Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

[WoodButcher]

Thanks Xello, I found a couple of goodies there I didn't want, didn't know were running. Microsoft was looking in my window!

[unclewebb]

Did you try that Autoruns program I think I recommended here a while ago. It's almost shocking when you see how much junk is starting up in the background when you start Windows. A Windows OS is definitely not for anyone with paranoia issues!

[WoodButcher]

Yes I did, popped that into my toolkit when you mentioned it 2-3 pages ago. I haven't had use for it yet but it looks good. Dinner at the in-laws, watch the game, tune the pcs'.
What I found was one of Microsofts user experience goodies. I don't mind answering a survey from time to time but I don't like the idea of leaving the line open.

[-X-hellfire]

...right now RT tried to access internet via PG2, PeerGuardian2, which ZA alerted me and asked if I would let it do that, I chose Deny as it has never happened before...

was that a good decision?


http://osalerts.zonelabs.com/osanaly...4&tab=overview

[unclewebb]

There is no code within RealTemp that should be contacting anything. The only code that I know nothing about is the WinRing0 driver that RealTemp uses. Putting a processor into Ring0 mode could be seen as suspicious but there is no other way to read the digital thermal sensors on the processor.

The message says that it was RT trying to contact PeerGuardian2. It doesn't say that it was trying to contact the internet.

What version of RealTemp are you using and where did you download it from?

You can tell ZoneAlarm to permanently block RealTemp from trying to send Messages to PeerGuardian2 and see what happens. If RealTemp doesn't report temps anymore then I guess you'd have to change that if you wanted to continue to use RealTemp.

ZoneAlarm and PeerGuardian2 are both firewall programs so maybe they're fighting it out!

[Chosen.]

...right now RT tried to access internet via PG2, PeerGuardian2, which ZA alerted me and asked if I would let it do that, I chose Deny as it has never happened before...

was that a good decision?

ZA is a trojan on its own...

[unclewebb]

Kind of slow today so here's some testing that i43 sent my way so hopefully he doesn't mind that I share it:



It shows a few things. You can be overclocked and still be Prime stable at a blazing hot 99C even while thermal throttling is taking place.

i43 needs a large negative calibration factor on core0 to get his idle temps balanced out but at TjMax, where these sensors are calibrated by Intel, the temps start to line up very nicely between core0 and core1.

The last thing this shows is that CoreTemp continues to use TjMax=105C for the 45nm processors and the competition still gets confused when the temps go beyond TjMax.

[Xello]

Another thought, the main temps i keep an eye on during prime runs are my 4 cores and my NB, but i'm having to use Everest for the NB right now. Any chance of putting a NB display in the program? Or is this just for cpu's. Would save having an extra program open

[unclewebb]

RealTemp will likely remain Intel core temps only. I think you can manually set TjMax in Everest now so as long as that is the same as what RealTemp is using then your full load temps should be pretty much the same. I hate recommending the competition.

If you double left click on RealTemp at least it won't take up too much screen real estate.

[i43]

Kind of slow today so here's some testing that i43 sent my way so hopefully he doesn't mind that I share it:



It shows a few things. You can be overclocked and still be Prime stable at a blazing hot 99C even while thermal throttling is taking place.

i43 needs a large negative calibration factor on core0 to get his idle temps balanced out but at TjMax, where these sensors are calibrated by Intel, the temps start to line up very nicely between core0 and core1.

The last thing this shows is that CoreTemp continues to use TjMax=105C for the 45nm processors and the competition still gets confused when the temps go beyond TjMax.

Hi Unclewebb
No problem with any screens what have sent to You .. U can use them what ever you want

---
just a note to that (current) screened ''heat-up'' test
(where 99 C * read/logged by RealTemp )
-- this was achieved ONLY! when CPU TM Function was DISABLED ! -- ( in asus P5K3 DLx - bios )

PS ! in my other tests, where this *CPU TM function* [ ENABLED ]
i was never able to get that high ( i mean over 94C )

[unclewebb]

Your testing was very interesting and thorough i43 so don't be afraid to post some of it here or in the E8400 forum to show people what these processors are capable of.

Many users turn off everything in the bios when overclocking but you've proven that leaving TM enabled is a good idea in case of a CPU fan failure or your heatsink falls off!

[Xello]

Hey again.

I noticed that after a certain amount of time (a few hours maybe), the program becomes see-through or just a black box. Though when minimized the temps continue to display properly, so it's not a complete hang. I'm on Vista 64, is this a known issue?

[WoZZeR999]

Never seen that with RT. Are you sure you are 100% stable with stable graphics drivers?

[Xello]

Yeah this is definitely a RT thing, my 9600 is on stock clocks and completely stable with WHQL drivers. If i close the program and run it again it's fine, i'll try to get a pic of the next time it happens. Even though the box goes black / see through, when i move my mouse cursor over the areas where the fields of text are the cursor changes accordingly. Really strange! It's definitely after extended periods of time being minimized.

[unclewebb]

Xello: I can honestly say that this is the first I've ever heard of this problem and off hand I can't think of anything RealTemp is doing that would cause this. Next time it happens post a screen shot and any details you can think of like if it was Minimized to the system tray or if it was in Mini-Mode or if the RealTemp dialog was just sitting on the desktop and then you had a look at it an hour later and it was black. If you move the mouse back and forth over it will every thing return to normal or do you have to restart? It does sound like a Vista / driver issue. What card are you using and what driver version?

[loonym]

Yeah this is definitely a RT thing, my 9600 is on stock clocks and completely stable with WHQL drivers. If i close the program and run it again it's fine, i'll try to get a pic of the next time it happens. Even though the box goes black / see through, when i move my mouse cursor over the areas where the fields of text are the cursor changes accordingly. Really strange! It's definitely after extended periods of time being minimized.

That's a 9600gt issue not realtemp I think. I have occasional weirdness with my 9600's too.

[unclewebb]

Just a couple of minor updates.



I squeezed the CSV option into the Settings window so you can save the log to an Excel friendly .csv file.

I also changed how often the log file gets written to your hard drive. It used to be once per hour but it has been increased to once every 5 minutes by default.

If you like more control over this then you can go into the RealTemp.INI file and use:

HDWrite=

to set the interval to whatever you like. If you have an unstable system and you don't want any temperature data getting lost then use an interval of 1 so all temperature data is written to the hard drive as it becomes available. You can still control how often temp data is collected by setting the Log Interval in the Settings window.

RealTemp used to write data out once per hour. If you would like to continue using that then set HDWrite=3600. (3600 seconds = 1 hour)

Maximum is 86400 seconds which is the equivalent of 24 hours or 1 day. That will create a large log file but will prevent RealTemp from accessing the hard drive during a big super test you're running.

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

Download, unzip and copy the new RealTemp.exe into your present RealTemp folder if you'd like to take this version for a spin.

If RealTemp goes black, it's hopefully not my fault.

[loonym]

I dunno if this is a bug or something I'm doing wrong. I set my idle calibration to 1.0 on core 2 to bring it in line with the others somewhat. Should distance to tjmax follow along with that?

[unclewebb]

Distance to TjMax is the reading from the Intel digital thermal sensors and using a RealTemp calibration factor will not change the raw data coming from the CPU.

A calibration factor only changes the Core Temperature that RealTemp reports.

Here's how my Q6600 looks at idle without any calibration factores:



and with some calibration factors, the Distance to TjMax is still the same but the reported temperatures are now in line with each other as they should be at idle.

[loonym]

ok, good to know, thanks.

[Brian MP5T]

how do I get this to work on a T7500 laptop?

[loonym]

how do I get this to work on a T7500 laptop?

Does it start? Hard to guess from your post but it can't ident the cpu?

[Brian MP5T]

Basically

[unclewebb]

Download, unzip and copy the new RealTemp.exe into your present RealTemp folder if you'd like to take this version for a spin.

The directions are pretty clear. If you don't presently have RealTemp installed then you can't use this beta version. Head to TechPowerUp and download version 2.60 and then you can follow the above advice to get version 2.69.8 working.

[unclewebb]

Once I finish the documentation, version 2.70 should be ready for release so I decided to compare the present beta version of RealTemp against CoreTemp and the previous RT2.60. All 3 programs ran fine for 10 hours while each one was logging at a 1 second interval. RT2.60 had gamer mode turned on.



RealTemp beta has improved memory usage compared to the previous release but CoreTemp continues to win this category.

When it comes to CPU Usage, the new RealTemp is a winner and will put the least amount of load on your CPU.

Edit: Here's a quick update with version 2.70. Both programs were run overnight for 9 hours, minimized to the System Tray. Logging was turned off in both programs.