Printable View
They should have done their research before the first round of numbers. I mean c'mon, way below ambient on air? They should have picked up on what was going to happen, and stuck with the higher numbers to start with. Oh that's right, it was just... slope error... of course...Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
The Core0 and Core1 in my Intel Xeon E5440 CPU were getting stuck at a DTS value of 67 at idle. Does this mean the real temperatures of these two cores are almost same with other two cores? Only when the real temperatures of these two cores are higher than 67, then can I see the change of temperatures of these two cores? Is the stuck a big issue and do I need to worry about this? Thanks.
Generally yes, but as you can see from jasjeet example it's possible to see a 5°C (more or less) delta between each cores group.Quote:
Originally Posted by ericjia
Yes indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ericjia
For me it's not a issue and to quote uncle:Quote:
Originally Posted by ericjia
Anyway, take latest Realtemp and make a CPU Cool Down test. Then you'll see how your sensors move.Quote:
Go use your computer and be happy. :)
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Download the latest version and do a CPU Cool Down Test.
This will tell me a lot more about your sensors. It looks like two of them are stuck alright.
You're right. It's very likely the temperatures are similar for all cores. Lots of sensor issues with these things.
If your CPU runs good then there's no need to worry about this problem. It just won't report accurate idle temperatures. If you ever get core0/core1 above 67C then they will probably work fine.
I switched RealTemp to UNICODE and hope that I finally fixed this ugly problem:
http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/9458/uglygn6.png
Thanks Kevin for this amazing program.
I'm also a developer and all I can say is, the current 290 version of this program is almost perfect.
Keep up the good work,
Your welcome Metroid. Thank-you for showing off RealTemp with your speedy i7 920. The best way to spread RealTemp is by word of mouth and your 920 at 4.2GHz speaks volumes. :up:
I always have plans for a few more improvements to project RealTemp. Stay tuned.
Can I say this CPU is a defective product? Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Here is the CPU Cool Down test.
1. Why do Real Temp 2.70 and 2.90 obtain different core temperatures at idle for the same system? (the right snap shot is from v2.7)
2. From CPU Cool Down test result, can I say the maximum core temperatures are around 72, which is same with stuck temperature (core0/core1)?
3. The new version solved the degree symbol display issue (for Chinese). Great!
4. One small bag: when "Always on Top" is selected, if you right click the title of the main window, you don't have any chance to select any item from the menu. The menu either moves back to the main window quickly or destroys the main window display.
Any input about my CPU cool down test is appreciated.
As long as the CPU throttles at an appropriate temperature, the sensors are working as they were designed to. Therefore Intel won't accept it as defective.Quote:
Originally Posted by ericjia
is it true that the tjmax for Q6600 G0 is 90c?
ericjia: 1) The problem with getting temperature data from Intel Core processors is that they do not have a typical thermometer inside. They work backwards. As the CPU heats up the Distance to TJMax decreases until it reaches zero. At this point, or about 2 degrees before this point, the processor will start to thermal throttle and try to cool itself down. The formula used looks like this:
Reported Temperature = TJMax - DTS
DTS is the raw data from the digital thermal sensors and TJMax is the temperature where the DTS will be reporting zero.
The problem has always been that Intel has been very secretive about TJMax and until just recently have refused to release this information to users. Intel is calling the numbers they did release recently TJ Target which may or may not be exactly equal to TJMax. For some processors it seems that the two are pretty much equal while for other processors TJMax might be 10C or more degrees higher than Intel's TJ Target numbers.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you don't have the correct TJMax for your processor then using that formula above is not going to be able to give you accurate core temperatures.
If you open up the Settings window in both version of RealTemp you will notice that one version uses TJMax=95C and the latest version uses TJMax=100C. That's where the 5C difference in your reported temperatures is coming from.
As a programmer, there seem to be so many inconsistencies in the documentation released by Intel that I've decided to ignore it. Intel also admits that TJMax is not a fixed number and may vary a little from one processor to the next, even of the exact same model. TJMax also seems to vary from the left side to the right side of many Quad core processors. Because of all of these problems as well as the sticking sensors that your CPU has, Intel does not recommend using them to report core temperatures. They disagree with programs like RealTemp and they probably really dislike the latest Cool Down Test in RealTemp that shows users just how bad these sensors really are.
I looked up your E5440 and Intel says the TJ Target is 85C. I have no idea how accurate that is. Changing RealTemp and setting TJMax to 85C instead of the present 100C is going to instantly drop your reported temperatures by 15C. Is this accurate? I don't know. Maybe.
The best test that we've come up with to try and prove whether a TJMax value is possible or impossible is by running your CPU at very low MHz and core voltage. The plan is to reduce the heat output to a fixed amount so you can compare to what other users have found. The problem you'll have with this test is that your motherboard may not allow you to set your core voltage manually to a low enough value. For 45nm, I recommend about 2000 MHz and 1.10 volts. If your board doesn't allow manual voltage adjustment then make sure SpeedStep and C1E are enabled in the bios. After you boot up and when you are at idle, your computer should drop down the voltage and MHz to similar values. Use a program like CPU-Z to confirm this.
Try this test and compare your reported idle temperature to your room temperature near your open computer case. 8C to 10C higher is a typical gradient depending on what CPU cooler you're using. Let me know a few more details like that.
2) Holy smokes. So far I've only answered question 1. :)
At the moment, we can't say anything about your maximum core temperature during this test. Until we are more sure of TJMax, these are just a bunch of numbers.
3) You have no idea how happy I am to finally have got rid of the Chinese symbol. Switching a program after the fact to UNICODE was about an 8 hour pain in the butt just to get rid of that funny looking character. Do you know what it means? I hope I didn't offend anyone with that.
4) I don't think I can do anything to fix problem 4. I've also noticed that issue and will have another look. I might have to momentarily turn off the Always on Top feature when a menu is selected.
For your Cool Down Test, sensors for core0 and core1 are stuck and will be useless. The other two sensors look pretty good. If you can find the correct TJMax, they should give some reasonably accurate core temperatures. Give the low MHz / low voltage test a try.
DJSUB: Yes and no. Intel says the TJ Target for the Q6600 is 90C. My opinion is that TJMax is actually 100C for most Q6600 CPUs that I've seen and maybe even 105C on some / many of the core2 / core3 that I've seen screen shots of. That's why I'm full of doubt when it comes to Intel's release of TJ Target data that has already been quietly updated once. I'm waiting for their next update before I start to believe some of their numbers. ;)
ok thanks for the info master uncle :up:
i will wait for the intel next update & your opinion :D
The next Intel "update"... I wonder when that will be. Most of the lustre of their "updates" has been lost since the last two IDFs.Quote:
Originally Posted by DJSUB
hey, unclewebb. Couple questions.
I'm using v 2.84 for my Quad 6600. Is there any need for me to upgrade to latest version?
Lately my temps in 2.84 are jumping. Like every second, litteraly. It goes from 57 to 66, like clockwork every single second. 57,66,57,66,57,66 etc..etc..
I've been tweaking my system. Surely this is the result of something I have done???? OR, realtemp is correct and I'm spiking.
Thanks unclewebb for your detailed information.
I am not familiar with low MHz test, but will learn and find time to give a try.
concretefire: I like the improved CPU Cool Down Test in the latest version as well as two lines of information at the top that includes CPU Load. It's been more thumbs up than thumbs down recently so I think you should give it a try and decide for yourself.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
The CPU Load display in RealTemp 2.90 is very accurate and repeatable. Just running Task Manager on my system creates 0.5% load and increasing the refresh rate doubles that. I never knew useless information like that until I used the new RT Load feature. :)
It might help you find out if you have any software running in the background causing your jumping temperatures. The sensors rarely jump around unless the load is changing. Disable useless background tasks until you get your Load down to 0.0% and then have a look to see how stable your temps are.
ericjia: I'd be very interested in what temperature your CPU idles at when at low core voltage and low MHz. That's what C1E is designed to do to save power but I found that doing this manually gives you a good baseline which you can compare to others. A wide variety of CPUs don't vary too much during this test. Plus or minus 1C covers the majority of Intel Core processors. Let me know when you have the time if you need any help or suggestions.
Sorry for the delay in getting some results posted. Haven't really had a chance to overclock my Q9450 until yesterday.
By the end of the day I was able to get to 8 x 425 Linpack stable (I know this doesn't mean it's completely stable but it gives me a baseline for fine-tuning later).
What I can tell you is that now that I've overclocked it some and I'm pushing about 1.35 volts (trying for 8 x 450) through vcc with LLC, the temps have increased and are now looking MUCH closer to each other - 5-7 degrees of each other. I'm sure some calibration is still needed, but it looks like what you had assumed earlier holds true.
Hopefully I'll be able to post screenshots of Real Temp cool down test by the end of this week with my final overclock.
Excellent program as I can tell thus far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Damn me and my eternal search for ET. :gay: (Seti @ home)
Hey unclewebb....in no way did I mean for that question to come across as a problem or glitch with your temp program. I already knew the answer, and you were correct. I have no explanation for even asking about it other than the fact that I am a dumbass.
My Real question was would I benefit, or should I upgrade versions. I have been reading how you've been working on i7 alot, and somehow got it thru my head that the latest and greatest might not be ideal for my "old" Q6600.
In hindsight, another boneheaded question. :shrug:
Think I'll stop posting for a while. :D
I was going to say because I have my Q66 and my temps are nice and low in the upper twenties and when idle only move maybe one or two degrees. I love this program keep up the good work UncleWebb
No problems concretefire. I get a little carried away sometimes trying to make sure everyone is getting some decent temperature numbers out of these crappy sensors.
There have been a lot of tweaks to RT for better Core i7 support but I also added some features to keep the rest of us happy that can't afford or aren't interested in an advanced 8 threaded heater. Nice in the winter but I can just imagine the complaints next July. Time to invest in water cooling companies. Every Core i7 owner will be getting one next summer. :rofl:
No kidding about these i7's being heaters. I had to adjust the heating vents in my entertainment room, b/c my computer is raising the temp 2-3C in this room over the rest of house when running prime overnight.
My core i7 is even taxing my water cooling, I cant imagine it on air. I have a cpu only loop, PA120.3, 3 yates 1300 rpms, swiftech GTZ 1366, and my load temps are 73C with 1.35 vcore bios, 1.31v load for 4ghz stable (4.2 turbo). But all the new bioses with turbo enabled are set such that turbo is active on all 4 cores (instead of being TDP/2core limited on F3 bios), so have to find new settings for new bioses. Ambient is 26C.
4.2 ghz w/ 1.41 bios, 1.36 cpuz ran prime 4 hours before rebooting but load temps were 82C. I am just not into 80+ load temps especially on water.
Now trying for 4.14 (23x180) w/ 1.381 in bios, 1.34 load, temps are 76-77C on load, though apparently bounced up to 79 on core 0 once.
Not using faster fans as I like quiet. If next year the leakage or TDP does not go down on newer ones, I may be using dual rads just for cpu:eek:. Intel needs to get a better handle on leakage before going 8 core/16 thread.
BTW...loving the new realtemp layout:up:. mhz total and w/multi*bclk, load %, and timer all with easy glance, perfect for ocing. The only thing I need cpuz for is check vcore. Not to mention max temps recorded which are very helpful for o/n runs on these.
WTF is going on? My QX6800 cores heat up like this:
30-27-62-31 degrees? Is the processor heatspreader twisted or what? The "test sensors" gives like 6 sensor movements for that one core, the others are 14-15. Is the sensor malfunctioning? I've tried different air coolers and that didn't help :(
I like quiet air cooling so Core i7 in its present form is not for me. Maybe when they shrink the process down to 32nm next year or bring out a Dual Core version, I'll think about it. I'm kind of spoiled by the cool and quiet performance you can get out of an E8400.
xarot: Sounds like you've got a stuck sensor. Intel says these sensors are not designed to be accurate at lower temperatures and will become saturated as the CPU temperature drops. That's a fancy way to say that some of them stick and stop moving as the CPU cools down. They were designed to trigger thermal throttling and thermal shut down and even sticking sensors don't seem to have a problem with that when the CPU temperature goes higher.
Post a screen shot of the CPU Cool Down Test. It's an excellent tool for spotting stuck sensors and should show you exactly what's going on.
Hi, thanks for help.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Here's a quick test: http://pumppu.info/~dakotha/kuvia/Hardis/qx6800.jpg
Not any of the sensors are totally stuck, or what do you think? The temps can't be right anyway? I just got this chip from EBay as a new one and I'm worrying do I have any overclocking chances if one of the cores is reporting crazy temps at default clocks. :(
I swapped the mobo for this test..now running on DFI X48 and Noctua NH-U12P. The previous test I did was with QX9650 stock cooler running at max speed.
Your Core 2 sensor is not the typical stuck sensor and it's definitely not working right. It's possible that you'll still be able to get a decent overclock out of this chip but the Core 2 sensor is likely going to be the first core to signal thermal throttling. When this happens the multiplier is going to drop down to 6.0 and is going to kill performance. On the main RealTemp screen keep an eye on the Thermal Status area where it presently says OK. If this ever changes to LOG then that means that Core 2 has logged a thermal throttling episode. If it shows HOT then that means that thermal throttling is in progress.
Overclock as much as you can. Thermal throttling usually occurs at about 98C. The slope of this sensor is very slow. Your other CPU cores might be able to get 20C or 30C hotter and this sensor might still not move enough to trigger thermal throttling. Let's see some numbers out of this QX6800.
Great app. TY unclewebb...
To unclewebb:
First thank you for this great and wonderful program. Now the question: What do you think about a QX6800 TJMAX stepping B3? Is it 85c or 100c as many say? Coretemp reports temps 20c higher than realtemp.
Realtemp 2.90 says my qx6800 idles at 55/53c for all cores at an ambient temperature of 22.5c. When i play games like call of duty world at war; after half and hour realtemp shows "log" in thermal status. I have a good aftermarket heatsink...a 2pcom 92mm heatsink with htc (heatpipes direct touch). Also i'm using zalman stg1 thermal grease. What's wrong with my temps? My motherboard is an Intel Bad Axe 2; i have read this motherboard reports temp 20c higher than normal. Is it true? I believed dts sensor are indipendent from bios readings.
Thank you! :)
You have a problem with your heatsink, DTS readings don't lie. At least not then they're close to throttle point.
This is your cooler? If yes take a look at your push-pins, maybe one/two were out.
IMO HDT (and with 4 pipes instead of 3) on an 130W Quad is not a very good cooling solution.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Just a few minor tweaks. The CPU Load has been adjusted to reduce rounding errors. The XS Bench got changed slightly. The score should be the same but the time will be slightly different.
Venturer: I think RealTemp defaults to TjMax = 90C for a QX6800 - B3.
There will be endless arguments about "What is TJMax" because TJMax is not a fixed value. It varies by a few degrees and Intel has not told the user community how much variation there is. 90C might work well for your QX6800 and 95C might be more accurate for your neighbor's QX6800.
Post a screen shot of a CPU Cool Down Test if you can along with the main RealTemp window.
TJMax isn't that important. What is important is the LOG showing up in RealTemp. That means that your processor has been thermal throttling and that means it was slowing down during your game because it was getting too hot.
Post a CPU-Z screen shot as well. Your core voltage might be too high.
The B3 Quads have a reputation for hitting the thermal throttle fairly easily. That's why Intel raised TJMax for the G0 series.
burebista's theory of a loose heatsink is very likely.
Unclewebb can you have a look at this plz :
TEMP/VID ANOMALY AFTER BIOS REFLASH
First of all, thanks for your advices guys! :)
Here we go; here's the screenshot.
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/4...ginexm6.th.jpg
So....
i have lowered the multiplier to 8x for a 2133mhz max working speed, because i'm very scared of blowing all. At 2.93ghz full qx6800 speed it reaches 90c but the system stays on....
@burebista
yes my heatsink belong to this brand but is the smaller one model; the one with 92mm fan and not 120mm fan you linked; they are absolutely the same apart the dimensions....
I have a silentmaxx ST-11 big tower case and unluckly i can't mount tower heatsinks bigger than ones with 92mm fan; 120mm fan tower heatsinks are too tall for my case.
Burebista in your opinion what is the best cooler for my case and my CPU (brand and model please)? I remember you i can mount 120mm fan cooler that mounts "flat orizontally"....or obviously tower heatsinks with max 92mm fan.
Thank you soooo much guys! :)
Edit: Another important note - Temperature grows up very much when i play games because i have a crossfire ATI 3870x2 + 3870 configuration. I think during games the case air temp is much hotter than when i run prime95 because of the gPUs at full speed......i'm still talking about the qx6800 setted at 2133mhz.
Leeghoofd: I posted an answer on the other thread you started. I don't have much for a reasonable explanation of what you're seeing.
Venturer: I'll have a better look at your numbers tomorrow. Duty calls. ;)
Sensor movement looks OK, CPU Coold Down test looks OK, so you don't have stuck sensors.
Not OK are temps. Vcore is reasonable but distance to TJMax in full-load is too close to throttle point (at least for my taste).
First try to reseat your cooler. I'm almost sure that one/two push-pins were loose or you put too much Zalman grease (here are some pictures with HDT spreading grease technique). Even an HDT cooler should keep your Quad colder in full-load at stock speeds/voltage.
As for a new cooler TR SI-128 SE or TR Ultima 90. Both are mounting with backplate. Another choice Scythe Andy Samurai Master and Stabilizer 775. My idea is to get rid off those push-pins.
BTW that's why I somehow dislike HDT heatsinks with 4 pipes
Attachment 90682
That photo is from Sunbeam Core Contact Freezer. He managed to keep a Q6600 @3.7 GHz VCore 1.520V at 78°C in prime95 small FTTs. As you see 2 heatpipes barely make contact with IHS.
LE: Frankly for your setup I strongly suggest a new case with decent space and airflow.
Here is the cooldown test with the case lateral cover open:
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5...own2ij2.th.jpg
Notice the lowest temperature is 34celsius.
burbeista so do you think is an heatsink problem or a case airflow problem?
I would buy a Ultima 90 cooler but do you think there will be an improvement with case closed?
Thank you!
It's obvious that it's a big improvement with case open. You gain 18°C. :shocked:
Can you post a photo with your setup? I want to see what's happening there. Now it looks like an airflow problem.
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/781/junksc1.png
Your cool down results look very unusual. My first question is how much stuff do you have running in the background on your computer when you're testing?
If you go back a page, here's an example:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2808
After Prime95 is finished running, his computer is showing 0.2% for Load which is typical while yours is showing 7.6%. I also can't understand what's going on at full load. Normally the load steps down significantly after a couple of steps while yours is still running at close to 100%. The third step should be somewhere around 77% while yours is at 97.8%.
Your sensors seem similar to randomizer where maybe they read high from idle to TJMax. To start trying to figure out what's going on, open Task Manager and find out what's running, open your case to get the heat out of it. Laying your computer on its side so the hot air from you graphics cards can go up isn't such a bad idea. What's your room temperature? How much thermal paste do you use and what's your method of applying it? I think you have a combination of problems so you're going to have to look at some of the basics first.
Edit: In your second test your computer is showing 9.6% load when it should be idle. Kill some processes that are causing this.
http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/6...0384kn2.th.jpg
Here's the photo of my case open; notice the back of the case is near the wall of my bedroom under my private desk.
And here is the screenshot of the active system processes.
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4...ssesyq0.th.jpg
So what's my problem? Should i change the heatsink?
Thank you sooo much again guys! :)
Just for a quick laugh, I found this on another forum:
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/w...ER22/temps.jpg
Distance to Tj Max is (supposedly) 121 on air and PROCHOT still got set off! :rofl:
It's true. What happens with the Distance to TJ Max data is that it is stored in a 7 bit variable which gives it a range from 0 to 127.Quote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
As the CPU core temperature increases the Distance to TJMax decreases to zero. If it gets hotter than this then the data wraps around and starts counting down again from 127.
The version of RealTemp in the screen shot was using TJMax = 95C so it looks like this:
Distance - Tempeature
2 - 93C
1 - 94C
0 - 95C
127 - 96C
126 - 97C
125 - 98C
124 - 99C
123 - 100C
122 - 101C
121 - 102C
120 - 103C
119 - 104C
118 - 105C
I've always been pretty proud of RealTemp for being the only program to realize that the data wraps around and is still quite usable. Looks like another loose heatsink to me.
Most software uses the standard formula:
Reported Temperature = TJMax - DTS
When the DTS data wraps around and goes to 127 they use the same formula and start reporting negative numbers. I'd rather see the correct temperature than -42C. The CPU in the picture is thermal throttling which is what you'd expect to be going on at these temperatures.
Venturer: You have to trim some fat when trying to do some meaningful testing. That huge list of processes only represents half of what's going on. 129 processes running is too many. Task Manager shows 7% CPU usage and in your listed tasks it only shows 2% so whoever else is logged on to your computer is contributing the other 5%.
There is no way you can get your computer to idle down if there is that many tasks running on it. There's file sharing programs running in the background and you could have other users downloading from your computer during your tests.
Edit: Here's a first class program for turning off start up items while testing or permanently:
Autoruns
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/s.../bb963902.aspx
Damn, so it's not actually that funny after all. Good to know that then. Well that's what happens when you don't install that heatsink right and try running prime95 :)
129 processes? :shocked:
Man that's too many of them.
As for your case setup from picture looks OK, one intake and two exhausts. Looks like those are 80 mm fans. At what RPM's they're spinning?
IMO your problems came from those stoves: both GPU's and your CPU. And those HDD's "helps" heating up. Your case is narrow and bottom compartment is sealed from upper compartment. Beside that upper chamber looks too large and inefficient (you have PSU there and optical units, they don't need so much space).
For example this is my setup in P182. IMO it's better segmental.
Attachment 90741
In your case I guess is too much heat which remain trapped in bottom chamber.
Those 2 exhaust fans blows warm/hot air with case closed?
Did you touch your heatsink? At 75°C it should burn your fingers.
Hi to all
This test is a normal?
Yes it's normal if I'm looking at Sensor Movement Test and CPU Cool Down Test but no it's not normal when I see your load distance to TJMax.
What is your heatsink? Your case? Your ambient temperature?
CPU - Titan Socket 775/S754/S939/AM2/AM2+ (TTC-NK35TZ/PW) 100x100
case - Aerocool Extreme Engine 3T
ambient t - 46-51 C
I wish to install water cooling
First of all that Titan cooler is not suited for a Quad at 3.8GHz.
Second, take a look at your push-pins maybe they're not well secured.
Third, touch your heatsink at 100°C it should burn your finger. Literally.
Your case has a lot of airflow so I suspect a bad mount or an impotent cooler for your quad frequency/voltage.
Thank's.
Yes those 2 fans spins both at 1500rpm. I tried to touch the heatsink at full load and it is absolutlely WARM....not hot. I tried to reseat the heatsink and checked push pins many times.......changed the thermal grease from artic cooling mx2 to zalman stg1.Quote:
Originally Posted by burebista
I also tried another cooler.........Artic cooling Frezeer 7 Pro......temps remained the same and also this cooler is warm at touch at full speed!
to unclewebb: Is possible dts sensors are reading wrong? Does it depends to bios? I repeat many users states my motherboard reads temperatures 20c higher than real......but do this is related to dts sensor or cpu case sensor?
Once again unclewebb
Thanks for this great application :clap:
Each time a new version comes out it improves no end, I'm impressed with the FSB and multiplier display.
Anyway I ran the sensor test (uncalibrated) on my QX9650 in Windows XP using the Small FFT's prime setting.
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/8...temp290qh4.png
Winning Lottery Number Generator? :confused:
Or have intel really put in 2 Core2 Duals with different TjMax?
John
Hi all.
http://e.imagehost.org/t/0587/3800stress.jpg
Which one i should believe?
2.90 because a lot of changes from 2.70 to 2.90 had been done also corrected Tj.Max temperatures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhairava
Here's how I calibrate the RealTemp test equipment.
Point Fluke temp gun outside and compare.
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/893/ocweathergk8.png
Yep, looks about right to me! :yepp:
Perfect overclocking weather in western Canada today.
Bhairava: I screwed up when I first wrote RealTemp. It was originally based on measurements of the IHS. rge did some testing and determined that the actual core temperature is likely about 5C higher than my IHS temp readings so I adjusted TJMax 5C higher between version 2.70 and version 2.90.
Reported Temperature = TJMax - Digital Thermal Sensor Reading
The DTS (Distance to TJMax) data should be the same no matter what software you use but if the assumed TJMax is different then the reported temperatures will be different. TJMax is not a fixed value. There is an unknown amount of error in this number and Intel has not given the user community any guidance on how much error at their calibration point there really is.
solarises: You list your ambient temperature as 46C - 51C. Ambient temperature is your room temperature. If it was over 46C in my room I sure as hell wouldn't be sitting there using my computer. :D
JohnZS: I always like seeing your numbers because it helps demonstrate some of my crazy theories. Between the 30% and 88% level, core2 goes from 65.9 to 49.8 which is a difference of 16.1 and core3 goes from 60.6 to 44.3 which is a difference of 16.3. The slope error difference is only 0.2 degrees. The rest of the difference is all a difference in TJMax between two cores on the same die. How's that for quality control?
Your data suggests different TJMax values for each one of your cores. Some cores are pretty close, core0 vs core1, while others like core1 vs core2 might have a TJMax difference of 10C or 11C. :eek:
You don't read about stuff like that in the publicly available Intel docs but the numbers in the Cool Down Test tell a story that is hard to argue against. I still plan to have a good look at your numbers and come up with a calibration suggestion for you so bug me on a regular basis. I should have time in the next couple of weeks.
Venturer: rge's testing showed that there is about a 25C difference between the core temperature at full load and the Tcase temperature which is at the center of the chip. A good heatsink does not get nearly as hot to the touch as one would think. I'll go get my Q6600 up over 90C and take a measurement of the top of my Tuniq. We all need some exact numbers to understand this better.
Ciao Bhairava!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhairava
Are you the one from hwupgrade?
We meet again here; cool! :)
Good........i hope you will not blow your q6600. However you should implement tcase reading in realtemp.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
For tcase temp value i'm using speedfan and Intel Desktop utilities.
Look at this screenshot.
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/9...tiesak1.th.jpg
You can notice Intel Desktop utilities reports two system temps: The first Internal system temp is the Tcase temp; the same of Speedfan's "internal temp";
the second system internal temp that reads only Intel D.U i think is the sensor on the motherboard but i'm not sure.
Also notice in speedfan there is a big discrepancy between the temps of the first 2 cores an the last ones.
What do you think about these values?
Thank you uncle, i just read your previous explanations, sorry to ask questions before having searched this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Ok so it's seems that is impossible to determine the real cores temperature, right?
This is my sensor test:
http://e.imagehost.org/t/0836/cooldown_test.jpg
I don't know how to understand it. Thank you mate.
Ehi ciao sono io! Eheh il mondo di internet è piccolissimo. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Venturer
Here's how my Q6600 looks running Prime Small FFTs with the fan turned off.
I'm using a split TJMax (100 / 105) which looks believable.
http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/8070/heattesths2.png
The side of the Tuniq tower is showing 62.6C
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/1...niqsidejm4.jpg
and the top is only at 47C which is 10C above normal body temperature of 37C.
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/5044/tuniqtopux3.jpg
The top feels warm but not at all hot. The side feels hot but I can put my hand on it without worrying about losing any skin.
During normal operation with the Tuniq fan turned on, even when the cores are very hot, the cooler isn't that hot to the touch. With a Dual Core, the Tuniq will be even cooler to the touch since there is less heat being dissipated.
Bhairava: Your Cool Down Test shows that core0 is stuck at a Distance to TJMax of 64. Core1 might also be stuck at 64 but it's hard to tell from this one test. You would need to try and operate your CPU in a cooler environment to prove it. You could also reduce your overclock back to default settings with less core voltage and it would probably show the sticking points better.
You could also decide not to get too concerned about temps because while running full Prime load you are still 48C away from TJMax. There's no need to give your core temperature a second thought. It's also very likely that your two cores are using a different TJMax. Maybe 105/100 are your actual TJMax values. Find out the sticking points of your sensors first.
Venturer: You have a bunch of temps from a bunch of uncalibrated sensors. None of these are 100% accurate, 100% of the time. I trust TCase even less than core temperature readings and I know Intel agrees with that statement. That's the whole reason they went to core temperature sensors. For better accuracy to determine thermal throttling correctly. The core sensors have a lot of issues but they do a pretty good job at what they're designed to do; thermal throttling and thermal shut down.
uncle, can you point that gun on a heatpipe? I'm curious what temperature it have.
Uncle; Burebista do you think changing my heatsink with Thermalright Ultima90 plus papst 92mm PWM fan 3500rpm should improve my situation or will it be useless?
Thank you!
Man I dunno what to say. :(
I'm puzzled by your 18°C drop with case open so I hesitate to say "Yes TR Ultima is your ultimate solution".
An IR thermometer doesn't work very accurately when pointed at a small, curved shiny heat pipe. Based on the temps of the fins I'd guess somewhere around 70C for the heat pipes. With the board inside a case it's hard to maneuver around it for accurate temps.Quote:
Originally Posted by burebista
Venturer: A new cooler probably won't get you very much extra real world performance. I'd save your money for future upgrades. The QX6800 was a wonderful processor when it came out but now, for $320 bucks, you can get a Q9450 Yorkie that will run faster or a lot cooler at the same MHz. It also has a higher TJMax so you can run it hotter before it'll start to thermal throttle.
I'd spend my time learning to kill unnecessary background processes that create heat and do what you can to improve case temperatures.
And another one on ocforums. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Alright Unclewebb.
Going to ask for your input here. I hope I come across correctly this time.
This is not a "gotcha" question. It is what it is. I LOVE your program. It has helped me feel very comfortable overclocking my Q6600 on my stock cooler.
But therin lies my question. RealTemp is a great tool. But for someone like me on stock air from intel....I have noticed something and would like your input.
Ok, realtemp, test sensors, small FFT's......heat's the $%*&^ out of cores as it should. I'm at 400 * 8 for 3.2ghz and just finished running your sensor test.
I was 16 C from hitting TJmax @ 100%. As I said, it's a great tool. That test told me some things: A) Vcore needs to be lower, OR, (duh) I need better cooling, and B) Probably not going to go over that 3.2 ghz speed until I have accomplished lower vcore AND better cooling.
But I just realized, that's not necessarily all the info I need. I think a fairly "standardized" Overclocking test for stability comes in the form of Prime95 running a BLEND test, usualy overnight, sometimes longer.
What I have noticed, when running blend test, my distance to TJmax doesn't even come close the 16 c I just saw. It MIGHT get up to 30 c to Tjmax or 28c.
So I guess my question is, putting 2 and 2 together, don't you think I could try to push to 3.3ghz, 3.4 ghz. maybe even 3.6.....run the prime blend test for stability, but definately stay the hell away from your small fft test?
The Blend stability test runs cooler than your sensor test, and I believe the blend test * IF IT PASSES * , puts as much stress on your compenents than any real world application. such as video encoders, etc....
Yes, Blend test is more real-life orientated because it stress CPU-MEM-NB like in daily use.
Small FTTs are for heating up your CPU but putting much less stress on MEM and NB.
Linpack (LinX/IBT) is for testing your cooler and CPU stability, it heat up your CPU like no tommorow. :)
concretefire: I agree with you 100%. I think Prime Small FFTs stable for 101 hours is over kill for a Quad core processor. It doesn't represent the typical load that most people run on their Quads. Linpack (LinX/IBT) is another order of magnitude on the over kill scale.
You know best what applications you run on your computer and how important your results are. If you're Homer Simpson and running a nuclear power plant then you need a little more head room and stability compared to shooting bad guys in the latest game.
The bottom line is stability in the applications you normally run. If you're stable and your CPU is not thermal throttling then you don't have to worry about your core temperature. I ran my E8400 at an average of 98C with the CPU fan off for 3 hours a while ago just to prove that point. It was Prime Small FFTs stable and didn't catch on fire or blow up.
When overclocking with the Intel OEM cooler, my E6400 always told me when I was pushing it too hard. I would lose stability as the core temperature got up near 70C. If you don't overclock them too hard, you can run a Core based CPU reliably at a higher temperature. My E6400 was very happy at 3200 MHz, I used to run it mostly at 3400 MHz with the OEM cooler and if I dragged my computer to the basement it was Prime Small FFTs stable for 4+ hours at a hair over 3500 MHz. I may not have been Prime stable upstairs at 3500 MHz but it was game stable at that speed.
I use Small FFTs during my test because it is the only program I know of that provides a decent amount of heat. The power consumption at the wall is very consistent which insures that the CPU heat output is also very consistent. I need those characteristics for consistent, repeatable results during the CPU Cool Down Test.
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...g?t=1229377129
Core 1 is stuck?
Before using realtemp2.90 i already thought the sensor were stuck @core 1.
It never shows temps below 36 degrees, even on stock speeds.
Got my cpu watercooled.
Hey everyone, long time listener, first time caller.
I have a couple/few question that I hope you guys can answer for me. I'm wondering why Intel states that for my chip (b3 q6600) tcase max temperature is 62c. Then they release info saying that tjunction max is (excuse me I don't remember exactly what it was) around 80c. Doesn't that mean by reaching their specified tjunction max, we would be by a large margin, over their specified tcase temperature? Seems like a contradiction, or just messed up info to me.:confused:
Also I have been debating with the people over at Tom's Hardware about operation temperatures and their relationship with the life expectancy of the processor. If I were to run my q6600 at let's say 80c with a voltage setting of 1.4, is it safe to assume that no damage is occurring provided the voltage stays under max specs? Or should I expect my chip to last about as long as the Intel warranty of three years, or less even? :eek:
I'm also curious if any of you have done any prolonged high temperature testing, to see if any damage has been sustained.
Thanks to all in advance
Thanks Unclewebb. This whole overclocking thing is like an adventure really. You never know what the next setting might reveal. Good or bad. lol.
I do have a request though for your program. A snapshot feature. (screenshot) I would like to see it on the cool down page. After the cool down goes all the way down to idle, a "greyed out" box labled "screenshot", would then become un-greyed, and you take a snapshot.
I have done this with vista's sniping tool, and it's great. For each step along my overclocking journey, I have created a folder such as "Default", 2.5, 2.6, 2.7,2.8, etc...each with thier own folder representing my CPU overclock. Then I run benches, tests, everest, realtemp, etc....and put all the data in each folder.
Just a thought. Keep up the great work.
Bullu$: Looks like RealTemp helped you confirm what you already suspected. Core1 is stuck at a Distance to TJMax of 64. When the load drops from 29.1% to 1.0%, core0 cools down 2.6 degrees. That's normal. Core0 doesn't budge. That's not normal. That looks to me like a stuck sensor. There is also another indication when you compare the 38.4% level to the 29.1% level. Core0 moves 3.1 while core1 only moves 1.0. I'm a little biased but I love this new test. It makes it very simple to spot a sensor or sensors that have issues.
SportsFanBoy: According to Intel, TCase is measured with a thermocouple attached to the geometric center of the IHS by cutting a groove into the top of your CPU. When you are running an application like Prime95 at full load, the core temperature might be 25C hotter than the TCase temperature. These CPUs dissipate heat that quickly over that small of a distance. Contact rge who did some very interesting testing of this or scroll back about 20 pages or so to find his work. An 80C core temperature would not put your TCase temperature over Intel's rating.
Intel refers to their recent release as TJ Target numbers. A TJ Target number of 80C may translate into an actual TJMax of closer to 90C. The information released by Intel last summer and in the fall didn't really clear this up. The TJ Target numbers do not equal TJ Max for a significant number of 65nm CPUs that they've produced.
I have no idea how much long term heat an Intel CPU can take. I do know that they seem to be able to take far more heat than people would think. Here's an example you can share with your friends over at Tom's. Three hours running Prime95 Small FFTs without the CPU fan turned on definitely created some heat: :D
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/276/hote8400fw5.png
If your Q6600 is running stable and not thermal throttling then don't worry about the heat. If Intel thought 80C was too much heat then they'd lower TJMax and prevent their CPUs from ever reaching that temperature. Intel actually did the opposite and raised TJMax as their manufacturing process matured. Heat related warranty / RMA claims must have been a non issue. I've never had a problem even with all of my insane testing.
concretefire: I'll think about your snapshot idea for RealTemp. I just use the Print Screen key on my keyboard. After you push this you can go into any image editing program and Paste your screen shot from the Clipboard in and save it to the file type of your choice. I use an old version of Photoshop Elements 2.0 but even Paint is good enough for screen shots. Irfanview is an excellent freeware image display program that also lets you Paste and Crop images without a lot of effort. If you want an image of only RealTemp then hold down the ALT key when you push Print Screen. This will send an image of only RealTemp to your Clipboard.
Thanks for the quick reply Uncle, maybe I should go back and read some of the previous pages, thanks agian
I'm not sure if RealTemp is designed for mobile CPUs, but I found that the latest (2.90) is having issues grabbing and calculating the FSB and actual clock of my P8400 (Centrino 2):
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2028/RealTempFSBBug.png
Just checked, now my FSB is at 42.45 :sofa: Maybe the Speedstep is messing it up? I've noticed it takes around 2 minutes before RealTemp tried to show the clock speed and FSB.
Currently using 2.90 and i love the new interface layout, the only thing missing ( for me ) is a real time vCore read out.
Thanks for this wonderful update unclewebb.
Metric: RealTemp does not presently calculate the MHz correctly for mobile chips when idle with C1E / Speedstep engaged. It's definitely messed up. :)
Edit: Maybe it's not until C2E or higher get engaged that it starts to get confused.
In your screen shot the x 6.0 multiplier is correct but the MHz are being averaged. If your bus speed is 300 MHz and your multiplier is 6.0 then in theory it should report 1800 MHz. What RealTemp does is if you are idle and your cores are asleep for half of the sampling period then instead of reporting 1800 MHz, it would report 900 MHz. For some users this is a feature while for most users, it's a bug. That's also why RealTemp might report nothing. It's looking for a consistent MHz value but it can't find one because the average MHz is going up and down depending on the load. I'll try to come up with an option / fix so you can see 1800 MHz instead of watching the MHz jump all over the place or not reported at all.
Try running a program like Prime95 to load your cores for 30 seconds. Does it show the correct MHz and multiplier then?
Your welcome Demo.
Yeah,u made a nice program:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
But ,what i understand is that both my cores are stuck?:confused:Quote:
Core0 doesn't budge. That's not normal. That looks to me like a stuck sensor.
Bullu$: Core1 is stuck at a Distance to TJMax of 64. Core0 will also get stuck at some point but during your test it shows that it is still moving at 65 and can read at least to 66. You would have to lower your core voltage and MHz and room temperature to see how far this sensor can go before it becomes stuck.
This doesn't work with older processors? I have an 805 D and it says it is not compatible. The proc is not that old...
The 805 D doesn't have on chip digital thermal sensors that RealTemp can read. It was built on the Pentium 4 architecture while RealTemp and Core Temp only work with CPUs built on the newer Core architecture. Unfortunately, in computer terms, the D 805 is old. A lot has changed in the last two and a half years
These core i7 sensors have been pretty good, have to admit. No sticking, all cores seem to read appropriately even when out in 5c cold for benching, temp sensors appropriately read down to 20's. (Although cold benching with box fan and open case only gave an additional 90mhz max boot speed.) Sensor test at 1.406vcore bios, 1.36v load, ambient 25C. My core 1 reads hottest and 4 coolest.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Support for the new Core i7 with CPUID 0x106A5 added and a button added to the About... box to make it easier to find your CPU information on Intel's website.
I'll save fixing the mobile MHz for tomorrow. :)
rge: Keep an eye out for screen shots of max temperatures for Core i7. Core0 is usually the hottest and then it steps down and core3 is usually the coolest. Is this part of the design or do you think Intel sets core0 to TJMax = 100C and then the actual TJMax is slightly higher as you go down the line. If this temperature pattern is on one or two CPUs then it's a coincidence but when the same pattern is on the majority of CPUs, it starts to make you wonder. I've yet to see a sticking Core i7 sensor so I won't complain too much. It would be interesting to see how close these sensors can get to their theoretical level of -27C. The 45nm Core 2 sensors tend to crap out a long ways from that point.
Ah. I see. I am about to upgrade anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Thanks, I always try to please, shock and amaze with my Quad's Sensors. I had a dabble at trying to recalibrate, it's quite difficult with sensors as random as mine, but at least as you pointed out there is hope with the slope being pretty much uniform across the board.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Although the idle temps are rather unimpressive, I was quite glad I got the maximum load temperatures to more or less agree across all 4 cores
http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/867...estvistam4.jpg
On other temperature programs which I used to use before I found this thread it was impossible to make head nor tail of my temperature readings, but thanks to RealTemp I have a pretty good idea that my core @ 3.4Ghz reaches around 7xC during IntelBurnTesting.
Thanks and Have a Good Christmas
John
unclewebb
Thanks for the new version :up:
Your welcome WaterFlex.
I'm just working with Metric to see if I can finally get the mobile MHz working correctly.
this program can't be used on windows 7 build 6801. does anyone else have this problem using the same OS? is there a way around this?
not even on comparability mode ?
Do you know what the error message is when you try to run it? It might be the WinRing0 driver that RealTemp uses to access reading the sensors that is not compatible.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteFireDragon
it says i need to be logged in as administer to access drivers. so i'm guessing it's not yet compatible with beta windows 7?
Windows 7 build 6956 no problem
i had it working in win 7 6956 build too but then while overclocked i started getting the same message need to run as administrator.it worked a few times running as administrator then it just stopped starting altogether.i have since went back to vista
In XP and Vista you have to run RealTemp as an Administrator so I'm not sure if there is any difference. You'll definitely have to do the same in Windows 7. There's no other OS legal way for the open source WinRing0 driver that RealTemp uses to gain access to the temperature sensor data.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteFireDragon
In Vista the best way to start RealTemp when you boot up is using the Task Scheduler.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/a.../aa906020.aspx
This way you can assign Administrator rights and not have to worry about this. The Task Scheduler works great and I'd be very surprised if that option is not available in Windows 7. The RealTemp folder needs to be located in a directory that you have privileges to run programs from.
Windows 7 build 6956 :yepp:
http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/8...9144358hr4.png
stasio: Thanks for clearing that up. :up:
Here we go guys!!!
First, MERRY CHRISTMAS TO EVERYONE!!!! :)
So.....my christmas gift was.....a brand new Thermalright Ultima 90i heatsink plus 92mm Papst PWM top fan. :D
I just installed this beast in my case and just repeated the realtemp cooldown test, but this time with the cpu at full 2.93ghz speed.
The results are here
http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/861/qx6800sj7.th.jpg
What do you think about temps now?
I think i have a moderate improvement (previous tests where done with the cpu at maximum 2.13ghz speed).
When Intel originally released TJMax information for 65nm, it was so full of inconsistencies that I decided it would be best to ignore it. They came out with an updated version on November 18th. I still don't agree 100% with their numbers but I think it's better than what it was. Users also have to keep in mind that Intel calls these numbers TJ Targets and actual TJMax might be higher.
Here's Intel's November 18th update for the 65nm Quads:
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/8610/tjmaxpt5.png
The B2 / G0 heading comes from the Dual Core section. For Quads it's actually B3 / G0. They originally had the B3 at 80C but with this update they increased that to 90C. I agree with that.
They originally said,
"TJ increased on G0 stepping to enable lower cost heatsinks or quieter systems (slower fan speed)"
I agree with that statement but their updated chart doesn't show that. I think the G0 Quads like the Q6600 are TJMax = 100C.
On the second row they list a G0 QX processor but the QX6700 only came as a B3.
The third line covers the QX6800 which came as both a B3 and a G0.
I don't know how to interpret this information. Maybe this line should read 80 for the B3 and 90 for the G0 based on their quote above or maybe both versions really are 80C for the QX6800. This line did not change between their original TJMax news release and this updated version. Either this line was already correct, no one complained like they did for some of their other 65nm processors or else they simply forgot.
Do you see what I mean by inconsistencies in the Intel documentation? This is actually an improvement compared to having no TJMax documentation at all but for many CPUs, there is still far too much guessing needed.
What I notice about your results Venturer and what I've noticed about a lot of Quads is that it seems that TJMax is not consistent for all 4 cores. The TJ Target might be 80C but the actual TJMax looks like it is 5C higher for core2/core3 compared to core0/core1. The data coming from my Q6600 has a similar difference so I tried setting TJMax to 100C for core0/core1 and to 105C for core2/core3 and the 4 cores seem to track each other much better when set like this.
For your QX6800, why not try TJMax = 80C for core0/core1 and TJMax = 85C for core2/core3. When going between idle and full load, I think you will see that your 4 cores line up much better when set this way.
Intel admits that TJMax is not consistent from one CPU to the next but hasn't said anything about TJMax being different between the two Dual Cores within a Quad. It's just a theory I have at the moment.
I've seen too many screen shots that are difficult to explain. Sensor slope error only explains a small part of it. It's possible that something in the design of the Quad causes core2/core3 to always run 5C cooler from idle to TJMax but after learning about these sensors, it's far more likely that TJMax is being set differently at the factory between the two Dual Cores.
First, thanks for you great and exaustive answer, Uncle! :)
So i have tried to lower tjmax of core 0 and 1 to 80c (while core 2 &3 remain at 85c). As you said, temps now are perfectly balanced through all 4 cores (only 1c of difference between all cores).
What i want to ask you is about Realtemp "LOG" feature. Unfortunatly, even with the new heatsibk, when i play games for about half an hour Realtemp tells me thermal throttling has been engaged on the first 2 cores (max temp logged was 85c for core 0 and 82x for core 1). So my question is: Does the thermal throttling log feature of Realtemp depend by Tjmax value that is set in the setting window or does Realtemp read thermal throttling directly from CPU sensors? If the first case is true lowering tjmax for the first two cores should not appear Thermal throttling LOG. I have to do tests with lower tjmax yet.
Thank you and merry christmas again! :)
The bit that signals that thermal throttling has taken place is stored within the CPU itself. It doesn't matter how RealTemp is set up or what TJMax really is. The CPU keeps a record of any throttling episodes until you re-boot your computer. You don't even need to have RealTemp running. If you start up RealTemp after thermal throttling has occurred then it will immediately read this information from the CPU and display it as LOG in the RT Thermal Status area.
This flag gets set generally when Distance to TJMax is 2 or 3. It varies slightly from one CPU to the next.
When the B3 Quads first came out, some users had problems with thermal throttling, especially with the OEM cooler. This might be one of the main reasons why Intel increased TJMax by 10C for the newer G0 series.
If you can, go into your bios and set your core voltage to about 1.10 volts if your board allows you to and boot up with it locked at 266 x 6.0. Open your case as well. Using the 80/85 TJMax, see what temperature your computer idles at with your CPU fan on high and compare that to your room temperature. That's usually a good way to see how reasonable your TJMax is. I think some software still assumes that TJMax is 100C for your CPU but it's definitely not that.
Unclewebb, are you saying that even though Intel supposedly published the G0 Q6600 as having a TjMax of 90c, you don't think it is accurate? CoreTemp and RealTemp both set my Q6600 as having a TjMax of 100c. Assuming SpeedFan does as well based on the temps I show on all three. I just got done doing the whole SpeedFan calibration deal that CompuTronix has over on the Tomshardware Forums.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/25...-help#t1786165
Anyhow, ultimately I just want to know what temp my CPU really is. LOL! There's a pretty big difference between 90c and 100c as far as TjMax settings go. I guess I'm wondering where I should really be setting things.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
I've decided to re-work the RealTemp code that displays the cpu multiplier. It's easy to read the multiplier from a Core CPU but waking a CPU up to ask it what multiplier it's at, or was at, can change the results. It might be asleep at 6.0 for 99.99% of a sample period but waking it up to read it could cause it to jump up and report 9.0 or some other number.
Intel provides counters in Core 2 and Core i7 processors and shows an easy method that can be used to accurately and quickly compute the average multiplier during a sample period.
When I first saw CPU-Z reporting a multiplier of 22.5 for rge's Core i7-940, I thought it was a bug since I can't find any Intel documentation that shows half (0.5) multipliers exist for Core i7. I think the half multi only exists in the 45nm Core 2 series.
After thinking about this for a while I've decided to join CPU-Z and also start reporting half multipliers for both Core i7 and Core 2. Technically, they may not be 100% accurate but I think they do provide users with some additional and useful information.
RealTemp used to round off multipliers to the nearest whole number for Core i7. When the Turbo mode would first start to become disengaged on some Core i7 motherboards, CPU-Z would start to show a half multiplier like 22.5 while RealTemp would continue to show 23.0. It may be impossible for a Core i7 CPU to be at a multiplier of 22.5 but reporting that does inform a user that something is going on and Turbo mode is no longer fully engaged. I have to agree with CPU-Z that a 0.5 multi in this situation is useful information. On some Core i7 motherboards as you reach the thermal wall, the multiplier will oscillate between 22 and 23 as Turbo mode kicks in and out. RealTemp can measure the exact multiplier so rounding off to the nearest 0.5 multiplier seems like a good idea.
When playing around with my Q6600 I also noticed that when software reports a single number for the multiplier, it may not be telling you what's really going on. Depending on Windows power settings, I found that one Dual Core in my Quad could be fairly steady with a 9.0 multiplier while the other Dual Core was mostly at 6.0. Software that reports either 9.0 or 6.0 may not be telling the whole story. Here's an interesting example.
My Q6600 can be tricked so one of the dual cores runs with a 6.0 multiplier while the other one is set to a 9.0 multiplier even at full load running Prime. I used CPU-Z to read one core from each dual core. My picture shows the confusion but RealTemp comes to the rescue. It averages the multiplier for all cores and reports 7.5. If one dual core is running at 2000 MHz and the other one at 3000 MHz then the average is reported as 2500 MHz with an average multiplier of 7.5.
http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/3...tiplierba4.png
That sounds a little weird but I think this accurately tells a user exactly what's going on inside their CPU. This code that was originally designed for the Core i7 guys also provides useful information for Core 2. If you see your multi jumping all over the place at idle in RealTemp, that's a sign that your bios and Windows power settings are fighting against each other.
I've also made a few changes to the MHz for much better support of the mobile processors. Metric gave me a :up: for getting his P8400 right now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
jerreece: Intel told the world that the Q6600 has a TJ Target of 90C and that TJMax might actually be higher than that number. With this new play on words, I guess TJMax could be just about anything.
The Q6600 G0 is a popular processor so I bought one, retail box, and tested it with an IR thermometer. For my CPU, there isn't a snow ball's chance in hell that it is TJMax = 90C. rge's extensive testing showed that the core temperature has to be about 5C hotter than the IHS temperature. Things cool down very quickly as you move even a small distance away from the hottest point on the core so that sounds reasonable to me.
When the IHS of my Q6600 measures 80C, to get RealTemp to display 85C, I have to use TJMax = 100C. If I use TJMax = 90C then my core temperature is going to be displayed as being 5C cooler than my IHS surface temperature which is impossible. If TJMax = 95C then the reported core temperature and the measured IHS temperature would be exactly the same which isn't very likely either. It makes the most sense if the core creating the heat is hotter than the IHS.
Intel has also stated that TJMax is not a fixed value. It varies from one CPU to another even with the same model number but they haven't stated how big the range of TJMax might be for an individual processor. This range seems larger for 45nm than 65nm but I'm just guessing at that.
I just set up a i7 920 system with a gigabyte UD5 motherboard, running a stock air cooler. It's not in the case yet, just on the desk with a big fan blowing towards it. The only bios change is that is was updated to version F4. Should the temperatures reach this hot? I do see the multiplier is jumping to 21 and reaching 2833mhz when at 100%. Is that the reason why the temps are so high?
http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/5269/realtempbg2.jpg
Hey guys, what is the TJ max I have to set in Real temp? Default was 95, but I read it was 100 on a other place :confused :confused:
Please, where can I find this information that is correct?
The OEM cooler is barely adequate. Your temps look like it might not be seated correctly. Have a look at that and run CPU-Z to make sure the core voltage isn't too high. You've already got two cores thermal throttling which isn't good.
IcemaN22: What CPU? Download the latest RealTemp version from a couple of posts ago and click on the Defaults button in the Settings window to see if that changes it. TJMax documentation does not seem to be 100% accurate.
Anyone that doesn't like to see their multiplier jumping up and down should head to their bios and turn off SpeedStep and C1E or head into their Power Options and set it properly so these features work as intended.
http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/4...optionsek7.png