Thanks for the answer! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I look forward to using this app!
Printable View
Thanks for the answer! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I look forward to using this app!
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/9250/rtcolornf2.png
We have color! RealTemp is moving forward and the new Settings window is almost ready for a beta release.
Nice stuff unclewebb
haha this is so cool.
question is WHEN !!! :D I want this version with tray info ASAP :D please, let us beta test :)
Will we get font options as well?
Count me in !:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by gx-x
You would be the one to ask that... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by clokker
Now another, it's never hurt to ask for more goodies :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefa_Madness
Oh ya. Lots of 'em! :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by clokker
In the new GUI there are 4 choices for different fonts. If that isn't enough then you can download a program called Fony and edit the RTFont I created. By doing this it is simple for a user to create whatever Font makes you happy. No more having to suffer with whatever microscopic font some programmer thinks is good for you.
gx-x: Tray info has been around for a while for RealTemp beta testers.
Head back to this post:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=1097
Install the included font into your Font directory and copy RealTemp.exe into your RealTemp folder and give it a try. Read the new RealTemp.ini file for more details.
The next beta with the Settings window and colors and etc. might be ready tomorrow sometime. I think I cleared the last major hurdle this evening. You can add and delete tray icons on the fly now. Lots of little details to take care of but it's getting very close. Thanks for all the :up:
Thank You unclewebb:up:
Well, someone has to look out for the AARP contingent here...Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefa_Madness
Tried it last night.......
XP 64 Bit
QX9770 was identified as X9770.
No sticking on the core temps at any level.
Great Job! I can stop scratching my head over the high temps in
CoreTemp and Everest.
Looking forward to the new upcoming version.....
CoreTemp and Everest TjMax's are adjustable if you're using the latest versions.
i really dont want to sit through 1000+ posts but from skimming through a few pages, this program shows pretty accurate temperatures? it seems to show temperatures similar to speedfan and core temp. however, it's different than what the BIOS and Easy Tune5 (gigabytes included application). so i can assume real temp is the most accurate?
and a little off topic but since i'm asking about application sensor differences, why is the vcore readings different in all these applications? which one is the most accurate?
btw, what does tjmax mean?
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=1108Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteFireDragon
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=1124
I agree that this is a nice piece of software certainly equal to Core Temp and others. I do feel like I need to correct you when you said, "I can stop scratching my head over the high temps in CoreTemp and Everest."Quote:
Originally Posted by pjskeet
Just because RT shows you temps that are 10 °C cooler than CT and E doesn't mean that RT's values are right. The :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty reality is that Intel has yet to publish the true tjmax values for our C2D/C2Q's and thus all the software out there -- RT, CT, E, etc. -- are just guessing!
Of course it doesn't mean that RT is correct, but using a commons sense, my WC high flow setup, water at 30C, and idle temps of CPU at 34 with RT and 49 with Everest and CT, having D-Tek Fuzion - RT at least shows significantly closer value to a correct one ... IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by graysky
Given intels secrecy regarding even cpu temps, I would plan on being stuck with guesses for tjmax for a long time.
I prefer real temp "guesses" as they are at least estimates based on a repeatable measurement, with some small possible error. Using mobile's to guess can lead to apparent random results.
For example all programs use 85 tjmax for E6600. Casing temps are 85C, when DTS=0, suggesting any gradient from core to casing at low voltage, underclocked settings, with no heatsink are less than 1-2C, ie less than measurement error. But for E8400, Casing temps are 95C when DTS=0, under same testing settings. So if coretemp and Everest were correct, than a 10C gradient exists from core to case on E8400 but 0C gradient exists on E6600, which is mathematically impossible, one of the two is incorrect.
And working out formulas as here post 916, http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...179044&page=37
I am pretty sure coretemp did way overestimate tjmax of E8400.
I would call Realtemp an estimate backed up by repeatable measurements and intel formulas. I would call what CT, E, etc are doing as "guessing".
Prolly not quite the right place to ask this, but since RT displays it I guess it's kind of worthy...
When looking at the Intel docs for my e8400 they say max VID is 1.325. Now should I trust what I set my cpu voltages in my bios or what CPU-Z or RT display? For a 3.8ghz OC I need to set my voltage in my mobo at 1.35v to get it to be stable, but CPU-Z and RT show much lower. Now I know this is because of vdroop, but which one should I go by so I don't fry my chip?
Loving the RealTemp program Unclewebb. Can't wait to see the different colors etc. that you have going on.
I think that it is less about Intel's secrecy and more about their flexibility. I believe Intel wants to be able to change the Tjmax number on the fly as their manufacturing processes advance. If they publish a number, then they are locked in to that number. To change it would require a great deal of overhead to notify all relevant parties in the OED and OEM sectors that they would/could need to change their specs. By publishing only the TDP, manufactures have to design for just one set of thermal parameters. This gives Intel a great deal more flexibility in marketing their desktop products, where thermals are usually not the most important design consideration (the Prescott core not withstanding). The opposite is true in the mobile market, where the Tjmax is published and thermal management is one of the primary elements in designing a laptop computer. The vast majority of desktop computer users don't even need to know that a Tjmax exists, let alone what the number is, and publishing the data in a open document would unnecessarily constrain the company in making either design or manufacturing changes to their CPU's. I don't thing there is any big conspiracy here, just a pragmatic business decision. Just my uninformed opinion, so take it for what you will.Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
While that is a logical and possibly true point, intel is very secretive regarding thermals.
I have probably emailed them 10 times, and asked multiple questions on their forum, all very politely. Yet all my posts were deleted, and all my questions never answered, and I was told I had to get an NDA, which as an individual, is not going to happen.
Even an email asking if the thermal specs of Tcase which are published, also apply to the cpu diode max, I get the response, "Thank you for contacting Intel(R) Customer Support. The only way for you to have the accurate data is by contacting a Field Application Engineer (FAE) as mentioned on previous emails." Please contact one of our authorized distributors. You will need to work with a Field Application Engineer (FAE) at one of our distributors."
Which is intels polite way of saying..."**** off".
it is a lost cause...it is sort of like talking to a concrete wall while you are in prison:D
My favorite things about Real Temp:
The timestamp, and it's recording your High and Low temp's on one easy to read screen.
Your cooling info carries more clout. I just ran this test in my (60°F or 15.5°C) basement. OCCT was just a few minutes out from completing a successful 1HR run.
I am a watercooled dude, but you can see in one glance:
I am currently running at 3.6GHz.
My idle temps are recorded at 22°C under Minimum, with a time stamp.
My current core temps are easy to spot at 41 and 42°C.
My Max temp is also displayed and easy to see that 54 minutes into OCCT, all 4 of my Cores only Maxed out at 45°C.
It carries more weight to me than just some temps, captured in a screen shot, of a single moment in time. Range baby... It carries more Street Cred! :up:
http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/6331/run22rx1.jpg
Note: The distance to TJ Max is different due to my custom startup settings, not an issue with the program.
;Idle0= will let you adjust your reported idle temperatures up or down.
;please read the documentation for more information. Any value between
;-3.0 and 3.0 is acceptable. Idle2=1.0 will increase the reported idle
;temperature of core #2 up one notch.
Idle0=1
Idle1=1
Idle2=1.7
Idle3=.9
My Core 2 (counting core 0) has always read too low. I have adjusted the idle temp of each core to read 6.5°C above my ambient. I feel it gives me more believable readings this way. :)
The up side is I receive more accurate idle temps. The down side is I might be actually running a wee bit cooler than I think on my Current, and Max reported temp's. I can live with that...
It sure does make for nice even temps reported across all 4 of my cores now too! :p:
I dont really use the load calibration, its like fooling my self that all my cores are running at equal temps. If they really are running equally the delta to TjMax should be equal also.