My (old)e8400 had the same VID from a X38 Asus Maximus Formula to my EVGA 780i on Core temp...
Printable View
My (old)e8400 had the same VID from a X38 Asus Maximus Formula to my EVGA 780i on Core temp...
1.2375V for VID...which corresponds with what my bios says is the default Vcore for my CPU.
:( Uncle - the link does not work for me.......:confused: Always get a folder with only 34KB and the main symbol in it, but no data...... - what happened?Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
The link in the first post for the older version works fine.......
Help - I want it ! :D
^^ clear your cookies ^^
:( Done - but still no go. Can someone host it somewhere else? THX!Quote:
Originally Posted by jas420221
Both links look identical!Quote:
Originally Posted by camouflage
The size of the file is 34kb.
I just tried it again and it's v2.47 and the tooltip now works for dual core.
Man just replace the exe with the new one.Quote:
Originally Posted by camouflage
:confused: The link in the first post (on site 1) is 120KB....
:eek: Ah, now I see..... - me with the stupid. Thought it is a complete new download. Thanks mate;)Quote:
Originally Posted by loonym
Core temp shows a VID of 1.1250 vs Real Temp saying 1.2375. Default on first boot was 1.2v bios, with 1.18 idle CPUz. Real Temp is closer to the bios with this Q9450.
As I said before, the documentation from Intel is lacking and VID is stored in multiple locations and you also have your current VID as well as the max VID. RealTemp is presently reading what it thinks is the current VID. I'm not sure what MSR that CoreTemp is reading or what formula it uses to determiine voltage. The more feedback and numbers the better. I'll be updating the main link within a couple of days. RMClock also displays VID so you might want to compare to that as well.
Edit: I think I guessed right when I was playing the game of trying to interpret Intel's missing documentation. As for the competition, well I'll let you come to your own conclusions. The VID displayed in RealTemp also changes as my wife's laptop goes through its SpeedStep / C1E transitions so I think I'll be keeping this new code just as it is, even if it doesn't always match CoreTemp. :D
http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/6...parisonqv7.png
VID represents the voltage that a processor is requesting from a motherboard. Not all desktop motherboards listen though and they can come to their own conclusion and give the processor whatever voltage they like, especially if you've been in the bios and have set core voltage manually. CPU-Z reports actual core voltage.
Looks like the Dell laptop motherboard is listening to what the T7200 is telling it to do.
http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/4...arison2oo1.png
Just a couple of more comparisons. RMClock is on the far right and it is using the same VID values that CoreTemp uses.
EDIT:
I just noticed that CPU-Z is reporting the VID for this mobile processor. On desktop processors it shows Core Voltage but here it shows VID. I trust CPU-Z more than CoreTemp or RMClock so hopefully RealTemp is doing this right now. I'm not sure what those other two programs are displaying for VID.
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2...arison3tx5.png
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/9...arison4at2.png
Unclewebb I ran Orthos for 57min and heres what I got for temps, my voltage for cpu is set at 1.29375 in my bios. Does anyone know of a great free screen capture program other then MS Paint...lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Captn: The sensors in the B2 are pretty good and yours seem to be lining up well under full load. If you want your readings to be a little more accurate at idle then try what I recommended before.
Idle0=1
This will make your idle temps closer together but if your biggest concern is load temps then just leave it as is since your load temps are balanced. Send me a log file showing 1 minute of idle, 3 minutes of Orthos and then 1 minute of idle. It's a lot easier to judge when I can see the numbers.
The latest beta, 2.47, will fix your VID reading as well as the two blank cores that pop up in the tool tray area.
My fav free picture program is Irfanview. It's not a screen capture program but you can just press the Print Screen button on your keyboard then go into Irfanview and Paste it into that program. For simple cropping and saving in different formats it works good.
I am using real temp and the Core temp is 41c 41c 39c 40c
minimum temp is 40c 40c 39c 40c
maximum temp is 43c 43c 41c 47c
Is this OK
I think my cpu is running hot but I do not now how to upload the real temp from my desktop to show you folks?
can someone help please
Nice TY for that program, I clicked your latest link for Real Temp and im still getting 2.46. Did i do something wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
How are you suppost to tell if you need to lower the idle temp calibration?
now Realtemp says VID = 1,225 and that is the same as on the E8400 Package label 1,225 maxV. Coretemp reports 1,1125V.
:D RT says VID 1.1250, CT 1.0000 and BIOS stock auto setting is 1.0800.
I jumped back to 2.41, I love to see the temps constantly in the task bar.
Idle calibration works fine - my previous QX9600 with working temp sensors ran with chilled water (12°C) @4GHz @1.208v 7-8°C above water temp.
But I ran it at 400MHz FSB, my E8500 is doing 500FSB @4GHz @1.232v. But the QX has 130 watts, the wolfdale only 65.
So I calibrated my Idle temp for the E8500 8°C above water temp - should be close to the truth.
BTW, I noticed RT shows only straight numbers, i.e. 18°, 20°, 22° and so on,
but never 17° or 19° and so on. Why?
:up:
Coretemp VID for my Q6600 is the same on my 680i as it is on my P5K-E.Quote:
Originally Posted by jas420221
Only have P5k-E screenshot atm.
http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/e39a54251a.jpg
I just found a trick in CPU-Z. If you go into the cpuz.ini file and set this value to OFF:
Sensor=OFF
It tells CPU-Z to not read your sensors. Instead of displaying your measured Core Voltage, it will display the VID instead. So far, RealTemp is matching what CPU-Z displays for VID. If yours is different then post a screen shot.
http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/1456/cpuzvidih0.png
I thought about making that an option. It's very simple so I'll try to include that in the next update. When using a positive calibration factor it is possible that RealTemp will skip a temperature number and when using a negative calibration factor it is possible that RealTemp will display the same absolute temperature for two DTS values that differ by one. This is what you get when writing a calibration formula with data coming from digital thermal sensors that are only outputting whole numbers. Tell me the TjMax you are using and the calibration factor and I'll PM you a chart of the temp numbers that you will get.Quote:
camouflage: I love to see the temps constantly in the task bar.
Milamber: Read post#1 for more info.
That seems to be an issue with Firefox. If you go into Tools -> Options -> Advanced and Clear the Cache you should get the most updated version when you click on the RealTempBeta link.Quote:
Captn: I clicked your latest link for Real Temp and im still getting 2.46. Did i do something wrong?
:D Nice - I use the default setting TjMax 95°C for my E8500, calibration factor is -2. THX !!!;)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Sweet, thanks for the info. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Version 2.47 will have the correct VID now for your Q6600. I've released so many betas that I've kind of lost track though! :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Slay0r
Clear your cache in Firefox if you have to and try again.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
I added an extra item for the INI file today:
TaskBar=1
For people like camouflage that like their temps in the bottom task bar just add the above line. I felt bad that he had to use an older version. :(
2.47 is current,, unless you have alot of 2.47 builds...i get confused also, why?...the downloadable zip files are not labeled ("beta" "2.47" etc)...minor moan.
Agreed. I never have to clear my cache/cookies to DL the newest anything anywhere else...minor moan x2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dower
Make it easy for people and they will come! Keep up the great work! :up:
Blame it on FileDen or Firefox, take your pick. I know nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by jas420221
Sorry for all the versions but this is beta week. Be happy that I only post the link to beta land on XS for all you guys that have helped me so much. Enjoy the new super speedy minimize to tray feature in 2.48.
How come in some screenshots people have "idle temp calibration" and these various 0 ++ + options. I don't have that on my realtemp, do I need to do something to enable it? People told me to put it into ++ mode since I have QX9770, however, I don't see that option. Thanks.
Newer versions dont have that feature, its in the .ini file I believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by varrius
My bad, didn't notice there was a newer version outQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
It's allright now :cool:
2.48 is the latest now i take it
That was available in the main GUI in the early days. When I went to individual calibration for multiple cores I decided to hide that stuff in the RealTemp.ini file. Less confusion for the rookies and it forces people to go read the documentation.Quote:
Originally Posted by varrius
A + calibration for core0 means you need to go into your INI file and add.
Idle0=1
I think this is all explained in the first post now.
Slay0r: The open source CrystalCPUID software that I got this idea from uses the wrong formula so I had to modify it after complaints from XS came in. Do something right and you never hear about it but do something wrong and LOOK out. :eek:
Where do I DL 2.48?
NVM. lol. I should've seen that URL.
I hear ya heheQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
major props to you for keeping this updated and debugging the various minor issues that a program is bound to face in its path to being mature.. afterall you don't exactly owe this to anyone and you're doing it for free :up:
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/3852/vid2zy2.jpg
Thanks for the pm. Both the dual core temperature tooltip and the TaskBar option work in the 2.48 version.
And for the record if there are any other dual core bugs I haven't seen them.:)
1st page, clear out your cache and cookies.Quote:
Originally Posted by varrius
When I try to run 2.48 I get a "winring0.dll" was not found. 2.41 works great, though.
Copy the new exe in your 2.41 folder, or alternatively make a copy of the folder and unrar the newer exe in it and execute it.Quote:
Originally Posted by varrius
Someone needs to make a website for Uncle so we can see the listing of Betas, plus it would also be great for him to have a site since this app rocks. Any takers? :)
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c2.../Capture-2.jpg
This is after modifying CoreTemp's ini file. I kind of like CoreTemp's tray icons better than RealTemp's.
ct & rt are agreeing on tjmax of 95C for penryns - woot.
edit: nm i see he modified the ini.
That's my job for later this week. I wanted to have a nice, fully debugged, version of RealTemp ready for the grand opening. Just a couple of minor things left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milamber
It's about time that CoreTemp finally lets you use TjMax=95C for the new 45nm series. I wrote to him about this months ago but he ignored my e-mail and my testing so RealTemp was my response. :D The only problem now is that even with the correct TjMax, CoreTemp will still report my E8400 almost 10C too hot at idle.
I hear ya. I'm working on the high priority items first like accuracy. CoreTemp has been around for a couple of years while RealTemp was first released less than two months ago. Competition is great for both programs.Quote:
I kind of like CoreTemp's tray icons better than RealTemp's.
I haven't heard too many RealTemp users complain about this:
Version 0.98 - 23rd April, 2008
- Fix: Core Temp sometimes crashes when another program tries to access the log file. - Still needs further testing.
2.46 shows lower VID than Coretemp
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e2...vscoretemp.jpg
Interesting, the new version 2.48 realtemp has an identical VID as Coretemp.
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e2.../Capture-1.jpg
Well I look forward to your site... my bro in the Uk does web dev and I'm sure he can knock something up if you need help, he renders some leet icons too.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Shame that the coretemp author ignored your email, well actually no, its a good thing since now we have a temp sensor thats accurate and works. Ahh well...
unclewebb
Great program and great job. Thank you.
@uncle: great program! the VID on RealTemp is now the same as in my bios...temps are reporting more accurately. :up: was the last official version 2.41? & the latest beta is 2.48?
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...rk/Temps-2.jpg
I seem to be having issues. The first two cores are always significantly hotter than the second two. I've remounted my heatsink several times and I just can't seem to figure it out. This is at 4.0ghz with about 1.475vcore in BIOS. I've remounted the block several times completely in many different ways, moved it, adjusted it. Nothing seems to help. I was wondering if being that this 9770 was C1 stepping, perhaps its currently incompatible with realtemp, or maybe this is the result of improperly aligned sensors?
Edit: I am using water cooling.
Welcome to the club. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by varrius
This seems to be a common issue with many Quad core processors and has absolutely nothing to do with how you mounted your heatsink or block. It effects both 65nm and obviously your new 45nm cpu. This issue was brought up on page 29 of the RealTemp novel and discussed, mostly only by me.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=722
It might be a heat transfer issue where both sets of dual cores within a Quad do not transfer heat equally and it also might be a sensor issue. On my Q6600, core0 and core1 as reported by RealTemp were in agreement with what the IR thermometer was showing. Try the test I came up with in post#722 and post your results.
I've just kind of hung on to the theory that my core 0 is a bit higher because it works harder. :shrug:
I think there is some truth to that based on how the Quad balances the workload between the two different dual core chips inside of it. It might be designed at the factory to do something like 55% / 45% with core0/1 getting more of the work than core2/3 so they would tend to run hotter.Quote:
Originally Posted by loonym
It might also be how the IHS is sitting. The original design was for the IHS to sit on one dual core, not two dual cores side by side.
Who knows? Maybe the dual core chips that go into a Quad are binned where they use an 'A' grade dual core for core0/1 and they treat that as the primary side of the Quad and the other side gets a slightly less capable 'B' grade dual core. Somebody somewhere knows exactly what's going on but you'll never ever read about it in a forum. Anyone that shares this secret will be rounded up by the Intel secret police in the middle of the night. :eek:
I just want users to know that this is more common than most people think and that you don't need to remount your heatsink 101 times.
Well, things to consider: Intel told me, " we don't care how much hotter X core is than Y core, all we are concerned with is if the chip exceeds 70 degrees celcius. " Further, these temps were after I just powered on after being off all night. Windows had just loaded so everything was at less than 5% load on the cpu. Also, what is weird, is realtemp tells me the temps are fine but my 790i BIOS shows it at 50c. I've been told the CPU is slightly loaded in BIOS, though.
The only theory I think is valid and hasn't been disproven is that maybe one set of cores isn't receiving as much contact as the others. I'm talking internally, perhaps, when the CPU is made there's a percentage of offset on how the cores sit. Or, the sensors could just be improperly aligned. IDK, intel only gave me that response and they wouldn't say much more. =/
some more proof for You :) Uncle ..
here qx9650
4 cores load prime .......3 cores load prime
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/8...e360yq4.th.png http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/4...e360ua6.th.png
on both load/screens was used Prime95 small FFT @3600mhz (vCore 1.27500v set manually from in bios )
ambient was 19C , case sidepanels open
there is constant 9 C difference between cores 1;2 and cores 3;4 on load when all (4)cores are loaded ..
sofar have not calibrated anything in RT
attaching RealTemp logs ....
just notice when load only 3 cores small FFT prime the (Core 1 & 2) temp readings starts jump like crazy ~ 5 degrees interval mostly every 1-2 second.
and this ''jumping'' is readable with every monitoring program .. if only set the screen sensor refresh to min ( 1 sec or so.. )
mobo and other spec.in sig , ( this test was run with cellshock rams)
RealTemp logs ....
Bios loads the first core @ 100% on every processor/mobo, this explains the temperature higher than idle.Quote:
Originally Posted by varrius
The discrepances in temps are likely caused by a concave IHS/bad mounting/bad sensors. The latter seems to be very common on 45nm intel processors (duals and quads), and some of the late 65nm quads. You won't get intel to admit that, though.
As long as the temps don't exceed the 65, I'm happy. Remounting 6 times didn't seem to change it. So, maybe a 790i BIOS update will fix things, who knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slay0r
Thanks for the update unclewebb! Now I can hide it at my system tray! :D
CoreTemp added G15 support. Is there any way we can get G15 support? It would be really awesome if I could check my temps while in game. =)
woohoo @ minimize to taskbar
Sweet program.
Unclewebb,
It is possible to start several instances of RealTemp.
Please check your PM, -- I posted there a function which can prevent this happen.
Best!
ChrisZ: One man's bug is another man's feature. Did you ever think that some crazy people might want to have multiple instances of RealTemp running at the same time to do some XS Benching? On a Quad you can run 4 instances simultaneously with no slow down. Thanks for the code you sent. I've always wanted to know how to do that and I'll probably make it an INI selectable option in the future.
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/2...temp249mq7.png
Just finished the last major feature this evening before the next official update. RealTemp MHz and CPU-Z MHz have a lot in common while the competition is still a little behind. RealTemp also supports the 0.5 multis in the new 45nm series, at least in theory. A screen shot of an E8500 or any other 0.5 multi CPU while running RealTemp and CPU-Z would be great.
Beta testers can add the following file to their RealTemp directory.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
i43: Here's some testing you will find interesting:
The first picture is of my Q6600. It's at idle but doesn't have a heatsink on it so the temperatures are getting up there.
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/5994/idletestkc1.jpg
I think looking at it you would have to agree that TjMax must be the same for both sets of cores and all 4 temperature sensors seem to be working properly and displaying similar temperatures. A difference of a couple of degrees is pretty minor.
Picture #2 is of the exact same processor. This time it has a heatsink on it but I now have it at full load runnning Prime on all cores and I've turned off the fan to let the temperatures get up there again. It's now showing the same as your CPU, a perfect 9C difference between the two sets of cores.
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/3144/nofancs2.png
When you see someone post the second pic the first thing you think is, "Dumb ass doesn't know how to mount a heatsink." I thought so too until I loosened up my heatsink, turn by turn, until it was less than baby finger tight and yet there was still this difference between the sets of cores. It just goes under the category of s-h-i-t happens when you own a Quad.
When I turned the CPU fan back on in picture two the difference between sets of cores dropped to the more typical 5C. Weird, hard to fully explain but completely normal. It seems to be a heat transfer issue with that second set of cores.
Edit: In this case, it is the second set of cores that are doing a better job of transferring heat away from the core temperature sensors.
Looking good once again Unclewebb. I have been trying to spread the word. I have probably put the link to this thread in almost all of my posts in reply to the temp issues people are seeing.
Here's my SS:
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c3...uter/CPUOC.jpg
are these temps safe??
2.49 reports the wrong CPU speed...my Q9450 is set at 425x8=3.4GHz, but the program is assuming an 8.5x multi and 3.5GHz?
Thanks Richard. I'll have to re-install my E8400 this weekend for some 0.5 multiplier testing.
kadir_slayer: I think over 70C should be avoided while running Orthos. In my own experience, I find that with a brand new processor I can run Orthos stable for an extended period of time at a high temperature like that but soon afterwards, I won't be able to repeat it. I'll need better cooling or less MHz to run the same MHz reliably.
Anychance we can have realtemp ID the CPU with a logo for that CPU type like CPUz :) That would look great - vcore detection would also be wicked. temps, vcore and logo :up:
Milamber: If you want core voltage and a nice logo how about running CPU-Z side by side with RealTemp? Just a thought. ;)
I thought I'd just add the Core Speed into RealTemp so users would have some useful information to look at inside that box. Once you know what TjMax RealTemp is using, there's not much use in looking at TjMax 24/7.
I think I would need Intel approval before plastering their logos over my program and I don't imagine they like my Test Sensors feature too much and they certainly don't approve of any software that tries to get some meaning out of their top secret digital thermal sensors. They call that reverse engineering and frown. :(
When using RealTemp, I already know I have an Intel core processor inside or else the program wouldn't be working.
Why doesn't someone do me a favor and post a RealTemp vs CPU-Z screen shot showing the MHz. Boot up with a less than full multiplier as well as with a less than full half multiplier. Your E8500 would be perfect Milamber. I want to see where I screwed up. I might have misread the top secret Intel docs.
Edit: If you use SetFSB or ClockGen while RealTemp is running, you will need to do a quick recalibration of the RealTemp MHz feature. Just right click once anywhere in the main RealTemp dialog screen.
Thanks once again for outstanding work :up:
where is the link of 2.49version???
As always in the same place:Quote:
Originally Posted by kadir_slayer
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Is this what you were after uncle?Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/8374/35750430mo2.png
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/6766/97880730zs9.png
Ambient temps were 26 degrees.
That's exactly what I needed to see. It confirms that RealTemp is reading the 0.5 multipliers in the 45nm series correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milamber
Thanks for your help. :up:
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
I"ve found this to be worse with XP and almost non-existant with Vista. I believe it's simply work load related. The same thing happens with DC in XP.
UncleWebb, I am humbled and amazed at knowledge, ability to deduce and focus and your programming skills. Thank you, Thank you!
Cool - glad to have been of some help. When you have your website up and running uncle you will need to make a small link on the realtemp app to it, or somehow have the app check for updates upon launch like GPUZ does :) --- not needed for now tho.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Hey unclewebb,
I have a rig here with Asus 790i mobo and a QX9770, but I don't think temps are being read correctly. CPU is watercooled by an Apogee GTX, the mounting is good (double-checked it), water temp is below 30C and yet it shows temps above 70C for all cores (setting is 4Ghz@1,34V).
Do I have a chip with crappy readouts or does Realtemp maybe use the wrong tjunction?
I've got Vista64 & there is a 5 degree diffrence between the two r/t & C/T which is the correct one ? sorry too little time to read all 35 pages , I got a new MoBo to test today
Is that 70C at idle or full load? It sounds like your QX has sensors that are not functioning properly which has been reported by many users. Stuck and misreporting sensors is a very common problem since the transition to 45nm by Intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
Try CoreTemp as well to try and confirm. Both programs should report the exact same Distance to TjMax, at all times, full load or idle. You will need to go into the settings in CoreTemp and select, "Show Delta to Tjunction max temp." Post some screen shots so I have some data to look at.
I originally thought the temp differences within a Quad was an operating system issue but when I discovered that the balancing appears to be directly related to the data coming from the digital thermal sensors, I concluded that it must be a hardware issue. It would be very interesting for someone with a dual boot system to run Prime95 small FFTs, first on XP and then on Vista, to see how one's choice of OS effects temperature balance within their CPU.Quote:
chris.y2k.r1: I've found this to be worse with XP and almost non-existent with Vista. I believe it's simply work load related. The same thing happens with DC in XP.
If you don't have time to read what RealTemp is all about then you're better off using CoreTemp.Quote:
I've got Vista64 & there is a 5 degree difference between the two r/t & C/T which is the correct one ? sorry too little time to read all 35 pages
A quote like that needs to be repeated! Thanks for the thumbs up. :up:Quote:
UncleWebb, I am humbled and amazed at knowledge, ability to deduce and focus and your programming skills. Thank you, Thank you!
It just might end up on my eventual website, near the top! :D
didn't mean to offend you UncleWeb I read the 1st 10 pages & understood most of your work but couldn't find out if it worked on Vista 64 ,I like your program as it is running fine on my 64 sys
i'm getting 33,33,32,35 in core temp right now & with your program 28,28,27,30 sooo maybe just idle about 2 pages of IE open right now & both programs open
your programstest >
test went core 0 = 10
core 1 = 9
core 2 = 9
core 3 = 9
all this on rig#1 in my signature
agin sorry if i offended you ,
i have alot of PC projects going all at once here and the weekend is my only time to do it .As I drive all week 60 hrs plus & was just asking if someone could save a guy some time with a quick post about vista64 & your program ..
Uncle...here is the info you wanted:
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/26/capturepd5.jpg
[URL=http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=521&i=capturepd5
As per Uncle's advise...right clicking on the program fixed the 0.5x multi issue, it's now displaying 3400MHz...cheers.
If you have a DTS sensor that is sticking will restarting the compy (unstick)
it?
I have core 0 sticking on my brothers x3110 while F@H.
I dont want to restart it just yet, (want to finish the WU first).
(Stanfords servers are all messed up now and its hard to get a WU
from them).
I guess i will find out tomorrow.:confused:
Most DTS sensors that get stuck get stuck as the sensor cools down when you switch from full load to idle. One or more sensors will start reporting the exact same number even though your CPU is cooling down. This can effect all sensors, 65nm and 45nm, but it seems to be a much bigger problem with the new 45nm chips.
Unfortunately, there is no solution and based on user feedback, Intel does not consider this to be a big enough problem to justify replacing your CPU for you. As long as your processor can crunch some numbers without over heating or melting then it is doing what it was designed to do.
I tried to find an answer in the thread, but is Realtemp good to use for the QX9650 C0? It gives me about 55-60C stressed @ Quad PRIME. Coretemp gives me 10C more.... Which is not very good imho.
:eek:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigslappy
I'm pretty sure the very first post clearly outlines the discrepancy you guys are seeing. It has to do w/ the chosen Tjmax. CoreTemp has chosen different values than RealTemp. If you're not happy w/ the chosen Tjmax you can change the value via the ini file.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHP
Or you can just look at the 'distance to Tjmax' being reported which comes directly from the DTS sensor in the CPU, and is the same across every temp program.
Hello UncleWebb
First - Thank you for this great app ! :)
second: when I set idle to -2 in .ini file, temp drops by 4 instead of 2 :) -1 works ok. To clarify: with no calibration my CPU idles @ 40C with -1 it says 39, with -2 it says 36C :)
PS. If understand correctly, for my e8200 I need to put -2 into ini file to calibrate it properly and compensate for DTS ? (I read your first post but somehow I am still not sure :P )
Thank You once more !
This really bugs me!
http://i25.tinypic.com/309hv8o.jpg
Which sensors are right? Which ones are wrong?
This really sucks! :shrug:
I just remounted the cooler to see if I had bad contact: it was mounted very good and gave me similar temps as shown...
Good job Intel, 800 euro CPU's with defective sensors! :clap:
Maybe I should RMA it.
Edit: before I remounted it was 2Hrs PRIME stable @ 3,8GHz 1,3V, now its giving me an error after 8 minutes... :shakes:
Should RMA it, and check the temps again.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHP
Remounted again... Pulled the CPU out of the socket and put it in again... Load temps in Realtemp seem to be a bit lower... 52C to 56C stressed on 2 cores, stressed 38C on the other 2 @ 3800MHz.
Now using Thermalright paste instead of AS5. Maybe the AS5 was too old. :p:
Lets see what happens now. I really want to hit 4GHz... This is my second QX9650. The previous one only did 3,6GHz, which was extremely bad.
But the sensors on that one worked fine. :rofl: It idle'd @ 30C in Coretemp @ all 4 cores.
If this one fails PRIME @ 1.3V again i'll RMA it and get a E8500 for the time being.
LOL. Isn't this a great hobby? One has to be more patient overclocking and building PC's than you have to be @ fishing. :D
I've started to ignore the temps as I was told from the company I bought my QX9650 from that as long as its reporting temps in the bios it will throttle down if it gets too hot and so will be fine :) (oh they added as long as its run at stock settings... :lol:)
£630 on a CPU and they want me to run it at stock settings???? They must be mad! :)
I dont understand my QX9650 as I can run it at Stock speed at around 1.08vcore full load no problems, yet when I start to overclock it, the damn thing needs stupid volts to get to go anywhere..
I'm running at 4Ghz and it appears stable at the moment but I have to set the vcore in the bios at 1.5v and even then its only drawing off 1.38vcore in speedfan (its the only program that reads the temps the same as the bios does) when under load!!
If I try to run anything further it does require some big voltage.. I managed a run at 4.4Ghz which required me to set it at 1.6750vcore (or so) in the bios, but even then under a load, it was pulling just 1.53vcore.. This board gives me the most applauing Vdroop and trying to overclock on it (its a 780i XFX board) isnt the nicest thing in the world...
One of the guys mentioned in a thread I'd posted said that he could get his QX to 4Ghz with just 1.26vcore!! I was drooling when I heard this and when its come to mine, it just sucks!! :(
Mind you I dont think the temp probes help a heck of a lot...
I would just like to know when the cpu throttles does it mean that it really gets that hot or it throttles just because the sensors tells it to throttle even they are wrong?? ı mean can the cpu throttle because of broken sensors even though it is not that hot in real??
I've no idea about it throttling as I dont know what the CPU is limited too for temps... The maximum I've seen with my limited readings and cooling is about 70c... I decided to give up at that point...
I think you are on thin ice now...Quote:
Originally Posted by phill
http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLAN3
I'm liking my Q6600 temps a lot better now. Confirmed working for Vista x64
This SS was taken at idle with ambient temp at 19-20C. D5 vario and 480GTX rad, apogee GT block.
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...Untitled-8.jpg
I'm not sure I follow you? Are you meaning this:Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZ
VID Voltage Range: 0.85V – 1.3625V
Mines not running anything more than that 24.7 regardless.. I only used the 1.53vcore for a very short period :)
Where did you guys get version 2.49, the latest posted is 2.41
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zipQuote:
Originally Posted by Demo
Grab that then simply replace the exe in realtemp folder.
That sounds a lot like the guy that only forgot to use a condom once. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by phill
With 45nm chips, it may only take once to permanently damage one.
Whats one of them!? :lol: ;)
I dont know how the other guys run 2v through their's then! ;) A guy I was talking to on another forum said he was running his at 4.2Ghz 24.7 and I think he was using around 1.4 to 1.5vcore perminately.. I'm under 1.4 under a load but idle seems to higher it up for some reason??
Is the program going to final yet?
Don't know if this has been asked before..
Does the program detect throttling due to signals sent by the cpu or simply by comparing temps to tjmax?