If you ask me, serious visual features should be implimented last... And that also looks quiet ugly imo...
Printable View
If you ask me, serious visual features should be implimented last... And that also looks quiet ugly imo...
You're always such a hard guy to please RejZoR. This feature was simple to add to RealTemp without a lot of code bloat and gives a user some control of how RealTemp looks on their desktop. It was mostly designed for Mini Mode but I decided to allow custom colors for the regular GUI as well. RealTemp will not force you to have that ugly monstrosity on your desktop. You can adjust the colors to whatever you like or you can choose not to use that feature and you'll get the standard background and text color just like in previous versions. Just because you personally won't be using a feature doesn't mean that no one else will.
That's exactly what I've done. There's not a hell of a lot left for RealTemp. It is reaching the end of the development line. Once Intel comes clean with TjMax, etc., every program should be able to correctly figure out temperatures for the 45nm processors.Quote:
If you ask me, serious visual features should be implimented last...
This is really important news.
Tomorrow at IDF 2008 Intel is going to announce max Tjunction values for 45nm CPUs along with more info about CPU DTS (Digital thermal sensonrs).
We depend on DTS readings to calculate the core CPU temps.
SourceQuote:
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.
I kind of like the ability to lighten up the main GUI as well as create some interesting Mini Modes.
The beta section is open for business:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/2029/rt273jf6.png
:up: if you think this might be a useful feature for you or
:down: I agree with RejZoR, this is fugly, useless bunk.
This is beta software but seems to work pretty good. If you have any problems, let me know.
Well, maybe it's just black that makes too much contrast difference... There is one thing. Can you make a drop down menu for Font options? Those radio buttons placement looks like feature related to each separate core but in fact it's not. Then just enter font names in the drop down menu, if there is no names or you don't have any to waste just name them "Font Type X" or "Font Option X". Replace X with font number.
:up:
I will use it!
A font requester for the System Tray area is a good idea RejZoR. The reason I haven't gone to this yet is because you can spend hours picking through your font collection and you'll probably come to the same conclusion that I did, there aren't a lot of fonts that are readable that fit nicely in the system tray area.
RealTemp gives users a choice of 4 fonts for the System Tray area that can be quickly accessed. I agree that it's not intuitive but after 100,000+ downloads, you are the only one to complain about this feature. RealTemp also allows you to use a font editing program like Fony and you can edit the included RTFont to create whatever you like. I like that flexibility. My main competition, CoreTemp, gives you one tiny font option for the System Tray last time I checked. A SystemTray font requester won't become a high priority feature to add until more people complain about this.
I tried putting a + sign in the naked toggle button at the top right that you don't like but to me it looked ugly so I got rid of that and left it blank.
1001 suggestions from yourself and other members of XS combined with 6 months of development has resulted in RealTemp heading to the IDF. :yepp:
I'm happy with that. :)
Nice hound in your Avatar Skinnee. I have a couple here at home.Quote:
Originally Posted by skinnee
webb, I can't wait to try the new beta when I get home. My work machine has a crappy Centrino and RT won't run.
Ol'Baditude: Why not post a CPU-Z screen shot of your work machine to see if there's any hope of getting RT to run on that.
Umm ... I like the added color schemes you can choose what you want .. as for mini mode .. i checked it off .... but how u get to use mini mode as it not going to mini mode for me?
Ya gotta read the manual to get to Mini Mode. Try double left clicking on the user interface and be prepared. A second double left mouse click will bring you back. Windows Task Manager also has a similar feature accessed this way so it's not a totally foreign interface concept.
The other documented feature is Anchor Mode. If you double right mouse click on the user interface it will move RealTemp up to the corner of your screen. If you can think of a better position for it then move RealTemp to where you like it. Next, hold down the shift key while double right clicking on the user interface. This sets your new custom Anchor position so RealTemp will move to this spot whenever you do a double right click now.
Oh my, that's sexy. Easy to use too. How sad is it to say that I never noticed that button at the top to switch the info from VID to CPU freq. to FSBxMulti. Lol.
http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/8241/nicefv2.png
And b4 anyone say anything about my temps, I have a 34Deg. ambient in here today. It's a scorcher with no AC. Booo.
Unclewebb thats awesome i like it ... i like it alot...
Three Tumbs up for ya... :)
Oh my gawd! I'm going to have to admit to RejZoR that my famous button is indeed a little obscure! Where's the sense of adventure guys? Click away on stuff! It's just a temp monitoring program after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ol'Baditude
Now do we need a background picture like Everest uses? RejZoR, sharpen your pencil. Any ideas for a background image?
I am going to give the beta a try.
:up:
Don't worry, beta is not like a dirty 4 letter word. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Lu523
Even the betas of RealTemp run pretty smooth and they don't gobble too many resources so don't be afraid to take it for a good run.
As i said before, that button has to tell the user what it does...Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Here, i made a reconstruction how it should really look.
http://shrani.si/f/2k/C9/40Q3qO25/rtmoreinfo.png
It just looks better because of the slightly different CPU name and info alignment, plus the button tells users exactly what it does. It shows more info. Oh and don't forget to make it the same lenght as those 4 buttons below, i've made a reconstruction and noticed that i made it slightly longer than those below...
Regarding background, i don't think it's worth investing time into it and in the end it'll just make reading values in window harder to read.
Everest is already using it's custom skining for entire window which i think looks ugly (some crippled hybrid between custom skin and XP theme). Yuck.
Though the internals of the window look pleasing because of the calm blue gradients used.
Anyway, stick to the plain interface. Trust me when i tell you this, many programs tried the skinning and failed miserably. So just don't go that way.
All RealTemp really needed was ability to use Windows visual styles (themes).
This way it always blends perfectly into the environment regardless of what Windows theme users are using.
I tried the new BETA...and I liked it :up:
Once again Unclewebb you do a tremendous job, keep up the good work. I am curious to see what Intel have to say at IDF re: the TJ Max.
By the way, do you think I have 2 defective sensors?
My ambient temperature is ~20-25C (depending on how hot the weather is).
Here is an attached screenshot of successful completion of IntelBurnTest
http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/677...test14ats6.jpg
What do you make of the temps for cores 3 and 4?
Thanks
John
The problem is that there is not enough room for what you suggest.
http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/3263/rttestkk1.png
For your processor there is enough room but if you have an Intel Quad QX6700 ES processor and you are running it at 333.33 x 10.0 MHz then all of that isn't going to fit. With your full size button idea the only way I could do that is to combine the two boxes at the top into one box so a user could see half as much information. The present version shows processor name and MHz which tells me what I'd like to know in a screen shot. I'm open to new ideas but I'll have to wait for some more user feedback on this topic before making any changes. I could also scrap all of the additional info like Intel, Quad, Extreme and just stick to the model number like QX6700. That would work.
JohnZS: It is a good thing if you have two sensors that can display numbers that low. Most sensors get stuck before they can ever get that low. Read the RealTemp documentation about Calibration and try doing that procedure. With some minor adjustments, you should be able to get some very accurate core temperatures out of that processor.
In a couple of more days Intel should be telling us a lot more about these sensors and what programmers can do to get accurate temperature information out of them. The RealTemp calibration method was the easiest thing I could come up with but if a new, Intel approved, method comes out then I plan to update RealTemp to reflect that. If they come out and say TjMax=105C for all 45nm desktop processors then I'll probably ignore that because it doesn't agree with any of the testing I've done.
Well, you could certanly scrap "Intel" as you can't use RealTemp on anything else anyway... There you go, you just gained 6 characters of space.
Just make the original button a black or bright red color so that ppl can see it better as it is blending in with the stock background... i have to admit i never even knew it was there until it was pointed out in here.... seriously . i didn't and i have been using realtemp since version 2.60 or just before that.
I like the way it looks. Thanks for all the time you have spent on it.
Thanks Unclewebb :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Your guide was informative and easy to follow, quite interesting to. I could not use the lowest voltage setting in my BIOS as for some reason I kept getting "CPU OVERVOLT" errors on POST.
I ended up doing calibration @ 1.00V (0.982V in CPU-Z) 6.0*266Mhz FSB.
I then rebooted @ 1.20V 8x400Mhz FSB and now have temps which are more or less the same :D
http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/7...ibratedzk8.jpg
Keep up the good work...all eyes on IDF.
What if Intel say Tjmax IS...neither 105 or 95?!?! :confused:
John
JohnZS: The most Extreme thing about your Quad seems to be the sensors. My Q6600 isn't great but the Distance to TjMax which represents the raw data coming from the sensors only varies by about 4 or 5 degrees at idle from core to core. Your center two cores show a difference of 14! :eek:
All I can say is good luck to Intel to try and come up with a simple, user friendly formula to cover the wide variety of sensors that I've seen. Trying to cover a difference of 14 is stretching RealTemp's capabilities for covering up this mess.
If you're bored John could you try running a test with the calibration factors you're using? Run at whatever your normal MHz / core voltage is. Turn on the RT logging feature and set it to 1 second. Run 1 minute idle, followed by about 2 minutes of Prime95 small FFTs on all cores and then back to idle for a minute. E-mail or PM me the log file when you're done.
It is normal during this test for core0 / core1 to closely track each other and then for core2 / core3 to closely track each other. Core2/core3 being about 5C less while running Prime compared to core0/core1 is also fairly normal. I'm just curious to see how all these cores track each other during transition from idle to full load and back again.
Prime95 v25.6 32 bit
Prime95 v25.6 64 bit
One theory I have is that when a processor has badly mismatched sensors, Windows XP or maybe the processor itself will schedule a bigger work load on the core that reports the lowest temperature. When uncorrected, core2 reports that it is running so cool that it will get to do some extra work. To test for this run Prime95 and for Number of torture test threads to run enter 2. This will run 2 instances of Prime but they will be constantly spread to your 4 cores so no one core gets too hot. Do a CTRL+ALT+DELETE and bring up the Task Manager and you should get to see what core is getting the biggest chunk of work. I'm not sure if that's important but I found it kind of interesting.
http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/9...imetestcu0.png
My core2 reads highest Distance to TjMax so it gets to work the hardest. The load seems to be balanced for both sets of cores. Core0/core1 share half the load and core2/core3 share the other half.
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/2839/29913025yq5.png
Just an idea :)
I guess that is why they call them Extreme Editions :DQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
You will have a PM coming your way shortly, I was idle for ~minute then maxed out all 4 cores 100% in Prime95 64bit Small FFT's for around 2mins.
You will probably understand the results more than myself, but it looks like my calibration is useless at over 50C, all cores are within 1-3C of each other until 50C is met, then a "divide" between cores 0+1 and 2+3 is visible (0+1 running hotter than 2+3), yet when I take the stress off the CPU and it cools down, at around 49C the numbers all level off again.
Now get this, this is my 2nd QX9650, I had to RMA my 1st one which I purchased in December 07 because Core 3 kept Prochotting and causing the PC to freeze under high load. AND the sensors were worse.
Needless to say my replacement was stable and still had dodgy sensors but stability is all that matters really.
Anyway PM enroute. Thanks for your help and I have seen your theory in practice. With wPRIME one of my cores lags behind the rest, although wPRime calls it Core3, I belive it is Core1 as that one runs the hottest at calibrated settings...now if only intel released a calibration tool for the microcode or something....maybe integrate with RealTemp :up:
John
This is just a quick version to show what RealTemp could look like.
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3486/rt274ld9.png
It's available in a separate folder from the normal beta stuff:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...lTempBeta2.zip
I dumped all of the extras so just the model is displayed. The extras like Intel, Quad, Extreme, Pentium and ES aren't really that important. There's enough room in the middle for the extra info and the button is full size, easy to understand and use.
I kind of like your idea gymenii. I'll see what feedback I get about this. I figure if two different people in the same forum on the same page didn't understand that my small button existed then I need to do something to get people's attention. Of course, they were both from Canada! It might just be something in the water. :rofl: (No need to flame me, I live here too.)
My competition has a new version out:
Core Temp 0.99.2
It has a few features like a Vista Widget, graphing abilities and G15 keyboard support that RealTemp doesn't.
I did not know it was there until I did some reading here. I think I like the cleaner look without the info in the button though.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Unclewebb
You need to do this or i will be using core temp.. :)
You need to add the G15 implementation for the LCD, right now i can see my core temps and CPU load on my G15 keyboard it is v2 of the G15 model.
I'll put G15 support on the things to do list. Maybe next month. Personally I also like the small info button. Labelling it with the international i symbol might bring it to people's attention better. Final decision on what to do will be based on user feedback.
Yes i like the little i = info button idea and thks for the G15 looking into it for me. Its just a cool feature as when playing games and such i can see my temps on my LCD and i like real-temp better then core-temp .. so get on it faster if you can.... :) :)
thks take u time as what i do for now is run core-temp when playing games so i can see temps and cpu load on my g15 lcd screen.
Also for the info button .. add text to state press here 1-6 times for all info abut CPU.. as one click . some ppl are not bright ya know..... :)
Oh and core-temp also shows on lcd screen my ghz and what i am at 8x450 and Vid too . plus it says Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (kentsfield) on LCD to... that cool features .. dude
Maybe i take a pic and show ya it. if you not have a G15 keyboard.
Edit:
Here is picture of it on my LCD screen.
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i5...x/IMG_1082.jpg
I like the small button too, I personally don't care how or if you label it. The ones that need labels and mouse overs are the same ones that will be here asking 'how do I calibrate it?' or 'what do I believe?' :p:
I couldn't care less TBH. But if you were to do something about it, please keep the button the same size and maybe put a little "i" in it or something. That would do the trick and remain unobtrusive at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
That button is downright ugly! :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by RejZoR
I agree with loonym, keep it the same or add an "i".
Why have the button at all, why not just display all the info, with a slightly bigger dialog box.
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/7815/rtoffit5.png
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/7698/rtonin2.png
Square button looks better :)
Good, cause I don't know how to program round buttons in Visual C++. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by gymenii
I've tried to remain neutral but I tend to agree with you and loonym. I prefer clean and simple even if it does take a user a month to figure it out. Maybe I could build in a pop up that goes off after a month of use if you haven't clicked on that button yet.Quote:
That button is downright ugly!
I could do that but most of the info hiding under that button is pretty much useless anyhow. When I'm running the crap out of my E8400, trying to get a good 1M SuperPi time, I could care a less about CPUID, VID or APIC ID. I want to know temps and MHz. It's all interesting stuff that you look at once or twice but most of it can be ignored. I like the small and clean Mini Mode and don't care to look at too much extra beyond the important stuff, MHz and temps.Quote:
Why have the button at all, why not just display all the info, with a slightly bigger dialog box.
RejZoR has version 2.74 with his idea of what that button should look like. The next release of RealTemp will go back to a simple button with maybe an i added at some point in the future. If I get bored in September then maybe I'll buy a G15 and modify RT to use it.
The one best thing i love about Realtemp is that you can see what the MAX the cores go to and always know what your limits are with your CPU when Benching ... i don't recall any other program that does this.
So if your benching and go for a smoke and come back in and thinking. damn how high did it go..... no worries as Realtemp shows it there for that benchmark your doing.
Sure all other programs may ahve a logging system and so dies realtemp, but heck i rather see it right there . that minute .. as for minimum though ... hmm thats not really needed to see as you can see what your temps are anyways at bootup and when idling.
If i had some extra cash right now i send some your away UncleWebb.
Also if you want .. i can be the http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...guinea-pig.jpg for the G15 .. send what ya think will work... tear apart coretemp to see what they using.
At the moment, I'm just waiting to see what Intel has to say on Thursday about TjMax, etc. Depending on how that goes, maybe I'll start working on project G15 sooner than September. I've had a couple of requests for it so I've been thinking about it but haven't felt like working too hard on RealTemp this summer.
On a Quad core while gaming, are your temps even important? My Q6600 barely breaks a sweat when gaming and core temperature is not an issue. What max temp does RealTemp report during what game?
:rofl::ROTF::rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Now that is Usability at its finest! :rofl::ROTF::rofl::ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
edit: damn, loonym beat me to punch. :D
I'll try to keep 'er subtle for you guys! :D
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/5135/subtleeu3.png
Well, if you ask me i'd ditch all the other info, slightly enlarge that area and just display FSB x multi and final frequency + full CPU name and remove the button altogether.
But thats just me...
EDIT:
Just a hint, your competition just updated TjMax for my E4300. It's now showing correct temperature by default (TjMax 85)...
Now that's funny! For those that haven't followed this as long as I have, when the E4300 first came out CoreTemp used TjMax=85C and the user community cried and twisted his arm so he jumped on the 100C bandwagon in his next release. This had everyone believing that the E4300 liked to run hot even though reducing on chip cache makes a CPU run cooler. I have no idea why he'd switch back now.Quote:
Originally Posted by RejZoR
Over on the SpeedFan forum, they practically vote on what TjMax should be. Who ever twists the programmers arm the hardest wins!
The Intel IDF can't come soon enough to clean up this mess that Intel created by not properly releasing full disclosure of these sensors on day 1.
RejZoR, I'll save some of your ideas for a B version of RealTemp that I mentioned a while ago. Once the kids are finished summer vacation, my RealTemp productivity will go up.
Well i don't get it why Intel kept TjMax such a secret. I mean it's not a blueprint of their cores, just a temperature reading for THEIR OWN CPU's. It's ridiculous if you look at the situation really...
Yup. +1Quote:
Originally Posted by gymenii
Are intel finally going to disclose the TjMax value today?
Oh mine hardly reaches 40C-43C max on core 0 and of course the rest are lower by about 2-3C.. in games.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Just it is a cool feature (that coretemp has thusfar) for the LCD for those who have such a keyboard as then ppl with such a keyboard can keep an eye on things ... just cool is all and i like it..... :)... so whenever your ready to try it out .. let me know and i will test for you.
For those who want to see what it looks like on the LCD look at my above post on this page.
BeastNotro: That's the problem with a Quad. Most games don't take advantage of all the processing power that's available so the cores run pretty cool in most games. I think the world could survive without G15 keyboard support from RealTemp but I'll probably do it anyhow because it will be interesting learning how to program it. My wife is heading back to work so I'll be able to get a big keyboard into the house without having to listen to, "WHAT'S THAT?" :D I kind of like my present Logitech so don't have that burning desire for an upgrade. Maybe Ol'Baditude will take it off my hands when I'm done with it, unless I like it.
I thought the TjMax conference was scheduled for Thursday at 1:40. I'll see if I can find a link to that. Every computer website will be rushing to break the news so I'm not too worried about not hearing about it.
Edit: Here's the official class:
TMTS001
Hehe, yea, I probably could.
Interesting thing last night webb. As per our PM's, it's almost uncanny that I did exactly what you mentioned b4 you replied. Great minds think alike I guess. Regardless, my temperatures are a much more believable 28,28,29,29 degC @ 26 Ambient. Considering that I am at a relatively low overclock using low voltage and under a high end single block water loop, that's about right in my book.
A few observations though:
1. the distance to TJMax numbers seem to update with a higher frequency than the Temp numbers. Is this normal? Actually the temp numbers barely move after the idle calibration. I did an activity test and results were 6,7,7,8. Interesting.
2. My Delta temp from idle to load on small fft's was only 6 deg. From 29 to 35. This is definitely an oddity for me (not impossible in any way mind you), It's just that normally I'm looking at 10-15 delta from idle to load. My idle temperatures went up substantially after the calibration, but the load temps are stellar. What are your thoughts on this?
What MHz and what does CPU-Z report for core voltage when running Prime95 small FFTs? I'll assume that you're using the multi core version of Prime and all 4 cores are maxed out in Task Manager. If you keep the volts down then the heat output from your CPU will also be down.
You need to do a fair comparison. With the same settings run small FFTs for the same length of time and write down your min/max temps with and without calibration. You can even run two instances of RealTemp for this test to compare calibrated to uncalibrated.
Prime95 v25.6 32 bit
Prime95 v25.6 64 bit
I've done a fair comparison, Prime defaults to 4 instances no matter what. All cores are maxed everytime I fire up Prime.
BIOS Settings were exactly the same from pre to post calibration.
In my Vdroop master (oops X48T) BIOS, Vcore is set to 1.225v for 3.2GHz. Everest CPUID reports 1.184v Idle/ 1.176v Load
My pre-calibration results are all documented over in the q6600 overclocking thread, I think you're subscribed to that one yes? My screenshots of post calibration Prime testing are at home, I'll post them here after work.
But in the meantime they can compared here
32,28,28,28 IDLE and 42, 40, 39,37 LOAD ----> Pre Calibration 30 DegC. Ambient. --> Roughly 10 Deg Delta
28,28,29,29 IDLE and 35, 36, 38,39 LOAD ----> Post Calibration 26 DegC Ambient. --> Roughly 8 Deg Delta for the most part but was as low as 6.
I was more or less wondering what you had observed for delta in your testing, not so much asking if your software was borked.
Good point about running two instances of RT though, I'll do that.
What are your thoughts about point #1 in my previous post?
Cheers,
Ah ok, I thought it was today and reported tomorrow. I guess we will all be watching in anticipation tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
By the way, was the data I sent you any good?
Keep up the good work and hopefully IDF is good kudos to you tomorrow
John
Uncleweb, I've got a small request. Could you compile a 64bit version of the exe? The 32bit exe works fine on the full version of 64bit WIndows OSs but it won't work on the 64bit skinny OSs like Windows PE because they'll only run native apps. I.E. 32bit PE will only run 32bit apps and 64bit PE will only run 64bit apps.
Not a big deal if you can't but I've been doing all of my tuning and testing in WinPE and have been without temp monitoring.
thanks
gtj: My old compiler doesn't support 64bit so native 64bit for RealTemp is a ways off in the future, if it happens.
JohnZS: Your data was good but your sensors are bad. :( They are very inconsistent from one core to the other. I'm sort of in a waiting mode until Intel releases some documentation for these sensors. Then I can have a look at some of the data I've been gathering over the years. T - 24 hours :)
Ol'Baditude: When testing you need to keep as many variables as consistent as possible. When you get home tonight test again with two versions of RealTemp running. What are you using to measure your air temperature near your computer? I pointed my IR gun at my digital house hold thermostat the other day when it was about 32C outside and there was a 2 degree difference in readings. The typical difference is 1C higher than the air temp near my computer. All these temp readings that we take as being 100% accurate because they are coming from a digital source seem to be far from that. Other users that have calibrated RealTemp on a Q6600 with air and water found that a good water set up has idle temps about 4C above their water temperature after it has idled for a while.
I think I understand point 1) in your previous post. If sensors read too low and you have to use a positive calibration factor then there will be some points where the Distance to TjMax reading will change by 1 but the reported temperature will not change. The DTS info coming from the chip might move from 20 to 60 or a range of 40 but if you calibrate it up to 25 at idle then the reported temperature is only going to move from 25 to 60. 40 different values from the digital thermal sensors have to be reduced or converted into 35 unique reported temperatures with my model. Write two columns of numbers and you'll understand the overlap that must occur.
Calibrating RealTemp is my band aid solution to less than perfect, non-linear sensors. Maybe when Intel comes clean tomorrow they will introduce some magical formula that everyone can use and agree on. If they reverse engineered RealTemp then I might be a little suspicious. :D Flattered but suspicious!
If there is a more accurate way to get temps out of these processors then I'm all for it but any new model has to be backed up with real world testing that I hope Intel has done plenty of.
I'm with you, unc. I wish we could attend IDF. I'm on pins and needles to know what Intel discloses.
I could compile it for you. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Then I'd have to give away my top secret code! I'll think about it, especially after tomorrow. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by gtj
And what kind of advantage would be to compile RT in native 64bit form? The massive amounts of calculations when displaying FSB frequency? The awesome power required to change trey temperature numbers? Or the incredible number of calculations when ticking option to start RT at system startup?
I don't think so. It works under x64 and unclewebb should leave it there. There is loads of programs that are far more demanding, yet they simply refused to go native x64 way because there was absolutely no actual benefit from it. Apart from coding two separate programs with the exactly same content, wasting your time, online space and bandwidth. It's like pimping your car to go 500 km/h but you never ever excess 50 km/h anyway. Just makes absolutely no sense. It works, leave it at that.
Oh no, :(Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Perhaps I should recalibrate?
Thanks for your insight though Unclewebb.
RejZoR I'm not sure but I think gtj has some sort of fancy 64-bit environment which does not run 32bit executables at all, some sort of 64bit only PE Kernal but I'm not sure.....
Just vaguely remember reading something like that in a thread on here..
John
Actually, if you read my original request, it states that the x64 version of Windows PE doesn't run x86 programs and vice versa. Part of what makes PE skinny is it doesn't have the WoW subsystem.Quote:
Originally Posted by RejZoR
Will do webb. I'll just post back here when I'm done.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I use two analog thermometers. One is on my computer desk and one is on the wall on the other side of the room. They agree with each other and that is good enough for me. I do have an IR thermometer, I suppose I could point it at the back of my analog thermometer or something. lol.
Anyway, thx for the thorough answer.
Sorry John, didn't mean to insult your Quad. There's no reasonable explanation for the fact that the sensors on your center two cores that are only a few millimetres apart, are reading 14 to 15 degrees differently at idle. In the 65nm era, a good pair of sensors would report almost equal temperatures for two cores on the same die from idle all the way up if the load was well balanced.
Your Quad sensors are all over the place. I'm just waiting to see if Intel has a rabbit that they can pull out of their hat tomorrow to come up with a better way to get some temps out of these chips. My dream would be a second set of sensors that are 100% accurate from idle to TjMax that they forgot to mention them in their previous documentation. Probably not going to happen though.
Unc,
Nice job on the Info... Button. I like 2.74, but then again, I liked tham all. May I suggest replacing CPUID with Stepping? Is there space for 3 additional characters?
Hi Comp, the anticipation for tomorrow's presentation at the IDF is killing me! :D
At the moment, I don't think the Info... button of 2.74 will continue. Some of the reviews weren't great and I'm kind of biased against it. I like the old small button with maybe an i logo added to it. I might also try one of RejZoR's ideas about expanding that section to two lines and ditching the button all together. Some of the infrequently used info in there could be moved to the bloated Settings window.
I don't think I will change the CPUID title. CPU-Z is using the term Stepping to apply to only the last digit in this code.
The December 2007 manual titled:
Intel® Processor Identification and the CPUID Instruction
officially refers to this value in section 3.1.2 as the:
Processor Identification Signature
so perhaps I could shorten that to PIS ;)
When you look up a processor on the Intel site like this E8400:
they call it CPUID String:
I think RealTemp calling it CPUID is the most reasonable title for it.
Yes, nice idea. Two line so you can see everything at the same time. B4 you know it I won't even need CPUID anymore. Do it! Or the "i" would be a nice touch. But the info button has to go. lol.
Hey Unc.
Playing around with 2.73 and really like the ability to change the color schemes.:up: (the black background with white text is just sweet. fit's my color scheme and just works.) I think it gives a lot of flexibility to most users to find something that works with whatever color scheme/desktop background they're using.
I'd prefer to use mini mode almost exclusively for display mode if I have it up on the desktop (honestly though I just use the systray view mostly) but would like to be able to keep it in mini mode and minimize it (maybe be able to right ckick on it and choose minimize) so when I pop it back up, it's in mini mode. Maybe there's a way to do that and I just haven't figured it out..
either way, it just looks better every day..
First, put RT in mini mode. To minimize, double click on the core temperature system tray icons. To bring it back, double click on the system tray icons again and it will reappear in mini mode. You don't need right click functionality.
Thanks gbeans99. The new color schemes seem to be a hit. Easy to use and set up and lets users create something small that doesn't stick out on their desktop like previous gray versions did. Ol'Baditude's suggestion for minimizing and maximizing RealTemp works for me. I like software that is easy to use.
One trick I learned is that if you Tab to the Settings button in normal mode or left mouse click on it and then roll off of it without opening up the Settings window, you can double left click on RT and send it into Mini Mode and then hit the Enter key and get the Settings window to open up so you can adjust the Mini Mode color scheme and get a look at it while you're doing it.
Another tip is that if you are in Mini Mode and want to exit quickly you can just hit the ESC key on the keyboard.
A left mouse click on the RT icon in the top left corner during normal mode will bring up a menu where you can select the About box. A left mouse click on the TechPowerUp icon will bring you to the RT home page.
A double left mouse click on the small RT icon in the top bar will close down RealTemp. Lots of little features to make RealTemp easy to use.
That's ok mate you are only telling it how it is :DQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Would remounting the HSF and recalibration help?
I guess the only thing which could help is IF there was a 2nd set of sensors (highly unlikely) or the middle cores had a different TjMAX value (more unlikely)....bah and to think this was a replacement from an RMA :mad:
John
JohnZS: You could try remounting the HSF but personally, I think the differences you are seeing are all related to sensor error. When you have one sensor reading too high and one too low and the combined error can be significant. I'm prepared today to be enlightened by Intel. I've given it my best shot to convert the sometimes screwy sensor data into some meaningful temperature numbers. Now I'm looking forward to how they suggest doing it.
I wrote a small utility program a while ago that lets you read information directly from the model specific registers within your CPU. If Intel announces some secret info hiding in there then you might be able to use this tool to discover what it is.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/MSR.zip
The digital thermal sensor data that all programs are using is in MSR 0x19C and is located in bits [22..16]. Avoid clicking on the Write MSR button unless you know what you're doing.
Whats the word on the Intel thing Uwebb?
Thanks :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
It's amazing just how much information is crammed all into the small space of 45nms
I am not quite sure if this is the best thing to do, but for the time being I am always amusing that the core reading the highest temperature is "telling the truth". Far better to be cautious....fingers crossed intel say that the 45nm quads have a slightly different register or something or maybe even 1 backup sensor!?!
FYI the previous QX9650 which I had RMA'd had terrible sensor problems, it was RMA'd in 2007 because core 3 kept Proc Hotting and causing the system to crash repeatedly. the sensors were all over the place...infact far worse than my current QX9650.
Now..lets see if Intel can fix this... or at least do something to make things easier for us all.
John
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by mcoffey
Very, very, very true.
Thanks guys. No one invited me to the TjMax unveiling party today so I'm waiting to hear what they had to say. I'm assuming that Tom's Hardware and AnandTech should have a story out by tomorrow but a brief news story before then would be nice. Some of those 45nm Quads look like they installed random number generators instead of temp sensors. Ooops!
Is this the Intel doc, http://intel.wingateweb.com/US08/pub...TS001_100r.pdf
hendermd: :up: for finding the magic document.
After waiting all these years, I was kind of hoping for more information.
Intel Speak: DTS may ‘bottom out’
Translation: Tough luck buddy, looks like your sensors are sticking.
It's nice of them to publish this but I don't know if we're any further ahead. For my E8400 if TjMax is 100C then the reported temperature based on DTS data would be 47C when the "real" temperature is only 39C. This non linear sensor creates an 8C error here and that error continues to increase as the temperature decreases so at idle I might be out by 15C and my E8400 sensors aren't that bad compared to some I've seen.
If one sensor reads 15C too low and another one on the same processor 15C too high then the data coming from these is pretty much useless for users.
I have no idea where to go from here. It's easy enough to change TjMax but I don't think that brings any of us closer to the actual temperature. Some may get closer but depending on your sensors, you might end up farther away from the real temperature of your processor.
Edit: I've been thinking through this new mess and here's what I've got. Every temperature monitoring program except RealTemp is wrong because it uses a linear model when the data that is coming from these sensors is non-linear. RealTemp is wrong because it is using the wrong TjMax for many processors. Intel's presentation doesn't give us any formulas or anything that anyone can agree on or use to create a formula to convert this DTS data into temperatures.
About all I can do with RealTemp is adjust TjMax and then create the ability to use larger calibration factors to cover up the amount of error that is present in these sensors at idle. Reported temperatures in the temperature range that you operate at may be very close to what RealTemp presently reports if future RealTemp and present RealTemp are both calibrated.
Intel's presentation shows a linear error which I've always assumed but it doesn't clearly show when this error starts. It might start at TjMax.
btw. unclewebb nice guess with the QX9650. :up:
Thanks. I got one right!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
That PDF does not show the 65nm processors TJ Max .. why?
most likely cause they are "old".Quote:
Originally Posted by BeastNotro
65nm is on they was to EOL.
So would it be best to change TjMax to 100c for my E8400 or just leave it and focus on distance to TjMax? Thanks unclewebb.
Problem is Hornet331 there is THOUSANDS/MILLIONS of ppl that have them 65nm CPU's... now i am sure it is around UncleWebbs specs of 95C, but how can be certain now that Intel has not disclosed that info and it maybe that the 65nm Quad-Core Q6600 is 100C and if so then we all are SOL for pushing the buggers so hard now.... :)
UncleWebb .... plz if you have the resources .... Email Intel or call em up and see what the 65NM processors TJ MAX are... thks.
While things are being sorted with this and other programs, Freecableguy has updated the MBM5 plugin with the proper 45nm CPU Tjunction values.
Motherboard Monitor 5 (MBM5) Core Temperature Plugin
MBM5 sucks and it not support my mobo.
To be honest i don't think intel will just tell unclewebb the tj max for 65nm processors since they decided to not disclose it. At least software developers know the tj max for 45nm.
The whole time you were looking at your E8400 temps and Coretemp reported 75C while Realtemp said 65C, the actual temp was 70C :rofl:
Who would have thought it?
45nm Desktop Dual-Core Processors
Intel Core 2 Duo processor E8000 and E7000 series - 100°C
45 nm Desktop Quad-Core Processors
Intel Core 2 Quad processor Q9000 and Q8000 series - 100°C
Intel Core 2 Extreme processor QX9650 - 95°C
Intel Core 2 Extreme processor QX9770 - 85°C
What surprises me is that the extreme quads have a lower TJmax than the non-extremes. Does anyone else find that surprising?Quote:
Originally Posted by jaredpace
Those folks who thought there QX9770 was running hot were mistaken!
One never knows until they try as he is the developer of real temp and why would they not state so as it would be stupid not to do so as many ppl are still running 65nm processors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowthor
Thats because i do believe they run at lower power consumptions?Quote:
Originally Posted by FullSky
Lol, exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcoffey
You nailed it. This great announcement that was going to clear everything up has left a much bigger mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcoffey
Using the correct TjMax will make your TjMax temps more accurate but it doesn't do anything to fix the rest of the temperature range. This has only shown me that the amount of possible sensor error in the low end is even greater than I originally imagined. I was giving these sensors more credit than they deserved.
MBM to release a quick update so that it is using the correct TjMax is pointless. If there is 20C of sensor error in the low end, and there is, then the correct TjMax doesn't mean squat except for the very rare times when you are at TjMax. Same thing for CoreTemp, Everest, SpeedFan etc. You can set the correct TjMax but if these programs don't give you a way to compensate for sensor error then the reported temps coming from them are not accurate.
Time to fire up Excel to see if I can come up with a better way to convert random data into some usable temperature numbers.
But even that simple statement isn't true. Intel's graph shows that the sensor error increases linearly with the distance from TjMax. In your example, the digital sensor reading would be 30 and that reading might already have 5 degrees of error in it. So the answer is 70C +/- 5C or somewhere between 65C and 75C. This announcement hasn't solved anything. My previous assumption was that the sensors are very accurate within 30C of TjMax but the Intel graph shows that sensor error starts at TjMax and continues linearly across the entire temperature range.Quote:
The whole time you were looking at your E8400 temps and Coretemp reported 75C while Realtemp said 65C, the actual temp was 70C
Do the extremes run at a lower power consumption? I thought they run higher, but perhaps they have different thermal headroom than the non-extremes. Here's a breakdown of some extreme and non-extreme processors.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeastNotro
So, the extremes have a higher Thermal Design Power than the non-extremes, but lower Thermal Specifications. This doesn't mean they run cooler - they run hotter, but the extremes, or at least the 45nm variety, apparently have a lower TjMax.Code:Processor Thermal Design Power Thermal Spec
qx9775 45nm 150W 63.0 C
qx9650 45nm 130W 54.6 C
q9650 45nm 95W 71.4 C
e8500 45nm 65W 72.4 C
e6750 65nm 65W 72.0 C
qx6800 65nm 130W 54.8 C
qx6700 65nm 130W 54.8 C
I'm still not clear on this.
So i still want to know what the Q6600 is.
BeastNotro: I can honestly say, I don't know what the real truth is and what's provided in the Intel document is only part of the story. They did not release enough information for any software developer to write an accurate program so we're right back to guessing and making assumptions. It's easy to take a pen and circle some numbers but they didn't test, prove or show anything.
My plan is to start using TjMax=100C for a lot of processors including the E8400 and Q6600 G0.
I looked over some of my old testing and if I now assume TjMax=100C, when my E8400 is showing 47C it is actually at 39C which is an 8C sensor error and when it is showing 29C it is actually only at about 17C which is 12C of sensor error. If I were to use any of the competition's temp software with the correct TjMax, that's how far out they'd be at reporting my E8400.
Both my sensors on this CPU read too high but many 45nm Quads have one sensor that reads too high and one that is too low. Suddenly a combined 20C difference between two sensors only millimeters apart looks about normal. That's a sad situation. :(
All I can do is follow Intel's guidelines for 45nm and take another shot in the dark at TjMax for the 65nm processors. I will also re-do my calibration formula to continue to give users a way to correct for the significant error that these sensors have. Full disclosure by Intel would have made this easy but once again I'm left guessing. If you've lost faith in RealTemp and this whole mess then I fully understand.
Before I became a programmer I was a user too and I'm not at all happy with this. It's easy for Intel to say that there will be "DTS range and slope improvements" when Core i7 arrives but that doesn't help present enthusiasts one bit. All they're really saying is that the present digital thermal sensors range is very limited and they suffer from significant slope issues where sensor movement is not at all linear with changes in core temperatures.
Just one more item that doesn't quite make sense.Quote:
What surprises me is that the extreme quads have a lower TJmax than the non-extremes.
I think the info was a good thing. I'd rather be told not to try and find something that isn't there. The truth just is simple and it just has to be accepted.
It left us with one problem: if the error is linear as intel says, is there an easier way (future versions of Realtemp?) to calibrate the sensors accurately for every different user? Different calibration profiles for every cooling system using idiot proof calibration settings?