Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

[Captn]

Captn: Since version 2.75, an E8400 - E0 should be automatically set to TjMax=100C. Can you open up the Settings window and click on the Defaults button to see what TjMax gets set to. If you used RealTemp with a different processor then it's possible that TjMax=90C was left over in the INI file from that. I know that my E8400 - C0 Defaults to TjMax=100C so try that test out and let me know what happens.

Stuck sensors are a fact of life for 45nm. Intel has stated that at about 50C, some of these sensors can become saturated as the processor temperature continues to decrease. That's a fancy way to say they get stuck. Try my calibration test from the RealTemp documentation and give me some more info like your room temperature, etc. and I'll try to take a semi-educated guess at your official sticking point.

No temperature sensors are 100% accurate or can be fully trusted including what is reported as the single CPU sensor reading by Everest and SpeedFan. That sensor on my board at low temperatures reads at least 7C too high in my opinion.

One thing I've learned about the core temperature game is to assume as little as possible so avoid making any comparisons to other questionable data that may be just as inaccurate as your core temps.



I think that rumor got started so users could justify to their spouses why they needed a new E0 processor. The Intel master plan seems to be for them to start spending a few more pennies for better sensors when Core i7 is released. That upgrade is going to be much more expensive overall so we're all going to need a compelling reason to upgrade. Marketing department probably told them, "Let's save the good temp sensors for then." A tiny bone for the enthusiast community. More like a milk bone if you ask me.

1.Yea i had my E6400 in prior to the install of my E8400
2.My room temp ranges from 70-75 degrees
3.According to my bios idle temp is 32c @ 3.6Ghz with 1.20000 volts
4. I ran orthos for 1 hour 15min at that speed with that voltage, gonna let it run for 24hours tonight.
5.I had my E8400 @ stock speeds with 1.15000 ran orthos for 2hours with no issues, idle temp in bios was 27.
6.With the newest version of everest my core temps are stuck, but the cpu temp seems to be right on with the bios.

So i guees its not worth RMAing my cpu then? What should i set my FSB voltage to instead of auto ?

So would the temp in my bios be correct?

[unclewebb]

The latest beta includes a Start Minimized fix for Vista, with or without TaskBar enabled, as well as an adjustment for the B3 QX processors back to TjMax=85C.

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

hardtarget: Welcome to the 45nm crappy sensor club.
The Intel budget seems to have gone into processors that overclock like crazy so it's hard to be too upset with them.

Unfortunately, these sensors were not designed to report accurate temperatures. 10C of error in a 45nm sensor at idle is not unusual. If you end up with a Dual Core CPU that has a sensor on one die that reads too high and the other die reads too low then the combined error between core0 and core1 can be huge. A 9C difference between two cores isn't too bad and can be improved with a RealTemp calibration.

Start by reading the Calibration section in the RealTemp docs and try to do that. Since version 2.70 was released, Intel has told us that the official TjMax for your processor is 100C so uncalibrated, your reported idle temperatures are going to be even more unbelievable. You can either manually set TjMax=100C or update RealTemp to the latest beta version from the link above.

In version 2.75, the calibration formula was adjusted to try and compensate for 45nm sensors that are way off when using Intel's official TjMax value.

Try running Prime95 small FFTs and see if the temperature difference decreases at full load. In theory by about 90C the difference should be close to zero but most people never get their chips that hot. To get closer than 9C at lower temperatures you need to try and do the calibration.

You can also send me a log file of 1 minute idle time, 2 minutes of small FFTs and then 1 minute of idle time. Set the log interval to 1 second so there is lots of data. This will give me a better look at how your sensors respond.

Captn:

1) I might have to add some code to RealTemp so when users swap processors, their previous TjMax values get dumped.

I think most users look at the bios idle temperature and believe that it is 100% accurate. It's not. As I said, my bios temp is out by about 7C at idle. If this value is not accurate without some calibration then we shouldn't be making any comparisons to it. I think the temp guide by Computronix over at Tom's Hardware has a method to try and calibrate that if you're interested.

If your core temps are low and getting stuck then you might have to rely on the data coming from the CPU sensor instead.

I always avoid the Auto setting for voltages. My board is terrible on AUTO.

A good rule of thumb is to use enough core voltage so that your CPU is stable at whatever MHz you want to run at. If 3600 MHz is your goal, set it to 1.200 volts. If it's Prime stable, you can try a little less. If it's not Prime stable, then try some more. I tend to use very conservative memory settings when first testing / overclocking so it's not my memory holding back my CPU overclock. Once your CPU is stable then you can go back and work on optimizing your memory timings and speeds.

[Captn]

Captn:

1) I might have to add some code to RealTemp so when users swap processors, their previous TjMax values get dumped.

I think most users look at the bios idle temperature and believe that it is 100% accurate. It's not. As I said, my bios temp is out by about 7C at idle. If this value is not accurate without some calibration then we shouldn't be making any comparisons to it. I think the temp guide by Computronix over at Tom's Hardware has a method to try and calibrate that if you're interested.

If your core temps are low and getting stuck then you might have to rely on the data coming from the CPU sensor instead.

I always avoid the Auto setting for voltages. My board is terrible on AUTO.

A good rule of thumb is to use enough core voltage so that your CPU is stable at whatever MHz you want to run at. If 3600 MHz is your goal, set it to 1.200 volts. If it's Prime stable, you can try a little less. If it's not Prime stable, then try some more. I tend to use very conservative memory settings when first testing / overclocking so it's not my memory holding back my CPU overclock. Once your CPU is stable then you can go back and work on optimizing your memory timings and speeds.

I looked for your calibration back on page 1 of this post and didn't see it. I have the EVGA 780i mobo, what a good FSB voltage to start with 1.1? Prime better then Orothos?

[burebista]

The latest beta includes a Start Minimized fix for Vista, with or without TaskBar enabled[...]

A quick test, 2 restarts and 2 logoff, all OK now.

[unclewebb]

burebista: In Vista, it's still not possible to get it to Start Minimized 100% of the time with the Task Bar option enabled. It's a lot better than what it was and without TaskBar enabled, like you and I use, it should be 100% now. One more tweak and I'll be happy. It will have to briefly flash on the screen when it starts with Task Bar enabled but at least it will work OK. What works in XP, works a little differently in Vista. Thanks for all your help testing.

Captn: Orthos is just a fancy GUI wrapped around the Prime95 code. I prefer Prime95 version 25.6 because I think it's a more recent version of Prime95 than what Orthos is using.

I put a link to the RealTemp docs in the post just above yours Captn. It talks about the Calibration procedure there.

For Prime testing an E8400 at 3600 MHz I'd start at 1.20 volts as reported by CPU-z under Prime load. I think the really good 45nm Dual Cores can run at 4000 MHz with about 1.25 volts so for less MHz you might be Prime stable with about 1.20 volts.

[Captn]

Captn: Orthos is just a fancy GUI wrapped around the Prime95 code. I prefer Prime95 version 25.6 because I think it's a more recent version of Prime95 than what Orthos is using.

I put a link to the RealTemp docs in the post just above yours Captn. It talks about the Calibration procedure there.

For Prime testing an E8400 at 3600 MHz I'd start at 1.20 volts as reported by CPU-z under Prime load. I think the really good 45nm Dual Cores can run at 4000 MHz with about 1.25 volts so for less MHz you might be Prime stable with about 1.20 volts.

Cool thank you very much unclewebb, i'll go and try that out.

[unclewebb]

The last tweak so Start Minimized should work for everyone. Other than that, same old stuff.

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

[Captn]

The last tweak so Start Minimized should work for everyone. Other than that, same old stuff.

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

Should I run 2 instances of Prime95 v25.6?

[unclewebb]

You just set "Number of torture test threads to run:" to 2 for Dual Core processors and 4 for Quads. This version of Prime is designed for multi core processors so you don't have to run multiple versions of it like in the old days.

[MacClipper]

The best way to calibrate is to drop your processor down to a fixed value like 6x266MHz for 65nm or 6x333MHz for 45nm and then drop the core voltage to about 1.10 volts.
...
By the looks of things, I'm going to guess that you have a 45nm Quad and core0 and core1 might be very close to the sticking point. Intel says these sensors can "bottom out" at any temperature below 50C so you have to be careful when trying to calibrate. Sticking sensors can not be properly calibrated with my approach but I have a plan B if that happens. 45nm sensors can be a little on the wild and crazy side.

1st, a big thank you for all the hard work doing this utility.

Noticed that the calibration method does not drop the DTS to its lowest for my DFI Jr P45 rig even though it is running at a lower speed/Vcore.

6x333 at VID with EIST/C1E on, ambient is 30C so happily deducted 3C off the idle temps.


8x440 at VID+187.5mV with EIST/C1E on, lower minimum temps are actually read for the last 2 cores even accounting for the -3C offset.

[unclewebb]

You're welcome MacClipper. I've just been playing around with Vista for the last week and have found that there can be so much junk running in the background that doing an accurate calibration is more of a challenge compared to when using XP. It's harder getting your computer to a true idle state but turning off a few things like SuperFetch really helps out.

Noticed that the calibration method does not drop the DTS to its lowest for my DFI Jr P45 rig even though it is running at a lower speed/Vcore.

Your screen shots don't really show that. SmartGuardian is showing your CPU 1C cooler (29C vs 30C) when you are at 2000 MHz and 1.10 volts.

Core0/core1 show an average distance to TjMax of 48 (47 49) in both screen shots. Core2/core3 shows an average distance of 55.5 (55 56) at low volts and low MHz while in the second screen shot it shows an average distance of 55 (56 54) or basically about the same. The RealTemp reported temperatures in that second screen shot are much lower but that's because you are using Calibration factors in the second screen shot and none in the first. The processor is the same temp in both screen shots so that's either a possible sign of some very good cooling or maybe even some sticking sensors which is common with the 45nm Quads at this level.

Did you try doing the RealTemp calibration as explained in the docs? Your two sets of cores show a significant Distance to TjMax difference at idle which is either sticking sensors or slope error where the sensors are operating on two different temperature curves. That's another common feature of 45nm sensors. If you need some help sorting all this out just let me know. It can get confusing at times when there are multiple issues with these sensors.

Edit: Intel has also stated that TjMax=100C for your 45nm Quad which means your reported temps need a lot of correcting.

Go grab the latest beta of RealTemp:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

It's designed to give you more calibration options for 45nm sensors.

[Captn]

You just set "Number of torture test threads to run:" to 2 for Dual Core processors and 4 for Quads. This version of Prime is designed for multi core processors so you don't have to run multiple versions of it like in the old days.

Thats what I thought, but wasn't sure, again TY for the link to that newer Prime95 version.

[unclewebb]

I'm working on making RealTemp mini mode look better for Vista users.

[Fatal]

So 100C Tjmax would be accurate for a E8200 C0 correct?

[unclewebb]

According to Intel, TjMax=100C is correct for all of the E7000, E8000, Q8000 and Q9000 series of desktop 45nm processors.

QX Extreme desktop processors are slightly less.

[Fatal]

Alright thanks, sounds good I just wish Intel would release the 65nm Tjmax's

[unclewebb]

Just a small update that took me far too long to get working more or less right in both XP and Vista. I hope there's a happy user somewhere that will enjoy it.

I added a border so it looks better on a Vista Ultimate Desktop in Mini Mode. I also added the ability to re-size the dialog when it is in Mini-Mode so you can have a quick look in there if you like or adjust it so it shows both temps and distance to TjMax when in Mini Mode. Did the world need this? Probably not.

Double click the dialog to enter or exit Mini-Mode and drag the upper or lower edge of the window. Not as fancy but this also works in XP.



ClearType was added to the font used for the big temp numbers in XP and Vista.

Download the beta here:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

[burebista]

I hope there's a happy user somewhere that will enjoy it.

And another who's waiting something big.
Thanks man.

[zowle]

When will be avaiable "start RealTemp at window's startup"?

[IanB]

When will be avaiable "start RealTemp at window's startup"?

When you add it into your Windows startup folder yourself?

This was already answered way back. Messing with the registry to add this feature is not on the to-do priority list, especially when it is easily managed by you doing the above. Just drag a shortcut there, done.

[unclewebb]

Thanks IanB. In Windows XP, dragging a short cut into the Start Up folder is definitely the easiest thing to do.

In Vista, I prefer to use the Task Scheduler so that you can assign Administrator privileges to RealTemp. This way it'll start up even if you have UAC enabled without any issues. Microsoft created the Task Scheduler for a reason so I figure I might as well use it. I'm not a big fan of any program adding things to my registry.

[rge]

Alright thanks, sounds good I just wish Intel would release the 65nm Tjmax's

Looks like they are going to release 65nm tjmax next month, Oct 21st at IDF Taiwan
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=202931

[unclewebb]

Thanks rge. I better finalize the next version of RealTemp with my latest guesses for 65nm TjMax. I'm feeling lucky.
Maybe I'll get more right than last time.

I'm hoping this info will be of more use. The 65nm sensors seem to be of much higher quality with tighter specs. There's so much error in the 45nm sensors that having an exact TjMax isn't as useful as many users think it is. If the error in TjMax is +/- 5C at TjMax and can grow to +/- 10C at a CPU temperature of 50C then we're all still doing a lot of guessing at absolute temperatures.

[DonInKansas]

Looks mighty nice on my 64 Ultimate. It's the little things that add to the awesome!

[unclewebb]

Thanks Don. I've been looking into adding a touch of Aero to RealTemp for the Vista Ultimate guys. I promise not to get too carried away if I go for it.

I found an interesting freeware program called ClearTweak that lets you sharpen up your fonts. It's simple to use and the price is right.