Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

[Nightblade]

GTX 285

Edit: Oh sorry, i re-read your post above. Ok I trust you, disregard my request

[klataa]

With CrossFire, there is a power saving setting that disables the second GPU when you are sitting at the desktop. RealTemp can't ask the GPU for its temperature when this happens. The ATI Catalyst Control Center will do the same thing when the second GPU goes to sleep. As soon as you start using the second GPU then it wakes up and starts delivering temperature information to RealTemp. There is a registry mod you can do to keep the second GPU constantly awake and reporting temperature information but you'll have to do a Google search because I can't remember it off hand. Waking up the second GPU when you are sitting at the desktop is kind of pointless. As soon as you start using a 3D application that uses the second GPU, RealTemp will be recording its temperature.

Edit: Here's some info about the registry mod needed if you want to waste power and keep your second GPU awake all the time.

http://forums.amd.com/game/messagevi...hreadid=128135



Reading the core temperature of an Intel CPU is extremely efficient. The information is cached so you are not constantly reading a slow sensor like reading an ATI GPU causes. Reducing the polling interval of the CPU core temperature will make zero noticeable difference. Getting the GPU temperature from the ATI driver is a slow, flaky procedure so that's why I included the ability to reduce the polling interval of that. Nvidia doesn't have issues like that.

If you really, really need this feature then I might create an INI file option to reduce the polling interval. Try running RealTemp minimized to the System Tray for an hour or two and then have a look in the Task Manager and you will see that it is a very efficient program that doesn't put a lot of stress on your CPU. Getting the CPU temperature once a second or once every 5 or 10 seconds isn't going to be a difference that you'll ever notice.

thx for response

i dont need reg mod cause what for? im glad that u have created this program because in my opinion its great! good job and have fun

[WaterFlex]

unclewebb
Good job man

[SiGfever]

I tried v3.4 with my QX9770 and it reads the frequency high and the core temps low. It should be 25 25 25 25 at idle but it reads 10 9 9 10 and 4.5Ghz instead of 4 Ghz. This is on Win7 Ultimate x64, which version would work correctly with this setup?

Thanks, it IS my temp program of choice.
-John

[unclewebb]

RealTemp 3.59
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

Try the above version. I finally bought a QX9650 and found the QX multiplier bug that I created with version 3.40 and have fixed that.

The temperature sensors used in these CPUs are horrible with a long list of issues, especially at idle. Post a screen shot of the new version so I can have a look.

[SiGfever]

RealTemp 3.59
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

Try the above version. I finally bought a QX9650 and found the QX multiplier bug that I created with version 3.40 and have fixed that.

The temperature sensors used in these CPUs are horrible with a long list of issues, especially at idle. Post a screen shot of the new version so I can have a look.

Same thing, it seems v2.70 is closer to reality for my chip. The Multi is correct but the temps are too low.

v 3.59


v 2.70

[unclewebb]

RealTemp was a good program before I started listening to Intel's misleading information that they presented at the IDF conference.

Here's a picture from that:



I never agreed with some of what they said but as one developer going up against the big beast, I couldn't argue without people thinking that I was an idiot so I went along with what Intel had to say. I didn't think that they'd come out and deliberately try to mislead the user community but by not releasing any engineering data about these sensors, that was pretty much the result.

Here's the general formula that is used.

Reported Temperature = TJMax - Sensor Reading

RealTemp 2.70 was using TJMax=95C. Based on that announcement from Intel, I dropped that to 85C which is why your temperatures now read 10C lower than what they used to read and look silly.

After reading the Intel presentation a little closer, I discovered that they created a new term. Instead of TJMax they came up with the term TJ Target and stated that actual TJMax might be slightly different than that. Basically, the information presented was completely useless but most users gave up trying to get a straight answer from Intel and moved on.

I have never tested a QX9770 but based on testing of other CPUs like the QX9650 I recently acquired, my best guess is that TJMax is closest to 100C for these Quads. There is no single number that is 100% correct for all processors. Intel has never disclosed their calibration procedures or the amount of error that is acceptable to them at the calibration point. TJMax does vary from one CPU to the next even with the same model number. My opinion is that actual TJMax can also vary from core to core on the same CPU.

I'd go into the Settings window and change TJMax from 85 to 100. Now that I've seen how ridiculous TJMax=85C looks, I'll be changing that to 100 in RealTemp for the QX9770 and QX9650. Thanks for the info.

[radaja]

thank you uncleweb for your hardwork and continuous support in keeping realtemp the greatest program around

[SiGfever]

RealTemp was a good program before I started listening to Intel's misleading information that they presented at the IDF conference.

I never agreed with some of what they said but as one developer going up against the big beast, I couldn't argue without people thinking that I was an idiot so I went along with what Intel had to say. I didn't think that they'd come out and deliberately try to mislead the user community but by not releasing any engineering data about these sensors, that was pretty much the result.

Here's the general formula that is used.

Reported Temperature = TJMax - Sensor Reading

RealTemp 2.70 was using TJMax=95C. Based on that announcement from Intel, I dropped that to 85C which is why your temperatures now read 10C lower than what they used to read and look silly.

After reading the Intel presentation a little closer, I discovered that they created a new term. Instead of TJMax they came up with the term TJ Target and stated that actual TJMax might be slightly different than that. Basically, the information presented was completely useless but most users gave up trying to get a straight answer from Intel and moved on.

I have never tested a QX9770 but based on testing of other CPUs like the QX9650 I recently acquired, my best guess is that TJMax is closest to 100C for these Quads. There is no single number that is 100% correct for all processors. Intel has never disclosed their calibration procedures or the amount of error that is acceptable to them at the calibration point. TJMax does vary from one CPU to the next even with the same model number. My opinion is that actual TJMax can also vary from core to core on the same CPU.

I'd go into the Settings window and change TJMax from 85 to 100. Now that I've seen how ridiculous TJMax=85C looks, I'll be changing that to 100 in RealTemp for the QX9770 and QX9650. Thanks for the info.

Thank you sir for such a great program and support that is second to none.

I changed it to 100 and now the temps are a lot closer to my old readings.

[jcool]

Unclewebb,

3.59 is working great for me Thanks for your continuous work on RealTemp.
Temps are realistic and right where they should be, here's my current 24/7 BOINC setting (until my EVGA SR-2 comes back from EK Waterblocks with a shiny new FC block on it ) - water temps around 23C (Chiller), HK 3.0



Now how about creating that new version for us Dual Socket maniacs

[unclewebb]

RealTemp 3.59.2
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

-fixed a bug when the multiplier was changed higher within Windows on the Core 2 QX CPUs.
-first attempt at a fix for the same problem on the Core i5-655 and Core i7-875 with their adjustable multipliers.
-added better CPU name recognition for some of the new Core i3/i5/i7 CPUs and deleted some name recognition code for the ES CPUs.
-adjusted TJMax=100C for the QX9770 based on real world testing and not on Intel's questionable TJ Target numbers.
-ATI has made some improvements to their GPU temperature reading code so RealTemp, that uses their code, should be better too.

[Johnny87au]

thanks dude

[donmarkoni]

There is a small bug... Very small, but it pokes my eyes.

[Russ_64]

Now how about creating that new version for us Dual Socket maniacs

Try the Skull 1 / Skull 2 setting in the config file (you will still need to have two copies running separately). Works for my Gainestowns.

A single version for all 16 or 24 cores (and more soon) would still be nice

[unclewebb]

There is a small bug... Very small, but it pokes my eyes.

I'm blaming the wife for the Xeon Xeon bug. She kept bugging me to watch some dumb movie with her so it was a rush job to get it uploaded. She then watched about 30 seconds of the movie before getting bored. Typical.

I'll get that fixed up so your eyes don't hurt so much.

[donmarkoni]

I'm blaming the wife for the Xeon Xeon bug. She kept bugging me to watch some dumb movie with her so it was a rush job to get it uploaded. She then watched about 30 seconds of the movie before getting bored. Typical.

I'll get that fixed up so your eyes don't hurt so much.

Thanks man!

[radaja]

unclewebb
does ati gpu sensor not work with realtemp GT yet?
i can get realtemp to display my ati gpu by doing the GPU=2
but in GT it just wont show it right,just the 0x206C2
thanks

[unclewebb]

I haven't updated RealTemp GT in about 6 months or so. I've added the ATI code to RealTemp GT and that works but I would like to add the Nvidia code before releasing it. Hopefully this week before the kids get out of school and start running wild. Then I won't get anything done.

I'm still looking for some feedback from a Core i7-875K or Core i5-655K owner. RealTemp was having issues before when the multiplier was adjusted higher when in Windows. I'm just curious to see if the recent fix for this worked.

[unclewebb]

RealTemp 3.59.3
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

-minor bug fix to get rid of Xeon being reported twice.
-change to how Super Low Frequency Mode on the Core 2 mobile CPUs is reported.

[radaja]

I haven't updated RealTemp GT in about 6 months or so. I've added the ATI code to RealTemp GT and that works but I would like to add the Nvidia code before releasing it. Hopefully this week before the kids get out of school and start running wild. Then I won't get anything done.

I'm still looking for some feedback from a Core i7-875K or Core i5-655K owner. RealTemp was having issues before when the multiplier was adjusted higher when in Windows. I'm just curious to see if the recent fix for this worked.

hey no rush,i was just curious as to whether it was in RTgt or i was doing it wrong.
thanks

[some_one]

I'm still looking for some feedback from a Core i7-875K or Core i5-655K owner. RealTemp was having issues before when the multiplier was adjusted higher when in Windows. I'm just curious to see if the recent fix for this worked.

Looking good.

[unclewebb]

Thanks some_one for bringing this problem to my attention and for showing me that this problem has now been fixed.

I never thought I'd see the day when the multiplier was higher than the BCLK speed.

What program do you use to adjust the multiplier higher in Windows? The maximum multiplier for a Core i CPU is 255 but I don't think you could ever find a way to get the BLCK low enough to make that happen.

[some_one]

The maximum multiplier for a Core i CPU is 255

Just one other minor thing, which could probably be ignored since I don't think there will be too many people running at such a low BCLK, is that RealTemp seems a bit finicky in accepting the lower BCLKs. The multiplier reporting itself however was spot on.

In the below example BCLK was already set at 44MHz before RealTemp was run and in this particular instance RealTemp reported "100MHz" for the whole time.

[stasio]

99x is max in BIOS,not for CPU itself.

[some_one]

Thanks for making me have another look at this stasio. Seems like I took the hex multi 0x63 and converted it mentally as hex again (63=0x3f). In other words something like adding 1+1 and getting 3. Apologies all round.

So you say its limited in the BIOS. Do you mean by what can be selected in the BIOS setup? For version f9 on the GA-P55-UD6 my BIOS setup is limited to 64x but if your saying it is limited somewhere else to 99x then that must be what it is.

Looks like a nice editing utility you have there.