RealTemp 2.75 from this post few pages backQuote:
Originally Posted by anzial
@unlce: thanks for the reply & great app
Printable View
RealTemp 2.75 from this post few pages backQuote:
Originally Posted by anzial
@unlce: thanks for the reply & great app
Thx! :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by emoners
does anyone know the tjmax for e6xxx and e2xxx 65nm processors? did a search on the thread and nothing useful came up.
thank you :)
Intel still has not disclosed TjMax for 65nm desktop processors so all I can do is continue to guess.
Intel has stated that TjMax is 100C for an E8400. When I use that value, at higher temperatures where the amount of sensor error is minimal, the reported core temperature is approximately 5C greater than what an IR thermometer shows when pointed at the hottest spot on the IHS.
Using this new fact of life and working backwards, I have decided in the near future to start using TjMax=90C for the original B2, B3, the L2 and the E2xxx M0 series and probably a few others once I dig through the Intel specs some more. rge seems to agree that this is reasonable thinking based on Intel's published Thermal Specification for these processors.
Every program continues to assume that TjMax=85C for the original B2 but Intel has said that the logic behind that assumption is flawed because bit 30 in MSR 0xEE which is valid in the mobile processors to signal an 85C TjMax processor, is not relevant in the desktop processors. I'm getting ready to walk another plank and create some more controversy by introducing this never before used value in the near future.
I believe that the later E6x50 series are TjMax=100C like CoreTemp, Everest, etc. have been assuming for a long time.
RealTemp's original TjMax guesses were mostly based on IR thermometer testing. The new information released at IDF says that those numbers are too conservative and I should have added 5C to most processors.
Personally, I think that is a few degrees on the high side for the average processor but I've decided to more or less quietly comply with the small fragments of information provided to the user community from the guys in the blue suits. :cool:
you had me all the way up to the word ...:rofl: comply :ROTF:
Here's a nice write up from Gavin Steacy at Tom's Hardware about the IDF presentation and how these digital thermal sensors operate on the new 45nm processors. He even quoted the developer of RealTemp a couple of times. :)
I don't think I had my coffee yet that morning and was still a little upset by the lack of information actually released compared to the AnandTech pre-IDF story about full disclosure.
just to clarify then...
the TjMax for the Q6600 G0 is 100ºC instead of 95ºC then?
Yup! I just read that.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
From THW:
According to the developer of RealTemp, “[Intel] 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.”
So angry webb. lol.
I'm back to using 100deg. My temps are not what they used to be, but tbh, idling at mid thirties instead of mid twenties when the room temperature is 22degC. is quite a bit more credible. That, and my distance to TJMax numbers are now 5 deg higher, so who's complaining? Not me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalmyr
So that mean for E8400 the TjMAX should be set to 100 right ?Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
That's the official word from Intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLoph
Thank you unclewebb (^____^)
burebista over on the TechPowerUp forums suggested adding an option to display the unmodified, digital thermal sensor data in the System Tray.
I'll upload a new beta version tomorrow with this feature.
http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/6015/rt276wy9.png
Sweet Jesus, XS is back in business. And I thought crack was a bad addiction!
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
The above feature has been added and I also increased the maximum amount of negative calibration from -9.9 to -19.9. Some guys with 45nm Quad cores using the Intel specified TjMax are still getting idle temps that appear to be way too high during low MHz, low voltage, idle testing. If you can't get your idle temps looking good with this much correction then it's time to head to EBay and dump it, unless it's a good clocker!
Default TjMax for the early 65nm CPUs has been adjusted upward based on IR testing and Intel's release of TjMax for 45nm. For 65nm I'm still only guessing because Intel refuses to release TjMax information.
I was just about to ask for the extra calibration window for my Q9300, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Looking as great as ever Uncle!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Many thanks for all your hard work, this is by far the best utility out there!!!!
I was working with a couple of guys on the TechPowerUp site today and their 45nm Quads appear to have at least 15C of slope error. For users with sensors that are reading too high, the official release of TjMax=100C hasn't done them any good. It's just made things worse. With this much error in some of these sensors at idle, it's no surprise that Intel didn't want to tell us too many details at the IDF.
Burebista on TPU posted some results from X-Bit Labs showing that an E8400 consumes approximately 3 watts at idle. With a big air cooler or water, my assumption that idle temps are only about 5C over the surrounding air temperature still seems reasonable. The new E0 series allows the processor to enter C4 power saving mode for even more power savings and low idle temperatures.
If I understand good... the difference from real temperature of the cores and IHS (measured from you) is -5°c, and the correct TjMax for Q6600 is 100°c?Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
E8400 = Q6600?
Sorry for my eng :D
Uncle, hope you don't mind my asking a stupid question.
Since I have lapped my CPU & the D-tech block was already perfect (believe it or not) & half a half a grain of rice liquid metal, my temps at idle have dropped 5-7 & load 12-15 degrees.
Now water temps on the hot side are 27.6, ambient is 26.2, Tcase is at 29.6. Would it be safe to assume that my cores would be in the 32-33 range?
This seems to make sense to me!
Thanks
P.S. - All temps are taken with a laser thermal sensor. And if your curious my full load temps don't go over 43-44. RealTemp sensors show 7,7,7,7.
Again, Thanks.
Unc,Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
During which power state? I'd like to take a look at the X-Bit Labs results please.
CompuTronix: I'm assuming C1E but the article is not clear.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...lfdale_11.html
It's clear that 45nm uses less power at idle and at full load than 65nm. Less power equals less heat to dissipate so sky high idle temps don't make any sense. Looks like 15C of slope error at idle is not unusual for some 45nm Quad processors.
Puttz: Your logic looks good and I agree with your idle temps.
psychok9: Intel says TjMax=100C for E8400. IR thermometer shows 80C when RealTemp reports 85C. Swap in Q6600 and set TjMax=100C and try the same experiment. IR shows 80C, RealTemp shows 85C. 5C gradient exists according to Intel.
Swap in E6400 - B2. Use TjMax=85C like every program has assumed for 2 years. IR temp equals RealTemp so TjMax=85C must be wrong. It needs to go up by 5C so the Intel specified gradient exists. B2 and L2 get adjusted to TjMax=90C to account for this.
Let the arguing and fighting over TjMax begin again! :argue:
C4 state ? i think - they refer to to the (extra low power) - whatever its called .. this could be? that EPU chip + driver thing? ..in my guess
in present past :) i do have had only asus boards, so far ( p5K3 dlx , maximus . rampage )
so with latest ROG boards.. ME . RE and on base their offered options - i guess this could be that - ! on board EPU chip !- + driver + software ( EPU ? Ai suite )
could be they they call this C4 state ?
once on Maximus Extreme board i did tha whole '' wizard'' base install from mobo setup/driver cd/dvd and i got all this "crap" - sorry :( - loaded ..
Ai SUITE + with it's overclock/downclock utilities,
and all the following .. when it booted to xp asus ME board / qx9650
got loaded that '' Ai thing '' on taskbar - it had choosable options, and when select (very)Low power .. it downclocked my qx to ~1800mhz .. something to 0.98x volts .. actually it was stable .. i even run some prime there :) it take ~ 35-40W
will upload this funny screen :) ''polar bear playing with ball ''globe'' LOL - i did NOT get 3Wstts really here but ~11w
so could be 3w possible inn ''sleep' or Ai NAP state activated -// may be - Vista can handle these things better ?
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/1...wer1up1.th.png
btw new RE software disk gives a WARNING
'' do not install (Ai-Suite, EPU-Six Engine, PC Probe ) if You will use Tweakit func .. Operating both func. simultaneously might damage your motherboard
Here's Burebista's 4.24 watt screen shot for his E8400. He likes low power.
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpo...2&postcount=31
Actually the low watts and the below intel doc may be close to making sense with the 5C gradient we measure...if the chart below from intel is correct, which implies the gradient from core to casing increases (doubles) when removing the heatsink.
http://www.intel.com/support/process.../CS-011039.htm
Tjmax-tcasemax = theta (jc) x TDP
Solving for theta with Tjmax 100 = .43 C/W
If the thermal resistance from core to casing (theta) does increase/double without a heatsink as intel states, then if an actual 1.6-2.5C gradient does exist we would measure it as 3.2 to 5C with heatsink removed.
Or, stated another way, instead of actual gradient (heatsink on) = .43 X TDP, gradient we measure with heatsink off = .86 X TDP. At idle, extended halt intel lists 8W, deep sleep 6w, and at idle undervolted, underclocked probably more in 6W or less range...clearly this will be variable cpu to cpu and some are testing even lower. But at 6W (max?), the gradient would be 2.5C, we would measure 5C, assuming the intel doc is correct. If true, that would suggest tjmax is 100, when we measure the IHS with heatsink off we would measure 95C, if we could measure the IHS with heatsink on we would measure 97.5, which would make sense with the actual ~2C gradient. But other than a calibrated thermocouple embedded in IHS...dont know how to test that.
It only took a couple of years but this is all starting to make sense now, even for 65nm.
Thanks rge for that info.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
:idea:
Here's one for Unclewebb or anyone else who can enlighten me.
System is per sig with the addition of TEC cooling. Real Temp is reporting 11c on both cores at 4500 with 1.28125 vCore. The weird part is that Everest and speedfan show a cpu temp of 30c.
The core temps are the important ones but it is strange and I would love to know what is going on. Stuck sensor?
Edit: just took the system down to 3.33 with vCore of 1.000 the cores are still showing 11c and the cpu at 30c
This is just a guess but the 30c reading might be a board sensor at or around the socket that's not directly influenced by the TEC.
genec57: The sensor used to report CPU temperature is different than the sensors used to report core temperatures. I'm not sure what the lower limit is for the CPU temp sensor.
The core temperature sensors have a theoretical lower limit of -27C but I've yet to see one get this low without getting stuck. Intel has told us that some of these sensors might start to "bottom out" up around 50C. If yours get down to 11C then you're doing better than most.
The bottom line is that I don't think any of these sensors are going to give you accurate temperature readings when using a TEC. When you were using just water did you calibrate RealTemp and were you able to get some reasonable looking idle and load temps?
Under water alone the core temps were almost always the same and were quite believable under both load and idle. Now, the cores are reasonable under load.
For a while yesterday (first day under TEC) the cpu reported -2c then up then down and now it wont go below 30 but will go up under load, always staying about 20c higher than the cores. The cores wont go below 11c but will go much higher under load.
That really just means I will have to adjust the trigger cpu temp to shutdown the system. I have speedfan set to shutdown at 70c which brings up a suggestion I have. I would love to see a high temp shutdown in real temp. Then I could use it for ALL monitoring.
Thanks,
Gene
Just a minor update so that the System Tray status gets saved on exit. The System Tray Current, Min, Max, Avg, Distance to TJMax options are saved in the INI file so you'll get to look at the same info next time you start up RealTemp.
The other minor change is to the XS Bench feature. I've changed it to use 2 megabytes of memory during the bench which should fit in the L2 cache of most processors. There's talk of the new E0 processors having increased cache latency so I thought a benchmark that easily fits inside and targets the L2 cache might give users a way to compare E8x00 C0 vs E0. Do this quick bench on a C0 and an E0 at the same multi and FSB and maybe it will tell us something. This simple bench has always been consistent and very repeatable so maybe it's capable of detecting an L2 cache latency issue with E0 if there is one.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
genec57: I was afraid to allow RealTemp to run a .bat file when an alarm was triggered because I thought some anti-virus / anti-spyware type program would flag RealTemp as being dangerous and a threat to man kind. By using a .bat file, a user would have full control over what they want to happen when a high temp alarm is registered. You're the second person to ask for a high temp shut down feature for RealTemp so I'll move this to the top of the things to do list.
The lower point where the core temperature sensors "bottom out" or get stuck seems to stay at one consistent temperature. If your cores are getting stuck at 11C then they will very likely continue to do that for the life of your processor. I'll have to wait until winter to see if my E8400 still gets stuck at the same point. Canadian winters are an overclockers best friend. :)
I'm not sure what happened to your other CPU temp sensor. I've heard of freezing warts off but I didn't know you could freeze a sensor to death!
Thanks for the replies. The other CPU temp sensor isn't dead. Like the core sensors it is stuck at ~30 but it will go up under load.
I will look forward to the high temp shutdown feature. I really prefer to use and trust Realtemp so it will be great to be able to use it exclusively.
Thanks again,
Gene
That's all the motivation I need! :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by genec57
Thanks for the software. I wonder is it possible to have it setup for 8 core system? I tried it on Skulltrail but it reports only 4 sensors. Also I noticed that it reports about 5c different than Core Temp ... is that ok? Thanks again for your efforts!
http://softwareblogs.intel.com/author/taylor-kidd/
Great Intel blog about CPU power management, C and P states.
There is also a wish list going on there.
Enjoy reading.
It would be possible but it's not really high priority at the moment since very few users have a SkullTrail system. The easiest way for me would be to try and create a second version of RealTemp. Regular RealTemp could read cores0..3 and the second version could read cores 4..7 for you. Not a perfect solution but then I wouldn't have to worry about bloating up the main RT code to cover a system that is in the minority. If interested in that then let me know. It might take a couple of weeks to get around to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by spiro
When you report something like this I need to know the version of RealTemp and CoreTemp you're using as well as the processor you're using. Both programs have recently made some changes. With the latest versions of each program, 45nm processors should be using the same TjMax since Intel finally disclosed that information. For older 65nm processors, it's still a guessing game since two years after the fact, Intel still hasn't released any TjMax documentation for their Desktop processors. Post some more info and I will explain further.Quote:
Also I noticed that it reports about 5c different than Core Temp ... is that ok?
Here's the latest version of RealTemp:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Marios: Thanks for the link. With that being on the Intel website, I better read fast before all that information mysteriously disappears and Intel pretends that it never really existed!
Unclewebb,
A follow up to the stuck CPU sensor. I have found that when I am changing settings, particularly Vcore will come unstuck (dropping to about1c) for a while and then will revert back to its stick point of 30c.
Is this typical of a sticking sensor? My intuition says so but I have no experience on point. Right now it is at 0 and the cores are both at 11c.
both my sensors are stuck at 33 core0 and 28 core1 at idle once i put them under load they scale evenly. ive tried to calibrate them so theyre even at idle but under load they are way off
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
I've added the ability to run a file when the RealTemp alarm is triggered.
I haven't decided yet if I'm going to add a file picker into the Settings GUI or keep it hidden. At the moment you can try this feature out by adding a new line to the RealTemp.INI configuration settings file like this:
AlarmFile="C:\Program Files\IrfanView\i_view32.exe"
You can probably think of something better than running IrfanView when you're computer is getting ready to go nuclear! :eek:
The AlarmFile will only be run once when an alarm occurs. If you want RealTemp to run it again then you'll have to restart RealTemp. A person could also write a .bat file for an orderly shut down or whatever they want their computer to do during a high temp alarm. Any suggestions about improvements or additional options for this feature are appreciated.
I'm in the middle of adjusting the Start Minimized feature in RealTemp for better Vista x64 compatibility. If that part of RealTemp 2.78 is working worse than before in Vista then don't be surprised. It's a work in progress. If I can't make it better then I'll at least go back to the old way. Version 2.78 is for users that want the AlarmFile feature right NOW!
genec57: I know a little bit about sticking core digital thermal sensors but my experience with a sticking CPU sensor is the same as yours. Zilch!
With any sensor, if you know it is sticking, even sometimes, then you can't rely on it to give you accurate and usable information below that sticking point. The Intel on chip sensors are consistent and usually fine when the temperature goes above the "bottoming out" point.
Same goes for you radaja. The RealTemp calibration feature is not designed to give you usable information out of a stuck sensor. If the sensor isn't moving at low temps then low temperature information coming from this sensor is useless.
I might be able to understand your situation better if you send me some data. Turn on the RealTemp logging feature and set the interval to 1 second. Let your computer sit idle for a minute, then run Prime95 small FFTs for about 2 minutes and then stop that and return your computer to idle for a minute. Take the log file and either e-mail it to me at the address in the About... box of RealTemp or copy and PM it to me here at XS. I can't guarantee you any miracles but I've seen enough messed up data that I might be able to help. :)
Shutdown feature works great and definitely useful addition :up:
I have vasilios shutdownXP enforcer, free program that will do a hard (immediate) shutdown.
If anyone wants to use it, search bolded name, available at many sites. Install it (nothing runs in background, it only runs if activated to shut off pc). Add one line of code to realtemp ini file, exactly as below in bold (unless default install location has changed)
AlarmFile="C:\Program Files\Vasilios Applications\ShutdownXP Enforcer\Data\Shut.exe"
Set alarm temp in settings (I set mine to normal load temp to test). Works perfect!
Nice find rge.
I'll include a link in the RealTemp docs to Vasilios ShutdownXP Enforcer v6.3
The start minimized feature is presently more broken than usual in Vista. Now that the alarm feature is more useful, I can get back to working on the start minimized issue that still effects many Vista users.
I took my Q6600 on water down to 1600mhz and 1.2v (couldn't figure out the 1.08v EIST thing...). I wasn't sure of the adjusted value. The read says 5*C for a dual, 6-7 for a quad. But I'm on water, but also my voltage is higher. I added 5*C to room temp. Is this right?
My adjustments were -4, -2, 2, -2. This made it 27*C across the board at ultraidle. Core0 and Core2 used to be 10*C apart, all the time, idle or lots of load. This doesn't really make sense. Now all my temps are within 4*C of each other during load. Is this more realistic, or am I fooling myself? I don't see how no matter the load two near-adjacent points are 10*C different, so this makes sense to me.
Overall load temps seem lower when compared to Core Temp, that's why I'm not sure if my +5*C over room temperature is right.
Great program either way!
EDIT first two cores are still hotter during load, which leads me to believe it's possible that my sensors were poor just like all of them BUT that I still have a realistic difference between the quality of the two dies.
EDIT and still a ~7*C max difference between different cores, which I can believe... but can't necessarily trust. Waiting for someone to call me out!
EDIT also forgot to say, the "sensor test" also waaaaay evened out, a perfect 3-3-3-3 at ultraidle, from something more like 1-7-4-you-get-it.
EDIT and now things make more sense, as Core2 used to be the coolest of cores but would also be one of the first to fail every time. Now it is one of the warmest cores...
@unclewebb thanks for the E-mail, i was running 450x9@4050 with 1.38v on my E8500.
AndrewZorn: I found this test kind of interesting on my Q6600 - G0:
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/4435/balanceee1.jpg
Run Prime95 small FFTs and for "Number or torture test threads to run:" enter 3 instead of 4.
When your CPU is only at 75% load, it constantly moves that load around and it seems to be based on the data coming from the digital thermal sensors. I think when a process asks to run on any core then the CPU runs it on the core that is reporting that it is running the coolest. There are two Dual Cores within a Quad so I think the load is first split in half (more or less) and then those two loads are shared by core0 / core1 and by core2 / core3.
When uncorrected, my core2 always reports the highest Distance to TjMax value which means it is running the coolest so in this test it gets the biggest load and its partner, core3, gets to take it easy. The sensors on core0 / core1 always report very similar values so their half of the load is shared much more equally between those two cores. In both situations, the Distance to TjMax is being balanced for both sets of cores. In theory, Core i7 should be able to move the work load around and balance the temps between all 4 cores at the same time but the design of the Core 2 Duo seems to prevent this.
Task sharing by the CPU seems to be directly based on data from these temperature sensors. When you have a core reporting that it is running cool, it is going to get a bigger share of the work load. If in fact it tends to run at the same temperature as its partner but is misreporting its status, then it's going to be forced to run a bigger load which will make it run a little hotter than its partner. You can tell by looking at the graph that this balancing is going on constantly. Sensors that are not well balanced from the factory can lead to individual cores running at slightly different temperatures.
At higher temperatures where these sensors are much more accurate, the effect of the above declines and you will typically see core0 / core1 running at the exact same temperature and core2 / core3 also running at the exact same temperature. In most of the Q6600 screen shots I've seen, it's almost always core0 / core1 that report that they are running hotter. Typically about 0C to 5C which is shown in the above screen shot.
This might be just a sensor issue but it doesn't seem to be. Think about what would happen if during manufacturing that there was a slight difference between how the IHS contacted each set of cores within a Quad. It's possible that two of the cores might be making better contact with the IHS than the other two so the heat transfer is more efficient and they end up running cooler. Go try my test on your Quad and see what you get.
radaja: Your temps are great when running at that speed.
Have any of you guys tried out Intel Burn Test from this forum? It gets my Q6600 G0 super hot, I can easily get within a stone's throw from Tmax (100°C) depending on my OC and voltage. I wonder if my cooler (OCZ Vendetta 2) is not mounted well... Anyway I dialed down my voltages and OC so my core temps only reach ~82°C max just to be safe.
Intel Burn Test definitely creates some big heat, especially on a Quad. It's great to be Burn Test stable but if you don't ever use any software that ever gets your processor this hot then maybe it's a little overkill. I thought Prime small FFTs was a little overkill on most Quads compared to the temperature that most software runs at but Intel Burn Test is WAY overkill. I still like it and use it though! :)
Those results may be a bug in Prime95. It did the same thing when one core would fail. After I brought this up the issue was fixed in v25.6. Might want to ask over at the Mersenne.org forum for confirmation one way or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
UncleWebb, that is actually very informative. I will try it when I get home!
However, I wasn't referring to the different dies being of different temperatures, as I see that even after the correction. What I mean is there is sometimes a 10*C difference between individual cores on the same die, even at super-duper-idle-near-room-temp or overkill load. After adjustment the values seem to "make sense" and I'm getting more of what you were explaining in the post.
I also wonder if +5*C over room temp is good for a Q6600 at 1.2v 1600mhz on good watercooling.
I was using version 25.6 in that screen shot. It's not a bug in Prime, just the way Quad core and Dual Core processors balance the load. The same thing happens when you have a Dual Core and run 1 instance of Prime. The CPU will constantly swap the task back and forth between cores to keep the cores balanced and core temperature seems to play a big part in that decision. This also happens when you run the typical single threaded game on a Quad. It doesn't run one core at 100%. It constantly spreads the work around so each core does part of the job so no one core gets over stressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Praz
AndrewZorn: JohnZS may not have the record but his 45nm Quad certainly ranks highly when it comes to unbalanced sensors. On the same die he had a difference of 7 between core2 and core3 and the difference was 15 between the two dies when comparing core1 and core2. When you pull out the ruler and measure the number of millimeters between sensors, it becomes obvious that something isn't quite right.
Intel showed us that their 45nm sensors suffer from slope error where the further you get from their calibration point, the bigger the error can become. If you have one sensor that reads too high and one that reads too low on the same die then the combined error can be quite significant.
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/9272/dtstemppu4.png
Intel did not get specific about what temperature they calibrate at but the example in the graph shows how slope error grows as temps decrease.
In my experience, most of the 65nm CPUs I've seen have had sensors on the same die that were either both too high or both too low. The 45nm Quad processors, especially some Extreme CPUs, can have both high and low reading sensors on the same die.
65nm sensors can also bottom out or get stuck at lower temperatures but this seems to be much rarer and at far cooler temperatures than some of the 45nm sensors get stuck at.
If you are water cooled then you need to be comparing your Ultra-Idle reported temperatures to your water temperature. (I like the term Ultra-Idle for low MHz / low volts.) Is there any way for you to manually set your core voltage lower in the bios? Try that and enable C1E or lock your multi to 6.0 when testing if your computer doesn't complain. My Asus boots up fine but some boards don't like to boot up when locked to 6.0x
I think a Q6600 being 5C or 6C above your water temp during this test is pretty reasonable. Open your case up and send me a log file at a 1 second interval of running 1 minute idle, 2 minutes of Prime small FFTs on all cores followed by 1 minute of idle. That helps me understand your processor better than just seeing a single screen shot.
You may very well be correct. However, there should be no difference between selecting three cores or Prime running on three cores because the fourth failed. With v25.6 when one core fails the load drops to zero on the failed core and the remaining three stay at 100%. Previous to v25.6 a failed core resulted in the same behavior you are seeing with selected cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Uncleweb, do you have any plans to try embedding a thermo coupler into the IHS (or maybe a HS base) based on this info?Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
Praz: I understand what you're saying. It looks like in Prime when one core fails then 3 cores run at 100% and 1 at 0% but if you tell it to run 3 instances of Prime on a Quad then you get the four cores working together on the problem.
I can't say it hasn't crossed my mind. ;)Quote:
do you have any plans to try embedding a thermo coupler into the IHS
I'm not sure what new information we'd end up with though. We know TjMax for 45nm and based on that and how 45nm IHS readings compare to 65nm, I think we can be pretty confident with TjMax for the majority of the 65nm CPUs so what's left? Intel has told us about slope error so we know that variable exists and we have a way to correct for that.
About the only thing that I don't have any hard evidence to prove is how many degrees hotter should a core be reporting compared to the ambient temperature or water temperature during the Ultra-Idle test. Given that a good water set-up or a good air cooler or even the Intel OEM cooler with the copper core all perform within a couple of degrees of each other during Ultra-Idle, I tend to think that about 5C to 7C over ones baseline air/water temperature is pretty reasonable. Maybe an embedded sensor might get us another degree closer to the truth but given the less than perfect nature of these sensors, I'm having a tough time seeing the point vs cost of that.
With there being some unknown error in how Intel sets TjMax as well as slope error, an individual test on 1 or 5 or 10 processors won't be enough data to confirm anything.
With these sensors, the reported temps are about as real as they're ever going to get. Intel didn't release enough information at the IDF, and I don't imagine they ever will, to get us any closer to the real temperature than what we are now.
Yeah, I definitely have the same thoughts as you. Right now the only benefit to the embedded coupler test is to perhaps come up w/ a better ultra-idle (I like the name too!) calibration number. I know it's near impossible to say definitely what that number is in every case, but for some reason I've been obsessing over it. I also think it would be nice to corroborate what rge posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I think we could make a somewhat meaningful conclusion w/ only 1 CPU, though. If you measure a given CPU w/ an embedded TC w/o a HS, and then add the HS you could see the difference and then perhaps come up w/ a slightly more accurate ultra-idle calibration number.
Also, I wonder if it would skew the results if the TC was embedded in the HS instead. That way you would only need to destroy 1 HS, and use it on multiple CPU's.
Please don't feel obligated in any way to do any of this. It would be interesting, but I'll still live a long and fruitful life w/o this info.
Thanks again!
Jason
:toast:
I think Intel's lack of disclosure about how much TjMax varies from one processor to the next has tied our hands. If TjMax varies by plus or minus one or two degrees due to factory calibration inaccuracies, etc. then there's no way we can come up with a perfect number to shoot for when we're trying to calibrate RealTemp to an individual processor. The recent Intel info posted by rge finally puts all the pieces together and helps make sense out of the data we've both gathered.
Six months ago I had a handful of processors and with the software, Intel documentation and knowledge available, there was no easy way to compare them all. I made some assumptions, some right, others not so right, but I think what we've all learned since then has us much closer to being able to make meaningful temperature comparisons between 45nm and 65nm, Dual or Quad Core.
Carving up an IHS or heatsink still sounds like fun though. I'm sure one day rge or I or some other XS type will fire up the Dremel and have at it! I might have to go price out some thermocouples so we can all have a good night's sleep. :D
UncleWebb,
Thanks for the info. I need to set temp to 5-6*C over WATER temp? That might be higher than I hoped. I have a temp sensor thing with a probe on a wire, so I'll shove that down my T-line.
Default voltage is the lowest I can go on this board, at least in this BIOS. I need to see if I can find C1E (that's what it is... I tried something else).
AZ!Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewZorn
Hello. Ninja here. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewZorn
If you have the vid card in your sig on that loop you'll need to add much more than 5C to your numbers
I bought a Fluke with 2 thermocouples several months ago when I bought E7200, with intention of putting one in IHS and after measurements vs software, then second on core to measure versus IHS...but after learning about a few issues...and killing my E7200 within minutes of initial temp testing...
Thermocouples are very inaccurate for surface temp measurements, unless of course the surface temp=air temp, because if you lay one on surface 3/4 is sensing air temp, 1/4 sensing surface. When my IHS reads 95C by IR, the thermocouple will bounce around from 60 to 70C, but immerse the tip completely in boiling water and it is very accurate. Now I know why intel fully embeds it in the IHS, have to for accurate IHS temp. Even after you imbed it in IHS, it is now sensing 2/3 IHS and 1/3 thermal (?) adhesive (?) you used to seal it, and you have to recalibrate it by accurately measuring the surface temp of IHS at same time, or it will be off a few C (that is apparently why they use second source measurement of IHS in all research papers). And since it can not measure surface temps, I would have to embed my second one in the core or solder it to the side and then calibrate thermocouple to surface temp core. I dont know if that would kill cpu or not (had I not killed it temp testing, I was going to give it a go as the last test). Reason for having to embed the second one in the core, would be because I dont know down to 1C accuracy what the core temp is, hence I cant know the gradient. And since it is near impossible to test temp of core, because once you remove the IHS the temp rises so rapidly, you end up "guessing" at temp, definitely not accurate enough for 1C calibration.
Given intels recent chart...I could now compare IHS temp to thermocouple temp with heatsink off (versus software reading core temp as control), then use thermocouple to measure gradient with heatsink on (using software core as control) and then would know the difference in gradient with heatsink on or off, but only within 1C of error or more if calibration is different for the thermal adhesive I use with heatsink cooling it....but again that is not going to give me actual core temp, because I dont know exact temp of core at tjmax.
Also if I embed one in the core (without killing it) or soldered to side + surface core recalibration, and embed one in IHS, not sure if it will change temp 1-2C after my piss poor die reattach substitute. Thought about drilling hole, but then how do I solder to core. And to give an idea of how hard it would be to calibrate the thermocouple on core after soldering it to the side (since 1/2 thermocouple is reading solder temp)... when I delided the E7200, I turned computer on with delided IHS pressed up against the core, immediately removed once computer running and temps went from 60 to 138C before smoking and dieing (by realtemp core reading) in several seconds despite powerful box fan blowing, though quickly looking back and forth between IR gun and realtemp and getting two pics flashed, i was approximating a tjmax of 90C. Since I know tjmax is higher now, either realtemp and IR never had chance to read same temp at same time or I changed the resistance so much by removing the obviously very effective core cooling IHS, that cental core was hotter than its surface, like at load.
I was only half kidding in an earlier post about an MRI temp...I know you can read tissue temp to within 1C, without disturbing anything..that would be the way to accurately measure temp while determining exactly what you were measuring at same time, without destroying die attach.
Try setting the voltage to auto, and leave your multi on auto. Also make sure anything labeled speedstep, EIST, or C1E is enabled. Then set the FSB to 200 or 266. And if you have any kind of vdroop control make sure to disable it.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewZorn
Hopefully, this way the multi and voltage will drop automatically to the low VID when idle.
rge: You've summed up the stage we're at. Without any further info from Intel, it's about impossible to get any more accurate than what we're at now. Even with more info, there's still variability at both ends of the temperature curve with these sensors so we're still going to be doing some guessing. I think our present guess at the idle delta is pretty close to reality.
NO WAY!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee
I have an obviously stuck Core0 sensor. Yet real temp says its working fine?? What gives?
Core1 reads about 30-31C depending on room temp. Which jives nicely with both core temps BEFORE I moved. But after I moved (company moved us) now my core0 IDLE IS STUCK AT 37c. Load temp is normal and on par, but idle temp is 6-7C higher then core1 and real temp says its responding normaly???
:shrug:
So I have a core0 that wont go below 37C and is rock solid stuck at 37. yet realtemp says its fine
I dont really wnat to RMA it because it is perfectly stable at 4.05GHz @ < 1.28V all day
Last night I cleaned and redid the arctic ceramique paste which made no difference. I also gave it the razor test which gave basically zero light through indicating the IHS was almost perfectly phlat.
unclewebb, could you maybe add some more font options for the systemtray? a little thicker font like rivatuner has, they are a bit hard to read @ high resolutions due to the thinness.
also, maybe option to have mb cpu ambient temp too?
just some ideas =]
Come on now. Let's not beat up RealTemp because of Intel's crappy sensors!Quote:
Originally Posted by little_scrapper
Maybe your computer fell off the back of the truck during the move? Most of the sensors I've heard about are consistent. They'll always get stuck at the same fixed temperature. I did hear from one user that had one core where the sticking point changed from one value to another after initial break in. I don't think that is too common but it does happen.
When trying to use these sensors to report reasonably accurate idle temperatures, there can be a multitude of problems that over lap and screw up your results. The best way for me to understand your CPU better is if you run a quick test and send me the RealTempLog.txt file either by PM or send it to the e-mail address in the About... box of RealTemp.
I like to see 1 minute of idle followed by 2 minutes of Prime small FFTs followed by 1 minute of idle. You don't have to be exact with the amount of data you send me but generally about 5 minutes of data recorded with a log interval of 1 second really helps me see what's going on compared to just a single screen shot. The temperature curve is very consistent with small FFTs which is why I recommend it.
The 32 or 64 bit version is available here:
http://www.neowin.net/news/software/...30/prime95-256
When you send me your data include some details like CPU model, room temperature, MHz, core voltage, case open or closed, etc. The more info you send me the better chance I'll have figuring out your problem.
What does the RealTemp Sensor Test show now? Make sure you're computer is nice and idle when you run this test and show us a screen shot of what it says.
http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/4909/sensortestbv9.png
I need about 1.37 volts to keep my E8400 happy at 4 GHz so I should be getting more Movement than you during this test. If you have a 6C to 7C difference in your idle temps, this test should also show a significant difference.
If you're rock solid at 4.05 GHz with 1.28 volts then accurate idle core temperatures aren't that important. The sensors weren't designed for that purpose so be happy with that chip. :)
Fungus: More font options or a font picker is a good idea for the System Tray. The problem I found was that there is only 16x16 pixels available and you need room for two digits so each digit can only cover 8 pixels wide x 16 pixels tall. That's not a lot of room to work with and I picked through a pile of fonts and most of them looked like crap at that size. What screen resolution are you using and OS? I think at higher resolutions the system tray area might jump up to 32x32 pixels which might give us some more possibilities. Why not send me a screen shot of just your system tray area with about an extra half inch on each side so I can head to PhotoShop and count some pixels.
One option that RealTemp has is you can use the included RTFont. With a font designer program like Fony, you can try editing the RTFont and create something that you like.
1) Check your Font folder in the Control Panel to make sure RTFont is installed.
2) Start up Fony and select File -> Open Installed Font... from the menu or click on the little green open folder in the tool area.
3) Select RTFont from the menu.
4) Use Fony to edit each character.
5) When you're done, select the menu item File -> Install Font
This will install your new creation into your system. Run RealTemp and select the right most font option and it will use your new RTFont.
ClearType and anti-aliasing can give some weird results when working on small fonts so both options are turned off. I'll try using a font picker in the future for more system tray options. I spent so many hours trying to find some readable fonts for the tray that I thought I'd do users a favor and save them some hassle by limiting their font options. There's a reason why most programs don't give you too many options for system tray fonts.
When windows vista 64bit ultimate starts, real-temp won't start minimized, i did check the box in the settings tab, but every time windows starts it won't start minimized...Anyone
BTW: I'm using 2.75
Oki doki, here is shot of my systray. 1920*1200 res
I'm not much of an artist, do dunno if I could make a font or not =]
maybe I can use reshacker and take the font from rivatuner... will try.
RealTemp has had a Start Minimized problem for a LONG time with Vista 64 and maybe even with Vista 32 as well. The very patient Burebista over at TechPowerUp helped me with testing recently and I think we've finally got this problem solved. I'll post an updated beta version of RealTemp within 6 hours so you can see if it's finally been fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by mpower1001
Fungus: That Fony program I recommended makes editing a pre-existing font simple. In your pic, are 55 and 69 from RivaTuner? It would be simple with Fony to modify the RTFont to look like that. I'll do it for you when I get the chance. Just send me some pics of as many different digits as possible. Small pics in bmp format are best.
Edit: Here's a 3 minute mod job on the standard RTFont. Uninstall the RTFont from your Font directory and try using this one instead. I'll shorten it a little if you like. The right most font option in RealTemp will use this one.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTFont.zip
That's thicker and readable alright. Could you do the same to font #2? (2nd from left) I like the height of that one better. =]
And yeah the other temps are from rivatuner.
rge and others should find the next paragraph very interesting. It comes from the Mobile Intel® Atom™ Processor N270 Single Core datasheet which also uses 45nm digital thermal sensors similar to, if not exactly the same as, what the E8000, E7000 and 45nm Quads use. Users striving for +/- 1°C accuracy with these sensors are dreaming.
5.3 Digital Thermal Sensor
The digital thermal sensor (DTS) accuracy is in the order of -5°C ~ +10°C around
90°C; it deteriorates to ±10°C at 50°C. The DTS temperature reading saturates at
some temperature below 50°C. Any DTS reading below 50°C should be considered to
indicate only a temperature below 50°C and not a specific temperature. External
thermal sensor with “BJT” model is required to read thermal diode temperature.
http://download.intel.com/design/pro...hts/320032.pdf
The amount of error at the calibration point is worse than expected but the ±10°C at 50°C spec is exactly the magnitude of slope error that users have been showing me and I'm seeing with my E8400. I guess I should be happy because I'm only out by about 10°C when the actual core temperature has dropped to 30°C.
It's certainly possible that the sensors used in the 45nm Dual and Quad Core chips are far better than this but I wouldn't exactly bank on that.
The reality is that Intel is probably surprised that we're getting any sort of accurate temps out of these sensors at all. I wonder why Intel didn't have the guts to share this kind of information at the IDF in August?
The Start Minimized option has been re-worked one more time:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
It's always worked for me in XP but many Vista users, mostly x64 I think, have had troubles. If you've had problems and this fixes it then let me know. If it used to work but now it's broken then I guess I'll have to have another look.
It was working great for burebista in Vista x64 but I made a few changes since his last test session. If it's still broken then I guess I'm to blame. :(
Edit: I just added a bold font option to the first 3 fonts in RealTemp. I'll probably add this to the GUI in the future but at the moment just add this to your RealTemp.ini file:
Bold=1
It looks a lot more readable on 16:10 type flat panel screens. I think it looks better than RivaTuner! :D
As always, nicely done unc! So in a nutshell intel sensors are pretty much useless except as an amusement until the temps start approaching the point of throttling? :rofl:
Thanks uncleweb, it looks awesome now =]
That is interesting, and finally confirms from intel what national semiconductor had posted on their site. I was assuming national semiconductors figures were at least a little exaggerated...until reading that.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
National semiconductor (one of the main suppliers for DTS for intel) claims that if using the 11 bit sensor with Beta correction trutherm enabled for 45nm (~30 cents more expense per sensor, but was $1 more last year) there is less than 3C of error up to 125C. If not using the 11 bit sensor with Trutherm beta correction enabled, they quote error as 5 to 30C on 45nm, and spread between sensors (cores) can be 5C or more.
http://www.national.com/analog/tempsensors/trutherm
Intel has used some of the newer sensors on some laptops...but with national semiconductor highlighting the must have beta correction which makes them accurate, I am wondering if even the laptops are accurate.
Maybe for Nehalem, intel is springing for the additional ~30cents per sensor (especially since cost diff. is now less) for the accurate ones for desktops.
But with that confirmation by intel...and knowing sensor on E8400 is 7 bit (?LM75) and not trutherm...now we know for sure about desktops.
Have I correctly understood that Intel buy the DTS from NS and put it inside the cpu package? Are you sure?Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
I thought the DTS sensors are part of the silicon die that Intel fabs produce.
Please clarify, thanks.
In a nutshell, I couldn't sell 45nm sensors at a flea market and keep a straight face if the person buying it was going to try and use it for accurate absolute temperatures. Psst, heh there buddy, wanna buy a sensor, cheap? :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by loonym
Intel has hinted more than once or twice that these sensors are good enough for thermal throttle and thermal shut down control but we shouldn't be using them to report absolute temperatures. I think the 65nm sensors had a lot tighter tolerances than that but since Intel doesn't like to talk too much about this subject, I guess we'll never know. Perhaps all of the 45nm processors sent back as RMA because of crappy sensors got the bean counters thinking that spending a few more pennies for Core i7 sensors wouldn't be such a bad idea. I think the Test Sensor button in RealTemp was able to help with that. :yepp:
You're welcome. But, is it as good as RivaTuner? You better post another screen shot of your system tray so we can vote! :)Quote:
Thanks unclewebb, it looks awesome now
I would not claim to be sure about anything intel does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brama
According to intel slides and papers....several of the transistors on each core function as diodes and are located in potential hots spots, such as L1, DTLB, etc. The Digital sensor then scans each of these diodes on core and reports the highest on each core as core temp. The transistors functioning as diodes on cores, yes no doubt, they should be intel manufactured. The question is who makes the sensor that scans, filters, reads the diodes.
National semiconductor sells intel such sensors for 45nm according to their site, as to what intel does with them, is just an assumption....as always with intel it is reading and guesswork, then intel releasing just enough info...to make you redo everything:D
But if National's claim is even half true, that it has the only 45nm sensor with logic capable of filtering out the increased noise from the close proximity of the diodes on the 45nm and thus accurately reporting temps across the range to +/- 3C, then if intel is not outsourcing the sensor on desktops, maybe they should be:D Or maybe intel has caught up with national in sensor tech, and will implement their own accurate one in i7.
Edit found slide:
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb;
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.
[url
Interesting and thx unclewebb, So if I Read from the MSR at 0x19C and get 0x88410000 What exactly does this translate to? 2285961216 maybe?? if so then what is 85 96 12 ?? plz
Ok, Vote on =]
Fungus: At least they're readable on your monitor now. I'm kind of biased but I think RealTemp looks better! :D
It's a nice addition with a minimal amount of extra programming. I like that.
Here's the "Reading Hex Digits 101" class. The first digits 0x just show that the next 8 digits are all in hexidecimal format. Each individual digit after 0x represents 4 bits of data. 8 digits x 4 bits/digit = 32 bits of info. The numbering scheme used by Intel in their documents is that the bits are counted starting at zero on the far right up to bit 31 on the far left.Quote:
So if I Read from the MSR at 0x19C and get 0x88410000 What exactly does this translate to?
The first 8 translates to 1000 in binary.
Therefore, bit 31 is set and bits 30, 29 and 28 are all clear.Code:Bit Position
31 - 30 - 29 - 28
1 - 0 - 0 - 0
The docs say bits [22..16] is where the important temperature data is. The 4 zero digits in your example represents bits 15 to bit 0. Bits [22..16] contains 41.
Bit 23 is ignored and not needed in this example.Code:Bit Position
23 . 22 . 21 . 20 .. 19 . 18 . 17 . 16
( 0 . 1 . 0 . 0 ) ( 0 . 0 . 0 . 1 ) binary
4 1 hex
Head to Google and type in
0x41 in decimal
and the answer will be 65 in decimal.
This means that your processor is 65 positions away from TjMax. If these sensors moved linearly with changes in core temperature then you could say that you are 65 degrees away from TjMax. Unfortunately these sensors, especially the 45nm sensors, will move either faster or slower than changes in core temperature so saying that you are a distance of 65 away from TjMax is more accurate.
Chapter 13.5 THERMAL MONITORING AND PROTECTION in Volume 3A of the Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer’s Manual explains this MSR in great detail. Volume 3B explains lots of other information stored away in various other MSRs of Intel Core processors. In typical Intel fashion, some of the info is either vague or labeled as Reserved. That means you must guess or sign an NDA and give them a good reason why you need to know more of this top secret info.
I was thinking about adding a few more features to my MSR tool. Being able to enter in [22..16] and have the tool automatically read and display just that data would make life simpler. If you want to do some investigating of other MSRs then I'll think about doing an upgrade to this tool. Poking around with this tool is a good way to learn about Intel processors at a very low level.
Thanks for the 101 lol :) I'll re think this one now that I have a better insight!! THANKS
So if I'm not mistaken one can use the MSR tool to find the closest and farthest from TjMax to calibrate RealTemp with??
Wait, I missed something! It would be nice if Intel published TjMax temps for an x9100 mobile or for that matter any processor :)
more reading......
Most of the 45nm mobile chips are TjMax=105C including the X9000 CPU.
http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLAQJ
http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLAZ3
Intel doesn't yet have any TjMax data listed for the Q9100 mobile CPU here:
http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLB5G
But they do list it as TjMax=105C here:
http://ark.intel.com/cpu.aspx?groupID=37033
Now the only problem is that even with the correct TjMax, there is no easy way to calibrate a mobile processor. The amount of error in some 45nm sensors borders on the obscene so your reported temperatures may be little better than what a random number generator would display. For this reason and the fact that these sensors can bottom out and get stuck at temperatures as high as 50C, Intel doesn't recommend using these sensors to report absolute temperatures.
Cool, thanks for the great links :) So Intel doesn't even keep their web site up to date with the latest products, as I can't find my mobile x9100 (3.06 with a 1066 bus) there at all :( Meanwhile, I've set TjMax to 105 until Intel will come up with some more info... I noticed that Intel rarely quotes TjMax and referrers instead to Tcase (geometric top center) or Thermal Specification, the latter I presume is Tj (junction as in mobile processors) And here I'd been thinking there was also a sensor on each core..... So I have to ask if there is some other reliable source of temp monitoring to excite the thermal throttling mechanism that occurs at TjMax??Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
The effect of adjusting the TjMax in RealTemp lowers or as in my case raises the current temps by the same amount.. well that is obvious I guess since the temps will always be the same relative to TjMax lol :)
X9100 specs is listed in manual, page 103, tabel 20, funny the manual has it, but not spec sheet, tjmax is 105.Quote:
Originally Posted by ihjones
http://download.intel.com/design/mob...s/32012001.pdf
There are several sensors on each core in potential hot spots...DTS logic scans the sensors and "highest temp" or lowest delta to tjmax is software readable for each core via MSR. (unless using TAT which accesses via peci and takes a running 3 second average of previous temps)
I've noticed that the Intel Processor Spec Finder has the wrong CPUID listed for the newer E0 desktop processors. The E0 are CPUID 0x1067A and the older C0 are 0x10676. Intel, at times, also interchanges the words TCase and TjMax in their specs. When reading their documentation it's always a matter of doing a little bit of reading between the lines combined with some guessing and further detective work.
I saw the http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLACR site (thank you for the info), Q6600 has 71°c max thermal specification (tCase).
Is the max TJ, for Intel "specification", 76°c (71+5°c)?
Q6600 Max Tj is 100°c only for comparation with G0 brother, or we have 100% info direcly from intel?
I read it's sure only for E8xxx cpu (dualcore).
How can the mobile CPUs be more resistant than the desktop ones?
Thank you, and sorry for my eng :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
That manual is really interesting Thank You :up:
psychok9: The Intel thermal specs for desktop processors are usually TCase. The Intel specs for mobile processors are usually TjMax. The two are not the same but sometimes Intel makes a mistake and uses the TCase word when they should have used the TjMax word.
Intel has not released any TjMax information for 65nm desktop processors. I think Q6600 - G0 is TjMax=100°C based on IR thermometer testing. Measured temps are the same as an E8400 during testing and Intel stated TjMax=100°C for the E8400 so Q6600 is probably the same.
On link below, the first 6 (45nm) intel gave us specs for both Tjmax and Tcase max, so you can get an idea of the relationship. The rest (65nm) intel lists specs for Tcase max, we have IR readings, and from that can guess at Tjmax from same 5C difference between measured IR and listed tjmax on similar but known 45nm cpus. The diff between tcase and tjmax is more like 26-30C on known 45nm. But nothing on 65nm Tjmax from intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by psychok9
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2152
Tjmax Q6600 has to be 95C or greater, and is likely 100C +/- error/variability part to part, if same 5C gradient between IR and tjmax exists, that is seen on E8400.
There are a lot of potential reasons why tjmax would be 5C higher on mobile, limited space for effective cooling on mobile, lower wattage, lower voltage so maybe can withstand more heat and still make it to 3 year warranty combined with 100C making some throttle as cooling gets clogged and annoying intel with complaints, no IHS on mobile..?5C gradient across IHS....who knows...but intrinsic durability, yeah, like you say that is not likely.
Edit: Unclewebb beat me by 4 mins, and with much less wordy response:D
Hi Guys,
If my sensor test reports 2,1,6,9. What value should I use in the calibration? 0, 0, -1, -2?
Try reading the section on Calibration in the documentation for some background info:
http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/docs.php
The best way to calibrate is to drop your processor down to a fixed value like 6x266MHz for 65nm or 6x333MHz for 45nm and then drop the core voltage to about 1.10 volts. Open your case and let us know a few details like what CPU you're using, what your air temperature is or water temperature if you are water cooled. A typical Quad will report temperatures about 6C above your air or water temperature during this test. Make sure your CPU is as idle as possible and that it doesn't have any background processes running that will effect your results. This is not an exact science but should get you in the ball park.
By the looks of things, I'm going to guess that you have a 45nm Quad and core0 and core1 might be very close to the sticking point. Intel says these sensors can "bottom out" at any temperature below 50C so you have to be careful when trying to calibrate. Sticking sensors can not be properly calibrated with my approach but I have a plan B if that happens. 45nm sensors can be a little on the wild and crazy side. :confused:
I was helping someone yesterday running a dual boot system with Windows 2000 and Windows XP. His load temps were the same but his idle temps were about 10C lower in XP than in 2000. I think it's because Windows 2000 wasn't letting his Core 2 Duo go into C1 at idle so it was running hotter. Anyone else heard of this before?
Hi, thanx for that, my setup is:
Q9400 + air cooling
6x333 + 1.0v set in BIOS, other settings to "Auto".
ambient temp according to my thermometer = 18c (placed just outside the side case window)
I did four sensor tests and results below:
1) 0, 0, 2, 2
2) 0, 0, 1, 1
3) 0, 0, 1, 1
4) 0, 0, 2, 1
RealTemp reports core temperature as: 26, 31, 29-31, 29-31. The last two fluctuates between 29 - 31 degrees, the first two doesn't move from 26 and 31.
How should I calibrate it from here? Thanx :)
It looks like core0 and core1 are probably stuck. You need to have your case open and all fans as high as possible for the best accuracy during this test.
What type of CPU cooler are you using?
Intel now specifies that TjMax=100C for your Q9400. Are you using that? The latest beta of RealTemp is available here if you need to upgrade:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Because you have two cores that seem to be sticking it would be a good idea to run an additional test so I can see how these sensors react between idle and full load. The test is to turn the logging feature in RealTemp on and to set the interval to 1 second. Let your computer sit idle for about a minute to give me some background info and then run Prime95 small FFTs for two minutes and then back to idle for a minute. Stop RealTemp after that and send me the RealTempLog.txt file so I can have a look. You can e-mail it to me at the address in the About... box of RealTemp or PM it to me at XS. Run this test at default MHz (333x8) and core voltage. This will let me see how the sensors in core0 and core1 compare to the other two.
Nothing will work with realtemp in Vista 64 and won't work on the 175 opteron AMD board either.
I've tried but there is no admisintrator account only me, in Vista. Could someone explain that part of Realtemp please.
thanks
bob
:welcome:Quote:
Originally Posted by rgrea
RT only works w/ Intel.
rgrea: RealTemp runs fine on Vista 64 on your Intel E8400 but AMD CPUs are not supported. If you are in a limited account you will need to right click on the RealTemp icon and run as Administrator to get the WinRing0 driver to load. RealTemp needs that driver to read the sensor in an OS friendly way.
Is it not possible, like other programs that I suppose use ring0 drivers (RivaTuner, cpu-z, Everest, SppedFan, etc.) to launch the program under Vista normally and after confirm that it is ok to use the program?Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
As you know, when actually you launch RTemp under Vista, you get a small windows that informs you to run the program as Administrator. So you have to right click, chose "run as Administrator" and finally the program starts.
It would be simpler to launch the program with the classic double-click, answer yes when Vista is asking you if you want to start the selected program and enjoy it, like the above programs do.
Thanks,
This happens also if you have an Administrator account under Vista.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Vista uses a kind of "Super Admin" rights to perform critical operations, like loading drivers into ring0.
I'm on Vista64 SP1, administrator account and RealTemp starts fine, minimized in tray (at last :D).
Vista don't ask me nothing. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Brama
Ummm, I hate to admit this but up until yesterday I had never run RealTemp on Vista. :)Quote:
As you know, when actually you launch RTemp under Vista
Well, maybe once, but that's the extent of RealTemp Vista development so far.
I finally have access to Vista for the first time today and I'm starting to learn about some of the issues that people have been complaining about for a long time.
You can run RealTemp with a double click from an icon on the desktop as long as you are an Administrator and UAC is disabled. I know there are users that think UAC is wonderful but as a user with a brain, I had it turned off in well under 24 hours. It would have been one hour but I had to fight with Vista for a while to get it to find my wireless router.
It's silly. When I double click on an icon the last thing I need is for my nanny to ask me if I really do want to run the program that I'm trying to open. Of course I want to run it or else I wouldn't be double clicking on it! The average user is not going to waste time reading the infinite warning messages so they'll just get in the habit of clicking OK or Yes to everything. My Vista rant for the day.
If you don't want to turn off UAC then you can add RealTemp to the Vista start up using the Task Scheduler where you can assign Administrator rights to RealTemp. This works without annoying messages or having to confirm anything. Maybe I'll add a Minimize on Close option so once RealTemp has started you won't accidentally close it.
Other programs use a signed ring0 driver to get around some of the Vista issues. I'm not smart enough and didn't want to waste my time learning how to write a driver so I'm using the WinRing0 open source driver. It works, didn't cost me a nickle and saved me lots of time. I'll probably continue to use it.
I've been working lately on some Vista64 Start Minimized issues with the infinitely patient burebista. Now that I can see RealTemp, which works OK in XP, not always Start Minimized properly in Vista, maybe I can finally fix this issue.
Now it always starts minimized, only Task Bar is stubborn. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
If you had a teenager son you would keep not only UAC on.......:DQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb