Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

I was using an older version of Prime95 when I originally tested that so I'll go try it again with version 25.9.
What operating system are you running and what CPU and what MHz and etc. Give me some details so I can see if there is anything on my side that might be causing this problem. What temperature do you max out at when testing?

Edit: I just ran a Cool Down Test using Vista 32 bit and Prime95 25.9 and there weren't any problems.

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/2...ldownstart.png

At the end of Test #8, it displayed "Stopping Prime 95", Prime95 stopped and disappeared from the screen. The only thing left was the green Prime95 system tray icon but when I moused over it, that disappeared too. Test #9 started after that and then Test #10 and then it was done.

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/2057/cooldownend.png

I can't think of anything I changed recently that controls the shut down of Prime95 but I'll definitely have a look at the code. This is the first time I've heard of this issue. I'll also try and check Windows 7 x64 later tonight.

Edit: In Windows 7 beta Build 7000, the test ran fine as well. The only difference was that the system tray icon disappeared automatically like it is supposed to do.
Thanks MS for finally fixing that. :)

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9192/prime95test.png

If you have any more issues let me know.

i have just bought a e6400 to toy with. TJ is set at 100C for Coretemp and 85C for realtemp (or viceversa, cant remember, i'm not at home now). which one is the right one? Mind that with the 85C TJ i get 40C under Prime95, with a 7V HDT-1283. Isnt it too low? thanks in advance!

OdinEidolon: When you get home post some more details. A screen shot showing Core Temp, RealTemp and CPU-Z would help out. There is no one number fits all correct TJMax for a series of processors. Intel refers to this as a TJ Target with an unknown amount of error. All software and even Intel can only guess. Post some more details and I'll take my best guess too and explain this confusing mess further. Some Dual Core CPUs at default MHz and a low core voltage do not get very hot, even when running Prime95 when you have a good heatsink attached to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

I was using an older version of Prime95 when I originally tested that so I'll go try it again with version 25.9.
What operating system are you running and what CPU and what MHz and etc. Give me some details so I can see if there is anything on my side that might be causing this problem. What temperature do you max out at when testing?

Edit: I just ran a Cool Down Test using Vista 32 bit and Prime95 25.9 and there weren't any problems.

---

I'm running Vista Ultimate SP2 (32-bit) on a Q6600 @3200MHz, temperature maxes out at about 65C (ambient 25C).

>EDIT<
Disabled all startup programs and now it runs fine, I'll try to find the culprit tomorrow and let you know.
>EDIT<

After sensor test:shocked:
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/7447/bug1wxe.jpg

Someone finally noticed this CPU-Z Core i7 bug. Have a look at RealTemp. It's still reporting your MHz and multiplier correctly. They haven't changed.

RealTemp during the Cool Down Test uses the Intel Clock Modulation feature of the processor. Intel included this feature within their CPUs so if users are having trouble with too much heat, they can use software to thermal throttle their processor. That's what RealTemp does during this test to create the fixed power level steps. Technically speaking, the CPU is still running externally at the same speed but internally some of the clock generator's clock pulses are being ignored. CPU-Z gets confused and reports this as a lower multiplier which isn't accurate at all.

You can reproduce this behavior anytime. Just open up the Settings window in RealTemp and click on the Clock Modulation feature. Modulate your CPU down to 12.5% and watch CPU-Z go crazy. :)

The official term for this feature is On Demand Clock Modulation. This feature was first introduced during the Pentium 4 era to control heat. Here's an article from February 2005 that explains what's going on.

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/intel-thermal-features/

I sure new about it as it has reported these low MHz to me several times. It reported 12,00 soemthin MHz for eva200 once! All I got to say is thank god for unclewebb and his utilities. Best uncle in the world. :D

So according to pyongmu temp reading of inside the cpu should TJmax for the q6600 still be 100c or lower for accurate temps? It seems load difference in temp was 10c and more!

My best guess for Q6600 is:

Q6600 Stepping B3, TJMax=90C
Q6600 Stepping G0, TJMax=100C

Not even Intel publicly agrees with that opinion. They say that there is a TJ Target that they shoot for but actual TJMax might be a little different than that, usually higher. :shrug:

The best test is to run your CPU underclocked at 1600 MHz and 1.10 volts and compare your reported core temperature to your room temperature near your heatsink with your case open. Your reported core temperature should be 5C or so above your room temperature. Check out the RealTemp docs at TechPowerUp for more info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

The best test is to run your CPU underclocked at 1600 MHz and 1.10 volts and compare your reported core temperature to your room temperature near your heatsink with your case open. Your reported core temperature should be 5C or so above your room temperature. Check out the RealTemp docs at TechPowerUp for more info.

---

does this count for water as well as air cooling???

Cool thanks will do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benniebeeker

does this count for water as well as air cooling???

---

The documentation should contain that information and give you a range of values based on type of cooler or air or water. rge even made a nice chart too.

http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/docs.php

When you can't find that link, do an About... in RealTemp and it will be very easy to find the above page. :)

is there a version that works with Phenom IIs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iddqd

is there a version that works with Phenom IIs?

---

Unfortunately, no. Core Temp supports AMD.

It's been full time work just trying to keep up with Intel, especially when they start doing asinine things like recycle old model numbers for their new processors, not once but twice.

There was enough confusion with two steppings of the E6300 which were built using two totally different cores. Now they've decided to re-use that part number one more time for a CPU built with 45nm technology that runs at 2.80 GHz compared to the original 65nm E6300 CPUs that ran at 1.86 GHz. :shrug:

http://processorfinder.intel.com/Lis...earchKey=e6300

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...mpBeta_330.zip

-incorrect multiplier being reported when running CPUID HW Monitor was fixed.

-Disable Turbo Mode option added for Core i7

-added the ability to toggle C1E and added EIST reporting.

-updated the RivaTuner plugin. The individual Load Meters require the main load meter to be active as well.

-added MultiBoost=1 INI option for any Core i7 board that is stuck at a 12X multiplier when using Windows 7. (DFI / MSI)

-added AverageMulti=1 INI option for Core 2 based CPUs which uses the same timers as Core i7 uses to accurately calculate the average multiplier over 1 second intervals.

-got rid of the "Not Responding" message during the XS benchmark.

-initial Core i5 support.

Good job Uncle:up:

You ever thought about CPU voltage readout on Real Temp? Would be nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drnip

You ever thought about CPU voltage readout on Real Temp? Would be nice.

---

Then,will be no more "RealTemp":D

I´m rebuilding my computer, see sig, had my motherboard in for RMA but they
didn´t find anything but my SATA RAID 5 is still gone, for now I got a
SATA 1TB harddrive in IDE-mode and testing everything, don't even got any
nvidia forceware drivers installed running on an old 14" monitor @ 800x600
resolution (colors look ok) but seriously thinking of digging up the
old 21" Sony (colors is very grayish)



Did this test before I underclocked it as unclewebb described in post #3509
and Speedstep C1E idle @ 1.600 GHz and load @ 2.400Ghz,
test calibrated 0.0 0.0 4.5 2.5 (just some numbers dialed in)

idle @ 1.600 GHz and load @ 2.400Ghz, test calibrated 0.0 0.0 4.5 2.5
1b
1b-00-idle-C1E-2400-9x266-1V27-1x(000)-P95-MEM800-tcal
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/9...009x2661v2.jpg




I underclocked it as unclewebb described in post #3509 and Speedstep C1E
Prime95 with 25% load on 1 core @ 1.600Ghz, test calibrated 0.0 0.0 4.5 2.5
2a
2a-25-load-C1E-1600-6x266-1V10-1x(025)-P95-MEM800-tcal
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/1...006x2661v1.jpg

2b
2b-00-idle-C1E-1600-6x266-1V10-1x(000)-P95-MEM800-tcal
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/608...006x2661v1.jpg




test calibrated 0.0 0.0 4.5 2.5 (just some numbers dialed in)
2c
2c-00-idle-C1E-1600-6x266-1V10-1x(000)-P95-MEM800-tcal-sett
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/950...006x2661v1.jpg






1 x Prime95 with 25% load on core 0 @ 1.600Ghz
3 x Prime 2004 75% load on core 1, 2, 3 @ 1.600Ghz
PrintScreen at 99% "heatup load" as close as possible to 100%
Maximum cooling 5 fans at 100% and, topfan 50%
in: 2x120mm, door:80mm on gpu
cpu:120mm on TRUE, out:120mm, twin 2x80mm)
calibrated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (see 2c)

3a
3a-99-load-C1E-1600-6x266-1V10-4x(099)-P95-MEM800-0cal
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/804...006x2661v1.jpg





0 x Prime95 with idle on core 0 @ 1.600Ghz
3 x Prime 2004 75% load on core 1, 2, 3 @ 1.600Ghz
PrintScreen at 31.4% "CPU load" and "test #9"
calibrated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (see 2c)
3b
3b-75-load-C1E-1600-6x266-1V10-3x(075)-P95-MEM800-0cal
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/670...006x2661v1.jpg

3c
3c-00-idle-C1E-1600-6x266-1V10-0x(000)-P95-MEM800-0cal
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/665...006x2661v1.jpg

(btw 1V10 is 1.10V, 3x(075) is 75% x P95 is Prime95, MEM800 is memory @ 800 Mhz, 0cal is not calibrated at 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 etc )


What are good values for the calibration (see 2c) ?

Hello -X-hellfire. How the hell have you been? I haven't seen you around here for a while. :D

Since writing RealTemp, I have come to the conclusion that TJMax is not consistent on all 4 cores of a Quad core processor. Intel quietly agreed with this at their IDF news conference last year when they showed a graph that showed there is some error in how they set TJMax at the factory. They were too embarrassed to get into specific details though because with 45nm Quads, the TJMax difference core to core can be huge.

Before adjusting your temps with calibration factors, it's a good idea to try to estimate the difference in TJMax. On my Q6600 G0, my best guess is TJMax = 100C, 100C, 105C, 105C for the four cores.

The best test for this is to run Prime95 Small FFTs and heat your CPU up as much as possible. If you can get the core temperature up over 65C that would be great. By this point, the 4 sensors have very little if any slope error and most of the difference observed is differences in TJMax. For your CPU I would set core 0 and core 1 to TJMax = 100C and then you will need to adjust core 2 and core 3 to a higher TJMax so all 4 report pretty much the same thing during this Small FFT high temperature stress test.

After that is done then you can go back to idle and adjust core 2 and core 3 with calibration factors to equal out the idle temps. Your core 3 might be OK after TJMax is adjusted. Core 2 tends to sag the most and it will likely need a calibration boost even after TJMax is adjusted.

A lot of users don't like getting their core temperature up high enough to be able to find out this kind of information so I haven't talked too much about it. Lots of users probably don't agree with my different TJMax values from one core to the next but it's the only reasonable explanation I could come up with. The final result for my Q6600 is 4 cores that track each other very closely from idle to TJMax.

I took my CPU up to its max while running P95 Small FFTs to keep the load as equal as possible on all 4 cores.

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8119/heattest.png

Intel's IDF version of the truth where they blamed most of the issues on the slope error of these sensors only tells part of the story. To me, this screen shot is a clear sign that TJMax is simply not consistent for all 4 cores. I've seen so many screen shots that I'd also be willing to say that it is likely deliberately set higher on many Quad CPUs for core 2 and usually core 3 as well.

The Core i7 series is also a good example of this. When running P95 Small FFTs there is almost always an exact 5C difference in temperature from core 0 to core 3 after things have stabilized when the core temperature is above 70C. I think the end core is deliberately set to TJMax=105C but I have no way to prove this.

If you're curious, do some overclocking, add in some core voltage and get your core temps higher into the range where slope error is not a factor. Don't use any calibration factors and use the default TJMax and post a screen shot so I can have a look.

I wonder why they would set 2 cores higher, assuming they did. Perhaps it is to maintain decent performance when two cores begin to throttle. When two cores are throttling it will lower the heat output of the whole package so I guess it would help keep the remaining two cores in thermal "check" without lowering their processing power.

EDIT: It could be the layout of the die as well.

Hi randomizer. Nice to see another old timer drop by. :)

One test I did a long time ago was to run Prime 95 Small FFTs and then lock it by using Set Affinity... in the Task Manager so it would only run on core 0 and core 1 and then reverse it so the same load is only running on core 2 and core 3 with next to nothing on core 0 and core 1. With the shrink to 45nm, the difference between the two sets of cores during this kind of test is minimal. It shows that when you have 4 cores within a cm of each other, there isn't a hell of a lot of difference in the core temperature between any of them even when two cores are doing all the work and the other two are idle. When all 4 cores are working equally running Prime Small FFTs, the quick heat transfer between cores should have them all at pretty much the same temperature after Prime has been running for a while. There's just no reasonable explanation why they would be 10C different.

In testing, the reported temperatures are never equal which is one of the reasons I think TJMax is not consistent across the cores. If TJMax is not consistent then the "why" is an interesting thing to consider.

On the Q6600 it is possible to have the two Dual Cores running with two different multipliers. Maybe they offset the TJMax so if CPU 0 started to throttle, it would start to cycle down to a 6.0X multiplier, letting it cool off while CPU 1 would still be able to run at full speed using its 9.0X multiplier. This would cause a smaller drop in performance compared to all 4 cores dropping down to 6.0X at the exact same time. Your explanation / theory makes a lot of sense randomizer.

We've seen that these CPUs don't go ka-boom at 90C or 100C or 110C or even higher so setting TJMax slightly higher on CPU 1 wouldn't cause any issues and should smooth the transition if there ever is any thermal throttling.

It would have been nice if last year's IDF presentations included some more meaty engineering documents instead of Core i7 is wonderful documents prepared by the PR and fluff department.

We will never know the whole truth about these sensors so I'm open to any reasonable explanation that can cover all the data that's been collected.

Edit: Kind of funny. I was just helping another user on another forum understand his CPU today with this ~10C difference between his two Dual Cores in his Q9650.
http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.ph...9&postcount=18

Hi unclewebb

yeah it's bee a while and I get just been using my Q6600 @ 3.2Hz a moderate overclock, worked great until distaster struck and my RAID 5 died, not going into more of that (link), anyway I still got my T-Balancer setup as you can see but since the RMA I bought new fans, which are much better.

I going to test the Q6600 with your suggestions of a 60-65C overclock but found out after yesterdays underclock marathon with all fans on full throttle that one of the fans is noisy, the new 120mm case out fan, is very annoying even though I switched Attenuator (a PWM filter) on the T-Balancer, still the same "whistle" sound. Have bee trying to fix it but it wont go away, had the same problem with the old fan, but did some customized curves for the fan which worked pretty good but takes forever to get very good.

Thought the new fan would fix it but its the same, this way "off-topic", but my serious RealTemp calibration of the Q6600 depends on having a working cooling system, that includes keeping the noise pollution under control. I used my NoiseGard Sennheizer headphones yesterday which reduces whistles and fan noise very good, however I right now want to eliminate the culprit to the problem. The Q6600 have a TRUE and the same fanbrand and it has no whistle, an external fan (same brand) for the firewall is also silent.

What I wanted to do was to save a ghost with all T-Balancer profiles before I started the serious overclocking, a good plan and backups are no1 before hell breaks out.


Will start the backups soon as I'm as curios as you are of what the result of the RealTemp calibration will be.

(sorry for the "Off-topic" post but I´m usually end up there what ever I do :innocent: :) )

Your Q6600 seems to be following a very familiar pattern. Core 0 and core 1 are very similar while core 3 sags a little and core 2 sags a lot. When you start doing some testing at higher temperatures I'm sure this is going to make a lot more sense. The testing with acebmxer on the Guru 3D forum went very well today. No two CPUs are identical but it's surprising how many of them follow a very familiar pattern. It goes way beyond this just being random chance. The 65nm Quads don't have the sensor sticking issues at normal temperatures the way the 45nm Quads do so your Q6600 should be easy to figure out.

The only exception to the norm is, of course, my E6600 :) It seems to have a Tj Max closer to 72C than 80C (Tj Target) or 90C (what Real Temp uses I think) from memory. It actually made Intel's first IDF presentation look ok! :cool:

EDIT: Forgot to say nice to see you drop by Comp :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Hi randomizer. Nice to see another old timer drop by. :)

---

Hey. I got your PM about the other tool you've been working on, but I don't have i7 so I can't say much about it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

In testing, the reported temperatures are never equal which is one of the reasons I think TJMax is not consistent across the cores. If TJMax is not consistent then the "why" is an interesting thing to consider.

---

Perhaps Benson will enlighten us as to whether or not Intel deliberately set Tj Max higher on 2 cores, and if yes, then why. I'll have to see if I still have his email address. It might be another "trade secret" but I can't see what kind of problems would be caused by telling us. Then again, look how long it took them to tell us fake Tj Max figures.

just a Q guys, is there a program like RT for the AMD's processors?

It is called CoreTemp - look in AMD thread .......

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip

I did a few updates to the RealTemp / RivaTuner plugin today for any RivaTuner fans. By default, it uses the Calculated Multiplier for Core 2 and Core i7 now.

I also added Battery Level monitoring support for mobile users to the plugin.

If you have a Core i7, enable hyper threading and draw a screen full of graphs so I can see that it works. :)

randomizer: The i7 Turbo program works on Core 2 as well. You can use it to learn about your multiplier. I was hoping you were ready to retire your E6600 by now so I could get my hands on it for some testing. Send it my way and I'll send you back an upgraded chip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

randomizer: The i7 Turbo program works on Core 2 as well. You can use it to learn about your multiplier. I was hoping you were ready to retire your E6600 by now so I could get my hands on it for some testing. Send it my way and I'll send you back an upgraded chip.

---

I thought you were kind of joking about that earlier (that plus I forgot you ever said it after all this time :yawn:). What will you send in return? I might need a new board and I don't want to be out of service for too long so I'd rather have the new board already if needed ;) Let's hope the chip doesn't start running normally for you just so that it doesn't get itself drilled. :ROTF:

I have a Q6600 G0 and an E8400 C0 in stock. Take your pick. Neither one is a golden chip. The E8400 has run a 10.3 second Super PI time when it was on the edge of self destruction at 4.5 GHz. Definitely not Prime stable but lots of fun all the same. It's max Prime stable is down around 4000 MHz to 4050 MHz. I run my Q6600 more conservatively at 3 GHz and I have never pushed it to extreme levels. My old motherboard with the 965 chipset isn't great with Quads so I didn't think there was much point. Either chip is good enough for me so take your pick. Your E6600 is kind of like acquiring a rare fossil. It might provide us with some new information and be the missing link in the evolution of TJMax. :rofl:

Send me a PM and we can work something out.

Edit: I lied. It actually ran 10.250 in a 1M of SuperPI. :up:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/2355/superpi10250.png

Reposted from the bottom of the previous page.

Hi unclewebb and rge,

Sorry I haven't posted or PM'd for quite some time, however, I've continued to follow your excellent work, :up: as well as every post on every page, every day.

Your points are well taken concerning Intel's deviations in Tjunction Max values, however, from a different perspective, I'd like to share with you my research and empirical data, which I've continued to acquire for my Core i7 and Core 2 Temperature Guide over at Tom's.

During the past 2+ years, I have extensively tested, and recently re-tested and analyzed processor temperatures using three data points which consist of idle, 50% load and 100% load at stock settings with Prime95 Small FFT's. I then repeated each test at overclocked settings with higher Vcore and temperatures. The objective was to observe and carefully document the thermal relationships between CPU temperature and Core temperature, sensor linearity characteristics, slpoe error behaviors, and power consumption.

Calibrations were based upon the 5c thermal Gradient between the Analog Thermal Diode and the DTS value, of which we're both familiar from certain Intel engineering documents. All testing was conducted using a standardized test setup under controlled conditions at 22c ambient on a variety of motherboards, chipsets and CPU cooler combinations. Real Temp was used to cross-reference Core temperatures in SpeedFan.

Although the CPU temperature offset calibration value may shift on certain motherboard when BIOS test settings are changed, CPU temperature was verified or re-calibrated in SpeedFan prior to acquiring each measurement, so that information from the Analog Thermal Diode would provide a valid and accurate point of reference. This assured that the results were both consistent and repeatable.

The following assortment of 65nm an 45nm processor variants were tested:

(1) E2160 L2
(1) E4500 M0
(1) E5200 R0
(1) E6400 B2
(4) E6600 B2
(1) E6850 G0
(6) Q6600 G0
(1) Q6700 G0
(1) E7200 M0
(1) E8500 E0
(3) Q9650 E0
(6) i7 920 C0
(1) i7 940 C0

Of these 28 individual processors, 17 of which are quads, my findings show that the Analog Thermal Diode is typically linear from low idle temperatures thru very high load temperatures. Testing also revealed that the 5c Gradient between CPU temperature and "Mean" Core temperature is relatively constant from 4c to 6c, which conforms with the detailed thermocouple testing performed by rge.

The most interesting point is that when you originally conducted your IR testing, except for a few low order variables concealed from your Fluke IR gun on the IHS, apparently you were closer than you may have since thought. For example, the Core 2 processors which I've tested that are suposedly Tjunction Max 100c have shown values that average from 97c to 98c, with the exception of the i7's, which are nearly spot-on between 99c and 100c.

As such, it's likely that the differences often seen in the Core 2 quads between each pair of dual cores is 100c and 95c, which yields a Mean Tjunction Max value of 97.5c. This obviously coincides with my findings, and offers further insights toward Intel's new term "Tj Target".

Comp :cool:

Hi Comp. It's been a while. I thought you didn't love us anymore. :D

For the Core 2 CPUs I've tested, throttling seems to start when the digital thermal sensor is reporting 3 or sometimes 2 so if TJMax is 100 then it does seem to happen at 97C or 98C. I thought this was something Intel did deliberately so the CPU would slow down and keep the core temperature from ever reaching 100C. During my 3 hour Prime95 Small FFT run with the CPU fan turned off, only once did one core touch 100C so I thought Intel's design was working pretty damn good.

I saw a screen shot at X-Bit labs which showed a Core i7 at 99C and it hadn't tripped the thermal throttle bit yet so RealTemp was still showing OK in the Thermal Status area. As soon as that bit gets tripped, even once for a microsecond, RealTemp will display LOG and if thermal throttling is in progress then that changes to HOT.

Based on user feedback, I think the official difference in TJMax between the two Dual Cores within a Quad was increased when the 45nm Quads came out. My best guess is about 5C for 65nm and maybe as high as 10C for the 45nm Quads.

I gave up trying to buy one of every CPU that Intel makes. There's no way I can come up with a large enough sample or even consistent and accurate enough testing procedures to be 100% certain about any of this. Intel knows the truth about their calibration procedures but they weren't willing to tell the whole story at the IDF conferences last year and most users have lost interest in this topic. At least they were willing to admit that TJMax is not a fixed, written in stone value and that some variation does happen and they also admitted to the slope error of these sensors. That was less info than I hoped to get from IDF but realistically, more than I expected to hear Intel admit to.

They were right about one thing. Their Core i7 temperature sensors are much better.

guys, but RT recognize the i7 processors' VID?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russ_64

It is called CoreTemp - look in AMD thread .......

---

yes, but this can't do a sensor test for the cpus ...

KURTZ: There is no documented way to read VID from a Core i7 CPU. Before RealTemp was updated to support Core i7, it used to show some random numbers for VID but it shouldn't show anything now. If it is still possible to read VID, Intel isn't saying anything about it.

If the programmer of Core Temp wants to do a multi level temperature step down test for AMD CPUs then I would be happy to show him what I do to create lower temperature steps while Prime 95 is running. It just uses the Intel On Demand Clock Modulation feature while the test is running. This reduces the heat output of any CPU in gradual steps and at the end of the test it kills the Prime95 test and lets it sit there at idle for the last step. That would be a useful feature for the AMD guys so I hope someone does this. I don't have any AMD hardware to develop on so it won't be me. :(

Edit: I did some more testing tonight and discovered why RealTemp and the plug-in can display very high load numbers at idle on mobile CPUs. The Load % being displayed is based on how hard the one active core is working. With 45nm mobile chips, one core can get turned off at idle while the other core will start running internally at half the normal FSB speed due to an Intel feature called, "Dynamic FSB Frequency Switching." The result at idle is a single core running at 800 MHz so the true load on that core is actually quite high. It's working like a dog to get all the work done that needs to be done while running at a fraction of its normal speed while its partner is having a sleep. The reported Load % looks bizarre and has absolutely nothing to do with what Task Manager reports for CPU Usage. There is some definite meaning behind a big idle load number when you are monitoring a mobile CPU.

Here's the latest RealTemp / RivaTuner plug-in:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip

Once again thank you for your continued efforts at RealTemp Unclewebb
I have a quick question, the % Load monitor is not working correctly on my QX9650, I am using version 3.30Beta. During Intel Burn Test and Prime 95 Large or Small FFT's CPU is reporting @ 89% load, yet under Windows Task Manager it is 100% Load.
Any ideas?
When my CPU is @ Stock the % Load Monitor in Real Temp works.
Also have you altered the TjMax rom 95 to 100? for the C0 stepping QX9650? (Quad Core Extreme)?
Thanks
John

Hi JohnZS:

There are two possible issues with the Load meter. If you are using the Clock Modulation feature of an Intel CPU then the RealTemp load meter will report less at full load than the Task Manager does. If that is happening, that would be a good thing.

If the RealTemp Load meter works fine when you are using the default multiplier for your CPU but screws up when you are using a different multiplier then that would be a bad thing. A user with an early QX processor was helping me with this issue a long, long time ago. If you want to be the new helper then I can send you some stuff to test for me. Volunteer testers with unique CPUs are always needed.

As for the endless question, "What is TJMax?", I can honestly say, "I don't know." Intel doesn't seem to know and neither do I. If you still have that wonky Quad that you used to have then I think TJMax varies by as much as 10C from core to core. I don't know if your cores are TJMax 95 to 105 or maybe TJMax 100 to 110 or some combination in between. Intel never released enough information to clarify this. With sticking sensor issues and sensor slope error, it can be very difficult to accurately prove this. A sad situation but I'm only the messenger. :)

I just had a look at my code and here's a note I wrote a long time ago:

"Intel says QX9650 TJ Target = 95C but it seems more like TJMax = 100C during testing so leave it as is"

The truth is that there probably doesn't exist a QX9650 that has all 4 cores with the exact same TJMax. Once I get the RivaTuner plugin updated, maybe we can look at your numbers one more time to try to come up with a good guess at TJMax.

Unclewebb - any chance you could make RealTemp compatible with the Logitech LCD keyboard displays, like CoreTemp?

Also, in v3.00 of RealTemp, the individual core temp readings in the system tray come up defaulting to be out of order core-wise. Not a biggie, just something I've noticed.

Thank you for all your efforts, and keep up the great work! :clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rambler358

Also, in v3.00 of RealTemp, the individual core temp readings in the system tray come up defaulting to be out of order core-wise.

---

We call that a Windows 7 feature. Randomly ordered core temps in the System Tray. Their OS is designed so a program can insert one system tray icon. Any program that needs to insert multiple icons like a monitoring program needs to do, has a difficult time getting them to line up in the correct order. They get inserted randomly, usually to the left or the right of the previous icon. There's no way I've found to predict the order that Windows 7 will give me. The same code works 100% in Vista or XP at keeping the tray icons ordered.

I use the RealTemp / RivaTuner plugin so I can see some data when using my G15. I'm in the process of updating that at the moment so it might be buggy. Hopefully in another day or two it will be 100%.

I might add G15 code directly to RealTemp someday. I'll put it on the things to maybe do list.

Edit: Here's the plugin if you use RivaTuner.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip

I just got word that it is working very good. The only bug that still needs fixing is the JohnZS QX load bug.

Thanks for the info Unclewebb. I don't use RivaTuner, but use EVGA Precision instead (same author though) - a simpler interface with all the features I need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Hi JohnZS:

If the RealTemp Load meter works fine when you are using the default multiplier for your CPU but screws up when you are using a different multiplier then that would be a bad thing. A user with an early QX processor was helping me with this issue a long, long time ago. If you want to be the new helper then I can send you some stuff to test for me. Volunteer testers with unique CPUs are always needed.

As for the endless question, "What is TJMax?", I can honestly say, "I don't know." Intel doesn't seem to know and neither do I. If you still have that wonky Quad that you used to have then I think TJMax varies by as much as 10C from core to core. I don't know if your cores are TJMax 95 to 105 or maybe TJMax 100 to 110 or some combination in between. Intel never released enough information to clarify this. With sticking sensor issues and sensor slope error, it can be very difficult to accurately prove this. A sad situation but I'm only the messenger. :)

I just had a look at my code and here's a note I wrote a long time ago:

"Intel says QX9650 TJ Target = 95C but it seems more like TJMax = 100C during testing so leave it as is"

The truth is that there probably doesn't exist a QX9650 that has all 4 cores with the exact same TJMax. Once I get the RivaTuner plugin updated, maybe we can look at your numbers one more time to try to come up with a good guess at TJMax.

---

Hi Uncle
Those are the symptoms my wonky Quad Core is experiencing, (along with a guestimation for the TjMax by Intel, and sensors which might as well be random number generators...once again courtesy of Intel)

You'd have thought with Intel's famed high quality fabrication process they would have put fairly decent sensors into their Quad Core Extreme Range :(

John

The sensors on the QX processors almost seem worse than the rest of the Quad processors. They're probably exactly the same but when you pay a premium price for a CPU, your expectations go up and I know from your previous testing, your sensors definitely don't live up to that. Intel learned their lesson. The Core i7 sensors are world's better than the 45nm Core 2 sensors. Whoever decided to save a few pennies when sourcing the 45nm Core 2 sensors must have been reassigned to a new department. :)

I sent you a testing program in a PM. Thanks for helping me out John.

Is RealTemp 3.20 The last Version
Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvin82

Is RealTemp 3.20 The last Version
Thanks

---

Whatever you download from the URL to the RealTempBeta that has been posted many times is the latest. unclewebb always overwrites the same uploaded file. Sometimes you have to clear your cache though because it will for some reason download the old version (for me anyway) :shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

The sensors on the QX processors almost seem worse than the rest of the Quad processors. They're probably exactly the same but when you pay a premium price for a CPU, your expectations go up and I know from your previous testing, your sensors definitely don't live up to that. Intel learned their lesson. The Core i7 sensors are world's better than the 45nm Core 2 sensors. Whoever decided to save a few pennies when sourcing the 45nm Core 2 sensors must have been reassigned to a new department. :)

I sent you a testing program in a PM. Thanks for helping me out John.

---

Thanks Uncle, all received, you have mail :up:
Yes it is a bit disappointing that the premium processors have the dodgy sensors, I guess it is because I purchased this back in December 2007 (just after release), I would imagine the Quads with the newer C1 and E0 steppings have better sensors?

(One would hope)

Thanks for your help
John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnZS

I would imagine the Quads with the newer C1 and E0 steppings have better sensors?

---

That doesn't seem to be the reality. All 45nm Core 2 Dual and Quad core CPUs have sensor issues. Some processors are better than average and some are worse but they all have issues. Intel's suggestion at IDF was to buy a Core i7. They have better sensors and you certainly need them considering the heat they can put out. :rofl:

Doh! So all in all the Core2 45nm manufacturer process of the sensors was quite... poor?
Do Core i7's run a lot hotter than Core2 Quads?
I am considering upgrading in 2010 to the Corei7 Extreme Refresh (32nm?) Maybe I will be reunited with dodgy sensors ;)
John

I picked a good one :yepp:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/377...test062109.jpg

I have had 5 45nm CPU's. ALL have had least 1 stuck sensor at idle. Have an e8400 CO that has both sensors bad at idle and load, ran it for well over a year at 4.05ghz, never knew what my temps were.

Coming from the RealTemp guy this is going to sound a little dumb but temperatures really aren't that important. Cool them as much as you can afford to and they will be able to overclock more. If they are not stable, cool 'em some more or back off your overclock. That's really all there is to it. No fancy temperature monitoring program needed.

gymenii: Your CPU looks like a winner. Two sensors that actually work and both of them on the same CPU. :up:

They must have manufactured that one on a Wednesday. No way it could have been built on a Monday or a Friday. :rofl:

JohnZS: When you start overclocking Core i7 and feeding them lots of voltage, they start consuming and putting out a lot of heat energy. Far more than Core 2 Quads, especially when you enable hyper threading and run 8 threads of something crazy like LinX. :explode2:

Done some more testing as I got my other computer sorted out,
updating a firewall creates a millions of popups that needs to be
redone which takes forever and forever but finally I got some
time to test and calibrate RealTemp


bios

I have previously always had the default Vcore 1.275V at 3.2GHz but
after a I rebooted while installing some software I got a three beeps from the
PC-speaker and It had done a safe reboot and set the cpu to 2.1GHz and 8x266
. . . well the cpu might need some some juice so I upped Vcore to 1.300V and it
has been stable so for through 4 x Prime95 for several tests.

I wondering why RealTemp reports a Core VID . . . MAX 1.2750V when bios (1.) shows

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/4...pu32008x40.jpg





T-Balancer has a digital sensor (cpu-D1) on the bottom of the TRUE
and is the idea is that when it is calibrated it offers enough guidance
to automatically adjust the fans

Cooling

cpu-fan to 100% and case-fan to 100%
. . . don't want to overclock the mem at this point and keeping
it at default 800Mhz

cpu-D1 is 35C
1a
1a-00-idle-0xC1E-3200-8x400-1V30-4x(000)-P95-mem800-0cal
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/9...32008x4001.jpg




cpu-D1 is 35C
1b
1b-99-load-0xC1E-3200-8x400-1V30-4x(99)-P95-mem800-0cal
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/916...32008x4001.jpg





I entered what you suggested earlier unclewebb with a
TJ Max of 100C 100C 105C 105C

RealTemp calibration 0.5 0.5 2.2 -0.5 (known as cal1)
cpu-D1 is 33.5C
2a
2a-00-idle-0xC1E-3200-8x400-1V30-4x(000)-P95-mem800-cal1-settings
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/154...32008x4001.jpg




cpu-D1 is 35.5C

2b
2b-99-load-0xC1E-3200-8x400-1V30-4x(99)-P95-mem800-cal1
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/933...32008x4001.jpg




cpu-D1 is 34.5C
2c
2c-00-idle-0xC1E-3200-8x400-1V30-4x(000)-P95-mem800-cal1
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/5...32008x4001.jpg





Pretest

Tried to bring up temperatures to about 65C by lowering the
cpu-fan to 22% and case-fan to 80%
( don't want to overclock the mem at this point and keeping
it at default 800Mhz, otherwise I might had tried to overclock the cpu to 3.6Ghz )
. . . anyway the Q6600 cores reached 63C 63C 65C 64C

cpu-D1 is 40.0C
3a
3a-99-load-0xC1E-3200-8x400-1V30-4x(99)-P95-mem800-fan1-cpu22-fan4-case80-cal1-c65
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/4...32008x4001.jpg



cpu-D1 is 34.0C
4a
4a-00-idle-0xC1E-3200-8x400-1V30-4x(000)-P95-mem800-fan1-cpu22-fan4-case80-cal1-c65
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/7...32008x4001.jpg




Heat Up Phase

Tried to bring up temperatures to about 65C by lowering the
cpu-fan to 22% and case-fan to 80% as I mentioned before in the
. . . the pretest (3a) went on for about 10 min but the "Heat Up Phase" was about
half of that time maybe less and Q6600 cores reached 60C 60C 63C 61C

cpu-D1 is 37.0C
4b
4b-99-load-0xC1E-3200-8x400-1V30-4x(99)-P95-mem800--fan1-cpu22-fan4-case80-cal1-c65
http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/8...32008x4001.jpg




When the "Cpu load" was 30% I noticed that the Prime95 dropped
from 100% to 0% in the core graphs and I stopped the 3 x Prime2004
as fast as possible.
cpu-D1 is 37.5C (TRUE-temp is rising even though the cpu is idle)
4c
4c-00-idle30-0xC1E-3200-8x400-1V30-4x(000)-P95-mem800-fan1-cpu22-fan4-case80-cal1-c65
http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/6...1e32008x40.jpg





cpu-D1 is 36.5C (TRUE-temp finally going down as the cpu is idle)
4d
4d-00-idle-0xC1E-3200-8x400-1V30-4x(000)-P95-mem800-fan1-cpu22-fan4-case80-cal1-c65
http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/856...32008x4001.jpg








I might try to enter the data logs from RealTemp and T-Balancer into Excel
and make some pretty graphs that might some more datapoints show and how the
TRUE-cpu-D1 digital sensors is trailing some 30 to 60 seconds behind
RealTemp (I placed it where it didn´t ruin the looks of the TRUE too much)
which depending on how you set it up can work reasonable as the TRUE
has some overcapacity it won't hurt the cpu too much.

It does however create some difficulties to master all areas that needs
cooling when overclocking and have the CrazyCool thing enough cooled
at all times even when the fans are fine tuned to run the computer as
silently as possible (its a matter of taste how much heat you think is ok even
if seams as it's stable some stuff might be hurting real bad and create
problems later on)





It looks like the core #2 it the one that needs some more
fine tuning.

What do you think about this first calibration unclewebb?







.

When not overclocking and when your voltage is set to AUTO, the motherboard is supposed to use the VID information inside your CPU to set the appropriate core voltage. It uses the high VID information to set the voltage at full load and it uses the low VID information that RealTemp displays to set your idle core voltage when EIST is enabled and your processor's multiplier drops down to 6.0. You typically end up with slightly less voltage than the VID number due to vdroop. Most motherboards ignore the VID information within a CPU as soon as you start overclocking or if you set the voltage manually.

You need to open up the Settings window in RealTemp so I can have a look at what calibration settings you are using.

You'll get more consistent results if you use Prime95 instead of Orthos or SP2004.
http://mersenne.org/freesoft/

That let's RealTemp control the exact shut down time of Prime95 on all 4 cores simultaneously so you don't have to do this manually. Then you can go for a coffee and come back 10 minutes later and see the results. You get more consistent and repeatable results when you do things this way.

At the moment it looks like you have a split TJMax similar to my Q6600. It might be TJMax=100,100,105,105 like I use or maybe core 2 and core 3 are 104. :shrug:

I wouldn't use any calibration factors on core 0 and core 1 and then I'd use some calibration factors on core 2 and core 3 so all 4 cores report the same temperature when you are idle at your normal overclocked settings. Let's see your calibration settings so I can have a better look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Coming from the RealTemp guy this is going to sound a little dumb but temperatures really aren't that important. Cool them as much as you can afford to and they will be able to overclock more. If they are not stable, cool 'em some more or back off your overclock. That's really all there is to it. No fancy temperature monitoring program needed.

:

---

My temps on that e8400 CO were read at 20c all the time no matter what the vcore was set to. The temps would go up under full load running Prime 1.256v bios at 4.05ghz, it would show 38 to low 40's c. I guess there is no way to know actual temps? Its a great clocking chip but never pushed it any further due to the sensor issue. Back when the chips came out people were saying to add 15c to what the temp program was reading but I doubt that is accurate. I put the chip back in a few weeks ago in hopes that the newer versions of real temp or core temp would read it correctly but no luck. Guess the sensors are bad.

@unclewebb, look at the 2a image/post and you will find the calibration settings as well, well it was a long post so it's easy to overlook it ans scroll past it. :innocent:

I have downloaded prime95 and used it in the test above but when it runs it only uses 1 core in the RealTemp "Test Sensor" test. Is it really that much difference between prime95 and prime2004 when testing the "small FFT" ?

I cropped the 1280x960 images to 800x960 as it is easier on the weblayout on forums and not much more was seen except that that it showed 1 x prime95 and 3 x prime 2004 at the clock, so the names of the images are abit misleading as "4x(99)-P95" means 3 x Prime2004 at (99-100%) and 1 x Prime95 at (99-100%) taken a "Print Screen" at the "Heat Up Phase" as close to 100% as possible but it then shows 99% so it's pretty close anyway.

Have only tried the C1E before but it was unstable and crashed games like Crysis and I haven't tried the EIST which was in the bios when they updated my bios from F6 to F7 when then motherboard was on RMA. If EIST works better then I will try it later on.

Well if you look in post/image 2a you'll see that the in RealTemp 33C 33C 33C 33C, and core 0 and core 1 showed to low idle temp at 0.0 calibration ( 32C ) and had to be turned up a notch to show 33C, compared to T-Balancer cpu-D1 digital sensor even that I let it run for a while to see if it stabilized it was the closets to 33.5C as possible. It is of course possible that cpu-D1 gets influenced by other heatsources at idle as the CrazyCool surrounds the bottom of the TRUE and memory blows by it. There are many possibilities for temperature errors when the probe is not drilled into the heatsink etc.

Sorry -X-hellfire, too much information. I missed the calibration settings before.

The newer versions of Prime95 let you run as many threads as you like.

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/5622/torture.png

It makes life easier when testing. Just set it to 4 and Small FFTs and you're done. You'll have a full load for testing.

I'm using version 25.9 build 4
http://mersenne.org/freesoft/

Quote:

---

There are many possibilities for temperature errors when the probe is not drilled into the heatsink etc.

---

That's always the problem with this. Every digital sensor has a margin of error, even the IR temperature gun I use. Where exactly is your cpu-D1 sensor located? How much is it offset from the center of the CPU and what sort of calibration check if any did you do to it?

The original calibration formula I came up with when I first started working on RealTemp would have worked better for your CPU. Based on Intel's presentation last year at IDF, I changed my calibration formula and simplified it but the end result was not an improvement in accuracy. I assumed the information they were presenting was accurate but I assumed wrong. I was expecting an engineering type presentation based on real data and facts when all it turned out to be was more of a PR presentation to introduce the upcoming Core i7. Unfortunately, a little guy like me can't argue with a big company like Intel. When they said, "This is how it is", I had to nod my head in agreement like a chump. Listening to the guys in the blue coats and adjusting my calibration fomula based on that was a mistake that I regret.

Based on testing and not fluff presentations, I now understand that TJMax is not a fixed value across the 4 cores in a Quad. I'm going to add another variable to my calibration formula so it better represents the testing that rge and I have done and your testing as well. Your Core 2 is out significantly and needs a better formula than what RealTemp is presently using. Stay tuned.

Can you try running a single CPU Cool Down Test using just Prime95 Small FFTs with 4 threads selected? Adjust your MHz and core voltage and fans so it maxes out at around 65C if possible. Turn off Task Manager and all other monitoring programs to reduce any interference to as little as possible. This will provide me with the data I need to adjust my calibration formula to better track your 4 cores.

Edit: Your APIC ID 0132 means that most software is going to reverse the data coming from core 2 and core 3. Compare RealTemp to another monitoring program and you'll see what I mean. No worries, RealTemp gets this right, even if you re-boot and your APIC ID gets shuffled to something new. RealTemp will always correctly report that core 2 is sagging the most.

Yeah I know unclewebb, too much information often results in tl;dr; ;)

As my methodology of the test was "Print Screen" to capture as much realtime data from various sources, it was a tedious process, and with the prime2004 it probably introduced some other error sources as well

The prime95 I had previously download in the "Sensor test" window in RealTemp was an older prime95 ver 24.4 which didn't have the "Number of threads" field. Now I got the same you got, prime95 ver 25.9 and it worked like a breeze now. Thanks for the link unclewebb.

Will do more testing later on, got to sleep know been awake for 24+ hours, and nothing good comes out while working with computer too long and to tired.

Willl post pics later on with the cpu-D1 location and answer the other questions

Goodnight

Real Temp 3.30 RC6 is available for download

hey this is my firs tpost on this forum, and i have a questoin. i ahve my q6600 at 3.4ghz (425x8) and when i click on sensor test( i try to make sure my comp is at idle) i get 13,12,11,7 my last core is always 5-6 lower than the first. what does that mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wutsup

what does that mean?

---

I don't know. :shrug:

That initial Sensor Movement test was more designed for the 45nm chips that had sensors that didn't move at all. A reading of zero is a bad thing. At least all your sensors are moving. When one sensor moves a lot less than the other 3 it's possible that sensor is getting stuck at idle but that doesn't happen very often with the 65nm CPUs like your Q6600.

The best thing to do with your Quad is run a full CPU Cool Down Test and post your results. That gives me more information to go by. When you run this test make sure that Windows has had a chance to settle down first and go have a coffee for 10 minutes while the test if running. No surfing the net while testing is in progress. :)

here you go webb

wutsup: I've been using a Q6600 - G0 for the last few months and my best guess is that Intel offsets the TJMax for core 2 and core 3. Your CPU seems to show the same thing. We had a discussion here just a little while ago and came to the conclusion that if this is true, Intel likely did this so all 4 cores wouldn't thermal throttle at the same time. If they set core 2 and core 3 slightly higher, core 0 and core 1 would thermal throttle first and if that didn't fix the problem then core 2 and core 3 would thermal throttle about 5C later.

I set TJMax = 100C, 100C, 105C, 105C on my Q6600 and I would suggest you try the same thing. You'll be surprised when you see how much better your 4 cores track each other now from idle to full load. Start and stop a program like Prime95 a handful of times using the Small FFTs option and watch how the temps track each other. I prefer this program when testing because of its ability to put an equal load on each core. LinX creates more heat but is not as consistent.

so should i just set the tjmax for the last 2 cores to 105 instead of the default of 100 and call it a day?

p.s. my temps are high because its hot in my room (80degrees +)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wutsup

so should i just set the tjmax for the last 2 cores to 105 instead of the default of 100 and call it a day?

---

Yes.

I think with that simple fix, your temps will be closer to reality. A Quad consists of two Dual Cores inside of it. The sensors on Dual Core #1 are well matched and the sensors on Dual Core #2 are also well matched to each other. Using the offset TJMax that I suggested will get all 4 in alignment and I think the end result will be reported temperatures that are closer to the truth.

These sensors are far from perfect and with the limited amount of accurate information released by Intel, this is my best guess after pointing the IR thermometer at my Q6600 more than once or twice as well as having a very close look at 101 screen shots including your own. Give it a try. Your idle and load temps look very normal considering your air temperature and overclock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Yes.

I think with that simple fix, your temps will be closer to reality. A Quad consists of two Dual Cores inside of it. The sensors on Dual Core #1 are well matched and the sensors on Dual Core #2 are also well matched to each other. Using the offset TJMax that I suggested will get all 4 in alignment and I think the end result will be reported temperatures that are closer to the truth.

These sensors are far from perfect and with the limited amount of accurate information released by Intel, this is my best guess after pointing the IR thermometer at my Q6600 more than once or twice as well as having a very close look at 101 screen shots including your own. Give it a try. Your idle and load temps look very normal considering your air temperature and overclock.

---

ok thanks webb i set the tj maxxes to 100,100,105,105 and my temps are alot more even now

unclewebb,

How about implementing readout for ALL CPus, not just CPU #0?
I have been asking about this since Dual LGA771, and am now facing the same issue on my Dual LGA1366, making me use coretemp again.
Would be really neat to have both CPUs displayed.

On another note, Coretemp doesn't recognize Gainstowns yet. It thinks I got a Core i7 940 ;)

According to Dave, Tjunction on those is 95C.

http://database.he-computer.de/Bilde.../X5570temp.jpg

jcool: The biggest problem I have with developing RealTemp further is a complete lack of feedback. Here's an example. I developed a RivaTuner plugin for RealTemp early this year with support for the Core i7 and I have yet to come across a single screen shot here or on any forum that shows me whether this even works. A quarter of a million downloads in the last 5 months from TechPowerUp alone and not one user has contacted me about it. :shrug:

Here it is if anyone wants to check it out:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip

Intel doesn't send me any hardware and I got sick of buying stuff that I didn't need so it's up to users to come forward and help me out. My rant for the day.

RealTemp reads TJMax info from the CPU based on the Intel documentation. In the screen shot above, RealTemp is using 97C for TJMax so I'm assuming it read that value from the processor.

I've been working on Gainstown support lately but with lack of feedback, I haven't got too far. I wrote a testing program to help me better understand how the cores and threads are organized. If you have 8 cores, could you run the APICID program with and without hyper threading enabled and post a screen shot of each? Thanks.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/APICID.zip

Unclewebb thanks for the program.

Can i ask what to set for Tj Max for my Q6600 G0? (vid is 1.2125)

sosna: RealTemp uses 100C for your processor based on testing of my own Q6600 - G0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

jcool: The biggest problem I have with developing RealTemp further is a complete lack of feedback. Here's an example. I developed a RivaTuner plugin for RealTemp early this year with support for the Core i7 and I have yet to come across a single screen shot here or on any forum that shows me whether this even works. A quarter of a million downloads in the last 5 months from TechPowerUp alone and not one user has contacted me about it. :shrug:

Here it is if anyone wants to check it out:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip

Intel doesn't send me any hardware and I got sick of buying stuff that I didn't need so it's up to users to come forward and help me out. My rant for the day.

RealTemp reads TJMax info from the CPU based on the Intel documentation. In the screen shot above, RealTemp is using 97C for TJMax so I'm assuming it read that value from the processor.

I've been working on Gainstown support lately but with lack of feedback, I haven't got too far. I wrote a testing program to help me better understand how the cores and threads are organized. If you have 8 cores, could you run the APICID program with and without hyper threading enabled and post a screen shot of each? Thanks.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/APICID.zip

---

Here is APICID with my Core i7 D0 - HT on:
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/7876/apiciduw.jpg

I will upload a pic of it with HT off later.

What does Process: FF system: FF/8/16/2 digits mean ?

BTW, what does the Rivatuner plugin do ?
unclewebb, I can help you test it if you want :up:

On a side note,
I think that if you raise the attention and urge some users, they will be glad to help you.
After all your software(s) are mainly intended to serve them.
Its a two way street and it won't work if you are not getting any feedback, I agree with you.

The RivaTuner plugin can be used to graph data as well as display data on screen while gaming as well as 101 other things.

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/8223/riva.th.png

Recent additions to the plugin included laptop battery / AC power monitoring and battery level monitoring so you can use this data to create your own custom power profiles for your laptop as well as custom 3D overclock settings. It can also monitor UPS power supplies. I use RivaTuner to control the fan speed on my GPU. I hate noise pollution.

In Windows programming there are two variables, ProcessAffinityMask and SystemAffinityMask. F in hexadecimal translates to 1111 in binary. FF would translate to 11111111. That just shows me that my program or process can access all 8 of the available threads on your system. Each thread is represented by a 1. I think Gainestown will report FFFF in this box to show access to 16 threads. The operating system can be set up to block access to individual cores and threads.

The 8 and 16 after that represent cores and threads. When you query a Core i7 CPU, it returns those values. That is twice as many as it actually has but I thought it might be set to that for Gainestown support reasons. The important number is the ratio of these numbers which in this case is 2. That means you have 2 threads per core which means hyper threading is enabled.

RealTemp might have some initial Gainestown support about 5 minutes after I see a couple of screen shots of my testing program. I get more joy out of spending an hour or two writing a simple testing program compared to spending hours of reading Intel documentation looking for information that usually doesn't exist or is "Reserved." Intel is the king of top secret information. I'd rather beg the guys at XS for help than sign an NDA and beg Intel for help. More accurate results.

I know the Rivatuner monitoring thing, just didn't thought about the fact your plugin was for rivatuner lol, silly me :)

anyway, I loaded it up by putting it in the Rivatuner monitoring dir and adding the RT_Core.dll at the setup window.
I think I found a little buggy, on my core i7, the CPU Usage is always reported as 0%
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/2056/rtcoreplug1.th.jpg http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/356...replug2.th.jpg
Aside from that, everything seems to work fine, I will make some more serious validation of the values of temp, core usages, etc...
I obviously can't test Battery level, does "AC Power" suppose to be 0% on PC ? probably only relevant for a laptop right ?

hey uncle webb i tried the starting and sotpping of prime 95 smallftts and you said the 1st 2 cores were suppose to throtlle down first right? for me all the cores seem the throttle down at the same tme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

jcool: The biggest problem I have with developing RealTemp further is a complete lack of feedback. Here's an example. I developed a RivaTuner plugin for RealTemp early this year with support for the Core i7 and I have yet to come across a single screen shot here or on any forum that shows me whether this even works. A quarter of a million downloads in the last 5 months from TechPowerUp alone and not one user has contacted me about it. :shrug:

Here it is if anyone wants to check it out:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip

Intel doesn't send me any hardware and I got sick of buying stuff that I didn't need so it's up to users to come forward and help me out. My rant for the day.

RealTemp reads TJMax info from the CPU based on the Intel documentation. In the screen shot above, RealTemp is using 97C for TJMax so I'm assuming it read that value from the processor.

I've been working on Gainstown support lately but with lack of feedback, I haven't got too far. I wrote a testing program to help me better understand how the cores and threads are organized. If you have 8 cores, could you run the APICID program with and without hyper threading enabled and post a screen shot of each? Thanks.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/APICID.zip

---

Hey buddy,

sorry to hear you are getting next to no feedback, judging by this thread I'd think you would get tons of it :D

Anyway, your RTcore plugin works:

http://database.he-computer.de/Bilder/temp/RTcore.jpg

However I must say I won't use it.. if I open up Rivatuner I wanna know all about my GPUs, and it takes a lot of scrolling already to get all the info on 2 GPUs. Using Realtemp or Coretemp for the CPU is just way more practical than having it all in Rivatuner.

Running this APICID on my Gainstown now, hold on...

Here is APICID on my Dual X5570 (2 CPU, 8 Core, 16 Thread) with HT off:

http://database.he-computer.de/Bilde.../APICIDoff.jpg

And on:

http://database.he-computer.de/Bilder/temp/APICIDon.jpg

Hope this helps :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcool

sorry to hear you are getting next to no feedback, judging by this thread I'd think you would get tons of it :D

---

A 143 page novel I've got going here and here I am b-i-t-c-h-ing about not enough feedback. :rofl:

Thanks jcool and thanks Movieman for coming to my rescue. Your data shows me exactly where I was going wrong before in my understanding of cores and threads for the new 16 threaded beasts. My old scraps of Pentium 4 documentation has been misleading me.

Quote:

---

wutsup: hey uncle webb i tried the starting and sotpping of prime 95 smallftts and you said the 1st 2 cores were suppose to throtlle down first right? for me all the cores seem the throttle down at the same tme

---

The word LOG or HOT in the Thermal Status area of RealTemp will show you exactly when thermal throttling has started. I have never seen a Q6600 show thermal throttling on all 4 cores at the exact same time so can you post a screen shot of that. If you are using my calibration recommendation then the temperatures might all be reporting the same thing now but core 2 and core 3 won't start throttling until they are 5C hotter than core 0 and core 1.

I'm pretty sure that Intel uses a similar 5C offset between core 0 and core 3 on their Core i7 CPUs for the same reason but that's another story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

A 143 page novel I've got going here and here I am b-i-t-c-h-ing about not enough feedback. :rofl:

Thanks jcool and thanks Movieman for coming to my rescue. Your data shows me exactly where I was going wrong before in my understanding of cores and threads for the new 16 threaded beasts. My old scraps of Pentium 4 documentation has been misleading me.



The word LOG or HOT in the Thermal Status area of RealTemp will show you exactly when thermal throttling has started. I have never seen a Q6600 show thermal throttling on all 4 cores at the exact same time so can you post a screen shot of that. If you are using my calibration recommendation then the temperatures might all be reporting the same thing now but core 2 and core 3 won't start throttling until they are 5C hotter than core 0 and core 1.

I'm pretty sure that Intel uses a similar 5C offset between core 0 and core 3 on their Core i7 CPUs for the same reason but that's another story.

---

oh you mean intentionallymake the cpu overheat to the thermal limit? i just started prime 95 and then stopped it after like a minute. well ill take your word and just keep the last 2 cores at tjmax of 105

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

This is a special version to see if I understand this Gainestown stuff yet.

To get this to work, you'll need to create two separate directories with RealTemp and its various files in each directory. In the RealTemp.ini file in the first folder use this option:

Skull=1

and in the second folder use:

Skull=2

Start up RealTemp in each directory and see what it says. The theory is that it should be reading each CPU now and RealTemp should show what CPU it is reading.

If it works, post a screen shot and give me some motivation to create an 8 core version of RealTemp so you don't have to run two instances of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

jcool: The biggest problem I have with developing RealTemp further is a complete lack of feedback. Here's an example. I developed a RivaTuner plugin for RealTemp early this year with support for the Core i7 and I have yet to come across a single screen shot here or on any forum that shows me whether this even works. A quarter of a million downloads in the last 5 months from TechPowerUp alone and not one user has contacted me about it. :shrug:

Here it is if anyone wants to check it out:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip

Intel doesn't send me any hardware and I got sick of buying stuff that I didn't need so it's up to users to come forward and help me out. My rant for the day.

RealTemp reads TJMax info from the CPU based on the Intel documentation. In the screen shot above, RealTemp is using 97C for TJMax so I'm assuming it read that value from the processor.

I've been working on Gainstown support lately but with lack of feedback, I haven't got too far. I wrote a testing program to help me better understand how the cores and threads are organized. If you have 8 cores, could you run the APICID program with and without hyper threading enabled and post a screen shot of each? Thanks.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/APICID.zip

---

Maybe incorporate a feedback menu into your applications so folks can give you direct feedback or a link to a forum or forums where you have your apps being discussed ?.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

This is a special version to see if I understand this Gainestown stuff yet.

To get this to work, you'll need to create two separate directories with RealTemp and its various files in each directory. In the RealTemp.ini file in the first folder use this option:

Skull=1

and in the second folder use:

Skull=2

Start up RealTemp in each directory and see what it says. The theory is that it should be reading each CPU now and RealTemp should show what CPU it is reading.

If it works, post a screen shot and give me some motivation to create an 8 core version of RealTemp so you don't have to run two instances of it.

---

Hey unclewebb,

it seems to work, tho it doesn't display which CPU is which. Values are different so I think it reads both CPUs correctly.

Dual X5570 (left) and Dual X5450 (right):

http://database.he-computer.de/Bilder/temp/RTskull.jpghttp://database.he-computer.de/Bilde...kull_X5450.jpg

Would be great to see this working with both CPUs :cool:

If you look at the heading for the temperatures it shows either Temperature 1 for CPU 1 or Temperature 2 for CPU 2.

Maybe I need to change this to Temperature CPU#1 to get one's attention. I tried that but I went with the simpler approach.

Here's how each style looks. Any preference?

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1559/headings.png

Can you show me a CPU-Z screen shot of your X5570 CPUs. It doesn't look good when I call it an i7-940.
Edit: Ignore that request. I see that on the previous page. The CPU has a model number of 0000 which explains why RealTemp is confused and took a wild guess at i7-940. I'll fix that up.
It definitely seems to be reading TJMax=97C from the CPU.

RealTemp is going to need an overhaul to show all 8 cores at once. Thanks to your testing, we're one step closer to making this happen.

Ah lol.. "Temperature 1" and "Temperature 2" just wasn't enough of a difference for me :rofl:

I definitely prefer the left one (saying "CPU#1") tho I'd call it CPU 0 and CPU 1, but that is up to you of course :)

About the model number, "normal" X5570 probably has a proper one but this is a really really early ES so it doesn't have one. No idea why CPU-Z is even able to identify it correctly...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcool

I definitely prefer the left one (saying "CPU#1") tho I'd call it CPU 0 and CPU 1, but that is up to you of course.

---

I guess it was a bit too subtle. I'll go with CPU 0 and CPU 1.

Intel makes programmers life's difficult when it comes to identifying the model number of a CPU. The Specification box in CPU-Z shows the exact information that is stored in the chip that any software can read.

When the model number is 000 or 0000, then each programmer must write extra code or create look up tables to try and convert this to the correct model number. You have to look for clues by examining the CPUID number and the reported GHz number and take a good guess. Very silly for Intel not to include the model number in EVERY CPU they make. With their method, every time a new CPU comes out and uses this scheme, it breaks old software that has no idea what model number it is until after it has been updated.

Edit: Just a quick update to better support jcool's CPU.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

Only problem with "CPU 0" is people will ask how they can have 0 CPUs. :rofl: We'll have to bash them with the beginner's guide to programming.

Rule #0: Everything starts at 0.

Here's my latest work in progress for the 8 core guys.

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/4909/multimonster.png

The E8400 wasn't doing a very good job filling up all that empty space so I had to fake 6 cores to fill it in a little.

Real Temp has officially gone widescreen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randomizer

Only problem with "CPU 0" is people will ask how they can have 0 CPUs. :rofl: We'll have to bash them with the beginner's guide to programming.

Rule #0: Everything starts at 0.

---

I think it's safe to assume that anybody complaining about that won't have a DP machine anyways :p:

Nice work unclewebb, feedback already sent in response via PM ;)

Users with 800x600 screen resolutions need not apply. :D

If you have 8 cores that need monitoring then let me know some ideas of how you would like to see the info in a special version of RealTemp. My present thoughts include making the Temperature and Distance to TJMax data switchable so you see one or the other and same thing for Minimum / Maximum data. This would save some screen real estate and keep it from looking like my old HP calculator.

Thought I might chip in something else here. Nothing new, but this thread must get a shot of caffeine every now and then. I'm so dedicated I haven't even got video drivers installed yet :rofl:

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w..._cooldown1.png

I've finished making sure that CPU is working unclewebb. The motherboard's VRM simply can't handle the quad overclocked and overvolted so even 3GHz caused reboots. Strangely it passed several hours of Far Cry 2 but rebooted while surfing the net the next day. I'm glad to be rid of that board now :D I'll ship out the E6600 on Monday unless the post office is open on Saturdays, which I don't think it is.

unclewebb, I have the Gigabyte UD3P board. I booted at 506x8.5 but changed the FSB in windows using ET6 to 512x8.5, Real Temp is still reading the speed at 4.3ghz. CPUZ reads 4.35ghz and also shows the voltage increase. Is it still reading what was originally set in bios or am I still running 4.3ghz :shrug:? I was trying to do some tweaking without constantly rebooting. Thanks
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/1903/512o.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OC Nub

unclewebb, I have the Gigabyte UD3P board. I booted at 506x8.5 but changed the FSB in windows using ET6 to 512x8.5, core temp is still reading the speed at 4.3ghz. CPUZ reads 4.35ghz and also shows the voltage increase. Is it still reading what was originally set in bios or am I still running 4.3ghz :shrug:? I was trying to do some tweaking without constantly rebooting. Thanks
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/1903/512o.png

---

You may want to try one of his later builds, just in case. ;)

There was a change in Windows 7 that screwed up RealTemp's ability to update the FSB reading when overclocking from within Windows. Check out the latest beta version of RealTemp and let me know if this bug has been fixed for you. It worked last time I tried on my E8400 and rge said it's working OK on his Core i7-950.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

Yes, works great now. Thank you! :up:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

To keep the XS guys happy, I put an option in the Settings window so you can look at real time VID info on the main screen instead of the timer. It might drop down to a lower value at idle depending on your motherboard and bios settings like EIST and C1E. On a mobile CPU, you might also see some intermediate values somewhere between VID Min and VID Max during an EIST transition.

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/6397/realtempvid.png

That's a great feature, Thanks :up:

nice one thanx

I set VidInfo=1 in .ini file but I have always the time displayed.
Using Asus R2E with BIOS 1406.

Just a cosmetic note: if you enable in the .ini file the customization of degrees symbol, it is changed correctly everywhere except in the "Temperature (°C)" string, under the load info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brama

I set VidInfo=1 in .ini file but I have always the time displayed.

---

I'm pretty happy this way

http://i26.tinypic.com/160eteu.png

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

Just a quick update to fix a few minor issues.

There's an INI option,

DegreeSymbolString=""

that lets you change what the degree symbol looks like. Brama says it didn't get used in the Temperature Heading and he was right. I originally didn't know how to change those but now I do so the degree symbol should be consistent throughout the program.

While fixing that I discovered that it really wouldn't be that hard at all to add a Fahrenheit option. Personally, I hate Fahrenheit but a few users have requested it during the last year so I finally caved in. Just use this INI option.

Fahrenheit=1

There is not enough room in the System Tray to display 3 digits when using Fahrenheit so 125 degrees will be displayed as 25. I won't be fixing this.
First person to post a 200 degree screen shot will win a prize.

All Fahrenheit does for me is make my CPU look like it's hot as hell. :explode2:

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/3446/fahrenheit.png

The RealTemp Load meter has always been based on the percentage of time that the CPU spends in the C0 state. This method is designed for the Core i7 and seemed to work OK for Core 2. On mobile processors though, this can cause an issue at idle. As a mobile CPU idles down, depending on EIST/C1E and a few other settings, the percentage of time that it spends in the C0 state can start going up. As the MHz goes down and as the second core gets turned off to save power, the remaining core must work harder and harder to get the background tasks done at idle. If you've ever seen the RealTemp load meter go up while your CPU idles down, that's probably why.

If the RealTemp C0 state based load meter is not for you then you can go into the Settings window and select TMLoad and RealTemp will use the traditional Windows based function similar to what the Task Manager uses. It might provide you with more usable information on a mobile CPU though the other meter is useful too as long as you understand what it's telling you at idle. Take you pick.

Brama: VID information does not apply to Core i7. Intel says that VID can't be read from their Core i7 CPUs so no software reports this.

Thanks, Uncle! Working great on I7 64bit build 7600 RTM :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WaterFlex

Thanks, Uncle! Working great on I7 64bit build 7600 RTM :up:

---

Just a note. :)
Microsoft declared that build 7600 of Win7 that we can found in these days, is not RTM.

True lies? :D