Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

[aoch88]

-adjustable Idle calibration for each core and expanded to plus or minus 3.
-adjustable TjMax for each core.

Nice features in this new version but how do we know what to set? Are we suppose to set it so that it shows the temp we desire to see? LOL :d

[Klimpen]

Nice features in this new version but how do we know what to set? Are we suppose to set it so that it shows the temp we desire to see? LOL :d

You have to spend some time to read the first post, everything you might wanna know is there.

[unclewebb]

Are we suppose to set it so that it shows the temp we desire to see? LOL :d

Whatever makes users happy!

Personally, I don't think anyone needs to be touching the new TjMax adjustment feature but some of the 45nm sensors are so far gone that this might just help someone. This also saves me arguing with people over what TjMax is for their processor. If they don't like my choice, they can use their own.

NaeKuh: I had a look at your data before it mysteriously disappeared and even though it looked like a hopeless mess, I think RealTemp can be used with your cpu to get some reasonably accurate core temps out of it.

Most users get pretty suspicious the moment reported core temps go below ambient but the amount your readings were below your water temp / room temp was completely normal. The theory behind RealTemp is that the colder your processor gets and the farther you move away from TjMax, the larger the error is going to become in your readings. This error can go either way and without a user doing some testing there's no way I can look at a model number and predict what's going to happen.

With my E8400, when the Distance to TjMax (DTS) is at 55, there is already a 5C error between what an IR thermometer says and what RealTemp would be telling me with TjMax=95C and with no idle calibration. With CoreTemp using TjMax=105C, the reported error is 15C and growing as the temperature drops further.

When the DTS is reading 80 like on your processor, the size of this error can approach 10C. I'll admit that this isn't an exact science and I haven't tested enough processors to know exactly the average size or range of this error but at least I know it exists. Other core temp programs have been pretending that the DTS data is 100% linear but that's definitely not true at idle. I've included some code in RealTemp to compensate for this which will improve the accuracy of your idle core temperatures even if they'll never be 100% perfect. These sensors just weren't designed or calibrated for that.

From what I've seen so far, if TjMax is chosen correctly, low idle temps are only accurate +/- 10C and if TjMax is wrong, the error might approach 20C. Back up a page to yesterday and have a look at Dom7184's readings. His idle temps on a 45nm Quad Xeon are being reported at 50C by the competition's software which is completely wrong and he knows it.

When a processor is reading 10C too low at idle, some users will use CoreTemp which assumes TjMax=105C instead of 95C like RealTemp is using. That might cover up the problem with the DTS at idle and make the numbers look believable but it's not solving the problem. All you end up with are load temps that will be reported 10C too high. If a processor is already reading 10C too high at idle and you switch to CoreTemp and it adds on another 10C of error, your temps will be sky high and you'll probably start thinking that you must have got a bad cpu and Intel forgot to solder the IHS to the cores.

When you get your block attached correctly with enough thermal paste then do a 5 minute run of 1 minute idle, 3 minutes of Prime95 small FFTs on all cores and then back to 1 minute of idle so I can see what kind of data your DTS is giving out. Include that and your beginning water temp and room temp and PM it to me. Go into the RealTemp.ini file before you start and set LogInterval=1 so I'll have plenty of numbers to look at. I'm pretty sure that a slight calibration of RealTemp will get you some fairly accurate and believable temperatures from Idle to TjMax.

[NaeKuh]

Whatever makes users happy!

NaeKuh: I had a look at your data before it mysteriously disappeared and even though it looked like a hopeless mess, I think RealTemp can be used with your cpu to get some reasonably accurate core temps out of it.

LOL... hopeless mess..

Funny thing is when i used the calibration this time it worked. B4 it wouldnt work, but now it worked.

Im kinda lost on why it worked this time around and not the first time.

[unclewebb]

Im kinda lost on why it worked this time around and not the first time.

The way RealTemp handles the INI file can be a problem. If you make changes to this file while RealTemp is running, when you close it, it will do you a nice favor and write over top of all your changes with the previous values.

I learned how to properly process INI files this morning so that bug will be gone in the next update.

Have you got any nice looking temps out of RealTemp yet or is it still a mess?

[NaeKuh]

The way RealTemp handles the INI file can be a problem. If you make changes to this file while RealTemp is running, when you close it, it will do you a nice favor and write over top of all your changes with the previous values.

I learned how to properly process INI files this morning so that bug will be gone in the next update.

Have you got any nice looking temps out of RealTemp yet or is it still a mess?

well now on the max calibration its nice now.

Makes sense when comparing with my probes so i actually like it. Im probably going to never turn my comp off again unless windows forces a restart.

I hope my Ini file doesnt get wiped.

[unclewebb]

Makes sense when comparing with my probes so i actually like it.

After seeing your original data I wasn't sure if it was going to be possible to make a happy customer out of you.

I'll fix the "now you see it, now you don't" calibration values in the INI file by this weekend. I thought I was doing people a favor by saving everything when the program closed but that was a bit over kill. After a calibration curve is set up, you never have to go back in the INI file again so you can rest easy now.

[chrome-187]

so wats better? core temp or real temp?

[unclewebb]

so wats better? core temp or real temp?

I'm a little biased but let's do some comparisons.

CoreTemp reports the idle core temperature on my E8400 20C degrees hotter than what it actually is. RealTemp is within a degree or two of the actual temperature from 10C to 100C. CoreTemp will report that your E4300 is 15C hotter than what it actually is when at full load.



In the above pic, one temperature monitoring program is correctly reporting the MHz when playing around with SetFSB.

RealTemp also gives you a way to compensate for digital thermal sensors that are not working properly at idle. Core #2 in the above picture is a good example of a sensor that is reporting at least 5C to 6C too low.

RealTemp displays the raw digital thermal sensor (DTS) data along with the absolute temperature data, both at the same time. CoreTemp forces you to choose which one you want to see.

RealTemp clearly shows your minimum and maximum temperatures and gives you an easy way to reset this data. CoreTemp forces you to search through a log file for this data.

RealTemp also shows whether your processor is thermal throttling or not. This is displayed and logged by directly reading the PROCHOT# bit within the Intel core processors.

RealTemp includes a Test Sensors feature that lets you discover if your thermal sensors are getting stuck at low idle temperatures like many new 45nm processors do. CoreTemp doesn't.

RealTemp includes a very accurate benchmark. It's far more accurate than doing a 1M SuperPI benchmark which uses a timer with only 1/64 second precision.

If you need to know your processor's voltage ID then use CoreTemp. Of course that number can vary depending on which motherboard you plug your processor into so it probably doesn't mean as much as some users think it does.

CoreTemp does have a very nice tray icon feature which RealTemp will likely get some day if the programmer ever stops pissing away countless hours in forums. The information that CoreTemp displays for your E4300 will be completely meaningless and have a very poor correlation to the actual temperature but it will look good when minimized, guaranteed.

I told you I was a little biased.

RealTemp was also written by a fellow XS enthusiast that fully understands the value of accurate temperature data when pursuing a good OC.



That picture has nothing to do with this thread but I'd paper my living room with it if I could get away with it. Not too shabby for an old air cooled P5B Deluxe.

[Richard Dower]

Where is version 2.42?

[unclewebb]

Where is version 2.42?

It's beta at the moment and will be ready for download by the weekend.

[AndyM]

CoreTemp does have a very nice tray icon feature which RealTemp will likely get some day if the programmer ever stops pissing away countless hours in forums.

I'm waiting for this for sure! Gotta say...nice work, thanks!

[loonym]

Nice 8400 and extra nice spi unc

[Klimpen]

I'm a little biased but let's do some comparisons.

No kiddin man!

If you need to know your processor's voltage ID then use CoreTemp.

Would it and should it maybe be include in RealTemp?
It would be a nice feature because now I need CoreTemp for that purpose ONLY! And me don't like that!

CoreTemp does have a very nice tray icon feature which RealTemp will likely get some day if the programmer ever stops pissing away countless hours in forums.

Don't stop pissing around man, me like that!

That picture has nothing to do with this thread but I'd paper my living room with it if I could get away with it. Not too shabby for an old air cooled P5B Deluxe.

I take that SP1M result as an invitation to a FIGHT!

[Viper9201]

Really excited about realtemp, and would love to use it to replace coretemp. The only thing holding me back is no minimize to tray, any news on when that might be implemented?

Apart from that keep up the good work man!

[jas420221]

Thats been the biggest request (not bug/fix) in this thread...a lot of us are anxiously awaiting that feature!

[chrome-187]

Thank you UncleWeb for the detailed response. explained pretty well. and you are exactly right. with my core temp and real temp programs there is a 14-17c difference in temps. core temp has me idle @ 38c and 58c load...real temp has me idle @ 22c and 42c load....and im scared to trust real temp lol...cuz real temp makes me want to press my chip higher...im currently 1.4v @ 400x8 3.2ghz 1600fsb...i can run this e4300 @ 400x9 which is 3.6 ghz 1600fsb but i have to give it 1.6v...and im already maxed on my temps via core temp but if real temp is correct i just might have to leave it @ 3.6...what do u thinK?

[safan80]

unclewebb thanks for telling me about the tjmax setting in realtemp. I set it to 2 for 105C and now realtemp matches everest.

[chrome-187]

unclewebb should i change any settings in real temp for my e4300? if so how do i do it?

[jcool]

Hey uncleweb, great tool you made!

One thing for the wishlist: For the sake of us Dual S771 users, could you enable readings from both CPUs be displayed? Not just the 1st one... thanks

[unclewebb]

unclewebb thanks for telling me about the tjmax setting in realtemp. I set it to 2 for 105C and now realtemp matches everest.

You used to have one program that was right and now you have two programs that are probably wrong. Good work I guess.
Take the same advice that I have for chrome-187.

chrome-187: Many E4300 processors need a calibration factor of 1 or 2 for accurate idle temperatures but there's no way I can tell you what setting you need until you do some of your own idle testing. Have a good read of the first post about setting idle calibration factors.

To enter this into RealTemp you need to edit the RealTemp.ini file and will likely need to use either:

Idle0=1
Idle1=1

or

Idle0=2
Idle1=2

I wish there were more hours in the day to get all the requests done. I was working on RealTemp today and I did make it Minimize to somewhere. Now I just need to add an icon to the tray so I can make it come back! Hopefully that feature will finally be done in the very near future and Dual S771 will be taken care of after that.

[CyberDruid]

Thanks a lot for your work. But I feel guilty shaving 10C off my temps...I mean I should have to be using an uber cooler or something

[Rattle]

newest version works nicely in vista 64. says my wolfy TJ is 95c though is correct?

asus suite says 34c
realtemp says 39c
coretemp says 49c but it always says 48c or 49c no matter what lol.

thanks for realtemp dude !

[unclewebb]

But I feel guilty shaving 10C off my temps...I mean I should have to be using an uber cooler or something

Don't be afraid to send me some of the money I just saved you! If I got paid by the degree of temperature reduction I've created, I'd be a rich man.

For those that don't have time to read through this 31 page novel, here's the highlights. The reason I wrote RealTemp is because CoreTemp and Everest and all the other programs that assume that TjMax=105C for my E8400 are wrong. Dead wrong. The actual, measured core temperature of my E8400 is about 17C less at idle than what all those other programs are reporting. If CoreTemp and Everest are this far off on my 45nm E8400 then I don't have too much faith in either program correctly reporting the core temperature of a QX9650, 45nm Quad or any other processor for that matter.

[Klimpen]

newest version works nicely in vista 64. says my wolfy TJ is 95c though is correct?

asus suite says 34c
realtemp says 39c
coretemp says 49c but it always says 48c or 49c no matter what lol.

thanks for realtemp dude !

Asus Suite = Probably reads the ACPI probe on the motherboard = WRONG
RealTemp = Does a good job if you calibrate it like uncle have said 100 times = RIGHT
CoreTemp = Just is a big chunk of mess these days = WROOOONG

Don't be afraid to send me some of the money I just saved you! If I got paid by the degree of temperature reduction I've created, I'd be a rich man.

YEAH, that would be a good idea, don't by a big watercooling setup, just use RealTemp and set it so -3 in the INI and you have just cut 20C of you temps.
Then send the $ you were to spend on WC to unclewebb... (and he'll send som to me for this great idea.
Because the great thing with RealTemp is not to show the ACTUAL temp but rather to lower the output to your needs.
Do you NEED to read 14C on the screen just calibrate it down to a suitable number.
(So unclewebb, can you add a -25 to the calibration because I need a ZUPER ZCREENDUMP with subzero temp to show off with on the next LAN )

For those that don't have time to read through this 31 page novel, here's the highlights. The reason I wrote RealTemp is because CoreTemp and Everest and all the other programs that assume that TjMax=105C for my E8400 are wrong. Dead wrong. The actual, measured core temperature of my E8400 is about 17C less at idle than what all those other programs are reporting. If CoreTemp and Everest are this far off on my 45nm E8400 then I don't have too much faith in either program correctly reporting the core temperature of a QX9650, 45nm Quad or any other processor for that matter.

And if you are even that lazy that you did not even read the first post then I have to clarify that uncleweeb measured with a REAL TEMPERATURE EQUIPMENT like the iR temp probe.