Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

[stasio]

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.

Try CPU-Z 1.50.1

[Bludd]

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.

Try CPU-Z 1.50.1

Thank you. It has the same behaviour as 1.49 and 1.50

[unclewebb]

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.

[Bludd]

Cool, you learn something every day. I set it to laptop and now I see 12x in RealTemp when it's idle.

[003]

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.

[randomizer]

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.

[Strages]

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.

[rge]

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.

[unclewebb]

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.

[darkzone]

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.

[unclewebb]

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.

[darkzone]

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.

[randomizer]

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

[rge]

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.

[Grinch]

gotta love cool weather for overclocking

[unclewebb]

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.

[rge]

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

[unclewebb]

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.

[darkzone]

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

[unclewebb]

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.

[darkzone]

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

[unclewebb]

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.

[Mike89]

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).

[randomizer]

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.

[unclewebb]

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.