Printable View
Exactly what I was going to say. If we take Intels 100* Tjmax as fact then we have to assume a 5* gradient based on the testing. If we can then assume that the gradient will be very similar on 65nm then the 65nm CPUs should be 100*C as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
The question I'm curious about is how does Intel determine TjMax? Is it an accurately measured value or is it an assumed value? Do they have a device that can accurately measure the core and determine that it is at 100C or do they measure 95C on the IHS of a finished unit and then say something like, "the core is probably about 5C hotter so we'll add on 5C and call it TjMax=100C." That's a serious question and one we'll never know the answer of.
I guess I'm not 100% convinced that switching RealTemp to TjMax=100C is going to result in more accurate temperatures. There was more important information left out of the IDF presentation than included in it. The only thing I'm really happy about is that I didn't spend a $1000 + travel to get my hands on that presentation. My rant for the day.
Having said all that, about all I can do is hop on the TjMax=100C bandwagon and then go back and do some more testing to see if this is reasonable across the entire temperature range or not.
Here's version 2.75 which incorporates the new IDF TjMax values for 45nm as well as similar changes to TjMax for 65nm.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
As I previously mentioned, if TjMax really is 100C then some 45nm processors are going to have to be able to correct for a large amount of sensor error at idle. The calibration formula has been overhauled and it should provide more adjustability especially for processors that are reading too high. My original formula was designed early on in the 45nm era before some of these Quads started showing up with the Extreme sensor issues.
The formula is completely different so previous calibration factors will need to be adjusted. The range has been opened wide up from -9.9 to 9.9. Some users will misuse and mis-calibrate their CPUs trying to correct for stuck sensors, which is wrong, but other users may need to be able to do a significant correction so I won't stand in their way.
I did a few custom calibrations for users with really screwed up sensors so if you want to try out this new method then you'll need to contact me again and I'll see what I can do.
Have fun testing. This thread was getting kind of dead so at least we got something new to talk and argue about.
Edit: If you drag this new version into your old folder then it will read your old TjMax values. Open up the Settings screen and click on the Defaults button and it should set them to the new values. Either that or edit your INI file and delete the old TjMax values.
I think the 2.75 shows the truth.
unclewebb
I know you've probably got other stuff to do, but still a custom UI for dual-cores would be great to see. Just something like this:
http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/2711/tempgg1.png
Buttons could be still placed in one row if you could replace the text on them with some icons.
And BTW the new calibration algorithm seems to be way more flexible than previous one. I even managed to achieve same idle and almost same load temps on both cores (my chip has ~8-10 C difference between cores, no matter idle or full load). :up: Once again thanks for another improvement! :clap:
Dua|ist: I've been thinking about creating a Dual Core specific version for a long time now and something very similar to what you've shown is in the near future for RealTemp. I just had to get the basics done first.
I'll be combining the information in the present two info windows at the top into one info window or maybe one line and one info window so there is enough room and I will be keeping my love it or hate it toggle button. It will be long and a little odd looking and use the same 4 buttons for consistency but when reduced to Mini Mode it will be much better looking for people with Dual Cores.
I'm glad to hear that the new calibration factors are working for you. Intel has not provided the user community with much guidance here so I've simplified my calibration formula based on the tiny scraps of info that Intel has thrown our way. If this formula helps 45nm processors produce some more believable looking numbers and everyone is more or less happy then I plan to publish exactly what I'm using so other software can follow along if they like.
Intel has now specifically stated that changes in the data coming from the thermal sensors does not happen at the exact same rate as changes in the core temperature. Temperature monitoring software needs to provide users with a way to adjust for the less than perfect sensors that Intel is using. I hope the competition doesn't continue to ignore this issue but they might. I figure if I release my formula as open source then everyone can get on the same page if they want to.
I just need some more user feedback from people like JohnZS who has a nice collection of random sensors on his 45nm Quad.
maybe time to close this thread and start a new one for 2.75 and up ? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I`m agree :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by eva2000
I love it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dua|ist
I say 95C for 65nm is the true TJMAX ... not 100C
Actually, it may be 92.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeastNotro
The Intel Bone Trail and Bad Axe 2 motherboards come with Andigilog aSC7621 sensor chips that are wired to the processor PECI bus. So not only do they read the standard diode but they also get what the processor is reporting on the bus. If you check Intel's presentation from the other day you'll see how that relates to the DTS temps.
Anyway, one of the temps reported on the bus SEEMS to be the TjMax. For my E6700s and Q6600s, it's always 92 which fits perfectly with what the diode and DTS temps report. For instance, on my Q6600 crunchers that are running full blast 24x7, the diode temp is steady at 52c, the DTS from the MSR reads 40, PECI reports processor temp as -40 and the TjMax as 92. If I let the machine idle for a while, the diode drops to 34, DTS via MSR reads 58 and PECI reports -58 for the processor temp and .... 92 for the TjMax.
On my Q9300, PECI reports TjMax at 84 and the math works exactly as it does for the E6700s and Q6600s.
I'm going to test my E6850 and E8500 tonight.
Tjmax is not software readable per intel on current cpus. The E6850, Q6600 GO, and E8400 all measure 95C at IHS when tjmax is reached (so tjmax can not be lower than 95). Given E8400 tjmax is 100 when IHS 95C, it would be reasonable to use the same gradient and thus tjmax for all that measure 95C, including Q6600 GO and E6850.
I was expecting Tjmax to be 95-97 from IHS testing, but given intel is the source and only talking about few C now (not like the way out 105 tjmax on E8400) hard to argue without a way to directly measure the core.
Hi UnclewebbQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I have downloaded and installed the latest 2.75 beta (after removing the old one first)
I had a go at calibrating my extreme sensors, the ambient temperature is a bit cooler today, (instead of 23C it is 19/20C) hence slightly lower idle temps.
http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/1...brationmv4.jpg
I will now do some stress testing to see how they behave when the core gets hot.
UPDATE
Here we are some nice load temps from Prime95
http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/6...ngprimeiz5.jpg
Thanks :up:
John
A new version of CoreTemp , the 0.99.3 is gone out .
link : http://www.alcpu.com/CoreTemp/
And you know what ? Finally , it give me the same température as REALTEMP .
So , it is never too late to do a good job ! :D
Bah core temp is using 100 TJMAX and the newest Realtemp is using 100 TJMAX on 65nm .. but i still state after many ppl testing that 95C TJMAX is the 65nm Q6600 proper temps.
Now Unclewebb even you did your own testing and concluded that 95C TJMAX was for the Q6600's, now i know Intel never gave us the info we wanted at that stupid meeting they had recently, but test again and again as it is closer to 95C then 100C TJMAX.
Were only taking 4-5C difference, but that can make or break a CPU.... lol
All the testing showed 95C at IHS when tjmax was reached, but that is not die temps. We guessed at die temps, by guessing the gradient from die to IHS using intel docs and testing to be 1-2C max, thus within measurement error to assume tjmax to be 95. While 10C gradient (tjmax 105) would conflict with intels docs and testing, 5C is plausible.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeastNotro
But intel is now basically telling us that an E8400 has 5C gradient from IHS (95C) to die tjmax (100), how do you explain no such 5C gradient on Q6600 GO or any other cpu that measure 95C at IHS, if 95 tjmax is used?
For the E8400, Intel seems to be saying that TjMax is 5C hotter than the measurement I'm doing on the IHS. I think that is probably a couple of degrees high but Intel has spoken and given us a number so we have to all agree with that. This sounds dumb but finally having the correct TjMax does not necessarily mean that we have more accurate temperatures than before. More testing needs to be done to compare Intel's version of things with what an IR gun shows. My estimate of TjMax may have been resulting in reported core temperatures that were a couple of degrees too low and Intel's version might be giving us temps that are a couple of degrees too high. At least we're getting much closer to agreement and Intel admitting that these sensors can have significant slope error when you get far away from TjMax also confirms one of the main items behind RealTemp.
If Intel is assuming the E8400 is TjMax=100C then the Q6600 G0 and other late 65nm processors all have to be assumed as TjMax=100C because they were all measuring the same as the E8400. Same thing applies here. TjMax=95C will probably give you a degree or two too low and TjMax=100C will be a couple of degrees too high.
More testing will be posted this week so users can decide what version of the truth to believe. I can't use TjMax=95C as the default for the E8400 without Intel telling the world at the next IDF that I'm wrong. The beast has spoken and RealTemp is trying to get in line. ;) TjMax will always be adjustable for users that see things differently than Intel does.
Unc,
Why am I not surprised? Intel's agenda was so typically "corporate", and was designed by engineering management to tell us only what the legal department approved. Please don't be discouraged by Intel's disclosures, which were sorely lacking, since they chose to ingnore the 65 nanometer community. I think the entire farce raised more questions than it answered.
We know Intel admits Tjunction Max has factory variations that deviate from part to part and core to core, which is why we all see different core temperatures on identical hardware platforms at the same ambient temperature, and different core temperatures on the same processor.
This means that if a Tjunction Max specification is 100c for a given variant, some cores could be 96c while others could be over 100c. Obviously Tjunction Max specifications are not 100% accurate, and as such, should be regarded as an approximation which always has a + / - calibration factor.
I have difficulty in accepting Intel's specifications at face value, because it doesn't follow the extensive data that's been presented in this thread. Therefore, I still believe your original findings were very accurate. However, I thought that it would've been prudent at the outset to include the calculated 1c gradient between Tcase and your IHS measurement, which in turn would've corrected your findings by + 1c, making Tjunction Max 96c.
Additionally, consider the following; since the calibration method I developed for SpeedFan in my Core 2 Quad and Duo Temperature Guide does not use Tjunction Max values, then why, when I calibrate the Q6600 G0 on my personal rig, do the results show that it has an average Tjunction Max value of 98c? Why, when others have performed my calibrations, do their core temperatures also fall between 95c and 100c? It just doesn't make sense that you could've been off by more than a degree or two.
In light of Intel's stated Tjunction Max values, I think it would be sensible to extract and review some of the most revealing key posts in this thread, such as those from rge and a few others, so as to provide a well grounded basis for further discussion. Regardless, we're down to an accuracy of a few degrees.
Keep up the great work, unc.:up: I'm always in your corner!
Comp:cool:
Does this progam support new E0 stepping on Wolfdales?
Unclewebb had pm'ed me, we were thinking the same. Tjmax is likely 100 on 65nm, since intel would almost assuredly use same logic and same rounded? 5C difference on 65nm as they do on 45nm. But that certainly does not mean absolute temp on all cpus are 100C at tjmax of "100". We were thinking of secretly setting ours to 97 :DQuote:
Originally Posted by CompuTronix
But, that 3C difference will probably be least problem, given intels admission of a constant widening error the further from tjmax you go. Also, it would be confusing to the masses to fight intel over 3C, especially by agreeing tjmax is 100 but that 100 is high approximation of slightly lower temp...unless we can get ?MRI temp map on a cpu. Maybe unclewebb could use tjmax of 100, and hide the 3C in the correction factor up to tjmax:D
rge,
Considering the variables involved, 97c seems plausible. I've come up with the same value more often than not, based upon my own research, testing and observations.
95-97C is ok, but 100 nope.
Absolute temps, I agree. But if tjmax is set different than 100, the questions will be neverending and intel and everyone else will likely be calling Real temp wrong if they release 65nm tjmaxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeastNotro
If Unclewebb uses a correction factor (extends calibration) to correct for the widening error from tjmax on, no reason not to put the 3C correction in that. Then could use 100 tjmax as intel does, but with correct temps. And if intel wanted to call that wrong, they would have to prove it with much more information than they gave last time.
I see Intel's info turn out to be less info than expected. But I really wonder how do they really determine that tjmax is 100 for 45nm.
The latest beta, RealTemp 2.75, should work fine with your E0.Quote:
Originally Posted by anzial
what's the advantages of this software versus coretemp? thank you