Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

Done some more testing as I got my other computer sorted out,
updating a firewall creates a millions of popups that needs to be
redone which takes forever and forever but finally I got some
time to test and calibrate RealTemp


bios

I have previously always had the default Vcore 1.275V at 3.2GHz but
after a I rebooted while installing some software I got a three beeps from the
PC-speaker and It had done a safe reboot and set the cpu to 2.1GHz and 8x266
. . . well the cpu might need some some juice so I upped Vcore to 1.300V and it
has been stable so for through 4 x Prime95 for several tests.

I wondering why RealTemp reports a Core VID . . . MAX 1.2750V when bios (1.) shows

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/4...pu32008x40.jpg





T-Balancer has a digital sensor (cpu-D1) on the bottom of the TRUE
and is the idea is that when it is calibrated it offers enough guidance
to automatically adjust the fans

Cooling

cpu-fan to 100% and case-fan to 100%
. . . don't want to overclock the mem at this point and keeping
it at default 800Mhz

cpu-D1 is 35C
1a
1a-00-idle-0xC1E-3200-8x400-1V30-4x(000)-P95-mem800-0cal
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/9...32008x4001.jpg




cpu-D1 is 35C
1b
1b-99-load-0xC1E-3200-8x400-1V30-4x(99)-P95-mem800-0cal
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/916...32008x4001.jpg





I entered what you suggested earlier unclewebb with a
TJ Max of 100C 100C 105C 105C

RealTemp calibration 0.5 0.5 2.2 -0.5 (known as cal1)
cpu-D1 is 33.5C
2a
2a-00-idle-0xC1E-3200-8x400-1V30-4x(000)-P95-mem800-cal1-settings
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/154...32008x4001.jpg




cpu-D1 is 35.5C

2b
2b-99-load-0xC1E-3200-8x400-1V30-4x(99)-P95-mem800-cal1
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/933...32008x4001.jpg




cpu-D1 is 34.5C
2c
2c-00-idle-0xC1E-3200-8x400-1V30-4x(000)-P95-mem800-cal1
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/5...32008x4001.jpg





Pretest

Tried to bring up temperatures to about 65C by lowering the
cpu-fan to 22% and case-fan to 80%
( don't want to overclock the mem at this point and keeping
it at default 800Mhz, otherwise I might had tried to overclock the cpu to 3.6Ghz )
. . . anyway the Q6600 cores reached 63C 63C 65C 64C

cpu-D1 is 40.0C
3a
3a-99-load-0xC1E-3200-8x400-1V30-4x(99)-P95-mem800-fan1-cpu22-fan4-case80-cal1-c65
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/4...32008x4001.jpg



cpu-D1 is 34.0C
4a
4a-00-idle-0xC1E-3200-8x400-1V30-4x(000)-P95-mem800-fan1-cpu22-fan4-case80-cal1-c65
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/7...32008x4001.jpg




Heat Up Phase

Tried to bring up temperatures to about 65C by lowering the
cpu-fan to 22% and case-fan to 80% as I mentioned before in the
. . . the pretest (3a) went on for about 10 min but the "Heat Up Phase" was about
half of that time maybe less and Q6600 cores reached 60C 60C 63C 61C

cpu-D1 is 37.0C
4b
4b-99-load-0xC1E-3200-8x400-1V30-4x(99)-P95-mem800--fan1-cpu22-fan4-case80-cal1-c65
http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/8...32008x4001.jpg




When the "Cpu load" was 30% I noticed that the Prime95 dropped
from 100% to 0% in the core graphs and I stopped the 3 x Prime2004
as fast as possible.
cpu-D1 is 37.5C (TRUE-temp is rising even though the cpu is idle)
4c
4c-00-idle30-0xC1E-3200-8x400-1V30-4x(000)-P95-mem800-fan1-cpu22-fan4-case80-cal1-c65
http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/6...1e32008x40.jpg





cpu-D1 is 36.5C (TRUE-temp finally going down as the cpu is idle)
4d
4d-00-idle-0xC1E-3200-8x400-1V30-4x(000)-P95-mem800-fan1-cpu22-fan4-case80-cal1-c65
http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/856...32008x4001.jpg








I might try to enter the data logs from RealTemp and T-Balancer into Excel
and make some pretty graphs that might some more datapoints show and how the
TRUE-cpu-D1 digital sensors is trailing some 30 to 60 seconds behind
RealTemp (I placed it where it didn´t ruin the looks of the TRUE too much)
which depending on how you set it up can work reasonable as the TRUE
has some overcapacity it won't hurt the cpu too much.

It does however create some difficulties to master all areas that needs
cooling when overclocking and have the CrazyCool thing enough cooled
at all times even when the fans are fine tuned to run the computer as
silently as possible (its a matter of taste how much heat you think is ok even
if seams as it's stable some stuff might be hurting real bad and create
problems later on)





It looks like the core #2 it the one that needs some more
fine tuning.

What do you think about this first calibration unclewebb?







.

When not overclocking and when your voltage is set to AUTO, the motherboard is supposed to use the VID information inside your CPU to set the appropriate core voltage. It uses the high VID information to set the voltage at full load and it uses the low VID information that RealTemp displays to set your idle core voltage when EIST is enabled and your processor's multiplier drops down to 6.0. You typically end up with slightly less voltage than the VID number due to vdroop. Most motherboards ignore the VID information within a CPU as soon as you start overclocking or if you set the voltage manually.

You need to open up the Settings window in RealTemp so I can have a look at what calibration settings you are using.

You'll get more consistent results if you use Prime95 instead of Orthos or SP2004.
http://mersenne.org/freesoft/

That let's RealTemp control the exact shut down time of Prime95 on all 4 cores simultaneously so you don't have to do this manually. Then you can go for a coffee and come back 10 minutes later and see the results. You get more consistent and repeatable results when you do things this way.

At the moment it looks like you have a split TJMax similar to my Q6600. It might be TJMax=100,100,105,105 like I use or maybe core 2 and core 3 are 104. :shrug:

I wouldn't use any calibration factors on core 0 and core 1 and then I'd use some calibration factors on core 2 and core 3 so all 4 cores report the same temperature when you are idle at your normal overclocked settings. Let's see your calibration settings so I can have a better look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Coming from the RealTemp guy this is going to sound a little dumb but temperatures really aren't that important. Cool them as much as you can afford to and they will be able to overclock more. If they are not stable, cool 'em some more or back off your overclock. That's really all there is to it. No fancy temperature monitoring program needed.

:

---

My temps on that e8400 CO were read at 20c all the time no matter what the vcore was set to. The temps would go up under full load running Prime 1.256v bios at 4.05ghz, it would show 38 to low 40's c. I guess there is no way to know actual temps? Its a great clocking chip but never pushed it any further due to the sensor issue. Back when the chips came out people were saying to add 15c to what the temp program was reading but I doubt that is accurate. I put the chip back in a few weeks ago in hopes that the newer versions of real temp or core temp would read it correctly but no luck. Guess the sensors are bad.

@unclewebb, look at the 2a image/post and you will find the calibration settings as well, well it was a long post so it's easy to overlook it ans scroll past it. :innocent:

I have downloaded prime95 and used it in the test above but when it runs it only uses 1 core in the RealTemp "Test Sensor" test. Is it really that much difference between prime95 and prime2004 when testing the "small FFT" ?

I cropped the 1280x960 images to 800x960 as it is easier on the weblayout on forums and not much more was seen except that that it showed 1 x prime95 and 3 x prime 2004 at the clock, so the names of the images are abit misleading as "4x(99)-P95" means 3 x Prime2004 at (99-100%) and 1 x Prime95 at (99-100%) taken a "Print Screen" at the "Heat Up Phase" as close to 100% as possible but it then shows 99% so it's pretty close anyway.

Have only tried the C1E before but it was unstable and crashed games like Crysis and I haven't tried the EIST which was in the bios when they updated my bios from F6 to F7 when then motherboard was on RMA. If EIST works better then I will try it later on.

Well if you look in post/image 2a you'll see that the in RealTemp 33C 33C 33C 33C, and core 0 and core 1 showed to low idle temp at 0.0 calibration ( 32C ) and had to be turned up a notch to show 33C, compared to T-Balancer cpu-D1 digital sensor even that I let it run for a while to see if it stabilized it was the closets to 33.5C as possible. It is of course possible that cpu-D1 gets influenced by other heatsources at idle as the CrazyCool surrounds the bottom of the TRUE and memory blows by it. There are many possibilities for temperature errors when the probe is not drilled into the heatsink etc.

Sorry -X-hellfire, too much information. I missed the calibration settings before.

The newer versions of Prime95 let you run as many threads as you like.

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/5622/torture.png

It makes life easier when testing. Just set it to 4 and Small FFTs and you're done. You'll have a full load for testing.

I'm using version 25.9 build 4
http://mersenne.org/freesoft/

Quote:

---

There are many possibilities for temperature errors when the probe is not drilled into the heatsink etc.

---

That's always the problem with this. Every digital sensor has a margin of error, even the IR temperature gun I use. Where exactly is your cpu-D1 sensor located? How much is it offset from the center of the CPU and what sort of calibration check if any did you do to it?

The original calibration formula I came up with when I first started working on RealTemp would have worked better for your CPU. Based on Intel's presentation last year at IDF, I changed my calibration formula and simplified it but the end result was not an improvement in accuracy. I assumed the information they were presenting was accurate but I assumed wrong. I was expecting an engineering type presentation based on real data and facts when all it turned out to be was more of a PR presentation to introduce the upcoming Core i7. Unfortunately, a little guy like me can't argue with a big company like Intel. When they said, "This is how it is", I had to nod my head in agreement like a chump. Listening to the guys in the blue coats and adjusting my calibration fomula based on that was a mistake that I regret.

Based on testing and not fluff presentations, I now understand that TJMax is not a fixed value across the 4 cores in a Quad. I'm going to add another variable to my calibration formula so it better represents the testing that rge and I have done and your testing as well. Your Core 2 is out significantly and needs a better formula than what RealTemp is presently using. Stay tuned.

Can you try running a single CPU Cool Down Test using just Prime95 Small FFTs with 4 threads selected? Adjust your MHz and core voltage and fans so it maxes out at around 65C if possible. Turn off Task Manager and all other monitoring programs to reduce any interference to as little as possible. This will provide me with the data I need to adjust my calibration formula to better track your 4 cores.

Edit: Your APIC ID 0132 means that most software is going to reverse the data coming from core 2 and core 3. Compare RealTemp to another monitoring program and you'll see what I mean. No worries, RealTemp gets this right, even if you re-boot and your APIC ID gets shuffled to something new. RealTemp will always correctly report that core 2 is sagging the most.

Yeah I know unclewebb, too much information often results in tl;dr; ;)

As my methodology of the test was "Print Screen" to capture as much realtime data from various sources, it was a tedious process, and with the prime2004 it probably introduced some other error sources as well

The prime95 I had previously download in the "Sensor test" window in RealTemp was an older prime95 ver 24.4 which didn't have the "Number of threads" field. Now I got the same you got, prime95 ver 25.9 and it worked like a breeze now. Thanks for the link unclewebb.

Will do more testing later on, got to sleep know been awake for 24+ hours, and nothing good comes out while working with computer too long and to tired.

Willl post pics later on with the cpu-D1 location and answer the other questions

Goodnight

Real Temp 3.30 RC6 is available for download

hey this is my firs tpost on this forum, and i have a questoin. i ahve my q6600 at 3.4ghz (425x8) and when i click on sensor test( i try to make sure my comp is at idle) i get 13,12,11,7 my last core is always 5-6 lower than the first. what does that mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wutsup

what does that mean?

---

I don't know. :shrug:

That initial Sensor Movement test was more designed for the 45nm chips that had sensors that didn't move at all. A reading of zero is a bad thing. At least all your sensors are moving. When one sensor moves a lot less than the other 3 it's possible that sensor is getting stuck at idle but that doesn't happen very often with the 65nm CPUs like your Q6600.

The best thing to do with your Quad is run a full CPU Cool Down Test and post your results. That gives me more information to go by. When you run this test make sure that Windows has had a chance to settle down first and go have a coffee for 10 minutes while the test if running. No surfing the net while testing is in progress. :)

here you go webb

wutsup: I've been using a Q6600 - G0 for the last few months and my best guess is that Intel offsets the TJMax for core 2 and core 3. Your CPU seems to show the same thing. We had a discussion here just a little while ago and came to the conclusion that if this is true, Intel likely did this so all 4 cores wouldn't thermal throttle at the same time. If they set core 2 and core 3 slightly higher, core 0 and core 1 would thermal throttle first and if that didn't fix the problem then core 2 and core 3 would thermal throttle about 5C later.

I set TJMax = 100C, 100C, 105C, 105C on my Q6600 and I would suggest you try the same thing. You'll be surprised when you see how much better your 4 cores track each other now from idle to full load. Start and stop a program like Prime95 a handful of times using the Small FFTs option and watch how the temps track each other. I prefer this program when testing because of its ability to put an equal load on each core. LinX creates more heat but is not as consistent.

so should i just set the tjmax for the last 2 cores to 105 instead of the default of 100 and call it a day?

p.s. my temps are high because its hot in my room (80degrees +)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wutsup

so should i just set the tjmax for the last 2 cores to 105 instead of the default of 100 and call it a day?

---

Yes.

I think with that simple fix, your temps will be closer to reality. A Quad consists of two Dual Cores inside of it. The sensors on Dual Core #1 are well matched and the sensors on Dual Core #2 are also well matched to each other. Using the offset TJMax that I suggested will get all 4 in alignment and I think the end result will be reported temperatures that are closer to the truth.

These sensors are far from perfect and with the limited amount of accurate information released by Intel, this is my best guess after pointing the IR thermometer at my Q6600 more than once or twice as well as having a very close look at 101 screen shots including your own. Give it a try. Your idle and load temps look very normal considering your air temperature and overclock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Yes.

I think with that simple fix, your temps will be closer to reality. A Quad consists of two Dual Cores inside of it. The sensors on Dual Core #1 are well matched and the sensors on Dual Core #2 are also well matched to each other. Using the offset TJMax that I suggested will get all 4 in alignment and I think the end result will be reported temperatures that are closer to the truth.

These sensors are far from perfect and with the limited amount of accurate information released by Intel, this is my best guess after pointing the IR thermometer at my Q6600 more than once or twice as well as having a very close look at 101 screen shots including your own. Give it a try. Your idle and load temps look very normal considering your air temperature and overclock.

---

ok thanks webb i set the tj maxxes to 100,100,105,105 and my temps are alot more even now

unclewebb,

How about implementing readout for ALL CPus, not just CPU #0?
I have been asking about this since Dual LGA771, and am now facing the same issue on my Dual LGA1366, making me use coretemp again.
Would be really neat to have both CPUs displayed.

On another note, Coretemp doesn't recognize Gainstowns yet. It thinks I got a Core i7 940 ;)

According to Dave, Tjunction on those is 95C.

http://database.he-computer.de/Bilde.../X5570temp.jpg

jcool: The biggest problem I have with developing RealTemp further is a complete lack of feedback. Here's an example. I developed a RivaTuner plugin for RealTemp early this year with support for the Core i7 and I have yet to come across a single screen shot here or on any forum that shows me whether this even works. A quarter of a million downloads in the last 5 months from TechPowerUp alone and not one user has contacted me about it. :shrug:

Here it is if anyone wants to check it out:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip

Intel doesn't send me any hardware and I got sick of buying stuff that I didn't need so it's up to users to come forward and help me out. My rant for the day.

RealTemp reads TJMax info from the CPU based on the Intel documentation. In the screen shot above, RealTemp is using 97C for TJMax so I'm assuming it read that value from the processor.

I've been working on Gainstown support lately but with lack of feedback, I haven't got too far. I wrote a testing program to help me better understand how the cores and threads are organized. If you have 8 cores, could you run the APICID program with and without hyper threading enabled and post a screen shot of each? Thanks.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/APICID.zip

Unclewebb thanks for the program.

Can i ask what to set for Tj Max for my Q6600 G0? (vid is 1.2125)

sosna: RealTemp uses 100C for your processor based on testing of my own Q6600 - G0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

jcool: The biggest problem I have with developing RealTemp further is a complete lack of feedback. Here's an example. I developed a RivaTuner plugin for RealTemp early this year with support for the Core i7 and I have yet to come across a single screen shot here or on any forum that shows me whether this even works. A quarter of a million downloads in the last 5 months from TechPowerUp alone and not one user has contacted me about it. :shrug:

Here it is if anyone wants to check it out:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip

Intel doesn't send me any hardware and I got sick of buying stuff that I didn't need so it's up to users to come forward and help me out. My rant for the day.

RealTemp reads TJMax info from the CPU based on the Intel documentation. In the screen shot above, RealTemp is using 97C for TJMax so I'm assuming it read that value from the processor.

I've been working on Gainstown support lately but with lack of feedback, I haven't got too far. I wrote a testing program to help me better understand how the cores and threads are organized. If you have 8 cores, could you run the APICID program with and without hyper threading enabled and post a screen shot of each? Thanks.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/APICID.zip

---

Here is APICID with my Core i7 D0 - HT on:
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/7876/apiciduw.jpg

I will upload a pic of it with HT off later.

What does Process: FF system: FF/8/16/2 digits mean ?

BTW, what does the Rivatuner plugin do ?
unclewebb, I can help you test it if you want :up:

On a side note,
I think that if you raise the attention and urge some users, they will be glad to help you.
After all your software(s) are mainly intended to serve them.
Its a two way street and it won't work if you are not getting any feedback, I agree with you.

The RivaTuner plugin can be used to graph data as well as display data on screen while gaming as well as 101 other things.

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/8223/riva.th.png

Recent additions to the plugin included laptop battery / AC power monitoring and battery level monitoring so you can use this data to create your own custom power profiles for your laptop as well as custom 3D overclock settings. It can also monitor UPS power supplies. I use RivaTuner to control the fan speed on my GPU. I hate noise pollution.

In Windows programming there are two variables, ProcessAffinityMask and SystemAffinityMask. F in hexadecimal translates to 1111 in binary. FF would translate to 11111111. That just shows me that my program or process can access all 8 of the available threads on your system. Each thread is represented by a 1. I think Gainestown will report FFFF in this box to show access to 16 threads. The operating system can be set up to block access to individual cores and threads.

The 8 and 16 after that represent cores and threads. When you query a Core i7 CPU, it returns those values. That is twice as many as it actually has but I thought it might be set to that for Gainestown support reasons. The important number is the ratio of these numbers which in this case is 2. That means you have 2 threads per core which means hyper threading is enabled.

RealTemp might have some initial Gainestown support about 5 minutes after I see a couple of screen shots of my testing program. I get more joy out of spending an hour or two writing a simple testing program compared to spending hours of reading Intel documentation looking for information that usually doesn't exist or is "Reserved." Intel is the king of top secret information. I'd rather beg the guys at XS for help than sign an NDA and beg Intel for help. More accurate results.

I know the Rivatuner monitoring thing, just didn't thought about the fact your plugin was for rivatuner lol, silly me :)

anyway, I loaded it up by putting it in the Rivatuner monitoring dir and adding the RT_Core.dll at the setup window.
I think I found a little buggy, on my core i7, the CPU Usage is always reported as 0%
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/2056/rtcoreplug1.th.jpg http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/356...replug2.th.jpg
Aside from that, everything seems to work fine, I will make some more serious validation of the values of temp, core usages, etc...
I obviously can't test Battery level, does "AC Power" suppose to be 0% on PC ? probably only relevant for a laptop right ?

hey uncle webb i tried the starting and sotpping of prime 95 smallftts and you said the 1st 2 cores were suppose to throtlle down first right? for me all the cores seem the throttle down at the same tme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

jcool: The biggest problem I have with developing RealTemp further is a complete lack of feedback. Here's an example. I developed a RivaTuner plugin for RealTemp early this year with support for the Core i7 and I have yet to come across a single screen shot here or on any forum that shows me whether this even works. A quarter of a million downloads in the last 5 months from TechPowerUp alone and not one user has contacted me about it. :shrug:

Here it is if anyone wants to check it out:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip

Intel doesn't send me any hardware and I got sick of buying stuff that I didn't need so it's up to users to come forward and help me out. My rant for the day.

RealTemp reads TJMax info from the CPU based on the Intel documentation. In the screen shot above, RealTemp is using 97C for TJMax so I'm assuming it read that value from the processor.

I've been working on Gainstown support lately but with lack of feedback, I haven't got too far. I wrote a testing program to help me better understand how the cores and threads are organized. If you have 8 cores, could you run the APICID program with and without hyper threading enabled and post a screen shot of each? Thanks.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/APICID.zip

---

Hey buddy,

sorry to hear you are getting next to no feedback, judging by this thread I'd think you would get tons of it :D

Anyway, your RTcore plugin works:

http://database.he-computer.de/Bilder/temp/RTcore.jpg

However I must say I won't use it.. if I open up Rivatuner I wanna know all about my GPUs, and it takes a lot of scrolling already to get all the info on 2 GPUs. Using Realtemp or Coretemp for the CPU is just way more practical than having it all in Rivatuner.

Running this APICID on my Gainstown now, hold on...

Here is APICID on my Dual X5570 (2 CPU, 8 Core, 16 Thread) with HT off:

http://database.he-computer.de/Bilde.../APICIDoff.jpg

And on:

http://database.he-computer.de/Bilder/temp/APICIDon.jpg

Hope this helps :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcool

sorry to hear you are getting next to no feedback, judging by this thread I'd think you would get tons of it :D

---

A 143 page novel I've got going here and here I am b-i-t-c-h-ing about not enough feedback. :rofl:

Thanks jcool and thanks Movieman for coming to my rescue. Your data shows me exactly where I was going wrong before in my understanding of cores and threads for the new 16 threaded beasts. My old scraps of Pentium 4 documentation has been misleading me.

Quote:

---

wutsup: hey uncle webb i tried the starting and sotpping of prime 95 smallftts and you said the 1st 2 cores were suppose to throtlle down first right? for me all the cores seem the throttle down at the same tme

---

The word LOG or HOT in the Thermal Status area of RealTemp will show you exactly when thermal throttling has started. I have never seen a Q6600 show thermal throttling on all 4 cores at the exact same time so can you post a screen shot of that. If you are using my calibration recommendation then the temperatures might all be reporting the same thing now but core 2 and core 3 won't start throttling until they are 5C hotter than core 0 and core 1.

I'm pretty sure that Intel uses a similar 5C offset between core 0 and core 3 on their Core i7 CPUs for the same reason but that's another story.