sweet, runs without a hitch....I think.
http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/6523/realtempmk9.jpg
Printable View
sweet, runs without a hitch....I think.
http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/6523/realtempmk9.jpg
how's that ? winxp x64. for some reason temps almost the same as everest.
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3473/testqr7.jpg
I'm not sure about that. You could send me your Q and I'll promise to give it a thorough evaluation! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Demo
WoZZeR999: Thanks for your patience. I guess I'm still in disbelief to find that it really does work in Vista x64, especially without any extra programming on my part. That's one hell of a driver I switched to. :)
I'll go wrestle with FileDen some more and update the main download.
Unclewebb, is it possible to include CPU temp as well. (tcase measurement) into your program? Or is this unnecessary because Realtemp eliminates the need for this by assuming the "real" core temps and tcase are relatively equal? :idea:
Great work.
Thanks to your effort!
Works like a charm on Vista64(as it is).
Idle and load:
http://img43.imagevenue.com/loc1035/...122_1035lo.jpg
http://img225.imagevenue.com/loc451/..._122_451lo.jpg
Thanks again.:up:
Good job unclewebb my vistax64 is working great... temps are now~ -5C underload than core temp and about~ -5C compared to everest also
At idle with low volts and MHz I believe that my IHS measurements accurately relate to the true core temperature but when a processor is under a normal variable load there are instantaneous hot spots developing in various regions of the core. That is the whole reason behind Intel going to multiple on chip DTS sensors. To keep better track of this activity. I've never been a big fan of CPU diode temps. Some are correct but it's impossible to tell which ones are and which ones are not. Core temperatures are what's needed to be measured. Maybe this will help encourage Intel to release proper documentation for these sensors.
okay, gotcha. nobody has exact documentation telling the Tjmax of G0 q6600s and E8400's? This is where we see discrepancies in CT & RT.
Correct. Intel does not document TjMax. Both programs are left guessing but I'd like to think one program's guesses are closer to the truth than the other.
The main download as listed in post #1 has been updated with the x64 drivers so that should work now for whatever OS you're using.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...7/RealTemp.zip
Very nice program. Thanks!
Working fine here on Vista x64. No more stuck sensors. Good job.
are Core #2 and 3 bunk? they almost always report exactly the same temp.
approximate 20-22c ambient
http://aycu22.webshots.com/image/456...9711706_rs.jpg
http://aycu02.webshots.com/image/441...1774267_rs.jpg
The two cores in my E8400 track each other almost identically from idle to full load temps and back again. The difference between cores is rarely 1C. I don't know if that is normal or how that compares to the average processor. If the DTS sensors are working properly, the IHS is square and well attached to the cores and a heatsink has been installed properly, then that is what you should expect to see. Quad cores are different and it seems a lot rarer to see all 4 cores that are balanced like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gen
Where's that smart guy with Excel when you need him to examine the temp logs to see what the average delta is during normal use?
It's a good idea for all users to properly apply thermal paste in the orientation that matches the layout of your cpu. (Dual vs Quad). I think some mistakes here might be responsible for some of the uneven temperatures seen. The AS5 site provides good documentation for this. It's also easy enough to make a mistake when you're trying to carefully manipulate a large air cooler into position.
Thanks again unclewebb for a well researched and well thought out program. Your program is IMHO the best core temp monitoring utility on the net bar none, keep up the good work.:up:
Heh, no problem. I'm glad that my 'off chance' of using the x64 drivers actually worked. I actually got the idea when it said 'WinRing0.dll' wasn't there, and I was looking at the file. I'm assuming that winring just dynamically renames itself within memory or somthing.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I figured that the actualy x64 programming wouldn't really be any different because I assume that you are just pulling the numbers from some basic call from the drivers. The only thing that the x64 could bring is a new 'optimized' x64 bench. You score xxx with x86 instructions, and xxxx with x64 instructions.
Thanks for the program.
What is the official TjMAX for the E8400 ?
Ok...the program runs fine in vista x64. the thing now, is how reliable the readings are.
I shows the same temp as my dfi mobo (without the +12C I added to agree with coretemp) so I believe this is a verification. Apart from that and your experiments, how can we be sure that it reads the actual temp of our E8xxx cpu?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demo
:welcome:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I believe that is the story of the fish that grew from 10inches to 40 inches, unless you can produce a document showing otherwise. I had read the paper when it first came out, but took a while to find it again. The paper published by senior intel engineers and architects of the core duo processor titled "Temperature measurement in the Intel® CoreTM Duo Processor" shows the die map, and a chart revealing the temp gradient of roughly 150 different load programs they tested.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosco
Quote from paper.
"In order to evaluate the DTS temperature reading, we performed a study to identify the impact of different workloads on the difference between diode and the hot spot, as measured by the DTS. A set of workloads including all SPEC-2K components and other popular benchmarks and applications, at single thread and multithread were executed on the CPU. Several iterations were done to reach a thermal steady state and then the diode and DTS temperatures were measured. Before taking the measurement, a calibration process has been performed, leaving only the temperature offset. Figure 5 shows the offset between the analog diode and the hot spot, as measured by the DTS... It also can be noted that some workloads display high temperature gradients (largest ~5.2C) while others have no offset."
Highlights:
Gradient from Die hot spot to central diode is 0C at idle and was measured 0C at roughly 15% of the "popular" load programs/benchmarks tested after steady state load was reached. Nearly a third of load benchmark/programs had a gradient less than 1C, and the maximum gradient between hot core and cooler central diode was ~5.2C, likely on programs like TAT, described with such a gradient in another article. The hottest transient gradient measured from hot spot on one core to an inactive core was 10C, using TAT like program or hotter, and this was on a larger cpu than 45nm.
What intel describes as a large hot spot is again stated in their article describing the reasoning between putting DTS on die versus junction..."The better accuracy translates either into 3%-7% higher performance or into improved ergonomics" or "In desk-top computers the impact is even higher due to the lower thermal resistance and 1C accuracy translates into 2 Watt of CPU power." Intel considers this 5C max gradient seen between hot spots and junction to be worth the move to die sensors.
The only possibility imo that tjmax was still 105, was the potential hot spots. But at idle, and even at load on a large number of the tested "popular benchmarks/programs the gradient was measured 0C from core to between cores, even at high temps 93% of tjmax.
The only other gradient, from sitting on core to Tcase was measured at 0.4C in previous link.
45nm seems to have less gradient, illustrated by Unclewebb showing no more than 1C difference between loaded core an idle core.
I think the burden of proof is clearly on those who want to claim a gradient larger than 1C exists from core to tcase at either idle or steady state load for moderate load programs.
http://eda-publishing.imag.fr/spip/IMG/pdf/TMI23.pdf
good read
http://etpg.nl/rt.png
Thanks for this very nice program :up:.
Now, is it normal to have this amount of sensor movement? (10/11/12/13) :shrug:
PS: Finally no more Vista 64bit issues, like CoreTemp had :D.
rge: Many thanks for your continued effort in killing the old "gradient myths." Last summer, after plenty of research, I brought this topic up on XS but it was an uphill battle trying to convince some of the old school types about gradients in a modern Core cpu. Where are you joebuffalo? :D
On the 45 nm dual cores, Intel doesn't even need multiple DTS sensors. They should almost concentrate on creating one high quality sensor with a wide dynamic range rather than multiple sensors with sticking issues when trying to report idle temps.
WoZZeR999: The quick Bench feature in RealTemp was provided more as a convenience feature for users wanting to make sure that their processor is running OK and the temps are moving around under load without having to reach for another program to confirm this. One interesting thing about this bench is it can't be tricked by booting up at one frequency and then using SetFSB to get a higher frequency. Your bench score is based only on what you're capable of booting up at. Just trying to keep people honest! ;)
Vipeax: The sensor test was designed with my dual core E8400. It quickly brings all cores up to full load and does a quick compare of before and after temperatures. Quad core processors are going to generate more overall heat during this test so it's normal that they will report higher movement numbers during this test compared to a dual core CPU at the same core voltage and MHz. Depending on all of those variables, there's a wide range of what a good reading in this test is. Sensors that move more or less equally is what you want to see. Sensors that don't move (0) during this test is a sign that they are getting stuck and not properly responding to the change in temperature that your processor just experienced. Too many 45nm chips have this issue.
I use SpeedFan and like its graphing capabilities. It uses a 100C TjMax compared to 95C that RealTemp uses. Anyone that wants SpeedFan to read the exact same as RealTemp needs to click on the Configure button and go into the Advanced section and set an offset for each of your cores to -5. That will equalize TjMax between the two programs, and will equalize your readings.
Very nicely done. Will download ASAP & spread the word on other forums.
Vipeax, latest CoreTemp is Vista 64 compatible.
***EDIT: Interesting phenomenon, but I tried this out at work on our P4 3.0 & the temperatures just get stuck at TjMAX (85 degrees). The time stamp does not advance. Hopefully this isn't the case on my systems at home. Someone else with a P4 is reporting the same thing. LINKBACK
unclewebb
Please, can you write log of changes in the program under versions on the first page?
This program is designed for all of the Core series processors. I included the ability to run it on some P4 processors for testing purposes. If it doesn't run on your P4 properly then there is nothing I can do. The P4 doesn't have the sensor needed for core temp readings so it will read 0 for DTS and show temp at max. I tried!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dostoyevsky77
unclewebb, so was mine like yours ?
I tested this on Vista Ultimate x64, ASUS Maximus Formula and a QX9650 cpu.
It does show 10 degrees less than Everest, but I believe Everest is likely closer to the true temps.
At full load (OCCT cpu test), I get about 52 degrees across the cores in Everest, 42 degrees in Realtemp. This is at 4 GHz with 1.42v vCore.
My ambient is 24 degrees.
Sweet program, but it only shows 4 cores on my dual harpertown.:shrug:
Working well here in Vista 64 also. Specs in sig. Thanks for the effort!!! :up:
I don't think the program was designed for dual procs.Quote:
Originally Posted by KaptainBlaZzed
If I find an easy way for you to read the two CPUs individually, I'll add that feature and send it your way for some beta testing. Now that everyone seems reasonably happy with the basic program, I'll have some time to start adding a few extra features. CoreTemp has had a two year head start in development but I'd like to think that RealTemp has done a pretty good job of catching up during its first two weeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by KaptainBlaZzed
@unclewebb - yeah dude, you did a great job with it. Will you consider a user defined tjmax option? It'll be nice for comparison purposes for those of us with "unknown" chips such as my B3 Q6600. I'd like to have the ability to play with it [tjmax] on-the-fly.
What are your thoughts?
SpeedFan gives you the option of setting an offset if you don't agree with its choice of TjMax. I'll try to include a similar feature. I'm pretty confident with TjMax=85C for your B3 Quad and TjMax=95C for the G0 Quads.
Cool dude. Might be easier to just allow direct changing of the veriable rather than introducing a 2nd correction factor (already have the -- - o + ++ ones).
RealTemp 2.11:
Maybe I should call this the GraySky edition!
For GraySky and anyone else that can't accept the TjMax I have chosen for their processor or even for users that just want to make some comparisons to my CoreTemp competition, then this is the version for you.
I've added a file to the distribution called RealTemp.ini
It's a simple text file that contains the following info but really only needs to contain a single character: 1, 2 or 3. By setting it to one of the following values here's what you can do:
0
---------------------------
TjMax adjustment feature
---------------------------
0 NO adjustment
1 + 5C adjustment
2 +10C adjustment
3 +15C adjustment
If you don't need this feature then you can delete the RealTemp.ini file or you can continue using version 2.1 which is exactly the same as this version except for this one feature.
This is a temporary beta version and the structure of the .ini file will likely change in the near future to accommodate additional features.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...7/RealTemp.zip
Any chance of getting vista Sidebar support similar to Everest? :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
it appears it's the 2.1 version still when i downloaded a few minutes ago? or am i an idiot:)
Cool dude, thanks for the feature.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Sounds like a great feature but don't hold your breath waiting for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by WFO
and while you've nowt else on, can you knock together a decent OS :rotf:Quote:
Originally Posted by WFO View Post
Any chance of getting vista Sidebar support similar to Everest?
Sounds like a great feature but don't hold your breath waiting for it.
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1.../Dibujo-38.png
I need to add +15º.
Why? So you can have an inaccurate core temperature just like Core Temp is providing you with?Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrealer
RealTemp version 2.11 is perfect for you. Edit the RealTemp.ini file and set it to 3 and you will now have core temperatures just as inaccurate as what CoreTemp is providing you.
If you want an accurate core temperature reading then leave TjMax=85C for your processor and set the Idle Calibration to ++. You need to read the documentation for RealTemp located in post #1.
It's not the fault of all these temps reading programs, it's the fault of the sensors of both the chip and the MB. It's like it is just a afterthought of design. Half of them seem to be getting stuck anyway. Flying blind really.
Asus Probe Says Your CPU Is Freezing Your ass on 28 - 30 idle and 38 - 40 load. Bios says Your CPU is freezing your ass on 26 - 30 idle 37 - 41 load.Core Temp says your CPU is boiling ass of your Core 3 - 4 40 idle 50 load and cores 1 - 2 are getting warm on 36 idle 45 load ..
I'm more than confused
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
For Q6600 "G0"s the idle calibration should be 0 right ?
Every processor is different. I included the Idle Calibration feature so each user could calibrate this software to their specific processor. How to get yourself in the ballpark is outlined in post#1. If that is too much work then setting it to 0 is best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demo
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Understood, will try the 266x6 method when i can get another room thermometer as my current room thermometer is far from accuarate, its night time here and a bit cold but its reading 30c ( w/c feels like 22~24 )
I was still unsure about why RealTemp and CoreTemp are reading the TJmaxx differently (also causing a 15c change in temperatures), so I posted a thread at OCN for people to voice their opinions and talk about it. Here's the link, it's a pretty good read:
http://www.overclock.net/intel-cpus/...-realtemp.html
(If I'm not allowed to link to outside forums, please inform me so I can take it down.)
And another member just did a test to see where the cpu would actually throttle, and which program is correct. For now this test only applies to the e2xxx and e4xxx series that are the M0 stepping.
http://www.overclock.net/intel-cpus/...tjmax-dts.html
RealTemp sets TjMax=95C for the M0 stepping. For the L2 stepping processors it only uses TjMax=85C. Go have a look at the Intel docs. The L2 E4300 uses the same TCase temp rating as the other B2 stepping Conroe processors from that era. The B2 E6300, E6400, E6600 and E6700 are all TjMax=85C. It makes no sense that the E4300 would be significantly different.
CoreTemp set TjMax to 100C for the L2 E4300 and other L2 processors after it came out and people were getting below ambient idle temperatures. Raising TjMax for these processors was a mistake. The programmer of CoreTemp did not take into account the problems with the DTS reporting idle temperatures which effects all core processors. Have a good read of post#1.
If I can find an L2 processor locally tomorrow I might buy one and try to prove this once and for all.
Setting TjMax=85C and using a ++ idle temp correction factor will get you the most accurate temps for your L2 and will cure the below ambient readings that well cooled L2 processors report.
Edit: I noticed during testing that the PROCHOT# history bit first got set when DTS=2.
How come people report hitting below ambient when the tjmx is 85c?Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Thanks for responding by the way. I am really hoping to get all of this resolved so I can overclock some more. :D
You've been amazingly helpful unclewebb.
Hi Uncleweb.
I just finally read all the posts on the thread.
I like the work and effort you put within this tests.
I did some tests 2 days ago si I can helo you with the real Temps measured.
Sorry I couldnt post the tests before but I had a vacation weekend.
Now, Here is it:
Sorry for the pics, I was testing on a rainy day.
First, I took my UEIDT200 Thermometer and conected probe 1 to the CPU IHS and probe 2 just hanged on so you can see the ambient temps.
You can also compare ambient temps reported by my weather meter:
http://bandwidth.se/imgs/53/191/0.jpg
So, you see.... almost 25 Ambient.
Now CPU used is Core 2 E8400 so this can help with the tests.
The way I used the probe on the CPU was simple, just by one side touching the IHS of the CPU so I can measure the temp that way.
In fact, you did something similar by infrared termómeter, but I will meausre all the time CPU temps with my probe.
http://bandwidth.se/imgs/53/191/1.jpg
So I turned on the PC, wnet into the BIOS and set 1.125v CPU VID with all other voltages on stock VTT =1.1 and vNB on Auto as well as for SB.
As you can see, on BIOS CPU temp is 36 while actually is around 29 Celsius.
http://bandwidth.se/imgs/53/191/3.jpg
http://bandwidth.se/imgs/53/191/2.jpg
Now, for the tests, I used 3 Software:
1.- Core Temp (which is obviously the worst tool for Wolfdale it seems)
2.- Motherboard Monitor 5 (with FCG atachment so I can read DTS)
3.- Real Temp (by uncleweb)
Now, the screens I took will show the temps on idloe and Load. Tried SuperPi and Orthos on Both Cores.
Here CPU stock on idle temps:
http://bandwidth.se/thumbs/5902.jpg
While temp on sensor is about 27 degrees, Core Temp reports temps way to high and MBM reports temps below ambient.
Notice Real Temp is reportint 29 C but the calibration is - so, normally it would be around 31 Celsius.
If I put calibration on --:
http://bandwidth.se/thumbs/5898.jpg
Now:
http://bandwidth.se/thumbs/5907.jpg
While doing SuperPi. Thermal probe reports up to 29.6 Celsius.Core Temp again is way to wrong and if you see, Real Temp shows 35, and MBM shows 29 Celsius.
Seems like MBM is getting a good temp reading.
Let me clear that MBM as far as FCG told me, takes the Tjunction as 100º. While this doent works for idle, because it reports temps under ambient, seems to work on load.
Now, on orthos:
http://bandwidth.se/thumbs/5908.jpg
Notice Thermal probe is 32.4 Celsius.
Real Temp reports as 38 Celsius and again MBM reports 32 Celsius. So, it seems MBM gets good readings on Load.
Here on some minutes more after running:
http://bandwidth.se/thumbs/5901.jpg
You can see MBM says the exact same temp as Temp sensor.
At this point, Im starting to think MBM could work on load temps, but why is it so off when idling reporting always below ambient temps?
Now, I will set 3.8ghz with 1.32v on CPU.
Here the voltages set on BIOS:
http://bandwidth.se/imgs/53/191/10.jpg
Here on idle:
http://bandwidth.se/thumbs/5906.jpg
While Temp sensor shows 29 Celsius. MBM is below ambient, Core Temp is way too high and Real Temp shows 30 Celsius when using -- calibration.
While running SuperPi 1 core @ 3.8ghz 1.32v:
http://bandwidth.se/thumbs/5899.jpg
Temp probe shows 32.3 C.
While MBM is very close showing 32 C, real temp goes off up to 37 and I will not consider Core Temp which reads higher temps.
While running orthos @ 3.8ghz 1.32v:
http://bandwidth.se/thumbs/5904.jpg
Now, you see temp probe says 38.6 Celsius.
Now, neither of the temp programs report the temps acurately. Not even MBM which was working ok (or it seemed so) on Load temps.
While you can run the CPU passively, you can notice that the temp is really low for this CPUs. So, you can really take appart core temps readings and ignore them because I can even install OS with CPU without hetsink without problems.
Also, seemslike temps are lower than reported by any Temp program, and, for example, the MBM reports aparently acurate temps when load.
DIfference between MBM and Real Temp Tjunction is about 5 degrees.
- Also, MBM shows temps below ambient which are not possible when idling, and Real Temp gets good or at least, very close to real readings when idle.
- It seems that when adding voltage, all CPU programs show temp sclaling higher than it should be?
Well. I hope this can help you guys to make the best Temps reading program. I will make any tests requested if possible whenever this weekend, aganh, so dont hesitate to ask me some configs to test.
Kain
Thanks for the test Kain. I noticed one thing. You put the thermal sensor on the side of the IHS. While I know it wouldn't be possible to put it in the center, would it throw temperatures off so that they would be read wrong?
In almost every trial you reported that RealTemp reported 5-7c above what the temp probe was showing. Wouldn't the temperature be 5-7c higher in the middle of the ihs compared to the side of it? Just a thought.
Probe on the side of the IHS will be slightly inaccurate at low heat loads.
For proper testing a channel milled above each core into the IHS will give the best results. It will produce worse temperatures but they will at least be more accurate.
Yes it should be.
Temps could be off load around 5 degrees and so Real Temp could be ok.
Anyway, temps reported by MBM are matched on Load.
Also, notice calibration on Real Temp always need to be -- because if not, temps are a lot different.
I might think on a way to run the probe on the cneter of the IHS, but that would be maybe with stock heatsink if I can dremel a path on the Heatsink base so I can put the Probe without interfering (completely) with the base and IHS contact.
Agian, notice when voltage cransks up, the Temps are to way high in mi opinion. The difference there can be more than 10 degrees.
Or maybe, taking off the IHS... Sorry I cant to that guys :(
But the channel on the heatsink base its a must I will try to do next week.
Kain
Worst temps? actually, more accurate temps :) Worst because we dont want to see how high the CPU can go?Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
I will try to mill a channel over the stock heatsink so I can do better tests ;)
I have an e4300. I put it at stock and took some temperature readings. I have a Tuniq tower with great airflow and the fan on high.
Idle:
http://aycu14.webshots.com/image/472...2248700_th.jpg
My ambient is 23-24 degrees celsius. RealTemp reports my temperature as below ambient.
Load:
http://aycu05.webshots.com/image/485...5722176_th.jpg
CoreTemp says I load around 50c, which is completely ludicrous for a Tuniq Tower and e4300 at stock. RealTemp readings look good, but the idle reading is weird.
Any comments about this?
Calibrate your idle temp readings as posted on #1Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrospekt
Ok so I put it at ++ and idle temperatures seem more reasonable. I am getting 33 and 36c load which is what I should be at...I think. I guess I'll trust RealTemp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demo
Did a little experiment today;
Bios temps detected 40~48c ( randomly regardless of the weather/ambient temps )
Coretemp is almost always 9~11c lower than bios temps.
Realtemp is always 5c lower than coretemp reading.
Placed 70c on bios thermal shutdown, increased voltage from 1.335 to 1.515 ( to ensure that my processor hits 70c )
Coretemp at 69c = system shutdown ( take note the 9~11c offset from the bios temps )
Realtemp = 64c ( last seen before shutdown )
This is not to prove that realtemp is inaccurate but does this mean that the bios reading temps is similar to CT/RT when it comes to reading out idle temp ? ( needs calibration on idle but spot on when loaded )
I think what STEvil means is that, by milling a channel in the IHS, the contact area between CPU and heatsink/waterblock will be less and therefore cooling performance will be reduced (resulting in higher temps).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kain XS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kain XS
If you do cut the groove, could you test with heatsink on and off. With heatsink off, use idle and slowly bring temp up, allowing to equilibrate and compare measured temp to distance from tjmax at 45, 40, 35, 30.
Once heatsink in place and actively cooling Tcase, you will be measuring Tcase accurately, but a more significant gradient will exist from core to tcase, while cooling tcase and loading core.
But would love to see it tested both ways for comparison, if you do it.
I did a lot of testing and had a lengthy reply written back addressing many points. Sadly yesterday downloading UT3Demo legitimate from a legitimate file site at the same time, it had a relatively new virus and has messed my system up quite badly upon extracting. Now fixed it but lost all my desktop files including my pictures and notes which I had uploaded and posted in my reply. I'm not happy. :mad:
I'm not going in any detail now but just giving my results in a while when I can.
You can't slowly bring temp. up without a heatsink. It's not possible unless you have the environment temperature controlled very well at sub <0.7V <1.2GHz or if you're applying static loads to reach such temperature. Without a heatsink, temperature shoots up very fast above 10W TDP on an IC. Especially when you reach >80C, the temperature runs away. Hence any sub-$100 probe I've seen cannot even read, calculate and feedback the real-time IHS temp. before the system shuts down (THERMTRIP#). The delay is such that, they will end up reading temps. approximately easily 5-10C short of the real Tcase temp., depending on how quick the temperature shoots up (very quick).Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
Yep.Quote:
Once heatsink in place and actively cooling Tcase, you will be measuring Tcase accurately, but a more significant gradient will exist from core to tcase, while cooling tcase and loading core.
Umm, the BIOS is not idle, like in windows. BIOS will always read a few C higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demo
BIOS is 100% load on core0, always. System Idle Timer cannot be executed in BIOS.
There is no program that 'reads' Tjmax, b/c there is no Tjmax to be read. It is all an assumption made by the programmer. That's why different programs have different values for Tjmax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrospekt
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason4207
Yeah I figured that out after a lot of reading and discussing. Unclewebb is trying to pick up a cheap e2xxx or e4xxx to test it.
Figures, Makes me wonder how accurate the bios temps reading are as it is 1:1 with CTQuote:
Originally Posted by jas420221
Based on my guess, my ambient temp now is about 24c, RT has the lowest reading of 29c while CT is at 33c.
my room thermometer says 30c but no way its 30c ( night time )
I've just decided to trust RealTemp. CoreTemp gives me ludicrous temperatures and RealTemps are right around the range it should be.
That's what I like to hear! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Retrospekt
I was hoping to find an L2 today but all I could find was an E2160 M0 stepping. It should provide us with a few more numbers to ponder but probably nothing too exciting. RealTemp should assume a TjMax=95C for this new processor so I'll test that theory when I get a chance.
I really need an E4300 L2 so if anyone wants to trade then let me know. I might have to head to EBay but it was slim pickings last time I checked.
Testing with a thermocouple on the side of the IHS is not very accurate and I believe the delta to core temperature will change depending on the load. Next time I'm testing I'll try moving the IR thermometer further away from the middle of the IHS and see how much temps drop. I don't think I'll get an accurate reading when trying to read the edge of a CPU. The flat surface of the IHS is ideal.
I sometimes use a high speed hand held fan pointed at the CPU which helps stabilize core temperatures and keeps them from increasing too rapidly when the heatsink is not attached.
Good news: I have no IHS so direct die measurement is theoretically feasible
Good news: I have a thermocouple and the bead looks like it should fit under the heatsink
Bad news: my Fluke 179's temperature calibration is ridiculously off (showing current ambient as 2.2C!!!)
I kind of tabled this project while I have been working on something else, but that has just about run its course. Can anyone suggest how I would go about getting my Fluke calibrated?
done it several times on my e8400, very easy, but at underclock low v like u saidQuote:
Originally Posted by KTE
I might be interested in a trade...Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I have an e4300 L2 stepping. How high do you think I could clock the e2160 on a Tuniq Tower? I'll read up a little and get back to you. PM me if you want to talk more. :)
Does this software read the north/south bridge temps on the maximus formula? For some reason I can't seem to find a version of speedfan/everest or anything else that will read them and I'd like to know while I'm overclocking.
CorrectQuote:
Originally Posted by ~aoe~
http://www.flukecanada.ca/onLineServiceRequest/Quote:
Originally Posted by ixtapalapaquetl
This was a link I found on fluke... there must be one for each region they sell in.
Youre right.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~aoe~
Didnt got it till now :)
lol hersounds u pirated assasins creed XD
Can somebody help.
When i want to install Real Temp it say's "Driver not found" so i cant install it.
I use RealTemp v2.1,in the "readme file" it say's that it is no longer needed to install that driver.
What can i do to get it to work?
Rocker: If you have downloaded it using the link in post#1 then it should work fine. If you are using a limited account then you need to run RealTemp as an Administrator. The IA32 driver is no longer being used by RealTemp. The files are also zipped and you need to unzip the archive before it will work.
Hope that helps.
Made another comparison with CT 0.97 and RT 2.1
Idle temps are detected with 1c difference between programs (RT showing 1c lower compared to CT) by using a ++ calibration on the idle temps.
But during a certain amount of heat generated the CT readings pull ahead by 2~4c difference from RT ( again RT reads lower with ++ calibration )
I tried booting my system to 266x6 at 1.275(lowest VID possible on my Q6600 G0) resulting in a +1/-1 reading on CT & RT. ( on 15mins of Prime95 v25.6 SmallFTT )
Returning to my OC settings of 400*8 @ 1.335v ( bios volts ) I noticed that RT's reading is comparable to CT upto 49c only when both programs start to indicate any value of 50c, CT seems to start pulling ahead upto 4c difference from RT.
Basing on my unreliable room thermometer here, im getting 31c for my ambient. Using RT with 0 calibration shows my lowest core at 29c, + 32 & ++35
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/6670/ctrtsh6.jpg
Loaded
http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/8825/ctrtidleiq7.jpg
Idle
Since RT detects the TjMax of a Q6600 at 95c w/c a lot of people believe the TjMax is 95c instead of 100c or 105c i would assume that the 0 calibration reading on RT is the correct temp since im getting the correct temps when i deduct the delta to TjMax with the current TjMax detected
I do all these things,but it still say's "driver not found".Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
O yes i use XP 64bit,is that maybe the problem.
I was able to artificially drive my Core Temperature up to a 100°C in CT (90°C in RealTemp), so i dunno, but those Tjunction Values seem pretty wrong. Since this was at 4GHz using an E8500, the chip should have crashed or throttled at such a temp... Both it did not do.
Haven't tried higher, but at those values, my CNPS 7700-Cu Cooler was just a bit more than hand-warm..
Try 105c, it might throttle there. unclewebb used an external temp reader so there could be differences on the internal reads and it could be upto 5cQuote:
Originally Posted by AdmiralThrawn
Ok, if I have enough time today (i guess i will), I'll try even more. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Demo
It should throttle at DTS=0 and shutdown at temps 20-25C above that.
When DTS=0, coretemp will read temp of 100, ie at tjmax setting, and Realtemp will read 95C. But that will tell you nothing, unless you are verifying/measuring the temperature in an independent way (and if you are doing so, ignore this, I missed it). If you want to approximate core temp, need to measure Tcase...
1) with heatsink off, otherwise you are cooling tcase and creating gradient.
2) at idle steady state to minimize any gradient (slowly bring to idle...with E8400, .9v and 6x200 works well, with q6600 dont know how, or if possible to bring up slowly)
The gradient from core sensor to between the cores across die...is less than 0.1C at idle steady state, and ~15% of tested programs at load steady state, and nearly 1/3 tested programs at load steady state had less than 1C gradient...figure 5...but read whole paper from intel
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0709/0709.1861.pdf
The gradient from thermocouple on die (via hole drilled to it) to casing temp was measured in one experiment...and found to be 0.4C
http://www.overclockers.com/tips443/
Or you can estimate the gradient at steady state idle from die to tcase (first paper shows gradient across die is <0.1C at steady idle), from reading several intel papers. One was
http://www.flomerics.com/flotherm/te...apers/t324.pdf
Thermal conductivity [W/m-°K], die is 120.4, die attach adhesive is 0.9, mold compound is 0.63, air is 0.0261. Gradient measured from tj4 (68C) to tc (67.9C) was 0.1C across ~130um of mold cap. Temp gradient should also be nearly 0.1C across 75 microns of die attach adhesive (higher conductivity and thinner).
It would be hard to believe a gradient higher than 1C then by just increasing the thickness of the IHS, especially given intel has been researching for years/making improvements to reduce this gradient. Though Intel in various papers test and list thermal conductivity for silicon die, ceramic die, die attach adhesive, IHS compound, etc, no proof exists they are using these exact ones, but I doubt they are using ones less effective than ones they have published/successfully tested.
I believe the tjmax for our e84.e85's to be closer to 95C for a few reasons.
The thermal limit of the e6600 is 60.1°C and we accept that the tj is 85 for this cpu... We know 85-60.1=24.9. Since the thermal limit of the e8400 is 72.4C, and 72.4+24.9=97.3, would it be safe to say that these processors might have some tj range between 95c and 105c? Yes I realize these are 60mn and 45nm parts, but there seems to be some relation. Those thermal limits are posted on Intels spec sheet. I used the e6600 as an example because I have both CPUs.
Thoughts?
No worries, it works just fine on our QX6700, E8400, and E6750! That's all we care about. Here's a screenie from a 17+ hours on Everest stress. Oh & my personal appreciation to Kain XS for his work on testing this! Thanks, mate!Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/e.../Capture-4.jpg
The rest of my pictures are sigged.
AdmiralThrawn: Sounds like you were getting close to throttling but a properly functioning E8400 will not crash at 95C at default MHz and voltage. There is still lots of head room left before that happens. If you are overclocking and overvolting and running something like Orthos then you'll have an impossible time getting up to these temps without a crash but when lightly loaded, it's a different story.
Thermal throttling seems to start to happen when DTS drops down to 2 or 3. That's when the PROCHOT# signal will be activated which was reported correctly by RealTemp during my testing.
Vinas: Everything I believed about the relationship between Intel specified thermal limits and actual TjMax were thrown out the window yesterday when I was testing a revision M0 E2160.
Intel Thermal Specification
TCase Max:
E2160 73.2°C
E8400 72.4°C
Going by those specifications a person would be led to believe that TjMax for the E2160 is at least as high as the E8400 and maybe even a degree or two higher. That is not the case.
The E8400 has a measured TjMax=95°C but the E2160 during the same kind of testing is only TjMax=85°C.
Lesson learned is that you can't look at the Intel Thermal Specifications and determine anything about TjMax.
RealTemp v2.2 should be available later tonight which will include a fix for the M0 processors.
I now have serious doubts about the E6x50 series but until I actually test one I'll be leaving them at TjMax=95°C. RealTemp v2.2 will allow setting a TjMax offset of +/- 5, 10, 15 for those that wish to experiment or don't believe the RealTemp chosen TjMax.
hang tuff unclewebb you will get it !
Would a 25~30c Delta from TjMax be a safe assumption that our processors are running with in intel's specifications?
Looks like I might have to go to my local computer store and buy one of each! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by HDCHOPPER
I'd like to think that we're finally making some progress on the great mystery of Intel core temperatures.
As long as your processor is not throttling, it is running within the Intel specs. My one great theory still holds true. As long as you are Prime / Orthos stable and you are not throttling then you don't have to worry too much about temperatures. You will lose long term stability if you are pushing your processor too hard.
I remember reporting my idle temps here for my 6420 on my stock fan which are at this moment 22 and 25 degrees respectively for the 2 cores and someone commented thatshard to believe as I am also overclocking the chip to 6600 speeds. The ocforum link shows B2 stepping as 85 tjmax and sure enough it seems my speedfan temps are right. They both moved 7 and 10 degrees on the tester that tests for stuck temps.
Overclocking by itself doesn't create a lot of extra idle heat. It's when you start to increase the core voltage that the idle temps will go up.
What is your room temp Chrysalis? My B2 E6400 needs an Idle correction of (++) to keep the idle temps from going below ambient when doing the low MHz / low voltage test as outlined in post#1. You should try that test and report your results. We could also use someone with an E6750 to do that test before I have to go buy one of them too.
Version 2.2 is released.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...7/RealTemp.zip
You can read about the updates at the end of the first post.
Absolutely the bottom line. Could not have said it better.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Thinking higher or lower?Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I dont have my E6850 in now, just had shoulder surgery, so cant change it out for another week to do any more testing, but attached is pics I took on two different occasions, both times, undervolted, underclocked, and let temps slowly rise on idle and thin matte tape over cpu. At lower temps suggested a tjmax of 95, at higher more accurate temps of 92-93...but need to retest and make sure equilibrates in higher range, tjmax of 90 might be possible, but seriously doubt 85. These 4 pics were most accurate ones, temp I know had equilibrated for short time, and I marked delta tjmax read by DTS in red (first 3 pics are old speedfan that assumed tjmax 85 when E6850 1st came out).
Edit...would be nice though if someone else tested one to verify.
Whats the matte tape for ?
hey rge, what kind of shoulder surgery did you get..scope?
just curious; i have a shoulder problem and been thinking about seeing a surgeon about it.
Nice, it works! ThanksQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
IR gun wont read correctly from shiny surfaces as they disperse too much of the reflected IR. But with matte tape/masking tape and sitting against cpu to capture most reflected IR, reads nearly same as a calibrated temp probe, ie within about half a degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demo
Ace-a-Rue: yep, had subacromial decompression by scope 3 days ago (basically grind away some sharp bone from acromion so does not stab/tear/irritate my rotator cuff when I raise my arm above horizontal)
no idea I have no thermometer but it is the coldest place I have lived in.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
cores are now 23 and 28 respectively as its now daytime.
Wont doing ++ for the sake of it report wrong temps? as according to that other site B2 stepping should be left how the default is set.