Hmm,I saw Real Temp 2.90 RC12:yepp:
Printable View
Hmm,I saw Real Temp 2.90 RC12:yepp:
Yep. Automatic deployment of RivaTuner plugin. :)
And also Core Temp 0.99.4
When I start Core Temp,Real Temp RC12 gone.:rolleyes:
Edit:
After restarting everything OK
I finally added a good looking PayPal button to RC12.
If you click the magic button 100 times and make a donation each time you could win a prize! :rofl:
uncleweb,
I have sort of a strange one for you. If I reduce the tjmax the reported temp on my cores goes down by the amount that I reduce tjmax. The distance to tjmax remains the same. With a tjmax of 100 on my E8500 with TEC cooling the temp will never go below 11c.
I am running Windows 7 and haven't yet tested this on my Vista drive. Weird
The behavior is the same in Vista 64
The basic formula is this:
Reported Temperature = TJMax - Distance to TJMax
The Distance to TJMax number is the data coming from the on chip sensors. It's pretty easy to see that any change that you make to TJMax will directly effect your Reported Temperature.
Your temp never gets reported lower than 11C because your sensors are not capable of reporting very low temperatures. They become saturated is how Intel referred to it. The simple folk around here call that getting stuck.
All of these sensors do that. You're lucky that you can get down to 11C. Most 45nm Core 2 sensors can't get that low.
I saw a screen shot yesterday of RealTemp reporting a Core i7 at -9C. The Core i7 sensors are not perfect but they're much improved compared to the previous generation.
Leave your TJMax at 100C for your CPU and accept the fact that 11C is as low as you're going to see.
good explanation, thanks.
So is TJmax 100C or 95C for 45nm C2Ds (e8500 e0 stepping in particular)? I'm getting confused now :)
We're all confused, even Intel. :shrug:
The official word is that the TJ Target for an E8500 E0 is 100C. TJMax may be equal to the TJ Target if Intel was having a good day on the production line or it might be slightly higher if your chip was built on a Friday. :)
The bottom line is that TJMax is not a fixed value like we were all hoping for and Intel confirmed that in their presentations last year if you look at their graphs. There is some variation in that number but Intel never said exactly how much variation there is. With the 45nm Core 2 chips, not only is there some TJMax variation from one E8500 to another E8500 but there can also be TJMax variation from one core to the other. This becomes very obvious when you start looking at the 45nm Quad processors. There's so much random variation in these sensors that finding 4 of them all in agreement is close to impossible.
This is the reason why Intel has never recommended using these sensors to report accurate core temperatures. My opinion is that as long as your sensors are not sticking, most of them can be calibrated / adjusted to report some reasonably accurate core temperatures.
If your sensors aren't sticking at lower temperatures then the best thing you can do is compare your reported temperatures to your room temperature with your case open.
rge did some extensive testing and found a relationship that seems pretty accurate and gives you something to shoot for when calibrating.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2429
Use TJMax=100C as your default but you might find one core that is a little higher than that. Post a CPU Cool Down Test. It can help show differences in the temperature slopes of your sensors, differences in TJMax as well as if any of your sensors are getting stuck.
Thread has gotten quiet...guess that happens when you have a kick butt utility that's working well:up:
Now that it monitors my gpu temp as well, it is great having just one very light footprint temp program for monitoring cpu/gpu loop with alarm/auto shutdown. Also great for benching on runs when i need to see temps, just uncheck the alarm shutdown and go....with the other program I had used I had to delete all alarm entries..but usually just shut it down and used realtemp for benching.
Of course I am now used to things working perfect with just Real Temp and take all this for granite:p:
Agree ... it's working fantastic for me.
Here's my latest data after the cool down test. Running an i7 920 @ 3.8 on the EVGA X58 board. Without this program, I'd have a lot less confidence experimenting with overclocking. I don't freak out because the cores read different temps, as I can check their responsiveness using the Cool Down Test. It's also a quick and easy stability check before moving to longer tests.
Just wanted to say a big :up::up::up: to unclewebb and everyone who has worked to make this a great application.
http://shazza53.smugmug.com/photos/4...05_unwbw-L.jpg
Thanks for the support. I find when this thread gets quiet that means everything must be working good. No complaints is usually a good thing.
The latest version has been polished up a little and should be ready at the main TechPowerUp site in a day or two. Stay tuned.
@unclewebb
Any suggestions on how to unstick a sensor if the sensors are faulty?
My core temps are reading significantly different values and wondered if this is similar to what others may be experiencing and hopefully found a fix. I am dying for a fix because I don't feel comfortable overclocking this system until I know what are the real temps.
My system is basically:
* Intel E8400
* Gigabyte EP35-DS3P
* OCZ PC2-9200 Reapers
* Seagate 3GB/s HDD
The cpu is water cooled with 120x240 and 120x120 rads.
I flashed to the latest bios (F6a) and found that the temperatures were pretty much out of whack.
I tried the calibration approach used for Real Temp by dropping the core speed to 1.6GHz (6x266) and core voltage to 1.10v. The temp readings were 46/20 at idle (water cooled and RT at 18C).
Reset the core speed to normal 3.0GHz (9x333) and core voltage set to “normal”. Idle temps were the same (45/20) as the core running at 1.6GHz. The load temps were 51/33 as seen in Real Temp after running Orthos.
So the bios update did not fix the temperature readings and trying to recalibrate Real Temp won’t work to try and find semi-accurate temp readings.
Are there any methods to unstick a sensor?
One other thought is that everything is working normal and one core is getting hot due to a bad contact with the heat shield. The only solution in this case would be to pull it off. Since this would be my first attempt so I would prefer to try other approaches first.
Feedback is appreciated. Thanks
Any new beta gonna be released?
@Snafu: Run the CPU cooldown test in Real Temp and post your results so we can see how your sensors respond across a range of load ;)
Snafu: There's no way to unstick a sticking sensor. The sticking point of the vast majority of sensors never changes during the lifetime of the processor.
Don't let this hold you back from trying to overclock and get some MHz out of your CPU. The majority of sensors will start to move and register more or less correctly once the temperature is greater than the sticking point. You can't do a proper calibration with a stuck sensor but you might be able to improve its accuracy at higher temperatures when they start moving.
randomizer is right. The CPU Cool Dow Test can tell me a lot of information about your CPU and its sensors. All it takes is about 10 minutes of your time. I get a little busy with programming project RealTemp sometimes so if you don't hear back from me just send me PM messages and e-mails until my in-box is overflowing!
Thanks randomizer and unclewebb. The cool down test is being run and I will post the results. I was running v2.70 but have downloaded the beta.
BTW love the program. Very runs great, nice and compact. Excellent!
Here are the results of running the cooldown test (PM on the way):
http://www.bleedinedge.com/crew/snaf...sensortest.JPG
Snafu: The good news is that neither of your sensors are sticking in the temperature range that you've done your test. Typically when there is a large difference at idle it's because one of your sensors has become stuck but that is not the case here.
The problem you have is two sensors with totally different temperature slopes. If you compare the Idle level to the 87.6% level, core 0 changes by 5.3 while core 1 changes by 10.0. Intel says that the slope of a sensor might vary by 10% so if you compare two of them you might see a 20% difference but here the combined difference is closer to 100%. That's not good and is likely the main reason why your temps look so screwy.
If core 0 had an IHS to core contact issue or if you didn't do a very good job applying the paste, then you would expect when the load went from 0% to 100% that the temperature for core 0 would really jump up but that's not the case. It moves far less than core 1 so that's why I think the problem is mostly sensor slope error related.
If you graphed these two curves on a piece of paper and extended the lines out, they would cross when the Distance to TJMax is at about 21 which is a temperature of about 79C. After this point, I'm not sure what will happen. Sometimes when there are two different curves, you'll reach a point where the two line up and then from 80 to 100 the two sensors might track each other almost exactly. I don't have enough experience with situations where one sensor is vastly different than the other to make an accurate prediction of what's going to happen higher up.
Your Core 1 sensor is the one to trust. It looks close to normal while Core 0 is definitely screwed up. rge did some thorough testing and came up with these guide lines:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2429
For water cooling, RealTemp should report idle temperatures about 6C above your water temperature when you are running at 6x333 and 1.10 volts.
It looks like you are going to need a calibration factor of about +2.0 on core 1 to get it reporting correctly. For core 0, you are going to need a huge amount of negative calibration to get it to report some sensible numbers. You will need a difference of about 20 between the two so if core 1 is set to +2.0 then I would use something like -18.0 on core 0. Once core 1 is calibrated to a fixed temperature number then adjust core 0 so the two are balanced.
I think there is just barely enough adjustment room in RealTemp to take care of this problem. Now you can run some Prime 95 Small FFTs and see how they compare at full load. They should be a lot closer together from idle to full load which is how normal sensors respond on a 45nm Core 2 chip.
You could also bolt on a crappy air cooler and run some Prime Small FFTs with your fan turned off and take your CPU beyond 80C and see what happens to these sensors but in my opinion, that's kind of pointless. That would help answer the question whether TJMax is balanced on these cores at some point near TJMax but since you're water cooled, you're never going to be hitting these kind of temps with even a well overclocked and over volted Dual Core so there's not much point of that test.
Time to start overclocking that puppy. Another cool down test at about 4 GHz might tell me some more about what these sensors are doing higher up. When overclocking an E8400, 4GHz is always a nice place to start. :yepp:
Thanks Unclewebb. I'll give it a go and calibrate to core 1 with 25C idle temp being realistic with water cooling and RT @ 18C (36C load isn't too bad at stock speed under water).
Any chance Real Temp version 3.0 will include a slop adjustment? I am sure this would require far more testing per core to see what happens as temps get closer to TJmax.
One question, with the temps for core 0 being inaccurate, I am wondering whether the cpu is relying on this temp for throttling or whether there is another temp/sensor that it relies upon. I raise the point because even with recalibrating the sensor for core 0 to a more normal result, would the cpu throttle if the sensor read a high temp (albeit inaccurate)?
Will be calibrating and pushing the core. We'll see what happens.
Thanks again!
Thermal throttling is only based on what these two sensors are saying which probably doesn't give you a very good feeling right now.
Intel calibrates these sensors to be reasonably accurate for this purpose which is why two sensors operating on two different curves tend to line up somewhere around TJMax give or take a few degrees. I drew your temperature lines further and figured out that if the two stay on the same slope, then core 1 will reach the throttling point first so you shouldn't have to worry that core 0 is going to hold you back.
Temperature slope adjustment has been included in RealTemp since day 1. That's what entering in calibration factors does. It changes the slopes of these curves so they can better line up with each other. Your processor provides a good example of why this is sometimes needed. I think you're going to be surprised how normal your temps look after some calibration.
Will they be perfect? Probably not but they'll be a step in the right direction. With some more data at higher temperatures I might be able to fine tune your calibration a little further. Core 1 looks like a very good sensor with a wide range of motion. After checking your calibration again at the low MHz / low voltage point and following rge's guide lines, you won't have to worry about trusting this sensor. It will be very accurate from idle to TJMax.
On a 45nm Core 2 processor, you can run Prime95 on one core and nothing on the other and the idle core is still going to heat up to within a degree or two of the core that's doing all the work. The cores and sensors are so close together that the heat transfers to the other core very quickly even when one of them is idle. That's why as long as you have one core you can trust, you don't have to worry about the other one but after calibration, core 0 should track core 1 pretty closely.
Good to know and I am glad that core 0 will likely not hold me back.
Once you enter a calibration factor would you adjust TJmax? I am noticing that with a calibration factor the sum of CPU temp and Distance to TJmax is no longer 95 (using beta v2.90). It appears to be out by the same value as the calibration factor.
By example (if needed), if a calibration factor of +2.0 is used then the sum is 97.
BTW the max values for calibration are +9.9 and -19.9.