Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

[MrHydes]

Here

thanks

[Massive]

After reading the documentation, I must say that I impress with the flexibility of real temp for user to set options.
It surely comparable to the coretemp which I used before.
I'm still calibrating though to see "real value" at real temp in my mobo and proc.
Don't forget to add a feature which like automatically show the highest temperature of all cores at system tray, so it read all cores temp, and show which one the highest one to show at system tray . actually its the only thing that kept me to completely using real temp, cause I'm using both, core temp and real temp right now to see which one show "real" temp in various configuration.

[Grandpa]

Too bad it doesn't work on Vista x64.

It works on Vista 64bit

[unclewebb]

fgw: RivaTuner compatibility is my 'A' plan. It looks like this is the easiest way to properly get temps on screen during gaming and I'm assuming that I will also be able to use RivaTuner's graphing capabilities if I go this route.

[fgw]

fgw: RivaTuner compatibility is my 'A' plan. It looks like this is the easiest way to properly get temps on screen during gaming and I'm assuming that I will also be able to use RivaTuner's graphing capabilities if I go this route.

as soon as you have a plugin to feed realtemp's data into rivatuner, you sure can use the graphing capabilities of rivatuner! e.g i'm using the everest plugin and thus be able to display all values found under everest system sensors via rivatuner in rivatuners hardware monitoring graphs.

[emoners]

@uncle: is there a way to get realtemp to start during windows startup?

[Nate P.]

@uncle: is there a way to get realtemp to start during windows startup?

I'd also like to know.

[theonlybabyface]

@uncle: is there a way to get realtemp to start during windows startup?

You could just dump the exe into your startup folder you know?

[unclewebb]

You only have to go back two pages to learn how to drag RealTemp into your start up folder.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=1318

That saves me from writing code that accesses your registry. I hate utilities that do that.

Thanks fgw for the info.

[martymonster]

Unclewebb, when you test the CPUs with your IR thermometer. do you put the CPUs into the motherboard and turn it on (without a heat sink) and point the thermometer at the center of the CPU case or do you physically cut the CPU case off to expose the actual CPU cores and read the temps from the actual cores?

[unclewebb]

martymonster: I have not yet cut an IHS / heat spreader off.

All temperature measurements have been made with CPU-Z reporting a core voltage of 1.08 volts while usually running at ~1600 MHz. The IR thermometer is pointed at the heat spreader which is covered by a thin piece of masking tape to reduce shine. This seems to improve accuracy and repeatability and after sitting for 8 hours with the power off, there is no difference between measurements of the CPU and the room temperature.

I'm also able to move the thermometer around in search of the maximum temperature so my readings are probably not coming from the geometric center where Intel recommends Tcase readings should be taken.

There are some users that still believe that there is a large temperature difference between where I am measuring and the temperature of the core. I've reduced this difference to a minimum by doing my testing with the computer as close to idle as possible. When a CPU is working, gradients constantly develop from one part of a core to another depending on what type of instructions are being executed but at idle, Intel's own testing has shown that the difference is only about 0.5C which is within the accuracy of my Fluke 62 Infrared thermometer.

No program, including RealTemp, is perfect but I still believe that when calibrated, RealTemp is getting closer to the real core temperature across the entire operating range than any other program is providing.

Here's a test of my E8400:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=573

[martymonster]

martymonster: I have not yet cut an IHS / heat spreader off.

All temperature measurements have been made with CPU-Z reporting a core voltage of 1.08 volts while usually running at ~1600 MHz. The IR thermometer is pointed at the heat spreader which is covered by a thin piece of masking tape to reduce shine. This seems to improve accuracy and repeatability and after sitting for 8 hours with the power off, there is no difference between measurements of the CPU and the room temperature.

I'm also able to move the thermometer around in search of the maximum temperature so my readings are probably not coming from the geometric center where Intel recommends Tcase readings should be taken.

There are some users that still believe that there is a large temperature difference between where I am measuring and the temperature of the core. I've reduced this difference to a minimum by doing my testing with the computer as close to idle as possible. When a CPU is working, gradients constantly develop from one part of a core to another depending on what type of instructions are being executed but at idle, Intel's own testing has shown that the difference is only about 0.5C which is within the accuracy of my Fluke 62 Infrared thermometer.

No program, including RealTemp, is perfect but I still believe that when calibrated, RealTemp is getting closer to the real core temperature across the entire operating range than any other program is providing.

Here's a test of my E8400:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=573

Thanks for that info.
I thought thats what you did

On another note:
I notice that if you adjust the idle compensation temps, then the TEMPS + TEMPS_TO_TjMAX do not equal TjMAX

Eg:
Default settings the current temp is say 27, the TjMax is 95 so distance to TjMax is 68, all is OK
BUT, if you adjust the idle calibration temps then you get current temp of say 27, distance to TjMax is 74, add them together you get 101 not 95 the TjMax
I have also noticed this on many posts in this forum including your own.

It would be nice if the distance to TJMax took the idle calibration adjustment into account

[emoners]

You only have to go back two pages to learn how to drag RealTemp into your start up folder.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=1318

That saves me from writing code that accesses your registry. I hate utilities that do that.

Thanks uncle!

[ChrisZ]

It would be nice if the distance to TJMax took the idle calibration adjustment into account

I am not sure what benefit would this change create... distance to TJMax is the only absolutely correct value you have to see the current size of your safety margin. I would't like to have it "scaled" in any way.

[deepsilver]

It work good, but the corespeed ist wrong.

[unclewebb]

deepsilver: I'll admit that the core speed is a work in progress but in your screen shot it looks like you have C1E / SpeedStep enabled. If this feature is enabled in your bios then at idle the multiplier drops from x8.0 to x6.0 so your cpu speed will be reported at 400x6.0~2400MHz. Run Prime95 and put a load on your computer and see if things change. Did you set your bus speed to 400 MHz in the bios or did you use SetFSB? I promise the next version of RealTemp will be better. CPU-Z is still the king of MHz.

martymonster: As ChrisZ said, the Distance to TjMax is the raw data coming from the on chip DTS sensors and that needs to be reported as is. RealTemp takes the DTS data and simply interprets it differently than other programs when converting that number to an absolute core temperature. When using Calibration factors, if you work backwards and add the two values together then it will look like RealTemp is using a variable TjMax.

You can use this knowledge to figure out how much correction RealTemp is providing to your reported temps. If TjMax on the Settings page is fixed at 95C and Core Temperature + Distance to TjMax adds up to 100C then it is easy to calculate that the Calibration RealTemp is using is boosting your reported temps by 5C. If properly calibrated, this will hopefully better reflect your real core temperature.

[kaltblut]

I think Real Temp reads the MHz it detects when you start it. So if he started it in Idle then it will read the "low multi MHz"... coz i've had it show 3.2GHz and 2.4GHz on my e4400 @ 3.2GHz with EIST/C1E enabled thru CrystalCPUID.

Anyway... i also got a L2 stepping e4400 and temps shown with Everest and CoreTemp are ~14° above what Real Temp shows. Well I went thru the 55 pages of this thread and read about the TJunction issue with those old C2Ds. But still it doesn't seem to be finally concluded.

With prime95 running, Everest shows 70-74° each core! Room temperature at the time being ~25-28°. Real Temp shows about 59-60° which is a decent value for 3.2GHz @ ~1.344 VCore. Cooled with Xigmatek's HDT-S1283. Idle Temps are around 32-35° with calibration set to 2.0 for each core.

But if it was really 70-75° its kinda too hot in my optinion, so it would be great to finally get an answer to the question which Tjunktion it actually has!

[unclewebb]

For the L2 processors the competition uses TjMax=100C while RealTemp uses TjMax=85C so when uncorrected, there will be a difference of 15C.

kaltblut: Have you ever tried running my test where you drop your processor down to about 6x266MHz or 6x200MHz and drop the core voltage to about 1.10 volts if possible. Show us your idle temps compared to your room temperature with zero calibration and I think it will be pretty obvious what your real TjMax is. Most L2 processors when using TjMax=85C will report an idle temperature during this test a couple of degrees below the room temperature.

This is impossible so CoreTemp and others decided a good fix would be to boost TjMax up to 100C. That covered up the inaccurate sensor issues at idle but now these programs report load temps that are 15C higher than the actual temperature. Read the docs to learn more about this issue:

http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/docs.php

[kaltblut]

I know about that issue, and also about the low MHz-test to see what the idle temp says... but still it could be a very heaty CPU or the IHS is not well connected with the die or the cooler doesn't fit the CPU surface well enough.

It would just be cool to know the definate answer to the question Like measuring it with an infrared thermometer.

[unclewebb]

I wrote RealTemp so users could get some reasonably accurate temps without having to invest in an IR gun. Most of the processors that are supposedly "running hot", are being reported by temperature software that is using the wrong TjMax. I was hoping you could run my test and post your results. Someone with an L2 did this once and showed that TjMax=85C looks reasonable but that was quite a few pages ago. I'm waiting for some summer weather to see if the delta between core temp and room temp at idle remains about the same.

Given the cooler you're using, your room temperature and your core voltage, 60C while running Prime is reasonable while 75C is not likely.

[AceGoober]

Thanks unclewebb for this valuable utility. I'll post screenshots of my X3350 once I get back home.

[unclewebb]

I finally had some time to work over the MHz code that RealTemp uses so I created a separate little utility for beta testing purposes. It also uses the WinRing0 library to read the multipliers so just drag this utility into your main RealTemp directory and it should work OK.



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

Let me know how this compares to CPU-Z. I'm hoping that this new code finally handles SetFSB correctly on all motherboards that use any Intel Core processor. A small window like this might become a future option for a mini, extra lean RealTemp version.

[msgclb]

This is my EVGA 780i and the Q6600. The difference is probably the most I could catch. It's usually the same.



My Gigabyte GA-EP35-DS3R and E6750 is below.

[unclewebb]

Thanks msgclb. On my board, the new code gives more stable MHz readings than CPU-Z. There's a lot less wander after the decimal point. Hopefully Grandpa, WoZZeR999, deepsilver and others that were having trouble with the MHz that RealTemp displays can try this utility. RealTemp 2.60 has some serious MHz issues on laptops so I'm hoping to test and integrate this new code into RealTemp as soon as possible.

[WoZZeR999]

Did you want another setFSB stepping from 440 to 450?