Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

[Praz]

While things are being sorted with this and other programs, Freecableguy has updated the MBM5 plugin with the proper 45nm CPU Tjunction values.

Motherboard Monitor 5 (MBM5) Core Temperature Plugin

[BeastNotro]

MBM5 sucks and it not support my mobo.

[Shadowthor]

To be honest i don't think intel will just tell unclewebb the tj max for 65nm processors since they decided to not disclose it. At least software developers know the tj max for 45nm.

[jaredpace]

The whole time you were looking at your E8400 temps and Coretemp reported 75C while Realtemp said 65C, the actual temp was 70C

Who would have thought it?



45nm Desktop Dual-Core Processors
Intel Core 2 Duo processor E8000 and E7000 series - 100°C

45 nm Desktop Quad-Core Processors
Intel Core 2 Quad processor Q9000 and Q8000 series - 100°C
Intel Core 2 Extreme processor QX9650 - 95°C
Intel Core 2 Extreme processor QX9770 - 85°C

[FullSky]

45nm Desktop Dual-Core Processors
Intel Core 2 Duo processor E8000 and E7000 series - 100°C

45 nm Desktop Quad-Core Processors
Intel Core 2 Quad processor Q9000 and Q8000 series - 100°C
Intel Core 2 Extreme processor QX9650 - 95°C
Intel Core 2 Extreme processor QX9770 - 85°C

What surprises me is that the extreme quads have a lower TJmax than the non-extremes. Does anyone else find that surprising?

[jason4207]

Those folks who thought there QX9770 was running hot were mistaken!

[BeastNotro]

To be honest i don't think intel will just tell unclewebb the tj max for 65nm processors since they decided to not disclose it. At least software developers know the tj max for 45nm.

One never knows until they try as he is the developer of real temp and why would they not state so as it would be stupid not to do so as many ppl are still running 65nm processors.

What surprises me is that the extreme quads have a lower TJmax than the non-extremes. Does anyone else find that surprising?

Thats because i do believe they run at lower power consumptions?

[Ol'Baditude]

Damn man,

Still doesn't explain why my q9450 and q9650 run 8-10 c hotter than my q9550, but my qx9650 runs about the same as my q9550 at the same Tj. I always knew something was up with the qx9770. It's more confusing now than it was before. Hell with it, I put the CPU's under high end water and throw the volts to um. If they melt, back to Intel they go, and they can sort it all out. What a bunch of puddin heads.

andyc

Lol, exactly.

[unclewebb]

It's more confusing now than it was before.

You nailed it. This great announcement that was going to clear everything up has left a much bigger mess.

Using the correct TjMax will make your TjMax temps more accurate but it doesn't do anything to fix the rest of the temperature range. This has only shown me that the amount of possible sensor error in the low end is even greater than I originally imagined. I was giving these sensors more credit than they deserved.

MBM to release a quick update so that it is using the correct TjMax is pointless. If there is 20C of sensor error in the low end, and there is, then the correct TjMax doesn't mean squat except for the very rare times when you are at TjMax. Same thing for CoreTemp, Everest, SpeedFan etc. You can set the correct TjMax but if these programs don't give you a way to compensate for sensor error then the reported temps coming from them are not accurate.

Time to fire up Excel to see if I can come up with a better way to convert random data into some usable temperature numbers.

The whole time you were looking at your E8400 temps and Coretemp reported 75C while Realtemp said 65C, the actual temp was 70C

But even that simple statement isn't true. Intel's graph shows that the sensor error increases linearly with the distance from TjMax. In your example, the digital sensor reading would be 30 and that reading might already have 5 degrees of error in it. So the answer is 70C +/- 5C or somewhere between 65C and 75C. This announcement hasn't solved anything. My previous assumption was that the sensors are very accurate within 30C of TjMax but the Intel graph shows that sensor error starts at TjMax and continues linearly across the entire temperature range.

[FullSky]

Thats because i do believe they run at lower power consumptions?

Do the extremes run at a lower power consumption? I thought they run higher, but perhaps they have different thermal headroom than the non-extremes. Here's a breakdown of some extreme and non-extreme processors.

Processor          Thermal Design Power        Thermal Spec

qx9775  45nm                150W                     63.0 C
qx9650  45nm                130W                     54.6 C
q9650   45nm                 95W                     71.4 C
e8500   45nm                 65W                     72.4 C
e6750   65nm                 65W                     72.0 C

qx6800  65nm                130W                     54.8 C
qx6700  65nm                130W                     54.8 C

So, the extremes have a higher Thermal Design Power than the non-extremes, but lower Thermal Specifications. This doesn't mean they run cooler - they run hotter, but the extremes, or at least the 45nm variety, apparently have a lower TjMax.

I'm still not clear on this.

[BeastNotro]

So i still want to know what the Q6600 is.

[unclewebb]

BeastNotro: I can honestly say, I don't know what the real truth is and what's provided in the Intel document is only part of the story. They did not release enough information for any software developer to write an accurate program so we're right back to guessing and making assumptions. It's easy to take a pen and circle some numbers but they didn't test, prove or show anything.

My plan is to start using TjMax=100C for a lot of processors including the E8400 and Q6600 G0.

I looked over some of my old testing and if I now assume TjMax=100C, when my E8400 is showing 47C it is actually at 39C which is an 8C sensor error and when it is showing 29C it is actually only at about 17C which is 12C of sensor error. If I were to use any of the competition's temp software with the correct TjMax, that's how far out they'd be at reporting my E8400.

Both my sensors on this CPU read too high but many 45nm Quads have one sensor that reads too high and one that is too low. Suddenly a combined 20C difference between two sensors only millimeters apart looks about normal. That's a sad situation.

All I can do is follow Intel's guidelines for 45nm and take another shot in the dark at TjMax for the 65nm processors. I will also re-do my calibration formula to continue to give users a way to correct for the significant error that these sensors have. Full disclosure by Intel would have made this easy but once again I'm left guessing. If you've lost faith in RealTemp and this whole mess then I fully understand.

Before I became a programmer I was a user too and I'm not at all happy with this. It's easy for Intel to say that there will be "DTS range and slope improvements" when Core i7 arrives but that doesn't help present enthusiasts one bit. All they're really saying is that the present digital thermal sensors range is very limited and they suffer from significant slope issues where sensor movement is not at all linear with changes in core temperatures.

What surprises me is that the extreme quads have a lower TJmax than the non-extremes.

Just one more item that doesn't quite make sense.

[janolle]

I think the info was a good thing. I'd rather be told not to try and find something that isn't there. The truth just is simple and it just has to be accepted.
It left us with one problem: if the error is linear as intel says, is there an easier way (future versions of Realtemp?) to calibrate the sensors accurately for every different user? Different calibration profiles for every cooling system using idiot proof calibration settings?

[JohnZS]

Unclewebb
Thanks for all your efforts, I must admit I am a bit disappointed with Intel, after all of the hype I was really expecting either them to release a sensor program which was highly accurate and precise or for them to shed some light on some useful information to help us make sense of their "Extreme Sensors".
Did it make you giggle when you saw their QX9650 Screen shot?

1) you were spot on with your TjMAX of 95C
2) their sensors were misleading as well, 38,33,29,36 at idle?!? nearly 10C difference between core 0 and 3!! (not quite as bad as my 14 though)

Correct me if I am wrong but the SLAN3 revision of the QX9650 (which I have) has a thermal spec of 64.5C does this mean that when RealTemp reports 64C I should panic on my hot core1 I should panic?!?
Once again thanks for your work and well done on the QX9650 TjMAX value
John

[i43]

@ JohnZS
dont take this as any rule or what so ever
i hit my quad to ''rev limiter'' 95C several times so far nothing happend ( but its up to yourself .. don't try this , if not sure about ) sorry just my opinion..

here .. (on screenshot ) it stands up an crunching Prime
none of threads was not dropped -- though 2 cores are throttling - screen ->



at same time i was ''ir gunning'' THE FINS on TRUE and it show me 64 (+-) C ->


EDIT sorry as there was different sessions .. this image ( screen belongs to this Pic with IR GUN ""
( just for reason .. if follow the time stamp on images a screenshots )

[roadie]

I may be overlooking an option in 2.70, but is there a way to make the programme minimize to the system tray?

[JohnZS]

@ JohnZS
dont take this as any rule or what so ever
i hit my quad to ''rev limiter'' 95C several times so far nothing happend ( but its up to yourself .. don't try this , if not sure about ) sorry just my opinion..

here .. (on screenshot ) it stands up an crunching Prime
none of threads was not dropped -- though 2 cores are throttling - screen ->



at same time i was ''ir gunning'' THE FINS on TRUE and it show me 64 (+-) C ->


EDIT sorry as there was different sessions .. this image ( screen belongs to this Pic with IR GUN ""
( just for reason .. if follow the time stamp on images a screenshots )

crikey that is hot. How on earth did you get your QX9650 that hot at stock speed and volts?
Did you turn your fan off or something?
Anyway thanks, I feel a bit more comfortable with the 64C in coretemp now
John

[steve30x]

I hit the limiter of 109 celcius with my AMD X2 6000 there two weeks ago. Luckily the machine shut down. I was after forgetting to turn on the pump in my watercooling LOL. Goes to show the punishment the CPU will take. So is 95 the tops the CPU will take. I have a Q6600 and I try to keep its temps below 65 celcius.

[i43]

@ JohnZS
Yes You are right!
CPU fan was off (wire pulled off), ambient was ~23~25C, also rear and upper (antec fans turned on LOW) to get it hotter
even put a paper sheets in front of FANs to minimize the airflow for this '' heat-up'' session
i had only 'point cool fan' on RAM and NB area..
just a note ! while i was running these tests with Quad and Maximus Extreme Mobo,
there was CPU TM Function - [ Enabled ] in bios
i did not run tests on that assembly (setup) at disabled CPU TM func

[Furiøùs]

Uhh, where can we download the latest beta? i have 2.72, OP says 2.73.

Thanks!

[BeastNotro]

There is 2.74

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...lTempBeta2.zip

[unclewebb]

My interpretation of what Intel said is that there is so much error in some of these sensors at idle that we shouldn't be using them to try and report accurate core temperatures and that the new and improved Core i7 sensors won't be a big mess like these ones are.

I'll update RealTemp to these new TjMax values and I will change the calibration curve so it effects temperatures from idle to TjMax. A new TjMax means some users will need a larger calibration correction and some will need less.

I agree. The Intel pdf document doesn't live up to the pre-IDF hype. This document means that we'll never have 100% accurate core temperatures for these chips and users can go on endlessly debating which program is more accurate because even with the correct TjMax, none of them, including RealTemp, can be truly accurate because the sensors they are reading are not accurate. An individual RealTemp type calibration will get a person in the ball park but that's about it.

2.74 has the ugly button that some users didn't like so 2.73 is still the main beta.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

[JohnZS]

My interpretation of what Intel said is that there is so much error in some of these sensors at idle that we shouldn't be using them to try and report accurate core temperatures and that the new and improved Core i7 sensors won't be a big mess like these ones are.

I'll update RealTemp to these new TjMax values and I will change the calibration curve so it effects temperatures from idle to TjMax. A new TjMax means some users will need a larger calibration correction and some will need less.

I agree. The Intel pdf document doesn't live up to the pre-IDF hype. This document means that we'll never have 100% accurate core temperatures for these chips and users can go on endlessly debating which program is more accurate because even with the correct TjMax, none of them, including RealTemp, can be truly accurate because the sensors they are reading are not accurate. An individual RealTemp type calibration will get a person in the ball park but that's about it.

2.74 has the ugly button that some users didn't like so 2.73 is still the main beta.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

What annoys me most is that a company like Intel which supposedly has one of the best manufacturing processes around has made such a fundamental mistake like this.

In an ideal world there would be a slight inaccuracy but instead of +/-10-15C it would be something like +10% at idle temps (or a value you could mathematically calibrate out without needing to plum in many calculations to even try to extrapolate intel's DTS to C equation)

IMHO you will be hard pressed to find ANY 2 QuadCores (e.g. 2x QX9650) which show the similar behaviour is this poor QC (quality control)?

I think only Gordon Freeman can save us now....

Oh yeah I forgot to mention, I think Intel's PDF is a load of nonsense....

The QX9770 comes in 2 steppings the C0 and the C1, essentially the C0 stepping is identical to the QX9650 (also C0 stepping)
current Q9000 series CPU's are C1 stepping but will be soon E0 stepping.
Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the steppings where new revisions of the CPU, so why on earth is the TJ Max the same across the board yet the power consumption is less?!?

Phew i43
You had me worried for a moment I almost thought for a split second my Extreme Edition Cooler with PWM fan was doing a better job than your TRUE
I am not very extreme at al I run my QX9650 @ QX9770 (1.176V in CPU-Z), but that is good enough for now....eventually I will upgrade the cooling and go for 3.6 or 3.8Ghz....maybe even 4!

Just with these Extreme Random Number Generation Edition DTS Sensors(tm) it makes it rather hard Overclocking out of fear of Overcooking.

John

[BeastNotro]

Well i have to say that 95C TJ MAX is for the Q6600 as it goes along with most ppls testing even with a Temp lasor probe i borrowed and i got right to the base of the Heatsink and at IDLE the lasor probe was pretty bang on with what real temp stated.

So it is CLOSE .. remember we will never have a 100% accurate program. but close enough will be good enough to me.... 1-3C is not bad, but 20C out would be a serious thing.

[Mr Roboto]

Honestly, I could care less what my idle E8400 temps are. It only matters what the temps are when under load. I can see my fans working or pump pumping so I know it's not going to be anything crazy. That's just me though.

I'm glad Intel decided to implement a new sensor in the (poorly Named IMO) i7 but it really pisses me off that they dragged this out for so long when an e-mail two years ago would have done the same thing. When essentially this told us everything Uncleweb already told us minus the shoddy work Intel did on the DTS. Who would have thought a multi-billion dollar company could screw up something a simple as a thermal sensor.