Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

08-21-2008, 01:52 PM
zlojack

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcoffey

Regardless of what Intel says, and how it differs from your findings if so, doesn't take one thing away from your body of work on this subject IMO.

It wasn't just Realtemp that I found valuable, it was all the research and postings you've done on the subject, and how much I've learned from that I find the most valuable. Realtemp was secondary to all the other knowledge to me.

And who knows, maybe your work woke them up about how badly the enthusiast needs this info. I've had just about....no, make that every 45nm quad core they've put out so far.

Each series is all over the place from the other. It's just insane. q9650 I just got today runs 10c hotter than a q9550 that runs 10c cooler than a q9450 that runs 10c hotter than a QX9650 that runs 10 cooler than a QX9770 with less volts. All with the same Tj.

I say hats off to you regardless of what Intel comes out with. They damn sure weren't helping us understand this stuff when you started your work,

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap: :clap:

andyc

+1

Very, very, very true.
08-21-2008, 02:09 PM
unclewebb

Thanks guys. No one invited me to the TjMax unveiling party today so I'm waiting to hear what they had to say. I'm assuming that Tom's Hardware and AnandTech should have a story out by tomorrow but a brief news story before then would be nice. Some of those 45nm Quads look like they installed random number generators instead of temp sensors. Ooops!
08-21-2008, 02:42 PM
hendermd

Is this the Intel doc, http://intel.wingateweb.com/US08/pub...TS001_100r.pdf
08-21-2008, 03:32 PM
unclewebb

hendermd: :up: for finding the magic document.

After waiting all these years, I was kind of hoping for more information.

Intel Speak: DTS may ‘bottom out’
Translation: Tough luck buddy, looks like your sensors are sticking.

It's nice of them to publish this but I don't know if we're any further ahead. For my E8400 if TjMax is 100C then the reported temperature based on DTS data would be 47C when the "real" temperature is only 39C. This non linear sensor creates an 8C error here and that error continues to increase as the temperature decreases so at idle I might be out by 15C and my E8400 sensors aren't that bad compared to some I've seen.

If one sensor reads 15C too low and another one on the same processor 15C too high then the data coming from these is pretty much useless for users.

I have no idea where to go from here. It's easy enough to change TjMax but I don't think that brings any of us closer to the actual temperature. Some may get closer but depending on your sensors, you might end up farther away from the real temperature of your processor.

Edit: I've been thinking through this new mess and here's what I've got. Every temperature monitoring program except RealTemp is wrong because it uses a linear model when the data that is coming from these sensors is non-linear. RealTemp is wrong because it is using the wrong TjMax for many processors. Intel's presentation doesn't give us any formulas or anything that anyone can agree on or use to create a formula to convert this DTS data into temperatures.

About all I can do with RealTemp is adjust TjMax and then create the ability to use larger calibration factors to cover up the amount of error that is present in these sensors at idle. Reported temperatures in the temperature range that you operate at may be very close to what RealTemp presently reports if future RealTemp and present RealTemp are both calibrated.

Intel's presentation shows a linear error which I've always assumed but it doesn't clearly show when this error starts. It might start at TjMax.
08-21-2008, 04:19 PM
Hornet331

btw. unclewebb nice guess with the QX9650. :up:
08-21-2008, 04:25 PM
unclewebb

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornet331

btw. unclewebb nice guess with the QX9650. :up:

Thanks. I got one right!
08-21-2008, 04:29 PM
BeastNotro

That PDF does not show the 65nm processors TJ Max .. why?
08-21-2008, 04:34 PM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeastNotro

That PDF does not show the 65nm processors TJ Max .. why?

most likely cause they are "old".

65nm is on they was to EOL.
08-21-2008, 04:35 PM
kpo6969

So would it be best to change TjMax to 100c for my E8400 or just leave it and focus on distance to TjMax? Thanks unclewebb.
08-21-2008, 05:21 PM
BeastNotro

Problem is Hornet331 there is THOUSANDS/MILLIONS of ppl that have them 65nm CPU's... now i am sure it is around UncleWebbs specs of 95C, but how can be certain now that Intel has not disclosed that info and it maybe that the 65nm Quad-Core Q6600 is 100C and if so then we all are SOL for pushing the buggers so hard now.... :)

UncleWebb .... plz if you have the resources .... Email Intel or call em up and see what the 65NM processors TJ MAX are... thks.
08-21-2008, 05:31 PM
Praz

While things are being sorted with this and other programs, Freecableguy has updated the MBM5 plugin with the proper 45nm CPU Tjunction values.

Motherboard Monitor 5 (MBM5) Core Temperature Plugin
08-21-2008, 05:48 PM
BeastNotro

MBM5 sucks and it not support my mobo.
08-21-2008, 05:58 PM
Shadowthor

To be honest i don't think intel will just tell unclewebb the tj max for 65nm processors since they decided to not disclose it. At least software developers know the tj max for 45nm.
08-21-2008, 06:08 PM
jaredpace

The whole time you were looking at your E8400 temps and Coretemp reported 75C while Realtemp said 65C, the actual temp was 70C :rofl:

Who would have thought it?

45nm Desktop Dual-Core Processors
Intel Core 2 Duo processor E8000 and E7000 series - 100°C

45 nm Desktop Quad-Core Processors
Intel Core 2 Quad processor Q9000 and Q8000 series - 100°C
Intel Core 2 Extreme processor QX9650 - 95°C
Intel Core 2 Extreme processor QX9770 - 85°C
08-21-2008, 06:21 PM
FullSky

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaredpace

45nm Desktop Dual-Core Processors
Intel Core 2 Duo processor E8000 and E7000 series - 100°C

45 nm Desktop Quad-Core Processors
Intel Core 2 Quad processor Q9000 and Q8000 series - 100°C
Intel Core 2 Extreme processor QX9650 - 95°C
Intel Core 2 Extreme processor QX9770 - 85°C

What surprises me is that the extreme quads have a lower TJmax than the non-extremes. Does anyone else find that surprising?
08-21-2008, 06:21 PM
jason4207

Those folks who thought there QX9770 was running hot were mistaken!
08-21-2008, 06:22 PM
BeastNotro

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowthor

To be honest i don't think intel will just tell unclewebb the tj max for 65nm processors since they decided to not disclose it. At least software developers know the tj max for 45nm.

One never knows until they try as he is the developer of real temp and why would they not state so as it would be stupid not to do so as many ppl are still running 65nm processors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FullSky

What surprises me is that the extreme quads have a lower TJmax than the non-extremes. Does anyone else find that surprising?

Thats because i do believe they run at lower power consumptions?
08-21-2008, 07:16 PM
Ol'Baditude

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcoffey

Damn man,

Still doesn't explain why my q9450 and q9650 run 8-10 c hotter than my q9550, but my qx9650 runs about the same as my q9550 at the same Tj. I always knew something was up with the qx9770. It's more confusing now than it was before. Hell with it, I put the CPU's under high end water and throw the volts to um. If they melt, back to Intel they go, and they can sort it all out. What a bunch of puddin heads.

andyc

Lol, exactly.
08-21-2008, 07:46 PM
unclewebb

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcoffey

It's more confusing now than it was before.

You nailed it. This great announcement that was going to clear everything up has left a much bigger mess.

Using the correct TjMax will make your TjMax temps more accurate but it doesn't do anything to fix the rest of the temperature range. This has only shown me that the amount of possible sensor error in the low end is even greater than I originally imagined. I was giving these sensors more credit than they deserved.

MBM to release a quick update so that it is using the correct TjMax is pointless. If there is 20C of sensor error in the low end, and there is, then the correct TjMax doesn't mean squat except for the very rare times when you are at TjMax. Same thing for CoreTemp, Everest, SpeedFan etc. You can set the correct TjMax but if these programs don't give you a way to compensate for sensor error then the reported temps coming from them are not accurate.

Time to fire up Excel to see if I can come up with a better way to convert random data into some usable temperature numbers.

Quote:

The whole time you were looking at your E8400 temps and Coretemp reported 75C while Realtemp said 65C, the actual temp was 70C

But even that simple statement isn't true. Intel's graph shows that the sensor error increases linearly with the distance from TjMax. In your example, the digital sensor reading would be 30 and that reading might already have 5 degrees of error in it. So the answer is 70C +/- 5C or somewhere between 65C and 75C. This announcement hasn't solved anything. My previous assumption was that the sensors are very accurate within 30C of TjMax but the Intel graph shows that sensor error starts at TjMax and continues linearly across the entire temperature range.
08-21-2008, 08:30 PM
FullSky

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeastNotro

Thats because i do believe they run at lower power consumptions?

Do the extremes run at a lower power consumption? I thought they run higher, but perhaps they have different thermal headroom than the non-extremes. Here's a breakdown of some extreme and non-extreme processors.

Code:

Processor Thermal Design Power Thermal Spec qx9775 45nm 150W 63.0 C qx9650 45nm 130W 54.6 C q9650 45nm 95W 71.4 C e8500 45nm 65W 72.4 C e6750 65nm 65W 72.0 C qx6800 65nm 130W 54.8 C qx6700 65nm 130W 54.8 C

So, the extremes have a higher Thermal Design Power than the non-extremes, but lower Thermal Specifications. This doesn't mean they run cooler - they run hotter, but the extremes, or at least the 45nm variety, apparently have a lower TjMax.

I'm still not clear on this.
08-21-2008, 09:17 PM
BeastNotro

So i still want to know what the Q6600 is.
08-21-2008, 10:31 PM
unclewebb

BeastNotro: I can honestly say, I don't know what the real truth is and what's provided in the Intel document is only part of the story. They did not release enough information for any software developer to write an accurate program so we're right back to guessing and making assumptions. It's easy to take a pen and circle some numbers but they didn't test, prove or show anything.

My plan is to start using TjMax=100C for a lot of processors including the E8400 and Q6600 G0.

I looked over some of my old testing and if I now assume TjMax=100C, when my E8400 is showing 47C it is actually at 39C which is an 8C sensor error and when it is showing 29C it is actually only at about 17C which is 12C of sensor error. If I were to use any of the competition's temp software with the correct TjMax, that's how far out they'd be at reporting my E8400.

Both my sensors on this CPU read too high but many 45nm Quads have one sensor that reads too high and one that is too low. Suddenly a combined 20C difference between two sensors only millimeters apart looks about normal. That's a sad situation. :(

All I can do is follow Intel's guidelines for 45nm and take another shot in the dark at TjMax for the 65nm processors. I will also re-do my calibration formula to continue to give users a way to correct for the significant error that these sensors have. Full disclosure by Intel would have made this easy but once again I'm left guessing. If you've lost faith in RealTemp and this whole mess then I fully understand.

Before I became a programmer I was a user too and I'm not at all happy with this. It's easy for Intel to say that there will be "DTS range and slope improvements" when Core i7 arrives but that doesn't help present enthusiasts one bit. All they're really saying is that the present digital thermal sensors range is very limited and they suffer from significant slope issues where sensor movement is not at all linear with changes in core temperatures.

Quote:

What surprises me is that the extreme quads have a lower TJmax than the non-extremes.

Just one more item that doesn't quite make sense.
08-21-2008, 10:38 PM
janolle

I think the info was a good thing. I'd rather be told not to try and find something that isn't there. The truth just is simple and it just has to be accepted.
It left us with one problem: if the error is linear as intel says, is there an easier way (future versions of Realtemp?) to calibrate the sensors accurately for every different user? Different calibration profiles for every cooling system using idiot proof calibration settings?

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page