On my QX6700 core, 1-4 mirror eachother and 2-3 do as well. There's right at 5C difference between 1-4 and 2-3.
Axis
Printable View
On my QX6700 core, 1-4 mirror eachother and 2-3 do as well. There's right at 5C difference between 1-4 and 2-3.
Axis
Is that at idle, full load or both?Quote:
Originally Posted by axis
jason4207: Your quad is identical to my G0. Exactly 5C difference at full Prime load between the two sets of cores. Any possibility that there is some internal voltage droop going on within the cpu between the two dual cores. It's either a sensor issue or a difference in heat generation. Hard to come up with a reasonable explanation for this. It was happening even before I bolted on a heatsink so that eliminates a lot of variables.
Wow! That is great info man. At least I know my HS is mounted well! :up:
I have no idea about vdroop b/n the cores. That's the first time I ever thought about that, but I guess it's possible. :shrug:
I have a thought! :idea: I've read about guys disabling some cores...I'm about to look into that!
BRB
---------------
There has to be a way to do it, but I can't find it. Anybody know how?
edit: I found out how to disable 2 cores using the boot.ini file, but since it's windows based I'm guessing the other 2 cores are still getting power. Plus, I'm not sure which 2 cores I'm looking at now...but temp wise they look like cores 0/1. No help. :shrug:
No problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
However I was unsure how to define the "ambient" this time, the water in the CPU cooler was quite warm and it is actually the liquid providing the ambient, no? So I did the following: before taking the second screenshot I stopped the load and waited a few seconds to see the immediate temp drop.
No corrections in Real Temp. Background temps are from Everest Ultimate.
Hope this helps.
Nice done!
Because I cant read all 25 pages, somebody can tell me if this works under vista x64?
Edit: Yes, it works. Just tried. I like executables.
Awesome job - I'm going to refer customers to this site. We've been getting a *lot* of questions on this. Well done!
When you first came up with the "different TjMax" theory within a Quad it sounded pretty crazy but after more testing it's about the only theory that makes any sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by jason4207
I use a Kill-a-Watt meter which shows you how much power your computer is using at the wall outlet. When running the single threaded version of Prime, whatever core I run it on, power consumption is the same. When running Orthos which is the dual core version of Prime, I get the same power consumption whether I run it on core0 and core1 or on core2 and core3. With Prime that is designed for Quad cores, I can choose any 3 cores to run it on and power consumption is always the same. If power consumption is equal no matter what side of your processor you're using then you would think that heat output of each individual core should be pretty much equal.
I decided to run 4 cores of Prime and to get the core temp a little higher I turned off the heatsink fan.
I still need to crunch some numbers but this 5C difference between core0, core1 and core2, core3 remained pretty consistent even as the first pair of cores went over 80C.
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/5...e80cmj7.th.png
To me, a 5C difference is significant and there is no logical reason why two cores would be running 5C cooler when they are running the same core voltage and MHz and running the exact same load as the other two cores. Is TjMax different between the two pairs of cores? Maybe. I'll give users a way to individually bump TjMax for each pair of cores in the next release so other users can have a look at this issue.
It's just about time to pull the heatsink and see if that changes anything.
Edit: Here's my log file with TjMax=95C for all cores and no idle correction.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...ncorrected.txt
Here's how the log file looks on my Quad using different TjMax for each pair of cores combined with a (+)(+)(+)(0) idle calibration. Much more realistic and likely a lot closer to the real truth.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...empLogQuad.txt
and here's a second corrected run from idle to 80C and back to idle again.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...mpLogQuad2.txt
I wish it worked for me :(
What doesn't work for you? I should have a fresh release of RealTemp ready within a day so the Quad guys can do some testing. If you are using Vista or a limited account you need to right click on the icon and choose Run as Administrator.Quote:
Originally Posted by phill
When I typed that I spent a while re-reading it before I clicked the 'Submit Reply' button. Like you, I couldn't think of another explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I think we need some more data points. If we can get a lot of folks w/ the same 5*C difference then maybe we can say something more concrete. :up:
Core0 and core1 on my Quad track each other exactly from idle to full load just like any other dual core I've had. Even the cores in my E8400 track exactly until down low when they both get stuck at slightly different temperatures.
Core2 and core3 don't start tracking each other exactly until the high 70C range and their idle behavior is different as well. If you ever graph two cores the graphs are pretty much identical from idle to full load and back again but not these two cores and they don't match up with core0 and core1 at all.
We need more Quad users to step forward with data including the new 45nm Quads. After seeing this issue it's starting to make sense why Intel doesn't want users using DTS data to figure out core temperatures. Too many anomalies and variables to consider. Writing the software is easy. Trying to write documentation to explain what seems to be going on is going to be impossible.
I don't think this 5C issue effects all users but I know that something is wrong with my Quad as well as yours. Testing is going well.
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/4...emp2252xs9.png
Right now, i'm running 3.4ghz @ 1.32 Vcore at idle.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Everest: 50-43-42-49
RealTemp: 35-28-29-34
I'm not sure if the difference has to do with the processor being a 135w QX or not. The same temp variations appear on load as well. I do find it awfully strange that this 5C difference keeps showing up. Notice that my 3-4 core stays exactly 5C apart and core 1-2 also does that at load.
Axis
So what's the consensus on the B3 Q6600 TjMax? I think it may be 85 because in 28º ambient I get 52-50-47-48 idle temps @ 3.2GHz and 1.288 Vcore but drop those by 15 gives me some realistic temps. I have a Tuniq 120 w/ a San Ace in it.
Though on the new 45nm my temps are consistent and seem correct.
The only thing that bugs me about this program is that i supposidely have 2 cores which are breaking the rules of thermodynamics.
There colder then ambient. :T
Other then that its a great program. Its fairly accurate, coretemp is only 10C higher in marking for everything including the TjMax.
You're also running quite a bit of Vcore for a Q6600 at stock speed. Aren't most here running 1.20-1.25 at stock speed? That extra 0.038-0.088 will add quite a bit of heat to a CPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uberbob102000
Axis
here is an idle shot, case door closed, Coolit Freezone cooler with ambient in room is about 75F....when i run wPrime 1024 bench the temp comes within 5C difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
my QX9650 is currently at 4.1 Ghz.
i hope this helps.
Did you try calibrating idle temps as per the 1st post?Quote:
Originally Posted by NaeKuh
Whoops.. I'm tired I put down Speedstep Freq @ 6x
Reading the directions is too much work. Much easier to complain! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by jason4207
Ace-a-Rue: Can you post a screen running Prime on your 4 cores along with RealTemp. Just run it long enough so the temps are fairly stable on all 4 cores and hopefully so I can see if there is a 5C difference between the two pairs of cores. The new version will be ready tomorrow to deal with this situation.
Anyone else with a Quad should do me a favor and post the same. If people want accurate temp monitoring software then the more data I can gather the better.
I'm using XP Pro SP2 and when I first had my QX I tried Core Temp and Real temp and the values where static, they never moved one degree. Didnt matter if I put it under a load with Prime or if I left it in the desktop with it idling :( I think something isnt right with the CPU rather than anything else... Although saying that, Speedfan and the bios are only two things I can monitor my temps with :( I just dont know how accurate they are either :(Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
It sounds like both of your on-chip sensors are stuck. The only other time I've seen that is with an Engineering Sample (ES) core processor. RealTemp or any other software that depends on reading these sensors is not going to work for you. I know SpeedFan lets you read from a motherboard diode and calls it CPU. That's all you'll be able to go by with your chip.Quote:
Originally Posted by phill
Would I be entiled to an RMA with the product from the company I bought the CPU from in the first place??
Technically, no. Intel does not agree with or recognize any software that reads these sensors and tries to convert the data to an absolute temperature. Even if these sensors are stuck at your typical idle or full load temperature, they might become unstuck and start to work as they should as your cpu gets closer to TjMax. This is what they are designed and tested to do. Does the RealTemp TestSensors feature show zero movement on all cores?Quote:
Originally Posted by phill
If your processor ever over heats, catches on fire and melts into your motherboard because of these sensors, then you'll have something to complain to Intel about but you probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than that ever happening.
Works with the Q9450.
I just need that individual core adjustment (and tray temps!!) now and Im all set!!!
EDIT: It says 55/52/52/55 all at full load 30mins.
here you go; about 6-7C spread between the last core...pic taken four and half minutes into the wPrime:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Ace-a-Rue: Thanks for the info. If you have time could you try running this version of Prime and use Small FFTs:
ftp://mersenne.org/gimps/p95v256.zip
I find the load with this test is very steady and keeps the max temps steady as well.
Heres my Q6600 GO under load. Im getting the same difference in temps but with different cores. Cores 0 and 2 are the same, and cores 1 and 3 are the same, 6 degrees apart.
http://img37.picoodle.com/img/img37/...0m_702c1ac.jpg
Yes to the first part of the question :( I do wonder whether or not it actually matters as I'm not using high voltages for 24.7 operation and even though I'll be crunching on it as long as the PC is on for, I cant see it really causing me a problem.. I only wish I could get Prime stable at 4Ghz as at the moment as core 1 seems to stop within a 1 minute at the moment with 1.4vcore (bios) but the rest seem fine... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I'll let you know how it goes with Scan as they are pretty good when it comes to things not working etc..
I've been trying to convince myself that perhaps the IHS is not making good contact with both cores. That might explain why one of the dual cores in a Quad is running at a higher temperature. When the two center cores are running hotter or if the two outside cores are hotter you could consider that it might be a heatsink installation or thermal paste issue. The way your processor is, it sure looks like a different TjMax issue as crazy as that sounds to people that still believe these sensors are perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevrsadie
There's exactly 5C difference in your Max Temps.
My original plan was to only include adjustable TjMax for the two dual cores within a Quad but now I'll just go with adjustable TjMax for each core for more flexibility.
Could you e-mail me a RealTempLog.txt file for your processor. My address is in the About... box.
You can go into the RealTemp.ini file and set:
LogInterval=1
to create lots of data for me. Run it at idle for a minute and then run Prime small FFTs for a couple of minutes until temps more or less stabilize and then go back to idle for a minute so I'll have plenty of numbers to look at.
Information like this really helps me out. The 45nm Quad guys with seriously bunged up sensors will thank you! :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Well, problem is that I ordered a new hsf, Zigmatek HDT S-1283 to replace my Artic Cooling Freezer 7 pro, because I was not happy with my temps. I received it today after posting my above temps. I am now priming at the same speed and vcore as earlier with new hsf. My temps are better, as expected. But the cores are now reacting like you stated earlier, so I think that thermal grease and position of hsf definately have an effect on the temps of each core. Here is my current temps with exact same bios settings but new hsf.
http://img34.picoodle.com/img/img34/...1m_6ded646.jpg
Couldnt find your email adress, so I just pm'd you the results. Started idle, then load with prime, then back to idle.
ok....going to bring me and my system to its knees:DQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
EDIT:...ok, after several reductions in FSB, i was able to keep all four cores engage...this is 3.9 Ghz for 10 minutes.
Nevrsadie: Your original data combined with your new data shoots a big hole in the different TjMax theory. This 5C difference that some of us are seeing under load looks more like a coincidence and a heatsink / thermal paste installation issue. I'll have to pull my heatsink off tomorrow and do some more testing along with a re-mount to see if anything changes.
I finally finished writing some code to handle this problem and now I find out it might not be a problem after all. :(
Oh well, at least this feature is available if anyone wants to experiment or has their own theories that need to be tested.
Version 2.3 is available for download. It has been uploaded so if you have trouble downloading it then remember to clear your cache because it might be getting an older version form there.
It includes adjustable idle calibration and adjustable TjMax for each core so a user has full control. Adjusting TjMax on a per core basis can make the temp data look believable but if the real problem is in the installation or is caused by the flatness of the IHS or heatsink then you should avoid making this adjustment.
I've seen a lot of RealTemp screen shots and found that very few users were actually using the Idle Calibration feature so I removed it from the GUI. This feature is still available but you will need to go into the RealTemp.ini file to make adjustments. If you do use this feature, it is sort of a set it and forget it thing so I thought it was just extra clutter on the main screen.
http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/4...ltemp23ye9.png
The new RealTemp.ini file looks like this:
[RealTemp]
User=0
TjMax0=0
TjMax1=0
TjMax2=0
TjMax3=0
Idle0=0
Idle1=0
Idle2=0
Idle3=0
LogInterval=5
LogFile=0
TjMax values can range from -3 to 3 and will bump TjMax up or down in steps of 5 degrees.
Idle values can range from -2 to 2. Previous Idle Calibration values of (+) or (++) would now be entered into the .ini file as 1 or 2 and a (-) or (--) calibration is equivalent to -1 or -2.
The LogInterval can now contain any factor of 60. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, 60)
Set this to 60 and it will output a line to the log file once every 60 seconds.
I reworked the timing of the XS Bench feature so if you overclock after you boot up using SetFSB or ClockGen, it should be reflected by a lower time and a higher score.
Instead of clicking the mouse in the TjMax box at the top of the screen to show additional data, now you click outside of the box to the right of TjMax to show the additional data and a mouse click on the left side of the processor name box will reset your Min and Max temp data. I like hiding features for the hard core types that actually read all this stuff. :D
Here's the usual link.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...7/RealTemp.zip
Not that anyone actually reads it but maybe tomorrow I'll update the documentation in post#1. There were a lot of minor things cleaned up and worked over so if there are any problems, let me know.
More testing and then it will be time to start working on that Minimize to System Tray feature so everyone will finally be happy. The NHL playoffs starting tomorrow night might get in the way of that though.
As a programmer, I believe that a clear user interface is the most important thng about a program, since if you don't understand what it's telling you or how to use it easily, then the results it displays can be less than meaningful.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Until you made this alteration, I was very impressed with both your concept and your app. But hiding things rather like Easter eggs just for a bit of fun, so they aren't easily accessible, is plain daft. Sorry. :shakes:
This program is hard enough for people to understand how it works without concealing layers of information behind invisible buttons, without any sort of UI clue that the feature is there. Putting it in the help file just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.
This program reports temperatures are lower by about 10 - 15 celcius than Core temp but its the same value higher than speedfan. Also when I Overclocked my CPU to 3.5ghz with 1.475V it read my temperatures on 2 cores to be 70 celcius. I dont know how accurate this is but those temps at full load are realy high. When the CPU was on IDLE the temperature showed 44 celcius.
Also I dont understand how to calibrate this program to my CPU. I know its a bit dumb of me but why cant this program calibrate itself?
PS. Im using water cooling for my CPU
@uncle: the option to calibrate "--/++" is no longer available is the 2.3v...is this a good thing?
Dude, look 3 messages above your post, he explains he removed it form the GUI but it is still available in the .ini fileQuote:
Originally Posted by emoners
i am not totally in agreement with your approach to have everything visible.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanB
the way uncle has changed his program to allow adjustments to the individual cores for both idle and TJmax makes his interface a little more uncluttered...
i think the "minimum temperature" category could be excluded since most of us are really not consummed by minimum temperatures, just maximum!.
lets give uncle some kudos for him designing this program and then being open minded to receive input to improve the ergonomics of his program.
we, as a society, are way to critical of others who put their sweat and toil into a project that he or she is trying to make for the betterment of everyone...where is the appreciation factor!
I think he has gotten PLENTY of kudos in this thread. I do not believe that IanB's post warranted this follow up either. We are all making suggestions and he is doing what is best for all of us. I mean, do you want everyone to give unclewebb a reacharound before they make a suggestion??? ;) :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace-a-Rue
Very nice work!!:up: :up:
GO BRUINS!! :spam:
IanB: You are 100% right. It was late last night, I was tired and I think it was mostly a cheap shot at all the users who don't bother reading anything about the program before running to the forum and screaming, "WTF???" :cussing:
RealTemp is all about user input. I was able to add a couple of buttons without making the interface too ugly while making it much easier for new users.
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/7881/realtemp24gr7.png
I still don't plan to add the Idle Calibration feature back to the main interface though. Of course, I've had my rubber arm twisted before. To me, this is a more advanced feature that is not even being used by most users and if you're interested in using it then you're going to need to read post #1 to really understand the logic behind it. I think a user at this level should be able to go in and do a quick edit of a .ini file. As a user I far prefer editing a .ini file than having junk added to my registry that never gets removed. RealTemp remains 100% self contained in one folder.
As always, I'm open to all suggestions. Version 2.3 is going to have a very short life span and the new and improved version 2.4 will be available by closing time tonight, or when they drop the first puck, whatever comes first.
"As a programmer.." ??:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by IanB
You are talking about GUI/application design here. Not programming.
Programming is a skill at different levels/different technologies (tools/languages..).
Has really little to do with the layout/design of eg an app like RealTemp.
I am impressed that a *Real* programmer (pun intended) as Unclewebb is able to make a nice looking app as he certainly have to code "low-level". :p:
Apart from the above I agree that a GUI should be intiutive and easy for "novice" users.
But this app is for "Real Geeks". :)
your opinion...but i disagree with you TOO!Quote:
Originally Posted by jas420221
NO KIDDING!:rolleyes:Quote:
We are all making suggestions and he is doing what is best for all of us.
Any user interface suggestions for 2.4? Is the new proposed design more intuitive? For the truly anal amongst us I also made it the exact same length as CPU-Z so it will look good side by side in screen shots with the gold standard of CPU monitoring software. :D
Did you read through post #1 where I did my best to explain what you need to do? I don't mind helping you as long as you've read the directions first. What don't you understand? The calibration process simply involves comparing your lowest reported idle temperature to your room temperature. The program will still be very accurate at reporting your full load temps even if you don't calibrate it. The calibration option is for users that want or need accurate idle temperatures as well as full load temperatures.Quote:
steve30x: Also I dont understand how to calibrate this program to my CPU.
I'm just trying to mop up the mess that Intel created by:Quote:
I know its a bit dumb of me but why cant this program calibrate itself?
a) not calibrating these sensors on the assembly line for accurate idle temperatures out of the box.
b) and not providing adequate documentation to the public.
The usual request... tray temps!!!
Be nice to be able to hide the additional core readings on my Wolfdale if there is nothing to read.
Fantastic work. Kudos to ya.
As suggested previously, a different font/bold for the core temp would be nice.
Hello! Ok, am I missing something? Shouldn't the idle temperature at 2000 be much smaller than the one at 3600? Or it will matter only in the load where there's a difference of about 7-8 degrees. Otherwise, congratulations for this little application unclewebb!
RealTemp 2.4 with less cryptic features is now available.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...7/RealTemp.zip
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/1...ltemp24ev5.png
How's that for listening and responding to user input? :D
Ovidiu: There are a lot of variables that effect idle temperatures but surprisingly, MHz is not a big factor. Heat is proportional to the square of voltage so your core voltage setting will have a little more effect than MHz but at idle still not a huge amount. Like you said, the biggest changes are at full load when overclocking and especially when using extra core voltage.
Edit: I just noticed that you are using an E8400. Many of these have issues with sensors that get stuck at low temperatures. If you can find a cooler place to temporarily run your computer, you will be able to see if you have this problem at 32C.
unclewebb, I have a Q9450 on my ip35pro at home, with another one on the way that will go in my ip35e. Do you need additional info on 45nm cpus? I'm not overly concerned with my temps,etc, especially after reading this thread (core temp shows 71/65/64/65, real temp 61/55/54/55 under 24/7 seti@home) but I would be happy to give you some data if you think it will be useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
edit: temps are at 1.38 vcore in bios @ 8x450, 1.27 vdroop under load.
Hi bryanw1995, welcome to XS.
I'd be interested in seeing any idle data for one of these 45nm Quads. If you can run your cpu at low MHz like 266x6 and low core voltage like 1.10 volts and show me your idle core temp as well as your approximate room temperature, that would be great. Run your cpu fan at max and try to get your cpu as cool as possible. Using the above settings helps me make a fair comparison to the testing I've done.
Unfortunately I have an ip35pro, it won't allow me to go below 1.2vcore in bios :mad; I will run it at 1.2vcore and 266x6 with my tuniq on full blast, however. temps had better be VERY low at those settings!!!
btw, this is actually an X3350. I do have a Q9450 that is supposed to be waiting on me when I get home sunday, however. That one is getting stuck in an ip35e, however, and might not be installed for another week or so. I'll try to get you readings from both computers asap.
I can help with that also.. I will report back this evening. :)
I've tried this on my E6600 rig and it works fine, I'll try it on the QX and see what happens :)
Thanks for the reply Uncle. The data I sent you was idle temps overclocked, so I got home today and did actual idle temps per your original post.
Heres my idle temps 266*6 @ 1.02v room temp 22C
29 26 22 29
cores 0 and 3 are 7c over room temp, core 1 is right in line and core 2 is low.
I adjusted my idletemps in the realtemp.ini as follows
-1 0 1 -1
This put all four cores within 3-5c of my room temp of 22c.
I then rebooted and overclocked my Q6600 to 9*378(3400Mhz) at a vCore of 1.381. Then started Prime95, small fft's, to achieve full load.
http://img29.picoodle.com/img/img29/...0m_962b34e.jpg
All four cores reading the same temp, Sweet!
I did not have to adjust the tjmax.
[QUOTE=unclewebb;2906894]RealTemp 2.4 with less cryptic features is now available.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...7/RealTemp.zip
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/1...ltemp24ev5.png
How's that for listening and responding to user input? :D
get em unclewebb ! :rofl: :up:
Nonsense, I'm afraid. You are suggesting that the "programmer" just writes the algorithm, the raw code that does the work, then sends it to someone else to wrap a user interface around it. :confused: No, the programmer does both in building a GUI app. The algorithm and interface are totally intertwined, not just the "press this and it does that" paradigm but the way the result is reported back to the user. The user interface is more than half the work (and often more than half the code, actually) - if you'd ever built a Windows app from scratch you'd understand that. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by TL1000S
Why do you think Microsoft spends millions on user trials to test how people interact with their software and feed that back into the design? Not because they have money to burn... Almost anyone with sufficient programming knowledge can write an app that just "works", the real trick is to take it from something merely functional to something that's easily and intuitively understood by the end user.
Windows is the success it is because of over 15 years of GUI design and improvement, where we all know how to use any new app in minutes because they all work in substantially the same way. An app that breaks those conventions is not going to get the same usage, user satisfaction or recommendations simply because the learning curve to use it is too high, and people may give up before they get to grips with it. Making it "geek-friendly" only would be a suicidal strategy, and why do you believe that only geeks should have access to the important information this app provides? :(
@ unclewebb. Thanks for listening. Since you aren''t using menus, another way of handling this would be to have a single button on the main interface that takes you to a second "advanced options" dialog. That way you get a perfect separation of action functions (setting calibration, clearing logs etc.) from your current clean display-only UI.
The only other thing I'd suggest is that you could add comments into the INI file directly, so that the number ranges for the various parameters are explained in the file itself for easy reference, rather than having to refer to separate documentation. If you are using GetPrivateProfileString/WritePrivateProfileString then the comments are simply ignored, else they are easily parsed over. The convention for INI comments is a semicolon at the start of the line.
IanB: Thanks for your input. RealTemp is a better program because of it. This is my first use of INI files and I'll try to include comments within the INI file for the next release.
Thanks HDCHOPPER. You're my biggest fan! :D
Nevrsadie: I had a brief look at your data and I can't come up with a reasonable explanation for why your temps sometimes, instantly jump by 5C or 6C without any change in load. It could be another one of those undocumented sensor issues. I got a little side tracked today but hopefully tomorrow I can investigate my Q6600 and its uneven temperatures at full load further.
I don't about egos...all i care about is that the program is accurate, style and design is scondary.
This has NOTHING to do with egos. :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dower
If an app is poorly designed and forces you to go through non-intuitive hoops to do simple things, you'd soon get frustrated with it. And the more difficult it is to use, the more effort the author has to expend in supporting it, which reduces the time available for further R&D, which is definitely a bad thing.
Style is one thing, but a good design is critical. You generally don't notice good information design and usability until it ISN'T there. ;)
May I suggest three usability changes?Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
1. Editing INI file should be possible even when RT is running. As it is now, RT will nullify all changes on exit by rewriting INI. Any particular reason for this?
2. Calibration can be either +- 0, 1 or 2. This is not enough. On attached screenshot, even with +2 on last two cores, they are still BELOW ambient (which is 21 C) despite the maximum correction. Maybe +3 would help?
3. On my box, RT does not remembers its last position on a screen. It's a minor issue though.
BTW, The GUI is now very clear :)
(the one in 2.4, not the one in screenshot)
Best!
unclewebb, thank you very much for this wonderful program. :up:
maybe you need to evaluate how you deliver the message about your objections or recommendations...Quote:
Originally Posted by IanB
putting it to pen is a whole lot different than speaking it out loud to the individual(s)
i'm not trying to flame you, just give you a nudge in the right direction;)
PEACE:) to you my friend......:)
The reason behind this is because it made my life simple. I told you I was new to using INI files. In the next major release I'll make some changes so RealTemp is more logical and doesn't create an all new INI file on each exit.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZ
The factors I've chosen were based on what I've observed to date. I can certainly add a 3 to the list. I thought that if a user had to go beyond 2 then it was possible that RealTemp had guessed wrong at TjMax.Quote:
2. Calibration can be either +- 0, 1 or 2. This is not enough.
Are you air or water cooled? My observed idle temperatures during my low MHz / low voltage test were with a Tuniq Tower with the fan at its highest speed. More data from other users running this test with a variety of processors would be helpful.
I'm 100% confident that TjMax=95C is correct for my 45nm E8400 but I have not had my hands on a 45nm Quad for testing. This choice looks appropriate for core0 and core1 of your Quad but not so appropriate for core2 and core3. I'm still trying to sort this behaviour out on my Q6600 and what is the real cause of it. Can you PM me a RealTempLog.txt file for your Quad with the calibration factors all set to 0 and run it from idle to full load to idle using Prime small FFTs on each core? Do all 4 cores report more or less the same at full load?
Neither does CPU-Z! I'll see if I can save some X,Y co-ordinates in the INI file.Quote:
3. On my box, RT does not remember its last position on a screen.
:up:Quote:
BTW, The GUI is now very clear :)
Even SpongeBob is happy now!
Hi programs looks nice and simple:up:
One question is it also aqurate for a q6600 ? I get these different temps and that with the quad at 3375 and 100% cpu usage it seems kinda wrong..:shrug:
http://home.wanadoo.nl/mayfamilie/Untitled_800x640.jpg
I'm on water.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I'll do it for you, no problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
But this raises an important issue, namely what *ambient* temp do you prefere?
See, on air cooling it's no brainer -- just let the stuff go for a few minutes on idle and you can assume the temps are actually *deltas* from the ambient room temperature.
Not so on water, once when it has got heated to say, 50 C, this is now your new "ambient", at least for a good while, isn't it correct?
Just let me know what is your point of view on that issue.
Cheers!
That's sort of what I thought. Room temp is what you compare to when you are air cooled but if you are water cooled then you would need to idle for a while until your core temp and water temp are stable. You would then compare RealTemp to your water temp.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZ
Ramaistro: You need to be a lot more specific about your set up, method of cooling, room temperature, MHz, core voltage, etc., etc.
If the TjMax I picked for your B3 is wrong, then your temperatures would be reported too low. The best test for this is to lower your MHz and core voltage as outlined in post#1 and compare your core temperature to your room or water temperature. In your screen shot your Minimum reported temps look reasonable. If you can make them go 10C lower than your room temp during testing then I probably screwed up and you should be using a higher TjMax. The B3 Quad uses two B2 dual cores which are both TjMax=85C so that's one of the reasons why I went with that number.
will this program work for negative temps? say... phase change?
It depends on your DTS sensors and how far below zero you are. In theory, the temperature data is being stored internally in the CPU in 7 bits of data so at most you can get down to 95C-127 = -32C.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenEffect
I don't know if the previous 65nm sensors have any sticking issues when things get cold but I know you'd probably have to go through quite a few E8400 processors before you got lucky and found one that could go that low without at least one of the sensors, and probably both, sticking at a fixed temperature.
TJ Max = 95 is right for my Q6600 G0 right?
sounds good to me :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
thanks!
Uncle, I did give Realtemp a quick go last time I had my Q6600 on phase but I found my temp sensors were stuck at 4 & 10oC on each core.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
CN :)
yes, it showed all my diode movement. But my cores still idle at 16C when the air intake on my radiator is reading 20C. The coolant levels in my system on idle stay a constant 21-22C.Quote:
Originally Posted by jason4207
Trust me, my system is spec'd out to be fully monitored. I cant get real temp to display temps above ambient at idle unless i do the obvious, put load. :rofl:
If you need something let me know i'll be more then helpful. We do need a good monitoring program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
No, im serious there is something wrong with the middle cores in your program. Its not how long the system is up. Mine has been up for Weeks and it still says 16C.
Here is how i monitor my loop. I have the new scythe fan controler which has 4 temp display.
Probe 1: Cpu loop res Temp probe <gets coolant temps>
Probe 2: is taped to the front of my radiator intake to get accurate ambients
Probe 3: GPU Loop reservoir
Probe 4. Gpu Radiator intake.
Probe 5 which is on my matrix orbital using dalas double confirms the water reading with my scythe.
Probe 6 which i have on my gpu loop, another dalas probe also confirms my water temps.
the H2o system on my unit is probably ranked in the top 1% too if you want to know.
So no, my messurements are pretty much on the dot, and im telling you, i cant get my middle cores to NOT be lower then ambients on idle unless i put load on it.
Dayam i wish you had a yorkfield, you'd probably understand what i mean.
ramaistro, you need to upgrade to the latest coretemp. I don't think that tjunction is 100c on a Q6600. I don't know if realtemp has it right at 85c, either, unfortunately...:(
TJunction is showing as 95 celcius on real temp for my Q6600
@ unclewebb
Apreciate Your hard work and effort you have put into this nice program RealTemp. :)
Here is my full air cooled system with 45n QX9650 at minimum CPU voltage 1.100v. / what Maximus Ext board allows
@ 1600 mhz (6x266) everything other on Auto / exept had to disable C1E for this low speed run
(other ways was not able to boot into winXp normally ... it does'nt load nvidia drivers and etc..)
- At Low speed screen, those ambient readings are marked with red box on Everest- and cpuid HwMon.panel
So, ambient was 21*C / double checked / with external probe (asus ME board allows this luxury :) also, i mounted a simple digital thermometer close to the CPU fan,
side panel is open and system was on idle, running 15min before screen shot.
(*Btw i have photos/screens of most Bios settings on that LowSpeed run, i can post or send if needed)
http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/5...ctemyo3.th.png http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/8...0521tt9.th.jpg
If compare temperature readings on [Stock speed] and [Low (downclock) speed], - at idle state the core sensors are never moving -
below 35 ; 35 : 31 ; 37
but they will go step by step upwards by rising case internal temp
( if i close panels and put all fans to minimum rpm, also at my case, there is much ''help'' from my video card what can do the ''best'' heat-up job ever :) )
here some Idle/Load runs @ Stock speed 2 screens (3000mhz) All auto C1E Enabled
Idle
http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/1...tockautke0.png
Load (everest stability test)
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/2...tockautci8.png
----
don't know does this help or not .. anyways
Thank You :)
Did you use the (+) or (++) adjustment? That is what I meant, not the diode movement test.Quote:
Originally Posted by NaeKuh
From the 1st post:
Quote:
Idle Temperature Calibration:
If you are interested in this feature then you need a way to find out if your processor reads too high or too low at idle. The method I use is I set my processor to run at a front side bus speed of 266 MHz and then I set the multiplier to 6.0 which results in approximately 1600 MHz. I also lower the core voltage as low as it will go. My Asus board goes as low as 1.08 volts which is fine for this test. You could also use SpeedStep and set C1E to on in the bios to accomplish the same thing. The goal is to reduce the heat output of your processor to a minimum.
By reducing your processor down to a common fixed value, I've found that a well air cooled processor's cores will idle at approximately 3C to 5C above the ambient temperature. If your reported idle temperatures are going below the ambient temperature then you need to use a correction factor of (+) or (++) to get them up into a more believable range. If your CPU is like my E8400 and you notice reported temperatures that are significantly higher than the 3C to 5C range then you'll need to use a (-) or (--) Idle Temperature Calibration factor to bring them down to a reasonable range. That's all there is to it. As long as TjMax is chosen correctly and you do a simple calibration, your reported Core Temperatures will be very accurate and comparable to other users who are using the same software and have also individually calibrated their processor.
I think what Jason was asking was if you are using a calibration factor in RealTemp. This is where there seems to be errors in the data coming from the on chip digital thermal sensors. Without any calibration factor, temps below ambient or below your water temp are typical. If you can, post a screen shot of RealTemp with your system at idle. Data from someone that knows their system temps inside out is just what I need.Quote:
Originally Posted by NaeKuh
There are two different Q6600 processors. RealTemp uses 85C for TjMax for the B3 stepping and 95C for the G0 stepping. The best thing about RealTemp is that there is no reason to be sad. If you have done your own testing and you know what TjMax is for your processor then you can set TjMax to that value. If RealTemp is assuming TjMax=85C for your processor and you know it is 95C then go into the RealTemp.ini file and do this:Quote:
bryanw1995: I don't think that tjunction is 100c on a Q6600. I don't know if realtemp has it right at 85c, either, unfortunately... :(
TjMax0=2
TjMax1=2
TjMax2=2
TjMax3=2
This bumps TjMax by two 5 degree steps for each of your cores. If you believe TjMax=100C then bump it three steps. Problem solved.
Check the Thermal Specification for the SL9UM Stepping B3:
http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SL9UM
and here is the same Q6600 SLACR Stepping G0:
http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLACR
The B3 seems to have more in common with the other B2 stepping dual cores which are all TjMax=85C. Here is an E6600 B2:
http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SL9S8
I also seem to remember when the original Quad came out that people were complaining that with the retail heatsink and fan that they could get up to the throttling point without too much trouble. Show us some idle testing at low core voltage and low MHz so I can get this corrected if I have made a mistake.
1. I made it clear I was impressed with the app and unclewebb's work and I've actually recommended this app previously in other threads here, so I've got nothing to prove about my intentions in posting what I did. I'm not responsible for people misinterpreting my words, whether accidentally or wilfully.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace-a-Rue
2. The comment I made was about a specific change to the interface that was going to make it much harder for people to use, and I have justified my opinion with some general comments about UI design, something I know a little more about than most here, I'd guess. I build Windows apps and PHP websites that rely on clear interfaces and good design to make them easily accessible as well as functional.
3. My only interest is in helping improve the app so that it requires less support from unclewebb and is easier to use, which obviously benefits all users, not just me. Anyone who suggests I have an ego problem in making a constructive comment like that is simply an idiot.
4. unclewebb has already accepted my constructive criticism in the spirit in which it was intended, as a helpful comment from one app author to another. Anyone else's opinion on the matter is frankly irrelevant.
5. You've gotta laugh. The "ego" poster is the one with 1000s of posts to his name merely celebrating new releases of app software with better features and/or design - yet he flames (lamely) someone who is trying to help improve THIS software, implying improvements aren't important. What a du... well, I don't have to say it. :rofl:
Any further comments or suggestions I make will be in private. Unlike some people here, I can actually contribute practically to this project in ways that would benefit everyone, as unclewebb is aware, but funnily enough my ego doesn't need the credit for that. :rolleyes:
unclewebb
Thanks for the new version, great work. Some results -
1600 idle
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/9...idleoc5.th.jpg
3400 idle
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/9...idleyt1.th.jpg
3400 load
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/2...rimedj1.th.jpg
Hello,
here are my Idle temps(picture1) on a Asus P5B with Artic Freezer 7 Pro, Room temp are 19°C. CPU+Cores temps rises about 10°C with BIOS 1803 on on my old E6600, so Speedfan has modifed temps for CPU and Cores. Hoping Asus will correct the BIOS shortly.
Picture 2 shows a anormaly CPU temp which i get sometimes.
Why are you running a 3.0ghz E8400 at 1.2ghz? Would you happen to have speed stepping on?Quote:
Originally Posted by HeinzS
Axis
I have and I can confirm (QX9650, C0).Quote:
Originally Posted by NaeKuh
The system is pretty much like yours, H2O with a *huge* Reserator 2 radiator.
Left the system unpowered overnight and the whole thing including 1 litre of coolant (+ 7kg radiator) was 20 C at the morning. Booted to idle: core 2 and 3 read 10 C in RealTemp. That is 10 grades below ambient.
Now I'll PM my log to uncle :-)
Read the first post (and my post just a few posts above yours). This is done to properly calibrate idle temps.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by axis
lowtcell: Your idle temps look appropriate. Can you re-run your load temps, preferably with Prime small FFTs? The link for that data is missing in your above post.
HeinzS: I also have a P5B Dlx and I can confirm that the CPU reported temps for that board are sometimes out to lunch. Your E8400 idle core temps look a little too high which is why my E8400 needs to run a Idle0=-2 correction factor on both cores for better accuracy. You also might have the sticking sensor issue where they simply won't go any lower than a fixed value even if you move to the North pole.
Sorry, missed your post completely. I semi-sorta understand now. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by jason4207
Axis
Got pretty high results. E2160 rules :yepp: wins over the E8400 with about 30000 points.
@unclewebb
my P5B is nondeluxe :) and with Idle1=-2 there are -3°C to core0. The sensors go lower, Realtemplog: "07:17:30 37 37" this morning directly after turn my PC on with Core speed 1200 MHz.
With BIOS 1803 there are no more the PECI feature enable/disable and in the past I get the same wrong temps with old BIOS with my E6600.
axis: Just to put things into English. What my low MHz / low voltage test is designed to do is to lower your core temperatures as low as they can possibly go. There are 101 variables that will effect your load temperatures but at Idle, if you can control these two variables, you should find that your reported Idle temperatures are a little above your room temperature. The digital thermal sensors are calibrated by Intel to trigger thermal throttling at TjMax and generally speaking they are very accurate but as you move farther and farther away from TjMax, the sensors no longer move at the same rate as changes in your core temperature. Read the explanation in post#1 and let me know anything that doesn't make sense.
ChrisZ: Which brings me to your data ChrisZ. Your sensors are doing a great job of proving the point that they shouldn't be fully trusted at idle.
Looking through your data the first thing I notice is that core1 is stuck at 22C and can't go lower. The next thing I look for is two cores that are running mates. By that I mean that when you apply a Prime load and then go back to idle the two cores will track each other very closely. This happens with core0 and core1 once the temperature goes above 22C and core1 becomes unstuck.
I think with a +2 Idle correction for both of these cores that you should get some reasonably believable and accurate data. Core0 will be very accurate from idle to TjMax and core1 will be just as accurate as soon as it gets above the sticking point. It is presently sticking at DTS=73 so whenever the DTS goes lower than this number on core1, it should be fine.
Core2 and core 3 are a bigger mess. Here's some data from the log you sent:
11:27:52 25 25 13 17
11:27:53 29 29 18 22
11:27:54 30 30 19 23
11:27:55 31 31 20 23
I have some faith in core0. In the above data, core2 is reporting 11C to 12C lower than that.
11:27:24 16 22 10 10
11:27:25 15 22 10 10
11:27:26 15 22 10 10
11:27:27 15 22 10 10
In this data core0 is still moving freely but I think your other 3 sensors are stuck. If core2 wasn't stuck at 10 I think it would be showing readings about 11C less than core0 which is about 4C. I've seen an E8400 with similar issues where one core wasn't just too low at idle but way too low and was even reporting negative numbers though the user was only air cooled.
I usually don't have 100% faith in these sensors until core temps are over 60C and because you are water cooled you are a long way from that. Below this point, some sensors can be slightly manipulated to produce some reasonably accurate temperature data but the sensors on core2 and core3 of your Quad don't fit that category.
For core2 and core3 I would bump TjMax to help make the numbers a little more accurate even if they're not ever going to be 100% accurate.
TjMax0=0
TjMax1=0
TjMax2=1
TjMax3=1
Idle0=2
Idle1=2
Idle2=2
Idle3=2
If you were air cooled and had some data up near 60C then there might be a better set of correction factors for your cpu. For your situation, I think the above factors is your best compromise for accuracy in the range you operate.
Core3 will track core0 and core1 much closer and core2 won't be too far behind.
fng77: Congratulations on your super E2160! The problem with my original benchmark is the timer I used is totally proportional to boot MHz so if a user used SetFSB after booting up, it wouldn't properly show any improvements in the benchmark score. My replacement timer may have been good in theory but obviously I need to find something better. Thanks for the heads up. Does it always report that score or is it normal most of the time?
Here's three rounds of XS Bench run simultaneously on the Quad. It works most the time. :D
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/878/benchingdm0.png
I don't know what happened to the link there :shrug: Here it is againQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/5...rimetk6.th.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I did another test shortly after and then I got 10000. I´m gonna do one right now...
Now I got: 1060 witch should be normal for my system. :up:
I can't remember if I changed anything in the timing calculation between version 2.3 and 2.4 so try downloading that and see how things go. The benchmark is small and not effected by size of cache or memory timings so your E2160 should run equal to much more expensive processors but it shouldn't be running 20X faster. :eek:
I know my chip's sensor is broken. Changing from air to water would still get me 44C idle on Core Temp but with this Real Temp however, it's 10C lesser (34C)
I guess the main improvement which Real Temp could do is to make it sit on the tray icon like MBM, Core Temp, etc.
aoch88: RealTemp and the competition assume a different TjMax for some processors. All programs probably get it right once in a while! Tray icon for RealTemp is still on the things to do list. Accuracy is still the most important thing for most users.
Everything for you :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
This shouldn't be impossible to achieve, it's just a matter of putting a large pillow on the radiator :)
I'll do it later today.
Edit: Done. Plz check your PM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
In version 2.3 I always got realistic results, this problem started to occur since I upgraded to 2.4
Same here:Quote:
Originally Posted by fng77
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c2...9/Realtemp.jpg
I just ran it and got 1147 :shrug: Seems to work ok.
I'll have a look at this and go back to the old timing system if I have to. It used to be very accurate as long as you did all your overclocking from the bios but the stop watch I was using also got overclocked when using SetFSB from within Windows. I'm sure I'll find a way to get it working consistently no matter how you like to overclock.
ChrisZ: Here's some of the data you sent me so others can follow along.
00:36:42 54 54 45 48
00:36:43 54 53 44 48
00:36:44 53 53 45 48
00:36:45 54 53 45 48
As before, core0 and core1 are tracking each other very well but there is something strange going on with the other two. During the last couple of pages a few of us have noticed the exact same thing with our Quads. In theory, 4 cores all running the same MHz and core voltage and doing the exact same thing running Prime should all be very close to the same temperature. We started thinking that maybe Intel is setting TjMax 5C higher on core2 and core3 but not just on your Quad.
I pushed my Quad much hotter and this is what I got:
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/4...80ctestyw0.png
An exact 5C difference as I was approaching TjMax. Idle calibration has no effect at this temp.
Then there is Ace-a-Rue.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=632
An exact 5C difference on his QX9650 at full load.
and then there is Nevrsadie. He re-did his heatsink and he started getting the same thing. His cores are presently the same in this screen shot but look at his maximum temps.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=655
There is definitely a pattern here but why?
Just when I thought Intel might be messing with our minds by using two different TjMax values in the same Quad, I went back and had a look at some of my original testing which I posted here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=568
At idle and without a heatsink attached to my Q6600, core0 and core1 are tracking each other exactly and core3 is now only 1C less which is very normal.
The act of tightening the heatsink or water block might be causing uneven pressure on the IHS and the two dual cores that lay beneath it. Does excessive or uneven pressure on the IHS effect the data coming from the on chip DTS sensors? Definitely an :shrug: moment. I'm generally the type to find a big pipe wrench when it's time to snug down a heatsink so maybe I need to take it easy next time. Next test; run Prime with a loose heatsink and snug until the temps go a little wonky on core2 and core3 then back off half a turn on each screw and it should be perfect. :D
You are definitely onto something here.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
When reading Intel white papers for my CPU, I have noticed that they are very explicit on the pressure in IHS, it is exactly defined there in Newtons.
Now to my CPU water block (Zalman ZM-WB4 Gold). It comes with several mounting accessories, one of them is for my socket 775. When I initially tried to assemble it I discovered that the springs on the water block would exercise the pressure on CPU of several orders of magnitude higher that stock cooler ever did. It would literally press the CPU right through the mainboard to the other side I guess.
My suspicion is also further reinforced by the fact that all mounting screws seemed to be way too short to reach the base of the mounting socket unless springs were loaded really hard.
So I have adjusted the springs (by bending them with tongs) and the pressure on the IHS became much, much lighter.
Another observation I made was in the course of reseating of the water block (because initially when I saw my core temperatures I thought they must been result of a seating mistake on my side) I noted also that the goop (Arctic Silver) was distributed unevenly, which indicates that IHS is not exactly planar.
However I hesitate to lap a $1200 chip with sandpaper just to see what possibly this could change ;)
All in all, the physical pressure applied on IHS may be the contributing factor, especially when only stock coolers seem to exercise the correct force right out of the box...