Printable View
On my E6600 default TJ max accoring to real temp is 85 and on E8400 95.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Both of them are around 35 degre idle, not sure what is wrong or correct...
I used to follow this: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-...ews-29460.html
Download the latest version of RealTemp and it should be using different TJMax values than that as Defaults. That information by Intel has been somewhat corrected. Unfortunately there are 101 errors in that data.
Well Cpu-z is showing voltage is jumping around 1.152-1.232 around full load. As well I did cover the entire contact of the cpu with artic silver 5 with a flat edge, trying to get it as thin as possible. I just took a look at the instructions on artic's site and they suggest running a thin line across the cores and letting the heatsink spread it out properly and thin. I'll give that a try and hope it shows somewhat of a improvement.
The new beta looks good, It gave 100 to the E8400 that probably is correct... but it gave my E6600 to much, 90 ! That can't be right...Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
You can always change TJmax value from settings :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by IcemaN22
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
People need to ignore the data in that article, it's way off. Even if it was "fixed" it wouldn't really be fixed. *grumbles* :mad:
yeah, only problem is that I dont know what value is right for e6600. My article sucks and the beta is giving wrong too... :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by carepolice
Regarding the power management settings in Windows, I don't actually have "Processor Power Management" in there. It doesn't require EIST to be enabled for it to show up does it? I only use C1E.
RC4 looks great unclewebb (once I got it to stop downloading the old one like last time ;)). It seems my average multi doesn't go below 6.5x and occassionally spikes up to 7-8.5x with no active programs running.
Awesome, thank you for the timely response. :) I'll be leaving my TJMax setting as 100c then. What you've said makes complete sense. It's just to bad Intel can't be more accurate for forthcoming with their data. :( CompuTronix over at Tom's Hardware has confirmed my SpeedFan Calibration is correct, so I'm just going to go with what it's showing me now, and continue on with life.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Thanks again. :)
The updated TJMax news release from Intel shows that TJ Target for an E6600 is 80C. I believe that the actual TJMax is higher than that number and that's why RealTemp is set to use 90C by default.Quote:
Originally Posted by IcemaN22
That number is based on IR thermometer testing of my E6400 B2 stepping which is very similar to your E6600 B2 stepping except the E6400 has half of the L2 cache disabled. The cores are identical beyond that.
I tested my E6400 the same way I tested the Q6600 I mentioned above. For both the E6400 and the Q6600, Intel's TJ Target number is 10C lower than the actual TJMax.
Flip a coin and pick whatever TJMax you wish. You can even average those two numbers and use 85C like I believe Core Temp and most other programs are still using. It's really not that important. As long as your CPU is stable and not thermal throttling, then there's no need to be concerned about the core temperature of the CPU. It's just a semi-random number coming from poorly documented sensors that were never designed to give out accurate temperature information.
I think that option disappears if you don't have EIST enabled. If you want your multiplier steady at 6.0 when idle, you need to enable C1E and EIST and set up Windows appropriately. If I have the Minimum processor state set to 100%, my 4 cores on my Q6600 will continuously dance between 6.0 and 9.0. Depending on your setup, your multiplier might not be as stable as you've always thought it was. I've decided to let RealTemp tell it like it is so users can make adjustments to their settings to get the multi they like.Quote:
Regarding the power management settings in Windows, I don't actually have "Processor Power Management" in there. It doesn't require EIST to be enabled for it to show up does it? I only use C1E.
My friend rge sent me some info about a new program that is designed to create some serious heat in those cores.
With a name like Core Damage, I should have known better.
Here's what happens to my Q6600 after running Core Damage for two minutes.
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/6...edamagefl9.png
I'll have to remember to plug in the CPU fan next time. I guess that means the thermal throttling flag is definitely working in RealTemp. :D
During earlier testing, as it sat at the maximum temperature, the reported multiplier slowly decreased from 9.0 to 6.0 in a gradual, more believable fashion.
I'll think twice next time before accepting software from a guy that considers drilling holes in the top of his IHS a hobby. ;)
coredamage worked pretty well for sensor test, raised temps 10C higher than prime previous test in link...but I left my fans on:D
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2877
Let me know if this is right. At 1600mhz and about 1.1v my temps come down to 37 37 38 38 at 24 amb., so going by RGEs chart I should probably use TJmax 95 instead of 100? My temps come pretty close to each other at max temps but the first two cores always seem to lag behind at lower settings, mainly core 1 which is usually a few degrees lower. Ive ran the cool down test at lower settings and I know core 1 gets stuck at 63. Would setting TJmax to 95 and correcting core0 +1 and core1 +2 be right?
Intel says TJMax for your Q9550 is 100C so I'd leave that as is. Your full load temps look nicely balanced compared to many Quads.
If you've tested with your case open at 1600 to 2000 MHz and 1.10 volts for the core and your idle temps seem 5C too high then you can go into the Settings window and set some negative idle calibration factors. I try to balance out my idle temps during this test which seems to work pretty good.
Personally, if I had a Quad running over 4.1GHz, I wouldn't worry too much about trying to get the idle temps perfect. Nice OC. :up:
With my core i7 920, real temp reads the bclock 10mhz too low. It happens at stock as well as my oc.
I just changed the MHz code to try to get better Mobile CPU support. I tried not to screw anything up but anything is possible.
Post a screen shot if you can of RealTemp and CPU-Z at full load to show the problem.
Can you post a pic/print screen up so can see?Quote:
Originally Posted by cky2k6
Edit: I must be really slow typist:p:
rge found one issue where the MHz isn't updated during the Sensor movement or CPU Cool Down Test. That was by design. I did this for more accurate results during these tests but I think I can leave this on now without it causing a problem. rge is testing this out at the moment.
The MHz code is more discriminating now when it sees a MHz number it doesn't like. This was put in there to help out the Mobile processors but it might need a little bit of fine tuning. If anyone is having problems and has some time to do some testing just let me know.
RC5 seems to have solved the problem. It was only during the idle part of test where mhz went awry, but the new version reads correctly 4.2 whole time.
Last time I had both enabled, CPU-Z reported my multi at a constant 6x. :down: I really don't need either enabled I guess, but C1E allows higher overclocks... strangely. I guess that turns most OC guides on their head :)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I did some more testing today and found my board has no problem sitting stable at 6.0 when idle with EIST enabled and C1E disabled or 9.0 with EIST disabled and C1E disabled. When both C1E and EIST are enabled, then I have to go into the power options to make sure that is set appropriately or else I'll get the dancing multipliers.
Thanks rge for testing that out. :up:
On my old P5B board, the reported MHz are a hair more stable compared to a couple of RC versions ago, especially when running SetFSB. Very accurate as well.
Interesting...I tried that with my core i7 and XP. With C1E enabled +/- EIST enabled I get dancing multi. With C1E disabled and EIST enabled I get 21 multi (bios setting). Seems C1E has to be enabled for my mobo, i7, XP combo to see any decrease in multi...at least in standard desktop power option.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
It's RC4 or RC5?
Btw,Uncle must update first post
I think he needs to add a big red message in the OP saying:Quote:
Originally Posted by stasio
"Refer to this post (which will be a link) if you have questions about which Tj Max to use". Then he wouldn't have to keep repeating himself ;)
Finally got the TRUE on there..
http://www.isarapix.org/pix30/1230377191.png
Yep, that's nearly a 30 degree delta in load temperatures between the stock cooler and stock paste vs. the TRUE, 120mmx38mm and AS5. :rofl: The stock paste looked and felt like concrete when I pulled that crap off. No CPU of mine ever going near a stock heatsink again..
Friends don't let friends use the OEM cooler on Core i7. :D
stasio: When people tell me about bugs they've found, I work with them one on one to get things sorted out. RC4 is the current release and RC5 was so rge could do some testing for me. I just noticed the first post. You're right, it definitely needs some updating! I guess I prefer to spend my time making RealTemp work better. The next official release is coming. I'm just waiting for some feedback about the MHz being displayed since that chunk of code was recently overhauled.
Edit: The beta link on the First page of this thread always downloads the latest beta, even when I haven't updated the version number for a while.
Not sure what the exact issues are, haven't been following the thread as well as I should.. But it certainly beats CPU-Z:
http://www.isarapix.org/pix9/1230396012.png
That's a lotta jiggamahurtz right there. :rofl: It spikes like that for less than a second a few times per minute. No such thing in RealTemp that I can see..
RealTemp competing with the king of MHz, CPU-Z, is good but RealTemp finally beating CPU-Z is time for a celebration.
:party:
I guess all that development time with rge and burebista is starting to pay off.
Your screen shot is very unusual. I've never seen CPU-Z reporting anything like that before. You better post that screen shot on EBay and tell the world that you have a secret Intel CPU that can overclock to a gazillion MHz, on air!
Well, yeah. The number is so high it doesn't fit in the box, so I don't really know how much we're talking about. I think we're beyond the point where Doc Brown tells us we're about to see some serious :banana::banana::banana::banana:, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
It might be because I enabled a couple of the special sauce voodoo options in the BIOS to get the clock stable. I can't even remember their name. You know the ones, clock skew, load line calibration, spectrum spread, magic dust, god knows what. I enabled two of those. I'll have to check to remember what they're called. :yawn:
bowman, you should do a cpuz validation at that mhz...and submit it.:D You might have a world record for a couple days til someone pulls it down.:rofl:
The cpuz bug worked for spyros, he had world record at cpuz with E8400 OC'ed with 9x935+ FSB, until they finally deleted it, it was another cpuz bug.
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=468500
And congrats to Unclewebb for hopping quickly on core i7 compatibility, definitely shows.
I couldn't have done it without you rge and that Intel Turbo white paper you sent my way. Thanks for all of your testing and help.Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
I'd also liked to thank burebista who has sent me 984MB of video clips of the funny things that RealTemp used to do on his unique system. He sent me an updated video this morning and RT is looking good on his Core 2, even with 101 different power management options all fighting against each other. :D
What is interesting, someone was asking about calibrating realtemp with a core i7 in another thread....I just turned my computer off for a while to let water cool to room temp, then fired it up at stock/auto/loaded default settings, and let idle for 15 minutes, then started realtemp and everest to monitor watts. This is with EIST/C1E enabled, says Im at 6.75W idle (all c6 etc deeper sleep states are disabled by default), and with 25C ambient, 26C internal case ambient with IR gun, here is reading in realtemp, 8C above ambient, 7C above internal case temps, nearly same to what we figured with quads/core duos. pic 1
In pic 2 I disabled hyperthreading, and enabled c3/c5/c6 deeper sleep states, and watts down to 3W, and temps now 7C above ambient, 6C above internal case temps.
It was always my theory that there wasn't a lot of difference in temperatures at idle between a wide range of Core 2 based CPUs. From Dual Cores with 1MB of cache to 65nm Quads, the difference only seems to be about +/- 1C at ultra idle. Interesting to see that Core i7 is following that trend. With the minimal number of watts being consumed, it's difficult to get a significantly better delta than what you're seeing.
Can you try running the XS Bench a couple of times with your Core i7 locked at a common speed like 20x200. I want to include a new baseline on this screen for Core i7 since they run faster clock for clock compared to Core 2. This benchmark is single threaded and small enough so that it fits in the cache. Any Core 2 at the same frequency should score pretty much the same thing. It's just a quick test to make sure your computer is running properly without having to find Super Pi. :)
On my dual boot system it shows Vista running about 0.5% faster than XP. I get very consistent results from run to run when I push the Enter key quickly twice when it's sitting at this screen:
http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/8084/xsbenchtl9.png
I added the MHz to this screen last night. Almost time for a new RC release.
rge: Try enabling Mobile in the power options to see if that gets your multi down to 12. You might need to do that to get all of the advanced C states working at their best.
You can always tell when a program starts getting good. Cracks for it start to appear on the internet.
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/8...pcracksea8.png
It's FREE you dumb asses. :rofl:
The most ridiculous thing is that it says 52931 have downloaded this file. I wanted to see what they were downloading but when I clicked on the link they told me to get out my credit card. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Are there really this many dumb asses in the world? :am:
Nope, it's just a bot page designed to scam credit cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
At least it means your app is popular enough to make the bots grab the name and make a page. :p:
I changed laptop power and it sat on 12 multi, but watts stays same reads between 2W min and 3-4W max. Hard to catch watts reading though because lower half of sensor page in everest keeps disappearing, pops off whenever deeper sleeps are enabled...weird bug. Have to restart everest, hit sensor reading, wait 1 sec as it goes to idle watts then print screen...just before all sensor readings disappear.
I ran XS test on RT 4x at 20x200, UC 18x, mem 8X, 1600 ram, and results were 1607x3, 1606x1.
With my 24/7 settings, 21x200, UC 18x, mem 8x, 1600 ram results were 1688x3.
That's good to know. I thought the world was being taken over by idiots. More so than usual!Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
Thanks for the numbers rge.
Edit: You boosted your overclock by 5% and ended up with a 4.99% difference in performance based on your two Time values in your screen shot. How's that for a benchmark that is directly proportional to CPU performance?
At 4200 MHz your Core i7 can crunch numbers in a single threaded app 67.8% quicker compared to my Q6600 at 3000 MHz. A Core 2 would need to be running at 5 GHz to compete with that. It would definitely mop the floor with my Q6600 if this bench had 8 threads to keep your i7 busy. Do you have any Core 2 SuperPi times at about that speed to compare to your Core i7?
Here's the official release of RC5.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
A couple of minor fixes so the MHz will continue to be updated correctly during a CPU Cool Down Test. Also included the MHz in the XS Bench window so you can collect these little windows like football or hockey cards. You can check back a month later to make sure your CPU is not degrading.
1610 is the number to shoot for with your Core i7 at 4GHz. :up:
i have real temp 2.5 and beta 2.9 the new one when cpu is idleing doesn't
matter if its running 3.3GHz default speed or 4.2 always shows 30ºc
unclewebb can you explain why?
and congratulations for the popularity of your work
thank you :up:
:clap:
http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/2...ymenii1kn3.jpg
Thanks for the update.
Mr Hydes: At idle with good cooling, there isn't much change in temperature even when there are some very big changes in MHz. There are also lots of sticking sensors with the 45nm chips. With version 2.90 do a CPU Cool Down Test and post your results. That usually tells me everything I need to know. Try running it at your default MHz and core voltage.
Ooo... Realtemp with serial. What does that unlock? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I wish those guys would send me some of the money they're scamming by using RealTemp's good name.Quote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
Maybe with a serial your temps will drop a couple of degrees. Cheaper than buying a better cooler. :D
Congratulations for your excellent work on the programm unclewebb! :up:
I suggest you to stop updating the versions with RC1,2,3 etc because at the realtemp window they appear the same, as a 2.90 version :)
So you can't tell the difference between realtemp 2.90 RC2 and realtemp 2.90 RC5. ;) Keep this in mind for the next update.
Hi unclewebb. I've been running my qx6700@3.6 for a while now with no probs but rc5 seems to not recognise my multi setting. I don't know exactly wich version it went wrong on, but rc1 is fine.
Any way you could implement temperature graphing? I got the idea when I got up this morning and saw when it hit the lowest temperature.. I'd love to have a graph of each core's temperature along the timeline. Perhaps with load graphs snatched from the task manager above it?
Just, you know, if it's feasible it'd be really neat.
With a little detective work you can. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by sakis_the_fraud
Attachment 91618
Silly me. I've just caught up with the last three pages. I still don't get it. I have disabled c1e and all that in bios and I don't use software to oc. So does this mean all 4 cores are not @ 3.6.
Do you have EIST disabled as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by PCTwin
PCTWin: I've decided to let RealTemp report the average multiplier. I realized that some users weren't going to like seeing the truth because it's not what they're used to seeing. We've all been led to believe that the multiplier is a nice fixed number but I found out during testing that depending on how you have your computer set up, the multiplier might be jumping up and down like a yo-yo. RealTemp displays the average multiplier over a 1 second time interval. If it does not show a stable number then your multiplier is not stable.
On my motherboard, EIST (aka. Enhanced Intel SpeedStep®) is mostly in control of this. Depending on your bios and 101 other things, you might need to go into the Windows Power Options and adjust your Minimum processor state in Vista. Make sure that EIST is disabled and your Minimum processor state is set to 100% and then your multiplier should be steady at 8.0. If you want your Core 2 multiplier steady at 6.0 when your computer is idle then enable EIST and set your Minimum processor state to whatever percentage it takes to get the multi steady at 6.0. When using Vista, my Q6600 needs a setting of 66% (6.0 / 9.0) or lower. In Windows XP you might need to set your Power Options -> Power Scheme to Portable / Laptop to get your multi steady at 6.0.
sakis_the_fraud: I wasn't originally planning for all these RC versions. :) The last official release has been out for 5 months without an update so I wanted to make sure that version 2.90 Final was a good one with lots of new features and not too many bugs. I think we've reached that point. I'm just waiting to hear back from one user that had problems with MHz but I'm pretty sure that only happened when he was doing a CPU Cool Down Test which used to temporarily suspend updating the MHz. If all goes well, the official 2.90 will be released in a day or two. Next time I go off on an RC tangent I'll include the RC label in the title bar so it's clearer.
bowman: My good friend burebista has been twisting my arm for months trying to get me to write a RivaTuner plug-in for RealTemp. He says if I did this then RivaTuner could be used to handle the graphing. I haven't written a plug in before. If I don't get too confused then I'll probably do that next. If I get confused then maybe I'll just write my own graphing code. For me, that would be easier. I hate running SpeedFan just to see a temperature graph.
If I have enough time I might do both in the New Year. I like RivaTuner and I'm interested in that project but I'd also like some more advanced graphing abilities. I think it might be easier to calibrate RealTemp if you could see what your temperature curve for each core looked like. Being able to visually see the effects of adjustments to TJMax and the Calibration settings would be great.
EIST is also disabled. It just seems that any setting other than the default multi doesn't add up. I'm now on 10x multi and it's showing correct speed, but if I move the multi either up or down the cpu speed isn't right.
At full load, does CPU-Z and RealTemp show the same FSB MHz and the same multiplier no matter what multiplier you're using?
I think some motherboard and bios versions simply do not handle EIST correctly. Turning EIST off in the bios may not actually turn it off when you are in Windows. Try using RMClock 2.30 to check for that. I had problems with a newer version so I've stuck with version 2.30.
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4561/rmclockhu9.png
On my board, I can't toggle EIST with this program but it does correctly read if EIST is enabled or not. If the problem you are having with RealTemp is because of your bios, then I will provide a switch in RealTemp that you can use so it reports the multiplier the way it used to. If the problem is because of RealTemp, then I will provide a switch in RealTemp that you can use so it reports the multiplier the way it used to. :D
Either way I'll get things fixed up for you. It will be interesting to see what the bug really is. I'm hoping to blame this one on the Abit bios. Post a few pics of CPU-Z vs RealTemp while running Prime with your multi locked at 10 and above or below 10. Your Extreme processor might be working a little differently than what I'm used to seeing and what I've tested on so far.
Edit: I just went into my bios. EIST was disabled but as soon as I manually set a multiplier, the EIST option disappeared and when I booted up, it showed that EIST was enabled. There doesn't seem to be a way to turn it off when a multiplier is entered manually.
I get this when the multiplier is set to Auto in the bios and EIST is disabled.
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/4551/eist2ce2.png
It might also be an Intel design spec that whenever a multi is manually entered that EIST must be on.
Is there a reason why the readings don't go lower then 28c ?
First test results. Will update my sig soon. Water cooled cpu, 18c ambient but I dont know the ambient of the water. Got to fit a sensor soon. Reset all bios settings to auto and ran a sensor test. C1E, EIST enabled, will do some more tests tomorrow.
My calibration and sensor test results.
Most of the 45nm sensors stop moving by that point. That's just the way they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by X.T.R.E.M.E_ICE
Theoretically, if the sensors didn't get stuck, they should be able to read down to -27C.
The CPU Cool Down Test might show your sticking point.
PCTwin: changing TJMax to 90C for your B3 Quad recently looks like a good decision. Your 25C idle temps in an 18C room don't look like they are too far off. It will be interesting to see when you get a reading of your water temp.
Unclewebb. Just a quickie before bedtime, what do you think of the calibration settings.
PCTwin: When I first started this project I assumed that TJMax was a fixed value across all 4 cores. It's definitely not and Intel agrees with that. 90C is a TJ Target that Intel was aiming for but due to manufacturing tolerances, actual TJ Max can be slightly higher.
Now that I'm not afraid to change TJMax, why not try this calibration instead. For TJMax use 90, 90, 93, 91 and now you won't need any Idle Calibration for cores 0, 1 and 3. Core 2 on 65nm Quads frequently reads lower than the rest. The slope of the curve is slightly different than the other ones so I'd still use an Idle Calibration setting of about 0.6.
The end result isn't going to be much different than what you have. It might be a degree or two more accurate but given the quality and limitations of these sensors, it's not that important to have a perfect calibration. At least you're in the ball park. It's the 45nm Quads that need some fancy math to try to decipher what their sensors are saying.
When done, try running Prime95 Small FFTs with the log file set to 1 second. Start and stop Prime a few times every 30 seconds so the temperatures can cycle up and down. Afterwards have a look at the log file and you'll probably see your 4 cores tracking each other pretty closely from idle to full load.
One thing I was going to mention since your screen shot shows the problem is that with the old Visual C++ compiler I'm using, there's a bug and no way to change the heading colors when you adjust the GUI colors. There's a few minor things like that I'd like to try and fix in the future. That's the sacrifice I had to make to get the buttons with the rounded corners that I like.
Had to break in RC5 Realtemp XS bench and update my sig:D
Results @3.4g 8xmulti 426 fsb. Cpu-z and Realtemp dont show the same clock loaded or idle. EIST,C1E disabled in bios. With rm, EIST shaws as enabled even though disabled in bios. Changed my calibration, set tj to 90 90 94 91. There's no cpu function in control panel power options.
Calibration and sensor test result. Will do 10 multi soon.
rge: Congratulations for setting the XS Bench record. :up:
I'm going to use that number in the XS Bench window to give users something to shoot for.
PCTwin: Interesting results. I'm going to play around with multipliers today to see if this method of calculating the average multiplier is defective.
Can you try a couple of tests when you get the chance. How about running your computer at about 3400 MHz with a 10X multiplier and then try to run at that same speed using an 8X multiplier. Use CPU-Z to confirm your MHz. At both settings run a SuperPI bench and maybe an XS Bench as well. Try to have your memory at similar speed and timings for both runs. I just want to make sure that your CPU is running at the same speed. Your bench scores should be very similar if you are and will be quite a bit different if you're not.
If this average multiplier method does not work on a QX processor then I'll scrap it. Thanks for your help.
Edit: I was also wondering what program you're using to load your CPU? Can you use Prime95 Small FFTs?
Great work rge. You're the current XS Bench WR holder for the water cooled category! :up:
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/3528/thebarwm9.png
The competition better post their numbers before 2.90 gets finalized.
Sweet:DQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
If you've got a Core 2 you better bring your LN to the party to run a 7.915 second XS Bench. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by rge
Another obscure RealTemp bug was squashed today. Alberto was having a hell of a time getting RealTemp running on his computer. It would try to start up but then he would have to re-boot his Q6600 Vista 32 computer. I spent a few hours digging through the code but I couldn't find anything that would cause this. It turned out that Outpost Firewall was going above and beyond the call of duty keeping his PC safe. It must not have liked the open source, WinRing0 driver that RealTemp depends on.
I can understand when nanny software blocks a program but it's a little excessive when things start locking up and you can't get Task Manager or anything else running to see what's really going on. A big :down: for nanny software.
Just 2 words: Comodo Firewall. No problems whatsoever on XP 32 SP1-2-3 and now on Vista64 SP1 (yeah, long time Comodo user here).Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
/OT
+1 for Windows Firewall! It doesn't block anything!
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
I gave up on firewall with hips/nannyware years ago. I would rather have malware on my computer, less buggy and easier to get rid of. Router for inbound, and firefox with noscript is all I need... cant get infected if u dont let it run in first place. Have AV, dont know why, hasnt made a peep in all the years been using noscript.
I've been out of the loop for a while, but I finally got myself back together and built all of my parts that have been accumulated from impulse buys the past 6 months.
I forgot I was using RealTemp before I dropped off the face of the planet, so I downloaded Core Temp 0.99.3. I noticed my temp was in the high 30s, and was dumbfounded as I'm running watercooling on my +0.05vcore stock clocked e8400 with a d-tek fuzion.
I found the latest realtemp (v2.7) and I seem to be at 32/28 right now idle.
Now that's more like it. :) THANKS!!
There have been a LOT of upgrades to RealTemp since version 2.70.
The latest beta is always available here:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
The new CPU Cool Down Test looks perfect for you. Post your results. You probably have a stuck sensor.
You probably won't be too happy. RealTemp uses TJMax=100C now just like Core Temp does so your temps just went up 5C. :(
First test @3.4 Multi x8 mem @ 1022. Used XSbench to save time.
Second test @ 3.4 Multi x10. mem @1020. The results look pretty close. I would expect the 10 Multi to be a bit slower due to the lower fsb. With 3.4 x8 when I tried to set the bus speed to 425 for an even 3.4 it defaulted to 426 and 3.408. A slight difference.
PCTwin: Thanks for taking the time to test that. I'll go back to the old way of doing things so the multiplier on your QX is displayed properly at full load. At idle, when you have EIST enabled, it might not show the same number as CPU-Z but at full load it should be the same. The Core i7 based code I was using works for most Core 2 CPUs but obviously not for the QX series. Your board is like my board that as soon as you enter in a multiplier manually, EIST gets enabled whether you like it or not.
Thank you, Unclewebb, for such a great program. The latest version is looking good for me so far. Will play with my settings again later.
PCTwin: Thanks for bringing that problem to my attention. There were some advantages to the Core i7 averaging method that I was trying to use for Core 2 but if it's not 100% compatible with Core 2 QX processors then it had to go. I'm :) to see it's working for you with an 8X multi.
@uncle
Is a distanc to TjMax ~19 still safe for a G0 Q6600, thats 80c with 100c-105c TjMax (80,80,76,76) this is at 3.2Ghz with 1.355v bios to make it stable with LinX(Linpak64) under prime i dont go over 70c though.
In real life you'll never see Linpack temperatures. Anyway 20 distance to TJMax I'd say that it's perfect safe (as long as your CPU is stable).
QFT.....Only temps that matter to me would be running realtemp for several days of normal use, and checking max temps. If you fold at home, might equate to prime blend temps, but would never worry about linpack temps, even though I like it for testing.Quote:
Originally Posted by burebista
thanks
Demo: I think any temperature is safe as long as you're not thermal throttling and your computer is stable. Intel CPUs seem to run reliably at very high temperatures. The whole purpose of going to multiple on chip digital thermal sensors was so Intel could accurately monitor the hottest point on the core which allows users to run their chips hotter without thermal throttling kicking in.
When you read the documentation, Intel is proud of this fact. They're proud that they were able to boost TJMax by 10C from the original B2/B3 generation to the second gen G0 series like your Q6600. If doing this led to a lot of processors going ka-boom and the RMA numbers went way up then they would have lowered TJMax.
The Core i7 runs hot as hell when they are pushed hard but Intel left TJMax at 100C. I've seen lots of screen shots of people running them reliably at a core temperature of 80C to 90C and I haven't heard of a single report of a damaged CPU because of this. Intel doesn't seem to worry too much about high core temperatures so as long as I'm running stable, I don't worry either.
So what is the real TJMax on Q6600 G0 CPU? As far I have seen 95, 100, maybe other, how can I tell what is for my CPU? RT 2.70 shows 95, newer 2.90 beta 100 degrees C! :confused:
Want to set actual + calibrate it on box cooler and low speed/volt and then safely monitor temperatures when overclocking past 3.8 Ghz :up:
Given that graphics cards manage to run regularly at near 100C with the stock cooler, with TSMC processes and NVIDIA bumps.. ;) I have faith my Nehalem can take the sauna.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Kashelz: My best guess for TJMax is 100C for the Q6600. rge showed me that my testing with my IR thermometer might provide an accurate surface temperature of the IHS but the actual core temperature is likely about 5C higher. The IHS does a great job of quickly transferring heat away from the cores so my original guess at TJMax was too conservative. That's why TJMax got bumped up from 95C to 100C between version 2.70 and version 2.90.
Even 100C is only an estimate. At the factory, setting TJMax does not seem to be an exact science. How much it varies from one CPU of the same model to the next is anyone's guess. With a Q6600, Intel might be using a higher TJMax for core2/core3 compared to core0/core1. It doesn't seem to be an accident or a coincidence since a very high percentage of Quads follow the same trend.
Use rge's guidelines and I think you'll be pretty close to an accurate temperature.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2429
If you do a CPU Cool Down Test you might see the split TJMax that I've noticed. Post a screen shot of that test and I'll give you a second opinion of what your sensors are telling you.
bowman: I think AMD/ATI's release of the 4850/4870 series has made users a little less nervous about sky high silicon temperatures. With graphics cards or CPUs it all comes down to stability. If your GPU is at 90C and every game you play looks like it's snowing or is full of artifacts then that is too hot. If your game looks good and runs stable then you're probably not hurting your GPU too much.
So is a fair guess for Tj Max +10°C above Target Tj?
Got a bug for you.. Probably easy to fix, but hey, what do I know. My only programming experience is putting blocks together in Lego Mindstorms when I was, what, 9? :rofl: Due to the Hyper-Threading, RealTemp displays two temperatures for a single-core Intel Atom. They're both, obviously, the same temperature. Also, the sensor test seems to be cosmetically broken as well. (http://www.isarapix.org/pix61/1230858748.png) Temperatures look alright but for some reason the load % is 0.0 all the way down.
In the mean time, stand in awe at the immense computing power;
http://www.isarapix.org/pix71/1230857497.png
You ain't got nothing on this! :cool: (on the other hand, if the E8400 was the same frequency and this bench scales properly.. it'd score 533. Maybe not so far off?!)
Thanks for reply. I have done sensor test, will add screenshot later. Im useing intel box cooler fow Q6600 at the moment, because all computer is lied on small box and box un lied all over the table. Just do testings for new motherboard and voltage output from it. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
The test showed that all cores looked fine, no stuck sensor, distance to TJ Max was 23/22/23/23 under full load with Prime95 and 8k ffts. Now testing Core Damage, pretty hot, 15/13/14/15 to TJ Max after 30mins of testing. The ambient temp is ~ 26 C!
Im interested to test each core when it gets into Thermal mode at what distance to TJ Max and if its 0 then I can calibrate manual seting of TJ Max, right? :shakes: And as I understand temp are more accuret after they are hotter 60C and when are more to Tj Max they are even more acurate? I mean fault of reading sensor on the core.
Ok, here is the screene, CPU is Q6600 @ 2.4Ghz at 400 x 6, dafault voltage 1.275v, just testing FSB speeds for longer usage. Few minits ago tested core3 and Throtling kicked in something like 97 degrees C, so maybe TJ Max for that core is not 100 but 97 for exact this CPU? Need more testing to see when really Thermal operation starts to work on other cores :)
Image of screenshot: http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...1&d=1230859940
And here is the same testing but with Core Damage as burning software instead of Prime95 8K ffts.
Could anyone tell me why if I have a weird chip?
It's a E0 Q9550 OC'ed to 3.825GHz on 1.3125V on a 780i FTW and my temps don't look right
Basically at idle temps, it's at 31/31/39/37 while at full load on Prime95 the highest they go sometimes during high ambient temperature is like 49/49/47/48
http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/481...sortesthk8.jpg
Sorry for the uncropping of the image:D
SFaznSpEEdSTeR: It would have been nice if you would have let the Cool Down Test complete but even the partial test clearly shows that the sensors on core2 and core3 are stuck. Lots of these sensors stick and if you ran the test further you might find another one of your cores has a sticking sensor. Not all but most Quads have at least one good sensor. As for your uncropped image, why not do us all a favor and download a free program like Irfanview.
Kashelz: The TJMax on your 4 cores looks very well balanced. The sensors all have slightly different slopes. The RealTemp idle calibration factors can be used to balance the temperatures of your 4 cores at idle if you want. Just follow rge's recommendations for what a normal idle temperature is when testing at 1600 MHz and 1.10 volts. A Q6600 is about 1C higher than the E8400 he used during testing at these settings.
Thermal throttling starts to happen at a Distance to TJMax of 2 or 3 which is exactly what you found. It seems to do this because the goal is for the CPU to throttle itself and keep itself from ever reaching 100C.
I've posted this picture before but it does a great job of explaining exactly what happens so I'll post it again:
http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/8...8400fw5oj9.png
I ran Prime95 Small FFTs for 3 hours with the CPU fan turned off. The processor continuously throttled itself during this test. When it got too hot it would drop the multiplier to 6.0, cool down a little and then immediately the multiplier would go back to 9.0 until it got too hot. The multiplier cycles back and forth like this, likely hundreds or more times a second to keep the core temperature from going nuclear. It mostly sat at 98C. There were a few times where it would hit 99C but only once in 3 hours did it hit 100C as shown in the graph. I thought that was pretty amazing. You can be running a very stressful program like Prime95 and even if your CPU fan fails, your CPU will still take care of itself. When you see this, having TM1 / TM2 turned on in the bios isn't such a bad idea.
Sorry about that ;)
Anyways, the cool down won't matter anyways because after that, the distance from TJMax stays the same. It is at a default 100C so I have not changed that.
I did something similar last week , E8400@4GHZ stock cooler with Intelburn test but this time it will switch down when the temp reaches 95C , surprisingly it gave me 100% stable in 5 runs that lasted for 510SecondsQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
+Can you explain a bit about sensor burning test , mine looks pretty bad when load gets higher Difference between 2 cores always get bigger Unless i am running some crazy volts and temps are well over 75C , is it sensor issues , bad cooling or uneven heatsink/IHS ?
http://i41.tinypic.com/vgiqlk.jpg
Edit:looks like sensor Core 1 is stuck
Please, I have a problem:
How can I set Real temp to start up when Vista start?
I put the .exe in automatic esecution folder, but it doesn't work.. an error message say: ....WinRing0.dll not found...
Thanks
You can use Task Scheduler, or (like I did) made an entry in registry:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Run right-click in right panel-New-String Value, name it RealTemp and in Value Data put your path to RealTemp executable (in my case "C:\Utile\RealTemp\RealTemp.exe")
Attachment 92011
Okay guys gotta quick question for you I have a stuck sensor on my Q9550 that reads 0 on the move test. but it does go up in temp just fine doesn't read below 35 thought so I went and adjusted the idle temp on it to roughtly what the other 4 where idling at and now it doesn't read higher then 32 when the rest of them are 40+ but the movement test now reads 3. kinda confused here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by burebista
Thanks :clap:
There isn't any formula for converting Intel's TJ Target specs to a TJMax number that can be used to give you reasonably accurate core temperatures. TJMax is not a fixed number that Intel is willing to commit to. It can vary from one CPU to the next of the same model. In some cases, it seems to vary from one core to the next within the same CPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by ptelles
TJ Target and TJ Max seem to be the same for many processors like most of the E8000 series but the TJ Target numbers that Intel released for the 65 nm processors do seem to be off by 10C for quite a few of them.
For the Xeon E5410, Intel lists the TJ Target as 85C. Run a CPU Cool Down Test to make sure your sensors aren't sticking at low temperatures. Set your CPU to 333 x 6.0 in the bios and drop the core voltage down to 1.10 volts if you can. If you enable C1E and SpeedStep and have Windows set correctly, when your computer is idle it should drop down to somewhere close to these numbers. Run CPU-Z to check your core voltage.
My guess is that TJMax is probably 95C or 100C. Open your case and compare your reported CPU temperature to your room temperature near your CPU.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2429
Post or send me some screen shots and I'll give you my opinion of what I think it is.
bowman: I'll have to admit that RealTemp was not designed with the Atom N270 in mind. I'll make a few fixes to RealTemp to better support it but I won't be able to do anything with the simple Load meter I'm using. As for Atom performance, it looks pathetic! Here's how my Q6600 does when locked to 1600 MHz.
http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/691...1600mhzlh3.png
The single threaded XS Bench does a big calculation and scales very linearly with CPU MHz for pretty much any Core based processor. The Core i7 is about 20% faster at the same clock speed while the Atom looks like a good chip to check your e-mail with. :)
SFaznSpEEdSTeR: I was just interested in seeing the rest of your Cool Down Test so I could see if core0 and core1 were sticking.
kemo: If you go into the Settings window and click on the Defaults button, it should set your TJMax to 100C. It looks like it is presently set at 95C. The other problem you have is that TJMax is not consistent for both of your cores. I think you should set it to 100/109 for your two cores. As you noticed, core 1 is stuck so it won't be able to give you accurate idle temperatures but when Distance to TJMax is less than 55, your two cores should be well balanced.
colex: When using Vista, I prefer to use the Task Scheduler to add RealTemp to the Start Up area but burebista's method works. In XP you can copy a link to RealTemp.exe into your Startup folder. Edit: This also works in Vista. Go to All Programs -> Startup and copy a link into that folder.
Copying RealTemp.exe won't work since it won't be able to find the WinRing0 driver.
Demthios: You can't calibrate a stuck sensor. Post a screen shot of your CPU Cool Down Test. That's the easiest way for me to get a lot of information about your sensors without having to ask you a lot of questions.
unclewebb,
Can I trouble you to have a looky at my sensor test and tell me what I need/if I need to alter any TJmax or idle calib?
http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/3648/realtempjh0.jpg
Thanks matey
Figured as much. ;) But I also figured you'd want the crown for Intel compatibility so it's another notch in the belt, right? Aside from the two GUI quirks it seems to work fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Check e-mail, browse the web, view videos, use Paint.NET.. It works just fine for my mobile purposes:)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb