2.47 is current,, unless you have alot of 2.47 builds...i get confused also, why?...the downloadable zip files are not labeled ("beta" "2.47" etc)...minor moan.
Printable View
2.47 is current,, unless you have alot of 2.47 builds...i get confused also, why?...the downloadable zip files are not labeled ("beta" "2.47" etc)...minor moan.
Agreed. I never have to clear my cache/cookies to DL the newest anything anywhere else...minor moan x2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dower
Make it easy for people and they will come! Keep up the great work! :up:
Blame it on FileDen or Firefox, take your pick. I know nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by jas420221
Sorry for all the versions but this is beta week. Be happy that I only post the link to beta land on XS for all you guys that have helped me so much. Enjoy the new super speedy minimize to tray feature in 2.48.
How come in some screenshots people have "idle temp calibration" and these various 0 ++ + options. I don't have that on my realtemp, do I need to do something to enable it? People told me to put it into ++ mode since I have QX9770, however, I don't see that option. Thanks.
Newer versions dont have that feature, its in the .ini file I believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by varrius
My bad, didn't notice there was a newer version outQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
It's allright now :cool:
2.48 is the latest now i take it
That was available in the main GUI in the early days. When I went to individual calibration for multiple cores I decided to hide that stuff in the RealTemp.ini file. Less confusion for the rookies and it forces people to go read the documentation.Quote:
Originally Posted by varrius
A + calibration for core0 means you need to go into your INI file and add.
Idle0=1
I think this is all explained in the first post now.
Slay0r: The open source CrystalCPUID software that I got this idea from uses the wrong formula so I had to modify it after complaints from XS came in. Do something right and you never hear about it but do something wrong and LOOK out. :eek:
Where do I DL 2.48?
NVM. lol. I should've seen that URL.
I hear ya heheQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
major props to you for keeping this updated and debugging the various minor issues that a program is bound to face in its path to being mature.. afterall you don't exactly owe this to anyone and you're doing it for free :up:
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/3852/vid2zy2.jpg
Thanks for the pm. Both the dual core temperature tooltip and the TaskBar option work in the 2.48 version.
And for the record if there are any other dual core bugs I haven't seen them.:)
1st page, clear out your cache and cookies.Quote:
Originally Posted by varrius
When I try to run 2.48 I get a "winring0.dll" was not found. 2.41 works great, though.
Copy the new exe in your 2.41 folder, or alternatively make a copy of the folder and unrar the newer exe in it and execute it.Quote:
Originally Posted by varrius
Someone needs to make a website for Uncle so we can see the listing of Betas, plus it would also be great for him to have a site since this app rocks. Any takers? :)
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c2.../Capture-2.jpg
This is after modifying CoreTemp's ini file. I kind of like CoreTemp's tray icons better than RealTemp's.
ct & rt are agreeing on tjmax of 95C for penryns - woot.
edit: nm i see he modified the ini.
That's my job for later this week. I wanted to have a nice, fully debugged, version of RealTemp ready for the grand opening. Just a couple of minor things left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milamber
It's about time that CoreTemp finally lets you use TjMax=95C for the new 45nm series. I wrote to him about this months ago but he ignored my e-mail and my testing so RealTemp was my response. :D The only problem now is that even with the correct TjMax, CoreTemp will still report my E8400 almost 10C too hot at idle.
I hear ya. I'm working on the high priority items first like accuracy. CoreTemp has been around for a couple of years while RealTemp was first released less than two months ago. Competition is great for both programs.Quote:
I kind of like CoreTemp's tray icons better than RealTemp's.
I haven't heard too many RealTemp users complain about this:
Version 0.98 - 23rd April, 2008
- Fix: Core Temp sometimes crashes when another program tries to access the log file. - Still needs further testing.
2.46 shows lower VID than Coretemp
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e2...vscoretemp.jpg
Interesting, the new version 2.48 realtemp has an identical VID as Coretemp.
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e2.../Capture-1.jpg
Well I look forward to your site... my bro in the Uk does web dev and I'm sure he can knock something up if you need help, he renders some leet icons too.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Shame that the coretemp author ignored your email, well actually no, its a good thing since now we have a temp sensor thats accurate and works. Ahh well...
unclewebb
Great program and great job. Thank you.
@uncle: great program! the VID on RealTemp is now the same as in my bios...temps are reporting more accurately. :up: was the last official version 2.41? & the latest beta is 2.48?
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...rk/Temps-2.jpg
I seem to be having issues. The first two cores are always significantly hotter than the second two. I've remounted my heatsink several times and I just can't seem to figure it out. This is at 4.0ghz with about 1.475vcore in BIOS. I've remounted the block several times completely in many different ways, moved it, adjusted it. Nothing seems to help. I was wondering if being that this 9770 was C1 stepping, perhaps its currently incompatible with realtemp, or maybe this is the result of improperly aligned sensors?
Edit: I am using water cooling.
Welcome to the club. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by varrius
This seems to be a common issue with many Quad core processors and has absolutely nothing to do with how you mounted your heatsink or block. It effects both 65nm and obviously your new 45nm cpu. This issue was brought up on page 29 of the RealTemp novel and discussed, mostly only by me.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=722
It might be a heat transfer issue where both sets of dual cores within a Quad do not transfer heat equally and it also might be a sensor issue. On my Q6600, core0 and core1 as reported by RealTemp were in agreement with what the IR thermometer was showing. Try the test I came up with in post#722 and post your results.
I've just kind of hung on to the theory that my core 0 is a bit higher because it works harder. :shrug:
I think there is some truth to that based on how the Quad balances the workload between the two different dual core chips inside of it. It might be designed at the factory to do something like 55% / 45% with core0/1 getting more of the work than core2/3 so they would tend to run hotter.Quote:
Originally Posted by loonym
It might also be how the IHS is sitting. The original design was for the IHS to sit on one dual core, not two dual cores side by side.
Who knows? Maybe the dual core chips that go into a Quad are binned where they use an 'A' grade dual core for core0/1 and they treat that as the primary side of the Quad and the other side gets a slightly less capable 'B' grade dual core. Somebody somewhere knows exactly what's going on but you'll never ever read about it in a forum. Anyone that shares this secret will be rounded up by the Intel secret police in the middle of the night. :eek:
I just want users to know that this is more common than most people think and that you don't need to remount your heatsink 101 times.