So 100C Tjmax would be accurate for a E8200 C0 correct?
Printable View
So 100C Tjmax would be accurate for a E8200 C0 correct?
According to Intel, TjMax=100C is correct for all of the E7000, E8000, Q8000 and Q9000 series of desktop 45nm processors.
QX Extreme desktop processors are slightly less.
Alright thanks, sounds good :) I just wish Intel would release the 65nm Tjmax's
Just a small update that took me far too long to get working more or less right in both XP and Vista. I hope there's a happy user somewhere that will enjoy it. :)
I added a border so it looks better on a Vista Ultimate Desktop in Mini Mode. I also added the ability to re-size the dialog when it is in Mini-Mode so you can have a quick look in there if you like or adjust it so it shows both temps and distance to TjMax when in Mini Mode. Did the world need this? Probably not.
Double click the dialog to enter or exit Mini-Mode and drag the upper or lower edge of the window. Not as fancy but this also works in XP.
http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/9474/rt2798sm2.png
ClearType was added to the font used for the big temp numbers in XP and Vista.
Download the beta here:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
When will be avaiable "start RealTemp at window's startup"?
When you add it into your Windows startup folder yourself? :rolleyes:
This was already answered way back. Messing with the registry to add this feature is not on the to-do priority list, especially when it is easily managed by you doing the above. Just drag a shortcut there, done.
Thanks IanB. In Windows XP, dragging a short cut into the Start Up folder is definitely the easiest thing to do.
In Vista, I prefer to use the Task Scheduler so that you can assign Administrator privileges to RealTemp. This way it'll start up even if you have UAC enabled without any issues. Microsoft created the Task Scheduler for a reason so I figure I might as well use it. I'm not a big fan of any program adding things to my registry.
Looks like they are going to release 65nm tjmax next month, Oct 21st at IDF Taiwan
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=202931
Thanks rge. I better finalize the next version of RealTemp with my latest guesses for 65nm TjMax. I'm feeling lucky.
Maybe I'll get more right than last time. :D
I'm hoping this info will be of more use. The 65nm sensors seem to be of much higher quality with tighter specs. There's so much error in the 45nm sensors that having an exact TjMax isn't as useful as many users think it is. If the error in TjMax is +/- 5C at TjMax and can grow to +/- 10C at a CPU temperature of 50C then we're all still doing a lot of guessing at absolute temperatures.
Looks mighty nice on my 64 Ultimate. It's the little things that add to the awesome!
Thanks Don. I've been looking into adding a touch of Aero to RealTemp for the Vista Ultimate guys. I promise not to get too carried away if I go for it.
I found an interesting freeware program called ClearTweak that lets you sharpen up your fonts. It's simple to use and the price is right.
You certainly have been busy Unclewebb
I best see if I can have a look at your latest builds, I'm still happy with the 2.75 build.
Keep up the good work and hopefully (fingers crossed) intel release USEFUL information this time instead of marketing their upcoming Core i7
John
My original theory when I first started out was that 45nm and 65nm sensors were very similar with similar amounts of error. Intel's release of TjMax for 45nm showed me that I completely underestimated the amount of error in the 45nm sensors.
I couldn't imagine that Intel would be using a sensor that could be off by as much as +/- 10C at 50C but that is their official spec for the 45nm sensors used on the Intel Atom CPUs. Based on the data I've seen and user feedback, that amount of error seems to be what the 45nm Desktop E8000 and Q9000 sensors also have. Some sort of calibration is not an option for 45nm.
With the correct TjMax for 65nm, users should have very accurate temperatures from idle to TjMax. The 65nm sensors are far more accurate and rarely if ever suffer from saturation or sticking in the temperature range that most users operate at. The amount of slope error in these sensors is probably one quarter of the amount of error in the 45nm sensors. I think the latest beta of RealTemp is using the correct TjMax for most 65nm processors but it will be good to finally get this information from the manufacturer so all temp programs can finally agree at least to one part of the equation.
There are still a few minor things to do to RealTemp but it works OK so I haven't been too motivated lately. I've been having too much fun playing with my new Reapers! Not too bad for the old P5B. :D
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/1...rp5bkl7.th.pnghttp://img525.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif
http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/6...0250lj5.th.pnghttp://img360.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif
not to hijack or anything, on my recent laptop purchase, g50v-A2 ASUS laptop, I was playing crysis warhead and with this program it told me my temps were 65 C and 67 C on my CPU... is this hot for intel? I know its hot for AMD...and its hot in general, freaking 150 degrees F.
All I know is that it's too hot for my lap! :eek:
Core based CPUs are designed to operate very reliably at some rather extreme temperatures. If Intel thought your CPU was too hot they'd lower the thermal throttling and thermal shut down points so that your CPU would never get too hot.
On a 65nm laptop, thermal throttling doesn't start to happen until almost 100C and for 45nm mobile CPUs, it is 5C hotter than that. Thermal shutdown doesn't happen until approximately 125C. If Intel thought your CPU was going to turn into a puddle of silicon then they'd obviously lower those temperatures.
As long as your computer is stable and running below the thermal throttling point, core temps are unimportant.
they sure have raised the operating temperature of things in general lately...at least to my knowledge. that is freakin hot, lol.
But yeh, the laptop is running fine. I usually have it sitting on a desk or my large wooden cuttin board with my laptop cooler in bed, so it never really sees my lap unless i'm traveling.
I notice that the core temps for all 4 cores are all within a couple of degrees of each other.
Is that the way it should normally be? At idle? At load?
:cool:
__________________
Asus X48 Rampage Formula / Intel Q9450 / 2 x 2GB OCZ Reaper HPC PC2 8500 / VisionTek Radeon HD3870X2 OverClocked Edition /
Western Digital Raptor X Hard Drive / Two Western Digital Caviar RE2 WD5001ABYS 500GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drives /
Creative SoundBlaster X-Fi Elite Pro 7.1 / Creative Gigaworks S750 7.1 Speaker System /
Lian Li 343B cube case / PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750 Crossfire Edition
If your 45nm Quad looks nothing like the screen shot of my Q6600 that you posted then don't be surprised. There is far more error in the 45nm sensors compared to the original 65nm sensors. On a 45nm Quad, reported temperatures are typically all over the place at idle and full load. At idle you also get problems with sticking sensors so one core stuck and reading 10C or more higher than the others is also pretty typical.
These sensors weren't designed to accurately report core temperatures. Intel designed them to trigger thermal throttling and thermal shut down. There is a small amount of error where Intel calibrates them near TjMax and they can be off by 10C or more at idle even when they aren't sticking.
On a 45nm Quad when some sensors are reading too high and other ones are reading too low and some are getting stuck, you can end up with what looks more like 4 random numbers.
My calibration method involves reducing the FSB to its default which is 333 MHz for 45nm, lowering the multiplier to 6.0 and reducing the core voltage to approximately 1.10 volts. This will reduce the heat output of a CPU to a minimum. At idle, with your CPU Usage mostly at 0% or 1%, it's my opinion that the actual temperature of your 4 cores should be pretty much equal. On a CPU with properly functioning 65nm sensors this is what you typically see.
I use Prime95 small FFTs to test at full load. Intel Burn Test / LinPack will produce more heat but I've found that it is not as consistent as Prime95. When running Prime95 on a Quad, it is typical to see the first two cores at one temperature and the second two cores at a slightly different temperature. This might be a small amount of sensor error or more likely just how the IHS is making contact with the cores.
RealTemp 2.79.8 is available here:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
You can read the documentation here:
http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/docs.php
It's overdue for an update but the part about calibration should still be OK.
If you take the time to calibrate RealTemp to your 45nm Quad then at idle and at full load your reported temps should be a lot more consistent and look more like what the 65nm Quads look like. If you have one or more sticking sensors then you won't be able to calibrate those cores to accurately report idle temperatures. If you need some help calibrating then just send me a PM.
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...1/realtemp.png
Hmm... I'll need about -20C of correction on both cores or a new CPU. :rofl:
Just a quick check, 100c TJmax for a Q6600 G0 right ?
Anybody knows, what is Xeon E3110 TJmax?