Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

[burebista]

Yes, Blend test is more real-life orientated because it stress CPU-MEM-NB like in daily use.
Small FTTs are for heating up your CPU but putting much less stress on MEM and NB.
Linpack (LinX/IBT) is for testing your cooler and CPU stability, it heat up your CPU like no tommorow.

[unclewebb]

concretefire: I agree with you 100%. I think Prime Small FFTs stable for 101 hours is over kill for a Quad core processor. It doesn't represent the typical load that most people run on their Quads. Linpack (LinX/IBT) is another order of magnitude on the over kill scale.

You know best what applications you run on your computer and how important your results are. If you're Homer Simpson and running a nuclear power plant then you need a little more head room and stability compared to shooting bad guys in the latest game.

The bottom line is stability in the applications you normally run. If you're stable and your CPU is not thermal throttling then you don't have to worry about your core temperature. I ran my E8400 at an average of 98C with the CPU fan off for 3 hours a while ago just to prove that point. It was Prime Small FFTs stable and didn't catch on fire or blow up.

When overclocking with the Intel OEM cooler, my E6400 always told me when I was pushing it too hard. I would lose stability as the core temperature got up near 70C. If you don't overclock them too hard, you can run a Core based CPU reliably at a higher temperature. My E6400 was very happy at 3200 MHz, I used to run it mostly at 3400 MHz with the OEM cooler and if I dragged my computer to the basement it was Prime Small FFTs stable for 4+ hours at a hair over 3500 MHz. I may not have been Prime stable upstairs at 3500 MHz but it was game stable at that speed.

I use Small FFTs during my test because it is the only program I know of that provides a decent amount of heat. The power consumption at the wall is very consistent which insures that the CPU heat output is also very consistent. I need those characteristics for consistent, repeatable results during the CPU Cool Down Test.

[Bullu$]

Core 1 is stuck?

Before using realtemp2.90 i already thought the sensor were stuck @core 1.
It never shows temps below 36 degrees, even on stock speeds.

Got my cpu watercooled.

[SportsFanBoy]

Hey everyone, long time listener, first time caller.

I have a couple/few question that I hope you guys can answer for me. I'm wondering why Intel states that for my chip (b3 q6600) tcase max temperature is 62c. Then they release info saying that tjunction max is (excuse me I don't remember exactly what it was) around 80c. Doesn't that mean by reaching their specified tjunction max, we would be by a large margin, over their specified tcase temperature? Seems like a contradiction, or just messed up info to me.

Also I have been debating with the people over at Tom's Hardware about operation temperatures and their relationship with the life expectancy of the processor. If I were to run my q6600 at let's say 80c with a voltage setting of 1.4, is it safe to assume that no damage is occurring provided the voltage stays under max specs? Or should I expect my chip to last about as long as the Intel warranty of three years, or less even?

I'm also curious if any of you have done any prolonged high temperature testing, to see if any damage has been sustained.

Thanks to all in advance

[concretefire]

Thanks Unclewebb. This whole overclocking thing is like an adventure really. You never know what the next setting might reveal. Good or bad. lol.

I do have a request though for your program. A snapshot feature. (screenshot) I would like to see it on the cool down page. After the cool down goes all the way down to idle, a "greyed out" box labled "screenshot", would then become un-greyed, and you take a snapshot.

I have done this with vista's sniping tool, and it's great. For each step along my overclocking journey, I have created a folder such as "Default", 2.5, 2.6, 2.7,2.8, etc...each with thier own folder representing my CPU overclock. Then I run benches, tests, everest, realtemp, etc....and put all the data in each folder.

Just a thought. Keep up the great work.

[unclewebb]

Bullu$: Looks like RealTemp helped you confirm what you already suspected. Core1 is stuck at a Distance to TJMax of 64. When the load drops from 29.1% to 1.0%, core0 cools down 2.6 degrees. That's normal. Core0 doesn't budge. That's not normal. That looks to me like a stuck sensor. There is also another indication when you compare the 38.4% level to the 29.1% level. Core0 moves 3.1 while core1 only moves 1.0. I'm a little biased but I love this new test. It makes it very simple to spot a sensor or sensors that have issues.

SportsFanBoy: According to Intel, TCase is measured with a thermocouple attached to the geometric center of the IHS by cutting a groove into the top of your CPU. When you are running an application like Prime95 at full load, the core temperature might be 25C hotter than the TCase temperature. These CPUs dissipate heat that quickly over that small of a distance. Contact rge who did some very interesting testing of this or scroll back about 20 pages or so to find his work. An 80C core temperature would not put your TCase temperature over Intel's rating.

Intel refers to their recent release as TJ Target numbers. A TJ Target number of 80C may translate into an actual TJMax of closer to 90C. The information released by Intel last summer and in the fall didn't really clear this up. The TJ Target numbers do not equal TJ Max for a significant number of 65nm CPUs that they've produced.

I have no idea how much long term heat an Intel CPU can take. I do know that they seem to be able to take far more heat than people would think. Here's an example you can share with your friends over at Tom's. Three hours running Prime95 Small FFTs without the CPU fan turned on definitely created some heat:

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/276/hote8400fw5.png

If your Q6600 is running stable and not thermal throttling then don't worry about the heat. If Intel thought 80C was too much heat then they'd lower TJMax and prevent their CPUs from ever reaching that temperature. Intel actually did the opposite and raised TJMax as their manufacturing process matured. Heat related warranty / RMA claims must have been a non issue. I've never had a problem even with all of my insane testing.

concretefire: I'll think about your snapshot idea for RealTemp. I just use the Print Screen key on my keyboard. After you push this you can go into any image editing program and Paste your screen shot from the Clipboard in and save it to the file type of your choice. I use an old version of Photoshop Elements 2.0 but even Paint is good enough for screen shots. Irfanview is an excellent freeware image display program that also lets you Paste and Crop images without a lot of effort. If you want an image of only RealTemp then hold down the ALT key when you push Print Screen. This will send an image of only RealTemp to your Clipboard.

[SportsFanBoy]

Thanks for the quick reply Uncle, maybe I should go back and read some of the previous pages, thanks agian

[Metric]

I'm not sure if RealTemp is designed for mobile CPUs, but I found that the latest (2.90) is having issues grabbing and calculating the FSB and actual clock of my P8400 (Centrino 2):

Just checked, now my FSB is at 42.45 Maybe the Speedstep is messing it up? I've noticed it takes around 2 minutes before RealTemp tried to show the clock speed and FSB.

[Demo]

Currently using 2.90 and i love the new interface layout, the only thing missing ( for me ) is a real time vCore read out.
Thanks for this wonderful update unclewebb.

[unclewebb]

Metric: RealTemp does not presently calculate the MHz correctly for mobile chips when idle with C1E / Speedstep engaged. It's definitely messed up.

Edit: Maybe it's not until C2E or higher get engaged that it starts to get confused.

In your screen shot the x 6.0 multiplier is correct but the MHz are being averaged. If your bus speed is 300 MHz and your multiplier is 6.0 then in theory it should report 1800 MHz. What RealTemp does is if you are idle and your cores are asleep for half of the sampling period then instead of reporting 1800 MHz, it would report 900 MHz. For some users this is a feature while for most users, it's a bug. That's also why RealTemp might report nothing. It's looking for a consistent MHz value but it can't find one because the average MHz is going up and down depending on the load. I'll try to come up with an option / fix so you can see 1800 MHz instead of watching the MHz jump all over the place or not reported at all.

Try running a program like Prime95 to load your cores for 30 seconds. Does it show the correct MHz and multiplier then?

Your welcome Demo.

[Bullu$]

Bullu$: Looks like RealTemp helped you confirm what you already suspected. Core1 is stuck at a Distance to TJMax of 64. When the load drops from 29.1% to 1.0%, core0 cools down 2.6 degrees. That's normal. Core0 doesn't budge. That's not normal. That looks to me like a stuck sensor. There is also another indication when you compare the 38.4% level to the 29.1% level. Core0 moves 3.1 while core1 only moves 1.0. I'm a little biased but I love this new test. It makes it very simple to spot a sensor or sensors that have issues.
.....

Yeah,u made a nice program

Core0 doesn't budge. That's not normal. That looks to me like a stuck sensor.

But ,what i understand is that both my cores are stuck?

[unclewebb]

Bullu$: Core1 is stuck at a Distance to TJMax of 64. Core0 will also get stuck at some point but during your test it shows that it is still moving at 65 and can read at least to 66. You would have to lower your core voltage and MHz and room temperature to see how far this sensor can go before it becomes stuck.

[MarkS]

This doesn't work with older processors? I have an 805 D and it says it is not compatible. The proc is not that old...

[unclewebb]

The 805 D doesn't have on chip digital thermal sensors that RealTemp can read. It was built on the Pentium 4 architecture while RealTemp and Core Temp only work with CPUs built on the newer Core architecture. Unfortunately, in computer terms, the D 805 is old. A lot has changed in the last two and a half years

[rge]

These core i7 sensors have been pretty good, have to admit. No sticking, all cores seem to read appropriately even when out in 5c cold for benching, temp sensors appropriately read down to 20's. (Although cold benching with box fan and open case only gave an additional 90mhz max boot speed.) Sensor test at 1.406vcore bios, 1.36v load, ambient 25C. My core 1 reads hottest and 4 coolest.

[unclewebb]

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

Support for the new Core i7 with CPUID 0x106A5 added and a button added to the About... box to make it easier to find your CPU information on Intel's website.

I'll save fixing the mobile MHz for tomorrow.

rge: Keep an eye out for screen shots of max temperatures for Core i7. Core0 is usually the hottest and then it steps down and core3 is usually the coolest. Is this part of the design or do you think Intel sets core0 to TJMax = 100C and then the actual TJMax is slightly higher as you go down the line. If this temperature pattern is on one or two CPUs then it's a coincidence but when the same pattern is on the majority of CPUs, it starts to make you wonder. I've yet to see a sticking Core i7 sensor so I won't complain too much. It would be interesting to see how close these sensors can get to their theoretical level of -27C. The 45nm Core 2 sensors tend to crap out a long ways from that point.

[MarkS]

The 805 D doesn't have on chip digital thermal sensors that RealTemp can read. It was built on the Pentium 4 architecture while RealTemp and Core Temp only work with CPUs built on the newer Core architecture. Unfortunately, in computer terms, the D 805 is old. A lot has changed in the last two and a half years

Ah. I see. I am about to upgrade anyway.

[JohnZS]

JohnZS: I always like seeing your numbers because it helps demonstrate some of my crazy theories. Between the 30% and 88% level, core2 goes from 65.9 to 49.8 which is a difference of 16.1 and core3 goes from 60.6 to 44.3 which is a difference of 16.3. The slope error difference is only 0.2 degrees. The rest of the difference is all a difference in TJMax between two cores on the same die. How's that for quality control?

Your data suggests different TJMax values for each one of your cores. Some cores are pretty close, core0 vs core1, while others like core1 vs core2 might have a TJMax difference of 10C or 11C.

You don't read about stuff like that in the publicly available Intel docs but the numbers in the Cool Down Test tell a story that is hard to argue against. I still plan to have a good look at your numbers and come up with a calibration suggestion for you so bug me on a regular basis. I should have time in the next couple of weeks.

Thanks, I always try to please, shock and amaze with my Quad's Sensors. I had a dabble at trying to recalibrate, it's quite difficult with sensors as random as mine, but at least as you pointed out there is hope with the slope being pretty much uniform across the board.

Although the idle temps are rather unimpressive, I was quite glad I got the maximum load temperatures to more or less agree across all 4 cores


On other temperature programs which I used to use before I found this thread it was impossible to make head nor tail of my temperature readings, but thanks to RealTemp I have a pretty good idea that my core @ 3.4Ghz reaches around 7xC during IntelBurnTesting.

Thanks and Have a Good Christmas
John

[WaterFlex]

unclewebb
Thanks for the new version

[unclewebb]

Your welcome WaterFlex.
I'm just working with Metric to see if I can finally get the mobile MHz working correctly.

[WhiteFireDragon]

this program can't be used on windows 7 build 6801. does anyone else have this problem using the same OS? is there a way around this?

[Vatos_locos]

not even on comparability mode ?

[unclewebb]

this program can't be used on windows 7 build 6801. does anyone else have this problem using the same OS? is there a way around this?

Do you know what the error message is when you try to run it? It might be the WinRing0 driver that RealTemp uses to access reading the sensors that is not compatible.

[WhiteFireDragon]

it says i need to be logged in as administer to access drivers. so i'm guessing it's not yet compatible with beta windows 7?

[stasio]

Windows 7 build 6956 no problem