Put your mouse under GPU temperature and when it's an arrow (or whatever your mouse pointer looks) wait a couple of seconds and that window will pop up.
Me too needs explanation from uncle to see that. :D
Printable View
Put your mouse under GPU temperature and when it's an arrow (or whatever your mouse pointer looks) wait a couple of seconds and that window will pop up.
Me too needs explanation from uncle to see that. :D
Only the XS crowd gets to know the secrets. You might have to wait 5 seconds for it to pop-up so be patient and drink plenty of coffee in the morning so your hand is steady!
Better without caffein, or the hand will be not steady enough. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
What other goodies do you have hidden in there? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
AFAIK only date for Minimum and Maximum temperature. :)
About the only other secret I know of is the Anchor Position. Sometimes you have a bunch of junk on your screen and you want to see RealTemp but just not where it presently is. If you double right click on the GUI it should jump to a fixed position or an Anchor position. To set this position, drag RealTemp to where you want your Anchor position to be and then hold down the shift key and double right mouse click. Now, wherever RealTemp is, one double right mouse click and it will jump to your chosen anchor position. I think that's in the documentation somewhere.
I was just playing around with Windows 7 today. The only RealTemp issue is that the temperature icons are no longer in order in the system tray area. Win 7 randomly inserts them while XP and Vista inserts them one at a time in the correct order, core0, core1, core2, core3, gpu.
I can't think of a fix for this. Maybe Microsoft has some ideas. :D
uncle, pls check your e-mail!
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/4513/rivatunervj4.png
Good news. fgw has been working hard at making a RivaTuner plug-in that is compatible with RealTemp's adjustable TJMax and Calibration factors.
I was a little worried at first but it's looking very good now. :up:
Hopefully by the weekend it will be ready for some beta testing. As the screen shot shows, it works on Windows 7.
No GPU readout here? Settings for it are also grayed out >>>
http://i42.tinypic.com/34et7b5.png
I know you have just started to get this working, so wondered if you could tell me why it is a no go for me. And just to let you know it is not working on my setup (Sapphire HD 3870 Toxic)
unclewebb, I love realtemp, but with regards to releasing new versions, you need to set in stone the new features for each version, and not continue to add things as they come along. Otherwise, there will never be a new "final" release.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
You could go back a few pages and read what I wrote when I first released this new feature:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lsdmeasap
Only means only and I'm pretty sure that Nvidia doesn't make any AMD/ATI 3870 cards.Quote:
I've added GPU Temperature monitoring to RealTemp but only if you're using an Nvidia card.
Don't worry, I'm looking into adding temps for ATI cards too. As you can see by my earlier post, I've been working with fgw on a RivaTuner plug-in. He's doing most of the work but I'm learning as we go along and I've also been looking into Windows 7 compatibility. All this stuff is important and all of it takes time.
If everyone that used RealTemp sent me $10 bucks then I could work much harder on this project. Hmmm, maybe not. With all that loot I'd probably go for a few of these :toast: and then nothing would get done! :rofl:
Is this really a problem? As long as a program works great and you can come to XS and download a free version and I continue to improve it all the time then does it really matter if there is ever a "final" version?Quote:
Otherwise, there will never be a new "final" release.
The RivaTuner plug-in is mostly independent from RealTemp. You don't need to have RealTemp running while the plug-in and RivaTuner are drawing those nice green lines.
The features for 2.90 are 99.9% done. Calling it official isn't going to change anything.
Ahh, Ok! Thanks! I do try to keep up with this thread, but I musta missed that!
No biggie here at all, just though I was helping add to the list of bugs, Guess I should have read back a few beforehand.
Thanks for the hard work man! I will try to keep more up on the thread as the new features are added/ironed out
I just found some ATI specific code yesterday so it might happen fairly quick. It just makes sense to me that RealTemp 2.90 Final should be able to read temperatures from both Nvidia and ATI graphics cards. I'm half way there.
Uncle, sometime in the future you should consider a donation thingy. I for one would throw you a couple bucks for your hard work!!
Ahh! Nice to hear.
I dont game, or check my Card temps often (Only when bench'n) so I just was trying to check it out. Think I need to read more often before I post, then I would have known it did not work for ATI yet!
Ahh, somedays I just never know about me!
Lsdmeasap: No problems. Not everyone has time to read through 125 pages to see what's been going on lately.
The last official version 2.70 has been downloaded over 218,000+ times since August and so far a grand total of one person has taken the time to get my PayPal address from me and send me some money so I could go get something to eat. That's why I'm not overly concerned about the next official release. Writing freeware software doesn't pay very well.Quote:
Uncle, sometime in the future you should consider a donation thingy.
There's a great bunch of users here at XS that have helped test and have contributed to making RealTemp a great program. I'm happy to be able to give something back to the community here.
You can always contact me at Real_Temp@yahoo.ca and I'll send you my PayPal address where you can send me a beer and a burger. I like to eat too. I shared my first royalty check with my daughter and she's been patiently waiting for her next installment. The wife isn't too happy with the project RealTemp balance sheet either. She keeps saying nasty things like, "Go get a job you lazy bum!" :rofl:
Haha a beer and burger it is then... Maybe a donate tab or something on the app somewhere. 200,000 people may have downloaded your application, but that is easy.
Taking the time to contact you and get an address, then send money, takes additional energy that most people are not willing to give, especially for a donation.
If you make it easier for them ( and me :) ), I can all but guarantee some money will come in from it.
Yeah there is no easy way to donate. If there was a paypal button, it would be so much easier, and I would for sure donate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
Agreed ... I generally donate to all free software I download - as long as I use it and find it helpful. Real Temp certainly is one of the best I've found so far!
Head to PayPal, log in, click on the Send Money tab and I'd be happy for any cash that comes my way.
The stock market has really sucked lately so some extra cash wouldn't hurt. :(
Send your donations to:
monitrex@yahoo.ca
I'll try to add a PayPal button to the About... box someday.
It's been on my things to do list but it keeps getting bumped by more important stuff.
Your not greedy, good man.
Thanks for the $contributions$ to project RealTemp.
fgw supplied me with some code recently which got me motivated to create a RealTemp / RivaTuner plug in and it seems to work.
I'll need to have a closer look at things tomorrow but here's the first beta release:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip
Unzip and copy the attached files into your RivaTuner/PlugIns/Monitoring directory and the rest should be easy.
I plan to add an option to RealTemp so that the TJMax and Calibration settings will be automatically copied into this RivaTuner directory whenever you update these settings in RealTemp. At the moment you will need to edit these values manually in the new RTCore.cfg configuration file.
Finally some RealTemp data on my G15.
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/6800/g15de2.jpg
I wasn't able to use all of the RealTemp MHz code in this plug-in so the MHz are not updated in real time like they are in RealTemp. If you use SetFSB then you would need to re-start RivaTuner if you want the MHz to be recalculated. Other than that, the temperatures and Load meter should be almost identical to what RealTemp displays and the MHz are far better than the CPU.dll plug-in that I tried. Happy testing. :)
Edit: Almost forgot. This plug-in includes Distance to TJMax for each core for those that like to keep an eye on that number.
thanks uncle! lovin the G15 plugin! :up:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naja002
I don't either, but free programs like FAHmon, FAHspy and Boincview monitor (not temps) across a network and may be of some help in understanding how that's setup.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
There's about 1.5 million boinc crunchers right now, many of us run multiple hosts, so having a consolidated temp monitor would be a wonderful thing. :up:
Just a quick bug fix. The original version wouldn't display Load % if you had the MHz part of the plug in disabled but it's all better now.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip
Hmm,I saw Real Temp 2.90 RC12:yepp:
Yep. Automatic deployment of RivaTuner plugin. :)
And also Core Temp 0.99.4
When I start Core Temp,Real Temp RC12 gone.:rolleyes:
Edit:
After restarting everything OK
I finally added a good looking PayPal button to RC12.
If you click the magic button 100 times and make a donation each time you could win a prize! :rofl:
:clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
uncleweb,
I have sort of a strange one for you. If I reduce the tjmax the reported temp on my cores goes down by the amount that I reduce tjmax. The distance to tjmax remains the same. With a tjmax of 100 on my E8500 with TEC cooling the temp will never go below 11c.
I am running Windows 7 and haven't yet tested this on my Vista drive. Weird
The behavior is the same in Vista 64
The basic formula is this:
Reported Temperature = TJMax - Distance to TJMax
The Distance to TJMax number is the data coming from the on chip sensors. It's pretty easy to see that any change that you make to TJMax will directly effect your Reported Temperature.
Your temp never gets reported lower than 11C because your sensors are not capable of reporting very low temperatures. They become saturated is how Intel referred to it. The simple folk around here call that getting stuck.
All of these sensors do that. You're lucky that you can get down to 11C. Most 45nm Core 2 sensors can't get that low.
I saw a screen shot yesterday of RealTemp reporting a Core i7 at -9C. The Core i7 sensors are not perfect but they're much improved compared to the previous generation.
Leave your TJMax at 100C for your CPU and accept the fact that 11C is as low as you're going to see.
good explanation, thanks.
So is TJmax 100C or 95C for 45nm C2Ds (e8500 e0 stepping in particular)? I'm getting confused now :)
We're all confused, even Intel. :shrug:
The official word is that the TJ Target for an E8500 E0 is 100C. TJMax may be equal to the TJ Target if Intel was having a good day on the production line or it might be slightly higher if your chip was built on a Friday. :)
The bottom line is that TJMax is not a fixed value like we were all hoping for and Intel confirmed that in their presentations last year if you look at their graphs. There is some variation in that number but Intel never said exactly how much variation there is. With the 45nm Core 2 chips, not only is there some TJMax variation from one E8500 to another E8500 but there can also be TJMax variation from one core to the other. This becomes very obvious when you start looking at the 45nm Quad processors. There's so much random variation in these sensors that finding 4 of them all in agreement is close to impossible.
This is the reason why Intel has never recommended using these sensors to report accurate core temperatures. My opinion is that as long as your sensors are not sticking, most of them can be calibrated / adjusted to report some reasonably accurate core temperatures.
If your sensors aren't sticking at lower temperatures then the best thing you can do is compare your reported temperatures to your room temperature with your case open.
rge did some extensive testing and found a relationship that seems pretty accurate and gives you something to shoot for when calibrating.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2429
Use TJMax=100C as your default but you might find one core that is a little higher than that. Post a CPU Cool Down Test. It can help show differences in the temperature slopes of your sensors, differences in TJMax as well as if any of your sensors are getting stuck.
Thread has gotten quiet...guess that happens when you have a kick butt utility that's working well:up:
Now that it monitors my gpu temp as well, it is great having just one very light footprint temp program for monitoring cpu/gpu loop with alarm/auto shutdown. Also great for benching on runs when i need to see temps, just uncheck the alarm shutdown and go....with the other program I had used I had to delete all alarm entries..but usually just shut it down and used realtemp for benching.
Of course I am now used to things working perfect with just Real Temp and take all this for granite:p:
Stay tuned, a final version is on the way (with proper documentation too). ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
Otherwise RealTemp works flawless, RivaTuner plugin is a great addition (at least for me), I'm a happy camper now. No surprise though because uncle is a perfectionist :)
Agree ... it's working fantastic for me.
Here's my latest data after the cool down test. Running an i7 920 @ 3.8 on the EVGA X58 board. Without this program, I'd have a lot less confidence experimenting with overclocking. I don't freak out because the cores read different temps, as I can check their responsiveness using the Cool Down Test. It's also a quick and easy stability check before moving to longer tests.
Just wanted to say a big :up::up::up: to unclewebb and everyone who has worked to make this a great application.
http://shazza53.smugmug.com/photos/4...05_unwbw-L.jpg
Thanks for the support. I find when this thread gets quiet that means everything must be working good. No complaints is usually a good thing.
The latest version has been polished up a little and should be ready at the main TechPowerUp site in a day or two. Stay tuned.
Excellent! No more people downloading obsolete versions :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
@unclewebb
Any suggestions on how to unstick a sensor if the sensors are faulty?
My core temps are reading significantly different values and wondered if this is similar to what others may be experiencing and hopefully found a fix. I am dying for a fix because I don't feel comfortable overclocking this system until I know what are the real temps.
My system is basically:
* Intel E8400
* Gigabyte EP35-DS3P
* OCZ PC2-9200 Reapers
* Seagate 3GB/s HDD
The cpu is water cooled with 120x240 and 120x120 rads.
I flashed to the latest bios (F6a) and found that the temperatures were pretty much out of whack.
I tried the calibration approach used for Real Temp by dropping the core speed to 1.6GHz (6x266) and core voltage to 1.10v. The temp readings were 46/20 at idle (water cooled and RT at 18C).
Reset the core speed to normal 3.0GHz (9x333) and core voltage set to “normal”. Idle temps were the same (45/20) as the core running at 1.6GHz. The load temps were 51/33 as seen in Real Temp after running Orthos.
So the bios update did not fix the temperature readings and trying to recalibrate Real Temp won’t work to try and find semi-accurate temp readings.
Are there any methods to unstick a sensor?
One other thought is that everything is working normal and one core is getting hot due to a bad contact with the heat shield. The only solution in this case would be to pull it off. Since this would be my first attempt so I would prefer to try other approaches first.
Feedback is appreciated. Thanks
Any new beta gonna be released?
@Snafu: Run the CPU cooldown test in Real Temp and post your results so we can see how your sensors respond across a range of load ;)
Snafu: There's no way to unstick a sticking sensor. The sticking point of the vast majority of sensors never changes during the lifetime of the processor.
Don't let this hold you back from trying to overclock and get some MHz out of your CPU. The majority of sensors will start to move and register more or less correctly once the temperature is greater than the sticking point. You can't do a proper calibration with a stuck sensor but you might be able to improve its accuracy at higher temperatures when they start moving.
randomizer is right. The CPU Cool Dow Test can tell me a lot of information about your CPU and its sensors. All it takes is about 10 minutes of your time. I get a little busy with programming project RealTemp sometimes so if you don't hear back from me just send me PM messages and e-mails until my in-box is overflowing!
Thanks randomizer and unclewebb. The cool down test is being run and I will post the results. I was running v2.70 but have downloaded the beta.
BTW love the program. Very runs great, nice and compact. Excellent!
Here are the results of running the cooldown test (PM on the way):
http://www.bleedinedge.com/crew/snaf...sensortest.JPG
Snafu: The good news is that neither of your sensors are sticking in the temperature range that you've done your test. Typically when there is a large difference at idle it's because one of your sensors has become stuck but that is not the case here.
The problem you have is two sensors with totally different temperature slopes. If you compare the Idle level to the 87.6% level, core 0 changes by 5.3 while core 1 changes by 10.0. Intel says that the slope of a sensor might vary by 10% so if you compare two of them you might see a 20% difference but here the combined difference is closer to 100%. That's not good and is likely the main reason why your temps look so screwy.
If core 0 had an IHS to core contact issue or if you didn't do a very good job applying the paste, then you would expect when the load went from 0% to 100% that the temperature for core 0 would really jump up but that's not the case. It moves far less than core 1 so that's why I think the problem is mostly sensor slope error related.
If you graphed these two curves on a piece of paper and extended the lines out, they would cross when the Distance to TJMax is at about 21 which is a temperature of about 79C. After this point, I'm not sure what will happen. Sometimes when there are two different curves, you'll reach a point where the two line up and then from 80 to 100 the two sensors might track each other almost exactly. I don't have enough experience with situations where one sensor is vastly different than the other to make an accurate prediction of what's going to happen higher up.
Your Core 1 sensor is the one to trust. It looks close to normal while Core 0 is definitely screwed up. rge did some thorough testing and came up with these guide lines:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2429
For water cooling, RealTemp should report idle temperatures about 6C above your water temperature when you are running at 6x333 and 1.10 volts.
It looks like you are going to need a calibration factor of about +2.0 on core 1 to get it reporting correctly. For core 0, you are going to need a huge amount of negative calibration to get it to report some sensible numbers. You will need a difference of about 20 between the two so if core 1 is set to +2.0 then I would use something like -18.0 on core 0. Once core 1 is calibrated to a fixed temperature number then adjust core 0 so the two are balanced.
I think there is just barely enough adjustment room in RealTemp to take care of this problem. Now you can run some Prime 95 Small FFTs and see how they compare at full load. They should be a lot closer together from idle to full load which is how normal sensors respond on a 45nm Core 2 chip.
You could also bolt on a crappy air cooler and run some Prime Small FFTs with your fan turned off and take your CPU beyond 80C and see what happens to these sensors but in my opinion, that's kind of pointless. That would help answer the question whether TJMax is balanced on these cores at some point near TJMax but since you're water cooled, you're never going to be hitting these kind of temps with even a well overclocked and over volted Dual Core so there's not much point of that test.
Time to start overclocking that puppy. Another cool down test at about 4 GHz might tell me some more about what these sensors are doing higher up. When overclocking an E8400, 4GHz is always a nice place to start. :yepp:
Thanks Unclewebb. I'll give it a go and calibrate to core 1 with 25C idle temp being realistic with water cooling and RT @ 18C (36C load isn't too bad at stock speed under water).
Any chance Real Temp version 3.0 will include a slop adjustment? I am sure this would require far more testing per core to see what happens as temps get closer to TJmax.
One question, with the temps for core 0 being inaccurate, I am wondering whether the cpu is relying on this temp for throttling or whether there is another temp/sensor that it relies upon. I raise the point because even with recalibrating the sensor for core 0 to a more normal result, would the cpu throttle if the sensor read a high temp (albeit inaccurate)?
Will be calibrating and pushing the core. We'll see what happens.
Thanks again!
Thermal throttling is only based on what these two sensors are saying which probably doesn't give you a very good feeling right now.
Intel calibrates these sensors to be reasonably accurate for this purpose which is why two sensors operating on two different curves tend to line up somewhere around TJMax give or take a few degrees. I drew your temperature lines further and figured out that if the two stay on the same slope, then core 1 will reach the throttling point first so you shouldn't have to worry that core 0 is going to hold you back.
Temperature slope adjustment has been included in RealTemp since day 1. That's what entering in calibration factors does. It changes the slopes of these curves so they can better line up with each other. Your processor provides a good example of why this is sometimes needed. I think you're going to be surprised how normal your temps look after some calibration.
Will they be perfect? Probably not but they'll be a step in the right direction. With some more data at higher temperatures I might be able to fine tune your calibration a little further. Core 1 looks like a very good sensor with a wide range of motion. After checking your calibration again at the low MHz / low voltage point and following rge's guide lines, you won't have to worry about trusting this sensor. It will be very accurate from idle to TJMax.
On a 45nm Core 2 processor, you can run Prime95 on one core and nothing on the other and the idle core is still going to heat up to within a degree or two of the core that's doing all the work. The cores and sensors are so close together that the heat transfers to the other core very quickly even when one of them is idle. That's why as long as you have one core you can trust, you don't have to worry about the other one but after calibration, core 0 should track core 1 pretty closely.
Good to know and I am glad that core 0 will likely not hold me back.
Once you enter a calibration factor would you adjust TJmax? I am noticing that with a calibration factor the sum of CPU temp and Distance to TJmax is no longer 95 (using beta v2.90). It appears to be out by the same value as the calibration factor.
By example (if needed), if a calibration factor of +2.0 is used then the sum is 97.
BTW the max values for calibration are +9.9 and -19.9.
The calibration factor makes it appear that the TJMax is changing from idle to TJMax. The Distance to TJMax data is the raw data coming from the sensors so I can't change that.
The basic formula is this:
Reported Temperature = TJMax - ( Distance to TJMax )
Since TJMax is a fixed number and the other value is raw data that I don't change, I added an extra part onto this formula. That's the calibration factor part.
If it appears that your TJMax has just dropped 20C at idle, that's because the calibration factor is giving you 20 degrees of correction at idle. As the temperature increases, the amount of correction the calibration contributes will decrease. A negative calibration factor will make it look like TJMax is less than 100C and a positive calibration factor will do the opposite and make it look like RealTemp is using a TJMax greater than 100C. If everything goes right, the amount of calibration will continue to decrease towards zero as these two curves finally meet.
Okay sounds good.
Here are the cool down test results after calibration ( +2.0 for core 1 and -18.0 for core 0)
http://www.bleedinedge.com/crew/snaf...mpcooldown.JPG
The results show that the lines are more parallel with each other. There still is a gap of ~25C but the lines are more parallel (graphed in excel).
Here is an idle shot (FYI) with both temps at 23C.
http://www.bleedinedge.com/crew/snaf...s/realtemp.JPG
Now to start playing around.
I upgraded to the latest; RealTemp 2.90 beta, Rivatuner 2.22, Everest 4.60,
,,,but the OSD wont work in Crysis any more, it worked before with Rivatuner 2.11
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f3...eRivaRT-1a.jpg
When I upgraded RealTemp the calibrationfactors showed up as 0 0 0 0 which puzzled me somewhat as I had manually added them from the previous ini-file.
I noticed there were quite abit that had changed in layout of Realtemp, the APIC ID that showed core order is now gone, I´m just wondering if the calibrationfactors was set in the same way as before as the temperature looks different now, or is it just me
Will it help if I do a Prime 95 and post a screenshot of that?
X-hellfire: I hope all your problems are just you. :)
When you upgraded RivaTuner it looks like you put it in a different directory than what you were using before. You'll need to open up the Settings window in RealTemp, click on the RivaTuner button then click on Cancel to get rid of the previous link. Click on RivaTuner a second time and tell RealTemp where your new RivaTuner.exe is located now. After you exit the Settings window by clicking on OK, RealTemp will save your calibration factors and TJMax values into the correct RivaTuner Monitoring directory.
I'm using RivaTuner 2.22 and RealTemp 2.90 and the temps are showing up correctly on my G15. If they show up there but not on screen during a game then that sounds like a RivaTuner setup problem. Is it just Crysis that you are having this problem with or is it all games?
I have a Q6600 G0 like yours and I think TJMax = 100C is the best place to start.
Snafu: The cool down test is only showing the uncorrected data from your sensors so any calibrations you make won't change what that data looks like. Calibration is designed to make your reported temps look a little closer to reality. You can run a log file at a 1 second interval without the Excel option. Run a minute of idle, followed by a couple of minutes of Prime 95 Small FFTs, followed by a minute of idle. You should see your reported core temperatures of both cores move at a much more similar rate.
You can post that data here by using the code html tags surrounded by square brackets [].
use [c o d e] without the spaces, copy and paste in some data and then follow it by [/c o d e] again without the spaces.
Me too, but it's probably more people that upgraded Rivatuner etc, maybe I did something not so good, think I started Rivatuner and thought it would upgrade itself, but I aborted the installation when it said it wanted to make a Rivatuner 2.22 folder. Uninstalled 2.11 and restarted 2.11 installation but when it was started it froze, maybe some leftovers were left in the registry?Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
...anyway did a fix with Registry Mechanic, restarted and it worked like a charm, except the OSD thing
Upgraded Everest, but didnt uninstall it, it was installed in another directory, there was alot of textcolors etc that I didnt know how to save or migrate into the new one, might been the culprit to this problem, I really hate selecting textcolor one by one over and over again
I had already done the Rivatuner plugin selection in RealTemp and it was pointing to the new 2.22,
Tried Crysis and GRID with Rivatuner 2.11, but it only worked in Crysis, and then none of them
Okej, will change TJMax to 100 again, all the previous versions 2.69.5 had was set to 95, I might have missed something in this thread, tl;dr ;)
Should I do a recalibration?
@UncleWebb
Do these temperature variations look correct from core to core? If not could you suggest a tjmax/idle calibration based on this?
http://bayimg.com/image/ganpiaabf.jpg
I originally used TJMax = 95C for the Q6600 G0 based on my IHS surface temperature measurement. With the help of rge's testing, I agree that number is likely too low and in order for the IHS to be at 95C, the actual core temperature has to be higher and 5C higher seems reasonable to me. That's where I originally went wrong and that's why I bumped it up to 100C.
For the G0, Intel lists the TJ Target as 90C. For my G0, that number doesn't seem to have anything to do with the actual TJMax. On core 0 and core 1, TJMax = 100C is reasonable but on core 2 and core 3, I think the actual TJMax is closer to 105C.
Intel's presentations last year confirmed that TJMax is not a fixed number and there is some variation from one CPU to the next of the same model. The 45nm Quads make it obvious that TJMax isn't fixed from one core to the next on the same CPU. I've seen variations of 10C from one core to the next which can't be explained by "slope error." If you take the time to post a Cool Down Test, I'll have a look at it and let you know what I see. If you've changed TJMax then you should check your calibration based on what rge found in this post:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2429
With slope error and TJMax not being a fixed number, checking one's calibration is recommended. Even if the TJMax you use is not exact, calibrating RealTemp based on rge's guidelines will help minimize the amount of error in your normal temperature range.
When you abort an installation, it's hard to say what file and what version went where. Sometimes, depending on the installer used, System Restore can save your butt in a situation like this. The registry is the weakest link in Windows and is the reason why I avoid storing anything there. I like being able to delete or move folders without my registry getting confused.
Trigunflame: I don't own a Core i7 so I haven't played around with one yet. When I look at your results, core 0 and core 1 have almost a constant difference of 5C from top to bottom. My opinion is that actual TJMax for core 1 is likely 5C higher than core 0. If this was a slope error issue, this difference would narrow as you got closer to TJMax but in this case, it stays very consistent.
With Core i7, slope error seems to be a lot less of a problem but I think TJMax can still vary by up to 5C from core to core. Most of the screen shots I've seen, it's usually core 3 that reports the lowest temperatures, with core 0 the highest but yours is a little different.
For your CPU I'd just do a simple adjustment and set TJMax to 100, 105, 100, 101. After that you could try running at low MHz and core voltage and see how your reported core temperatures compare to your air or water temperature as mentioned in rge's post.
It had just seemed odd to me that there would be a 5c difference between cores; I didn't know if it was a problem on my end as far as seating and what not; being that I had lapped the IHS/HSF prior. Thanks for the enlightenment and program.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I appreciate the suggestion, I'll be sure to try those changes and frequency/vcore modification and monitor the results.
Finally was motivated to measure core i7 IHS with calibrated thermocouple versus realtemp. Showed the same ~5C gradient from IHS to core as on E8400 and old pentium, using known tmax on core i7...though really was not surprised. Tried it at 4 different temps, but as usual only a few of 20 pics I took turned out with legible lighting for both computer screen and FLUKE thermocouple. At 70C RT, IHS was 65C. With heatsink on (hole drilled through heatsink with thermocouple on IHS), did not get temps higher than that...but was looking pretty linear.
IR was a no go...a heatsink is mandatory, these thing are up to 100+C even at .9vcore and 12x133, with just booting.
Holy Carp!Quote:
IR was a no go...a heatsink is mandatory, these thing are up to 100+C even at .9vcore and 12x133, with just booting.
Do you have a close up shot of the base. I would like to give this a try. Thanks.Quote:
With heatsink on (hole drilled through heatsink with thermocouple on IHS
Apologies for the OT
Thank you for clarifying this unclewebbQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I have now done two Prime95 test, first one with many apps running then I thought maybe they influence the results and it would be interesting to see the difference with as few apps as possible, basically firewall & antivirus
I set the TJ Max to 100 and calibration factors to 0 0 0 0
Just put a power drill right in middle of the stock intel heatsink....drillbit will naturally stay in the middle as it is like a cup. Takes a couple minutes to get through the copper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snafu
This pic i posted earlier in this thread when testing E8400..but couldnt find the post...but here it is.
Thermocouple needs to be calibrated. And need to use thermal paste like mx2, whatever to coat tip thermocouple to make good thermal contact with IHS.
-X-hellfire: In case you don't know, a Core 2 Quad consists of two separate Core 2 Dual cores. Your data looks very similar to my Q6600 where I am about 99% certain that TJMax on core 2 and core 3 is set 5C higher than core 0 and core 1. I have seen too many similar screen shots to believe that this is all just random chance. I don't believe that Intel has told users the whole story about how they set TJMax on their 65nm Quads.
For your CPU I'd try TJMax 100, 100, 105, 105 and then use slightly different calibration factors on core 2 and core 3 to balance out the temps at idle. I think after this, your 4 cores should track each other very closely from idle to TJMax when running Prime 95 Small FFTs. I like that program and test because of its consistency. My Quad still shows this 5C difference between the two sets of cores even when the temperature is at 90C or 95C. That doesn't seem like slope error. That seems like TJMax is being set differently by Intel. Once calibrated, you can do the low MHz / low voltage test and compare your reported temps to your room / water temp.
Snafu: Talking temps is never off topic on this thread. It hasn't always been easy turning a couple of lines of code into a 127 page story. :)
Thanks rge and unclewebb.
RealTemp 3.00 released:
- Core i7 temperature and frequency support including Turbo mode.
- NVIDIA temperature reporting with highest GPU temperature displayed in SLI mode.
- Ability to run a file or shutdown based on user defined alarm temperature.
- Updated interface with modern XP / Vista style and border in Mini Mode.
- Start Minimized Vista issues finally fixed.
- New RivaTuner plug-in support.
- Extra information on the main screen and the retirement of the toggle button.
- Switch to UNICODE for better international support.
- Adjustable GUI colors and bold System Tray font option.
- TJMax updated based on new Intel documentation and further testing.
- Calibration formula simplified.
- All new CPU Cool Down Test for a more thorough look at your sensors.
- Clock Modulation & Minimize on Close options.
- New CPU Load meter, log file headings and Distance to TJMax in the System Tray.
- 101 other improvements including initial Windows 7 Beta support.
Download: http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads...Temp_3.00.html
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3352/screen1oo3.jpg
It took 6 months but it's finally official. :up:
Time to put the TechPowerUp servers to work.
Maybe this version will someday reach a quarter of a million downloads like the last version did.
Congrats man for your masterpiece. :worship:
Now you deserve a little rest. Or not? :D
The W1zzard has dangled the AMD carrot in front of my nose.
Rest? What's that. :D
Great work unclewebb ... I hope you'll continue with the awesome work in the feature.
Thank you for new version again :up:
Thanks Unclewebb!!
Now all we need is someone to do a gadget for this and it'll be perfect. Too bad I'm useless at that kind of stuff or I'd give it a shot myself.
Yes indeed, thank you very much for all your help, time, and inovation with Real Temp! Its one of the most helpful temp utilities I've ever used, keep pushing it!
Congrats Webb. Now how about that beer? hehe.
That depends. Who's buying? :toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ol'Baditude
Edit: One user seems to have some missing cores with the latest version.
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/8733/realtemp300ra8.jpg
He's in Romania I believe so I haven't been able to contact him yet.
If I'm lucky, maybe he had two cores turned off in his bios. Let me know if your Quad has lost a couple of cores.
My Q6600 is fine.
unclewebb
Thanks again for you great work, mate :up:
nope all the cores are here :p
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9892/shot0001tv9.jpg
uncleweb,thank you so much for this great app,and most importantly all the individual help you give everyone,like how quickly you respond to or needs.and it never stops for you,as soon as one thing is fixed you move on to the next bug.and you have been very patient with us and our unending requests.you are a good man,thank you very much,it is appreciated.
Yes, I'm that guy with two missing cores from Q9450 :D And no, I didn't turned off two cores in BIOS, my rig is working 24/7 and running Windows Server 2008 x64 SP1.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I also helped you, indirectly, in your program development last year in late october - early november, with some screenshots during my tests on Core i7 965 (burebista courtesy).
Hi
what means the info 1067A on the realtemp software?
http://i39.tinypic.com/19rvxs.jpg
thanks
Your CPUID string. :)
darkzone: Welcome to XS and thanks for your help last fall. It usually takes people forever to get an account here.
On the previous page, Vatos_locos also has a Q9450 and RealTemp is reading all of his cores fine.
The APIC ID information shows 4 unique threads for his CPU.
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/7025/apiciddc2.png
Your screen shot only shows two unique threads; 0 and 1. Is it possible that Windows Server is set up so it is not allowing RealTemp to run on and access all 4 of your cores? In XP and Vista I know if you go into the Task Manager and select Set Affinity... it will show you what cores your process is allowed to run on. I assume that Windows Server is the same. That might give us a clue to what's going on.
Can you post a screen shot of CPU-Z? It shows the number of CPUs and the number of Threads available at the bottom which also might help explain this.
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/8500/cpuzcoresrg1.png
A multi-threaded benchmark like wPrime might also show if you have access to 2 or all 4 cores.
Edit: Here's some numbers for comparison. The first 2 are at 3000 MHz and for the second 2 I used SetFSB to adjust my Q6600 to its 266x9 default of 2400 MHz.
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/942/wprimesd3.png
radaja: RealTemp wouldn't be a great little monitoring app if it wasn't for all the help I get from XS users. The only way I can find out about bugs quickly is if people come here and tell me about them. I hate buggy software as much as anyone. When there's a problem, I'm happy to fix it for all users.
|Oc|REvO_HsArC: That cryptic 1067A number in RealTemp is your CPUID. A good programmer would provide a label for that value but I think it looks ugly when it says CPUID 1067A so I left off the label.
If you look at CPU-Z, it shows the 67A part as the Family, Model and Stepping. The 1 comes from the Extended Family info section of CPU-Z. When I see that number, I know right away that you have an E0 processor which helps me when debugging. IBT at 4500 MHz with 1.288 volts also confirms that you must have an E0. :)
It will also help you when you go to the Intel website to learn about your CPU. I like the Processor Spec Finder button in the About... box of RealTemp. It makes it a lot easier to find information about your CPU.
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/3662/e8400md2.png
1067A is a hexidecimal number. Most people will precede a hex number with 0x. It's also acceptable to put a small h after this number which Intel likes to do.
If you have an Nvidia GPU then your GPU temperature shows up here which is more useful for most people. Some ATI temp data in there is on the maybe list.
thanks guys :)
Awesome!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Is it true that you do not have VID in for i7? I looked back several pages but didnt see anything. Thanks!
did you try searching? i7 came out quite some time ago, so peeps had plenty of time to discuss this issue to death.Quote:
Originally Posted by jas420221
http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...postcount=2672
I only looked back in this thread, but only a couple pages back, not 600+ posts. Thank you.
OK, here is the complete screenshots with all your demands :) I hope this will be usefull for you.
Attachment 94195
Attachment 94197
My rig: ASUS P5Q, Q9450 under Scythe Ninja 2 fanless, 8 GB DDR800, 9800GT, 3 x WD6400AAKS, SAMSUNG SH-S223F, Enermax Modu82+ 425W, Antec Ninehundred w/ 4 x 120mm fans, UPS Mustek 1000VA, Windows Server 2008 x64 SP1, C1E/EIST activated in BIOS, CPU Voltage - 1.18V (@FSB400).
Thanks darkzone. I always like "too much information."
I'm not sure why 2 of your cores are hiding in version 3.00 but I'll have a good look for them tonight.
I have a few ideas so if I can figure something out, I'll send you an updated version that you can test. Thanks for your help.
I'm not sure if this has been covered but...which version of Real Temp should I believe is more accurate?
http://i678.photobucket.com/albums/v...n/realtemp.jpg
3.0 of course.
Quote:
Changes in Version 3.00
* Core i7 temperature and frequency support including Turbo mode.
jcotran: When version 2.70 was released, the Core i7 was not available yet for me to do any testing with it. Version 2.70 does not properly support them. rge helped me a great deal getting RealTemp 3.00 updated so it works excellent with Core i7. It's definitely time for you to upgrade.
Hey, guys. I just installed my Noctua NP-12U SE1366 (it took a while, because my system was already built and I also spent some time rerouting cables). Before the Noctua, the processor went into PROCHOT long before 100% load even at stock speeds (though with the memory at 1600@8-8-8-24).
Now, with the Noctua, it hovers around 30-40 degrees at idle which is great, IMHO. I have a loaded system with 6 HDDs, one 8800 GTX and some other peripherals.
Anyway, I just wanted to ask for some calibration help regarding Real Temp 3.00:
Bludd: Core 0 and core 2 are probably pretty accurate. The actual TJMax for core 1 and core 3 might be 4C or 5C higher. Intel says that TJMax is not an exact number and 100C for the Core i7 is a target value that they aim for but actual TJMax can be slightly higher.
Do you have any screen shots at higher temperatures when you were running the original cooler? That would help me judge better how much of your error is slope error and how much is error in TJMax.
The Core i7 sensors are pretty good. I'd just use TJMax 100, 105, 100, 105 and then if you want you could use calibration factors to balance your temperatures at idle. I probably wouldn't bother with the last part since the slope error from core to core doesn't look too bad. It's mostly just TJMax error in my opinion. This is simple and you should end up with more accurate temperatures.
Read rge's calibration method here if you want to get more technical:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2429
A Core i7, depending on bios and Windows power settings, might idle a couple of degrees cooler than that. Some of the cores might get put to sleep at idle so heat wise at low MHz and low core voltage they might be better than Core 2 Quads but the Core i7 heats up more when you put a load on them. :)
Run Prime95 Small FFTs for a couple of minutes and see how your cores line up. I usually go full load and then start and stop Prime 95 a few times to see how the cores track between idle and full load. These sensors are not exact so there's not much point in getting too anal about trying to get 100% accurate temperatures out of them.
Edit: Looks like your GPU is putting out some serious heat so remember to open your case when calibrating.
Thanks for the reply, unclewebb and thanks for RealTemp. :)
I have a Thermaltake Armor+ case which has a 230mm fan in the side panel, so I don't think opening the case would have any effect. I am now running a 8 thread x264 encode and here's a shot of RealTemp (7 minutes into the second encoding pass). Doing this with the stock cooler got me into PROCHOT territory. I am sorry but I don't have screenshot of RealTemp when I was using the stock cooler.
I don't think I'll fiddle with the calibration, since the settings seem to be OK. Rather have a too low TJmax than a too high one. :)
Shot of the 8 thread x264 encode:
Congrats on the offical release! :)
Bludd: If you used my suggestion about TJMax your screen shot would be showing 60, 60, 59, 60
I use 100, 100, 105, 105 on my Q6600 as posted above. When the 4 cores are equally loaded running Prime Small FFTs, the cores track each other a lot better when set up like that. My Q6600 isn't the only one that seems to have this issue.
Next time you're searching the Core i7 forums, keep an eye on how many of them have core 3 that always reads 5C less at full load than the rest. Either everyone is applying their paste in some funny way or TJMax is being set slightly higher for this core. Not sure why. Someone should ask Intel at the next developer's conference. ;)
Thanks randomizer. It seems like a pretty good release so far except for the two missing cores in Windows Server 2008. That's a work in progress.Quote:
Congrats on the offical release!
Just wanted to pop in and thank unclewebb for his efforts on Real Temp.
I have watched Real Temp evolve over the last year or so. And it's turned into my favorite program to monitor the temps on all my rigs.
So thanks unclewebb for all your hard work and continuing support on Real Temp.
So, here we go again. I've downloaded the new build that you send me via PM, ran it and you can see the result below. It seems that the problem still remain, including the display of APIC ID (marked with a red square). I've started the program for several times, but it showed the same value each time.
My guess (lucky one, I hope) is that the operating system itself is bugging some rutines of that version 3.0. I can't explain myself why the older version (ironically, another beta) is running just fine and the new one don't :shrug:
Here's a feature request for Real Temp: I would like an option to minimize the program to the systray on close.
Also, when minimize on close is enabled, right-clicking on RealTemp in the taskbar and selecting close should actually close the program, not minimize it. Bug?
Version 3.0 does have the option to minimize on close already. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bludd
The Minimize on Close feature seems to work OK for me in RealTemp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bludd
I thought you just said that this feature doesn't exist? :shrug:Quote:
Also, when minimize on close is enabled
If you are using the Minimize on Close feature and you select Close in the TaskBar then why should RealTemp exit? The program is just doing what you told it to do. There are 3 ways to exit when you are using Minimize on Close. You can select Exit in the System Tray menu, you can use the ESC key on your keyboard or you can use ALT+F4 which most every Windows program supports.Quote:
..., right-clicking on RealTemp in the taskbar and selecting close should actually close the program, not minimize it. Bug?
If you want RealTemp to open up or close down back to the System Tray and your mouse is near the System Tray area, then just double click on one of the temperature icons. You can also select the Minimize option in the System Tray menu. It doesn't get much easier to use than that.
I'm going to be spending my time working on darkzone's problem with his RealTemp / Windows Server bug. I'm curious to understand what's causing it and if I can come up with a fix.
The thing that I don't understand is why APIC ID shows up as 0111 in some of your screen shots darkzone but in one of your screen shots it showed up correctly as 0123 even though two cores were still missing. As I said in my PM message I've got a few things to try this weekend to see if this bug can be fixed. I'll send you another beta version when it's ready.
I think we are talking past each other. RealTemp doesn't minimize to the systray, it minimizes to the taskbar. When minimize on close is enabled, it minimizes to the taskbar. I would like it to minimize to the systray. That is, make a realtemp icon in the systray if the temp. display in the systray is not enabled, and if it is, then RealTemp should "disappear" and the only icon should be the one in the systray that displays the temperature.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Right-clicking on RealTemp in the taskbar doesn't yield an "exit" choice, if it did, I would be happy. Now close just minimizes it to the taskbar when the minimize on close feature is enabled.
Definitions:
-systray, area near the clock opposite of the start button in WinXP
-taskbar, the area between the start button and the systray