Printable View
ok i'm confused by all off this, to much info to take in. running my e8200 o/clocked to 3.8ghz vcore 1.3625,
your real temp is saying cores are 31c 25c, while core temp is 41c 35c, 10degrees is alot. so do i need to adjust any settings like -- or ++
confused!!
Degenerate83: CoreTemp assumes a TjMax=105C for the E8x00 desktop processors which is based on what the mobile 45nm processors are rated at.
My testing of an E8400 with an IR gun showed that TjMax=95C for these processors.
Reported Temp = TjMax - DTS
DTS is the data coming directly from the on chip digital thermal sensors. Both programs read that data the same. Because both programs are assuming different TjMax values, the reported temps will be different by exactly 10C. Obviously I believe that RealTemp, which is based on measured data, is more accurate.
Chrysalis: The theory that the original B2 series has perfect accurate temps across the entire operating range is simply not true. I have an E6400 - B2 with the Conroe core. All programs agree that TjMax for the E6x00 series is 85C and my IR thermometer agrees but that results in temperatures at idle that are below ambient. Post#1 outlines this. The data output from the DTS sensors does not move linearly with changes in core temperature. RealTemp is the only program that recognizes this fact and tries to provide a way for users to calibrate their processor for more accurate idle and full load temperatures.
Other programs like CoreTemp are changing the TjMax value, usually higher, to try to cover up below ambient temperatures being reported. If you change the assumed TjMax, you will screw up the reported load temperatures.
rge: Thanks for your data. After measuring a M0 processor I was starting to wonder if the G0 series was TjMax=95C or not but your data confirms that it likely is. Hopefully another user can do some testing or else I'll have to go buy an E6750 or similar.
cool!! so i'll be using this from now on then :P !!!!!
to be honest I find post #1 massively confusing. I dont think I should be fiddling with settings until I see a temp someone thinks 'looks ok'.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I went to the url that was pointed out in the thread here.
http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=543522
They stated this.
Tcase to Tjunction Delta is ~ 10c on B3 / G0 / M0 Stepping and ~ 15c on B2 / L2 Stepping.
and
Tjunction Max = 100c (B3, G0, L2, M0 Stepping)
Tjunction Max = 85c (B2 Stepping)
All utils are assuming 85 for my TjMax which if the above info is right is correct. If you are saying the info above is wrong then just simply tell me what the correct TjMax is for the 6420 B2 stepping. For your info my temps are not below ambient temperature it is quite cold here at the moment.
So if I am on the right TjMax why am I meant to hit the ++ button? My idle temps are maybe wrong i already understand this as well but as long as my load temps are correct thats what I see as important.
The person that wrote that guide, has now updated his guide to reflect 5C max gradients....see here - http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/22...perature-guideQuote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
In his older link you posted, the gradients were assumed to exist based on a tjmax that was guessed at from mobile cpus, minus cpu temp guessed at in some cases (E8400) from a diode underneath the cpu socket, which is not even being cooled directly as tcase, and possibly in others by a diode between the cores and still not in contact with tcase. Still want to assume those gradients are accurate? I dont think the author does, see his updated link.
The only gradient you can be relatively certain of, is the minimal one at idle steady state without heatsink, because that is corroborated by intel documents. Unclewebb is using relatively accurate, repeatable measurements that reflect core temps by measuring temps in that manner, idle steady state, no heatsink. His tjmax should be accurate. If you want to know the gradient, use his tjmax for core temps, then place a thermocouple in IHS of cpu so IHS is still flat, and put a heatsink back on and compare the two. Barring that, I would not worry to much about gradients. If you want a guess at a gradient, you can calibrate cpu temp to ambient, but unless it is being measured at or near Tcase point (and it is not), its going to be a guess, some seem accurate guesses some not.
That goes completely against what Intel testing has shown. There are times, depending on what software you are running and definitely at idle that the delta between TCase and the core temp approaches zero.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
rge has been following this subject very closely and provides plenty of documentation. His post on the previous page of this thread is a good example.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=384
If you are only concerned about load temps then leave the Idle correction at 0. Your B2 E6420 has a TjMax=85C so your load temps should be reported very accurately.
At very low idle temperatures, my B2 E6400 and many other B2, L2 and M0 processors will report temperatures slightly below ambient which is impossible for an air cooled processor. If a user notices this and is concerned about this then they can set either a (+) or (++) correction in RealTemp to boost their reported idle temperatures.
Anyone that wants to check for this can simply run their processor at 266x6 ~ 1600 MHz and drop your core voltage down to 1.10 volts. Turn up your CPU fan to max, open your case and try to get your CPU as cool as possible. A typical reading in this test is about 4C above your ambient temperature. If software is reporting temperatures below ambient during this test then it is wrong. It may become correct at full load but your idle temps are wrong and if you want a more accurate idle temp then use the RealTemp correction feature.
I don't think that is too hard to follow. Let me know anything that needs to be clearer.
hmmm....your shoulder problem sounds just like mine....thanks!...get well very soon!:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
Just got a G0 Q6600. RealTemp 2.2 is reading cores 5c lower then CoreTemp 0.97 and Everest.
i noticed a 10C difference between real temp2.11 and coretemp, and that is due to, at least to my understanding, a 10C difference in TjMax.
EDIT:...still 10C difference between real temp2.2 and coretemp.
you have to change the offsets manually
if that post was for me, i do know there is a manual adjustment.
Yes, if you don't believe the TjMax that RealTemp is using is correct you can still use RealTemp with your own choice of TjMax. SpeedFan also provides this feature and I totally agree with it.
I think RealTemp is doing a pretty good job at its guesses at TjMax but there will always be users that disagree. If you are in that camp then open up the RealTemp.ini file and edit this line:
TjMax=0
Change the 0 value to either -3,-2,-1,1,2 or 3 and your TjMax will be adjusted for you by that value times 5. If you set a TjMax adjustment of -2, you will decrease the TjMax by 10 degrees. If you set this to TjMax=3, you will increase the TjMax that RealTemp uses by 15 degrees. I think this feature gives a user enough room to make whatever correction that they feel is appropriate.
This is a new feature just introduced with version 2.2 and is also explained near the end of post#1.
With no documentation from Intel to confirm TjMax, users need the opportunity to adjust this value as more information becomes available through my real world IR thermometer testing as well as their own. That is what RealTemp is based on. Users with their own IR thermometers and their own testing methods are now free to set up RealTemp however they like with idle adjustments at the low end or TjMax adjustments to cover the high end.
RealTemp is the only available software that accurately reports the core temperature of my 3 Core based processors from idle to TjMax and beyond.
lowtcell: RealTemp assumes your TjMax=95C while other programs are assuming TjMax=100C. That is where the 5C difference comes in.
@uncleweb
Any feedback on this
actually, unclewebb, coretemp tells me that my QX9650 has a TjMax of 105C...that stays true up to coretemp 0.97...not a big deal except the author wrote his program to display 105C for 9650's.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
i am kind of with you that the 45nm cpu's TjMax might be around 95C.
i read from someone who said, at least from what i recall, that we can add either 20C or 25C to Tcase and that should be very close to TjMax...i.e.,my Tcase is 64.5; adding 20C would put my TjMax at 84.5C, or, 89.5C if i added 25C...any thoughts on that supposition?
Yeah, I got that much. I'm just not sure which one is the correct one to to by. I hate assuming things. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowtcell
You guys are comparing a Q6600 (65nm) to a QX9650 (45nm). Q6600 was reporting 100*C Tjmax in most programs, but reports 95*C Tjmax in RT...5*C difference. QX9650 was reporting 105*C Tjmax in most programs, and reports 95*C in RT...10*C difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace-a-Rue
Until Intel releases more info we have to make assumptions and/or do more of our own testing.
Or you can just not worry about it so much:
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
No, unclewebb is saying the temps do not scale linearly as you get further from Tjmax, so the "Tjmax-DTS=currentTemp" formula doesn't hold true as you approach idle temps. That is what the correction is for. If your room thermometer is accurate then your correction factor of ++ puts you at 4*C above ambient which is the suggested value. Since you are unsure how reliable your room thermometer is you cannot make any assumptions. You'll just have to wait until you can get a room thermometer you can trust more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demo
@jason4207
If you take another look at my pictures you can see both programs at the same IDLE temp, and both programs have the same 1:1 reading up until 49c, when the temp enters 50c the gap starts to increase upto 4c, but unclewebb has PMed me about it.
Yeah, but you're using the ++ correction factor. The reason 100*C Tjmax was originally selected by most programmers is b/c of idle temp readings relative to ambient. So CT may be indeed be correct at idle, but at load it would be off by ~5*C b/c of an incorrect Tjmax. RT should be correct at load, but needs the correction factor to be accurate at idle. Again it goes back to the theory that DTS doesn't scale linearly.
Seems to work well with vista64. Shows temps within 1C compared to U-Guru.
great, finally a programm which can let me measure the temp of my E8400. coretemp stucks with the temp and also everest and smartguardian are way off, 28c idle and 37c loaded with a TRUE seems like ok(no damn idea of load temps, coming from an opty 170 and dfi nf4 sli dr) heres a screen:
http://www.abload.de/thumb/tempsy9c.jpg
greetz
edit|| also the 2nd coresensor seems to be borked just as mentioned at the 1st post. it shows a 0 at the 2nd sensor so the thing is stuck and cant provide accurate temps, so at least 1sensor works :P
It seems too many people are getting confused by what is happening or being discussed here and thus accepting any low temperatures as accurate as they did for CoreTemp before, as they did for Motherboard Monitor once.. as they did for Next Sensors when it was released. Too many are going to use this program wrongly to try and get their lowest temp readouts or whatever suits them whilst not testing anything practically. If you do not test accurately, you have no way to know your temperatures. A CPU TDP is given by testing the hottest chip in each SKU bin at max lab. loads, many chips in that SKU will have much less TDP than the rated. The value is just a nominal generalization band. TDP decides your CPU heat, as with any IC and thus your cooling. 50W on any other IC being dissipated is the same as 50W on a Wolfdale, the temperature will be the same, as the heat energy released in joules per second is the same.
Let me make it clearer hopefully:
-The Tcontrol + offset is not a straight line in relationship to the actual core or IHS temperature.
-Internal core temperature is not the same as CPU case temperature under load, ever on modern CPUs.
-CPU case temperature calibration in software needed at 0C will not be the same calibration needed for the correct IHS temperature at 30C and neither of which will be the calibration needed to find the IHS temperature at 60C. In the same way, you'll have to calibrate it separately for each CoreTemp reported temp for even the slightest accuracy or you'll create a puddle.
-The reported values from any software have no way to be verified ascertain unless you have an accurate methodology, thermocouple, across the measured materials and temperatures being tested, to test shutdown temperature, throttle temperature, ambient case temperature, ambient heatsink temperature and idling temperature at the lowest MHz+volts, lowest MHz+mediocre volts and lowest MHz+high volts. This is minimum to test reliability of your testing, as well as the temperature being taken from within the core IHS. Your data would have to correlate to that of other known IC temperatures at given TDPs.
-It is very clear max core temperatures, max shutdown temperatures and max throttling temperatures have never been the same on any last 3 years desktop core SKU. Own a few same SKU processors to test and find out yourself. So ones max shutdown/throttle temp findings are quite irrelevant to be applied to anothers, regardless of CPU MFG PR. Each core has a separate absolute limit.
-So, in order to trip the TCC and/or have PROCHOT# asserted, you'll need to do some experimentation.
-You do not know whether your core TCC is working until you've pushed it to throttle/shutdown/fried. A retail E8400 so far returned did not have the TCC working, it died when pushed. Penryn lineup is known to have fudged DTS throughout it's lineup straight from the first non-ES samples, this cannot be mitigated by knowing your Tjunction_max either, as the DTS are wrong in their calibration in themselves and thus their feedbck you find your temp through. Some, very rare I've seen working. We had 152 deliveries of Wolfdale at our work which my boss rejected because of this and Intel has not supplied us the new batches they promised 6 weeks ago which they say have this problem fixed. The problem is corrected in C1 step with desktop and mobile CPUs AFAIK. Core 2 has perfectly accurate DTS feedbacks on the majority though.
-With faulty DTS, you can calibrate to add -15C to temps you see as 115C in software believing you're still only at 100C because TJmax has not yet been reached while you're burning the core at 115C or even 125C actual because your TCC is faulty and never kicked in. You're damaging your hardware past the limit it can withstand. Hence stay well below the limit compared to what these software show you unless you can ascertain a working TCC.
-1.4V TRUE air 20C heatsink ambient on a 95W TDP CPU core at any MHz will never ever be idling below 40C core temp. Ask Intel if you don't know this. If it does show you this, you have problems with your reported temps being inaccurate.
-There is a minimum ~10C delta between the hottest part of a core to the coldest, Intel, MB MFGs and AMD will confirm this, let alone the hot spot from the surface at load which can be quite a bit. I've attained measurements many times before this with more accurate ways than a IR therm., using the method Intel and industries use, N/T/K type thermocouples calibrated at fixed temperatures from 10-125C, fixed lab. conditions. The surface was always cooler than the actual internal chip temperature being reported by the DTS, esp. under load. That's why Intel mentions in their procedure for case measurements, that if you do not insert the thermocouple inside the groove as instructed, the temperature feedback will not be accurate for the Tcase measurement, not the DTS measurement. If you're going to level the Tcase surface temp. with the DTS temp. you will error, as that will only give you the Tcase_max if done correctly, a low temperature. You can measure your Tcase by seeing when PROCHOT# is asserted. If it's 95C, the Tcase_max will be what Intel has specified on their site for each processor, when Tjunction_max internally is reached. So for mine, Tcase_max is 71C and at that period, Tjunction_max will be 100C. 29C delta between the two, it is not much at low TDPs but increases with higher heat emission.
-Tcase_max is 71C for my quad at 95W TDP. Tcase_max exists specified dependent on chip TDP. That's because there is a large delta between Tcase and Tdie under load: for Q6600 G0 71C Tcase would equate to the throttling point internally, which is your individually calibrated Tjunction_max. Both would be reached at the same time. The Tcase_max is the maximum the core can withstand before damage as is the Tjunction_max, they are just measurements taken at a different place, one internally at the hottest part of the core and one externally embedded within the IHS.
-AMD RS780 idles 1.5W TDP, that's power dissipated as heat, and even with a heatsink, it is still idling 3C above ambient. Most of the lowest volts/MHz I've seen are still above 10W TDP, which won't make the chip idle less than +4C ambient at minimum on the hottest core. RD790 is a 10W TDP maximum lab. load IC and 8W TDP maximum software load and with a heatsink it still idles 6C above ambient temperatures on air, that should tell you what to expect. No chip or cooling can discern anything more than heat, all heat energy emitted is in TDP (Watts) units. The chip surface and its cooling only recognizes TDP and deals with it. TDP is heat energy being dissipated as Joules, 50W TDP on any chip is the same thing for the cooling. You can work out TDP after you've oc'd/uc'd and approximate your temps well.
-45nm Penryn is very susceptible to EM, TZDB, Qbd and TBBD (damage/degrade/breakdown with stress, current and voltage), it has a maximum safe voltage rating at around 1.357V published inside of the Intel guides (I don't remember exactly, but very close to that 1.35V figure). This is due to the material choice and fabrication node, they do not tolerate voltage much and I have not seen the SEM cross section of Penryn die, but there would have to be a lot of correction done even in order to allow over 1.2V without causing large damage to the cores. You will definitely damage the core with higher volts than this rating, how long before it degrades, not long, how long before it dies, no idea.
graysky: excellent additions you asked for, makes the program worthwhile now thanks to unclewebb. :)
I have a G0 Q6600 here, I don't use the + and ++ calibrations which are needed after you've found your Tjunction_max and you're idling below what it's supposed to be. FWIW, I've found my Tjunction_max long ago. I've already said each chip differs, as it does, and all CPU MFG's confirm this. Furthermore the offset value differs for each too as the gradient increases. For instance, my Q6600 G0 Tjmax is not 95C. The DTS are correctly working on mine, as when Tjunction reports 0C through the DTS MSR, PROCHOT# becomes asserted and the core starts throttling. DTS MSR reads 0 when Tjunction_max is reached. THERMTRIP# is supposed to assert 20-25C after PROCHOT# assertion temp. is reached. THERMTRIP# exists on all CPUs, as a fail safe and accurately calibrated method (rarely one does slip through without properly calibrated). Intel statements are readily available on this too. So say, my Tjunction_max was 95C, >115-125C internal (DTS) core temps. will make the system shutdown, all clocks halted automatically. This you can't stop and mostly you won't be able to pick up. Most of the time, the DTS temperature jumps very quickly after PROCHOT# assertion if not cooled, not in 1-3C but in 5-10C in a ms. When I tested mine, I did so in quite a few ways =>
First Idle without CE1, daily setting [Fig.1]:
http://picsorban.com/upload/3906setup.thumb.png
I usually will run CE1, so it'll idle lower. Coretemp/EVEREST/HWMonitor assume a 100C Tjunction_max, and that's my idle voltage at maximum fanspeed, with 23C ambient socket temp.
Idle totally stock, no CE1, same conditions but lowest fanspeed [Fig.2]:
http://picsorban.com/upload/2400-tempsmsr.thumb.png
Already, as you can see, 95C Tjunction_max default on Real Temp is giving errorsome idle temperatures. Two cores are reading 22C, which is 1C below ambient and 4C below socket ambient: incorrect.
95W TDP CPU under maximum TAT load at lowest fan speed after 15 minutes [Fig.3]:
http://picsorban.com/upload/2400load-alltemps.thumb.png
Now if you understand TDP, you know that 95W on any CPU will give the same end internal core temperature. TAT is extremely high load beats anything in software I've seen. As you can see, Core Temp is reading 54-59C across the cores whilst Real Temp is reading 49-54C. The delta being 5C, which is because Real Temp choose a -5C Tjunction_max. For a 95W TDP CPU or below, sub 50C lowest fan speed air at 24C socket ambient is hard to believe with TAT load. Prime 95 will be at least 3-4C lower across the cores and Orthos even lower.
Here are the temps in all trusted applications at idle, even Intel TAT agrees with Core Temp and the rest of the tools for a 100C Tjunction_max [Fig.4]:
http://picsorban.com/upload/2400-alltemps.thumb.png
As you can see, Real Temp falls sub-ambient but not the others. Still we have not tested Tjunction_max, so Real Temp may be right although requiring an + offset.
Now you see at 1600MHz 1.152V (not CE1), lowest fan speed, same conditions [Fig.4]:
http://picsorban.com/upload/1600-idle.thumb.png
Real Temp is reading sub-ambient again, none of the rest are.
Drop the volts to 1.120V at 1600MHz, fastest fanspeed [Fig.5]:
http://picsorban.com/upload/1600-idle...png
Temps have dropped 1C more across the cores, 4C below ambient socket temps.
Time to drop MHz, volts and thus TDP. 1230MHz with 0.992V [Fig.6]:
http://picsorban.com/upload/1230-0.992-idle.thumb.png
At those settings and parameters we know, Id constant, the cores are now at 33.3W TDP. Intel states TDP for Q6600 G0 in CE1 is 24W, if that's true, then current is also reduced, which means the new TDP in the above state is 14W, very low. Still, it is now 5C below ambient processor socket temp. on two cores with a lowest speed heatsink+fan.
At 13W TDP, 23C ambient socket temp, took the heatsink off with no fan around. Temperature started shooting up without any load, very quickly, I monitored what the Tcase temp. read with a K-type accurate to +/- 0.3C whilst controlling these to see when exactly PROCHOT# was asserted so that Tjunction_max is reached [Fig.7]:
http://picsorban.com/upload/1203-nohsf.thumb.png
As you see, everything turned wacko the minute PROCHOT# was reached. But repeated 4 times, the temp. for Tjunction_max to be reached was 100-98-98-100C. At 95C Real Temp reading, the DTS MSR register still read 5C left. Temperatures at this stage are shooting up very quickly without a heatsink. K-type was reading 68C on the IHS now, too hot to touch, burnt my finger by haste moving things around. That's the exact stage I threw a HSF on it to cool it down meanwhile I note things down. You can see the hex MSR values from the DTS in my previous screens, they are inline.
If 100C was Tjunction_max, then it should shut down very soon.. 15-25C after that, right? I tested it [Fig.8]
http://picsorban.com/upload/procthot.thumb.png
It was very hard to get an ss before shutdown, temperature runs away at this stage too fast to do anything. 5 attempts got me the above, which is 2C below the temperature it shut down repetitively, without any load, no HSF, 23C socket ambient, THERMTRIP# was asserted. All temperatures in the utilities started reading backwards, only Core 0/1 in Real Temp did not freak out after 110C, and carried on moving up in line. My shutdown temperature in those two readings was 125C. Exactly in line with a 100C Tjunction_max. At the time of shutdown, Tcase on the surface (not embedded) measured 84C with a K-Type.
So I have pretty accurate idle and load temperatures and the MSR was of a big help, as when I reached 95-100C, I checked up what delta it read from the Tjunction_max, to see what was seeming correct. Now I've set 100C TjMax in Real Temp, no offset needed and temps are right on AFAI can tell. :up:
I got into a discussion with another user on a different forum and I decided to do a more thorough study of the IR reported temps vs what RealTemp displays. I think the results are very interesting and it also helps to explain the RealTemp Idle Calibration feature which some users don't trust or disagree with.
--------------------------------------------------
Here is my latest guinea pig, an E2160 Revision M0.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/1706/e2160cpuav0.png
Intel has a habit of creating one processor model and then making some slight changes to the basic design so they can create additional models for different price points without having to do a total redesign. The E4x00 series with 2MB of cache gets half of that disabled and then becomes processors like my E2160 with 1MB cache. They then cut the cache in half again and create things like the E1200 M0 which has only 512KB of cache. They all have the same CPUID. Some people believe that this is a way for Intel to sell defective processors. If the cache has a defect, they can disable half or three-quarters of it and still sell it as a lower end model and make some money.
So my theory is that all M0 processors start life as the same basic processor with the same TjMax. As they go down the assembly line, the multiplier and VID and cache are adjusted which creates a variety of models. These different models get stamped and shoved into the appropriate box but beneath the skin they are all quite similar.
GigaByte has brought up some troubling findings that need to be addressed. His M0 processor when using RealTemp's new TjMax=85C is reporting below ambient core temperatures at idle which everyone knows is impossible. When this same situation originally happened with the L2 - E4300 series, the solution CoreTemp came up with was to bump TjMax from 85C to 100C. Changing the TjMax will cure below ambient idle temps but it also screws up your load temps by +15C if the TjMax really isn't 100C. Not good.
The goal of RealTemp was to convert the on chip DTS data to accurate core temperatures. When I first got my E2160 installed and ran RealTemp v2.11, it was immediately obvious that TjMax=95C was wrong for my new processor. I quickly changed that to TjMax=85C for RealTemp v2.2 based on my IR thermometer testing.
With GigaByte strongly objecting to this change in TjMax, I decided I needed to re-do my E2160 testing. I recorded the IR thermometer reading and then immediately after I took a picture of the screen to compare it to what RealTemp was reporting. I'll start with a lot of pictures taken at different temperatures to compare IR gun temps to what RealTemp reports. I have cropped the original pictures down to size to make them easier to upload. I have also kept the original pictures which are all time stamped showing that the video screen shot was generally taken 2 or 3 seconds after the IR picture. It took me a couple of seconds to reposition the camera, refocus and shoot. If anyone is suspicious that my image gathering technique was done to make RealTemp look better then I have the originals that I can e-mail to you so you can check the file creation time stamp on them.
Anyway, here goes. In each group you have the IR measured temp followed by the RealTemp reported temp. Idle Calibration was set to (+) but that feature doesn't effect temperatures in this range.
IR Temp = 50.6C
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/4014/1asu0.jpg
RealTemp = 50C
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/3766/1bhd2.jpg
IR Temp = 55.4C
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/7114/2aoz7.jpg
RealTemp = 54C / 55C
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/2964/2bvd4.jpg
IR Temp = 65.8C
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/7549/3aup4.jpg
RealTemp = 67C
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/3281/3bqi2.jpg
IR Temp = 70.6C
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/4005/4auf1.jpg
RealTemp = 70C / 72C
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3177/4bkc7.jpg
I think everyone will agree that there is a very strong correlation between IR thermometer measured temperatures and what RealTemp is reporting for core temperatures. The upper range looks good and shows that TjMax=85C for my M0 processor looks like a wise choice.
Now it's time to look at the low end using the same TjMax=85C. With the Idle Calibration set to (+), you'll also see how that effects reported temperatures. I've included pictures of SpeedFan since it uses TjMax=85C for the M0 processors but doesn't have RealTemp's Idle feature so you can compare.
IR Temp = 27.8C
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/6753/5axb0.jpg
RealTemp = 27C SpeedFan = 25C CPU = 40C
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/5981/5bao9.jpg
On this processor SpeedFan, without the Idle Calibration feature, is reporting core temperatures that are a little too low. This is common on the original B2 processors, definitely the L2 processors like the E4300 and now also on the M0 processors. The other thing to note is the CPU temperature which is from a diode on the motherboard. On this Asus board, it has nothing to do with the actual TCase temperature of this processor and is completely wrong.
IR Temp = 31.8C
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/3149/6aoj9.jpg
RealTemp = 32C SpeedFan = 29C
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/2851/6btm6.jpg
IR Temp = 34.0C
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/4493/7ahc9.jpg
RealTemp = 34C SpeedFan = 32C
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/5486/7bzl7.jpg
IR Temp = 41.0C
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/6391/8ayt7.jpg
RealTemp = 40C SpeedFan = 39C
http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/8694/8bbm5.jpg
Once again there is a strong correlation between IR temperatures and what RealTemp is reporting. A properly chosen Idle Correction factor is also helping to make these reported temps spot on.
Everything is looking good so far but now it's time to investigate if my idle temperatures are being reported below the ambient temperature like GigaByte has found.
For this test I've reset the Idle Calibration to 0. I turned off my computer in my very cool basement and let it sit. It was left in Stand By mode for a few hours so when I turned it back on I could immediately see the reported core temperature before it had a chance to warm up too much.
I had a notepad sitting beside the computer which I used to record a room temperature of 11.2C.
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/567/roomtemp11chj2.png
Here it is. With no Idle correction factor, RealTemp is reporting 8C for the core temperature now.
http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/3763/temp8ccj2.png
RealTemp, uncorrected, is reporting this M0 E2160 3 degrees below the ambient temperature. This is exactly the same as what you discovered GigaByte. You were operating your E4500 at 0.90 volts vs 1.08 volts during my testing. Heat output of a processor is proportional to the square of voltage so your CPU was putting out approximately 70% of the heat energy as my processor and one of your cores was reporting that it was at 4C below your ambient temperature.
GigaByte, can you now see how the DTS is not linear. Without an Idle correction factor, these CPUs will report idle temperatures that are too low and impossible. That does not imply that TjMax is wrong. My testing makes it perfectly clear that TjMax=85C is definitely right for my M0 processor and our combined testing shows that our processors are behaving identically by both reporting below ambient idle temperatures.
Your correction to adjust the TjMax upward 10C to 95C will only make all of your load temperatures wrong. For accurate reported temperatures that cover the entire operating range of a processor, you need an Idle Calibration correction factor.
Down at this temperature, RealTemp uses a correction factor of 4 degrees which makes the reported idle temperatures much more accurate.
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/7...ction4cfi7.png
A 4 degree correction would bring the previous 8C uncorrected reading up to 12C which is above my ambient temperature of 11C. The RealTemp reading may not be 100% correct but it is definitely very close to the actual core temperature of this processor. Closer than any other core tempreature software available. RealTemp, when properly calibrated, is very accurate from idle to TjMax and beyond.
------------------------------------------------------
After all this, GigaByte still disagrees with my program using TjMax=85C for his CPU and bases his arguments on TCase vs core temp gradients that have been proven false by Intel themselves. Oh well, I gave it my best try! Any opinions on this, for or against?
KTE: Thank you for your testing. Looks like I need to buy a G0 Q6600 this week and do some thorough testing myself. Your screen shots are very valuable and the next release of RealTemp will be better because of it.
One thing I noticed about your high temp testing results is that your first screen shot with the Idle Calibration set to (+) shows a big bug in RealTemp when PROCHOT# becomes activated. The Idle Calibration feature is designed to have no effect here but it is screwing up the reported temperatures. I need to fix that.
On your last screen shot you have Idle Calibration set to 0 and now RealTemp is working as it should.
Reported Temp = TjMax - DTS
Some programs like CoreTemp will display the actual DTS values when you go over TjMax and then it puts a ? beside the reading showing that it doesn't know what to do with it. Other programs like TAT will display negative numbers like -40C. This is because the DTS is a 7 bit number and wraps around. My program interprets this as:
DTS - TEMP
2 - 93C
1 - 94C
0 - 95C
127 - 96C
126 - 97C
125 - 98C
etc., etc.
To correct for this, the modified formula after PROCHOT# is reached becomes:
Reported Temp = TjMax - DTS + 128
Your final screen shot shows the DTS at 100 on core 0 and core 1. This means the DTS has wrapped around and you are 28 steps beyond TjMax. My program assumes your TjMax=95C so using the modified formula it calculates that your core temperature is 123C. You state that your CPU then shuts down 2C after that which equals 125C. That is exactly equal to the documented shut down temp for the mobile Core processors.
If your TjMax=100C then your actual core temperature is 128C, here and your CPU is shutting down at 130C. That's beyond the 125C that Intel quotes for their mobile processors. Another sign that more real world testing needs to be done similar to my E2160 test. Controlling an E2160 was simple and boring with no heatsink but the Quad is a different animal. Wish me luck!
KTE, great post! Thank you very much for that explanation and illustration.
Idle temp calibration also affects load tempsQuote:
Originally Posted by jason4207
0 calibration
55-52-56-51
++ calibration
56-55-57-53
EDIT:
To be on the safe side, im opting to use ++ calibration even it affects my load temps.
I request again, if possible, to have an idle calibration separate for any core, in order to correct my DTS sensors in E8400 that work but one of them is very badly calibrated.
Thanks, ;)
+1. thanks for all your testing so far and looking forward to your Q6600 G0 results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brama
Lol, this is funny.
I have my CPU clocked now at 3 Ghz, 1.25V
Speedfan and Real Temp 2.2 reports core temps of 19 degrees C
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/6228/realtempap2.jpg
My water temperature is 23.5 degrees C
I know that they can't idle below ambient , rather water , shouldn't water heat those cores ?
So ... Please tell me why is this!? :D
Clearly the DTS sensors in your E6600 don't measure linearly over the full temperature range. Change the idle calibration until you have something sensible.
Re-read the instructions in the 1st post and adjust 'Idle Temperature Calibration' as necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacehead
Spacehead: I've been banging my head against the wall for the last year trying to convince people that the data coming out of the DTS sensors does not change linearly with changes in core temperature, especially at idle. Your post confirms that. Head to the first post in this thread and have a look at the nice graph I created to help explain this. My E6400 - Revision B2 does the exact same thing as your E6600. It reports idle temperatures that are too low and impossible to achieve.
Since developing RealTemp, I have not put my E6400 back in for an in depth study but I can say the (++) Idle Calibration setting was developed with my E6400 in mind. Using that setting should get you very accurate temperatures from Idle to TjMax at 85C and even beyond that. I just released v2.21 yesterday with a couple of bug fixes which should correct some issues that KTE discovered during his recent high temp testing between TjMax and thermal shut down.
Why don't you do us all a favor and drop your MHz down to 266x6=1600 MHz and drop your core voltage down to 1.10 volts and show us your idle temps with no calibration correction and then with a (++) correction. After correction your idle temps may not be perfect but they should be a lot closer to reality.
Maybe I'll do a thorough test of my E6400 similar to the one I just did with my E2160 while waiting for my Q6600 G0 to arrive. :D
Hmm, I'm using it right now and I'm getting 37 or 39C (Core 1) and 36C (Core 2) with Ambient or Room Temp. at 75F in East Texas. I guess that sounds about right with my Artic Freezer 7 Pro with Artic Silver 5 (Installed it Yesturday) so It should go lower than in the next few days. Oh and btw, its E6300 at Stock Speed with Voltage at the Lowest as possible on ASUS P5B Deluxe. Will overclock once my Thermal is necessarily to overclock my CPU.
Anyways, Read the Graph, I don't really understand it but I like to hear that is more accurate than Core Temp Software.
Thanks for sharing with us on this program! :)
I feel your pain, and it's only been a couple weeks for me. I've been following this thread closely, and it seems this pops up almost everyday.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I can understand not wanting to read the whole thread, but when the info is clearly presented in the very first post it makes you wonder if some folks just d/l it, install it, and then post something. Come on people! At least read the first post!
unclewebb, maybe you should copy/paste the first post into a readme file and include it w/ the download. I'm sure a lot of folks won't read it, and will still post the same question, but it might get through to a few people.
Sorry for ranting! I just want unclewebb to stay focused on the ultimate goal and not be bothered w/ answering the same question over & over again. ;)
Great idea that I've been meaning to do for a while but haven't got around to yet. I enjoy the testing and data gathering too much that I get side tracked once in a while. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by jason4207
Thanks for coming to the defense of RealTemp. I'm trying to make this program the first program people go to when they want to know the core temp of their Intel Core processor. I'm a couple of years behind CoreTemp in development time and I'm still missing a feature or two but in terms of accuracy, I think RealTemp is already a step ahead for most processors.
i think your program offers more versatility...thank you for putting so much effort into getting it perfected!:clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
your post on the previous page along with KTE's was very helpful for me to understand thermal dynamics;)
I thank Unclewebb again and again for the development of this usefull program and for considering my request to add 2 curves with different slopes in the program; preliminary test is giving very similar temps in my strange E8400 that has the DTS of the 2 cores giving very different data.
Q6600 (GO) Real Temp vs Core Temp
Ambeint 18C
H20 cooled Triple Radiator 3x 98CFM
LAING D38 Vario #5
Swiftech Storm
P35C-DS3R (BIOS F10)
Open air (no differential between case temp and ambient)
Shown: IDLE at 9x333FSB (default Vcore1.28V)
Shown: LOAD using Prime95 (4xcores) dissipating approximately 128W
Where can you download version 2.21?
Page 1Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dower
Don't trust those idle temps until you calibrate them as per the 1st post (or several other posts since then).Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid3D
he is on water, not AIR!
How many other users have E8x00 CPUs with two sensors that work but with one sensor that significantly trails the other until higher temps are reached like Brama had? He sent me a RealTemp log file that was an ugly mess at idle and the two cores are still way out even at 50C:
13:47:05 -6 25
13:47:30 -5 25
13:47:35 -4 27
13:47:40 -6 26
13:47:45 -6 26
13:47:50 -5 26
13:47:55 -6 25
13:48:00 -7 26
13:48:05 -6 26
I came up with a workable solution for him and his displayed temps are much better balanced now on his E8400 from idle to full load. Hopefully he can post a few lines of how his log file looks now. If your DTS sensors are seriously messed up like this then send me a PM and maybe I can write a custom profile for you as well. I need some more real data before I decide if it would be possible for users to create their own custom profiles.
He still can't have below ambient temps, though (unless that's chilled water). He said ambient was 18, and RT is reporting 16. Idle temps obviously need to be calibrated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace-a-Rue
How do you know what the actual DTS core temps are if DTS feedback is wildly wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I have an E8400 which shows the same problem. I'm currently in talks with Intel on it whether there's a fix to it, how accurate and trustable it is or whether they will provide me another one in replacement of it, so not yet testing it (have another CPU in that I'm testing).
Using "idle system" described on message #1.Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
Please, let us know the policy of Intel about substitution of processors with stuck or crazy DTS sensors.
Some lines of my log after the very cool customization of unclewebb :DQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
21:47:30 46 47
21:47:35 45 47
21:47:40 47 48
21:47:45 45 47
21:47:50 45 46
21:47:55 46 46
21:48:00 46 48
21:48:05 46 47
Now it looks like a normal cpu ;)
KTE: When working with Brama on his messed up E8400 he assumed, based on idle and load temps, that his second core was reporting what looked like appropriate temperatures while the first core was reporting temps that were WAY too low. The log file he originally sent me was showing a delta of 30C to 33C at idle and a delta of about 15C at full load.
I pulled out Excel and plotted some points of both his cores and it appeared that both sensors were working but the slope of the two curves or rate of change of the DTS data vs the rate of change of core temperatures looked considerably different.
I created a linear correction formula for Brama that is giving him excellent results from his normal Idle ambient temps to his typical full load temps using OCCT I believe. Without a proper calibration with an IR gun or calibrated thermal diode we'll never know how accurate his temps are but I think they are far closer to reality than what they were. He definitely was not idling at 5 to 7 degrees below zero like it was previously showing.
It will be interesting to find out what Intel has to say about this issue. The DTS sensors were not designed to report idle temps and as long as they work for thermal throttling and shut down control then I don't think Intel is really obligated to replace a CPU. If you complain enough they might replace CPUs on a one on one basis to keep their customers happy. Maybe they could hire me and I'll show them some junior high school math they could use to at least make the DTS data look believable near idle. :D
I'm going to post a log file later today showing how closely the two sensors in my 65nm E2160 track each other through several idle to full Orthos load runs. It very clearly shows how DTS sensors are supposed to work. Time to go look for a Q6600.
KTE, if any of your talks include technical information, would you mind posting their content here? I am assuming of course that you are communicating through correspondence.Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
OK, thanks for the explanation unclewebb. :)
Dual core would be easier than quad core in that you could try and calibrate each core to be as similar as possible while keeping a linear correlation with load based off the working core DTS feedback. The temperatures between both cores at full load won't be much different as long as you can establish the TjMax and be idling above ambient at low TDPs. So, good going to resolve the issue there. I suppose it's most difficult only when both of the core DTS are wrong, a complete wild shoot in that scenario.
Intels stance is, the CPU won't be replaced unless the DTS are completely faulty and either of throttling/thermal control shutdown do not occur at their intended margins. But I'm not going to them as a normal customer, I'm going through as a major corporational partner as they work with my uncle very closely for over 15 years now, he's a personal friend with some there.. hence I get a little better treatment. :D
I've had my last two replaced already, the entire first delivery batch was replaced TBH. The boss didn't accept them as these parameters are very crucial in a professional environment and so Intel promised delivery of the C1 step first batch to us which fixes these DTS issues. However, we've not received them yet, I picked up an E8400 lying around but it's an old batch and still idled 10-15C sub-ambient with a 105C TjMax. I haven't played with it yet, only booted it at work in a spare system, my own P35 MB at the flat didn't support it without a new BIOS flash and I have no spare PSU for the system yet. So just waiting a little while before I test it after some guidance from the Intel S.FAE. Basically, the ES Wolfdales they had were known to have good working DTS. So he's just going to compare my temps to those of one working at the same Voltage x MHz using the stock cooler open air, and then I can have a good idea of the correct temps (approx anyway). Will report back when we're making progress.
Did you replace the file in the links? I re DL it and its still 1.1. The program when its opened is also 1.1. The notes arent updated either...
Because it's my uncles personal contact (not mine) rather than normal user technical correspondance, I'm limited to not being allowed this liberty, sorry. I know the contact quite well since 2004 and we chat very informally rather than in official tones if I'm around at my uncles work place (I have met and worked with him at times). I can tell you what I learn non-verbatim though, but I ask for personal knowledge and experimentation rather than official responses, bear in mind. I have already mentioned much of what we discussed with respect to temperatures and Core 2 DTS in my last major post with my own Q6600 G0 TjMax hunting, for instance, TDP +3W, IC temp. idle cannot be equal to processor socket ambient temp. on air cooling, it has to be higher, even if slightly.Quote:
Originally Posted by ixtapalapaquetl
That's one thing to notice, the CPU MFGs don't look at case and environment ambient temps. alone but the most crucial ambient temp. to them is the socket ambient which has to be lower than the actual CPU temp. but higher than the case ambient temp. in all cases (unless more extreme cooling is used i.e. even a chiller). I also verified the safe rating advised at a personal level, I asked what the maximum voltage he would run without worries at 45nm when overclocking, it's 1.3625V tops safe for 45nm. I was warned to stay below it and not even keep 1.35V volts prolonged on air to be frank (note: Intel is not liable for any damage by my personal comments discussing overclocking!). I also asked what the lowest E8400 temperature would be possible on air cooling, at 22C socket ambient at 1.4V real Vdd supply, stock 3GHz and if 35C idle was possible without CE1 (what I was getting), and the answer was not a chance in definite tones. At 1.4V on air cooling, the core would be very hot, idling plus 40C and the contact doubted highly you can even hold temps. below 45C on air idling at that voltage for E8400. These were for my personal guidance though as I have to troubleshoot and setup many systems at the IT department at two of my workplaces (both scientific, one purely medical), so I take serious advice necessary. :)
unclewebb, I missed the end of your post after my Q6600 testing post. But now that the RealTemp bug is fixed, knowing my TjMax, temperatures above PROCHOT# should show up correctly past 115C, right?
Understood KTE. Muchas gracias for what you have shared. It is nice to hear some corroborating numbers if even in but a semi-official capacity.
That seems to be a problem with some web browsers and that site. It finds a copy of the download in the cache and then gives you that one instead of the most recent one on the FileDen server. I just tried downloading using the link in the first post and I didn't have a problem getting the latest version.Quote:
Originally Posted by jas420221
In FireFox if I right click on the link and select Save As... and then change the name of the zip file, it seems to download the latest copy without finding something in the cache.
I still have the GO Q6600 at a default of TjMax=95C. I'm hoping that I cured all the RealTemp bugs when going beyond PROCHOT# with version 2.21. I guess you get to be the official tester of that. Show us another 120C screen shot so users can stop worrying when they see a core temp of 70C. :eek:Quote:
KTE: I missed the end of your post after my Q6600 testing post. But now that the RealTemp bug is fixed, knowing my TjMax, temperatures above PROCHOT# should show up correctly past 115C, right?
Damn... seems like everyone got it working for Vista 64. All I got is a "driver not loaded" error when I try to run the program. :(
You need to run this program as an Administrator. If not, it won't be able to load the driver. Also make sure the program is fully unzipped.
KTE: I appreciate what you've learned from your Intel contacts but I think sometimes blanket statements are made that aren't based on what a top notch air cooler can do for idle and load temps. Anandtech has done a lot of good air cooler reviews:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2981&p=3
If your Intel contact is basing cpu temps on using their retail box cooler then there could be a big difference between his numbers and what's possible with an Ultra 120 eXtreme. I also know if you manually drop the core voltage down to 1.10 volts or lower that it also makes a significant difference in idle temps.
does he have the latest version?
I created a copy of the download and renamed it. Try this link if you're having troubles.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...lTemp_2.21.zip
Totally forgot the "Run as Administrator" part of Vista. It works. Shows the same exact temps as Core Temp, and Everest without any calibration both idle and load for the E6600 (TJ = 85C) I'm using. The minus/minus and plus/plus calibration will deviate 2-3C at most. So I guess I've got a pretty accurate sensor?
The (++) (--) Idle Calibration feature is mostly for the fanatics amongst us that go ape s-h-i-t when they see an idle temperature that is a couple of degrees below their ambient temperature. Some users see that as a sure sign that TjMax must be wrong but it usually isn't. If you run your E6600 at a very low core voltage of 1.10 volts and underclock it to 1600 MHz (266x6) then it will likely confirm that your idle temps are too low. A (+) or (++) calibration setting is often times best for the early Conroe Revision B2 processors.
I just uploaded a RealTempLogTest file.
It was run on my 65nm E2160. It consists of 4 runs of one minute of idle followed by one minute of Orthos to get some good temp movements up and down so I could compare how the two DTS sensors track each other. I set it to log the temps at an interval of 1 second so there is 478 data points for each core. 98.3% of the time or 470 of the 478 temp readings are identical. The overall average difference between the core readings is only 0.04 degrees. That's a little tighter quality control then the over 30C difference in Brama's cores at idle. Let's hope Intel gets this fixed in the Revision C1 E8x00 dual cores.
No problem, give me some minutes to open it up... I'll try PROCHOT# and THERMTRIP# again, but don't want to cut my hands all over the fin 'n' fans when I see 125C again :) :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Very true, I agree there could be a massive difference between a decent air cooler and a stock HSF, however, microprocessor and optical lithography engineering isn't a new concept in my family; I'm aware how power used for work within the cores has to be emitted as TDP externally (extremely little is silicon loss) and that sets the IC internal temperature limits even if we could say we know more and he was bluffing me (he's a ~16 year family friend not just a random contact (:D)). You can have the metal surface (Tcase) idle ambient with large air flow and good thermal resistence between contact materials but you can't have the internal core producing the heat idle at or near ambient (i.e. 0W or 0J/s) even at 1.5W unless you had it naked and were directly cooling the core itself with a lot of pressurised air and good contact thermal resistence. Still, it would not produce a core internally idle ambient temps. unless it was off producing 0W TDP, as we measure using the DTS... only the immediate air contact surface could be, as heat emitted cannot be equal to surrounding temps. and carry increased thermal energy. We have to remember basic circuitry and engineering physics: heat (Q), passively will not travel but from a higher temperature subsystem to a lower temperature subsystem. Heat naturally can only transfer between areas and objects with a temperature difference between the two (zeroth law of thermodynamics) and to the colder object/area (second law of thermodynamics).Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
When I tested idle (personally), I did so with a boxed cooler first (I do all my testing with it unless really required), Zalman 9500AT next, to Zalman 9700LED, then Tunic Tower 120 which I used mostly and lastly with what I use with the Q6600 now, a Xigmatek HDT-S1283 with a 152CFM 120mm fan. The idle and load difference between the latter 3 and the TRUE are quite not much, esp. idle, negligible within +/-1C. All are good enough for air cooling over the stock HSF I believe. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by zeroth law
read through the post and if I have an e8400 I should just leave the calibration in the middle correct? real temp reads exactly 10 degrees less then core temp and everest, due to the 105tjmax and the 95tjmax correct?? Sorry I'm not the best when it comes to this :banana::banana::banana::banana:. unclewebb?? Thanks man..So I should go off real temp numbers not the other programs. :confused:
In testing I'm finding that it's not the cores that are the biggest heat sources at idle but it seems to be the on chip cache memory. I have three different dual core cpus at the moment, one 45nm with 6MB cache, a 65nm with 2MB of cache and a 65nm with 1MB of cache. Without a heatsink on getting the E8400 up to TjMax wasn't a problem while the E2160 was taking forever to warm up and I had to start running a single thread of Prime to get some heat out of that chip. Perfect chip for the home theatre types. You could definitely run it without a fan.
At 1.1 volts and 1200 MHz, my testing seems to show that the E2160 will stabilize at idle at a core temperature about 4C above ambient with a Tuniq on top running at full speed. I wouldn't mind carving up the IHS and putting a thermocouple in the center like Intel recommends but I probably won't.
My Q6600 arrived today but it looks like someone has broken the Intel seal and then the store covered it up with their own seal. I'm not impressed. I have to waste my testing time tomorrow bringing it back to find out what's up.
ban916: I think TjMax=95C is more likely for your E8400. Not too many users here have complained about that number for the E8x00 desktop series. I know my E8400 likes that number. As long as you're stable then your core temp is just a number and you shouldn't worry too much about it.
That's definitely inline with engineering. Cache is supposed to be the major source of heat, taking up most of the transistors. :yepp:
On another note, I tested and not entirely good news. Seems there is still a mishap with reading temps.
Setup
http://picsorban.com/upload/e3-setup.png
Idle, maximum fanspeed (check the system wattage, 47W DC, less than 3W on the 8-pin 2x 12V rails)
http://picsorban.com/upload/e1.thumb.png
Socket ambient is 22-23C, CPU current is negligible (12V1, 12V2):
http://picsorban.com/upload/e2.thumb.png
95C reached, still no PROCHOT# asserted (TjMax not reached):
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/9...procsn8.th.png
The millisecond 100C was topped, PROCHOT# was asserted:
http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/4...procee9.th.png http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/6...proctg2.th.png
113C, no shutdown yet (no THERMTRIP# assertion):
http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/406/e7113nb8.th.png
Now my hottest core, core0, after 94C is always around 6C hotter than core1. This is what happened when I let it go past 120C, bugged out:
http://picsorban.com/upload/e8-120.png
What you're seeing is, the second either core reaches 120C, it bugs out to 0C readings and 100C from Tjunction_max values. That's 120-121C, a jump up from 118C, and it shuts down if I leave it 2 steps more. Knowing my increases are in 2-4C steps after 94C, the shutdown was most likely at 124C twice repeated today.
It was smelling and making "fizzing" sounds this time round... damn I don't want to lose a 4.26G stock HSF CPU now do I. :(
@KTE,
Your Q6600 can run at 4.26Ghz ??
@Topic
I cant wait for those Q6600 results from you unclewebb so i can have a peace of mine with my correct load temps.
unclewebb
can you add the *percent from tjmax* item to RealTemp?
so when there is no abs temps from dts, maybe this item will be useful.
Like if tjmax=95 and dts shows *50 to tjmax* there will be 45°C or 47% of core's maximum workable temperature.
PS How soon you can add the temps to the tray?
PPS:
My Quad result:
IH-4400A cooler + 2000rpm fan
ambient t=21°C
RT 2.21 shows in idle 30-30-25-29 w/o calibration
so I think there is no calibration needed, right?
That link did it, Thank you! The ones on the first page are still the old version...Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
KTE, how are you measuring your absolute temps? When you say "95C reached, still no prochot#"...how do you know you are at 95C? Unless you are measuring temps in an absolute manner independent of the programs, ie thermocouple or IR, you would not.
All your showing is DTS is 5 from zero, so whatever tjmax number you plugged in, you will conclude your absolute temps to be that number minus 5C. Since you set tjmax at 100, at DTS = 5, yes it will show 95C. Had you set tjmax to 95, you would show temps as 90C at DTS = 5, and thus concluded that tjmax is 95...circular reasoning.
Then you state the minute 100C reached, prochot# was asserted, same circular reasoning. All you showed was when DTS=0, prochot# was asserted, and whatever Tjmax you used, will be the temp that is displayed at DTS=0.
You could duplicate the experiment again, using tjmax of 95 in realtemp, and then conclude tjmax is 95 at DTS=0.
Same issue arises at shutdown. Shutdown occurs at 20 to 25C beyond DTS=0. Suppose you knew it occurred at 25C beyond DTS=0. Since you do not know the absolute temp when DTS=0, you do not know the absolute temp when shutdown occurs, you will simply be showing that shutdown occurs 25C after DTS=0 is reached.
EDIT: speaking of intel, I had posted a question up on their forum a month ago when trying to determine gradients, and my post just disappeared, so I posted it again just now.
New link...http://softwarecommunity.intel.com/i.../30251183.aspx
Old link that disappeared...http://softwarecommunity.intel.com/i...eID=6#30250058
very nice, thorough tests and write up.:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
When I decided to create a temp program for the XS crowd I thought if they could get accurate temps up to damn near 120C that they'd finally be happy but of course not. They want to go higher! :yepp:
KTE proved that version 2.21 was crapping out near 120C so for anyone that needs to go higher then download the latest version 2.24.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...7/RealTemp.zip
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...lTemp_2.24.zip
It should be good for 145C now. ;) Cash reward for the first person to send me a screen shot of that without using PhotoShop. Reward does not include a new processor. If this latest fix causes any problems with people exploring the sub zero spectrum then send me a screen shot so I can look into it.
I believe KTE that when the DTS was reporting 100 when you were well beyond TjMax that if your TjMax is 100C and if the DTS data up here is still reasonably accurate then your processor was at 128C and if your TjMax=95C like I believe then you were at 123C. I think things are a little too crazy up here as well as undocumented to really prove anything one way or the other though. The only thing really proven is that the 65nm chips can take a hell of a lot of abuse without crapping out. I don't think I'd be trying the same with the new 45nm chips quite yet, especially a QX9650.
My testing and development time is going to be nil for the next week. Testing a Q6600-GO and the Minimize to Tray option are the most important things on the Things to Do List.
rge: Looks like your previous question went into Intel's mysterious black hole of knowledge. I won't hold my breath waiting for them to provide you with an answer. I can't imagine that they want to talk too much right now about anything to do with the data coming out of the DTS sensors, especially in the Revision C0 45nm chips.
Unclewebb - May I suggest (again) that when you update the program you update the links on the first page...
As you can see this is a HUGELY popular thread with almost 500 posts and its very tough to find the latest version if its not cleary updated somewhere in the first post. Thanks again for your efforts!!!!
PS- Any idea on when you can get tray temps to show up? That would be HUGE!
jas420221: As I said before, the link to the latest version in post#1 never changes. If you click on it and get an old version it is because your computer has an old version stuck in its cache. Clear the old version out of your cache if you are ever having problems. Doing it this way makes it easier for other sites that have linked to it so the links don't have to be updated every time I come out with a new version and we all know how often that has been lately!
If you want tray temps RIGHT NOW then do what I do and use SpeedFan. The RealTemp code for this is still a work in progress. I think I spent too much time working on Brama's custom version for his messed up E8400 this week so blame him. :D
You're making some good points there, even though they are things I'm well aware of. I'll explain fully but not before much more experimentation needed and I need more time now since my system is in a case used every day and I don't plan on dismantling it again now having just put it back, I have much else to do. It is obviously flawed to "guess" TjMax, since as you mention, Real Temp will only show TjMax you set minus DTS as your core temperature (without offsets).Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
Everyone else should pay due importance to what rge mentions here as it applies to each of us. If I set TjMax to be;
70C, my DTS reading 5C will give me 65C core temp. in Real Temp.
75C, my DTS reading 5C will give me 70C core temp. in Real Temp.
...
90C, my DTS reading 5C will give me 85C core temp. in Real Temp.
95C, my DTS reading 5C will give me 90C core temp. in Real Temp.
100C, my DTS reading 5C will give me 95C core temp. in Real Temp.
The issue arises when in cases like mine;
*If 100C TjMax gives you absolutely no error in temperature readings at idle, then give me one plausible reason to change it to a lower or higher value?
*Now, if changing to 95C TjMax only makes your temperatures 3-4C less than ambient at ~8W TDP (impossible) compared to 1-2C above ambient for 100C TjMax, why would anyone change that unless they're after getting wrong temperature values? (i.e. lower) ;)
*Actual TjMax value is fixed, you can't change it for a CPU.
*Actual PROCHOT# assertion value is fixed, you can't change it for a CPU.
*The same applies for THERMTRIP#, the difference is only caused by feedback delay causing Vcc and Vss cut off to shut the CPU down.
The case becomes even more convoluted when;
*You measure the Tcase temperature has nothing to do with DTS Tjunction temperature reports (similar to what Intel measured across different work loads and different software, Tdiode vs Tjunction (DTS) -> Fig.5), coincidentally, that is very similar to what I measured with all my last E6750/E6850/Phenom 95/96/96BE/Q6600 B3/G0 testings when I kept them and some I still have. I found the Tcase did not equal Tjunction and the gradient between the two in some loads and temperatures was much less than at other loads and temperatures. Usually at low Tjunction temperatures idling at low TDP, the delta was +/-1-2C, but at higher TDP, temperatures or loads, anywhere up to +/-28C I've measured**.
*Tcase_max Intel lists as 71C maximum permitted for my Q6600 G0 at 95W maximum TDP.. my CPU delta from Tcase on the geometric surface center (not embedded) with a K/N-Type thermocouple, from internal Tjunction DTS reports anywhere from -1C to -28C throughout a range of TDPs. Based on this data collection, how does Tcase become relevant to Tjunction for my CPUs which show this, or how can we correlate the two?
**Measuring Tcase at the geometric surface center like I did is still not 100% accurate. The way Intel has instructed is a very careful procedure to embedd the thermocouple within the case (IHS) to attain accurate Tcase temperature readouts or the temperatures can be very inaccurate: [Page 32 and Page 85, Appendix D Case Temperature Reference Metrology]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intel
Good qs, It'll be interesting to hear what they say too, at a public official level. They've had many issues with developers before on this topic and this has all been discussed by developers before with Intel, they hardly mention anything. Everything they mention officially is all here really: http://softwarecommunity.intel.com/i...howThread.aspxQuote:
Originally Posted by rge at Intel forum
So we're talking near to 4W TDP I suppose, if not less. Tcase and Tjunction should be very close at low temperatures but I'm not sure as heat builds up how that would show. Specifically I am not sure if Tcase can equal Tjunction in any such scenario, when Intel lists the maximum permitted safe Tcase for all cooling manufacturers to develop cooling on as 72.4C at 65W but you list as having measured ~95C at ~4W: http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...x?sSpec=SLAPL#Quote:
Originally Posted by rge at Intel forum
As you can see in Intel documents [Page 77, Figure 13], maximum Tcase temperature is a function of the maximum CPU TDP; it's a linear correlation.
Therefore, the lowest maximum Tcase temperature is 45.1C at 0W TDP.Code:TDP = 0.42.Tcase_max + 45.1
-At 65W the E8400 has a maximum Tcase permitted temperature before damage at 72.4C.Quote:
Originally Posted by Intel
-In CE1 Intel states the E8190/E8200/E8400/E8500 as 8W TDP at 36C Tcase temperature and minimum voltage loadline [Page 76, Table 25].
-Now, the ~4W TDP (I haven't calculated because I don't know the Idd your CPU pulls at idle, but it is very near 4W) you have on your 0.9V.1200MHz E8400, means your new Tcase_max is much lower.
-At near 4W TDP, your underclocked/undervolted E8400 has a maximum Tcase_max of 46.8C at 4W TDP and very likely even lower.
Looking at the obvious, does that mean the 95C Tcase you've been measuring is actually damaging your CPU massively, as in 40C above rated maximum Tcase tolerance?
You should also list to Intel in the above post you made how you acquired your Tcase temps. because your/my method is not Intel or scientifically accepted as giving the accurate Tcase temp., nor the method which cooling manufacturers have to use to develop cooling for a certain CPU at a specific TDP. The parameter they use to test cooling is not Tjunction on desktop/server CPUs, as it's not disclosed but the above Tcase_max for each CPU specified by Intel, which is disclosed for IHS containing CPUs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intel
Tjunction (DTS) to Tdiode at various application loads is shown as very high to none with different applications there.Quote:
Originally Posted by rge at Intel forum
Quote:
Originally Posted by Figure 5
The gradient across the IHS does exist (measure edges from center) but less so than the die because the purpose of the nickel plated copper IHS is used to spread the hotspot temperature across the IHS evenly, so it makes good contact with the HSF base, as even as possible is what they want for most dissipation.Quote:
Originally Posted by rge at Intel forum
I don't understand what makes you assert this; have you tested or calculated it, or is this a guesstimate?Quote:
Originally Posted by rge at Intel forum
Not agreeing or disagreeing with you necessarily, but I would like to know how you know this. Also, your CPU TDP in the above conditions is not far off from what they tested, although at idle -- it may even be 1W idling without load unlike what they had.
Same 31873401 document shows Core 2 Duo has no diode but LGA775 CPU's before that did:Quote:
Originally Posted by rge at Intel forum
Quote:
Originally Posted by Page 69
Well, you did ask me to test it saying CoreTemp/EVEREST bug out above Tjunction_max whilst Real Temp doesn't. So I tested it. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Testing safety shutdown temperature for me is a must, they have to work. I do it on every CPU at work when they purchase it (or the others do it). Sadly, I doubt I'll test it again unless I get some answers from Intel on the delta between Tjunction and Tcase at sub 8W TDP idling, because unless we can verify this, all the testing is going down the drain. :(
So it definitely shows subzero? I can test that soon though. ;)Quote:
It should be good for 145C now. ;) Cash reward for the first person to send me a screen shot of that without using PhotoShop. Reward does not include a new processor. If this latest fix causes any problems with people exploring the sub zero spectrum then send me a screen shot so I can look into it.
I would say that too if I hadn't been there watching it go up with my own eyes; 102, 106, 110, 113, 116... 0. :D You're assuming 128C because DTS is reporting 100C (28+TjMax), while I was watching the DTS/temps go up with my own eyes to know what it is to be plausible.Quote:
I believe KTE that when the DTS was reporting 100 when you were well beyond TjMax that if your TjMax is 100C and if the DTS data up here is still reasonably accurate then your processor was at 128C and if your TjMax=95C like I believe then you were at 123C. I think things are a little too crazy up here as well as undocumented to really prove anything one way or the other though.
The second 120C is reached after 116C, the software+DTS bug out at 0C readings. 116C won't jump to 128C in a millisecond, look at the delta with other cores and compare it to when 5-15C below, it is maximum 6C and minumum 4C. :yepp:
Still, thanks for the software update... Intel TAT awaits me. :up:
I just tired using this program. Can someone tell me why my temps are so different from everest 4.50.1330? isn't the tjmax suppose to be 105C for the qx9650?
Sorry I missed that... my fault. BIG thread!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Take your time on that tray temp coding... DAMN YOU BRAMA!!!! :ROTF:
Intel just deleted my post again, this time in a matter of hours. Just dont get why they would delete it. Refusing to answer, sure.
KTE, I accept any error from measuring "Tcase" at surface versus 380 microns deep as very small, whether right or wrong, primarily because no heatsink is in place. No question with a heatsink, it would be necessary to place the thermocouple below the surface. And actually we have no interest in measuring tcase anyways, so I guess we should say we are measuring the casing of the cpu, at idle, UC/UV steady state with no cooling solution on, as the casing/core are near equilibrium at that point, ie within ~0-2C.
But I completely agree the main issue boils down to the gradient between tcase and tjunction at idle, and the one I have the least info on is across TIM1. No one has proof but intel, however you can find some evidence in several different ways.
Mathematically, you can guestimate it using known values with other tested materials in intel papers, especially the one I quoted when I made my "assertive question" to intel. (Which they have now deleted again.)
There were two experiments that indirectly measured it (neither by intel) across TIM1 and IHS. One was talked about in a discussion on overclock.com, someone named bill and? and they stated the gradient was 2.5C across that of P4, and they stated "we all agree on that", these were individuals that design heatsinks for a living, but they offered no proof. But they vigorously argued about everything but the 2.5C gradient. And TIM1 from that time til now has increased in conductance ~10x, and a slide show by intel development team has stated decrease in resistance, have to find the slide presentation, (Edit..found slide presentation...slides 35-39, http://download.intel.com/technology...Packaging.pdf). The 10x is from looking up those that sell TIM1 for cpus and comparing their thermal conductance, to those mentioned in previous studies, not only from older P4, but even much higher than the slides mentioned above in 2005.
Also, it was kinda measured at idle, in paper below, though this compares measuring casing temps underneath, though intel has stated 2/3 heat travels via TIM1 to this point, and 1/3 directly to casing below...so not direct analogy, but they found only 0.4C gradient at idle. http://www.overclockers.com/tips443
Other evidence is just from reading a lot of papers, and them saying things like 20-30% gradient across tim1, because although thermal conductance is higher for tim1, tim1 is only ~75-100um thick, and lower thickness directly lowers thermal resistance....again just mathematical guestimate.
So my best guess, using all info, is that gradient is 0-2C, under low power, UC/UV idle, but my question was to intel because as you state, only they know for sure. But given all I have read, I have a hard time believing at those conditions it is much higher, especially when no heatsink is applied to drive the gradient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJDevilsFan21
OK guys...how many times must we ask this question?Quote:
Originally Posted by ban916
And the answer also surprisingly shows up in the 1st post. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Quote:
Originally Posted by safan80
Not 100% sure, but people believe its 95c based on some findings.
Can you post the Intel documentation for that? Just because a temperature monitoring program assumes what TjMax is for a processor doesn't mean that it is right, including RealTemp. Intel provides no public documentation for their desktop Core processors so all programs are left guessing.Quote:
Originally Posted by safan80
I went with 95C for the QX9650 because that is what the dual core 45nm desktop processors are using and a Quad core is basically two dual cores joined together. I know 105C is correct for the mobile 45nm chips but I've yet to read of any proper testing on a desktop 45nm Quad core chip.
If you are convinced that TjMax=105C then you can still use RealTemp. Just go into the RealTemp.ini file and set TjMax=2 and that will bump up your TjMax two 5 degree notches from 95C to 105C. Problem solved.
KTE: I was basing my maximum temperature calculation on the last picture you posted.
http://picsorban.com/upload/e8-120.png
RealTemp can read the on chip DTS data OK. If you compare core0 vs core1 you see that DTS=114 on core1 so RealTemp calculates the temp to be 114C. Core0 has a DTS=100 reading so that implies that core0 was 14C warmer or 128C. I realize that's a sudden jump up from what you were observing and since I wasn't there watching, it's impossible to say what happened. It's also possible that any interpretation of the DTS data is meaningless up here. It's certainly not worth converting a good Quad chip into a key chain.
I was planning to do some of this extreme kind of testing using my E2160 but it was a challenge getting it hot enough, even without a heatsink and fan. Running Prime without a HSF is not really Intel approved! At the moment we'll call it KTE 1 - RealTemp 0. In theory, the latest version of RealTemp should be able to keep up but I'll have to wait until I can do some further testing to prove it. I'm in the same boat as you, I need my computer up and running at the moment but I promise to report more of my real world testing in the future so stay tuned. I really appreciate all of the extreme testing you've done.
let me get this straight, i cant think right...
With "ambient" temperature you mean the real room ambient temperature?
So...my real room temp is 21.5 right now and realtemp reports me 19 19 23 23 on the cores.
Since 19 C on a core is physically impossible (due to my ambient temp) i need to calibrate higher...preferrably 3-5 deg higher what ambient says?
Am i the only one seeing a problem with the guessing and then "calibrating" according to the guessing ("should be 3-5 higher than ambient...")...
As of right now i can only assume that your statement ist right "3-5 higher than ambient"....doing idle calibration right now on G0 w/ 1.08Vcore and 1.5Ghz, lowe FSB.
G.
It gets worse flexy. All of my testing has only been with the dual cores so far. It's likely that my 3C-5C above ambient guideline will need to be boosted up a couple of degrees to be relevant for Quad cores. I have a G0 Q6600 in stock awaiting a thorough work over so be patient. RealTemp is only a month old so with more time and more testing by myself and other users it can only get more accurate. Post what ever you learn about your Quad.Quote:
Originally Posted by flexy
If people are upset by programmers having to create their own test methods and guess then they should write to Intel and tell them that hiding all details about the digital thermal sensors and TjMax for their processors is wrong. I don't understand what the big secret is all about.
Appreciate the work. I noticed a 2-3C discrepancy between this and coretemp.
RealTemp 2.1 is reporting almost the same temps in idle as CoreTemp for my Q6600, after the ++ calibration (1C difference on some cores). Load temps are 4C lower on each core. So working fine for me I guess, keep up the good job.
unclewebb, I really think my q6600 is either very close to correct or requires - for proper idle calibration. However it's not really idle temps that require monitoring :D
I am really interested in tjmax since that number being reported correctly seems to equal realtemp reporting load temps correctly. Is this so?
If TjMax is accurate for your processor then your load temps will be extremely accurate. My chart in post#1 shows what I've found. It's at temperatures farther away from TjMax where the DTS data coming out of Core processors does not seem to be changing at the same rate that the core temperature is changing at so temp errors begin to accumulate. A program that guesses wrong at TjMax or manipulates it higher to correct for problems at idle will lead to inaccurate temperatures pretty much across the board.Quote:
Originally Posted by loonym
The cool running E2160 was simple to get repeatable test data out of but the Q6600 is going to be more of a challenge because it will be creating a lot more heat without a heatsink on it. I'm confident that I will be able to get some usable data but I need a big block of free time to do the proper testing so I'll probably have to wait a few days. At the moment, accuracy, especially for the Quad cores, is more important to me than a Minimize to Systray feature.
The dual cores I've tested all need a temp correction down low to be accurate. A Quad core is two dual cores side by side so I'd be surprised not to find the exact same thing. The problem though is trying to accurately measure for this with the amount of heat a Quad can put out. The other problem is that I might have to go to individual calibration for each core since there always seems to be 2 cores that idle at one temp and the other 2 cores idle at a different temp. There doesn't seem to be any consistency in what two cores are at the same temp. More stuff to learn but I think we're making progress. People didn't even want to consider my flaky DTS idle temp theories last year.
Hi, I'm running a E8400 at 3.6 ghz. for some reason my core temps have a significant difference. One of the core runs at the mid 50's and the other in the mid 30's.
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/948/realtemphx0.jpg
Should I be concerned about this. I've used other temperature reading programs and the discrepancy is still there though the individual values are different.
I've remounted the HSF and applied the thermal paste several times but there's still no change.
Anybody have any idea what the problem might be?
unclewebb, congratulations for a very nice program. I do remember our research about determining which software is accurate by using idle temp as a reference point last year... I see this is by far a great software :)
this is a notorious problem with the Penryn and Wolfdale processors...intel did something that screwed up the DTS design in the 45NM cpu's...it is probably WHY Intel does not publish any material on DTS sensors and spec for each processor because doing so would make it easy for people to declare a warranty problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by gns
Things that make you go "Hmmmm"....Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace-a-Rue
@Intel: you guys care to chime in here? Surely the [XS] population has earned the respect to get a clear scientifically-based understanding of this, right?
gns: Your problem is common with E8x00 processors. The data coming out of the DTS sensors is screwy so no software can properly interpret what the temperature is. If you believe one of your sensors is more or less accurate and neither sensor is getting stuck then it is sometimes possible to write a correction factor to line the sensors up a little better.
Here's the before and after for Brama's E8400 that I helped him with:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=442
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=446
PM me a copy of your RealTempLog.txt file with some data from idle as well as full load running Prime / Orthos small FFTs or similar and I'll see if I can create a custom calibration factor for you to try and better balance your core temp readings.
Xilikon: Good to hear from you again. After seeing how out to lunch my temps for my E8400 were I thought what the hell, I might as well write my own temp software. It can't be any worse than what's presently available! :D
yes thats what i see too!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyo`
Well that's ok. I dont understand either why we dont have that info.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Is there a way to find out real TJmax by observing when the CPU starts to throttle? <-- just answered my own question, yes of course. But the problem is not finding out TJmax (just look when PROCHOT is triggered( - but rather to display the "real" temp of the core, right?
Dont get me wrong, great program. But i have a fear that some/many people will use this and it will introduce the problem that some people will use program X (like coretemp), others realtemp.....and it creates confusion and false temp comparisons due to the different way it interprets temps.
I had similar problems reading temps from my 8800 GTS, some programs read right off the temp diode, some read what the drivers tell them. The temop difference is a whopping 10C degree !
The problem now is that people often just mention temps, but rarely what programs they use, respective what method of measuring. We dont have a reference!
I see the problem is on Intel's side, so measuring CPU temps has to be a guessing game, no matter what....but it just doesnt make it easier now with a new program which reports temps 10C degs less or requiring proper calibration first. Anyway looking forward to your finding with the G0.
hello hello all,
i'm a little frenchy who follow that thread for a while, trying to understand my best; first of all, thanx to unclewebb for creating this software, and getting it better everyday !
i'm an owner too of a e8400, with troubles with the termal tools, so i was glad to find this out !
And finally i decided to calibrate it as you described on your first post,
so in idle at stock i got 32° on 1.21 vcore,
so i got my fsb to 205 with a 6 coef at 0.976 vcore and i stayded at 31 degrees ( still idle )....., gotta say that ambiant temperature was 19 degrees
My only question is to know why am i not getting lower temps .... and so if i'm able to calibrate with a - or -- my realtemp soft ?
i tried to explain as i could :D thanx for reading and trying to understand..and for your next answers ! TY
Uje
uje: The (--) setting in RealTemp was designed based on what I was seeing with my E8400. The 65nm chips that I have tested seem to need a (+) or (++) setting for accurate idle temperatures.
Intel did not design the on chip digital thermal sensors (DTS) to be accurate at low temperatures so you shouldn't be surprised that your E8400 isn't accurate at idle. The DTS sensors are designed and calibrated by Intel for accurate thermal throttling at TjMax and also for thermal shut down.
The Idle Calibration feature in RealTemp helps get your idle temperatures closer to the real core temperature but it is only an estimation and is not 100% exact.
In the near future I will try to re-test my E8400 at idle and I'll post some pictures of IR thermometer readings vs RealTemp readings.
flexy: I wrote RealTemp because none of the other temperature monitoring programs are considering the errors in the DTS at low idle temperatures that I have explained with my chart in post#1. I also wasn't impressed with programs getting the TjMax wrong for my E8400 and they are still doing that. When combined, CoreTemp and Everest are misreporting my core temperatures by 15C at idle. If I can continue to improve as well as prove the accuracy of RealTemp and if I can add more features then maybe 6 months from now it will become users first choice for Intel Core temperature measurement. If you like it, spread the word. If I've screwed something up, let me know so I can test it and fix it.
unclewebb
can you add the logitech g15 support?
Not to be like that, but its a super program, but how is it goin with minimize to tray? :) only thing missing for my part hehe... great work uncle!
Uncle is on holidays this week. Besides, my computer has been taken over by a pre-teen with a Test Drive Unlimited addiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Infa
Darth Vader: I probably won't be adding Logitech g15 support.
hehe ok, easter holiday ...enjoy it!
will be looking forward to you work later...
sayonara!
My E8500 is reporting 42°c on both core on idle (400x9.5) with an room at 19°c and on watercooling...
I did the core temp test and i get 3 and 7
Done.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
E4300 @ 3.2Ghz (1.42v full) + Big Typhoon VX @ 1800rpms
18.5º ambient temp.
47º @ Real Temp.
62º @ Core Temp.
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1.../Dibujo-46.jpg
47º @ full ?? :confused: