Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

[sakis_the_fraud]

Geez Uncle, who'da thunk it, 168 pages, a freakin novella, You makin a living off this yet?
I need your help. I set up real temp way back when and that file has been moved or deleted but the startup still runs. Where in win7 is this command so I can clean it up?

start
run
msconfig
startup

[SimpleTECH]

Hey Unclewebb, I take it that the sensors on these 32nm chips aren't very accurate? I noticed that my idle temperatures were showing 33°C/22°C respectively with an ambient temperature of 75°F (23.9°C).

[WoodButcher]

look in the task scheduler?

start
run
msconfig
startup

No and nope. Not there. Did the msconfig and regedit, still found nothing I recognized

whoops! http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=1833
I forgot, this box has vista home. It's been up since I built this box so I hate to reformat.
I used the advanced search and deleted every real temp file I could identify.
Every time I restart this runs. It isn't a big deal but I hate to be beaten by a machine,,,,

[donmarkoni]

Hey Unclewebb, I take it that the sensors on these 32nm chips aren't very accurate? I noticed that my idle temperatures were showing 33°C/22°C respectively with an ambient temperature of 75°F (23.9°C).

Those new chips' cores fall asleep when doing nothing and cause of that they have such low temps. Try disabling C1E and other C states and you'll see.
IMO, they seem of same accuracy as 45nm counterparts.

[tool_462]

Hey Unclewebb, I take it that the sensors on these 32nm chips aren't very accurate? I noticed that my idle temperatures were showing 33°C/22°C respectively with an ambient temperature of 75°F (23.9°C).

No chips are real accurate that far from their TjMax. As they get closer to the max, they get more accurate since thats the temp that matters

[SimpleTECH]

Those new chips' cores fall asleep when doing nothing and cause of that they have such low temps. Try disabling C1E and other C states and you'll see.
IMO, they seem of same accuracy as 45nm counterparts.

Already disabled. I was testing it with LinX with the new libraries added.

No chips are real accurate that far from their TjMax. As they get closer to the max, they get more accurate since thats the temp that matters

Makes sense. I never really pay attention to idle temperatures anyways. Just figured that there was something obviously wrong when I was getting below ambient.

[sakis_the_fraud]

No and nope. Not there. Did the msconfig and regedit, still found nothing I recognized

whoops! http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=1833
I forgot, this box has vista home. It's been up since I built this box so I hate to reformat.
I used the advanced search and deleted every real temp file I could identify.
Every time I restart this runs. It isn't a big deal but I hate to be beaten by a machine,,,,

the easiest way to remove this, is to use ccleaner.

launch the program and go to tools -> startup.

from there you can remove the auto start of realtemp

[aamar]

Hi Unclewebb, funny issue with RT and Everest. This only began to happen with my new i5/p55 hardware. I use RT to monitor GPU and CPU temps in the background and to execute the shutdown.bat if the set thresholds are reached. Well now if I start Everest 5.50, even if the temps are low/normal, it triggers off that bat file. Everest is no big deal with me and I can do without it, just temporarily using it to check out my new hardware, but thought you may want to know about this issue.

[unclewebb]

The 32nm sensors are not as accurate as the 45nm Core i7-900 series were. Many 32nm sensors report way too low at idle. This is due to slope error as Intel calls it. The further you get away from the calibration point, the more these sensors will start reading too low or too high. The 45nm Core 2 sensors have similar issues.

Even at full load, the Core i7-980X leads me to believe that Intel is not setting actual TJMax equally across all 6 cores. I'm not sure if this is done deliberately to stagger thermal throttling or else there is a lot of slop in these sensors and it's impossible to find a handful of sensors, all with the same amount of error.

I use AutoRuns to find every last place where Windows hides start up items.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/s.../bb963902.aspx

RealTemp didn't put anything in your start up area so you only have yourself to blame for that pop up screen.

CryptiK: When your multiplier is jumping around at idle, it's usually a C State setting (C1E) or you have the Control Panel -> Power Options -> minimum processor state set to less than 100%.

The Viper: TJMax can vary from one CPU to the next these days, even with the same model number. That's why Intel writes a TJ Target value into each core of each Core i CPU. No more guessing. As long as software correctly reads that then you don't have to worry. RealTemp and Core Temp are both doing that correctly. The only worry then is how close is this TJ Target number to actual TJ Max. Intel has never admitted to how much error is in this number or if actual TJMax might vary a little from one core to the next. Core 0 of the Core i7-920 seems to be very accurate.

aamar: Thanks for telling me about the RealTemp alarm / Everest 5.50 conflict. I have no idea what could be causing that but I'll definitely check it out. If you can, run a RealTemp log file and then start up Everest to see if the log file records any random high temperature data. What values do you have your CPU and GPU alarms set to?

[acebmxer]

Hey unclewebb.

I had this problem in the past with other versions of realtemp I dont know what I did to cause this or how to fix it.



Once it happens any version of realtemp will do the same. If I uncheck TM Load. It will show cpu usage.

[unclewebb]

TM Load stands for Task Manager load meter. That option uses a Windows function similar to what the Task Manager uses to calculate CPU load. The best method for Core i CPUs is to un-check this box and use the original method based on CPU C0%. TM Load is designed for Core 2 mobile CPUs that go into low power sleep states at idle.

I have no idea what you did and no idea why it doesn't work anymore. I've never seen this problem before.

Here's the latest version. It has a couple of more minor features like better system tray fonts so you might as well try it even though I doubt it will fix your problem.

RealTemp 3.59.5
http://www.mediafire.com/?vc6w5frn1gclpu9

[acebmxer]

Thx for the update. Yeah it didnt fix the problem. I think it fixed last time when I reinstalled windows. So it has to be some sort of registry thing I think. I dont know. I can just leave it unchecked as you say its for the core 2 mobiles.

[donmarkoni]

Hey, unclewebb, don't change Gulftown showing as Core i9 in RT GT, ever! I like it.
Or at least don't change it until there is actual i9 CPU.

[unclewebb]

I haven't updated the GT version of RealTemp since the original came out last October. Maybe when I get around to fixing that, I will add an option so it will continue to call your 6 core CPU a Core i9.

Intel's numbering scheme sometimes makes no sense. They have a Core i7-620M which is a 32nm dual core mobile CPU with integrated graphics, they have the 45nm Core i7-920 Quad core processor and then they decide to call the 6 core version a Core i7-980X. They can't all be Core i7 but they are.

Car companies like to do the same thing where they will bastardize a model name over the years because it was popular with consumers. In the tech world, things move at a faster pace so when Intel comes up with a model number that is popular like the original Core i7-920 was, they bastardize that name and stick it on pretty much anything if it might lead to more CPU sales.

The E6300 is another good example. This was the first Core 2 Duo and became an instant overclocking legend with overclocks approaching 100% on a good board. The original E6300 had 2MB of L2 cache and ran at 1.86 GHz then they released an E6320 with 4MB of L2 cache and then later on they went back in time and combined the E6300 model number with their other old favorite, the Pentium, and produced an Intel Pentium E6300 that runs at 2.80 GHz and has nothing to do with the original. Programmers have a hard time keeping up with this let alone consumers.

[onex]

are you saying basically that a I7 920 would read it's TJmax strait out of the die or MSR? so RT automatically detect the approximate accurate TJ for any processor it operates upon?

2. going over some portions of this thread and the other at overclock.net, it seems that the delta between the DTS and the Tcase is only 1-1.5 degrees?
so an I7 9xx with a Tcase of 67.9 should not exceed core temperatures of ~66.5?

3. have anyone used HWMonitor? it has few temperatures reading out of the IPEC chip which are showing the CPU is ~15 degrees lower then the core temps,
and so, setting up Smart Fan through the BIOS to operate at 60C< go 100% CPU fan actually makes the fan go 100% only at 75 core degrees, i.e 10-15 above the the HWMonitor CPU reading...

so with these parameters there seems to be a conflict between the DTS core reading and the Tcase or PECI or whatever is reading the CPU at 15 degrees less,
what makes one believe the actual Tj for the 9xx is actually 85C and not 100c.

any idea..?

[stasio]

TM Load stands for Task Manager load meter. That option uses a Windows function similar to what the Task Manager uses to calculate CPU load. The best method for Core i CPUs is to un-check this box and use the original method based on CPU C0%. TM Load is designed for Core 2 mobile CPUs that go into low power sleep states at idle.

I have no idea what you did and no idea why it doesn't work anymore. I've never seen this problem before.

Here's the latest version. It has a couple of more minor features like better system tray fonts so you might as well try it even though I doubt it will fix your problem.

RealTemp 3.59.5
http://www.mediafire.com/?vc6w5frn1gclpu9

Wow...,thanks Uncle,
RealTemp 3.59.5,it's 2 weeks to post here.

[unclewebb]

The value stored in each core is called the TJ Target value. According to Intel, that is the minimum value that throttling will begin so I would disagree on a TJMax=85C theory.

I think the actual TJMax on core 0 of the Core i7-920 CPUs is extremely close to 100C and the reported core temperature coming from that core is more accurate than any CPU Intel has produced. Intel took a lot of flak for the crappy 45nm sensors they used on their Core 2 CPUs so decided to spend a few more pennies on the Core i7-900 series and it shows. The newer 32nm sensors are a step backwards.

I disagree with some of the stuff on overclock.net and haven't been there for a while to read any new theories. When you are running a stress testing program like Intel Linpack, the difference between peak core temperature at the hottest spot on the core and case temperature can hit over 25C. It's definitely a lot more than 1C or 2C. The Tcase specification is designed for system builders. The theory is that if you select a computer case and choose some fans and if you design a computer so the Tcase temperature doesn't exceed 67.9C during your test, then a system builder will not have to worry about the peak core temperature hitting the thermal throttling point at 100C very often if at all during normal use. That's all Intel cares about. They design their CPUs to run reliably up to a core temperature of 100C so as long as the core temperature never triggers thermal throttling, the user will have a CPU that performs at the speed that Intel designed it to run at.

The CPU temperature reported in the bios and by all software that reports that sensor has nothing to do with actual Tcase temperature. The only way to measure the Tcase temperature according to Intel is to cut a groove in the top of the CPU heat spreader and to run a thermocouple to the geometric center. The 67.9C Tcase specification can only be compared to a temperature measured using this method.

RealTemp 3.59.5,it's 2 weeks to post here.

I must have forgot about that one.
I kind of like the new system tray font options but other than that it's mostly the same old stuff.

[onex]

I disagree with some of the stuff on overclock.net and haven't been there for a while to read any new theories. When you are running a stress testing program like Intel Linpack, the difference between peak core temperature at the hottest spot on the core and case temperature can hit over 25C. It's definitely a lot more than 1C or 2C.

yeah, had this idea too,
it's quite impossible that the actual core temperature is only a degree lower than the upper side of the IHS,
it's like sticking your hand into the fire, or placing it half a meter above,
have a look here:

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/07/...are-defective/
if different adjacent parts of the die can differ by 10 degrees or more, there's no reason the top IHS side, with half a mm thick metal between it would not be delta'ed even up to 15 degrees.

testing a naked chip with an IR thermometer at low voltage and power consumption may reduce heat delta between the IHS and the cores to what has been read as 1.5 degrees, while when the chip is hot running under fan easily reaching 80 degrees, the delta could be much higher,
it's possible that MB manufacturers take this into account and placing they're reading already 15 degrees lower than the cores, or taking a Tcase reading as this is what they face setting up cooling solutions for, it's still kind of strange though,

The Tcase specification is designed for system builders. The theory is that if you select a computer case and choose some fans and if you design a computer so the Tcase temperature doesn't exceed 67.9C during your test, then a system builder will not have to worry about the peak core temperature hitting the thermal throttling point at 100C very often if at all during normal use.

what means, is the CPU can take at least Tcase+delta to Tjunction, i.e - 67.9 + ~15 = ~83C.
E: seems you've been discussing this issue inside out and agreed the max delta between TJmax and IHS temperature is to be ~5 degrees at temperature close to TJmax,

a clarify: the 85 degrees is not a theory actually, more of a confusion with Smart Fan and Tcontrol.


yes CPU's can reach 100 degrees before throttling, so it can be taken as still under safty standards temperature, yet it doesn't mean they can take these degrees 24/7 for a long period without getting decayed faster then at ~70 or so.

They design their CPUs to run reliably up to a core temperature of 100C so as long as the core temperature never triggers thermal throttling, the user will have a CPU that performs at the speed that Intel designed it to run at.

that's interesting, so the delta taken from Tjmax to Tcase is ~25 degrees for the I7 or so with few degrees as a safety headroom,
that actually clarifies many things, the actual MB reading for Smart Fan is not that critical, it definitely isn't more accurate or crucial than the DTS reading,
only secondary,

thanks for your input .

E:
after going over page 86 and it's area, your statement of 25 degrees delta between core temp and Tcase is quite confusing,
rge has seemed to propose that the max difference between the two is somewhere in between 5-7 degrees, which seems very logical considering the short physical distance between the two,
as to add to that, these^^ sort of pictures above doesn't add any to clear up the confusion :/.

E2: according to Toms article on Core 2 DTS specs the deviation in temperature reading by the DTS can range in between -5 to +10 at 90 degrees.
which means, if the IR reading at 90 degrees go for 85 at the IHS, the actual core temperature can be actually between 85-100, i.e up to 15 degrees over Tcase temperature.

whether it was posted here or not, I7 TJmax can be read from the MSR at address 1A2h bits 16-23,
the value stands for 64h (100).

[stasio]

I must have forgot about that one.
I kind of like the new system tray font options but other than that it's mostly the same old stuff.

Accepted.
Keep your well work!

[unclewebb]

yes CPU's can reach 100 degrees before throttling, so it can be taken as still under safty standards temperature, yet it doesn't mean they can take these degrees 24/7 for a long period without getting decayed faster then at ~70 or so.

I haven't seen any test showing how long you can reliably run an Intel CPU at a core temperature of 100C for. If not overclocked, I think it's possible to run it 24/7 for a long, long time without any problems but the longest test I've ever done was running Prime95 for 3 hours with the CPU heatsink fan disconnected. My E8400 bounced continuously off the thermal throttle but other than that, it ran fine without any errors while over clocked 20% and over volted.

If you used a little more common sense than that, an Intel CPU would probably run reliably for a long time, even at a peak core temperature of 100C.

I know some people that don't look inside their computer, ever, can end up with the heatsinks full of dust and dirt and even the CPU fans can fail and users barely notice. They might throttle and run a little slow but whatever, they just keep using them. The Intel thermal shutdown temperature isn't until 125C so I think Intel CPUs have a significant amount of temperature headroom in their design and can run a long time reliably, even when running red hot.

The 5C to 7C difference between peak core temperature and Tcase temperature that rge discovered was when the CPU was idle. That can increase significantly depending on what type of software you are running. Different loads work different parts of the core harder as your thermal picture shows. Intel also makes a lot of different CPUs and the delta at full load running Prime95 or LinX/Linpack is going to vary depending on whether you are testing a 65nm dual core or a 45nm Core 2 Quad Core or a Core i7-920 that is laid out completely different. The distance from the hottest spot on the core to the temperature at the center of the CPU on top of the heatspreader is going to vary.

MSR register 0x1A2 only applies to the newer Core i based CPUs but there is no guarantee that number is the same as actual TJMax. Intel officially calls this "temperature target" and admits that actual TJMax can and does vary. They've just never clarified by how much this might vary or whether it varies from core to core like I think it does. A number with no error specification is wide open to interpretation.

They've never released any engineering type data showing the details about their calibration procedure or how much error is in that procedure or the sensors they use. The numbers released at the IDF Conference and quoted in the Tom's article are more like approximations. Intel builds a lot of different CPU types with different sensors so people shouldn't read too much into a blanket statement like that without them producing engineering test data for the different models. The Core i7-920 sensors are completely different sensors than what the 45nm Core 2 CPUs were saddled with so a statement that applies to one may not apply to the other.

[rge]

onex, the gradient from core to IHS depends on the total dissipated power, ie TDP. At idle and very low volts, TDP is only few watts, and there is a gradient of only 5-6C from core to IHS, which is the minimum gradient you will see. At undervolted, underclocked load, may only have 10-12C core to IHS gradient. However, at stock settings, for example my E8400 was 23C+ gradient from core to IHS at linpack load, measured using two calibrated thermocouples, one embedded in IHS, and one embedded in die, via hole drilled through IHS and partway into die, pics in link below.

First link shows video of 23C gradient of my E8400 at stock settings loaded with linpack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7ua2FFByfI

original post here: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2418

And her is pic of hole drilled in my cpu and into die (E8400), along with stanford paper that also measured gradient from IHS to die, also found 20-30C gradient with some loading programs.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2438

You can also look at intel published specs, for example IHS max temp of my old E8400 was 72.4C per intel, and tjmax was 100C. These numbers are actually the same limit, ie when tjmax limit is reached at full load 100C, intel says can also measure IHS at 72C, depending on intel testing conditions, intel loading program, at stock settings, stock cooler, ie can be 28C gradient from core to IHS (typically worst case scenario).

Once you start overclocking and increasing TDP, this gradient can increase, though changing cooling changes gradient as well.

[onex]

Intel officially calls this "temperature target" and admits that actual TJMax can and does vary. They've just never clarified by how much this might vary or whether it varies from core to core like I think it does.

yes, that's exactly the issue which causes all that confusion,
there isn't seem to one answer to these questions but rather explanations which are going round and round not hitting the main issue.
the DTS's are said to be upgraded at each processor release and so does they're calibration,
taking approximations made for Core 2 might not be as accurate for the Core I,
the basic issue is that indeed, there doesn't seem to be any documents that actually eliminate this problem and neither Intel seems to know the exact answer which make it rely basically on assumptions and safety offset calibrations as well.

If you used a little more common sense than that, an Intel CPU would probably run reliably for a long time, even at a peak core temperature of 100C.

people are saying that high temperature has a wider effect on electromigration,
though Intel wouldn't have released PROCHOT# at 100C if it was a severe danger to they're processors,
ofcourse Silicon doesn't melt at 100C and some people do run they're processors at above 90 degrees for folding, yet still it seems high temperature has an effect on microprocessors,
Intel may allow processors to reach 100C or in fact, even 105-125 at THERMTRIP# yet doesn't advise it for long periods,
few degrees below Tcase temperature is used to activate Smart Fan through the PECI interface, at 60 degrees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro...n-aware_design

Electromigration reliability of a wire (Black's equation)

At the end of the 1960s J. R. Black developed an empirical model to estimate the MTTF (mean time to failure) of a wire, taking electromigration into consideration:

\text{MTTF} = A (J^{-n}) e^{\frac{E_a}{k T}}

Here A is a constant based on the cross-sectional area of the interconnect, J is the current density, Ea is the activation energy (e.g. 0.7 eV for grain boundary diffusion in aluminum), k is the Boltzmann's constant, T is the temperature and n a scaling factor (usually set to 2 according to Black). It is clear that current density J and (less so) the temperature T are deciding factors in the design process that affect electromigration.

The temperature of the conductor appears in the exponent, i.e. it strongly affects the MTTF of the interconnect. For an interconnect to remain reliable in rising temperatures, the maximum tolerable current density of the conductor must necessarily decrease.

http://doc.utwente.nl/47484/1/01315418.pdf

We present a significant reduction in EM-lifetime when a
temperature gradient is present within a metal line, even when the
line has a lower average temperature. TM, the diffusion of atoms due
to a temperature gradient, cannot explain this. Ihe temperature
gradient enhances the electromigration process. The failures will
occur mainly near the local heating elements at the site of maximum
temperature gradient.

i'm not an expert and neither an engineer, but i use logic before posting and after and do take things into account.
not saying that a processor would end it's life after 2 years while running at 95C yet indeed it can take away some of it's capabilities and shorten it's life.
that's why the companies regulate temperatures and advise keeping them well below the periodical-safe maximum.

[onex]

brilliant rge,
will take a deep look over this post later.

E:
so that video says it all, and that CPU is a 65W one.

the university testing also approve these testing by a brief going over the document and the image,
seems the gradient indeed reaches up to 20+ degrees at some applications.

You can also look at intel published specs, for example IHS max temp of my old E8400 was 72.4C per intel, and tjmax was 100C.

and that clears out further the confusion as Intel reading for Tcase vs DTS temperature means while using a HS.
this pretty much sums it up,
great endeavor!

p.s - that document is really interesting!

[unclewebb]

the DTS's are said to be upgraded at each processor release and so does they're calibration,

That's not true. The Core 2 45nm sensors weren't as accurate as the previous Core 2 65nm CPUs. After all the problems with the 45nm Core 2 sensors, Intel used some of their best sensors ever on the original Core i7-900 series. The 32nm sensors they have switched to for the Core i7-980X don't seem to be as accurate.

[onex]

yes, that's correct,
seen somewhere about the 980 not being too accurate,
as for the improvement by each generation,
Intel is saying that through one of it's thermal papers (should be the last I7 one or CPU Monitoring
With DTS/PECI), the I7 sensors should be indeed very well implemented, thought that's coming out of scattered pieces of information from many different places.

the main issue got cleared and that's really what matters, maybe and probably for you as a software builder for these purposes, that should be more of a concern,

as a side note,
the 980 is a die shrink processor, a sub process in between two major one's, the SB should probably offer well implemented sensors as a new architecture same as the I7 did or maybe even better,
the attention for better sensor seems to have started with the I7's.

Intel would probably spend more effort in they're design with SB rather than with an intermediate process such as the westmere (or Gulftown for that matter).
it looks like it is looking forward and is becoming more and more aware at these issues, at least by the papers, it doesn't seem like it would step back any more rather if the implementation of DTS's and they're accuracy is getting harder to sustain with every die shrinking process.

hoh, and thank u for all you'r great work, both in this area and with the Intel Dynamic Acceleration at Throttle stop,
you guys are doing a great job.