Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

[KURTZ]

just a Q guys, is there a program like RT for the AMD's processors?

[Russ_64]

It is called CoreTemp - look in AMD thread .......

[KURTZ]

It is called CoreTemp - look in AMD thread .......

yes, but this can't do a sensor test for the cpus ...

[unclewebb]

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip

I did a few updates to the RealTemp / RivaTuner plugin today for any RivaTuner fans. By default, it uses the Calculated Multiplier for Core 2 and Core i7 now.

I also added Battery Level monitoring support for mobile users to the plugin.

If you have a Core i7, enable hyper threading and draw a screen full of graphs so I can see that it works.

randomizer: The i7 Turbo program works on Core 2 as well. You can use it to learn about your multiplier. I was hoping you were ready to retire your E6600 by now so I could get my hands on it for some testing. Send it my way and I'll send you back an upgraded chip.

[randomizer]

randomizer: The i7 Turbo program works on Core 2 as well. You can use it to learn about your multiplier. I was hoping you were ready to retire your E6600 by now so I could get my hands on it for some testing. Send it my way and I'll send you back an upgraded chip.

I thought you were kind of joking about that earlier (that plus I forgot you ever said it after all this time ). What will you send in return? I might need a new board and I don't want to be out of service for too long so I'd rather have the new board already if needed Let's hope the chip doesn't start running normally for you just so that it doesn't get itself drilled.

[unclewebb]

I have a Q6600 G0 and an E8400 C0 in stock. Take your pick. Neither one is a golden chip. The E8400 has run a 10.3 second Super PI time when it was on the edge of self destruction at 4.5 GHz. Definitely not Prime stable but lots of fun all the same. It's max Prime stable is down around 4000 MHz to 4050 MHz. I run my Q6600 more conservatively at 3 GHz and I have never pushed it to extreme levels. My old motherboard with the 965 chipset isn't great with Quads so I didn't think there was much point. Either chip is good enough for me so take your pick. Your E6600 is kind of like acquiring a rare fossil. It might provide us with some new information and be the missing link in the evolution of TJMax.

Send me a PM and we can work something out.

Edit: I lied. It actually ran 10.250 in a 1M of SuperPI.

[CompuTronix]

Reposted from the bottom of the previous page.

Hi unclewebb and rge,

Sorry I haven't posted or PM'd for quite some time, however, I've continued to follow your excellent work, as well as every post on every page, every day.

Your points are well taken concerning Intel's deviations in Tjunction Max values, however, from a different perspective, I'd like to share with you my research and empirical data, which I've continued to acquire for my Core i7 and Core 2 Temperature Guide over at Tom's.

During the past 2+ years, I have extensively tested, and recently re-tested and analyzed processor temperatures using three data points which consist of idle, 50% load and 100% load at stock settings with Prime95 Small FFT's. I then repeated each test at overclocked settings with higher Vcore and temperatures. The objective was to observe and carefully document the thermal relationships between CPU temperature and Core temperature, sensor linearity characteristics, slpoe error behaviors, and power consumption.

Calibrations were based upon the 5c thermal Gradient between the Analog Thermal Diode and the DTS value, of which we're both familiar from certain Intel engineering documents. All testing was conducted using a standardized test setup under controlled conditions at 22c ambient on a variety of motherboards, chipsets and CPU cooler combinations. Real Temp was used to cross-reference Core temperatures in SpeedFan.

Although the CPU temperature offset calibration value may shift on certain motherboard when BIOS test settings are changed, CPU temperature was verified or re-calibrated in SpeedFan prior to acquiring each measurement, so that information from the Analog Thermal Diode would provide a valid and accurate point of reference. This assured that the results were both consistent and repeatable.

The following assortment of 65nm an 45nm processor variants were tested:

(1) E2160 L2
(1) E4500 M0
(1) E5200 R0
(1) E6400 B2
(4) E6600 B2
(1) E6850 G0
(6) Q6600 G0
(1) Q6700 G0
(1) E7200 M0
(1) E8500 E0
(3) Q9650 E0
(6) i7 920 C0
(1) i7 940 C0

Of these 28 individual processors, 17 of which are quads, my findings show that the Analog Thermal Diode is typically linear from low idle temperatures thru very high load temperatures. Testing also revealed that the 5c Gradient between CPU temperature and "Mean" Core temperature is relatively constant from 4c to 6c, which conforms with the detailed thermocouple testing performed by rge.

The most interesting point is that when you originally conducted your IR testing, except for a few low order variables concealed from your Fluke IR gun on the IHS, apparently you were closer than you may have since thought. For example, the Core 2 processors which I've tested that are suposedly Tjunction Max 100c have shown values that average from 97c to 98c, with the exception of the i7's, which are nearly spot-on between 99c and 100c.

As such, it's likely that the differences often seen in the Core 2 quads between each pair of dual cores is 100c and 95c, which yields a Mean Tjunction Max value of 97.5c. This obviously coincides with my findings, and offers further insights toward Intel's new term "Tj Target".

Comp

[unclewebb]

Hi Comp. It's been a while. I thought you didn't love us anymore.

For the Core 2 CPUs I've tested, throttling seems to start when the digital thermal sensor is reporting 3 or sometimes 2 so if TJMax is 100 then it does seem to happen at 97C or 98C. I thought this was something Intel did deliberately so the CPU would slow down and keep the core temperature from ever reaching 100C. During my 3 hour Prime95 Small FFT run with the CPU fan turned off, only once did one core touch 100C so I thought Intel's design was working pretty damn good.

I saw a screen shot at X-Bit labs which showed a Core i7 at 99C and it hadn't tripped the thermal throttle bit yet so RealTemp was still showing OK in the Thermal Status area. As soon as that bit gets tripped, even once for a microsecond, RealTemp will display LOG and if thermal throttling is in progress then that changes to HOT.

Based on user feedback, I think the official difference in TJMax between the two Dual Cores within a Quad was increased when the 45nm Quads came out. My best guess is about 5C for 65nm and maybe as high as 10C for the 45nm Quads.

I gave up trying to buy one of every CPU that Intel makes. There's no way I can come up with a large enough sample or even consistent and accurate enough testing procedures to be 100% certain about any of this. Intel knows the truth about their calibration procedures but they weren't willing to tell the whole story at the IDF conferences last year and most users have lost interest in this topic. At least they were willing to admit that TJMax is not a fixed, written in stone value and that some variation does happen and they also admitted to the slope error of these sensors. That was less info than I hoped to get from IDF but realistically, more than I expected to hear Intel admit to.

They were right about one thing. Their Core i7 temperature sensors are much better.

[KURTZ]

guys, but RT recognize the i7 processors' VID?

[unclewebb]

KURTZ: There is no documented way to read VID from a Core i7 CPU. Before RealTemp was updated to support Core i7, it used to show some random numbers for VID but it shouldn't show anything now. If it is still possible to read VID, Intel isn't saying anything about it.

If the programmer of Core Temp wants to do a multi level temperature step down test for AMD CPUs then I would be happy to show him what I do to create lower temperature steps while Prime 95 is running. It just uses the Intel On Demand Clock Modulation feature while the test is running. This reduces the heat output of any CPU in gradual steps and at the end of the test it kills the Prime95 test and lets it sit there at idle for the last step. That would be a useful feature for the AMD guys so I hope someone does this. I don't have any AMD hardware to develop on so it won't be me.

Edit: I did some more testing tonight and discovered why RealTemp and the plug-in can display very high load numbers at idle on mobile CPUs. The Load % being displayed is based on how hard the one active core is working. With 45nm mobile chips, one core can get turned off at idle while the other core will start running internally at half the normal FSB speed due to an Intel feature called, "Dynamic FSB Frequency Switching." The result at idle is a single core running at 800 MHz so the true load on that core is actually quite high. It's working like a dog to get all the work done that needs to be done while running at a fraction of its normal speed while its partner is having a sleep. The reported Load % looks bizarre and has absolutely nothing to do with what Task Manager reports for CPU Usage. There is some definite meaning behind a big idle load number when you are monitoring a mobile CPU.

Here's the latest RealTemp / RivaTuner plug-in:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip

[JohnZS]

Once again thank you for your continued efforts at RealTemp Unclewebb
I have a quick question, the % Load monitor is not working correctly on my QX9650, I am using version 3.30Beta. During Intel Burn Test and Prime 95 Large or Small FFT's CPU is reporting @ 89% load, yet under Windows Task Manager it is 100% Load.
Any ideas?
When my CPU is @ Stock the % Load Monitor in Real Temp works.
Also have you altered the TjMax rom 95 to 100? for the C0 stepping QX9650? (Quad Core Extreme)?
Thanks
John

[rambler358]

Unclewebb - any chance you could make RealTemp compatible with the Logitech LCD keyboard displays, like CoreTemp?

Also, in v3.00 of RealTemp, the individual core temp readings in the system tray come up defaulting to be out of order core-wise. Not a biggie, just something I've noticed.

Thank you for all your efforts, and keep up the great work!

[unclewebb]

Also, in v3.00 of RealTemp, the individual core temp readings in the system tray come up defaulting to be out of order core-wise.

We call that a Windows 7 feature. Randomly ordered core temps in the System Tray. Their OS is designed so a program can insert one system tray icon. Any program that needs to insert multiple icons like a monitoring program needs to do, has a difficult time getting them to line up in the correct order. They get inserted randomly, usually to the left or the right of the previous icon. There's no way I've found to predict the order that Windows 7 will give me. The same code works 100% in Vista or XP at keeping the tray icons ordered.

I use the RealTemp / RivaTuner plugin so I can see some data when using my G15. I'm in the process of updating that at the moment so it might be buggy. Hopefully in another day or two it will be 100%.

I might add G15 code directly to RealTemp someday. I'll put it on the things to maybe do list.

Edit: Here's the plugin if you use RivaTuner.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip

I just got word that it is working very good. The only bug that still needs fixing is the JohnZS QX load bug.

[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

[rambler358]

Thanks for the info Unclewebb. I don't use RivaTuner, but use EVGA Precision instead (same author though) - a simpler interface with all the features I need.

[unclewebb]

The sensors on the QX processors almost seem worse than the rest of the Quad processors. They're probably exactly the same but when you pay a premium price for a CPU, your expectations go up and I know from your previous testing, your sensors definitely don't live up to that. Intel learned their lesson. The Core i7 sensors are world's better than the 45nm Core 2 sensors. Whoever decided to save a few pennies when sourcing the 45nm Core 2 sensors must have been reassigned to a new department.

I sent you a testing program in a PM. Thanks for helping me out John.

[JohnZS]

The sensors on the QX processors almost seem worse than the rest of the Quad processors. They're probably exactly the same but when you pay a premium price for a CPU, your expectations go up and I know from your previous testing, your sensors definitely don't live up to that. Intel learned their lesson. The Core i7 sensors are world's better than the 45nm Core 2 sensors. Whoever decided to save a few pennies when sourcing the 45nm Core 2 sensors must have been reassigned to a new department.

I sent you a testing program in a PM. Thanks for helping me out John.

Thanks Uncle, all received, you have mail
Yes it is a bit disappointing that the premium processors have the dodgy sensors, I guess it is because I purchased this back in December 2007 (just after release), I would imagine the Quads with the newer C1 and E0 steppings have better sensors?

(One would hope)

Thanks for your help
John

[unclewebb]

I would imagine the Quads with the newer C1 and E0 steppings have better sensors?

That doesn't seem to be the reality. All 45nm Core 2 Dual and Quad core CPUs have sensor issues. Some processors are better than average and some are worse but they all have issues. Intel's suggestion at IDF was to buy a Core i7. They have better sensors and you certainly need them considering the heat they can put out.

[Marvin82]

Is RealTemp 3.20 The last Version
Thanks

[randomizer]

Is RealTemp 3.20 The last Version
Thanks

Whatever you download from the URL to the RealTempBeta that has been posted many times is the latest. unclewebb always overwrites the same uploaded file. Sometimes you have to clear your cache though because it will for some reason download the old version (for me anyway)

[JohnZS]

Doh! So all in all the Core2 45nm manufacturer process of the sensors was quite... poor?
Do Core i7's run a lot hotter than Core2 Quads?
I am considering upgrading in 2010 to the Corei7 Extreme Refresh (32nm?) Maybe I will be reunited with dodgy sensors
John

[gymenii]

I picked a good one

[OC Nub]

I have had 5 45nm CPU's. ALL have had least 1 stuck sensor at idle. Have an e8400 CO that has both sensors bad at idle and load, ran it for well over a year at 4.05ghz, never knew what my temps were.

[unclewebb]

Coming from the RealTemp guy this is going to sound a little dumb but temperatures really aren't that important. Cool them as much as you can afford to and they will be able to overclock more. If they are not stable, cool 'em some more or back off your overclock. That's really all there is to it. No fancy temperature monitoring program needed.

gymenii: Your CPU looks like a winner. Two sensors that actually work and both of them on the same CPU.

They must have manufactured that one on a Wednesday. No way it could have been built on a Monday or a Friday.

JohnZS: When you start overclocking Core i7 and feeding them lots of voltage, they start consuming and putting out a lot of heat energy. Far more than Core 2 Quads, especially when you enable hyper threading and run 8 threads of something crazy like LinX.