Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

[burebista]

RealTemp is a temperature monitoring program designed for all Intel single Core, dual Core and quad Core processors.

I highly doubt that you'll ever see an AMD CPU monitored with RealTemp.

[stasio]

Any idea when the AMD Hex Cores will be supported?
RealTemp Beta 3.58.3 will not run using a 1090T in a Crosshair 4 890 FX Chipset.

You got buggy Core Temp 0.99.6

[unclewebb]

Any idea when the AMD Hex Cores will be supported?

Those new AMD Hex Core CPUs look very interesting and are at more of an enthusiast price point compared to the Core i7-980X.

Unfortunately, I haven't owned any AMD hardware in years and even if I had the hardware, I don't have the time for any new temperature monitoring projects. There's no money to be made writing free software and supporting the million and one Intel CPUs keeps me busy enough.

[Razer(x)]

I've got a problem here, the gpu temp doesn't work



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Gotta change something?

[burebista]

Remove that semicolon in front of GPU=2.

[Razer(x)]

Remove that semicolon in front of GPU=2.

Thx, i should know that

[Vapor]

How about an option to have it start and run at different priority levels (high/low/normal/above/below/realtime)?

(I've tried doing "start /high C:\....realtemp.exe" from the command line and it still runs at normal )

[unclewebb]

Tell me why you need to change the RealTemp priority and I'll see what I can do. I had to raise it above normal a long time ago because some programs like LinX were fully loading the CPU and preventing RealTemp from monitoring correctly. Anything less than its present default setting could cause a problem. There was also a bug in the Task Scheduler that lowered the priority of RealTemp to less than normal which wasn't a good idea.

I could come up with an INI file option to give you some more control of this. Just send me a PM and tell me what you need.

[donmarkoni]

Hey, unclewebb, just to report, no problem reading GTX480 ...but you probably knew that.

[unclewebb]

Hey, unclewebb, just to report, no problem reading GTX480 ...but you probably knew that.

I'm always the last to know so thanks for the report.

[colt1911]

Unclewebb, just wanted to let you know I'm still having issues with the font color with one icon on the task bar. It is always core 4 on my I7 980x. I'm using Real Temp 3.58.3 if that helps. Thank you for a wonderful program
and as always great support.

[unclewebb]

colt1911: The regular version of RealTemp looks fine but I finally found this bug in the RealTemp GT version. I'll get this taken care of in the next release of RealTemp GT.

In the mean time, you can go in to the RealTemp.ini file and edit this key:

IconTextColor4=0xFFFFFF

This keeps track of the system tray icon colors and is in a blue / green / red format. FF in hexadecimal is equivalent to 255 which means all that color.

0xFF0000 is a blue icon
0x00FF00 is a green icon
0x0000FF is a red icon

Save a color for the first icon using RealTemp and then just copy that value to all of the other IconTextColor values and maybe it will work.

Hopefully sometime this week I will get this fixed up along with a couple of other updates for RealTemp GT. It's been a while.

[Russ_64]

For Dual Quad Core systems, you should be able to use the RealTemp.ini options CPU=1 and CPU=2 to read each CPU. You will have to set up two separate RealTemp folders for this to work.

I need to add a similar option to RealTemp GT so the Gulftown guys can read both of their CPUs. Maybe someday.

This seems to work okay but I also tried the GT version and it shows 6 cores (of my 8 real cores). The realtempGT.ini seems to have values for 8 cores ??

Maybe next version

[unclewebb]

RealTemp GT is designed for the 6 core Gulftown CPUs only. On a dual Quad core system, it will likely show you the first 3 cores of each CPU and not report the fourth core.

The realtempGT.ini seems to have values for 8 cores ??

That might be room for future expansion.

[bratboy]

Okay I guess I'm just slow or something. I was told to check my temps on my new 980x I wanted to use the latest RealTempGt, so I downloaded beta 3.58 I think it is. Anyway I also have an ATI 5970 and I tried just adding a line "GPU=2" as the last line of the realtempgt.ini file but no luck getting the program to see or read my Vid card. This is the first time I've tried this program, am I doing something wrong?

Sincere thanks

[unclewebb]

The ATI code hasn't been added to the publicly available GT version yet. I just finished adding that to RealTemp GT a few days ago so if you want to be the guinea pig then I'll send it your way for testing. My plan was to update the Nvidia code in RealTemp GT before the next release. Maybe tomorrow.

[bratboy]

(squeak squeak squeak) sure, now that schools out have the time to help test if you would like. Drop me a PM or however you wish.

Cheers

[Kolpukroll]

many thanks

http://myfreefilehosting.com/f/2244b24a85_0.05MB

what type of file is this? how to extract?

Link not working anymore, anyone?

[stasio]

Link not working anymore, anyone?

RealTemp 3.58.4
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

[Wishmaker]

Another great release uncle. The program is better and better. Sorry I was not available for input, i had all my systems crunching in the Chimp Challenge. Now that is is over, I am all yours .

[bratboy]

Unclewebb, is the link mentioned above the one you were mentioneing for me to try ot does that one still only have the Nv changes?

[unclewebb]

Sorry bratboy. I've got more projects than time at the moment. I'm still working on fixing up RealTemp GT with better GPU support. i7 Turbo GT is almost ready for beta testing for Gulftown users.

Another great release uncle.

???? The last update was so minor I've already forgot what I fixed.

Thanks for the encouragement.

[Sam_oslo]

There is a big difference between Core#3 and Core#6, ~13'C under Prime-load, and ~10'C at Idle, with TJMax=default=96 for all cores.
At Idle, core#6 jumps up and down with ~4'C contiguously, while other cores keep almost constant at +/- 1'C.
Do I have to adjustment something, or this chip/sensor is like this?
Using RealTemp_346 here, but it is the same with RealTemp_358_4.

[unclewebb]

You will need to contact Intel about the crappy sensors they are using on these new CPUs. The sensors on the original Core i7 CPUs were excellent. Not a single significant issue.

The sensors on these new 32nm chips are not the same. They have multiple issues so once again, like many CPUs that came before the original 45nm Core i7, getting accurate temperatures out of these things is pretty much impossible. Intel does not fully document any of their sensors and they don't recommend that you use them for accurate core temperature reporting. All RealTemp can do is report the bad data coming from these sensors.

I had a theory a while ago that Intel deliberately offsets TJMax slightly from one core to the next to better control the timing of thermal throttling. There seem to be some major TJMax differences in these CPUs but nothing like this is documented so all I can do is guess.

Don't use these sensors to compare your temps to other users. They are only sort of useful to compare your core temperatures from one day to the next on the same CPU. Previous sensors tend to be consistent from day to day so if you change your setup and the temperature drops on core 0 while running Prime95 Small FFTs compared to the day before then the change you made was an improvement. Beyond that, it's mostly random data with too much error and not enough documentation.

[Sam_oslo]

You will need to contact Intel about the crappy sensors they are using on these new CPUs. The sensors on the original Core i7 CPUs were excellent. Not a single significant issue.

The sensors on these new 32nm chips are not the same. They have multiple issues so once again, like many CPUs that came before the original 45nm Core i7, getting accurate temperatures out of these things is pretty much impossible. Intel does not fully document any of their sensors and they don't recommend that you use them for accurate core temperature reporting. All RealTemp can do is report the bad data coming from these sensors.

I had a theory a while ago that Intel deliberately offsets TJMax slightly from one core to the next to better control the timing of thermal throttling. There seem to be some major TJMax differences in these CPUs but nothing like this is documented so all I can do is guess.

Don't use these sensors to compare your temps to other users. They are only sort of useful to compare your core temperatures from one day to the next on the same CPU. Previous sensors tend to be consistent from day to day so if you change your setup and the temperature drops on core 0 while running Prime95 Small FFTs compared to the day before then the change you made was an improvement. Beyond that, it's mostly random data with too much error and not enough documentation.

I see. Thx for your detail answer .