Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

[Kashelz]

Ok, here is the screene, CPU is Q6600 @ 2.4Ghz at 400 x 6, dafault voltage 1.275v, just testing FSB speeds for longer usage. Few minits ago tested core3 and Throtling kicked in something like 97 degrees C, so maybe TJ Max for that core is not 100 but 97 for exact this CPU? Need more testing to see when really Thermal operation starts to work on other cores

Image of screenshot: http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...1&d=1230859940

[Kashelz]

And here is the same testing but with Core Damage as burning software instead of Prime95 8K ffts.

[SFaznSpEEdSTeR]

Could anyone tell me why if I have a weird chip?

It's a E0 Q9550 OC'ed to 3.825GHz on 1.3125V on a 780i FTW and my temps don't look right

Basically at idle temps, it's at 31/31/39/37 while at full load on Prime95 the highest they go sometimes during high ambient temperature is like 49/49/47/48



Sorry for the uncropping of the image

[unclewebb]

SFaznSpEEdSTeR: It would have been nice if you would have let the Cool Down Test complete but even the partial test clearly shows that the sensors on core2 and core3 are stuck. Lots of these sensors stick and if you ran the test further you might find another one of your cores has a sticking sensor. Not all but most Quads have at least one good sensor. As for your uncropped image, why not do us all a favor and download a free program like Irfanview.

Kashelz: The TJMax on your 4 cores looks very well balanced. The sensors all have slightly different slopes. The RealTemp idle calibration factors can be used to balance the temperatures of your 4 cores at idle if you want. Just follow rge's recommendations for what a normal idle temperature is when testing at 1600 MHz and 1.10 volts. A Q6600 is about 1C higher than the E8400 he used during testing at these settings.

Thermal throttling starts to happen at a Distance to TJMax of 2 or 3 which is exactly what you found. It seems to do this because the goal is for the CPU to throttle itself and keep itself from ever reaching 100C.

I've posted this picture before but it does a great job of explaining exactly what happens so I'll post it again:



I ran Prime95 Small FFTs for 3 hours with the CPU fan turned off. The processor continuously throttled itself during this test. When it got too hot it would drop the multiplier to 6.0, cool down a little and then immediately the multiplier would go back to 9.0 until it got too hot. The multiplier cycles back and forth like this, likely hundreds or more times a second to keep the core temperature from going nuclear. It mostly sat at 98C. There were a few times where it would hit 99C but only once in 3 hours did it hit 100C as shown in the graph. I thought that was pretty amazing. You can be running a very stressful program like Prime95 and even if your CPU fan fails, your CPU will still take care of itself. When you see this, having TM1 / TM2 turned on in the bios isn't such a bad idea.

[SFaznSpEEdSTeR]

Sorry about that

Anyways, the cool down won't matter anyways because after that, the distance from TJMax stays the same. It is at a default 100C so I have not changed that.

[kemo]

I ran Prime95 Small FFTs for 3 hours with the CPU fan turned off. The processor continuously throttled itself during this test. When it got too hot it would drop the multiplier to 6.0, cool down a little and then immediately the multiplier would go back to 9.0 until it got too hot. The multiplier cycles back and forth like this, likely hundreds or more times a second to keep the core temperature from going nuclear. It mostly sat at 98C. There were a few times where it would hit 99C but only once in 3 hours did it hit 100C as shown in the graph. I thought that was pretty amazing. You can be running a very stressful program like Prime95 and even if your CPU fan fails, your CPU will still take care of itself. When you see this, having TM1 / TM2 turned on in the bios isn't such a bad idea.

I did something similar last week , E8400@4GHZ stock cooler with Intelburn test but this time it will switch down when the temp reaches 95C , surprisingly it gave me 100% stable in 5 runs that lasted for 510Seconds

+Can you explain a bit about sensor burning test , mine looks pretty bad when load gets higher Difference between 2 cores always get bigger Unless i am running some crazy volts and temps are well over 75C , is it sensor issues , bad cooling or uneven heatsink/IHS ?




Edit:looks like sensor Core 1 is stuck

[colex]

Please, I have a problem:
How can I set Real temp to start up when Vista start?
I put the .exe in automatic esecution folder, but it doesn't work.. an error message say: ....WinRing0.dll not found...

Thanks

[burebista]

You can use Task Scheduler, or (like I did) made an entry in registry:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Run right-click in right panel-New-String Value, name it RealTemp and in Value Data put your path to RealTemp executable (in my case "C:\Utile\RealTemp\RealTemp.exe")

[Demthios]

Okay guys gotta quick question for you I have a stuck sensor on my Q9550 that reads 0 on the move test. but it does go up in temp just fine doesn't read below 35 thought so I went and adjusted the idle temp on it to roughtly what the other 4 where idling at and now it doesn't read higher then 32 when the rest of them are 40+ but the movement test now reads 3. kinda confused here...

[colex]

You can use Task Scheduler, or (like I did) made an entry in registry:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Run right-click in right panel-New-String Value, name it RealTemp and in Value Data put your path to RealTemp executable (in my case "C:\Utile\RealTemp\RealTemp.exe")

Thanks

[unclewebb]

So is a fair guess for Tj Max +10°C above Target Tj?

There isn't any formula for converting Intel's TJ Target specs to a TJMax number that can be used to give you reasonably accurate core temperatures. TJMax is not a fixed number that Intel is willing to commit to. It can vary from one CPU to the next of the same model. In some cases, it seems to vary from one core to the next within the same CPU.

TJ Target and TJ Max seem to be the same for many processors like most of the E8000 series but the TJ Target numbers that Intel released for the 65 nm processors do seem to be off by 10C for quite a few of them.

For the Xeon E5410, Intel lists the TJ Target as 85C. Run a CPU Cool Down Test to make sure your sensors aren't sticking at low temperatures. Set your CPU to 333 x 6.0 in the bios and drop the core voltage down to 1.10 volts if you can. If you enable C1E and SpeedStep and have Windows set correctly, when your computer is idle it should drop down to somewhere close to these numbers. Run CPU-Z to check your core voltage.

My guess is that TJMax is probably 95C or 100C. Open your case and compare your reported CPU temperature to your room temperature near your CPU.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2429

Post or send me some screen shots and I'll give you my opinion of what I think it is.

bowman: I'll have to admit that RealTemp was not designed with the Atom N270 in mind. I'll make a few fixes to RealTemp to better support it but I won't be able to do anything with the simple Load meter I'm using. As for Atom performance, it looks pathetic! Here's how my Q6600 does when locked to 1600 MHz.



The single threaded XS Bench does a big calculation and scales very linearly with CPU MHz for pretty much any Core based processor. The Core i7 is about 20% faster at the same clock speed while the Atom looks like a good chip to check your e-mail with.

SFaznSpEEdSTeR: I was just interested in seeing the rest of your Cool Down Test so I could see if core0 and core1 were sticking.

kemo: If you go into the Settings window and click on the Defaults button, it should set your TJMax to 100C. It looks like it is presently set at 95C. The other problem you have is that TJMax is not consistent for both of your cores. I think you should set it to 100/109 for your two cores. As you noticed, core 1 is stuck so it won't be able to give you accurate idle temperatures but when Distance to TJMax is less than 55, your two cores should be well balanced.

colex: When using Vista, I prefer to use the Task Scheduler to add RealTemp to the Start Up area but burebista's method works. In XP you can copy a link to RealTemp.exe into your Startup folder. Edit: This also works in Vista. Go to All Programs -> Startup and copy a link into that folder.
Copying RealTemp.exe won't work since it won't be able to find the WinRing0 driver.

Demthios: You can't calibrate a stuck sensor. Post a screen shot of your CPU Cool Down Test. That's the easiest way for me to get a lot of information about your sensors without having to ask you a lot of questions.

[Draxx]

unclewebb,

Can I trouble you to have a looky at my sensor test and tell me what I need/if I need to alter any TJmax or idle calib?



Thanks matey

[bowman]

bowman: I'll have to admit that RealTemp was not designed with the Atom N270 in mind.

Figured as much. But I also figured you'd want the crown for Intel compatibility so it's another notch in the belt, right? Aside from the two GUI quirks it seems to work fine.

The Core i7 is about 20% faster at the same clock speed while the Atom looks like a good chip to check your e-mail with.

Check e-mail, browse the web, view videos, use Paint.NET.. It works just fine for my mobile purposes

[Kashii]

Quite a difference on idle, load seems alright I guess? It was 28, 28, 32, 32 on 2.70 (non-beta).

[unclewebb]

Kashii: When there is a large difference in Movement during the Sensor Movement Test, that's a warning sign of sticking sensors. The CPU Cool Dow Test confirms it. Between the 39% level and Idle, core0 and core1 move about 10 degrees while core2 and core3 only move 1 degree. You can see that both core2 and core3 get stuck at a Distance to TJMax of 63 so neither of those cores can be used for accurate idle temperatures. The first 2 cores look good and should give you reasonably accurate temperatures from Idle to TJMax.

bowman: If you have access to an N270, I'll send you a testing program that you can run to help me out. I had a look through the docs and some Atom processors have hyper threading and some don't. I've been ignoring hyper threading until the Core i7 came out. Looks like I need to account for that on the Atom line as well. The Atom doesn't put out a lot of heat but with passive cooling, I'm sure they can get toasty.

Draxx: Your Q6600 is a little different than most. Usually core0 and core1 line up pretty well. Try taking it down to 266 MHz x 6.0 and set the core voltage to about 1.10 volts. Open your case and see how your reported idle temperatures (when stabilized) compare to your room temperature near your CPU. That might give me some more info about whether core0 or core1 is the accurate one. It's also possible that this might be a thermal paste issue. I don't think it is but you might know better than me if you had any problems during installation.

What method do you use and what type of cooling are you using? AS5 recommends drawing a line from side to side on a Quad and from top to bottom on a Dual Core. I tend to put on a little more than that and then I spread it into a rectangular area over top of where the cores are underneath. Whatever works.

[kemo]

kemo: If you go into the Settings window and click on the Defaults button, it should set your TJMax to 100C. It looks like it is presently set at 95C. The other problem you have is that TJMax is not consistent for both of your cores. I think you should set it to 100/109 for your two cores. As you noticed, core 1 is stuck so it won't be able to give you accurate idle temperatures but when Distance to TJMax is less than 55, your two cores should be well balanced.

Now Load Temperatures seems more accurate but still i have never seen TJ-max distance of more than 55 on any of the cores , thanks for the tip

[bowman]

bowman: If you have access to an N270, I'll send you a testing program that you can run to help me out. I had a look through the docs and some Atom processors have hyper threading and some don't. I've been ignoring hyper threading until the Core i7 came out. Looks like I need to account for that on the Atom line as well. The Atom doesn't put out a lot of heat but with passive cooling, I'm sure they can get toasty.

I have a netbook with the chip in it. It's got a little fan of some sort, I can hear a light woosh if my desktop is switched off.

Sure, fire away, I can test.

[Draxx]

Draxx: Your Q6600 is a little different than most. Usually core0 and core1 line up pretty well. Try taking it down to 266 MHz x 6.0 and set the core voltage to about 1.10 volts. Open your case and see how your reported idle temperatures (when stabilized) compare to your room temperature near your CPU. That might give me some more info about whether core0 or core1 is the accurate one. It's also possible that this might be a thermal paste issue. I don't think it is but you might know better than me if you had any problems during installation.

What method do you use and what type of cooling are you using? AS5 recommends drawing a line from side to side on a Quad and from top to bottom on a Dual Core. I tend to put on a little more than that and then I spread it into a rectangular area over top of where the cores are underneath. Whatever works.

Well I just put a blob in the centre like I have always done, so I guess it could be AS5 related. But regarding whatelse you suggested, temp near CPU is around 26~27°C with a cheap thermometer. Realtemp says :-

[unclewebb]

kemo: It's possible that both your sensors are stuck at a Distance to TJMax of 55. Core 1 definitely is and core 0 is a maybe. You could try another Cool Down Test at a lower core voltage and MHz to try to get your CPU to run cooler to test this. In Cairo you probably don't have as many options like I have with my backyard sitting at -30C today. Core 0 looks usable.

Draxx: Here's a good picture of exactly where the cores sit under the IHS on a Quad CPU.

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/...ohne.40x30.jpg

It's a super sized picture but knowing where the cores are located helps when applying AS5. The old blob of AS5 in the middle might not give good coverage or heat transfer to the outer cores. When I have some more time tonight, I'll have a closer look at your numbers.

bowman: Thanks for your offer to help with Atom testing. I think I got things figured out today. It would have been easy to throw a quick band-aid at the problem but I decided to try and do things the correct way instead. I'll send you an RT update when it's ready for testing. 4 NFL playoff games is going to cut into my programming hobby this weekend.

[ptelles]

So is a fair guess for Tj Max +10°C above Target Tj?

There isn't any formula for converting Intel's TJ Target specs to a TJMax number that can be used to give you reasonably accurate core temperatures. TJMax is not a fixed number that Intel is willing to commit to. It can vary from one CPU to the next of the same model. In some cases, it seems to vary from one core to the next within the same CPU.

TJ Target and TJ Max seem to be the same for many processors like most of the E8000 series but the TJ Target numbers that Intel released for the 65 nm processors do seem to be off by 10C for quite a few of them.

For the Xeon E5410, Intel lists the TJ Target as 85C. Run a CPU Cool Down Test to make sure your sensors aren't sticking at low temperatures. Set your CPU to 333 x 6.0 in the bios and drop the core voltage down to 1.10 volts if you can. If you enable C1E and SpeedStep and have Windows set correctly, when your computer is idle it should drop down to somewhere close to these numbers. Run CPU-Z to check your core voltage.

My guess is that TJMax is probably 95C or 100C. Open your case and compare your reported CPU temperature to your room temperature near your CPU.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2429

Post or send me some screen shots and I'll give you my opinion of what I think it is.

Side case panels removed, 6x333, EIST enabled, default CPU voltage of 1.2250V. The D5400XS BIOS doesn't allow for the voltage to be lowered any further.

Tj Max was set to 95°C for Real Temp as well as Everest.

The ambient room temperature was fairly stable @ 25°C.

My idle degrees above ambient appear to be in the +14°C range.

With the case side panels on, overall cpu/mem temps increase approx. another 6°C.

[Draxx]

Draxx: Here's a good picture of exactly where the cores sit under the IHS on a Quad CPU.

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/...ohne.40x30.jpg

It's a super sized picture but knowing where the cores are located helps when applying AS5. The old blob of AS5 in the middle might not give good coverage or heat transfer to the outer cores. When I have some more time tonight, I'll have a closer look at your numbers.

Thanks mate, it was a bit blob so it should have coverered pretty much all the IHS. Thanks for looking over the numbers

[ptelles]

Side case panels removed, 6x333, EIST enabled, default CPU voltage of 1.2250V. The D5400XS BIOS doesn't allow for the voltage to be lowered any further.

Tj Max was set to 95°C for Real Temp as well as Everest.

The ambient room temperature was fairly stable @ 25°C.

My idle degrees above ambient appear to be in the +14°C range.

With the case side panels on, overall cpu/mem temps increase approx. another 6°C.

Apparently my front intake fan has decided to fail which explains why Everest didn't list it in the screen cap. After manually encouraging it to crank over, it doesn't appear to have any impact on the closed case temps.

[Demthios]

Alright here is the screen shot!

[unclewebb]

ptelles: It doesn't look like CPU-Z is reading the correct core voltage from your motherboard. Everest showing CPU1 at 1.21 volts is likely correct. Your testing shows that TJMax is not likely 100C. It also looks like Intel's TJ Target of 85C for your CPU would be too low.

Based on your testing, my best guess is that TJMax is likely closest to 90C. Intel says that TJMax is not an exact number but I think using 90C will get you accurate temperatures from idle to TJMax. That would put your reported temperatures above your room temperature at a similar amount to what rge found during his testing. rge tested a Dual Core, but based on power consumption at idle, a Quad would only be about 1C higher during this test. Your additional core voltage might also contribute another degree compared to rge's testing.

9C above your room temperature of 25C equals 34C. If you use TJMax = 90C, your reported idle temperatures are going to be right in the 34C range so I'd go with that.

[steelsky]

Hi everyone...

My head hurts hehe... ive gone through every page of this thread trying to paint the picture of whats been going on and lookin for other people with similar hardware to mine... but anyway ive got here and learned a lot about the quirks of the q6600 in the process. I was wondering if a couple of you would lend me few moments to help me understand a few tests ive done.

First heres my system spec.

Q6600 at stock
Akasa 966 Blue aurara CPU cooler - http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...-blue-aurora/1
Gigabyte UD3R
Coolermaster RC-330 with 120mm (1200RPM) fans at front and at back
Corsair 550watt PSU
8Gb of corsair XMS2 ram (4x2gb)
Nvidia 9800GT
Running 64bit Vista
WD 640GB Hdisk
WD 200GB Hdisk
Seagate 300GB Hdisk

I have the 3 drives seperated by a bay each... its about as good as I can do for air flow without removing one of the drives... which could happen if needed I guess.... I could add a pic if that would help.

Case Closed for all of these tests, and ive used easytune6, speedfan and the new RealTemp 2.9 beta for reference.

.............
Settings for your calibration test (but no calibration used yet.. just to test)
at 266x6.0 (1600Mhz) (all fans going max)
Voltage to 1.1

Idle Core temps read 35 35 30 34

CPU temp reads 20

in a room thats at 21

Harddisks are reading (27,26,30) idle

GPU at 42 (fan goin full)

System temp 38

.............
.............

Default
at 266x9.0 (2400Mhz) (idle speed step down to 266x6.0)

Idle Core temps read 42 42 36 39 (fan doing 560rpm - can do 1700max)

CPU temp reads 25

in a room thats at 21

Harddisks are reading (29,26,30) idle

GPU at 42 (fan doing 75% duty cycle)

System temp 42

.............
.............

Prime95 for 30Min
at 266x9.0 (2400Mhz)

Core temps read 59 58 55 56 (fan doing 1024rpm using bios smartfan - can do 1700max)

CPU temp reads 44

in a room thats at 21

Harddisks are reading (27,26,30) idle

GPU at 44 (fan doing 75% duty cycle)

System temp 42

.............
.............

Prime95 for 3 hours 30 mins
at 266x9.0 (2400Mhz)

Core temps read 61 59 56 57 (fan doing 1070rpm using bios smartfan - can do 1700max)

CPU temp reads 45

in a room thats at 22

Harddisks are reading (29,28,31) idle

GPU at 45 (fan doing 75% duty cycle)

System temp 43

.............
Next day
.............

IntelBurn 2 tests at max stress stable
at 266x9.0 (2400Mhz)

Core temps read 66 66 61 61 (fan doing 1070rpm using bios smartfan - can do 1700max)

CPU temp reads 51

in a room thats at 20

Harddisks are reading (27,30,26) idle

GPU at 44 (fan doing 75% duty cycle)

System temp 41
.............


I know im not maxing out on the fan but I cant really change how smartfan is controling it... appart from dissabling it as in the first test.

From reading this thread Ive seen a few people talk about reseating there cooler - i must admit i did expect a little more for this HSF even taking into consideration the inaccurate sensor temps, but i could be wrong. I was a bit old school and smoothed out the supplyed thermal paste with a card - im not sure if i should get some AS5 and try and do a better job mounting it?

All this was done at stock - I have had it up to 3ghz stable but it required more volts and took it into the mid 70s which is a little high for my comfort. I do a lot of 3D work and altho Im not rendering all day long there are times at the end of project i will hammer the CPU quite hard for a lot 12-14 hours per day for a week or more, so stability is more important that a huge clock.

I guess Im just lookin for a bit of guidence from those who have written this hoooooge thread hehe - please excuse the long post just trying not to miss anything.

Thanks in advance