Page 131 of 180 FirstFirst ... 3181121128129130131132133134141 ... LastLast
Results 3,251 to 3,275 of 4486

Thread: Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

  1. #3251
    Xtreme Mentor stasio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    3,036
    Quote Originally Posted by 003 View Post
    Realtemp is correct. CPU-z 1.5 and 1.49 have problems properly reporting C1E, Speedstep and Turbo clock speeds on the Core i7.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bludd View Post
    Thanks. I sent an email to the CPU-Z dev. Hopefully, he's aware of it and it'll be fixed.
    Try CPU-Z 1.50.1
    Need a Gigabyte latest BIOS?
    Z370 AORUS Gaming 7,
    GA-Z97X-SOC Force ,Core i7-4790K @ 4.9 GHz
    GA-Z87X-UD3H ,Core i7-4770K @ 4.65 GHz
    G.Skill F3-2933C12D-8GTXDG @ 3100 (12-15-14-35-CR1) @1.66V
    2xSSD Corsair Force GS 128 (RAID 0), WD Caviar Black SATA3 1TB HDD,
    Evga GTS 450 SC, Gigabyte Superb 720W
    XSPC RayStorm D5 EX240 (Liquid Ultra)
    NZXT Phantom 630 Ultra Tower
    Win 7 SP1 x64;Win 10 x64

  2. #3252
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by unclewebb View Post
    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.
    Thanks for the information. XP doesn't let me explicitly set any processor power management. I can choose between Always on, home/desktop, max battery etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by stasio View Post
    Thank you. It has the same behaviour as 1.49 and 1.50

  3. #3253
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Cochrane, Canada
    Posts
    2,042
    In XP if you want Speedstep to work properly, you might have to set your Power schemes to Portable/Laptop in the Power Options section even if you have a Desktop CPU.
    Not all motherboards are the same and sometimes C1E and Speedstep might fight each other so you will need to play around with all of these settings to get the multiplier at idle that you want. Overclocking also effects what multiplier you end up with.

    Reporting the correct multiplier is a matter of opinion. It can change 101 or 1001 times a second and waking up a core to ask it what multiplier it is at can change what it reports. My averaging method is based on the Intel Turbo white paper. To keep it from jumping around too much, I decided to average the multi to the nearest half (0.5)

    At full load, CPU-Z and RealTemp should show the same thing for the multiplier but at idle when the multiplier is constantly going up and down depending on your settings, CPU-Z reports a maximum amount which Intel agrees with. I decided to show an average amount because I think that better represents what's going on when Speedstep isn't set up properly.
    Last edited by unclewebb; 02-19-2009 at 03:16 PM.

  4. #3254
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    24
    Cool, you learn something every day. I set it to laptop and now I see 12x in RealTemp when it's idle.

  5. #3255
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,788
    Quote Originally Posted by unclewebb View Post
    I decided to show an average amount because I think that better represents what's going on when Speedstep isn't set up properly.
    Huh? What do you mean by SpeedStep not being set up properly? I thought it's either on or off.
    Asus Rampage II Gene | Core i7 920 | 6*2GB Mushkin 998729 | BFG GTX280 OCX | Auzentech X-Fi Forte | Corsair VX550
    —Life is too short to be bound by the moral, ethical and legal constraints imposed on us by modern day society.

  6. #3256
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Downunder
    Posts
    1,313
    Unlike C1E, Speedstep can be regulated by the OS. I believe that is what the minimum and maximum processor states refers to. If you disable EIST those options probably won't show up in Power Management.

  7. #3257
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    California Central Valley
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by randomizer View Post
    Unlike C1E, Speedstep can be regulated by the OS. I believe that is what the minimum and maximum processor states refers to. If you disable EIST those options probably won't show up in Power Management.
    So, I know this is off-topic, but since the conversation is going this way I thought I'd ask anyway - which state will lower the multi without augmenting the core voltage, but will still respond correctly when the CPU is put under load - is that C1E? I wouldn't mind my CPU downclocking itself when I'm not loading it.
    Core i7 920 3839A C0 195x21@1.36v HT Disabled | Temps: 39C Idle, 63C Load
    Lian-Li PC-70: Apogee GTZ, Thermochill HE120.3 w/ 3x120mm Ultra Kaze-3000, Laing D5, Kill Coil
    Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5, F9e
    3x2GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 8-8-8-24-2@1.65v
    1024MB XFX GeForce GTX 280
    300GB VelociRaptor, 500GB Seagate 7200.10, 1TB Seagate SV35.3
    ASUS Xonar DX
    Antec Signature 850w
    Windows 7 Professional x64
    Dell 2408WFP


    My Heatware

  8. #3258
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,442
    Once you manually set vcore, neither C1E nor EIST will affect the core voltage anymore. Currently on bios F6a on extreme, EIST has no affect on the multi (using regular desktop power scheme) but enabling C1E you will see the multi/mhz drop. Also, by enabling C1E the idle amps and TDP/watts drops from 33W/23A to 26W/19A or roughly 20%, whereas EIST enabled there is no drop in watts or amps. However, if I remember correctly on earlier bioses EIST would affect multi to some degree as well, or at least with earlier programs.

  9. #3259
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Cochrane, Canada
    Posts
    2,042

    RivaTuner Plug-In 3.06

    I think different motherboards and different bios versions handle C1E and Speedstep differently. That's why I let RealTemp report the average multi. Sometimes your multi will be doing a dance which most other software seems to ignore.

    I'm back using mfc42.dll / mfc42u.dll again which every computer has multiple copies of installed somewhere. There should be no more dll file not found errors.

    The RealTemp - RivaTuner plugin has been tweaked and should show a steadier Load meter. The MHz and Load were having a fight before.

    http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip

    You can either manually install these files into the proper RivaTuner directories but the easy way is to copy these files into your RealTemp folder, start up RealTemp, click on the Settings button, click on the RivaTuner button, click Cancel, click RivaTuner a second time, find your RivaTuner.exe file, click OK and the new version should be installed and will over write any previous versions. It takes me longer to type how to do it than to actually do it.

  10. #3260
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    dark side of the Force
    Posts
    33
    Actually it was more easier for me to copy these files into Riva Tuner directory And into Real Temp 3.05 directory as well, but either that way hasn't run.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	rivatuner_3.jpg 
Views:	504 
Size:	192.5 KB 
ID:	95115  
    Better to fight for something than live for nothing
    US General George Patton

  11. #3261
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Cochrane, Canada
    Posts
    2,042
    darkzone: Did you copy RTCore.dll into your RivaTuner plug-ins directory and select it in RivaTuner? This plug-in works fine on my Q6600 and burebista gave it a thumbs up as well on his Dual Core. It's not jumping around like it used to.

    I can understand if RealTemp 3.05 doesn't work on your system, that's a work in progress but I can't understand that the new plug-in doesn't show anything on your computer.

  12. #3262
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    dark side of the Force
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by unclewebb View Post
    Did you copy RTCore.dll into your RivaTuner plug-ins directory and select it in RivaTuner?
    Yes, I did ... now Sorry, I didn't notice that I messed up previous installation of Riva Tuner. After reinstall everything works just fine, but ... plug-in shows only two cores instead of four.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	rivatuner_4.jpg 
Views:	421 
Size:	183.1 KB 
ID:	95153  
    Last edited by darkzone; 02-20-2009 at 11:52 AM.
    Better to fight for something than live for nothing
    US General George Patton

  13. #3263
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Downunder
    Posts
    1,313
    Quote Originally Posted by rge View Post
    Once you manually set vcore, neither C1E nor EIST will affect the core voltage anymore.
    My system still regulates vcore (I know C1E does it, not entirely sure about EIST) when it's been increased

  14. #3264
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,442
    I was referring to his GB UD5 board/bios which is nearly same as my extreme ...but that is interesting nonetheless, I never heard of any boards dropping vcore with C1E once you manually overclocked. Which board do you have? I would consider using C1E if it downclocked both the vcore and mhz on mine (providing it did not cause instability doing so), but all it does on mine is drop mhz...I would think it would cause system stability problems if vcore dropped too much, since mhz bounces around so much.

  15. #3265
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Lakeland,FL
    Posts
    2,536
    gotta love cool weather for overclocking


    750W Thermaltake Modular PSU
    DFI UT X58-T3eH8
    Core i7 920 @ 20 X 200 1.325V
    CORSAIR XMS3 DHX 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3 1600
    768 MB EVGA 8800GTX
    1 X 36GB WD Raptor
    2 X 150GB WD RAPTORS
    1 X SpinPoint P Series SP2504C 250GB
    1 X Maxtor 6L300S0 300GB
    16 X NEC DVD Burner
    7 120mm Yate Loon LED Intake Fan
    4 120MM Yate Loon Exhaust Fan
    28" HANNSPREE Monitor


    Watercooling Loop:

    1 X PA120.3
    1 X PA120.2
    2 X Laing DDC's w/EK-DDC Dual Turbo Top
    7 X Yate Loon Blue LED Intake Fans
    4 X Yate Loon Blue LED Exhaust Fans
    1 X Swiftech GTZ
    1 X GPU EK Fullcover Waterblock
    1 X XSPC Dual Bay Reservoir 5.25" with Bubble Window

  16. #3266
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Cochrane, Canada
    Posts
    2,042
    darkzone: I'm trying to download Windows Server 2008 R2 Beta trial version at the moment. If I can get that working then maybe I can isolate the missing core problem easier. I should know more in a few days.

  17. #3267
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,442
    Quote Originally Posted by unclewebb View Post
    I'm trying to download Windows Server 2008 R2 Beta trial version at the moment. If I can get that working then maybe I can isolate the missing core problem easier. I should know more in a few days.
    Now that is impressive dedication
    but I got to ask, how many OS's can you boot from one system

  18. #3268
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Cochrane, Canada
    Posts
    2,042
    Quote Originally Posted by rge View Post
    but I got to ask, how many OS's can you boot from one system
    For me, the best thing is a box full of hard drives.
    That's confusing enough!

    It looks like there is either a bug in a Windows function or more likely, the function in Server 2008 doesn't have the permission to return the correct core count. Whatever the problem is, I'm curious enough to download a couple of gigabytes of data from Microsoft and do some testing.

  19. #3269
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    dark side of the Force
    Posts
    33
    OK, but previous version especially compiled for i7 (RT 2.82) is running just fine on Server 2008. I think there is some code changes from RT to 3.0 which bypass some routines of the operating system. Maybe I said something stupid but it's just an ideea
    Better to fight for something than live for nothing
    US General George Patton

  20. #3270
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Cochrane, Canada
    Posts
    2,042
    You're right, there have been some code changes since 2.82. Lots of changes but the problem is that I'm not bypassing any operating system routines.

    I'm using the Windows GetProcessAffinityMask() function and it is telling RealTemp 3.00 that it can only run on the first two cores of your Quad.

    Why? I don't know but I'm hoping to find out some more by installing Server 2008. I might have to create an INI switch for you to bypass that function so RealTemp 3.00 is able to see all 4 of your cores or maybe the problem is in a different function. As I said before, I'm willing to do whatever it takes to solve this problem for you and other Server 2008 users.

    Edit: Here's how testing went with RealTemp 3.00 downloaded from TechPowerUp and Server 2008 R2 downloaded from Microsoft.



    It found all 4 cores. The only issue was the same issue that Windows 7 has where the cores aren't organized properly in the System Tray. Other than that, everything worked as it should.
    APIC ID also shows the proper 0123 core order.

    I have no idea why RealTemp 3.00 doesn't work properly on your version of Server 2008 darkzone but I'll come up with a switch you can use to try and force it to see all 4 cores.
    Last edited by unclewebb; 02-21-2009 at 10:56 AM.

  21. #3271
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    dark side of the Force
    Posts
    33
    Well, here is a "small" problem. In my case, the version of operating system is Windows HPC Server 2008, an modified version of Windows Server 2008 x64. This could be the "annoying bug"?

    On the other hand, this don't explain why earlier version runs without problems on my Server 2008 Maybe new patch will fix this
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	server2008hpc.jpg 
Views:	694 
Size:	63.4 KB 
ID:	95226  
    Last edited by darkzone; 02-21-2009 at 01:23 PM.
    Better to fight for something than live for nothing
    US General George Patton

  22. #3272
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Cochrane, Canada
    Posts
    2,042
    I'll see if I can download and install Windows HPC Server 2008 tonight and test it tomorrow.

    If I can create the same bug as you have then I know it will be easy to fix properly. I'm as curious as you are to find out what the problem is.

  23. #3273
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    48
    Great little program. RealTemp and CoreTemp are reading temps accurate to each other and OCCT on the I7 (P6T). A hell of a lot better than Asus Probe (Asus Probe is running like 20 degrees Fahrenheit higher on my setup, I got rid of it).

    I'd like to see an option to display Fahrenheit (my old mind doesn't work too well in Celius, heh heh).
    Last edited by Mike89; 02-21-2009 at 11:18 PM.
    I5 8600K (Noctua NH-U14S Heatsink), Asus Prime Z370-A, 16 (2x8) Gigs Corsair DDR4 3000, EVGA GTX 1070, Asus VE378H 27" (1920x1080), Blaster Z, 2 DVD Burners, Crucial M500 120 GB SSD, WD 2 TB Black HDD, WD 1 TB Black HDD, WD 2 TB Black external (USB 3), Logitech Z-5500 5.1 Speaker System, Rosewill Photon 750 PSU, HSPC Top Deck Tech Station, Windows 10 Pro x64

  24. #3274
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Downunder
    Posts
    1,313
    Quote Originally Posted by rge View Post
    I was referring to his GB UD5 board/bios which is nearly same as my extreme ...but that is interesting nonetheless, I never heard of any boards dropping vcore with C1E once you manually overclocked. Which board do you have? I would consider using C1E if it downclocked both the vcore and mhz on mine (providing it did not cause instability doing so), but all it does on mine is drop mhz...I would think it would cause system stability problems if vcore dropped too much, since mhz bounces around so much.
    abit AB9 Pro. It may sound a little odd, but this board (or perhaps the CPU) seems to handle a ~15MHz higher FSB with C1E enabled and EIST disabled (haven't tried with both enabled). Although neither is stable, one locks up at 405-410FSB and the other can still do some things at 425FSB.

  25. #3275
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Cochrane, Canada
    Posts
    2,042
    Today's test was on Windows Server 2008 HPC like you're using darkzone and my results are the same:



    RealTemp 3.00 found all 4 of my cores and it aligned them correctly in the System Tray.

    I'll do some more testing but it's going to be hard to fix a problem that I can't recreate.

Page 131 of 180 FirstFirst ... 3181121128129130131132133134141 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •