Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

I haven't updated the GT version of RealTemp since the original came out last October. Maybe when I get around to fixing that, I will add an option so it will continue to call your 6 core CPU a Core i9.

Intel's numbering scheme sometimes makes no sense. They have a Core i7-620M which is a 32nm dual core mobile CPU with integrated graphics, they have the 45nm Core i7-920 Quad core processor and then they decide to call the 6 core version a Core i7-980X. They can't all be Core i7 but they are.

Car companies like to do the same thing where they will bastardize a model name over the years because it was popular with consumers. In the tech world, things move at a faster pace so when Intel comes up with a model number that is popular like the original Core i7-920 was, they bastardize that name and stick it on pretty much anything if it might lead to more CPU sales. :D

The E6300 is another good example. This was the first Core 2 Duo and became an instant overclocking legend with overclocks approaching 100% on a good board. The original E6300 had 2MB of L2 cache and ran at 1.86 GHz then they released an E6320 with 4MB of L2 cache and then later on they went back in time and combined the E6300 model number with their other old favorite, the Pentium, and produced an Intel Pentium E6300 that runs at 2.80 GHz and has nothing to do with the original. Programmers have a hard time keeping up with this let alone consumers. :rofl:

are you saying basically that a I7 920 would read it's TJmax strait out of the die or MSR? so RT automatically detect the approximate accurate TJ for any processor it operates upon?

2. going over some portions of this thread and the other at overclock.net, it seems that the delta between the DTS and the Tcase is only 1-1.5 degrees?
so an I7 9xx with a Tcase of 67.9 should not exceed core temperatures of ~66.5?

3. have anyone used HWMonitor? it has few temperatures reading out of the IPEC chip which are showing the CPU is ~15 degrees lower then the core temps,
and so, setting up Smart Fan through the BIOS to operate at 60C< go 100% CPU fan actually makes the fan go 100% only at 75 core degrees, i.e 10-15 above the the HWMonitor CPU reading...

so with these parameters there seems to be a conflict between the DTS core reading and the Tcase or PECI or whatever is reading the CPU at 15 degrees less,
what makes one believe the actual Tj for the 9xx is actually 85C and not 100c.

any idea..?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

TM Load stands for Task Manager load meter. That option uses a Windows function similar to what the Task Manager uses to calculate CPU load. The best method for Core i CPUs is to un-check this box and use the original method based on CPU C0%. TM Load is designed for Core 2 mobile CPUs that go into low power sleep states at idle.

I have no idea what you did and no idea why it doesn't work anymore. I've never seen this problem before.

Here's the latest version. It has a couple of more minor features like better system tray fonts so you might as well try it even though I doubt it will fix your problem.

RealTemp 3.59.5
http://www.mediafire.com/?vc6w5frn1gclpu9

---

Wow...,thanks Uncle,
RealTemp 3.59.5,it's 2 weeks to post here.

The value stored in each core is called the TJ Target value. According to Intel, that is the minimum value that throttling will begin so I would disagree on a TJMax=85C theory.

I think the actual TJMax on core 0 of the Core i7-920 CPUs is extremely close to 100C and the reported core temperature coming from that core is more accurate than any CPU Intel has produced. Intel took a lot of flak for the crappy 45nm sensors they used on their Core 2 CPUs so decided to spend a few more pennies on the Core i7-900 series and it shows. The newer 32nm sensors are a step backwards.

I disagree with some of the stuff on overclock.net and haven't been there for a while to read any new theories. When you are running a stress testing program like Intel Linpack, the difference between peak core temperature at the hottest spot on the core and case temperature can hit over 25C. It's definitely a lot more than 1C or 2C. The Tcase specification is designed for system builders. The theory is that if you select a computer case and choose some fans and if you design a computer so the Tcase temperature doesn't exceed 67.9C during your test, then a system builder will not have to worry about the peak core temperature hitting the thermal throttling point at 100C very often if at all during normal use. That's all Intel cares about. They design their CPUs to run reliably up to a core temperature of 100C so as long as the core temperature never triggers thermal throttling, the user will have a CPU that performs at the speed that Intel designed it to run at.

The CPU temperature reported in the bios and by all software that reports that sensor has nothing to do with actual Tcase temperature. The only way to measure the Tcase temperature according to Intel is to cut a groove in the top of the CPU heat spreader and to run a thermocouple to the geometric center. The 67.9C Tcase specification can only be compared to a temperature measured using this method.

Quote:

---

RealTemp 3.59.5,it's 2 weeks to post here.

---

I must have forgot about that one. :)
I kind of like the new system tray font options but other than that it's mostly the same old stuff.

Quote:

---

I disagree with some of the stuff on overclock.net and haven't been there for a while to read any new theories. When you are running a stress testing program like Intel Linpack, the difference between peak core temperature at the hottest spot on the core and case temperature can hit over 25C. It's definitely a lot more than 1C or 2C.

---

yeah, had this idea too,
it's quite impossible that the actual core temperature is only a degree lower than the upper side of the IHS,
it's like sticking your hand into the fire, or placing it half a meter above,
have a look here:
http://www.semiaccurate.com/static/u...hermal_pic.jpg
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/07/...are-defective/
if different adjacent parts of the die can differ by 10 degrees or more, there's no reason the top IHS side, with half a mm thick metal between it would not be delta'ed even up to 15 degrees.

testing a naked chip with an IR thermometer at low voltage and power consumption may reduce heat delta between the IHS and the cores to what has been read as 1.5 degrees, while when the chip is hot running under fan easily reaching 80 degrees, the delta could be much higher,
it's possible that MB manufacturers take this into account and placing they're reading already 15 degrees lower than the cores, or taking a Tcase reading as this is what they face setting up cooling solutions for, it's still kind of strange though,

Quote:

---

The Tcase specification is designed for system builders. The theory is that if you select a computer case and choose some fans and if you design a computer so the Tcase temperature doesn't exceed 67.9C during your test, then a system builder will not have to worry about the peak core temperature hitting the thermal throttling point at 100C very often if at all during normal use.

---

what means, is the CPU can take at least Tcase+delta to Tjunction, i.e - 67.9 + ~15 = ~83C.
E: seems you've been discussing this issue inside out and agreed the max delta between TJmax and IHS temperature is to be ~5 degrees at temperature close to TJmax,

a clarify: the 85 degrees is not a theory actually, more of a confusion with Smart Fan and Tcontrol.


yes CPU's can reach 100 degrees before throttling, so it can be taken as still under safty standards temperature, yet it doesn't mean they can take these degrees 24/7 for a long period without getting decayed faster then at ~70 or so.

Quote:

---

They design their CPUs to run reliably up to a core temperature of 100C so as long as the core temperature never triggers thermal throttling, the user will have a CPU that performs at the speed that Intel designed it to run at.

---

that's interesting, so the delta taken from Tjmax to Tcase is ~25 degrees for the I7 or so with few degrees as a safety headroom,
that actually clarifies many things, the actual MB reading for Smart Fan is not that critical, it definitely isn't more accurate or crucial than the DTS reading,
only secondary,

thanks for your input :up:.

E:
after going over page 86 and it's area, your statement of 25 degrees delta between core temp and Tcase is quite confusing,
rge has seemed to propose that the max difference between the two is somewhere in between 5-7 degrees, which seems very logical considering the short physical distance between the two,
as to add to that, these^^ sort of pictures above doesn't add any to clear up the confusion :/.

E2: according to Toms article on Core 2 DTS specs the deviation in temperature reading by the DTS can range in between -5 to +10 at 90 degrees.
which means, if the IR reading at 90 degrees go for 85 at the IHS, the actual core temperature can be actually between 85-100, i.e up to 15 degrees over Tcase temperature.

whether it was posted here or not, I7 TJmax can be read from the MSR at address 1A2h bits 16-23,
the value stands for 64h (100).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

I must have forgot about that one. :)
I kind of like the new system tray font options but other than that it's mostly the same old stuff.

---

:up:
Accepted.
Keep your well work!

Quote:

---

yes CPU's can reach 100 degrees before throttling, so it can be taken as still under safty standards temperature, yet it doesn't mean they can take these degrees 24/7 for a long period without getting decayed faster then at ~70 or so.

---

I haven't seen any test showing how long you can reliably run an Intel CPU at a core temperature of 100C for. If not overclocked, I think it's possible to run it 24/7 for a long, long time without any problems but the longest test I've ever done was running Prime95 for 3 hours with the CPU heatsink fan disconnected. My E8400 bounced continuously off the thermal throttle but other than that, it ran fine without any errors while over clocked 20% and over volted.

If you used a little more common sense than that, an Intel CPU would probably run reliably for a long time, even at a peak core temperature of 100C.

I know some people that don't look inside their computer, ever, can end up with the heatsinks full of dust and dirt and even the CPU fans can fail and users barely notice. They might throttle and run a little slow but whatever, they just keep using them. The Intel thermal shutdown temperature isn't until 125C so I think Intel CPUs have a significant amount of temperature headroom in their design and can run a long time reliably, even when running red hot.

The 5C to 7C difference between peak core temperature and Tcase temperature that rge discovered was when the CPU was idle. That can increase significantly depending on what type of software you are running. Different loads work different parts of the core harder as your thermal picture shows. Intel also makes a lot of different CPUs and the delta at full load running Prime95 or LinX/Linpack is going to vary depending on whether you are testing a 65nm dual core or a 45nm Core 2 Quad Core or a Core i7-920 that is laid out completely different. The distance from the hottest spot on the core to the temperature at the center of the CPU on top of the heatspreader is going to vary.

MSR register 0x1A2 only applies to the newer Core i based CPUs but there is no guarantee that number is the same as actual TJMax. Intel officially calls this "temperature target" and admits that actual TJMax can and does vary. They've just never clarified by how much this might vary or whether it varies from core to core like I think it does. A number with no error specification is wide open to interpretation.

They've never released any engineering type data showing the details about their calibration procedure or how much error is in that procedure or the sensors they use. The numbers released at the IDF Conference and quoted in the Tom's article are more like approximations. Intel builds a lot of different CPU types with different sensors so people shouldn't read too much into a blanket statement like that without them producing engineering test data for the different models. The Core i7-920 sensors are completely different sensors than what the 45nm Core 2 CPUs were saddled with so a statement that applies to one may not apply to the other.

onex, the gradient from core to IHS depends on the total dissipated power, ie TDP. At idle and very low volts, TDP is only few watts, and there is a gradient of only 5-6C from core to IHS, which is the minimum gradient you will see. At undervolted, underclocked load, may only have 10-12C core to IHS gradient. However, at stock settings, for example my E8400 was 23C+ gradient from core to IHS at linpack load, measured using two calibrated thermocouples, one embedded in IHS, and one embedded in die, via hole drilled through IHS and partway into die, pics in link below.

First link shows video of 23C gradient of my E8400 at stock settings loaded with linpack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7ua2FFByfI

original post here: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2418

And her is pic of hole drilled in my cpu and into die (E8400), along with stanford paper that also measured gradient from IHS to die, also found 20-30C gradient with some loading programs.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2438

You can also look at intel published specs, for example IHS max temp of my old E8400 was 72.4C per intel, and tjmax was 100C. These numbers are actually the same limit, ie when tjmax limit is reached at full load 100C, intel says can also measure IHS at 72C, depending on intel testing conditions, intel loading program, at stock settings, stock cooler, ie can be 28C gradient from core to IHS (typically worst case scenario).

Once you start overclocking and increasing TDP, this gradient can increase, though changing cooling changes gradient as well.

Quote:

---

Intel officially calls this "temperature target" and admits that actual TJMax can and does vary. They've just never clarified by how much this might vary or whether it varies from core to core like I think it does.

---

yes, that's exactly the issue which causes all that confusion,
there isn't seem to one answer to these questions but rather explanations which are going round and round not hitting the main issue.
the DTS's are said to be upgraded at each processor release and so does they're calibration,
taking approximations made for Core 2 might not be as accurate for the Core I,
the basic issue is that indeed, there doesn't seem to be any documents that actually eliminate this problem and neither Intel seems to know the exact answer which make it rely basically on assumptions and safety offset calibrations as well.

Quote:

---

If you used a little more common sense than that, an Intel CPU would probably run reliably for a long time, even at a peak core temperature of 100C.

---

people are saying that high temperature has a wider effect on electromigration,
though Intel wouldn't have released PROCHOT# at 100C if it was a severe danger to they're processors,
ofcourse Silicon doesn't melt at 100C and some people do run they're processors at above 90 degrees for folding, yet still it seems high temperature has an effect on microprocessors,
Intel may allow processors to reach 100C or in fact, even 105-125 at THERMTRIP# yet doesn't advise it for long periods,
few degrees below Tcase temperature is used to activate Smart Fan through the PECI interface, at 60 degrees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro...n-aware_design

Quote:

---

Electromigration reliability of a wire (Black's equation)

At the end of the 1960s J. R. Black developed an empirical model to estimate the MTTF (mean time to failure) of a wire, taking electromigration into consideration:

\text{MTTF} = A (J^{-n}) e^{\frac{E_a}{k T}}

Here A is a constant based on the cross-sectional area of the interconnect, J is the current density, Ea is the activation energy (e.g. 0.7 eV for grain boundary diffusion in aluminum), k is the Boltzmann's constant, T is the temperature and n a scaling factor (usually set to 2 according to Black). It is clear that current density J and (less so) the temperature T are deciding factors in the design process that affect electromigration.

The temperature of the conductor appears in the exponent, i.e. it strongly affects the MTTF of the interconnect. For an interconnect to remain reliable in rising temperatures, the maximum tolerable current density of the conductor must necessarily decrease.

---

http://doc.utwente.nl/47484/1/01315418.pdf

Quote:

---

We present a significant reduction in EM-lifetime when a
temperature gradient is present within a metal line, even when the
line has a lower average temperature. TM, the diffusion of atoms due
to a temperature gradient, cannot explain this. Ihe temperature
gradient enhances the electromigration process. The failures will
occur mainly near the local heating elements at the site of maximum
temperature gradient.

---

i'm not an expert and neither an engineer, but i use logic before posting and after and do take things into account.
not saying that a processor would end it's life after 2 years while running at 95C yet indeed it can take away some of it's capabilities and shorten it's life.
that's why the companies regulate temperatures and advise keeping them well below the periodical-safe maximum.

brilliant rge,
will take a deep look over this post later.

E:
so that video says it all, and that CPU is a 65W one.

the university testing also approve these testing by a brief going over the document and the image,
seems the gradient indeed reaches up to 20+ degrees at some applications.

Quote:

---

You can also look at intel published specs, for example IHS max temp of my old E8400 was 72.4C per intel, and tjmax was 100C.

---

and that clears out further the confusion as Intel reading for Tcase vs DTS temperature means while using a HS.
this pretty much sums it up,
great endeavor!

p.s - that document is really interesting!

Quote:

---

the DTS's are said to be upgraded at each processor release and so does they're calibration,

---

That's not true. The Core 2 45nm sensors weren't as accurate as the previous Core 2 65nm CPUs. After all the problems with the 45nm Core 2 sensors, Intel used some of their best sensors ever on the original Core i7-900 series. The 32nm sensors they have switched to for the Core i7-980X don't seem to be as accurate.

yes, that's correct,
seen somewhere about the 980 not being too accurate,
as for the improvement by each generation,
Intel is saying that through one of it's thermal papers (should be the last I7 one or CPU Monitoring
With DTS/PECI), the I7 sensors should be indeed very well implemented, thought that's coming out of scattered pieces of information from many different places.

the main issue got cleared and that's really what matters, maybe and probably for you as a software builder for these purposes, that should be more of a concern,

as a side note,
the 980 is a die shrink processor, a sub process in between two major one's, the SB should probably offer well implemented sensors as a new architecture same as the I7 did or maybe even better,
the attention for better sensor seems to have started with the I7's.

Intel would probably spend more effort in they're design with SB rather than with an intermediate process such as the westmere (or Gulftown for that matter).
it looks like it is looking forward and is becoming more and more aware at these issues, at least by the papers, it doesn't seem like it would step back any more rather if the implementation of DTS's and they're accuracy is getting harder to sustain with every die shrinking process.

hoh, and thank u for all you'r great work, both in this area and with the Intel Dynamic Acceleration at Throttle stop,
you guys are doing a great job.

unclewebb
What about some improvement of design?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WaterFlex

What about some improvement of design?

---

After a million downloads during the last year, the user community has shown me that they like RealTemp but hardly anyone is willing to contribute by donating some money to this project. I have donated thousands of hours of my time but 99.999% of users have donated nothing. Here's what 6 months of donations look like and most of those donations are for my new program, ThrottleStop.

http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/3...tincome.th.png

I wasn't expecting this to be a get rich quick scheme but when I can't afford any new hardware or software to develop on, I have to look at doing other things with my time. RealTemp is free to use but it hasn't been free to develop.

The good news is that I finally updated RealTemp GT for the Gulftown 6 core users and got the ATI and Nvidia GPU stuff working last night. That should be ready for testing in a day or two. When I can afford to buy some Sandy Bridge hardware, maybe I'll do a maintenance release next year if it is needed.

how does one donate unclewebb?

unclewebb, you're much appreciated. Thanks for the time & effort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

After a million downloads during the last year, the user community has shown me that they like RealTemp but hardly anyone is willing to contribute by donating some money to this project. I have donated thousands of hours of my time but 99.999% of users have donated nothing. Here's what 6 months of donations look like and most of those donations are for my new program, ThrottleStop.

<snip image>

I wasn't expecting this to be a get rich quick scheme but when I can't afford any new hardware or software to develop on, I have to look at doing other things with my time. RealTemp is free to use but it hasn't been free to develop.

The good news is that I finally updated RealTemp GT for the Gulftown 6 core users and got the ATI and Nvidia GPU stuff working last night. That should be ready for testing in a day or two. When I can afford to buy some Sandy Bridge hardware, maybe I'll do a maintenance release next year if it is needed.

---

That sucks. The community has really dropped the ball on this one. Donation sent!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by radaja

how does one donate unclewebb?

---

via paypal to email address: monitrex@yahoo.ca
previously posted in this thread over 1 1/2 years ago.

Previous PayPal post by unclewebb

EDIT: unclewebb, you should add your paypal info to the first post. I had to search for it, which unfortunately gives people an easy reason to opt out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sn0man

unclewebb, you're much appreciated. Thanks for the time & effort.

---

Talk is cheap, how about a donation? :up:

sdsdv10,thanks for the link

How about integration of shell for G15 display like CT has in future? I apologize if it's awkward moment to ask for
due to donation issue.

RealTemp 3.59.6 + RealTemp GT 3.59.0
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
http://www.mediafire.com/?2a7pn2f1y2kql01

After almost a year, I finally got around to updating RealTemp GT. It won't be calling everything and anything a Core i9 anymore.
I don't have any 6 core CPUs to test with so if anything needs fixing, let me know.

Erklat: Core Temp's G15 support works so I probably won't bother with this feature.

First thanks for the link sdsdv10 :D

Donation sent!

Second and foremost. Thank you so much for an awesome program unclewebb. Love the new additions to Real Temp GT. It looks awesome.

screen shot
http://littlekitty.smugmug.com/Other...4_dxY2R-X3.jpg

Donation sent as a gift. It was not much, mabye I can send more later. Many thanks for all the time and effort you have put into this.

Thanks for posting that picture CKY2K. I'll get the Intel Intel naming bug fixed up in the next release. At least RealTemp GT is finally calling these CPUs Core i7-980X.

I appreciate the donations but I wasn't trying to fleece some more cash out of XS members. People on XS have always been great with donations and especially with feedback. The feedback is the most important part. Without enough hardware to test on, I have to do a lot of guessing so good feedback and showing me when there's a problem is more important than cash.

You only need to use the 3 Digits option for the system tray when you are using Fahrenheit and a tiny font. When monitoring in Celsius, I hope you're not seeing core temperatures over 100C or else there's a problem. The new Core i processors aren't capable of reporting a core temperature beyond 100C so this option isn't needed for most users.

I've been promising the W1zzard over at TechPowerUp a new version for quite a while now. It looks like it's almost ready for prime time.

The last thing I'll be adding to RT is adjustable turbo multipliers. That's a handy feature for the Core i Extreme and K series CPUs. I'll send the new version to you CKY2K within a couple of days for some testing.

No problem unclewebb and thank you. Does the 3 Digits option also work in Celsius? "The new Core i processors aren't capable of reporting a core temperature beyond 100C so this option isn't needed for most users" I've been there a few times with an ES & Retail-980x. The highest I've seen with Real Temp on one core was 104C with an ES (screen shot if you want), retail was 101C.

I always try to post new versions of Real Temp over at evga. I hope it helps :D.
http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=581948

My mistake. I was thinking about the original Core i7-920 retail CPUs that had a maximum core temperature of 100C but you're right, some of the newer Core i CPUs go to 101C like your Core i7-980X and I think some of the mobile Core i CPUs top out at 105C.

After this point, even if the CPU gets hotter, the sensor will keep outputting the same data and won't go any higher than whatever TJMax is for the CPU. I used to be able to trick the Core 2 based CPUs and still get some data out of them but Intel blocked this little trick in the Core i design. Coincidence I'm sure. :)

With a normal sized font and the Three Digit option, you won't be able to see all three digits very well because there is a very limited amount of space in the system tray. For testing, switch to Fahrenheit and you'll see what I mean. The only way to see three digits is to use a tiny font. I use Celsius so I prefer not using the 3 digit option. When the temperature gets up to say 101C, by default, RealTemp will drop the first one and show that temperature as 01 in the system tray. If you are overclocking and running your computer on the ragged edge, I think you will know that 01 means 101C and not 1C. 1C or 5C will show up as the single digit 1 or 5 without the zero in front of it.

Thanks for sharing RealTemp with others that don't hang out at XS.