Thanks for update,soon I will check with i7-860.
Printable View
Thanks for update,soon I will check with i7-860.
Thanks stasio. I'm hoping this new version will more accurately report your multiplier when running a single threaded app with C3/C6 enabled similar to what the i7 Turbo program shows. This version had the new i7-860 and i7-870 in mind as well as the i5-750. With multiple bins of turbo boost becoming more common on Intel's new chips, we need some accurate software to monitor that. CPU-Z only tells part of the story.
I might have to go do some thread crapping in those other threads to get users to give RealTemp 3.35 a try so everyone can better understand what these new CPUs can really do. :)
If you can, post a screen shot while running a Super PI 1M bench with C3/C6 enabled to show all the bins of turbo boost that are available.
Hi UncleWebb, still using realtemp and loving it. I got another small bug for you. If you need to kill explorer.exe (you know, sometimes it hangs on weird stuff for no reason), the tray icons don't reregister. =] You have to logoff/on again or reboot to get them back. I know it's something that's strange and doesn't happen very often for most people. But I thought I would mention it anyways.
Love the program as always, cheers!
Thanks Fungus. When you kill explorer, after explorer restarts, does the Task Manager show that RealTemp is still running but it's not on screen anywhere to be found and the system tray icon(s) are also missing?
I guess I've been lucky and haven't had explorer crapping out on me for a long time so I haven't noticed this issue before. If I can recreate it I'll see if I can find a fix for it. What OS are you using, XP?
RealTemp is of course still running, as I used taskman to kill explorer.exe (all instances), and then restart explorer.exe using New Task. Yes, I am using XP Professional SP3. (This is not the only program to not re-register icons =)
Some do, some don't. Riva tuner doesn't either, but nhancer does. OpenDNS doesn't, Creative Volume control doesn't, Nvidia Control panel doesn't, but many programs do, like my antivirus and some other stuff. I guess they aren't bugs that devs check for =]
Thanks for a few more details Fungus. You're right, I've never given this a second thought but now I will. If I can recreate it and come up with a simple solution, I will. I hate bugs as much as anyone.
I quietly released 3.36 today. The only change was that the elapsed timer that I just improved for better accuracy was counting while in stand by mode which I didn't like so I fixed it. The RealTemp elapsed timer should only count up while the computer is running.
http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/5...agineby.th.jpg
here is my Xeon chip, now cooled by the stock heatsink :)
That's exactly what I was looking for KURTZ. Now I can explain what the new version of RealTemp is doing differently.
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/6448/realtemp336.png
RealTemp 3.30 used to calculate the multiplier for each of the 8 threads then it would average them out and report that.
With the new CPUs that can have multiple bins of turbo boost available, the overall average can be a meaningless number like it is in this situation when C3/C6 is enabled. Averaging 3 cores that are spending the majority of their time asleep in C3/C6 doesn't give a user any useful information so it was time to change RealTemp.
RealTemp 3.36 looks at all of your threads, finds the one working the hardest, the one running Super PI in this example, and reports the multiplier for that thread. Intel recommends that software should display the highest multiplier and when you see an example like this, that makes sense.
When running a single thread of Super PI, the multiplier will spend most of the time cycling between 25X and 26X. As soon as two cores become active, the multiplier will drop down to 25X and after that task is completed, the second core can enter C3/C6 and become inactive again which allows the CPU to resume using the 26X multiplier again. Obviously, the more background activity you can eliminate, the larger percentage of time that it will be able to stay at the full 26X. Turning off programs like CPU-Z, i7 Turbo and that side bar fluff should help get the multiplier higher. :)
By the looks of your testing, RealTemp 3.36 is a good tool to use when you are trying to maximize your multiplier. Less background activity equals higher multiplier equals better Super PI scores or what have you. Thanks KURTZ for sharing this info.
Here's how rge's Core i7-950 looks. The maximum multiplier on one of these is 25X. You can see that he was able to get close to the maximum when he was hitting 24.7. I think this new multiplier number that RealTemp reports is more meaningful than CPU-Z rounding things off and telling you 24.0.
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/4...336vscpuz2.png
just tried, but the max multiplier is still 25.3X ... :SQuote:
Originally Posted by Uncle
Fixed VID reporting on the 45nm mobile CPUs.
Thanks somebody at TPU for bringing this to my attention.
http://www.sendspace.com/file/nsqj8n
Wow, a new one allready!!! :D
uncle,
my CPU idle,but RealTemp show always Load 10-12% ?
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/106...1015064305.png
There are two different Load Meters in the recent versions of RealTemp. If you go into the RealTemp Settings window and select the TM Load option then you should get a load number very similar to what the Task Manager shows. It uses the same Windows function as far as I know.
The original load meter that RealTemp has been using is not a true load meter. It measures the percentage of time a CPU is in the C0 state. The method I'm using is documented to be accurate for the Core i7 CPUs only. I've always had excellent success with this on my E8400 as well as all of the other 65nm CPUs I've tested on my motherboard.
I know on Core 2 mobile CPUs, this number actually starts to increase as the CPU idles down, similar to what you are seeing. When Super Low Frequency Mode (SLFM) kicks in and various other power saving features, it can go up to 60%. I originally thought that this was a sign that as the MHz went down, the CPU would have to spend more time in the C0 state to take care of the background tasks.
Do you have anything enabled in your bios like C-state tech or similar?
It's possible for this meter to read very low on an E8400. I live in North America and I'm not sure if your motherboard might have some built in energy saving feature or something else that I don't know about.
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/5985/rt337k.png
It looks like the new TM Load meter is a perfect option for you.
The Clock Modulation option can also send the basic RealTemp load meter higher at idle.
Monstru: I'm working towards the next official version. I'm hoping that if I use version numbers up quickly then I will be motivated to finally release 3.40. Mostly minor bugs at the moment and areas where there is always room for a little improvement.
TM Load option works perfect.:up:
Thanks.
http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/307/tempyj.th.jpg
there is an error for this E6400 B2 ... :)
The first Core 2 I ever owned was an E6400 B2 stepping. I definitely did some hands on testing with my temperature gun on that one.
Happy memories. That one could run Prime stable at 3640 MHz for enough hours to get me into the [H]ard OCP database at a very respectable level for an air cooled processor. Of course, I had to drag my computer out to the garage in the middle of winter for that run but that's one of the perks of living in Canada. :D
Here's the history of TJMax. When Core 2 CPUs were first introduced, there was a bit in the CPU that software could read to determine what TJMax the CPU was, supposedly. If this magic bit was a 1 then the CPU was TJMax = 100C and if it was a 0 then it had to be TJMax = 85C or maybe that was reversed, I can't remember. It had to be one or the other though, based on this bit. This information was never in any Core 2 documentation. It instead came from some old Pentium 4 documentation that had absolutely nothing to do with the new Core 2 CPUs. One programmer made an assumption and then another one followed and another and etc.
Intel's original IDF presentation brought up the fact that this bit was not defined for Core 2 Desktop CPUs but I guess the other programmers decided to ignore this and they still continue to use TJMax = 85C to this day for the original Core 2 CPUs.
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9425/bunk.png
The question becomes, why didn't Intel come forward and set the record straight about TJMax when these CPUs were first released. If TJMax is closest to 90C, like I claim, and software assumes TJMax = 85C then all software will report that these CPUs are running 5C cooler than they actually are. That's a convenient way to create a cool running CPU. If the truth is that the average CPU has a TJMax closer to 90C and not 85C then if software was updated, everyone's CPU would be running 5C hotter than originally thought. Customers wouldn't be happy with that and RMA returns would likely go up.
I can certainly understand the motivation to remain as quiet as possible about this issue. Intel has nothing to gain so why bother.
I will continue to use TJMax = 90C on these early CPUs and it makes me happy to know that no one else has the guts to tell it like it is.
RealTemp originally followed the herd and used TJMax = 85C just like everyone else. By using this number, when the surface temperature of the IHS was 80C RealTemp would also report 80C. Everything looked good.
rge and his testing and papers about heat transfer in CPUs showed me the light. If the surface temperature of the IHS is 80C then the hottest spot on the core is not the same, it has to be higher. Heat dissipates very rapidly over a small distance in CPUs. The docs and rge's testing with a calibrated sensor showed me that the hottest spot on the core is approximately 5C hotter than the IHS surface temperature that I was measuring.
I hated to admit that I was wrong but I was wrong. This proved that TJMax couldn't be 85C. It had to be higher and for this E6400 B2, it was likely very close to 90C. That's why I use that number and why I have decided to go against Intel's PR news release about TJMax where they introduced the term TJ Target which has only confused users even more.
I've tested more CPUs since then and nothing has changed my mind. Intel says they raised TJMax 10C when they introduced the new G0 CPUs to save some money on heatsink costs. They also said that TJMax = 100C for the 45nm E8000 series of CPUs and everyone is happy with that number. When I use TJMax = 100C for a 45nm CPU, the core temperature reports 5C higher than the IHS surface temperature like it should. To get that same relationship with an early B2 CPU, I need to use TJMax = 90C. Using the 80C TJ Target number they released as TJMax would mean that the IHS surface temperature is hotter than the hottest spot on the core which goes against the laws of physics. The source of the heat, the core, can't possibly be cooler than the IHS surface temperature. When my testing was brought to Intel's attention, they chose to quietly ignore it. No surprise.
Kind of a long winded answer to your question. Thanks for bringing this up. Lots of users assume that TJ Target and actual TJMax are the same but they are not.
KURTZ: I just noticed in your screen shot that SpeedFan reports 50C for the CPU temperature. It's impossible for the core temperature to be less than this number. Only RealTemp reports the cores higher than the approximated Tcase temperature which is how it should be.
Thanks for the history lesson unc and also for another great beta. Working flawlessly with my mobile T9550. :up:
alternative d/l link for RealTemp beta 3.37: http://lakesidepc.com/RealTempBeta337.zip
Good to see you Loonym. The last few recent RealTemp updates have been for better support for the Core 2 mobile CPUs like you're using. Still a couple of minor issues to look at before the next official release. I think I've been saying that for a few months now but this time I mean it. :)
I've been meaning to contact you about the XS Bench. rge did some testing with his i7-920 and his i7-950. He was able to find out that this bench runs faster clock for clock on the newer D0 stepping Core i7 compared to the original C0 stepping Core i7 CPUs. This benchmark is fairly small and fits in the on chip cache so it looks like Intel must have done something to speed up the cache performance like reduced latency timing or something like that. If you do any XS Bench mark testing then send me your scores and tell me what stepping CPU you are using. Just curious.
thanks for the feed-back Uncle :)
This is pretty much in line with what I've seen in regards to stepping and scaling. I'll try to get a little more data and report back.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
My cousin has a Q9550 E0 and upon loading up Real Temp it was using a Tj Max of 90C (it is supposed to be 100C by default isn't it?) and it didn't show the CPU model at the top left as it should. This was using Real Temp 3.00. I thought it was kind of odd :)
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...s_my_Q9550.png
If you ask your friend to send me a screen shot of the latest version of RealTemp and CPU-Z on the same screen then I should be able to fix this up for him.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
I'm always fixing little things like this as I go along so if I've already fixed it in the latest version, then I won't have to try and fix it again.
Sometimes the string of information within the CPU leaves out a few details. Many ES processors are like that. When that's the case, I can usually add an extra line of code to get it properly recognized. If your CPU is top secret then just send me a PM and I'll keep 'er quiet. ;)
This string of information is displayed in the Specification box of CPU-Z. RealTemp takes that info and tries to figure out what CPU you have and what TJMax it should be using. Obviously, it doesn't get them all right but there's usually a reason. I've seen some CPUs where that string of information was not written to each core of a quad core by Intel. I think I changed RealTemp a while ago so that it tries to read this info from core 0 when that happens.
Edit: As for the GPU temperature not showing up properly, that might be an Nvidia issue with their latest drivers. Scroll back a page and you should see a fix for that as long as the temperature sensor is not damaged.
How's the Gulftown-ready beta coming along? :D
Is having fun with Realtemp ^^
Probably a few more days. I take it easy on the weekend. Too many games to watch on TV. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
Don't worry jcool. When I get it done, you'll be my tester.
Kind of interesting that this new 6 core CPU seems to be organized internally as 2 separate 3 core CPUs sort of like how the original Core 2 Quads were really 2 Dual Cores stuck under the same IHS. The 32nm Dual Core also seems like it is really a triple core CPU with the center core disabled.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=3727
In 2010 when Intel starts selling triple core CPUs, remember, you heard it here first. :yepp:
A triple core with hyper threading would be a great processor for enthusiasts and should overclock like crazy. It would leave AMD's triple core CPUs in the dust.