Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

Praz: I understand what you're saying. It looks like in Prime when one core fails then 3 cores run at 100% and 1 at 0% but if you tell it to run 3 instances of Prime on a Quad then you get the four cores working together on the problem.

Quote:

---

do you have any plans to try embedding a thermo coupler into the IHS

---

I can't say it hasn't crossed my mind. ;)

I'm not sure what new information we'd end up with though. We know TjMax for 45nm and based on that and how 45nm IHS readings compare to 65nm, I think we can be pretty confident with TjMax for the majority of the 65nm CPUs so what's left? Intel has told us about slope error so we know that variable exists and we have a way to correct for that.

About the only thing that I don't have any hard evidence to prove is how many degrees hotter should a core be reporting compared to the ambient temperature or water temperature during the Ultra-Idle test. Given that a good water set-up or a good air cooler or even the Intel OEM cooler with the copper core all perform within a couple of degrees of each other during Ultra-Idle, I tend to think that about 5C to 7C over ones baseline air/water temperature is pretty reasonable. Maybe an embedded sensor might get us another degree closer to the truth but given the less than perfect nature of these sensors, I'm having a tough time seeing the point vs cost of that.

With there being some unknown error in how Intel sets TjMax as well as slope error, an individual test on 1 or 5 or 10 processors won't be enough data to confirm anything.

With these sensors, the reported temps are about as real as they're ever going to get. Intel didn't release enough information at the IDF, and I don't imagine they ever will, to get us any closer to the real temperature than what we are now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

I can't say it hasn't crossed my mind. ;)

I'm not sure what new information we'd end up with though. We know TjMax for 45nm and based on that and how 45nm IHS readings compare to 65nm, I think we can be pretty confident with TjMax for the majority of the 65nm CPUs so what's left? Intel has told us about slope error so we know that variable exists and we have a way to correct for that.

About the only thing that I don't have any hard evidence to prove is how many degrees hotter should a core be reporting compared to the ambient temperature or water temperature during the Ultra-Idle test. Given that a good water set-up or a good air cooler or even the Intel OEM cooler with the copper core all perform within a couple of degrees of each other during Ultra-Idle, I tend to think that about 5C to 7C over ones baseline air/water temperature is pretty reasonable. Maybe an embedded sensor might get us another degree closer to the truth but given the less than perfect nature of these sensors, I'm having a tough time seeing the point vs cost of that.

With there being some unknown error in how Intel sets TjMax as well as slope error, an individual test on 1 or 5 or 10 processors won't be enough data to confirm anything.

With these sensors, the reported temps are about as real as they're ever going to get. Intel didn't release enough information at the IDF, and I don't imagine they ever will, to get us any closer to the real temperature than what we are now.

---

Yeah, I definitely have the same thoughts as you. Right now the only benefit to the embedded coupler test is to perhaps come up w/ a better ultra-idle (I like the name too!) calibration number. I know it's near impossible to say definitely what that number is in every case, but for some reason I've been obsessing over it. I also think it would be nice to corroborate what rge posted.

I think we could make a somewhat meaningful conclusion w/ only 1 CPU, though. If you measure a given CPU w/ an embedded TC w/o a HS, and then add the HS you could see the difference and then perhaps come up w/ a slightly more accurate ultra-idle calibration number.

Also, I wonder if it would skew the results if the TC was embedded in the HS instead. That way you would only need to destroy 1 HS, and use it on multiple CPU's.

Please don't feel obligated in any way to do any of this. It would be interesting, but I'll still live a long and fruitful life w/o this info.

Thanks again!

Jason

:toast:

I think Intel's lack of disclosure about how much TjMax varies from one processor to the next has tied our hands. If TjMax varies by plus or minus one or two degrees due to factory calibration inaccuracies, etc. then there's no way we can come up with a perfect number to shoot for when we're trying to calibrate RealTemp to an individual processor. The recent Intel info posted by rge finally puts all the pieces together and helps make sense out of the data we've both gathered.

Six months ago I had a handful of processors and with the software, Intel documentation and knowledge available, there was no easy way to compare them all. I made some assumptions, some right, others not so right, but I think what we've all learned since then has us much closer to being able to make meaningful temperature comparisons between 45nm and 65nm, Dual or Quad Core.

Carving up an IHS or heatsink still sounds like fun though. I'm sure one day rge or I or some other XS type will fire up the Dremel and have at it! I might have to go price out some thermocouples so we can all have a good night's sleep. :D

UncleWebb,

Thanks for the info. I need to set temp to 5-6*C over WATER temp? That might be higher than I hoped. I have a temp sensor thing with a probe on a wire, so I'll shove that down my T-line.

Default voltage is the lowest I can go on this board, at least in this BIOS. I need to see if I can find C1E (that's what it is... I tried something else).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndrewZorn

UncleWebb,

Thanks for the info. I need to set temp to 5-6*C over WATER temp? That might be higher than I hoped. I have a temp sensor thing with a probe on a wire, so I'll shove that down my T-line.

Default voltage is the lowest I can go on this board, at least in this BIOS. I need to see if I can find C1E (that's what it is... I tried something else).

---

AZ!

Hello. Ninja here. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndrewZorn

UncleWebb,

Thanks for the info. I need to set temp to 5-6*C over WATER temp? That might be higher than I hoped. I have a temp sensor thing with a probe on a wire, so I'll shove that down my T-line.

Default voltage is the lowest I can go on this board, at least in this BIOS. I need to see if I can find C1E (that's what it is... I tried something else).

---

If you have the vid card in your sig on that loop you'll need to add much more than 5C to your numbers

I bought a Fluke with 2 thermocouples several months ago when I bought E7200, with intention of putting one in IHS and after measurements vs software, then second on core to measure versus IHS...but after learning about a few issues...and killing my E7200 within minutes of initial temp testing...

Thermocouples are very inaccurate for surface temp measurements, unless of course the surface temp=air temp, because if you lay one on surface 3/4 is sensing air temp, 1/4 sensing surface. When my IHS reads 95C by IR, the thermocouple will bounce around from 60 to 70C, but immerse the tip completely in boiling water and it is very accurate. Now I know why intel fully embeds it in the IHS, have to for accurate IHS temp. Even after you imbed it in IHS, it is now sensing 2/3 IHS and 1/3 thermal (?) adhesive (?) you used to seal it, and you have to recalibrate it by accurately measuring the surface temp of IHS at same time, or it will be off a few C (that is apparently why they use second source measurement of IHS in all research papers). And since it can not measure surface temps, I would have to embed my second one in the core or solder it to the side and then calibrate thermocouple to surface temp core. I dont know if that would kill cpu or not (had I not killed it temp testing, I was going to give it a go as the last test). Reason for having to embed the second one in the core, would be because I dont know down to 1C accuracy what the core temp is, hence I cant know the gradient. And since it is near impossible to test temp of core, because once you remove the IHS the temp rises so rapidly, you end up "guessing" at temp, definitely not accurate enough for 1C calibration.

Given intels recent chart...I could now compare IHS temp to thermocouple temp with heatsink off (versus software reading core temp as control), then use thermocouple to measure gradient with heatsink on (using software core as control) and then would know the difference in gradient with heatsink on or off, but only within 1C of error or more if calibration is different for the thermal adhesive I use with heatsink cooling it....but again that is not going to give me actual core temp, because I dont know exact temp of core at tjmax.

Also if I embed one in the core (without killing it) or soldered to side + surface core recalibration, and embed one in IHS, not sure if it will change temp 1-2C after my piss poor die reattach substitute. Thought about drilling hole, but then how do I solder to core. And to give an idea of how hard it would be to calibrate the thermocouple on core after soldering it to the side (since 1/2 thermocouple is reading solder temp)... when I delided the E7200, I turned computer on with delided IHS pressed up against the core, immediately removed once computer running and temps went from 60 to 138C before smoking and dieing (by realtemp core reading) in several seconds despite powerful box fan blowing, though quickly looking back and forth between IR gun and realtemp and getting two pics flashed, i was approximating a tjmax of 90C. Since I know tjmax is higher now, either realtemp and IR never had chance to read same temp at same time or I changed the resistance so much by removing the obviously very effective core cooling IHS, that cental core was hotter than its surface, like at load.

I was only half kidding in an earlier post about an MRI temp...I know you can read tissue temp to within 1C, without disturbing anything..that would be the way to accurately measure temp while determining exactly what you were measuring at same time, without destroying die attach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndrewZorn

UncleWebb,

Thanks for the info. I need to set temp to 5-6*C over WATER temp? That might be higher than I hoped. I have a temp sensor thing with a probe on a wire, so I'll shove that down my T-line.

Default voltage is the lowest I can go on this board, at least in this BIOS. I need to see if I can find C1E (that's what it is... I tried something else).

---

Try setting the voltage to auto, and leave your multi on auto. Also make sure anything labeled speedstep, EIST, or C1E is enabled. Then set the FSB to 200 or 266. And if you have any kind of vdroop control make sure to disable it.

Hopefully, this way the multi and voltage will drop automatically to the low VID when idle.

rge: You've summed up the stage we're at. Without any further info from Intel, it's about impossible to get any more accurate than what we're at now. Even with more info, there's still variability at both ends of the temperature curve with these sensors so we're still going to be doing some guessing. I think our present guess at the idle delta is pretty close to reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dee

AZ!

Hello. Ninja here. :)

---

NO WAY!

I have an obviously stuck Core0 sensor. Yet real temp says its working fine?? What gives?

Core1 reads about 30-31C depending on room temp. Which jives nicely with both core temps BEFORE I moved. But after I moved (company moved us) now my core0 IDLE IS STUCK AT 37c. Load temp is normal and on par, but idle temp is 6-7C higher then core1 and real temp says its responding normaly???

:shrug:

So I have a core0 that wont go below 37C and is rock solid stuck at 37. yet realtemp says its fine

I dont really wnat to RMA it because it is perfectly stable at 4.05GHz @ < 1.28V all day

Last night I cleaned and redid the arctic ceramique paste which made no difference. I also gave it the razor test which gave basically zero light through indicating the IHS was almost perfectly phlat.

unclewebb, could you maybe add some more font options for the systemtray? a little thicker font like rivatuner has, they are a bit hard to read @ high resolutions due to the thinness.

also, maybe option to have mb cpu ambient temp too?

just some ideas =]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by little_scrapper

I have an obviously stuck Core0 sensor. Yet real temp says its working fine?? What gives?

---

Come on now. Let's not beat up RealTemp because of Intel's crappy sensors!

Maybe your computer fell off the back of the truck during the move? Most of the sensors I've heard about are consistent. They'll always get stuck at the same fixed temperature. I did hear from one user that had one core where the sticking point changed from one value to another after initial break in. I don't think that is too common but it does happen.

When trying to use these sensors to report reasonably accurate idle temperatures, there can be a multitude of problems that over lap and screw up your results. The best way for me to understand your CPU better is if you run a quick test and send me the RealTempLog.txt file either by PM or send it to the e-mail address in the About... box of RealTemp.

I like to see 1 minute of idle followed by 2 minutes of Prime small FFTs followed by 1 minute of idle. You don't have to be exact with the amount of data you send me but generally about 5 minutes of data recorded with a log interval of 1 second really helps me see what's going on compared to just a single screen shot. The temperature curve is very consistent with small FFTs which is why I recommend it.

The 32 or 64 bit version is available here:
http://www.neowin.net/news/software/...30/prime95-256

When you send me your data include some details like CPU model, room temperature, MHz, core voltage, case open or closed, etc. The more info you send me the better chance I'll have figuring out your problem.

What does the RealTemp Sensor Test show now? Make sure you're computer is nice and idle when you run this test and show us a screen shot of what it says.

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/4909/sensortestbv9.png

I need about 1.37 volts to keep my E8400 happy at 4 GHz so I should be getting more Movement than you during this test. If you have a 6C to 7C difference in your idle temps, this test should also show a significant difference.

If you're rock solid at 4.05 GHz with 1.28 volts then accurate idle core temperatures aren't that important. The sensors weren't designed for that purpose so be happy with that chip. :)

Fungus: More font options or a font picker is a good idea for the System Tray. The problem I found was that there is only 16x16 pixels available and you need room for two digits so each digit can only cover 8 pixels wide x 16 pixels tall. That's not a lot of room to work with and I picked through a pile of fonts and most of them looked like crap at that size. What screen resolution are you using and OS? I think at higher resolutions the system tray area might jump up to 32x32 pixels which might give us some more possibilities. Why not send me a screen shot of just your system tray area with about an extra half inch on each side so I can head to PhotoShop and count some pixels.

One option that RealTemp has is you can use the included RTFont. With a font designer program like Fony, you can try editing the RTFont and create something that you like.

1) Check your Font folder in the Control Panel to make sure RTFont is installed.
2) Start up Fony and select File -> Open Installed Font... from the menu or click on the little green open folder in the tool area.
3) Select RTFont from the menu.
4) Use Fony to edit each character.
5) When you're done, select the menu item File -> Install Font

This will install your new creation into your system. Run RealTemp and select the right most font option and it will use your new RTFont.

ClearType and anti-aliasing can give some weird results when working on small fonts so both options are turned off. I'll try using a font picker in the future for more system tray options. I spent so many hours trying to find some readable fonts for the tray that I thought I'd do users a favor and save them some hassle by limiting their font options. There's a reason why most programs don't give you too many options for system tray fonts.

When windows vista 64bit ultimate starts, real-temp won't start minimized, i did check the box in the settings tab, but every time windows starts it won't start minimized...Anyone

BTW: I'm using 2.75

Oki doki, here is shot of my systray. 1920*1200 res

I'm not much of an artist, do dunno if I could make a font or not =]

maybe I can use reshacker and take the font from rivatuner... will try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mpower1001

When windows vista 64bit ultimate starts, real-temp won't start minimized,

---

RealTemp has had a Start Minimized problem for a LONG time with Vista 64 and maybe even with Vista 32 as well. The very patient Burebista over at TechPowerUp helped me with testing recently and I think we've finally got this problem solved. I'll post an updated beta version of RealTemp within 6 hours so you can see if it's finally been fixed.

Fungus: That Fony program I recommended makes editing a pre-existing font simple. In your pic, are 55 and 69 from RivaTuner? It would be simple with Fony to modify the RTFont to look like that. I'll do it for you when I get the chance. Just send me some pics of as many different digits as possible. Small pics in bmp format are best.

Edit: Here's a 3 minute mod job on the standard RTFont. Uninstall the RTFont from your Font directory and try using this one instead. I'll shorten it a little if you like. The right most font option in RealTemp will use this one.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTFont.zip

That's thicker and readable alright. Could you do the same to font #2? (2nd from left) I like the height of that one better. =]

And yeah the other temps are from rivatuner.

rge and others should find the next paragraph very interesting. It comes from the Mobile Intel® Atom™ Processor N270 Single Core datasheet which also uses 45nm digital thermal sensors similar to, if not exactly the same as, what the E8000, E7000 and 45nm Quads use. Users striving for +/- 1°C accuracy with these sensors are dreaming.

5.3 Digital Thermal Sensor
The digital thermal sensor (DTS) accuracy is in the order of -5°C ~ +10°C around
90°C; it deteriorates to ±10°C at 50°C. The DTS temperature reading saturates at
some temperature below 50°C. Any DTS reading below 50°C should be considered to
indicate only a temperature below 50°C and not a specific temperature. External
thermal sensor with “BJT” model is required to read thermal diode temperature.

http://download.intel.com/design/pro...hts/320032.pdf

The amount of error at the calibration point is worse than expected but the ±10°C at 50°C spec is exactly the magnitude of slope error that users have been showing me and I'm seeing with my E8400. I guess I should be happy because I'm only out by about 10°C when the actual core temperature has dropped to 30°C.

It's certainly possible that the sensors used in the 45nm Dual and Quad Core chips are far better than this but I wouldn't exactly bank on that.

The reality is that Intel is probably surprised that we're getting any sort of accurate temps out of these sensors at all. I wonder why Intel didn't have the guts to share this kind of information at the IDF in August?

The Start Minimized option has been re-worked one more time:

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

It's always worked for me in XP but many Vista users, mostly x64 I think, have had troubles. If you've had problems and this fixes it then let me know. If it used to work but now it's broken then I guess I'll have to have another look.

It was working great for burebista in Vista x64 but I made a few changes since his last test session. If it's still broken then I guess I'm to blame. :(

Edit: I just added a bold font option to the first 3 fonts in RealTemp. I'll probably add this to the GUI in the future but at the moment just add this to your RealTemp.ini file:

Bold=1

It looks a lot more readable on 16:10 type flat panel screens. I think it looks better than RivaTuner! :D

As always, nicely done unc! So in a nutshell intel sensors are pretty much useless except as an amusement until the temps start approaching the point of throttling? :rofl:

Thanks uncleweb, it looks awesome now =]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

rge and others should find the next paragraph very interesting. It comes from the Mobile Intel® Atom™ Processor N270 Single Core datasheet which also uses 45nm digital thermal sensors similar to, if not exactly the same as, what the E8000, E7000 and 45nm Quads use. Users striving for +/- 1°C accuracy with these sensors are dreaming.

5.3 Digital Thermal Sensor
The digital thermal sensor (DTS) accuracy is in the order of -5°C ~ +10°C around
90°C; it deteriorates to ±10°C at 50°C. The DTS temperature reading saturates at
some temperature below 50°C. Any DTS reading below 50°C should be considered to
indicate only a temperature below 50°C and not a specific temperature. External
thermal sensor with “BJT” model is required to read thermal diode temperature.

http://download.intel.com/design/pro...hts/320032.pdf

The amount of error at the calibration point is worse than expected but the ±10°C at 50°C spec is exactly the magnitude of slope error that users have been showing me and I'm seeing with my E8400. I guess I should be happy because I'm only out by about 10°C when the actual core temperature has dropped to 30°C.

It's certainly possible that the sensors used in the 45nm Dual and Quad Core chips are far better than this but I wouldn't exactly bank on that.

The reality is that Intel is probably surprised that we're getting any sort of accurate temps out of these sensors at all. I wonder why Intel didn't have the guts to share this kind of information at the IDF in August?

---

That is interesting, and finally confirms from intel what national semiconductor had posted on their site. I was assuming national semiconductors figures were at least a little exaggerated...until reading that.

National semiconductor (one of the main suppliers for DTS for intel) claims that if using the 11 bit sensor with Beta correction trutherm enabled for 45nm (~30 cents more expense per sensor, but was $1 more last year) there is less than 3C of error up to 125C. If not using the 11 bit sensor with Trutherm beta correction enabled, they quote error as 5 to 30C on 45nm, and spread between sensors (cores) can be 5C or more.
http://www.national.com/analog/tempsensors/trutherm

Intel has used some of the newer sensors on some laptops...but with national semiconductor highlighting the must have beta correction which makes them accurate, I am wondering if even the laptops are accurate.

Maybe for Nehalem, intel is springing for the additional ~30cents per sensor (especially since cost diff. is now less) for the accurate ones for desktops.

But with that confirmation by intel...and knowing sensor on E8400 is 7 bit (?LM75) and not trutherm...now we know for sure about desktops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rge

But with that confirmation by intel...and knowing sensor on E8400 is 7 bit (?LM75) and not trutherm...now we know for sure about desktops.

---

Have I correctly understood that Intel buy the DTS from NS and put it inside the cpu package? Are you sure?

I thought the DTS sensors are part of the silicon die that Intel fabs produce.

Please clarify, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loonym

So in a nutshell Intel sensors are pretty much useless except as an amusement until the temps start approaching the point of throttling? :rofl:

---

In a nutshell, I couldn't sell 45nm sensors at a flea market and keep a straight face if the person buying it was going to try and use it for accurate absolute temperatures. Psst, heh there buddy, wanna buy a sensor, cheap? :cool:

Intel has hinted more than once or twice that these sensors are good enough for thermal throttle and thermal shut down control but we shouldn't be using them to report absolute temperatures. I think the 65nm sensors had a lot tighter tolerances than that but since Intel doesn't like to talk too much about this subject, I guess we'll never know. Perhaps all of the 45nm processors sent back as RMA because of crappy sensors got the bean counters thinking that spending a few more pennies for Core i7 sensors wouldn't be such a bad idea. I think the Test Sensor button in RealTemp was able to help with that. :yepp:

Quote:

---

Thanks unclewebb, it looks awesome now

---

You're welcome. But, is it as good as RivaTuner? You better post another screen shot of your system tray so we can vote! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brama

Have I correctly understood that Intel buy the DTS from NS and put it inside the cpu package? Are you sure?

I thought the DTS sensors are part of the silicon die that Intel fabs produce.

Please clarify, thanks.

---

I would not claim to be sure about anything intel does.

According to intel slides and papers....several of the transistors on each core function as diodes and are located in potential hots spots, such as L1, DTLB, etc. The Digital sensor then scans each of these diodes on core and reports the highest on each core as core temp. The transistors functioning as diodes on cores, yes no doubt, they should be intel manufactured. The question is who makes the sensor that scans, filters, reads the diodes.

National semiconductor sells intel such sensors for 45nm according to their site, as to what intel does with them, is just an assumption....as always with intel it is reading and guesswork, then intel releasing just enough info...to make you redo everything:D

But if National's claim is even half true, that it has the only 45nm sensor with logic capable of filtering out the increased noise from the close proximity of the diodes on the 45nm and thus accurately reporting temps across the range to +/- 3C, then if intel is not outsourcing the sensor on desktops, maybe they should be:D Or maybe intel has caught up with national in sensor tech, and will implement their own accurate one in i7.

Edit found slide: