Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

Unclewebb
Thanks for all your efforts, I must admit I am a bit disappointed with Intel, after all of the hype I was really expecting either them to release a sensor program which was highly accurate and precise or for them to shed some light on some useful information to help us make sense of their "Extreme Sensors".
Did it make you giggle when you saw their QX9650 Screen shot?

1) you were spot on with your TjMAX of 95C
2) their sensors were misleading as well, 38,33,29,36 at idle?!? nearly 10C difference between core 0 and 3!! (not quite as bad as my 14 though)

Correct me if I am wrong but the SLAN3 revision of the QX9650 (which I have) has a thermal spec of 64.5C does this mean that when RealTemp reports 64C I should panic on my hot core1 I should panic?!?
Once again thanks for your work and well done on the QX9650 TjMAX value :)
John

@ JohnZS :)
dont take this as any rule or what so ever
i hit my quad to ''rev limiter'' 95C several times so far nothing happend ( but its up to yourself .. don't try this , if not sure about ) sorry just my opinion..

here .. (on screenshot ) it stands up an crunching Prime :)
none of threads was not dropped -- though 2 cores are throttling - screen ->

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/9...0446ll1.th.png

at same time i was ''ir gunning'' THE FINS on TRUE and it show me 64 (+-) C ->
http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/4...48rzbc9.th.jpg

EDIT sorry as there was different sessions .. this image ( screen belongs to this Pic with IR GUN ""
( just for reason .. if follow the time stamp on images a screenshots )

http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/9...3fl8yt0.th.png

I may be overlooking an option in 2.70, but is there a way to make the programme minimize to the system tray?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by i43

@ JohnZS :)
dont take this as any rule or what so ever
i hit my quad to ''rev limiter'' 95C several times so far nothing happend ( but its up to yourself .. don't try this , if not sure about ) sorry just my opinion..

here .. (on screenshot ) it stands up an crunching Prime :)
none of threads was not dropped -- though 2 cores are throttling - screen ->

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/9...0446ll1.th.png

at same time i was ''ir gunning'' THE FINS on TRUE and it show me 64 (+-) C ->
http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/4...48rzbc9.th.jpg

EDIT sorry as there was different sessions .. this image ( screen belongs to this Pic with IR GUN ""
( just for reason .. if follow the time stamp on images a screenshots )

http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/9...3fl8yt0.th.png

---

:eek: crikey that is hot. How on earth did you get your QX9650 that hot at stock speed and volts?
Did you turn your fan off or something?
Anyway thanks, I feel a bit more comfortable with the 64C in coretemp now
John

I hit the limiter of 109 celcius with my AMD X2 6000 there two weeks ago. Luckily the machine shut down. I was after forgetting to turn on the pump in my watercooling LOL. Goes to show the punishment the CPU will take. So is 95 the tops the CPU will take. I have a Q6600 and I try to keep its temps below 65 celcius.

@ JohnZS
:) Yes You are right!
CPU fan was off (wire pulled off), ambient was ~23~25C, also rear and upper (antec fans turned on LOW) to get it hotter :)
even put a paper sheets in front of FANs to minimize the airflow for this '' heat-up'' session
i had only 'point cool fan' on RAM and NB area..
just a note ! while i was running these tests with Quad and Maximus Extreme Mobo,
there was CPU TM Function - [ Enabled ] in bios
i did not run tests on that assembly (setup) at disabled CPU TM func

Uhh, where can we download the latest beta? i have 2.72, OP says 2.73.

Thanks!

There is 2.74

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...lTempBeta2.zip

My interpretation of what Intel said is that there is so much error in some of these sensors at idle that we shouldn't be using them to try and report accurate core temperatures and that the new and improved Core i7 sensors won't be a big mess like these ones are.

I'll update RealTemp to these new TjMax values and I will change the calibration curve so it effects temperatures from idle to TjMax. A new TjMax means some users will need a larger calibration correction and some will need less.

I agree. The Intel pdf document doesn't live up to the pre-IDF hype. This document means that we'll never have 100% accurate core temperatures for these chips and users can go on endlessly debating which program is more accurate because even with the correct TjMax, none of them, including RealTemp, can be truly accurate because the sensors they are reading are not accurate. An individual RealTemp type calibration will get a person in the ball park but that's about it.

2.74 has the ugly button that some users didn't like so 2.73 is still the main beta.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

My interpretation of what Intel said is that there is so much error in some of these sensors at idle that we shouldn't be using them to try and report accurate core temperatures and that the new and improved Core i7 sensors won't be a big mess like these ones are.

I'll update RealTemp to these new TjMax values and I will change the calibration curve so it effects temperatures from idle to TjMax. A new TjMax means some users will need a larger calibration correction and some will need less.

I agree. The Intel pdf document doesn't live up to the pre-IDF hype. This document means that we'll never have 100% accurate core temperatures for these chips and users can go on endlessly debating which program is more accurate because even with the correct TjMax, none of them, including RealTemp, can be truly accurate because the sensors they are reading are not accurate. An individual RealTemp type calibration will get a person in the ball park but that's about it.

2.74 has the ugly button that some users didn't like so 2.73 is still the main beta.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

---

What annoys me most is that a company like Intel which supposedly has one of the best manufacturing processes around has made such a fundamental mistake like this.

In an ideal world there would be a slight inaccuracy but instead of +/-10-15C it would be something like +10% at idle temps (or a value you could mathematically calibrate out without needing to plum in many calculations to even try to extrapolate intel's DTS to C equation)

IMHO you will be hard pressed to find ANY 2 QuadCores (e.g. 2x QX9650) which show the similar behaviour is this poor QC (quality control)?

I think only Gordon Freeman can save us now....;)

Oh yeah I forgot to mention, I think Intel's PDF is a load of nonsense....

The QX9770 comes in 2 steppings the C0 and the C1, essentially the C0 stepping is identical to the QX9650 (also C0 stepping)
current Q9000 series CPU's are C1 stepping but will be soon E0 stepping.
Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the steppings where new revisions of the CPU, so why on earth is the TJ Max the same across the board yet the power consumption is less?!?

Phew i43
You had me worried for a moment I almost thought for a split second my Extreme Edition Cooler with PWM fan was doing a better job than your TRUE :p:
I am not very extreme at al I run my QX9650 @ QX9770 (1.176V in CPU-Z), but that is good enough for now....eventually I will upgrade the cooling and go for 3.6 or 3.8Ghz....maybe even 4!

Just with these Extreme Random Number Generation Edition DTS Sensors(tm) it makes it rather hard Overclocking out of fear of Overcooking.

John

Well i have to say that 95C TJ MAX is for the Q6600 as it goes along with most ppls testing even with a Temp lasor probe i borrowed and i got right to the base of the Heatsink and at IDLE the lasor probe was pretty bang on with what real temp stated.

So it is CLOSE .. remember we will never have a 100% accurate program. but close enough will be good enough to me.... 1-3C is not bad, but 20C out would be a serious thing.

Honestly, I could care less what my idle E8400 temps are. It only matters what the temps are when under load. I can see my fans working or pump pumping so I know it's not going to be anything crazy. That's just me though.

I'm glad Intel decided to implement a new sensor in the (poorly Named IMO) i7 but it really pisses me off that they dragged this out for so long when an e-mail two years ago would have done the same thing. When essentially this told us everything Uncleweb already told us minus the shoddy work Intel did on the DTS. Who would have thought a multi-billion dollar company could screw up something a simple as a thermal sensor.

Well with Real Temp promoting controversy by reporting different temps, dispelling the myth of Tjmax based on mobile cpus, and getting closer to the truth with the nonlinear calibration, I think Real Temp is partly responsible for getting intel to see the light on temps, at least providing 45nm tjmax's, confirming what you already discovered regarding idle temps, and most importantly suggesting a future fix. So, Unclewebb, definite Big :up:!

Interestingly, all the 45nm Quads you can add 29-30C to Tcase and get Tjunction. All the 45nm Duos you can add 26-28C to Tcase and get Tjunction. I know one of your 65nm did not fit that mold, but wonder if that was an intel mistake or intel farting around with one model. The higher the power the greater the gradient, which makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnZS

What annoys me most is that a company like Intel which supposedly has one of the best manufacturing processes around has made such a fundamental mistake like this.

---

As far as Intel is concerned there has been no mistake at all. The sensor from the beginning had a single purpose and it performs exactly to design specs. That it is unable to serve a second purpose that others wish for by no means compromises the original design.

Well i should have also stated when i used the probe at full load it was pretty darn close within in 1-2C at base of heatsink from what realtemp was stating it was at.

So i would still say 95C is the TJ MAX for Q6600

I agree with you Beast. My tests support this as well.

The other thing is if someone has a sensor that is all out of whack .. say 3 cores read 60-58-57 and the one core reads .. say 42C .. well it does not take a genious to figure it out that one sensor is ON CRACK and can't run as fast as the rest sort of speak.

Now if one were reading 75C and the rest read 60-58-56 . then the one that is 75C is on SPEED and is running away form the rest to the fire brigrade, obviously it is not reporting correctly.

Now in the case of ME .. i had to cores reading 10C higher then the other two cores and that was before i lapped my Thermal Right Ultra 120 ... took 6 hours to get it nice and flat .... then i used ThermalRight Chillfactor which is still on today ... only applied a thin layer on the IHS (CPU CAP) and now my temps full load are within 62-58-57-57 .. where as before it was 72-70-60-58.

The thing is the cores will fluctuate like now this sec its 61-58-52-54. lol

Given IR reading of E8400 casing is 95C at DTS=0, and now that intel has finally provided tjmax, we finally know the temp gradient is approximately 5C from tjunction to casing at idle, undervolted, at least in cases where there is a solder attach adhesive like E8xxx, (maybe slightly more for adhesive attach), though there are other variables which we can not account for completely. But given both E8400 and Q6600 has solder attach (solder attach is ~50W*M/K from same intel slides that show solder attach melting point at ~220C if memory serves correctly), I would guess same ~5C gradient for Q6600 exists as well, which would make it 100 tjmax, since IR casing was 95C at DTS=0. Same for E6850, etc. Saw Unclewebb was talking about changing many of those at 95 back to 100, would assume for that reason. The adhesive attach thermal conductivity is several times lower, so dont know if > 5C exists for those, even if all other variables same.

Edit: Also if Q6600 GO was 100, not only would it have similar 5C gradient die to casing temp at idle, undervolted state, but also the same 30C difference from Tcase max to tjunction max as all the 45nm quads, though granted that is a completely different nm process. So would the Q6600 B stepping then be 90 tjmax (5 C more than IR measurement at idle, undervolted, and 28C more than tcase max...

Well intel solved one small issue with 45nm, but clearly the arguing about 65nm tjmaxs will continue:D

Your right Praz. Intel has never wanted users using any information from these sensors to report absolute core temperatures and their announcement was more like, "You're all wrong. We don't know what your core temperature is but we do know that all these programs must be wrong." That doesn't help the enthusiast community one bit. A comparison against a calibrated diode would have been nice to see. The presentation was more of a sales job for Core i7.

Based on your testing rge, the 5C delta is hard to believe and for this delta to remain at exactly 5C from idle to TjMax doesn't really add up either. At TjMax I can believe that delta might exist but it's harder to accept that at idle.

I'm going to throw together a new version of RealTemp that uses Intel's new information and then we can do some testing to see if this seems reasonable. At TjMax=100C, my E8400 has a lot of error to cover up down low. The RealTemp calibration method might still be a valid way to learn how your sensors respond when far away from TjMax.

At least no one's complaining about the color of the future logo for my toggle button today. :)

RealTemp 2.74 vs CoreTemp 99.3
unclewebb, if this helps

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...969/RTvsCT.jpg

I read the PP slidedeck as well, but there is no mention of xeon equivalents of the Q9000 series (i.e. my X3360). I'm assuming it too is 100 °C?

@unclewebb - I'm running the latest beta of RT, but it is defaulting to 95 for my X3360... did you add support for xeon CPU detection?

The other thing that pissed me off is that I saw no mention of the older 65nm cores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by graysky

I read the PP slidedeck as well, but there is no mention of xeon equivalents of the Q9000 series (i.e. my X3360). I'm assuming it too is 100 °C?

---

No reason it wouldn't be since they use the exact same stepping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by graysky

@unclewebb - I'm running the latest beta of RT, but it is defaulting to 95 for my X3360... did you add support for xeon CPU detection?

---

It will continue to default to 95 until a new version is released. Simple enough matter to adjust in settings.

Q9450 = Tjmax of 100ºC.

Damn, means my temps are 5º higher...:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skinnee

Q9450 = Tjmax of 100ºC.

Damn, means my temps are 5º higher...:(

---

Also means you have a 5 degree higher ceiling til tjmax so no big deal either way really I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Praz

As far as Intel is concerned there has been no mistake at all. The sensor from the beginning had a single purpose and it performs exactly to design specs. That it is unable to serve a second purpose that others wish for by no means compromises the original design.

---

You're probably correct but it still seems a very lazy\indifferent approach to something that's important to enthusiasts as well as many others. Maybe I'm just being somewhat unfair. I don't know.