Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

[unclewebb]

Nevrsadie: I'm just looking into a RealTemp bug or two at the moment. Hopefully I'll have a beta available this weekend and you can see if that makes any difference.

[unclewebb]

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

Beta testing continues.

Here's my latest fix for darkzone's missing cores. It might also fix some occasional, odd looking Load % or temperature readings.
The RealTemp RivaTuner Load % plug-in looks much more stable now as well.

To install the new plug-in open up the RealTemp Settings window, click on the RivaTuner button, when the file requester pops up, click on Cancel. Click on the RivaTuner button a second time and find where RivaTuner.exe is located and click on OK and it should install this new version into the appropriate directory for you. The version of RTCore.dll is 3.04 as well so you can check the version number in your plug-ins directory if you want to be 100% sure. If you follow the directions, you should get the new version installed.

Start RivaTuner and select RTCore.dll in RivaTuner and it should be OK.

I've switched to a newer C++ compiler as well as 101 other changes so if anything is broken, let me know.

[i43]

Thanks for update

Very strange situation ..
rig 1 - Xp pro SP3 (32bit) Dual core E8400 - ( more details in signature)
New beta RT 3.04 is running OK !


rig -2 (multi boot separate HDD's ) Quad core ( details in signature )
Xp-Pro SP3 (32bit) - NO GO !
Vista Home Prem 32 bit - NO GO !
W7 Beta -64bit - NO GO
all the same error pop-up '' missing - MFC71U.dll '' in all 3 different os
(never used/installed Riva Tuner on these 2 machines / 4 diff. separate op systems .. - could be this a problem ? )
will add screens if needed ... just need to 'Pshop' them together from diff. disks .. ..

CY
screens add

[JohnZS]

Hi Unclewebb

Once again, thank you for your hard work and efforts. I have installed RealTemp 3.00, I am very impressed with the new features you have added in (GPU temp) as well as your revised TjMAX settings for the QX9650 (I must admit at first I was a bit as I misunderstood my TjMAX to be 95, but now it is 100, things seem to be slightly easier to calibrate).



Eventually I might move to Core i7 (perhaps i975 or maybe a later revision) as at the moment I am more than happy with my Core2.

Kudos Unclewebb and best wishes.

Kind Regards
John

[SoLoR]

all the same error pop-up '' missing - MFCU71U.dll '' in all 3 different os

same problem, for now i solved it with geting mfc71u.dll from HERE and copy it in to realtemp dir.

[i43]

Thnks for quick reply SoLoR

yes traced this file and found this MFC71U.dll in my Rig-1 %System32 folder [ mfc71u.dll ] ( file ver 7.10.3077.0 )
where the latest RT 3.04beta run OK // (sorry, my typo above i wrote MFCU71U.dll - was wrong i edited/fixed it) //

hmmmm just copied it to an other machine (xp pro 32bit ..// ..%system32 folder ... and still NO GO ? just next popup -
just copied it from event/error log to avoid typos again
----

Application popup: RealTemp.exe - Unable To Locate Component : This application has failed to start because MSVCR71.dll was not found. Re-installing the application may fix this problem.

-----

PS!
well, didn't test further now (with VistaHP32-bit and W7-64bit) .. LoL i feel my self still too clumsy and unskillful with those new things
any way if i will found these missing dll's from other OpSys (other machine) then where ? what folder? should i copy them on Vista 32bit and W7 - 64 bit ) ? -
is this same '' grand old '' %System32/ ?

Thanks

[theonlybabyface]

same problem, for now i solved it with geting mfc71u.dll from HERE and copy it in to realtemp dir.

Got the same error and used the same fix.

[darkzone]

Here's my latest fix for darkzone's missing cores.

I don't know what did you do, but now is not only the two cores missing, is worse: the entirely program's window is missing Program runs somewhere in background, but the window isn't visible at all. No error messages, no missing .dll's, no nothing. That window just doesn't appear.

[unclewebb]

I warned you this was beta software.

At least the load meter is looking good now in RivaTuner with two threads of Prime running.



It looks much better than in this post above:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=3233

[unclewebb]

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

I added the mfc71u.dll file to this download. Long term, I'll likely be going back to using mfc42u.dll which everyone already has on their system.

[darkzone]

I know that's a beta software, I wonder how much patience do you have with me to solve this annoying bug

Monday I will run this new beta onto Server 2003 machine, that I have at my workplace, too see if this bug appear only when running on server type operating systems. Keep in touch.

[stasio]

I has no problem loading 3.04 on Windows 7(x32).
Now 3.05 need 10 sec to load

[unclewebb]

Now 3.05 need 10 sec to load

We call that progress!

I think there is a bug in the old C++ compiler that I am using that is causing a problem for darkzone. I've been trying to find a fix for him but obviously some of my cures have been worse than the original problem.

3.05 starts up instantly on my computer.

I might have to write a specific version to correctly handle the C++ 7.1 / Server 2008 bug and then remove some of these patches and get RealTemp running correctly for the rest of us. If you have any trouble with any beta you can always use version 3.00 which works pretty good, most of the time.

Edit: Here's a little testing program to help me understand what function this bug might be in.

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

If you have a Quad core then the SetThread tool should look like this:



core 0: 1
core 1: 2
core 2: 4
core 3: 8
---------
All Cores = (1+2+4+8) = 15

The number in the box tells me what processor the thread was previously running on. Going down in the chart, for each core it tries to switch the thread to that core 4 times. On my computer, it works exactly as it is supposed to and shows in the second box going down that the thread got switched properly.

The number in the chart represents what core the process got switched to based on my chart. A 0 in this chart shows that the SetThreadAffinityMask function was not successful.

I hope when darkzone runs this little app on Server 2008 that it becomes clear exactly where this bug is.

If your OS shows anything unusual then post a pic.

[darkzone]

Well, there is screenshot including SetThread window, which seems to also lose two cores. As I said, tomorrow I'll try 3.05 onto Server 2003 machine at work and see what happens.

[i43]

Noticed something weird today. I have always had a problem of cores 0 and 1 jumping up and down 5c whenever under load. It was like clockwork, after a few minutes under load it would drop 5c, then back up again after a couple mins. Process would repeat over and over again. Cores 2 and 3 would steady. Also I am not getting errors in Prime 95 during this.


Look at these two pics and check out the load %.



I have all eist and the other setting turned off in BIOS. I would assume that the load drop is why my temps are changing on cores 0 and 1. what would cause this?

@Nevrsadie ( reply to post http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=3237 )
sorry i deleted the large img links when QUOTE your post hope not a problem ?

i see probably the the same temperature jumps when run Prime95 (v26.8) testing BLEND mode
well, i have never paid much attention to this, mostly keep eye on max load temps,
but just as far i understand, there is nothing that refers to Realtemp i guess?
here two screens:



all monitoring programs will detect this periodic jumps
IMO this is more related to Prime95 itself how it loads cores,
... as you see
i opened 'Everest' stability test window' (built-in) only monitoring mode just for draw the graph
and set it to read data interval 1 sec for both (temp mon. graph and Load graph)
i run Prime blend approx 10 min ( see the time stamp on prime) worker-threads

explaining, - on my screens - just don't mind the 5C difference in readouts from
RealTemp 3.0 vs Everest and CoreTemp readouts -
those are just softwre side default setings i was using, and specific to hardware detection in each software, -- long story short :
using QX9650 -- RT3.0 def. use tjmax 100C ; Everest (autodetect 95C) & CoreT 99.5 also 95C
and this is not an issue, also as you see my quad have different load temps on pair of dies -
something like first pair(core: 0;1) are always higher approx 8~12C degrees
than (core: 2;3) from second pair ... does not matter ... ''jumps'' are seen also there

Add/edit
just a second run all same setup .. Prime95 SmallFFT mode:


it draws a quite strait line on graph.. no jumps in Prime smallFTT testing ..

[darkzone]

I've tried to run RT 3.05 onto Server 2003 system, but it doesn't work due of lack of CPU support : Xeon 3.4GHz, 90nm. So, I can't find out if it's a bug which affect server type operating systems only.

[Falkentyne]

Unclewebb:
I think I found some sort of bug somewhere.

I noticed when I run my QX9650 at stock 3 ghz, running quad prime or Linpack shows load at 98-99% in Realtemp (linpack varies of course but goes up to 98%). But when I run it at 4 ghz, Realtemp shows load for prime at about 74-76% and the same goes for Linpack (max around 76%)

Any idea what's going on here? I couldn't find anything in the search...

[unclewebb]

darkzone: That 3.4GHz Xeon is based on the Pentium 4 architecture so it doesn't have the on chip temperature sensors that are needed. I'm taking a break on this project for a few days but will be back with some better fixes.

Falkentyne: There was a bug early on that using the Task Scheduler would set the RealTemp priority level one notch too low which would screw up RealTemp when running Linpack but Prime was OK because it is at the lowest priority by default. I know there are still a couple of bugs in the Load code so I'll be looking into improving that in the next beta as well. I might have to increase the priority of the Load code so other programs don't block it from calculating an accurate reading. I'll send you a test version in a few days.

[Bludd]

Hey guys, I was running Real Temp 3 and CPU-Z at the same time, when I noticed something weird. See my attachment.

Which reading is correct?

[Renegade5399]

I have found CPU-Z to read the bclk and multi funny at times when EIST is on. RealTemp seems to be correct as it reads the multi and speed better.

[Bludd]

I have found CPU-Z to read the bclk and multi funny at times when EIST is on. RealTemp seems to be correct as it reads the multi and speed better.

Interesting. I am running with all power saving features on + HT + turbo.

Edit: I tried the new version of CPU-Z (1.50) and its behaviour hasn't changed.

[burebista]

Uncle has hard times to get proper readings for i7 so I'll bet all my moneys on RealTemp.

[003]

Hey guys, I was running Real Temp 3 and CPU-Z at the same time, when I noticed something weird. See my attachment.

Which reading is correct?

Realtemp is correct. CPU-z 1.5 and 1.49 have problems properly reporting C1E, Speedstep and Turbo clock speeds on the Core i7.

[Bludd]

Realtemp is correct. CPU-z 1.5 and 1.49 have problems properly reporting C1E, Speedstep and Turbo clock speeds on the Core i7.

Thanks. I sent an email to the CPU-Z dev. Hopefully, he's aware of it and it'll be fixed.

[unclewebb]

RealTemp reports an averaged multi at idle. If you are using Speedstep and have that properly enabled within your bios and within the Windows power management settings, a Core i7 will show a steady multi of 12.0 at idle. If you don't have those items set properly in your bios and within Windows, RealTemp will show an average value that floats somewhere between 12.0 and your full Turbo multi. If you want it to be steady at the full number then you have to set your bios and Windows accordingly. Turn off C1E and Speedstep in the bios and make sure your Minimum processor is set to 100% in the Power Management section of the Control Panel.

When RealTemp reports 16.0 that is a sign that the multi is constantly changing between 12.0 and your full multi.
16.0 represents the average.