Printable View
FullSky: Thanks for the info. I'll see if I can create a small utility that you can run so I can gather some more data from your processor. It would be easy to create a toggle switch in the Settings window but it would be a lot easier for users if this was all taken care of automaticly. Testing this new feature is difficult because my Q6600 has only swapped once or twice in its lifetime.
There's a bug when using Quad core processors that the cores get swapped around so the temps can get misreported. I'd like to fix this issue for all users so if you have a Quad, 45nm or 65nm, could you do me a favor and try running this program and post your results.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/MSR.zip
It uses the WinRing0 library so you'll need to unzip it and copy it to your RealTemp folder to get it to work.
MSR stands for model specific register and this little program lets you read that data from within your processor. Avoid clicking on the Write MSR button if you don't know what you're doing. Randomly writing information into your processor is not a good idea but it is 100% safe to read information from your processor with the Read MSR button.
This program is a no brainer. Run it and it will display exactly the information I'm looking for so post a screen shot or send me a PM.
Here's how my Q6600 looks:
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/9387/msrtoolvl0.png
If you want to learn more about what information is hiding in your processor then read Appendix B in this manual.
Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer’s Manual
Volume 3B: System Programming Guide, Part 2
Unfortunately the manual is a little bit like Swiss cheese. Many important MSRs are listed as Reserved.
Looks the same as yours unc but if it's useful to you I'm in :D
X3360
My qx9650 shows the same.
That data is very useful. :up:
Go back and look at my data. This MSR seems to be showing that my center cores are swapped, which they are. If you look at the EAX column for my processor it shows 0-2-1-3 while your processors both are normal and show 0-1-2-3. This might be a way for me to test Quad cores for the swapped core bug. Hopefully FullSky can get this utility to show both versions since his Quad swaps back and forth more often than most.
Here' s mine on a Q9450 if it helps.http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/c...nShot001-1.jpg
Here are our Q6600 CPUs side by side. I feel your pain!
Attachment 80875
The MSR tool doesn't seem to be working for me. I get no data for 0x39. Have no idea why. If I type in a different MSR I do see data.
Maybe it has something to do with my QX6700. Here's the results:
http://members.cox.net/wifeometer/MSR_DATA_QX6700.jpg
My QX6700 hasn't acted up today and I haven't been able to get the swap bug to occur, which is very strange considering how this cpu has always been before.
Carey
I finally got the swap bug to occur again, but the MSR tool shows no change (i.e., no data). I do get data for other MSRs I type in.
http://members.cox.net/wifeometer/MSR_DATA_QX6700.jpg
Carey
MSR below
My MSR - Q6600/B3
RealTemp says that bug is fixed (core 1 and 2 have been exchanged) and shows 49-49-45-44,
CoreTemp shows at the same moment 49-45-49-44.
Thanks for all the data guys. I'm trying to find a reliable way to test for the Quad bug but it looks like MSR 0x39 isn't it.
My present test and fix is working on my Q6600 and it looks like it is working on your Q6600 zorzyk. I'll keep looking FullSky to see if I can find a better way to detect this.
go unclewebb :up: exellent drive for perfection thier wtg man :D
mine...Q9450
Q6600/B3 information addendum: after restarting my PC (setting up new video driver) situation changed:
- RealTemp does not inform about fixing core swapping
- RealTem and CoreTemp both show temperatures like 49-49-45-44
- MSR shows exactly the same as in my post above (0 0 0 0).
zorzyk: Thanks for your testing help. Looks like your Q6600 is clearly showing this bug. I think I'm getting closer to a way to detect it for all CPUs so that your temp readings will always be consistent. Some processors that have this bug swap back and forth on a regular basis so one day it looks like core1 is running cool and then the next day its running hot with no explanation as to why. I believe that users have wasted a lot of time trying to fix this by remounting heatsinks, etc. but I think the problem lies a little deeper than that. I sent you a PM with some further tests you can do when this bug returns to your Q6600.
I added a couple of more buttons to my tool which makes it easier to search for MSR data.
http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/1213/msrtest2ax1.png
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/MSR.zip
I think it's easy to see that core0/core2 in my Q6600 are on one side of the Quad while core1/core3 data is coming from the other side of the Quad. When the bug is not there, core0/core1 will line up while core2/core3 will line up as well.
The MSRs I've found so far that clearly show this are 0x2A, 0x4D, 0x4E, 0x4F, 0xC7, 0x118 and 0x19E but I haven't found documentation from Intel on most of them. I initially overlooked 0x2A but it might be the one I use for this test. Once I get some more user feedback from people that have this bug then maybe I will be able to use one of these MSRs to reliably detect the Quad bug.
unclewebb - PM sent, please check :)
Thumbs up for zorzyk. :up:
Your data is excellent, well laid out and easy to read. If the Quad bug ever returns for you try running my test again to see if there are any changes in your results.
I tried all MSR's listed above, and Core 0 and 1 are together, and Core 2 and 3 are together.
Edit: Super-Pi with core affinity follows suit with what the MSR's say.
Thanks WoZZeR999. That's what zorzyk found as well. When the Quad bug is present, all of the MSRs I listed show core0/core2 aligned as well as core1/core3 aligned. I think FullSky occasionally has a different version of this bug where core0/core4 and core1/core2 get aligned.
Whenever the cores get out of their normal alignment, the SetAffinity... in the Task Manager and every other program that uses the SetAffinity() subroutine in C++ will not function correctly. In my case, when I ask for the temps for core1 it is presently returning the temps for core2 and vice versa. This bug helps explain the 101 Quad screen shots I've seen during the last year or so that clearly shows the temps aligned in strange patterns. This bug needs to be corrected for and I think I have enough data now to better detect when this is happening. It could be another RealTemp exclusive feature. :D
Hello .
I did not read all this big topic but someone could tell me if the différence of 10°C between RealTemp and CoreTemp with my QX9650 is normal or not ?
And which temperature is right ?
Yes, it's normal.Quote:
Originally Posted by jeanjean15
RealTemp is right.
uncleweb,
I've pm'd you some results for 0x2A.
Unclewebb, last time i suck up your space with my temp testing....really:D But had to show one last experiment.
IHS temp is 95C at DTS=0 on multiple E8400's, measured by multiple people.
Experiment: I took another IHS (from old cpu), put a minimal haze of mx2 on my cpu, and placed a second IHS on my E8400. So now I am going to measure temp through two IHS, and two interfaces, and compare to temp on just IHS...to illustrate gradient through tim and IHS.
If 105 tjmax is correct for E8400, a 10C gradient must exists from die to IHS at idle, undervolted state. If an additional layer of tim and another IHS is added that gradient must increase significantly by up to another 10C.
If 95 tjmax is correct for E8400, less than 1C gradient exists from die to IHS at idle, undervolted state. If an additional layer of tim and another IHS is added then additional gradient would be minimal, 1-2C.
pic 1 is realtemp on my IHS, (without second IHS added yet) IR temp reads 71.8C, realtemp 72C. (coretemp with tjmax 105 reads 82C not pictured)
pic 2 second IHS
pic 3 second IHS on cpu
pic 4 is IR reading 65.8C through a second tim and IHS, and realtemp is reading 66, 67 on cores, which proves the gradient through IHS and tim at idle, underclocked, undervolted is max 1-2C . (taped down IR on button and IR gun down...pics easier with hand out of way)
Realtemp 95 tjmax is clearly correct. No way, no how is tjmax 105 because no way no how does a 10C gradient exist through tim and IHS, in fact it is clearly less than 1-2C.
What are you talking about? Testing is where all the fun is! The more data the better. Especially when it agrees with the theory behind RealTemp and with the Intel documentation you've read and been sharing with us for many pages now.Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
The data is in so now it's time to write a fix for the Quad bug issue.
The Quad Bug fix is ready for testing.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Now I just have to wait for FullSky and zorzyk to give this the :up: or :down:
So far it works on my confused Q6600. In the Test Sensors results window it will show you if your Quad processor was found to have this bug or not.
The normal order should be 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 but here's what it shows for my confused Quad:
http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/6...sedquadeo3.png
Thanks for everyone's help with this new feature. You never know when this bug might hit your Quad. My Q6600 was fine for 3 months before it hit.
are my temps normal? please advise. thank you.! http://picasaweb.google.com/chris.ni...40268005241986
My QX9650 Quad order is 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 :up:
:shrug: They're normal for your specific hardware at the time you took that screen. No one else can determine anything about any aspect of your setup or conditions from your question and photo. Why not read? Learn whether they compare favorably to other systems with similar voltages, cooling, and operating conditions. Decide for yourself whether realtemp is giving you accurate readings or if you could benefit from tinkering with the calibration features.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperpunx
It's kind of like statistics, interesting numbers most of the time but always 100% true or false as they apply directly to me. :ROTF:
Q9450, Quad order 0 - 1 - 2 - 3, awesome work unclewebb!
That was quick! I'll have to wait until I get home from work before I can test it, in about 9 hours.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I should leave my home system up 24/7, and logon to it from work. :D
First the good news. Zorzyk reported that the new version was working.
He later wrote back to say that it handles that problem but now there is a new problem. FullSky also reported that his processor will rarely but sometimes report something like this:Quote:
Hi Now I've had core swap:
RealTemp: 0-2-1-3, temperatures: 52-52-48-47
CoreTemp: 52-48-52-47
Seem bug is present and corrected in RT
45-41-41-45
where core1 gets shuffled to the end of the line.
RealTemp 2.67 was not able to handle that correctly but I'm pretty sure the new and improved RealTemp 2.67.1 can.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
hyperpunx: Your screen shot shows that your Quad might have this bug so download the latest beta from the above link, unzip the files and copy the new RealTemp.exe file into your present RealTemp folder and over write the original.
Maybe I could program that into the F1 key on the keyboard when using RealTemp. ;)Quote:
loonym: Why not read?
Well... good work :up:
Thanks zorzyk. Your data made fixing this problem possible.
I believe that your coolest core is in the proper position and is being displayed as core3 in your screen shot. Do you remember if core3 is always the coolest when the core order shows as 0-1-2-3?
You might want to post a CoreTemp / RealTemp comparison to show how the competition handles this problem.
There is also an item you can add to the INI file if you don't like the way RealTemp is ordering your cores.
DisableQuadBugFix=1
will turn off this feature. That item will probably make it into the Settings window for easier comparisons.
Here is what I got.
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c398/Warboy/Quad.png
Anyone wanna explain what it means.
Hey unclewebb, great little application. Thanks for the time you have put into it :)
I was wondering if it would be possible to get RealTemp to also display the voltage of the CPU? Everest seems to read my voltage correctly, but unfortunately it uses the other sensors for Core temperatures , which seem to be way off.
[cTx]Warboy: I have tried to fix a problem that probably effects a lot more people than I originally thought. When temperature software tries to read data from the processor, it is not always getting data back from the core it asks for.
With my Q6600, when software asks the CPU for temp data for core1, the processor actually returns the data for core2. When it asks for data from core2, the processor returns data from core1.
Your processor presently has a different version of this problem. My CPU was consistent for 3 months and then suddenly changed one day while other people have this switching going on every time they reboot. This has added a lot of confusion to the temps being reported for Quad cores for the last year or two because no one knew this was going on.
In your case, 0-2-3-1, which is the same as zorzyk, means that if you were to run CoreTemp or Everest, what they report for your last core is actually the data for core1. RealTemp 2.67.1 tries to re-organize your temperature data so that it is coming from the proper cores.
If you reboot and the order changes, RealTemp should automatically adjust and continue to report your cores in the correct, logical order. Other software might show core1 being hot one day and cool the next because it is not taking this into account.
This is a new problem and I believe that RealTemp is handling things correctly now but I'm still gathering information to see if there are other versions of this problem out there. Change the MSR tool to read 0x2A. For you the first and last will be the same and the two middle ones should be the same. If you are using C1E it might take a few clicks to get this to show properly. My code eliminates this factor.
That's what CPU-Z is for! It does an excellent job at reading core voltage. There are so many different sensors out there that it would probably take me quite a while to figure it out and be even close to as accurate as CPU-Z is. As for reporting MHz, I think CPU-Z has a little room for improvement. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Miwo
I'm not using C1EQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I keyed in what you said and got this.
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c398/Warboy/Quad2.png
Yes, that's right.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Here is the comparison between CoreTemp and RealTemp:
[cTx]Warboy: A Quad core consists of two Dual core processors underneath the IHS. If you held one in your hand and looked down at it then the cores are labeled core0, core1 which are on the Dual core on the left and on the second Dual core on the right they are labeled core2, core3.
What your data shows is that core0 and core3 are both coming from the same Dual core and core1/core2 are coming from the other Dual core.
What I'm saying is that what most software reports for the core temperature for your last core is really the data for core1.
Edit: The data that zorzyk just posted above is an excellent example of this.
To test this theory, start up Prime95 and use Set Affinity... in the Task Manager and force it to only run on CPU 0. Show a screen shot of CoreTemp and RealTemp to see what they're reporting for your temps.
On a 65nm Quad, this test will clearly show the problem. Core0 and core1 are attached and should heat up a similar amount and core2/core3 are attached to each other but are separate from the first two cores so don't heat up nearly as much. I haven't seen much data for a 45nm Quad during this test but I'm hoping the differences in temperature will still be obvious.
http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/8246/rt2671testpp9.png
I have set CoreTemp and RealTemp to use the same TjMax=100 and I am not using any calibration factors so both programs should report the same for comparison purposes.
CoreTemp has the nice feature that shows that core0 is at 100% load running Prime95. It is obvious that this should be the hottest core and it is. Look at the rest of the temp data it reports. RealTemp shows that the next hottest core is the one attached to core0. It also shows that the 2 cores on the other Dual core within my Quad are running cooler. That makes logical sense. What CoreTemp, Everest and SpeedFan report for my CPU does not make sense. The high-low-high-low pattern is not right.
Here's an example of the 2 Dual cores within a Quad.
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/319...disordeze4.png
Both cores within a Dual core have to run at the same MHz but with the help of an MSR editor you can get each Dual core within a Quad to use a different multiplier so half your Quad is running at one speed while the other half of the Quad is running at a different speed. Might be a handy feature during testing.
MSR 0x198 shows the multiplier being used for my Quad. Two cores are using 6.0 and the other two are using the default of 9.0. Knowing that you can't have a 6 and a 9 in the same Dual core at the same time tells me that there is a problem with how many programs are reading data from these multi core processors.
You can use MSR 0x199 and do a Write MSR and change your multi while Prime is running. Use the right mouse button within CPU-Z to see what side of your Quad is at what speed.
For the braver types, here's what needs to be changed to change your multi on the fly.
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/7746/multikd9.png
Enter your new multi and replace the 6 and click on Write MSR and away you go. You can then read MSR 0x198 to see if your processor accepted the change. You can't go below 6 or above your maximum. The "do this at your own risk" applies to the above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zlojack
Ok , thanks . :)
10°C won without anything to do , nice ! Thankyou , Realtemp ! :D
Just in case people are starting to think I've gone crazy with this latest theory then I have some more proof.
Here's what CPU-Z says when I go into the About tab and click on Registers Dump
-------------------------
CPU-Z version 1.45
-------------------------
Processors Map
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of processors 1
Number of threads 4
Processor 0
-- Core 0
-- Thread 0
-- Core 2
-- Thread 0
-- Core 1
-- Thread 0
-- Core 3
-- Thread 0
It clearly shows that the center 2 cores on my Quad are reversed. CPU-Z understands my processor but most programs including the Set Affinity... option within Windows XP is not handling this issue correctly.
I think RealTemp is getting this right now but we need users to post their results if it isn't.
http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/6...sedquadeo3.png
I confirm CPU-Z consistency with RealTemp:
My core order read by RealTemp (same as in previous post): 0-2-3-1Code:-------------------------
CPU-Z version 1.45
-------------------------
Processors Map
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of processors 1
Number of threads 4
Processor 0
-- Core 0
-- Thread 0
-- Core 2
-- Thread 0
-- Core 3
-- Thread 0
-- Core 1
-- Thread 0
Hmmmm............I wonder if anyone's going to be Guinea pig to see if they can get a higher overall overclock by limiting the multiplier on their weak core(s).Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
My theory is that core0/core1 are binned and are the good cores and core2/core3 are weaker and don't overclock as well. Core3 is the weakest core on my Quad. If I was looking to fake a Prime stable screen shot I'd run core0/core1 at full speed and let core2/core3 run with a multi of 6. The heat drops immediately and I know I'd be able to push the MHz higher.
Thanks zorzyk. I knew a while ago that CPU-Z was getting the core order right but it wasn't until today that I found it in the Registers Dump file. It's nice to have something with the reputation of CPU-Z backing up what I've found.
SUCCESS!
Bug pressent but adjusted for:
http://members.cox.net/wifeometer/RT...ug_present.jpg
Great job uncleweb! I'll let you know if the more rare version of the bug surfaces for me, and how RT handles it.
Carey
FullSky, I've been waiting all day for you to get home from work so I could see your report! It's looking good. I think zorzyk presently has the problem that you have previously seen where the two outer cores actually belong to the same Dual core and the two inner cores belong to the other Dual core within a Quad. It should show up as 0 - 2 - 3 - 1 and RealTemp shouldn't have a problem correcting that now. I don't think there are any other varieties of this bug but I've been wrong before. Thanks for all your help and zorzyk's help and data which made fixing this a lot easier.
Good Work Uncle
Mine is fixed, see Quad Core Order
http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii218/ozbyte/MSR.jpg
Thanks WizardofOz. This is an interesting bug that has never been talked about before. This evening I moved the reporting of this into the Settings window along with a toggle switch so you can turn this feature on or off. This will make it easier for users to keep an eye on things.
This bug has been screwing up the temperature reporting consistency of Quads since they first came out. It will be interesting to see what percentage of Quads have this random core swapping "feature." Maybe all of them do this if you own them long enough.
The test to make sure it really is working correctly is to run Prime95 and use Set Affinity... in the Task Manager and force it to run only on core0. It should be pretty clear when you do this what software is doing it right. :up:
I started noticing this problem when I installed HWMonitor. It shows the core order like your test program. My QX6700 is 0231 as well and it's listed the same way in HWM. I have noticed that the order changes at times. Am I to understand that RT will now show the cores in the correct order on the main page or do we correlate the core positions?
Opps, HWM shows 0312. They appear correlate with the proper temps for each core, just higher than RT.
Axis
I believe the core order only changes after a re-boot and RealTemp should be able to automatically adjust to whatever order pops up.
I just installed HWMonitor 1.09 but the problem I'm having is that it doesn't display my core temperatures. I'm pretty sure it used to but nothing today.
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/2...monitorak9.png
The Winbond CPU temp reading has always been a little screwy and the 12 V is too high and the 5V is too low compared to a multimeter but I've learned to ignore this data.
I went to the File menu and clicked on Save and had a look at the file it created and it shows this:
Processor 0
-- Core 0
-- Thread 0
-- Core 2
-- Thread 0
-- Core 1
-- Thread 0
-- Core 3
-- Thread 0
I believe CPU-Z and HWMonitor both use the same software development kit so it looks like they are both handling this problem.
I think HWMonitor continues to use the wrong TjMax for the 45nm desktop processors so the reported temps might be a little higher than RealTemp and I guess we don't agree on TjMax for many of the 65nm processors either.
There may be different versions of this core ordering problem than I'm aware of or RealTemp might just label things differently. I'm still learning.
If you have any new information then post a screen shot of HWMonitor and what RealTemp shows for the core order and maybe even CoreTemp so we can see what the original data looks like. The more numbers the better!
Do this while running Prime95 on core0 only and I'll be really happy. :D
Edit: The next beta release will let users see this info in the Settings window so maybe more users will start to notice why their Quad temps get mixed up sometimes.
http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/1859/miscpp8.png
Edit #2: Good news. HWMonitor found a couple of cores on my Quad. Bad news, there's still two of them missing and now it can't find my graphics card that it found earlier today. If I make RealTemp work just like this program then I'm going to be in a lot of trouble from my friends at XS!
http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/4...orequadlt8.png
Hi UncleWebb : I cant seem to get ver 2.67.1 despite downloading it 4 times now. what i do get is 2.67 everytime with time/date 22:15 23/06/2008.
been following this thread for a while as i also have the mis-assigned core problem and used the links here to go from RT 2.5? to 2.67 step by step so i am familiar with setting up everything in a new folder each time and executing directly from within explorer to ensure i run the correct exe.
could you please post another link to latest version. thanks.
If you are using Firefox you need to clear your cache or instead of downloading the latest version it will find an old version in your cache and keep giving you that one. If you still have problems then send me a PM.
I did some more reading about core assignments in the Intel CPUID manual which surprisingly left out most of the important details. Luckily I found a second source of info. RealTemp 2.68 will be ready tomorrow which should handle every possible combination of problem. Even the ones that I haven't heard of or don't have any evidence of yet.
I'm using HWM 1.08.0 if that makes any difference. Rebooting DOES intiate the switch but it doesn't always switch. I guess it randomly switches upon reboot. What's also weird is that OCCT 2.0.0A uses the same software that HWM uses and OCCT shows core 1-2 within a degree and 3-4 the same which indicates that they arrange the cores together after the reading, much like you're now doing. HWM shows the temps on each core, which are correct, but they don't arrange them in order. As we both know Everest has the cores wrong.
Axis
Any chance of the font used for core temp and distance to TJ max getting changed to the the smaller font and allowing idle calibration to go to -4.0 or -5.0? -3.0 is not enough for my E7200, as it's DTS are "stuck" for low temps, they are about 10c off.
EDIT: Wow, first and last post here.
Download the beta here, unzip and copy the new RealTemp.exe into your previous RealTemp folder.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/3...temp268va4.png
If it doesn't download 2.68 then try a different browser and empty your cache.
RT2.68 will report your core order in the Settings window. The sometimes random core ordering is not really a Quad bug but it's something that software, especially temperature monitoring software, needs to be aware of and needs to correct for.
This issue is also not being dealt with by the Set Affinity... option in the Task Manager in Windows XP. Here's an example:
RealTemp reports 0 2 1 3 for the Core Order for my processor.
CPU 0: --> core0
CPU 1: --> core2
CPU 2: --> core1
CPU 3: --> core3
Here's what that table means. My processor is fine for core 0 and core 3. In TaskManager if I use SetAffinity... and tell it to put the load on CPU 1, it actually puts the load on core2. If I tell it to put the load on CPU 2, it puts the load on core1.
Software that doesn't deal with this issue is going to have a problem. When it uses the SetAffinity() function and asks for temperature data for CPU 1, my processor is crossed so it returns the temperature data for core2. By creating a lookup table like RealTemp now does, any request within RealTemp for temperature data should be getting that data from the correct core. That's the theory at least! :D
The only 3 core orders I've seen reported so far are:
0 1 2 3 ~ normal
0 2 1 3 ~ center cores crossed and
0 2 3 1 ~ maybe I'll call this one the core1 shuffle
In the last version, the temperature data for core1 gets shuffled to the end of the line so CoreTemp 0.99 and Everest will report your core1 data as Core #3.
If anyone sees something else pop up in the Core Order window in RealTemp then let me know. This code also works with Dual core CPUs but I think all of them will report 0 1. RT2.68 handles the 0 2 3 1 situation differently than RT2.67.2 but now that I've done my homework, I'm 99.9% sure that RT2.68 is finally getting this right. After each re-boot or start up, if your bios reorganizes your cores, RealTemp will automatically compensate and report them in the correct order.
Wow, analyse what's wrong with a person's sensors and offer to go out of my way to create a custom version for them and that's the response. I tried.Quote:
Originally Posted by GigaByte
shake hands and rip off the arm :)
Some really don't seem to understand how much devotion it takes to create such a handy program like yours and coretemp and on top of that keep it up to date... Top notch job mate
I still love your program if that matters.
When does the movable mini-window come in to play? After that, I don't think I could complain about anything else.
Definitely thinking about that one. I kind of know how to do it but I still haven't got around to it. Got a little side tracked as you can tell by my posts for the last week.Quote:
Originally Posted by WoZZeR999
The GigaByte name is finally coming back to me. Three months ago I spoke with a GigaByte on a different forum and he told me that I was wrong, my testing was wrong and the stuff that rge has found and the Intel papers on this subject were also wrong. Now he'd like me to customize RealTemp for him. Very odd. If you want to see how our last conversation went then follow this thread.
http://www.overclock.net/3543745-post54.html
Back then, I went out of my way and did a thorough test on an E2160 and the results were as convincing as they come but he still wasn't buying into it.
Thanks Leeghoofd. Happy users motivate me to continue to improve RealTemp.
I'm using Firefox 3.0 on this E6750 computer and 2.68 downloaded properly. I can only hope my luck holds out.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
This is one older person:D that could use that enhanced version as I need a new pair of glasses but that is a little over doing it.
I haven't tried this on my Q6600 as it hasn't had any problems yet.
I think if you checked Gig's palms you would find circular burns from the stove and paint on the fingertips,,,
Is it on? paint still wet?
unclewebb, hit & run critics seem to come with the turf. Regardless, in support of your efforts, check out the recommendation and link to Real Temp which I've included in the Introduction (Section 1) of my Core 2 Quad and Duo Temperature Guide: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/22...perature-guide
A second reference and link also appears in Troubleshooting (Section 15).
Also, I realize that you have more than a full plate, however, I'd like to offer a suggestion that I don't recall being previously mentioned in this extensive novel. How would Real Temp users feel about having a temperature alarm feature?
Comp:cool:
Here's a configuration I haven't seen before: 0 1 3 2Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
http://members.cox.net/wifeometer/RT...ug_present.jpg
Hello !
Here are my results
Thanks for the :up: from everyone. The complaints during this project have been non-existent compared to the abuse I thought I was going to get. Writing core temperature software based on the limited Intel documentation is about as much fun as jumping into an alligator pit.
FullSky: The way I'm testing for this problem is going to result in a few new combinations in the Core Order box. I'm hoping that the end result will be as good as the previous version and hopefully better. If not, then I'll have to go back.
I will be working with zorzyk during the next few days who has a processor that has produced a few different combinations. We're going to try and come up with some definitive tests to prove if RT2.68 is getting his processor right.
perso: Why not include CPU-Z in your screen shot so I can see how RealTemp MHz compares. You could also try running Prime95 and use SetAffinity in the Task Manager to limit it to CPU 0. This will give me some feedback on how the core ordering recognition is working out.
unclewebb, what are your thoughts regarding a temperature alarm feature?
Comp:cool:
I think it might be a good option. What type of alarm were you thinking of. Sound, screen flashing like Orthos or ......?Quote:
Originally Posted by CompuTronix
I remember in mbm5, couldn't you set the numbers in the tray to turn red or some other over a certain temp?Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
do these temps look odd?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3129/...7f16e640_o.jpg
They are like this on both my Asus P5E VM HDMI & abit IP35 Pro... BIOS is default everything for now.
also, what causes apps like these to display min vid vs max? just a min ago my vid was 1.2250... now it's 1.1500
those temps sensors look like they are misreporting (stuck?). I don't know, but does speedstep have a factor with VID?
lefy: You might want to try scrolling up a few posts and downloading the latest beta version of RealTemp.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=1559
It reports Min and Max VID. I know a T7200 mobile chip can have 4 different VID readings as it transitions from idle to full load. I've only seen two on Desktop chips but I think the transition happens extremely quickly that detecting more than that might be difficult.
The quality of 45nm sensors you end up with seems almost inversely proportional to how much you pay for your CPU. Probably just a coincidence. It's always good to keep in mind that Intel did not design or calibrate these sensors to accurately display idle temperatures. If you are one of the lucky ones and your temps are accurate at idle then consider that a bonus but if your idle temps are all over the place then that is considered normal. When you have no consistency it would be a good idea to try and do my low MHz / low voltage test as outlined in the docs to see if any or yours sensors can be relied on. As Shadowthor mentioned, sticking sensors is common in the 45nm chips at low temperatures.
just confirming this core sequence exists
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/k.../coreorder.jpg
:off:just a quick question : does anybody know a program to monitor PWM temp ?
(other than uGuru which is a waste of time entirely & Everest as its newer versions dont include it)
cpu-id hwmonitor shows it on my ip35 pro.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Dent
Thanks for the recomendation but is CPUID reliable?:)
Core temps are +5c compared to RT, and just before i snapped this image the current cpu temp was 210c/409f for quite a while and actually has returned to that setting since i took the shot!!
please also note that min cpu temp shows 15c in a room at 25c constant and im only on air cooling!!
i think if im running 210c on idle, then running prime95 at full load may be too much for my little old Q6600:hitself:
Having said the above, could PWM also be misread in CPUID?
Once again thanks for the help.
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/k.../hightemp2.jpg
Well i guess im not so cautious as i thought....i decided to run prime95 anyway, 210c idle or not.:cool:
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/k.../hightemp3.jpg
restarted latest version of CPUID after prime95 already running and was surprised to see minimum cpu temp went down to 12c (10c below ambient temp on air), and current cpu temp down to 17c, a fantastic drop of 190c or so despite the 100% load on it and the cores being in mid 50's ??:rofl:
am i doing something wrong here ?????
The only thing I can see you might be doing wrong is trying to rely on unreliable software to read board hardware temps. Pull the sinks off your chipset and redo the TIM, maybe do Ace's boltmod as seen in the IP35-pro thread and put a fan on the mosfets and nb. You'll feel much more confident when overclocking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Dent
hi Arthur,
don't bother Yourself with that CPUID HW monitor, this runs as it like, LOL sorry :(
use RealTemp instead and it will be fine :cool:
by my own experience and tests, i suspect that CPUID HW monitor gets stuck on some :shrug: circumstances, and not only on temperature readings ..
(seen this ..1C ; 179C and 236C myself as well)
... BTW i have seen it also reporting CPU vCore something 3.33 volts on QX9650 .. and this is wrong
my processor is still alive .. so far
( i don't :shrug: know why this happens, but i have seen similar ''wrong'' readings with Asus PCprobeII
with different processors on on different asus boards ( p5k3-dlx and MaximusExtreme)
Thanks all.
i do use RT for all my core/cpu readings as its the best i have ever seen.
was trying to get some idea how NB & PWM etc were doing - wish RT could show PWM.
I intend to do mobo mod you mentioned soon but no access to make device (im disabled) to add fan and cant see anything to buy on web, so im putting the mod off for now i guess.
I use 40mm fans held on with zipties. Be creative :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Dent
No but either the dummies who wrote your bios did, assuming you have an updated bios, or your mobo sensor chip has too much interference to get accurate cpu temps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Dent
Core temps, ie Real Temp, are obtained by reading output directly from cpu where DTS reads/calibrates transistors functioning as thermal diodes, and there is no worry of electrical interference from mobo or poor bios calibration/support, etc.
CPU temps, the diode between the cores, must be calibrated/supported by your bios. If bios writers did a poor job of cpu calibration...you get erroneous temps. Also since the cpu temps are read by an off cpu sensor on mobo, they are subject to all kinds of electrical interference on mobo.
Though you could try speedfan, and make sure not a software bug on program you are using to read temps, but I doubt it. Load core temps should be as accurate as you can get. cpu temps, idle or load, usually require end user calibration, and good bios support that can predict all the variable end user configs and account for most.
Arthur, as from my experience uGuru on abit IP35 PRO BIOS 14 (official) and Q6600/B3 is reliable enough -
- CPU temperature is shown almost exactly the same as RealTemp does
- PWM temperature is shown correctly (tested with my own finger ;))
No other BIOS (up to 17 beta 4) even come up to BIOS 14 - temperatures are completely screwed: CPU 70*C etc... :mad:
So try to check different BIOS version and probably it will work for you better.
Edit: needless word deleted
I do understand what your saying about the bios as my last board was Abit IP35 pro and i did have to backstep bios updates to get anything sensible, 16 was hopeless & 14 seemed solid.
now i got the Abit IP35 pro XE and its not quite the same thing it seems.
I always use realtemp (2.68) and cpu-z (1.45) for monitoring and under motherboard bios it shows version 6.00 PG date 02/29/2008.
any ideas what im missing ?? (apart from the obvious)
please read what it means before making a fool out of yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SicQuote:
Originally Posted by zorzyk
ZORZYK just a quick update..
Went to abit site and found i am on BIOS ver 629o10 (also known as ID10), not 629b14 (also known as ID14 or bios version 14) as on IP35 pro (not XE).
XE ver ID11 released only yesterday but cant see why to update unless i go q9450, however i have seen several postings where people have flashed the XE bios onto the regular PRO mobo..
i have not tried yet, but if Abit are still using same flash methodology then XE flash update will refuse to install bios meant for IP35 Pro - hope that helps anyone out there thinking of buying an XE.
Come on W1zzard, take it easy on my friend Zorzyk. His recent input about core ordering has been very valuable to RealTemp and I'm hoping that we can continue to work together by PM. He may not be an English major but I can say that his testing procedures and thorough presentation of data are second to none.Quote:
Originally Posted by W1zzard
Arthur Dent: Thanks for your post. Looks like RealTemp agrees with HWMonitor when it comes to the core temperature order. RealTemp goes that extra step and puts your core2 in its proper place in the GUI. Does anyone else have a HWMonitor / RealTemp comparison of core order for a Quad that they can post? (45nm or 65nm) I don't agree with most of the other data that comes from HWMonitor but at least if it agrees with RealTemp about core order then it's a keeper! :up: Unfortunately I can't test HWMonitor on my motherboard because it's still hiding all 4 core temperatures.
I was under the impression that CORE TEMP is considered the best in measuring CORE2DUO temps!
Q6600/B3: HWM shows the same core order as RealTemp.
quick question, i got a e7200 and p5q pro, the sensor on core1 reads 7 when i press "test sensor" this core runs MUCH hotter then core0, which reads 0, is there any ways to fix this ?
So what do we have? CORE TEMP or REAL TEMP???????????
CORE OR RT Guys???????????????????????????????
Uncle, here are my results.
Seems prime does not work only on cpu0 , all four temps
increase .
(Sorry for my ugly english)
When i run my E2140 @ stock volts CORE TEMP (100 TJuntion) i get a whopping 42 deg, where as BIOS shows 36 deg, everest shows 32! I am confused, i have neevr tried REAL TEMP. Anyone????
Should i trust this program or coretemp i got some weird temps i have a 1.20 vid q6600 and testing it at 1600mhz and 1.09 vcore my room temp is 18-20c but it idles at 32c same idle temp as when i run 3700mhz with 1.31 vcore. When i run 3700 i load up in 70s with prime 95 and only using 1.31 vcore. My tuniq tower hardly even gets warm to the touch and i have remounted it 20+ times always same temps or worse.
Why not try it and judge for yourself? It's extremely user friendly and the calibration and other features make it the best imo. In the end it really comes down to personal preference and only you can decide that.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockfella
Here's a test I did on my E2160 which is similar to your processor.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockfella
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=423
You get to decide what program is giving you an honest temperature.
Edit: I found this info for a Q6600.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=568
The E8400 test is pretty thorough:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=573
If you see any real world testing from the competition then please post that info. I haven't seen anything from them yet.
balewolf: Show us a screen shot of your Q6600 running Prime95 and what RealTemp shows for it. Include some details like your room temperature and whether your case is open or closed, etc. Sticking sensors is much rarer in the previous 65nm processors but it does happen. Your sensors might be sticking down low.
I think it was too, before RealTemp came along that is and proved that CoreTemp might have some nice features but accuracy isn't necessarily one of them.Quote:
I was under the impression that CORE TEMP is considered the best in measuring CORE2DUO temps!
http://c.imagehost.org/0253/temps.jpg
amb is 18-20c and my antec 900 is closed and all fans on high currenty im running 1600mhz but my idle temps are the same when i run 3700 with 1.31 vcore.