Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

Unclewebb, would have loved to have that ability to use realtemp to read that reg on P4 prior to its current state...I had bright idea in my drilling phase to guess at a non critical place to drill deep into the core to compare to surface of core, funny thing it still works computer sounds like its booting windows...but no video...but also carelessly broke 3 pins on edge from not protecting them while drilling...may try something metal to replace pins as may not be the hole but pins causing lack of video...if I get it fixed I will let you know.

rge, how many CPUs do you have lying around to drill? :eek:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2394
pic of 3 drilled, my E8400 makes 4th (post 2438), my E7200 would be 5th but fried it running it delided trying to measure temps that way, which I learned is impossible...the IHS is an incredibly effective heatsink and heatspreader...last recorded temp on my E7200 was 138C (thermal monitor disabled) still dont know if it shorted or fried from heat... but my E8600 I just got is not getting touched, except having fun seeing what it can do:D Besides at this point I am confident I would not learn anything else, just see same gradient, so I have already satisfied my curiosity...so no more drilling...probably.

And people are afraid to run prime95 when they hit 60C... WITH a heatsink. :rofl:

rge: When you get bored playing with your new E8600 maybe I'll send you my Pentium E2160 for a drill job and some testing. It only has 1MB of cache and compared to the E8400 with 6MB, the E2160 heats up very slowly without a heatsink on it. Nice HTPC type chip. I sometimes prod it with some Prime action to get the temps up there but even with no heatsink or fan, the temps drop quickly when you stop Prime. That IHS lid is definitely working. It might provide us with another calibration point for chips with smaller amounts of cache.

I'll probably drill one of those cheap, Intel OEM, all aluminum, low profile heatsinks first and see if I can get any usable data from it with the IR thermometer. I also have a consumer grade probe to shove in the middle of it but I don't know what quality of data I'll get from that.

anytime...but if trying it there...I could not get temps through a drilled hole in a heatsink with IR, despite laser spot being small, but because the IHS is such a good heatspreader, placing any heatsink on 1/3 of the cpu IHS with paste and leaving the other 2/3 uncovered for IR, I could get accurate die temps (-5C gradient), even without drilling into a heatsink (after comparing that to drilled die temps). Doing it that way near 1.1 vcore, I am confident adding 5C (2-3C IHS and 2-3C across die mold from sensors) will get you accurate die temps the same as measuring top of die and adding 2-3C. At 1.4-1.5 vcore and idle like on the pentium or E8400 at that voltage you get a 4-5C gradient across IHS and 4-5C across die mold, anything in between can be extrapolated. Of course the one fallacy will be if as you say E2180 puts out a lot less heat, but I bet it is going to be similar, given the idle temp similarities in my pentium 4 and E8400, despite their differences in specs both simply scaled the same with voltage.

Or if tape half cpu for IR and put a pea size ball of thermal paste just next edge tape in center to completely envelop tip of thermocouple as pressed up against IHS and using different idle voltages to regulate temp, you can "calibrate" thermocouple ie if always reads 5-7C below IR temps (unless inserting thermocouple inside IHS) but need to "calibrate" at middle range and high range to make sure same error. But using that method, need to keep the thermocouple from moving to much as spinning it around can change calibration 1-2C.

Just to clear things up, I've heard from a reliable source that TJ Target and Tj Max are the exact same thing and that Intel wasn't trying to add more confusion to this subject.

I wrote back and tried to explain the problem I have with that:

"If I use TjMax=70C for my B2 I end up with idle temperatures during my calibration test that are reported approximately 17C below my room temperature and based on rge's recent testing that has to be a good 23C below the actual core temperature. There is a couple of degrees of slope error in the 65nm CPUs but certainly not that much.

There's the dilemma I have. If I follow Intel's recent guidelines for 65nm, I am going to end up with a lot of unhappy users and my program will likely become the laughing stock. Intel's version of things just doesn't seem to fit with the testing that rge and I have done on B2 and G0 Dual and Quad Core processors."

Based on that, I don't intend to change the TjMax that RealTemp is presently using for the 65nm processors. If an individual user thinks that the Intel recommended TjMax is correct for his CPU then by all means go ahead and use it. All I can say is that there seems to be a lot of 65nm processors out there that don't fit Intel's recent TjMax news release.


rge: I can't wait to fire up the drill and get back to testing but at the moment I'm trying to concentrate on the programming side. Initial testing of the new Core i7 looks good. They seem to have really tightened up the specs for their sensors.

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/5599/tightpm3.png

45nm Intel Core 2 Duo owners can only dream about their temperatures looking that consistent both at idle and under load. This Core i7 Extreme 965 (ES) model is using TjMax = 100C. I'll improve processor recognition when I see some official Intel documentation.

The only sad part is they're going to put RealTemp out of business. Any software should be able to get some reasonably accurate core temperatures out of Core i7 without having to guess at TjMax or needing a calibration or correction factors or anything else. RealTemp 2.82 is reading the default TjMax info from within the CPU. As soon as I get confirmation that it is working properly, I will release the latest beta here.

Hmmm, upon further review, maybe there's still room for a little slope or TJ Target correction with Core i7.
Some sensor isn't being 100% honest. :)

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/8429/slopeez4.png

I wonder if it is a disconnect between intel person doing the explaining and the ones that actually know, or if they are simply leaving something out, like what tj refers to cpu diode or DTS, whether there are 15-20C offsets on 65nm and not on 45nm.

In addition to the idling subzero issue (low end ridiculous), I would send the intel person (if that is source) two pics (high end ridiculous as well). One, fluke IR demonstrating E8400 IHS temp is 5C lower than die temp using intels 45nm 100tjmax, which is very plausible. Second pic exact same fluke IR, exact same method, demonstrating an IHS defying the laws of physics being 15C hotter than the die using intels wacky 65nm tjmax....and as nicely as possible imply you will stop laughing when they can explain that. You can argue absolute error on IR (though couple C not like that), relative error you cant with a straight face.

Of note coretemp author isnt changing tj based on 65nm either.

Edit: let us know what they respond with...cant imagine

Is RealTemp 2.79.8 the latest version? I searched back like 10 pages and couldn't find anything newer, thank you in advance.

Hi Captn Sponge Bob. Long time no see around here. RealTemp 2.79.8 is still the last official beta. I've been taking it easy lately while the TjMax / TJ Target debate gets sorted out. I've added proper reading of TjMax from the new Core i7 processors recently but not much else. I might quickly add in throttling control to help users check for sticking sensors. I have a few ideas for some new features. I just need to find the time to implement them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Hi Captn Sponge Bob. Long time no see around here. RealTemp 2.79.8 is still the last official beta. I've been taking it easy lately while the TjMax / TJ Target debate gets sorted out. I've added proper reading of TjMax from the new Core i7 processors recently but not much else. I might quickly add in throttling control to help users check for sticking sensors. I have a few ideas for some new features. I just need to find the time to implement them.

---

Does this CPU have the issue with the stuck temp sensors? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115041


When are the Core i7's do out ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captn

When are the Core i7's do out ?

---

I have read dates between Nov 3rd and Nov 16th.

So somewhere between soon and very soon... :yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captn

Does this CPU have the issue with the stuck temp sensors?

---

All 45nm CPUs like the Quad you're looking at have sensors that might stick and not report accurate temperatures below 50C. That's just the nature of the sensors that Intel used since they were designed for thermal throttle and shut down control and not for accurate core temperature reporting.

The good news is that the Core i7 will be out later this month. I've heard two weeks from today, November 15th, but that's just a rumor. Their temperature sensors seem much better during early testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Demo: If you click on the Settings - Defaults button in RealTemp, it should be using TjMax=100ºC for your Q6600 now. The rumor is that Intel plans to officially release TjMax for the 65nm processors this month.

---

Thank you, Any update on the rumors?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

All 45nm CPUs like the Quad you're looking at have sensors that might stick and not report accurate temperatures below 50C. That's just the nature of the sensors that Intel used since they were designed for thermal throttle and shut down control and not for accurate core temperature reporting.

The good news is that the Core i7 will be out later this month. I've heard two weeks from today, November 15th, but that's just a rumor. Their temperature sensors seem much better during early testing.

---

Awsome thanks, guess i'll wait a few weeks to upgrade then...lol. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demo

Thank you, Any update on the rumors?

---

If you're talking about the release of TjMax for 65nm then yes, Intel did release lots of new information.

jaredpace did an excellent job of summarizing it. I think he might of borrowed these nice charts from Tom's. :)

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2400

The only problem now is that the TjMax numbers for some / many 65nm processors don't seem to agree with IR thermometer testing that rge and I have done.

A good example is my E6400 B2. When DTS=0, the surface temperature of the IHS is 85C and given that there is approximately a 5C gradient between the IHS temperature and the core temperature, that implies that the core temperature is 90C. Intel says that a B2 E6x00 Dual Core processor has a TjMax=70C. Sorry but I don't believe that. rge has ended up with similar inconsistencies when he has looked at the results from his E6850 G0 which Intel claims has a TjMax=80C. Once again, that number is in total disagreement with what an IR thermometer says.

So far I haven't changed any TjMax values that RealTemp is using. I'm hoping that Intel will come up with some sort of explanation for this but at the moment I can't think of anything. I think my Fluke IR thermometer is rated as +/- 1C at that temperature so there isn't much room to argue. TjMax=70C would also result in my idle temperatures being reported 17C below the room temperature which is about 23C below the actual core temperature. TjMax=70C doesn't make sense at either end of the temperature curve.

As a user, I'd keep using the present beta of RealTemp and calibrate the low end / idle temperature based on rge's recent findings:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2429

What is the Xeon XE and XEE? I've never seen them mentioned before, but they were on the slides. Xtreme Edition and Xtremely Elegant Edition?

More like, Xtremely Expensive Edition!

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

It's been a long time since the last beta. I guess I finally got tired of waiting for Intel to clear up the TjMax confusion. :)

Not too much new. This version should properly recognize and report the new Core i7 processors and properly read the TjMax information that is within them.

A new feature has been squeezed into the Settings window called Clock Modulation. It allows easy access to this feature that is built into Intel Core based CPUs. I haven't tested it on Core i7 yet but I think it will probably work on those too.

It allows you to run your CPU at a reduced power state from 12.5% to 87.5% of your normal CPU power.

Possible uses?

How about faking a screen shot for your buddies? CPU-z etc. will report your CPU running at top speed but internally your CPU will only be running at a fraction of that speed which will keep the temps nice and low. A perfect way to con your buddies into thinking that you have an uber cooling solution cause you're running Linpack at some crazy MHz setting but your temps are well in control. :D

A more practical use might be in testing an overclock. If you are running a nice overclock but always seem to get an error when running Prime then you could set the Clock Modulation to 75.0% which will allow your CPU to run a little cooler. It might help you isolate whether your instability is heat related or not.

The primary use I've found for this new feature is that it can do a better job of detecting sticking sensors.

My test method is to run a program like Prime95 with the small FFTs option. This will create a very consistent load and temperature for your CPU. When the temperature has stabilized at full load, turn on the Clock Modulation feature and set it to 87.5%. Your temperatures should immediately drop a couple of degrees on each core. Wait a minute and then go down another step to 75%, etc. and keep decreasing this until you are at 12.5% and then for the last step, stop Prime95. I've found that after you stop Prime95 that you can decrease power consumption and your CPU temperature by turning off the clock modulation feature.

If your sensors are working properly you should end up with constantly decreasing temperatures on each core. A SpeedFan graph will look something like this:

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6708/clockmodfp6.png

If half or three quarters of the way through this test you notice that your temperatures stop decreasing then that is a pretty good sign that your sensor is sticking at that level. Instead of having a stair case, the temperature graph will have one very long flat section. In SpeedFan I waited about 90 seconds at each stage to draw this graph. I believe that no temperature decrease during any stage of this test is a warning sign of a sticking sensor.

I don't have any CPUs handy with known sticking sensors so I hope someone will try this test and post what it looks like. If this test is useful then I will try to automate the procedure as much as possible so you'll be able to click one button and walk away for 10 minutes or so and come back and see the results. I'll average the temperature at each level and try to include a small graph to make the results easy to see.

If you want to see what effect Clock Modulation has on the performance of your computer then set it to 50% and run a not so quick XS Bench or try to run Super PI. It will be like someone tied an anchor to your back bumper.

Happy testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

If you want to see what effect Clock Modulation has on the performance of your computer then set it to 50% and run a not so quick XS Bench or try to run Super PI. It will be like someone tied an anchor to your back bumper.

---

Yeah, went from 16 sec to 37 sec in SPi. :D
I'm glad you're back on RT but you know what I'm waiting for...
Thanks man for your work. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

If you want to see what effect Clock Modulation has on the performance of your computer then set it to 50% and run a not so quick XS Bench or try to run Super PI. It will be like someone tied an anchor to your back bumper.

Happy testing.

---

I ran the XS Bench when I produced that graph a page or two back using your MSR tool. I don't know much about it, is it single-threaded? It doesn't seem to be badly affected by running one core at 100% and one at 12.5%, it takes only a few seconds longer. Running both at 12.5% takes several minutes though.

EDIT: The link goes to the old version 2.79.8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randomizer

EDIT: The link goes to the old version 2.79.8.

---

The link is fine, try to empty your browser cache.

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/5116/rt283dp6.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclewebb

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

It's been a long time since the last beta. I guess I finally got tired of waiting for Intel to clear up the TjMax confusion. :)

Not too much new. This version should properly recognize and report the new Core i7 processors and properly read the TjMax information that is within them.

A new feature has been squeezed into the Settings window called Clock Modulation. It allows easy access to this feature that is built into Intel Core based CPUs. I haven't tested it on Core i7 yet but I think it will probably work on those too.

---

just tested on i7-965 and working perfectly.:up:
many thanks for your hard work here.:clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burebista

The link is fine, try to empty your browser cache.

---

Done but still getting the old file. How is that possible? :confused:

I'm even downloading it on a newly installed OS, so my cache wouldn't have even had it in the first place. Unless it's my ISPs transparent proxy caching the file.

EDIT: Got the right file with IE7, so for some strange reason FF3 was getting the old one.

Firefox and the fileden site I use like to fight it out sometimes.
If Firefox keeps giving you an old version of RealTemp then click on:

Tools -> Options in the Firefox menu and Clear your cache:

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/8056/optionsmd7.png

randomizer: The XS Bench is only single threaded. It's just a quick bench to make sure your computer is running more or less properly. It is small and fits in the on CPU cache so it isn't effected by your memory timings or anything else for that matter. It's very proportional to your CPU MHz and that's about it. It's strongest point is that XS Bench is very consistent and can detect even tiny changes in performance. A FSB change of 1 MHz should be easy to see in XS Bench.

Thanks Movieman for testing RealTemp on Core i7.
Intel hasn't quite got around to sending me a new Core i7 board and CPU to do some development work with. :(

No need for anyone to post a screen shot and risk getting in trouble but are the Core i7 reported temperatures much closer together and more consistent from idle to full load than the previous 45nm generation? They seem to be.