Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

Did you look at the file permissions on the RealTemp.ini file? Other users have reported problems when moving the RealTemp folder and this file from one volume to a different volume.

Both TJMax and the calibration factors get saved correctly and also get reloaded correctly for me so I'm not sure what's going on. Make sure the RealTemp.ini file is not open in another program like Notepad or Wordpad while you are saving your settings or while RealTemp is starting up. I'll have a look at my code to see if I can see any problems that might happen with Atom CPUs.

In the Settings Windows you have to click on OK for your new settings to be saved.

I checked file permissions, full control is granted. Tried the new version you recommended with the same results.

Here's the procedure I've employed for changes: I open Real Temp click settings button enter custom value, click apply, click ok and I'm able to observe the change reflected in the temperature reading. However if I close Real Temp and restart it I'm back to square one except that if I browse the ini file I can see my custom values saved there.

Since the changes are written to the ini file I don't believe this problem is related to file permissions(changes to the RealTemp.ini are persistent). What's puzzling is that other changes such as those to font type and color are reflected in the program's operation where as temperature calibration is not. Perhaps RealTemp is ignoring the TJmax and idle offset values in RealTemp.ini in favor of default values in MSR?

Nightstar: Thanks for taking the time to clearly detail this problem. Unfortunately I don't have a solution for this. I don't understand why values are being written correctly to the INI file and other values are being read from the INI file correctly but the TJMax and Calibration factors are being ignored. This doesn't happen on my desktop or laptop computer and after hundreds of thousands of downloads, this is the first I've heard of this problem. If I have some time this weekend, I'll try to add some debugging code to RealTemp so maybe we can find out what's happening to the calibration data.

Thanks for taking the time to investigate this issue. I thought I might have been overlooking some setting or procedure. I figured I should report this issue in case it was a bug.

I seem to recall another fellow posted the same problem in this very forum which was never resolved. Indeed that's what prompted this exchange. If I find the post I'll link it here.

Regardless, It's a nifty little tool, even if I have to set the values each start. Thanks again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

RealTemp 3.67
http://www.mediafire.com/?jibd769x6z7n0c8

---

unclewebb, the mediafire link pionts to RealTemp 3.64, not 3.67 (or at least that is what the zip file is called). Is this correct?

Hello Unclewebb

I've got the exact same error as Nightstar. Running Windows 7 64bit, i5-2500k. Its saves the ini file, but do not load the data when restarting the program.

Nevertheless, thank you for a great program! :)

Is it possible to create a realtemp with ROG style colors and icon ? :) same as cpu-z rog
Attachment 117548

I agree that the CPU-Z and GPU-Z Republic of Gamers editions look great but I don't have any plans to do the same for RealTemp.

http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads...OG%20Skin.html

where exactly is 3.67?

There is a link to RealTemp 3.67 in the very first post in this thread. I also counted 4 links to a download that contains RealTemp 3.67 on this page. It's not too hard to find. :)

I've been testing a Gulftown (i7 970) and while I'm no expert I think Intel are playing fast and loose with the TJ Max. Real Temp reports it on my system as 101 however when testing the 970 I noticed it was throttling at a reported temperature of roughly 60ºC. Intel claims that the TCase for this CPU is 67.8ºC and my understanding is that throttling 'kicks in' at around 20ºC above that.

So assuming my 970 isn't defective then for it to reach the temperature when it will begin to throttle i.e. around 88ºC the TCase is in fact 130 not 101. I must admit being surprised at some of the reported lowish temperatures for the Gulftown series and I suppose an easy way to give that impression is for Intel to 'adjust' the TJ Max or am I misunderstanding something?

That is one limitation with Intel writing TJMax information to each core of a Core i CPU. Intel can write whatever they want to that register now and all software will read that register and report the same temperatures. The temperature sensors that Intel uses in these 32nm CPUs are not that accurate. There is an undocumented amount of error in terms of how they set TJMax and there is temperature slope error where the amount of error increases, the further you get away from the calibration point. When combined, the amount of error can be significant.

What sort of throttling are you seeing? When overclocking it is likely that you are seeing throttling based on power consumption. The amount of turbo boost you get depends on whether the CPU is operating within its power envelope. If it goes over the limit, it turns off turbo boost. When near the limit, it rapidly cycles turbo boost on and off and RealTemp will report that as a reduced multiplier. Most motherboards have an option in the bios so you can increase these turbo TDP / TDC power limits so you will continue to get full turbo boost even when overclocking and fully loaded with LinX. ThrottleStop lets you adjust these limits from within Windows but it is designed for the 4 core CPUs so I'm not sure if it works on 6 core CPUs.

Intel CPUs are not designed to throttle based on the TCase temperature. TCase is only intended to be used so computer manufacturers can design a heatsink and fan and a computer case. The theory is that if you design a system and the TCase temperature does not exceed the TCase specification then that CPU will rarely if ever trigger thermal throttling at TJMax. Thermal throttling is controlled by the core temperature which RealTemp reports and that's it. If you ever trigger any thermal throttling, ThrottleStop will change from OK to LOG in the thermal status area to show that the CPU core logged at least one thermal throttling incident since you booted up. If it still shows OK then the CPU didn't thermal throttle.

Some motherboards use the Bi-Directional PROCHOT feature. This can be used to tell the CPU to throttle based on an outside event. For an example, many laptops can throttle the CPU based on the GPU core temperature. I think the voltage regulator can trigger this type of throttling on desktop motherboards.

Post some pics at full load so I can have a look. The i7 Turbo GT program in the RealTemp download is a very accurate tool that can monitor for the slightest hint of throttling.

http://www.mediafire.com/?jibd769x6z7n0c8

Edit: I just noticed your sig. The Asus P6T series has known throttling issues when pushed extremely hard. The special 0006 bios was successful at disabling the throttling when using 4 core CPUs but I'm not sure how that works when running a 6 core CPU. Here's some more info about that problem.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...-Thread/page74

Thanks for the update. I'm using an Asus P6TD Deluxe and it allows me to turn off turbo and use the extra multiplier for overclocking. I've previously run a Core i7 920 on this motherboard and never seen this behaviour.

The settings I'm using that initiate 'throttling' (not sure what to call it now after your explanation) are a BCLK of 180, multiplier of 25 to give 4.5GHz with a vcore of 1.3875v. I'll do some screen shots but basically what happens is that with Prime95 small FFTs the multiplier drops in CPU-Z from 25 to 24 within a couple of seconds and stays there and the CPU speed is shown as 4.32GHz. Although this in theory should reduce the temperatures they still stay a fraction higher than they do at 4.425GHz (BCLK 177 x Multi 25 at 1.35v). That could be explained though by the slightly increased vcore. At 4.425GHz there's no sign of the multiplier dropping even after a few hours and recorded temperature don't exceed 37ºC above ambient, typically around 20ºC at the time of testing.

Edit: Just seen your edit. I'll spend a bit of time working through the implications of loading that BIOS and depending on the risk might give it a try.

Also forgot to add that I've never had the 'Thermal Status' show anything other than OK. I was aware from your guidance that it would show LOG or PROCHOT if limits had been exceeded.

Before running Prime95

Attachment 118202

A few seconds after Prime95 started and the multi drops to 24

Attachment 118203

The default multiplier for a Core i7-970 is 24.0. Anytime the multiplier goes higher than 24, it is using the Turbo Boost feature of the processor. The Asus bios can be misleading. It might let you disable turbo boost and select a 25 multiplier but as soon as you boot up, in the background it turns turbo boost back on because that is the only way you can access the 25 multiplier in this CPU.

CPU-Z rounds off its data and is not precise enough to show turbo throttling so don't bother relying on what it is telling you.

6 core CPUs draw 50% more power than 4 core CPUs at full load so they hit the turbo TDP limit sooner and will start to throttle back the amount of turbo boost you get. This throttling is not the traditional thermal throttling. RealTemp shows that all of your cores are running OK.

To reduce this turbo throttling you need to increase the TDP limit. You can try using ThrottleStop to do this. One user in that thread reported that he had some success doing this.

ThrottleStop 3.00
http://www.techinferno.com/downloads/?did=1

Your CPU is not an Extreme CPU so the Turbo TDP / TDC power limit values might be locked and not adjustable. Your only solution then would be a different bios. Hopefully that thread I posted will help you out.

Unfortunately Throttlestop has most of the options including the important ones grayed out.

I'm reading up on flashing using the 0006 BIOS. I've not used the Afudos option for years so need to work out how to do it again. I suppose if I use the 24 multi and increase the BCLK then I shouldn't see this throttling although I already know from earlier testing than even a small increase in the BCLK requires an inordinate amount of tweaking.

I'm curious how the TDP limit is calculated as the power draw on the system is only about 35 watts more than with my i7 920 at it's maximum overclock.

Thanks for your help. Even if the BIOS doesn't work at least my concerns about the CPU overheating have been allayed (to some extent).

A Core i7-920 typically started to throttle on these boards when overclocked to about 4000 MHz depending on how much voltage you need to run that speed. An extra 35 watts might not sound like much but it is enough to put you way over the built in TDP turbo power limit. You won't get any turbo boost when overclocking like this and will be left running at the default 24 multiplier and that's it. If the TDP is locked then the only option is the modified bios but I'm not sure how much success people have had when overclocking 6 core non-Extreme CPUs on this board. At least several users have reported success flashing the P6TD to the 0006 bios and if it doesn't work out, you can always flash back to what you are running now using the same method. Good luck.

Just a quick update. I increased the BCLK to 188, dropped the multi to 24 and added a bit to the vcore, QPI/VTT and CPU PLL to give 4.5GHz. Although I only ran P95 small FFTS for 5 minutes there was no sign of throttling and temperatures were OK. I know it will probably need tweaking to get it stable but I ran my 920 at a 200 BCLK with a 21 multi for 18 months so I reckon there's a bit more in it even without the extra multiplier.

I'm really grateful for your advice.

You won't have to worry about any turbo throttling when using the default 24 multiplier because you are not using turbo boost. The 25 multiplier requires turbo boost but not the 24 multi.

On the Asus P6TD, using the default multiplier is the best way to avoid a sagging multiplier and the turbo throttling issues.

RealTemp 3.69.1
http://www.mediafire.com/?4uixpjtezznuzkd

• Fixed number of log file headings when using Core i Dual Core CPUs.
• Moved GPU column to far right end of the log file.
• Improved formatting and added more white space to the ThrottleStopLog.txt file.

any updates?

Updates for what? Do you have any problems? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burebista

Updates for what? Do you have any problems? :)

---

Has support for the 3960x been added yet??? :) Real Temp GT 3.64 the proc is correctly identified. It only reads temps on 4 cores. 2 are grayed out. :( The regular version isn't working for 6 cores either.

Well then it looks like Kevin has some work to do. :D

Monstru came to the rescue and provided me with some test results from his new 3960X CPU.

As soon as he has a chance to test the new version of RealTemp GT, I will post a download link here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Monstru came to the rescue and provided me with some test results from his new 3960X CPU.

As soon as he has a chance to test the new version of RealTemp GT, I will post a download link here.

---

Woot! Thanks unclewebb! :up:

RealTemp GT 3.66
http://www.mediafire.com/?ns1g4y2hinoa977

Thanks for your test results WFO. Post a screen shot if this version of RealTemp GT reads all 6 cores of the new Sandy Bridge E series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

RealTemp GT 3.66
http://www.mediafire.com/?ns1g4y2hinoa977

Thanks for your test results WFO. Post a screen shot if this version of RealTemp GT reads all 6 cores of the new Sandy Bridge E series.

---

RT GT 3.66 is reading 6 cores! :yepp: I can't believe you worked on this Thanksgiving Day. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You went above and beyond! :up:

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3025/realtempgt166.png

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Quote:

---

I can't believe you worked on this Thanksgiving Day.

---

You're welcome and thanks for the feedback. I figured that Xtreme users knowing their correct core temperature was more important than watching football all day.

Here's an interesting comparison on the [H]ard OCP Forum.

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=...7&postcount=21

Even though RealTemp reads the exact same temperature sensors as the competition does, check out how much better it is at recording the highest maximum temperature. RealTemp was able to report a maximum core temperature 15C and 18C higher than Core Temp during the user's test. RealTemp must know a few tricks about recording the maximum core temperature of a fully loaded processor compared to the competition. :)

A good programms. The questions of author. Do you plan to make the programm a widget?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James_on

A good programms. The questions of author. Do you plan to make the programm a widget?

---

+1 !!

(However, some translation may be required for the casual reader sticking to conventional grammar ;-)

Real Temp 3.70
January 16, 2012

http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads...Temp_3.70.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by changelog

• Support for Sandy Bridge CPUs.
• VID based power consumption estimates for the newer CPUs.
• Improved log file formatting.
• Added a single system tray icon that reports the maximum core temperature.
• RealTemp GT updated for the 6 core Sandy Bridge E CPUs.
• i7 Turbo GT 1.30 multiplier monitoring tool.

---

Where I can find a description of the options on the "settings " window? Specifically, what is the "clock modulation"?

In the Pentium 4 and Core 2 era, clock modulation throttling was a method to slow a CPU down internally. For every 8 clock pulses, you could adjust clock modulation from 1 to 8 so the CPU would only work this many times. If this was set to 4, your CPU would only work 4 out of every 8 cycles so it would accomplish half as much but it would also consume a lot less power and produce a lot less heat. For Intel's latest CPUs, this works a little differently. Instead of slowing the CPU down internally by skipping clock pulses, it simply lowers the maximum multiplier which slows the CPU down externally. When the multiplier can not go any lower, then it resorts to the skipping clock pulses like it originally used to do.

If you want to play around with this for whatever reason you might want to check out ThrottleStop instead. ThrottleStop lets you play with 2 different types of clock modulation throttling and has a nice monitoring panel to show you what your CPU is up to.

http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads...Stop_4.00.html

Many different laptops sneak in one type of throttling or the other to control heat output and to fool consumers into thinking that their CPU is running at its rated speed when often times it isn't.

Here is some Intel documentation about Clock Modulation Throttling.

http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/develope...118.htm?page=4

Realtemp (v3.67?) stopped working properly and I couldn't see the sys tray icons for GPU & CPU. Checked the program directory and found the log file was 184mb. Even after deleting the log file for some reason it still wouldnt work right or show the icons in sys tray. DL'd v3.70 and all is fine.

Is there some way we can set limits to log file, ie, after 20mb to stop logging?

Thanks.

At the moment there is no feature to prevent the log file from growing to 184 MB and beyond. Maybe in the future I will add an option that appends the day or the month to the log file so individual log files don't get too big. I will put that on the things to maybe do list.

If you are using Windows 7 and have problems with icons not showing up correctly in the system tray then try using the Windows 7 show all icons feature. RealTemp is not compatible with the Windows 7 hide the system tray icons feature.

Hi Unclewebb,

Realtemp has always worked flawlessly with me for as long as I remember, tray icons and all. It was just that moment when the logfile grew too big that the program wouldnt run when clicked on (although it was showing in task manager). Each time I clicked on it to show the interface, it would just add another instance of itself to task mgr rather than opening. But killing the app and deleting its directory and restarting anew (with v3.70) fixed everything. It was just unusual that in last 2 years or so of using Realtemp that this issue occured. Maybe the logfile took 2 years to build (updating to newer versions I would just merge them over old directory, so maybe the logfile remained in place?).

Still bottom line, I have full faith in the reliability of RT. This app has saved my hardware a few times, notably with the bugged Nvidia driver that messed up GPU fan speeds a couple years ago. Much appreciated!

One of the programs I have on my usb drive for fresh installs, amazing program.

Thank you to give us RT GT 3.70. Has RT now command line Switches to enable / disable C-States and Turbo?

Whats the easiest way to make the program start on launch?

windows autostart ?

Cumulonimbus: I don't ever use the command line so I don't plan to add any command line switches to RealTemp.

nksharp: For Windows autostart, I use the Task Scheduler.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/hard...ml#post6865107

If you are an Administrator on your account and you are not using UAC then try dragging a link to RealTemp into your Windows Startup folder.

Hi, need some help here. I just bought a used Q9450 (rest of the system is in sig) which I installed yesterday and very much intend to overclock. Upon installing the CPU I first cleaned it and also my HSF with Arcticlean, or whatever it's called, and put some AS5 on the CPU. I set all voltages in BIOS to minimum value, except the vcore and multi which I left on auto. I also set speedstep and the other CPU features to enabled, and set the FSB to 333. When I got into Windows I started Real Temp and noticed my temps were really weird, which they never were with my old 65nm E6600. I ran IBT and it seemed stable, so I started reading a bit about the C2Q sensor problems and got here. So I ran the sensor test in RT next, with the settings described above:

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/6...ltageinbin.jpg

At this point I thought maybe something was wrong with my installation so I turned the case on the side, no difference. I then removed the HSF, cleaned it and the CPU, and then put some NT-H1 on it. At this point ran the sensor test again, using the same settings as before and here are the results:

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/8...oltageinbi.jpg

And nothing. Rebooted into BIOS, set vcore to 1.3875V (stock seems to be 1.2375V according to RT) and booted into Windows. Ran the sensor test a third time and guess what? This:

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/312...vinbiosnth.jpg

THE F:banana::banana::banana: is going on? What readings am I supposed to trust here, none of them? :confused:

Will Sandy Bride-E support be coming soon to RealTemp?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peakr

Will Sandy Bride-E support be coming soon to RealTemp?

---

SB-E IS supported. Go one page back and read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SS_The_Demon

What readings am I supposed to trust here, none of them? :confused:

---

The temperature sensors that Intel used on there 45nm Core 2 processors were junk. They get stuck at lower temperatures and have a pile of error when trying to report full load temperatures. Intel was always a little sheepish about just how bad they were. I have never seen any official specs for how much error they have but I know from experience that it is significant.

You are correct. On some of these 45nm CPUs, you can't trust any of these sensors. Intel only intended these sensors to be used for thermal throttling and thermal shutdown control and for those two purposes, these crappy sensors are more than good enough. Intel spent a few more pennies on the Core i sensors but they are still only intended to be used for thermal control. None of them were ever intended to be used for 100% accurate temperature reporting.

As far as I know, RealTemp should work on the Ivy CPUs too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

The temperature sensors that Intel used on there 45nm Core 2 processors were junk. They get stuck at lower temperatures and have a pile of error when trying to report full load temperatures. Intel was always a little sheepish about just how bad they were. I have never seen any official specs for how much error they have but I know from experience that it is significant.

You are correct. On some of these 45nm CPUs, you can't trust any of these sensors. Intel only intended these sensors to be used for thermal throttling and thermal shutdown control and for those two purposes, these crappy sensors are more than good enough. Intel spent a few more pennies on the Core i sensors but they are still only intended to be used for thermal control. None of them were ever intended to be used for 100% accurate temperature reporting.

As far as I know, RealTemp should work on the Ivy CPUs too.

---

So in my case, you don't think I can trust any of the readings, right? I mean considering that I raised vcore from 1.2375 to 1.3875 and the temp hardly rose on any of the cores, with the exception of core 1 which rose 8 degrees. I would think that the temp should rise alot more then that considering the huge increase in voltage? Not that it seems to matter because I can't seem to get the damn thing stable at even 3.3 GHz...

Core 0, the core on the far left of RealTemp is probably the best of a bad bunch but there is no way to tell for sure. The 2 cores on the left appear to have some significant slope error where they change at a different rate than the temperature changes and core 1 has some issues with getting stuck at lower temperatures.

If you can't get one of these CPUs stable at 3.3 GHz then you probably have other problems besides core temperature. Run CPU-Z while Prime95 is running and see what is reported for actual voltage. Some boards are not great when it comes to overclocking Core 2 Quads and crap out when the bus speed goes over 400 MHz. I have an old Asus board that can run a Core 2 Duo reliably at a bus speed of over 500 MHz but falls on its face when trying to overclock a similar Core 2 Quad. I ended up buying a QX9650 for this board so I could overclock by adjusting the multiplier higher which allowed me to keep the bus speed at 333 MHz for better stability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Core 0, the core on the far left of RealTemp is probably the best of a bad bunch but there is no way to tell for sure. The 2 cores on the left appear to have some significant slope error where they change at a different rate than the temperature changes and core 1 has some issues with getting stuck at lower temperatures.

If you can't get one of these CPUs stable at 3.3 GHz then you probably have other problems besides core temperature. Run CPU-Z while Prime95 is running and see what is reported for actual voltage. Some boards are not great when it comes to overclocking Core 2 Quads and crap out when the bus speed goes over 400 MHz. I have an old Asus board that can run a Core 2 Duo reliably at a bus speed of over 500 MHz but falls on its face when trying to overclock a similar Core 2 Quad. I ended up buying a QX9650 for this board so I could overclock by adjusting the multiplier higher which allowed me to keep the bus speed at 333 MHz for better stability.

---

I just lapped the CPU, which seemed to lower the temps a bit, but again it's hard to tell since the sensors don't seem to work. Testing 3.3 GHz at the moment, using 413 x 8. Several days ago I had it running at 458 x 7 so it doesn't appear to be the board that's holding me back. Using a P5E Deluxe btw. Vdroop seems to be the biggest problem atm. Setting a voltage of 1.3875 in BIOS which I'm using for 3.3 GHz currently, let's me idle @ 1.368V according to CPU-Z. While running IBT it drops down to 1.304V however, with LLC disabled that is. And I would prefer not using LLC since it causes my CPU to degrade even more. And since Intel's spec says max voltage shouldn't be more than 1.3625V I'm hesitant to raise it more, since I'm already slightly above that at idle. So sure, I probably could go higher if I wanted to, unless temps become a problem, which I have no idea of knowing.

Dear, unclewebb. Couldn`t you write Real Temp Mac OS version? Is it real?

How is the 22nm support on the latest Real Temp, i know that it reads the temperature and everything appears to be OK, but myself and many others are quite surprised in terms of the temperatures reported. I've tested it with 2 3770K's and a 3570K. On the 3770K's i'm seeing close to 80C with just 1.35v, i'm using chilled water so the water temp is 10c under load, in other words i have a 70C Delta T between the reported temps and the water block at just 1.35v. On the 3570K i got a load temp that peaked @ 68C (62.5C on average between the 4 cores) with 1.4v, with 2600K with HT off i got an average or 37.75C with the same voltage. Is it really possible that the 22nm chips are 25C hotter on average between all 4 cores compared to the 32nm chips. See my test results under:

Load with Prime95

Attachment 125536

@ 1.1V IB runs 4,25C hotter then SB with HT off. (16.03%)
@ 1.2V IB runs 10,75C hotter then SB with HT off. (36.44%)
@ 1.3V IB runs 15,00C hotter then SB with HT off. (44.11%)
@ 1.4V IB runs 24,75C hotter then SB with HT off. (65.56%)

Also the TJ Maxx is reported as 110C, where is this taken from, and could it be that the programs are reading wrong from the sensors considering that this are all new chips that is not yet released? (Getting the same temps in Core Temp btw)

Thanks.

TJ Max for Sandy is 98C.
TJ Max for Ivy is reported as 105C.

IB runs much hotter than SB. It's been reported everywhere. Even here. ;)

"Ivy Bridge exhibits much higher temperatures during full load due to its 22nm process, which will probably only get better though cooling optimizations and better contact between the HIS and the CPU Die."

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...s+Overclocking

what is latest version?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SimpleTECH

Real Temp 3.70
January 16, 2012

http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads...Temp_3.70.html

---

I think it is this one.

It would be nice to have a Min/Max CPU temp when hover on systray like the GPU Min/Max, will we see it in the next update, tnx? :toast:

Hi Uncle :wave:

I would like to ask do you have anything documenting RTCore.dll. I am writing a plugin for LCD Smartie to get CPU core temps, and I would love to use your library if that is ok with you.

Thanks

Hi

If I remember correctly Real Temp gave an approximation of watts usage on Sandy Bridge ?

Can we has this for Ivy ?

Thankies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonny5isalivetm

If I remember correctly Real Temp gave an approximation of watts usage on Sandy Bridge?

---

Intel came up with a great idea so monitoring software could easily read power consumption data directly from the CPU. This data is used internally by Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge CPUs to control the amount of Turbo Boost. Unfortunately, this data is based on the VID voltage and not the actual core voltage. If you go into the bios and change the CPU core voltage manually, this estimated power consumption number will not be accurate. I will try to add this data back to RealTemp in the near future for Ivy Bridge CPUs.

RTCore.dll was designed to work with RivaTuner. When RivaTuner was replaced by MSI Afterburner, I stopped working on the RTCore.dll plugin. Reading the core temperature of a Core i CPU is trivial. You would be better off just writing your own code but you can try and use the RTCore.dll however you like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Intel came up with a great idea so monitoring software could easily read power consumption data directly from the CPU. This data is used internally by Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge CPUs to control the amount of Turbo Boost. Unfortunately, this data is based on the VID voltage and not the actual core voltage. If you go into the bios and change the CPU core voltage manually, this estimated power consumption number will not be accurate. I will try to add this data back to RealTemp in the near future for Ivy Bridge CPUs.

---

What if you take the power consumption, divide it with CPU VID, and multiply it by vCore? Wouldn't it give approximate real power?

[thinking out loud]If you read first one, then before you read second one everything drops, you could get abnormal result, very high power consumption.[/thinking out loud]

If you were doing some Prime95 or similar testing where the VID and actual voltage were fairly consistent, you probably could come up with some sort of correction factor.

Power consumption in a CPU is proportional to voltage squared. If VID voltage was 1.20 volts and actual voltage was 10% higher at 1.32 volts then the correction factor would be:

1.10 x 1.10 = 1.21

In that case, actual power consumption would be about 21% higher than what RealTemp is showing.

Does any software show actual power consumption based on actual voltage? Any monitoring software that uses the Intel method and the Intel recommended power consumption register is not accurate.

Okay thanks for your efforts, excellent program :-)

Hi Unclewebb, does RT support Rainmeter? If not, may I request it? :worship:

unclewebb, so what about mac os X version? ;)

Uncle Webb, maybe you can make a version that supports an 8core chip on your free time. Thanks...
Apologies if am asking too much.

Hi maxxx, I am pretty sure I did make an 8 core version of RealTemp once upon a time but the guy I wrote it for said it was too big and ugly so I scrapped it. Unfortunately I don't have enough time or hardware for an 8 core update now.

Lately I have been working on a special edition of RealTemp for my friends over at Tech|Inferno which is just about done.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/2225/realtempti.png

It includes the return of VID and VID based power consumption monitoring for Intel's 3rd Generation Core i CPUs.
I also added a column to report the CPU Package temperature but in my testing, that just looks like the maximum of the 4 cores so that is not too useful.
There is also a new C-State reporting window. I like using C3/C6 to save some power but most enthusiasts at XS turn that junk off when overclocking.

WaterFlex: I don't know of any easy way to read CPU registers in OS X. In Windows I am using the WinRing0 library but I don't know of anything equivalent for Mac. I also don't own a Mac or any sort of development tools so you're out of luck unless you are running Boot Camp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Hi maxxx, I am pretty sure I did make an 8 core version of RealTemp once upon a time but the guy I wrote it for said it was too big and ugly so I scrapped it. Unfortunately I don't have enough time or hardware for an 8 core update now.

Lately I have been working on a special edition of RealTemp for my friends over at Tech|Inferno which is just about done.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/2225/realtempti.png

It includes the return of VID and VID based power consumption monitoring for Intel's 3rd Generation Core i CPUs.
I also added a column to report the CPU Package temperature but in my testing, that just looks like the maximum of the 4 cores so that is not too useful.
There is also a new C-State reporting window. I like using C3/C6 to save some power but most enthusiasts at XS turn that junk off when overclocking.

WaterFlex: I don't know of any easy way to read CPU registers in OS X. In Windows I am using the WinRing0 library but I don't know of anything equivalent for Mac. I also don't own a Mac or any sort of development tools so you're out of luck unless you are running Boot Camp.

---

UncleWebb: thanks for that. Big and ugly? If it has the same interface as the normal RealTemp, how can that be ugly? Anyways, thanks for trying. Can you share that special version that your almost done with, please?

hey why i have such big difference between cores?

Maybe you don't install your CPU Cooler well or maybe you don't put the TIM ok ?

difference is around 5-7?c from coolest cpu 0 to warmest cpu 3....using i5 2500k/asrock z68 e4g3 etc.

The difference is ok. :)

RealTemp seems to have a problem starting on Windows 8. Will run and work fine when you click on it, but will not start with Windows 8. Tried putting shortcut in start-up folder, reg entry in current user run and even task scheduler with elevated privileges, it just wont run at start-up. Even tried another PC with Windows 8, same thing. Any ideas Uncle Webb? Thanks.

edit: OK got it to start with task scheduler. It only worked when I selected the "run when user is logged on" option, it wont work if "run whether user is logged on or not" .

Seems 8 is a bit more difficult to work with start up programs:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1...n-requirements

if you run it before a user logs on, then you won't be able to see the system tray icon or open the window when you log on. this is part of how win7 works so i assume win8 is the same.

Starting RealTemp with Windows 7.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/hard...ml#post6865107
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...essors/page146 Post #3645

I think that works in Windows 8 but I haven't done any recent testing.

Maybe this weekend I will get around to finishing off RealTemp T|I.

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/2...empaisuite.png

Quote:

---

Maybe this weekend I will get around to finishing off RealTemp T|I.

---

Unclewebb: may we know the difference from the regular version of RealTemp? TIA....

Here's the README file for the new T|I version.

http://www.mediafire.com/?ouo9lzeuu9r0tkq

The program should be ready for download within the next day. I will post a link when it is up.
I am just beta testing a few minor features and updates, mostly for the newer Sandy and Ivy Bridge CPUs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Here's the README file for the new T|I version.

http://www.mediafire.com/?ouo9lzeuu9r0tkq

The program should be ready for download within the next day. I will post a link when it is up.
I am just beta testing a few minor features and updates, mostly for the newer Sandy and Ivy Bridge CPUs.

---

@UncleWebb : thanks for the notes.

RealTemp Tech|Inferno Edition
http://www.techinferno.com/downloads/?did=53

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/2905/rtti.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

RealTemp Tech|Inferno Edition
http://www.techinferno.com/downloads/?did=53

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/2905/rtti.png

---

Any chance of a SB-E compatible version? I really like the new look, and it would be really nice if us lowly X79 users could us this too :) Thanks in advance!

This looks great - thanks unclewebb! (unfortunately I have no 'thanks' option in the forum).

Powerlimits feature is working nicely on my ASRock mobo.

Going to swap to this version to get some good baseline temps before I de-lid my 3770k.

Unclewebb, I notice theres a difference in temps between RT v3.70 and RT-TI (v3.75), roughly about 5c degree less per core for RT 3.70. I had also noticed the same difference between RT vs other hardware monitoring apps (Aida64, HWinfo64, etc). But RT-TI now seems in line with these mentioned apps. Did not find any explanation on this in the readme. CPU used is i5-3570k.

aamar: Open up the RealTemp Options-Settings window and make sure both versions of RealTemp are using the same value for TJ Max. If both programs are not using the same value, you need to click on the Defaults button if you want RealTemp to read the correct value for your CPU.

The wrong value for TJ Max can get set in the INI file if you manually set this in RealTemp 3.70 or you might have swapped from a 2nd Generation Sandy Bridge CPU to a 3rd Generation Ivy Bridge CPU without updating RealTemp. When this happens, RealTemp will continue to use the Sandy Bridge TJ Max value found in the INI file when it should be using the 105C value that is correct for Ivy Bridge CPUs.

Adjustable TJ Max was a good idea at the time during the Core 2 era but it's not really necessary anymore so I have disabled this feature in the T|I Edition of RealTemp.

If TJ Max is set equally, both versions of RealTemp should be reporting the same temperatures. When lightly loaded and using some of the C sleep states like C3/C6, the core temperatures can fluctuate rapidly so put a load on your CPU for a fair comparison. Prime 95 Small FFTs is still my fav for equally loading the cores.

http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/4...empcompare.png

Thank you Unclewebb. That was it. TJ-Max in RT v3.70 was set at 99 (for previous CPU I used, i5-760). RT-TI is at 105c which is for the 3570k. All is well, thanks.

Just wondering if someone can give me some guidance with my calibration? When I adjust the idle the TJmax changes also? Not sure if I'm missing something?

The core variance seems a lot to me:

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/04/28/epynemyn.jpg

Anyone?

any updated version?

I have an error message when open RealTemp

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q...ps6ca7c64f.jpg

How can I fixed that?

What version of RealTemp are you trying to use and where did you download it from?

Try one of these versions and let me know if either of them work.

RealTemp 3.70
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads...eal-temp-3-70/

RealTemp T|I Edition
http://www.overclock.net/t/1330144/realtemp-t-i-edition

In theory, either of these versions should work with the new Haswell processors.

I plan to release an updated version once I get some feedback from someone that owns a Haswell CPU.

3.70 works well for me on Haswell...

If Intel is using the same principles for temp monitoring on Haswell as they used on Ivy bridge then we should be good with your RealTemp TI version (as far as I can remember this should be the case been a while since I've been looking into these things)

As soon as I get my new hardware I could get you some results on what the TI version reports :)

Using 3.70 on IB-E and it works apart from the kind of low idle temps, I guess it's the same problem we had going from the i7 920 to i7 980

Water cooling used here with water temps at 22C

Attachment 131242

Use TI version ......TJMax is 95C

Just testing with Haswell. Not sure about the results though.
TJ max should this be on 100? Looking at the specs at Intel ark => TCASE 72.72?C
But I am unsure how to get TJ max out of this :)

Screenshot =>
http://i43.tinypic.com/27xeyoj.png

RealTemp 4.0.0..?

http://imageshack.us/a/img850/8943/bynx.png

Care to share some links?

I had latest coretemp with Haswell support but its kinda unpredictable, got few system freezes esp. if uac enabled and few quirks with G15.


Im testing 3.70 TI edition and so far it works great.

Is there an 8 core version of Real Temp planned now that the i7 5960X is out?

Hi Uncle Webb

Is it possible to update the ImageShack photos as they are "dead links" right now?

I was reading the post 3645 to get some hints of how to install RealTemp in Windows 8.1 64-bit and make it start with windows.


Thanks for a wonderful program .

-X-hellfire

Hello

With a 5930K (Haswell-E)

RealTemp indicates a TJMax at 95?C and CoreTemp (and AIDA64) a TJMax at 100?C
RealTemp detects not correctly the TJMax (by default)

Thanks :)

Can anyone explain the difference between Real Temp's CPU load figure, and Resource Monitor's?


http://i.imgur.com/izKfFXN.jpg

Is usage not the same as load?