Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

[safan80]

You used to have one program that was right and now you have two programs that are probably wrong. Good work I guess.
.

lol I rather have the higher temps till Intel fesses up.

[Junimrox]

Sorry, i read the thread's first post but i didn't get it, i just have to see whats my processor tjmax or i have to measure it with a termometer?
I think the reading is wrong because temperatures go from 34 to 45 degrees in a second and then back again... its like the heat goes in the speed of light

[gbsx]

should i trust the bios readings of my asus p5e3 premium? they are like 2 degrees lower than realtemp =[

[CompuTronix]

Unclewebb, I am the author of the Core 2 Quad and Duo Temperature Guide over at Tom's: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/22...erature-guide#

I first became interested in this topic of "apples and oranges thermal fruit salad" in November 06. I wrote the Temp Guide in early February 07 because users were very confused, and no one else was committed to taking on the task of cleaning up this incredible mess that Intel has so inconsiderately dumped on us, their customers. Since the topic sorely needed attention, my Temp Guide was immediately Sticky'd, and has been a work in progress ever since.

I can appreciate what an uphill battle this is for you, and I'd like to congratulate you on a truly outstanding accomplishment. I've been following your work for the past many weeks, and have of course read every word of the "Novel". I'm convinced that you've produced some "breakthrough" results, and I find your work both fascinating and thought provoking.

Over the past 15 months or so, I've tested dozens of Core 2 Processors, and have accumulated a great deal of data regarding thermal behavior. I'd like to offer my validation to your findings by stating that the "canned" values of the popular utilities many times just don't make sense, nor do they show general consistency among variants. Based upon my own research and testing, I'm certain that you're onto something very promising here.

When I began reading your thread, and the posts of a small group of very bright Forum members here at ExtremeSystems, I was inspired to write a major update to my Temp Guide. You may find it interesting to know that although I had included the immensely popular utility "Core Temp" in the Tools Section of the Guide since the early days, it is no longer present in the updated version. I have instead included a link to introduce Real Temp in the Troubleshooting Section of the Guide, hopefully with your blessings.

I have featured and continue to support SpeedFan in my Temp Guide, obviously because unlike other popular utilities, (except Real Temp), it can be Calibrated. If you haven't read my Guide, there is a Calibration procedure in Section 9, which approaches the problem of Core temperatures quite differently, by shifting the emphasis away from dealing with the elusive variable of Tjunction Max in it's entirety.

First, a standardized Test Setup (similar to yours) is used for maxiimum cooling and Auto frequency and Vcore. Second, Ambient is measured, Idle power dissipation and CPU cooler efficiency values are plugged into SpeedFan, which yields an Ambient to Tcase Delta accurate to within a degree or two. Lastly, Prime95 is used to provide a 10 minute Load, and + 5c Offsets for Tcase to Tjunction Delta are plugged into Speedfan, which yields Tjunction values that are typically just a few degrees above Real Temp, and a few degrees below Core Temp.

The +5c Tcase to Tjunction Delta value at Load is based on the following Intel document - Thermal measurement in the Intel Core Duo Processor - http://eda-publishing.imag.fr/spip/IMG/pdf/TMI23.pdf - which I consider to be the "Holy Grail". After studying hundreds of pages of Intel documents over the past year and a half, I'm convinced that this obscure 5 page paper is as close as Intel has come in a single document, to inadvertently giving away their closely guarded "secret". The significance of this paper was also pointed out by rge back on page 13, post #319 of the "Novel".

I have a few other ideas I'd like to share with you as to how I may be able to help you in our common quest for the truth about the Tjunction Max debate. I will contact you by PM to discuss these thoughts, and likewise, feel free to PM me. In the mean time, please consider me to be you staunch ally.

Once again, outstanding work, unclewebb!

CompuTronix

[ether.real]

Any chance we can get RealTemp in the form of a Vista gadget?

[unclewebb]

Welcome to XS CompuTronix and thanks for the big thumbs up.
"Uphill battle" is the best way to describe trying to change the way people think about their Intel core temperature readings.

I have instead included a link to introduce Real Temp in the Troubleshooting Section of the Guide

That's great news. The whole point of RealTemp was for users to stop and question the readings from all of the commonly accepted programs. The more people that try RealTemp with an open mind, the better. It's still funny when I go to some forums and users come to conclusions based on how many programs they can gather that all say the same thing. If 3 programs say 2+2=5 and RealTemp says 2+2=4 then RealTemp must be wrong.

I've also read your work, though not recently, and I look forward to any information that you can add to this discussion. I have the Intel document you mentioned and also another one from Intel that might be of interest to you if you don't have it already. PM me an e-mail address and I will send it your way.

ether.real: Any chance we can get RealTemp in the form of a Vista gadget?

There are a few more features that I will be adding to RealTemp in the near future but I don't presently use Vista so I won't be designing a gadget for RealTemp. After that, I plan to either release it as open source or hand it off to another programmer for further development so I'm sure some programmer will be able to develop a gadget for Vista users.

Junimrox: Temperatures in a core processor can jump almost instantaneously when you start running programs like Intel TAT or Prime95. There's nothing unusual at all about a core temperature change of 10C or 15C in one second. That's why you need a huge heatsink when overclocking and using additional core voltage so the temps don't get too out of hand.

Here's a look at my log file when running Intel TAT on core0 and core1 on my Q6600:
23:08:46 29 29 28 26
23:08:47 29 29 28 27
23:08:48 44 38 28 26
23:08:49 49 47 29 27
23:08:50 51 48 30 27

and here's what happens when I stop running the program.
23:09:02 55 51 33 31
23:09:03 55 51 33 31
23:09:04 53 45 33 31
23:09:05 33 33 30 31
23:09:06 32 32 30 30

Core0 jumped up 20C in 2 seconds and then the same core dropped back down 20C in one second. When you flow huge amounts of energy through something as big as your thumb nail, it is going to change temperatures very quickly. Try the same experiment without a heatsink attached and you'll be in for an even bigger surprise.

gbsx: If your bios temps are within 2C of RealTemp then you are a lucky guy. Many motherboard based sensors are not nearly that accurate.

[Junimrox]

Oh thanks unclewebb, I was really thnking the temperature measuring was wrong, but you're right, it is very small, it may change in that speed.
The last CPU I had before this was a Pentium 4 2.8 HT Northwood 130nm, and it changed temperature very slowly, it would take like 30 seconds to reach a maximum. That's why I found the Conroe measuring weird.
Thanks!

[kadir_slayer]

@dear unclewebb

I have a question for u. (sorry if it is too simple for you) I'm really confused.. here is the situation..

My previous e8400

max stable o.c.(12 hours orthos stable) 1.432v 4.050 mhz idle : cpu: 38 core1:49 core2:59 load: cpu:66 core1:77 core2:79

my present e8400

4 hour orthos stable at:1.216v 3825mhz but idle: cpu:46 core1:43 core2:59 load: cpu:66 core1:79 core2:80

this second e8400 seems some problems with temps. core2 is stucked at 59. it never goes below. ı couldn't find my max stable o.c. because at 1.296v 4.050 mhz load temps goes to cpu:77 core1:90 core2:91

what is happening ??? why mee???

is it logicially possible for the cpu temp (single one reported by mobo) can be higher than the loves core die temp?? what should ı do? am ı doomed to use it at 3825mhz although it is obvious it can go much higher???

(these temps from coretemp)...

please help...

[Richard Dower]

2.42 cleared beta yet?

[unclewebb]

I need to try and add another feature or two before the next release.

So far, the updated version will open up on the screen where ever it last closed. I've also implemented proper INI file handling. If you need these features RIGHT NOW then download the beta and replace the RealTemp.exe file in your main folder with this one.

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

kadir_slayer: Are you sure your heatsink is installed correctly? Sounds like you might have a problem with it.

[Unrealer]

So far, the updated version will open up on the screen where ever it last closed. I've also implemented proper INI file handling. If you need these features RIGHT NOW then download the beta and replace the RealTemp.exe file in your main folder with this one.

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

[unclewebb]

Unrealer: Have you or anyone else with an E4300 L2 processor tried running it at a very low core voltage like 1.10 volts and at the default of 200 x 6 = 1200 MHz. If you are not overclocking and turn C1E on in the bios then it should do this automatically. I'm interested in proving what TjMax is for these processors. I'm 99.9% sure that CoreTemp is wrong but a little more proof would be nice. CoreTemp originally used TjMax=85C for the E4300 but changed it to TjMax=100C when below room temperatures were reported which I think was his first mistake. Adjusting TjMax upward to fix problems at idle is not a good thing to do.

Include your room temperature in any replies.

[kadir_slayer]

I need to try and add another feature or two before the next release.

So far, the updated version will open up on the screen where ever it last closed. I've also implemented proper INI file handling. If you need these features RIGHT NOW then download the beta and replace the RealTemp.exe file in your main folder with this one.

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

kadir_slayer: Are you sure your heatsink is installed correctly? Sounds like you might have a problem with it.

ı remounted it twice....

[unclewebb]

ı remounted it twice....

If you are confident that your heatsink was installed properly then it is likely that the cores are not making proper contact with the IHS. It's rare but it does happen. If the cores are not transferring heat into the IHS then even if you installed the heatsink correctly, your temps would be much higher than normal.

CPU temp readings from motherboard diodes may not be perfectly calibrated or 100% accurate but in your case, it confirms that your new E8400 is running way hotter than the first one.

It probably runs fine at default clocks and voltage so you might have a hard time getting Intel to replace it. Hello EBay!

[unclewebb]

Here's a step in the right direction. I'll give you a hint what I was working on today.



That's not CoreTemp displaying those numbers!

It's hiding in the beta section if you are interested.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

Same as before. Just copy this RealTemp.exe file over top of your old one.

It seems OK but if there are any bugs I'm sure I'll hear about it.

[pitadotcom]

omg....saying that this is the best thing since sliced bread is just an understatement....ur work is amazing uncle. things can only get better.

[kadir_slayer]

If you are confident that your heatsink was installed properly then it is likely that the cores are not making proper contact with the IHS. It's rare but it does happen. If the cores are not transferring heat into the IHS then even if you installed the heatsink correctly, your temps would be much higher than normal.

CPU temp readings from motherboard diodes may not be perfectly calibrated or 100% accurate but in your case, it confirms that your new E8400 is running way hotter than the first one.

It probably runs fine at default clocks and voltage so you might have a hard time getting Intel to replace it. Hello EBay!

lastly please have a look at those pictures and tell me if you still think the same...

lowest idle


lowest load



daily (for now at least) idle:



and load

[eva2000]

Weird stuff got another QX9650 L739A640 here and it seems to have a roaming stuck temp sensor depending on vcore set hehe

Room temp = 25.5C

vcore = 1.175v


vcore = 1.050v

[unclewebb]

Maybe Intel should replace some of these 45nm sensors with random number generators. At least the data coming from them would be more consistent.

If I spent that kind of cash on a QX9650 I'd be expecting a little better quality than that. Did you try running this test to check the balance between cores:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=722

Core processors seem to operate based on the data coming from the DTS sensors so it would be nice if these sensors were 100% and not getting stuck.

kadir_slayer: Processors come in a range of qualities. They're all more than adequate for your grandma to surf the internet and play solitaire with but some are definitely better than others. Some are golden and dreamed about by the people of XS while others are pieces of crap. Your present E8400 is closer to the later so dump it if you want to go faster or use it at your present OC and be happy. With the testing I've done, I'd be trusting RealTemp more than CPUID Hardware Monitor for your E8400.

[bryanw1995]

it's nice to have the temp display moved to the tray. that beta is great!

[DOM.]

okay I read post # 722

so I tryed load on 1 thread and put it to each core

core2/core3 are the same and core0/core1 ones lil lower on load so

[unclewebb]

If you are using FireFox you might need to go into your cache and clear it to get the latest beta version.

Click on:
Tools -> Options...
and go to
Advanced -> Network -> Cache -> Clear Now

Version 2.45 is the latest beta this hour. Just a few minor tweaks so the Tray menu works exactly the same as other programs like SpeedFan.

I might in the future try to show temperatures in the tray like other programs do but not for a little while.

Dom7184: Did you try running Prime95 on 3 of your 4 cores as outlined in post #722? I'm interested in seeing some screen shots of this to see what a typical Quad should look like as well as what a crappy Quad looks like. It might help other users find good chips.

[DOM.]

looks good ?

[ChrisZ]

I'm interested in seeing some screen shots of this to see what a typical Quad should look like as well as what a crappy Quad looks like.

You can get mine

[rpcruz28]

Unclewebb, are mine temps ok??? room temp is 27c