RealTemp 2.75 from this post few pages backQuote:
Originally Posted by anzial
@unlce: thanks for the reply & great app
Printable View
RealTemp 2.75 from this post few pages backQuote:
Originally Posted by anzial
@unlce: thanks for the reply & great app
Thx! :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by emoners
does anyone know the tjmax for e6xxx and e2xxx 65nm processors? did a search on the thread and nothing useful came up.
thank you :)
Intel still has not disclosed TjMax for 65nm desktop processors so all I can do is continue to guess.
Intel has stated that TjMax is 100C for an E8400. When I use that value, at higher temperatures where the amount of sensor error is minimal, the reported core temperature is approximately 5C greater than what an IR thermometer shows when pointed at the hottest spot on the IHS.
Using this new fact of life and working backwards, I have decided in the near future to start using TjMax=90C for the original B2, B3, the L2 and the E2xxx M0 series and probably a few others once I dig through the Intel specs some more. rge seems to agree that this is reasonable thinking based on Intel's published Thermal Specification for these processors.
Every program continues to assume that TjMax=85C for the original B2 but Intel has said that the logic behind that assumption is flawed because bit 30 in MSR 0xEE which is valid in the mobile processors to signal an 85C TjMax processor, is not relevant in the desktop processors. I'm getting ready to walk another plank and create some more controversy by introducing this never before used value in the near future.
I believe that the later E6x50 series are TjMax=100C like CoreTemp, Everest, etc. have been assuming for a long time.
RealTemp's original TjMax guesses were mostly based on IR thermometer testing. The new information released at IDF says that those numbers are too conservative and I should have added 5C to most processors.
Personally, I think that is a few degrees on the high side for the average processor but I've decided to more or less quietly comply with the small fragments of information provided to the user community from the guys in the blue suits. :cool:
you had me all the way up to the word ...:rofl: comply :ROTF:
Here's a nice write up from Gavin Steacy at Tom's Hardware about the IDF presentation and how these digital thermal sensors operate on the new 45nm processors. He even quoted the developer of RealTemp a couple of times. :)
I don't think I had my coffee yet that morning and was still a little upset by the lack of information actually released compared to the AnandTech pre-IDF story about full disclosure.
just to clarify then...
the TjMax for the Q6600 G0 is 100ºC instead of 95ºC then?
Yup! I just read that.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
From THW:
According to the developer of RealTemp, “[Intel] 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.”
So angry webb. lol.
I'm back to using 100deg. My temps are not what they used to be, but tbh, idling at mid thirties instead of mid twenties when the room temperature is 22degC. is quite a bit more credible. That, and my distance to TJMax numbers are now 5 deg higher, so who's complaining? Not me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalmyr
So that mean for E8400 the TjMAX should be set to 100 right ?Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
That's the official word from Intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLoph
Thank you unclewebb (^____^)
burebista over on the TechPowerUp forums suggested adding an option to display the unmodified, digital thermal sensor data in the System Tray.
I'll upload a new beta version tomorrow with this feature.
http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/6015/rt276wy9.png
Sweet Jesus, XS is back in business. And I thought crack was a bad addiction!
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
The above feature has been added and I also increased the maximum amount of negative calibration from -9.9 to -19.9. Some guys with 45nm Quad cores using the Intel specified TjMax are still getting idle temps that appear to be way too high during low MHz, low voltage, idle testing. If you can't get your idle temps looking good with this much correction then it's time to head to EBay and dump it, unless it's a good clocker!
Default TjMax for the early 65nm CPUs has been adjusted upward based on IR testing and Intel's release of TjMax for 45nm. For 65nm I'm still only guessing because Intel refuses to release TjMax information.
I was just about to ask for the extra calibration window for my Q9300, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Looking as great as ever Uncle!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Many thanks for all your hard work, this is by far the best utility out there!!!!
I was working with a couple of guys on the TechPowerUp site today and their 45nm Quads appear to have at least 15C of slope error. For users with sensors that are reading too high, the official release of TjMax=100C hasn't done them any good. It's just made things worse. With this much error in some of these sensors at idle, it's no surprise that Intel didn't want to tell us too many details at the IDF.
Burebista on TPU posted some results from X-Bit Labs showing that an E8400 consumes approximately 3 watts at idle. With a big air cooler or water, my assumption that idle temps are only about 5C over the surrounding air temperature still seems reasonable. The new E0 series allows the processor to enter C4 power saving mode for even more power savings and low idle temperatures.
If I understand good... the difference from real temperature of the cores and IHS (measured from you) is -5°c, and the correct TjMax for Q6600 is 100°c?Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
E8400 = Q6600?
Sorry for my eng :D
Uncle, hope you don't mind my asking a stupid question.
Since I have lapped my CPU & the D-tech block was already perfect (believe it or not) & half a half a grain of rice liquid metal, my temps at idle have dropped 5-7 & load 12-15 degrees.
Now water temps on the hot side are 27.6, ambient is 26.2, Tcase is at 29.6. Would it be safe to assume that my cores would be in the 32-33 range?
This seems to make sense to me!
Thanks
P.S. - All temps are taken with a laser thermal sensor. And if your curious my full load temps don't go over 43-44. RealTemp sensors show 7,7,7,7.
Again, Thanks.
Unc,Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
During which power state? I'd like to take a look at the X-Bit Labs results please.
CompuTronix: I'm assuming C1E but the article is not clear.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...lfdale_11.html
It's clear that 45nm uses less power at idle and at full load than 65nm. Less power equals less heat to dissipate so sky high idle temps don't make any sense. Looks like 15C of slope error at idle is not unusual for some 45nm Quad processors.
Puttz: Your logic looks good and I agree with your idle temps.
psychok9: Intel says TjMax=100C for E8400. IR thermometer shows 80C when RealTemp reports 85C. Swap in Q6600 and set TjMax=100C and try the same experiment. IR shows 80C, RealTemp shows 85C. 5C gradient exists according to Intel.
Swap in E6400 - B2. Use TjMax=85C like every program has assumed for 2 years. IR temp equals RealTemp so TjMax=85C must be wrong. It needs to go up by 5C so the Intel specified gradient exists. B2 and L2 get adjusted to TjMax=90C to account for this.
Let the arguing and fighting over TjMax begin again! :argue:
C4 state ? i think - they refer to to the (extra low power) - whatever its called .. this could be? that EPU chip + driver thing? ..in my guess
in present past :) i do have had only asus boards, so far ( p5K3 dlx , maximus . rampage )
so with latest ROG boards.. ME . RE and on base their offered options - i guess this could be that - ! on board EPU chip !- + driver + software ( EPU ? Ai suite )
could be they they call this C4 state ?
once on Maximus Extreme board i did tha whole '' wizard'' base install from mobo setup/driver cd/dvd and i got all this "crap" - sorry :( - loaded ..
Ai SUITE + with it's overclock/downclock utilities,
and all the following .. when it booted to xp asus ME board / qx9650
got loaded that '' Ai thing '' on taskbar - it had choosable options, and when select (very)Low power .. it downclocked my qx to ~1800mhz .. something to 0.98x volts .. actually it was stable .. i even run some prime there :) it take ~ 35-40W
will upload this funny screen :) ''polar bear playing with ball ''globe'' LOL - i did NOT get 3Wstts really here but ~11w
so could be 3w possible inn ''sleep' or Ai NAP state activated -// may be - Vista can handle these things better ?
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/1...wer1up1.th.png
btw new RE software disk gives a WARNING
'' do not install (Ai-Suite, EPU-Six Engine, PC Probe ) if You will use Tweakit func .. Operating both func. simultaneously might damage your motherboard
Here's Burebista's 4.24 watt screen shot for his E8400. He likes low power.
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpo...2&postcount=31
Actually the low watts and the below intel doc may be close to making sense with the 5C gradient we measure...if the chart below from intel is correct, which implies the gradient from core to casing increases (doubles) when removing the heatsink.
http://www.intel.com/support/process.../CS-011039.htm
Tjmax-tcasemax = theta (jc) x TDP
Solving for theta with Tjmax 100 = .43 C/W
If the thermal resistance from core to casing (theta) does increase/double without a heatsink as intel states, then if an actual 1.6-2.5C gradient does exist we would measure it as 3.2 to 5C with heatsink removed.
Or, stated another way, instead of actual gradient (heatsink on) = .43 X TDP, gradient we measure with heatsink off = .86 X TDP. At idle, extended halt intel lists 8W, deep sleep 6w, and at idle undervolted, underclocked probably more in 6W or less range...clearly this will be variable cpu to cpu and some are testing even lower. But at 6W (max?), the gradient would be 2.5C, we would measure 5C, assuming the intel doc is correct. If true, that would suggest tjmax is 100, when we measure the IHS with heatsink off we would measure 95C, if we could measure the IHS with heatsink on we would measure 97.5, which would make sense with the actual ~2C gradient. But other than a calibrated thermocouple embedded in IHS...dont know how to test that.
It only took a couple of years but this is all starting to make sense now, even for 65nm.
Thanks rge for that info.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
:idea: