Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

[unclewebb]

Great work rge. You're the current XS Bench WR holder for the water cooled category!



The competition better post their numbers before 2.90 gets finalized.

[rge]

Great work rge. You're the current XS Bench WR holder for the water cooled category!



The competition better post their numbers before 2.90 gets finalized.

Sweet

[unclewebb]

Sweet

If you've got a Core 2 you better bring your LN to the party to run a 7.915 second XS Bench.

Another obscure RealTemp bug was squashed today. Alberto was having a hell of a time getting RealTemp running on his computer. It would try to start up but then he would have to re-boot his Q6600 Vista 32 computer. I spent a few hours digging through the code but I couldn't find anything that would cause this. It turned out that Outpost Firewall was going above and beyond the call of duty keeping his PC safe. It must not have liked the open source, WinRing0 driver that RealTemp depends on.

I can understand when nanny software blocks a program but it's a little excessive when things start locking up and you can't get Task Manager or anything else running to see what's really going on. A big for nanny software.

[burebista]

It turned out that Outpost Firewall was going above and beyond the call of duty keeping his PC safe.

Just 2 words: Comodo Firewall. No problems whatsoever on XP 32 SP1-2-3 and now on Vista64 SP1 (yeah, long time Comodo user here).
/OT

[randomizer]

+1 for Windows Firewall! It doesn't block anything!

[emoners]

+1 for Windows Firewall! It doesn't block anything!

[rge]

I gave up on firewall with hips/nannyware years ago. I would rather have malware on my computer, less buggy and easier to get rid of. Router for inbound, and firefox with noscript is all I need... cant get infected if u dont let it run in first place. Have AV, dont know why, hasnt made a peep in all the years been using noscript.

[g0dM@n]

I've been out of the loop for a while, but I finally got myself back together and built all of my parts that have been accumulated from impulse buys the past 6 months.

I forgot I was using RealTemp before I dropped off the face of the planet, so I downloaded Core Temp 0.99.3. I noticed my temp was in the high 30s, and was dumbfounded as I'm running watercooling on my +0.05vcore stock clocked e8400 with a d-tek fuzion.

I found the latest realtemp (v2.7) and I seem to be at 32/28 right now idle.

Now that's more like it. THANKS!!

[unclewebb]

There have been a LOT of upgrades to RealTemp since version 2.70.

The latest beta is always available here:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

The new CPU Cool Down Test looks perfect for you. Post your results. You probably have a stuck sensor.
You probably won't be too happy. RealTemp uses TJMax=100C now just like Core Temp does so your temps just went up 5C.

[PCTwin]

First test @3.4 Multi x8 mem @ 1022. Used XSbench to save time.

[PCTwin]

Second test @ 3.4 Multi x10. mem @1020. The results look pretty close. I would expect the 10 Multi to be a bit slower due to the lower fsb. With 3.4 x8 when I tried to set the bus speed to 425 for an even 3.4 it defaulted to 426 and 3.408. A slight difference.

[unclewebb]

PCTwin: Thanks for taking the time to test that. I'll go back to the old way of doing things so the multiplier on your QX is displayed properly at full load. At idle, when you have EIST enabled, it might not show the same number as CPU-Z but at full load it should be the same. The Core i7 based code I was using works for most Core 2 CPUs but obviously not for the QX series. Your board is like my board that as soon as you enter in a multiplier manually, EIST gets enabled whether you like it or not.

[PCTwin]

Thank you, Unclewebb, for such a great program. The latest version is looking good for me so far. Will play with my settings again later.

[unclewebb]

PCTwin: Thanks for bringing that problem to my attention. There were some advantages to the Core i7 averaging method that I was trying to use for Core 2 but if it's not 100% compatible with Core 2 QX processors then it had to go. I'm to see it's working for you with an 8X multi.

[Demo]

@uncle

Is a distanc to TjMax ~19 still safe for a G0 Q6600, thats 80c with 100c-105c TjMax (80,80,76,76) this is at 3.2Ghz with 1.355v bios to make it stable with LinX(Linpak64) under prime i dont go over 70c though.

[burebista]

In real life you'll never see Linpack temperatures. Anyway 20 distance to TJMax I'd say that it's perfect safe (as long as your CPU is stable).

[rge]

In real life you'll never see Linpack temperatures. Anyway 20 distance to TJMax I'd say that it's perfect safe (as long as your CPU is stable).

QFT.....Only temps that matter to me would be running realtemp for several days of normal use, and checking max temps. If you fold at home, might equate to prime blend temps, but would never worry about linpack temps, even though I like it for testing.

[Demo]

thanks

[unclewebb]

Demo: I think any temperature is safe as long as you're not thermal throttling and your computer is stable. Intel CPUs seem to run reliably at very high temperatures. The whole purpose of going to multiple on chip digital thermal sensors was so Intel could accurately monitor the hottest point on the core which allows users to run their chips hotter without thermal throttling kicking in.

When you read the documentation, Intel is proud of this fact. They're proud that they were able to boost TJMax by 10C from the original B2/B3 generation to the second gen G0 series like your Q6600. If doing this led to a lot of processors going ka-boom and the RMA numbers went way up then they would have lowered TJMax.

The Core i7 runs hot as hell when they are pushed hard but Intel left TJMax at 100C. I've seen lots of screen shots of people running them reliably at a core temperature of 80C to 90C and I haven't heard of a single report of a damaged CPU because of this. Intel doesn't seem to worry too much about high core temperatures so as long as I'm running stable, I don't worry either.

[Kashelz]

So what is the real TJMax on Q6600 G0 CPU? As far I have seen 95, 100, maybe other, how can I tell what is for my CPU? RT 2.70 shows 95, newer 2.90 beta 100 degrees C!

Want to set actual + calibrate it on box cooler and low speed/volt and then safely monitor temperatures when overclocking past 3.8 Ghz

[bowman]

Demo: I think any temperature is safe as long as you're not thermal throttling and your computer is stable. Intel CPUs seem to run reliably at very high temperatures. The whole purpose of going to multiple on chip digital thermal sensors was so Intel could accurately monitor the hottest point on the core which allows users to run their chips hotter without thermal throttling kicking in.

When you read the documentation, Intel is proud of this fact. They're proud that they were able to boost TJMax by 10C from the original B2/B3 generation to the second gen G0 series like your Q6600. If doing this led to a lot of processors going ka-boom and the RMA numbers went way up then they would have lowered TJMax.

The Core i7 runs hot as hell when they are pushed hard but Intel left TJMax at 100C. I've seen lots of screen shots of people running them reliably at a core temperature of 80C to 90C and I haven't heard of a single report of a damaged CPU because of this. Intel doesn't seem to worry too much about high core temperatures so as long as I'm running stable, I don't worry either.

Given that graphics cards manage to run regularly at near 100C with the stock cooler, with TSMC processes and NVIDIA bumps.. I have faith my Nehalem can take the sauna.

[unclewebb]

Kashelz: My best guess for TJMax is 100C for the Q6600. rge showed me that my testing with my IR thermometer might provide an accurate surface temperature of the IHS but the actual core temperature is likely about 5C higher. The IHS does a great job of quickly transferring heat away from the cores so my original guess at TJMax was too conservative. That's why TJMax got bumped up from 95C to 100C between version 2.70 and version 2.90.

Even 100C is only an estimate. At the factory, setting TJMax does not seem to be an exact science. How much it varies from one CPU of the same model to the next is anyone's guess. With a Q6600, Intel might be using a higher TJMax for core2/core3 compared to core0/core1. It doesn't seem to be an accident or a coincidence since a very high percentage of Quads follow the same trend.

Use rge's guidelines and I think you'll be pretty close to an accurate temperature.

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

If you do a CPU Cool Down Test you might see the split TJMax that I've noticed. Post a screen shot of that test and I'll give you a second opinion of what your sensors are telling you.

bowman: I think AMD/ATI's release of the 4850/4870 series has made users a little less nervous about sky high silicon temperatures. With graphics cards or CPUs it all comes down to stability. If your GPU is at 90C and every game you play looks like it's snowing or is full of artifacts then that is too hot. If your game looks good and runs stable then you're probably not hurting your GPU too much.

[ptelles]

So is a fair guess for Tj Max +10°C above Target Tj?

[bowman]

Got a bug for you.. Probably easy to fix, but hey, what do I know. My only programming experience is putting blocks together in Lego Mindstorms when I was, what, 9? Due to the Hyper-Threading, RealTemp displays two temperatures for a single-core Intel Atom. They're both, obviously, the same temperature. Also, the sensor test seems to be cosmetically broken as well. (http://www.isarapix.org/pix61/1230858748.png) Temperatures look alright but for some reason the load % is 0.0 all the way down.

In the mean time, stand in awe at the immense computing power;



You ain't got nothing on this! (on the other hand, if the E8400 was the same frequency and this bench scales properly.. it'd score 533. Maybe not so far off?!)

[Kashelz]

Kashelz: My best guess for TJMax is 100C for the Q6600. rge showed me that my testing with my IR thermometer might provide an accurate surface temperature of the IHS but the actual core temperature is likely about 5C higher. The IHS does a great job of quickly transferring heat away from the cores so my original guess at TJMax was too conservative. That's why TJMax got bumped up from 95C to 100C between version 2.70 and version 2.90.

Even 100C is only an estimate. At the factory, setting TJMax does not seem to be an exact science. How much it varies from one CPU of the same model to the next is anyone's guess. With a Q6600, Intel might be using a higher TJMax for core2/core3 compared to core0/core1. It doesn't seem to be an accident or a coincidence since a very high percentage of Quads follow the same trend.

Use rge's guidelines and I think you'll be pretty close to an accurate temperature.

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

If you do a CPU Cool Down Test you might see the split TJMax that I've noticed. Post a screen shot of that test and I'll give you a second opinion of what your sensors are telling you.

Thanks for reply. I have done sensor test, will add screenshot later. Im useing intel box cooler fow Q6600 at the moment, because all computer is lied on small box and box un lied all over the table. Just do testings for new motherboard and voltage output from it.

The test showed that all cores looked fine, no stuck sensor, distance to TJ Max was 23/22/23/23 under full load with Prime95 and 8k ffts. Now testing Core Damage, pretty hot, 15/13/14/15 to TJ Max after 30mins of testing. The ambient temp is ~ 26 C!

Im interested to test each core when it gets into Thermal mode at what distance to TJ Max and if its 0 then I can calibrate manual seting of TJ Max, right? And as I understand temp are more accuret after they are hotter 60C and when are more to Tj Max they are even more acurate? I mean fault of reading sensor on the core.