Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb;
I wrote a small utility program a while ago that lets you read information directly from the model specific registers within your CPU. If Intel announces some secret info hiding in there then you might be able to use this tool to discover what it is.
[url
Interesting and thx unclewebb, So if I Read from the MSR at 0x19C and get 0x88410000 What exactly does this translate to? 2285961216 maybe?? if so then what is 85 96 12 ?? plz
Ok, Vote on =]
Fungus: At least they're readable on your monitor now. I'm kind of biased but I think RealTemp looks better! :D
It's a nice addition with a minimal amount of extra programming. I like that.
Here's the "Reading Hex Digits 101" class. The first digits 0x just show that the next 8 digits are all in hexidecimal format. Each individual digit after 0x represents 4 bits of data. 8 digits x 4 bits/digit = 32 bits of info. The numbering scheme used by Intel in their documents is that the bits are counted starting at zero on the far right up to bit 31 on the far left.Quote:
So if I Read from the MSR at 0x19C and get 0x88410000 What exactly does this translate to?
The first 8 translates to 1000 in binary.
Therefore, bit 31 is set and bits 30, 29 and 28 are all clear.Code:Bit Position
31 - 30 - 29 - 28
1 - 0 - 0 - 0
The docs say bits [22..16] is where the important temperature data is. The 4 zero digits in your example represents bits 15 to bit 0. Bits [22..16] contains 41.
Bit 23 is ignored and not needed in this example.Code:Bit Position
23 . 22 . 21 . 20 .. 19 . 18 . 17 . 16
( 0 . 1 . 0 . 0 ) ( 0 . 0 . 0 . 1 ) binary
4 1 hex
Head to Google and type in
0x41 in decimal
and the answer will be 65 in decimal.
This means that your processor is 65 positions away from TjMax. If these sensors moved linearly with changes in core temperature then you could say that you are 65 degrees away from TjMax. Unfortunately these sensors, especially the 45nm sensors, will move either faster or slower than changes in core temperature so saying that you are a distance of 65 away from TjMax is more accurate.
Chapter 13.5 THERMAL MONITORING AND PROTECTION in Volume 3A of the Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer’s Manual explains this MSR in great detail. Volume 3B explains lots of other information stored away in various other MSRs of Intel Core processors. In typical Intel fashion, some of the info is either vague or labeled as Reserved. That means you must guess or sign an NDA and give them a good reason why you need to know more of this top secret info.
I was thinking about adding a few more features to my MSR tool. Being able to enter in [22..16] and have the tool automatically read and display just that data would make life simpler. If you want to do some investigating of other MSRs then I'll think about doing an upgrade to this tool. Poking around with this tool is a good way to learn about Intel processors at a very low level.
Thanks for the 101 lol :) I'll re think this one now that I have a better insight!! THANKS
So if I'm not mistaken one can use the MSR tool to find the closest and farthest from TjMax to calibrate RealTemp with??
Wait, I missed something! It would be nice if Intel published TjMax temps for an x9100 mobile or for that matter any processor :)
more reading......
Most of the 45nm mobile chips are TjMax=105C including the X9000 CPU.
http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLAQJ
http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLAZ3
Intel doesn't yet have any TjMax data listed for the Q9100 mobile CPU here:
http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLB5G
But they do list it as TjMax=105C here:
http://ark.intel.com/cpu.aspx?groupID=37033
Now the only problem is that even with the correct TjMax, there is no easy way to calibrate a mobile processor. The amount of error in some 45nm sensors borders on the obscene so your reported temperatures may be little better than what a random number generator would display. For this reason and the fact that these sensors can bottom out and get stuck at temperatures as high as 50C, Intel doesn't recommend using these sensors to report absolute temperatures.
Cool, thanks for the great links :) So Intel doesn't even keep their web site up to date with the latest products, as I can't find my mobile x9100 (3.06 with a 1066 bus) there at all :( Meanwhile, I've set TjMax to 105 until Intel will come up with some more info... I noticed that Intel rarely quotes TjMax and referrers instead to Tcase (geometric top center) or Thermal Specification, the latter I presume is Tj (junction as in mobile processors) And here I'd been thinking there was also a sensor on each core..... So I have to ask if there is some other reliable source of temp monitoring to excite the thermal throttling mechanism that occurs at TjMax??Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
The effect of adjusting the TjMax in RealTemp lowers or as in my case raises the current temps by the same amount.. well that is obvious I guess since the temps will always be the same relative to TjMax lol :)
X9100 specs is listed in manual, page 103, tabel 20, funny the manual has it, but not spec sheet, tjmax is 105.Quote:
Originally Posted by ihjones
http://download.intel.com/design/mob...s/32012001.pdf
There are several sensors on each core in potential hot spots...DTS logic scans the sensors and "highest temp" or lowest delta to tjmax is software readable for each core via MSR. (unless using TAT which accesses via peci and takes a running 3 second average of previous temps)
I've noticed that the Intel Processor Spec Finder has the wrong CPUID listed for the newer E0 desktop processors. The E0 are CPUID 0x1067A and the older C0 are 0x10676. Intel, at times, also interchanges the words TCase and TjMax in their specs. When reading their documentation it's always a matter of doing a little bit of reading between the lines combined with some guessing and further detective work.
I saw the http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLACR site (thank you for the info), Q6600 has 71°c max thermal specification (tCase).
Is the max TJ, for Intel "specification", 76°c (71+5°c)?
Q6600 Max Tj is 100°c only for comparation with G0 brother, or we have 100% info direcly from intel?
I read it's sure only for E8xxx cpu (dualcore).
How can the mobile CPUs be more resistant than the desktop ones?
Thank you, and sorry for my eng :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
That manual is really interesting Thank You :up:
psychok9: The Intel thermal specs for desktop processors are usually TCase. The Intel specs for mobile processors are usually TjMax. The two are not the same but sometimes Intel makes a mistake and uses the TCase word when they should have used the TjMax word.
Intel has not released any TjMax information for 65nm desktop processors. I think Q6600 - G0 is TjMax=100°C based on IR thermometer testing. Measured temps are the same as an E8400 during testing and Intel stated TjMax=100°C for the E8400 so Q6600 is probably the same.
On link below, the first 6 (45nm) intel gave us specs for both Tjmax and Tcase max, so you can get an idea of the relationship. The rest (65nm) intel lists specs for Tcase max, we have IR readings, and from that can guess at Tjmax from same 5C difference between measured IR and listed tjmax on similar but known 45nm cpus. The diff between tcase and tjmax is more like 26-30C on known 45nm. But nothing on 65nm Tjmax from intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by psychok9
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2152
Tjmax Q6600 has to be 95C or greater, and is likely 100C +/- error/variability part to part, if same 5C gradient between IR and tjmax exists, that is seen on E8400.
There are a lot of potential reasons why tjmax would be 5C higher on mobile, limited space for effective cooling on mobile, lower wattage, lower voltage so maybe can withstand more heat and still make it to 3 year warranty combined with 100C making some throttle as cooling gets clogged and annoying intel with complaints, no IHS on mobile..?5C gradient across IHS....who knows...but intrinsic durability, yeah, like you say that is not likely.
Edit: Unclewebb beat me by 4 mins, and with much less wordy response:D
Hi Guys,
If my sensor test reports 2,1,6,9. What value should I use in the calibration? 0, 0, -1, -2?
Try reading the section on Calibration in the documentation for some background info:
http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/docs.php
The best way to calibrate is to drop your processor down to a fixed value like 6x266MHz for 65nm or 6x333MHz for 45nm and then drop the core voltage to about 1.10 volts. Open your case and let us know a few details like what CPU you're using, what your air temperature is or water temperature if you are water cooled. A typical Quad will report temperatures about 6C above your air or water temperature during this test. Make sure your CPU is as idle as possible and that it doesn't have any background processes running that will effect your results. This is not an exact science but should get you in the ball park.
By the looks of things, I'm going to guess that you have a 45nm Quad and core0 and core1 might be very close to the sticking point. Intel says these sensors can "bottom out" at any temperature below 50C so you have to be careful when trying to calibrate. Sticking sensors can not be properly calibrated with my approach but I have a plan B if that happens. 45nm sensors can be a little on the wild and crazy side. :confused:
I was helping someone yesterday running a dual boot system with Windows 2000 and Windows XP. His load temps were the same but his idle temps were about 10C lower in XP than in 2000. I think it's because Windows 2000 wasn't letting his Core 2 Duo go into C1 at idle so it was running hotter. Anyone else heard of this before?
Hi, thanx for that, my setup is:
Q9400 + air cooling
6x333 + 1.0v set in BIOS, other settings to "Auto".
ambient temp according to my thermometer = 18c (placed just outside the side case window)
I did four sensor tests and results below:
1) 0, 0, 2, 2
2) 0, 0, 1, 1
3) 0, 0, 1, 1
4) 0, 0, 2, 1
RealTemp reports core temperature as: 26, 31, 29-31, 29-31. The last two fluctuates between 29 - 31 degrees, the first two doesn't move from 26 and 31.
How should I calibrate it from here? Thanx :)
It looks like core0 and core1 are probably stuck. You need to have your case open and all fans as high as possible for the best accuracy during this test.
What type of CPU cooler are you using?
Intel now specifies that TjMax=100C for your Q9400. Are you using that? The latest beta of RealTemp is available here if you need to upgrade:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
Because you have two cores that seem to be sticking it would be a good idea to run an additional test so I can see how these sensors react between idle and full load. The test is to turn the logging feature in RealTemp on and to set the interval to 1 second. Let your computer sit idle for about a minute to give me some background info and then run Prime95 small FFTs for two minutes and then back to idle for a minute. Stop RealTemp after that and send me the RealTempLog.txt file so I can have a look. You can e-mail it to me at the address in the About... box of RealTemp or PM it to me at XS. Run this test at default MHz (333x8) and core voltage. This will let me see how the sensors in core0 and core1 compare to the other two.
Nothing will work with realtemp in Vista 64 and won't work on the 175 opteron AMD board either.
I've tried but there is no admisintrator account only me, in Vista. Could someone explain that part of Realtemp please.
thanks
bob
:welcome:Quote:
Originally Posted by rgrea
RT only works w/ Intel.
rgrea: RealTemp runs fine on Vista 64 on your Intel E8400 but AMD CPUs are not supported. If you are in a limited account you will need to right click on the RealTemp icon and run as Administrator to get the WinRing0 driver to load. RealTemp needs that driver to read the sensor in an OS friendly way.
Is it not possible, like other programs that I suppose use ring0 drivers (RivaTuner, cpu-z, Everest, SppedFan, etc.) to launch the program under Vista normally and after confirm that it is ok to use the program?Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
As you know, when actually you launch RTemp under Vista, you get a small windows that informs you to run the program as Administrator. So you have to right click, chose "run as Administrator" and finally the program starts.
It would be simpler to launch the program with the classic double-click, answer yes when Vista is asking you if you want to start the selected program and enjoy it, like the above programs do.
Thanks,
This happens also if you have an Administrator account under Vista.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Vista uses a kind of "Super Admin" rights to perform critical operations, like loading drivers into ring0.
I'm on Vista64 SP1, administrator account and RealTemp starts fine, minimized in tray (at last :D).
Vista don't ask me nothing. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Brama
Ummm, I hate to admit this but up until yesterday I had never run RealTemp on Vista. :)Quote:
As you know, when actually you launch RTemp under Vista
Well, maybe once, but that's the extent of RealTemp Vista development so far.
I finally have access to Vista for the first time today and I'm starting to learn about some of the issues that people have been complaining about for a long time.
You can run RealTemp with a double click from an icon on the desktop as long as you are an Administrator and UAC is disabled. I know there are users that think UAC is wonderful but as a user with a brain, I had it turned off in well under 24 hours. It would have been one hour but I had to fight with Vista for a while to get it to find my wireless router.
It's silly. When I double click on an icon the last thing I need is for my nanny to ask me if I really do want to run the program that I'm trying to open. Of course I want to run it or else I wouldn't be double clicking on it! The average user is not going to waste time reading the infinite warning messages so they'll just get in the habit of clicking OK or Yes to everything. My Vista rant for the day.
If you don't want to turn off UAC then you can add RealTemp to the Vista start up using the Task Scheduler where you can assign Administrator rights to RealTemp. This works without annoying messages or having to confirm anything. Maybe I'll add a Minimize on Close option so once RealTemp has started you won't accidentally close it.
Other programs use a signed ring0 driver to get around some of the Vista issues. I'm not smart enough and didn't want to waste my time learning how to write a driver so I'm using the WinRing0 open source driver. It works, didn't cost me a nickle and saved me lots of time. I'll probably continue to use it.
I've been working lately on some Vista64 Start Minimized issues with the infinitely patient burebista. Now that I can see RealTemp, which works OK in XP, not always Start Minimized properly in Vista, maybe I can finally fix this issue.
Now it always starts minimized, only Task Bar is stubborn. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
If you had a teenager son you would keep not only UAC on.......:DQuote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb