Uncle did testing on an actual Q6600, I believe that most other programs used Intel docs to find the Tjmax. I will use RT until someone can prove otherwise that it isn't 95c.
Printable View
Uncle did testing on an actual Q6600, I believe that most other programs used Intel docs to find the Tjmax. I will use RT until someone can prove otherwise that it isn't 95c.
Look I'm not doubting anything, Pure logic sense now : I just would find it weird that my Q6600@3.6 at 1.42 volts would idle at 23-25°C then under watercooling if it's based on 95 and not on 105°C... Sadly I cannot prove anything as I sold that Q6600 ( think Vid was 1.2125 ) but I know what I've seen during 2 watercooling setups, idle temps in coretemp (based on 105) were 32-35°C idle which sound more beleiveable than 22-25°C unless I live in some cold country and my ambient is sub 20's...
Think my logic makes sense not ?
95c is the correct Tjunction Max value for the Q6600 G0. Prior to Real Temp, the G0 stepping processors were wrongly assumed to be Tjunction Max 100c, and the 45 nanometer processors were wrongly assumed to be 105c.
Thanks to unclwebb's research, testing and analysis, we now know that the 45 nanometer processors are 95c. The only exception to this, which has yet to be confirmed, is the 7000 series, which may be Tjunction Max 90c.
Comp :cool:
While true, at the same time when running the calibration on the Q6600, I have a hard time believing that an underclock of .9v and 1.6GHz would run the processor 5 or 10c above the water temp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
On a side note, CoreTemp is using TJmax of 100c(default value) on my Q6600 now, so now the temps are only 5c apart.
Leeghoofd: The difference between CoreTemp and RealTemp for the Q6600 GO is only 5C. CoreTemp assumes TjMax=100C and RealTemp assumes TjMax=95C which is based on the testing of my Q6600 G0 with an IR thermometer.
Reported Temp = TjMax - Digital Thermal Sensor Reading
I think everyone assumed TjMax=100C because that gave believable readings at idle. Before RealTemp came along, every program blindly assumed that the temperature curve from these sensors was totally linear but none of them are. Since the first 65nm processor left the factory, the sensors have not been 100% accurate from idle to TjMax. I've seen only one mention of this by Intel in an interview at Anandtech which surfaced soon after RealTemp was released.
Intel designs and calibrates these sensors to accurately trigger thermal throttling and thermal shut down but they were never meant to be used to accurately report idle temperatures.
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/7131/graph1tj2.png
What I discovered was that if a user took 5 minutes to calibrate his CPU then these sensors could also be used to provide fairly accurate idle temperatures. Using the correct TjMax results in extremely accurate load temperatures. Using the wrong TjMax will help cover up the problems these sensors have at idle but by 60C, your load temperatures will be off by 5C in the case of the Q6600 G0.
On most Q6600 G0 processors, doing things the correct way or the CoreTemp way doesn't make a huge amount of difference. It seems that most of the 65nm chips read about 5C too low at idle so boosting TjMax by 5C made everything look great. On 45nm chips like my E8400 which read too high at idle, using the wrong TjMax combined with ignoring the sensor issues at idle results in reported core temperatures that are a long way off from reality.
Edit: I believe that thermal throttling starts to happen just before TjMax is reached. I've tested a few different processors and throttling has started each time at DTS=2 or 3 as reported by PROCHOT# being set in the processor. It seems to be designed by Intel to kick in at this point to help prevent the CPU from ever reaching TjMax.
I have strange problem when Rel Temp 2.69.1 running under Vista Ultimate pro 32 and 64. When I program started first time and I set up Start Minimized its actual for a while. But now every time when Real temp started under Startup when System boot up I see a Real Temp window, like as Start Minimized off. What’s the wrong with my system?
Tx
k4vz0024: This is a problem for some Vista users and I have no idea what is causing it. I will be looking into this further in the near future. The Start Minimized feature has always worked for me in XP. I might have to create a Registry entry to get this to work properly in Vista which so far I've been avoiding since I hate programs that add junk to the registry.
Have you tried running the program in Admin mode? On ultix64, start min. works correctly every time.
Yes. I´m Administrator.
This is a common misconception. There is no Intel published literature on the Tjmax for desktop CPU's. If I understand things correctly, Intel has only released this information for their mobile/laptop CPU's. For the desktop conterparts the other temperature measuring software developers are simply assuming a value, either based on a number for a previous generation CPU or for a related mobile CPU (as noted above). Unclewebb is the only person I found on any forum who is developing his software in conjuction with experimental evidence (across all types of CPU's, 65nm and 45nm as well as dual core vs quad core). A big hand to you unclewebb :clap: :clap: :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by WoZZeR999
Thanks sdsdv10. You did a great job of explaining the problem. I've always thought that the reason Intel has never published TjMax for the desktop processors is because it would expose the inaccuracies in these sensors at idle. Most people running a mobile chip in a laptop never notice this problem because they're not using water or a massive air cooler.
My first E6400 also had a saggy temperature curve at idle and can report below ambient temperatures even with the correct TjMax=85C. There is no single TjMax value for a processor that is accurate at both idle and at TjMax. That's why RealTemp lets you choose calibration factors to help out down low so you don't have to use the wrong TjMax which will screw up your load temps.
I think Intel TAT influenced what other software uses for TjMax. People forget that TAT is a laptop testing tool and may have no relevance to the desktop processors even though it has that nice Intel logo on it. I decided to start with a clean sheet of paper and so far that's worked out very well.
k4vz0024: Can you try dragging the RealTemp folder to your Desktop and see if Start Minimized works there. You don't have to re-boot. Just try starting the program and it should minimize to the System Tray area. I've been trying to find / understand what's causing this bug but it seems to only be effecting a few users. I can't figure out why it works for some Vista users but not others.
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/3...ettingstm1.png
After it starts up if it is still not working does it show Start Minimized as checked and is there at least one core selected so it has a System Tray icon to minimize to?
mcoffey: Did you try the calibration procedure as outlined in the RealTemp docs? As the graph a few posts ago shows, none of these sensors are accurate at reporting idle temperatures. Not the 45nm sensors or the 65nm sensors. Intel did not design or calibrate their DTS sensors for that purpose.
You can choose to use TjMax=105C and that will make your idle temps look more believable but I guarantee you that your load temps will not be accurate. Changing TjMax does not address where the problem with these sensors is. My E8400 reads about 6C to 8C too high at idle depending on the room temperature. Your 45nm QX9650 reads too low by a very similar amount. By using the calibration features in RealTemp you can do a pretty good job of correcting for the errors in the DTS. It will never be 100% correct at idle but from idle to TjMax it will be far more accurate than any other software can report.
@ mcoffy, I run a Q6600 in my new box, the loops and blocks are IMO mid -high end and I also watch the temps. Using the D-tek v1, comparing ambient air and water, I've adjusted the idle to 3-4c over water. This will change as you add vcore. My water temps are taken before the rad, for a look at the box here is the thread on Anand.
@ unclewebb
here my HEAT-UP run :)
system :
QX9650 / Maximus Extreme (bios v1007) / True120 *! FanLESS !*/
for this run everithing was set to [AUTO]/ Factory Default / in bios
this means C1E ; EIST ; CoreTM function - [ ENABLED ]
Ambient measured 23~24C*
i HEAT-UP (forced heat-up!) on stock speeds, but fanless and run small FFT PRIME - on all 4 cores / ( no affinity or such things touched )
Throttling triggers somewhere @ 93~94 degrees C* - read by Realtemp
and only CORE#0 was triggered ..aka '' acted as switch '' ..
i let it run for few more minutes .. but it push back multi and reduce load, what in turn, -- lowered temperature of the whole CPU unit,
so it remained Prime Stable even under throttling ... any way
i did not see any core dropping in prime, no Crash or Screen hangup until this stress
-----------------------
i think i get it correct .. quad consist of 2 dual's so
core#0 & core#1 = [ Pair No#1]
core#2 & core#3 = [ Pair No#2]
dont know is this difference something to worried about ?
the [ Pair No#2] stay @ 88~89 C* // 6-7C* To TjMax remaing
-----------------------
few rows from RT Log
~ ....
13:56:50 93 93 89 87
13:56:51 93 93 89 87
13:56:52 93 93 89 87
13:56:53 93 93 89 88
13:56:54 93 93 88 87
13:56:55 93 93 89 87
13:56:56 94 93 89 88
13:56:57 93 93 89 88
13:56:58 93 93 88 88
13:56:59 93 93 88 87
13:57:00 93 93 88 88
13:57:01 93 93 89 88
13:57:02 93 93 89 88
13:57:03 93 93 88 88
~~~ .......
(check the time stamp )
here a shoot
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/1740/fl8ha3.th.png
------------
CY :)
mcoffey: My experience with calibrating with water is zilch but I think WoodButcher has some good advice to shoot for 3C to 4C over your water temperature. With the numbers you posted, 3 of your 4 cores would have no problem being adjusted to that level and I think even your last core will be really close to that range after adjustment. We're not looking for perfection here. The sensors aren't perfect so your idle temps won't be perfect even after a calibration. They should be very close though. Many users with 45nm Quads have had good success using RealTemp with TjMax=95C. Maybe someone running water has a good air cooler in their closet and they could run both set ups at low MHz and low core volts on the same CPU to compare idle temps between the two.
i43: Your results are very similar to what I had when testing my Q6600 on the last page. My Quad peaked at 93C on core0 and core1 and then core2 and core3 only got up to 88C as thermal throttling held the processor at this temp as Prime continued to run without any problems or crashes. I might give it some more core voltage to create some more heat next time to see what happens.
The difference between the two sets of cores is normal. I tried this test at idle with no heatsink attached and the temps across all 4 cores were within a degree or two which showed that this isn't a sensor issue. With a heatsink mounted and the CPU fan on high, the difference between cores was about 3C instead of 5C. Maybe a smart person who understands heat pipes, heatsinks and thermodynamics could explain this difference in the two sets of cores within a Quad.
hello all,
to who i need to believe ?
the rig is in the signature.
on PRIME95 TEST
REALTEMP show core1+2 - 63C core3+4 - 60
everest show core1+2 - 68 core3+4 - 62
TAT show cpu0 - 63 cpu1 - 65
pic
http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/3646/tempsnd1.th.jpg
I knew those shoes didn't belong to my wife!:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I laugh,,,, take my wife,,,, Please!:ROTF:
Anywho, I do have a U120, I think it was the 2nd revision before the extreme. I need to do a little tubing work so I'll see if it will fit w/o a complete rebuild, if I can manage I'll do it, no promises though.
I'd still be guessing though unless someone else has the same cooler mounted on a Q6600.
At low MHz and low voltage at idle, there isn't much difference between a good cooler, a great cooler or even water. Heat transfer is never perfect so core temps at idle should always be a few degrees above either your air or water temp. An Ultra 120 would be perfect to do some testing with. The wife is on holidays so it's tough to sneak too much new hardware into the house without looking suspicious! :D What's that??? :shrug:
TAOTAO161: Read the RealTemp docs and see what makes sense. You should be able to do some testing and answer your own question about what software is telling you the truth.
Haha, ok, like I say if I can squeeze her in I'll do it. Kinda tight but I want to make a few changes to the fans and tubing so it may work.
mcoffey: Thanks. I really appreciate that you took the time, did your homework, did some testing and were able to come to your own conclusions. Being skeptical is a good thing. Too many users for far too long have put their trust in programs that have no real world testing to back up the temp numbers they put out.
It's very difficult to argue with the results from the test I did on my 45nm E8400. TjMax=105C is simply impossible.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=573
Quad core processors are simply two Dual Cores strapped together so I found it tough to believe that TjMax=105C for them either. Any user with a Quad that does some honest testing usually comes to the same conclusion.
Spread the word. There are still a lot of users hanging on to the old way of doing things.
WoodButcher: Maybe you could rename your computer, "Welcome to the jungle!"
Is 2.69.2 out somewhere? I saw someone using it on another site. Thanks
2.69.2 is available from the beta section.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
I didn't announce it because there were no real changes. The only change was a custom profile for one user to get his 45nm Quad looking more believable. He provided me with some hopeless looking data and I created a custom profile for him. He's happy now! :)
If you are using 2.69.1 then there is no need to download 2.69.2
I might have time later today to add a couple of features. It's too nice a day out at the moment to be inside programming.
Thanks
their is a specific calibration for Q6600 ? my vid is 1.3000V
Read the docs and follow the procedure as outlined there.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAOTAO161
I have found that with an open case when you bring a Q6600 down to 1600 MHz and about 1.10 volts you should see idle temps about 5C or 6C above your air temp with a good air cooler. If you have a good water cooling system then try to get RealTemp to report idle temp on all 4 cores at about 4C above your water temp. It's not an exact science but a guide line which will get you pretty close to the real temperature.
Individually adjust your Idle Calibration factors to get all 4 cores equalized at Idle. This calibration will improve the accuracy of your reported temperatures from idle to TjMax.
Edit: I did a quick calibration of my Q6600 about 30 pages ago. I got lucky and found it on my second try!
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=1006
Finally had a chance to add in an alarm feature to keep CompuTronix happy. :)
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/7397/rt2693cy2.png
It's only a visual alarm at the moment where you will see the application and the RealTemp system tray icons flash. I will be adding an alarm that you can also hear as soon as I find an appropriate .wav file.
I've found that Quad core processors at full load will usually have the first two cores reporting higher temps than core2/core3 so I've created the ability to set two different alarm points if you need to compensate for that. Single and Dual core processors will only have one alarm temperature to choose. The temperature range is from 0C to 125C and if you don't want an alarm then just leave it unchecked. You won't likely ever hear an alarm if you set it to 125C since that is believed to be the thermal shut down temperature of the desktop processors.
It's available for download in the beta section:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Download, unzip and copy the new RealTemp.exe into your RealTemp directory.
To make room for this option in the Settings window I moved the Core Order to the main screen. It has been renamed APIC ID which is the technical term for it. If you have a Dual core you won't see this information since your APIC ID will always be 01. This information is only used for the grouping of the cores of a Quad core processor.
The other small feature added was a user selectable anchor position.
By default, if you do a double right mouse click on the RealTemp GUI, it will jump to the top left corner of the screen. If you would like it to jump to a different location then position RealTemp where you want it, hold down the Shift key and do a double right mouse click while holding it down. This will set a new anchor position.
Now when you double right click on RealTemp it will jump to this new custom anchor position that you have chosen. I realize that setting a new anchor position is a little cryptic but I'll try to document it early on in the New Features section. Other than that I guess it will be a special feature for the XS guys that RTFM!
If anything isn't working quite right with these new features then let me know. If you have any sounds that you would like to hear for an alarm then e-mail them to me. I'll try to code the final version so users can custom choose their own .wav file to play for an alarm.
A toilet flush would be appropriate!Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I've ordered new fans so when I get them I'll see about doing a little air / water comparisons. I'll record ambient air, water, idle and load temps uncalibrated, cpuz, screenshots when possible, is there anything else that would help?
That about concludes the basic feature set. There are a few more things I might add in the future like a Vista Widget but I guess I'll need to start using Vista for this feature to become important to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by WoodButcher
If you do some testing, what I'm interested in seeing is how idle temps compare at 1600 MHz and 1.10 volts between water cooling and air cooling on the same processor. With the CPU putting out very little heat, I'm expecting to see a very small difference. Maybe as little as 1C. If we know this then people using water will know what temp they should be calibrating RealTemp to compared to their air or water temp.
ko uncle, will do.
Here's a thought,,, beeps or a klaxon when the proc gets hot and save the flush for when it's totally cooked!:smoke:
Now you got me curious, more interested in what difference is between Quad air and water, but for E8400 on air (Zalman) versus water (PA120.3, Dtekfuz, dedicated loop) at idle, undervolted was roughly 1C.
I first tested under water idle for few minutes, 6x200, 1.06vcore, case open to control ambients.
I removed my water block, and put on old Zalman ?9500, let idle for few minutes then printscreen, same testing conditions, same ambient, case open.
Then put water block back on, tested under same ambient and conditions and also fresh reseat, let idle for few minutes then printscreen. Still got same results for water.
When I calibrate realtemp with -2.2, core and cpu temp reads same, but I left calibration off...though probably could have left it on.
Hm, who should i belive now?
CoreTemp = 43°C
RealTemp = 28°C
HWMonitor = 43°C
43°C seems more possible to me considering ambient temperature is 25°C in my room... PC specs are below...
rge: Thanks for your testing. It confirms what I've always believed that when you reduce the MHz and core voltage, there isn't a lot of difference between a top notch air cooler and water. I don't think there would be any difference between a Thermalright Ultra 120 eXtreme and a good water set-up. Heat transfer is never 100% so your reported idle temp during a test like this is always going to be a few degrees above your air or water temp. With my E8400 and a Tuniq tower, I found about 4C over is a reasonable expectation.
RejZoR: About 6 posts before yours I posted this which takes you through the calibration procedure.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=1730
Do some reading about these sensors, calibration and what is reasonable. Idle temps 18C over your room temperature are not reasonable based on all of the testing that has been done in this thread. These sensors need to be calibrated for accurate idle temps. Other temperature monitoring programs have chosen to completely ignore this fact.
unclewebb,
Excellent work on Real Temp, and the alarm feature. I've emailed you two .wav files which might be potential candidates. Once again, thanks.:up:
rge,
Nice work on your air / water tests, and thanks for showing SpeedFan results. :clap:Your air and water CPU temperatures both agree with the calibration technique I use in my Temp Guide.:D
RejZoR,
Real Temp is correct, as it uses a Tjunction Max value of 85c for your E4300, which I'll bet is L2 stepping. Regardless of whether it's an L2 or M0 stepping, Tjunction Max 85c is correct.
Core Temp and Hardware Monitor still use an incorrect value of 100c for L2 stepping, which is why their results show 15c too high. Unclewebb has already proven this point during some of his earlier testing and analysis, so you can believe Real Temp.
Comp:cool:
Thanks CompuTronix for the vote of confidence. I think genquatr.wav might cause some one to go into cardiac arrest when that alarm goes off at 3:00 AM in their bedroom while doing an over night Prime run! :D I like it.
Thank you for all the effort unclewebb
I think I calibrated my E8400 and it looks pretty close, do you think I need a calibration adjustment?
Followed all steps in calibration link, have my mhz and voltage as close as I can get with my budget mobo.
Room temerature is 24c Thank You
No calibration adjustments made
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...alibration.jpg
You're welcome. I'm glad I could give something back to the XS community who have really helped me with this project.Quote:
Originally Posted by kpo6969
You better not tell anyone where you live. Users would kill for an E8400 that actually has accurate idle temps without needing a fudge factor to get there. Is this a recent batch? RealTemp will be out of business if Intel has finally sourced some 45nm digital thermal sensors that are accurate at idle.
Happy overclocking. :D
Bought from NewEgg in April 08
B# 808A169
So it's possible that mine is running at only 28°C (room temp is around 25°C).Quote:
Originally Posted by CompuTronix
Sure the cooler is good but can it be that good? But ok, if you say it's correct, i guess i have to belive you.
Oh and i've used "Test sensors" feature few times too in case guy above thinks i haven't... unless i have to do more than just click that...
EDIT:
Start Minimized doesn't work at all... I always get entire RealTemp on screen at startup...
RejZoR: For accurate idle temps you have to manually do the calibration as outlined in the documentation. Have you tried that yet and what were your results? Test Sensors only checks to see if your thermal sensors are working. It doesn't calibrate them for you.
Start Minimized is broken for some Vista users. I'll see what I can do about that this week.
Thanks. But seriously, consider changing the documentation to a step by step form or at least with more logical formatting. I'm all into computers for years and i'm still looking at the docs like total moron, not knowing what to do to properly calibrate this damn thing. It doesn't say anything about adjusting anything what so ever. It's just explaining the process in a very long way but when i want to sum up something i have no clue what i just read... Ok, so i click the "Test sensors" at lowest possible core temperature. Then what?! Is that it? Do i have to manually set anything in the settings?
"Test sensors" does just that nothing else. Testing the sensor does not calibrate anything. Low and slow gives you a place to start calibration because you can measure the air temp and add a few deg to get the core temp, this is what you calibrate or adjust on the settings page. to the right of "Idle Calibration" you can input your adjustments. -.5 or .5 to add. I have added to my cores the fopllowing values to balance the temps, .05, .05,1.0 and .08
http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/docs.phpQuote:
Originally Posted by RejZoR
btw: What does this mean?
"Oh and i've used "Test sensors" feature few times too in case guy above thinks i haven't..."
I just opened up the documentation and went to the Calibration section and I didn't read about clicking on Test Sensors anywhere in that section. Most users who have taken the time to read through the documentation have been very happy with the information they've been able to find there. I understand your complaint that it is wordy like this 70 page thread at XS is so I'll try to explain it in a point blank format so if something doesn't make sense then you can ask me to explain further.Quote:
Originally Posted by RejZoR
1) Go into the bios and set the multiplier to 6.0 and set the FSB to the default setting. Typically 266 MHz or 333 MHz depending on your processor. See the Intel Specs if you are unsure. Intel lists this spec as Bus Speed which is the equivalent of your FSB X 4.
2) Set your core voltage to approximately 1.10 volts.
3) Start up your computer and open up RealTemp.
4) Start up CPU-Z and confirm your core voltage and that your MHz is either 1600 MHz or 2000 MHz.
5) Open up your computer case and turn your CPU fan up to the highest speed if it is adjustable. The goal is to maximize your cooling and minimize the temperature of your CPU.
6) Let your computer idle for a few minutes until the reported Core Temperature has stabilized.
7) Your reported temperature should be 4C or 5C above the room air temperature near your computer with a Dual core processor and 5C or 6C above your room temperature with a Quad core processor.
8) Open up the RealTemp Settings window.
9) Go into the Idle Calibration section and enter any value between -3.0 and 3.0 for each core so that your reported temperature for each core is in the range outlined in step 7. At idle, the temps across all cores should be the same.
10) Re-boot and reset your bios settings to whatever you normally run at. The calibration that you just did will help improve your reported temperatures from idle to approximately 60C.
11) If you have any problems then e-mail me. The address is in the About... box of RealTemp.
I just like to say this is a good program, well done for all the hard work and effort Unclewebb.
I have a bit of a dodgy sensor on my quad, so much so that OCCT reports it as "overheating" (core2), yet your app it never ever goes over 61C on Core2.
Using a QX9650 @ QX9770 1.22VvCore, 1.12V VTT and 1.52V CPU PLL
If only more apps would use your algorithm as a plug in
John
Thanks JohnZS. All programs are reading the same info from the same sensors so I'm not sure what OCCT is reporting or why. The competition thinks their interpretation of the data coming from these sensors is right and obviously I think my interpretation is right. Good to hear that RT is working for you.
The PROCHOT# reading at the bottom of RealTemp shows you if a core is overheating. That's Intel speak for Processor Hot which is a signal from the processor that it is too hot and thermal throttling has begun to keep the temperature from getting any hotter. This data is separate from the DTS temperature data but is likely coming from the same sensors. Intel individually calibrates these processors so I'm assuming that PROCHOT# is working correctly even on CPUs with dodgy sensors. If the PROCHOT# boxes are clear in RealTemp then the CPU isn't throttling and it should be running happily at full speed.
I'm working with RejZoR at the moment trying to find out why RealTemp doesn't start minimized for some users. He has it in the Task Scheduler and found that he needs to set a time delay for it to minimize properly on start up. I tried to make RealTemp start up as quickly as possible but it looks like I might have to build in a delay option for Vista users. Whatever it takes to keep everyone happy.
In XP you can drag programs into the All Programs -> Startup folder. Does Vista have this option or do you have to use Task Scheduler?
If you have this problem with Vista then try setting a delay and see if that works. I'm not a fan of Registry mods but I might have to add that option so users can add it to their Start Up area that way.
Vista also has startup folder and will also work. But since UAC is enabled by default it will prompt user for confirmation regarding admin rights. Thats why i use Task Scheduler to assign admin rights automatically. But yeah, if you have UAC disabled, it'll work just the same as under WinXP.
+1,,,, works fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by RejZoR
UAC??? no, nien, nada, not happenin!!!! I like vista but I don't need nor want net-nanny.
Thanks RejZoR for finally explaining why Start Minimized works for some Vista users and not others. I'll see if I can build in a time delay option for Vista users to see if a quick fix like that can get this feature working for everyone.
RejZoR has also suggested a GUI work over. It won't happen right away but maybe in the fall I could start with a fresh sheet of paper and do a new design. Here's his initial suggestion.
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/9...pnewguijp7.png
He'd like more info displayed at the top like other programs do so I could ditch the toggle button. The large, easy to read temperature font, would go bye-bye along with Mini-Mode that was simple to implement. I'm sure I could create something new like a Vista widget to replace mini mode as well as a new Mini-Mode for XP users. With a clean design I would have more options here.
He also thinks that the time stamp for the Minimum and Maximum temperature is unnecessary in its present form since it doesn't include a date. I'm always on my computer 24/7 so personally I don't need any date information. With his cleaner design I'd probably use a small pop up when the mouse is hovered over this area to show a full date and time stamp or maybe even a separate window with more thorough information about the highs and lows.
RejZoR thinks the PROCHOT section would make more sense if the status was displayed in English like OK or Throttling or something like that.
I'm open to all ideas. I'm neither a programmer or a GUI designer by trade. I've just been kind of winging it the last few months. I found some inconsistencies with the temp monitoring software that was available so I decided to write my own. Some feedback, good or bad, about the present RealTemp GUI as well as RejZoR's suggestions would be appreciated. Don't hold anything back, I can take it!
Users are generally happy with the numbers that RealTemp displays but is it time for a complete GUI overhaul? Fire up PhotoShop and show me what you'd like to see or not see in a future RealTemp layout. It's your chance for fame and absolutely no fortune. :(
The one with baloon popup is a very cool idea. Hover over the temperature value and RT would display a time and date when that value was reached (be it the highest or the lowest). You save the space, you can display more info when needed and would also look cool. Nice one!
You might not be a programmer or GUI designer by trade but you're doing a fine job! :) I'm more into prototype designes, beta testing and general design suggestions...
I just downloaded this to give it a try and it gives me about 5 degrees difference compare to Core Temp, which one should I trust? :confused:
Have you read the realtemp docs? Or any of this thread for that matter? Go over to techpowerup and read the realtemp explanation and instructions and you'll have your answers.Quote:
Originally Posted by iTravis
Hm, it appears Tj.Max 85 is not the correct value for my E4300. However 95 appears to be. I've totally downclocked and undervolted the core to 1,2GHz @ 0,85V, all fans max and case opened, classic outdoor thermometer was placed near computer for temperature verification.
Ambient temperature was 27°C while RealTemp was reading 19-20°C. Thats just impossibe on air cooling. So by increasing Tj.Max to 95 resulted in reading of 29°C (with additional +2°C to compensate the heat output that can never be completelly eliminated).
@unclewebb
I've checked your internal version with VistaDelay feature and it appears to work nicely. Only thing that i've noticed is that there are few CPU usage spikes while in this delay period. But other than that, it works fine :) Oh and we have to do something about those trey icons... Not sure what they represent, but damn... :P
RejZoR: CPU usage spikes when you're using the new VistaDelay feature in RealTemp is not RealTemp hogging your CPU. RealTemp is using zero CPU cycles while it's waiting for the rest of the Vista baggage to load up. It's Vista or other software that is overloading your E4300 at start up. Open up the Task Manager and you'll probably see what is guilty.
If the calibration of your E4300 was at 0.85 volts then you didn't follow my recommendations. You made me write out all those steps and by step 2 you had already decided to do things your own way.
2) Set your core voltage to approximately 1.10 volts.
The reason I recommend this voltage is so a fair, direct comparison can be made between the testing with an IR thermometer I've done and the testing that you're doing.
Anyhow, 65nm sensors having an error of 7C or 8C at idle is completely normal. With less voltage the error is likely greater but I haven't done any testing to back up that theory. Calibrating based on the accuracy of an outdoor thermometer is not very scientific. Here's a pretty thorough test I did on an E2160 which is very similar to your E4300.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=423
The best thing about RealTemp is that if you think all of my testing is bunk then you can choose whatever TjMax you like. My opinion, based on my testing, is that your choice of TjMax=95C for your E4300 might make your idle temps look nice but your load temps are now being reported 10C too high.
Let me know how much time delay is needed so RealTemp can Start Minimized for Vista users that are using UAC.
Personally, I like the old setup of RT, but I really only use mini-mode. The old version is a little cluttered, but it makes efficient use of screen real estate. I don't really care to always know what my min and max temp are, so maybe a setting to show hide would help. When using for day-to-day stuff, knowing what the min and max temp where doesn't really help me. I don't really need any of the aux information other than maybe freq/multi. ProcHot would be helpful with time/date on it as a pop-up box.
That new setup is going to that CoreTemp look/feel, which is a bit to ...industrial... for me.
Well said WoZZeR :up: unc's got everyone playing follow the leader now. :ROTF: If anyone seriously thinks any of these other applets would have implemented the changes they have recently without this kind of motivation think again. It would have simply been a regurgitated 'more of the same'. :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by WoZZeR999
This delay thing is weird. Soemtimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. 30 sec delay. If i use delay in Task Sceduler it always launched properly. Hm...
Also this calibration is like gambling. I've tried with 1,1V and it was just a +4°C difference. So i'm not even gonna bother anymore. Whatever it shows i'll take that as true...
Who knows what's actually right and what isn't when everyone get everything different...
OT: what vcore (on full) do u need to do 3.4Ghz? and what temps do you get on full with core temp?
I was testing on 1,5V but i've lowered it to 1,48750V. It's not Orthos stable but appears to work just fine in games (tested Tiberium Wars so far). At 388x9 it's not stable anymore and restarts when it should login to Windows. My CPU has a very low FSB wall so pumping more volts does pretty much nothing except more heat. But hey, even 3,4GHz is not all that bad. Max temp was 62°C according to RT (while playing Tiberium Wars).
RejZoR: Intel did not design or calibrate their on chip digital thermal sensors to report accurate idle temperatures. If you closely follow the calibration procedure I outlined, your reported temps will be very accurate from idle to TjMax without having to invest a lot of money in calibration equipment. Something a little more accurate than your back yard thermometer would be a good place to start! If you had your own IR thermometer you might get a degree closer to the actual core temperature but it's not worth the investment for this.
Thanks for your testing of the Start Minimized bug in RealTemp when using Vista. At least I know what's going on now. I'll see if I can come up with a different work around that is compatible with Vista.
I might introduce a second GUI version of RealTemp at some time to give users another choice. Any design ideas are appreciated.
:ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Yeah, they got to be what +/- 5c? :D
yeah i got mine on 95 as well. its just looks more realistic when doing the idle temps test.Quote:
Originally Posted by RejZoR
AT RejZor, pitadotcom, and others using tjmax to calibrate idle. Unclewebb and computronix have already answered this many times, so perhaps an illustrated version using unclewebbs graph.
First, accurate idle temps is better evidence of a wrong tjmax than a right one, since most DTS have nonlinear, uncalibrated idle temps. Unclewebb's testing, others testing/confirming, and Intel has confirmed via anandtech, and also by their documents that temps are nonlinear, accurate at load 20-30 from tjmax, but inaccurate at idle.
If you believe intel and the testing, the pic/graph illustrates the result of adjusting tjmax to calibrate inaccurate idle temps....
The Black line represents the true temperature if a DTS was calibrated properly at high and low end and was linear.
The Red line is the actual DTS nonlinear sensor output of E4300.
Raising tjmax, going from red dot/red line to the blue dot/blue line, you lift that entire curve, so at idle you are now accurate, but you simply transferred the error to load. (What you should have done was left tjmax alone, and just calibrated the low inaccurate end with RT calibration, then you would have ended up with the red line merging completely with the black line.)
To get accurate tjmax's, you must use IR testing in the accurate sensor range, the high end. You can not conclude anything by looking at inaccurate idle temps.
If you do use tjmax to adjust idle, then you are claiming DTS output is linear, despite intel stating otherwise, and despite testing showing it is not.
@unclewebb
Comparing RealTemp, CoreTemp and Everest, RealTemp always reads about 10c lower, obviously because of the default 95c Junction Temperature. My Asus AISuite Temp readings and RealTemp are the same though (44c Idle 51c Load).
However in Everest's options preferences\stability checking the box "Measure CPU Temperature Using ACPI" gives me the same 44c. CoreTemp is the only program reading temps higher then. Any idea why such a difference when changing the measurement type? Thanks.
rge: Thanks for the modified graph. I've been meaning to show that graphically to explain what people are accomplishing by adjusting TjMax when they probably shouldn't be. The graph shifts upward, you create some realistic looking idle temps but you've created inaccuracies in your reported temps everywhere else between idle and TjMax. Personally I wouldn't adjust TjMax one degree unless I had an IR thermometer or similar device to verify that the TjMax RealTemp is using is wrong.
I keep telling people that these sensors are not accurate at idle and then they keep using inaccurate information to decide whether RealTemp is using the correct TjMax or not. I'll never be able to convince everybody but at least I've been able to convince a lot of people that their software is not being honest and that RealTemp is about the best choice for this problem.
Mr Roboto: I don't quite understand your question but here's some info that might help.
Reported Temps = TjMax - Digital Thermal Sensor Reading
RealTemp uses TjMax=95C and CoreTemp uses TjMax=105C. If you plug those numbers into the formula then where the 10C difference in reported temperatures is coming from is pretty obvious. Both programs read the same Intel sensor and agree on that but interpret the data differently. I decided on 95C based on my IR thermometer testing. I'm assuming that CoreTemp went with 105C based on Intel documentation for the mobile processors which I don't believe is relevant to the Intel Desktop processors.
I'm not 100% sure what Everest or Asus AISuite are reading but I assume both of them are reading the CPU temp sensor in the center of the chip. The calibration for this sensor isn't always accurate depending on the bios so it's nice to see that it seems to work on your board and that it's showing the same as RealTemp. In theory, during quick load transitions, the readings from RealTemp might be more accurate than your other CPU readings but these 45nm chips are getting so small that the sensors are very close together and if they are all calibrated and working properly, you might not see much difference between them. If that doesn't quite answer things for you then just try again.
Sorry to make that so confusing. You answered my question. Thanks for a great little app.
Also like people stated many times these sensors are terribly inaccurate at idle. Sometimes my BIOS as well as AISuite reads 124c. Obviously that's impossible. Once you give it a little juice it comes right down.
Hm, but wouldn't CoreTemp work right if you change the Tj.Max value to the correct one (85 instead default 100 for E4300)? It does offer the option to change it... Or is there some other calculation involved other than only Tj.Max value ?
Might as well be calling this 2.70 RC1 because it's about ready for release I hope as the next major version.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Download, unzip and copy RealTemp.exe into your RealTemp folder if you want to check it out.
I tried to do a work around to get Start Minimized working for users that use UAC. If Start Minimized was not working properly for you before then give this version a try and see if it is any better. Hopefully I didn't screw anything up.
I also added a sound file option for the alarm feature. The file is called RTWarning.wav and is included in the above download. If you don't like this sound then blame CompuTronix! :D Better yet, you can use whatever sound you like as long as you rename it RTWarning.wav and stick it in the RealTemp directory. Keep the sound file under 5 seconds in length or it might cause some trouble. I haven't checked this out yet or built in any safety features for those that like to experiment. Trying to play a 5 minute wav file for your warning probably wouldn't be a good idea right now.
RejZoR: At full load, CoreTemp or Everest work fine if you adjust TjMax to 85C. The only problem is that other programs do not give you any way to compensate for thermal sensors that have been proven to be inaccurate at reporting low temperatures. The amount of error in these sensors can approach 10C at very low idle temperatures which is why some people just bump up TjMax by 10C but we all know now that changing TjMax won't cure where this problem originates from.
Keep up the sterling work Uncle!
oops. im actually on tjmax 85 and +2 calibration. my bad. from my understanding i thought that the +2 calibration would make my tjmax 95. i guess i was wrong.
unclewebb, change the Ok and Use buttons as i've suggested some time ago. Also change the Use button not to close the window (plus rename it to Apply). "Ok" should remain as "Ok" and should save the settings and close the window.
I like the "save" in place of "ok", but "use" should definitively be changed to "apply"
Start minimized seems to work fine now. Will test it some more but it looks like it's ok.
sorry if this isnt needed but how comes its reading that much lower than coretemp and everest?
with a room temp of 26c
everest : 53/53
coretemp: 52/52
real temp: 42/42
i dont trust realtemp to be honest, considering its reporting completly different tests to everything else
Hm, what about integrated table of Tj.Max values depending on detected CPU ? For example if RT detects E4300 like in my case it would automatically set the Tj.Max to 85.
For some other CPU it would be 95 and for some other 100 etc etc. Only problem i see for doing this is gathering correct Tj.Max values. Applying them according to CPU name should be easy.
Read the first page, that will explain why it's a different temp. I trust realtemp because there is real world (read: actually using a thermometer on the processor IHS) testing.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBird28
The competition does absolutely zero real world testing and basis their results on non-existent documentation from Intel and you choose to trust them over RealTemp. That's kind of funny. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by CBird28
What isn't funny is how far off CoreTemp is when reporting the temperature of my E8400. Here's some of the testing that I've done. Ask the competition where their testing is and what they're basing their results on.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=1599
Sounds like your calibration is just right! Most of the 65nm sensors seem to read too low. My original E6400 with a TjMax=85C also needs a calibration offset of +2 for very accurate temps from idle to TjMax.Quote:
pitadotcom: oops. im actually on tjmax 85 and +2 calibration. my bad. from my understanding i thought that the +2 calibration would make my tjmax 95. i guess i was wrong.
That's what RealTemp is doing right now. It automatically detects your E4300 and sets it to TjMax=85C and sets it to TjMax=95C for my E8400. If a user decides to select a different TjMax in the Settings window then it will go along with that number. I was going to publish a list of TjMax values that RealTemp uses. Unfortunately, too many users have preconceived notions about TjMax. They pass judgment on a program without reading the documentation or doing any testing so I said to hell with it.Quote:
RejZoR: Hm, what about integrated table of Tj.Max values depending on detected CPU ? For example if RT detects E4300 like in my case it would automatically set the Tj.Max to 85.
I think Save and Use come from my old Amiga programming days. Save makes more sense to me than OK but OK seems to be the generally accepted Windows term so I'll be using OK.
As for Apply, that's another Windows term that I guess I should be using. Should the Settings window stay opened after you click on Apply? That's what RejZoR thinks should happen. A lot of the functionality in the Settings window is based on any new settings being automatically applied. I find this gives direct feedback as soon as you enter in a new calibration value and Tab over to the next box. Any thoughts?
I'm just cleaning up any loose ends before the next release. Very happy to hear that the Start Minimized issue with Vista might finally be solved.
I think changing the values immediately in the settings window and leaving a save/ok button only would be better. Apply seems like an extra un-needed step to see if you want to keep the settings.
"Ok" to apply the setting and close the window. "Apply" to apply the settings and leave window open. Thats how all WIndows programs do it. I think there is no need to go exotic and confuse users.
So apparently you trust Everest....Quote:
Originally Posted by CBird28
Pic below is a quote from Fiery, developer of Everest, on lavalys forum describing how he feels about the accuracy of measuring core temperature with his program and others.
So you trust a program's guess at accuracy of core temp more than the author? Fiery was simply being honest, as intel does not document tjmax for desktops, thus Everest and coretemp guess at tjmax by using 45nm mobile cpus tjmax's of 105, hoping it is close, even though intel has said "no" to doing so.
Realtemp is the only program that has performed measurements, using intel docs to do so as accurately as possible, to make an accurate estimate of tjmax, and thus core temperature.
We all welcome intelligent arguments either for or against any program or temperature, as that leads to fruitful discussion, but blindly following others, who admit to being blind themselves, makes no sense.
Uncle, Keep up the great work with RealTemp. Sorry to hear the same old arguments tho. Maybe the thread needs to start at page 1 again.......NOT!
I'm playing around with my new setup & love the temps I'm getting at 5.5 (11x500), but before I play with the FSB anymore, I was wondering if you could you please advise what the best TjMax is for a QX9770 (Batch #L803B328)?
I have everything adjusted to the preset of 95 & am just curious if that is correct.
Thanks.
P.S. - The start minimized bug is fixed.
sorry i dont mean to start any arguments, i have absolutely no idea how these things work
The default one that RealTemp uses is best. For your Quad that is TjMax=95C. If you use the adjustable TjMax feature then it will save your new TjMax in the INI file. If you go into the RealTemp.INI file and delete all entries that start with TjMax then it will rescan your CPU next time you start up RealTemp and use the default.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puttz
Edit: I should use RealTemp more often. Looks like the Defaults button in the Settings window also restores TjMax to the default settings.
I don't believe that TjMax is the great mystery that Intel makes it out to be. I do believe that the sensors they use aren't great for reporting idle temperatures and not releasing any official value for TjMax is a good way to cover that fact up. To document what TjMax really is would open up a big can of worms. Sometimes saying nothing is best. Class action lawsuits can be expensive when you sell as many processors as Intel does!
Two :up: so far for that. RejZoR helped me figure out that it is likely a timing problem so I adjusted that a little and added a second try at Minimizing if the first one didn't take. If it works I better leave it alone now. Pretty sad when you have to slow software down to make it more compatible with Vista. :(Quote:
P.S. - The start minimized bug is fixed.
No problem CBird28. Check out RealTemp and read the docs and learn what the issues with these sensors are. Once you go through the calibration process of your own processor you might start to see why I think RealTemp is giving you the straightest, least BS temperature results.
:rofl: Except for the ones that are basing their results on copying you ;) :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Why do you think I've hid my TjMax table. ;) Let 'em squirm a little. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by loonym
it's seems like the ver 2.69.5 read my OC Q6600 temp's better than the ver 2.60, and some general Question.
if i read me CPU or any other component with several programs in parallel, is it harm the accuracy of the sensor read ?
...installed the latest RT 2.69.5
the core order have changed again, but this time it's the first time I seen APIC ID = 0132
probably just a random thing but as usual these new thing one find different than before occurs when one have just installed a new version :rolleyes: but hey that computers
btw I had some freak instabillities and crashes first when used the Speedstep (C1E) but also later when it was disabled, crashes mostly in firefox etc, it tuns out that some cables to ADSL modem and Router, which I havent touch for let say 10 years, was glitchy, but I fixed it yesterday and now the "3 times rebooting" before internet works is gone and firefox is finally stable again
btw since a couple of months maybe ½ year I put in a powerswitch for the ADSL modem, Router and a lamp, just to be able to shut them down while the mouse in my sig is charging ovenight when the computer is "powered off", anyway I noticed a couple of days ago that lamp suddemly fickered and the Router restarted when the computer was on...
...and removed that powerswitch as I though that was the culprit sometimes for the other problems, it´s possible that it has done some micro power outs for them before, only restarting the router, anyways "Murphys Law" always applies with computers :whistle:
I have had the minimized problem in the previous version of RT, but that might be because the computer didn't shut sown correctly due to the internet problems, took long time before computer shutdown and windows forcefully terminates that application
One more thing is that the previous versions lately has been very slow when the computer starts, RT has started but shows empty temperature icons for laet say 20-30 seconds until allmost everything else has finished as the computer starts, is this normal?
I will post this and restart the computer and report back when it starts ;)
Always great work you put into this application
edit:
...restarted and RT now minimized correctly :)
still waits with empty icons until the icons get temp info and start showing the accurate numbers, but I guess this is normal
APIC ID = 0231 ...now and thats what I seen before, probably some weird glicth before
forgot the picture before, anyway here it is...
Quote:
Originally Posted by RejZoR
Yes I was just more or less saying that 95c Max Junction Temperature is right on. There is an .ini file in core temp's main folder. Just set it to -10.
TAOTAO161: There have been lots and lots and lots of changes, new features and improvements since version 2.60. I think both versions should report your temps about the same though. You should get accurate temp readings no matter how many apps are running on your computer. Long term stability has been significantly improved since version 2.61 of RealTemp. I previously didn't have enough time or tools to test for this.
Here's a pic of 18 instances of RealTemp running at the same time without any problems. Only hard part is trying to get a screen shot with them all showing the exact same temperature. :D At least they're all pretty close:
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/9...loadpg0.th.png
-X-hellfire: The APIC ID which is the proper term for what I was previously calling Core Order can change with each re-boot. AFAIK, it's the order that your bios assigns cores to Windows. I think 0123 is normal and the most common APIC ID but some motherboards change frequently and some never change. I went 3 months at 0123 and now my APIC ID has been 0213 for about the last month. Some users will see different APIC ID values several times a day if they re-boot a lot. I'm not sure why this happens but at least RealTemp tries to compensate for this and will hopefully report your core temps in the correct physical order no matter what APIC ID pops up. CoreTemp and Everest are ignoring this issue so your hot core or your cold core might move around from day to day or with each reboot.
That's not normal at all and sounds like a problem with your computer. Whenever I start RealTemp on my computer there is temperature data being displayed within 1 second of starting the program. Anyone else having this issue?Quote:
....the previous versions lately has been very slow when the computer starts, RT has started but shows empty temperature icons for like say 20-30 seconds until almost everything else has finished as the computer starts, is this normal?
Thanks Unc!Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Great screen cap of 18 instances of RT, finally we found something for those Quads to do :DQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Yeah the APIC ID = 0321 after another reboot which shows that it swapw the core order frequently on my computer, well I´ts very good to know it it I was into overclocking, going crazy with temps all over the place from time to time must be tiresome if you try to collect some comparative data
It took 38 seconds to show the RT icons temp this time even though I did a let the Registry Mechanic tried to clean up the registry before reboot (which took at least 1 minute before it could shutdown windows, something is definitely not right)
It must be something else but enough already, that another thread or something :rolleyes: as it´s not really RT related
My favorite program for finding out about all the junk that loads up with Windows is AutoRuns. In the wrong hands it could be dangerous so use some caution. It finds pretty much every location where stuff is hiding in your registry that starts up when Windows does. It was written by some very smart individuals that have plenty of knowledge about the inner workings of Windows. It was such a good program that of course Microsoft bought them out.
RealTemp should show your temp data consistently now and coming from the correct core no matter what APIC ID mood your motherboard is in.
Thanks Uncleweb,Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
So basically OCCT's "CPU Too Hot" after 5mins is complete nonsense as none of the PROCHOT#! are ticked, crossed or filled. They are all clear :up:
I can survive Stress Prime (with all 4 cores maxed) the hottest reading on RealTemp is 63C (this is on Core 2)
Now...if only OCCT would use your program or offer the end user to choose which program they would prefer to monitor temps
With both OCCT and RealTemp 2.60 open OCCT reads 73C (when it stops) and Realtemp reads 63C, 63C is very hot so I am considering changing the Stock Extreme HSF for something like a Xigmatek HDT S1283 which should bring temps down...hopefully
John
I know I need to test my cpu myself but can someone give me ballpark on what to set tjmax to for an e8400?
Usually 95°C.