Hi, first of all, i really appreciate your job ;)
Here's my problem with latest Nvidia Drivers (gpu degrees).
http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/...5_Immagine.jpg
Hope you can fix it easily :)
Printable View
Hi, first of all, i really appreciate your job ;)
Here's my problem with latest Nvidia Drivers (gpu degrees).
http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/...5_Immagine.jpg
Hope you can fix it easily :)
Mine is more funny. :D
http://i27.tinypic.com/29gic7b.jpg
But it's nVidia driver fault not uncle's. Latest beta/dev leaked have some internal changes so temps are funny.
Thanks for the heads up. I'll have to check the latest beta driver and see what's changed.
burebista: I think your GPU has gone nuclear. :D
Its a fusion reactor.....Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I have no idea why in Jan 01 I've had only 128°C. :ROTF:
I just installed the 190.89 drivers for Windows 7 x64 and so far my temps are good on my 9800 GTX+.
No weird readings. I downloaded this beta driver from Guru3D.
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/3060/nvidia19089.png
Hey man,
Is there anything new in the latest beta (compared to 3.00) for us old Q6600 owners? Just wondering... :)
I'm using E8400 with Asus Striker II Extreme.
Do I need to change any settings in Real Temp to make it most accurate when detecting my temps?
Using Real Temp 3.00.
just a Q Uncle: the latest RT can show us the new i7 VID?
KURTZ: To the best of my knowledge, there is still no documented method to read VID from a Core i7 CPU. Not that I necessarily believe them but according to Intel, it's no longer possible to read VID info. Do you know of any software that can do this?
no Uncle ... you are the latest hope ... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Very little thing but could you add an option to settings to show one or two decimal points for temps? I don't know if this is demanded by anybody else or if it'd be hard but I'd much appreciate it! Thanks!
theGryphon: These sensors seem barely accurate to +/- 1C let alone numbers after the decimal point. The sensors can only be read in whole numbers so there is no data after the decimal point to display. I think RM Clock used to show numbers after the decimal point like 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 but I believe it was just averaging the last 5 samples to create that data.
Since the program polls each core fairly regularly, would this prevent the cores which would have otherwise been idle from reaching the deeper C-states making it difficult to record any reductions in temperature when the cores reach those states?
I was just reading about that issue in the Intel documentation the other day. They didn't point the finger at any particular program but were sort of hinting at that issue and programs that need to read data from model specific registers on a regular basis. Maybe I took that info too personally.
My opinion is that even if you stopped running RealTemp, there would still be other background activities that would constantly wake cores up and out of the C3/C6 state. RealTemp isn't a huge load on the CPU but it does need to access each core once every second to query the temperature data for each core.
I'm not sure how you could test for this. You could try turning RealTemp off and then wait a minute and use something like my MSR Tool and try to read the sensors directly in MSR 0x19C without having to start RealTemp. Maybe something like a Kill-a-Watt meter might be able to show a slight reduction in power at the wall but I don't think it will be possible to see any measurable difference of temperature or power, with or without RealTemp running.
I thought about adding an option to RealTemp so it would be possible for it to not read the temperature sensors when idle but then I'd have to query the CPU to see when it's idle. :(
It's a no win situation.
I have a fairly lean system so at idle the RealTemp C0% based load meter gets down to about 0.6% with one or two instances of RealTemp running. Even if RealTemp wasn't running, I think there would still be some background activity running on each core every second.
My thoughts are that if you are running a well overclocked i7 900 series CPU, RealTemp is probably the least of your concerns when it comes to it heating up your core temperature or increasing your power bill. :)
The reason I asked is because I came across a thread on THG where someone was wanting to cut temperatures and power consumption during the 50% of the day the PC sat idle (without powering off IIRC), and obviously EIST and CxE came up in the discussion. While the effects of EIST are fairly obvious, as they are with C1E, I wasn't sure if allowing the deeper C-states would make a measurable difference because it's possible that you don't reach them (or don't remain in them long enough) while monitoring temperatures. I wonder then if such advanced power-saving features are a moot point, considering you'd have to have zero load to stay in that state. It's not always clear if Bloomfield can reach lower power consumption at idle than Core 2 because different reviews say different things, and the platforms as a whole consume different amounts of power as well. Lynnfield seems to come well under both Core 2 and Bloomfield, but that's probably thanks to the less power-hungry chipset.
I believe my board allows me to "demote" C3 and C7 states to higher level ones so perhaps I can try and find a measurable temperature difference when C3 and C7 are used.
For what it's worth, I'm seeing a measurable temp difference between C3 and C6 on Lynnfield. With C3 the lowest idle temps across the 4 cores was 38-39C. C6 is giving me around 29C, though it fluctuates more, with one of the cores occasionally moving up to 38C. This is with 3.30 RC11
Core I7 computer at stock, idle, C1E and EIST Disabled
224-227W from wall
CPU according to everest 17W
Idle temps 35, 36, 35, 31 (ambient 25.9C)
Core I7 computer at stock, idle, C1E and EIST enabled
209-212W from wall (same with Realtemp open or closed, or everest/coretemp open or closed)
CPU according to everest 2.3-4.3W idle (same with realtemp, etc. open or closed)
Idle temps 33, 33, 33, 30
same plus C3/C6/C7 enabled
203-206W from wall (same with realtemp, etc. open or closed)
CPU 1.6W idle (same with realtemp, etc. open or closed)
32, 33, 33, 29 (maybe .4C lower than just EIST/C1E enabled monitoring avg for 3 mins, vs variability)
Overclocked to 4.4ghz
275-279W from wall (same with realtemp open or closed)
CPU 41W (same with realtemp open or closed)
OC 4.4 with EIST, C1E enabled
265-268W (same with realtemp open or closed)
CPU 35W (same with realtemp open or closed)
OC 4.4 with EIST, C1E, and C3/C6/C7 enabled
263-266W (same with realtemp open or closed)
CPU 32W (same with realtemp open or closed)
What I learned from doing this
1) Realtemp, Coretemp, and Everest do not alter the power whether running or not with EIST, C1E, and C3/C6/C7 and hence would not alter the temps. They do not interfere with the small power drop of enabling C3/C6/C7.
2) EIST, C1E, C3/C6/C7 enabled would save me $25 per year if running stock settings or $12 per year if running OCed settings, if I had my computer on 24/7 for 1 year. (less with OC setting since vcore is not reduced on GB boards when OCed)
3) If you want to be collectively green, dont overclock, and use power savings, and turn your computer off or S3 when not using. But only one of those that is going to save an individual any significant money is using S3 or turning computer off when not in use.
4) S3 mode saves me $281 per year (whole computer including monitor, etc). If using S3 or off button, and computer in use 25-50% time, then EIST/C1E/C3,C6,C7 saves ~$10 per year, ie not worth the annoyance of it interfering with benching runs, and that $1 per month no one is going to notice. Want to save money, use S3 or off switch.
5) Enabling C3/C6/C7 will not drops idle temps by any significant amount (typically less 1C, though maybe 1 on stock cooler). ~3-4W vs ?~1.8W, both are going to have minimal 6-7C over ambient idle temp.
In the US, avg cost of power is $0.115 per kilowatt-hour, which is almost exactly $1.00 per Watt-year. So, Leave a 60W bulb on for a year pay $60. Save 10 watts for 1 year save $10. The simple rule is 1 watt for 1 year = 1 dollar.
We can always count on rge to go the extra mile :D My power costs anywhere from 12-35c/kWh depending on the time of the day though, so 24/7 operation is quite costly :(
sorry to go of topic here,but when i read thisQuote:
Originally Posted by KURTZ
i pictured kurtz standing in front of R2D2 saying
help us uncleweb kenobi your are only hope:rofl:
ok so how do i get it to monitor my gpu temps?? alos i cant get 3.30 RC11 to work within rivatuner?? maybe im just missing something??
RealTemp only monitors Nvidia GPU temps because that's what I own and it was easy to program. By the looks of your avatar, I'll take a wild guess and say that you probably own an ATI card. If so, RealTemp can't read your GPU temps. The latest 5850 and 5870 look very impressive so maybe I'll have to have a second look at supporting AMD/ATI.
The RealTemp / RivaTuner plug in is called RTCore.dll. You need to go into the Settings window of RealTemp, click on the RivaTuner button and tell RealTemp where the RivaTuner.exe is located. Once it knows that, it can install RTCore.dll in the correct RivaTuner directory. Then you start RivaTuner and click on the Hardware Monitoring icon within the upper Customize option. When that opens up some graphs, click on Setup and then click on Plugins and select the RTCore.dll plugin. Once that is selected, click on OK and go back to the Hardware Monitoring setup window where you can decide what graphs you'd like to see from the RTCore.dll. There are quite a few of them so you probably won't want to see them all.
This plugin runs separately from RealTemp so once RivaTuner is running with this plugin installed, you don't need to have RealTemp running as well. Let me know if you have any problems.
radaja: I think I told rge a while ago that whoever figures out how to get VID info out of a Core i7 CPU will become like a god on XS. :rofl:
No luck so far.
I think they'd be a god on just about every forum for beating cpu-z to it :D If it existed, what would it show up like in the MSR tool (for a VID of 1.1025V for example)? My hexadecimal knowledge has faded :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by radaja
LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
@ Uncle: do you think that RT has troubles with the Lynnfield's Xeons? next week i can do some tests if you need ... just ask me ... :)
ps. on my way, my lord :D
I've just been working on updating i7 Turbo to better support IDA mode in the Core 2 Mobile chips. I've got a few ideas about better Lynnfield support for RealTemp 3.30 so hopefully I can start working on that tomorrow and adding what I've learned recently.
I'd like to start reporting the highest multiplier when C3/C6 is enabled instead of reporting the average multiplier. On the X58, most boards disabled this feature as soon as you started overclocking so reporting the peak multi or the average multi didn't make any difference. With Lynnfield, there can be a big difference between these two multipliers because they have a lot more bins of turbo boost available when C3/C6 is enabled. It should be interesting. Hopefully by the weekend I should have something ready for testing with improved Lynnfield support. 3.30 RC11 works OK but there is always room for improvement. :)
In this example, I think 23.8 most accurately represents your multiplier. CPU-Z reports 23X in a situation like this which is OK but including the number after the decimal point gives a user a little more useful info. It will help encourage users to get rid of the background junk that is killing performance by preventing their CPU from using its maximum multiplier.
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/8893/i5750.png
The overall average, 22.6X, doesn't accurately tell you how hard your CPU is actually working which is what RealTemp 3.30 RC11 is reporting. Intel recommends reporting the highest multiplier in these situations and now that I've seen some Lynnfield examples, I agree. On most Core i7 X58 boards, most users won't see any difference from this upcoming change.
Since a few days my GPU temp isn't showing anymore, it's the 191.07 drivers it's their fault right?
Hey Kevin, I have a new one for you :)
http://lab501.ro/wp-content/uploads/...0/i650-RT1.jpg
http://lab501.ro/wp-content/uploads/...0/i650-RT2.jpg
I'm not sure what Nvidia has changed recently in their driver that is giving RealTemp a headache.
http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/9452/nvidiagpu.png
All I can say is that GPU temps still work on my 9800 GTX+ card. I'm using Vista x86 in this screen shot. When you install the drivers, make sure that RealTemp isn't running. That might be preventing the new driver from installing properly. :shrug:
Anyone with this problem, let me know what card you have so I can try and find out if this problem is card specific or can happen to anyone. That part of RealTemp hasn't changed in at least 8 months. Also let me know what OS you're using.
Monstru: The rest of RealTemp has been getting a work over recently and is almost ready for a new release. You look like a good candidate for a new version. Are you using XP in your screen shot. I recently found a bug in XP that seemed to be causing the missing core issues. The same RealTemp code would work fine in Visa or Windows 7. I'm hoping that I've found a way to work around the issue I found in XP and for all the long lost cores to finally be found. I'll try to send you a fresh test version by tomorrow.
Edit: I just noticed. Your CPU only has two cores. The APIC ID is different than what most dual core CPUs report so I'll try to get them lined up side by side. Your CPU looks more like a Quad core internally with two cores disabled. Given that it's an ES processor, you never know what Intel has created under the skin. I think that's why RealTemp is choking.
Can you check out i7 Turbo 6.94? That's been recently updated and should fully support your new CPU. It should show a 9X multi at idle if your Control Panel -> Power Options -> Minimum processor state is set to a low number like 5%. If you are using XP then you might need to set the Power Options to a mobile processor for your CPU to be able to use its lowest multiplier. When running a single thread of Super PI, you should see the multiplier on the hardest working core or cores approach 24X if you have C3/C6 enabled. I plan to drag the i7 Turbo code back into RealTemp so it would be nice to know that it works OK. Thanks.
Hi Kevin,
I am using Windows Vista x64 SP1. The stock multi is 24x, the Turbo multi is 25x, but I had that option disabled in the screenshots above. The CPU has 2 cores and hyper-threading, so it might as well be some sort of i750 with 2 cores cut, BUT do not forget that there is a IGP there somewhere, even if P55 does not use it. So the CPU might be built a little bit different in terms on chip placing on the PCB.
I will most gladly help in testing the newest release of RealTemp. For starters, I will try the i7 Turbo above to see what I get.:)
When I saw your screen shot my first thought was, Oh, sh_it, more missing cores!
On a dual core with hyper threading, the APIC ID would typically show 0123 with thread 0 and 1 belonging to core 0 and threads 2 and 3 belonging to core 1. Your CPU is a little different and reports 0145. It looks like RealTemp is saving some room in the GUI in case threads 2 and 3 ever show up someday. I'll have a look at this but I might not change anything until the retail chips are released. Maybe it's a sign that Intel is working on a way that they can run 4 threads per core. That would be interesting. :)
I'm running Vista x64 with an 920.
EVGA GTX 260 core 216 SC with 191.07 drivers.
Reinstall them w/o RT running might help or do you need a reg. fix?
Try installing your Nvidia drivers again with RealTemp turned off. If RealTemp is running and has the old Nvidia driver open, it might be preventing the new driver from getting installed properly. That's the only thing I can think of at the moment. I know someone with the same card that you are running and the same OS and he was having the same issue but now that issue is fixed. I don't yet know what's causing this problem.
Here you go Kevin. BTW, you have my email adress if you want to send me some beta version of RT? :)
The story bellow is like this - Idle most of the time, then PI1M, then WPrime 32M, then idle again.
Code:DATE TIME CMULTI STDEV MSR LOAD% NOTES
10/07/09 20:56:12 13.505 2.551 9.000 4.22
10/07/09 20:56:13 10.694 1.341 9.000 2.70
10/07/09 20:56:14 12.821 3.372 9.000 3.41
10/07/09 20:56:15 13.860 2.930 9.000 3.66
10/07/09 20:56:16 10.316 0.677 9.000 2.82
10/07/09 20:56:17 13.578 2.594 9.000 4.54
10/07/09 20:56:18 11.071 1.115 9.000 3.39
10/07/09 20:56:19 13.025 3.062 9.000 3.43
10/07/09 20:56:20 13.800 2.964 9.000 3.75
10/07/09 20:56:21 9.980 0.699 9.000 2.60
10/07/09 20:56:23 13.355 3.069 9.000 3.57
10/07/09 20:56:24 10.464 1.260 9.000 2.71
10/07/09 20:56:25 13.074 3.086 9.000 3.64
10/07/09 20:56:26 13.734 2.636 9.000 4.19 i650
10/07/09 20:56:27 11.004 0.664 9.000 3.22
10/07/09 20:56:28 13.121 2.706 9.000 4.44
10/07/09 20:56:29 10.347 1.314 9.000 2.70
10/07/09 20:56:30 13.118 3.321 9.000 3.40
10/07/09 20:56:31 13.562 3.022 9.000 3.66
10/07/09 20:56:32 9.958 0.713 9.000 2.53
10/07/09 20:56:33 13.465 3.114 9.000 3.52
10/07/09 20:56:34 10.374 1.334 9.000 2.66
10/07/09 20:56:35 13.146 3.333 9.000 3.41
10/07/09 20:56:36 13.573 3.016 9.000 3.68
10/07/09 20:56:37 10.028 0.675 9.000 2.53
10/07/09 20:56:38 13.318 3.212 9.000 3.46
10/07/09 20:56:39 10.372 1.346 9.000 2.62
10/07/09 20:56:40 13.251 3.248 9.000 3.44
10/07/09 20:56:41 13.524 2.435 9.000 3.71
10/07/09 20:56:42 12.822 2.809 9.000 3.14
10/07/09 20:56:43 13.809 3.031 9.000 3.56
10/07/09 20:56:44 10.959 1.390 9.000 2.75
10/07/09 20:56:45 12.768 3.188 9.000 3.31
10/07/09 20:56:46 13.217 3.043 9.000 3.73
10/07/09 20:56:47 10.144 0.740 9.000 2.67
10/07/09 20:56:48 13.273 3.173 9.000 3.54
10/07/09 20:56:49 11.125 1.471 9.000 2.76
10/07/09 20:56:50 12.713 3.103 9.000 3.33
10/07/09 20:56:51 13.802 2.885 9.000 3.84
10/07/09 20:56:52 9.899 0.848 9.000 2.54
10/07/09 20:56:53 13.467 3.079 9.000 3.53
10/07/09 20:56:54 11.158 1.405 9.000 2.85
10/07/09 20:56:55 12.942 3.047 9.000 3.28
10/07/09 20:56:56 13.717 2.935 9.000 3.76
10/07/09 20:56:57 9.960 0.718 9.000 2.55
10/07/09 20:56:58 13.361 2.444 9.000 3.49
10/07/09 20:56:59 11.382 1.473 9.000 2.72
10/07/09 20:57:00 13.370 3.039 9.000 3.31
10/07/09 20:57:01 14.398 2.512 17.000 4.02
10/07/09 20:57:02 15.710 1.643 9.000 4.70
10/07/09 20:57:03 13.483 2.970 9.000 3.69
10/07/09 20:57:04 11.334 1.325 9.000 2.77
10/07/09 20:57:05 13.107 3.014 9.000 3.30
10/07/09 20:57:06 13.733 3.005 9.000 3.66
10/07/09 20:57:07 10.144 0.680 9.000 2.60
10/07/09 20:57:08 13.276 3.143 9.000 3.49
10/07/09 20:57:09 13.542 3.019 13.000 3.54
10/07/09 20:57:10 9.955 0.556 9.000 2.44
10/07/09 20:57:11 13.929 2.208 9.000 3.87
10/07/09 20:57:12 10.087 0.700 9.000 2.52
10/07/09 20:57:13 13.310 3.132 9.000 3.50
10/07/09 20:57:14 13.709 2.863 9.000 3.70
10/07/09 20:57:15 11.123 2.033 9.000 2.62
10/07/09 20:57:16 13.997 2.862 9.000 3.73
10/07/09 20:57:17 10.025 0.722 9.000 2.55
10/07/09 20:57:18 13.666 1.686 9.000 3.50
10/07/09 20:57:19 13.840 2.948 9.000 3.65
10/07/09 20:57:20 9.812 0.745 9.000 2.47
10/07/09 20:57:21 13.180 2.962 9.000 3.80
10/07/09 20:57:22 10.018 0.634 9.000 2.56
10/07/09 20:57:23 13.230 3.140 9.000 3.52
10/07/09 20:57:24 13.900 2.776 9.000 3.68
10/07/09 20:57:25 9.812 0.769 9.000 2.43
10/07/09 20:57:26 16.556 1.368 25.000 11.44
10/07/09 20:57:27 18.837 0.606 21.000 20.81
10/07/09 20:57:28 16.180 1.483 9.000 8.35
10/07/09 20:57:29 14.518 0.992 13.000 11.94
10/07/09 20:57:30 18.353 1.129 9.000 13.44
10/07/09 20:57:31 15.541 0.650 13.000 11.45
10/07/09 20:57:32 13.588 1.626 17.000 13.42
10/07/09 20:57:33 21.637 0.986 9.000 14.48
10/07/09 20:57:35 13.151 1.798 9.000 6.82
10/07/09 20:57:36 10.457 0.509 13.000 7.18
10/07/09 20:57:37 13.802 2.022 9.000 5.24
10/07/09 20:57:38 9.979 0.682 9.000 2.54
10/07/09 20:57:39 13.224 3.146 9.000 3.50
10/07/09 20:57:40 13.713 2.895 9.000 3.74
10/07/09 20:57:41 9.972 0.671 9.000 2.51
10/07/09 20:57:42 14.271 2.144 9.000 3.81
10/07/09 20:57:43 10.003 0.646 9.000 2.65
10/07/09 20:57:44 13.736 3.067 9.000 3.50
10/07/09 20:57:45 14.017 2.065 9.000 3.65
10/07/09 20:57:46 9.598 0.521 9.000 2.39
10/07/09 20:57:47 13.975 3.146 9.000 3.83
10/07/09 20:57:48 10.197 0.722 9.000 2.52
10/07/09 20:57:49 13.438 3.107 9.000 3.53
10/07/09 20:57:50 13.673 2.368 9.000 3.73
10/07/09 20:57:51 9.482 0.342 9.000 2.39
10/07/09 20:57:52 13.717 2.994 9.000 3.68
10/07/09 20:57:53 10.203 0.618 9.000 2.54
10/07/09 20:57:54 13.484 3.160 9.000 3.48
10/07/09 20:57:55 13.515 3.096 9.000 3.66
10/07/09 20:57:56 9.457 0.462 9.000 2.37
10/07/09 20:57:57 13.762 3.015 9.000 3.60
10/07/09 20:57:58 10.012 0.769 9.000 2.47
10/07/09 20:57:59 13.393 3.096 9.000 3.50
10/07/09 20:58:00 14.050 2.897 9.000 3.71
10/07/09 20:58:01 10.698 0.927 9.000 2.68
10/07/09 20:58:02 13.932 2.806 9.000 3.99
10/07/09 20:58:03 10.438 1.302 9.000 2.70
10/07/09 20:58:04 12.571 3.417 9.000 3.37
10/07/09 20:58:05 13.791 3.053 9.000 3.64
10/07/09 20:58:06 9.456 0.441 9.000 2.37
10/07/09 20:58:07 13.324 2.367 9.000 3.79
10/07/09 20:58:08 10.410 1.311 9.000 2.61
10/07/09 20:58:09 13.142 3.361 9.000 3.33
10/07/09 20:58:10 14.085 2.978 9.000 3.67
10/07/09 20:58:11 9.551 0.300 9.000 2.41
10/07/09 20:58:12 13.360 3.030 9.000 3.68
10/07/09 20:58:13 11.204 1.335 9.000 2.79
10/07/09 20:58:14 13.098 3.334 9.000 3.39
10/07/09 20:58:15 13.793 3.006 9.000 3.65
10/07/09 20:58:16 10.062 0.709 9.000 2.50
10/07/09 20:58:17 13.533 3.133 9.000 3.47
10/07/09 20:58:18 10.493 1.352 9.000 2.59
10/07/09 20:58:19 12.925 3.321 9.000 3.42
10/07/09 20:58:20 13.971 2.948 9.000 3.67
10/07/09 20:58:21 10.049 0.698 9.000 2.47
10/07/09 20:58:22 13.478 3.146 9.000 3.45
10/07/09 20:58:23 10.381 1.315 9.000 2.64
10/07/09 20:58:24 13.150 3.374 9.000 3.36
10/07/09 20:58:25 13.999 2.200 9.000 3.64
10/07/09 20:58:26 10.020 0.726 9.000 2.53
10/07/09 20:58:27 13.434 2.617 9.000 3.45
10/07/09 20:58:28 10.403 1.344 9.000 2.56
10/07/09 20:58:29 12.900 1.998 9.000 3.37
10/07/09 20:58:30 13.523 3.069 9.000 3.64
10/07/09 20:58:31 10.119 0.731 9.000 2.56
10/07/09 20:58:32 14.043 1.384 9.000 3.45
10/07/09 20:58:33 10.405 1.353 9.000 2.62
10/07/09 20:58:34 13.486 3.283 9.000 3.80
10/07/09 20:58:35 13.575 3.061 9.000 3.65
10/07/09 20:58:36 10.061 0.751 9.000 2.48
10/07/09 20:58:37 13.504 3.074 9.000 3.49
10/07/09 20:58:38 10.425 1.297 9.000 2.65
10/07/09 20:58:39 13.055 3.325 9.000 3.38
10/07/09 20:58:40 13.997 2.934 9.000 3.67
10/07/09 20:58:41 10.153 0.755 9.000 2.58
10/07/09 20:58:42 12.702 2.324 9.000 3.54
10/07/09 20:58:43 10.438 1.333 9.000 2.62
10/07/09 20:58:44 12.881 3.349 9.000 3.38
10/07/09 20:58:45 13.689 2.988 9.000 3.70
10/07/09 20:58:46 10.130 0.680 9.000 2.54
10/07/09 20:58:48 13.528 3.095 9.000 3.48
10/07/09 20:58:49 16.012 5.494 9.000 9.17
10/07/09 20:58:50 12.755 2.193 9.000 3.54
10/07/09 20:58:51 13.733 2.996 9.000 3.68
10/07/09 20:58:52 10.142 0.712 9.000 2.55
10/07/09 20:58:53 13.476 3.108 9.000 3.52
10/07/09 20:58:54 10.420 1.314 9.000 2.65
10/07/09 20:58:55 12.834 3.396 9.000 3.36
10/07/09 20:58:56 13.797 2.857 9.000 3.70
10/07/09 20:58:57 10.071 0.670 9.000 2.51
10/07/09 20:58:58 13.513 3.044 9.000 3.49
10/07/09 20:58:59 10.391 1.359 9.000 2.58
10/07/09 20:59:00 13.332 3.294 9.000 3.43
10/07/09 20:59:01 14.660 2.431 9.000 3.96
10/07/09 20:59:02 11.730 1.768 13.000 3.01
10/07/09 20:59:03 13.260 3.069 9.000 3.61
10/07/09 20:59:04 10.422 1.343 9.000 2.62
10/07/09 20:59:05 12.832 3.424 9.000 3.38
10/07/09 20:59:06 14.025 2.948 9.000 3.68
10/07/09 20:59:07 9.983 0.725 9.000 2.51
10/07/09 20:59:08 13.509 3.074 9.000 3.56
10/07/09 20:59:09 11.073 1.555 9.000 2.68
10/07/09 20:59:10 12.674 3.079 9.000 3.32
10/07/09 20:59:11 13.764 2.996 9.000 3.66
10/07/09 20:59:12 10.285 0.703 9.000 2.69
10/07/09 20:59:13 13.173 2.808 9.000 4.12
10/07/09 20:59:14 11.764 1.201 9.000 3.66
10/07/09 20:59:15 13.464 3.005 9.000 3.68
10/07/09 20:59:16 13.973 2.401 9.000 4.50
10/07/09 20:59:17 12.777 1.684 9.000 3.99
10/07/09 20:59:18 14.668 1.617 9.000 5.31
10/07/09 20:59:19 21.209 0.920 9.000 12.58
10/07/09 20:59:20 13.991 2.117 13.000 4.45
10/07/09 20:59:21 14.756 2.185 9.000 4.70
10/07/09 20:59:22 14.397 2.008 9.000 5.14
10/07/09 20:59:23 13.459 2.280 9.000 4.82
10/07/09 20:59:24 13.184 1.522 9.000 4.28
10/07/09 20:59:25 19.569 2.873 9.000 15.82
10/07/09 20:59:26 14.152 2.426 9.000 4.83
10/07/09 20:59:27 11.632 0.854 9.000 3.93
10/07/09 20:59:28 13.676 2.657 9.000 4.07
10/07/09 20:59:29 12.101 0.870 9.000 4.05
10/07/09 20:59:30 13.609 2.238 9.000 4.07
10/07/09 20:59:31 13.729 2.794 9.000 3.98
10/07/09 20:59:32 10.022 0.666 9.000 2.70
10/07/09 20:59:33 13.097 3.058 9.000 3.71
10/07/09 20:59:34 12.270 0.789 17.000 4.07
10/07/09 20:59:35 15.987 1.653 9.000 5.03
10/07/09 20:59:36 14.844 1.676 13.000 4.95
10/07/09 20:59:37 12.805 0.685 13.000 3.85
10/07/09 20:59:38 14.623 2.397 9.000 4.39
10/07/09 20:59:39 14.377 0.398 9.000 4.90
10/07/09 20:59:40 16.352 1.239 9.000 5.59
10/07/09 20:59:41 15.319 1.651 13.000 5.26
10/07/09 20:59:42 11.904 0.439 9.000 3.47
10/07/09 20:59:43 13.724 2.172 9.000 4.06
10/07/09 20:59:44 12.670 0.631 9.000 3.63
10/07/09 20:59:45 14.224 2.030 9.000 4.78
10/07/09 20:59:46 14.678 2.372 9.000 4.95
10/07/09 20:59:47 12.364 0.889 9.000 3.59
10/07/09 20:59:48 13.497 2.606 9.000 4.35
10/07/09 20:59:49 11.758 0.870 9.000 3.30
10/07/09 20:59:50 12.635 3.130 9.000 3.63
10/07/09 20:59:51 13.095 2.617 9.000 3.84
10/07/09 20:59:52 13.384 2.029 9.000 3.93
10/07/09 20:59:53 13.881 2.422 13.000 4.31
10/07/09 20:59:54 11.473 0.882 9.000 3.74
10/07/09 20:59:55 15.328 2.105 9.000 5.14
10/07/09 20:59:56 13.689 2.523 9.000 4.54
10/07/09 20:59:57 11.350 0.653 9.000 4.04
10/07/09 20:59:58 13.722 2.230 9.000 4.75
10/07/09 20:59:59 16.397 1.138 13.000 5.88
10/07/09 21:00:01 16.483 1.502 9.000 6.70
10/07/09 21:00:02 16.544 2.097 9.000 7.52
10/07/09 21:00:03 15.791 0.510 9.000 5.54
10/07/09 21:00:04 13.519 2.461 9.000 4.70
10/07/09 21:00:05 13.095 1.770 9.000 4.29
10/07/09 21:00:06 13.522 3.025 9.000 3.80
10/07/09 21:00:07 14.950 2.830 9.000 4.39
10/07/09 21:00:08 11.016 0.985 9.000 3.07
10/07/09 21:00:09 14.591 1.687 9.000 5.19
10/07/09 21:00:10 14.074 1.157 9.000 4.19
10/07/09 21:00:11 13.817 2.279 9.000 4.44
10/07/09 21:00:12 14.612 2.300 13.000 4.70
10/07/09 21:00:13 12.658 0.230 9.000 4.05
10/07/09 21:00:14 14.690 2.013 9.000 4.85
10/07/09 21:00:15 12.346 1.239 9.000 4.18
10/07/09 21:00:16 19.930 0.741 9.000 10.26
10/07/09 21:00:17 14.073 2.302 9.000 5.31
10/07/09 21:00:18 11.722 1.127 9.000 4.05
10/07/09 21:00:19 15.277 1.829 9.000 5.43
10/07/09 21:00:20 11.331 1.193 9.000 3.56
10/07/09 21:00:21 13.393 2.355 9.000 4.61
10/07/09 21:00:22 13.792 2.426 9.000 4.73
10/07/09 21:00:23 11.002 0.542 9.000 3.63
10/07/09 21:00:24 13.770 2.555 9.000 4.27
10/07/09 21:00:25 12.337 0.917 9.000 4.10
10/07/09 21:00:26 18.147 1.982 9.000 8.22
10/07/09 21:00:27 14.302 1.934 9.000 4.82
10/07/09 21:00:28 15.230 2.041 9.000 5.40
10/07/09 21:00:29 15.403 4.963 9.000 7.07
10/07/09 21:00:30 10.613 1.243 9.000 2.84
10/07/09 21:00:31 13.210 3.168 9.000 3.51
10/07/09 21:00:32 14.033 2.863 9.000 3.73
10/07/09 21:00:33 11.708 1.986 9.000 3.15
10/07/09 21:00:34 13.925 2.664 9.000 4.15
10/07/09 21:00:35 11.237 1.030 9.000 3.44
10/07/09 21:00:36 13.612 1.205 9.000 3.91
10/07/09 21:00:37 14.614 2.170 9.000 5.33
10/07/09 21:00:38 17.474 3.680 13.000 10.79
10/07/09 21:00:39 21.868 2.674 21.000 27.97
10/07/09 21:00:40 18.751 5.377 25.000 27.11
10/07/09 21:00:41 21.573 2.807 25.000 27.82
10/07/09 21:00:42 21.408 3.322 21.000 27.99
10/07/09 21:00:43 18.735 5.364 17.000 26.95
10/07/09 21:00:44 20.911 3.987 25.000 27.79
10/07/09 21:00:45 21.941 4.117 17.000 26.94
10/07/09 21:00:46 23.572 2.607 17.000 27.56
10/07/09 21:00:47 21.324 3.406 13.000 27.82
10/07/09 21:00:48 18.881 5.223 17.000 26.98
10/07/09 21:00:49 21.261 3.172 21.000 27.75
10/07/09 21:00:50 19.238 5.134 17.000 27.17
10/07/09 21:00:51 21.377 3.757 9.000 14.95
10/07/09 21:00:52 13.426 2.818 9.000 4.25
10/07/09 21:00:53 10.810 0.617 9.000 3.49
10/07/09 21:00:54 14.094 2.194 9.000 4.61
10/07/09 21:00:55 11.881 0.983 9.000 4.71
10/07/09 21:00:56 13.507 1.477 9.000 4.43
10/07/09 21:00:57 13.970 1.305 9.000 4.83
10/07/09 21:00:58 12.719 1.389 9.000 4.05
10/07/09 21:00:59 13.989 2.702 9.000 4.43
10/07/09 21:01:00 20.113 1.386 9.000 11.34
10/07/09 21:01:01 15.100 1.416 9.000 4.97
10/07/09 21:01:02 16.701 2.226 9.000 7.10
10/07/09 21:01:03 10.667 0.681 9.000 2.89
10/07/09 21:01:04 13.631 2.569 9.000 3.97
10/07/09 21:01:05 13.227 0.806 17.000 4.19
10/07/09 21:01:06 13.072 2.195 9.000 3.98
10/07/09 21:01:07 13.471 2.663 9.000 4.37
10/07/09 21:01:08 10.152 0.648 9.000 2.69
10/07/09 21:01:09 13.019 3.171 9.000 3.51
10/07/09 21:01:10 13.007 1.233 13.000 4.20
10/07/09 21:01:11 12.501 2.267 9.000 3.81
10/07/09 21:01:13 14.512 1.800 9.000 5.61
10/07/09 21:01:14 11.504 1.027 9.000 3.82
10/07/09 21:01:15 14.334 2.288 9.000 4.59
10/07/09 21:01:16 24.914 0.014 25.000 89.42
10/07/09 21:01:17 25.000 0.000 25.000 100.00
10/07/09 21:01:18 25.000 0.000 25.000 100.00
10/07/09 21:01:19 25.000 0.000 25.000 100.00
10/07/09 21:01:20 25.000 0.000 25.000 100.00
10/07/09 21:01:21 25.000 0.000 25.000 100.00
10/07/09 21:01:22 25.000 0.000 25.000 100.00
10/07/09 21:01:23 25.000 0.000 25.000 99.98
10/07/09 21:01:24 25.000 0.000 25.000 100.00
10/07/09 21:01:25 25.000 0.000 25.000 100.00
10/07/09 21:01:26 25.000 0.000 25.000 100.00
10/07/09 21:01:27 25.000 0.000 25.000 100.00
10/07/09 21:01:28 25.000 0.000 25.000 100.00
10/07/09 21:01:29 25.000 0.000 25.000 98.35
10/07/09 21:01:30 19.998 1.412 9.000 8.38
10/07/09 21:01:31 16.274 2.385 9.000 5.73
10/07/09 21:01:32 13.843 2.472 9.000 4.80
10/07/09 21:01:33 11.670 0.428 9.000 4.00
10/07/09 21:01:34 17.698 2.164 9.000 7.99
10/07/09 21:01:35 13.243 1.410 17.000 4.55
10/07/09 21:01:36 15.782 2.347 13.000 6.31
10/07/09 21:01:37 15.548 1.735 9.000 5.39
10/07/09 21:01:38 13.750 1.179 9.000 4.51
10/07/09 21:01:39 14.361 2.086 13.000 4.64
10/07/09 21:01:40 14.415 0.534 13.000 4.51
10/07/09 21:01:41 17.629 2.100 13.000 7.13
10/07/09 21:01:42 14.176 1.930 9.000 5.42
10/07/09 21:01:43 12.974 0.959 9.000 5.77
10/07/09 21:01:44 13.544 2.555 9.000 4.07
10/07/09 21:01:45 10.858 1.124 9.000 3.03
10/07/09 21:01:46 14.011 2.396 9.000 4.38
10/07/09 21:01:47 13.639 2.599 9.000 4.43
10/07/09 21:01:48 10.837 0.817 9.000 3.21
10/07/09 21:01:49 13.553 3.145 9.000 3.49
10/07/09 21:01:50 10.506 1.331 9.000 2.65
10/07/09 21:01:51 12.630 3.281 9.000 3.59
10/07/09 21:01:52 14.492 1.146 9.000 4.03
10/07/09 21:01:53 10.069 0.863 9.000 2.55
10/07/09 21:01:54 13.412 3.030 9.000 3.67
10/07/09 21:01:55 11.873 1.243 9.000 3.39
10/07/09 21:01:56 13.302 2.624 9.000 4.07
10/07/09 21:01:57 14.139 2.215 9.000 4.44
10/07/09 21:01:58 11.613 1.300 9.000 3.48
10/07/09 21:01:59 13.887 2.553 9.000 4.10
10/07/09 21:02:00 12.553 1.266 9.000 3.78
Thanks, that log file looks OK. A solid 25.0 multi when fully loaded looks correct. If you set your Power Options -> Minimum processor state to a low number you should see the Calculated multiplier settle down at idle. You might need to enable C1E as well but usually not.
Hey,Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
did what you suggested me without any luck.
Stay tuned for the next version of RealTemp. I don't know if I can do anything on my side to fix the GPU temperature issue but I don't think I can make it any worse.
Good to know unclewebb,
prolly my stupid fault anyway.
EDIT: Just noticed that even EVGA Precision doesn't have temp. monitor anymore.
Also in my Nvidia config. screen I can't seem to find anything anymore about the temps. Maybe that's why?
C1E was enabled. Power pforiles were set on balanced. So I guess the results are ok. What puzzles me are the temps WAY to low from the sensor test.
I don't think it's your fault. :shakes: I have the same problem. Stumbled upon it some weeks ago, IIRC when 19x.xx drivers came out. Reinstalling didn't help. Uninstalling and then installing helped, IIRC. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Astratuner
BTW, too many "IIRC", so I'll give it a try, cause right now don't have GPU temps anywhere but Everest.
EDIT: Uninst/inst didn't help. Used DriverSweeper http://www.guru3d.com/category/driversweeper/ then installed 191.07 and it works great.
Sorry for all this relatively off topic chat, but this is proof that missing temps has nothing to do with RT. Maybe there is many driver leftovers on this 18x.xx to 19x.xx crossover and regarding it has some power management additions, it could be the reason for mess up.
Monstru: The version of RealTemp you are using is not correctly recognizing your processor so it is not reading the TJMax value from the CPU like it should be doing. Perhaps Intel has lowered this. When RealTemp finds an unknown CPU, it takes a wild guess and assumes 100C. If that is wrong then your temperatures might not be reported correctly. I made a lot of progress today so I should have something ready for testing by tomorrow. Core Temp was updated recently. Maybe see what that says for TJMax.
donmarkoni: Thanks for figuring that out. Hopefully your fix works for other users. This bug came about somewhere around the late 180 series Nvidia drivers.
Ok Kevin, I will wait for the new version. I will also try the latest CoreTemp a little bit later.
Unwinder, the programmer of RivaTuner, has also had some issues lately with Nvidia's latest drivers and GPU temperatures. Here's his fix:
http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=...key=%EF%BF%BD#
Thanks for that info burebista. :up:
I'm using 191.03 and my temps show up in Real Temp 3.30 RC 10.
EDIT: 150 page milestone has been reached :D
Here you go Kevin, with the beta:
http://lab501.ro/wp-content/uploads/.../RT-Beta-1.jpg
http://lab501.ro/wp-content/uploads/.../RT-Beta-2.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by donmarkoni
Thanks donmarkoni,
the driversweeper re-install methode did it!!!!
Thanks Monstru, that looks better. Intel must be using TJMax = 105C on your CPU. Core 0 has always been the most accurate temperature wise. How does this look now compared to your room temperature? These new Dual Cores are going to run a little cooler than the Quads but it might still be a couple of degrees too low. I'll try to change RealTemp so it correctly calls your CPU a Core i5 instead of a Core i7. Intel has so many CPUs that are overlapping each other in specs these days that it's becoming more work for programmers to keep them all sorted out. :)
Can you try running this program and post your results?
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/MSR1AD.zip
It reads Model Specific Register (MSR) 0x1AD which should show me how many bins of turbo boost this CPU is capable of. I don't have any Intel documentation to go by so it's always best to ask the CPU to tell me what it can do.
No problem Kevin, I will use the program and report back. My room temp is 25 oC.
Hey Kevin, I ran MSR1Ad and it says
Quote:
1818191A
With a room temperature of 25C, it looks like your sensors read a little on the low side. The original Core i7-9xx series had very consistent and accurate sensors at idle and at TJMax. I can't yet say the same thing based on some of the socket 1156 screen shots I've seen. I hope Intel didn't decide to cheap out again like they did with the 45nm Core 2 sensors.
I've also seen another issue recently where on a retail Core i7-920, the TJMax written into the processor was 93C instead of the usual 100C. This resulted in temperatures being reported that looked to be too low compared to every other Core i7-920. More core temperature games? :shrug:
Edit: Here's how those numbers in MSR 0x1AD translate. There are 4 numbers in that MSR that correspond to the maximum multiplier available when 4, 3, 2 or 1 core is active. It might just be a coincidence that you have 4 numbers in there or another sign that your CPU might have started life as a Quad. Maybe it's like an AMD chip where the mobo guys found a trick to unlock some hidden cores.
Those numbers are in hexadecimal and so the numbers in decimal are 24, 24, 25, 26
For your CPU, when two cores are active, the maximum multiplier is 25 which you already know. When only one core is active, the maximum multiplier can go up as high as 26. If you can disable a core in the bios, you should be able to see the full 26 times multiplier all the time. The other way to get this is to enable C3/C6. This allows one core to go to sleep which Intel classifies as an inactive core. When running a single threaded activity, you should see the multiplier continuously cycle between 25 and 26. The multiplier on the hardest working core will approach 26 but any background processing will activate the second core and kick you back to a 25 times multiplier. This multiplier cycling is happening hundreds of times a second based on load when C3/C6 is enabled. Post a screen shot of RealTemp or i7 Turbo if you can see this happening.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Lots of minor changes behind the scenes including better support for Intel's new socket 1156 CPUs as well as their new Core i7 mobile CPUs.
Changes include:
-the use of the i7 Turbo method to calculate the multiplier for all CPUs. If this causes a problem for older Core 2 CPUs that may have the internal timers disabled then you will need to add this line to the RealTemp.INI file to use the previous method:
MSRMulti=1
The new i7 Turbo based method when used on a modern Core i7 or i5 CPU with C3/C6 enabled in the bios will be able to show you the multiplier of the hardest working core which in my opinion and Intel's opinion, best represents how fast your CPU is actually working. This method also works well with Core 2 mobile CPUs that support Intel Dynamic Acceleration (IDA).
The i7 Turbo method allows Super Low Frequency Mode (SLFM) to be displayed correctly on the Core 2 mobile processors that support this feature. A multiplier of 3.0 at idle when this feature is enabled is typical.
-the elapsed timer has been fixed so it shouldn't lose time any more.
-a work around for an incorrect bios setting was found for the missing core issues that sometimes plagued Quad core owners.
-a Task Manager based load meter (TM Load) was added as an option. The original load meter is based on the percentage of time a CPU is in the C0 state which is very accurate for many CPUs. Mobile CPUs work completely different and this number does not accurately reflect the load of the CPU at idle so now you have an option.
-the XS Benchmark was changed slightly so now you can Cancel it while it is running and you shouldn't see any more, "Program isn't responding" messages when it is fully loaded testing.
-an option to display your temperatures in Fahrenheit was added. Just add this to your RealTemp.INI file.
Fahrenheit=1
-the Settings window has been reworked for better consistency in preparation for possible future upgrades.
-only maximum VID is displayed in the Settings window for Core 2 owners for less confusion. This option will display real time VID on the main screen.
-an option to Disable Turbo Mode on Core i5/i7 CPUs.
etc., etc., etc., etc.
Lots of changes so if you see any problems let me know as soon as you can so I can get things fixed up. An official release is way overdue which I'd like to do in the near future. The RivaTuner plugin is next in line for an upgrade to better support the new CPUs.
Thanks rge, burebista, Monstru, somebody on TPU and my other contacts for your infinite testing and for helping to make RealTemp better and more compatible with a wider range of CPUs. :clap:
Thanks for update,soon I will check with i7-860.
Thanks stasio. I'm hoping this new version will more accurately report your multiplier when running a single threaded app with C3/C6 enabled similar to what the i7 Turbo program shows. This version had the new i7-860 and i7-870 in mind as well as the i5-750. With multiple bins of turbo boost becoming more common on Intel's new chips, we need some accurate software to monitor that. CPU-Z only tells part of the story.
I might have to go do some thread crapping in those other threads to get users to give RealTemp 3.35 a try so everyone can better understand what these new CPUs can really do. :)
If you can, post a screen shot while running a Super PI 1M bench with C3/C6 enabled to show all the bins of turbo boost that are available.
Hi UncleWebb, still using realtemp and loving it. I got another small bug for you. If you need to kill explorer.exe (you know, sometimes it hangs on weird stuff for no reason), the tray icons don't reregister. =] You have to logoff/on again or reboot to get them back. I know it's something that's strange and doesn't happen very often for most people. But I thought I would mention it anyways.
Love the program as always, cheers!
Thanks Fungus. When you kill explorer, after explorer restarts, does the Task Manager show that RealTemp is still running but it's not on screen anywhere to be found and the system tray icon(s) are also missing?
I guess I've been lucky and haven't had explorer crapping out on me for a long time so I haven't noticed this issue before. If I can recreate it I'll see if I can find a fix for it. What OS are you using, XP?
RealTemp is of course still running, as I used taskman to kill explorer.exe (all instances), and then restart explorer.exe using New Task. Yes, I am using XP Professional SP3. (This is not the only program to not re-register icons =)
Some do, some don't. Riva tuner doesn't either, but nhancer does. OpenDNS doesn't, Creative Volume control doesn't, Nvidia Control panel doesn't, but many programs do, like my antivirus and some other stuff. I guess they aren't bugs that devs check for =]
Thanks for a few more details Fungus. You're right, I've never given this a second thought but now I will. If I can recreate it and come up with a simple solution, I will. I hate bugs as much as anyone.
I quietly released 3.36 today. The only change was that the elapsed timer that I just improved for better accuracy was counting while in stand by mode which I didn't like so I fixed it. The RealTemp elapsed timer should only count up while the computer is running.
http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/5...agineby.th.jpg
here is my Xeon chip, now cooled by the stock heatsink :)
That's exactly what I was looking for KURTZ. Now I can explain what the new version of RealTemp is doing differently.
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/6448/realtemp336.png
RealTemp 3.30 used to calculate the multiplier for each of the 8 threads then it would average them out and report that.
With the new CPUs that can have multiple bins of turbo boost available, the overall average can be a meaningless number like it is in this situation when C3/C6 is enabled. Averaging 3 cores that are spending the majority of their time asleep in C3/C6 doesn't give a user any useful information so it was time to change RealTemp.
RealTemp 3.36 looks at all of your threads, finds the one working the hardest, the one running Super PI in this example, and reports the multiplier for that thread. Intel recommends that software should display the highest multiplier and when you see an example like this, that makes sense.
When running a single thread of Super PI, the multiplier will spend most of the time cycling between 25X and 26X. As soon as two cores become active, the multiplier will drop down to 25X and after that task is completed, the second core can enter C3/C6 and become inactive again which allows the CPU to resume using the 26X multiplier again. Obviously, the more background activity you can eliminate, the larger percentage of time that it will be able to stay at the full 26X. Turning off programs like CPU-Z, i7 Turbo and that side bar fluff should help get the multiplier higher. :)
By the looks of your testing, RealTemp 3.36 is a good tool to use when you are trying to maximize your multiplier. Less background activity equals higher multiplier equals better Super PI scores or what have you. Thanks KURTZ for sharing this info.
Here's how rge's Core i7-950 looks. The maximum multiplier on one of these is 25X. You can see that he was able to get close to the maximum when he was hitting 24.7. I think this new multiplier number that RealTemp reports is more meaningful than CPU-Z rounding things off and telling you 24.0.
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/4...336vscpuz2.png
just tried, but the max multiplier is still 25.3X ... :SQuote:
Originally Posted by Uncle
Fixed VID reporting on the 45nm mobile CPUs.
Thanks somebody at TPU for bringing this to my attention.
http://www.sendspace.com/file/nsqj8n
Wow, a new one allready!!! :D
uncle,
my CPU idle,but RealTemp show always Load 10-12% ?
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/106...1015064305.png
There are two different Load Meters in the recent versions of RealTemp. If you go into the RealTemp Settings window and select the TM Load option then you should get a load number very similar to what the Task Manager shows. It uses the same Windows function as far as I know.
The original load meter that RealTemp has been using is not a true load meter. It measures the percentage of time a CPU is in the C0 state. The method I'm using is documented to be accurate for the Core i7 CPUs only. I've always had excellent success with this on my E8400 as well as all of the other 65nm CPUs I've tested on my motherboard.
I know on Core 2 mobile CPUs, this number actually starts to increase as the CPU idles down, similar to what you are seeing. When Super Low Frequency Mode (SLFM) kicks in and various other power saving features, it can go up to 60%. I originally thought that this was a sign that as the MHz went down, the CPU would have to spend more time in the C0 state to take care of the background tasks.
Do you have anything enabled in your bios like C-state tech or similar?
It's possible for this meter to read very low on an E8400. I live in North America and I'm not sure if your motherboard might have some built in energy saving feature or something else that I don't know about.
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/5985/rt337k.png
It looks like the new TM Load meter is a perfect option for you.
The Clock Modulation option can also send the basic RealTemp load meter higher at idle.
Monstru: I'm working towards the next official version. I'm hoping that if I use version numbers up quickly then I will be motivated to finally release 3.40. Mostly minor bugs at the moment and areas where there is always room for a little improvement.
TM Load option works perfect.:up:
Thanks.
http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/307/tempyj.th.jpg
there is an error for this E6400 B2 ... :)
The first Core 2 I ever owned was an E6400 B2 stepping. I definitely did some hands on testing with my temperature gun on that one.
Happy memories. That one could run Prime stable at 3640 MHz for enough hours to get me into the [H]ard OCP database at a very respectable level for an air cooled processor. Of course, I had to drag my computer out to the garage in the middle of winter for that run but that's one of the perks of living in Canada. :D
Here's the history of TJMax. When Core 2 CPUs were first introduced, there was a bit in the CPU that software could read to determine what TJMax the CPU was, supposedly. If this magic bit was a 1 then the CPU was TJMax = 100C and if it was a 0 then it had to be TJMax = 85C or maybe that was reversed, I can't remember. It had to be one or the other though, based on this bit. This information was never in any Core 2 documentation. It instead came from some old Pentium 4 documentation that had absolutely nothing to do with the new Core 2 CPUs. One programmer made an assumption and then another one followed and another and etc.
Intel's original IDF presentation brought up the fact that this bit was not defined for Core 2 Desktop CPUs but I guess the other programmers decided to ignore this and they still continue to use TJMax = 85C to this day for the original Core 2 CPUs.
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9425/bunk.png
The question becomes, why didn't Intel come forward and set the record straight about TJMax when these CPUs were first released. If TJMax is closest to 90C, like I claim, and software assumes TJMax = 85C then all software will report that these CPUs are running 5C cooler than they actually are. That's a convenient way to create a cool running CPU. If the truth is that the average CPU has a TJMax closer to 90C and not 85C then if software was updated, everyone's CPU would be running 5C hotter than originally thought. Customers wouldn't be happy with that and RMA returns would likely go up.
I can certainly understand the motivation to remain as quiet as possible about this issue. Intel has nothing to gain so why bother.
I will continue to use TJMax = 90C on these early CPUs and it makes me happy to know that no one else has the guts to tell it like it is.
RealTemp originally followed the herd and used TJMax = 85C just like everyone else. By using this number, when the surface temperature of the IHS was 80C RealTemp would also report 80C. Everything looked good.
rge and his testing and papers about heat transfer in CPUs showed me the light. If the surface temperature of the IHS is 80C then the hottest spot on the core is not the same, it has to be higher. Heat dissipates very rapidly over a small distance in CPUs. The docs and rge's testing with a calibrated sensor showed me that the hottest spot on the core is approximately 5C hotter than the IHS surface temperature that I was measuring.
I hated to admit that I was wrong but I was wrong. This proved that TJMax couldn't be 85C. It had to be higher and for this E6400 B2, it was likely very close to 90C. That's why I use that number and why I have decided to go against Intel's PR news release about TJMax where they introduced the term TJ Target which has only confused users even more.
I've tested more CPUs since then and nothing has changed my mind. Intel says they raised TJMax 10C when they introduced the new G0 CPUs to save some money on heatsink costs. They also said that TJMax = 100C for the 45nm E8000 series of CPUs and everyone is happy with that number. When I use TJMax = 100C for a 45nm CPU, the core temperature reports 5C higher than the IHS surface temperature like it should. To get that same relationship with an early B2 CPU, I need to use TJMax = 90C. Using the 80C TJ Target number they released as TJMax would mean that the IHS surface temperature is hotter than the hottest spot on the core which goes against the laws of physics. The source of the heat, the core, can't possibly be cooler than the IHS surface temperature. When my testing was brought to Intel's attention, they chose to quietly ignore it. No surprise.
Kind of a long winded answer to your question. Thanks for bringing this up. Lots of users assume that TJ Target and actual TJMax are the same but they are not.
KURTZ: I just noticed in your screen shot that SpeedFan reports 50C for the CPU temperature. It's impossible for the core temperature to be less than this number. Only RealTemp reports the cores higher than the approximated Tcase temperature which is how it should be.
Thanks for the history lesson unc and also for another great beta. Working flawlessly with my mobile T9550. :up:
alternative d/l link for RealTemp beta 3.37: http://lakesidepc.com/RealTempBeta337.zip
Good to see you Loonym. The last few recent RealTemp updates have been for better support for the Core 2 mobile CPUs like you're using. Still a couple of minor issues to look at before the next official release. I think I've been saying that for a few months now but this time I mean it. :)
I've been meaning to contact you about the XS Bench. rge did some testing with his i7-920 and his i7-950. He was able to find out that this bench runs faster clock for clock on the newer D0 stepping Core i7 compared to the original C0 stepping Core i7 CPUs. This benchmark is fairly small and fits in the on chip cache so it looks like Intel must have done something to speed up the cache performance like reduced latency timing or something like that. If you do any XS Bench mark testing then send me your scores and tell me what stepping CPU you are using. Just curious.
thanks for the feed-back Uncle :)
This is pretty much in line with what I've seen in regards to stepping and scaling. I'll try to get a little more data and report back.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
My cousin has a Q9550 E0 and upon loading up Real Temp it was using a Tj Max of 90C (it is supposed to be 100C by default isn't it?) and it didn't show the CPU model at the top left as it should. This was using Real Temp 3.00. I thought it was kind of odd :)
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...s_my_Q9550.png
If you ask your friend to send me a screen shot of the latest version of RealTemp and CPU-Z on the same screen then I should be able to fix this up for him.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
I'm always fixing little things like this as I go along so if I've already fixed it in the latest version, then I won't have to try and fix it again.
Sometimes the string of information within the CPU leaves out a few details. Many ES processors are like that. When that's the case, I can usually add an extra line of code to get it properly recognized. If your CPU is top secret then just send me a PM and I'll keep 'er quiet. ;)
This string of information is displayed in the Specification box of CPU-Z. RealTemp takes that info and tries to figure out what CPU you have and what TJMax it should be using. Obviously, it doesn't get them all right but there's usually a reason. I've seen some CPUs where that string of information was not written to each core of a quad core by Intel. I think I changed RealTemp a while ago so that it tries to read this info from core 0 when that happens.
Edit: As for the GPU temperature not showing up properly, that might be an Nvidia issue with their latest drivers. Scroll back a page and you should see a fix for that as long as the temperature sensor is not damaged.
How's the Gulftown-ready beta coming along? :D
Is having fun with Realtemp ^^
Probably a few more days. I take it easy on the weekend. Too many games to watch on TV. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
Don't worry jcool. When I get it done, you'll be my tester.
Kind of interesting that this new 6 core CPU seems to be organized internally as 2 separate 3 core CPUs sort of like how the original Core 2 Quads were really 2 Dual Cores stuck under the same IHS. The 32nm Dual Core also seems like it is really a triple core CPU with the center core disabled.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=3727
In 2010 when Intel starts selling triple core CPUs, remember, you heard it here first. :yepp:
A triple core with hyper threading would be a great processor for enthusiasts and should overclock like crazy. It would leave AMD's triple core CPUs in the dust.
It shows up fine in 3.37
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...50_is_back.png
hmm I am working on a Dell Desktop [optiplex gx620]
and when i run Realtemp I get an error that this CPU is not supported:shrug:
Its a Intel Pentium D
I will try to make a screenshot later today
Probably the internal suckage sensor alert ("Warning - Netburst detected. Shutting down immediately.")
:ROTF: :sofa:
The Pentium D doesn't have a Digital Thermal Sensor, which is required for Real Temp.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelke
ah i feel stupid :D
Thanks for posting that randomizer. One less thing to fix today.Quote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
If your friend is curious, he can try running this program:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...7/CPU_Name.zip
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/5638/cpuname.png
It just reads the name string from each core of a CPU so his Quad should show the same string of info for each core. RealTemp 3.00 was probably just having a bad day. I think it's very rare for this info to be missing from any of the cores.
Tell him to read page 150 to look for ways to get his GPU temps working correctly.
What is "TM Load" used for exactly?
Good question. The original RealTemp load meter was based on the percentage of time the CPU is running in the C0 state. This is documented for the Core i7 and I found it gave great results on my E8400 as well so that's why I originally decided to use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RejZoR
On a Core 2 mobile CPU that supports deeper C sleep states, the C0% number actually goes up significantly as the CPU idles down and no longer represents CPU load. My best guess is that in this situation, as the CPU idles down and the cores start to go to sleep, a CPU has to start spending a bigger percentage of its awake time in the C0 state to get the background tasks taken care of. I've seen this meter report as high as 70% on a mobile chip during this situation. Kind of odd but this high number is actually a good sign. It shows at idle that your CPU is mostly asleep, which is a good thing, and it's running very efficiently.
No one ever complained but most laptop owners probably don't like seeing a 70% load number when their CPU seems to be idle. If you have that problem and don't like it then you can use the TM Load option which calculates the CPU load using the same Windows function that the Task Manager uses to calculate load.
I prefer the original RealTemp method because it is more efficient and more accurate, especially in XP, as long as you're not using the deeper sleep states. On a Core i7 or i5, I'm not sure how the two meters compare. It might depend on whether you have C3/C6 and C-States enabled in the bios.
Informative post, uncle. I'm not sure I'd be too happy seeing my laptop at 70% when it's idle. It's one of those things that irk you when you know they shouldn't heh.
i ran core temp and this one and both were displaying same temps...
@unclewebb: I'll tell him to take a look at that program, thanks.
I've heard plenty about C3/C6 states, but what about C7? It doesn't seem to get much of a mention anywhere. My BIOS allows me to limit how deep a C-state the CPU will go, and I can limit it to C1 through C7. I can also demote C3/C6/C7 requests to C1, or C6/C7 to C3 "based on uncore auto-demotion information" if I want to, although I'm unsure why I would.
punkrockpolak: As long as you understand what the C0% meter is telling you, it can be useful on a laptop. For comparison, I have a T7200 that shows a C0% number of 10% when the CPU is idle. It idles at (6.0x166MHz) 1000 MHz.
A more modern P8400 supports Super Low Frequency Mode (SLFM) which means the multi can drop down to 3X at idle so that's equivalent to (3.0x266MHz) 800 MHz. It also supports a feature where internally, it can ignore half the clock pulses so it's really only running at 400 MHz. It can use C3/C6 which the T7200 I have doesn't support so when a P8400 idles down, it has to work like hell when it is awake to process the background tasks because it is effectively running so slow and is going into sleep mode half the time. The Task Manager load meter will show 0% or close to it when this is going on but that's only telling part of the story. The C0% might be up in the 60% range on a P8400 which at least gives you some idea of what's really going on inside the CPU. I think both load meters tell you something so I included both of them.
randomizer: I was helping a user the other day and suggested that he should try enabling C3/C6 so his multiplier could reach its highest value. He wasn't planning to overclock the BCLK so I thought this might give him a little boost in performance. He didn't like it.
He thought his system felt less responsive. On his i7-920, enabling C3/C6 allowed his average multiplier to go from 21.0 to 21.3 while running a single threaded bench like Super PI. 133MHz BCLK x 0.3 is only equivalent to a 40 MHz boost. Not only did he not see an increase in performance, he was losing performance in Super PI. He seemed to have a lot of Vista baggage interfering with his testing but even best case, you're not going to see a huge difference in performance if your multi is only changing by an average of 0.3.
I haven't played with C7 so I can't say what the results would be. You might save a tiny amount of power and maybe your cores will idle a degree cooler. :shrug:
It's up to each user to test these things out and see if they provide any benefit. When overclocking, most motherboards don't drop the core voltage at idle so a lot of these power saving features are not that useful for the typical XS reader.
After running SuperPi with Affinity set to CPU 0 and all major background tasks either killed or set to CPU 0 only I still only managed to reach 21.8x with my i7 920. The other threads were usually managing a C0% of <3%, some consistently <1%. With unaltered affinity (except for SuperPi to prevent load balancing) it typically doesn't break 21.4x. Turbo might be useful for a single speed bin increase on LGA1366 but it certainly doesn't do much better than that.
randomizer: Could you try another comparison? I'm interested to see what's better without changing the Affinity of any of the background tasks and without killing any of them either. More like how the average person has their computer set up.
In this condition, is it better to use Set Affinity.. and manually lock Super PI to a single thread or core or is it better to leave Set Affinity... alone and allow the CPU to manage this and let it move Super PI to whatever thread it wants? What's your estimate of the average multiplier in each case? On a Core i7 with hyper threading enabled you could allow Super PI to run on the first two threads since they usually both belong to Core 0 as long as RealTemp is showing that your APIC ID as 01234567.
The new socket 1156 CPUs that have 4 or 5 bins of turbo boost available get more out of leaving C3/C6 enabled so the CPU can use the highest multiplier. The Core i7-9xx series processors that can only average an extra multiplier boost of 0.3 or 0.4 beyond the +1 turbo boost isn't really worth while. I assume that's why most performance motherboards disabled this extra boost as soon as you start overclocking. Better to have it locked at a steady 21.0 than jumping between 21.0 and 22.0 which is likely to cause instability when overclocking.
Hey Kevin,
now everything looks normal :)
http://lab501.ro/forum/attachment.ph...1&d=1256059381
A 32nm hyper threaded dual core looks like fun. I hate heat and fan noise so this finally looks like a CPU I'd like to have; once all the Foxconn sockets are off the market.
RealTemp still needs to call your new CPU a Core i5 instead of a Core i7 but at 4.7 GHz, who cares? :D
I think I fixed that minor bug in version 3.37 or 3.38
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/4531/i5650.png
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
The significant difference in core temperature at full load while running Prime 95 Small FFTs looks like more evidence that Intel "accidentally" sets TJMax slightly higher on core 1 compared to core 0 to better control thermal throttling. ;)
I hope they admit to that someday. Thanks for sharing.
Bwhahahah! Now I will try 3.38, thx Kevin.
Edit - Uf, it says 3.37 :(
Anyway, the i7 bug is solved. Here ya go:
http://lab501.ro/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/RT-338.jpg
Thanks for showing me that. I thought I fixed that but I lose track sometimes. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstru
There's no major difference between 3.38 and 3.37 so you're not missing anything important. It was some minor adjustment for a mobile CPU. I think I uploaded it to SendSpace instead of my regular FileDen.
What should I do with i7 turbo (ie. a program that most people won't be using all the time)? Leave it to use all threads as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
To accurately gather data from your computer, RealTemp and i7 Turbo need to be able to access all of your cores. Adjusting them with Set Affinity... isn't a good thing to do. The log from RealTemp might be your best bet when gathering some data. I need to update the logging abilities of i7 Turbo so it gathers and saves data for each thread. I'm not looking for a super scientific test. Just some numbers. A multiplier difference of 0.1 or 0.2 isn't something a person would ever notice in normal use. If we need a more scientific tool, I'll tune up i7 Turbo with some better logging abilities.
Link please :)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
RealTemp 3.38Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstru
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/7/...eta%203.38.zip
or
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=212
Thx stasio!
Quote:
Originally Posted by stasio
I don't find something normal :p. I get 20 degrees less than before. I wish my Asus would have that temperature. Unfortunately, I get idle temps the way 3.37 and 3.36 show :). So, I guess ... HOUSTON!!! WE HAVE A PROBLEM :)
Yep, but you have one constant value: distance to TJMax. That's why I keep telling that temperature related with TJMax is irrelevant as long as the only value that's matter for your CPU thermal behavior is distance to TJMax.