Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

[nezzari]

Here are the settings with everything stock (restored default motherboard settings)

[hutkikz]

I have the Maximus w/ Rampage Bios(0308) as well. Real temp reported high Mhz the first time(sorry dont remember #) but after calculating has read fine since
oh and clock twister was on strong

[cadaveca]

same as above, for me.

[PCTwin]

These are the results from my qx6700. With the Tjmax set to 90 thermal shutdown ocurred at 85c.

I did get a screen with 3 cores showing84 max and 1 showing 83, but I thought I'd try again without taking a screenshot and thermal shutdown occured.

[unclewebb]

nezzari: Once again if you divide the MHz that RealTemp shows by the MHz CPU-Z shows for your first pic you get 2750.6 / 2671.5 = 1.0296 or a 2.96% difference. For your second pic it is a 2.95% difference. Hard to understand why this is happening on your board but not on others. Another test you can try is set the upper right window to MHz, right click the mouse a few times to see that the MHz is consistent then run the XS Bench feature. After the bench is done the MHz window will automatically be updated. Does it change any then. Trying to find an accurate timer in Windows is a bit of a joke. The XS Bench forces a longer MHz calibration period so it would be interesting to see if your results change.

PCTwin: When you are overclocking with additional core voltage, the thermal shutdown point will be greatly reduced. If you drop your MHz down to 1600 MHz and lower your core voltage, the thermal shutdown won't happen until approximately 125C. Is there any reason you set TjMax=90C? I've seen people using TjMax=85C and 95C and 100C and 105C but I think you're the first to use 90C. I'm just curious.

[nezzari]

nezzari: Once again if you divide the MHz that RealTemp shows by the MHz CPU-Z shows for your first pic you get 2750.6 / 2671.5 = 1.0296 or a 2.96% difference. For your second pic it is a 2.95% difference. Hard to understand why this is happening on your board but not on others. Another test you can try is set the upper right window to MHz, right click the mouse a few times to see that the MHz is consistent then run the XS Bench feature. After the bench is done the MHz window will automatically be updated. Does it change any then. Trying to find an accurate timer in Windows is a bit of a joke. The XS Bench forces a longer MHz calibration period so it would be interesting to see if your results change.

Huh...This is interesting... I did what you said and got the following result. I found it odd so I right clicked to calculte the Mhz and it went back to the original incorrect 3920

[FullSky]

Okay, here's my attempt to do the calibration of my QX6700 quad. I reduced the multiplier from 10 to 6 and reduced core voltage down to 1.1. TJMax is at the default, 85C. Ambient temperature in my compter room was 24C. Can you suggest what idle temps I should set?

I've been using TJMax of 95C, which I suspect is about right, but I don't really know. I sure would like to know what it really is for this cpu.



Thanks

[Gen]

...Is there any performance setting in the bios that you might have turned on?

It would be very interesting if there are any non Asus boards that are not being reported properly compared to what CPU-Z is saying.

bios settings that were in use with my screenshot above:

(didn't realize lighting was so bad)





stock settings:





@stock resulting RealTemp



i also tested clock overcharging and it had no affect on results from RealTemp.

[djnoob]

I'm also having an issue with it reading my cpu clock wrong using a qx9650 on a evga 780i

Actual clock is 3.8ghz while realtemp shows it a 3912.5

[Demo]

On a Q6600 G0 at what distance to TjMax will CPU throttle kick in ?

[cadaveca]

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/22...perature-guide

[unclewebb]

Actual clock is 3.8ghz while realtemp shows it at 3912.5

Once again the difference is exactly 2.96%. At least when RealTemp is wrong, it's consistent! I'll try a couple of things to see if I can get this sorted out. I might have to concede accurate MHz to CPU-Z for the moment. He's been at it a lot longer than I have and I'm 99.9999% sure that Franck is doing it right.

For the moment, I'll concentrate on more important stuff like:



Anyone notice anything interesting in this picture? I'll give you a hint. Follow the red arrow!
I think the list of reasons to use CoreTemp for Intel Core processors is about to shrink, again. I'll release a fresh beta as soon as I have a chance to look into a few other minor issues.

[Milamber]

Uncle, is there a way to get the CPU temp on screen (top right corner) in games like Rivatuner does for GPU temps?

[makaka]

For me the IDle temp using read temp is always 34 c (at any voltage or frequency) . but load temp is ok .

[PCTwin]

PCTwin:[/B] When you are overclocking with additional core voltage, the thermal shutdown point will be greatly reduced. If you drop your MHz down to 1600 MHz and lower your core voltage, the thermal shutdown won't happen until approximately 125C. Is there any reason you set TjMax=90C? I've seen people using TjMax=85C and 95C and 100C and 105C but I think you're the first to use 90C. I'm just curious.

No reason as such. It's just a point of refernce for my current setup. With coretemp using tjmax100 thermal shutdown ocurred at 95c, with realtemp using tjmax85 shutdown ocurred at 80c. Also my temps look more reasonable with this setting. I know about the variables involved when overclocking, so long as I have a reference point I can stay below it.

[ChrisZ]

Anything you can think of beside Logitech G15 support?

Triggers.

Whenever the temperature reaches the treshold (as set by user), RealTemp could execute (also user defined) external program. For example a WAV or MP3 tune sounding an alarm, or simply initiate system shutdown, or whatever.

Best!

[gx-x]

You can do that via BIOS already. Just see how much you should compensate for the difference between CPU case temp (which BIOS is reading) and core temp

[unclewebb]

FullSky: Thanks for doing my test. Once again, TjMax=85C seems appropriate for your QX6700 B3. If you use TjMax=95C or 100C instead, your temperatures during this test would be reported way too high.

You should get pretty good results with these factors which are quite typical for B2 processors:

Idle0=1
Idle1=2
Idle2=1
Idle3=2

I think I need to re-test my B2 E6400 so B3 owners can see that there isn't much difference between it and the B3, at least when it comes to temps.

makaka: As soon as you said that your idle temperature never changes my first thought was, "He must be using a 45nm processor!" Sure enough, the very first word in your sig says "E8500". Overclock and be happy. At least your load temps are working for you. Does the Test Sensors feature in RealTemp report any problems?

Milamber: Uncle, is there a way to get the CPU temp on screen?

There is always a way! I have already thought about doing that. Once I get finished with the basics like trying to get MHz working properly for everyone and temps in the Tray area, then I can start working on some of these other ideas.

[PCTwin]

Could you show core usage?

[unclewebb]

Could you show core usage?

I saw that in recent versions of CoreTemp and I kind of like the idea. I need to find some room in the GUI for it though. The PROCHOT# information is useful but is rarely needed. I might move that into a separate window in the future to make some room for CPU usage or ?????

[Milamber]

I saw that in recent versions of CoreTemp and I kind of like the idea. I need to find some room in the GUI for it though. The PROCHOT# information is useful but is rarely needed. I might move that into a separate window in the future to make some room for CPU usage or ?????

Yeah, perhaps a side bar that you can click to extend out a little with a graph for CPU usage - that way it wont take the focus of the main real temp screen?

Also Uncle, what calibration do you use for your E8400? I have a feeling that my E8500 would be the same.

I have an E8400 installed at the moment and it is the whole reason that I decided to write RealTemp. The reported temperatures for it just didn't seem right.



Some users might think that without a heatsink attached that core temperatures would be out of control but far from it.

Its pictures like that which you need on your website to convince the brain washed majority that your "real Temp" application is accurate and should be what people need to install to measure the CPU temps.

[makaka]

makaka: As soon as you said that your idle temperature never changes my first thought was, "He must be using a 45nm processor!" Sure enough, the very first word in your sig says "E8500". Overclock and be happy. At least your load temps are working for you. Does the Test Sensors feature in RealTemp report any problems?

it show usually 15 for the first core and 6 for the second

[unclewebb]

Milamber: Thanks for posting that picture. I re-posted a link to that test today in the E8400 thread. Even with overwhelming evidence, some users still like having CoreTemp report their 45nm chips at least 10C hotter than reality. I hear things like, it's better to go with the higher temp because that is safer. I think they're afraid that RealTemp might be proven to be a big hoax next week or next year. I think my tests speak for themselves.

The picture you posted was of an older version of RealTemp that shows the Idle calibration factor used. Both cores of my E8400 need a minus 2 because it reads too high. Both cores read pretty evenly from idle to TjMax which seems better than many pictures I've seen posted.

In the near future, I plan to allow numbers after the decimal point for choosing correction factors. This should give XS type users a little more flexibility without scaring anyone off. Thanks for spreading the word about RealTemp. It has caught on well during the last couple of months, mostly through word of mouth.

[Demo]

Pardon my noob ness but why is there a masking tape on your CPU ?

[unclewebb]

The best way to get consistent results with an IR thermometer is to use a thin piece of masking tape to take the shine away from a metallic surface like the IHS. It doesn't seem to change the results in any significant way and yes I did test for that.