplier. This would cause a smaller drop in performance compared to all 4 cores dropping down to 6.0X at the exact same time. Your explanation / theory makes a lot of sense randomizer.

We've seen that these CPUs don't go ka-boom at 90C or 100C or 110C or even higher so setting TJMax slightly higher on CPU 1 wouldn't cause any issues and should smooth the transition if there ever is any thermal throttling.

It would have been nice if last year's IDF presentations included some more meaty engineering documents instead of Core i7 is wonderful documents prepared by the PR and fluff department.

We will never know the whole truth about these sensors so I'm open to any reasonable explanation that can cover all the data that's been collected.

Edit: Kind of funny. I was just helping another user on another forum understand his CPU today with this ~10C difference between his two Dual Cores in his Q9650.
http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.ph...9&postcount=18

Hi unclewebb

yeah it's bee a while and I get just been using my Q6600 @ 3.2Hz a moderate overclock, worked great until distaster struck and my RAID 5 died, not going into more of that (link), anyway I still got my T-Balancer setup as you can see but since the RMA I bought new fans, which are much better.

I going to test the Q6600 with your suggestions of a 60-65C overclock but found out after yesterdays underclock marathon with all fans on full throttle that one of the fans is noisy, the new 120mm case out fan, is very annoying even though I switched Attenuator (a PWM filter) on the T-Balancer, still the same "whistle" sound. Have bee trying to fix it but it wont go away, had the same problem with the old fan, but did some customized curves for the fan which worked pretty good but takes forever to get very good.

Thought the new fan would fix it but its the same, this way "off-topic", but my serious RealTemp calibration of the Q6600 depends on having a working cooling system, that includes keeping the noise pollution under control. I used my NoiseGard Sennheizer headphones yesterday which reduces whistles and fan noise very good, however I right now want to eliminate the culprit to the problem. The Q6600 have a TRUE and the same fanbrand and it has no whistle, an external fan (same brand) for the firewall is also silent.

What I wanted to do was to save a ghost with all T-Balancer profiles before I started the serious overclocking, a good plan and backups are no1 before hell breaks out.


Will start the backups soon as I'm as curios as you are of what the result of the RealTemp calibration will be.

(sorry for the "Off-topic" post but I´m usually end up there what ever I do :innocent: :) )

Your Q6600 seems to be following a very familiar pattern. Core 0 and core 1 are very similar while core 3 sags a little and core 2 sags a lot. When you start doing some testing at higher temperatures I'm sure this is going to make a lot more sense. The testing with acebmxer on the Guru 3D forum went very well today. No two CPUs are identical but it's surprising how many of them follow a very familiar pattern. It goes way beyond this just being random chance. The 65nm Quads don't have the sensor sticking issues at normal temperatures the way the 45nm Quads do so your Q6600 should be easy to figure out.

The only exception to the norm is, of course, my E6600 :) It seems to have a Tj Max closer to 72C than 80C (Tj Target) or 90C (what Real Temp uses I think) from memory. It actually made Intel's first IDF presentation look ok! :cool:

EDIT: Forgot to say nice to see you drop by Comp :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Hi randomizer. Nice to see another old timer drop by. :)

---

Hey. I got your PM about the other tool you've been working on, but I don't have i7 so I can't say much about it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

In testing, the reported temperatures are never equal which is one of the reasons I think TJMax is not consistent across the cores. If TJMax is not consistent then the "why" is an interesting thing to consider.

---

Perhaps Benson will enlighten us as to whether or not Intel deliberately set Tj Max higher on 2 cores, and if yes, then why. I'll have to see if I still have his email address. It might be another "trade secret" but I can't see what kind of problems would be caused by telling us. Then again, look how long it took them to tell us fake Tj Max figures.