Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

TL1000S: My personal opinion of your processor is that the DTS on one of your cores is stuck and the other is suffering from the "reporting way too low" problem that Brama had a few pages ago. If that is the case then it's impossible for RealTemp or any other program to give you accurate idle temperatures without a thorough IR thermometer calibration. I still believe that TjMax=95C across the entire E8x00 series but I'd need a big box of processors from different batches and my IR gun to definitively prove it. For some reason, I don't think Intel would be in any mood to share after seeing my Test Sensors feature.

rge: The funny thing about my E2160 is that it has the higher Thermal Specification of 73.2C but all of my testing leads me to believe that TjMax is only 85C. My original E6400 had a TjMax=85C and a Thermal Specification = 61.4°C. I lost faith in trying to figure out TjMax based on Thermal Specification after this.

RealTemp does assume TjMax=85C for the B3 Q6600 vs 95C for the G0 Q6600. They were ready to hang me on one forum for this theory but no one has stepped up, yet, to prove me wrong. A user on XS complained about this but after he did some testing, he wasn't able to show me anything to contradict my original TjMax assumption. A B3 Quad contains two B2 dual cores which have a TjMax=85C so I've assumed that the B3 would be the same. If someone wants to loan me one I'll be happy to do a thorough test. :D

TL1000S: Does a (++) Idle Calibration get your idle temps close to believable? This feature is not exact but I thought for you processor it might be pretty close on the one core that isn't stuck. Show us a RealTemp screen shot vs your water temp if you can.

I'll explain in other ways to the individuals of main relevance here and we will continue discussing and investigating with honesty. I think I've retreived what was needed but as the inidviduals concerned know I'm restricted quite heavily now, apologies. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

The funny thing about my is that it has the higher Thermal Specification of 73.2C but all of my leads me to believe that TjMax is only 85C.

---

You have the 6FD 2160 that is 73 Tcase http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLA8Z, and not 6F2 that is 61 tcase http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLA3H ?

Edit, never mind just found your E2160, it is the 6FD with tcase 73. That is pretty screwy. Both have same TDP, and if Tjmax is same, then theta (core to tcase) is different between the two.

plugging in tjmax of 85 for both, 6F2 (L2 with tcase 61) theta is .38C/W which is typical, the 6FD (MO with tcase 73) is 0.18 C/W. If both have tjmax of 85, I wonder if one uses solder and one a die attach adhesive. But the theta of one is twice the other which is certainly plausible given all the white papers describing the different approaches for die attach adhesives.

Now, I really want someone to send you their B stepping quad, or get gigabyte to measure tcase of the e4300 version with other tcase. maybe intel is trying out in mass scale different bond adhesives, ie solder or other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

TL1000S: Does a (++) Idle Calibration get your idle temps close to believable? This feature is not exact but I thought for you processor it might be pretty close on the one core that isn't stuck. Show us a RealTemp screen shot vs your water temp if you can.

---

Yes, ++ get idle temps close to believeable. :)

I have noe screenshots/photos available as of writing this, but idle temp is about the same as watertemp using (++) Idle Calibration.

I shall check again.

Keep up your excellent work! :up:

TL1000S: My graph in post #1 of this thread shows what I've been finding. The DTS data changes at a different rate than the change in core temperature once you move farther and farther away from TjMax. I don't have a cooler attached to my Q6600 yet but I've got a pretty good feeling that it too will show this sort of behavior.

The (--) and (++) Idle Calibration were designed with my E6400 and E8400 in mind as well as what I've gathered from other users over the last year or so. I'll admit that trying to correct for a sensor that does not perform 100% linearly is a bit of a guessing game but I think correcting down low where the actual problem is, is a far better solution than software that has been adjusting TjMax upward to try to correct for "too low" idle temperatures. If TjMax is incorrect then your reported temperatures will be mostly wrong across the entire temperature range except for a single point near idle.

rge: Once I sell off one or two processors I would definitely get an early E4300 to solve that mystery and if I trip over a B3 Q6600 I wouldn't be able to resist adding it to my collection. :D I'm very confident that TjMax=95C is correct for my G0 and it will be interesting to see idle temps in my 11C basement after it sits all night.

As an aside, I did a comparison of how much power my computer uses at idle with 3 different processors. Everything was equal for each test like core voltage and MHz.

E2160 - 115 watts
E8400 - 119 watts
Q6600 - 125 watts

The 45nm E8400 may be a more efficient design but the extra cache uses more power and creates more heat than a dual core with only 1M of cache. The difference is only 4 watts though which any good air cooler would have no trouble dissipating at idle. This helps confirm my theory that processors set to a fixed low voltage and low MHz at idle should idle at very similar temperatures across the dual core line. Sky high idle temps that some software is reporting for the E8400 just can't be right.

The Quad is a little different and uses more power and creates more heat but even so I don't expect that it's idle temperature is going to be way higher than a dual core in this test. It has twice the surface area compared to a dual core so better heat transfer will also help keep idle temps down. Maybe 6C over ambient at idle is reasonable for a Quad at 1600 MHz and 1.10 volts.

On B3 Q6600 the TjMax would be around 85c right ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demo

On B3 Q6600 the TjMax would be around 85c right ?

---

This is what RealTemp assumes but I believe other programs like CoreTemp are assuming 100C. If anyone out there has a B3 I would appreciate it if you could run OlsMsrEditor and do a RDMSR of 0xEE and post your findings. I would also appreciate it if you could run some low speed, low voltage tests and post your results.

http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/7...msr0xeebr3.png

On my B2 E6400 with TjMax=85C, this first digit is a C so bit 30 is set while on my Q6600 it is an 8 so bit 30 is not set. I'm not convinced that this bit has meaning across the entire desktop line but I'm also not convinced that it doesn't have any meaning. I'm just doing my research and will continue to do so until everyone has a program they can trust. I might be at this for a while. Reports for different CPUs is always appreciated.

My Q6600 has the heatsink on it and it is pretty obvious that the sensor for core2 is moving at a different rate than the other ones. The difference between cores was usually 3 during previous idle testing with the heatsink sitting loosely on top. Now with the lower core temperature the delta sometimes jumps back and forth between 4 and 6 compared to the other sensors. Even CoreTemp is reporting it at or below room temperature. These sensors were never designed for reporting idle temperatures and this is just another example of this. This isn't just a 45nm or dual core issue.

With a (++) Idle Calibration on this core the temp looks very believable but the other cores only need a (+) calibration so individual calibration for the Quads has just moved up to the top of the things to do list. I'll try to do some more testing tomorrow morning from the basement. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

I'm just doing my research and will continue to do so until everyone has a program they can trust. I might be at this for a while. Reports for different CPUs is always appreciated.

---

Here is my contribution and greetings from Sweden.

So how do I calibrate for a quad when cores 1,2 seem to be ok, but 3,4 are at ambient?

http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/9...1600vo2.th.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lowtcell

So how do I calibrate for a quad when cores 1,2 seem to be ok, but 3,4 are at ambient?

---

Give me a day or two and I'll have an update of RealTemp ready for you. My Q6600 is similar with core0 and core1 being identical, core3 is close to the first two and then core2 is always significantly less. I plan to go with individual core calibration which will help things out at idle but I think with my quad there is always going to be a degree or two of difference. This could be a sign of two cores operating at a slightly different temperature but after seeing all the E8x00 sensor issues, this looks like more of the same. Since Intel doesn't design these sensors for reporting idle temperatures, they probably didn't do anything to balance two different dual cores when they were building the quads.

In preliminary testing with TjMax=95C, cores 0,1,3 need a (+) and core2 needs a (++). With this correction, idle temps look reasonable and load temps at around 60C are close to exact.

Thanks ChrisZ for the info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Give me a day or two and I'll have an update of RealTemp ready for you. My Q6600 is similar with core0 and core1 being identical, core3 is close to the first two and then core2 is always significantly less. I plan to go with individual core calibration which will help things out at idle but I think with my quad there is always going to be a degree or two of difference. This could be a sign of two cores operating at a slightly different temperature but after seeing all the E8x00 sensor issues, this looks like more of the same. Since Intel doesn't design these sensors for reporting idle temperatures, they probably didn't do anything to balance two different dual cores when they were building the quads.

In preliminary testing with TjMax=95C, cores 0,1,3 need a (+) and core2 needs a (++). With this correction, idle temps look reasonable and load temps at around 60C are close to exact.

Thanks ChrisZ for the info.

---

Thanks, I'll wait for the update :up: At full load, cores 3,4 are always 2c bellow 1,2, no matter what clocks or Vcore I'm at.

I discovered that my EVGA 780i CPU Core voltage goes down to 0.50v. I decided not to tempt fate to test my idle temperature so I set my Vcore to 1.125v which gave me 1.08v. My ambient temperate was 22c.

Attachment 75959

This is what I got putting a load on my Q6600 at 3600 MHz (400 x 9).

Attachment 75960

msgclb: Your Q6600 looks similar to the one I have. The idle temp sags on core2.

I'm presently testing individual idle calibration and it seems to get my Quad a little better lined up at idle. I get almost exact load temps (~50C to 60C) on core0 and core1 compared to an IR thermometer with TjMax=95C but the idle temps are too low so setting a calibration of 1 for three of the cores and a calibration of 2 for core2 brings the idle temps up to believable.

Here is a pic of the low MHz / low core voltage test that I recommend for setting your calibration factor.

Here how my Q6600 looks at a room temp of about 18C to 19C.
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/3...temp225wu4.png

I need to do some more full load testing before the next release.

Can someone run OlsMsrEditor and read 0xEE on an E4300? I'm very curious about that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

msgclb: Your Q6600 looks similar to the one I have. The idle temp sags on core2.

I'm presently testing individual idle calibration and it seems to get my Quad a little better lined up at idle. I get almost exact load temps (~50C to 60C) on core0 and core1 compared to an IR thermometer with TjMax=95C but the idle temps are too low so setting a calibration of 1 for three of the cores and a calibration of 2 for core2 brings the idle temps up to believable.

---

Thanks.

my crappy B3 X3210

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/5539/realtempnr8.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Can someone run OlsMsrEditor and read 0xEE on an E4300? I'm very curious about that one.

---

here is an e4300:

Attachment 76036

MSR 0xEE is the same for both cores:

MSR 0x000000EE edx=0xA8000000 eax=0xC17D4700

there's a version 2.25 already? what's the difference from previous versions?

There is 2.24 as far as im aware of.

Thanks by the way Unclewebb, i was wondering why my core 1 was at 65C through everest at 1.42v underload, now its way more believable at 55C core1, 45C core2, thanks so much man.

I have one question, on both of my cores they have VERY high movement. usually core 1 has 13(almost always) and core 2 has 9 to 11 usually. This is with full idle like the thing stated, is there anything wrong? Is it good? it said it should be 0-10, Is it because of my higher voltage? Thanks for the program, cant wait for the next release!

Furiøùs: When I was originally writing the Test Sensors feature I was using a 45nm E8400 at about 4050 MHz and not too much core voltage. With additional overclocking and core voltage you will get bigger changes in temperature during this test. My Q6600 goes up about 10 degrees per core during this test at 3305 MHz and 1.40 volts. At the more typical 3600 MHz and 1.50 volts or so, it's going to be jumping more than that.

I think a difference between cores in a dual core of about 3 is pretty normal but I'm not sure what causes that. In theory, if both cores are given the same work load you would expect that both cores would heat up an equal amount but that isn't always the case. It could have something to do with how you applied the thermal paste or how Intel soldered the IHS to the cores or how you screwed down your heat sink or if both surfaces are perfectly flat and square to each other or who knows. The test was basically designed to find sensors that are getting stuck which is too common in the first batch of E8x00 processors. Uneven idle temps and zero movement in this test is a very good sign of a stuck sensor that won't provide accurate idle temps.

fgw: Thanks for that post. The first C in eax shows that bit 30 of MSR 0xEE is set in your E4300. It's also set in my E6400 and E2160 which both have a proven TjMax=85C. More evidence that the E4300 probably doesn't have a TjMax=100C but I still need to test one to confirm this.

emoners: Version 2.25 is beta at the moment and I'm working on individual idle calibration for each core which seems to be a necessity for many Quad core processors. In the pic I posted above you will see that even though the data coming directly from the DTS sensors ( Distance to TjMax ) is inconsistent, the reported core temps are much closer. I'll update the first picture in this thread when it is ready to be downloaded.

ken: Have you ever tried running your B3 at low MHz and low core voltage like 1600 MHz and 1.10 volts to see how your reported core temperatures compare to your room temperature? If someone with a B3 could do that it might help prove what TjMax really is for the B3. Either that or maybe I could trade my G0 straight across for a B3. Any takers? :D

For comparison, my G0 Q6600 at 3305 MHz and 1.416 volts idles at a calibrated 30C in a closed case with a Tuniq Tower on low speed with a room temperature of about 18C.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

ken: Have you ever tried running your B3 at low MHz and low core voltage like 1600 MHz and 1.10 volts to see how your reported core temperatures compare to your room temperature?

---

I dont have anything to measure my room temp and I dont think my mobo (P5B-D) can go as low as 1.1v but I will give a try later today and report back :) Rite now my X3210 (375x8 with 1.384v, cooled by TRUE) idle at 27/27/24/24.

p/s: any chance you could change the color(or size) of the core temperatures to something different than the rest so its easier/quicker to see?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lowtcell

Thanks, I'll wait for the update :up: At full load, cores 3,4 are always 2c bellow 1,2, no matter what clocks or Vcore I'm at.

---

Well, on the other hand mine on idle are, ummm, crazy is the word?

This is how it looks after hours on idle, CPU is water cooled, I've changed the goop from Arctic Silver 5 to Arctic Ceramique because I couldn't believe the deltas... alas results remain consistent and unchanged. Have a good laugh, I'm not kidding ;-) Ambient is 21 C.

Here's my XEON Quad-core X3210 G0

Assuming Tjmax is the same as the Q6600 and the cores idle 6*C above ambient w/ my cooling (TRU120E & 115CFM Panaflo fan, MX-2)...It looks like cores0/1 are good at (0) calibration, and cores2/3 need (+).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ken

p/s: any chance you could change the color(or size) of the core temperatures to something different than the rest so its easier/quicker to see?

---

The good old P5B-D is my test bed. You can set core voltage in the bios to 1.10 volts and that gets me about 1.08 volts at idle. A large font like TAT uses for core temps is an excellent idea. I'll keep that in mind.

On my Quad, the sensors for core0 and core1 look pretty decent but I'm not too sure about core2 and core3. Maybe dual cores with good sensors go in one side of a Quad and the other side gets a dual core with the not so good sensors.

At full Prime load (small FFTs) on all 4 cores, core0 and core1 both report 62C while core2 and core3 both report 57C or 5C less. Most of the dual cores I've seen are very accurate at 60C. If the sensors are accurate for all 4 cores at full load then the only thing I can think of is that core2 and core3 are not receiving the same core voltage as core0 and core1 and this is causing them to run cooler at full load. How about some Quad screen shots with Prime small FFTs running on all 4 cores? Do core2 and core3 always run cooler?

jason4207: Your processor is definitely a candidate for individual idle core calibration. What temps do you get at full load?

chrisZ: Thanks for that screen shot. That makes TjMax=95C look very believable for the 45nm Quad processors. The next RealTemp should make your 4 idle temps a lot more comparable. How about some Prime load temps now?

Thanks for clearing that up Unclewebb, Realtemp rocks. told a few of my buddies about it too, they agree also. Im pushing alot of vCore at 4.1GHz, so yea. Probably why its higher. thanks man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

jason4207: Your processor is definitely a candidate for individual idle core calibration. What temps do you get at full load?

---

At full load the 2 dies are different by 5*C, so they are tracking together pretty well. Maybe the 2 dies have different TjMax's? :shrug:

I would say it's a mounting issue or die-IHS contact, but the die in question is actually colder...you'd think it'd be hotter if it was getting bad contact.

What do you think?