I have a Q6600 B3, I'll post a screenshot laterQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Printable View
I have a Q6600 B3, I'll post a screenshot laterQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
For the Q6600 B3, RealTemp by default should be using TJMax = 90C. If some other software decides to use TJMax = 100C for that CPU then it will report a core temperature 10C higher than what RealTemp reports.
I went with 90C for the B3 because the B3 consists internally of two E6600 B2 cores. The E6600 CPU when tested has a TJMax = 90C. No other software to the best of my knowledge agrees with that.
Intel says that they increased TJMax by 10C when they went from the Q6600 B3 to the G0. Most Q6600 G0 owners would agree that TJMax=100C for their CPUs so 90C for the B3 sounds reasonable to me.
TJMax is full of misinformation. You'll have to decide for your self what value is most credible. I've seen some Q6600 CPUs where core 2 and core 3 seem to be set 5C higher than core 0 and core 1 so your CPU might actually be close to TJMax = 90, 90, 95, 95
Post a RealTemp CPU Cool Down Test and I'll have a look. Include your room temperature and let me know if your case is open or closed.
I can't find the "RealTemp CPU Cool Down Test"
But here are the idle/load temps. Side of case is off
Room temp: 22 deg C
Cooler: Megahalem
Settings: stock, everything on auto
Press that Sensor Test button. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mejobloggs
Thanks :)
Your sensors look fine. These 65nm sensors didn't have the sticking issues that the newer 45nm sensors have. You would have to heat your CPU up to about 70C before I could be absolutely sure but it looks like TJMax is fairly consistent across all 4 cores. Actual TJMax might be 2C higher on core 2 and maybe 1C higher on core 3. Intel agrees that due to manufacturing variances, TJMax is not 100% consistent from one CPU or core to the next but have never released any information about an error specification like +/- 5C, etc.
A Quad core with a good cooler like a Megahalem should idle about 7C or 8C above room temperature which in your case would be about 30C. Core 0 tends to be the most accurate and in your screen shot of RealTemp at 1600 MHz and 1.10 volts, it is showing 28C which looks reasonable to me. All of these sensors have some slope error and if they read a couple of degrees too low at idle, that's not unusual at all. They weren't designed to report 100% accurate idle temperatures. They are much more accurate at 70C and beyond.
HWMonitor has decided to assume that TJMax=100C.
Reported Temperature = TJMax - Digital Sensor Reading
Both programs are reading data from the same digital sensor. It's obvious that if you assume a higher TJMax value that the reported temperature will also increase by the same amount. RealTemp uses TJMax=90C for a Q6600 B3 so HWMonitor will typically report temperatures 10C higher.
Flip a coin and use whatever TJMax value you think is correct. You can even split the difference and use 95C. Personally, I wouldn't do that because I believe that core 0 and core 1 and core 3 are likely very close to 90C and core 2 is very close to 92C.
I don't believe a lot that was said at Intel's Developer Forums last year when it comes to TJMax but their updated list of TJMax values shows a Q6600 B3 has a TJ Target = 90C.
I believe that one. :)
I am wondering if Intel's engineering department ever read the specs for TjMax ;)
Or was there such a large acceptable % of error on this equation?! but providing most CPU's fitted the line/slop then that was the given value.
Anyway Any news on the QX Multipliers and % load engima?
John
Thank you. I've also seen SpeedFan does report about 10°C more than RealTemp, probably it uses a TJmax of 100°C instead of 90°C for the Atom 330.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I just had a look at the Intel docs and most Atom CPUs are listed with a thermal specification of 90C. The Atom 230 and 330 however show a thermal specification of 85.2C.
As with most Intel documentation, it's unclear whether this is a TJMax value, a Tcase max value or maybe a TJ target value or maybe just a mistake. Who knows. Actual TJMax might be 85C or 90C or 100C or any number in between. I've never tested an Atom so 90C was my best guess.
Here's the list of Atom CPUs on Intel's website:
http://processorfinder.intel.com/Lis...008&SearchKey=
I don't think that actual TJMax is only 85C for your Atom 330 so I'm going to leave RealTemp as is. You can manually adjust it to 85C if you think the Intel docs are accurate. With a passively cooled CPU or one with a tiny heatsink and small fan, I don't have any method to try and calibrate these.
Don't know where to post but is OCCT 3.10 the last version? And MEMTEST is grayed :/
what should be the calibration/tjmax settings for i7?
as there seems to be many variation of screenshots showing i7 in diff temps
For Nehalem/Lynnfield you don't need to calibrate TJMax because is written in MSR.
how about bloomfield, do we need to calibrate
Uncle,
Before you kill me, I would like your input on how to calibrate realtemp properly. I seem to be having differences in temperature readings from RealTemp and HW Monitor. Running the sensor test now and will post a screenshot.
Shoot now :).
***removed photo because it affected the layout****
What do you advise? Do I offset the cores by a few degrees?
Mirror for RealTemp on my RS Account:
http://rapidshare.com/files/32808805...pBeta.zip.html
We had this discussion before here or somewhere else and I have no idea what HW Monitor is reporting and why its temperatures are different. All software should be reading the same sensors and should be reading TJMax directly from each CPU so there's no reason why any software should be reporting something different. Core Temp and RealTemp are usually exactly the same. HW Monitor is different but I don't know why.
Your first 3 cores look very close. I'd leave them as is. The majority of Core i7-920 CPUs that I've seen seem to have a 5C difference in TJMax between core 3 and core 0. Yours look more like about 3C. You could set that one to 103C or leave it as is and keep in mind that it's probably not 100% accurate. For all of these, I'd trust core 0 more than any of the other cores. These sensors are excellent out of the box so there's no use getting too technical trying to calibrate them.
My 2 cents. Calibrate HWMonitor because your Nehalem has a TJMax 100 and it's written in MSR so what RealTemp shows you is for real and what HWMonitor shows is something else but I'm not sure what. :D
What's CoreTemp or Everest readings?
LE: Kevin was fast. :)
Cheers for the support lads. I won't touch them :). HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!
For me:Quote:
Originally Posted by burebista
Core Temp reports same numbers than Real Temps
and Everest (5.30) report same numbers than HWMonitor
Have you tried Everest 5.30.1977 or newer? It has changed the way it reads and shows temps.Quote:
Originally Posted by kpablo
http://www.lavalys.com/support.php?lang=en
I will see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by donmarkoni
I think there is a second way to read core temperatures from these CPUs which does some sort of averaging. The method RealTemp and Core Temp uses is to read the instantaneous temperature and report that.
Other programs might be using this second method because their reported temperatures do not directly correspond with what the temperature register is showing.
Yep, everest (the 5.30.1977 one) and real temp now show same numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by donmarkoni
Hey Unclewebb I got one for you with my 4870x2....
You got me excited when you mentioned that you added ATI card support. I downloaded RT 3.5 but when I try to run RT no window shows up. I can open up process explorer and see it though its not using resources like it is just sitting there idle. If I try to "bring window to the front" pe tells me there is no window. I can go into the ini file and activate the"nogpu" line and then it will open up without a problem.
I found 3.49 and don't have any problems with RT and it shows my first gpu just fine. If i open the gpu window up and click to the second gpu temp, it says gpu 3 but the temps don't change. I can click it again and go back to gpu 1 but the temps still don't change. I can close the window and the gpu temp in RT will work fine.
This is on my system in my sig. The card is actually in the 3rd slot to give the D14 some breathing room. I tried moving it back to the first slot to see if it would change anything.....it didn't.
If I can help you let me know. Not a big deal for me but am looking forward to when you get it working the way you meant for it to be.
The ATI code definitely needs some work in RealTemp, especially when using CrossFire. The 5750 card I bought for development purposes was such a buggy, crashing POS that I returned it and got a refund rather than try my luck again. Hardware and software both seemed to have some issues so I went back to Nvidia.
I should have some time next week to have another look at this but without hardware to test on I'm not sure how much progress I can make. Thanks for the offer to help. I'll try to get back into this project next week.
I've been working on a different project the last few weeks called ThrottleStop which is designed to help Dell's throttling laptop issues. I added support for the Alienware M15x today. Anyone who has purchased a Dell laptop in the last year needs to do some testing. They have quite a few models that throttle like crazy and slow down to a crawl when fully loaded.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/show...postcount=2144
Hey uncle,
With the latest RT version, my Core 3 keeps on disappearing from my taskbar :(. If I run RT all 4 cores show up but after a while, one of them, Core 3, is hidden by W7 due to inactivity. I specified that I don't want that but W7 keeps on doing it. I did not have this problem with the previous version.
On a side note,
RT does not seem to recognise my CFX configuration. When I select a different GPU the temps remain unchanged. This is not right because one of them is supposed to run hotter because it is kind of suffocated.
http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/i...byte/CFX-1.jpg