Printable View
Now I understand what you're saying Bludd. I've always assumed most users of RealTemp have at least one temperature icon displayed in the SystemTray area but it would be easy enough to create some more minimize / close options and a picture icon for those that don't.
Thanks. Don't feel you have to hurry, it's not a huge deal, but some improvement that can be made in future versions time allowing. :)
Min/Hide to Systray/Taskbar Feature Work Great :)
And Honestly, I wouldn't change a thing.
Congrats Unclewebb for a superb program.
Hi unclewebb :) Thanks for updates and thx for new relase :)
some tests on my rig .. just installed RT 3.0 onto my (multi boot) Asus RE /(b.ver1003) // qx9650/ 2x2gb (a-data) ..aircooled rig
run it on separate OS's -
1) Xp pro (32bit) /
2) Vista HomePrem. sp1 (32bit) and
3) W7 beta(64bit) 7000.0.081212-1400_client_en-us_Ultimate-GB1CULXFRE_EN_DVD.iso
so far seems all OK ..hmm i didn't got clear the problem ( upper posted) about ''close minimize'' ok what ever ..
anyway no problem for me, so far all is ok here .. (ok :) for me personally )
just ''Ph.shopped'' together screens capped from diff. Os 's on same hW /settings
all looks OK :)
only some annoyances .. in W7 beta -- ''RT icons in systry ..(well.. i remember ..it was posted/discussed earlier .. )
these icons (order) just do not save (or os cannot recall?) their set order .. on next boot,
or other words (no prob. can drag them into right order).. no big deal .. but this seems OS(w7) problem not RT ..
anyway .. on others os's like xp -vista - RT 'systry icons' get aligned as they should be in logical order of cores (apic id - 0123).. on every boot up
..
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/5...1200iv8.th.png
http://img407.imageshack.us/my.php?i...pyw1200iv8.png
-------
also .. just noticed that Mhz. calc utility (program) get somewhat ? wrong readins here
specially on vista 32 bit and w7 64bit .. - at same time on XP32bit .. it reads the (fsb, multi.) setings as was set in bios ( currently have no options to test xp64bit and vista 64bit ) sorry if this false alert.. but honest... haven't seen this earlier
.. only changes in my hw is RAM - replaced current 2gb kit ->to 4gbkit aka (current was 2gb(2x1gb) to-> 2x2gb (4gb)
just have tested QX9650 @3600 / 9x400 // strap333 / DDR3-1600 with my current (4GB kit ) A-data 2x2gb ram kit ..
first thought .. could be problem on 32bit os with 4GB .. but later on 64bit w7 - same ''misreading'' appears
so far, at the moment cannot test other ram kits (my def cellshock (2x1gb) 2gb ddr3-14400 kit)
unfortunately one of the CellShock's modules have ''passed away ''
so only options currently is this cheap 3x2GB A-data (DDR3-1600G) pc 12800 (nehalem)kit ..
but using only 2 modules now
I've tested RT3.00 on XP, Vista and Windows 7 32 & 64 bit and overall everything is pretty good. So far the only major bug is in Windows Server 2008. I'm in the process of upgrading my Visual Studio version and SDK but I don't know if that will fix the Windows Server 2008 missing cores bug. I have a few other options so as long as darkzone is patient, I should be able to come up with a solution for him.
The only RealTemp Windows 7 bug I found is what you mentioned. The System Tray icons do not get lined up in the correct order. The exact same code works 100% in XP and Vista. Presently when software inserts a new icon into the Windows 7 system tray area it can get inserted anywhere and the next one that gets inserted can get inserted either to the left or the right of the previous one so there is no way to get them properly lined up. The final order is random. Most software only inserts one icon into the system tray so maybe someone at Microsoft was hoping that no one would notice. I haven't noticed how Everest v5.00 is working in Windows 7 which inserts a lot more icons than RealTemp does. I'm not going to worry about this issue until Windows 7 final comes out. I sent a bug report to Microsoft but it's hard to say if they'll make any changes. It's probably not very important to them so it might be saved for Win7 - SP2 or SP3 or might be fixed up and sold as a new and improved feature in Win8. :) If you want this fixed up, more Windows 7 beta testers need to complain.
The Minimize on Close issue is going to be a non-issue for most users. Bludd would like a few more options when he is using the TaskBar option combined with the Minimize on Close option and that's been put on the things to do someday, maybe list.
It looks like my old MHzCalc tool needs an update. The good news is that RealTemp 3.00 appears to be working 100%. 3603.93, 3603.89 and 3603.92 in three different OS versions looks correct. Those are the exact same numbers that the King, CPU-Z, is reporting only RealTemp is a little more consistent. ;)
I found out that after XP, Windows changed the clock generator it uses to calculate time intervals. It looks like in my MHzCalc testing tool, my fix for the bugs of XP don't work very well after Microsoft got around to fixing their clock generator code. Do you use the MHzCalc tool? If so then maybe I'll update it with the code RealTemp is presently using to calculate MHz.
New try with new build, nothing is changed, same issue of two missing cores :shrug: But, if the older version still working, the right question is what make the newer version to not run correctly? I think the operating system is OK by functionality, I didn't have any problems with it in these 65 days from last shutdown (when I've mounted Musashi on 9800GT), as you can see the uptime in upper right corner.
darkzone: No worries. It probably doesn't seem like it but I'm making progress. I'm finding out all the things that aren't causing this problem.
The Thomas Edison approach :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Ive been using the 3.00 for a few days now and there are no problems yet on my end, thank you very much for the updated version.
Your welcome Demo. The issues are pretty minor so far. Hopefully in a day or two I'll figure out what's causing darkzone's problem in Windows Server 2008.
sorry but tried tis program and i thik this may wrong its imposible to me to be 7 degrees, Cº with and ambient temperature of 19º, (i'm watercooled but i think it is not as it shows)
danielniel: Thank you for providing me with lots of information so I can help you diagnose your problem. Have you read the documentation yet about calibrating and how inaccurate these sensors are at idle? That's always a good place to start.
http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/docs.php
Tell me a few more details about what processor you're using, etc., etc.
The program is only as good (or bad) as your sensors, just like all the others :) Provide some information as unclewebb said.Quote:
Originally Posted by danielniel
Its been a while since I posted, glad to see you are still refining and tweaking this program. Hats off to you Unclewebb for all the hard work you have done. I just upgraded from RT 2.7 to 3.0 last night, recalibrated and used your new cooldown test. I have been reading all the recent post in this thread and didnt realize that you can have a different tJmax on each core. I have my tjmax set at 95 on all 4 cores, which is what I thought it was on the q6600. I believe that I have done my calibration correctly, but under load cores 0 and 1 read 4-5 C higher than cores 2 and 3. Is this a case of adjusting tJmax for 2 of the cores? And which two cores would it be?
[IMG]http://img34.picoodle.com/img/img34/...nm_de1031e.jpg[/IMG]
Here is load pic
http://img32.picoodle.com/img/img32/...dm_708b884.jpg
UncleWebb, are Atom processors supported? I just ordered Aspire One and i'm wondering if i could use RealTemp on it to monitor CPU temperature.
Hi RejZoR. Long time no see around here. :)
The Atom is supported. There are a couple of different Atom models including some with hyper threading but I believe that RealTemp can handle all of them correctly now.
There is one bug / incompatibility that I know of but I'm not sure how many or what model of Atom that this bug effects. The Load meter doesn't work at all and only reports zero percent, all the time. The Load meter depends on some internal timers in the Core processors so my best guess is that maybe the Atom doesn't have these timers available. Let me know what you find or if there are any other Atom owners can you post a screen shot of this. The Intel documentation says this should work but one Atom user had issues.
Nevrsadie: Originally RealTemp was based on my IR temperature measurements of the heat spreader (IHS) which covers the cores. rge's testing has shown me that the actual core temperature is likely about 5C higher than the IHS temperature. That's why the default TJMax has been bumped up to 100C for the Q6600 G0.
Intel admits that TJMax is not a perfectly fixed number. They have what they call a TJ Target value and then actual TJ Max is somewhere around there or slightly higher. My theory is that there seems to be a lot of processors where TJMax is not consistent from core to core. It's very easy to see this on the 45nm Quad chips where 4 cores can be all over the place. With the 65nm Quads, I have seen a lot of screen shots where at higher temperatures running Prime95 Small FFTs, core 2 and core 3 will report exactly 5C less than core 0 and core 1. The only explanation I can come up with is that actual TJMax is 5C higher on those two cores.
That's how I have my Q6600 G0 set up. TJMax = 100, 100, 105, 105 and then I use idle calibration factors to equalize the temperatures at idle. Doing this gives me 4 cores that track each other very well from idle to TJMax.
When you have 4 cores covered by the same heatsink, all running the exact same consistent load, I think the core temperatures should be pretty consistent across all 4 cores.
It's possible that my theory is out to lunch. Maybe in the Quad design at full Prime load, core 2 and core 3 are getting less voltage and creating less heat because of internal vdroop or something like that. Maybe the IHS makes better contact with core 2 and core 3 so they can transfer heat better and run cooler. :shrug: You might be able to explain a Q6600 with those two theories but there seems to be 45nm Quads that are more like TJMax = 100, 105, 100, 105 or even 110 which can't be explained by voltage or IHS issues.
All I can say is keep an open mind and give my way a try and see how it looks from idle to full load. Now that Intel has confirmed that TJMax is not fixed, I don't feel so bad using different TJMax values on different cores.
The Coolest has been adding lots of useful features to Core Temp lately including Low/High temp reporting, MiniMode, the ability to offset individual cores and some thermal shutdown options.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/FORUMS/...93#post3636493
I'm a little biased about what MiniMode I like better but it's worth a look. Competition is good for both programs. With RealTemp you can grab on to the edge of the window frame when in MiniMode and drag it up or down to have a look in there. Double right click to check out Anchor Mode and hold down the shift key when you double right click to set your own Anchor position.
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/4534/minimodena8.png
I tried 100 100 105 105 and it gave me high temps at idle. My room temp is 22.5 and idle temps where about 12C higher.
http://img37.picoodle.com/img/img37/...5m_3b88416.jpg
I then used 95 95 100 100 and it worked out almost perfect. I had to adjust core 2 and thats it.
http://img32.picoodle.com/img/img32/...0m_8405108.jpg
I went ahead and tried your suggestion of 100 100 105 105 and calibrated from there.
The weird thing is after calibrating, then overclocking, my full load temps are still off by 5C between cores 0,1 and 2,3.
http://img18.picoodle.com/img/img18/...dm_bbfabe6.jpg
Yeah, it has been a while :) I'm kinda busy lately, but i'm also lazy and i usually circle around forums. I just moved like 12 of those that i rarely visit to another bookmarks folder.
I think i still have over 20 of them left in the "active" folder. I'll check it out when i get my Aspire One to see if RealTemp works fine with it.
Nevrsadie: Did you have your case open when you ran it at low voltage. The reason I ask is because your minimum temperatures are showing up as 30, 30, 27, 30 in your screen shot with TJMax set to 100, 100, 105, 105. The 30C numbers in a 22.5C room seems about right to me. I'd use my TJMax values and then you'd only have to bump up core 2 a little bit with some idle calibration correction.
My Quad is similar that when I run Prime95 for a few minutes, there is still a difference in temps. Not as big a difference as what you're seeing. As I run Prime95 small FFTs longer, core 2 and core 3 start to catch up. It will forever be a mystery what is really going on here. I'll go run some Prime and post a screen shot or two so you'll have something to compare to.
Case open, matter of fact I just used some canned air to spring clean my HSF and case fans.
Here's how my Q6600 looks at idle using split TJMax and some idle calibrations factors to keep things balanced at idle.
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/3845/rtidlese7.png
After a couple of minutes of Prime with my Tuniq fan on low, there is a 3C difference between the two sets of cores.
I'm using 1.384 volts to create some heat and keep it stable. My Q6600 is no prize winner.
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/7001/rtload1oa5.png
I turned up the CPU fan to its highest setting and a couple of minutes later, all 4 cores were closer together.
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/4941/rtload2gm4.png
A half hour later, they were about equal across all 4 cores.
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/2180/rtload3hm5.png
I turned the fan back down and a few minutes later, there was a difference again.
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9486/rtload4li5.png
Maybe this proves that some of the difference is caused by cooling efficiency and heatsink design. I'm not smart enough to understand heat pipe design.
Previously I turned my computer upside down to see if the weight of a large air cooler was causing some of the difference but that didn't seem to change anything. I've also laid my computer flat on the ground, case open and there is still some temperature data that is hard to explain. The only thing that covers all of what I've seen is s.h.i.t happens. Sorry about all the white space. Vista Paint sucks when you're used to using Photoshop.
Unclewebb, if you're using Alt+Print Screen, click Image -> Crop after pasting into Paint. One of the few Paint changes from XP to Vista, but one of the most useful. :)
I used ALT+PRINT SCREEN but didn't notice that with Paint I also need to do a crop until after I uploaded them all so I said, it's good enough. With Photoshop you just Paste and save and you're done. Paint in Windows 7 is finally looking a little more modern.
I'm on a spare hard drive at the moment trying to come up with a fix for darkzone. I re-wrote a chunk of RealTemp and have switched to a newer compiler. It's almost ready for him to do another test. If 3.00 is working fine for you then there probably won't be much reason to download the next beta when it comes out.
Install Paint.net if you want a good and free Paint replacement.
What is Paint? IrfanView FTW. :D
IrfanView is mostly an image viewer, Paint.NET is a lite version of Photoshop.
hi Uncle, so after the release of the 3.00 your developing is dead? :p
Never. As long as he can use his hands and eyes he will continue to develop and polish RealTemp. :D
KURTZ: It's tough to walk away from an obsession. :D
I've been working on coming up with a fix for darkzone who has issues while running RealTemp on Windows Server 2008. I've found a few bugs that might cause a problem so I should be releasing a beta version shortly for anyone that is having issues. I haven't heard of too many problems so far so I'm assuming that RealTemp 3.00 isn't too bad for most users.
I might write a side program with graphing capabilities so it will be easier to see the slope of your temperature curves which will make playing around with calibration options (idle and TJMax) easier to visually see the effects of. As burebista says, there's always something I can think of.
Edit: I finally got confirmation that the Skull INI file option can be used to read both CPUs in a Skulltrail system:
http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/4186/skullci8.jpg
To get this to work you need to run two instances of RealTemp from two separate directories.
Add to the RealTemp.ini file:
Skull=2
to read your second CPU and use
Skull=1
or don't use any option and it will read the temperature data from your first CPU.
I think I need to add some code to prevent people with only 1 CPU from using the Skull= option.
Maybe an 8 core version of RealTemp has just moved up on the things to do list.
Can you imagine the size of the Settings window then? :D
Oh, yeah, the bigger the better. Can you make that window in full HD resolution? :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
burebista had a question for me. He is seeing some inconsistent results when comparing the RivaTuner built in load meter to what the RealTemp plug-in is saying during gaming.
The RealTemp Load meter is based on using internal timers within the CPU and I think that it is a little different than how traditional load levels are calculated.
I'm not sure what method is more accurate but the RealTemp Load meter seems to be accurately displaying the Load on my Q6600.
On a mobile processor with individual cores entering deeper C3/C4 sleep states, this method might not be accurate. I haven't tested this yet.
On my Q6600, I ran a Prime95 Small FFTs test and increased the load from idle to 1 thread, 2 threads, 3 threads, 4 threads and then back to idle.
Here's how the log file looks. For this CPU, the load looks like it is being correctly reported. Task Manager will show the load bouncing around from core to core but the average reported load is as expected.
Code:DATE TIME C0 C1 C2 C3 LOAD%
02/10/09 15:33:40 34 34 33 34 9.3
02/10/09 15:33:41 32 32 32 32 0.1
02/10/09 15:33:42 33 33 37 34 0.8
02/10/09 15:33:43 32 32 32 33 0.2
02/10/09 15:33:44 32 32 32 32 0.1
02/10/09 15:33:45 32 32 32 32 0.3
02/10/09 15:33:46 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:33:47 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:33:48 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:33:49 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:33:50 32 32 32 32 0.1
02/10/09 15:33:51 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:33:52 32 32 32 32 0.2
02/10/09 15:33:53 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:33:54 32 32 32 32 0.3
02/10/09 15:33:55 32 32 32 33 0.4
02/10/09 15:33:56 32 32 32 32 0.1
02/10/09 15:33:57 32 32 32 32 0.2
02/10/09 15:33:58 32 32 32 32 0.4
02/10/09 15:33:59 33 33 32 33 2.7
02/10/09 15:34:00 32 32 32 32 0.4
02/10/09 15:34:01 32 32 33 32 0.6
02/10/09 15:34:02 33 33 32 33 1.9
02/10/09 15:34:03 32 32 32 33 0.2
02/10/09 15:34:04 32 32 32 33 1.0
02/10/09 15:34:05 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:34:06 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:34:07 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:34:08 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:34:09 32 32 32 32 0.1
02/10/09 15:34:10 32 32 32 32 0.1
02/10/09 15:34:11 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:34:12 32 32 32 32 0.2
02/10/09 15:34:13 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:34:14 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:34:15 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:34:16 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:34:18 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:34:19 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:34:20 32 32 32 32 0.1
02/10/09 15:34:21 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:34:22 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:34:23 32 32 32 32 0.2
02/10/09 15:34:24 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:34:25 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:34:26 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:34:27 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:34:28 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:34:29 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:34:30 32 32 32 32 0.1
02/10/09 15:34:31 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:34:32 32 32 32 32 0.2
02/10/09 15:34:33 32 32 32 32 0.4
02/10/09 15:34:34 32 32 32 32 0.1
02/10/09 15:34:35 32 32 32 32 0.3
02/10/09 15:34:36 32 32 32 32 0.1
02/10/09 15:34:37 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:34:38 32 32 32 32 0.1
02/10/09 15:34:39 32 32 32 32 0.1
02/10/09 15:34:40 32 32 32 32 0.1
02/10/09 15:34:41 32 32 32 32 0.0
02/10/09 15:34:42 40 42 33 33 16.6
02/10/09 15:34:43 33 33 40 45 25.1
02/10/09 15:34:44 43 44 35 34 25.2
02/10/09 15:34:45 37 37 38 44 24.9
02/10/09 15:34:46 43 44 36 33 25.0
02/10/09 15:34:47 44 44 36 34 25.0
02/10/09 15:34:48 47 45 35 34 24.7
02/10/09 15:34:49 35 35 45 40 25.0
02/10/09 15:34:50 46 45 35 34 24.9
02/10/09 15:34:51 44 45 36 34 25.0
02/10/09 15:34:52 44 45 36 34 25.0
02/10/09 15:34:53 47 45 36 34 25.0
02/10/09 15:34:54 42 42 41 36 24.9
02/10/09 15:34:55 36 36 45 40 25.0
02/10/09 15:34:56 47 45 36 34 24.8
02/10/09 15:34:57 47 45 36 34 24.9
02/10/09 15:34:58 45 45 36 34 25.0
02/10/09 15:34:59 45 45 36 34 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:00 43 45 37 35 25.1
02/10/09 15:35:01 45 45 37 35 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:02 45 45 36 35 25.2
02/10/09 15:35:03 47 46 36 34 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:04 38 38 44 39 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:05 38 38 40 45 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:06 45 46 37 35 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:07 38 38 45 40 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:08 48 46 36 35 24.5
02/10/09 15:35:09 48 46 36 35 24.9
02/10/09 15:35:10 48 46 36 35 24.9
02/10/09 15:35:11 36 36 42 47 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:12 43 44 37 36 25.1
02/10/09 15:35:13 36 36 42 47 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:14 43 44 37 36 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:15 37 37 45 41 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:16 45 46 37 35 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:17 45 46 37 35 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:18 48 46 37 35 24.9
02/10/09 15:35:19 37 37 47 41 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:20 37 37 42 47 25.1
02/10/09 15:35:21 45 46 37 35 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:22 40 42 40 39 25.2
02/10/09 15:35:23 45 45 37 36 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:24 42 42 40 44 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:25 48 47 37 35 24.9
02/10/09 15:35:26 37 37 42 47 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:27 44 44 38 41 24.9
02/10/09 15:35:28 38 38 45 41 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:30 42 42 44 39 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:31 40 40 45 40 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:32 44 45 38 37 24.9
02/10/09 15:35:33 46 46 37 36 25.1
02/10/09 15:35:34 46 46 37 36 24.9
02/10/09 15:35:35 48 47 37 35 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:36 43 42 41 40 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:37 48 47 37 37 24.9
02/10/09 15:35:38 46 47 37 36 24.9
02/10/09 15:35:39 46 47 38 36 24.9
02/10/09 15:35:40 45 46 38 36 25.1
02/10/09 15:35:41 44 46 38 37 25.0
02/10/09 15:35:42 48 46 38 36 24.9
02/10/09 15:35:43 46 47 43 48 42.2
02/10/09 15:35:44 45 45 45 49 50.0
02/10/09 15:35:45 52 52 39 36 49.8
02/10/09 15:35:46 44 44 49 49 50.0
02/10/09 15:35:47 39 39 50 50 50.0
02/10/09 15:35:48 52 52 40 42 49.9
02/10/09 15:35:49 40 40 50 50 49.7
02/10/09 15:35:50 47 48 45 50 50.0
02/10/09 15:35:51 51 50 49 44 49.9
02/10/09 15:35:52 51 49 45 49 49.9
02/10/09 15:35:53 50 49 47 48 50.1
02/10/09 15:35:54 49 50 47 48 50.2
02/10/09 15:35:55 52 50 50 45 49.9
02/10/09 15:35:56 54 54 40 40 50.3
02/10/09 15:35:57 52 50 51 48 49.9
02/10/09 15:35:58 51 50 51 45 49.8
02/10/09 15:35:59 43 43 50 51 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:00 44 44 51 50 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:01 54 54 40 39 49.9
02/10/09 15:36:02 50 51 45 44 50.2
02/10/09 15:36:03 45 45 49 51 50.6
02/10/09 15:36:04 48 48 47 45 49.8
02/10/09 15:36:05 49 49 47 50 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:06 49 49 47 51 49.9
02/10/09 15:36:07 49 49 47 50 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:08 48 48 48 51 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:09 51 50 47 49 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:10 49 48 48 52 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:11 45 47 49 52 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:12 49 50 48 50 50.1
02/10/09 15:36:13 46 46 48 52 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:14 51 51 44 48 49.9
02/10/09 15:36:15 45 45 52 50 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:16 46 48 48 52 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:17 44 44 52 51 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:18 46 48 49 52 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:19 40 40 53 52 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:20 40 40 52 52 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:21 39 39 53 52 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:22 49 50 47 51 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:23 42 42 52 52 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:24 49 50 52 48 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:25 50 50 48 45 49.9
02/10/09 15:36:26 50 51 51 46 49.9
02/10/09 15:36:27 55 55 43 42 49.9
02/10/09 15:36:28 47 49 49 52 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:29 50 50 48 51 49.9
02/10/09 15:36:30 52 50 48 52 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:31 50 50 48 52 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:32 51 49 49 52 50.1
02/10/09 15:36:33 44 44 53 52 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:34 48 48 51 51 49.9
02/10/09 15:36:35 51 51 49 47 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:36 54 51 53 48 49.9
02/10/09 15:36:37 44 44 53 52 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:38 50 51 53 47 49.9
02/10/09 15:36:39 52 51 49 52 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:40 45 45 53 52 49.9
02/10/09 15:36:41 51 52 53 47 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:43 52 52 47 49 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:44 55 52 49 47 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:45 52 51 52 47 49.9
02/10/09 15:36:46 52 50 53 49 50.2
02/10/09 15:36:47 50 50 53 49 49.8
02/10/09 15:36:48 50 48 50 53 50.1
02/10/09 15:36:49 50 50 52 49 49.7
02/10/09 15:36:50 52 50 49 53 50.0
02/10/09 15:36:51 51 49 50 53 49.9
02/10/09 15:36:52 54 52 54 53 65.3
02/10/09 15:36:53 54 52 54 54 74.9
02/10/09 15:36:54 55 54 55 54 74.8
02/10/09 15:36:55 55 54 55 54 74.9
02/10/09 15:36:56 52 52 55 54 74.3
02/10/09 15:36:57 55 54 55 54 75.4
02/10/09 15:36:58 56 56 52 57 74.9
02/10/09 15:36:59 56 54 55 54 74.8
02/10/09 15:37:00 55 54 56 57 75.0
02/10/09 15:37:01 55 54 56 57 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:02 57 54 55 57 75.1
02/10/09 15:37:03 56 55 56 53 75.0
02/10/09 15:37:04 54 54 56 57 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:05 56 54 56 57 75.0
02/10/09 15:37:06 56 54 56 57 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:07 56 54 56 57 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:08 57 55 55 57 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:09 57 55 56 57 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:10 58 58 53 57 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:11 57 55 55 58 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:12 55 55 55 58 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:13 56 55 56 58 75.0
02/10/09 15:37:14 57 55 56 58 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:15 57 55 56 58 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:16 57 56 56 58 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:17 57 57 54 58 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:18 56 55 56 58 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:19 57 56 56 58 75.0
02/10/09 15:37:20 55 55 56 58 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:21 56 55 56 58 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:22 57 56 57 57 75.0
02/10/09 15:37:23 57 55 57 58 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:24 58 57 57 53 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:25 58 56 56 58 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:26 56 55 57 58 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:27 57 55 57 58 74.8
02/10/09 15:37:28 57 55 57 58 74.8
02/10/09 15:37:29 58 56 57 58 74.8
02/10/09 15:37:30 58 56 57 58 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:31 58 56 57 58 75.0
02/10/09 15:37:32 55 55 57 59 75.0
02/10/09 15:37:33 56 55 57 59 75.0
02/10/09 15:37:34 57 56 57 59 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:35 58 56 57 59 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:36 57 55 57 59 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:37 56 56 56 59 74.5
02/10/09 15:37:38 56 56 57 59 75.4
02/10/09 15:37:39 58 57 56 59 74.8
02/10/09 15:37:40 56 56 57 59 75.2
02/10/09 15:37:41 58 58 55 59 74.9
02/10/09 15:37:42 58 57 57 59 75.0
02/10/09 15:37:43 58 58 57 58 74.7
02/10/09 15:37:45 60 60 59 59 99.7
02/10/09 15:37:45 61 61 60 59 99.8
02/10/09 15:37:46 61 61 60 60 99.8
02/10/09 15:37:48 61 61 60 60 99.8
02/10/09 15:37:49 61 61 60 60 99.1
02/10/09 15:37:50 62 62 60 60 99.7
02/10/09 15:37:51 62 62 60 60 99.8
02/10/09 15:37:52 62 62 60 60 99.8
02/10/09 15:37:53 62 62 60 60 99.8
02/10/09 15:37:54 62 62 60 60 99.8
02/10/09 15:37:55 62 62 60 60 99.8
02/10/09 15:37:56 62 62 61 60 99.8
02/10/09 15:37:57 62 62 61 60 99.8
02/10/09 15:37:58 62 62 61 60 99.8
02/10/09 15:37:59 62 62 61 60 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:00 62 62 61 60 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:01 62 62 61 61 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:02 62 62 61 61 99.6
02/10/09 15:38:03 62 62 61 61 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:04 62 62 61 61 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:05 63 63 61 61 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:06 63 63 61 61 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:07 63 63 61 61 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:08 63 63 61 61 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:09 63 63 61 61 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:10 63 63 61 61 99.6
02/10/09 15:38:11 63 63 61 61 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:12 63 63 61 61 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:13 63 63 61 61 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:14 63 63 61 61 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:15 63 63 61 61 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:16 63 63 61 61 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:17 63 63 61 61 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:18 63 63 62 61 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:19 63 63 62 61 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:20 63 63 62 61 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:21 63 63 62 61 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:22 63 63 62 61 99.4
02/10/09 15:38:23 63 63 62 61 99.6
02/10/09 15:38:24 63 63 62 62 99.6
02/10/09 15:38:25 63 63 62 62 99.6
02/10/09 15:38:26 63 63 62 62 99.6
02/10/09 15:38:27 63 63 62 62 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:28 65 65 62 62 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:29 65 65 62 62 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:30 65 65 62 62 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:31 65 65 62 62 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:32 65 65 62 62 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:33 65 65 62 62 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:34 65 65 62 62 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:35 65 65 62 62 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:36 65 65 62 62 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:37 65 65 62 62 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:38 65 65 62 62 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:39 65 65 62 62 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:40 65 65 62 62 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:41 65 65 62 62 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:42 65 65 62 62 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:43 65 65 62 62 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:44 65 65 62 62 99.8
02/10/09 15:38:45 50 50 49 49 36.6
02/10/09 15:38:46 47 47 47 48 0.1
02/10/09 15:38:47 46 46 45 47 0.1
02/10/09 15:38:48 45 45 45 47 0.0
02/10/09 15:38:49 45 45 45 46 0.1
02/10/09 15:38:50 44 44 44 46 0.1
02/10/09 15:38:51 44 44 44 46 0.0
02/10/09 15:38:52 44 44 44 45 0.2
02/10/09 15:38:53 44 44 44 45 0.0
02/10/09 15:38:54 43 43 43 45 0.0
02/10/09 15:38:55 43 43 43 45 0.0
02/10/09 15:38:56 43 43 43 45 0.0
02/10/09 15:38:57 43 43 43 44 0.0
02/10/09 15:38:58 43 43 43 44 0.0
02/10/09 15:38:59 43 43 43 44 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:00 42 42 43 44 0.1
02/10/09 15:39:01 42 42 43 44 0.2
02/10/09 15:39:02 42 42 42 44 0.6
02/10/09 15:39:03 42 42 42 44 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:04 42 42 42 42 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:05 42 42 42 42 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:06 42 42 42 42 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:08 42 42 42 42 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:09 42 42 42 42 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:10 40 40 41 42 0.1
02/10/09 15:39:11 40 40 41 42 0.1
02/10/09 15:39:12 40 40 41 42 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:13 40 40 41 42 0.2
02/10/09 15:39:14 40 40 41 42 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:15 40 40 41 41 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:16 40 40 41 41 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:17 40 40 41 41 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:18 40 40 41 41 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:19 40 40 40 41 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:20 40 40 40 41 0.1
02/10/09 15:39:21 40 40 40 41 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:22 39 39 40 41 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:23 39 39 40 41 0.2
02/10/09 15:39:24 39 39 40 41 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:25 39 39 40 41 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:26 39 39 40 40 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:27 39 39 40 40 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:28 39 39 40 40 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:29 39 39 40 40 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:30 39 39 40 40 0.1
02/10/09 15:39:31 39 39 40 40 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:32 38 38 39 40 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:33 38 38 39 40 0.2
02/10/09 15:39:34 38 38 39 40 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:35 38 38 39 40 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:36 38 38 39 40 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:37 38 38 39 40 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:38 38 38 39 39 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:39 38 38 39 39 0.1
02/10/09 15:39:40 38 38 39 39 0.2
02/10/09 15:39:41 38 38 39 39 0.2
02/10/09 15:39:42 38 38 39 39 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:43 38 38 39 39 0.2
02/10/09 15:39:44 38 38 39 39 0.0
02/10/09 15:39:45 38 38 39 39 0.0
Rivatuner's CPU load plugin calculates load using the same (or similar enough) method as Task Manager (which even doesn't take into account clock modulation, how primitive :p:). I am not sure if this is of any help, or even if it is related, but these pics might give you some idea as to why they show up differently:
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...h_RMClock1.png
Running the cooldown test.
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...h_RMClock2.png
Just setting clock modulation to 12.5% and then back to 100%.
Thanks randomizer for showing an example of when the traditional load meter might not be accurate with a Core based processor.
I did some more testing and found that the Load meter in RealTemp is a lot more stable compared to the RealTemp - RivaTuner plug-in. It uses the same code but for some reason, the plug-in shows occasional load spikes and dips that aren't recorded by the load meter in the RealTemp program. I'm going to have a look to see if there is anything I can do to the plug-in to improve its stability.
Edit: I ran two threads of Prime95 Small FFTs and found that the MHz part of the RealTemp / RivaTuner plug-in seems to be causing a problem for the load meter. The Load Meter graph displays a lot of variability but calms right down when I turn the MHz off. Until I find a fix, I'd run either MHz or Load but not both at the same time.
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/7596/loadmeterpz8.png
Bad news messenger returns :D Sorry about that, but it's not working:
Attachment 94603
Tell me, I need a specific module or service to run? Why asking: I have some deactivated non-critical services on my machine, can they have an impact in this issue?
LE: I ran a CPU Cool Down Test, maybe is helpful.
Attachment 94604
Attachment 94605
It has taken a while but I think I finally understand what's causing this bug in Windows Server 2008 darkzone:
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/6016/bugfa3.png
Since RealTemp 3.00 works fine in Windows 2000, XP, Vista and Windows 7; I think this issue is mostly a MS bug but I have a fix for it.
I think the next version of RealTemp for you darkzone is going to be a good one. :)
I thought about it already - here. But why the older version is running without this annoying bug?
I also hope the new version will be THE ONE :D
Noticed something weird today. I have always had a problem of cores 0 and 1 jumping up and down 5c whenever under load. It was like clockwork, after a few minutes under load it would drop 5c, then back up again after a couple mins. Process would repeat over and over again. Cores 2 and 3 would steady. Also I am not getting errors in Prime 95 during this.
Look at these two pics and check out the load %.
http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/...2m_58fc341.jpg
http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/...dm_f2e2b01.jpg
I have all eist and the other setting turned off in BIOS. I would assume that the load drop is why my temps are changing on cores 0 and 1. what would cause this?
Nevrsadie: I'm just looking into a RealTemp bug or two at the moment. Hopefully I'll have a beta available this weekend and you can see if that makes any difference.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Beta testing continues. :)
Here's my latest fix for darkzone's missing cores. It might also fix some occasional, odd looking Load % or temperature readings.
The RealTemp RivaTuner Load % plug-in looks much more stable now as well.
To install the new plug-in open up the RealTemp Settings window, click on the RivaTuner button, when the file requester pops up, click on Cancel. Click on the RivaTuner button a second time and find where RivaTuner.exe is located and click on OK and it should install this new version into the appropriate directory for you. The version of RTCore.dll is 3.04 as well so you can check the version number in your plug-ins directory if you want to be 100% sure. If you follow the directions, you should get the new version installed.
Start RivaTuner and select RTCore.dll in RivaTuner and it should be OK.
I've switched to a newer C++ compiler as well as 101 other changes so if anything is broken, let me know.
Thanks for update :)
Very strange situation ..
rig 1 - Xp pro SP3 (32bit) Dual core E8400 - ( more details in signature)
New beta RT 3.04 is running OK !
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/3...corezb0.th.png
rig -2 (multi boot separate HDD's ) Quad core ( details in signature )
Xp-Pro SP3 (32bit) - NO GO !
Vista Home Prem 32 bit - NO GO !
W7 Beta -64bit - NO GO
all the same error pop-up '' missing - MFC71U.dll '' in all 3 different os
(never used/installed Riva Tuner on these 2 machines / 4 diff. separate op systems .. - could be this a problem ? )
will add screens if needed ... just need to 'Pshop' them together from diff. disks .. ..
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/1...reenlo9.th.png
CY :)
screens add
Hi Unclewebb
Once again, thank you for your hard work and efforts. I have installed RealTemp 3.00, I am very impressed with the new features you have added in (GPU temp) as well as your revised TjMAX settings for the QX9650 (I must admit at first I was a bit :confused: as I misunderstood my TjMAX to be 95, but now it is 100, things seem to be slightly easier to calibrate).
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/6233/...sortestea8.jpg
Eventually I might move to Core i7 (perhaps i975 or maybe a later revision) as at the moment I am more than happy with my Core2.
Kudos Unclewebb and best wishes.
Kind Regards
John
same problem, for now i solved it with geting mfc71u.dll from HERE and copy it in to realtemp dir.Quote:
Originally Posted by i43
Thnks for quick reply SoLoR
yes traced this file and found this MFC71U.dll in my Rig-1 %System32 folder [ mfc71u.dll ] ( file ver 7.10.3077.0 )
where the latest RT 3.04beta run OK // (sorry, my typo above i wrote MFCU71U.dll - was wrong i edited/fixed it) //
hmmmm just copied it to an other machine (xp pro 32bit ..// ..%system32 folder ... and still NO GO ? just next popup -
:) just copied it from event/error log to avoid typos again :)
----
Application popup: RealTemp.exe - Unable To Locate Component : This application has failed to start because MSVCR71.dll was not found. Re-installing the application may fix this problem.-----
PS!
well, didn't test further now (with VistaHP32-bit and W7-64bit) .. LoL i feel my self still too clumsy and unskillful with those new things :)
any way if i will found these missing dll's from other OpSys (other machine) then where ? what folder? should i copy them on Vista 32bit and W7 - 64 bit ) ? -
is this same '' grand old '' %System32/ ?
Thanks :)
Got the same error and used the same fix. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SoLoR
I don't know what did you do, but now is not only the two cores missing, is worse: the entirely program's window is missing :confused: Program runs somewhere in background, but the window isn't visible at all. No error messages, no missing .dll's, no nothing. That window just doesn't appear.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I warned you this was beta software.
At least the load meter is looking good now in RivaTuner with two threads of Prime running.
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/828/loadyb0.png
It looks much better than in this post above:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=3233
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
I added the mfc71u.dll file to this download. Long term, I'll likely be going back to using mfc42u.dll which everyone already has on their system.
I know that's a beta software, I wonder how much patience do you have with me to solve this annoying bug :up:
Monday I will run this new beta onto Server 2003 machine, that I have at my workplace, too see if this bug appear only when running on server type operating systems. Keep in touch.
I has no problem loading 3.04 on Windows 7(x32).
Now 3.05 need 10 sec to load :rolleyes:
We call that progress!Quote:
Originally Posted by stasio
I think there is a bug in the old C++ compiler that I am using that is causing a problem for darkzone. I've been trying to find a fix for him but obviously some of my cures have been worse than the original problem.
3.05 starts up instantly on my computer.
I might have to write a specific version to correctly handle the C++ 7.1 / Server 2008 bug and then remove some of these patches and get RealTemp running correctly for the rest of us. If you have any trouble with any beta you can always use version 3.00 which works pretty good, most of the time.
Edit: Here's a little testing program to help me understand what function this bug might be in.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/.../SetThread.zip
If you have a Quad core then the SetThread tool should look like this:
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/7027/setthreadzi4.png
core 0: 1
core 1: 2
core 2: 4
core 3: 8
---------
All Cores = (1+2+4+8) = 15
The number in the box tells me what processor the thread was previously running on. Going down in the chart, for each core it tries to switch the thread to that core 4 times. On my computer, it works exactly as it is supposed to and shows in the second box going down that the thread got switched properly.
The number in the chart represents what core the process got switched to based on my chart. A 0 in this chart shows that the SetThreadAffinityMask function was not successful.
I hope when darkzone runs this little app on Server 2008 that it becomes clear exactly where this bug is.
If your OS shows anything unusual then post a pic.
Well, there is screenshot including SetThread window, which seems to also lose two cores. As I said, tomorrow I'll try 3.05 onto Server 2003 machine at work and see what happens.
@Nevrsadie ( reply to post http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=3237 )Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevrsadie
sorry i deleted the large img links when QUOTE your post hope not a problem ?
i see probably the the same temperature jumps when run Prime95 (v26.8) testing BLEND mode
well, i have never paid much attention to this, mostly keep eye on max load temps,
but just as far i understand, there is nothing that refers to Realtemp i guess?
here two screens:
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/703...3639pg3.th.pnghttp://img156.imageshack.us/img156/5...3817ou8.th.png
all monitoring programs will detect this periodic jumps
IMO this is more related to Prime95 itself how it loads cores,
... as you see
i opened 'Everest' stability test window' (built-in) only monitoring mode just for draw the graph
and set it to read data interval 1 sec for both (temp mon. graph and Load graph)
i run Prime blend approx 10 min ( see the time stamp on prime) worker-threads
explaining, - on my screens - just don't mind the 5C difference in readouts from
RealTemp 3.0 vs Everest and CoreTemp readouts -
those are just softwre side default setings i was using, and specific to hardware detection in each software, -- long story short :
using QX9650 -- RT3.0 def. use tjmax 100C ; Everest (autodetect 95C) & CoreT 99.5 also 95C
and this is not an issue, also as you see my quad have different load temps on pair of dies -
something like first pair(core: 0;1) are always higher approx 8~12C degrees
than (core: 2;3) from second pair ... does not matter ... ''jumps'' are seen also there
Add/edit
just a second run all same setup .. Prime95 SmallFFT mode:
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/790...1634vg7.th.png
it draws a quite strait line on graph.. no jumps in Prime smallFTT testing ..
I've tried to run RT 3.05 onto Server 2003 system, but it doesn't work due of lack of CPU support : Xeon 3.4GHz, 90nm. So, I can't find out if it's a bug which affect server type operating systems only.
Unclewebb:
I think I found some sort of bug somewhere.
I noticed when I run my QX9650 at stock 3 ghz, running quad prime or Linpack shows load at 98-99% in Realtemp (linpack varies of course but goes up to 98%). But when I run it at 4 ghz, Realtemp shows load for prime at about 74-76% and the same goes for Linpack (max around 76%)
Any idea what's going on here? I couldn't find anything in the search...
darkzone: That 3.4GHz Xeon is based on the Pentium 4 architecture so it doesn't have the on chip temperature sensors that are needed. I'm taking a break on this project for a few days but will be back with some better fixes.
Falkentyne: There was a bug early on that using the Task Scheduler would set the RealTemp priority level one notch too low which would screw up RealTemp when running Linpack but Prime was OK because it is at the lowest priority by default. I know there are still a couple of bugs in the Load code so I'll be looking into improving that in the next beta as well. I might have to increase the priority of the Load code so other programs don't block it from calculating an accurate reading. I'll send you a test version in a few days.
Hey guys, I was running Real Temp 3 and CPU-Z at the same time, when I noticed something weird. See my attachment.
Which reading is correct?
I have found CPU-Z to read the bclk and multi funny at times when EIST is on. RealTemp seems to be correct as it reads the multi and speed better.
Interesting. I am running with all power saving features on + HT + turbo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renegade5399
Edit: I tried the new version of CPU-Z (1.50) and its behaviour hasn't changed.
Uncle has hard times to get proper readings for i7 so I'll bet all my moneys on RealTemp. :D
Realtemp is correct. CPU-z 1.5 and 1.49 have problems properly reporting C1E, Speedstep and Turbo clock speeds on the Core i7.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bludd
Thanks. I sent an email to the CPU-Z dev. Hopefully, he's aware of it and it'll be fixed. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
RealTemp reports an averaged multi at idle. If you are using Speedstep and have that properly enabled within your bios and within the Windows power management settings, a Core i7 will show a steady multi of 12.0 at idle. If you don't have those items set properly in your bios and within Windows, RealTemp will show an average value that floats somewhere between 12.0 and your full Turbo multi. If you want it to be steady at the full number then you have to set your bios and Windows accordingly. Turn off C1E and Speedstep in the bios and make sure your Minimum processor is set to 100% in the Power Management section of the Control Panel.
When RealTemp reports 16.0 that is a sign that the multi is constantly changing between 12.0 and your full multi.
16.0 represents the average.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
Try CPU-Z 1.50.1Quote:
Originally Posted by Bludd
Thanks for the information. XP doesn't let me explicitly set any processor power management. I can choose between Always on, home/desktop, max battery etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Thank you. It has the same behaviour as 1.49 and 1.50Quote:
Originally Posted by stasio
In XP if you want Speedstep to work properly, you might have to set your Power schemes to Portable/Laptop in the Power Options section even if you have a Desktop CPU.
Not all motherboards are the same and sometimes C1E and Speedstep might fight each other so you will need to play around with all of these settings to get the multiplier at idle that you want. Overclocking also effects what multiplier you end up with.
Reporting the correct multiplier is a matter of opinion. It can change 101 or 1001 times a second and waking up a core to ask it what multiplier it is at can change what it reports. My averaging method is based on the Intel Turbo white paper. To keep it from jumping around too much, I decided to average the multi to the nearest half (0.5)
At full load, CPU-Z and RealTemp should show the same thing for the multiplier but at idle when the multiplier is constantly going up and down depending on your settings, CPU-Z reports a maximum amount which Intel agrees with. I decided to show an average amount because I think that better represents what's going on when Speedstep isn't set up properly.
Cool, you learn something every day. I set it to laptop and now I see 12x in RealTemp when it's idle.
Huh? What do you mean by SpeedStep not being set up properly? I thought it's either on or off.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Unlike C1E, Speedstep can be regulated by the OS. I believe that is what the minimum and maximum processor states refers to. If you disable EIST those options probably won't show up in Power Management.
So, I know this is off-topic, but since the conversation is going this way I thought I'd ask anyway - which state will lower the multi without augmenting the core voltage, but will still respond correctly when the CPU is put under load - is that C1E? I wouldn't mind my CPU downclocking itself when I'm not loading it.Quote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
Once you manually set vcore, neither C1E nor EIST will affect the core voltage anymore. Currently on bios F6a on extreme, EIST has no affect on the multi (using regular desktop power scheme) but enabling C1E you will see the multi/mhz drop. Also, by enabling C1E the idle amps and TDP/watts drops from 33W/23A to 26W/19A or roughly 20%, whereas EIST enabled there is no drop in watts or amps. However, if I remember correctly on earlier bioses EIST would affect multi to some degree as well, or at least with earlier programs.
I think different motherboards and different bios versions handle C1E and Speedstep differently. That's why I let RealTemp report the average multi. Sometimes your multi will be doing a dance which most other software seems to ignore.
I'm back using mfc42.dll / mfc42u.dll again which every computer has multiple copies of installed somewhere. There should be no more dll file not found errors.
The RealTemp - RivaTuner plugin has been tweaked and should show a steadier Load meter. The MHz and Load were having a fight before.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip
You can either manually install these files into the proper RivaTuner directories but the easy way is to copy these files into your RealTemp folder, start up RealTemp, click on the Settings button, click on the RivaTuner button, click Cancel, click RivaTuner a second time, find your RivaTuner.exe file, click OK and the new version should be installed and will over write any previous versions. It takes me longer to type how to do it than to actually do it.
Actually it was more easier for me to copy these files into Riva Tuner directory ;) And into Real Temp 3.05 directory as well, but either that way hasn't run.
darkzone: Did you copy RTCore.dll into your RivaTuner plug-ins directory and select it in RivaTuner? This plug-in works fine on my Q6600 and burebista gave it a thumbs up as well on his Dual Core. It's not jumping around like it used to.
I can understand if RealTemp 3.05 doesn't work on your system, that's a work in progress but I can't understand that the new plug-in doesn't show anything on your computer.
Yes, I did ... now :D Sorry, I didn't notice that I messed up previous installation of Riva Tuner. After reinstall everything works just fine, but ... plug-in shows only two cores instead of four.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
My system still regulates vcore (I know C1E does it, not entirely sure about EIST) when it's been increased :DQuote:
Originally Posted by rge
I was referring to his GB UD5 board/bios which is nearly same as my extreme:p: ...but that is interesting nonetheless, I never heard of any boards dropping vcore with C1E once you manually overclocked. Which board do you have? I would consider using C1E if it downclocked both the vcore and mhz on mine (providing it did not cause instability doing so), but all it does on mine is drop mhz...I would think it would cause system stability problems if vcore dropped too much, since mhz bounces around so much.
gotta love cool weather for overclocking :)
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3728/idle.jpg
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/idle.jpg/1/w315.png
darkzone: I'm trying to download Windows Server 2008 R2 Beta trial version at the moment. If I can get that working then maybe I can isolate the missing core problem easier. I should know more in a few days.
Now that is impressive dedication:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
but I got to ask, how many OS's can you boot from one system:eek:
For me, the best thing is a box full of hard drives.Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
That's confusing enough! :confused:
It looks like there is either a bug in a Windows function or more likely, the function in Server 2008 doesn't have the permission to return the correct core count. Whatever the problem is, I'm curious enough to download a couple of gigabytes of data from Microsoft and do some testing.
OK, but previous version especially compiled for i7 (RT 2.82) is running just fine on Server 2008. I think there is some code changes from RT to 3.0 which bypass some routines of the operating system. Maybe I said something stupid but it's just an ideea :rolleyes:
You're right, there have been some code changes since 2.82. Lots of changes but the problem is that I'm not bypassing any operating system routines.
I'm using the Windows GetProcessAffinityMask() function and it is telling RealTemp 3.00 that it can only run on the first two cores of your Quad.
Why? I don't know but I'm hoping to find out some more by installing Server 2008. I might have to create an INI switch for you to bypass that function so RealTemp 3.00 is able to see all 4 of your cores or maybe the problem is in a different function. As I said before, I'm willing to do whatever it takes to solve this problem for you and other Server 2008 users.
Edit: Here's how testing went with RealTemp 3.00 downloaded from TechPowerUp and Server 2008 R2 downloaded from Microsoft.
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/2461/server2008r2.png
It found all 4 cores. The only issue was the same issue that Windows 7 has where the cores aren't organized properly in the System Tray. Other than that, everything worked as it should.
APIC ID also shows the proper 0123 core order.
I have no idea why RealTemp 3.00 doesn't work properly on your version of Server 2008 darkzone but I'll come up with a switch you can use to try and force it to see all 4 cores.
Well, here is a "small" problem. In my case, the version of operating system is Windows HPC Server 2008, an modified version of Windows Server 2008 x64. This could be the "annoying bug"?
On the other hand, this don't explain why earlier version runs without problems on my Server 2008 :shrug: Maybe new patch will fix this :up:
I'll see if I can download and install Windows HPC Server 2008 tonight and test it tomorrow.
If I can create the same bug as you have then I know it will be easy to fix properly. I'm as curious as you are to find out what the problem is.
Great little program. RealTemp and CoreTemp are reading temps accurate to each other and OCCT on the I7 (P6T). A hell of a lot better than Asus Probe (Asus Probe is running like 20 degrees Fahrenheit higher on my setup, I got rid of it).
I'd like to see an option to display Fahrenheit (my old mind doesn't work too well in Celius, heh heh).
abit AB9 Pro. It may sound a little odd, but this board (or perhaps the CPU) seems to handle a ~15MHz higher FSB with C1E enabled and EIST disabled (haven't tried with both enabled). Although neither is stable, one locks up at 405-410FSB and the other can still do some things at 425FSB. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
Today's test was on Windows Server 2008 HPC like you're using darkzone and my results are the same:
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/6699/server2008hpc.png
RealTemp 3.00 found all 4 of my cores and it aligned them correctly in the System Tray.
I'll do some more testing but it's going to be hard to fix a problem that I can't recreate.
In this case, is how I thought, there is a problem with current OS installation. Well, I have work to do :D
Thanks for your time and patience, I'll keep you in touch about this :up:
Don't do nothing too drastic yet darkzone. Give me a day or two to get the RealTempBeta version back on track.
With all of the information you've provided me, I might be able to come up with a simple fix. If everything else is working fine on your computer then there's no use doing an OS re-install just yet.
Are you using the Administrator account as your main account or are you using a separate user account?
Yes, I use built-in Administrator account (yes, I know, that's stupid :) ) but I'm the only user on this machine. And no, I won't do anything drastic about this issue, just want to verify services and functions that I've stopped.
Just an update. CPU-Z 1.50 now shows 12x multiplier at idle, just as Real Temp. I think the change in power settings (to laptop) made all the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bludd
Bludd: I think there are a lot of people running XP that don't realize that you might have to use the laptop power setting to get Speedstep to drop your multiplier down to its lowest value at idle. In Vista you have to go into the Power Options -> Processor power management and reduce the Minimum processor state to about 50%. I think CPU-Z 1.50 will still show you the full multiplier if you don't have laptop enabled. As far as I know, that's what Intel recommends should be displayed but I think showing the average multiplier gives a user a better idea of what's really going on.
On the Core 2 Dual and Quad Core chips that I've checked, dropping your multi down to 6.0 doesn't save you any power or create any less heat. At the wall, the difference is tough to measure. Usually less than 1 watt which is a normal fluctuation at idle anyhow.
The only way any of these power saving features will do you any good is if the core voltage drops down as well at idle. If you like to overclock then most boards won't drop your core voltage at idle so dropping the multi is kind of pointless. It doesn't really cost you anything but you also don't gain anything either.
darkzone: I know it's a bad idea and all that but I think a lot of users just use the Administrator account. Less hassle. I thought it was possible that maybe you had set up an account that had limited privileges or something like that. Hopefully that testing program I sent you will tell us something new.
Well, the situation is blue, as we have a word here în my country :)
With new version of Set Thread which you sent to me, I've had these results:
- at first run program is working on first two cores only
Attachment 95388
- at second run I started RT 3.00 to see what happens
Attachment 95389
- at third run I set the program to work on last two cores only
Attachment 95390
- at fourth run I set the program to work on all four cores
Attachment 95391
Now, I hope this screens will be helpful for you to find out what is wrong in here.
Your screen shots are very helpful. This bug finally makes sense. For some reason, when an application starts on your computer, by default, it is only being allowed to run on core 0 and core 1. I don't know why because the Server 2008 HPC SP1 that I tried does not work like that. Normally when an application starts, it automatically is allowed to run on all available cores. That's what RealTemp 3.00 assumes and in your case, that assumption is wrong. It doesn't try to read the temperatures from core 2 and core 3 because it thinks the operating system has blocked access to them.
I should have a fix ready for you to test by tomorrow morning your time.
http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/8458/realtemp306.png
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Edit: If you have mfc71u.dll on your system then you can try the Beta2 version:
burebista likes this one better because it's smaller and initially starts up quicker.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...lTempBeta2.zip
I'm hoping this beta is much better than the last one and that the missing cores have finally been located. :)
I also threw in an extra button for Nvidia owners to make it easier to see the Minimum and Maximum GPU temperatures.
Core i5 support has been added as well as support for some of the early Core i7 based Xeon (ES) processors.
OK, I'll check this tonight, and the new version of RT 3.00 also. I hope this time will work :D
But, a question still remains: why previous version, RT 2.82, runs just fine onto the same version of OS?
I just wanted to say, thanks for your hard work on this program :D
nigelke: You're welcome.
Good question. RT 2.82 did not ask the operating system what cores it's allowed to run on. RT 3.00 was trying to be more operating system friendly and decided to ask. Bad idea. :down:Quote:
But, a question still remains: why previous version, RT 2.82, runs just fine onto the same version of OS?
On your operating system, for some unknown reason, when RealTemp starts up, it's only being given access to the first two cores. RT 3.06 tries to force its way onto the other two cores.
It only took me 3 weeks, 1 new utility program and the downloading of 5GB of operating systems from MS to figure this out. :)
It will be interesting to see if this fix finally works.
Edit: You should also see if you have any other apps that are being limited to only run on your first two cores when they start up.
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9108/limited.png
Finally ... runs. IT'S ALIVE! Maybe because this is the 13th screenshot? :D
Attachment 95427
Program started onto all four cores at first run.
OK, thanks for your support, help and patience, you're THE ONE :up:
It took a while but that dumb bug has finally been taken care of.
:shoot:
Now you can say good-bye to version 2.82.
Version 3.06 is much better.
When you start any program and look at SetAffinity... in the TaskManager it should automatically be running on all 4 cores. Have a look to see if you can find any other programs that are being limited to only your first two cores.
There might be something in your operating system / registry that needs a tweak so all of your cores, always get used.
Yes, as I suspect, there is something wrong in my OS configuration. I started WinRAR (which is known as multithreaded optimized) and SetAffinity shows that the program runs onto first two cores only:
Attachment 95469
Now, I have to find out why.
Besides, I manually set the affinity for each running program when the system was ready to "up an run". Since then, I didn't verified anymore, being sure that all is OK. So, it was a mistake :shakes: