Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

[vodka3dg]

just a suggestion unclewebb, no criticism here:
is it possible to use GPU-z for getting gpu data instead of RT?
for further releases i mean.
the fact that Riva Tuner has to be installed and is also a resource hog triggered this thought..
if you like, you could count in the fact that i run ati tray tools as well :p
on the other hand GPU-z is lightweight and does not include Tray info (a shame rly, cause that's another very neat app).

my 2 cents...
now testing 3.30 RC11 (works fine on my ol' Q6600!)
love the C1E feature.. awesome!


btw... thanks a lot, rly!

[randomizer]

Vista/Win 7 have different thread handling to XP so that's possibly a cause. What programming language did you use for Real Temp, out of interest?

[unclewebb]

I've tried a few different versions of Visual C++ including 2008 and RealTemp didn't benefit by going to newer versions. All it did was make RealTemp twice as big or it would have forced users to install big bloated libraries so I went back to Visual C++ 6.0 from the 1990s era.

I'm almost surprised that RealTemp works at all on Windows 7 x64. I'm sure that using such an old development tool leads to the odd bug like the one in RC12 but I know if I screw around with the code for a day or two and clean chunks of it up that I should be able to get this issue solved and get things back on track.

The biggest thing holding me back at the moment is this:



I see a slow down in development approaching.

vodka3dg: If you are using RivaTuner then why not use the RealTemp plugin for that program? It's called RTCore.dll and puts the RealTemp data in RivaTuner so you don't even need to run RealTemp. You won't hurt my feelings because I wrote RTCore.dll. It will be one less program sucking up resources and you can use RivaTuner to display your CPU core temperature tray icons with this plugin.

I haven't thoroughly tested RivaTuner but I've never found it to be a resource hog. I run RivaTuner on my computer 24/7, mostly to control my GPU fan.

I like light weight apps as much as anybody. Here's a comparison of 3 programs using Process Explorer. All 3 were started at the exact same time by dragging all 3 programs into the same directory, high lighting the 3 of them and then selecting the Open menu item so they could all start simultaneously for a fair comparison. After 5 minutes, here's how it looks:



RealTemp has a lot of features but I try to keep it from sucking up too many CPU cycles.

If you want to be able to play with your C-States on a Q6600 then try this:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...07/CStates.zip

Not all C-States are supported by a Q6600.

The W1zzard that wrote GPU-Z was nice enough to give me the code that displays RealTemp's system tray temperatures so it would be easy for him to add that code to GPU-Z. Just ask him.

He might be busy though working on a new project:



It would be simple to add my RTCore.dll plugin to this program and then it could report Intel Core temps as well on the Sensors tab.
Throw in some tray icons and we could all run a few less programs on our computer.

[randomizer]

The biggest thing holding me back at the moment is this:



I see a slow down in development approaching.

Saturday doesn't look too good but the rest of the week is perfect weather!

[vodka3dg]

i think you got me wrong.. somewhere :-)
the problem is that i don't use RT.
ok, that didn't actually sound like a problem but, put it this way:
i used to be very attached to riva tuner but nowadays i had to switch to Ati Tray Tools, because of the voltage tweaking feature it comes with.
this helps my vmodded card get a rest while on idle...
that aside, the idea of using both RT and ATT together is an option, but one that i'd really wish to avoid...

so that's the main reason why i thought up this approach (Realtemp <- gpu temp data <- GPU-z).
now don't get me wrong:
i think that the RivaTuner integration you added to RealTemp is very useful, and it will come in handy if i turn back to the green side of the force

The W1zzard that wrote GPU-Z was nice enough to give me the code that displays RealTemp's system tray temperatures so it would be easy for him to add that code to GPU-Z. Just ask him.

Fair enough, that settles it then

Thnks for c-state app, i'll be bussy googleing some info on it

[lunat!c#]

I'm an happy user for quite a while now, but the only thing that annoys me at times is the memory exception I get when I reboot my system while Real Temp is running.

Is there a known application that could cause these exceptions? I know that on a fresh install (Vista x64 Ultimate SP2) and Real Temp I don't get them.

Everything else works as intended, and for that props <3

[unclewebb]

lunat!c#: I haven't heard of any issues or had any issues with memory exception errors caused by RealTemp. If a fresh install of Vista fixes everything up then it has to be something else. Is your memory and computer 100% stable? Does it pass Prime 95 blend? If your hardware is OK then about all you can do is add one program at a time to Vista to try and isolate the problem. Usually if there is a problem, something will show up in the log files with the name of the program and time, etc. that caused the problem.

[cincyrob]

i know it says real temp for INTEL. but does it work for amd or is there a version for amd???? sorry to go off topic... didnt see any other place to ask?

[unclewebb]

RealTemp only supports Intel Core CPUs. For AMD CPUs, give Core Temp a try.

[lunat!c#]

lunat!c#: I haven't heard of any issues or had any issues with memory exception errors caused by RealTemp. If a fresh install of Vista fixes everything up then it has to be something else. Is your memory and computer 100% stable? Does it pass Prime 95 blend? If your hardware is OK then about all you can do is add one program at a time to Vista to try and isolate the problem. Usually if there is a problem, something will show up in the log files with the name of the program and time, etc. that caused the problem.

It is completely stable, but it's not really a major issue, in my case. Was just curious if I was the only one.

A fresh install of Vista is scheduled in about 3 weeks, so I'll report back then.

[unclewebb]

Nick (stangowner) over on Guru 3D wrote a nice gadget for RivaTuner. When combined with the RTCore.dll RealTemp plugin for RivaTuner, you can use it to get some RealTemp data in your gadget. Here's how 1 thread of Prime95 looks.



http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread....08#post3091408

It has a lot of options to customize it so give it a try if you're a RivaTuner user.

[indiecom]

Nick (stangowner) over on Guru 3D wrote a nice gadget for RivaTuner. When combined with the RTCore.dll RealTemp plugin for RivaTuner, you can use it to get some RealTemp data in your gadget. Here's how 1 thread of Prime95 looks.



http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread....08#post3091408

It has a lot of options to customize it so give it a try if you're a RivaTuner user.

Good info man...

[OC Nub]

unclewebb, I adjusted as you suggested and tried some prime small fft's, seem to be pretty even now. Thanks
Is there a way to fix this in "Distance to TJ Max" so it reads even?

[burebista]

Is there a way to fix this in "Distance to TJ Max" so it reads even?

Nope, because those are straight on-die sensors readings.
With calibrating temps you're fooling yourself because the only thing that matter for your CPU thermal behavior is distance to TJMax.

[Barso]

Realtemp is only running at 60% load average when running IBT at maximum with 16 threads on i7920.
Why?

[rge]

Realtemp is only running at 60% load average when running IBT at maximum with 16 threads on i7920.
Why?

If you leave threads on auto, it will only load 4 threads and give 50% loads. On mine setting threads to 8 gives 100% load, as does 16...though i920 only has 8 threads, so should just set on 8. Are you using most recent versions of both realtemp 3.30 and IBT v2.3. Also not sure what you mean by avg....ibt is an intermittent loading program, so will load at 100% for time, then drop off load, then repeat.

[OC Nub]

Nope, because those are straight on-die sensors readings.
With calibrating temps you're fooling yourself because the only thing that matter for your CPU thermal behavior is distance to TJMax.

Yes but these sensors are bugged, not accurate. Therefor the Distance to TJmax is not accurate. This is the reading before adjusting the temps. If your core temperature's are off so is your distance to TJ Max. The 2 add up to 100 no matter what, if one is off they are both off.

[unclewebb]

Barso: I know older versions of RealTemp had some issues reporting the correct load when running some high stress testing programs like LinX and IBT because those guys tended to run at a higher priority which prevented RealTemp from doing its sampling. I'm not a fan of programmers that do this but I was forced to increase the priority of RealTemp to compete with these programs for some CPU cycles for RealTemp. If you are having problems with RealTemp 3.30 then post some screen shots.

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

OC Nub: I think what burebista is trying to say is that the Distance to TJMax numbers that RealTemp reports are the raw data coming from these sensors. I've decided to report that as is. Ultimately, whether this data is bugged or not and whatever TJMax really is, this data is what controls thermal throttling. For that reason, users need to see the data coming from these sensors as is. When Distance to TJMax counts down to about 2 or 3 on a Core 2 based CPU, that's typically when thermal throttling begins. Throttling is not based on the actual temperature but only on whenever these sensors count down to almost zero. With Core i7 CPUs, they seem a little tighter and throttling won't begin until they hit exactly zero.

The TJMax spec is not consistent for each core, which Intel sort of agreed with at their IDF conferences last year, so the exact temperature of when thermal throttling starts is not exact either. If TJMax is 100C for two of your cores and 105C for the other two then thermal throttling will first start to happen on your core 2 and core 3 at a hair before 100C and throttling of the other two cores won't start to happen until the actual temperature is closer to 105C.

All RealTemp does is it allows the user to convert the data from these sensors into some somewhat meaningful core temperature numbers.

[OC Nub]

Thanks, that makes sense. I normally wont stress it at anything over 75c and then only for short times. If in Prime the temps reach 75c at the end of an 8k loop, then drop back down I will let it run but if it becomes consistently 75c its time to stop, at least for me. Who knows maybe the sensors are correct, still a good chip. I will take uneven temps all day long with a good oc on low cvore.

[unclewebb]

RealTemp takes a good stab in the dark at converting random sensor data into some meaningful temperature numbers but the exact temperature isn't that important. It's all pretty simple really. Run your CPU as cool as possible and the more you'll be able to reliably overclock it.

I learned the above fact during a Prime Small FFTs run on my E8400 C0 at 4050 MHz. It was running great for over 9 hours so I disconnected the CPU fan to see what would happen.





Core Temp was using TJMax=105C instead of 100C back then so you need to subtract 5C from that temperature.
I set SpeedFan to TJMax=95C which was also wrong so you need to add 5C to the numbers in that graph for the correct temperature.

It only took about 5 minutes for a nice stable Prime run to error out. At 58C, it was 100% stable. When the core temperature got up to 77C, it crapped out.

Core i7 can run reliably when overclocked to 4+GHz at over 90C. I found with Core 2 based chips that about 70C was the upper limit with a decent overclock. The harder you push, the cooler you'll have to run them to remain stable but I think most people here already know that.

The old "disconnect the CPU fan while running Prime Small FFTs" trick is a good way to find out how much temperature head room you really have and how stable your system really is.

[genec57]

Hmmm, now if I shut off the water pump it might be an interesting race as to which would melt down first, the 4870s or the overclocked i7 . Of course I do have RealTemp set for a shutdown at 90c.

[OC Nub]

I will let you guys be the guinea pigs and take your word for it. Afraid to unplug my pump while running.

[randomizer]

Pull off your waterblock, then you'll see thermal protection in all its glory.

I find it amazing that some people post on forums "I read an OC guide and went into the BIOS and disabled C1E, EIST and thermal control like it said. Please help me OC...". Do people actually recommend disabling the only thing between you and a burnt chip in overclocking guides?

[loonym]

Has this bench changed in recent versions? It was my understanding that the bench scaled pretty much linearly with mhz but I had a hard time passing rge's score.

[donmarkoni]

Pull off your waterblock, then you'll see thermal protection in all its glory.

I find it amazing that some people post on forums "I read an OC guide and went into the BIOS and disabled C1E, EIST and thermal control like it said. Please help me OC...". Do people actually recommend disabling the only thing between you and a burnt chip in overclocking guides?

Yup! At least I think so. Someone once told me that overclocking is living on the edge (of bankruptcy)