Pick me, pick me. In fact I'm not at stock speeds, I'm underclocked/undervolted. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
Attachment 89972
PS. I just opened window and now are 2°C outside.
Printable View
Pick me, pick me. In fact I'm not at stock speeds, I'm underclocked/undervolted. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
Attachment 89972
PS. I just opened window and now are 2°C outside.
You musn't do much with your PC if you run it like that all the time :p: I can't lower my vcore except with the abit uGuru utility which overflows with fail.
For browsing/movies/music/office is overwhelming this way. EPU take care of my FSB and Vcore, and it does a wonderful job.
For games I put it at 3GHz and everything is fine.
The uGuru chip is not supported by 99% of software. Speedfan only recently added support for something that is at least 4-5 years old, and all it does is read fan speeds and temperatures, it can't even control fan speeds. Only the abit software fully supports it, but the software stinks; it takes forever to start and isn't very stable. Is it so hard for abit to add some vcore options in the BIOS below VID? :( Well all hope is lost now that they've pulled out of the market.
At least I always have Real Temp for checking temps that sort of matter :D
@unclewebb
It is possible to have in realtemp a measure of the percentage of the time a core is in C3 or C6 state for i7?
In the pdf linked by rge, Intel explains how to take these measures by using the counters MSR_CORE_C3_RESIDENCY and MSR_CORE_C6_RESIDENCY (core level MSRs that run at the package level frequency, the same one of the TSC).
my two machines:
first Q9650 E0 @4.1ghz
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/8...led1yr1.th.gifhttp://img372.imageshack.us/img372/708/76601224yn9.gif
second X3360 (Q9550 C1) @3.9ghz seems like it has one stuck sensor ... dont know what to do with it ?
http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/4...led2bl0.th.gifhttp://img143.imageshack.us/img143/9184/42327477sh2.gif
I read that too and it does seem very interesting. The Intel Turbo document, brought to us by rge, has some excellent information in there. I'm just working at the moment with rge getting the RealTemp MHz working 100% with Turbo and C1E. rge says there is no other software at the moment doing this 100% correctly so it would be great to be the first one. Once that is done, I will check out those other features. Since Core i7 users don't have VID to look at anymore, they need something new to fill in the blank space. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by astaris
The best and only thing to do with a stuck sensor is ignore it in the range that it gets stuck in. There's nothing else you can do. Intel doesn't approve of us trying to get core temperatures out of these sensors so if they all stick at lower temperatures, that's the user's problem and not Intel's. They're not designed for accurate core temperatures from idle to TJMax.
I had to create a separate little utility to understand what's going on with the multiplier in Core i7. MSR 0x198 that some software is reading for Core i7 is not accurate when using Turbo mode and C1E.
I followed Intel's guidelines and came up with this program to test things out.
Here's how my Q6600 looks at idle with C1E enabled and Vista Minimum processor state options at 66%
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/9...rbotestna5.png
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/Turbo.zip
This tool also leads me to believe that most software may not always be correctly reading the multiplier for Core 2 based CPUs. I found a bug with my Q6600 that when the Minimum Power Option in Vista is set to 100%, two cores get locked at 9.0 like they should be but the other two cores float between 6.0 and 9.0. This new tool picks this up and will show you your average multiplier. I'm not sure if this bug is motherboard specific or maybe it's a bug in XP and Vista.
When C1E is enabled and the Power Option is dropped to 66% or less, both Dual Cores within my Quad drop to 6.0 so the ratio is 0.667 like it should be.
Give it a try and see what it shows, especially Core i7 owners.
I plan to add what I've learned into RealTemp later today for more accurate MHz for Core i7 owners.
Edit: The tool doesn't include any support for the 0.5 multis in some 45nm Core 2 processors. If you need that then let me know. It's mostly an i7 learning / testing tool.
E8400, underclocked, undervolted, C1E/EIST/C-State Tech enabled in BIOS.
Attachment 89991
burebista: It seems to be the Quads where things can get screwy. You can end up with different multis on each Dual Core within a Quad. If you see a number in the top ratio box that seems to be half way between then that is what's going on. This tester is mostly for Core i7 but I learned something new about Core 2 as well.
Have you tried out the new RTShutDown.bat file in Vista x64? I assume that it works but I haven't tried it yet. One user here was curious so I told him to give it a try but I never heard back.
LOL, sorry man I've missed this. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Works like a charm, but I can't cancel because that cmd window disappears quickly. I've tried twice, but I can't catch the window open because it's closing too quick for me. :D
You're supposed to open the command window first.
You have to cancel the shutdown immediately after an alarm goes off or else your computer will go nuclear. :D
Thanks for testing.
My E6600 looks the same in XP with C1E enabled and EIST disabled. It floats around for a while but finally settles at 0.667
Both turbo programs worked well for core i7 with EIST/C1E disabled (2nd pic). But actually the first turbo program works better for reading with speedstep enabled (2nd pic), it is like the second keeps taking a reading and kicking it out of speedstep:D
But for calculating mhz, turbo on or off, both work, just the first one worked better for speedstep readings. Of course I have nothing to compare with for sure, since yours is only program reading multi correctly with speedstep on.
Like this? :shrug:
http://www.isarapix.org/pix69/1228180518.png
bowman: The way Core i7 works is it has a base multiplier and then if the Turbo option is being used, it will bump the multiplier up by +1 or +2. In your picture the tester shows 20 as your base and it has been bumped up from 20 to 21 which is 5% higher or (1.05 times) as much.
The problem that rge discovered with RealTemp 2.89 and Everest is that when he was manually setting a lower multiplier in the bios, when Turbo mode kicked in, it would boost his multi right up to the max in one step. This is how Intel designed this feature.
This would cause the actual multi to jump from say 16 to 23 but RealTemp and Everest were only reporting a +1 boost from 16 to 17. CPUZ is handling this problem OK but it's reporting half multis (0.5) for the Core i7 which I don't believe exist. That's more of an averaged multi.
Edit: The other problem is if you use C1E, then you need to set your Power Options appropriately for it to work properly with Core i7 or any Core processor for that matter.
Here's what happens in XP:
http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/8659/laptopyz1.png
http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/9448/homexc0.png
Unless you specifically set your Power Options / Power Schemes to Portable / Laptop, you may not get the full benefit of C1E if you are using a Quad or Core i7. When set to Home/Office Desk, the multipliers on my Q6600 are going back and forth from 6.0 to 9.0 on various cores continuously. Most software may report it as 6.0 on all cores or 9.0 but this testing program would disagree. Watching what's gong on in MSR 0x198 of a Core 2 CPU would also cause most users to disagree.
The same thing happens in Vista. With Vista you need to set your Minimum processor state to about 50% or lower to make sure it keeps all of your cores at the lowest possible multiplier when C1E kicks in.
Now that I fully understand what's going on, a solution for RealTemp will be easy.
Is this a problem only with quads?
is this normal ? almost 10 *C difference on the core 0 and core 3
tj @ 100 on all cores
http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/8...0005gl5.th.jpg
Oh right. The ASUS doesn't let me do that. Either Turbo on and multiplier at Auto, or new multiplier and no Turbo. I guess that's the reason they did that. :p:
This seems to be an issue for Quads or Core i7. To me it looks like a bug in the operating system.Quote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
Edit: For me I think it might also be a problem with my old motherboard not getting along with a Quad. When I turn SpeedStep off in the bios, the MSR Tool shows that it is only getting turned off for 2 of the 4 cores.
If your C1E / SpeedStep bios settings don't agree with your power profile within your operating system then the multiplier that you end up with might not be consistent and your actual multiplier will float around. If C1E / SpeedStep is enabled in your operating system and your bios, then a Core i7 at idle will be nice and steady with the correct 12 multiplier.
Vatos_locos: Your results look very normal. At full load where these sensors are a little more accurate, your screen shot only shows a difference of 2C. I'd say that's better than average. :up:
Post a screen shot of the CPU Cool Down Test if you want me to have a better look. Some sensors can get stuck at lower temperatures and it's common for them to move at different slopes. Your 45nm Quad is far better than some of the ones I've seen.
here are my readings from an intel e8400 e0 on abit ab9 quadgt official bios 17(cpu under test) idle with c1e and EIST, everest read and bios read 1.03v idle vcore and min settings in bios is 1.215v . Also@3600 mhz 1.215 vcore without c1e and EIST and room temperature 23.9 c. I manually set tjmax to 95 from 100 both on realtemp and on everest , cause with tjmax @ 100 i get stuck @ 42 ,39 , and it think its wrong, its 2 much . Scythe infinity fan.
Hardc0r3: If you have sticking sensors, you shouldn't adjust TJMax to make your temperatures look nice at idle. Try running the CPU Cool Down Test and post your results. It might show you exactly where your sensors stick. Irfanview is a good free program that will let you crop your screen shots down. ;) With the left mouse button draw a box and then go into the menu, Edit, Crop Selection
thanks unclewebb here is the cooldown test you asked but at difrent voltages/infrequences than before
the cpu and the chipset are under water with a triple rad if that helps
Vatos_locos: The slopes of core1, 2 and 3 are pretty similar. Core0 is a little different.
Intel uses slightly different TJMax values from one core to the next. I would recommend using TJMax=100, 100, 102, 102 for your 4 cores. I would also use -2.8 for a correction factor for core0.
If you want to test this calibration, at low MHz and low core voltage you should get something like rge outlined here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2429
For a water cooled Quad at 2000 MHz and 1.10 volts, about 7C over your water temperature near your CPU is typical.
None of your sensors are sticking in your screen shot.
ok thanks uncle :p i'll do those settings :)
the only problem is that the lower vcore i can set on my board is 1.2 :p but i'll try it :)
uncleweb but i did run the cooldown test , look @ the 2 screenshot, and i changed tjmax after reading in here that idle temp should be 8 to 9c more than room temperature. Senzor are missreporting below 25%
If you enable SpeedStep and C1E and set your voltage to Auto, it might drop lower than that. Make sure your Power Options are also set correctly to get your board to drop down to the lowest voltate and multi.
Hardc0r3: Now I see your Cool Down Test. Your screen shot was so big it was hard to see it. :)
It shows that core0 is getting stuck at 58 and core1 might be sticking at 61. Try running your computer at low volts and low MHz. 2000 MHz and 1.10 volts if possible. You need to see if your core1 sensor can go to a bigger number than 61 ( if core1 can report a cooler temperature).
Rule 1 is you can't calibrate a stuck sensor and you shouldn't adjust TJMax lower to try and compensate for a stuck sensor either.
i did, look @ the last screenshot is idle temp , in bios as i said minimum which can be set is 1.215, but even with c1e and eist, cpu default fsb 333 and multi 6x, and vid going down to 1.03 (everest is the only software that can read corectly my cpu vcore together with abit uguru app on my MB Abit ab9 quadgt ), the temperature won't go below 37 with 34(the stupid core 1 senzor is stuck @ 58 distance to tjmax), which is the exact same idle temperature when i am @ 3600 1.215v without c1e and eist.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Later edit:
should i put it back to 100? cause then, instead of having 37 with 34 which is 10c more than my room temp when idle, i will get 42 with 39 minimum and that is 15c more than room temp?
SOrry everyone for my shots i am running on 24" monitor i will adjust those from now on.
If your sensor(s) are stuck then your idle temperatures will not be correct. These sensors aren't designed for accurate idle temperatures anyhow. Set TJMax back to 100 and ignore your idle temperatures. At least your load temperatures will be fairly accurate if you do this.
My i7 920 using stock settings/cooler. Temps are way too high and I'm not sure what the problem is.
Anyone got any advice?
Well good job unclewebb, looks like real temp 2.89.5 gets to be the first to accurately read mhz and multi correct on i7:up:
turbo on 182x22 bios. So should read 182x23 with light load on 1-2cores and idle. And 182x22 at full load.
At idle, turbo on, both cpuz and realtemp read accurately at 182x23, coretemp is bugged/not reading mhz/bclk correctly.
At full load all 4 cores loaded, realtemp and cpuz read correctly at 182x22, coretemp bugged.
But at only partial load with turbo enabled only realtemp is reading correctly, see pic. cpuz is reading half multis/quarter multis...not really sure what. Coretemp again is bugged.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Thank you rge. I couldn't have done it without the documentation you found for me and all of the testing you've contributed to getting this working right. Core i7 is a little different than Core 2 so it took a while to find out what's changed. If you notice any other issues just let me know.
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/2323/newmathht4.png
:up:
kasio: My opinion is that the Intel OEM cooler is barely adequate for Core i7. If you are interested in getting more out of your CPU then I would highly recommend an aftermarket cooler. There was a reason that Intel was handing out Thermalright Ultra eXtremes to testers when they introduced Core i7.
You can try remounting your cooler and maybe pull your board if you're not sure if the push pins have seated properly. For what it costs for an i7 and a motherboard and some DDR3, you might as well blow the budget a little more and get a decent cooler. You're already within a couple of degrees of thermal throttling starting to kick in.
Thanks unclewebb, I probably will get a new cooler anyway but I was worried that these temperatures were not normal. I did try remounting the cooler with new thermal compound but there was no improvement. I need to clarify that these temps are normal for a stock cooler and that my CPU is not faulty.
Oops :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
I always liked the CPU Load feature in Core Temp so I added this today.
http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/294/cpuload6lg9.png
It compares the time your CPU spends in C0 vs C1 and seems to give a good approximation of CPU Load without needing much overhead to calculate this. My Quad with two threads of Prime looks about right.
Now the question. Is this important information?
Should I update RealTemp and make it look like this.
http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/6770/cpuloadzu5.png
or should I try to add some progress bars like SpeedFan uses?
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/1118/speedfanne4.png
What do users want to see? It might also look better balanced with CPU Load put in the middle between Distance to TJMax and Minimum
Maybe above Temperature and make it progress bars.
I just tried Core Temp with 1, 2 or 3 threads of Prime. The load gets shared amongst all 4 cores so the percentages are constantly jumping up and down and it looks like useless information to me. I kind of like the single load number which was nice and constant when testing. I might keep it as is. You can never go too wrong by keeping things clean and simple.
Edit: I've noticed one interesting thing so far. The CPU Load percentages in the CPU Cool Down Test are approximations based on the Intel documentation. If you have the main RealTemp window set to CPU Load while you do a cool down test, you'll notice a big difference for some of the lower steps between theoretical CPU Load and actual CPU load. I think I will update the Cool Down test to display the actual percentages. A graph of the temperature curve might be more interesting now.
after days of trying to get an answer, it just doesn't seem like its going to be possible...
here is the history:
initial email:
Is there a chart out there anywhere that shows the TJmax settings for core 2 duo e8600's? I am using core temp 2.7 to monitor my temperatures and there is a variable setting called TJmax that I can change. I can't get an answer from anyone that is consistent. Some people say 90, 95, 100 etc etc. I have searched the intel site but I can't find any info there either. Could you please tell me where i should have this set?
I'm also curious about the TJmax setting for the e6600 that is in my wife's computer.
response:
Since there are many variables to determine the Thermal Junction, we do not have a fixed value. Furthermore, you can review the information in the following link for instructions on how to determine the value:
http://www.intel.com/support/process.../CS-011039.htm
Please do not hesitate to contact us again if you need further assistance.
Sincerely,
Cindy J.
Intel(R) Technical Support
my reply:
ok, well can you give me some sort of value??? is 85 too low??? is 110 too high???
their reply:
We would not be able to give a value range since that depends on many variables. We suggest reviewing the information in the website provided before.
Please do not hesitate to contact us again if you need further assistance.
Sincerely,
Cindy J.
Intel Technical Support
my reply:
well can you help me narrow down the setting??? what variables are involved??? i looked through the documentation you provided and i don't understand 90% of it... im not an engineer and most of that stuff is way over my head...
their reply:
The calculation of the thermal junction is not a simple task, and it involves all the variables mentioned in the website. Therefore, what we can do is point you to the formulas and instructions that are properly documented in our website.
Sincerely,
Cindy J.
Intel Technical Support
my reply:
so what is the most popular setting that people use for the e8600??? can you just give me a value that i can go by?? are you afraid of your legal department or something?
by the way, you have to have a degree in calculus to read the documentation provided.
their reply:
Perhaps you can check with the software developer if the thermal specification of the processor would be usefule for the utility. For the processor in question, it is of 72.4°C. This is not the value for the thermal junction, but the highest temperature at which the processor could operate without any problems. This is all the information we can provide.
Regards,
Cindy J.
Intel Technical Support
my reply:
here is the thing
maybe you can shed some light on this and help me decide what the appropriate setting is:
right now, my overall CPU temp is at 41c. this temperature remains the same no matter what i change the tjmax setting to.
here is where it gets tricky. the following temps are what appears for the individual cores when i change the TJmax setting.
tjmax 90:
core 1 = 26
core 2 = 26
tjmax 95:
core 1 = 31
core 2 = 31
tjmax 100:
core 1 = 36
core 2 = 36
tjmax 105:
core 1 = 41
core 2 = 41
tjmax 110:
core 1 = 46
core 2 = 46
it makes the most sense that in my case that the tjmax setting should be 100-110 seeing that those temps are the closest to overall cpu temp reading.
their reply:
The core temperature will, in most of teh cases, be higher than the overall processor temperature. This is because the cooling solution does not act on the cores directly, but on the heatspreader of the processor.
The first recommendation would be for you to contact the software developer and verify the software is designed to give accurate readings on processors with two cores. Most of the applications used for this purpose cannot differentiate the readings from the thermal diode and the electronic thermometer, which are the 2 sensors on the processor. Therefore, the readings will be inaccurate and misleading.
To conclude, since we do not recommend any specific value for the thermal junction, we do not agree with your assumption.
Please do not hesitate to contact us again if you need further assistance.
Sincerely,
Cindy J.
Intel Technical Support
I think TJMax=100C is a good default value to use and Intel agrees. That is their TJ Target for the E8600. If you use that and your sensors aren't stuck, you'll get some pretty accurate temperatures. Do a CPU Cool Down Test to make sure your sensors don't stop moving at lower temperatures.
Temperatures aren't that important anyhow. These things run great so enjoy your CPU. That's a lot more fun than trying to get any information out of an Intel rep. Do you think Cindy is human or a bot? :D
Edit: Your CPU temp comes from a different sensor and there's no guarantee that it is accurate either. It's just another number unless its accuracy can be proved. The core temp sensors aren't very accurate at lower temperatures so don't base your decision about TJMax on what your idle temps say.
Love this program. Just downloaded the new 2.89.6 and it has many features I love and glad you added to it. Also like the sensor test.
Thanks HuffPCair. I'm planning to add the actual CPU Load % to the Cool Down Test tonight. It will make it a lot easier to see when people have too much junk running in the background on their system to do an accurate cool down test.
Way to go hounding Intel there benniebeeker :up: You are contacting the wrong people if you want any useful information though. Tech support are meant to answer as vaguely as possible until you give up.
Love the new 2.89.6! I've always wanted a feature for CPU load. I think progress bars would be unnecessary as I prefer to have as little overhead as possible in my temp monitoring software. Instead of the little rectangular button that lets you cycle between different info given, I'd prefer a settings area where I could tick off which fields I want displayed in the top two lines. So for example, I would like to see on my system:
Code:Intel Quad Q6600 400 x 8.0 MHz (3200 MHz)
VID = 1.3000 T = 0:06:34
what about a gadget for the sidebar n Vista ?
i'am asking too much ? ok :p
I've been thinking about expanding the upper section to two lines.
Good idea about letting a user decide what he wants to see. Maybe a right mouse click and a small pop-up menu where you can select what you want to see for each box. Customizable software is always a good thing. I'll keep that in mind.
I'm just not a big Vista gadget fan. I had that feature on for the first week but lost interest after that and turned it off. I have a clock on my wall and a watch and I can see the time in the system tray so I found I really didn't need to see one on my desktop. I spend too much time on the computer anyhow. I don't need to be constantly reminded. I also look outside when I want to know the weather. It changes pretty quick around here. :D
I know there are some gadget fans out there so I'll continue to think about that too.
Hey man glad I could offer some feedback! Would it be possible to also add a VCore reading? That way I wouldn't need to have CPU-Z running either just for that one value.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
There was a bug or two in 2.89.6 that if two instances of it were running, they would fight each other and screw up the Load % reported so here's a quick fix.
I also added more accurate Load Percentage reporting to the Sensor Test. The previous values were Intel theoretical values. I like the actual values better. I think they change depending on what multiplier your CPU has. It's also a lot easier to see if a users computer is truly idle. Some users complain about high idle temperatures when they actually have too much junk running in the background.
http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/4...owntestvz2.png
When I ask, "What are your idle temps?", 0.0% load is what you should be shooting for. :D
I added a digit after the decimal point because it seemed to be giving me useful information. Even something simple like TaskManager bumps it up 0.5% and changing the update rate of TaskManager bumps it up another 0.5% or so. RT is low stress so it might help isolate and find junk running on your system that you didn't know about. Vista isn't too big of a CPU hog at idle as long as you have it set up properly.
This version should work better picking up the lower multis when Core i7 is idle. Lots of changes today so let me know if I screwed anything up. :up:
read closely... cindy made typos... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
YEEEEEEES! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
progress bars would be perfect, but numbers is a good upgrade, too! ;)
totally agree!Quote:
Originally Posted by wongnog
an option to disable the lower part of the realtemp where it says "thermal status" would be useful too.
I would also like a changelog every time you update realtemp in order to know exactly what changes have been made. :)
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/7177/rt290rc1ko7.png
It's been a long, long time since the last official release so I want to get something out the door in the next day or two if there are no major problems.
Here is version 2.90 release candidate 1 (RC1). I like Microsoft speak. :)
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
RejZoR and fellow haters of my unlabeled toggle button will be happy with its retirement. I added an extra line of information at the top so we can see what needs to be seen without too much extra work. The APIC ID never changes so it's written into the INI file if you are interested in finding out the order of your cores. Real time VID has been sacrificed but the Min and Max VID are still available in the Settings window for Core 2 based CPUs.
sakis_the_fraud: I'm holding off on the progress bars for CPU load. When a CPU isn't fully loaded, it's pretty much random data as the load moves around from core to core. I like the single CPU Load number better.
I'm what you'd call a manic programmer. When I start madly programming, I can barely remember what the hell I've done. It's always a surprise the next morning when I wake up. :DQuote:
I would also like a change log every time you update realtemp in order to know exactly what changes have been made
With the official version more or less done, I can now go back through 4+ months of XS posts and try to sort out what all of the new additions are. I love to program but documenting everything is kind of boring.
The Thermal Status is going to stay as is. It doesn't take up too much room, it would be a hassle hiding it and it should be easy to see so if your heatsink ever falls off, you might notice. The Core i7 runs so hot with the OEM cooler that Thermal Status is becoming a more important feature.
what about removing this 0x6fb or the timer that i have no idea what they do :p: and put in it's place a vcore reading something like Cpu-Z ?
also it would be nice to have the ability to hide some line of information with something like this http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...r/resize_1.gif
0x6FB is the CPUID. If you are looking for your CPU specs at the Intel site it might come in handy. I wish I had data for the 101,000 different motherboards out there that use 1001 different monitoring chips. CPU core voltage would be a big plus. Show me how to do it and I'll get to work on it. :)
CPU-Z gets the core voltage more or less correct on the vast majority of motherboards so I doubt RT will ever get that feature.
oh ok then :p i have no idea of programming just requesting i'am getting greedy :p:
If it was simple to do, I would have done it yesterday. CPU-Z has been around for a lot of years and has better connections than I do to new hardware.
A timer is a handy feature. Now I can see how much time I spent on the computer today. You must not have kids that always want their fair share of computer time. :)
It's also handy when you want to keep track of how long you've been doing a stress test for. I put the CPUID label back on so it's a little less cryptic. Thanks for the feedback.
ok i give up :D it's nice this way :) i still love it :D
2.90 RC-1 looks great! Especially love the top 2 lines. One change I'd like in the System Tray Settings is a choice for Display Core which is Highest Temperature Core. For my system it is always Core 0 or 1, but just in case it ever changes it would be nice if RT would always show the hottest core. It's a setting I miss from that "other" temp monitoring program... ;)
Hmmm, in that case, I'll see what I can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by wongnog
i don't think it's 100... if you set the tjmax to 100, the actual core temps are lower then the overall cpu temp which cindy pointed out is the contact on the actual ihs... i think it should be 105 or 110... it makes sense because with those settings the individual core temps are slightly higher than that of the IHS...Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
just my 2 cents... i would love to hear your opinion on this theory webb..
::EDIT::
also, after an hour or so of running prime95 with the tjmax at 100, the cores and the cpu temp even out across the board... at least from my experience...
cool down test @ 4ghz
(sorry for the unintentional double post)
That's true in theory but you're assuming that your CPU temperature sensor is 100% accurate. It's not. None of these sensors are 100% accurate across their entire operating range and none of them are properly calibrated.Quote:
Originally Posted by benniebeeker
All sensors have issues. They all have slope error where they change at different rates than the core temperature changes at. None of these sensors are "space shuttle" or military spec. Some are more more like consumer / home hobbyist spec. Many of these are about the equivalent of what you'd find in a $10 science kit.
Your sensors are not sticking down to 34C. That's better than most.
Try calibrating them using rge's method outlined here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2429
That's an example of slope error with different sensors moving at different rates as the CPU changes temperature.Quote:
also, after an hour or so of running prime95 with the tjmax at 100, the cores and the cpu temp even out across the board... at least from my experience...
Here's a good example of how my CPU temp compares to my core temperature readings when wide open.
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/276/hote8400fw5.png
At lower temperatures my CPU sensor equals or goes under the core sensors. Depends on the mood it's in. I don't trust any of these things without checking their calibration. The numbers rge has come up with will get you very accurate reported temperatures
Still even with 90C on my Q6600 G0 and 100C on my E8200's, they still run much warmer than ambient with a good HSF. The temperatures seem exactly as I would expect them to be. Except possibly the Q6600 G0 spec may be low, could be around 95C or so instead of 90C.
RealTemp uses 100C for the Q6600 G0 based on IR thermometer testing. It's reasonable to assume that the core temperature is ~5C higher than the IHS temperature. The heat spreader does a really good job at spreading heat. I think rge fried an E7200 learning that lesson when he removed the IHS and tried to do some IR testing.
I have a theory that Intel might deliberately use a slightly different TJMax in the two Dual Cores within a Quad. Screen shot after screen shot I've seen has core0/core1 reporting a slightly higher temperature compared to core2/core3. The difference as the temperature approaches TJMax is usually 0C to 5C higher on the first two cores. It goes way beyond just a coincidence but is difficult to clearly prove. RealTemp is still one of the few programs that orders the displayed data from Quads into its correct physical order. Go check out as many Prime full load Quad screen shots as you can find. You'll be surprised how many are like this.
With the new version 2.9 out I take the opportunity to say THANK YOU for this sweet little tool!
As for myself, I think using RealTemp together with the linpack intelburntest made Core2-OCing both a lot more reliable AND less time consuming (or leaving more time for some more thorough testing).
So again, thank you, and keep up the good work mate !
+1 :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by l!kw!dskw!d
Thanks guys. I'm pretty happy too with how RealTemp has shaped up.
I have plans for a few more useful features as well.
I just finally finished putting my rig together and immediately installed this tool to be sure my temps are proper before I do any kind of OC'ing.
I've read through the documentation provided (particularly the calibration section) as well as through a myriad of pages in this thread. Based on what I've read, it seems normal for 45 nm Quad cores to have temperature readings that are off and more commonly where the Core 0 and Core 1 are close to each other, and Core 2 and Core 3 are close to each other, with a potential difference of 5-10 degrees Celsius between the first two cores against the second two cores.
In that case, is it far too unusual that these were what my temp readings were (w/o calibration):
Core 0: 30
Core 1: 33
Core 2: 10
Core 3: 14
I downloaded Core Temp as well just to see what it showed and it was in fact relatively the same.
Through my readings, I know this could be caused by a number of factors such as:
a) Bad sensors as Intel did not calibrate based on idle temps
b) IHS is not seated properly and/or contact points are not even
Sorry for the long-winded background, but my question is, has anyone seen variance this drastic? If so, would it be more probable that my IHS is not seated properly or bad sensors?
System Specifications:
Asus P5Q-E
Intel Q9450 Engineering Sample Stepping C1
Lapped True 120 Extreme w/ Push/Pull
Antec P180
Ambient Temperature: 21 degrees celsius
Thank you everyone for your insight, especially Unclewebb.
Try a CPU Cool Down Test to see if you have some stuck sensor(s).
Brian75: Nice timing. I just wrote yesterday how there is a lot of evidence to suggest that Intel is using different TJMax values on core0/core1 than what they use on core2/core3 in many Quads. 45nm and 65nm. It almost seems when they are building a Quad they reach into one bin and pull out a Dual Core with a near normal TJMax for core0/core1 and use a high TJMax Dual Core in the other side.
Your results are certainly at the extreme end of the normal curve and you likely have a difference in TJMax, maybe a stuck sensor or two and probably a fair amount of slope error as well. You've definitely come to the right place to try and make some sense out of your sensors. :)
Most other temperature monitoring software has decided it's easier to simply ignore these issues that Intel readily admits do exist.
Start by downloading the latest beta if you haven't already.
RealTemp 2.90RC1
At default MHz and core voltage, run the CPU Cool Down Test and post your results. This simple test quickly tells me a pile of information about your sensors. If you're allowed to post images then upload it to Imageshack and post a link to it here or else you can send it to me at:
Real_Temp@yahoo.ca
Also try running your CPU idle at ~2000 MHz and 1.10 volts. Manually adjust it to these settings in your bios if you can or else just make sure C1E and SpeedStep are enabled. Send a screen shot of CPU-Z and RealTemp so I can have a look. Include your room temperature and make sure your case is open for best results. Try to get your CPU as cool as possible is the goal so we can compare that to your air or water temperature. Be specific about what cooling you're using.
Processors like yours can provide me with a lot of information about just how crazy sensor data can get. Once I know what's going on, I'll come up with some recommendations for calibration. I should have lots of time tomorrow for this.
Unclewebb, is there a quad esitmator for idle temps like RGE completed in your link on the last page?
RealTemp 2.90RC1 link didn't workQuote:
Start by downloading the latest beta if you haven't already.
RealTemp 2.90RC1
Try this link.
Thanks for the super quick response. Also, though I've read through a myriad of pages in this thread, if I missed some procedure or recommendation previously on using Real Temp, I apologize.
Per your request UncleWebb, I've done the following:
1) Opened up case
2) Set case on it's side so that the TRUE is upright (I know this wasn't requested, but just wanted to be sure gravity wasn't playing a factor).
3) Bios settings:
vCore (manual): 1.10
FSB (manual): 266
CPU ratio (manual): 6.0
Speedstep and C1E: Enabled
Ambient temperature is appoximately: 21 degrees celsius
Cooling (Air): Thermalright Ultra Extreme 120 w/ 2 Scythe Fans Push/Pull
Screenshots of Real Temp and CPU-Z:
1) Pre-Cool Down Test - http://www.idealabs.net/RealTemp/temp1.jpg
2) Post-Cool Down Test - http://www.idealabs.net/RealTemp/temp3.jpg
Thanks again for all of your help!
Wow, that's just... wow. Sticking sensors at 98.7% load?
jas420221: I ran a Q6600 G0 at 1600 MHz and 1.08 volts and I ran an E8400 C0 at the exact same settings on the same motherboard, etc. The difference at the wall was only 4 watts more for the Quad. Based on other testing, my best guess is that a difference in power consumption of 4 watts at idle is going to translate into a difference of only 1C higher for a Quad compared to rge's testing of an E8400.
That's the good thing about using low volts and low MHz. The difference between the majority of CPUs that Intel produces is very minimal. My 65nm E2160 with 1MB of cache at these same settings was 4 watts less than an E8400 so for a processor similar to that, I would use 1C less than rge's recommendations.
Brian75: At least you took some time and did your homework before showing up to class here at XS. I appreciate that and I also understand that not many people have time to read 110+ pages.
Can you try doing a second cool down test at your normal core voltage and MHz. If you overclock, that's fine. Run a test at those settings. That will help give me a better picture of your sensors. I need some data from higher up in the temperature curve. I think randomizer is impressed by your core0 sensor. That's typically the good one!
Unclewebb, thanks for all of your insight thus far. I was quite impressed with Core 0 too...haha.
Anyway, I don't have any original voltages or clocks as I did not begin to overclock yet. My reasoning was that I wanted the temperature gauges to be somewhat accurate for me before I do so.
Do you suggest me go ahead and proceed with my attempts overclock then report back with the Cool Down Test then?
Naturally, this may take some time, but as I am eager to get things moving, I don't mind spending the time to get the data ASAP.
I know there's no way for you to really tell, but could this be any indication that the IHS is not seated properly? My original hunch is no, because that's the whole point of having idle temps in that they should be close to each other in the first place given ideal sensors.
Brian
It's time to get overclocking that Q9450.
This is going to sound a little crazy but your sensors aren't bad at all. Sure, they're going to need some manipulation but it's far from a lost cause. Once you start overclocking and create some heat in your cores, things are going to start looking a lot better. I see 3 cores right now (1,2,3) that are going to be very usable and core0 might even start to show some life once you get the MHz and core voltage up. Tell your Quad the holiday is over. It's time to see what she'll do. :)
I'd start at 8x400 with about 1.20 volts for the core and go from there. Use some conservative memory timings to keep that out of the equation. If you get it stable here then try another Cool Down Test. Depending on your board and memory, 8 x 450 might be quite doable without too much work.
I ran my E8400 for 3 hours a couple of weeks ago with it maxed out at 98C the whole time bouncing off the thermal throttle. I needed to run Prime 95 Small FFTs and I had to turn my CPU fan off to create and maintain that kind of heat. I like having TM2 enabled in the bios to keep the temps from going nuclear during extreme testing. You don't have to worry about that but it's still a good safety feature.
You have an excellent CPU cooler. The only problem you're going to have is getting your Quad to create enough heat to get your core temperatures up into a range where your sensors are reasonably accurate. You've got a long ways to go.
Sounds like a plan to me. I was a bit hesitant originally as I did not want to damage my CPU, but my guess is that I'm far from having that happen anyway.
My goal is to get to 3.6 Ghz - essentially what you were saying, 8 x 450.
I'll get cranking on this over the weekend and will report results ASAP.
On a side note, do you think I should even reseat my heatsink to rule out variables? Though I prefer not to, because the process is quite arduous itself, if the end justifies the means, then I'm all for it.
Thanks again!
Brian
Would you believe the variance to be much different with a Q9450??Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by jas420221
I was expecting that there would be a bigger difference between 4 x 65nm cores in a Q6600 compared to 2 x 45nm cores in an E8400. The Quad also has an extra 2MB of cache (2 x 4MB vs 6MB)
There's a huge difference between these two when they are both running Prime Small FFTs at 3000 MHz but at low MHz and low voltage, the difference was only 4 watts, and that's at the plug. I think the official numbers were 136 watts vs 132 watts and the E2160 was at 128 watts.
With the CPU Cool Down Test and a Kill A Watt meter, it's very easy to see the relationship between power consumption and changes in core temperature. The difference in power consumption between a Q6600 and a Q9450 would be difficult to measure accurately because the difference would be so small. Temperature wise, at these settings, they should also be almost identical.
Brian75: I would not waste time re-seating your heatsink. The cool down test has already shown me that your CPU is behaving as it should. The difference in temperature between idle and small FFTs where you tested is in line with expectations. I don't see a problem with IHS to core contact either. Get it up to 8x450 and let's see some more numbers. You're probably going to have to use a split TJMax for your CPU. Something like 100C for the first two cores and ~110C for core2/core3. If you can and if you need to, for your next test, turn off one of your CPU fans as well to create some heat. The Thermalright is so efficient that it takes some heat to get your sensors up into a range where the data starts to become more accurate.
You'll likely need some slope error correction as well to get these 4 to line up reasonably well. That's why I need to see some more data. When we're all done, you're going to be surprised at the decent temperature data these crappy sensors are going to be able to provide you with.
Unclewebb, that's a relief to hear that I don't have to re-seat the heat sink. :)
I'll get plunking along on this and if I'm lucky may be able to get to the results I desire in the next couple of days.
Brian
@Unclewebb - have you thought of making it so you can put real temp into vista sidebar??
@uncle: that avatar suits u! :)
I've thought about it and I know there are lots of users that would like to have some RT information in their sidebar but I never use that feature so it hasn't been high priority. I'll add almost any feature, sooner or later, if I get nagged enough about it. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by HuffPCair
That's how the icon looks when it hasn't been shrunken down too much. You can almost see the serial number on that thoroughly abused E8400. I Photoshoped the digits off of the Fluke onto the chip. That design was my daughter's idea so it's a keeper. She gets kind of bummed out though. She keeps asking, "Doesn't anybody like my icon? What are they saying about it?" She takes her icon about as personal as I take my program!Quote:
that avatar suits u!
Just tried out the the new 2.9 test sensors. Awesome feature :up: This program just keeps getting better, thanks for all you've put into it.
Tell your daughter the icon is great. :)
Both the programme and the icon are world class, thanks for all the work you have put into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
:up:
have i done this correctly?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3196/...14004520_o.jpg
jasjeet: It looks about right. It also looks like it has the issue that I've talked about recently where core0/core1 likely have a different TJMax than core2/core3. If you're interested, try setting TJMax to 100,100,105,105 and then adjust your Calibration factors to balance your idle temps again. The temps coming from my Q6600, which looks very similar to yours, look a lot better balanced and more realistic between idle and TJMax when set this way. Start and stop Prime95 Small FFTs with 4 cores loaded and watch how the temperatures look a lot more consistent from one core to the next.
Intel has said that TJMax is not a written in stone kind of number and there is some variation from one part to the next. They just haven't said how much variation there is. Quads consist of two separate Dual Cores and it sure looks like unbalanced TJMax is playing a factor in reported temperatures.
ok am doing it now, will post the picture in 10minutes once it finishes
The cool down test will show the same thing since it's just showing the raw data coming from the CPU. I'd use 0 calibration on cores0, 2 and 3 and only a slight factor on core 1 to balance core 0 while using the split TJMax numbers.
Turn on the log file option and set it to a 1 second interval and then run Prime. Run it for 30 seconds to a minute and then let it cool down. I think your temps are going to be very well balanced. After that you can try resetting your computer to 1600 MHz and 1.10 volts and compare your idle temperature to your room temperature. A difference somewhere around 8C is pretty typical with a Q6600.
ok, will post results in 1 minute, this is looking real good
uploaded as attatchment
0,1,0,0 looks like some nice simple calibration factors.
When I started this project I thought that all the problems were slope error. Like most people I believed that the Intel assembly line was setting TJMax very consistently but it sure doesn't seem like that now after viewing 101 Cool Down Tests. That feature alone has been a God send to help my understanding of these damn sensors! :)
You can use the code and /code html tags if you want to post some of your log file.
yeah, i used 0,1,0,0 in this one, TJmax at 100,100,105,105. seems like some consistent results, awesome job!
lol kl, its there below
Code:12/07/08 22:03:50 42 38 39 38
12/07/08 22:03:51 37 36 37 37
12/07/08 22:03:52 37 36 37 37
12/07/08 22:03:53 37 36 37 37
12/07/08 22:03:54 37 37 37 38
12/07/08 22:03:55 37 36 37 37
12/07/08 22:03:56 37 37 37 37
12/07/08 22:03:57 36 36 37 37
12/07/08 22:03:58 36 36 36 37
12/07/08 22:03:59 36 36 36 37
12/07/08 22:04:00 37 36 36 37
12/07/08 22:04:01 36 36 37 37
12/07/08 22:04:02 37 36 37 37
12/07/08 22:04:03 36 36 36 37
12/07/08 22:04:04 36 36 37 37
12/07/08 22:04:05 37 36 36 37
12/07/08 22:04:06 36 36 36 37
12/07/08 22:04:07 36 36 37 37
12/07/08 22:04:08 52 53 52 52
12/07/08 22:04:09 55 56 55 53
12/07/08 22:04:10 55 56 55 54
12/07/08 22:04:11 56 57 56 55
12/07/08 22:04:12 56 57 56 55
12/07/08 22:04:13 57 58 56 55
12/07/08 22:04:14 56 57 57 55
12/07/08 22:04:15 57 58 57 56
12/07/08 22:04:16 57 58 57 56
12/07/08 22:04:17 58 58 57 56
12/07/08 22:04:18 58 59 57 56
12/07/08 22:04:19 58 59 57 57
12/07/08 22:04:20 58 59 59 57
12/07/08 22:04:21 58 59 59 57
12/07/08 22:04:22 58 59 59 57
12/07/08 22:04:23 58 59 59 57
12/07/08 22:04:24 59 60 59 57
12/07/08 22:04:25 59 60 59 57
12/07/08 22:04:26 59 60 60 59
12/07/08 22:04:27 59 60 60 59
12/07/08 22:04:28 59 60 60 57
12/07/08 22:04:29 59 60 60 59
12/07/08 22:04:31 60 61 60 59
12/07/08 22:04:32 60 61 60 59
12/07/08 22:04:33 60 61 60 59
12/07/08 22:04:34 60 61 60 59
12/07/08 22:04:35 60 61 61 60
12/07/08 22:04:36 60 61 61 60
12/07/08 22:04:37 61 61 61 60
12/07/08 22:04:38 61 61 61 60
12/07/08 22:04:39 61 61 61 60
12/07/08 22:04:40 61 61 61 60
12/07/08 22:04:41 61 61 61 60
12/07/08 22:04:42 61 61 61 60
12/07/08 22:04:43 61 61 61 60
12/07/08 22:04:44 61 61 61 60
12/07/08 22:04:45 61 61 61 60
12/07/08 22:04:46 61 61 62 60
12/07/08 22:04:47 61 61 62 61
12/07/08 22:04:48 61 61 62 61
12/07/08 22:04:49 61 61 62 61
12/07/08 22:04:50 61 61 62 61
12/07/08 22:04:51 62 62 62 61
12/07/08 22:04:52 62 62 62 61
12/07/08 22:04:53 62 62 62 61
12/07/08 22:04:54 62 62 62 61
12/07/08 22:04:55 62 62 62 61
12/07/08 22:04:56 62 62 62 61
12/07/08 22:04:57 62 62 62 61
12/07/08 22:04:58 62 62 62 61
12/07/08 22:04:59 62 61 63 61
12/07/08 22:05:00 62 62 63 61
12/07/08 22:05:01 62 62 63 61
12/07/08 22:05:02 62 62 63 62
12/07/08 22:05:03 62 62 63 61
12/07/08 22:05:04 62 62 63 62
12/07/08 22:05:05 62 62 63 62
12/07/08 22:05:06 63 63 63 62
12/07/08 22:05:07 63 63 63 62
12/07/08 22:05:08 63 63 63 62
12/07/08 22:05:09 63 63 63 62
12/07/08 22:05:10 63 63 63 62
12/07/08 22:05:11 63 63 63 62
12/07/08 22:05:12 63 63 63 62
12/07/08 22:05:13 63 63 63 62
12/07/08 22:05:14 63 63 63 62
12/07/08 22:05:15 63 63 63 62
12/07/08 22:05:16 63 63 63 62
12/07/08 22:05:17 63 63 63 62
12/07/08 22:05:18 63 63 63 62
12/07/08 22:05:19 63 63 64 62
12/07/08 22:05:20 63 63 64 62
12/07/08 22:05:21 63 63 64 62
12/07/08 22:05:22 63 63 64 62
12/07/08 22:05:23 63 63 64 62
12/07/08 22:05:24 63 63 64 62
12/07/08 22:05:25 63 63 64 63
12/07/08 22:05:26 63 63 64 62
12/07/08 22:05:27 63 63 64 63
12/07/08 22:05:28 63 63 64 63
12/07/08 22:05:29 65 65 64 63
12/07/08 22:05:30 63 63 64 63
12/07/08 22:05:31 65 65 64 63
12/07/08 22:05:32 65 65 64 63
12/07/08 22:05:33 65 65 64 63
12/07/08 22:05:34 65 65 64 63
12/07/08 22:05:35 65 65 64 63
12/07/08 22:05:36 65 65 64 63
12/07/08 22:05:37 65 65 64 63
12/07/08 22:05:38 65 65 64 63
12/07/08 22:05:39 65 65 64 63
12/07/08 22:05:40 65 65 64 63
12/07/08 22:05:41 65 65 64 63
12/07/08 22:05:42 65 65 64 63
12/07/08 22:05:44 65 65 64 63
12/07/08 22:05:45 65 65 65 63
12/07/08 22:05:46 65 65 65 63
12/07/08 22:05:47 62 63 65 63
12/07/08 22:05:48 65 65 64 63
12/07/08 22:05:49 65 65 64 63
12/07/08 22:05:50 65 65 64 63
12/07/08 22:05:51 65 65 65 63
12/07/08 22:05:52 65 65 64 63
12/07/08 22:05:53 65 65 65 63
12/07/08 22:05:54 57 58 57 55
12/07/08 22:05:55 49 48 48 48
12/07/08 22:05:56 48 46 45 47
12/07/08 22:05:57 47 46 45 45
12/07/08 22:05:58 46 45 45 45
12/07/08 22:05:59 46 45 44 44
12/07/08 22:06:00 46 44 43 44
12/07/08 22:06:01 46 45 44 44
12/07/08 22:06:02 45 44 43 44
12/07/08 22:06:03 45 44 43 44
12/07/08 22:06:04 45 44 42 43
12/07/08 22:06:05 45 44 42 43
12/07/08 22:06:06 44 43 42 43
12/07/08 22:06:07 44 43 42 43
12/07/08 22:06:08 44 43 42 42
12/07/08 22:06:09 44 43 42 42
12/07/08 22:06:10 44 43 42 42
12/07/08 22:06:11 44 43 42 42
12/07/08 22:06:12 43 41 41 42
12/07/08 22:06:13 43 41 41 42
12/07/08 22:06:14 43 41 41 42
12/07/08 22:06:15 43 41 41 42
12/07/08 22:06:16 43 41 41 41
12/07/08 22:06:17 43 41 41 41
12/07/08 22:06:18 43 41 41 41
12/07/08 22:06:19 43 41 41 41
12/07/08 22:06:20 43 40 41 41
12/07/08 22:06:21 42 40 41 41
12/07/08 22:06:22 42 40 40 41
12/07/08 22:06:23 42 40 40 41
12/07/08 22:06:24 42 40 40 41
12/07/08 22:06:25 42 40 40 41
12/07/08 22:06:26 42 40 40 40
12/07/08 22:06:27 42 40 40 40
12/07/08 22:06:28 42 40 40 40
12/07/08 22:06:29 40 40 40 40
12/07/08 22:06:30 40 39 40 40
12/07/08 22:06:31 40 39 40 40
12/07/08 22:06:32 40 39 40 40
12/07/08 22:06:33 40 39 40 40
12/07/08 22:06:34 40 39 40 40
12/07/08 22:06:35 40 39 39 40
12/07/08 22:06:36 40 39 39 39
12/07/08 22:06:37 40 39 39 39
12/07/08 22:06:38 40 39 39 40
12/07/08 22:06:39 40 39 39 39
12/07/08 22:06:40 40 39 39 39
12/07/08 22:06:41 39 39 39 39
12/07/08 22:06:42 39 39 39 39
12/07/08 22:06:43 39 39 38 39
12/07/08 22:06:44 39 38 39 39
12/07/08 22:06:45 39 38 38 39
12/07/08 22:06:46 39 39 38 39
12/07/08 22:06:47 40 39 39 39
12/07/08 22:06:48 40 39 39 39
12/07/08 22:06:49 39 38 38 39
12/07/08 22:06:50 39 38 38 39
12/07/08 22:06:51 39 38 38 39
12/07/08 22:06:52 39 38 38 39
12/07/08 22:06:53 39 38 38 38
12/07/08 22:06:54 39 38 38 38
12/07/08 22:06:56 38 38 38 38
12/07/08 22:06:57 38 38 38 38
12/07/08 22:06:58 38 38 38 38
12/07/08 22:06:59 38 38 39 39
12/07/08 22:07:00 38 38 38 38
When you have 4 cores, all doing the exact same thing, running the same program, I think my version of the truth looks a lot more believable than the raw data coming from these sensors would lead you to believe. If I had a dollar every time someone remounted their cooler because their temps didn't look right, I'd be a rich man!
All you have to do now is head to the bios and boot up at 266x6 ~ 1600 MHz and 1.10 volts and make sure that your idle temps are realistic. I'm pretty sure they will be.
i have one question though, the intel spec says Q6600 has a TjMax of 90, i belive this to be false as this would make my idle temps near ambient, if i told you my ambient was around 22 degrees, and i have my OCz Vendetta 2 heatsink on max speed, would it no be possible i could running a TjMax as the following, 95,95,100,100, therefore making my temperatures around 10 degrees greater than ambient at 32 degrees??
what do you think?
That Intel TJ Target number of 90C is pretty meaningless. The best test is to run your CPU at low MHz and low voltage with your case open and compare your reported core temperature to your room temperature near your CPU. I think the results of this test will show you whether 95,95,100,100 is more likely or less likely than 100,100,105,105. You might need a number somewhere between these two. I'm betting on 100,100,105,105. :up:
rge put a lot of time into coming up with some calibration recommendations.
He also burned through and drilled through a CPU or two. Maybe 3.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2429
ok kl man, im going to stick with 100,100,105,105, as at low Mhz in my previos post, it gives the temperature i estimated, so ill leave it at that, thanks for your help and a wicked program. i had enough of these low clocks already lol so im going back to a yummy 3.2ghz l8az
If you're estimating that much higher than the official Tj Target then it's no wonder Intel don't want to disclose how large X is.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
If your case was closed during your test then 100/105 looks pretty good for your two sets of cores. If your case was open then you could subtract 2 degrees from my TJMax numbers and maybe use 98/103. There are so many variables that I usually just round off TJMax to the nearest 5 and use one that makes sense.
randomizer: I think the reason why Intel low balled the 65nm Target TJMax numbers is because they got tired of answering questions about why users temperatures were so high. I think G0 TJ Target is closer to 100 with actual TJMax being somewhere in the 100C to 105C range. 45nm sensors seem to have a wider range. Maybe 100C to 110C for most of them. Until Intel provides us with some engineering data, all we can do is guess. Oh, I forgot, that data doesn't exist. :rofl: