Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

[Nightblade]

Perfect, thanks!

[unclewebb]

You're welcome Nightblade. My old code was trying to prevent any negative screen coordinates but I kind of forgot about dual monitors and the second monitor on the left side of the primary one.


I just tried the link. It seems to work OK.

[stasio]

uncle,any another link?
Trying with IE,Firefox,reset my IP address-same,cann't dl.

[unclewebb]

It's such a minor update I wasn't planning on sharing it but what the hell.

I also uploaded it to my usual FileDen site:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

[stasio]

Thanks,now OK.

[ExBrat72]

Unclewebb, - I have just installed RealTemp 3.00 and notice that the Display temps and the System Tray temps appear to be transposed. ( I had a look at Ver3.92.2 and it is the same)
Not sure which display is correct, not that that matters too much, but is there a way to bring them into line?
Apologies if this has been covered before but I have read back about 20 pages and not seen it mentioned.
Win 764 Pro
Core i7 920 @ 4.00
Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5

Congratulations on this app, - 154 page thread must have been a lot of work!

BTW - What graphics program are you using to draw those red lines and arrows on your screen shot uploads?

[burebista]

Unclewebb, - I have just installed RealTemp 3.00 and notice that the Display temps and the System Tray temps appear to be transposed. ( I had a look at Ver3.92.2 and it is the same)

It's a Seven "feature" not Kevin's bug.

[ExBrat72]

It's a Seven "feature" not Kevin's bug.

Oh! OK, thanks for that, - it looks like I should have done more research on this thread... Sorry about that.

[unclewebb]

The unsorted system tray icons is one of the few things I don't like about Windows 7. I complained during beta testing but that didn't help.

In Vista and in every previous version of Windows, when an icon gets inserted into the system tray, it always gets inserted at the far left. This makes it easy to predict where an icon is going to end up and as long as I insert them in reverse order, they show up in the correct order. Windows 7 just seems to insert them randomly or semi-randomly. Maybe I will figure out the mystery or maybe Microsoft will fix this with a service pack someday so Win 7 works like previous operating systems. The same RealTemp code works perfectly in Vista and keeps the system tray icons correctly ordered.

I'm still using a very old version of Photoshop Elements 2.0. Some of the newer versions got really slow and bloated so I still like this version. For doing the basics, it's great.

[ExBrat72]

The unsorted system tray icons is one of the few things I don't like about Windows 7. I complained during beta testing but that didn't help.

Thanks for the reply, it looks like I hit on an old problem. (not a really important one, I know)

I'm still using a very old version of Photoshop Elements 2.0. Some of the newer versions got really slow and bloated so I still like this version. For doing the basics, it's great.

Ah, yes. I was using Elements 6 but have just discovered PhotoFiltre which does the job well and is free...

[randomizer]

Maybe you could email Microsoft and see if there's some highly complex algorithm used to determine where to put them. After all, you can't have an advanced OS without having an advanced way of inserting icons into the system tray.

[unclewebb]

http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads...Temp_3.40.html

It took me forever but I finally got W1zzard to upload a new official version of RealTemp to TechPowerUp. Just a few minor changes since the last beta including an Nvidia Information window that lets you keep track of your temperatures for each card in SLI or for each GPU if you are lucky enough to have a GTX 295. If you have a pair of those cards, let me know how RealTemp works.

randomizer: I think Microsoft is using an advanced random number generator to position the system tray icons in Windows 7. I'm usually pretty good at seeing patterns in random looking data but so far this has been hopeless. Very few programs use multiple system tray icons so I don't see this as being a very high priority for them. When I get bored I'll have another look at it.

[SimpleTECH]

Um, I just got a BSOD when running Real Temp 3.40 for about a minute.



OS: Windows 7 Professional x64

Edit: Okay, tried to see if I could repeat the same issue and nothing. Been running Real Temp for 10 minutes and nothing. I wonder why my computer randomly restarted.

[Monstru]

Heh, don't worry Kevin, we allways host the latest RealTemp right after you announce it

[donmarkoni]

Maybe you could email Microsoft and see if there's some highly complex algorithm used to determine where to put them. After all, you can't have an advanced OS without having an advanced way of inserting icons into the system tray.

If he puts that Microsoft's highly complex algorithm in RealTemp, then it would eat up 250MB of RAM and 15% od CPU cycles on Core i7!

[unclewebb]

Um, I just got a BSOD when running Real Temp 3.40 for about a minute.

My biggest fear. I screwed something up. I think RealTemp is OK but I'll go do some more Windows 7 x64 testing. I haven't seen a BSOD in many months and never one caused by RealTemp.

Edit: RealTemp seems to work fine on my computer with Windows 7 x64.

Intel Xeon W3520 @ 4.1GHz (1.20V)

Hmmm, maybe you need to be a little more generous with the core voltage.

Are you Prime / LinX stable at 4.1GHz with only 1.20 volts?
Most of the Core i7 D0 CPUs seem to need ~1.28 volts or higher to be stable at this speed.

[Rol-Co]

working fine here at win 7 x64


nice unclewebb

[SimpleTECH]

Hmmm, maybe you need to be a little more generous with the core voltage.

Are you Prime / LinX stable at 4.1GHz with only 1.20 volts?
Most of the Core i7 D0 CPUs seem to need ~1.28 volts or higher to be stable at this speed.

Na man, it's been stable since the day I got it (~5 months ago).

Though I have increases the BCLK by about 2, so it could be unstable at 199x21. Though I've used 197x21 and handles everything.

[abeeftec]

hello.
can anyone tell me what the offset it for and how do I set it?
I mean where do I get the Tj max for my cpu?
QX9650.
My core temps vary by 9 degrees from 0 to 3. I dont get why so much.

[unclewebb]

The sensors used on the 45nm Core 2 Duo and Quad are horrible. They were never designed to be used to report accurate core temperatures. They have several problems including the problem that they get stuck at lower temperatures. I also believe that TJMax is not consistent across all 4 cores on these CPUs. Whether Intel does this deliberately or whether it's just an act of god, I don't know.

The CPU Cool Down Test in RealTemp is the best way for me to learn about the sensors on your CPU and what combination of issues your sensors have. For the QX9650, Intel published a number which they called TJ Target and they say that number is 95C. Actual TJ Max might be 95C, 100C or even 105C or 110C on some of your cores. There can be a lot of variation from core to core and no way to determine the truth. Post or send me a Cool Down Test and I'll give you my opinion of what I see.

SimpleTECH: All I can do is wait for some more user feedback. I can't ever remember having a RealTemp related BSOD. If you have another BSOD, tell me what the error message says.

Thanks Rol-Co for raising the bar in XS Bench. Not a very exciting benchmark but it quickly told me that your CPU is a beast. At 6.338 seconds some would say very quickly.

[randomizer]

If he puts that Microsoft's highly complex algorithm in RealTemp, then it would eat up 250MB of RAM and 15% od CPU cycles on Core i7!

You know, I don't doubt that.

[dan7777]

which is better for i7 real temp or core temp ???

[Chris Z.]

Hi,

I am sure I am overlooking something obvious, but what?
These two versions do not agree on processor speed. The older one shows the correct value. This difference is pretty consistent over the time, but not constant.

[unclewebb]

which is better for i7 real temp or core temp ???

I'm a little biased and I like RealTemp better but Core Temp would be my number 2 choice. It is one of the very few programs that is reading temperature data from all 4 cores when hyper threading is enabled. Many monitoring programs, even popular commercial ones, hint, hint, hint, do not.

Chris Z.: I was wondering how long it would take someone to ask, "What's going on here with these multipliers in RealTemp 3.40?"

The older one shows the correct value.

Who says that is the correct value? The older version of RealTemp might show what every other monitoring program will show at idle but how do we know that is actually true.

What I discovered at idle is that how you have Windows set up will affect what your multiplier is really doing. Almost all software has decided to over look the truth and instead provide you with a nice steady multiplier even though internally, the multiplier your CPU is using might be in a state of chaos.

I don't have a QX processor to test with so hopefully you can do some testing to try and prove this.

There is another program in the RealTemp download called i7 Turbo. Try running that and RealTemp 3.40 and CPU-Z. When testing, turn off Everest and all other monitoring software because I'm not sure how other programs use the system timers that RealTemp 3.40 and i7 Turbo depend on.

In Windows Vista and Windows 7 there is a setting in the Control Panel -> Power Options called the Minimum processor state that has to be set to a low number to get the multiplier to go down to 6.0 at idle. For testing you can set this to 5%. If this setting does not exist then you might need to go into your bios and enable SpeedStep / EIST.

If you are using Windows XP, then one thing that controls this is also in the Power Options. Click on the Power Schemes tab and try changing the scheme from Home/Office Desk to Portable/Laptop.

The C1E setting also can play a part in what multiplier you end up with at idle. Enable C1E to lower your idle multiplier and disable C1E if you want a high multiplier at idle. This setting might not do anything depending on what you have set in your Power Options.

Once Windows has a chance to settle down, are the multipliers reported by i7 Turbo closer to 6.0? Post a screen shot of those 3 programs so I can have a look.

Now run a program like Prime 95 on all 4 cores and post another screen shot of those 3 monitoring programs.

What I found during development is that the internal timers that accurately record what multiplier your CPU is using, sometimes tell a completely different story than what most software will tell you at idle. I fully trust what the internal timers are telling me. It's possible that I've screwed something up on your QX CPU but for most Core 2 Desktop and Mobile CPUs and Core i7 / i5 / Nehalem CPUs; what RealTemp and i7 Turbo are saying is in fact what's really going on inside your CPU.

If your hardware / bios settings do not agree with your Windows settings, you can end up with a multiplier that constantly hunts up and down at idle between 6.0 and the maximum multiplier. Once you play with your Windows settings, you should have some control over your actual multiplier at idle.





I have seen one early QX6700 Engineering Sample CPU that had the internal timers disabled but I don't think that is the problem in this situation.

[randomizer]

I'm a little biased and I like RealTemp better but Core Temp would be my number 2 choice. It is one of the very few programs that is reading temperature data from all 4 cores when hyper threading is enabled. Many monitoring programs, even popular commercial ones, hint, hint, hint, do not.

I believe HWmonitor is now reading correctly. I've just checked it (so I could see my chipset temps as well) and running Prime95 while moving the load around the cores with affinity changes shows normal responsiveness as far as I can tell. Speedfan, last I checked, still thinks there are 8 cores