Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

[RejZoR]

And what kind of advantage would be to compile RT in native 64bit form? The massive amounts of calculations when displaying FSB frequency? The awesome power required to change trey temperature numbers? Or the incredible number of calculations when ticking option to start RT at system startup?
I don't think so. It works under x64 and unclewebb should leave it there. There is loads of programs that are far more demanding, yet they simply refused to go native x64 way because there was absolutely no actual benefit from it. Apart from coding two separate programs with the exactly same content, wasting your time, online space and bandwidth. It's like pimping your car to go 500 km/h but you never ever excess 50 km/h anyway. Just makes absolutely no sense. It works, leave it at that.

[JohnZS]

gtj:

JohnZS[/B]: Your data was good but your sensors are bad. They are very inconsistent from one core to the other. I'm sort of in a waiting mode until Intel releases some documentation for these sensors. Then I can have a look at some of the data I've been gathering over the years. T - 24 hours
[B]

Oh no,
Perhaps I should recalibrate?
Thanks for your insight though Unclewebb.

RejZoR I'm not sure but I think gtj has some sort of fancy 64-bit environment which does not run 32bit executables at all, some sort of 64bit only PE Kernal but I'm not sure.....
Just vaguely remember reading something like that in a thread on here..
John

[gtj]

And what kind of advantage would be to compile RT in native 64bit form? The massive amounts of calculations when displaying FSB frequency? The awesome power required to change trey temperature numbers? Or the incredible number of calculations when ticking option to start RT at system startup?
I don't think so. It works under x64 and unclewebb should leave it there. There is loads of programs that are far more demanding, yet they simply refused to go native x64 way because there was absolutely no actual benefit from it. Apart from coding two separate programs with the exactly same content, wasting your time, online space and bandwidth. It's like pimping your car to go 500 km/h but you never ever excess 50 km/h anyway. Just makes absolutely no sense. It works, leave it at that.

Actually, if you read my original request, it states that the x64 version of Windows PE doesn't run x86 programs and vice versa. Part of what makes PE skinny is it doesn't have the WoW subsystem.

[Ol'Baditude]

Ol'Baditude: When testing you need to keep as many variables as consistent as possible. When you get home tonight test again with two versions of RealTemp running. What are you using to measure your air temperature near your computer? I pointed my IR gun at my digital house hold thermostat the other day when it was about 32C outside and there was a 2 degree difference in readings. The typical difference is 1C higher than the air temp near my computer. All these temp readings that we take as being 100% accurate because they are coming from a digital source seem to be far from that. Other users that have calibrated RealTemp on a Q6600 with air and water found that a good water set up has idle temps about 4C above their water temperature after it has idled for a while.

I think I understand point 1) in your previous post. If sensors read too low and you have to use a positive calibration factor then there will be some points where the Distance to TjMax reading will change by 1 but the reported temperature will not change. The DTS info coming from the chip might move from 20 to 60 or a range of 40 but if you calibrate it up to 25 at idle then the reported temperature is only going to move from 25 to 60. 40 different values from the digital thermal sensors have to be reduced or converted into 35 unique reported temperatures with my model. Write two columns of numbers and you'll understand the overlap that must occur.

Calibrating RealTemp is my band aid solution to less than perfect, non-linear sensors. Maybe when Intel comes clean tomorrow they will introduce some magical formula that everyone can use and agree on. If they reverse engineered RealTemp then I might be a little suspicious. Flattered but suspicious!

If there is a more accurate way to get temps out of these processors then I'm all for it but any new model has to be backed up with real world testing that I hope Intel has done plenty of.

Will do webb. I'll just post back here when I'm done.
I use two analog thermometers. One is on my computer desk and one is on the wall on the other side of the room. They agree with each other and that is good enough for me. I do have an IR thermometer, I suppose I could point it at the back of my analog thermometer or something. lol.
Anyway, thx for the thorough answer.

[unclewebb]

Sorry John, didn't mean to insult your Quad. There's no reasonable explanation for the fact that the sensors on your center two cores that are only a few millimetres apart, are reading 14 to 15 degrees differently at idle. In the 65nm era, a good pair of sensors would report almost equal temperatures for two cores on the same die from idle all the way up if the load was well balanced.

Your Quad sensors are all over the place. I'm just waiting to see if Intel has a rabbit that they can pull out of their hat tomorrow to come up with a better way to get some temps out of these chips. My dream would be a second set of sensors that are 100% accurate from idle to TjMax that they forgot to mention them in their previous documentation. Probably not going to happen though.

[CompuTronix]

Unc,

Nice job on the Info... Button. I like 2.74, but then again, I liked tham all. May I suggest replacing CPUID with Stepping? Is there space for 3 additional characters?

[unclewebb]

Hi Comp, the anticipation for tomorrow's presentation at the IDF is killing me!

At the moment, I don't think the Info... button of 2.74 will continue. Some of the reviews weren't great and I'm kind of biased against it. I like the old small button with maybe an i logo added to it. I might also try one of RejZoR's ideas about expanding that section to two lines and ditching the button all together. Some of the infrequently used info in there could be moved to the bloated Settings window.

I don't think I will change the CPUID title. CPU-Z is using the term Stepping to apply to only the last digit in this code.

The December 2007 manual titled:
Intel® Processor Identification and the CPUID Instruction

officially refers to this value in section 3.1.2 as the:
Processor Identification Signature

so perhaps I could shorten that to PIS

When you look up a processor on the Intel site like this E8400:

they call it CPUID String:

I think RealTemp calling it CPUID is the most reasonable title for it.

[Ol'Baditude]

Yes, nice idea. Two line so you can see everything at the same time. B4 you know it I won't even need CPUID anymore. Do it! Or the "i" would be a nice touch. But the info button has to go. lol.

[gbeans99]

Hey Unc.

Playing around with 2.73 and really like the ability to change the color schemes. (the black background with white text is just sweet. fit's my color scheme and just works.) I think it gives a lot of flexibility to most users to find something that works with whatever color scheme/desktop background they're using.

I'd prefer to use mini mode almost exclusively for display mode if I have it up on the desktop (honestly though I just use the systray view mostly) but would like to be able to keep it in mini mode and minimize it (maybe be able to right ckick on it and choose minimize) so when I pop it back up, it's in mini mode. Maybe there's a way to do that and I just haven't figured it out..

either way, it just looks better every day..

[Ol'Baditude]

First, put RT in mini mode. To minimize, double click on the core temperature system tray icons. To bring it back, double click on the system tray icons again and it will reappear in mini mode. You don't need right click functionality.

[unclewebb]

Thanks gbeans99. The new color schemes seem to be a hit. Easy to use and set up and lets users create something small that doesn't stick out on their desktop like previous gray versions did. Ol'Baditude's suggestion for minimizing and maximizing RealTemp works for me. I like software that is easy to use.

One trick I learned is that if you Tab to the Settings button in normal mode or left mouse click on it and then roll off of it without opening up the Settings window, you can double left click on RT and send it into Mini Mode and then hit the Enter key and get the Settings window to open up so you can adjust the Mini Mode color scheme and get a look at it while you're doing it.

Another tip is that if you are in Mini Mode and want to exit quickly you can just hit the ESC key on the keyboard.

A left mouse click on the RT icon in the top left corner during normal mode will bring up a menu where you can select the About box. A left mouse click on the TechPowerUp icon will bring you to the RT home page.

A double left mouse click on the small RT icon in the top bar will close down RealTemp. Lots of little features to make RealTemp easy to use.

[JohnZS]

Sorry John, didn't mean to insult your Quad. There's no reasonable explanation for the fact that the sensors on your center two cores that are only a few millimetres apart, are reading 14 to 15 degrees differently at idle. In the 65nm era, a good pair of sensors would report almost equal temperatures for two cores on the same die from idle all the way up if the load was well balanced.

Your Quad sensors are all over the place. I'm just waiting to see if Intel has a rabbit that they can pull out of their hat tomorrow to come up with a better way to get some temps out of these chips. My dream would be a second set of sensors that are 100% accurate from idle to TjMax that they forgot to mention them in their previous documentation. Probably not going to happen though.

That's ok mate you are only telling it how it is
Would remounting the HSF and recalibration help?
I guess the only thing which could help is IF there was a 2nd set of sensors (highly unlikely) or the middle cores had a different TjMAX value (more unlikely)....bah and to think this was a replacement from an RMA
John

[unclewebb]

JohnZS: You could try remounting the HSF but personally, I think the differences you are seeing are all related to sensor error. When you have one sensor reading too high and one too low and the combined error can be significant. I'm prepared today to be enlightened by Intel. I've given it my best shot to convert the sometimes screwy sensor data into some meaningful temperature numbers. Now I'm looking forward to how they suggest doing it.

I wrote a small utility program a while ago that lets you read information directly from the model specific registers within your CPU. If Intel announces some secret info hiding in there then you might be able to use this tool to discover what it is.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/MSR.zip

The digital thermal sensor data that all programs are using is in MSR 0x19C and is located in bits [22..16]. Avoid clicking on the Write MSR button unless you know what you're doing.

[jas420221]

Whats the word on the Intel thing Uwebb?

[JohnZS]

JohnZS: You could try remounting the HSF but personally, I think the differences you are seeing are all related to sensor error. When you have one sensor reading too high and one too low and the combined error can be significant. I'm prepared today to be enlightened by Intel. I've given it my best shot to convert the sometimes screwy sensor data into some meaningful temperature numbers. Now I'm looking forward to how they suggest doing it.

I wrote a small utility program a while ago that lets you read information directly from the model specific registers within your CPU. If Intel announces some secret info hiding in there then you might be able to use this tool to discover what it is.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/MSR.zip

The digital thermal sensor data that all programs are using is in MSR 0x19C and is located in bits [22..16]. Avoid clicking on the Write MSR button unless you know what you're doing.

Thanks
It's amazing just how much information is crammed all into the small space of 45nms
I am not quite sure if this is the best thing to do, but for the time being I am always amusing that the core reading the highest temperature is "telling the truth". Far better to be cautious....fingers crossed intel say that the 45nm quads have a slightly different register or something or maybe even 1 backup sensor!?!
FYI the previous QX9650 which I had RMA'd had terrible sensor problems, it was RMA'd in 2007 because core 3 kept Proc Hotting and causing the system to crash repeatedly. the sensors were all over the place...infact far worse than my current QX9650.
Now..lets see if Intel can fix this... or at least do something to make things easier for us all.
John

[zlojack]

Regardless of what Intel says, and how it differs from your findings if so, doesn't take one thing away from your body of work on this subject IMO.

It wasn't just Realtemp that I found valuable, it was all the research and postings you've done on the subject, and how much I've learned from that I find the most valuable. Realtemp was secondary to all the other knowledge to me.

And who knows, maybe your work woke them up about how badly the enthusiast needs this info. I've had just about....no, make that every 45nm quad core they've put out so far.

Each series is all over the place from the other. It's just insane. q9650 I just got today runs 10c hotter than a q9550 that runs 10c cooler than a q9450 that runs 10c hotter than a QX9650 that runs 10 cooler than a QX9770 with less volts. All with the same Tj.

I say hats off to you regardless of what Intel comes out with. They damn sure weren't helping us understand this stuff when you started your work,





andyc

+1

Very, very, very true.

[unclewebb]

Thanks guys. No one invited me to the TjMax unveiling party today so I'm waiting to hear what they had to say. I'm assuming that Tom's Hardware and AnandTech should have a story out by tomorrow but a brief news story before then would be nice. Some of those 45nm Quads look like they installed random number generators instead of temp sensors. Ooops!

[hendermd]

Is this the Intel doc, http://intel.wingateweb.com/US08/pub...TS001_100r.pdf

[unclewebb]

hendermd: for finding the magic document.

After waiting all these years, I was kind of hoping for more information.

Intel Speak: DTS may ‘bottom out’
Translation: Tough luck buddy, looks like your sensors are sticking.

It's nice of them to publish this but I don't know if we're any further ahead. For my E8400 if TjMax is 100C then the reported temperature based on DTS data would be 47C when the "real" temperature is only 39C. This non linear sensor creates an 8C error here and that error continues to increase as the temperature decreases so at idle I might be out by 15C and my E8400 sensors aren't that bad compared to some I've seen.

If one sensor reads 15C too low and another one on the same processor 15C too high then the data coming from these is pretty much useless for users.

I have no idea where to go from here. It's easy enough to change TjMax but I don't think that brings any of us closer to the actual temperature. Some may get closer but depending on your sensors, you might end up farther away from the real temperature of your processor.

Edit: I've been thinking through this new mess and here's what I've got. Every temperature monitoring program except RealTemp is wrong because it uses a linear model when the data that is coming from these sensors is non-linear. RealTemp is wrong because it is using the wrong TjMax for many processors. Intel's presentation doesn't give us any formulas or anything that anyone can agree on or use to create a formula to convert this DTS data into temperatures.

About all I can do with RealTemp is adjust TjMax and then create the ability to use larger calibration factors to cover up the amount of error that is present in these sensors at idle. Reported temperatures in the temperature range that you operate at may be very close to what RealTemp presently reports if future RealTemp and present RealTemp are both calibrated.

Intel's presentation shows a linear error which I've always assumed but it doesn't clearly show when this error starts. It might start at TjMax.

[Hornet331]

btw. unclewebb nice guess with the QX9650.

[unclewebb]

btw. unclewebb nice guess with the QX9650.

Thanks. I got one right!

[BeastNotro]

That PDF does not show the 65nm processors TJ Max .. why?

[Hornet331]

That PDF does not show the 65nm processors TJ Max .. why?

most likely cause they are "old".

65nm is on they was to EOL.

[kpo6969]

So would it be best to change TjMax to 100c for my E8400 or just leave it and focus on distance to TjMax? Thanks unclewebb.

[BeastNotro]

Problem is Hornet331 there is THOUSANDS/MILLIONS of ppl that have them 65nm CPU's... now i am sure it is around UncleWebbs specs of 95C, but how can be certain now that Intel has not disclosed that info and it maybe that the 65nm Quad-Core Q6600 is 100C and if so then we all are SOL for pushing the buggers so hard now....

UncleWebb .... plz if you have the resources .... Email Intel or call em up and see what the 65NM processors TJ MAX are... thks.