unclewebb, I'm not sure what's happening but with RC12 I am not getting it to show all of my core temperatures correctly. It just shows the 4th core. :shrug:
RC11 works though.
Printable View
unclewebb, I'm not sure what's happening but with RC12 I am not getting it to show all of my core temperatures correctly. It just shows the 4th core. :shrug:
RC11 works though.
RealTemp is like an apple cart. Whenever I throw on a couple of more apples / features, the whole damn thing falls apart. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by SimpleTECH
Can you post a screen shot and a few details like what OS you're using. These bugs are mostly bugs in the 10+ year old C++ compiler I'm using. I'll try to find a work around for this issue and send you a version or two you can test if you want to help with project RealTemp.
Hmm. Just tried it again, but under Windows 7, and it seems to be working. :hm:
I'll try it with Windows XP.
Yeah it seems like XP doesn't like it.
RC11 (left) / RC12 (right)
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6484/46873056.png
Thanks for posting that. The APIC ID number shows that it is only finding your last thread. In RC11 it shows that it is finding all 8 of your threads, 02461357. That will help me try and find the issue. It's always fun programming in Windows when code that works 100% in one OS falls on its face in another OS. The Windows API function to count cores is buggy. If I was a smarter guy I'd write my own code for this and save myself a lot of headaches. This isn't the first time this issue has surfaced. In a day or two I'll send you a version that tries to work around this issue.
Okay, thanks unclewebb.
Honestly I couldn't do worth a damn of coding (when I had taken a few CS classes couple of years ago). So don't feel bad. ;)
Latest beta only detects 1 core on my 920
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/6158/rtbug.png
Me same. :(
It works fine in Vista but only shows the last core on my wife's XP laptop and within a minute usually crashes.
Time for a RealTemp overhaul. This might take a day or three.
Edit: RC12 has been shot and buried.
RC11 is back at the main fileden download area.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Now I can spend more time testing RC12 to see where I screwed up. I mean, find out why XP is so screwed up. :)
Hey uncle,Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Yes, RC11 worked for me. Can I throw a quick suggestion?
Could you please add the option of displaying "Highest core temp" under "system tray settings"?
That way instead of always displaying the temp of a given core, it can display the highest current temperature in the system tray, regardless of the core. It might even add the core to the temp in the tray. ex: 72|Core2 (means that right now, the highest temp is 72C and is veing reported by Core #2)
jobol: I've thought about this feature and I'll probably add it someday. If you only want to monitor a single core then monitor core 0.
It is usually the most accurate and almost always the highest. On a Core 2 Dual or Quad Core, it should be exactly the same as core 1 as both cores are attached. Even if you have Prime running on one of these cores and nothing running on the other, both cores are still going to be at almost the same temperature because they are physically joined together. On a Core 2 Quad, core 0/1 pretty much always report higher than core 2/3.
On a Core i7 CPU, screen shot after screen shot that I've seen has core 0 as the hottest core. All 4 of them are joined together so it's hard for one to get too much hotter than any of the other ones.
good to know its not just mine.i tried the last three and all did the same with my E8400 and XP.but now i dont need to report it,because you guys already are on it:DQuote:
Originally Posted by stasio
just a suggestion unclewebb, no criticism here:
is it possible to use GPU-z for getting gpu data instead of RT?
for further releases i mean.
the fact that Riva Tuner has to be installed and is also a resource hog triggered this thought..
if you like, you could count in the fact that i run ati tray tools as well :p
on the other hand GPU-z is lightweight and does not include Tray info (a shame rly, cause that's another very neat app).
my 2 cents...
now testing 3.30 RC11 (works fine on my ol' Q6600!)
love the C1E feature.. awesome!
btw... thanks a lot, rly!
Vista/Win 7 have different thread handling to XP so that's possibly a cause. What programming language did you use for Real Temp, out of interest?
I've tried a few different versions of Visual C++ including 2008 and RealTemp didn't benefit by going to newer versions. All it did was make RealTemp twice as big or it would have forced users to install big bloated libraries so I went back to Visual C++ 6.0 from the 1990s era.
I'm almost surprised that RealTemp works at all on Windows 7 x64. I'm sure that using such an old development tool leads to the odd bug like the one in RC12 but I know if I screw around with the code for a day or two and clean chunks of it up that I should be able to get this issue solved and get things back on track.
The biggest thing holding me back at the moment is this:
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/6855/busyh.png
I see a slow down in development approaching. :D
vodka3dg: If you are using RivaTuner then why not use the RealTemp plugin for that program? It's called RTCore.dll and puts the RealTemp data in RivaTuner so you don't even need to run RealTemp. You won't hurt my feelings because I wrote RTCore.dll. It will be one less program sucking up resources and you can use RivaTuner to display your CPU core temperature tray icons with this plugin.
I haven't thoroughly tested RivaTuner but I've never found it to be a resource hog. I run RivaTuner on my computer 24/7, mostly to control my GPU fan.
I like light weight apps as much as anybody. Here's a comparison of 3 programs using Process Explorer. All 3 were started at the exact same time by dragging all 3 programs into the same directory, high lighting the 3 of them and then selecting the Open menu item so they could all start simultaneously for a fair comparison. After 5 minutes, here's how it looks:
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/530/lightweight.png
RealTemp has a lot of features but I try to keep it from sucking up too many CPU cycles.
If you want to be able to play with your C-States on a Q6600 then try this:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...07/CStates.zip
Not all C-States are supported by a Q6600.
The W1zzard that wrote GPU-Z was nice enough to give me the code that displays RealTemp's system tray temperatures so it would be easy for him to add that code to GPU-Z. Just ask him.
He might be busy though working on a new project:
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/7051/gputool.png
It would be simple to add my RTCore.dll plugin to this program and then it could report Intel Core temps as well on the Sensors tab.
Throw in some tray icons and we could all run a few less programs on our computer.
Saturday doesn't look too good but the rest of the week is perfect weather! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
i think you got me wrong.. somewhere :-)
the problem is that i don't use RT.
ok, that didn't actually sound like a problem but, put it this way:
i used to be very attached to riva tuner but nowadays i had to switch to Ati Tray Tools, because of the voltage tweaking feature it comes with.
this helps my vmodded card get a rest while on idle...
that aside, the idea of using both RT and ATT together is an option, but one that i'd really wish to avoid...
so that's the main reason why i thought up this approach (Realtemp <- gpu temp data <- GPU-z).
now don't get me wrong:
i think that the RivaTuner integration you added to RealTemp is very useful, and it will come in handy if i turn back to the green side of the force :D
Fair enough, that settles it then :)Quote:
The W1zzard that wrote GPU-Z was nice enough to give me the code that displays RealTemp's system tray temperatures so it would be easy for him to add that code to GPU-Z. Just ask him.
Thnks for c-state app, i'll be bussy googleing some info on it :D
I'm an happy user for quite a while now, but the only thing that annoys me at times is the memory exception I get when I reboot my system while Real Temp is running.
Is there a known application that could cause these exceptions? I know that on a fresh install (Vista x64 Ultimate SP2) and Real Temp I don't get them.
Everything else works as intended, and for that props <3
lunat!c#: I haven't heard of any issues or had any issues with memory exception errors caused by RealTemp. If a fresh install of Vista fixes everything up then it has to be something else. Is your memory and computer 100% stable? Does it pass Prime 95 blend? If your hardware is OK then about all you can do is add one program at a time to Vista to try and isolate the problem. Usually if there is a problem, something will show up in the log files with the name of the program and time, etc. that caused the problem.
i know it says real temp for INTEL. but does it work for amd or is there a version for amd???? sorry to go off topic... didnt see any other place to ask?
RealTemp only supports Intel Core CPUs. For AMD CPUs, give Core Temp a try.
It is completely stable, but it's not really a major issue, in my case. Was just curious if I was the only one.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
A fresh install of Vista is scheduled in about 3 weeks, so I'll report back then.
Nick (stangowner) over on Guru 3D wrote a nice gadget for RivaTuner. When combined with the RTCore.dll RealTemp plugin for RivaTuner, you can use it to get some RealTemp data in your gadget. Here's how 1 thread of Prime95 looks.
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/5177/newgadget.png
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread....08#post3091408
It has a lot of options to customize it so give it a try if you're a RivaTuner user.
Good info man...:)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
unclewebb, I adjusted as you suggested and tried some prime small fft's, seem to be pretty even now. Thanks
Is there a way to fix this in "Distance to TJ Max" so it reads even?
http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/931/tjmax.png
Nope, because those are straight on-die sensors readings.Quote:
Originally Posted by OC Nub
With calibrating temps you're fooling yourself because the only thing that matter for your CPU thermal behavior is distance to TJMax.
Realtemp is only running at 60% load average when running IBT at maximum with 16 threads on i7920.
Why?
If you leave threads on auto, it will only load 4 threads and give 50% loads. On mine setting threads to 8 gives 100% load, as does 16...though i920 only has 8 threads, so should just set on 8. Are you using most recent versions of both realtemp 3.30 and IBT v2.3. Also not sure what you mean by avg....ibt is an intermittent loading program, so will load at 100% for time, then drop off load, then repeat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barso
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/9761/ibty.jpg
Yes but these sensors are bugged, not accurate. Therefor the Distance to TJmax is not accurate. This is the reading before adjusting the temps. If your core temperature's are off so is your distance to TJ Max. The 2 add up to 100 no matter what, if one is off they are both off.Quote:
Originally Posted by burebista
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/8126/realtemp.png
Barso: I know older versions of RealTemp had some issues reporting the correct load when running some high stress testing programs like LinX and IBT because those guys tended to run at a higher priority which prevented RealTemp from doing its sampling. I'm not a fan of programmers that do this but I was forced to increase the priority of RealTemp to compete with these programs for some CPU cycles for RealTemp. If you are having problems with RealTemp 3.30 then post some screen shots.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
OC Nub: I think what burebista is trying to say is that the Distance to TJMax numbers that RealTemp reports are the raw data coming from these sensors. I've decided to report that as is. Ultimately, whether this data is bugged or not and whatever TJMax really is, this data is what controls thermal throttling. For that reason, users need to see the data coming from these sensors as is. When Distance to TJMax counts down to about 2 or 3 on a Core 2 based CPU, that's typically when thermal throttling begins. Throttling is not based on the actual temperature but only on whenever these sensors count down to almost zero. With Core i7 CPUs, they seem a little tighter and throttling won't begin until they hit exactly zero.
The TJMax spec is not consistent for each core, which Intel sort of agreed with at their IDF conferences last year, so the exact temperature of when thermal throttling starts is not exact either. If TJMax is 100C for two of your cores and 105C for the other two then thermal throttling will first start to happen on your core 2 and core 3 at a hair before 100C and throttling of the other two cores won't start to happen until the actual temperature is closer to 105C.
All RealTemp does is it allows the user to convert the data from these sensors into some somewhat meaningful core temperature numbers.
Thanks, that makes sense. I normally wont stress it at anything over 75c and then only for short times. If in Prime the temps reach 75c at the end of an 8k loop, then drop back down I will let it run but if it becomes consistently 75c its time to stop, at least for me. Who knows maybe the sensors are correct, still a good chip. I will take uneven temps all day long with a good oc on low cvore.
RealTemp takes a good stab in the dark at converting random sensor data into some meaningful temperature numbers but the exact temperature isn't that important. It's all pretty simple really. Run your CPU as cool as possible and the more you'll be able to reliably overclock it.
I learned the above fact during a Prime Small FFTs run on my E8400 C0 at 4050 MHz. It was running great for over 9 hours so I disconnected the CPU fan to see what would happen.
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/960...osfailtemp.png
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9...edfangraph.png
Core Temp was using TJMax=105C instead of 100C back then so you need to subtract 5C from that temperature.
I set SpeedFan to TJMax=95C which was also wrong so you need to add 5C to the numbers in that graph for the correct temperature.
It only took about 5 minutes for a nice stable Prime run to error out. At 58C, it was 100% stable. When the core temperature got up to 77C, it crapped out.
Core i7 can run reliably when overclocked to 4+GHz at over 90C. I found with Core 2 based chips that about 70C was the upper limit with a decent overclock. The harder you push, the cooler you'll have to run them to remain stable but I think most people here already know that.
The old "disconnect the CPU fan while running Prime Small FFTs" trick is a good way to find out how much temperature head room you really have and how stable your system really is. :rofl:
Hmmm, now if I shut off the water pump it might be an interesting race as to which would melt down first, the 4870s or the overclocked i7 :). Of course I do have RealTemp set for a shutdown at 90c.
I will let you guys be the guinea pigs and take your word for it. Afraid to unplug my pump while running.
Pull off your waterblock, then you'll see thermal protection in all its glory. :D
I find it amazing that some people post on forums "I read an OC guide and went into the BIOS and disabled C1E, EIST and thermal control like it said. Please help me OC...". Do people actually recommend disabling the only thing between you and a burnt chip in overclocking guides?
Has this bench changed in recent versions? It was my understanding that the bench scaled pretty much linearly with mhz but I had a hard time passing rge's score.
http://lakesidepc.com/rtb.jpg
Yup! :yepp: At least I think so. Someone once told me that overclocking is living on the edge (of bankruptcy) :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
Hi loonym. Very nice XS Bench score. :up:
I almost never see any results from this bench so I haven't kept close track of what programming changes have effected it.
The calculation it does is small and fits in the cache so it is 100% CPU MHz, and cache speed sensitive. Compared to Core 2 chips, Core i7 can definitely crunch numbers faster at the same MHz.
The most recent changes were the ability to Cancel out while the bench is running. I know this slowed things down so it's likely that you had to work harder and overclock higher to match rge's old score.
You are now officially the new and improved RealTemp 3.30 - XS Bench world record holder. How does it feel to be famous? Unfortunately, in the land of free software, fame doesn't translate into much $$$$$.
It will probably be a week or two or three but I'll add your name and new record to the next release of RealTemp. The code is in the middle of a general house cleaning and I've been too lazy to work on it too hard during the summer. I won't be making any changes to the XS Bench code so your score will remain valid.
I'll send you a PM when the next version is ready so the world can see your new record, unless rge finds some colder air and gets his new i7-950 a little faster. Now he'll be motivated when he finds out. :rofl:
I was just wondering, do you know if your core sensors are stuck at -8C? In theory, Distance to TJMax can only count up to 127 so the lowest possible reported temperature would be -27C. 45nm core 2 sensors didn't have a chance in hell of getting near that temperature without sticking so I was just wondering how low a Core i7 sensor can go before crapping out.
Hi, i am using Real Temp for quite a long time, i always preffered it over core temp and other monitoring software. I have one small suggestion - is it possible to add an option "Run RealTemp on startup"? When i am doing stability tests or just testing some settings, i always boot up and first thing i do is open a monitoring software, so i thought it could come handy. Cheers.
Task Manager or registry edit. Pretty easy to do it yourself.
AFAIK Kevin is not a fan of software writing to registry.
Drag a link to RealTemp.exe into your Startup folder. In XP, click on the Start menu and it should be easy to find your Startup folder.
Remember, just a link to the exe that you want to start. Don't drag the whole program folder into there. :)
In Vista or Windows 7, this folder is a little more hidden but it's still there. Have a look in this folder:
C:\Users\user name\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Startup
I've found that this is the best way to start a program with the fewest issues and if you ever get sick of RealTemp, it's easy to go back into this folder and delete the link to it. I prefer not to add any items to the startup area in a users registry so they can drag the RealTemp folder to wherever they like on their hard drive.
The Task Scheduler in Vista or Windows 7 is also a great idea to control start up items but it's a little too complex for some. Here' a tutorial if you want to learn about it.
http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/13...eate-task.html
These i7s run pretty cool if you undervolt them nicely. 0.16V below VID and the stock cooler manages this in Prime95 with HT and Turbo enabled:
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...ry_cool_i7.png
Granted I'm running in the 70s and even up to 80C at stock.
Have installed Rivatuner 2.24 and RealTemp 3.30 and the Plugin RTcore but it only shows two of my four cores on the Q6600
RTCore.dll
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5...coreplugin.png
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/5...repluginac.png
It is the same thing when I use the Plugin for Everest, only core 0, 1
How do I make it see all four cores?
Does RealTemp 3.30 show all 4 of your cores? Do all 4 cores show up in the Device Manager under Processors?
I haven't seen this problem before with the RTCore.dll plugin and it's strange that the Everest plugin would be doing the same thing.
Open up the Settings window in RealTemp and tell me what it shows for APIC ID. It should be something like 0123.
It shows the four cores in RealTemp and Device Manager and Everest but not with the plugins in Rivatuner 2.24
Device Manager
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/1108/dmcores.png
RTsettings
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/8158/rtsettings.png
Everest ...which shows 17C idle temp on Core 4 but thats normal ;)
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/9012/everestcores.jpg
...all four cores shows up in Everest
RealTemp
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/186/rtcores.png
I'm running forceware 185.85
Might need to reinstall Rivatuner
Hello unclewebb. I am running Windows 7 RC1 and have tried both methods, adding to startup folder and using task scheduler but whatever I try, it refuses to run at startup. If I use the task scheduler, when I look at the list of running processes, Realtemp is listed but the program itself does not actually autostart. Do you have any suggestions for me?Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Where do you have the RealTemp folder located? Do you have UAC enabled? Give me a few more details so I can try to duplicate the problem you're having.
hi Uncle, just a Q: i don't understand what does the 'idle calibration' can you explain it? thanks
The temperature sensors do not respond linearly to changes in core temperature. The Core i7 sensors are very good and changes in actual core temperature seems to track changes in these sensors very closely but the 45nm Core 2 sensors can be horrible.
Intel calibrates these sensors somewhere around 100C and I find that core 0 is usually very accurate at that point. The further you get away from the calibration point, the more the amount of error increases. Even though TJMax is correct, the reported temperature at idle might read 5C or 10C too low or too high. Every CPU is unique so I gave users a way to correct for this error at idle by using some Idle Calibration adjustments.
If users saw errors in their reported temperature at idle, they used to increase or decrease TJMax but all this did was move the sensor error from idle up towards TJMax so now their load temperatures would be reported incorrectly. Idle calibration lets you correct the temperature curve of your sensors without having to change TJMax which will screw up your full load temperatures.
The data from these sensors might change 9C or 11C for every 10C change in core temperature. The +/- 10% accuracy number was a rough ballpark number from Intel's presentations last year at IDF. The amount of error might be worse than that. When you get 60C away from the calibration point at idle, it's easy to see that a +/- 10% error in these sensors can become significant.
Most users don't bother to calibrate their sensors because it's not an exact science. It was just nice that Intel finally admitted that these sensors are far from perfect with errors at the TJMax calibration point, errors in the slope of the temperature curve as well as sticking sensors at low temperatures.
thanks uncle ;)
I have tried with the folder located in the root directory or on another drive, it doesn't seem to matter where it is. UAC is enabled and I have the program set to always run as administrator and listed as an exception in DEP. Please let me know if I can provide anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I'll do some Windows 7 testing later tonight to see if I can duplicate your problem. Have you tried testing with the RealTemp folder located on your Desktop or in some other sub folder of your account? Do you have Administrator privileges? I'll create a basic account to see if I can figure this out.
Some anti-virus programs like Trend Micro PC-cillin will also try to block the installation of the WinRing0 open source driver that RealTemp depends on to read the sensors.
I appreciate your looking into this. I had the exact same problems under Vista. I have an admin account and have tried having the folder in various directories and located on various drives but it just will not autostart for me.
@ uncle: just a tip, with the latest bete isnt' possible to view the min/max VID correct? can you put all the values in the next? right now i can view only the min VID (with the C1E enabled) but i need to know (also) the max VID without put my CPU @ fullload :)
i think this is a glitch like coretemp that sometimes tell us the uncorrect VID :)
edit: what about the movements? how i can understand these values?
KURTZ: In the latest beta there is the option to show the current VID on the main screen but I promise to add Min / Max VID back to the settings window. :)
I rarely hear anyone talking about Min / Max VID. Most users only compare Max VID.
During a sensor movement test, in theory, the sensors should move similar amounts. This test puts an equal load on each core so in theory the temperature of each core should change a similar amount. It was originally a quick way to check if a sensor is sticking. On a Quad if 3 sensors move 10 and one sensor only moves 2 then the one that moved the least amount is likely getting stuck at idle. The 45nm Core 2 sensors were bad for this. Do a full CPU Cool Down Test at whatever your normal overclocked MHz is and post the results and I'll try to explain to you what I see. Include any details about your setup.
century child: I just started up Win7 and I'm playing with different UAC and Administrator settings. I'll see what I can figure out. What CPU are you using and what MHz? I've seen some problems where a slower Dual Core was so over loaded when starting up that it was interfering with RealTemp from starting up. I might have to do some under clocking to simulate this.
@ uncle: i know the general theory (about the sensors), but i don't understand the difference from 15 and 0 movements ...
i try to explain here, for example:
0 movs: seems to be dead (the sensor obviously)
from 1 to 2: the sensors aren't reliable
from 3 to 15: they are reliable, BUT if i've a clocked system my sensors go around 15 (instead if i've a default cpu my sensors go around 3)
what do you think about? TIA
I have Administrator privileges on my account and enabled UAC at its Default setting.
When using UAC, the StartUp folder method seems to cause some issues so I decided to add RealTemp to the TaskScheduler.
Open up Task Scheduler and start by clicking on Create Basic Task... on the right hand side.
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/3923/pic6m.png
Enter a name for the task, RealTemp, and then click on Next.
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9994/pic0.png
For Trigger, choose the option, When I log on.
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/7531/pic1xkv.png
For Action select, Start a program and then click on Next.
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/2452/pic2kcr.png
I dragged the RealTempBeta folder into the Program Files(x86) folder.
Click on Browse and tell it where it can find RealTemp.exe
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4752/pic3s.png
Click Next to go to the Summary window.
Before clicking Finish select, Open the Properties dialog for this task when I click Finish
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/6409/pic4pxn.png
Now select, Run with highest privileges and click on OK and you're done.
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/6465/pic5.png
Now reboot and see if it works.
I know this is a big hassle but when running UAC, it's the correct way to add items to your Start Up routine that need Administrator privileges. You will also have to do the above if UAC is enabled to get Core Temp to start correctly. Temperature monitoring programs need to run at this level to access the temperature sensors which are a protected resource. Maybe we can hang some of the blame on Intel as well since reading the core temperature shouldn't be rocket science or a dangerous activity needing Ring 0 access.
If you ever have problems where RealTemp seems to be running in the Task Manager but doesn't appear on your screen, Kill the RealTemp.exe process and then go into the RealTemp.ini file and delete the WindowXY= key. RealTemp stores the last position it was at in that key so if it gets screwed up there might be a problem. I noticed one issue when testing that if the RealTempBeta folder is located directly in the C: directory then this window position info gets ignored and RealTemp was starting up for me in the top left corner. I think that's another Windows 7 UAC induced feature. :D
Edit: The above method also works in a limited account but you will need to enter an Administrator password before RealTemp will be allowed to run at Start Up.
Edit #2: Richard was having a lot of problems with this method. RealTemp would show up in the Task Manager but he couldn't access it anywhere. He finally figured out that for the last step it is critical that you have "Run only when user is logged on" is checked.
If you follow the above method exactly then it should work with or without UAC enabled and whether you are in an Admin or Standard account.
KURTZ: The initial sensor test puts an equal load on each core for about 5 seconds and measures how much the core temperature changes during that 5 second period. If you are overclocking with lots of core voltage then your temperature is going to go up much higher on each core than if you are at default settings or under clocked. At 1600 MHz and 1.10 volts your sensors will barely move during this test because your CPU isn't creating a lot of heat at full load. A well overclocked Core i7 with the OEM cooler is going to create a small inferno so you will see huge numbers during the sensor movement test.
If you swap your cooler to a better one, the amount the temperature changes during this test should decrease showing you that your new cooler is working correctly. If the sensor movement increases after swapping a cooler then you either installed a crappy cooler or didn't do a good job installing it.
http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/...13_CPULoad.JPG
http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/...Load3.0MHz.JPG
thanks Uncle, what do you think about these shots?
I seem to be having a problem with Real Temp. It fails to read my TRUE processor speed. For more details :
http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/i...Truth/th_1.png
http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/i...Truth/th_2.png
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...90#post3971290
Wishmaker: Something changed in Windows 7 which caused an issue for the MHz in RealTemp 3.00.
Try updating to RealTemp 3.30 and show a comparison of that and CPU-Z 1.52.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
KURTZ: It looks like you've got some seriously borked sensors or RealTemp has a problem. Try downloading the latest version or RealTemp from the above link.
After you boot up and are at idle does it say HOT HOT in the Thermal Status area?
Run a SuperPI mod bench at 3000 MHz so I can have a look at your results.
1M is OK, 4M or 8M if you're bored. I just want to see if your CPU is taking a performance hit or if just the sensors are screwy.
I followed your instructions for adding RealTemp to the task scheduler and this time it worked. I must have overlooked something when adding it before. Thank you very much for your help.
i'm waiting for those shot Uncle :), however what about the 'clock modulation'? can i clock my cpu with this tool?Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
also: why the core 1 has 4 movs and grabs the T correctly for all the % and the core 2 has 5 movs and fails @ 1.0% ... i think that also the core 1 must have a trouble ... or not?
check here:
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/1690/testdqw.png
KURTZ: These sensors are far from perfect but your Q9550 has about the best sensors I've ever seen on a 45nm Quad. All 4 of your sensors work from 37C to 100C and beyond so be happy. :)
If air cooled you would have to run your computer in a colder environment to find the sticking point of your sensors. All of these sensors get stuck at some point if you run them cool enough. That's just the way they are.
Where's your previous E8400? RealTemp 3.30 RC12 had a big bug in it but I haven't heard of any issues or had any issues with the previous RC11. I'm in the middle of a RealTemp overhaul to clean up the code but I decided to enjoy the summer instead. Hopefully in the next few weeks I will be motivated to work on RealTemp again. I only work hard when someone pushes on the Donate button and that hasn't happened for a while. :rofl:
Edit: Clock Modulation will slow your CPU down internally. The more clock modulation you use, the more clock pulses are ignored by the CPU. That's why the temps drop when using this while fully loaded. Your CPU isn't working as hard internally even though it will continue to report the same MHz. This was invented by Intel during the Pentium 4 era for heat control. It's handy when testing or to keep a laptop from burning through your lap. It can also be used to extend battery life while watching a movie.
century child: I'm glad I could help. I think I'll go post a link to that tutorial in the first post so other users can find it. Core Temp has an option to add itself to the registry but when using UAC, I couldn't get it to start up that way. As far as I can tell, when using UAC, you have to use the Task Scheduler method.
:D i'm waiting the screen shot from my friend ... :)
however check here ... :D
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7606/...bitmapk.th.jpg
really interesting ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Thank you. That version works. Much appreciated. :up:
KURTZ: That sensor test is meaningless. Your have to run 2 threads of Prime95 Small FFTs to test your sensors. Running one thread isn't good enough.
It looks like the slope of the temperature curves for each core are completely different. That's not unusual. They likely have two different TJMax values as well. Intel says that there is some error in how they set TJMax but wasn't too specific beyond that. With a proper CPU Cool Down Test, I could probably make some sense out of his sensors. At least they are not sticking at idle. When your friends are testing, ask them to turn off as much background crap as possible so the CPU can idle down. Don't run any other monitoring programs when doing a cool down test.
Wishmaker: Good to hear.
I have been using the RealTemp plugin for Rivatuner and it works
great now and here it shows RealTemp Q6600 temperature in
Google Earth 5 and I'm now looking for some slick tools to use
that is even better than the "CPU usage history" as the frame
around it is sometimes distractive and would be better if it could
be easier controlled.
Haven't had the Rivatuner "history" window on the desktop
before, and it is useful and shows relevant infomation but has
some buttons etc that are a bit distracting.
Google Earth with Rivatuner server ON and the cloud animation
was running for a while which made the four cores work some
but then I paused it to get a nice picture of that hurricane
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/826/wpneoge1q95.jpg
Google Earth with Rivatuner server OFF
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/197...e2noosdq85.jpg
nview Transparency in turned on when Google Earth is closed
which shows on some windows
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/5916/wpneoge3trq95.jpg
It is very nice to have the possibility to have the four cores
from RealTemp overlayed in all sorts of programs, games etc.
It has worked stable, no chrashes, in Prime95, games like
Grid, Grysis and the old UT2004.
I installed Google Earth 5 two weeks ago but it did a BSOD
and restarted after a few days and once again this week,
could be a bug or something not stable in my computer but
the games should have crashed if there are stability issues.
I did up the Volt a bit on the DDR2 memory some months
ago and got the games stable but I still got an issue
sometimes when I restart (warmboot), some applications
just have a Restart Computer option, and then when the
computer warmboots it beeps three times (memory issues)
and starts with lower FSB/MEM and other settings in bios
like 266/(533=2*266) instead of 400/(800=2*400) but
the if I coldboot it is never a problem.
Hi guys, I'm new here and I've been using realtemp for over a year for my q9450 rig and it's been working great so far! I have a question concerning laptops though. I have a Dell studio 1537 laptop with a T5800 peryn processor. I fired up realtemp on it and with my TJ max set at 100c, the 2 cores idle at 80C. This can't be normal right? I've never opened up the laptop or anything like that either. Should I be concerned or is realtemp the best program to be using for core 2 duo laptops.
Most 45nm mobile processors have a TJMax = 105C but I had a look at the specs for a T5800 and it shows 85C.
http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...x?sSpec=SLB6E#
Intel turns out CPUs faster than I can keep up with them. Their documentation of TJMax has plenty of inconsistencies so I have no idea what the truth is for many of their CPUs. I kind of gave up on getting the whole truth from them. Due to lack of cooling, mobile CPUs are impossible to test and calibrate like you can do for the desktop processors. If the Intel documentation says 85C then go into the Settings window and set TJMax=85C.
That will lower your reported temperatures but it still doesn't leave you with a lot of head room before thermal throttling will kick in when Distance to TJMax approaches zero. Throttling usually starts to occur when the Distance to TJMax number counts down to about 2 or 3 for the 45nm Core 2 desktop CPUs. Turn off as much background junk as possible and enable all of your power saving options / C-States and reduce the Minimum processor state in the Power Options. Some of these on a mobile chip can reduce idle temps by 5C or so at idle and maybe more. Maybe some company needs to design a thermal blanket for ones lap while using a laptop. Computing in the summer time can be a miserable experience. :)
-X-hellfire: Interesting to see RealTemp's temps in the eye of the storm. :up:
@ Uncle: http://www.hwupgrade.it/forum/showpo...8&postcount=35 these are the 8400's tests that you want :)
KURTZ: Those tests show that his E8400 is running like any other E8400 at those speeds.
Here's a couple of screen shots of my E8400 at 3000 MHz and at 3200 MHz.
I'm using DDR2-1000 memory speed so maybe that is why my times are slightly better but the times are very similar so his CPU is not thermal throttling during normal use.
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/4...4003000mhz.png
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/754...4003200mhz.png
The Thermal Status information that RealTemp reports comes from model specific register (MSR) 0x19C within the processor for each core. Intel calls this the IA32_THERM_STATUS register and bit[0] of this register is called the Thermal Status bit. When it is set, the CPU is reporting that thermal throttling is in progress.
The last 4 bits in this register contains various information about thermal throttling including a log of any thermal throttling incidents in bit[1]. On his E8400, all 4 bits might be set so the last digit in this MSR for him could be the letter F. It should be the number zero (0). In my tool you have to enter 0x19C in the MSR Number box and then click on the Read MSR button to display the Thermal Status data.
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/2582/msr0x19c.png
He could use my MSR Tool or any other similar tool that lets him read the value of this MSR.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/MSR.zip
http://release.crystaldew.info/OlsMsrEditor
You can also use CPU-Z. Just click on the About tab and then click on Save Report and it will output the value of this MSR into its report for each core. That would be handy to send to Intel if there is a problem because they tend to trust CPU-Z.
My opinion is that this CPU temperature sensor is broken and Intel should be willing to exchange his CPU for a CPU that is not broken. Ask him to post a screen shot of MSR 0x19C and I will interpret it for him. This MSR also contains the temperature data in the higher bits but it looks like that is stuck / broken too. :(
Yeah, nice to see RealTemp were all the actions is :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
...in Google Earth which is an awesome program with all kinds of tools/addons that can present all kinds of data and it can be stressful for many parts of the computer, cpu (multicores) , gpu , memory (it handles a allot of memory) , harddisk, ISP (broadband need to be faster and faster, my ADSL 24/3 mbit/s is crippled by my old D-Link DI-804 firewall that 5/5 mbit/s
Did some test with nVidia PhysX fluid-demo today and it is great to see the temperature OSD in realtime and it is interesting to see what happens when you run in hardware vs software mode as in GPU PhysX vs CPU. The performance on my setup is something like PhysX 22 fps and CPU 5 fps. The four cpu cores are however not used very much compared to Prime95 but is is probably very har to optimize the code to squeeze everything out of the cpu cores.... but they looked like they were stalling alot, waiting while some other threads finished its tasks, anyway the RealTemp plugin in Rivatuner showed this beahavior
check here :)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
http://www.hwupgrade.it/forum/showpo...0&postcount=44
Hi Kevin,
any work done on this little puppy? The numbers look pretty small to me. Is the temperature monitoring mechanism on LGA1156 the same with the one used on LGA1366, or ar there any subtle changes (TjMax, register adress, etc)???
http://lab501.ro/wp-content/uploads/...lTemp-i860.jpg
Monstru: RealTemp 3.30 seems to be reading your temperature sensors correctly. It is using TJMax=99C which it must have read from a register within the CPU. I would assume that this new process should run a little cooler than the original Core i7 CPUs. At full load where these sensors tend to be the most accurate, you've got all 4 cores reporting pretty much the same temperature. That looks good. At idle, these CPUs are designed to shut down 3 of the 4 cores depending on your bios C-State settings. If this is going on then having one core slightly hotter than the other 3 wouldn't be unusual either. Run i7 Turbo to see what core is getting the load at idle. All temperature sensors can have some slope error where they become less accurate at idle compared to at TJMax where they are calibrated. I think Core Temp also supports these new CPUs so you can try that program as well.
The original Core i7 sensors were excellent. I don't know if Intel has changed anything. I guess we'll have to wait until there are more retail CPUs tested and Intel finally releases the documentation for these new CPUs.
KURTZ: In MSR 0x19C it reads 0x884D0033. The chart in the Intel docs show what each bit means so I'll convert this to binary to make it a little easier to see and understand.
RealTemp seems to be reading the data from this CPU correctly but there is a problem with the data. The Thermal Status flag, bit[0], is set which means thermal throttling is in progress even though it isn't thermal throttling based on its performance in the SuperPI tests.Code:8 8 4 D 0 0 3 3
1000 1000 0100 1101 0000 0000 0011 0011
The above lists the lower 32 bits. Bit 31 is on the far left and is set and bit 0 is on the far right.
Bit[31] Reading Valid (1)
Bit[30..27] Resolution in Degrees Celsius. (0001) = 1C
Bit[22..16] Digital Readout. (1001101) = 77 = Distance to TJMax
Bit[5] Critical Temperature Status log (1)
Bit[4] Critical Temperature Status (1)
Bit[1] Thermal Status Log (1)
Bit[0] Thermal Status (1)
Any other Core 2 you check will end in the digits 00 which means that none of the last 8 bits are set. There is a problem with his CPU. These bits should not be set at idle and if his processor ever overheats, it may not be able to function correctly. I'd ask Intel for a new CPU.
Good news then!!! Anyway, if you need any tests with LGA1156 CPU's, drop me a PM and consider it done, I have a bucket of CPU's and MB's here :)
Unclewebb,
i7 Turbo 6.5 shows EIST checked and grayed out. It and C1E are disabled in bios. Is this a bios bug? I am not able to get RMClock to run with Windows 7 x64. One core does throttle to 20 very briefly every few seconds under load.
Thanks, as always.
Gene
edit: After more testing I found that if I actually enable EIST in bios that the multi drops all the way to 12 at idle as it really should. With EIST disabled I get the throttling described above. I am still puzzled about the EIST box being checked in i7 Turbo.
Another thing that controls your multiplier at idle is your Control Panel -> Power Options -> Minimum Processor state. You usually need EIST enabled in the bios for this option to appear.
Try playing around with that. Some bios versions do not correctly disable EIST even when you disable EIST in the bios. I haven't kept track of what board or bios version does what. When testing with i7 Turbo, run as few other monitoring programs as possible. RealTemp 3.30 and CPU-Z should be OK. Let me know anything else you figure out.
According to Intel I originally thought that EIST had to be enabled for the Turbo to work correctly but I've seen some boards where that doesn't seem to be true so :shrug:
I think the bit that I am reading that Intel documents as the EIST bit may not be 100% true on all boards.
EIST, as I said, is disabled in bios. Minimum processor state, though, does appear.
The multiplier at idle with present settings stays at 21. The only time I see it change is when I am stressing the system - I see the momentary drop to 20 on one thread only. It lasts for only about a fourth of a second and reoccurs only every several seconds. Probably not worthy of concern - just makes me curious. I only got on this when I noticed that EIST is checked in i7 Turbo.
To restate, if I enable EIST it drops the multiplier at idle to twelve but when disabled it stays at 21 except briefly to 20 under 100% load. Turbo can be enabled with EIST disabled on this board.
Thanks again
How about Core i5 750 temps? Pretty cool these little buggers :)
http://lab501.ro/wp-content/uploads/...i750-stock.jpg
Monstru: Any temperature comparisons between the new Core i7 CPUs and this Core i5? I think at the same voltage and frequency and if the i7 has hyper threading disabled that the two will probably run at a similar full load temperature. Hopefully the official launch is this week so we can see some more results. The temperature sensors look very consistent. Core 2 has a slight 2C difference but the other 3 cores are very close together during the Cool Down Test. RealTemp 3.30 appears to be reading these correctly. I just need to update the name so it calls it a Core i5 instead of a Core i7. Thanks for posting that.
Kevin - I didn't do a comparison clock/clock, vCore/vCore, HT Off yet, I will do that pretty soon. The pic above si with i750 stock, with references voltages set manually and with stock normal speed. Anyway, I think it is more important how the actual CPU works, with it's normal features (less VID for 860, HT on, higher clock for i860, etc).
What I can say for both is that even with high voltage (1.45) and high clocks, in both cases the real feel temperature of the heatsink and fets is like...a very little warm fish. This things run pretty darn cold :)
Monstru: Is that with stock cooler or what type of cooler you got on that?
Noctua NH-U12P + NM-I3 + Coolink SWIF2-120P @ 1950rpm + AS5
http://lab501.ro/forum/attachment.ph...2&d=1251633334
Unclewebb, we had wondered when I lap my i7 950 if temps would even out between cores or drop any. Lapped it today, started with 200, 400, 800, then 1500. Not really mirror, but smooth and very flat. Took about 45 minutes.
http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/839/lappedi7.jpg
I typically get about .3 to .5C difference in mount to mount with mx2 when I carefully measure amount of tim, used 6mm ball on all (get best temps with 5-7mm balls), so would need to see more than 1C difference to be real difference. (mx2 is very repeatable mount to mount so used that, mx3 is all over the place).
All testing done with large ffts, custom, so stays on same ffts, ran prime for 20 minutes until water was steady state, then collected temp data every 1 second, and constant water temp for averaging. cpu 4.4ghz, all exact same settings.
It is the delta to water cpu numbers that are important ones, since that corrects for small .2 to .4C difference in water temp/ambients run to run.
BEFORE LAPPING:
Mount 1, 71C core avg, 40.8 delta water to cpu.
Mount 2, 71C core avg, 41.1 delta water to cpu.
POST LAPPING:
Mount 1, 71C core avg, 41.1C delta water to cpu.:rofl::rofl:
Rarely get exact same thing on water to cpu delta between mounts, had to laugh. Just happened to get exact same, but clearly lapping made less than .3C to .5C diff, ie undetectable. I was planning on doing second mount post lapping as well....but no point.
When I first started computer after lapping, started to look like temps 2-3C better, but then realize it is just everything cools off since computer was off for couple hours, soon as look at water temp realize no difference. And after 10 mins, water temp is already at steady state, and core temps already the same.
I have now lapped 3 cpus, only 2 really tested well before and after, and got 0C difference both times. But both times I had reasonably flat cpu's to begin with, ie nothing horrid. My heatkiller has mirror finish and flat as far as I can tell, so not wb issue. Also my temp difference core to core are same as pre lapping. I posted the second pre numbers and the post numbers, you can scroll to end and see numbers, the water temp I manually entered, avg of entire string, the cpu temps are avg.
post lapping tempCode:DATE TIME MHz CPU_0 CPU_1 CPU_2 CPU_3 GPU LOAD%
9/2/2009 18:52:20 4414.84 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:21 4415.62 69 73 70 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:22 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:23 4416.06 70 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:24 4416.06 70 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:25 4416.06 70 72 72 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:26 4416.06 71 72 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:27 4416.06 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:28 4416.06 70 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:29 4416.06 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:30 4416.06 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:31 4416.06 71 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:32 4416.06 70 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:33 4416.06 70 72 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:34 4416.06 71 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:35 4416.06 71 72 71 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:36 4416.06 70 71 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:37 4416.06 70 71 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:38 4416.06 71 72 72 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:39 4416.06 71 72 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:40 4416.06 70 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:41 4416.06 70 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:42 4416.06 71 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:43 4416.06 71 72 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:44 4416.06 70 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:45 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:46 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:47 4416.06 71 73 72 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:48 4416.06 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:49 4416.06 70 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:50 4416.06 70 73 70 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:51 4416.06 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:52 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:53 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:54 4416.06 71 72 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:55 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:56 4416.06 71 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:57 4416.06 71 72 71 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:58 4416.06 71 73 72 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:52:59 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:00 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:01 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:02 4416.06 70 72 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:03 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:04 4416.06 70 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:05 4416.06 71 73 72 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:06 4416.06 70 73 71 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:07 4416.06 71 73 70 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:08 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:09 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:10 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:11 4416.06 72 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:13 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:14 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:15 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:16 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:17 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:18 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:19 4416.06 71 74 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:20 4416.06 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:21 4416.06 70 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:22 4416.06 71 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:23 4416.06 71 72 71 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:24 4416.06 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:25 4416.06 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:26 4416.06 70 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:27 4416.06 70 71 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:28 4416.06 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:29 4416.06 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:30 4416.06 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:31 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:32 4416.06 70 73 71 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:33 4416.06 71 72 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:34 4416.06 70 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:35 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:36 4416.06 71 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:37 4416.06 71 73 72 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:38 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:39 4416.06 71 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:40 4416.06 71 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:41 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:42 4416.06 71 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:43 4416.06 71 74 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:44 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:45 4416.06 70 72 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:46 4416.06 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:47 4416.06 71 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:48 4416.06 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:49 4416.06 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:50 4416.06 71 73 72 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:51 4416.06 71 72 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:52 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:53 4416.06 70 72 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:54 4416.06 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:55 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:56 4416.06 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:57 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:58 4416.06 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:53:59 4416.06 71 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:00 4416.06 71 72 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:01 4416.06 72 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:02 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:03 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:04 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:05 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:06 4416.06 70 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:07 4416.06 71 72 71 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:08 4416.06 70 71 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:09 4416.06 71 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:10 4416.06 71 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:11 4416.06 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:12 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:13 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:14 4416.06 71 73 68 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:15 4416.06 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:16 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:17 4416.06 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:18 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:19 4416.06 71 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:20 4416.06 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:21 4416.06 71 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:22 4416.06 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:23 4416.06 70 71 71 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:24 4416.06 71 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:25 4416.06 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:26 4416.06 71 72 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:28 4416.06 69 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:29 4416.06 71 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:30 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:31 4416.06 71 72 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:32 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:33 4416.06 72 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:34 4416.06 71 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:35 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:36 4416.06 70 73 71 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:37 4416.06 71 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:38 4416.06 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:39 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:40 4416.06 70 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:41 4416.06 70 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:42 4416.06 71 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:43 4416.06 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:44 4416.06 71 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:45 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:46 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:47 4416.06 71 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:48 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:49 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:50 4416.06 71 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:51 4416.06 70 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:52 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:53 4416.06 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:54 4416.06 71 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:55 4416.06 70 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:56 4416.06 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:57 4416.06 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:58 4416.06 71 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:54:59 4416.06 72 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:00 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:01 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:02 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:03 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:04 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:05 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:06 4416.06 71 72 71 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:07 4416.06 71 71 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:08 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:09 4416.06 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:10 4416.06 70 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:11 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:12 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:13 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:14 4416.06 72 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:15 4416.06 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:16 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:17 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:18 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:19 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:20 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:21 4416.06 71 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:22 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:23 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:24 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:25 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:26 4416.06 70 72 67 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:27 4416.06 70 73 71 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:28 4416.06 70 72 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:29 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:30 4416.06 71 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:31 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:32 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:34 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:34 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:35 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:36 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:38 4416.06 70 72 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:39 4416.06 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:40 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:40 4416.06 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:41 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:43 4416.06 70 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:44 4416.06 70 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:45 4416.06 70 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:46 4416.06 70 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:47 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:48 4416.06 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:49 4416.06 72 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:50 4416.06 71 72 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:51 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:52 4416.06 70 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:53 4416.06 71 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:54 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:55 4416.06 70 73 71 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:56 4416.06 71 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:57 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:58 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:55:59 4416.06 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:00 4416.06 71 73 72 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:01 4416.06 71 72 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:02 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:03 4416.06 71 72 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:04 4416.06 71 73 72 66 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:05 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:06 4416.06 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:07 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:08 4416.06 71 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:09 4416.06 72 72 73 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:10 4416.06 70 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:11 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:12 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:13 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:14 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:15 4416.06 71 73 71 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:16 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:17 4416.06 71 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:18 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:19 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:20 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:21 4416.06 71 72 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:22 4416.06 71 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:23 4416.06 70 72 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:24 4416.06 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:25 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:26 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:27 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:28 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:29 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:30 4416.06 71 72 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:31 4416.06 70 72 72 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:32 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:33 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:34 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:35 4416.06 71 74 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:36 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:37 4416.06 72 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:38 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:39 4416.06 70 72 71 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:40 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:41 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:42 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:43 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:44 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:45 4416.06 71 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:46 4416.06 70 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:47 4416.06 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:48 4416.06 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:49 4416.06 70 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:50 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:52 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:53 4416.06 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:53 4416.06 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:55 4416.06 71 72 72 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:56 4416.06 71 73 72 67 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:57 4416.06 71 74 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:58 4416.06 70 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 18:56:59 4416.06 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 18:57:00 4416.06 71 73 71 68 38 100
70.84927798 29.75 41.09927798
Code:DATE TIME MHz CPU_0 CPU_1 CPU_2 CPU_3 GPU LOAD%
9/2/2009 20:47:30 4416.09 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:47:31 4416.09 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:47:32 4416.09 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:47:33 4416.09 70 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:47:34 4416.09 70 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:47:35 4416.09 71 72 71 67 38 100
9/2/2009 20:47:36 4416.09 71 73 72 67 39 100
9/2/2009 20:47:37 4416.09 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:47:38 4416.09 70 72 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:47:39 4416.09 71 73 71 68 39 100
9/2/2009 20:47:40 4416.09 70 73 71 68 39 100
9/2/2009 20:47:41 4416.09 70 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:47:42 4416.09 71 73 72 68 39 100
9/2/2009 20:47:43 4416.09 70 73 70 69 39 100
9/2/2009 20:47:44 4416.09 70 72 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:47:45 4416.09 71 73 71 68 39 100
9/2/2009 20:47:46 4416.09 70 72 71 68 39 100
9/2/2009 20:47:47 4416.09 70 73 71 69 39 100
9/2/2009 20:47:48 4416.09 71 73 71 68 39 100
9/2/2009 20:47:49 4416.09 70 73 71 68 39 100
9/2/2009 20:47:50 4416.09 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:47:52 4416.09 71 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:47:53 4416.09 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:47:53 4416.09 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:47:55 4416.09 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:47:56 4416.09 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:47:57 4416.09 71 73 72 67 39 100
9/2/2009 20:47:58 4416.09 70 73 71 67 38 100
9/2/2009 20:47:59 4416.09 71 73 71 68 39 100
9/2/2009 20:48:00 4416.09 70 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:01 4416.09 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:02 4416.09 71 72 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:03 4416.09 71 73 71 69 39 100
9/2/2009 20:48:04 4416.09 69 72 70 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:05 4416.09 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:06 4416.09 70 73 70 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:07 4416.09 70 74 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:08 4416.09 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:09 4416.09 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:10 4416.09 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:11 4416.09 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:12 4416.09 70 74 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:13 4415.65 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:14 4415.65 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:15 4416.09 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:16 4416.09 71 72 72 67 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:17 4416.09 71 72 71 67 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:18 4416.09 70 72 70 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:19 4416.09 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:20 4416.09 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:21 4416.09 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:22 4416.09 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:23 4416.09 70 71 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:24 4416.09 71 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:25 4416.09 70 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:26 4416.09 70 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:27 4416.09 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:28 4416.09 70 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:29 4416.09 70 72 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:30 4416.09 70 71 72 67 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:31 4416.09 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:32 4416.09 70 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:33 4416.09 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:34 4416.09 70 74 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:35 4416.09 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:36 4416.09 70 72 70 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:37 4416.09 71 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:38 4416.09 70 73 71 67 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:39 4416.09 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:40 4416.09 71 73 71 67 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:41 4416.09 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:42 4416.09 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:43 4416.09 71 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:44 4416.09 71 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:45 4416.09 70 72 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:46 4416.09 71 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:47 4416.09 71 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:48 4416.09 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:49 4416.09 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:50 4416.09 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:51 4416.09 70 73 70 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:52 4416.09 70 72 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:53 4416.09 71 71 71 67 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:54 4416.09 70 72 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:55 4416.09 71 73 68 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:56 4416.09 70 73 67 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:57 4416.09 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:58 4416.09 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:48:59 4416.09 70 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:00 4416.09 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:01 4416.09 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:02 4416.09 70 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:04 4416.09 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:05 4416.09 70 73 70 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:05 4416.09 70 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:07 4416.09 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:08 4416.09 70 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:09 4416.09 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:10 4416.09 70 72 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:11 4416.09 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:12 4416.09 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:13 4416.09 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:14 4416.09 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:15 4416.09 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:16 4416.09 70 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:17 4416.09 70 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:18 4416.09 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:19 4416.09 70 72 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:20 4416.09 70 73 72 67 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:21 4416.09 70 74 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:22 4416.09 70 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:23 4416.09 69 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:24 4416.09 70 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:25 4416.09 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:26 4416.09 70 71 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:27 4416.09 70 72 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:28 4416.09 70 73 72 67 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:29 4416.09 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:30 4416.09 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:31 4416.09 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:32 4416.09 70 72 70 67 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:33 4416.09 70 72 71 67 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:34 4416.09 70 71 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:35 4416.09 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:36 4416.09 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:37 4416.09 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:38 4416.09 70 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:39 4416.09 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:40 4416.09 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:41 4416.09 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:42 4416.09 70 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:43 4416.09 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:44 4416.09 70 72 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:45 4416.09 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:46 4416.09 70 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:47 4416.09 71 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:48 4416.09 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:49 4416.09 70 73 71 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:50 4416.09 70 72 70 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:51 4416.09 70 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:52 4416.09 70 72 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:53 4416.09 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:54 4416.09 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:55 4416.09 70 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:56 4416.09 71 73 72 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:57 4416.09 70 73 71 68 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:58 4416.09 70 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:49:59 4416.09 71 73 72 69 38 100
9/2/2009 20:50:00 4416.09 70 73 72 69 38 100
70.63590604 29.56 41.07590604
rge: Thanks for your thorough testing. After your marathon last month of block remounting and heat paste testing, I don't have any trouble believing your numbers. Nice to see your consistent results when using RealTemp.
I lapped my E8400 last month and the results were very similar. It looked nice but there was no noticeable change in core temperature. I think you need a seriously messed up IHS before you see any dividends from lapping.
I think your testing also proves that the difference in temperature from core to core on an i7 has nothing to do with thermal paste and how it was applied or how square the IHS is. It just happens.
You don't have to think that anymore ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Hey unclewebb,
I left a message on your visitor page, I hope you can take a look.
Aside from that, I was wondering if you intend to implement separate GPU temp readings for multi-GPU systems. Well, I'm on the NVIDIA camp for now so I'm particularly interested in your plans for SLI setups... Thanks!
hi Uncle like you can see there is a trouble with you latest beta ...
http://www.hwupgrade.it/forum/showpo...5&postcount=79
ps. thanks for your support :)
Hopefully that screen shot is version 3.30 RC12. There's a big bug in that version so I pulled it after less than a day but lots of sites without my permission decided to mirror it anyhow. I haven't heard of any complaints about RC11 so ask testers to give that version a try.
RealTemp 3.30 RC11
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Hopefully in the near future I will get back to working on RealTemp and add correct support for the new Core i5 and i7.
theGryphon: RealTemp does sort of support SLI. It samples the temperature of each GPU and then reports the highest temperature. I might add individual temperatures in the future. I sent you a PM about your questions. Send me some more info so I can help you out.
and remember to put the vid min/max option like the older versions ... :pQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
So is realtemp accurate for i7?
I'd trust RealTemp and Core Temp 0.99.5 before I'd trust any other temperature monitoring program. I could give you a list of programs that are either not reporting all cores when hyper threading is enabled, reporting temperatures from the wrong cores or not correctly reading TJMax which is written into each Core i7 CPU. Instead of a biased list, here's a simple test. Run Prime 95 Small FFTs for about 10 or 15 minutes until your temperatures have stabilized. Now start comparing temperature programs. Post some results and I'll show you what I'm talking about.
Realtemp rocks however it would be perfect if it could support display of multiple GPU temps, not just the first one it finds (for more than 1 gpu installed, eg SLI systems).
Thanks,
Niz
justniz: When using SLI, RealTemp samples all GPUs and reports the highest temperature. This should work with 3 way SLI too but I haven't tested that yet.
I thought the hottest temperature would be more important to a user than just reporting the first GPU it finds.
I think justniz is suggesting the same thing as I did: reporting each and every GPU in the system. I think this would be just perfect! ;)
are those sensors correct ? i cant understand how this think works :p
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/9608/shot0001n.jpg
Core0 (a little) and Core1 (definitely) looks stuck at 37°C but they works OK in load so no problems.
BTW nice temps in LinX. :up:
thanks m8 :) i used to get lower temps with some peltiers but i removed them today :)