Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

[unclewebb]

so should i just set the tjmax for the last 2 cores to 105 instead of the default of 100 and call it a day?

Yes.

I think with that simple fix, your temps will be closer to reality. A Quad consists of two Dual Cores inside of it. The sensors on Dual Core #1 are well matched and the sensors on Dual Core #2 are also well matched to each other. Using the offset TJMax that I suggested will get all 4 in alignment and I think the end result will be reported temperatures that are closer to the truth.

These sensors are far from perfect and with the limited amount of accurate information released by Intel, this is my best guess after pointing the IR thermometer at my Q6600 more than once or twice as well as having a very close look at 101 screen shots including your own. Give it a try. Your idle and load temps look very normal considering your air temperature and overclock.

[wutsup]

Yes.

I think with that simple fix, your temps will be closer to reality. A Quad consists of two Dual Cores inside of it. The sensors on Dual Core #1 are well matched and the sensors on Dual Core #2 are also well matched to each other. Using the offset TJMax that I suggested will get all 4 in alignment and I think the end result will be reported temperatures that are closer to the truth.

These sensors are far from perfect and with the limited amount of accurate information released by Intel, this is my best guess after pointing the IR thermometer at my Q6600 more than once or twice as well as having a very close look at 101 screen shots including your own. Give it a try. Your idle and load temps look very normal considering your air temperature and overclock.

ok thanks webb i set the tj maxxes to 100,100,105,105 and my temps are alot more even now

[jcool]

unclewebb,

How about implementing readout for ALL CPus, not just CPU #0?
I have been asking about this since Dual LGA771, and am now facing the same issue on my Dual LGA1366, making me use coretemp again.
Would be really neat to have both CPUs displayed.

On another note, Coretemp doesn't recognize Gainstowns yet. It thinks I got a Core i7 940

According to Dave, Tjunction on those is 95C.

[unclewebb]

jcool: The biggest problem I have with developing RealTemp further is a complete lack of feedback. Here's an example. I developed a RivaTuner plugin for RealTemp early this year with support for the Core i7 and I have yet to come across a single screen shot here or on any forum that shows me whether this even works. A quarter of a million downloads in the last 5 months from TechPowerUp alone and not one user has contacted me about it.

Here it is if anyone wants to check it out:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip

Intel doesn't send me any hardware and I got sick of buying stuff that I didn't need so it's up to users to come forward and help me out. My rant for the day.

RealTemp reads TJMax info from the CPU based on the Intel documentation. In the screen shot above, RealTemp is using 97C for TJMax so I'm assuming it read that value from the processor.

I've been working on Gainstown support lately but with lack of feedback, I haven't got too far. I wrote a testing program to help me better understand how the cores and threads are organized. If you have 8 cores, could you run the APICID program with and without hyper threading enabled and post a screen shot of each? Thanks.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/APICID.zip

[sosna]

Unclewebb thanks for the program.

Can i ask what to set for Tj Max for my Q6600 G0? (vid is 1.2125)

[unclewebb]

sosna: RealTemp uses 100C for your processor based on testing of my own Q6600 - G0.

[The-Fox]

jcool: The biggest problem I have with developing RealTemp further is a complete lack of feedback. Here's an example. I developed a RivaTuner plugin for RealTemp early this year with support for the Core i7 and I have yet to come across a single screen shot here or on any forum that shows me whether this even works. A quarter of a million downloads in the last 5 months from TechPowerUp alone and not one user has contacted me about it.

Here it is if anyone wants to check it out:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip

Intel doesn't send me any hardware and I got sick of buying stuff that I didn't need so it's up to users to come forward and help me out. My rant for the day.

RealTemp reads TJMax info from the CPU based on the Intel documentation. In the screen shot above, RealTemp is using 97C for TJMax so I'm assuming it read that value from the processor.

I've been working on Gainstown support lately but with lack of feedback, I haven't got too far. I wrote a testing program to help me better understand how the cores and threads are organized. If you have 8 cores, could you run the APICID program with and without hyper threading enabled and post a screen shot of each? Thanks.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/APICID.zip

Here is APICID with my Core i7 D0 - HT on:


I will upload a pic of it with HT off later.

What does Process: FF system: FF/8/16/2 digits mean ?

BTW, what does the Rivatuner plugin do ?
unclewebb, I can help you test it if you want

On a side note,
I think that if you raise the attention and urge some users, they will be glad to help you.
After all your software(s) are mainly intended to serve them.
Its a two way street and it won't work if you are not getting any feedback, I agree with you.

[unclewebb]

The RivaTuner plugin can be used to graph data as well as display data on screen while gaming as well as 101 other things.



Recent additions to the plugin included laptop battery / AC power monitoring and battery level monitoring so you can use this data to create your own custom power profiles for your laptop as well as custom 3D overclock settings. It can also monitor UPS power supplies. I use RivaTuner to control the fan speed on my GPU. I hate noise pollution.

In Windows programming there are two variables, ProcessAffinityMask and SystemAffinityMask. F in hexadecimal translates to 1111 in binary. FF would translate to 11111111. That just shows me that my program or process can access all 8 of the available threads on your system. Each thread is represented by a 1. I think Gainestown will report FFFF in this box to show access to 16 threads. The operating system can be set up to block access to individual cores and threads.

The 8 and 16 after that represent cores and threads. When you query a Core i7 CPU, it returns those values. That is twice as many as it actually has but I thought it might be set to that for Gainestown support reasons. The important number is the ratio of these numbers which in this case is 2. That means you have 2 threads per core which means hyper threading is enabled.

RealTemp might have some initial Gainestown support about 5 minutes after I see a couple of screen shots of my testing program. I get more joy out of spending an hour or two writing a simple testing program compared to spending hours of reading Intel documentation looking for information that usually doesn't exist or is "Reserved." Intel is the king of top secret information. I'd rather beg the guys at XS for help than sign an NDA and beg Intel for help. More accurate results.

[The-Fox]

I know the Rivatuner monitoring thing, just didn't thought about the fact your plugin was for rivatuner lol, silly me

anyway, I loaded it up by putting it in the Rivatuner monitoring dir and adding the RT_Core.dll at the setup window.
I think I found a little buggy, on my core i7, the CPU Usage is always reported as 0%

Aside from that, everything seems to work fine, I will make some more serious validation of the values of temp, core usages, etc...
I obviously can't test Battery level, does "AC Power" suppose to be 0% on PC ? probably only relevant for a laptop right ?

[wutsup]

hey uncle webb i tried the starting and sotpping of prime 95 smallftts and you said the 1st 2 cores were suppose to throtlle down first right? for me all the cores seem the throttle down at the same tme

[jcool]

jcool: The biggest problem I have with developing RealTemp further is a complete lack of feedback. Here's an example. I developed a RivaTuner plugin for RealTemp early this year with support for the Core i7 and I have yet to come across a single screen shot here or on any forum that shows me whether this even works. A quarter of a million downloads in the last 5 months from TechPowerUp alone and not one user has contacted me about it.

Here it is if anyone wants to check it out:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip

Intel doesn't send me any hardware and I got sick of buying stuff that I didn't need so it's up to users to come forward and help me out. My rant for the day.

RealTemp reads TJMax info from the CPU based on the Intel documentation. In the screen shot above, RealTemp is using 97C for TJMax so I'm assuming it read that value from the processor.

I've been working on Gainstown support lately but with lack of feedback, I haven't got too far. I wrote a testing program to help me better understand how the cores and threads are organized. If you have 8 cores, could you run the APICID program with and without hyper threading enabled and post a screen shot of each? Thanks.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/APICID.zip

Hey buddy,

sorry to hear you are getting next to no feedback, judging by this thread I'd think you would get tons of it

Anyway, your RTcore plugin works:



However I must say I won't use it.. if I open up Rivatuner I wanna know all about my GPUs, and it takes a lot of scrolling already to get all the info on 2 GPUs. Using Realtemp or Coretemp for the CPU is just way more practical than having it all in Rivatuner.

Running this APICID on my Gainstown now, hold on...

[jcool]

Here is APICID on my Dual X5570 (2 CPU, 8 Core, 16 Thread) with HT off:



And on:



Hope this helps

[unclewebb]

sorry to hear you are getting next to no feedback, judging by this thread I'd think you would get tons of it

A 143 page novel I've got going here and here I am b-i-t-c-h-ing about not enough feedback.

Thanks jcool and thanks Movieman for coming to my rescue. Your data shows me exactly where I was going wrong before in my understanding of cores and threads for the new 16 threaded beasts. My old scraps of Pentium 4 documentation has been misleading me.

wutsup: hey uncle webb i tried the starting and sotpping of prime 95 smallftts and you said the 1st 2 cores were suppose to throtlle down first right? for me all the cores seem the throttle down at the same tme

The word LOG or HOT in the Thermal Status area of RealTemp will show you exactly when thermal throttling has started. I have never seen a Q6600 show thermal throttling on all 4 cores at the exact same time so can you post a screen shot of that. If you are using my calibration recommendation then the temperatures might all be reporting the same thing now but core 2 and core 3 won't start throttling until they are 5C hotter than core 0 and core 1.

I'm pretty sure that Intel uses a similar 5C offset between core 0 and core 3 on their Core i7 CPUs for the same reason but that's another story.

[wutsup]

A 143 page novel I've got going here and here I am b-i-t-c-h-ing about not enough feedback.

Thanks jcool and thanks Movieman for coming to my rescue. Your data shows me exactly where I was going wrong before in my understanding of cores and threads for the new 16 threaded beasts. My old scraps of Pentium 4 documentation has been misleading me.



The word LOG or HOT in the Thermal Status area of RealTemp will show you exactly when thermal throttling has started. I have never seen a Q6600 show thermal throttling on all 4 cores at the exact same time so can you post a screen shot of that. If you are using my calibration recommendation then the temperatures might all be reporting the same thing now but core 2 and core 3 won't start throttling until they are 5C hotter than core 0 and core 1.

I'm pretty sure that Intel uses a similar 5C offset between core 0 and core 3 on their Core i7 CPUs for the same reason but that's another story.

oh you mean intentionallymake the cpu overheat to the thermal limit? i just started prime 95 and then stopped it after like a minute. well ill take your word and just keep the last 2 cores at tjmax of 105

[unclewebb]

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

This is a special version to see if I understand this Gainestown stuff yet.

To get this to work, you'll need to create two separate directories with RealTemp and its various files in each directory. In the RealTemp.ini file in the first folder use this option:

Skull=1

and in the second folder use:

Skull=2

Start up RealTemp in each directory and see what it says. The theory is that it should be reading each CPU now and RealTemp should show what CPU it is reading.

If it works, post a screen shot and give me some motivation to create an 8 core version of RealTemp so you don't have to run two instances of it.

[eva2000]

jcool: The biggest problem I have with developing RealTemp further is a complete lack of feedback. Here's an example. I developed a RivaTuner plugin for RealTemp early this year with support for the Core i7 and I have yet to come across a single screen shot here or on any forum that shows me whether this even works. A quarter of a million downloads in the last 5 months from TechPowerUp alone and not one user has contacted me about it.

Here it is if anyone wants to check it out:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip

Intel doesn't send me any hardware and I got sick of buying stuff that I didn't need so it's up to users to come forward and help me out. My rant for the day.

RealTemp reads TJMax info from the CPU based on the Intel documentation. In the screen shot above, RealTemp is using 97C for TJMax so I'm assuming it read that value from the processor.

I've been working on Gainstown support lately but with lack of feedback, I haven't got too far. I wrote a testing program to help me better understand how the cores and threads are organized. If you have 8 cores, could you run the APICID program with and without hyper threading enabled and post a screen shot of each? Thanks.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/APICID.zip

Maybe incorporate a feedback menu into your applications so folks can give you direct feedback or a link to a forum or forums where you have your apps being discussed ?.

[jcool]

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

This is a special version to see if I understand this Gainestown stuff yet.

To get this to work, you'll need to create two separate directories with RealTemp and its various files in each directory. In the RealTemp.ini file in the first folder use this option:

Skull=1

and in the second folder use:

Skull=2

Start up RealTemp in each directory and see what it says. The theory is that it should be reading each CPU now and RealTemp should show what CPU it is reading.

If it works, post a screen shot and give me some motivation to create an 8 core version of RealTemp so you don't have to run two instances of it.

Hey unclewebb,

it seems to work, tho it doesn't display which CPU is which. Values are different so I think it reads both CPUs correctly.

Dual X5570 (left) and Dual X5450 (right):



Would be great to see this working with both CPUs

[unclewebb]

If you look at the heading for the temperatures it shows either Temperature 1 for CPU 1 or Temperature 2 for CPU 2.

Maybe I need to change this to Temperature CPU#1 to get one's attention. I tried that but I went with the simpler approach.

Here's how each style looks. Any preference?



Can you show me a CPU-Z screen shot of your X5570 CPUs. It doesn't look good when I call it an i7-940.
Edit: Ignore that request. I see that on the previous page. The CPU has a model number of 0000 which explains why RealTemp is confused and took a wild guess at i7-940. I'll fix that up.
It definitely seems to be reading TJMax=97C from the CPU.

RealTemp is going to need an overhaul to show all 8 cores at once. Thanks to your testing, we're one step closer to making this happen.

[jcool]

Ah lol.. "Temperature 1" and "Temperature 2" just wasn't enough of a difference for me

I definitely prefer the left one (saying "CPU#1") tho I'd call it CPU 0 and CPU 1, but that is up to you of course

About the model number, "normal" X5570 probably has a proper one but this is a really really early ES so it doesn't have one. No idea why CPU-Z is even able to identify it correctly...

[unclewebb]

I definitely prefer the left one (saying "CPU#1") tho I'd call it CPU 0 and CPU 1, but that is up to you of course.

I guess it was a bit too subtle. I'll go with CPU 0 and CPU 1.

Intel makes programmers life's difficult when it comes to identifying the model number of a CPU. The Specification box in CPU-Z shows the exact information that is stored in the chip that any software can read.

When the model number is 000 or 0000, then each programmer must write extra code or create look up tables to try and convert this to the correct model number. You have to look for clues by examining the CPUID number and the reported GHz number and take a good guess. Very silly for Intel not to include the model number in EVERY CPU they make. With their method, every time a new CPU comes out and uses this scheme, it breaks old software that has no idea what model number it is until after it has been updated.

Edit: Just a quick update to better support jcool's CPU.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

[randomizer]

Only problem with "CPU 0" is people will ask how they can have 0 CPUs. We'll have to bash them with the beginner's guide to programming.

Rule #0: Everything starts at 0.

[unclewebb]

Here's my latest work in progress for the 8 core guys.



The E8400 wasn't doing a very good job filling up all that empty space so I had to fake 6 cores to fill it in a little.

[randomizer]

Real Temp has officially gone widescreen.

[jcool]

Only problem with "CPU 0" is people will ask how they can have 0 CPUs. We'll have to bash them with the beginner's guide to programming.

Rule #0: Everything starts at 0.

I think it's safe to assume that anybody complaining about that won't have a DP machine anyways

Nice work unclewebb, feedback already sent in response via PM

[unclewebb]

Users with 800x600 screen resolutions need not apply.

If you have 8 cores that need monitoring then let me know some ideas of how you would like to see the info in a special version of RealTemp. My present thoughts include making the Temperature and Distance to TJMax data switchable so you see one or the other and same thing for Minimum / Maximum data. This would save some screen real estate and keep it from looking like my old HP calculator.