Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

Wishmaker: Thanks for posting that. Maybe that's the reason I didn't want to share version 3.38. :D

I was moving some code around so it looks like it's still a work in progress. If you want you can manually set TJMax to 105C.

At least it looks like it is showing the Intel Dynamic Acceleration feature of your CPU. Run a single thread of SuperPI and during the middle of it take a screen shot so I can see what your multiplier is reporting. This CPU can use a 13X multi when only a single core is active. The average is usually less than that due to background processes.

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/968/t8300.png

By default, version 3.38 seems to be using the correct TJMax=105 for a T8300

Can you go into your Settings window and click on the Defaults button?

Do the numbers at the top beside the Set TJ Max button show 105? It's possible that it found 85 in your INI file and decided to use that but the Default button should set this to the correct 105. If it does then click on OK so it can save it and overwrite the 85 that's in your RealTemp.ini file.

New RT Beta for Gulftown :up:

http://www.abload.de/thumb/rtgtn6wo.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcool

New RT Beta for Gulftown :up:

---

Shhh, it's a secret. if stasio or Monstru find out, they'll hunt you down. :D

I just sent you the beta 2 version. Beta 1 wasn't reading TJMax from all 6 cores so hopefully that's fixed now. When I get the Cool Down Test and Settings window fixed up, I'll post a download link.

First 3 core TJ Max 102.:rolleyes:
But nice,waiting for link.:clap:
Edit:
Core Temp show VID!

Due to popular demand... Q3QR on water, realtemp GT Beta 2:

http://database.he-computer.de/Bilde...town/RTGT2.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stasio

Core Temp show VID!

---

I think Core Temp is assuming that it is some sort of Core 2 processor so it tries to do a VID calculation on whatever data it finds. There's still no known way to read VID from Core i5/i7/i9 CPUs.

Thanks jcool. That looks better. Now it's reading TJMax = 102 from each core correctly. :up:

Jcool: thats sweet :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Thanks jcool. That looks better. Now it's reading TJMax = 102 from each core correctly. :up:

---

Uncle,as per your post:http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=240
TJMax = 105:confused:

I believe that jcool switched to a different CPU today when the mail man showed up. My MSR Tool isn't set up to read all 6 cores yet but hopefully it is adequate to read MSR 0x1A2. If anyone has a 6 core CPU, can you click on the link in stasio's post and run the MSR Tool program and post your results. If RealTemp is using 102C for these CPUs then we should see 66 hiding in that hexadecimal number.

Yeah, that is a Q3QR 3,07Ghz Xeon. The other ones were Q3QS (2,53Ghz Xeon) and Q2WV (2,4Ghz Xeon). All are Westmere-EP though, not Gulftown (meaning these are all Dual QPI DP chips, as opposed to Gulftown = i9 XE w/o 2nd QPI link)

Here's your MSR, it is indeed a 66 (evil CPU? :cool: )

66 hex = TJMax 102 :up:

I think the one you were testing the other day was a TJMax = 105.

Since I have zero documentation from Intel, I don't think I'll bother trying to identify these correctly. I'll use Intel Core i9 for all of 'em until about 5 or 6 months from now when I finally get to get in line like everyone else and have a look at the official documentation.

I'm just happy that I've been able to make it this far with the help of the XS community. The next beta is just about done. The new Settings window will cover more screen real estate than you can ever imagine. :rofl:

Hehehe, looking forward to that, nig monitors MUST have a purpose after all :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

I think the one you were testing the other day was a TJMax = 105.

Since I have zero documentation from Intel, I don't think I'll bother trying to identify these correctly. I'll use Intel Core i9 for all of 'em until about 5 or 6 months from now when I finally get to get in line like everyone else and have a look at the official documentation.

I'm just happy that I've been able to make it this far with the help of the XS community. The next beta is just about done. The new Settings window will cover more screen real estate than you can ever imagine. :rofl:

---

All of mine are Westmere-EP cores like I said ;)
Westmere-EP will be the DP Xeons, Gulftown will be the i9 (XE only?)

As for the model names, I don't think they are decided upon yet :rofl:

I'm not really sure how to interpret the data in the i7 Turbo log, as I'm not sure what thread it's gathering data from. So I'll let you look at it and maybe you can see what is going on, or where something doesn't seem right with my testing.

http://www.mediafire.com/?zntbwzfjtiq - No Affinity
http://www.mediafire.com/?zvgec24mtjt - Set affinity

I also noted the times it took to do the superpi runs (I did the load testing with 32M). After 3 loops of 32M:

1m 39.150s - No Affinity
1m 46.164s - Set Affinity

However, I also did a quick 1M run without logging the multi with i7 turbo, and the results aren't different beyond margin of variation (I ran each twice):

0m 14.110s 1M - Affinity set
0m 14.109s 1M - No affinity

If you decide to enable i7 turbo to log data from all threads (and let me know what part of the log is the info I should be looking at ;)) I can make a pretty graph in Excel showing the multi over time for each thread.

randomizer: I think that's what rge was finding as well that letting the CPU manage what core to run a task on gave the best performance. Locking tasks to cores like the good old days seems to be less efficient.

Your log file data shows me that I need to update the logging feature so it can log each thread individually. That's the only way I'd be able to see exactly what's going on during a benchmark. Then I think it would be very obvious when one thread starts running with the highest multiplier during a Super PI bench. I'll put that on the things to do list as well.

Let me know when you're done and I'll get some more data :up:

@unclewebb, post #3817: Could the reason that a single task runs faster if not locked to 1 core is that it gets to use multiple lots of L1 and L2 (?) caches (the non-shared levels)?
Just an idea.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/u1iihp

There are two versions of RealTemp in this download. If you have a new 6 core Gulftown CPU then try running RealTempGT.exe

It's officially called beta 3 but everything is hooked up now and I've done some testing so hopefully it is ready for prime time. If anyone has 10 minutes to spare, post a CPU Cool Down Test of these new 32nm sensors. I don't think they are quite as good as the excellent Core i7-900 series sensors but I'll have to wait for some retail processor testing about 6 months from now before passing final judgment. :)

If you see any bugs let me know.

When run on a Gainestown Dual Quad system, RealTemp GT should show the first 3 cores of each CPU. I'm using the numbering scheme 0 1 2 4 5 6 partially for this reason and partially because internally in the new 6 core CPUs, they are arranged in two groups of 3.

This program works fine on a Dual Core CPU but will only show 3 of your 4 cores if you have a single Quad. It's not designed for these so use the regular version of RealTemp.exe instead.

Fungus: I found a fix for the icons disappearing when you kill explorer.exe
This new code is in RealTempGT.exe and hopefully by tomorrow I can add that code into the regular version of RealTemp
Thanks again for bringing that problem to my attention.

As requested, here's a cooldown test on the Gulftown. RT GT Beta 3, ~30C water, load Vcore ~1,35V DMM.
Seems the sensors are working just fine. :up:

Alternative download: http://lakesidepc.com/RealTempGTBeta3.zip

Everything looks good jcool. Thanks for the data.

These new sensors don't look as good as the Core i7-900 series but at least they're not all getting stuck like the 45nm Core 2 Quads and Duos do. Oh, I forgot. The old sensors don't get stuck, they simply become saturated at lower temperatures and might "bottom out".

loonym: I checked out the lakesidepc.com site. It looks like a work in progress. At least you got some decent software on that site. :D

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

This version includes a new right mouse button menu and a fix for the disappearing system tray icons when explorer is killed or crashes.

Core 2 idle MHz accuracy improved, especially for Core 2 mobile chips that can access the deeper sleep states like C3.

RealTemp GT updated and first official release.

A little more info added to the GPU button for Nvidia owners. If anyone has an SLI setup and would like to see individual info for each of their GPUs in this box and is willing to help a little with testing, let me know.

The RivaTuner plugin has been updated to support the new socket 1156 CPUs as well as Gulftown 6 core and Gainestown Dual Quad computers. I don't have access to any of these systems so if you have one, post some screen shots so I can see if the RivaTuner plugin is working as intended.

A Dual Quad Gainestown system might result in 37 individual RivaTuner graphs so be prepared to turn your monitor sideways before taking a screen shot. :rofl:

Thanks unclewebb, will try on my Dual Gainestown later ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

If anyone has an SLI setup and would like to see individual info for each of their GPUs in this box and is willing to help a little with testing, let me know.

---

I would like to help, just tell me what I need to do.

Thanks donmarkoni. I'll put your name at the top my SLI tester's list. :up:

Hopefully by early next week I can send something your way that you can test and compare to other GPU monitoring software. At the moment, when using SLI, RealTemp will sample each GPU temperature sensor, compare them, and report the highest temperature. My plan is to allow a user to check the temps of each GPU individually in a new window accessed by clicking on the GPU button. I would still stick with just a single GPU temp number in the system tray like it is now.

jcool: I can't remember if I mentioned this before but the RealTemp GT version should report the first 3 cores of each Quad on a Gainestown system. I'm thinking about adding the last two cores to the system tray as an option as well as displaying all 8 cores in the pop up menu over the first icon in the system tray. This way you could keep an eye on all 8 cores without the GUI having to get any more obese.

The RivaTuner plugin won't correctly identify some of your mystery CPUs but it should be able to read them all correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Thanks donmarkoni. I'll put your name at the top my SLI tester's list. :up:

---

Thank You. Looking forward to it! :) I'll be watching closely this thread (as I always do :D )

http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/1...ortestr.th.jpg

what about my sensors? :)

Well Kurtz, they look like typical socket 1156 sensors to me. Not quite as consistent as the sensors Intel used on their socket 1366 CPUs but they're not all getting stuck like on the old 45nm Core 2 series. The amount of slope error on these new CPUs is also pretty minor.

My theory is that the actual TJMax on your last core is probably closer to 102 or 103. If you don't like seeing the temperature on that core always sagged down then go into the Settings window and bump up TJMax from 99 to 102 or 103. After you do that, the 4 cores will report very similar temperatures when equally loaded with Prime 95 Small FFTs which seems logical to me.

If you drop your Minimum processor state in the Control Panel -> Power Options to a low number does your multiplier settle down to 9.0?
Edit: I saw your other post showing 9.0 so it looks good.

How about when C3/C6 is enabled, what does RealTemp show for your multi when running a single thread of SuperPI?

The Intel Spec Finder site doesn't have the turbo documentation listed for this CPU but I think the maximum multi is 22/22/25/26 when 4, 3, 2 or 1 core is active.

Love your work Unclewebb.

Feature request: Restore mode & window position on startup. (I have dual-monitors, not sure if that is a complication.)

You're welcome. :up:

Can you give me a few more details about your setup? What OS, what version of RealTemp are you using, monitor sizes and anything else you can think of. What type of mode are you referring to?

I know there is a bug / issue in Windows 7 that when RealTemp starts up by using the Task Scheduler, it can ignore the previous screen location of RealTemp and will open it up in the top left corner at (0,0) instead. I haven't found a way to work around this issue quite yet but if you give me a few more details I should be able to come up with something.

I was just working on this recently but I forgot about the dual monitor users so the new code might be preventing RealTemp from starting up on a second monitor now. I was trying to prevent RealTemp from opening up so far off screen that it couldn't be accessed. I might have gone a little too far. :(

I'll definitely be looking into this issue in the very near future.

Win7, RealTemp 3.36, primary monitor 1680x1050, secondary 1024x768. I put RealTemp into mini-mode and drag it to the 2nd monitor after starting it via a desktop icon (every time lol). Oh and the 2nd monitor is to the left of the primary :)

Thanks for a few more details. Give me a day or three to have a look at this. I'll have to plug in a second monitor and do some testing to see if I can make some improvements.

Nightblade: Check your PM box. There should be a version of RealTemp in there that takes care of this problem.

Ooh, thanks :)

Forgot to mention that when I take RealTemp out of mini-mode on the 2nd monitor it "jumps" to the right, nearly off the screen. Top-right corner of the window appears on the primary monitor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightblade

Forgot to mention that when I take RealTemp out of mini-mode on the 2nd monitor it "jumps" to the right, nearly off the screen. Top-right corner of the window appears on the primary monitor.

---

Does it do that with version 3.39.1 that I sent you or did it do that before? Time to start up my second monitor so I can have a look.

Edit: Now I see the problem. One more fix. :)

I think 3.39.2 should work correctly. No more jumping mini mode on the second monitor.
http://www.sendspace.com/file/osbkft

Download link error.

Perfect, thanks!

You're welcome Nightblade. My old code was trying to prevent any negative screen coordinates but I kind of forgot about dual monitors and the second monitor on the left side of the primary one.


I just tried the link. It seems to work OK.

uncle,any another link?
Trying with IE,Firefox,reset my IP address-same,cann't dl.

It's such a minor update I wasn't planning on sharing it but what the hell.

I also uploaded it to my usual FileDen site:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

Thanks,now OK.:up:

http://www.stickledown.co.uk/RealTemp.jpg

Unclewebb, - I have just installed RealTemp 3.00 and notice that the Display temps and the System Tray temps appear to be transposed. ( I had a look at Ver3.92.2 and it is the same)
Not sure which display is correct, not that that matters too much, but is there a way to bring them into line?
Apologies if this has been covered before but I have read back about 20 pages and not seen it mentioned.
Win 764 Pro
Core i7 920 @ 4.00
Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5

Congratulations on this app, - 154 page thread must have been a lot of work!

BTW - What graphics program are you using to draw those red lines and arrows on your screen shot uploads?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ExBrat72

Unclewebb, - I have just installed RealTemp 3.00 and notice that the Display temps and the System Tray temps appear to be transposed. ( I had a look at Ver3.92.2 and it is the same)

---

It's a Seven "feature" not Kevin's bug. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burebista

It's a Seven "feature" not Kevin's bug. :D

---

Oh! OK, thanks for that, - it looks like I should have done more research on this thread... Sorry about that.

The unsorted system tray icons is one of the few things I don't like about Windows 7. I complained during beta testing but that didn't help.

In Vista and in every previous version of Windows, when an icon gets inserted into the system tray, it always gets inserted at the far left. This makes it easy to predict where an icon is going to end up and as long as I insert them in reverse order, they show up in the correct order. Windows 7 just seems to insert them randomly or semi-randomly. Maybe I will figure out the mystery or maybe Microsoft will fix this with a service pack someday so Win 7 works like previous operating systems. The same RealTemp code works perfectly in Vista and keeps the system tray icons correctly ordered.

I'm still using a very old version of Photoshop Elements 2.0. Some of the newer versions got really slow and bloated so I still like this version. For doing the basics, it's great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

The unsorted system tray icons is one of the few things I don't like about Windows 7. I complained during beta testing but that didn't help.

---

Thanks for the reply, it looks like I hit on an old problem. (not a really important one, I know)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

I'm still using a very old version of Photoshop Elements 2.0. Some of the newer versions got really slow and bloated so I still like this version. For doing the basics, it's great.

---

Ah, yes. I was using Elements 6 but have just discovered PhotoFiltre which does the job well and is free...

Maybe you could email Microsoft and see if there's some highly complex algorithm used to determine where to put them. After all, you can't have an advanced OS without having an advanced way of inserting icons into the system tray.

http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads...Temp_3.40.html

It took me forever but I finally got W1zzard to upload a new official version of RealTemp to TechPowerUp. Just a few minor changes since the last beta including an Nvidia Information window that lets you keep track of your temperatures for each card in SLI or for each GPU if you are lucky enough to have a GTX 295. If you have a pair of those cards, let me know how RealTemp works.

randomizer: I think Microsoft is using an advanced random number generator to position the system tray icons in Windows 7. I'm usually pretty good at seeing patterns in random looking data but so far this has been hopeless. Very few programs use multiple system tray icons so I don't see this as being a very high priority for them. When I get bored I'll have another look at it.

Um, I just got a BSOD when running Real Temp 3.40 for about a minute.

:shock2:

OS: Windows 7 Professional x64

Edit: Okay, tried to see if I could repeat the same issue and nothing. Been running Real Temp for 10 minutes and nothing. I wonder why my computer randomly restarted.

Heh, don't worry Kevin, we allways host the latest RealTemp right after you announce it :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randomizer

Maybe you could email Microsoft and see if there's some highly complex algorithm used to determine where to put them. After all, you can't have an advanced OS without having an advanced way of inserting icons into the system tray.

---

If he puts that Microsoft's highly complex algorithm in RealTemp, then it would eat up 250MB of RAM and 15% od CPU cycles on Core i7! :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SimpleTECH

Um, I just got a BSOD when running Real Temp 3.40 for about a minute.

:shock2:

---

My biggest fear. I screwed something up. I think RealTemp is OK but I'll go do some more Windows 7 x64 testing. I haven't seen a BSOD in many months and never one caused by RealTemp.

Edit: RealTemp seems to work fine on my computer with Windows 7 x64.

Quote:

---

Intel Xeon W3520 @ 4.1GHz (1.20V)

---

Hmmm, maybe you need to be a little more generous with the core voltage. :rofl:

Are you Prime / LinX stable at 4.1GHz with only 1.20 volts?
Most of the Core i7 D0 CPUs seem to need ~1.28 volts or higher to be stable at this speed.

working fine here at win 7 x64


nice unclewebb ;)

http://rol-co.nl/hwi/gulf/realtemp-wr.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Hmmm, maybe you need to be a little more generous with the core voltage. :rofl:

Are you Prime / LinX stable at 4.1GHz with only 1.20 volts?
Most of the Core i7 D0 CPUs seem to need ~1.28 volts or higher to be stable at this speed.

---

Na man, it's been stable since the day I got it (~5 months ago).

Though I have increases the BCLK by about 2, so it could be unstable at 199x21. Though I've used 197x21 and handles everything.

hello.
can anyone tell me what the offset it for and how do I set it?
I mean where do I get the Tj max for my cpu?
QX9650.
My core temps vary by 9 degrees from 0 to 3. I dont get why so much.

The sensors used on the 45nm Core 2 Duo and Quad are horrible. They were never designed to be used to report accurate core temperatures. They have several problems including the problem that they get stuck at lower temperatures. I also believe that TJMax is not consistent across all 4 cores on these CPUs. Whether Intel does this deliberately or whether it's just an act of god, I don't know.

The CPU Cool Down Test in RealTemp is the best way for me to learn about the sensors on your CPU and what combination of issues your sensors have. For the QX9650, Intel published a number which they called TJ Target and they say that number is 95C. Actual TJ Max might be 95C, 100C or even 105C or 110C on some of your cores. There can be a lot of variation from core to core and no way to determine the truth. Post or send me a Cool Down Test and I'll give you my opinion of what I see.

SimpleTECH: All I can do is wait for some more user feedback. I can't ever remember having a RealTemp related BSOD. If you have another BSOD, tell me what the error message says.

Thanks Rol-Co for raising the bar in XS Bench. Not a very exciting benchmark but it quickly told me that your CPU is a beast. At 6.338 seconds some would say very quickly. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donmarkoni

If he puts that Microsoft's highly complex algorithm in RealTemp, then it would eat up 250MB of RAM and 15% od CPU cycles on Core i7! :rofl:

---

You know, I don't doubt that. :brick:

which is better for i7 real temp or core temp ???

Hi,

I am sure I am overlooking something obvious, but what?
These two versions do not agree on processor speed. The older one shows the correct value. This difference is pretty consistent over the time, but not constant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan7777

which is better for i7 real temp or core temp ???

---

I'm a little biased and I like RealTemp better but Core Temp would be my number 2 choice. It is one of the very few programs that is reading temperature data from all 4 cores when hyper threading is enabled. Many monitoring programs, even popular commercial ones, hint, hint, hint, do not.

Chris Z.: I was wondering how long it would take someone to ask, "What's going on here with these multipliers in RealTemp 3.40?"

Quote:

---

The older one shows the correct value.

---

Who says that is the correct value? The older version of RealTemp might show what every other monitoring program will show at idle but how do we know that is actually true.

What I discovered at idle is that how you have Windows set up will affect what your multiplier is really doing. Almost all software has decided to over look the truth and instead provide you with a nice steady multiplier even though internally, the multiplier your CPU is using might be in a state of chaos.

I don't have a QX processor to test with so hopefully you can do some testing to try and prove this.

There is another program in the RealTemp download called i7 Turbo. Try running that and RealTemp 3.40 and CPU-Z. When testing, turn off Everest and all other monitoring software because I'm not sure how other programs use the system timers that RealTemp 3.40 and i7 Turbo depend on.

In Windows Vista and Windows 7 there is a setting in the Control Panel -> Power Options called the Minimum processor state that has to be set to a low number to get the multiplier to go down to 6.0 at idle. For testing you can set this to 5%. If this setting does not exist then you might need to go into your bios and enable SpeedStep / EIST.

If you are using Windows XP, then one thing that controls this is also in the Power Options. Click on the Power Schemes tab and try changing the scheme from Home/Office Desk to Portable/Laptop.

The C1E setting also can play a part in what multiplier you end up with at idle. Enable C1E to lower your idle multiplier and disable C1E if you want a high multiplier at idle. This setting might not do anything depending on what you have set in your Power Options.

Once Windows has a chance to settle down, are the multipliers reported by i7 Turbo closer to 6.0? Post a screen shot of those 3 programs so I can have a look.

Now run a program like Prime 95 on all 4 cores and post another screen shot of those 3 monitoring programs.

What I found during development is that the internal timers that accurately record what multiplier your CPU is using, sometimes tell a completely different story than what most software will tell you at idle. I fully trust what the internal timers are telling me. It's possible that I've screwed something up on your QX CPU but for most Core 2 Desktop and Mobile CPUs and Core i7 / i5 / Nehalem CPUs; what RealTemp and i7 Turbo are saying is in fact what's really going on inside your CPU.

If your hardware / bios settings do not agree with your Windows settings, you can end up with a multiplier that constantly hunts up and down at idle between 6.0 and the maximum multiplier. Once you play with your Windows settings, you should have some control over your actual multiplier at idle.

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9335/q6600c1e.png

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2...ionsminmax.png

I have seen one early QX6700 Engineering Sample CPU that had the internal timers disabled but I don't think that is the problem in this situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

I'm a little biased and I like RealTemp better but Core Temp would be my number 2 choice. It is one of the very few programs that is reading temperature data from all 4 cores when hyper threading is enabled. Many monitoring programs, even popular commercial ones, hint, hint, hint, do not.

---

I believe HWmonitor is now reading correctly. I've just checked it (so I could see my chipset temps as well) and running Prime95 while moving the load around the cores with affinity changes shows normal responsiveness as far as I can tell. Speedfan, last I checked, still thinks there are 8 cores :)

randomizer: How about a screen shot of RealTemp, Core Temp and HWMonitor while running Prime 95 Small FFTs on all 8 threads. Once your core temperatures have stabilized, are all three programs reporting the same now? I've seen quite a few screen shots where HWMonitor is reporting a few degrees different than RealTemp and I'm not sure why. It might have been the older version.

HW Monitor used to interfere with the system timers that RealTemp and i7 Turbo use so RealTemp 3.00 would show some sky high multipliers. Can you see if this bug has been fixed?

Someone was just commenting about HWmonitor reading different temps on OC.net a while ago...so was checking mine. HW monitor does report 4 core temps, but temps are still out to lunch. It reads 2-3C too high at idle and 3-4C too low at load compared to real temp and coretemp. Cant make any sense out of it...thought about some long time rolling average, but at idle, just does not make sense.

RT, coretemp, HWM at idle
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5610/hwmonidle.jpg

all 3 at load
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/8483/hwmonload.jpg

Thanks for the numbers rge. I also saw that post on OC.net about HWMonitor reporting different core temperatures and it just doesn't make any sense. TJMax is written into each Core i7/i5 CPU which RealTemp and Core Temp are reading correctly and RT and CT are both reading the temperature sensors correctly for each core so I'm not sure what HWMonitor is up to. :shrug:

The formula can't get much simpler than this:

Reported Temperature = TJMax - Digital Thermal Sensor reading

You can't argue about those two numbers on the right so all software should be reporting the exact same thing when the core temperatures have been allowed to stabilize. During transitions between idle and full load, it's possible for two different programs to be reading the sensors at a slightly different moment and for two programs to report slightly different temperatures but at full load or at idle, all 4 cores should be almost identical. Core Temp and RealTemp show that.

The only difference between RealTemp and Core Temp would be if the APIC ID reported by RealTemp isn't in numerical order. When that happens, RealTemp sorts the temperature data into the correct physical order while Core Temp does not. This used to be an occasional issue with Core 2 Quads on some motherboards but most of the newer socket 1366 or socket 1156 CPUs and motherboards are usually OK and the bios correctly assigns threads in the correct order.

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

This is a bug fix version.

In SLI mode the GPUs should be labeled as GPU 1, GPU 2, GPU 3 etc.

The second bug is more serious and could result in a RealTemp crash when not using an Nvidia card by clicking on the Reset button in RealTemp. Both bugs are now fixed.

Edit: I see a new RealTemp feature on the horizon. :)

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5788/newfeature.png

As you requested, below is a comparison of the 3 programs (load being 8 threads of P95 Small FFTs). The results, like rge's are odd, but not as dramatic. Load is consistently 1C below Real Temp on all cores, and would be for Core Temp save for the fraction of a second difference in update times between Real Temp and Core Temp. Idle is almost identical to the other two programs. How is the power consumption for the CPU calculated, just using a simple formula based on TDP, voltage and clock speed? Or is there some way of reading the power consumption? I noticed that rge's is 130W flat consistently.

Also don't look at my chipset temp (TMPIN1), it could shock you. It was 10C higher yesterday since it was 29C ambient :rofl:

Idle
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...rison_idle.png

Load
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...rison_load.png

HWM definitely read Randomizers better. Since programs sample at different times, best way is to compare is max temps under load, they should all be nearly same.
Coretemp and real temp max load are both 68, 68, 68, 66. HWM is 67, 66, 67, 65. Mine is 3-4C off, guy on OC was 2C off, randomizer is 1-2C off. Interestingly, I put my pc back to stock, then HWM was only 2C off at load on 3 cores, 1C off on 4th. Then OCed to 4.55 all were off at least 4C with HWM at load.

Randomizer, can you try OCing your cpu and see if error increases while overclocking like it did on mine.

I remember Unclewebb saying about implementing a G15 plugin in to the Real Temp, one independent to Riva Tuner... this have been already implemented?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpablo

I remember Unclewebb saying about implementing a G15 plugin in to the Real Temp, one independent to Riva Tuner... this have been already implemented?

---

Sorry, that's still on the things to do list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rge

Randomizer, can you try OCing your cpu and see if error increases while overclocking like it did on mine.

---

Great, now I have work to do :p: Are you theorising that the overclock itself is causing the mismatch in temperatures, or just the resulting higher temperatures? If the latter, I could just turn off my CPU fan :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randomizer

Great, now I have work to do :p: Are you theorising that the overclock itself is causing the mismatch in temperatures, or just the resulting higher temperatures? If the latter, I could just turn off my CPU fan :cool:

---

I was wondering if increase power cause more temp fluctuations, and HW monitor is doing some type of rolling avg of more than just the hottest core. TAT (intel thermal analysis tool) interfaced with PECI which avg ?more than just the hottest core, so you got some weird avg, which unfortunately did not give you the correct hottest temp, which in protecting hardware is really all that matters. One of HWM updates mentions HECI, so dont know if that is what they are doing, ie something like TAT.

Just trying to see if it is increased power causing increased loading fluctuations or if its just different cpus/different mobo, etc. It is not temp itself, already tried that by turning fans off, increased error is related to increase power dissipated.

Basically just curious wtf HW is doing....clearly not averaging just hottest core, I tried testing for that.

If power consumption is what you want to test, I'll just play with the vcore. I have mine undervolted by 0.16V so by restoring it to stock and even overvolting it should show if power consumption is the reason, or at least a contributing factor. It will be interesting to see how the power consumption reading in HWmonitor changes as well (if it does). Mine doesn't seem to be locked at the TDP like yours.

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

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/1300/realtemp345.png

I've added ATI GPU temperature monitoring to this version. I am using the ADL (AMD Display Library) SDK 2.0 to accomplish this which isn't the most efficient hardware monitoring library.

Update: This seems to work on the 2000, 3000, 4000 and new 5000 series of ATI cards. The above post of my X1950XT was just for an example to show the general layout of the new ATI Information window.

On some GPUs in some situations, the performance of this library is terrible. On slower cards, I wouldn't recommend sampling the ATI GPU temperature sensor more than once every 5 seconds. RealTemp also includes the ability to easily temporarily disable this feature if you want to run any A / B comparisons or benchmarks.

If this new feature works for you without any issues then that's great. If not, you can always turn it off completely by using the INI option:

NoGPU=1

I haven't heard of any problems yet on systems with single GPUs. If you are using a x2 or any unique CrossFire version then some feedback would be great. RealTemp is designed to report the highest temperature of the hottest GPU in CrossFire mode in the button on the main GUI. This button opens up another window where you are supposed to be able to monitor each GPU individually. With multi monitors it might label things funny like, GPU 1, GPU 2, GPU 3, GPU 4 but if you have two GPUs in your system then GPU 1 GPU 2 should belong to the first GPU and GPU 3 GPU 4 should belong to the second GPU. I wish I had some more time and some actual ATI hardware to test on but I've had to wing it because my new 5750 crapped out half way through development. I decided to get a refund rather than try my luck again. I might wait for a 5850 next time I'm feeling lucky.

On Nvidia systems, RealTemp can report the GPU temperatures for each GPU in SLI mode but if you are not in SLI mode, then it can't report both GPUs. That's a work in progress.

One user had an ATI card as his main card and an Nvidia card as his second card. RealTemp can't correctly handle situations like that either. It's one or the other at the moment.

I added another INI option that might help a little in the above situation:

NoATIGPU=1

That might allow only the Nvidia GPU to be detected and reported in RealTemp so you can choose what one you want to see.
If I had some more hardware to recreate the infinite number of combinations I could probably do better but I don't. :(

If this new feature is of any use to you then post a screen shot. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

If this new feature is of any use to you then post a screen shot. :up:

---

Of course. 2600XT. :D

http://i46.tinypic.com/qn30n4.jpg

Thanks burebista. I thought it might work on the 3000 series but I wasn't expecting to see it work on the 2000 series.

It does not work on my 1950XT.

Thats a great idea, Bob :up: I`m about GPU monitoring.

Works like a charm for me :)

http://lab501.ro/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/RT346.jpg

Thanks for the feedback. I might have to do a minor adjustment to better support CrossFire. At the moment when a GPU goes to sleep on a x2 system, RealTemp might not be able to read the temperature history of both cores. I'll see if I can find a work around for that issue without having to wake up that core.

GPU-Z will always be my first choice for GPU monitoring but RealTemp looks OK as a second choice when you just need to see the temps.

Unclewebb:
Have you published a guide regarding idle calibration & TJ Max settings? I suspect that I need to tweak my settings...

Attachment 98869

THANK YOU for the great tools.

Raptor-X: Your welcome. Don't let the beta word scare you. RealTemp 3.46 is looking like a good one. :)
The download also includes some of the other tools I've been working on like i7 Turbo.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

There is an old guide about calibrating RealTemp that was written with the 45nm Core 2 in mind but it hasn't been updated. CompuTronix over on Tom's Hardware has an extensive guide that you might want to check out.

I find that the sensors on the i7-900 series are excellent compared to the 45nm Core 2 Duo and Quad sensors so calibrating is much easier. I don't find getting too technical about calibrating to be worth it anymore. The sensors on your i7-960 seem to be working just like all of the other Core i7-920 CPUs I've seen. When installed correctly, almost all of them follow a very familiar pattern.

Core 0 tends to be the most accurate so I always recommend to just leave it as is. At full load running Prime 95 Small FFTs, core 3 always reports that it is running 5C cooler. If you haven't read the last 100 pages of this forum in your spare time then somewhere I came to the conclusion that Intel very likely sets TJMax slightly higher on this core to better control thermal throttling so all 4 cores don't reach the throttling point at the exact same time which might noticeably kill performance. The two center cores are usually somewhere in the middle and often times very similar to core 0.

Your numbers show slight differences in the slope of the temperature curves of the first 3 but they're all so similar that it's not worth trying to make them perfect with calibration factors. The quick calibration I've come up with is to simply adjust TJMax. I'd set TJMax to 100, 99, 100, 104. This should get core 0 and core 1 to line up a little better from idle to full load. Core 2 shows less Distance to TJMax at idle compared to core 0 but it shows slightly more at full load. Actual TJMax might be closer to 101 or 102 on this core but the slope error cancels some of that out at idle so I think you should just set it to 100 like core 0 and keep things simple. Core 3 shows a 4C difference at idle compared to core 0 and that difference grows to 5C at full load. Once again there is a slight amount of slope error so if you want your idle temps to look nice set Core 3 to TJMax = 104C and if you want your full load temps to be accurate then set it to 105C.

A degree one way or the other isn't worth worrying about. Slight differences in how you applied your thermal paste might be responsible for some of these slight differences but I wouldn't waste time re-doing it unless you think that you really botched it. The truth is that you can apply your paste 101 times and lap your CPU and heatsink until your hand hurts but the 5C difference between core 3 and core 0 is not going to go away. Do a quick calibration adjustment or just ignore it like everyone else seems to do.

Unclewebb:
Thank you! As always, your efforts are greatly appreciated. I will give 3.46 a spin tonight.
Regards,
Raptor

Unclewebb:
Why RealTemp GT show only 3 cores ?

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7...1122153545.png

I think GT was for Gullftowns, no?

That's right. The GT version is designed for the 6 core Gulftown CPUs. Internally, these new CPUs are organized as 2 x 3 core CPUs. When you run RealTemp GT on a Quad, it will only show you the first 3 cores. I could probably fix this but the regular version of RealTemp should be used if you have a Dual or Quad core so I left RealTemp GT as is to encourage users to use the regular version.

RealTemp GT will also sort of work on the dual Quad Gainestown systems but at the moment it will only report the first 3 cores of each CPU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

That's right. The GT version is designed for the 6 core Gulftown CPUs. Internally, these new CPUs are organized as 2 x 3 core CPUs. When you run RealTemp GT on a Quad, it will only show you the first 3 cores. I could probably fix this but the regular version of RealTemp should be used if you have a Dual or Quad core so I left RealTemp GT as is to encourage users to use the regular version.

RealTemp GT will also sort of work on the dual Quad Gainestown systems but at the moment it will only report the first 3 cores of each CPU.

---

Yeah,I suspect must be this.Maybe will be easier for you to have one common RealTemp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stasio

Maybe will be easier for you to have one common RealTemp.

---

It probably would have been easier for me but I was thinking about users. 99.999% of users won't be spending $1000 to have a 6 core CPU for a long time so I thought, "Why should I make the RealTemp code more bloated just for a tiny percentage of users?"

I hate inefficient software so that's why I created a separate version for the Gulftown guys. The GT version was easy to get up and running quickly without worrying about screwing up the regular version of RealTemp that most people use.

More work for me but a more efficient program for both users. :up:

I don't know why I get intermittent "driver not loaded, run as admin." But when I run as Admin, it still doesn't work. This is on a Win7 x64. What seems to fix it temporarily is deleting the realtemp folder and installing a fresh copy.

Any ideas?

Deleting the folder shouldn't make any difference. If that does seem to help it's probably just a coincidence.

Can you give me a few more details like what version of RealTemp, where do you have it installed, what CPU and speed and what sort of hard drive are you using and how full is it. Usually if the driver doesn't get loaded it is because the computer is bogged down doing something else. If you have a virus scan or similar going on in the background, maybe that is causing the problem. Have you been using different versions of RealTemp for a while and has this problem been around for a while or is it a recent problem or not sure?

The WinRing0 driver RealTemp uses is open source and I didn't write it so I'm not sure if there's anything I'm going to be able to do to help this. Give me a few more details and I'll see if there's anything I can do to help you out. I might be able to add more delay time to RealTemp when it first starts up so it has more time and a better chance to load up the driver.

Are you in an account with Admin privileges?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Deleting the folder shouldn't make any difference. If that does seem to help it's probably just a coincidence.

Can you give me a few more details like what version of RealTemp, where do you have it installed, what CPU and speed and what sort of hard drive are you using and how full is it. Usually if the driver doesn't get loaded it is because the computer is bogged down doing something else. If you have a virus scan or similar going on in the background, maybe that is causing the problem. Have you been using different versions of RealTemp for a while and has this problem been around for a while or is it a recent problem or not sure?

The WinRing0 driver RealTemp uses is open source and I didn't write it so I'm not sure if there's anything I'm going to be able to do to help this. Give me a few more details and I'll see if there's anything I can do to help you out. I might be able to add more delay time to RealTemp when it first starts up so it has more time and a better chance to load up the driver.

Are you in an account with Admin privileges?

---

It occurred with version 3.3, 3.4, and now the most current 3.46.
I have a i7 920 clocked to 4.0 prime stable 26 hours blend and 20 runs of Linx at 25k problem set.

Currently have a 500gb hard drive, using about 200gb. New windows install 2 wks ago.

Yes, I'm the admin on this system.

I find that the problem started when I made a quick batch file to launch i7 turbo, cpuz, coretemp and linx all at once.

And I launched the problem as windows was starting up.
Funny thing is once I get the "no driver" message, there's nothing I can do but recopy the files or reboot the system.

If I wait a little bit after windows boots up, it seems to work a little more consistent.

autox: Thanks for some more details. I'll have a look at this tomorrow. Both i7 Turbo and RealTemp depend on the same WinRing0 driver and I know you can get that error message if you try to start both programs up at approximately the same time as they both try to access the driver at the same time.

I haven't tried this yet but maybe you could create two folders, one for RealTemp and one for i7 Turbo, and copy all the WinRing0 stuff into each separate folder. I'll try a few things tomorrow like this to see if I can figure anything out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

autox: Thanks for some more details. I'll have a look at this tomorrow. Both i7 Turbo and RealTemp depend on the same WinRing0 driver and I know you can get that error message if you try to start both programs up at approximately the same time as they both try to access the driver at the same time.

I haven't tried this yet but maybe you could create two folders, one for RealTemp and one for i7 Turbo, and copy all the WinRing0 stuff into each separate folder. I'll try a few things tomorrow like this to see if I can figure anything out.

---

They were in different folders. I didn't realize for the longest time the i7 turbo was included with realtemp.

@unclewebb:
congratulations for the great work!:up:
I want to ask you if there is a gadget of Real Temp for Win Vista/7 and I want to report a small bug ... when you set a different color for the vga on the system tray, setting is not retained.
Greetings and good work.:)

autox: The i7 Turbo thread kind of got lost on XS due to lack of interest. I decided to include the i7 Turbo program with RealTemp so maybe a few more users could give it a try. It's not an everyday tool like RealTemp is but it's still kind of handy when testing. Of course they'll have to look inside the folder first to find it. :)

I tried changing my code around and I tried to introduce different amounts of delay to try and get the WinRing0 library to start up correctly, etc., etc. but I didn't have any success.

If you would like both programs to start up at approximately the same time from a batch file then you need to do something like this.

Code:

---

@echo off
start RealTemp.exe
timeout /t 1 >NUL
start i7Turbo.exe
echo on

---

The timeout command can be used to give you a 1 second delay between the start up of each program. If I use a zero second delay, I always get the "driver not loaded" error message but with a 1 second delay, it seems OK. I tested this just at the desktop. If something like this is in your start up sequence and it still doesn't work then I guess Windows is too bogged down and doesn't multitask as well as you'd think it should.

I don't know if Windows is to blame or if the WinRing0 library is to blame. I can't fix either one of those and I've tried rearranging my code without any success so I hope the above works for you. At the Desktop I double clicked on i7Turbo.exe as fast as I could and quickly started up 50 instances of i7 Turbo and each instance started up OK without that driver error message. That makes me think that Windows or WinRing0 are more to blame than my code is.

Sl@yerTech: Welcome to XS. :up:

I don't use Windows gadgets so I haven't been overly motivated to do one for RealTemp yet. I might try this when I get bored or run out of things to do.

If RealTemp is located in a folder that you have permission to write to then the color settings for the System Tray icons should be saved. If you make an adjustment in the Settings window then you have to click on the OK button to exit out of the settings window to save your changes. If you only click on the Apply button then your new Settings will only be used for the current session. If you exit the Settings window by clicking on the X gadget, any changes made won't be saved. That's the default behavior for Windows programs so that's why RealTemp works like that. Give it a try and let me know if you have any problems.

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

A couple of minor changes including better support for ATI x2 technology and the ability to report both ATI and Nvidia GPU temperatures when you are using graphics cards from each manufacturer at the same time. Some users run a new ATI card for 3D but keep an older Nvidia card and use that in the second PCI-E slot for PhysX purposes.

If you have this setup, click a second time on the main GPU button in RealTemp to see a pop up window for each of your GPUs. The GPU temperature in the task bar will represent the highest combined temperature.

Hosted :)

Will test the new ATI X2 function early next week.

One user I was helping had a 4870 x2 and there is a feature that shuts down one of the GPUs when working at the Desktop to save power and reduce heat. RealTemp is designed so that it doesn't wake up a sleeping core. I didn't want to screw up this useful feature. After you do some 3D gaming, if the second core gets used, then RealTemp should be able to report Min/Max temperature data for both GPUs. I think the 5970 is supposed to work similar to this.

unclewebb, Thank you, for a very nice program. Been using Real Temp for awhile, it's awesome. I was just wondering if you had any plans to include the option to show all GPU temps in the task bar (notification area), like the core temps... TIA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

autox: The i7 Turbo thread kind of got lost on XS due to lack of interest. I decided to include the i7 Turbo program with RealTemp so maybe a few more users could give it a try. It's not an everyday tool like RealTemp is but it's still kind of handy when testing. Of course they'll have to look inside the folder first to find it. :)

I tried changing my code around and I tried to introduce different amounts of delay to try and get the WinRing0 library to start up correctly, etc., etc. but I didn't have any success.

If you would like both programs to start up at approximately the same time from a batch file then you need to do something like this.

Code:

---

@echo off
start RealTemp.exe
timeout /t 1 >NUL
start i7Turbo.exe
echo on

---

The timeout command can be used to give you a 1 second delay between the start up of each program. If I use a zero second delay, I always get the "driver not loaded" error message but with a 1 second delay, it seems OK. I tested this just at the desktop. If something like this is in your start up sequence and it still doesn't work then I guess Windows is too bogged down and doesn't multitask as well as you'd think it should.

I don't know if Windows is to blame or if the WinRing0 library is to blame. I can't fix either one of those and I've tried rearranging my code without any success so I hope the above works for you. At the Desktop I double clicked on i7Turbo.exe as fast as I could and quickly started up 50 instances of i7 Turbo and each instance started up OK without that driver error message. That makes me think that Windows or WinRing0 are more to blame than my code is.

Sl@yerTech: Welcome to XS. :up:

I don't use Windows gadgets so I haven't been overly motivated to do one for RealTemp yet. I might try this when I get bored or run out of things to do.

If RealTemp is located in a folder that you have permission to write to then the color settings for the System Tray icons should be saved. If you make an adjustment in the Settings window then you have to click on the OK button to exit out of the settings window to save your changes. If you only click on the Apply button then your new Settings will only be used for the current session. If you exit the Settings window by clicking on the X gadget, any changes made won't be saved. That's the default behavior for Windows programs so that's why RealTemp works like that. Give it a try and let me know if you have any problems.

---

Thanks, that works well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CKY2K

I was just wondering if you had any plans to include the option to show all GPU temps in the task bar (notification area), like the core temps... TIA

---

You're welcome. I wasn't really planning to show all of them. At the moment, RealTemp reports the highest GPU temperature in the System Tray. When you are at the desktop, do you really need to know the temperature of each GPU? If you see a really high number it should be easy enough to open up RealTemp and try to find out what GPU is causing the problem. With 6 core CPUs on the horizon, I'm thinking that maybe less temperature information is more useful than too much information.

Your GPUs tend to be at their lowest temperature when idle at the desktop. As soon as you start gaming, you can't see the System Tray so I can't see the need to show both temperatures. If you can come up with a good reason to show more GPU temperature info in the system tray I'll think about it. :)