Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

[unclewebb]

Hi JohnZS:

There are two possible issues with the Load meter. If you are using the Clock Modulation feature of an Intel CPU then the RealTemp load meter will report less at full load than the Task Manager does. If that is happening, that would be a good thing.

If the RealTemp Load meter works fine when you are using the default multiplier for your CPU but screws up when you are using a different multiplier then that would be a bad thing. A user with an early QX processor was helping me with this issue a long, long time ago. If you want to be the new helper then I can send you some stuff to test for me. Volunteer testers with unique CPUs are always needed.

As for the endless question, "What is TJMax?", I can honestly say, "I don't know." Intel doesn't seem to know and neither do I. If you still have that wonky Quad that you used to have then I think TJMax varies by as much as 10C from core to core. I don't know if your cores are TJMax 95 to 105 or maybe TJMax 100 to 110 or some combination in between. Intel never released enough information to clarify this. With sticking sensor issues and sensor slope error, it can be very difficult to accurately prove this. A sad situation but I'm only the messenger.

I just had a look at my code and here's a note I wrote a long time ago:

"Intel says QX9650 TJ Target = 95C but it seems more like TJMax = 100C during testing so leave it as is"

The truth is that there probably doesn't exist a QX9650 that has all 4 cores with the exact same TJMax. Once I get the RivaTuner plugin updated, maybe we can look at your numbers one more time to try to come up with a good guess at TJMax.

[JohnZS]

Hi JohnZS:

If the RealTemp Load meter works fine when you are using the default multiplier for your CPU but screws up when you are using a different multiplier then that would be a bad thing. A user with an early QX processor was helping me with this issue a long, long time ago. If you want to be the new helper then I can send you some stuff to test for me. Volunteer testers with unique CPUs are always needed.

As for the endless question, "What is TJMax?", I can honestly say, "I don't know." Intel doesn't seem to know and neither do I. If you still have that wonky Quad that you used to have then I think TJMax varies by as much as 10C from core to core. I don't know if your cores are TJMax 95 to 105 or maybe TJMax 100 to 110 or some combination in between. Intel never released enough information to clarify this. With sticking sensor issues and sensor slope error, it can be very difficult to accurately prove this. A sad situation but I'm only the messenger.

I just had a look at my code and here's a note I wrote a long time ago:

"Intel says QX9650 TJ Target = 95C but it seems more like TJMax = 100C during testing so leave it as is"

The truth is that there probably doesn't exist a QX9650 that has all 4 cores with the exact same TJMax. Once I get the RivaTuner plugin updated, maybe we can look at your numbers one more time to try to come up with a good guess at TJMax.

Hi Uncle
Those are the symptoms my wonky Quad Core is experiencing, (along with a guestimation for the TjMax by Intel, and sensors which might as well be random number generators...once again courtesy of Intel)

You'd have thought with Intel's famed high quality fabrication process they would have put fairly decent sensors into their Quad Core Extreme Range

John