Printable View
RealTemp GT is designed for the 6 core Gulftown CPUs only. On a dual Quad core system, it will likely show you the first 3 cores of each CPU and not report the fourth core.
That might be room for future expansion. :)Quote:
The realtempGT.ini seems to have values for 8 cores ??
Okay I guess I'm just slow or something. I was told to check my temps on my new 980x I wanted to use the latest RealTempGt, so I downloaded beta 3.58 I think it is. Anyway I also have an ATI 5970 and I tried just adding a line "GPU=2" as the last line of the realtempgt.ini file but no luck getting the program to see or read my Vid card. This is the first time I've tried this program, am I doing something wrong?
Sincere thanks
The ATI code hasn't been added to the publicly available GT version yet. I just finished adding that to RealTemp GT a few days ago so if you want to be the guinea pig then I'll send it your way for testing. My plan was to update the Nvidia code in RealTemp GT before the next release. Maybe tomorrow.
(squeak squeak squeak) sure, now that schools out have the time to help test if you would like. Drop me a PM or however you wish.
Cheers
Link not working anymore, anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by TEDY
RealTemp 3.58.4 :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Kolpukroll
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Another great release uncle. The program is better and better. Sorry I was not available for input, i had all my systems crunching in the Chimp Challenge. Now that is is over, I am all yours :).
Unclewebb, is the link mentioned above the one you were mentioneing for me to try ot does that one still only have the Nv changes?
Sorry bratboy. I've got more projects than time at the moment. I'm still working on fixing up RealTemp GT with better GPU support. i7 Turbo GT is almost ready for beta testing for Gulftown users.
???? The last update was so minor I've already forgot what I fixed. :DQuote:
Another great release uncle.
Thanks for the encouragement.
There is a big difference between Core#3 and Core#6, ~13'C under Prime-load, and ~10'C at Idle, with TJMax=default=96 for all cores.
At Idle, core#6 jumps up and down with ~4'C contiguously, while other cores keep almost constant at +/- 1'C.
Do I have to adjustment something, or this chip/sensor is like this?
Using RealTemp_346 here, but it is the same with RealTemp_358_4.
http://img.techpowerup.org/100513/Capture053.jpg
You will need to contact Intel about the crappy sensors they are using on these new CPUs. The sensors on the original Core i7 CPUs were excellent. Not a single significant issue.
The sensors on these new 32nm chips are not the same. They have multiple issues so once again, like many CPUs that came before the original 45nm Core i7, getting accurate temperatures out of these things is pretty much impossible. Intel does not fully document any of their sensors and they don't recommend that you use them for accurate core temperature reporting. All RealTemp can do is report the bad data coming from these sensors.
I had a theory a while ago that Intel deliberately offsets TJMax slightly from one core to the next to better control the timing of thermal throttling. There seem to be some major TJMax differences in these CPUs but nothing like this is documented so all I can do is guess.
Don't use these sensors to compare your temps to other users. They are only sort of useful to compare your core temperatures from one day to the next on the same CPU. Previous sensors tend to be consistent from day to day so if you change your setup and the temperature drops on core 0 while running Prime95 Small FFTs compared to the day before then the change you made was an improvement. Beyond that, it's mostly random data with too much error and not enough documentation. :(
I see. Thx for your detail answer :).Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/5186/realtemp359.png
After many years, I finally bought an over priced QX9650 so I could get RealTemp fixed up. The C0% Load meter should finally work correctly on QX CPUs and the multiplier should be reported correctly if your CPU has internal timers that are functional. Some of the ES processors might be broken.
Post a screen shot if there are any problems.
Thanks for the data you provided me long ago JohnZS. Sorry it took so long to get around to fixing this. :)
Edit: i7 Turbo GT has been updated with Gulftown and QX support. It's ready for some beta testing over here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...94#post4401694
ouch... that must have cost you a leg and half an arm :p:
thanks for the effort u're putting on this project uncle!! much appreciated.
testing 3.59 :up:
Thanks Uncle :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I have bad news for you, Realtemp 3.59 reports incorrect multiplier and % load values on my C0 stepping QX9650 :(
Any ideas?
Thanks and once again thanks for your continued support and efforts.
John
I always knew your QX9650 was unique. Can you post a screen shot at full load. It seems to work correctly on my C1. At least now I have some hardware to test on so maybe I will make some progress this time. I was working with another user who has a QX9650 - C0 and he was happy so now you've got me curious.
Edit: Here's a couple of tests I did. I ran 3 threads of Prime95 Small FFTs so that gives a very consistent 75% load + an extra percent or two for any background activity. The QX9650 has a default multiplier of 9.0 so I tested with a multiplier both higher and lower than the default and I used the half multi in both of these tests. On this QX9650, the C0% based load meter looks correct and the multiplier is also being reported correctly. If you get a chance can you try running this same test on your QX or any other test you can think of that shows a problem? Thanks John.
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4498/qx9650test1.png
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/5556/qx9650test2.png
shhhh! Don't tell the wife. :)Quote:
ouch... that must have cost you a leg and half an arm
Hi Unclewebb
Thank you once again for your continued efforts. The multipliers are now reading properly after a reboot.
Not sure if this is of any use, but have a look at this.
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3130/rtloadtest.jpg
I will try and do some proper loading with PRIME95 when I have the time to, but does it appear loadtester is not loading anymore?
Multipliers are working though :)
Before they were all over the place, jumping from 7 to 9 when in theory it should change from 6 (idle) to 10 (loading). After a reboot all seems well, perhaps a random glitch somewhere...
John
The Load Tester program is only designed to load 1 core. You would have to run 4 instances of this program to load each core. Prime95 is much easier.
A 90% load on one core of a quad is equivalent to a 22.5% overall load. That plus 3% load for other background processes like CPU-Z and the rest of Windows for a total load of 25.5% is reasonable.
The C0% number is not accurate on some Core 2 CPUs when lightly loaded if the motherboard supports deeper sleep states. On a Core 2 if the calculated C0% is way higher than the actual load at idle then you would be better off using the TM Load option in the Settings window. That will use a Task Manager like load meter instead. The mobile Core 2 can report a very high C0% at idle. On those it is more of a measure of how much the cores are able to go to sleep and save power so a high C0% at idle is a good thing.
The multiplier that RealTemp reports using the internal timers is an average multiplier. If you are using SpeedStep and your idle multiplier is 6.0, when your CPU is partially loaded, the tasks will be rapidly bouncing around from core to core and the multiplier can also be bouncing around all over the place. If the RealTemp multiplier is 100% accurate at full load, then it is also accurate at idle and more accurate than CPU-Z when a CPU is partially loaded.
When testing check out turning on C States. CPU-Z completely ignores what's happening inside your CPU. The multiplier at idle can be bouncing around all over the place. Using the high performance timers within the CPU can provide a very accurate look at the multiplier without needing to put any significant load on the CPU.
The Control Panel -> Power Options -> Minimum processor state controls the CPU multiplier at idle. Check that out when testing.
On my Vista 64 bit it reads 2 degrees hotter than all my other performance programs, other than that it is perfect.
I always run it while doing my OCCT tests, because it displays highest temp reached, so I can walk away and when I look again I might see it's currently at 77C but did hit 78C at some point.
Have you ever thought that maybe RealTemp is right and all those other programs are not? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by caaront
The core temperature can change instantaneously. Most temperature monitoring programs sample the same sensors but they only sample that sensor once per second. A degree or two difference is nothing to be too concerned about. Run a program like Prime95 Small FFTs which equally loads the cores. It results in very consistent core temperatures so all programs should report the same. Post a screen shot of this test if you are still having problems.
Hey ladies&gents...
First of all thank you very much for this usefull tool i use everyday unclewebb, i recently found out about this thread and saw that you are the creater of Real Temp...
Second of all, i'm seriously new with my G15 V2. and i'd like to know can i use any tool, plugin,...etc to use my G15 display to show RealTemp...
Thank you again and keep up the good work... :)
Anyone ? o_O
RealTemp includes a plugin that works with RivaTuner. I used to use this so I could see some data on my G15 so I assume that it would work on your V2 if you want to run RivaTuner. You don't need to have RealTemp running. The plugin is independent. All you need to do is install RivaTuner and then open up the Settings window in RealTemp and tell it where you have the RivaTuner.exe file located. This will install the RTCore.dll plugin into the correct directory of RivaTuner. Then when you open the RivaTuner graphs you should be able to configure it so it uses the RTCore.dll plugin.
I've received very little feedback from users about this plugin so if there are any bugs with it reporting information for your CPU then let me know and I'll see what I can do to fix things up.
The plugin was recently updated and can be downloaded separately here.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip
Unzip it and copy the files into the RealTemp directory and then use RealTemp to install it to RivaTuner or you can copy the files directly to RivaTuner if you know where they go. Post a screen shot if it works. It's been a while. :)
RT plugin is perfect but unfortunately RivaTuner is useless now for his HD5870. :(
Maybe starting from July we'll see that much awaited RivaTuner 2.25.
Hmm... I guess i can't use RivaTuner with my 5870 as "burebista" said...
Maybe you can make a G15 V2 application using LCDStudio or something to make RealTemp G15 friendly, if you have some time of course...
But i'll try RivaTuner+plugin regardless of my 5870...
Thanks for the responses and helps...
I decided to change my multiplier from 20 to 19 and I am running some stability tests now. I noticed that RT is showing things it did not show with my x20 multiplier. If, beforehand, I used to have a delta of up to 2 degrees between cores, not more, now I am faced with deltas up to 8 degrees :(. Is this normal? I mean for the 20 multi I was using 190 bclk and for the 19 multi I am using 200 Bclk.
Wishmaker: I wish I had some good answers for you but I've never heard of this issue before. It would be interesting to see some Prime95 Small FFTs testing. That's the best test I've found for equally loading each thread. When CPUs are not equally loaded, you can have some random and rapid temperature changes as tasks move from thread to thread and core to core.
LinX is great for creating heat but the load is not consistent for temperature testing and comparisons from one core to the other. Post some pics of P95 Small FFTs of both of your setups so I can see the difference that you are seeing. Try to run each combo for at least 10 or 15 minutes or until the core temps are stable.
I Just tried the 3.40 version and there were two problems:
1) it read my QX9650 at 364x12 for 4300+ mhz), instead of the correct 364x11 (4009 mhz).
2) it crashed when I pressed "reset" for the temp readout, every time.
Previous one I used was 3.07 beta, which had been working fine.
Feature request: Option to change the update interval.
Hi, i dont know if anyone wrote that but:
Feature request: make Realtemp to show Ati temps :)
Why? More frequent or less frequent.Quote:
Feature request: Option to change the update interval.
klataa: Have you tried RealTemp 3.59?
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Just add GPU=2 to the RealTemp.ini configuration file and you might be in for a surprise. It even reports CrossFire correctly last time I checked.
Falkentyne: I sent you a PM with the latest version and fixes you mentioned. I finally have a QX to test with so things are much improved.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=4044Quote:
Originally Posted by klataa
Less frequent, to reduce the number of hardware probes.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Works perfect! thx:) But i can see only temp of my primary gpu
edit
after couple restarts Realtemp shows all temps:) nice program!
With CrossFire, there is a power saving setting that disables the second GPU when you are sitting at the desktop. RealTemp can't ask the GPU for its temperature when this happens. The ATI Catalyst Control Center will do the same thing when the second GPU goes to sleep. As soon as you start using the second GPU then it wakes up and starts delivering temperature information to RealTemp. There is a registry mod you can do to keep the second GPU constantly awake and reporting temperature information but you'll have to do a Google search because I can't remember it off hand. Waking up the second GPU when you are sitting at the desktop is kind of pointless. As soon as you start using a 3D application that uses the second GPU, RealTemp will be recording its temperature.
Edit: Here's some info about the registry mod needed if you want to waste power and keep your second GPU awake all the time.
http://forums.amd.com/game/messagevi...hreadid=128135
Reading the core temperature of an Intel CPU is extremely efficient. The information is cached so you are not constantly reading a slow sensor like reading an ATI GPU causes. Reducing the polling interval of the CPU core temperature will make zero noticeable difference. Getting the GPU temperature from the ATI driver is a slow, flaky procedure so that's why I included the ability to reduce the polling interval of that. Nvidia doesn't have issues like that.Quote:
Less frequent, to reduce the number of hardware probes.
If you really, really need this feature then I might create an INI file option to reduce the polling interval. Try running RealTemp minimized to the System Tray for an hour or two and then have a look in the Task Manager and you will see that it is a very efficient program that doesn't put a lot of stress on your CPU. Getting the CPU temperature once a second or once every 5 or 10 seconds isn't going to be a difference that you'll ever notice.
What about probing the GPU sensor? :)
There is an adjustment for that in RealTemp if you have an ATI GPU. I've never seen any problems with probing Nvidia GPUs? What type of GPU do you have?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightblade
GTX 285
Edit: Oh sorry, i re-read your post above. Ok I trust you, disregard my request :)
thx for response:)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
i dont need reg mod cause what for?:) im glad that u have created this program because in my opinion its great! good job and have fun:)
unclewebb
Good job man :up:
I tried v3.4 with my QX9770 and it reads the frequency high and the core temps low. It should be 25 25 25 25 at idle but it reads 10 9 9 10 and 4.5Ghz instead of 4 Ghz. This is on Win7 Ultimate x64, which version would work correctly with this setup?
Thanks, it IS my temp program of choice. :up:
-John
RealTemp 3.59
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Try the above version. I finally bought a QX9650 and found the QX multiplier bug that I created with version 3.40 and have fixed that.
The temperature sensors used in these CPUs are horrible with a long list of issues, especially at idle. Post a screen shot of the new version so I can have a look.
Same thing, it seems v2.70 is closer to reality for my chip. The Multi is correct but the temps are too low.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
v 3.59
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/7592/qx9770359.jpg
v 2.70
http://img815.imageshack.us/img815/747/qx9770270.jpg
RealTemp was a good program before I started listening to Intel's misleading information that they presented at the IDF conference.
Here's a picture from that:
http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/7475/loadofcrap.png
I never agreed with some of what they said but as one developer going up against the big beast, I couldn't argue without people thinking that I was an idiot so I went along with what Intel had to say. I didn't think that they'd come out and deliberately try to mislead the user community but by not releasing any engineering data about these sensors, that was pretty much the result.
Here's the general formula that is used.
Reported Temperature = TJMax - Sensor Reading
RealTemp 2.70 was using TJMax=95C. Based on that announcement from Intel, I dropped that to 85C which is why your temperatures now read 10C lower than what they used to read and look silly.
After reading the Intel presentation a little closer, I discovered that they created a new term. Instead of TJMax they came up with the term TJ Target and stated that actual TJMax might be slightly different than that. Basically, the information presented was completely useless but most users gave up trying to get a straight answer from Intel and moved on.
I have never tested a QX9770 but based on testing of other CPUs like the QX9650 I recently acquired, my best guess is that TJMax is closest to 100C for these Quads. There is no single number that is 100% correct for all processors. Intel has never disclosed their calibration procedures or the amount of error that is acceptable to them at the calibration point. TJMax does vary from one CPU to the next even with the same model number. My opinion is that actual TJMax can also vary from core to core on the same CPU.
I'd go into the Settings window and change TJMax from 85 to 100. Now that I've seen how ridiculous TJMax=85C looks, I'll be changing that to 100 in RealTemp for the QX9770 and QX9650. Thanks for the info.
thank you uncleweb for your hardwork and continuous support in keeping realtemp the greatest program around:up:
Thank you sir for such a great program and support that is second to none. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I changed it to 100 and now the temps are a lot closer to my old readings.
Unclewebb,
3.59 is working great for me :up: Thanks for your continuous work on RealTemp.
Temps are realistic and right where they should be, here's my current 24/7 BOINC setting (until my EVGA SR-2 comes back from EK Waterblocks with a shiny new FC block on it :hrhr: ) - water temps around 23C (Chiller), HK 3.0 :)
http://database.he-computer.de/Bilder/temp/RT359.jpg
Now how about creating that new version for us Dual Socket maniacs :D
RealTemp 3.59.2
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
-fixed a bug when the multiplier was changed higher within Windows on the Core 2 QX CPUs.
-first attempt at a fix for the same problem on the Core i5-655 and Core i7-875 with their adjustable multipliers.
-added better CPU name recognition for some of the new Core i3/i5/i7 CPUs and deleted some name recognition code for the ES CPUs.
-adjusted TJMax=100C for the QX9770 based on real world testing and not on Intel's questionable TJ Target numbers.
-ATI has made some improvements to their GPU temperature reading code so RealTemp, that uses their code, should be better too.
thanks dude
There is a small bug... Very small, but it pokes my eyes. :stick:
Try the Skull 1 / Skull 2 setting in the config file (you will still need to have two copies running separately). Works for my Gainestowns.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
A single version for all 16 or 24 cores (and more soon) would still be nice :)
I'm blaming the wife for the Xeon Xeon bug. She kept bugging me to watch some dumb movie with her so it was a rush job to get it uploaded. She then watched about 30 seconds of the movie before getting bored. Typical.Quote:
Originally Posted by donmarkoni
I'll get that fixed up so your eyes don't hurt so much. :)
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Thanks man! :)
unclewebb
does ati gpu sensor not work with realtemp GT yet?
i can get realtemp to display my ati gpu by doing the GPU=2
but in GT it just wont show it right,just the 0x206C2
thanks
I haven't updated RealTemp GT in about 6 months or so. I've added the ATI code to RealTemp GT and that works but I would like to add the Nvidia code before releasing it. Hopefully this week before the kids get out of school and start running wild. Then I won't get anything done.
I'm still looking for some feedback from a Core i7-875K or Core i5-655K owner. RealTemp was having issues before when the multiplier was adjusted higher when in Windows. I'm just curious to see if the recent fix for this worked.
RealTemp 3.59.3
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
-minor bug fix to get rid of Xeon being reported twice.
-change to how Super Low Frequency Mode on the Core 2 mobile CPUs is reported.
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/2559/realtemp3593.png
hey no rush,i was just curious as to whether it was in RTgt or i was doing it wrong.:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
thanks
Looking good.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/6780/rt3592.png
Thanks some_one for bringing this problem to my attention and for showing me that this problem has now been fixed. :up:
I never thought I'd see the day when the multiplier was higher than the BCLK speed. :eek:
What program do you use to adjust the multiplier higher in Windows? The maximum multiplier for a Core i CPU is 255 but I don't think you could ever find a way to get the BLCK low enough to make that happen.
Just one other minor thing, which could probably be ignored since I don't think there will be too many people running at such a low BCLK, is that RealTemp seems a bit finicky in accepting the lower BCLKs. The multiplier reporting itself however was spot on. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
In the below example BCLK was already set at 44MHz before RealTemp was run and in this particular instance RealTemp reported "100MHz" :confused: for the whole time.
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/4126/99x.gif
99x is max in BIOS,not for CPU itself.
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3...0624142651.png
Thanks for making me have another look at this stasio. Seems like I took the hex multi 0x63 and converted it mentally as hex again (63=0x3f). In other words something like adding 1+1 and getting 3. :shakes: Apologies all round.
So you say its limited in the BIOS. Do you mean by what can be selected in the BIOS setup? For version f9 on the GA-P55-UD6 my BIOS setup is limited to 64x but if your saying it is limited somewhere else to 99x then that must be what it is.
Looks like a nice editing utility you have there. :up:
Thanks for that pic some_one. Now that the multiplier is correct, I'll have to have a second look at the BCLK MHz part of the code. I wouldn't be surprised if my program says WTF? :shocked: when it sees that the multiplier is more than twice what the BCLK is.
The Core i has 8 bits set aside to represent the multiplier so that gives a theoretical range of 0 to 255. Whether the CPU or a bios would ever let you use that range is hard to say. Maybe they were planning for the future when they designed that. Let's hope. :up:
is there a way to make realtemp work with a pentium 4 530?
There are no core temperature sensors on a Pentium 4 so there are no sensors for RealTemp to read. :(
i see.thank god i only need to use it till tomorrow.thanks for the quick answer
Any new development on RealTemp GT? The GT executable seems to be at 3.4 instead of 3.52. Is there a more recent GT executable?
I have been working on other projects for the last 6 months so RealTemp GT has not been updated. Probably someday but no idea when.
Gotcha-- no sweat. I appreciate all the work you've done.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
help please, why latest realtemp show only 3 core ??
all other programs I use show all 6 cores.
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9694/15794461.jpg
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Because you need RealTempGT for Gulftown. :)
got it , thanks
What is the recommended "Set TJ Max" for a i7 920 D0?
Thanks.
SiG
Intel writes a number that they call Temperature Target into each core of each Core i CPU that they produce. Most monitoring software, including RealTemp, has decided to assume that this is the same as TJMax but actual TJMax might be slightly higher than this number. On these CPUs, TJMax and Temperature Target seem to be very close, especially on core 0. Intel does not document their procedure for setting this value so no one knows how accurate the value in this register is.
The default value for most i7-920 CPUs is usually 100 but I think actual TJMax can vary a little from core to core on the same CPU. The Core i7 X58 CPUs have very consistent sensors so there's no need for any sort of calibration. You might as well just use them as is.
It seems to read what I think is most true for a well watercooled system if I set it to 95. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Intel says that their "temperature target" number is the minimum temperature so actual TJMax can be slightly higher than 100C but it won't be lower. My best guess is that actual TJMax varies between 100C and 105C on many of the Core i7-900 series CPUs with core 0 being close to 100C, core 3 being close to 105C and the two center cores being somewhere in the middle. My theory is that Intel might deliberately offset TJMax slightly so all 4 cores don't reach the thermal throttling point at the exact same time. By offsetting TJMax, you get a more gradual decrease in computing power so it's less noticeable to a user.
The sensors that Intel uses are far from perfect so it's certainly possible that your sensors read a few degrees high. If you bought 10 different i7-920 D0 CPUs and mounted them one after another on the same board, it's not likely they are all going to read exactly the same. There will be some variation but Intel has never said how much variation should be expected.
The reported temperature coming from a batch of Core i7-920 CPUs would be very close together compared to the previous Core 2 45nm generation. Those crappy sensors were all over the place from one CPU to the next.
Send me a box of Core i7 CPUs so I can start testing this theory. :)
Hey Uncle,
I found something interesting when using real temp on my older laptop ;).
Try ThrottleStop for your laptop. :p:
Not entirely sure what this shows. Looks to me in graph form that the decay is fairly linear across all cores, but there is a few degrees disparity between core 0 and core 3. Is this of any significance?
Cooler is Noctua C12P in a LL PC-P50 case, with all fans on minimum (Zalman controller). Temps seem about right based on web reviews.
Thumbnails, click for biggies
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1.../th_temps3.png
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1..._tempchart.png
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...r/th_temps.png
Wishmaker: Try adding this to the RealTemp.ini configuration file.
MSRMulti=1
That might fix the problem you are having. Your older CPU might not have the internal timers that RealTemp uses. You can also check off the TM Load option in the Settings window for a load meter that should be similar to the task manager load meter. At least the temperatures and bus speed look about right. :)
RealTemp 3.59.3
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Ajhayter: I don't believe that TJMax is set equally across all 4 cores of a Core i7-920. I think the difference you are seeing in your graph is completely normal and it's definitely nothing to be concerned about. My best guess is that if TJMax=100C for core 0 then most of these CPUs have core 3 set to about 105C with the other two cores somewhere in the middle.
Hey uncle,
1 hour after I reported that issue, I heard something snaping in that laptop. I opened it and I saw that one part of the sinking was off the GPU!!! Funny thing from Fujistu not to add 4 screws around the GPU part of the sink. I know this sounds weird but the cooling in the laptop has 4 screws for the CPU plate and that is it. Imagine something like this : the gpu was glued somehow to the sink and when the glue lost coehsion the sink lifted up. In my Asus laptop I have 4 screws for the CPU and 4 screws for the GPU. So yeah, the GPU burned out on that thing :(.
Talk about a dumb place to cut corners... :rolleyes:
i7 Turbo GT Ver. 1.1
http://www.mediafire.com/?w5lpqqpy6wwq8wi
RealTemp 3.59.4
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
-added a font picker for the system tray / notification area
With that latest version stasio just linked, the multi of my Ci7 920 is jumping around from 14 to 19.0 (its set to 19).
UncleWebb did you ever get any closer to being able to read a Ci7 processor VID? As discussed awhile back, it seems gigabyte mobos can read it (as must any mobo really to set the appropriate vcore) so it stands to reason it must be stored somewhere in one of the registers.
does anyone know if the TJmax are different between the i7 930 and the Xeon W3530?
Geez Uncle, who'da thunk it, 168 pages, a freakin novella, You makin a living off this yet?
I need your help. I set up real temp way back when and that file has been moved or deleted but the startup still runs. Where in win7 is this command so I can clean it up?
http://aloader.com/files/65/cant%20find%20realtemp.jpg
look in the task scheduler?
startQuote:
Originally Posted by WoodButcher
run
msconfig
startup :)
Hey Unclewebb, I take it that the sensors on these 32nm chips aren't very accurate? I noticed that my idle temperatures were showing 33°C/22°C respectively with an ambient temperature of 75°F (23.9°C).
Quote:
Originally Posted by werdwerdus
No and nope. Not there. Did the msconfig and regedit, still found nothing I recognizedQuote:
Originally Posted by sakis_the_fraud
whoops! http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=1833
I forgot, this box has vista home. It's been up since I built this box so I hate to reformat.
I used the advanced search and deleted every real temp file I could identify.
Every time I restart this runs. It isn't a big deal but I hate to be beaten by a machine,,,,:mad:
Those new chips' cores fall asleep when doing nothing and cause of that they have such low temps. ;) Try disabling C1E and other C states and you'll see.Quote:
Originally Posted by SimpleTECH
IMO, they seem of same accuracy as 45nm counterparts.
No chips are real accurate that far from their TjMax. As they get closer to the max, they get more accurate since thats the temp that matters ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by SimpleTECH
Already disabled. I was testing it with LinX with the new libraries added.Quote:
Originally Posted by donmarkoni
Makes sense. I never really pay attention to idle temperatures anyways. Just figured that there was something obviously wrong when I was getting below ambient.Quote:
Originally Posted by tool_462
Hi Unclewebb, funny issue with RT and Everest. This only began to happen with my new i5/p55 hardware. I use RT to monitor GPU and CPU temps in the background and to execute the shutdown.bat if the set thresholds are reached. Well now if I start Everest 5.50, even if the temps are low/normal, it triggers off that bat file. Everest is no big deal with me and I can do without it, just temporarily using it to check out my new hardware, but thought you may want to know about this issue.
The 32nm sensors are not as accurate as the 45nm Core i7-900 series were. Many 32nm sensors report way too low at idle. This is due to slope error as Intel calls it. The further you get away from the calibration point, the more these sensors will start reading too low or too high. The 45nm Core 2 sensors have similar issues.
Even at full load, the Core i7-980X leads me to believe that Intel is not setting actual TJMax equally across all 6 cores. I'm not sure if this is done deliberately to stagger thermal throttling or else there is a lot of slop in these sensors and it's impossible to find a handful of sensors, all with the same amount of error.
I use AutoRuns to find every last place where Windows hides start up items.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/s.../bb963902.aspx
RealTemp didn't put anything in your start up area so you only have yourself to blame for that pop up screen. :D
CryptiK: When your multiplier is jumping around at idle, it's usually a C State setting (C1E) or you have the Control Panel -> Power Options -> minimum processor state set to less than 100%.
The Viper: TJMax can vary from one CPU to the next these days, even with the same model number. That's why Intel writes a TJ Target value into each core of each Core i CPU. No more guessing. As long as software correctly reads that then you don't have to worry. RealTemp and Core Temp are both doing that correctly. The only worry then is how close is this TJ Target number to actual TJ Max. Intel has never admitted to how much error is in this number or if actual TJMax might vary a little from one core to the next. Core 0 of the Core i7-920 seems to be very accurate.
aamar: Thanks for telling me about the RealTemp alarm / Everest 5.50 conflict. I have no idea what could be causing that but I'll definitely check it out. If you can, run a RealTemp log file and then start up Everest to see if the log file records any random high temperature data. What values do you have your CPU and GPU alarms set to?
Hey unclewebb.
I had this problem in the past with other versions of realtemp I dont know what I did to cause this or how to fix it.
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/8273/89649203.png
Once it happens any version of realtemp will do the same. If I uncheck TM Load. It will show cpu usage.
TM Load stands for Task Manager load meter. That option uses a Windows function similar to what the Task Manager uses to calculate CPU load. The best method for Core i CPUs is to un-check this box and use the original method based on CPU C0%. TM Load is designed for Core 2 mobile CPUs that go into low power sleep states at idle.
I have no idea what you did and no idea why it doesn't work anymore. I've never seen this problem before.
Here's the latest version. It has a couple of more minor features like better system tray fonts so you might as well try it even though I doubt it will fix your problem.
RealTemp 3.59.5
http://www.mediafire.com/?vc6w5frn1gclpu9
Thx for the update. Yeah it didnt fix the problem. I think it fixed last time when I reinstalled windows. So it has to be some sort of registry thing I think. I dont know. I can just leave it unchecked as you say its for the core 2 mobiles.
Hey, unclewebb, don't change Gulftown showing as Core i9 in RT GT, ever! :D I like it. :up:
Or at least don't change it until there is actual i9 CPU.