That is a good assumption loonym. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by loonym
Q6600 G0 continues to be TjMax = 95C
The Default button in RealTemp should reset your TjMax to its default setting.
Printable View
That is a good assumption loonym. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by loonym
Q6600 G0 continues to be TjMax = 95C
The Default button in RealTemp should reset your TjMax to its default setting.
Hi unclewebb!!! i need your help. i have Intel QX9650 cpu with watercooling system and Asus P5E3 Premium mobo. i made all the tests for calibration and i manage to have these calibration settings:
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/4920/43829284sa1.jpg
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/4...3cfeefd210.jpg
in this photo core 0 and core 1 is at 35 with ambient temps 31. this is also the report temp from Asus pcprobe program and Everest. the tjMax is 95 that all 45nm cpu's have. but the core 2 and core 3 is 5 degrees more even with the calibration. so i played a litlle with the set tjMax setting and here what i made:
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/7862/62251112tg1.jpg
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/7...f133d6f6c7.jpg
i set tjMax to 85 and now all the cores with calibration have the same temps.
is it right to do this? i mean to set the tjMax to 85 and make all cores the same temp?
thank you my friend and congratulations for this great program!!!
regardz
djstx2003
I'm not 100% sure but i think you should leave the TJmax at 95, and make adjustments through your idle values only.
I'll admit that your calibration looks nice but changing TjMax is definitely not the right thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by djstx2003
It is likely that you have a couple of core sensors that are stuck like many other 45nm Quad core owners have. Two or three stuck sensors on a 45nm Quad seems to be pretty typical. You can't use calibration factor corrections or TjMax adjustments to fix a stuck sensor. There's nothing you can do with it to get it to report accurate idle temperatures so step 1 is trying to determine if any of your sensors are stuck.
I'm assuming that you read the documentation and followed the calibration procedure and lowered your core voltage to about 1.10 volts and dropped your frequency to about 2000 MHz for your calibration test. Post a CPU-Z screen shot of that and what RealTemp shows with a 0.0 calibration.
Go back a page to this post and have a look at what I told Xello to do and the information he posted afterward so I could understand his CPU and his sensors better.
ok here a photo with fsb 266 and cpu volt 1.10:
http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/4373/38120961sr4.jpg
http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/4...f6c8620ac1.jpg
also i test the sensors and all is working. i know what is a stuck sensor because this is my second cpu QX9650. the previous i rma it and this is the new.:
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/581/47632242zc8.jpg
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/581...6cdee3c5e7.jpg
and finally here a photo from cpu-z:
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1038/74371404qd5.jpg
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/103...69188952b5.jpg
from what i see the core 0 and core 1 have the same temps and the same for the other 2 cores but with 5 more. if i overclock the test sensors readings go higher but i think this is normal.
so now what settings can i have to real temp?
thank you for your fast answers my friend!!!
and here is another photo with calibration at tjMax 95 and fsb 266 and cpu volt 1.10:
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/9459/57034402cu9.jpg
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/9...d3f46eed34.jpg
Do you know what your water temp is at idle and how accurate that measurement is? When calibrating with water we need to compare your idle temp to that. With your Quad it's pretty easy to see the two separate Dual Cores inside of it. At idle you should try and use calibration values so they all report the same temp. If your sensors were really screwed up then this might not be possible but I think yours are OK.
Do some more idle testing and confirm 39 39 43 43 and tell me what your water temp is.
After that try running Prime95 small FFTs at default MHz and core voltage or if you usually overclock then run your overclocked settings. I just want to see with no calibration if the reported temps get closer together or not. Most of the 65nm Quads that I've seen typically have core0/core1 that run a few degrees hotter than core2/core3 during a Prime test but yours looks sort of the opposite. Give me some more numbers and I should be able to come up with a suggestion or two. If your room temp is 31C then I think you might be trying to calibrate too low. Your real core temperature might be close to 40C.
The temp number from PcProbe and Everest is probably pretty close but it is not a calibrated value that you can fully depend on to be 100% accurate. My CPU sensor that SpeedFan reports can be off by 10C at times.
For calibration values maybe something like:
0.0 0.0 -2.0 -2.0
might be pretty close. With some more testing numbers I'll see if this makes sense. Post some info from the RealTemp log file like Xello did and make me a happy guy. :) The code /code html tags work great for this.
Hi unclewebb!!! heres what i did. with a digital thermometer i took the water temp and it was at 34. i also put the thermometer up to the waterblock on cpu. there the temp was 35-36. ooh!!! today the ambient temp is 32. more warmer day than yesterday.
and finally i made all the steps you told to another guy Xello and heres the log file:
18:42:14 42 42 46 46
18:42:14 42 42 47 47
18:42:14 42 42 46 46
18:42:15 42 42 46 46
18:42:16 42 42 46 46
18:42:17 42 42 46 46
18:42:18 41 41 46 46
18:42:19 42 42 46 46
18:42:21 42 42 46 46
18:42:22 41 41 46 46
18:42:23 41 41 46 46
18:42:24 41 41 46 46
18:42:25 42 42 46 46
18:42:26 42 42 46 46
18:42:27 41 41 46 46
18:42:28 41 41 46 46
18:42:29 41 41 46 46
18:42:30 42 42 46 46
18:42:31 42 42 46 46
18:42:32 41 41 46 46
18:42:33 41 41 46 46
18:42:34 42 42 46 46
18:42:35 41 41 46 46
18:42:36 41 41 46 46
18:42:37 41 41 46 46
18:42:38 42 42 46 46
18:42:39 42 42 46 46
18:42:40 41 41 46 46
18:42:41 42 42 46 46
18:42:42 42 42 46 46
18:42:43 42 42 46 46
18:42:44 42 42 46 46
18:42:45 41 41 46 46
18:42:46 42 42 46 46
18:42:47 42 42 46 46
18:42:48 42 42 46 46
18:42:49 41 41 46 46
18:42:50 42 42 46 46
18:42:51 41 41 46 46
18:42:52 41 41 46 46
18:42:53 41 41 46 46
18:42:54 41 41 46 46
18:42:55 41 41 46 46
18:42:56 41 41 46 46
18:42:57 41 41 46 46
18:42:58 41 41 46 46
18:42:59 41 41 46 46
18:43:00 41 41 47 47
18:43:01 42 42 46 46
18:43:02 41 41 46 46
18:43:03 42 42 46 46
18:43:04 41 41 46 46
18:43:05 42 42 46 46
18:43:06 42 42 46 46
18:43:07 42 42 46 46
18:43:08 41 41 46 46
18:43:09 42 42 46 46
18:43:10 42 42 46 46
18:43:11 41 41 46 46
18:43:12 42 42 46 46
18:43:13 41 41 46 46
18:43:14 42 42 46 46
18:43:15 41 41 46 46
18:43:16 41 41 46 46
18:43:17 42 42 46 46
18:43:18 41 41 46 46
18:43:19 41 41 46 46
18:43:20 41 41 46 46
18:43:21 41 41 46 46
18:43:22 41 41 46 46
18:43:23 41 41 46 46
18:43:24 42 43 46 46
18:43:25 42 42 46 46
18:43:26 41 41 47 47
18:43:27 41 41 46 46
18:43:28 42 42 47 47
18:43:29 42 42 46 46
18:43:30 42 42 47 47
18:43:31 41 41 46 46
18:43:32 41 41 46 46
18:43:34 41 41 46 46
18:43:35 41 41 46 46
18:43:36 41 41 46 46
18:43:37 41 41 46 46
18:43:38 41 41 46 46
18:43:39 41 41 46 46
18:43:40 41 41 46 46
18:43:41 41 41 46 46
18:43:42 41 41 46 46
18:43:43 41 41 46 46
18:43:44 41 41 46 46
18:43:45 41 41 46 46
18:43:46 41 41 46 46
18:43:47 41 41 46 46
18:43:48 41 41 46 46
18:43:49 41 41 46 46
18:43:50 41 41 46 46
18:43:51 41 41 46 46
18:43:52 41 41 46 46
18:43:53 41 41 46 46
18:43:54 41 41 46 46
18:43:55 41 41 46 46
18:43:56 42 42 46 46
18:43:57 41 41 46 46
18:43:58 41 41 46 46
18:43:59 41 41 46 46
18:44:00 41 41 46 46
18:44:01 41 41 46 46
18:44:02 41 41 46 46
18:44:03 41 41 46 46
18:44:04 41 41 46 46
18:44:05 41 41 46 46
18:44:06 41 41 46 46
18:44:07 42 42 46 46
18:44:08 41 41 46 46
18:44:09 41 41 46 46
18:44:10 41 41 46 46
18:44:11 41 41 46 46
18:44:12 42 42 46 46
18:44:13 41 41 46 46
18:44:14 41 41 46 46
18:44:15 43 43 47 47
18:44:16 42 42 46 46
18:44:17 42 42 46 46
18:44:18 42 42 46 46
18:44:19 42 42 46 46
18:44:20 46 46 51 51
18:44:21 50 50 53 53
18:44:22 50 50 54 54
18:44:23 50 50 55 55
18:44:24 51 51 55 55
18:44:25 51 51 56 56
18:44:26 52 52 56 56
18:44:27 52 52 56 56
18:44:28 52 52 56 56
18:44:29 53 53 56 56
18:44:30 52 52 57 57
18:44:31 53 53 57 57
18:44:32 53 53 57 57
18:44:33 53 53 57 57
18:44:34 53 53 57 57
18:44:35 53 53 57 57
18:44:36 53 53 57 57
18:44:37 53 53 57 57
18:44:38 53 53 57 57
18:44:39 53 53 57 57
18:44:40 53 53 57 57
18:44:41 53 53 57 57
18:44:42 53 53 57 57
18:44:43 53 53 57 57
18:44:44 53 53 58 58
18:44:46 53 53 58 58
18:44:47 53 53 58 58
18:44:48 53 53 58 58
18:44:49 53 53 57 57
18:44:50 53 53 57 57
18:44:51 53 53 57 57
18:44:52 53 53 57 57
18:44:53 53 53 57 57
18:44:54 53 53 57 57
18:44:55 53 53 57 57
18:44:56 53 53 57 57
18:44:57 53 53 58 58
18:44:58 53 53 57 57
18:44:59 53 53 58 58
18:45:00 53 53 57 57
18:45:01 53 53 58 58
18:45:02 53 53 58 58
18:45:03 53 53 57 57
18:45:04 53 53 58 58
18:45:05 53 53 57 57
18:45:06 53 53 58 58
18:45:07 53 53 58 58
18:45:08 53 53 58 58
18:45:09 53 53 58 58
18:45:10 53 53 58 58
18:45:11 53 53 58 58
18:45:12 53 53 57 57
18:45:13 54 54 57 57
18:45:14 53 53 58 58
18:45:15 53 53 57 57
18:45:16 53 53 58 58
18:45:17 53 53 58 58
18:45:18 53 53 57 57
18:45:19 53 53 58 58
18:45:20 53 53 57 57
18:45:21 53 53 58 58
18:45:22 53 53 57 57
18:45:23 53 53 58 58
18:45:24 53 53 58 58
18:45:25 53 53 58 58
18:45:26 53 53 58 58
18:45:27 53 53 58 58
18:45:28 53 53 58 58
18:45:29 53 53 58 58
18:45:30 53 53 58 58
18:45:31 53 53 58 58
18:45:32 53 53 58 58
18:45:33 53 53 58 58
18:45:34 53 53 58 58
18:45:35 53 53 58 58
18:45:36 53 53 58 58
18:45:37 53 53 58 58
18:45:38 53 53 58 58
18:45:39 53 53 57 57
18:45:40 53 53 58 58
18:45:41 53 53 58 58
18:45:42 53 53 58 58
18:45:43 53 53 58 58
18:45:44 53 53 58 58
18:45:45 53 53 58 58
18:45:46 53 53 58 58
18:45:47 53 53 58 58
18:45:48 53 53 58 58
18:45:49 53 53 58 58
18:45:50 53 53 58 58
18:45:51 53 53 58 58
18:45:52 53 53 58 58
18:45:53 58 53 58 58
18:45:54 54 54 58 58
18:45:55 53 53 58 58
18:45:56 53 53 58 58
18:45:57 53 53 58 58
18:45:59 54 54 58 58
18:46:00 53 53 58 57
18:46:01 53 53 58 58
18:46:02 53 53 58 58
18:46:03 53 53 58 58
18:46:04 53 53 58 58
18:46:05 53 53 58 58
18:46:06 53 53 58 58
18:46:07 54 54 58 58
18:46:08 54 54 58 58
18:46:09 54 54 58 58
18:46:10 53 53 58 58
18:46:11 54 54 58 58
18:46:12 54 54 58 58
18:46:13 54 54 58 58
18:46:14 54 54 58 58
18:46:15 54 54 58 58
18:46:16 54 54 58 58
18:46:17 53 53 58 58
18:46:18 53 53 58 58
18:46:19 54 54 58 58
18:46:20 54 54 58 58
18:46:21 53 53 58 58
18:46:22 53 53 58 58
18:46:23 54 54 58 58
18:46:24 54 54 58 58
18:46:25 54 53 58 58
18:46:26 53 53 58 58
18:46:27 53 53 58 58
18:46:28 54 54 58 58
18:46:29 54 54 58 58
18:46:30 54 54 58 58
18:46:31 54 54 58 58
18:46:32 54 54 58 58
18:46:33 54 54 58 58
18:46:34 54 54 58 58
18:46:35 53 53 58 58
18:46:36 54 53 58 58
18:46:37 53 53 58 58
18:46:38 53 53 58 58
18:46:39 54 54 58 58
18:46:40 54 54 58 58
18:46:41 54 54 58 58
18:46:42 54 54 58 58
18:46:43 54 54 58 58
18:46:44 54 54 58 58
18:46:45 54 54 58 58
18:46:46 54 54 58 58
18:46:47 54 54 58 58
18:46:48 54 54 58 58
18:46:49 54 54 58 58
18:46:50 54 54 58 58
18:46:51 54 54 58 58
18:46:52 54 54 58 58
18:46:53 54 54 58 58
18:46:54 54 54 58 58
18:46:55 54 54 58 58
18:46:56 53 53 58 58
18:46:57 54 54 58 58
18:46:58 54 54 58 58
18:46:59 54 54 58 58
18:47:00 54 54 58 58
18:47:01 54 54 58 58
18:47:02 54 54 58 58
18:47:03 54 54 58 58
18:47:04 54 54 58 58
18:47:05 54 54 58 58
18:47:06 54 54 58 58
18:47:07 54 54 58 58
18:47:08 49 49 53 53
18:47:09 46 46 51 51
18:47:11 46 46 50 50
18:47:12 45 45 50 50
18:47:13 44 44 49 49
18:47:14 44 44 49 49
18:47:15 44 44 49 49
18:47:16 44 44 48 48
18:47:17 43 43 48 48
18:47:18 43 43 49 49
18:47:19 43 43 48 48
18:47:20 43 43 48 48
18:47:21 43 43 48 48
18:47:22 43 43 47 47
18:47:23 43 43 48 48
18:47:24 42 42 48 48
18:47:25 42 42 48 48
18:47:26 42 42 47 47
18:47:27 42 42 47 47
18:47:28 42 42 47 47
18:47:29 42 42 47 47
18:47:30 42 42 47 47
18:47:31 42 42 47 47
18:47:32 43 43 47 47
18:47:33 42 42 47 47
18:47:34 42 42 47 47
18:47:35 42 42 47 47
18:47:36 42 42 47 47
18:47:37 42 42 46 46
18:47:38 42 42 46 46
18:47:39 42 42 47 47
18:47:40 42 42 47 47
18:47:41 43 43 47 47
18:47:42 42 42 46 46
18:47:43 42 42 47 47
18:47:44 42 42 47 47
18:47:45 42 42 47 47
18:47:46 42 42 47 47
18:47:47 47 42 47 47
18:47:48 42 41 47 47
18:47:49 42 46 46 46
18:47:50 42 42 46 46
18:47:51 42 42 46 46
18:47:52 42 42 46 46
18:47:53 42 42 47 47
18:47:54 42 42 47 47
18:47:55 42 42 47 47
18:47:56 42 42 47 47
18:47:57 43 43 47 47
18:47:58 42 42 47 47
18:47:59 42 42 47 47
18:48:00 42 42 47 47
18:48:01 42 42 47 47
18:48:02 42 42 47 47
18:48:03 42 42 46 46
18:48:04 42 42 46 46
18:48:05 42 42 46 46
18:48:06 42 42 46 46
18:48:07 42 42 46 46
18:48:08 42 42 47 47
18:48:09 42 42 47 47
18:48:10 42 42 46 46
18:48:11 42 42 46 46
18:48:12 42 42 47 47
18:48:13 42 42 47 47
18:48:14 42 42 46 46
18:48:15 42 42 47 47
18:48:16 42 42 46 46
18:48:17 42 42 47 47
18:48:18 42 42 47 47
18:48:19 42 42 46 46
18:48:20 42 42 47 47
18:48:21 42 42 47 47
18:48:23 42 42 47 47
18:48:24 42 42 47 47
18:48:25 42 42 46 46
18:48:26 42 42 46 46
18:48:27 42 42 47 47
18:48:28 43 43 46 46
18:48:29 43 43 47 47
18:48:30 43 43 47 47
18:48:31 43 43 46 46
18:48:32 42 42 46 46
18:48:33 42 42 46 46
18:48:34 42 42 47 47
18:48:35 42 42 47 47
18:48:36 42 42 47 47
18:48:37 42 42 47 47
18:48:38 42 42 46 46
18:48:39 42 42 47 47
18:48:40 42 42 47 47
18:48:41 42 42 46 46
18:48:42 42 42 47 47
18:48:43 42 42 47 47
18:48:44 42 41 46 46
18:48:45 42 42 47 47
18:48:46 42 42 46 46
18:48:47 42 42 47 47
18:48:48 42 42 47 47
18:48:49 42 42 46 46
18:48:50 42 42 46 46
18:48:51 42 42 46 46
18:48:52 42 42 47 47
18:48:53 42 42 46 46
18:48:54 42 42 46 46
18:48:55 42 42 47 47
18:48:56 42 42 47 47
18:48:57 42 42 46 46
18:48:58 42 42 46 46
18:48:59 42 42 46 46
18:49:00 42 42 46 46
18:49:01 42 42 47 47
18:49:02 42 42 47 47
18:49:03 42 42 47 47
18:49:04 41 41 47 47
18:49:05 42 42 46 46
18:49:06 42 42 46 46
18:49:07 42 42 46 46
18:49:08 41 41 47 47
18:49:09 42 42 47 47
18:49:10 42 42 46 46
18:49:11 42 42 46 46
18:49:12 42 42 47 47
18:49:13 42 42 47 47
18:49:14 42 42 47 47
18:49:15 42 42 47 47
18:49:16 42 42 47 47
18:49:17 42 42 46 46
18:49:18 42 42 47 47
18:49:19 42 42 46 46
i think all the cores warms and cooldowns the same but i see this difference about the temp of cores. cores 0-1 goes together(example 42) and the cores2-3 goes together but a litlle bit higher about 4-5 degrees more than previous cores 0-1(example 46).
the test is made with no calibration(all defaults, log interval 1) and cpu 450x7(3150Ghz)
so what can i do now? with tjmax 95 the temps is higher about 5-6 degrees more than pcprobe and everest reports. core temp i don't use it because it gives a lot of bad reports of temps in 45nm cpu's.
what is the best settings unclewebb?
its wrong to set the tjmax to 85 and calibrate the cores temps the same like i did previous in my posts?
thank you my friend!!! be well!!!
djstx2003: I had a feeling your water temp was a little warmer than you thought it was! :)
It's definitely wrong to adjust TjMax. I've continued to work with Xello and he's also seeing a 4C difference at full load between the two sets of cores within his Quad. That's very normal and during testing seems to continue right up to TjMax and beyond.
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/265/prime80cwf8.png
I was getting a consistent 5C difference but the CPU fan was likely on a very low setting to get things this warm or maybe even off some of the time. The point is that difference is normal at full load. At idle this delta should decrease to virtually zero. Surprisingly, I took the heatsink off once and let it get up to a similar temperature but the difference between sets of cores decreased to next to nothing which sort of proved the sensors are OK. I think it has to do with how the IHS contacts the cores but I haven't been motivated enough yet to gut a good processor in the name of science.
The odd part about your CPU is that the difference is fairly uniform from idle to full load. That doesn't usually happen.
My official test as sort of outlined in the documentation suggests using 333x6.0 ~ 2000 MHz for 45nm and about 1.10 volts. Similar voltage is more critical than MHz. Looking at your reported idle temps and your water temp, I wouldn't bother using a calibration factor on core0 or core1. They are both reporting about 41C to 42C at idle which considering your water temperature, is probably a very accurate core temperature. A water cooled Quad will usually idle about 5C above your water temp during my official test. There might be a slight variation depending on the quality of your set up and 101 other factors but this is a good baseline to shoot for.
I'd just use negative calibration factors on core2/core3 (approx. -2.0) to bring their temps at idle down so they equal core0/core1. I think this will provide you with the most accurate approximation of your core temperatures from idle to TjMax. Leave TjMax set to 95C for all of them.
That's my best guess. Your sensors are far better than most Quads. Maybe after an RMA they reach into a bag of processors with good sensors and give you one of them to keep you happy. :)
Making any comparisons to what Everest or PcProbe or SpeedFan report for the CPU temperature isn't usually a good idea because you don't know how accurate that sensor they are reading is. The Intel DTS sensors are excellent as long as you know where they are accurate and where they are not.
thanks my friend, i'll do that. i'll put -2.0 to cores 2-3 and leave tjmax at 95. i see about 1-2 degrees more than cores 0-1 but i think its normal because they have different distance to tjmax.
thank you my friend!!! keep the good work!!! be well!!!
regardz
djstx2003
Use the same TjMax for all cores, balance the idle temps by adjusting core2/core3 and that's about as good as it gets without having to invest in a fancy IR thermometer. Now go do some overclocking and show us the only numbers that are really important, BIG MHz. :D
thx for this excellent tool. Almost perfect, but if I can suggest an improvement, I would like to have an alarm function that can trigger other application, for example an shutdown script, instead of just start an alarm. That would be more useful.
once again god bless unclewebb for incredible work!!!
Great program, very accurate!! Thanks.
There's always room for improvement! I'll look into including something like that for the next release.Quote:
Originally Posted by FatboyHK
Thanks everyone for the positive feedback.
Initial testing looks good. 59 hours and still going strong. :up:
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9959/rt27059qd5.png
I just got this program and my Q9450. My temps are all over the place. I am liquid cooled but i dont see what difference that would make.
My temperatures are: 37 43 45 45 and when testing the sensors temperature movement is 7,9,3,3 in the same order.
Should I RMA my CPU?
Nope, everyone seems to have whacky temperature readings and as Web has said it comes down to the fact that the sensors on the cpu are far from perfect. It's normal to have readings far apart like that, Justintoxicated, so don't worry.
You can change certain values in the program to sync the cores more but there's a possibility that 1 or more temp sensors are 'stuck', meaning they won't show a value below a certain amount. My core 1 and 2 sensors are like this, they won't go below 34 and 36 respectively. It doesn't mean there's a fault with the CPU though.
If you glance over the last page or 2 you will see some data we provided Uncle with and he was able to advise us on how to set our calibration values, you might want to do the same :up:
Another feature suggestion I would have would be to have an option for RealTemp to display the average temp of all your cores in the sys tray instead of one at a time.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Your odd ball temps look pretty normal for a 45nm Quad. Intel neither designs nor calibrates these sensors to accurately report low temperatures. They are calibrated to be extremely accurate at 95C and any usability beyond that is a bonus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justintoxicated
If you read the documentation and try doing the suggested calibration, you might find that with RealTemp they are at least usable even if they are not perfect.
There's not much use doing an RMA because there is no guarantee that your replacement will be any better than what you've got now. Do some research and let me know if you have any questions.
It's been mighty quiet in this thread for the last week.
Here's what I've been working on. :)
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/2...1httestpu7.png
I did a quick update to the GUI so the buttons, etc. are XP style. The toggle button in the top right corner is a little wider so it should be easier to click on.
The PROCHOT# section seemed to confuse some so I cleaned it up as well. If your processor is running fine it will display OK. If it is presently throttling it will say HOT and if there was a thermal throttling episode since you started up then it will report that as LOG. I might have to pull the plug on the CPU fan tomorrow to make sure this is working properly! That new IntelBurnTest should get RealTemp lighting up like a Christmas tree.
Edit: IntelBurnTest was causing too many fluctuations in core temperatures so I used Prime small FFTs instead. In the updated pic, core0 is thermal throttling, core1 has thermal throttled but is not currently throttling as shown by the LOG entry and core2 and core3 are still OK and have not done any throttling.
The logging file has been updated to include the date and if you hover the mouse above the Min or Max area it will pop up a date in case you run your computer for days / weeks and can't remember when that happened. Also added a Reset option to the System Tray menu for easier / quicker access.
I'm thinking about allowing users to customize the background and text colors like this which might blend in better with the generally dark Vista themes:
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/9783/rtdarkzj6.png
Hopefully a beta of all this good stuff will be ready in a few days for some testing. Everyone must be happy because I haven't heard any complaints lately! :D
looks good :) Can't wait for the beta.
unclewebb:
I just went E8500 -> E8600
Do you know if Tj Max has changed with the new E0 stepping??
Do you know what Tj Max should be for the E8600???
nuclearjock: I believe that TjMax has not changed and it is still 95C for the E8600. I have not had my hands on one and pointed the IR thermometer at it but I'm pretty confident that TjMax hasn't changed.
X-bit Labs compared an E8600 (ES) engineering sample to an E8500 - C0 and with both processors overclocked to 4275 MHz, the E0 reported temperature was 2C higher based on a TjMax=105C for both of them. They came to the conclusion that this proves that the new stepping must have a different TjMax but I think their understanding of heat output from Core processors as well as the behavior of these sensors is lacking. They also tried to make some direct comparisons of uncorrected idle temperatures which anyone familiar with RealTemp and these sensors knows is a rather meaningless comparison.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...o-e8600_4.html
After a 10 minute test, a 2C difference proves nothing. A slight change in thermal paste application or the amount of time that it's had to set up could cause that. Even a tiny change in the squareness of the IHS could change temps by a degree or two very easily.
There is also no documentation from Intel that states what the repeatability of these sensors are. A 50C chip might give off a reading of 49C one day and 51C the next day even though the CPU is at the exact same temperature.
After taking every thing into account, my interpretation of the X-bit Labs report is that nothing has changed concerning TjMax. The difference in temps is not statistically significant enough to support their conclusion. A typical error of +/- 1C for both processors would also show a difference of 2C.
Many thanks....Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Being skinnable (or customizing colors) would be cool. Maybe allow a background image to be displayed with a separate option for normal gui background and mini background.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Also, IntelBurn (linpack frontend), is not good for a constant heat source. It's good for heating the proc up, and getting it to a maximum high, but prime still wins for a constant heat source. Linpack has to cycle too much data through ram to have constant calcs. It's similar to how blend is cooler than Small FTT.
WoZZeR999: Now that RealTemp works pretty good, I'm trying to learn a few things to make it look a little better. The background image idea has crossed my mind, especially for mini-mode. I'm hoping to have separate text and background colors available for both regular and mini-mode.
It took about 15 minutes with no CPU fan to get up to the throttling point for a screen shot. Small FFTs brought the temps up nice and steady. With a decent air cooler, a CPU fan is almost optional!
Which is more accurate? Everest or Real Temp?
Here's some of the real world testing that is behind RealTemp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondo=TFD=
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=573
All of the competition is basing TjMax on Intel documentation for the mobile processors. I don't believe any of that is relevant to TjMax for the desktop processors.
At the end of the day, you'll have to decide for yourself. You can read the 78 pages in this thread if you're really curious and need some more background info. :)
Wow, I didn't realize that there was already 78 pages. Good work uncle!
That's cool. Was just asking, there many different programs.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j1...tor1/Temps.jpg
Hondo=TFD=: Try downloading the latest version. It should get your MHz correct, finally! Accurate temps were my first priority. If you take the time to read the documentation and calibrate your sensors, I think you'll be happy with RealTemp and the accuracy of the temperatures it reports.
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads...Temp_2.70.html
Thanks WoZZeR999. It was getting kind of quiet around here so I figured I better create some more features to keep this thread going. :up:Quote:
Good work uncle!
What does a person have to do around here to get sticky status!
:rolleyes: Maybe a little parlor trick? part the waters? walk over it instead?:idea:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads...Temp_2.70.html +1 for the sticky!:up:
You can fix the reading in everest if you take the Tjmax from Realtemp and apply it in options in everest.
Looks good :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Just when you think RealTemp can't get any better...it does :D
Keep up the good work and thanks.
Regards
John
I've been really surprised that there's no sticky :confused:
The trick to making this thread like a sticky is to just keep adding new features then I can come here every few days and post about them!
My bag of new ideas is running low but there's still a few things I'd like to do with RealTemp. :D
This is partly true. You can adjust TjMax in CoreTemp and Everest so your load temps will be the same as RealTemp but those other two programs don't let you make any corrections to compensate for the inaccurate idle temps that come from these sensors.Quote:
You can fix the reading in everest if you take the Tjmax from Realtemp and apply it in options in everest.
Or just ask the mod team?
The requirements for a Sticky, as I understand it at least in part, must be a concise document which is instructional, such as a How To, or a Guide, that provides users with a procedure to solve a problem, or achieve a goal. Unfortunately, for this reason, I don't think the Moderators will Sticky this thread, but I hope they'll make an exception and prove me wrong.
In the interim, how about this:
Since our beloved uncle:yepp: has many times over earned the right to be appointed to the highest Office Of Overclock Land, let him henceforth and forever be known as ...
The Sovereign Of The Royal Centigrade, King Kevin I.:clap:
He shall be protected under The IR Coat Of Arms,;) and he shall hold The Royal Thermal Scepter.:up:
He shall also be known by his Royal Titles ...
I. Grand Inquisitor Of The Secret Scrolls.:ROTF:
II. Jouster Of The Evil Fabricator.
III. Wizard Of The Sacred Code.
IV. Programmer The Realm.
V. Alchemist Of The Royal GUI.
VI. Bestower Of The Magic BETA.
VII. First Knight Of The Round Wafer.
VIII. Lord Of The VID.:rofl:
IX. Master Calibrator Of The Cores.
X. Defender Of The Peasant n00bs.
... And he shall be ceremoniously and formally Coronated at The Royal Box,:welcome: where much merriment and strong ale shall be had by all, and whenst all shall place their RAM unto virgin sockets!:clap::up::D Lands and Titles shall be awarded for he who shows courageous Vcore!:D
OR ...
Perhaps uncle would appreciate it a little more if we all contributed at least some beer $$$ just to says thank you very much for such a unique and truly outstanding temperature monitoring utility!:D
Bless you my King ... er... uh... unclewebb! Where do we send the checks?
Comp:cool:
Thanks Comp, I'm honored. This 78 page story is a bit long winded for sticky status but maybe someday in the future when I'm done adding features and testing I can go back and weed through all of the excellent information hidden in this thread and try to come up with a concise page or three of the important stuff.
unc,
Although I was totally serious about the first part, and not so much the middle part, I was especially serious about the last part! I for one, am in a rather unique position to appreciate your work.
When you click on Core Temp's help, then about, there's an option to Please Donate to Arthur! Since you're much more deserving, I'd rather see you have some dough.
How do we take care of you? Wouldn't you like a beer? Or perhaps to retire? Or at least to quit your day job? Where do we send dough?
Wow!! Been away fron this thread in a while.. :p:
Just updated to the latest version. Love it! :clap:
Looking foward to your future additions too. :up:
As always... Thanks 1,000,000.00
What do ya mean? RealTemp is my day job! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by CompuTronix
The wife keeps twisting my arm trying to get me to get off my azz and to go out and get a real job but I've been avoiding that topic for quite a while. I haven't done much programming for about the last decade so this project has been fun. Some people like golfing or working on cars. My hobby is programming.
At the end of the day I still need to eat though so if you want to help support my habit / addiction then you can always PayPal me some cash. I won't complain.
I looked into creating a PayPal button for RealTemp but it seemed like too much work.
You can PayPal whatever loose change you have to:
monitrex@yahoo.ca
Thanks.
See, you didn't talk to the right person.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Thread will be stuck in 15 seconds..:D
I have 5 cents in loose change in my pocket is that OK to send..... LOL
Wow, that was fast. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
With about 60,000 RealTemp downloads a month, if everyone chipped in a nickel each month then I wouldn't need a day job. Of course PayPal wouldn't be too happy and they'd probably suspend my account and send me a big bill for processing fees. :( Making money always has complications which is why I've stuck to the freeware model. Less hassles.Quote:
I have 5 cents in loose change in my pocket is that OK to send..... LOL
:toast: BeastNotro from a western Canadian.
Congrats Uncle on being sticky! .. err having the thread for your program stickied. This program has come a long way, and it was well deserved. :clap:
congrats uncle good job! :up:
:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
Is monitrex@yahoo.ca a paypal acct. uncle? if so count on me for a 12 pack.:yepp:
Have you played with a temp shutdown / safety switch yet? I just started playing with tecs and in order to avoid having to insulate and grease my mobo I plan to run just above dew point and to go below would condensate, If that cut off was something we could configure that would be great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Thks for the beers and :toast: back at ya ... you done good.... and congrats on sticky.
Where you from BC, Alberta ???
I not see where you from under your Name?
I am from Sault Ste Marie, Ontario.
Where are some Vista beta testers when you need them?
I'm working on adding adjustable colors to the RealTemp user interface but before I finalize that I need to make sure that RT still works fine in Vista 32/64. The updated interface looks good in XP-32 so hopefully there are no issues in Vista.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Download, unzip and test it out. I included the WinRing0 library files in this download so you don't have to change your present settings.
There's talk of using RealTemp to explain core temperatures at the IDF next week so I need to get this baby polished up ASAP. :up:
It seems to be fine in Vista 64 for me so far.
What would I need to do to possibly break it?
unclewebb: Here's how 2.71 looks next to 2.70 on Vista x64 and default Aero theme:
http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/k...g/27da502f.jpg
Hey, i'm always available to you :P Vista of course :)
Looks fine though i see only Vista Basic theme right now through remote control. Btw, that button for more info above... Maybe if you'd add text "More" or "More..." on it or something like that to indicate at least a bit what it does or why it's there.
Oh and replace that "PROCHOT#" text with "CPU Thermal Status" or "Processor Thermal Status" text.
Thanks guys for your quick testing. I just did a major upgrade of the software development kit (SDK) I'm using from 1998 to 2004. The rounded buttons look a little more this century. The transition looks very smooth so far. Just making sure that I didn't create some issue somewhere.
Features with 2.71 include the Reset option in the System Tray menu and when you hover the mouse above the Minimum or Maximum temperature the date of that temperature should pop up. The date is also included in the log file now.
Adjustable colors for the gui should be added quickly now. Most of the testing of this new feature is done.
Thanks RejZoR. Good suggestions as always. With the present C++ compiler I'm using I won't be able to add the Vista features you'd like. Support for it ended at XP-SP2. At least RT doesn't look like Win98 any more!
To really polish it out, you only have to change text strings as i suggested above and remove that Font option in settings as it serves no purpose for now.
Other than that it's lock and loaded for IDF ;)
PROCHOT# is the official Intel term but I agree that most users will have a wtf moment when they see that. PROCHOT will be retired in 2.72.
The Font option gives me some different Fonts in the System Tray. I wish there were more fonts available that are readable at that size but there isn't. I tried using the ClearType option but at that size they tend to get screwed up.
swwwweeet thanks unclewebb :up:
Unclewebb, ok, if you don't find that feature usable, but "CPU Thermal Status (PROCHOT)" would also do it.
Working in vista home premium 32.:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Randomly the app do NOT start minimized for me (vista x64) in 2,70.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Looking good... :up:
So far, no issues.
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/536/workingfr2.jpg
It happened to me also. It usually happens when you just log off and on, not when you do a full reboot.
Are you using Task Scheduler in Vista? Approximately what percentage of the time doesn't it start minimized. I built some delay into RealTemp but I might need to slow it down some more for better compatibility. Try downloading the latest beta since there was a major change in the libraries, etc. that RT uses.Quote:
Originally Posted by RealTelstar
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Version 2.72 has the smallest change ever. The cryptic PROCHOT# has been replaced by Thermal Status.
Hey Unc!
Just loaded up 2.71 yesterday as I was anxious to test the date/time logging. (I'm the one suggested it over @ [H] "nomad8u"). Everything works great except the log. I love the fonts and ProcHot change.
Maybe this log issue I see is by design IDK.
This is how it's logging for me. It looks to be doing 5 date/time logs (set for 180 sec) and then re-logs the same data using just time? I just copied the last several entries out of the log. I shut down Rt and renamed the log and restarted it. It is doing the same thin on this go around.Code:8/14/2008 23:18:00 49 47 46 43
8/14/2008 23:21:00 47 47 46 44
8/14/2008 23:24:00 49 46 46 43
8/14/2008 23:27:00 47 46 46 43
8/14/2008 23:30:00 45 46 44 42
23:18:00 47 47 46 43
23:21:00 46 47 46 43
23:24:00 47 47 46 43
23:27:00 50 46 49 43
23:30:00 47 46 45 43
8/14/2008 23:33:00 47 47 46 43
8/14/2008 23:36:00 50 46 47 43
8/14/2008 23:39:00 49 47 46 43
8/14/2008 23:42:00 49 47 46 44
8/14/2008 23:45:00 47 46 46 43
23:33:00 47 47 46 43
23:36:00 49 46 46 44
23:39:00 50 47 47 43
23:42:00 49 47 46 43
23:45:00 50 47 47 43
8/14/2008 23:48:00 49 47 46 44
8/14/2008 23:51:00 49 46 46 43
8/14/2008 23:54:00 47 47 46 43
8/14/2008 23:57:00 47 47 46 44
8/15/2008 0:00:00 46 46 42 42
23:48:00 49 47 46 44
23:51:00 49 46 46 44
23:54:00 46 47 46 43
23:57:00 49 47 46 43
0:00:00 46 46 42 42
8/15/2008 0:00:00 47 46 45 43
0:00:00 49 47 46 43
Other than that it's looking good! Thought I'd jump over here and post this after you're agg with posting links and crap over there. Sorry to see you had issues with the forum there. I do appreciate you stopping by there though and answering questions...
Cheers,
gbeans99
nomad8u
gbeans99: Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Is it possible that you were running both version 2.70 and 2.71 at the same time in the same directory? If they were both running from the same directory and logging to the same file then your log file would look like a mess!
I'll go have a look at the code for this to see if I can find a problem on my side.
This app is really shaping well. What about "More" or "More..." text on button next to the CPU frequency?
Also it happened quiet few times that both core trey icons were split apart by some other icon. Is there any possibility to always force them together when using 2 or more cores? It's a very minor thing but may bother some (like me :P ).
RejZoR: The way I look at it, anyone that is computer literate enough to be interested in the core temperature of their processor is not going to be too scared to go and give that little button in the top right corner of RealTemp a poke to see what happens. Especially if they've seen a screen shot or two with other information being displayed there. At your suggestion, I made it a little bigger and I think it looks great and is reasonably intuitive. No long term users of RealTemp have ever approached me and said, "Well holy s-h-i-t, I had no idea what that little button did." I like the present cleaned up look.
I've also noticed when booting up that the System Tray icons can get spread apart but that's more of a Windows / multi core processor issue / bug. The only thing I can think of doing with RealTemp is put in a user selectable delay feature so their system would have more time to boot up before RealTemp tried to add its system tray temperature icons.
A quick fix is to open up RealTemp when this happens, click on the Settings button and then cycle one of your displayed cores off and back on to get the tray icons lined up properly. You could also go get a nice new Quad core processor. Throwing money at a problem is always a good idea. :D
Can you not use Task Scheduler to add a small amount of delay before RealTemp starts or can it not be adjusted to a small enough amount of delay time?
gbeans99: I did a similar test to yours where I had the logging feature at 180 seconds / 3 minutes and my log looks fine. The date is on each line as it is supposed to be now.
Always wanted an excuse to use those code tags!Code:08/14/08 23:27:00 35 35 35 35
08/14/08 23:30:00 36 36 36 36
08/14/08 23:33:00 36 36 36 35
08/14/08 23:36:00 36 36 36 35
08/14/08 23:39:00 36 36 36 36
08/14/08 23:42:00 36 36 36 36
08/14/08 23:45:00 36 36 36 36
08/14/08 23:48:00 36 36 36 35
08/14/08 23:51:00 36 36 36 36
08/14/08 23:54:00 36 36 36 35
08/14/08 23:57:00 36 36 36 35
08/15/08 00:00:00 36 36 36 35
08/15/08 00:03:00 36 36 36 36
08/15/08 00:06:00 36 36 36 37
08/15/08 00:09:00 36 36 36 36
08/15/08 00:12:00 36 36 36 36
08/15/08 00:15:00 36 36 36 36
You can see that a person really needs a Quad core processor to surf the net. Core3 touched like 37C. :rofl:
Well i still think "More..." text on that button would look nicer than button without anything... Or even maybe minimalistic "->" or ">" arrow. Empty buttons just look weird. Always.
unclewebb,
Just saw This on anandtech. So by the 18th, we'll know TjMax for sure???
No, always in startup folder.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I tried to download 2.71 but the zip was the old one.
OK i got 2.72 now :)
I try to read 11 of 79 pages (very tried >_<")
but i can't find the answer that the E8400's tjmax is 95'C or 105'C
anyone can confirm that?
sry, for newbie question
and THANK YOU for your answer
95c
I guess we'll find out next week what TjMax really is when Intel finally comes clean. It's very interesting that they plan to use RealTemp in their presentation to finally explain everything there is to know about these sensors.
Is RealTemp right :) or is RealTemp out to lunch? :(
The anticipation is killing me!
Here's my E8400 TjMax test:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=573
RealTelstar: If you're using Vista it seems that Task Scheduler works best.
Let us know the outcome of their preso, good or bad!
Either way it's great that you've brought this type of attention. Great work :up:
http://lakesidepc.com/rt272.jpg
looking good on vista in this shot.
I can't for the life of me figure out all those steps to calibrate the idle.
Can anyone simplify it.
Undervolt vcore as low as it will go, underclock FSB to 266, change multi to 6x. Boot windows, turn fan to max speed. Get ambient temp around the cpu (or the fins if you can). Adjust calibration for cores so that they are around 6-7C above the ambient temp.
loonym: That's how I see it. If it wasn't for RealTemp pushing this subject we might not have ever found out.
BeastNotro: You might want to attend the IDF. I heard they might be bringing that subject up there. ;)
Where is it at Unclewebb?
Also ...... i ain't lower my stable OC clock and all that ... to get idle calibration .... Idle between cores are this 32-31-27-29 ... so it ain't that far off.. :)
There must be a away to do so with OC idle.
Sure i can offset it to match my lowest idle core, but would that be correct?
Does the P5Q allow OC profiles? My P5K when I still had it allowed OC profiles. You can save your profile, and then undervolt. Calibrate and load OC profile.
Yeah it has 2 spots for such a thing, but i don't like loading back from profiles as before i tried that and my RIG seemed to run slower, chuggier.
I may try it, but we will see as like i said it is not that far off .. my room temp is around 24C... so if you look at what my OC idle temps were in my above post .. they are like 5-6C above room temp.
So can calibration be done on OC idle temps ..... question is ... why not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas420221
Great THANK, that very useful. I will look forward to next weekQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
The reason I recommend low MHz and low voltage is so users have a common baseline to the testing I've done. There are so many variables including things like case air flow that it's very difficult to say what your core temperature is when you are overclocked by just looking at your idle numbers. For me going into the bios and turning on C1E so the multi drops to 6.0 at idle and setting the MHz and core voltage to the lowest amount is not a big deal. I don't have to play with any of the other settings and it's easy to re-boot and go back to my overclocked settings later on.
If you want the easy way then take your previous idle temps and equalize them to about 32C or 34C with the case open and you'll probably be pretty close.
Intel IDF is in San Francisco. I haven't received my invitation yet to ride down on the company jet! :D
Hey Unc!Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Thought I'd finally report back. Sorry it took so long but I'm in the middle of a 6 out of 7 day work week and 13 hr days just don't leave me enough time to keep up with the folding farm and figure out what I fraked up trying to beta software.
I'm gonna have to chalk this one up to user error LOL... The way I did the "drop in" upgrade was to stop/kill 2.60, rename the exe and unzip the new files in the working directory. I fired up 2.71 and did my folding @ home updates and then checked my logs before I posted. My guess is what happened (I think you were right on the mark) was that with all four cores folding, the processor didn't give up the 2.60 version when I stopped it before I got the 2.71 version restarted. Probably 2 minutes elapsed between me stopping/renaming 2.60 and restarting 2.71.
Either way, the log today looks all good, so I hope you didn't spend much time looking for my "ghost" user induced problem... :shrug:
Yeah.. code tags are :cool:. Takes up a lot less room on the page.
Lovin the new version! :clap:
gbeans99
I started using RealTemp a few days ago, and calibrated it as described in the manual page on the website.
There seems to be a problem with it with wolfdale's imo.
When I calibrated (fsb266, 6.0* multipiler) The ambient was 17C, so I set it for an adjustment of -1.0 which gave core temps of about 24C.
Now today the ambient was 32C and core temps were showing less than ambient being around 30C, so I reset it to no correction (0.00) and then it read core's at about 34... this can't be right so I set it to +1.0 and then it showed temps about 37... all these readings @ idle.
HW+Clocking in my sig.
Fungus: Most of the sensors I've worked with are pretty consistent. They might be wrong but they are consistently wrong and either read too low or too high at lower temperatures. This behavior doesn't tend to change from one day to the next.
Your results don't make any sense to me either. The ambient goes from 17C to 32C which is a change of 15C but your core temps only go from 24C to 30C or a change of 6C. Something definitely isn't right with that. It seems like you might have some sticking sensors. If your sensors were stuck the other day when you first calibrated then the calibration factor you used might have been completely wrong. A stuck sensor simply reaches a fixed value as it is cooling down. As the CPU gets cooler, it will just keep reporting the same number. There is no way to calibrate a sensor if it has these sticking issues.
Set your calibration back to zero and see if there is a core temperature number that your sensors don't ever go below. You might have to wait for some cooler weather. Drop the core voltage and MHz, open up your case, turn the fans on high, stand on your head and do whatever it takes to get your temps as low as possible. Not all sensors can be used to report accurate idle temperatures. If you can find out if your sensors have a sticking problem and what temperature that problem happens at then maybe you can use the RealTemp calibration feature.
In a few days when Intel tells us everything about these sensors there should be lots of software available that can provide you with accurate temperatures, as long as your sensors aren't sticking.
gbeans99: Don't worry. I love hearing about user error! Far better than having to admit that I screwed something up. You had me scratching my head there for a few minutes but I think I figured it out. I like having the date in the log file now. Nice idea.
One of the sensors sticks and the other floats to +3 degrees. The one that sticks sits at 22C and the other will read between 22 and 25C.
Ambient is 21.5 right now, and core readings are 28/28... so I think the +1.0 is correct.
I'll see tomorrow as it is supposed to get up to 32-35 or so.
Something is a miss here.
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3.../Untitled9.png
Well, nothing stands out for me. Other than 3 of your cores appear to be reading the same thing at the time of the screenshot. I have no idea what that other program is, so why don't you spell it out.
The other program is everest's OSD on screen function.
OSD = On Screen Display
Yes, I know that Beast. Thank you though. I was referring to the other program, the intel burn test. I've never used it, therefore I can't really read much from it other than it passed.
Oh well in that case i have used it many times in the past few days.
And yeah all it is a run he did and it passed, but i think he is refering to his temps being 25-25-25-22 ... which would be after the test ran .... not sure if it is a calibration issue or not as his MAX was 39C which is weird if he is on Air Cooling, but i can't see anything refering to what cooling he is using as that program makes mine and many others CPU go to 74-80-88C max and i idle at 32-30-28-29.. air cooled read my specs.
We need him to post what he was refering to and as to why he is?
Maybe he noticed that RealTemp reports 25,25,25,22 and Everest reports 25,25,22,25. RealTemp is one of the few programs that re-orders the cores on Quad core processors into there correct physical order based on APIC ID.
Yes, I noticed that on my machine. I changed the order in Everest to match when I saw that.
If there's anyone here that wont be at IDF to give us the data from their pda/cell, anand will have it up aug 21st.
old news here quoted from anand:
We met with Intel today and have some interesting IDF (Intel Developer Forum) 2008 news. IDF is scheduled this year for August 19 - 21 in San Francisco. It is shaping up to be an exciting event for those tech geeks like us as X58/i7, Larrabee, and System on Chip (SoC) technologies will be discussed in detail among other things. We learned this afternoon that full disclosure of Intel's existing 45nm processor Digital Thermal Sensor (DTS) specification will be presented on Day 3. This 50-minute technical presentation on DTS (course #TMTS001) will start at 1:40 pm. A complete schedule of events can be found by visiting Intel’s official IDF website.
Benson Inkley, a senior power/thermal engineer with Intel, is prepared to address nearly every aspect of DTS functionality for the attendees. However, perhaps the biggest surprise to come out of his presentation will be the first-ever public disclosure of the maximum Tjunction value for all Core 2 Duo/Quad/Extreme desktop processors built on current 45nm-process technology.
Armed with this information, seasoned application developers and amateur coders alike will finally have everything they need to implement the most accurate, real-time core temperature display tool possible. We discussed this topic in our Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 review back in March 2008, except our discussion left quite a few unanswered questions flapping in the breeze. Come next Thursday, anyone walking out of Mr. Inkley's technical session will have all the knowledge needed to lay any longstanding DTS questions to rest.
We applaud Intel for recognizing the enthusiast community’s interest in this subject. Overclockers, performance enthusiasts, and everyday users will finally be able to monitor their CPU’s individual core temperatures without wondering if the reported results are accurate or not. Check back here on Thursday, August 21, for a detailed update on DTS.
jaredpace: This has been the top story at Tom's Hardware this weekend as well. Let's hope that Intel doesn't hold anything back.
It was such a nice weekend that I didn't get as much accomplished as I thought I would. :cool:
Initial testing of the next version is looking good. I've added fully adjustable background and text color for Normal mode as well as Mini Mode. You can leave normal mode as is, if you like, and have a different color scheme for Mini Mode. Whatever you like! I think it should be pretty easy to go from this to a user selectable bitmap for the background in the near future.
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/3990/rt273hl0.png
Nice look, where's mine? :D
Very nice!