http://i43.tinypic.com/j7vw1z.jpg
Quite a difference on idle, load seems alright I guess? It was 28, 28, 32, 32 on 2.70 (non-beta).
Printable View
http://i43.tinypic.com/j7vw1z.jpg
Quite a difference on idle, load seems alright I guess? It was 28, 28, 32, 32 on 2.70 (non-beta).
Kashii: When there is a large difference in Movement during the Sensor Movement Test, that's a warning sign of sticking sensors. The CPU Cool Dow Test confirms it. Between the 39% level and Idle, core0 and core1 move about 10 degrees while core2 and core3 only move 1 degree. You can see that both core2 and core3 get stuck at a Distance to TJMax of 63 so neither of those cores can be used for accurate idle temperatures. The first 2 cores look good and should give you reasonably accurate temperatures from Idle to TJMax.
bowman: If you have access to an N270, I'll send you a testing program that you can run to help me out. I had a look through the docs and some Atom processors have hyper threading and some don't. I've been ignoring hyper threading until the Core i7 came out. Looks like I need to account for that on the Atom line as well. The Atom doesn't put out a lot of heat but with passive cooling, I'm sure they can get toasty.
Draxx: Your Q6600 is a little different than most. Usually core0 and core1 line up pretty well. Try taking it down to 266 MHz x 6.0 and set the core voltage to about 1.10 volts. Open your case and see how your reported idle temperatures (when stabilized) compare to your room temperature near your CPU. That might give me some more info about whether core0 or core1 is the accurate one. It's also possible that this might be a thermal paste issue. I don't think it is but you might know better than me if you had any problems during installation.
What method do you use and what type of cooling are you using? AS5 recommends drawing a line from side to side on a Quad and from top to bottom on a Dual Core. I tend to put on a little more than that and then I spread it into a rectangular area over top of where the cores are underneath. Whatever works.
Now Load Temperatures seems more accurate but still i have never seen TJ-max distance of more than 55 on any of the cores , thanks for the tipQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
http://i43.tinypic.com/rrs213.jpg
I have a netbook with the chip in it. It's got a little fan of some sort, I can hear a light woosh if my desktop is switched off.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Sure, fire away, I can test. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Well I just put a blob in the centre like I have always done, so I guess it could be AS5 related. But regarding whatelse you suggested, temp near CPU is around 26~27°C with a cheap thermometer. Realtemp says :-
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/1016/lowrp5.jpg
kemo: It's possible that both your sensors are stuck at a Distance to TJMax of 55. Core 1 definitely is and core 0 is a maybe. You could try another Cool Down Test at a lower core voltage and MHz to try to get your CPU to run cooler to test this. In Cairo you probably don't have as many options like I have with my backyard sitting at -30C today. Core 0 looks usable.
Draxx: Here's a good picture of exactly where the cores sit under the IHS on a Quad CPU.
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/...ohne.40x30.jpg
It's a super sized picture but knowing where the cores are located helps when applying AS5. The old blob of AS5 in the middle might not give good coverage or heat transfer to the outer cores. When I have some more time tonight, I'll have a closer look at your numbers.
bowman: Thanks for your offer to help with Atom testing. I think I got things figured out today. It would have been easy to throw a quick band-aid at the problem but I decided to try and do things the correct way instead. I'll send you an RT update when it's ready for testing. 4 NFL playoff games is going to cut into my programming hobby this weekend. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptelles
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/f...p/basetemp.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Side case panels removed, 6x333, EIST enabled, default CPU voltage of 1.2250V. The D5400XS BIOS doesn't allow for the voltage to be lowered any further.
Tj Max was set to 95°C for Real Temp as well as Everest.
The ambient room temperature was fairly stable @ 25°C.
My idle degrees above ambient appear to be in the +14°C range.
With the case side panels on, overall cpu/mem temps increase approx. another 6°C.
Thanks mate, it was a bit blob so it should have coverered pretty much all the IHS. Thanks for looking over the numbers :)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Apparently my front intake fan has decided to fail which explains why Everest didn't list it in the screen cap. After manually encouraging it to crank over, it doesn't appear to have any impact on the closed case temps.Quote:
Originally Posted by ptelles
Alright here is the screen shot!
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/i...s/Desktop3.jpg
ptelles: It doesn't look like CPU-Z is reading the correct core voltage from your motherboard. Everest showing CPU1 at 1.21 volts is likely correct. Your testing shows that TJMax is not likely 100C. It also looks like Intel's TJ Target of 85C for your CPU would be too low.
Based on your testing, my best guess is that TJMax is likely closest to 90C. Intel says that TJMax is not an exact number but I think using 90C will get you accurate temperatures from idle to TJMax. That would put your reported temperatures above your room temperature at a similar amount to what rge found during his testing. rge tested a Dual Core, but based on power consumption at idle, a Quad would only be about 1C higher during this test. Your additional core voltage might also contribute another degree compared to rge's testing.
9C above your room temperature of 25C equals 34C. If you use TJMax = 90C, your reported idle temperatures are going to be right in the 34C range so I'd go with that.
Hi everyone...
My head hurts hehe... ive gone through every page of this thread trying to paint the picture of whats been going on and lookin for other people with similar hardware to mine... but anyway ive got here and learned a lot about the quirks of the q6600 in the process. I was wondering if a couple of you would lend me few moments to help me understand a few tests ive done.
First heres my system spec.
Q6600 at stock
Akasa 966 Blue aurara CPU cooler - http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...-blue-aurora/1
Gigabyte UD3R
Coolermaster RC-330 with 120mm (1200RPM) fans at front and at back
Corsair 550watt PSU
8Gb of corsair XMS2 ram (4x2gb)
Nvidia 9800GT
Running 64bit Vista
WD 640GB Hdisk
WD 200GB Hdisk
Seagate 300GB Hdisk
I have the 3 drives seperated by a bay each... its about as good as I can do for air flow without removing one of the drives... which could happen if needed I guess.... I could add a pic if that would help.
Case Closed for all of these tests, and ive used easytune6, speedfan and the new RealTemp 2.9 beta for reference.
.............
Settings for your calibration test (but no calibration used yet.. just to test)
at 266x6.0 (1600Mhz) (all fans going max)
Voltage to 1.1
Idle Core temps read 35 35 30 34
CPU temp reads 20
in a room thats at 21
Harddisks are reading (27,26,30) idle
GPU at 42 (fan goin full)
System temp 38
.............
.............
Default
at 266x9.0 (2400Mhz) (idle speed step down to 266x6.0)
Idle Core temps read 42 42 36 39 (fan doing 560rpm - can do 1700max)
CPU temp reads 25
in a room thats at 21
Harddisks are reading (29,26,30) idle
GPU at 42 (fan doing 75% duty cycle)
System temp 42
.............
.............
Prime95 for 30Min
at 266x9.0 (2400Mhz)
Core temps read 59 58 55 56 (fan doing 1024rpm using bios smartfan - can do 1700max)
CPU temp reads 44
in a room thats at 21
Harddisks are reading (27,26,30) idle
GPU at 44 (fan doing 75% duty cycle)
System temp 42
.............
.............
Prime95 for 3 hours 30 mins
at 266x9.0 (2400Mhz)
Core temps read 61 59 56 57 (fan doing 1070rpm using bios smartfan - can do 1700max)
CPU temp reads 45
in a room thats at 22
Harddisks are reading (29,28,31) idle
GPU at 45 (fan doing 75% duty cycle)
System temp 43
.............
Next day
.............
IntelBurn 2 tests at max stress stable
at 266x9.0 (2400Mhz)
Core temps read 66 66 61 61 (fan doing 1070rpm using bios smartfan - can do 1700max)
CPU temp reads 51
in a room thats at 20
Harddisks are reading (27,30,26) idle
GPU at 44 (fan doing 75% duty cycle)
System temp 41
.............
I know im not maxing out on the fan but I cant really change how smartfan is controling it... appart from dissabling it as in the first test.
From reading this thread Ive seen a few people talk about reseating there cooler - i must admit i did expect a little more for this HSF even taking into consideration the inaccurate sensor temps, but i could be wrong. I was a bit old school and smoothed out the supplyed thermal paste with a card - im not sure if i should get some AS5 and try and do a better job mounting it?
All this was done at stock - I have had it up to 3ghz stable but it required more volts and took it into the mid 70s which is a little high for my comfort. I do a lot of 3D work and altho Im not rendering all day long there are times at the end of project i will hammer the CPU quite hard for a lot 12-14 hours per day for a week or more, so stability is more important that a huge clock.
I guess Im just lookin for a bit of guidence from those who have written this hoooooge thread hehe - please excuse the long post just trying not to miss anything.
Thanks in advance :)
Hi guys,
I read a post somewhere, i think it was on this thread, about varying temps sometimes being the result of uneven contact on the cpu. Hypothetically speaking, if someone suspected that they had this situation, where perhaps one corner wasn't as tight as the others, which corner correlates to which core on the die?
For example, if my core 3 had 10c higher temps than the other cores, could i attempt to fix that by tightening the top right corner of my waterblock? Or maybe bottom left... you get the idea :D
Anyone know?
No wonder it's hard as hell to keep a Core i7 cool when cranking up the MHz and core voltage. There's no surface area to dissipate the heat.
Maybe Intel should come up with a perpendicular socket so a heatsink could be applied to both sides of that little CPU to keep it cool. :)
The upcoming 32nm version should put out less heat but with the reduced surface area, you might not be any further ahead.
Xello: I played around with heatsink tension once and the results to core temperature were pretty minimal when air cooled until the heatsink was about ready to fall off.
The slope error from one core to the next is usually not that much but TJMax seems to vary from one core to the next and this is especially noticeable on 45nm Quad core processors. Intel hasn't publicly documented what the typical TJMax variance is between cores on the same Quad. Most Core i7 screen shots I've seen seem to vary by about 5C with core0 reporting the hottest temperature and core3 the coolest. 65nm Quads can vary by 5C with core2 usually reporting the coolest temperature and I think 45nm Quads can vary by as much as 10C from one core to the next on the same Quad. Run a CPU Cool Down Test and post your results.
steelsky: If you read all 120+ pages then you deserve a gold star. ;)
rge and I usually do our testing with the case open. It sounds like you have good airflow but it's easier to make direct comparisons by taking the case and airflow out of the equation. Your idle temps at low MHz and low voltage might be a couple of degrees too high but nothing too out to lunch. Your method of applying heatsink paste may not be the AS5 way but it's probably not that bad either. My Q6600 is very similar. Core0 and core1 are typically equal, core3 is the same or 1C less and core 2 droops down about 5C less then the rest of them. This is more sensor error than user error.
How much core voltage does your Q6600 need to run Prime stable at 3000 MHz? My Q6600 has a Max VID of 1.3250 volts and not surprisingly, it's a crappy chip. I also have an early P965 motherboard that loves Dual Core chips but isn't that happy with the Quads. I'm a quiet freak so 3 GHz is pretty much my practical 24/7 limit with quiet air cooling for this CPU. There are better Quads and better motherboards that can probably run 3 GHz Prime stable with default voltage but I need about 1.39 volts which equals more heat. Post a Cool Down Test and hopefully by the end of the weekend I'll have a chance to get caught up and have a look at some data. Post a screen shot of CPU-Z as well so I can see your core voltage.
Uncle - first of all congrats again on a brilliant program.
I have 2 questions:
1. Have you thought of adding CPU Case temperature reading to your program ?
If you read my post here
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...15#post3548415
I am having huge problems trying to get an accurate Tcase reading from various software - as a way of testing the 'Tcase + 5C = Tjunction' theory.
2. Is there an accurate estimate yet of i7 Tjmax ?
Realtemp defaults to 100C, which I have heard is the i7 figure - but If I believe PC Probes Tcase readings on my system, and the formula above - it would indicate Tjmax is actually 105C on my CPU.
That is to say - under prime load I find PC Probe currently reading Tcase about the same as Realtemp core temps w/ Tjmax = 100C.
Alternatively, if I believe Everest Tcase reading - it is 5C+ below core temps w/ Tjmax = 100C
You can see my dilemma :)
I took the screenshot before the test was fully done because when I took it, I thought it was already done :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SFaznSpEEdSTeR
Besides that, the last two throttling TJMax distance has all the same numbers as the last throttling you see there so it wouldn't really matter anyways even if I run the test again. Unless I put my chip on a pretty good load, the last two core barely moves. For instance, they would be at 31/31/39/37 at idle and right when blend Prime95 starts, it only gets to 38/38/39/37.
My default TJMax is 100C because I have a craptastic 1.25V CPU VID and I have yet to adjust anytime.
One problem that I could think of is that right now on my S1283, there are dents on bottom of the HSF on my heatpipes showing the 4 corners of my CPU so it could probably be the lack of contact between my CPU and HSF and I don't think there is enough MX2 to fill that hole but I'm not sure
Ah ok, so the cores are all pretty much right next to each other in a line down the center of the IHS, i guess it's not that big of an issue then. Sometimes you forget how small the little blighters are :D
:D too bad i dont have -30C but all i can do is thisQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
2.4GHZ Vcore <1.1V Fan on Full , After Test 6 both cores will stuck on 55 and Core 1 is stuck from the beginning till the end , that CPU used to run for 3 months @ 80+C so i am not surprised if both sensors are damaged
http://i42.tinypic.com/2w6wbo9.jpg
kemo: That test proves it. Both sensors are stuck at a Distance to TJMax of 55 just like you thought.
I don't think that running your CPU at a hot temperature for months damaged anything. These sensors weren't designed to report accurate temperatures from idle to TJMax and it's likely that your sensors perform exactly the same as the day you bought your CPU. At least they're sort of accurate when the Distance to TJMax is 55 or less as long as you correct for the difference in TJMax for each core.
speckled10: Accurate TCase temperatures don't exist. That's the reason why Intel gave up on them and doesn't use TCase temperature information to control their CPUs anymore. Thermal throttling and thermal shut down is all based on the data coming from the core sensors. If your core sensors aren't sticking like kemo's and you check the calibration of the core sensors, most of them are quite usable. Don't make comparisons between TCase and core temperatures. Out of the box and as is, you're comparing two inaccurate sensors which is meaningless.
2) Starting with Core i7, Intel stores TJ Target information within each core of the CPU that RealTemp, Core Temp and Everest are able to read. The problem is that this number is still only the TJ Target and the actual TJMax for each core may not be exactly the same as the TJ Target. There is still slope error where these sensors move at a different rate than the temperature changes at as well as TJMax not being an exact number. Core i7 is a big improvement over the 45nm Core 2 sensors but there's no such thing as perfect sensors. All sensors need to have the calibration checked.
OK - I see from your post:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=1136
that Realtemp is reading Tj target - but is it being displayed in the program anywhere ? Can you tell us what it is ?
Or is it the Tjmax value that we see under settings (100C for all cores on my copy of Realtemp) ?
That's right. RealTemp reads the value from Core i7 processors and uses that value as TJMax.Quote:
Originally Posted by speckled10
Intel did the play on words with TJ Target not necessarily being the same as TJMax when they released this information for the previous 65nm processors.
By having this information stored within each Core i7 processor it would be possible for them to have a different TJ Max value for each core and software could read that and adjust accordingly. So far, all I've seen used is 100 for this value for all Core i7 processors but maybe in the future Intel will use this capability.
As far as I know this value is only a TJ Target number and actual TJMax may be slightly higher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptelles
Thanks Uncle. CPU-Z 1.49 apparently mistakes the empty second processor socket's vcore for that of the first processor.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Per your suggestion, I changed Tj Max to 90°C. I also determined that in fact my intake fan did not fail as I had originally thought. With the exception of the CPU cooler, all other fans were under BIOS control. Apparently the BIOS would randomly decide not to start the NB & intake fans at power-on.
I decided to disable BIOS fan control, add 3 exhaust fans to the left side of the case and increase my overclock from 2.83GHz to 2.9GHz. ;)
I ran an eight hour Prime95 blend torture test. Real Temp reported a high of 54°C and a low of 37°C. Ambient room temperature for the duration of the torture test varied between 25.33°C and 27.11°C. Not bad eh? Your thoughts?
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/f...rime95_8hr.jpg
Hello, I don't know if this was already reported but with last beta in my system (Xeon E3110), when the temperature goes over Tjmax, the "Tjmax distance" values are numbers starting from 128.
I explain better: I have Tjmax at 100 C°; when I reach 100 ° the "Tjmax distance" correctly displays 0; when the temperature goes over Tjmax, i.e. 103°, "Tjmax distance" displays strange numbers, from 128 and upper.
I suggest to display "over" or something like this, when the temperature go over Tjmax and not these strange numbers.
Readme. Nothing is strange in RealTemp. ;)
Yea, I thought it was funny too, until I discovered it was meant to be like that :)
Just wondering if there is any chance for a feature/program that will monitor/display temps of more than one PC over a network?
guys, and what about the mobos with only ONE GTL setting like the P5K? they can set only auto, 0.63, 0.61, 0.59 etc.
The Distance to TJMax box always displays the raw data coming from the on chip digital thermal sensors. Intel's point of view is that once you go beyond TJMax that this data is meaningless but if you change the interpretation of it, I think it's still very meaningful. One user sent me some screen shots of his Q6600 at 122C trying to determine the thermal shut down temperature. Intel only documents the mobile chips which have a shut down temperature of 125C. The temperature data coming from these sensors when you are beyond TJMax is probably more accurate than at idle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brama
Once you go beyond TJMax, HOT should be displayed in the Thermal Status area so that is your warning that the Distance to TJMax data might look a little screwy.
ptelles: You still have lots of temperature head room so don't be afraid to push that chip a little harder. :up:
I think XS bans users if they find out that your CPU isn't running 24/7 on the ragged edge of self destruction. :rofl:
That sounds like a useful app but I have no idea where to start.Quote:
Naja002: Just wondering if there is any chance for a feature/program that will monitor/display temps of more than one PC over a network?
unclewebb, any chance you looked over my numbers yet? ;)
I was hoping all you guys on the weekend went away so I'd have some time to work on RealTemp today. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Draxx
Here's a calibration you can try based on the data you've provided.
TJMax = 100, 100, 108, 108
Idle Calibration = 0.0, +3.0, 0.0, -3.0
If you don't have a thermal paste issue, then these numbers will get your 4 cores to line up a lot better and your idle temperatures should be a similar amount above room temperature as what rge found during his testing.
Run Prime95 Small FFTs for 30 seconds or so on and then 30 seconds off for a handful of times and check out how the 4 cores track each other. They should be similar with these settings and probably more accurate in the temperature range you run at than what these sensors provide out of the box. Perfect temperatures was my original goal but I've learned to settle for reasonably accurate. :)
Thanks mate :)
Cheers Unc, Ill wear the gold star with pride hehe - excuse the delay i had a software problem and the comp wouldnt boot... some time with the original vista disc seems to have cured it eeek.... but anyway haha.
Opened up the case and ran the low mhz test again...Vcore down to 1.100 hope this imageshack stuff works lol..
http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/8...ibtempsjq4.jpg
By steelsky at 2009-01-05
a cool down test....
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/4...owntestwg4.jpg
By steelsky at 2009-01-05
and finally a snap of in the box hehe
http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/2...8503132dz6.jpg
By steelsky, shot with Samsung S85 at 2009-01-05
Just to clarify some of my reading... VID means the advised voltage from intel for that chip to run stable at stock speeds?
My chip also has VID of 1.3250 ... DOH... it took about 1.343 or the next notch up to get it stable at 3ghz...
Ive noticed i can get a bit more stability by raising the MCH voltage - What does the MCH voltage actually add voltage too? ie will it be the CPU still getting the voltage somewhere or is it something on the motherboard?...
Yeah Im the same with regards to 24-7 noise... and altho the comp isnt that noisy id rather have it under its max with in reason and 3Ghz seemed reasnoble, but i was hoping to do it at stock volts... but maybe i need to play more.
Erm ill have to have a play with the overclock as ive been runing stock for a few days now... will have a play and get back to you... Overall anything in the pics suggest any major issue?
Appreciate you taking a look :)
Count me in as another one with a headache! I've read this entire thread over the past week ... thank you so much unclewebb for all your efforts. I've learned a lot, and now am a little less confused about temps. Haven't seen too many i7 examples ... here's my Cool Down test with an air-cooled i7 920 (ASUS P6T Deluxe ... all stock settings). It seems okay, but just wanting to doublecheck:
http://shazza53.smugmug.com/photos/4...13_oc4sc-M.jpg
Thanks again for all the helpful info!!!
Logfile or CSV's not being created in 2.84
Is this a known issue?
Hi
Is there any chance of putting a Logitech G15 plugin in the Real temp app so it shows on the Logitech LCD
Thanks
Day
I thought it worked.Quote:
Originally Posted by a573573
Why not try the latest beta so I don't have to waste my time tracking down a bug that either may not exist or has already been fixed if it did exist?
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
RealTemp used to cache the log file for a default interval of 5 minutes. The default is down to 60 seconds now. I'm old school and not a big fan of thrashing people's hard drives every second when some new data becomes available. If you can't afford to miss out on any data then open up the RealTemp.ini file and use:
HDWrite=1
and then every second the data should be written to the log file. You can set that value to however many seconds you like. I can't remember what version I added that feature to RealTemp but my friend Google says it was version 2.69.8
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=1851
Version 2.90 produced a nice Excel .CSV file for me about 2 minutes ago so I know if there was a bug, it seems to be gone now.
I just finished adding an interesting new feature tonight. Unfortunately the fileden site is down at the moment so I can't share it. Maybe tomorrow.
Hint: Users with Nvidia cards might like the new feature. :)
shazza: Thanks for posting that. The Core i7 sensors are NOT full of problems like the 45nm Core 2 sensors. Yours look pretty normal. After a quick glance the slopes of all 4 sensors look very similar. I think the real difference from core to core is slight differences in TJMax which Intel says is part of the manufacturing process.
day187: I finally bought a G15 a few months ago but it's sitting on the things to do pile. I hope to get a plug-in done for that or a RivaTuner plug-in done sometime in the not too distant future.
fileden site is OK,just checkQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Thanks Unclewebb! I thought about grabbing that but just wanted to ask first incase I missed that it had been removed since x.xx version kinda thing ya know.
Will grab latest Beta now
*Pre-post edit*
CSV is working, Log is not. Or will it just create one or the other? Just trying to collect some quick data for my own thoughts about blocks before I switch them here shortly
I just downloaded this soft, but that's difference with everest temps. here's scr
Which 1 shuold I believe?
http://www.pic-upload.de/07.01.09/fmxd6i.jpg
Take latest beta and you'll match Everest readings.
It's about TJMax, 95 (RT 2.70) vs. 100 (Everest).
burebista
Thanks bro :)
uncle, i played around with rivatuner plugins. used igor's c2d plugin as base and removed tjmax detection as he used the old msr method to get tjmax which we all know is not the best way to do. modified it to be able to change tjmax via a cfg file to be able to configure the plugin for different processors.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
a nice additional feature is the ability to display rivatuner monitoring values directly on the g15. a few clicks and its running. no need to invent the wheel a second time.
anyway, i used visual studio 2008 standard edition. having visual studio set up and an example at hand a plugin can be done within minutes! pm me for more info.
fgw I give you a lot of virtual beers/whatever you drink if you help uncle to make that RivaTuner plugin. :D
It's an option. You can create your log file as a text file OR as a CSV file so it's easier to import into Excel.Quote:
Originally Posted by a573573
I look forward to getting RealTemp working with RivaTuner. After months of begging, I think burebista wouldn't mind that either. :)
Oh man, I dunno if I should go into a church and pray or into a bar and drink. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Why not combine the two and bring a bottle to church. It's Wednesday, they probably have a bingo game or a poker game going on there in the back. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by burebista
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
I thought I was done with the RC versions but then I found a minor bug or two and while I was fixing, I decided now was a good time to add on another feature or two.
I've added GPU Temperature monitoring to RealTemp but only if you're using an Nvidia card.
If you want to know everything there is to know about your graphics card then GPU-Z or RivaTuner would be my first choice.
If you just need a quick look at your GPU temperature, then RealTemp might be good enough.
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/1747/rt290rc8zg7.png
I didn't want to re-design the GUI for this feature so CPUID info will change to GPU info a few seconds after start up.
If you hover the mouse just below this new information for 5 seconds, you should see something like this pop-up:
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1...ureportiv0.png
Nothing too fancy. If you have an Nvidia card and don't want any GPU temperature information then use this in the INI file:
NoGPU=1
RealTemp is designed so it will report the highest GPU temperature when using SLI. If you have 2 or 3 cards, hopefully it will find and report the highest GPU temp. If you use SLI, post a screen shot of RealTemp along with another monitoring program to show that this is working properly.
The second alarm in RealTemp has been changed so that now you can monitor and shutdown your computer independently based on either your CPU temperature or your GPU temperature. rge thought that would be a good idea since he's lost one graphics card too many due to a water cooling failure.
The log file should contain an extra column now with GPU temperature info. It will be the column on the far right.
There is also an extra system tray icon now for GPU temperatures and that should show Min/Max/Avg like the other tray icons.
There was a fix or two for Atom processors and a fix for Core i7 when two cores are disabled in the bios. Probably not too many people who would want to do that but RealTemp should report the correct number of cores now when this happens and hyper threading is enabled. I also added a feature so the Clock Modulation setting will be saved when RealTemp exits and restored when the program starts. A laptop owner told me he needed this to protect his important parts. :rofl: When RealTemp is not running, Clock Modulation is NOT enabled.
OK, I think 2.90 is finally finished. Unless I hear about some more bugs. :)
gpu monitoring support is welcomed, since when gaming the cpu and gpu temps would be the only ones most people would look at.
would be great if realtemp also monitored the cpu fan speed. :)
Its nice, that I can test now Sensor Test on mobile CPU too in RC8, thanks :yepp:
Before on some beta or 2.70 I think it was disabled, but now all works fine, thanks. My lappy with E8300 showed movement 9 and 22 :shakes:
That's a great update Uncle, thanks... I was going to use the EVGA precision tool to monitor gpu temps in games, but seeing it on the screen bothered me. Now I can check the gpu and cpu log file after without seeing extra stuff on screen. You the man!!
Thanks Uncle ! :up: - for updates & New features
just noticed ( compare RT v2.90 RC1 - to-> RT v2.90 RC8 @ the moment )
RC8 does not show ( chnanges in readouts ) when SpeedStep ( Eist / C1E )
is down-clocing CPU .. don't know was it it just designed so ?
Any way - thats no problem for my self ... just let You know .. if it makes sense ..
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/7...eqrtci1.th.png
Kashelz: I decided to stop playing the nanny and opened up the sensor test to mobile CPUs. If it was my laptop, I probably wouldn't run the CPU Cool Down Test on a mobile chip but any computer should be able to handle a couple of minutes of Prime95 without going ka-boom. After the first test, the load and temps will start to drop so everything should be OK. The final results might not be as meaningful due to the fact that desktop computers tend to have a lot better CPU cooling than laptops do.
SportsFanBoy: Thanks. After a game you should be able to go to your system tray and check out your maximum GPU and CPU temps. The pop-up when you hover your mouse for 5 seconds just below where the GPU 43C info is displayed will also let you know what the temps got up to. Place the mouse where the blue arrow is in the picture on the previous page. (post 3049)
i43: Thanks for noticing that. I changed one small thing during testing and forgot to change it back. I'll get that fixed up so it works like before.
Unclewebb,
I noticed that in the latest beta TJMax for the QX6800 B3 has changed from 85C to 100C. What's up?
Thanks!
ATI temps would be nice :)
uncle, check your e-mail!
hmmnnn ... downloaded the latest version of 2.90, and now I can only see 2 cores on my i7 920 ...
Previously, rge had a problem where RealTemp was showing 4 cores for his Core i7 940 even though he had two of them turned off in the bios. I came up with a fix for him that took care of that problem but maybe my fix is still a work in progress. When you run CPU-Z does it show 4 cores / 8 threads? Post or send me a screen shot of CPU-Z and RealTemp so I can have a look.Quote:
Originally Posted by shazza
I was wondering to myself yesterday, "I wonder how long it's going to take someone to ask me to include ATI GPU temps." Not long at all! :)Quote:
ATI temps would be nice
fgw: Thanks for the info.
Can you post or send me a screen shot of CPU-Z and RealTemp? CPU-Z shows me the ID string that RealTemp reads to determine your CPU version. I can't remember changing anything lately so I need to have a look. Does RealTemp still detect your CPU as a QX6800? Also try clicking on the Defaults button in the Settings window to see if that changes anything.Quote:
drminer: I noticed that in the latest beta TJMax for the QX6800 B3 has changed from 85C to 100C. What's up?
Thanks for the quick response! CPU-Z shows 4 cores. Also, here are screenshots of OCCT and my new Real Temp:
http://shazza53.smugmug.com/photos/4...78_XusyW-S.jpg http://shazza53.smugmug.com/photos/4...83_tKwkR-S.jpg
Works OK for me. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by i43
Attachment 92497
I'm back to showing four cores with the newest version of RT ...
I had HyperThreading disabled when I only saw two cores. Enabled HT, and now seeing all four again :shrug: I should have realized this since CPU-Z showed 4 cores, 4 threads, but thanks to uncle's help ... I've got that part straightened out:
http://shazza53.smugmug.com/photos/4...01_a2ji9-M.jpg
Time for a tweak and a bug fix or two.
At least the GPU temps are looking good in these recent screen shots. :D
Thanks once again unc, outstanding! :up:
http://lakesidepc.com/rtss18.jpg
With 2.90 rc8 only get 2 cores displayed of i7 920. 2.90 rc4 works fine, showing all 4 cores.
Do you have Hyper Threading enabled or disabled? I had the same issue with HT disabled. Works fine now that I've enabled HT again.Quote:
Originally Posted by DGill
I believe uncle is working on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by i43
I'm in the same boat as i43 though I am wondering if it is because the Black Ops bios disables EIST when the CPU clock ratio unlock is enabled in the bios, I'll reboot to check and post back.Quote:
Originally Posted by burebista
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/3...angehk6.th.png
GPU temp display is awesome unclewebb, tyvm
:up:
EDIT:
That wasn't the problem it seems
http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/3...nge2yv7.th.jpg
:shrug:
Unclewebb,
I reset the latest beta to the default settings, and it still shows TJMax for the QX6800 B3 as 100C, instead of 85C, as in previous versions. It does correctly identify the CPU as QX6800, by the way. I have attached a screenprint of CPUZ and RealTemp as you requested.
Thanks!
Hang tight guys. Bug fixes are on the way. When you make too many changes at the same time, screwing up one or two or three things isn't unusual.
Maybe all the bugs were deliberate so people would come here and post some screen shots so I could see how many of you are enjoying the new GPU temps. :D
at me it cant recognize my 4850 so it gives me something like this :p
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Maybe this version should be called, "the return of the missing cores." I'm hoping for that anyhow.
rge did a lot of testing for me today and noticed that his board assigns threads to cores in a very random order at times.
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/2...eapicidya5.png
The theory is that this helps spread the work load to all of the cores. If RealTemp is properly finding the cores again, then it should organize them into the correct physical order.
The bug with C1E/EIST should be fixed and the code I added to handle the Q9100 processors that screwed up the detection code for the QX6800 has been fixed too.
The first person to post a screen shot of RealTemp working properly with hyper threading turned off with a Core i7 will win a prize. :)
Vatos_locos: Unfortunately, RealTemp only reads the Nvidia GPU temp sensor at the moment. I thought about buying a cheap Nvidia card today to save me the hassle of writing some ATI code. If I trip over some code for reading the ATI sensors, I'll probably add that to RealTemp in the future.
LOL ... just happened to check this thread before heading off to bed, but please ... give the prize to the second person so we can keep the excitement going :)
http://shazza53.smugmug.com/photos/4...83_uQ2mj-M.jpg
Thanks shazza for first bringing this problem to my attention and thanks for showing that RealTemp is working correctly again.
rge also sent me a PM with this info
2 cores active HT on and off gives 2 core temps.
3 cores active HT on and off gives 3 core temps.
4 cores active HT on and off gives 4 core temps.
and one of these. :up:
If his APIC ID is still all mixed up tomorrow he might drop by and give an example of how some programs organize the temperature data based on the correct physical location and how some other programs, don't.
Edit: I'm still looking for a tester with an SLI setup. RealTemp is designed to report the highest GPU temperature if you have multiple GPUs so I'm hoping someone can post an example that shows if this new feature works or not. A comparison to a program like GPU-Z would be great.
I am using 2,86 I think and it's working fine on my i7. Lowest temp i7 can display is -8, so I got -8C on all cores :D
Unless I got enough Vcore and fire up linpack, then I can get into positive range - need to check the mount I think :(
:up::up::up:
Thanks again for this great application ... and for how quickly you fix things. Is the fact that threads are being assigned to different cores in a random manner also partially responsible for some of the temp differences between cores?
Here's a screenshot of GPU temps for my SLI setup at idle (GTX 260, 55nm) . Real Temp seems to be working fine.
http://shazza53.smugmug.com/photos/4...0_M7tdX-XL.jpg
Unclewebb, had some more time to play with RC9 this am, Real temp is working perfect:up:. It reads correctly whether 1,2,3 or 4 cores enabled and whether HT is on or off. Also everytime you reboot, even though the core order can be different, except core 0 always seems to be first, Realtemp still seems to report them in the correct order. Everest and speedfan do not.
3 pics, all with 3 cores enabled, HT off, just for example.
Everest gets confused with HT off and 3 cores enabled, etc, as it apparently starts reading just 1 core 3x or maybe 2, temps track exactly same no matter what, while RT still reads the 3 different cores correctly, and you can tell that although APIC (another unclewebbs program) is showing pic 2 has different order than pic 1 and 3, that Realtemp keeps cores in correct order all 3 pics.
My opinion is that most of the differences in reported temperature between cores is slight differences in TJMax from one core to the next. The 100C TJ spec is a TJ Target and Intel has said that they don't always hit that target exactly when setting TJMax. It can and does vary by a few degrees from one CPU to the next as well as one core to the next. The TJMax spread for the 45nm Core 2 series is much greater than all of the other chips, combined!Quote:
Originally Posted by shazza
There is also a slight amount of slope error in all of these sensors where a core can change temperature at a slightly different rate than what the sensor indicates. Intel says this can amount to +/- 10%.
A test I used to do with a Q6600 was to run 1 thread of Prime95 Small FFTs and then move it around from one core to the next using the Task Manager - Set Affinity... function. By doing that, it was easier to see and learn about the physical order of the cores. I also learned that Task Manager is bugged too and if your APIC ID is random, then when you ask Task Manager to run a task on a specific core, you'll likely end up with it being run somewhere else.
With the introduction of the 45nm Core 2 series, everything got closer together so it was hard to see the cores based on temperature changes. For Core i7 you might be able to run 2 threads on the same core and move the pair of them around with Set Affinity...
I followed the directions for SLI so I'm glad to see that it works. It should also handle 3 or 4 way SLI and report the highest GPU temperature. I figure if you're going to use RT to shutdown your computer based on GPU temperature, then that has to be based on the hottest GPU.
rge: Your pictures speak volumes. I know that your core0 always reports as your hottest core so it sure looks like Everest is copying that one value and repeating it 3 times. The Intel APIC documentation gives new meaning to the word confusing so it's easy to understand the misunderstandings about core order.
Anyone interested can download my APIC ID tool that I wrote for rge.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/APICID.zip
When you exit RealTemp, it writes the APIC ID to the INI file so you can also have a look in there for APIC information. The core order remains constant until the next re-boot.
Speedstep display fixed in RC9, thanks unclewebb, you sure are efficient.
:up:
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/2458/fixedro3.th.png
You're welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wotcher
During SpeedStep transitions, RealTemp might report slightly differently than CPU-Z, etc. Anyone that has EIST enabled but can't get RealTemp to show (6.0 / Core 2) or (12.0 / Core i7) at idle, needs to check some of their Windows settings in the Power Options.
With the correct settings, both programs should report the same at idle and full load but there might be times when RealTemp will show you an average multiplier which more accurately reflects the truth. In some situations, the multiplier can be going up and down rapidly so some software will just ignore the changes and report a steady value.
Thanks Unclewebb - latest version working great with i7-nice to have all cores showing again.
Unclewebb, next time your tinkering in Realtemp, one more update:D,
finally got chance to test for absolute max with 4C outside temps and 1.68vcore...had posted in OCing thread
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=481012
rge: I can tell from your GPU temp that you were getting serious about running an XS Bench number that you can be proud of!
I think it's time to make 2.90 Final. Maybe one more small tweak.
I'll definitely include your new numbers to give people something to shoot for. :up:
DGill: The information rge sent me about APIC ID helped me to finally understand Core i7 and how threads are assigned to each core.
You could say, the light finally went on when I saw his numbers. :idea:
The Intel documentation makes something that is incredibly easy, almost impossible to understand.
i think i have a problem :p with the RC9 2.90 version
it cant remember the setings so when i close real temp i have to set them again
like i want to see all 4 cores temp in the tray and to start it minimizes
is something that i do wrong :p ? with older version it could remember the settings
Does anyone else have this problem because it works for me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vatos_locos
The only thing I can think of is that the RealTemp folder is located in a directory that you don't have the privilege of writing to. If this happens it wouldn't let you save your settings in the INI file. You can also right click on the RealTemp.ini file and do a Properties on it which might show you what's going on.
If you have that file open in a separate program while RealTemp is running then that might also block you from saving your settings. I'll try a few different things to see if I can find a problem in something I did.
Edit: Make sure you unzip the file you download. RealTemp will start from a zipped file but it might have a problem saving the settings back into a zipped folder.
It's fine for me.
It remember when I was at bathroom, when I opened my computer, when I update RealTemp, it's scary sometimes. :ROTF:
i have it on C:\real temp ( C is the windows drive )
i'll try to move it to an other drive to see if the same thing happens
EDIT
i just move it to the C:\Program Files x86\Real Temp
and it is working now
so i guess it a problem with my pc not with the program :p: sorry
Thanks for testing that out Vatos_locos. I always get worried when I hear about a bug! :)
Windows Vista and XP can get kind of picky when you try to write to directories that you don't have the appropriate privilege to write to.
On a different note. Anyone wanting to test out the public beta version of Windows 7 should head here and get in line before Microsoft closes the door:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/e.../dd353205.aspx
A 2.44GB download might tie up your internet connection for a while though.
no problem m8 :)
i was on Vista tho and i had the privilege to wright on the folder
i don't know why it did this but it still dose it on the same folder i guess something is wrong with my vista and not with real temp :p
I like Vista except for one nasty habit it has. I have XP and Vista in a dual boot config on separate hard drives and when I'm in either OS, I can access the files on the other hard drive.
Everything works great for a few months and then Vista decides that there is a problem with this strange XP hard drive so it goes over and changes the file permissions and nukes everything.
After this "fix", Windows XP won't boot up anymore or will take forever to boot up and the file permissions will be screwed up.
I just dragged a RealTemp folder from my desktop to the C: directory and RealTemp started fine. Just check the file permissions on the RealTemp.ini file when you have the issue that the settings aren't being saved. If you don't have permission to write to that file for whatever reason, RealTemp won't be able to save your settings.
Triple booting Vista, XP and Win 7 on one HDD now. I had to do some serious re-arrangement to get my games off a primary partition and onto a logical one (that didn't already exist) so that I could install a 3rd OS.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Messy!
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...partitions.png
This may already have been posted (too tired to re-read), but noticed today that the GPU temp reading definitely captures the highest card:
http://shazza53.smugmug.com/photos/4...0_JA8vb-XL.jpg
Realtemp works great in windows 7 64 bit. My XS bench score at 4.2ghz was same as in XP. Have EIST and C1E enabled, and power saving enabled in windows 7.
Thanks shazza. In the first screen shot you posted yesterday, GPU 1 was the hottest and RealTemp reported that temperature. In your second screen shot, GPU 2 is the hottest and RealTemp is reporting that one.
That means :up: for RealTemp. It's working as intended.
rge: It's nice to know that when Windows 7 is released, I'll be able to take a break. :D
I was curious about one thing. If you leave your Minimum Processor State at 100%, does RealTemp report your multi floating somewhere around ~18.0? Usually this has to be dropped to about 50% to get Vista to keep your CPU down at the default idle multi of 12.0 when C1E and EIST are both enabled.
Edit: The XS Bench is directly proportional to MHz so if you bump your multi from 21.0 to 23.0 like when you ran your record XS Bench score, your Windows 7 time should drop from your current 8.681 seconds to (8.681 X 21.0 / 23.0) which equals 7.926 seconds. Are your Super PI mod times about the same with Vista 7 compared to XP? When I switched XP to Vista my 3D Mark 2001 score dropped like a rock but that was likely just a driver issue.
I added a couple of very minor features tonight. The ability to gather up the system tray icons if they've become separated during boot up and the ability of RealTemp to notice when you swap CPUs so it will automatically use the default TJMax for your new CPU. The XS types seem to have a habit of swapping CPUs and pretty much everything else on a regular basis. :rofl:
I added an INI option a while ago so RealTemp should be able to read cores 4, 5, 6 and 7 on Dual CPU setups.
Skull=2
If anyone has a Skull Trail setup then try running two instances of RealTemp from two different directories with the first one set up with the Skull=1 INI option and the other one with Skull=2 in the INI file. If this works post a screen shot so I can get motivated to create an 8 core specific version of RealTemp. I have to get ready for when Intel releases 8 core / 16 thread Core i7 chips that might be compatible with the present Core i7 motherboards.
Yep ... today was the first time I saw GPU2 as the hotter one, and was happy to see Real Temp was right on the money.Quote:
Thanks shazza. In the first screen shot you posted yesterday, GPU 1 was the hottest and RealTemp reported that temperature. In your second screen shot, GPU 2 is the hottest and RealTemp is reporting that one.
That means for RealTemp. It's working as intended.
4.2ghz windows 7 64bit, build 7000, currently 35 processes running (shutdown 6 useless peer to peer networking services and improved spi/XS secs from 9.98 to 9.796)
RT XS bench 8.675 secs
Superpi 9.796
4.2ghz windows XP sp3, 31 processes running
Realtemp XS bench 1688, 8.669 seconds
spi 9.735
EDit:
At default settings with EIST enabled +/- C1E, the multi initially bounces on ~19 (set at 21) for couple mins after reboot then usually goes to 12 and stays there (when i assume some background stuff quit running, though cpu is load 0 right after boot up). I manually changed power settings to cpu min 60% (from 5%) and the multi then sat at a steady 14 instead of steady 12. If put min processor power at 100%, it sits around 19 multi. With EIST disabled and C1E enabled, multi sat around 19-20.
Reboot time is 12 seconds faster with windows 7 though. Pretty good for a beta build.
Tested shutdown by cpu and gpu alarm exe on realtemp for windows 7, both worked perfect. So far have not found any realtemp bugs in windows 7.
Some things need repeating. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by rge
Now that RealTemp has the threads and cores sorted out, I plan to re-work my i7 Load Tester tool this week with a few more features to keep track of average load over a period of time. I noticed last night on my Q6600 that when running 3 threads of Prime, the OS or CPU moves the tasks around from core to core to balance the load but it seems like too much load is ending up on core0 and not enough on core3. That might help explain why core0 tends to be the hottest core. It will be interesting to see if Windows 7 is any different in spreading the tasks around compared to Vista. It's likely the CPU itself that controls this but we need an updated tool to do some testing!
hi folks, just a quick Q :D what's the tjmax of the new i7 (bloomfield)?
100c degrees.
It is written in Realtemp 2.90.
Intel finally got wise and started writing TJMax or TJ Target info into each Core i7 processor so RealTemp or any program can read this info without having to guess anymore.
The only issue now is whether TJMax is slightly higher than the TJ Target info that is stored in these processors. Technically speaking, it's still possible that TJMax could be a couple of degrees higher because Intel says that TJMax is not a fixed value.
unclewebb, what makes the little gpu report window pop up? I did it by accident and now I can't repeat it :D