Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dart22

So whats your take on that ?

---

Determining TjMax is a guessing game as Intel does not document this value. The Q9300 is new so there isn't much user data to go by either. Have you tried running your Q at 6x333 with as little core voltage as possible to see what temp your cpu idles at?

If you are convinced that TjMax=85C then you can still use RealTemp. Just go into the RealTemp.ini file and set this:

TjMax=-2

This reduces the TjMax that RealTemp uses by two notches of 5 degrees each so it will drop TjMax from 95C to 85C but if you're wrong then you will screw up your load temps.

The E2160 - M0 I tested was TjMax=85C so it is possible that the M1 Quad is also TjMax=85C. The Intel docs show that the CPUID is 0x10676 for the E8x00 processors and 0x10677 for the C1 and M1 45nm Desktop Quads so that's why I've assumed that TjMax=95C for all of them. When you run RealTemp and click the mouse in the TjMax box it will read and display the CPUID of your processor directly from the CPU.

Do you have any more info like your room temp and cooling being used, case open / closed, fan speeds, etc.?

I know that large after market air coolers don't get very warm to the touch with the E8x00 series even when the cores are fairly hot. If you want to do us all a favor then pull the heatsink off of your nice new Quad and point your IR thermometer at it. :D

I also found that my E8400 needs an Idle Calibration setting of (--) for the RealTemp reported temps to equal the IR reported temps near idle.

For Core 2/Core Duo/Core Solo (desktop/server) based systems, I've found out the TjMax officially and how to know it. I can't get Penryn info on it though, S.FAE says I have to sign NDA for it and uncle being a very scrupulous professor won't leak such details to me even if the sky fell down. :(

unclewebb: Have to thank you immensely man, I'm being honest, I've become frustrated reading the same things problematic->requested->questioned->regurgitated every time I login, and yet you're still there helping, repeating it away with good explanations. :clap:

I understand that not everyone has the time to read 500+ posts so I'm hanging in here with the tech support. I've been waiting and waiting this week to finally get a chance to install my Q6600. I should have time this weekend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Can you post the Intel documentation for that? Just because a temperature monitoring program assumes what TjMax is for a processor doesn't mean that it is right, including RealTemp. Intel provides no public documentation for their desktop Core processors so all programs are left guessing.

I went with 95C for the QX9650 because that is what the dual core 45nm desktop processors are using and a Quad core is basically two dual cores joined together. I know 105C is correct for the mobile 45nm chips but I've yet to read of any proper testing on a desktop 45nm Quad core chip.

If you are convinced that TjMax=105C then you can still use RealTemp. Just go into the RealTemp.ini file and set TjMax=2 and that will bump up your TjMax two 5 degree notches from 95C to 105C. Problem solved.

---

I wish I could provide an intel doc on it. Thanks for clearing up what you've done and giving the option to bump the tjmax. I will play with it on a later date because right now my cpu temps don't bother me they're nothing like my B3 Qx6700 chip I had at 3.6Ghz.

Sorry if I missed it, but I can't make this program work on my Vista 64-bit PC. Each time I try to run it, it just "Driver not load". I read first post and it points me to nowhere. It just says about about IA32, but it's not even in my System folder.


Edit: Oops, I just read page 21 and found the answer I was looking for...thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Right click on RealTemp and run it as Administrator and it should work fine in Vista.

---

My Quad 6600 shows a 5 degrees difference (RealTemp shows 5 degrees cooler than OCCT's built-in), is that accurate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

I understand that not everyone has the time to read 500+ posts so I'm hanging in here with the tech support. I've been waiting and waiting this week to finally get a chance to install my Q6600. I should have time this weekend.

---

I'll sit tight then since I ditched the e4300 and got myself a q6600 in the meantime (so far it looks like i was lucky too, it needs sod all volts to clock)

Tjmax is shown as 95C on realtemp whereas it's at 100C everywhere else so i'm puzzled as to which to take seriously, even though 5C aint exactly the end of the world, but i'm pretty sure there's more into it.

Testing at low volts and clocks isn't as explanatory as it would be on a dual or single core, since 4 cores on the same chip are expected to be warmer than two or one obviously.

Have to thank you again unclewebb for keeping this updated and all and giving feedback when it's needed, top job :up:

I can confirm this does work on vista x64 (with SP1, not sure if that will make a diff.) Using e6850. Thanks, great program

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcoffey

The QX9770 isn't being read right either by anything, regardless on the Tj.

---

I don't understand that statement unless your on chip DTS sensors are damaged or not working correctly. If TjMax=105C then CoreTemp should be reading this processor correctly and if TjMax=95C then RealTemp should be reading your temps correctly. If TjMax is some other value like 100C then it is easy enough to change TjMax in the RealTemp.ini file. There's no need to fear the temp these processors are running at. As long as your heatsink hasn't fallen off they will never get that hot, even when overclocked. If they do get too hot, they'll simply shut down long before you'll damage one.

Quote:

---

jcniest5: My Quad 6600 shows a 5 degrees difference (RealTemp shows 5 degrees cooler than OCCT's built-in), is that accurate?

---

I don't know. Is OCCT accurate? Thanks for your info concerning getting RealTemp to work on your computer. I just updated the first post so new users will have less trouble getting this to work in Vista.

unclewebb nice work man.

any chance of adding a thermometer based on delta to tjmax? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcoffey

I have no way of knowing what my Tj. Max is, so maybe that's the problem.

---

I understand that problem very well. ;)

This may sound crazy coming from a guy that wrote a program that tries to determine absolute core temperatures but really, absolute temperatures are not that important. As long as your computer is stable at full Prime load, or whatever maximum load you typically run, then you'll be fine. Just make sure that you've left yourself some headroom which RealTemp reports as Distance to TjMax and your core voltage is within the Intel spec and your processor should live a long, healthy life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

I understand that not everyone has the time to read 500+ posts so I'm hanging in here with the tech support. I've been waiting and waiting this week to finally get a chance to install my Q6600. I should have time this weekend.

---

welll unclewebb take some time for your self ! dont forget the fun of it all ;)
every thing else can wait really ! no one gonna die hahahahahaha

your a piller to your forum :up:

I've been following this thread since it began and appreciate all the work that's gone into this development.

There have been some great ideas posted here, and I just wanted to support one idea that I feel got passed over rather quickly.

Jaredpace suggested representing the temperature in the form of a coloured gauge rather than as an absolute temperature.

As I think most of us would agree, the actual core temperature is not that important in itself. System stability is our primary concern, and as long as the resulting temps under load are sufficiently below tjmax, then that's really all that's important.

It seems clear that Intel are reluctant to release the tjmax values for their processors, and whilst it's possible to perform many measurements and come up with proposals for the tjmax values, we can never be certain that these proposals are correct, especially considering that:
- the accuracy to which the sensors have been calibrated is not known
- it's not possible to position external sensors to measure temps at the same point

With the 'gauge' idea, it would only be necessary to agree on safe margins from tjmax (for colour-coding the gauge), which should be easier than trying to determine the tjmax values for each processor. Any such program could then report the distance from tjmax as an absolute value for information purposes.

I realise this would require a change in most peoples mindset, but I feel this would be a positive change.

Please understand that I'm not trying to detract from all the hard work and effort that's gone into this program so far. I know that other issues are also being addressed by this program. I'm personally familiar with the sticking sensors at low temps as my E8400 has 1 core permanently reporting 42C at stock (idle and load). I simply wanted to add my support to this 'gauge' idea as I believe it's the right direction for temperature-monitoring applications.

no, actual core temp is NOT interesting - and actually it only leads to more confusion. I could live with only knowing about Delta to TJ...and actually i think a graphical bar would be very nice showing the remainder to TJ, from green to red or something.

Great work "unclewebb" :up:

Here is my E8400 (from the first "batch" to Norway).

It clearly divert from your E8400 I think.

One sensor (Core1) obviosly is stuck. Core0 shows too low temp assuming a TJMax=95 (more realistic if offset +10=105).
This is with watercooling in a 19c room.

woot others agree a meter would be nice! it makes sense since distance to tjmax is where ALL programs share identical data...


if at around 40C rt/ 50C ct its in the green and at 80C rt/ 90C ct its up into the red, then accuracy of either program is not important as long as the user knows how much headroom he/she has remaining.

10C Until meltdown. a big colored bar will just make it easier for all of us to read. Similar to the ease of ordering a meal by saying a number.

edit: if i knew anything about coding software for computers, i would attempt it. :)

A colored graph based on Distance to TjMax is a good idea in theory but even here there's a problem. The core voltage you are running and how much you are overclocking directly effects the stability of your computer at a given temperature.

My E6400 with a TjMax=85C is a good example. It is Prime/Orthos stable at:

3200 MHz - DTS = 5
3400 MHz - DTS = 15
3600 MHz - DTS = 25

The amount of head room a person has to leave to maintain stability varies with how hard they are pushing their processor. For my E6400, even when it is overclocked by 50%, it remains Orthos stable right up to the thermal throttling point just before TjMax.

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/1...kinghotgq3.png

Orthos and CoreTemp misreport MHz so ignore them. TAT shows the thermal throttle was Active (aka. rev limiter :D ) yet Orthos continued to run without any problems and CPU-Z correctly reports that the CPU is still running at full speed. You need higher temps than this before the thermal throttle will drop the multi down to 6.0 and real throttling begins.

When running this same CPU at 3600 MHz, I can't get anywhere near this temperature while running Orthos without randomly rebooting or losing stability.

A colored bar graph is not going to solve anything. How can I tell a user in the above example that is running their E6400 at 3200MHz and their DTS=25 that they are near the "red zone". That will only scare a person from pushing farther even though they still have a huge amount of temperature head room and are well within the Intel spec. Like wise, how can I tell a person at 3600MHz that DTS=25 is a nice safe number when they have trouble running Orthos for any length of time whenever the room temperature goes up by 1C.

People are getting far too hung up on absolute temperatures and even Distance to TjMax. As long as you leave yourself some head room to TjMax so your processor isn't throttling and you're Prime stable, then there isn't any need to even monitor core temperatures. If Intel thought that your processor was going to blow up at high temperatures near TjMax then obviously they would lower TjMax to avoid warranty claims. Instead, Intel has raised TjMax by 10C for the new 45nm dual cores which to me is a pretty good sign that core temperature just isn't that big of an issue.

Didn't they lower it again from 105 (Kentsfield) to 95 (Yorkfield) ? or are you referring to your 85 of ya E6400... or are the new C1 steppings agan 105 ? You got me puzzled here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TL1000S

One sensor (Core1) obviously is stuck. Core0 shows too low temp assuming a TJMax=95 (more realistic if offset +10=105).
This is with watercooling in a 19c room.

---

With an E8400 at low temps, it's hard to assume anything.

Brama's log file looked like this:

13:47:05 -6 25
13:47:30 -5 25
13:47:35 -4 27
13:47:40 -6 26
13:47:45 -6 26
13:47:50 -5 26
13:47:55 -6 25
13:48:00 -7 26
13:48:05 -6 26

which shows the sensor in Core0 reporting temperatures that are way too low regardless of TjMax.

Is your Core1 truly stuck or is it just reporting high idle temperatures like my E8400 does? Without a lot of detective work it's hard to say which one of your sensors has which problem but it's possible that neither of them can be used for accurate idle temperatures no matter what TjMax or software you use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeghoofd

Didn't they lower it again from 105 (Kentsfield) to 95 (Yorkfield) ? or are you referring to your 85 of ya E6400... or are the new C1 steppings agan 105 ? You got me puzzled here

---

I was just comparing my dual core Conroe E6400 to my dual core E8400. TjMax has gone from 85C to 95C for these two processors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

A colored graph based on Distance to TjMax is a good idea in theory but even here there's a problem. The core voltage you are running and how much you are overclocking directly effects the stability of your computer at a given temperature.

My E6400 with a TjMax=85C is a good example. It is Prime/Orthos stable at:

3200 MHz - DTS = 5
3400 MHz - DTS = 15
3600 MHz - DTS = 25

The amount of head room a person has to leave to maintain stability varies with how hard they are pushing their processor. For my E6400, even when it is overclocked by 50%, it remains Orthos stable right up to the thermal throttling point just before TjMax.

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/1...kinghotgq3.png

Orthos and CoreTemp misreport MHz so ignore them. TAT shows the thermal throttle was Active (aka. rev limiter :D ) yet Orthos continued to run without any problems and CPU-Z correctly reports that the CPU is still running at full speed. You need higher temps than this before the thermal throttle will drop the multi down to 6.0 and real throttling begins.

When running this same CPU at 3600 MHz, I can't get anywhere near this temperature while running Orthos without randomly rebooting or losing stability.

A colored bar graph is not going to solve anything. How can I tell a user in the above example that is running their E6400 at 3200MHz and their DTS=25 that they are near the "red zone". That will only scare a person from pushing farther even though they still have a huge amount of temperature head room and are well within the Intel spec. Like wise, how can I tell a person at 3600MHz that DTS=25 is a nice safe number when they have trouble running Orthos for any length of time whenever the room temperature goes up by 1C.

People are getting far too hung up on absolute temperatures and even Distance to TjMax. As long as you leave yourself some head room to TjMax so your processor isn't throttling and you're Prime stable, then there isn't any need to even monitor core temperatures. If Intel thought that your processor was going to blow up at high temperatures near TjMax then obviously they would lower TjMax to avoid warranty claims. Instead, Intel has raised TjMax by 10C for the new 45nm dual cores which to me is a pretty good sign that core temperature just isn't that big of an issue.

---

You bring up some good points, but I was thinking of a much simpler concept. The colours would in no way be an indication of stability (stability needs to be proven using recognised tools like Prime95 and Memtest), but purely represent distance from tjmax. In fact, your last paragraph pretty much sums up the idea behind this concept.

We could choose arbitrary constant values from tjmax to determine colour. For example, 20C below tjmax could be the start of the red zone, and 45C below tjmax could be the start of the yellow zone. These values could even be configurable (.ini file). By also showing the actual distance from tjmax (a coloured gauge may not be precise enough for people to make informed decisions), each individual can choose whether to push their system further. For new overclockers asking 'what's a safe temp' or 'are my temps ok?', the colour-coding should make things much simpler by providing an indication as to what's considered safe. Those with more experience may well want to push things closer to the limit and can therefore configure the values.

This should also fit with Intel increasing/decreasing the tjmax values for their processors. If Intel were to raise tjmax, it should be an indication that the processor can run hotter. The colour zones should therefore still be relevant.

I just like this idea as a concept, although this is a very simplistic design. Whether it's wise to use a constant value like '20C from tjmax = red' for processors with varying tjmax values is debatable. In fact, there may be the same level of discussion around these values as there are about the real tjmax values for each processor family :rofl:.

I'm not proposing that you should consider changing the overall design of Real Temp. The results of your investigations are extremely useful, and I still think there will be a lot of demand for programs that attempt to report absolute temps for processors. In fact, I would expect a lot more resistance to a new concept like this as most people seem to have this need to know absolute values. I do see a lot of value in this concept though, and if my programming skills were not quite so limited I would like to attempt such a program myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Is your Core1 truly stuck or is it just reporting high idle temperatures like my E8400 does? Without a lot of detective work it's hard to say which one of your sensors has which problem but it's possible that neither of them can be used for accurate idle temperatures no matter what TjMax or software you use.

---

According to your own tips/documentation here it should be stuck.
(Run Test sensors indicates this). :)

I have numerous runs for stability tests at various combos VCore/Clocks, and the second core (1) shows *never* below 38 c at idle or low to mid load. (OCCT's graphs are good for documentation purposes).
It is only after some real hard stresstesting it will follow core0 from 38 to eg 55-60 (depending on VCore).
If that's not a sign of a stuck sensor there is no such thing as a stuck sensor. :D

uncle so to test sensor movement i should

set my proc to 333x6 lovest multi and vcore as lover i can 1,1v ?

to calibrate sensors -- - 0 + ++, right?

moderators: i suggest to sticky this thread.