# RealTemp General Discussion



## unclewebb (Jun 28, 2008)

RealTemp is a utility to monitor core temperatures on all Intel Core based processors.

To learn more about RealTemp and to download the latest official version then head here:

http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/

The current beta version is  *3.69.1*
I will update this as new versions become available, unless I forget for a few months.  






The beta has Sandy Bridge support and can be downloaded here:

*RealTemp 3.69.1*
http://www.mediafire.com/?4uixpjtezznuzkd

Recent additions include Core i7 support and access to Clock Modulation that is built into Core processors.
Version 2.84 has added a new sensor test which does a more thorough job of checking for stuck sensors.
Version 2.86 has a bug fix for Core i7 when hyper-threading is turned off.
Version 2.90 RC2 has a new layout, including a Load meter.
Version 2.90 RC8 includes Nvidia GPU temps.

If you have any questions or comments about this program then here is the place to do it

Cheers.


----------



## Laurijan (Jul 2, 2008)

Is this program more accurate then core temp i ask because i get differnt readings with this program?


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 2, 2008)

Here's a link to some of the testing I've done.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3096431&postcount=1600

Intel does not publish TjMax for any of their Desktop processors.  RealTemp has tried to come up with this value from actual testing with an IR thermometer.  The competition does not seem to have done any real world testing.  If they had, they wouldn't still be using TjMax=105C for the 45nm desktop processors.


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 8, 2008)

Just a quick update so that you can drag RealTemp while in Mini-Mode.  
Special thanks to *WoZZeR999* for complaining about this oversight.  :up:

You can download it here:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip

Unzip and copy the new RealTemp.exe into your present RealTemp folder.  You will need to download version 2.60 first and install it if you aren't already using RealTemp.

You enter or exit Mini-Mode by double left clicking on the GUI.

Even the truly anal will have a hard time complaining about RealTemp taking up too much screen real estate now.  Throw it in Mini-Mode and then drag it where ever you like.






RealTemp can also start up in Mini-Mode as well.

The other feature added to this version is that a double right mouse click on the GUI will move RealTemp up to the upper left corner of your screen so it's out of the way.  I might add an option later so you can choose where on the screen you want it to go after a double right click.  

Feedback is always appreciated.


----------



## Kreij (Jul 16, 2008)

@unclewebb

The first line of the documentation reads...


> Real Temp is a temperature monitoring program designed for all Intel single Core, Dual Core and Quad Core processors.



You may want to clarify that it's only the Core and Core2 CPUs as they are the ones with the thermal sensors in them.

Yes, I wasn't thinking and tried it on my Pentium D 
At least it was nice enough to tell me it wasn't supported without being insulting.


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 16, 2008)

By capitalizing Core I was implying that it only works on the Intel Core architecture of CPUs.  That's definitely a little cryptic so I'll try to add "No Pentiums" to the docs in the near future.  The Intel documentation is a little unclear.  I've read that the very late P4 processors actually had DTS sensors in them which are needed for RealTemp to work.  I'm still waiting to get some feedback on this since I was all AMD during the P4 era.


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 18, 2008)

Users are sometimes a little unclear about how to go about calibrating RealTemp.  It's not an exact science.  I recommend lowering the MHz down to about 1600 MHz (266 MHz x 6.0) and the core voltage down to 1.10 volts.  If you are using a 45nm processor with a default FSB of 333 MHz then use that instead.  I also open the case to get rid of that variable.  The goal is to lower the CPU heat output to a minimum and establish a common reference point to the testing I've done.  

If you are unsure about manually setting MHz and core voltage then you can also enable C1E in the bios.  If you are not overclocking, after your computer boots up you should end up with similar values to the above when Windows is idle.  Use CPU-Z to confirm that your motherboard correctly supports C1E.

With water you'll have to compare the RealTemp reported core temperature to your water temperature so give it some time to stabilize.  If you are air cooled then you need to compare your idle temperature to your air temperature upwind of your CPU.

Here's a quick test I did a while ago with my Q6600 - G0.  I usually head downstairs to my cool basement but decided to give it a try upstairs where the temperature beside the open computer was 21C and in front of the computer it was closer to 20C.  The side panel was off but it's sitting beside a desk so airflow isn't perfect.  I'm using calibration factors of 
(1, 1, 2, 1 )
which typically has this processor within +/- a degree or two at idle.  Here are the results:






Average core temperature was 26C and room temperature is about 20C to 21C.

Since this test I've added one digit after the decimal point to the calibration factors so there are more options to choose from.  At idle, during this test, you should see pretty much the same temps across all 4 cores.


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 20, 2008)

*RealTemp 2.69.3*

Finally had a chance to add in an alarm feature to keep CompuTronix happy. 






It's only a visual alarm at the moment where you will see the application and the RealTemp system tray icons flash.  I will be adding an alarm that you can also hear as soon as I find an appropriate .wav file.

I've found that Quad core processors at full load will usually have the first two cores reporting higher temps than core2/core3 so I've created the ability to set two different alarm points if you need to compensate for that.  Single and Dual core processors will only have one alarm temperature to choose.  The temperature range is from 0C to 125C and if you don't want an alarm then just leave it unchecked.  You won't likely ever hear an alarm if you set it to 125C since that is believed to be the thermal shut down temperature of the desktop processors.

It's available for download in the beta section:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip

Download, unzip and copy the new RealTemp.exe into your RealTemp directory.

To make room for this option in the Settings window I moved the Core Order to the main screen.  It has been renamed APIC ID which is the technical term for it.  If you have a Dual core you won't see this information since your APIC ID will always be 01.  This information is only used for the grouping of the cores of a Quad core processor.

The other small feature added was a user selectable anchor position.

By default, if you do a double right mouse click on the RealTemp GUI, it will jump to the top left corner of the screen.  If you would like it to jump to a different location then position RealTemp where you want it, hold down the Shift key and do a double right mouse click while holding it down.  This will set a new anchor position.  

Now when you double right click on RealTemp it will jump to this new custom anchor position that you have chosen.  I realize that setting a new anchor position is a little cryptic but I'll try to document it early on in the New Features section.  Other than that I guess it will be a special feature for users that actually RTM!

If anything isn't working quite right with these new features then let me know.  If you have any sounds that you would like to hear for an alarm then e-mail them to me.  I'll try to code the final version so users can custom choose their own .wav file to play for an alarm.


----------



## stasio (Jul 21, 2008)

Link above in the beta section,still ver.2.69.2


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 21, 2008)

stasio said:


> Link above in the beta section,still ver.2.69.2



That seems to be a problem with the FileDen site I use and usually Firefox.  You will sometimes have to go in and clear your cache within Firefox before doing a download so you get the latest version.  The cache can be found under Tools -> Options -> Advanced in Firefox.  I just did a download and the latest version is there.


----------



## goren (Jul 25, 2008)

Hi,
Sorry if this has been answered somewhere.  I've checked the documentation and haven't found the answer.

How exactly did you determine TJMAX?  Did you point the IR thermometer at a bare CPU as it heated up until the thermal protection kicked in?

How accurate is measuring the top of the IHS for determining core temperature or TJMAX?

Also, is TJMAX identical for all Core processors (65nm or 45nm, dual or quad) and what about the newer Pentium Dual cores (E21xx and E22xx)?

Thanks!!!


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 26, 2008)

*goren:* TjMax was determined by pointing an IR thermometer at a variety of Core based processors, 45nm and 65nm as well as Dual and Quad core.  All measurements were taken while the processor was idle with as little load as possible.

When a CPU is running an application, hot spots develop at various parts within the core depending on what type of instructions are being executed.  At idle, these hot spots are greatly reduced and Intel's testing has shown that the temperature measured at the center of a CPU similar to how I am measuring is typically within 0C to 1C of a core temperature reading.  For this reason, I believe that a measurement of the IHS with an IR thermometer can get you a very accurate approximation of the core temperature.  

Here are a couple of good papers from Intel about core temperatures:
http://download.intel.com/technology/itj/2006/volume10issue02/vol10_art03.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.1861v1

rge at XtremeSystems has been gathering info for a long time so if you're interested in learning more than I would try contacting him.

You don't have to go all the way to TjMax before you start to see a very strong relationship develop between the digital thermal sensor (DTS) data and the changes in the core temperature as measured with an IR thermometer.  Typically by 60C and up there is a direct 1:1 relationship which is obvious when the IR thermometer is pointed at the IHS.

The basic formula is this:

Reported Temperature = TjMax - DTS

If we rearrange that we get:

TjMax = DTS + Reported Temperature

If the DTS is showing 35 while an IR thermometer is showing 60C then TjMax must be equal to 95C.  The same thing happens when you get to 70C.  Now the DTS is showing 25 so you add them together and TjMax must be 95C.  As the temperature cools off and you get farther away from 60C, the 1:1 relationship starts to fall apart and you will see either the temperature start to change faster than the DTS is changing or vice versa where the DTS is changing at a different rate than the temperature is changing at.  The long standing belief that the output from these sensors is 100% linear doesn't hold true at idle.  This is explained further in the RealTemp documentation.

You don't have to take a processor all the way to the throttling point near DTS=0 to calculate what TjMax is but let's just say that more than one of my processors has experienced a very wide temperature range.  






The easiest processor to test was the E2160.  Most of the heat at idle seems to be created by the on die cache memory.  This processor only has 1MB of L2 cache so it heats up very slowly even without a heatsink on it.  The extra cores and extra cache on a Q6600 make testing more difficult but it also showed a TjMax=95C relationship during testing.

So far I have only found two possible TjMax values for the Desktop processors.  It's either 85C or 95C for the Desktop chips.  For the mobile processors it is either 100C for the 65nm chips or 105C for the new 45nm mobile chips.

Here is a link to the RealTemp forum at XS and some of the testing I've done:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3096431&postcount=1600

Here is some testing that rge at XtremeSystems did and his conclusion about TjMax and whether measuring the temperature of the IHS is valid at idle:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3085792&postcount=1525


----------



## P4-630 (Jul 26, 2008)

Everest Ultimate reports a 105C (221F) Tjmax Temperature for my E7200,
should I change the Tjmax from 95 to 105 to get the most accurate temps?


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 26, 2008)

If you believe that TjMax=105C for your 45nm E7200 then you can use that in RealTemp.  Personally, I don't believe that for a second.  Everest also uses TjMax=105C for my E8400 and after this test, I don't believe that either.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2883315&postcount=573

Here are some comments from the programmer of Everest:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3161151&postcount=1785

And here is some more testing of a 45nm E8400:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3085792&postcount=1525

TjMax=105C is only documented for the Intel mobile processors.  There is no documentation from Intel that says it is relevant for any of the desktop processors.

The default TjMax used by RealTemp is based on IR thermometer testing.  Read the documentation here on TechPowerUp and try doing the calibration test.  You will likely agree that it is impossible for your E7200 to have a TjMax=105C.


----------



## burebista (Jul 27, 2008)

*unclewebb* first of all THANK YOU for you superb piece of work. I'm an E8400 owner about 3 days now and I read alot on the Web about Wolfdale temperatures. Finally I fully agree with your approach and methodology so I'm a happy RealTemp user. 
Now I have two questions for you. In picture below is my setup: E8400 under Scythe Ninja fanless on ASUS P5Q-E MB. Two case fans, Noctua P12 exhaust at ~700RPM and Scythe Kama  PWM intake at ~ 500 RPM.



At room temperature of ~23°C and E8400 at 0.944V Vcore and underclocked to 1586MHz (264x6) those are temperatures reported by RealTemp and from BIOS via SpeedFan (in SpeedFan I've calibrated core temperatures to match RealTemp readings).






IMO idle temperatures reported by RealTemp are too high, I tend to believe BIOS CPU temperature of 26°C.
I ran your sensor calibration test and give this



So for me it seems that my Wolfdale show a wrong idle temperatures on cores. I can't believe that an E8400 with 0.944V Vcore and 1586 MHz have 35°C in idle, it seems more accurate that 26°C from BIOS.
I guess my sensors are stuck on idle temperatures?
In full-load RealTemp looks OK.



55°C peak on 3GHz under Ninja fanless, summer, low RPM's fans it seems quite right to me. I touch my Ninja's heatpipes and they was warm. Not hot but pretty warm so I guesstimate that 55°C was real.
So my question is can I ignore idle temps (I've tried to calibrate them but after that your sensor test show 0 movement on cores) and consider only load temperatures (in fact that's what I need to know, load temperatures to be OK)?

And my second question is about differences in CPU frequency marked with red box. In CPU-Z is correct, but RealTemp (it's odd, only sometimes is wrong) show me another frequency. Do you have any ideas why?

Thanks again for your time.


----------



## P4-630 (Jul 27, 2008)

unclewebb said:


> If you believe that TjMax=105C for your 45nm E7200 then you can use that in RealTemp.  Personally, I don't believe that for a second.  Everest also uses TjMax=105C for my E8400 and after this test, I don't believe that either.



Sorry but I did not mention anything about what I believe or not.
It was just a question, since there is an option to change the Tjmax in RealTemp.
But I understand for the most accurate temperatures you recommend to leave the Tjmax at 95 for the E7200.


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 27, 2008)

*burebista:* What is reported as CPU: temperature in SpeedFan may be a believable looking number but without calibration, you can't know for sure how accurate that number really is so avoid making any comparisons to it.  On my board, the CPU reading at times is off significantly.  

The sensor test shows that your sensors are not stuck at this temperature which is good.  These sensors are rarely accurate at reporting idle temperatures so if your sensors read a little high that is not unusual.  My E8400 does the exact same thing.

If you had a high speed fan on your CPU cooler than I would recommend that at idle during your low MHz / low voltage test that your reported temperatures should be about 4C or 5C higher than your room temperature in an open case.  If reported temps are higher than this then you just need to go into the Idle Calibration section of RealTemp and enter in a negative calibration factor.  I think my E8400 needed a calibration factor of approximately -2.0 so the idle temps were more accurate.  

This calibration procedure will improve the accuracy of your temperatures from idle to about 60C.  These sensors are usually very accurate by this level so even without any calibration, your load temps are probably within a degree of the actual temperature.

When running a CPU cooler fanless, the idle temps will be higher than normal.  It's really hard to know just how much higher without knowing about your overall case air flow and 101 other variables.  Run a high speed fan on that cooler and it will be easier to compare to what I have measured during this test.

The CPU MHz in RealTemp is a work in progress.  It does an excellent job on most motherboards most of the time but it's not perfect.  Looks like CPU-Z is still king of MHz so if there is a significant difference, I would trust that program first.  The RealTemp MHz were correct on your other screen shot.  How often would you say is RealTemp wrong?  After I get the next version finalized I can work with you and your motherboard to help improve the accuracy of RealTemp MHz if you like.

*P4-630:* I apologize for the misunderstanding.  When RealTemp first came out I had to do a lot of defending of my methods but the initial disbelief has changed in the last few months.  Some users like RealTemp but disagree with my choice of TjMax so the adjustable TjMax feature is for them.  It's greyed out to discourage users from making any changes since I don't know of any CPUs at the moment that need a change of TjMax.


----------



## burebista (Jul 27, 2008)

Thanks man for your explanations. I'll try to put a fan on my Ninja to see how it looks like in idle then.


unclewebb said:


> The RealTemp MHz were correct on your other screen shot.  How often would you say is RealTemp wrong?  After I get the next version finalized I can work with you and your motherboard to help improve the accuracy of RealTemp MHz if you like.


I have ASUS's EPU software which have 4 profiles, from maximum power savings to turbo mode.
If I launch any of these profiles then I bring CPU in full-load (Orthos for example) RealTemp is fine, it shows like CPU-Z same frequency.

   

But if I use Maximum power saving profile from EPU after a while RealTemp go crazy. 



If you have time to spend with me I'll be glad to help you. Maybe it will be useful for others too. EPU, DES are standard now (at least from Gigabyte and ASUS) and maybe somehow RT is fooled by that behavior.
I know that your main focus is temperature related, but when you find some free time I'm here to help.


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 27, 2008)

I'll have to look into what exactly Asus EPU software is doing in Maximum power saving mode.  Is it possible that RealTemp is measuring something internally that is going on during this mode that CPU-Z is ignoring?  If I learn something new about this I'll post the results.

When not running the Asus software, is RealTemp correct at idle and at full load?


----------



## burebista (Jul 27, 2008)

unclewebb said:


> When not running the Asus software, is RealTemp correct at idle and at full load?


Damn I must uninstall it and see. I can't just exit from it. 

Anyway, now it's fine.



Weird.


----------



## burebista (Jul 27, 2008)

OK, I've stopped EPU from Task Scheduler, reboot and I make a short movie with what's happens on idle, on Orthos launch and again in idle.
Maybe it helps.


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 28, 2008)

Your video definitely helps.  At full load the MHz look pretty steady but at idle when SpeedStep / C1E is cutting in and out it's confusing RealTemp.  I'll send you a slightly different version of RealTemp later this week to see if I can improve the accuracy for you at idle.  Jumping back and forth between 1999 and 2999 MHz is normal when C1E is enabled but all those other numbers are not.


----------



## P4-630 (Jul 28, 2008)

unclewebb:
Fluke does not include a calibration certificate with these meters but these Fluke 62 Mini Infrared Thermometers are factory calibrated and measure with an ± 1.5 ºC accuracy so your test results should be pretty accurate.








http://us.fluke.com/usen/products/s...965(FlukeProducts)&category=THE(FlukeProducts)


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 28, 2008)

At the idle temperatures I was measuring at, the accuracy is even a hair better than that.  It's listed as ± 1 ºC in the Fluke docs.

*10 ºC to 30 ºC (50 ºF to 86 ºF): ± 1 ºC (2 ºF)*


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 30, 2008)

burebista said:


> And my second question is about differences in CPU frequency marked with red box. In CPU-Z is correct, but RealTemp (it's odd, only sometimes is wrong) show me another frequency. Do you have any ideas why?



I've been working with burebista the last couple of days to try and figure out what's going on.  Thanks to the incredible amount of testing he did, I think we've come up with a reasonable explanation.

At full load, RealTemp was showing the exact same MHz as CPU-Z.  At idle it would also show the exact same MHz but after a while RealTemp would start to report MHz that frequently changed and at times would drop to only about half as much as CPU-Z was reporting.  He managed to track this down to having C-State Tech enabled in his bios along with either C1E or SpeedStep enabled.

C1E drops your FSB multiplier down to 6.0 when your CPU is idle but with his motherboard and processor, it seems that the it was going further and actually stopping and turning a core on and off depending on the load.  These deeper sleep states were previously only available on the mobile chips but it looks like the newer desktop chips with the appropriate motherboard can also go into these states.  (C1,C2,C3,C4, etc.)  I use RMClock 2.30 to experiment with these.  Very few desktop CPUs and boards support all of these modes.

CPU-Z seems to report the MHz based on when the processor is running.  RealTemp averages when it is running with when it is sleeping so the MHz it reports when this is happening is lower than what CPU-Z reports.

If the processor is throttled down to 266.6 MHz x 6.0 then CPU-Z will report about 1600 MHz.  During the interval that RealTemp uses to calculate MHz the processor might be at 1600 MHz for 75% of the time and it might be asleep at 0 MHz for the other 25% of the time.  If this happens, RealTemp will calculate the average during this interval and report it as 1200 MHz.

I think both of these answers are half right.  If RealTemp reports your idle FSB MHz lower than what you have set in the bios then it is very likely that a power saving mode has kicked in and is letting one or more of your cores have a snooze.

Thanks for all your testing burebista.  We flipped a coin to try and decide whether this is a RealTemp bug or a feature.  He agrees that in some ways it is a feature because it indirectly informs users when parts of their processor is going into a sleep state.  I'm leaning towards letting RT continue to report an averaged MHz.

Here's an example of what he sees when his computer is very idle:


----------



## burebista (Jul 31, 2008)

No need to thank me, my testing was nothing compared with your testing and writing this superb piece of work. 



unclewebb said:


> We flipped a coin to try and decide whether this is a RealTemp bug or a feature.  He agrees that in some ways it is a feature because it indirectly informs users when parts of their processor is going into a sleep state.  I'm leaning towards letting RT continue to report an averaged MHz



To be honest I'd like to remain as it is now. I really want to know for real what's happening with my CPU.


----------



## RyanS2000 (Jul 31, 2008)

Did you write the dll library and sys file or just the front-end for the dll?


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 31, 2008)

Your welcome burebista.  RealTemp is a combination of a lot of good ideas from different users here and on the XtremeSystems forums.

The fastest way to get RealTemp up and running was by using a third party dll library.  To read the on chip temperature sensors legally from Windows, you need Ring0 access.  For this I am using WinRing0 which is freely available from here:

http://openlibsys.org/

The only function from this library I'm using is Rdmsr which allows RealTemp to read the information in Model Specific Register 0x19C where the temperature data for each core is hiding as well as the PROCHOT# status.  MSR 0x2A has information for the current CPU multiplier and MSR 0x198 contains some other information that RealTemp uses. 

If you're interested in learning more about your CPU then you can use a little utility program I wrote that lets you read MSRs.  It depends on the same WinRing0 library that RealTemp uses so after you download it you will need to unzip and copy it into the RealTemp folder to get it to work.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/MSR.zip







You can safely click on *Read MSR* but before you click on *Write MSR*, you better download the Intel MSR manual to know what you're doing or BSOD might become your friend.  The digits 3D and 41 represent the temperature data for each core.  It represents how far the core is away from TjMax.  You can use the Calculator program to convert these hex digits to base 10.  

0x3D = 61
0x41 = 65

The Intel manuals are here:
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/manuals/

Appendix B of manual 3B is where all the fun MSR stuff is located.


----------



## RyanS2000 (Aug 1, 2008)

RealTemp is an awesome app, good job on it 

If you wrote the winring0 library I was going to ask if you had any GPU libraries in your toolbox. I made a small temp monitoring app in Visual Basic that reads CPU temps via WinRing0 library and it reads identical temps as RealTemp (using tjmax 95). I would like to add GPU temp reading\fan-controlling functionaility to it. I will most likely make it open source once I put it all together. I personally use rivatuner ONLY to control my GPU fan speed since the eVGA 8800GTS 512 has no built-in fan control. I feel it is overkill to have a tool like rivatuner loaded just for such a simple task like controlling my gpu fan. Perhaps the RivaTuner libraries can take care of this? Have you done any GPU temp reading or fan controlling work?


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 1, 2008)

Thanks RyanS2000.  Once you get TjMax right, there's not a lot to reading core temperatures.  I started with literally a couple of lines of code and have been tacking on extras ever since.  Surprising it still works! 

I haven't done any GPU temp reading or fan control.  I've been thinking about trying to get RealTemp working with RivaTuner so I could take advantage of RivaTuner's graphing abilities and get some proper on screen temps when gaming.  That would add a couple of worth while features to RealTemp without needing a lot of extra programming.  I'll see what I can figure out some day.

I continue to use SpeedFan for the same reason you're using RivaTuner, to control my GPU fan.

In the WinRing0 library there are functions available to read and write data to the IO ports as well as the PCI bus.  This might be enough to accomplish what you want but I have no idea where to start.


----------



## RyanS2000 (Aug 5, 2008)

Thanks for all the info in your above post, it really saved me a lot of googling 

I was able to figure out how to read GPU temp, ambient temp, and core slowdown threshold values for nVidia cards. I have not yet figured out how to read these values on ATi cards, there is little to no documentation about any of the API's. As far as fan control goes, it seems very complicated so I may not go that far with it.


----------



## Gabi_87 (Aug 5, 2008)

*E4500 M0 Temperature*

Hi, my name is Gabriel and I´m from Argentina.

Since the moment i´ve bought my E4500 M0 Stepping i was surprised cause it seems to be really cool using Intel Cooler with Artic Silver 5. I´ve overclocked it and i put the voltage at 1.368V Full Load (Prime 95 Small FFTs) what makes the Realtemp to show only 62º.
I was really happy and then i noticed that most E4xxx Had higher temps than mine, so i started to search in forums and some people told me that if my E4500 shows a TJmax of 85ºC in programs i have to add 15ºC to the temperature showed in programs. Or, what is the same, to adjust the TJmax to 100ºC. At the moment i was really scared, so i went to the bios in order to reduce the voltage and the OC too...

Days ago i decided to test a little things in my processor. And one thing was to set 1.5V at Bios to see if my E4500 reached up the TJmax and started trottling. Realtemp showed me 74º, and if we add 15º Plus to this temp the conclussion is that at that moment my E4500 was at 89º what´s supossed to be 4º Above de TJmax.. 22 Minutes passed and Prime95 was still running at 1.5V voltage without and error, BSOD, or lower frecuencies in the Processor. 

I´m really confused cause i don´t know what to think about it..

I ´ve attached a screenshot of Cpu-Z and Realtemp showing my Processor at Idle.


P.D: I have tested the temp of the heatsink and it was about 42º with my E4500 showing 62º at 1.368V. Excuse me if my english is bad, my foreign language is spanish 

Thanks


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 6, 2008)

Your English is way better than my Spanish!  If you don't understand any of my reply just ask me to clarify things.

The basic formula temperature software uses is this:

Reported Temperature = TjMax - Digital Thermal Sensor Reading

All programs are reading the same data from the same digital thermal sensor on the CPU.  The difference is some programs have decided to assume TjMax=100C while RealTemp is using TjMax=85C.  One of the reasons RealTemp uses 85C is because I tested an E2160 - M0 which is very similar to your E4500 - M0 and it was 85C, not 100C.  Both have the same CPUID code which is 0x6FD.

Most software doesn't seem to do any testing but here's the kind of testing I do:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2844886&postcount=423

At default settings, the E4500 runs quite cool.  People think they run hot because they have been using the wrong TjMax so the reported temperatures have been wrong for a long, long time.

Here's some thermal throttling testing I did on my E6400 which also uses a TjMax=85C.






The PROCHOT# section in RealTemp monitors the information in a Core processor that keeps track of when your processor is hot and has started thermal throttling.  As you can see, that doesn't usually start to happen until 83C!  Core1 is still fine at 81C.  When you were at 74C according to RealTemp, you still had another 9C to go before throttling begins.

If you were gaming when this happened, even after you stopped the game and your core temperature returned to normal, this check mark would still be set.  This is a record if there was any thermal throttling since you started your computer.  This will only be cleared if you restart your computer.  If this box is not checked, then your computer has been running at full speed without any throttling activity.  

Thermal throttling is when your processor starts to slow down to control temperatures.  Your E4500 will cycle your CPU multiplier back and forth from 11.0 to 6.0 which will lower your MHz and reduce the amount of heat being put out.  It will do this so quickly that when it first starts to happen, most software won't even report that it is happening.  If you were using your computer, you might not even notice a difference in performance.  If this continues to happen for a while then CPU-Z and RealTemp should start to show your CPU at reduced MHz.  If it was at 200MHz x 11.0 (2200MHz) then it would drop to 200MHz x 6.0 (1200MHz)

When overclocking you don't have to worry too much about temperatures.  As long as your computer is stable and it is not thermal throttling then it should be fine.  The Intel Core processors do an excellent job of looking after themselves.  When a CPU is too hot, you will lose stability when running Prime95 small FFTs and it will either report an error or your computer will re-boot.  As long as your computer is stable then there is no need to worry about temperatures.  Just run it as cool as possible to maximize stability and your ability to overclock it. 

Edit: Read the documentation to learn more about how to calibrate your sensors for more accurate idle temperatures.  By using the correct TjMax, your load temperatures are very accurate even without any calibration.

When it gets this hot, call the fire department and put them on stand-by.


----------



## Gabi_87 (Aug 6, 2008)

Thank you very much unclewebb, you had answered to all my questions really well!

But i have only one more doubt:

If The TJmax of my processor is 85º, does it mean that my E4500 M0 supports lowest temperatures than others with a higher TJmax? or does the maximum temperature supported is the same?

Cause i think that what really matters in fact is the Distance to Tjmax.
That´s why i´m think that if a processor it´s at 70º with a tjmax of 100ºC it´s hot, and if i have a tjmax of 85º, 55º would be hot too :S?
May be i´m wrong, and the TJmax it´s only a limit when te processor starts trottling and in my processor it´s before other ones but it does not mean that my processor support lower temperatures. I really don´t know.

What do you think about that?


Thanks for all your help, i really apreciate that!

P.D: When i put "spanish is my foreign language" i commited a mistake with the word "foreign". Spanish is my first language, the language of my Country, that´s why i tried to say


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 6, 2008)

Gabi_87 said:


> If The TJmax of my processor is 85º, does it mean that my E4500 M0 supports lowest temperatures than others with a higher TJmax?



All E4500 - M0 processors have a TjMax=85C.  There is no such thing as TjMax=100C.  Other software might be using TjMax=100C but it is not true for any of the Intel desktop processors that I know of.

Your processor is only too hot if it is thermal throttling (PROCHOT is turned on) or if it is randomly re-booting.  If your computer is stable then you don't need to worry about temperatures.


----------



## Gabi_87 (Aug 6, 2008)

I know that if´s not trottling the processor is fine, but my question is based in terms of durability. I don´t think that having my E4500 at 80º would be healthy..


----------



## sneekypeet (Aug 6, 2008)

Gabi_87 said:


> I know that if´s not trottling the processor is fine, but my question is based in terms of durability. I don´t think that having my E4500 at 80º would be healthy..



The question is more how often you update. It may shorten the life of the CPU, but do you plan to run it for 5 years or until you can afford a Nahalem rig. If you plan to upgrade soon its really irrelevant. If you plan to keep it for a while your point then has some validity.

If in fact you are the long haul guy I say around 60-65*C is fine. But i have yet to see definative proof of how much any OCing or overvolting degrades the CPU. I agree it has to have some effect, but if the OC is stable I dont see the damage being too harsh!


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 7, 2008)

I think everyone worries way too much about CPU temperatures.  AMD/ATI recently released the 4850 series which runs 24/7 at 80C in 2D mode and 85C to 90C in 3D.  They don't seem to be too concerned about running their silicon at these temps.

Intel CPUs are designed to work reliably whether you're in the desert or on the North Pole.  From personal experience, Core based processors also run reliably, long term, even when grossly overclocked.  For 65nm, keep your core voltage at a maximum of 1.50 volts.  You'll probably be bored with it long before it ever dies.


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 18, 2008)

*RealTemp 2.73*

The latest version allows users to customize the background and text colors of the GUI independently in regular and Mini Mode.  

If you want to check it out then you can download it from the beta section:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip






A double left mouse click on RealTemp will put it into Mini Mode.


----------



## RyanS2000 (Aug 20, 2008)

Love the new colored iface. Great job. 

If you don't mind me asking, what language did you write this app in? If C++, did you use MFC?

The memory usage is awesome on your app, roughly 1mb. I put together a similar app in Visual Basic but it uses about 7megs or memory. At first I thought it was from the graph it draws for each core but even with that disabled it still has fairly high usage. I also put together a small app in Delphi 2007 that just read temps and it uses about 2mb.


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 20, 2008)

Thanks RyanS2000.  Adding adjustable colors to the interface was simple to do and took very little extra coding.  

I'm using Visual C++ 6.0 (MFC).  I just upgraded the SDK from 1998 to August 2004 so at least RealTemp has some modern XP style buttons finally.  I have a newer version of Visual C++ .NET sitting on my shelf but haven't found a need for it yet.  I didn't want users to have to download the bloated .NET package just to see some core temperatures.

When minimized to the System Tray, RealTemp is very efficient for both memory and CPU usage.  I learned C programming on an Amiga computer that ran at a blistering 14 MHz with 2 megabytes of memory.  Writing efficient code back then was not an option!


----------



## Kursah (Aug 20, 2008)

unclewebb, I want to thank you for RealTemp, I've used it since your first release. Gotta say it does what I want, it's simple, effective, easy to read, and now even customizable!

I'd say don't go too crazy adding stuff tho...if you do that, maybe do a RealTempX or something, that has more goodies, maybe you and W1z could do a GPU-z/RealTemp congomoration that would be some sort of "premium" program...but really I'm happy running both seperately.

I'm glad you're taking all this time to not only make a great program, but to making it as accurate as possible, and continually updating it! Thank you! I'm sure you hear it a lot, and you should, many try, but not many have the abilities to make a good vision come to life and be successful.


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 20, 2008)

The RealTemp basic feature set is about done.  I don't have plans to continually add features until it is big and bloated.  The next thing I might add is G15 keyboard support.  That and maybe a RivaTuner plug-in are the only things I can think of at the moment that might be useful.

Intel is finally going to fully document their 45nm temperature sensors on Thursday at the IDF.  Anything I learn from that which will increase accuracy, will quickly be added to RealTemp.


----------



## Kursah (Aug 20, 2008)

Sweet deal man! I may have a chance to win a G15 from Fit's give-away thread, and I am planning on selling my Q6600 for a high-oc-ing e8xxx series, probably an 8400/8500...I may win with both your updates! 



I gotta say I regularly have your program running...maybe you could add an option to run/run minimized at startup? I would find that useful, I always have it running!


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 20, 2008)

Kursah said:


> ...add an option to run/run minimized at startup?



The manual method works best for this because I hate adding stuff to anyone's registry.

In XP just drag a link to RealTemp into your All Programs -> Startup folder.  That's what it's there for.

In Vista, the proper way to add items to your startup area is with the Task Scheduler.

Now I have more time to work on the important stuff.


----------



## RyanS2000 (Aug 20, 2008)

I agree with that totally, try to keep it lightweight as possible. That's its major selling point for me as I hate system tray apps but being it uses 0 CPU and 1mb memory I am ok with it. If I can minimize the memory usage in my temp app I may start actually using it 24/7 like I do realtemp.

Here's a ss of it as of now; it supports 4-core processors but if it only sees 2 it reduces the size of the interface upon loading.









and of course


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 20, 2008)

You should think about using C++ / MFC if you want to get your code size down.  I had very limited C++ experience 6 months ago when I started working on RealTemp.  C++ is one of the most used programming languages and is worth learning.  Who did you borrow your temp font sizes from?    I copied Intel TAT cause I like to see at a glance the important stuff.  Users would be very interested in a combined monitoring program like you've created if you can make it more efficient.


----------



## RyanS2000 (Aug 20, 2008)

I have experience in C++, VB, and Pascal; mostly VB, about 13 years. VB is the fastest for me so I just put the app together to see what memory usage would look like. The temp app I posted ss's of uses about 7400kb memory and even shows CPU usage of 1 at times. As you would expect I was disappointed so I put together the app in C++ (MFC) but my memory usage was still rather high. For just a dialog window displaying temps uses 3,600kb of memory. I also made the app in Delphi 2007 and I get the same result, roughly 3,600kb. Perhaps it is just my system?

And about the font, I use tahoma for everything


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 20, 2008)

I just put together a typical Hello World MFC app and look at the memory usage.






That same app after you minimize it once and then re-open it is suddenly much more efficient.






I have no idea why Windows is so inefficient.  It loads up everything and then when it figures out that you don't really need it, it dumps it out of memory.  If you need it later on then it loads it up I guess.  Most people that will be using an app like yours will have 2 gigs of memory or more so don't worry too much about the size of your program.


----------



## RyanS2000 (Aug 20, 2008)

Yeah, that's what I was thinking but I hate the fact that such a small tray app is using anything more than 1 mb. I personally have 4gb of RAM but I am anal with apps in my tray that are always running. That memory usage thing is interesting, I wonder if there is an API call that I can call on load to make it start with low mem usage. 

I really want an app that can monitor CPU\GPU temps PLUS control GPU fan speed. I did some researching and apparently adjusting GPU fan speed isn't the easiest thing in the world to do (for my skill level atleast). I did find some C++ source for doing it but didn't really fiddle with it too much. As far as converting my entire VB app to C++ I don't know if I'm going to bother spending the time. I don't want to reinvent the wheel and re-make apps that already perfectly exist ie. realtemp for cpu temp and I already need RivaTuner running for fan control and at the same time it fills my need for GPU temp.


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 31, 2008)

Here's some testing I did using the new Intel approved TjMax=100C for my E8400.  I also did this same test with a Q6600 - G0 with TjMax set to 100C and got the same results.

I played around with it for half an hour and even took it a little beyond TjMax just to make sure that it was thoroughly warmed up. 







I tried testing at different temperatures and moved the IR gun around and around but the hottest it would ever show was 5C less than the reported temperature of the hottest core..  This is the gradient that Intel says exists between IHS and the core even when the CPU is 99% idle.  The above pic was taken 2 seconds after this one.






Once I put it back together I tried doing the RealTemp calibration test.  The room temperature near the open computer was 21C and it was running at 1600 MHz and 1.08 volts.  With these settings, at idle, an expected core temperature should be about 5C above the room temperature which would be 26C.  This is what I get:






When using the correct TjMax, and no additional calibration, my core temperatures are being reported about 8C too high.  This is a perfect example of "slope error."  JohnZS has one core that reads too high and one core that reads too low so a combined error, when uncorrected, of 15C on his Quad is hardly surprising.  

Intel finally releasing the correct TjMax for 45nm hasn't given the enthusiast community as much information as they thought they were going to get at IDF.  

Here's a quote from the press release that was posted at Anandtech:

"Armed with this information, seasoned application developers and amateur coders alike will finally have everything they need to implement the most accurate, real-time core temperature display tool possible."

Well, not quite.


----------



## dark2099 (Aug 31, 2008)

Did Intel release the TjMax for the new E0 E8400 and E8500's when they released all the other 45nm chips or are they the same as the other revisions/steppings?


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 31, 2008)

Intel did not mention that there was any difference in TjMax with the new E0 steppings.

Here's the IDF presentation:
http://intel.wingateweb.com/US08/published/sessions/TMTS001/SF08_TMTS001_100r.pdf


----------



## dark2099 (Aug 31, 2008)

That link doesn't work or doesn't like me.


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 31, 2008)

Sorry about that.  It originally worked after the IDF.

I found a different link to this document:
http://rapidshare.com/files/141444140/SF08_TMTS001_100r.pdf.html


----------



## burebista (Aug 31, 2008)

Uncle, I have a suggestion, but before a small intro.
I have an E8400 cooled by a Ninja rev.B fanless+AS5+ TR Bolt-Thru on a P5Q-E in a P182.






Those are my idle temperatures at 26°C room temperature.






I hardly believe that an E8400 at 1560 MHz and 0.944V Vcore have 43°C at idle with 26°C room temperatures.
Then my full-load temperatures with a small OC at Vcore default.






Three different temperatures (RealTemp calibrated, RealTemp/CoreTemp default and SpeedFan with old TJmax) but one thing is the same in all programs: distance to TJMax (it's obvious because all programs reads same value from MSR 0x19C).

So here it cames my suggestion: to get rid off this chaos with calibrating idle temperatures and different TJMax for 65nm or 45nm CPU's (I know that Intel told us at last TJMax for 45nm CPU's but it is still debatable as uncle show us) we can use distance to TJMax as absolute and correct temperature in full-load. OK we'll still have strange temperatures in idle but all that's matter is accurate temperatures in full-load to see how close we are from throttle point.
We can define some ranges (just an example)
- distance to TJMax >55°C. Cold CPU
- distance to TJMax between 25°C and 55°C. Warm CPU
- distance to TJMax between 10°C and 25°C. Hot CPU.
- distance to TJMax <10°C Very hot CPU, approaching to throttle point

All I want is that for those who want to calibrate RealTemp for idle and mess with TJMax leave the program as it is, but for those who want to see if they approaching to throttle point make an option in Settings to show in system tray distance to TJMax and to make it more intuitive color coded it. Something like this:
- green. Cold CPU
- yellow. Warm CPU
- red. Hot CPU
- blinking red/magenta. Very hot CPU.

In this way all became simple. Regardless of your CPU (Quad, dual-core, 65nm, 45nm), your room ambient, your load, your TJMax, if you see bigger numbers you're OK with a cold CPU, if you see small numbers you're in load but still OK and if you see very small numbers you're close to trouble. 

Good or bad idea?


----------



## Hayder_Master (Aug 31, 2008)

anything like real temp for amd


----------



## burebista (Aug 31, 2008)

Use CoreTemp. You don't need idle calibration and TJMax madness for AMD.


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 31, 2008)

burebista: With the latest official TjMax release and Intel admitting that the 45nm sensors have some significant slope error issues, being able to see the DTS reading in the system tray is a good idea.  I'll throw that on the immediate things to do list and work on colors for it later.


----------



## burebista (Aug 31, 2008)

unclewebb said:


> I'll throw that on the immediate things to do list and work on colors for it later.


OK man, thanks a lot.


----------



## mtosev (Oct 8, 2008)

great app. tnx


----------



## fishnchips (Oct 15, 2008)

amd dual core fx 64 is not supported why is this?


----------



## burebista (Oct 15, 2008)

Because this? 


> RealTemp is a utility to monitor core temperatures on all Intel Core based processors.


----------



## fishnchips (Oct 15, 2008)

Nuts!!!


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 16, 2008)

fishnchips said:


> amd dual core fx 64 is not supported why is this?



I haven't owned a platform with an AMD CPU since my E6400 arrived and immediately overclocked to 3200 MHz.  At the moment, I don't have any easy way to test and develop for AMD.  

The AMD sensors don't have the same issues that the Intel 45nm sensors do so a program like Core Temp should be able to give you accurate temperatures for your AMD CPU.  I decided to concentrate on the Intel Core CPUs and there have only been 2 or 3 requests in the last 6 months to support AMD.


----------



## Kursah (Oct 16, 2008)

One thing that would be nice would be actual CPU voltage reading that some other programs use also...dunno if it'd be a pain to add or not, but some people are mistaking VID reading for actual voltage settings when overclocking. I've seen that happen a few times..I'd personally like to see that as one little extra to an already excellent utility.


----------



## mlee49 (Oct 16, 2008)

Kursah said:


> One thing that would be nice would be actual CPU voltage reading that some other programs use also...dunno if it'd be a pain to add or not, but some people are mistaking VID reading for actual voltage settings when overclocking. I've seen that happen a few times..I'd personally like to see that as one little extra to an already excellent utility.



I'm one of many who made the mistake, thanks Kursah.

//subscribed//


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 16, 2008)

CPU-z is probably the most well known utility and does an excellent job on most motherboards at reporting CPU voltage so adding that feature to RealTemp probably won't happen in the near future.  In any screen shot, CPU-z is the first thing you usually see.


----------



## burebista (Oct 21, 2008)

Official TJMax for 65 and 45 nm CPU's from IDF Taiwan. In attachment.


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 21, 2008)

Thanks burebista for posting that.  Now we don't have to worry about that document disappearing from the Intel website like after the last IDF.

I've read over the document and noticed that they talk about a value called Target Tj.  Users that decide to use Target Tj as TjMax will find that their reported core temperatures might end up a long ways away from reality, especially for processors like my E6400 B2 which has a Target Tj = 70C according to Intel.


----------



## burebista (Oct 21, 2008)

unclewebb said:


> Now we don't have to worry about that document disappearing from the Intel website like after the last IDF.


Yep, that's was my idea. 
Anyway, now I don't understand nothing from TJMax or that brand new _Target Tj_. 
So my advice come together with yours:


			
				unclewebb said:
			
		

> It's just a number and for most people that are unable to calibrate due to sticking sensors or simply don't bother, it's not even a very accurate number.  *Overclock as high as you want and let stability be your guide.*


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 21, 2008)

Good advice burebista.

Here's how my E6400 looks when using this new Target Tj value as TjMax:






The room temperature was about 11C.  Using this new Target Tj, my reported core temperature would be down at minus 6C which is a long ways from reality on an air cooled processor.


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 12, 2008)

*RealTemp 2.84*

I just finished a new Sensor Test feature in RealTemp.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip

It didn't take long for a user to post a screen shot of what happens when a sensor is sticking.






It's obvious that as his CPU cools, core0 gets down to a Distance to TJMax of 55 and that's it.  It's stuck at that point and can't go any lower.  When the temperature of the CPU is higher than that, it works perfectly fine.

I added a lot of extra code to try to make setting up this test as simple as possible but for best results it will still help if you follow a few directions.

The CPU Cool Down Test uses Prime95 - Small FFTs to create a consistent amount of heat.  If you don't already have it installed then click on the Download Prime95 button and it will take you to the website where you can download either a 32 or 64 bit version.  Scroll down to Step3 when the Mersenne - Prime95 web page pops up for a download link.

If you have a Dual Core then you could also use Orthos Small FFTs instead.  Prime95 has recently been updated to version 25.7 build 3 so I'm recommending that.

You need to let RealTemp start up Prime95.  This will give RealTemp full control of Prime95 so it can shut Prime95 down automatically when it reaches the 0.0% level of this test.  The CPU Cool Down Test won't start if you already have Prime95 running.  You will need to shut it down first before starting this test.

Before clicking on the Sensor Test button, make sure your computer is as idle as possible for best results.  Give Vista some time to calm down before starting a test.  The first thing it will do is run the previous sensor movement test to give you a quick idea of how your sensors are doing.

To begin the more thorough CPU Cool Down Test click on the  Start button and navigate to the directory where you have prime95.exe installed.

When Prime95 starts up, select the Small FFTs option at the top and click on OK to begin the heat up phase.  There is plenty of feedback in the info window so you don't have to remember too much of this.

That's about all there is to it to get this test started.  Go for a coffee or kick back for about 10 minutes and RealTemp will do the rest.  You can Stop or cancel this test at any time if you get bored.  

What you're looking for are sensors that show movement at each stage of this test.  If there isn't movement then you might have a sticking sensor or two.  If both sensors are moving but moving at different rates then that would show "slope error" that Intel has warned us about.

Do some testing and post some screen shots so I can learn some more about these sensors.  The new Core i7 sensors seem to perform similar to the previous 65nm Core 2 Duo sensors.  They continue to show signs of slope error.


----------



## msgclb (Nov 12, 2008)

Here's what I got with my E6750.



I have a Asus P6T Deluxe on a FedEx truck that should be delivered by the end of the week. I have an Intel Core i7 920 and a Thermalright LGA1366 Bolt-Thru-Kit on order but I haven't been able to find the memory that I want to buy. Until I do that makes them very expensive paper weights. When I get this system up and running I'll run the sensor test on them.


----------



## a_ump (Nov 14, 2008)

i found this for TJmax when just googling it for my q6600

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-dts-specs,news-29460.html


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 14, 2008)

Unfortunately, this list is not accurate, especially for the 65nm processors.  Intel has already started making corrections to this list but sadly, even their corrections don't agree with what an IR thermometer says.

A good example is my original B2 stepping E6400.  The chart at Tom's says a B2 is TJMax=70C.  When DTS=0 for that processor the IHS is at 85C.  That implies that the actual core temperature is approximately 90C.  It's definitely not 70C and it's not Intel's corrected version of 80C either.

At the moment these numbers are meaningless.  I'm obviously a little biased here but until Intel publishes some test data, which they don't plan to do, I'll be sticking with values that actually make sense.


----------



## a_ump (Nov 14, 2008)

well said and i'll trust anyone that's actually tested it, especially u, over intel anyday.


----------



## a_ump (Nov 14, 2008)

well this is what i got from the sensor test, i just read how to do it and didn't really know what to look for on whether it was good or bad


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 15, 2008)

*a_ump*: The CPU Cool Down Test is brand new and I'm still learning to interpret this new data.

As the CPU Load decreases from 100% to Idle, you should see a continuous drop in core temperatures.  Your Average Distance to TJMax should continue to increase at each step of this test.  That's exactly what your sensors are doing.  Some 45nm CPUs get about half way through this test and suddenly a sensor will stop moving and it will report the same thing 4 or 5 times in a row.  That's a good sign that a sensor is stuck and not working properly.  The Sensor Movement Test will also show a low number or zero if a sensor is stuck at low temperatures.

Your Q6600 is performing very normally.  At idle the temperatures are very similar and at full load the difference grows to 2C or 3C between the two sets of cores.  A Quad Core contains 2 Dual Core CPUs and your results make it pretty clear that core0/core1 are joined together and core2/core3 are joined together.  In almost every Q6600 I've seen, the first two cores will be reported at a slightly higher temperature than core2/core3 at full load.

Your Q6600 looks like a good one to me and should give you fairly accurate core temperatures.


----------



## a_ump (Nov 15, 2008)

thanks man, and it's nice to see a program author that actually talks and helps out his hmmm consumers? well keep it up man


----------



## modder (Nov 20, 2008)

hi , an example with three Stuck DTS sensors on my Q9450


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 20, 2008)

If I was handing out awards modder you would get it for the CPU with the worst sensors.  Most stuck sensors show some movement when running Prime 95 Small FFTs but 3 out of 4 of yours sensors are completely dead.  I guess there's a reason why Intel doesn't recommend we use these things to report core temperatures.

There's no use running any sort of calibration factor on core1, core2 or core3.  Core0 moves freely from idle to TJMax so when calibrated you should have at least one sensor that gives you a reasonably accurate core temperature.


----------



## modder (Nov 20, 2008)

unclewebb said:


> If I was handing out awards modder you would get it for the CPU with the worst sensors.  Most stuck sensors show some movement when running Prime 95 Small FFTs but 3 out of 4 of yours sensors are completely dead.  I guess there's a reason why Intel doesn't recommend we use these things to report core temperatures.
> 
> There's no use running any sort of calibration factor on core1, core2 or core3.  Core0 moves freely from idle to TJMax so when calibrated you should have at least one sensor that gives you a reasonably accurate core temperature.


 thanks for the award prize .yes ,the core 0 work fine,other work from :core 1  41C° ,core 2,  54C° , core 3  46C°.realtemp with Tcase  it would be nice to compare Tjunction and Tcase .


----------



## burebista (Nov 20, 2008)

If you really want to see them moving, OC a little with bumping Vcore a notch or two and run LinX.
I bet you'll see all core sensors moving.


----------



## modder (Nov 20, 2008)

burebista said:


> If you really want to see them moving, OC a little with bumping Vcore a notch or two and run LinX.
> I bet you'll see all core sensors moving.


thanks for advice , i especially no overclocked my Q9450 for showing my bad sensors.


----------



## burebista (Nov 20, 2008)

You can try, I see that Core0 sensor shows a very good distance to TJMax, but IMO Core1 sensor is lost forever.
I must admit that those are the worst sensors that I saw on any forums that I read (and trust me, I read a lot of forums ).


----------



## thesmotis (Nov 30, 2008)

hi,
will realtemp 2.70 run fine on a server with 2 xeon quad processors and windows xp professional x64?
also will it always try run on the background or will i be able to run it and stop it whenever i need to?
thank you for your time


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 1, 2008)

RealTemp doesn't yet support Dual Quad processors.

I've been working on that and have an option available in the latest beta version available here:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip

If you go into the RealTemp.INI file and add:

*Skull=1*

to read CPU1

or you can use
*
Skull=2*

to try and read CPU2.

I don't know if this works properly yet because I don't have a computer with Dual Xeons to test on.  If you want to help get RealTemp working for you then contact me at:

Real_Temp@yahoo.ca

and I'll see what I can do.

In the meantime, I'm pretty sure that Core Temp will work with your system.
http://www.alcpu.com/CoreTemp/


----------



## thesmotis (Dec 2, 2008)

unclewebb said:


> ...


i was afraid it wouldn't support 2 cpus, i'll check coretemp and see how it works
anyway, thank you very much for the detailed response, i wish you good luck with developing the program further

for mp cpu support, maybe you could check with these guys:
forums.2cpu.com
in the past the forum has worked for mp support with other developers as well


----------



## mlee49 (Dec 2, 2008)

UncleWebb,

I've got a question.  I run this on my e8200 and my cores are off like 10+ degrees.  Core 0 runs at 32(average) and Core 1 runs at 44(average). The difference is always like +9 degrees even at load for a good about of time.

Are my cores bad?  Is one of my cores bad?  Perhaps is the sensor bad?  

I'm just curious since this is an ES and not a fully supported stepping.  Thanks


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 2, 2008)

mlee49: Sounds like you probably have a crappy sensor or two.  That's pretty typical in the 45nm CPUs.

The latest beta of RealTemp has a new feature that makes it possible to understand what your sensors are really up to and can spot a sticking sensor a lot easier as well.  Scroll back to post #88 where I posted a link to it.


----------



## PsySc0rpi0n (Dec 6, 2008)

I have read some posts here and in ohter foruns and you say to set the idle calibraton factor to 5ºC above room temperature. But i have no way to measure my room's temperature...

I'm from Portugal and it's cold but i believe that my room's temperature is somewhere between 20ºC and 25ºC because i have temperature control system in my house that keeps temperatures "worm" but not to much... 

So i have no idea on how to calibrate my RealTemp...

At the moment i have set vCore to 1.30v in Bios (1.27v in Windows) and i have FSB@400Mhz (3.6Ghz) in a E8400 E0 and when testing Sensors with RealTemp i get 0 movement in both cores. I have set -5ºC in Idle Calibration for testing only...




By PsySc0rpi0nBaY


Edit;

Well, after searching for a while i've found a thermometer (lousy one) and stick it in the wall in my bedroom... It's retrieving 17ºC but i don't know if i can trust on it so i'll make it for 20ºC (for safety)....

So as unclewebb said, i'll set my P5K Pro Bios to 6x on multi, 1.00v of vCore and FSB at 266Mhz then i'll do the math to calculate my possible idle temp...

So if RealTemp shows 40ºC in idle state with this settings i'll set -15ºC for both Core0 and Core1 in Idle Calibration! Is this correct?

And TJmax of 100ºC for E8400 is already correct in RealTemp 2.90, right?????


Edit1;

So i have set vCore to 1.0000v in BIOS but it is not the lower value possible, FSB at 267Mhz and multi 6x. Here is a screen of RealTemp, CPU-z





Temps for both cores are 40ºC. So the formula to calculate the closest cpu real temp is Room Temp + 5ºC, right? So my Room temp is about 18ºC~20ºC so my CPU Temp will be about ~24ºC, correct?

So in Idle Calibration i have to set it with -16ºC for both cores wich is the actual RealTemp temperature value (40ºC) minus estimated cpu real temp (24ºC), am i thinkig correct?


Edit3;

Well, i think i'm not correct... If i set -16ºC in Idle Calibration, RealTemp will retrieve 16ºC of Temperature and i thought it would retrieve 24ºC...

To retrieve 24ºC i have to set idle calibration to -11ºC but i don't know the meaning of this... I don't know if i can trust my thought...

Please give a help on how to set RealTemp correctly...


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 6, 2008)

Unfortunately both your cores have sticking sensors.  They are both stuck at a Distance to TJMax of 60 so it is impossible with these sensors to get accurate idle temperatures.  With TJMax set to 100C, you will have reasonably accurate core temperatures when your CPU is at 40C and above but below that there is nothing you can do with a stuck sensor.  Calibration for your CPU is not possible.  Not all sensors are capable of working at low temperatures.  Intel says we shouldn't expect anything below about 50C.


----------



## PsySc0rpi0n (Dec 6, 2008)

unclewebb said:


> Unfortunately both your cores have sticking sensors.  They are both stuck at a Distance to TJMax of 60 so it is impossible with these sensors to get accurate idle temperatures.  With TJMax set to 100C, you will have reasonably accurate core temperatures when your CPU is at 40C and above but below that there is nothing you can do with a stuck sensor.  Calibration for your CPU is not possible.  Not all sensors are capable of working at low temperatures.  Intel says we shouldn't expect anything below about 50C.



So if TJ Max is set at 100ºC and i set no Idle calibration and temps goes over 40ºC, in this case RealTemp is able to retrieve correct temps, right? At this time RealTemp is retrieving 54ºC for me with 1.33v at 4.0ghz... Is it too much? I think i can't go under this vCore to set the cpu at 4.0Ghz and FSB at 500Mhz and multi at 8...


----------



## rampage (Dec 6, 2008)

if you temps are under 40c you wont get accurate temps, but if its over you will get accurate temps, so yes the 54c will be correct, 54c is on the hot side for me, buts its nothing that will destroy a cpu


----------



## PsySc0rpi0n (Dec 6, 2008)

And the boards are nothing to do with this issue, right? Changing the board won't change anything, right?


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 7, 2008)

People worry too much about temperatures.

Here's how my E8400 looks when overclocked with the CPU fan turned off for 3 hours while running Prime Small FFTs to create some heat:






Intel hasn't been specific but admits that the temperature sensors have errors where they calibrate them so TJMax is not an exact number.  There can also be as much as plus or minus 10% slope error.  If you can't do something to check the calibration of these sensors, then even at 54C, there's no guarantee that number is 100% accurate.  It's usually reasonably close though.

I've done a lot of testing and I've learned one important thing.  As long as your CPU is Prime stable and you are below the thermal throttling point (Distance to TJMax = 2) then you can completely ignore the temperature your CPU is running at.  It will run fine.  Intel has built a lot of technology into these things and they do a great job of looking after themselves even when grossly overclocked with additional core voltage.

Changing the motherboard or the bios shouldn't change anything because these sensors are within the CPU.


----------



## burebista (Dec 7, 2008)

unclewebb said:


> Intel has built a lot of technology into these things and they do a great job of looking after themselves even when grossly overclocked with additional core voltage.


Agree. I have a guy in our forums with a bad mount of stock cooler. He have something like this when playing games.



and the only downside was stuttering when CPU is throttling.



> As long as your CPU is Prime stable and you are below the thermal throttling point (Distance to TJMax = 2) then you can completely ignore the temperature your CPU is running at.


Man you can put above quote in your signature.


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 7, 2008)

burebista said:


> Man you can put above quote in your signature.



Shhhh!  That's a secret.  
I can't let too many people know just how unimportant core temperatures are or else I'll be out of business.


----------



## PsySc0rpi0n (Dec 7, 2008)

So i guess, i don't know why, my DTS are live...

After increasing a little the vCore 'till arround 1.44v i have some movement for both sensors...




By PsySc0rpi0nBaY

But what does means this movement values??? Higher values are better or worst?

And please help me understanding the idle calibration proccess in RealTemp....

You say:
1-Downclowck cpu 'till it's minimum (FSB-266; Muli-6; vCore - 1.00000v~1.10000v)
2-Watch reported temps - if they are lower than room temp then insert positive value, if not, insert negative values in Idle Calibration...

So in my situation, my room temperature is 20ºC (~25ºC for apprx real idle temp in cpu), RealTemp (without any calibration) report 40ºC in idle state, waht is the factor that i sould use to set the Idle Calibration correctly???


----------



## burebista (Dec 7, 2008)

Your sensors are stuck until 40ºC. IMO forget about idle calibration because they'll move only above 40ºC.


> But what does means this movement values??? Higher values are better or worst?


It's upside down compared to _classic_ core temperature readings. Higher values of distance to TJMax are better (that's mean that CPU temperature is low).

Core Temperature = TJMax - DTS Data

So TJMax is constant 100 (for your CPU) and higher DTS Data (that's distance to TJMax) mean lower core temperature.


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 7, 2008)

You can *NOT* calibrate a CPU that has stuck sensors.  Both of your sensors are stuck and do not go lower than 40C.


----------



## PsySc0rpi0n (Dec 7, 2008)

burebista said:


> Your sensors are stuck until 40ºC. IMO forget about idle calibration because they'll move only above 40ºC.
> 
> It's upside down compared to _classic_ core temperature readings. Higher values of distance to TJMax are better (that's mean that CPU temperature is low).
> 
> ...



Can you tell me what is IMO???

I'm sorry but i didn't understand your explanation for the core movement in RealTemp Sensors Test...

So, if i understand, DTS retrieves distance to TJMax, right? 



unclewebb said:


> You can *NOT* calibrate a CPU that has stuck sensors.  Both of your sensors are stuck and do not go lower than 40C.



I'm sorry for the stubbornness but i wasn't understanding the purpose of Idle calibration... Now i have understood...

What means the absence of core movement?


----------



## burebista (Dec 7, 2008)

PsySc0rpi0n said:


> Can you tell me what is IMO???


Sorry, *I*n *M*y *O*pinion.



PsySc0rpi0n said:


> So, if i understand, DTS retrieves distance to TJMax, right?


Yes, that's why you should rely only on this and forget TJMax ambiguous value. Keep distance to TJMax >20-30 and you're safe.



PsySc0rpi0n said:


> What means the absence of core movement?


That's a stuck sensor. Those weren't design to accurate measure core temperatures but only to trigger thermal throttle when you're close to TJMax so they're (usually) way off (or stuck) at idle/medium load and start to be accurate as your core temperature approach to TJMax.


----------



## PsySc0rpi0n (Dec 7, 2008)

burebista said:


> ...
> 
> That's a stuck sensor. Those weren't design to accurate measure core temperatures but only to trigger thermal throttle when you're close to TJMax so they're (usually) way off (or stuck) at idle/medium load and start to be accurate as your core temperature approach to TJMax.



Ok. I'm not familiar with shorts for some words... 


Some hours ago i've tried to run the sensors test but choosing Large FFTs in Prime95 but i wasn't able to finish the test because of an BSOD. After restart i gave a little more of vCore and tried again to run the sensors test. And when i opened the Sensor Test window of RealTemp to re-run the test i saw there movements in Core 0 and Core 1... (3 and 4 respectively).

With Small FFTs i don't get any Core Movement...

So, how can i interpretate those movements?


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 8, 2008)

Some movement during the first part of the sensor test is good.  Zero movement is a warning that your sensors might be stuck.

The CPU Cool Down Test is more through.  It clearly shows that both of your sensors are stuck.  That means the temperature of your CPU can go lower than 40C but your sensor will not move at all.  RealTemp or any software will continue to report the same 40C temperature for your cores even if you went outside and lived on the North Pole.


----------



## PsySc0rpi0n (Dec 8, 2008)

unclewebb said:


> Some movement during the first part of the sensor test is good.  Zero movement is a warning that your sensors might be stuck.
> 
> The CPU Cool Down Test is more through.  It clearly shows that both of your sensors are stuck.  That means the temperature of your CPU can go lower than 40C but your sensor will not move at all.  RealTemp or any software will continue to report the same 40C temperature for your cores even if you went outside and lived on the North Pole.



Ok... But the movement you are talking about is the Core movement or the movement that "Distance to TJMax" shows?

Because i had already had some Core movement as you see in the S.S. (3 and 4 for core0 & core1)... Are these values that i don't know how to interpretate or exactly what they mean...


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 8, 2008)

The movement test runs an equal load on each core.  Each core should change in temperature a similar amount during this test.  

If you are running high MHz and high core voltage, then these numbers will be bigger because your CPU heats up more during this test.  At low MHz and low core voltage, these numbers will be much smaller because even under full load, a 1600 MHz CPU at 1.1 volts doesn't heat up very much.  If your sensors are sticking then your numbers will be lower compared to the same CPU with sensors that don't stick.

The 10 minute test is much better.  It makes it very obvious when sensors stop moving as they cool down.  At every step of this test there should be movement but once your sensors get down to 40C, they stop moving and report the same temperature, over and over and over again.

Go use your computer and be happy. 

Normal sensors move at each step of the test like this:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1061836&postcount=78


----------



## PsySc0rpi0n (Dec 8, 2008)

This problem of stick sensors is common to every E8x00 or are there many E8x00 that doesn't has this problem??? If i buy another E8x00 am i gonna have the same problem for sure or maybe i don't have it???


----------



## burebista (Dec 8, 2008)

Is common to 45 nm CPU's. Not every CPU has stuck sensor(s) and are many with OK sensors.
This is my E8400 C0. Pretty decent.


----------



## PsySc0rpi0n (Dec 8, 2008)

I'll try to purchase another E8x00... Maybe i have better luck this time...


----------



## PsySc0rpi0n (Dec 8, 2008)

modder said:


> better luck than me , absolutely  http://img.techpowerup.org/081120/Capture001166.jpg



But i think you still can calibrate your RealTemp because, at least, one of your sensors doesn't stuck at 40ºC like in my E8400... I think you can work from there because even if the temps aren't gonna be that accurate as if all sensors were working, thay all should have very similar temperature values...

Correct me if i'm wrong...

I wish i had at least one sensor working... That way i could calibrate both sensors based on that working one...


----------



## burebista (Dec 8, 2008)

PsySc0rpi0n said:


> I'll try to purchase another E8x00... Maybe i have better luck this time...


And if you get another one with sensors stuck at 60ºC? 
Or like a guy in our forums which can't pass above 51ºC whatever he's doing?





My opinion is not to bother, idle temperatures are useless and after 40ºC you have OK readings.


----------



## PsySc0rpi0n (Dec 8, 2008)

burebista said:


> And if you get another one with sensors stuck at 60ºC?
> Or like a guy in our forums which can't pass above 51ºC whatever he's doing?
> 
> 
> ...



Well, that is a fact... Better stuck at 40ºC than at 51ºC... By this time i think i have already a buyer to my E8400. If i sell it wish me luck for the next one... lol



			
				PsySc0rpi0n said:
			
		

> Is there any command that i can use in a RealTemp shortcut so that it starts with Administrator previleges instead of a right click on mouse and "Run as Administrator"???



Edited;

Don't need to answer the above question... I had already find out how to do it...


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 14, 2008)

RealTemp is getting ready for the next official release.  It has a new Load meter and calculates the MHz correctly for Core i7.  
If you find any bugs let me know so I can get them taken care of before the next release.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip


----------



## jasondean98 (Dec 28, 2008)

*CPU Cool Down Test*

I"ve just run the test on my Q9450, are the results anything to be concerned about?


----------



## burebista (Dec 28, 2008)

Looks OK to me. 60C in load at 3.2GHz is perfect fine. What cooler do you have and what's your room temperature?
And don't worry about difference between cores this is "by design".


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 28, 2008)

burebista is right.  Nothing wrong with 60C.  As long as your computer runs stable at full load and none of your cores are thermal throttling then don't worry about the core temperature.

The sensors for core0 and core2 track each other very well and are likely your most accurate sensors.  None of them appear to be getting stuck in this temperature range which is far better than many 45nm Quads.

It's very likely that core1 and core3 have a higher TJMax than core0/core2.  Intel actually calls this spec TJ Target.  Actual TJMax is typically equal to that spec or somewhat higher but Intel hasn't released any specific details about how much higher TJMax can range from one core to the next.  Their opinion is that these sensors shouldn't be used to report absolute temperatures since they're not very accurate or calibrated for that purpose.  They were only designed to control thermal throttling and thermal shut down and your sensors look OK for that purpose.


----------



## jasondean98 (Dec 28, 2008)

Edit:

I'm using a true 120 + noctua fan, Antec 900 case and It's summer here in Australia.


----------



## burebista (Dec 28, 2008)

Perfect heatsink, perfect fan, perfect season in a perfect country so you have a perfect full-load temperature.


----------



## jasondean98 (Dec 28, 2008)

thanks for that! I'll stop worrying now.


----------



## Wozzer (Dec 28, 2008)

I use realtemp - I think its great.

But can someone explain what TJ Max is?


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 28, 2008)

TJMax is the maximum junction temperature or core temperature, in theory, that your core will get up to before thermal throttling kicks in.  Thermal throttling will drop your CPU multiplier to 6.0 and will kill your performance so you definitely want to keep it below that number.  

During testing, thermal throttling usually begins when Distance to TJMax is 2 or 3.  Most users with Core 2 will never have to worry about thermal throttling.  Core i7 users with the OEM cooler are a different story.  Plenty of those users are running full load in the 90C range.

In the Thermal Status area of RealTemp, it will show you if your processor is or has been thermal throttling.  OK means there have been no problems.  LOG means at least one episode has been logged and HOT means your CPU is presently thermal throtttling.

Once you start thermal throttling it is still possible for your CPU to get hotter if something like your heatsink is loose.  The thermal shut down temperature of Core 2 CPUs seems to be about 125C but that number is only documented for the mobile Core 2 chips.


----------



## Wozzer (Dec 29, 2008)

Thanks - Ive got an Intel E7300.

It runs around 40C when gaming, 35C idle. TJMax 60C. I take it thats alright then


----------



## Congo_Toey (Dec 30, 2008)

*I think something is wrong*

I think that there is something wrong with my my temps.  I always use your great realtemp tool.  I have now moved to the new i7 cpu, and have been using your new version 2.9.  But for some reason my idle temps look very high to me even at stock.  I am using a koolance CPU water cooling block, and with my E8600 & Q9450 at stock my temps would be around 20 degrees, about 5 or 6 degrees above room temp.  For some reason now my idle temps are over 40 degrees even at stock settings.  I ran the sensor cool down test at stock setting and over clocked to 3.8GHz.  I have attached the screen shots for you.  The bit that seems odd to me is the movement values, everyone else seems to get much lower values.


----------



## burebista (Dec 30, 2008)

Nehalem is hot like hell. DTS readings don't lie. At least not in full-load.


----------



## Congo_Toey (Dec 30, 2008)

*High Idle*

But dont you think that the idle temps are too hot?  And why do you think the movement is so high?


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 30, 2008)

burebista is right again.  The Core i7 does run hot as hell.  The sensors on these chips are far better than the previous 45nm Core 2 generation.  Here's an example of one that is water cooled.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3506432&postcount=2877

He also has Sensor Movement in the mid twenties and maxes out in the 70C range.  Depending on room temperature, etc., your results don't look a lot different than his.

During the Sensor Movement test, a well overclocked Core i7 increases in temperature probably twice as much as the average, well overclocked, Core 2.  That's a pretty good sign of just how much heat these things put out.  You could get a lot of performance out of Core 2 with air cooling but if you're overclocking Core i7, water cooling isn't really an option anymore.  With these chips, you need all the cooling you can get.  [H]ard did a good heat test and video when these things first came out and I think they were using the same cooling that you're using. 

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU4MSwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0


----------



## Congo_Toey (Dec 30, 2008)

That puts my mind at ease thanks, I'll just have to work on improving the cooling to go any hogher than I am at.


----------



## mtosev (Dec 31, 2008)

I have one question: why does Intel TAT heat up to 82/83C but running Prime95 for hours only leads to 68C temps?

I know that this has nothing to do with the topic I'm in. sorry for that.

T7500 G0


----------



## burebista (Dec 31, 2008)

Try prime95 Small FTTs.
Anyway, TAT, Linpack, Core Damage have another methodology to heat up CPU. Unfortunately I don't know what it is but frankly in daily use prime 95 Blend Test is very close to temperatures I see in games.
BTW, for all-in-one heat-up package give it a try: OCCT 3.0.0. beta 16.


----------



## mtosev (Dec 31, 2008)

burebista said:


> Try prime95 Small FTTs.
> Anyway, TAT, Linpack, Core Damage have another methodology to heat up CPU. Unfortunately I don't know what it is but frankly in daily use prime 95 Blend Test is very close to temperatures I see in games.
> BTW, for all-in-one heat-up package give it a try: OCCT 3.0.0. beta 16.



Lol @ OCCT  *CPU too hot !*

The temp hit 79-80C and OCCT stopped. haha


----------



## mtosev (Jan 1, 2009)

hehe. you have to change the default of 80c so that it doesn't cancel when the temps hit 80c. I tought that when the Cpu is detected that it automaticly changes the setting depending on the detected CPU.


----------



## jasondean98 (Jan 6, 2009)

Slightly off topic, but real temp works fine in Windows 7!


----------



## burebista (Jan 19, 2009)

After a couple of months of waiting *unclewebb* managed to wrote a beta (for now) RealTemp plugin for RivaTuner.
You can get it there.
Works with Nehalem, Quad's, Core2Duo's and it's a big step forward from "old" Core2Duo plugin.
Try it and report if something is wrong so uncle can fix it.


----------



## Tau (Jan 21, 2009)

Quick question, i have my Realtemp all calibrated correctly, is the correct tjmax for a Q9450 95 or 100?


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 21, 2009)

TJMax is not a fixed, written in stone number.  Actual TJMax will vary slightly from one CPU to another even if they have the exact same model number.

The values that Intel released last year are called TJ Target numbers.  Intel says that their manufacturing process and quality of sensors they use are not accurate enough to be able to set TJMax across all processors to one number.  Actual TJMax should be equal to or a little higher than Intel's TJ Target number.

Intel's TJ Target for a Q9450 is 100C but I've seen ones where actual TJMax might be closer to 110C on some cores.  The best thing to do is a CPU Cool Down Test.  That will show you how your 4 cores compare to each other.  On a 45nm Quad, it's very rare to have 4 cores that mirror each other.  They're usually all over the place.

Post a pic of your cool down results and I'll tell you what I see.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTemp_290.zip


----------



## burebista (Jan 21, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> On a 45nm Quad, it's very rare to have 4 cores that mirror each other.  They're usually all over the place.


With a little luck maybe we'll see 2 cores grouping toghether and of course with different TJMax for each group. 
That's why I keep tell to rely on distance to TJMax, in full-load is the most accurate number for *your* CPU. Keep that distance >20 and forget about it.


----------



## Xiphos (Jan 21, 2009)

burebista said:


> With a little luck maybe we'll see 2 cores grouping toghether and of course with different TJMax for each group.



so this IS normal?


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 21, 2009)

Go back a couple of posts and download a newer version of RealTemp.  Do a Cpu Cool Down Test and post your results.  The sensors on your CPU are probably a bit screwed up which unfortunately is quite normal.  Your Q6600 looks a lot like my Q6600 where cores 2 and 3 seem to have a TJMax 5C higher than core 0 and core 1.

Intel says the TJ Target is 90C for a Q6600 - G0 but I think my Q6600 is closer to 100C / 105C.


----------



## Xiphos (Jan 21, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> Go back a couple of posts and download a newer version of RealTemp.  Do a Cpu Cool Down Test and post your results.  The sensors on your CPU are probably a bit screwed up which unfortunately is quite normal.  Your Q6600 looks a lot like my Q6600 where cores 2 and 3 seem to have a TJMax 5C higher than core 0 and core 1.








yeah it does seem like its a bit screwed up huh?

don't know which temp to go by


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 21, 2009)

I don't have time at the moment for a full analysis but just try what I do.

Set core0/core1 to TJMax 100C and set core2/core3 to TJMax=105C.  It sounds a little crazy but after you do this you'll be surprised how well your 4 cores track each other from idle to TJMax.  Start and stop Prime95 Small FFTs a few times and watch how they track.

There is a slight difference in slope error between the two sets of cores but most of the difference is that TJMax is not the same for all 4 of your cores.  Send me an e-mail if you want a more thorough analysis when I get the chance.  If it's in my e-mail box then sooner or later I'll get to it:

Real_Temp@yahoo.ca

Your Q6600 is similar to the one I'm presently using.

Edit: You might also want to try 106 for core2/core3.  Some of the 45nm Quads have cores that are closer to 110C.


----------



## burebista (Jan 21, 2009)

My bet now. 
Put 107 for Core2/3 and try Core Damage. Let's see who's close, me or uncle.


----------



## Xiphos (Jan 21, 2009)

results for 105




106




107 w/ core damage


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 21, 2009)

Does anyone have an Intel Core CPU and like to game and do you use RivaTuner?

I just added a stand alone RealTemp plug-in which you can use in RivaTuner.  Download RealTemp here:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip

Go to the Settings window in RealTemp and click on the RivaTuner button to install the plug-in and then start up RivaTuner.  RealTemp does not need to be running after this plug-in has been installed.

RivaTuner will allow you to see some new numbers on your G15 and you can graph data for CPU MHz, CPU Load, CPU core temperature and Distance to TJMax.

Xiphos: I kind of like 106.  Try running Prime95 Small FFTs.  I find it's more consistent across all 4 cores.


----------



## Xiphos (Jan 21, 2009)

to get it even across the board I had to go 100/100/108/108 




high temps is with IBT, core damage is a nifty little program, but IBT is still king of torture tests 

106 small FFTs


----------



## burebista (Jan 21, 2009)

Man, you're fooling yourself with temps. If you take a look distance to TJMax is the same, even with different TJMax, so you can put TJMax 80 if you like to have 30C in IBT full-load. IMO keep an eye on distance to TJMax and forget about TJMax value.


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 21, 2009)

Quads consist of two separate Dual Core processors so it's possible that at full load they might run a degree or two different but very unlikely that they run significantly different.  I've seen so many screen shots of Q6600 CPUs that my only explanation is that TJMax is not always the same for all 4 cores.  Your temperatures look a lot more believable across the board when you use slightly different TJMax values.

The other thing I've seen with 65nm is 99% of the time, core 2 and core 3 report lower temperatures.  If this was all random chance you would expect to see this only about half the time.  I don't see anything in the design to explain this.

burebista: How's the new RivaTuner plug-in working?  Was it easy to install?  Remember to say Yes to encourage other users to give it a try!


----------



## burebista (Jan 21, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> burebista: How's the new RivaTuner plug-in working?  Was it easy to install?  Remember to say Yes to encourage other users to give it a try!


You have a full report on PM on XS.


----------



## Tau (Jan 21, 2009)

I took a couple cooldown tests on two other CPUs that i have, a Q9300, and a diffrent Q9450 pics are attached. - Note that i dont really care what temps these two chips are running at this is just for information.

I will be running the cooldown test on my 9450 later this evening and will compare with these results.











\







***EDIT***

This pic is of my Q9450


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 22, 2009)

Tau: I think your Q9450 might have a couple of stuck sensors.  Your cores are numbered 0, 1, 2, 3.

Core 2 doesn't change at all when the CPU load goes from 31.2% to Idle.  It's likely that sensor is not capable of reading any value higher than a Distance to TJMax of 63.  Core 1 moves 4.4 degrees over that same range.  Core 0 only moves 0.6 degrees which is also a sign that core 0 might be getting stuck at a Distance to TJMax of 64.  Before doing any calibration I would try to run your CPU at a cooler temperature so you can determine exactly what the sticking points are.

All of these sensors stick.  When you get lucky, you hope that the sticking points are below your normal range of operation.

Between core 2 and core 3 I'm seeing an approximately 8C difference for a lot of the values.  I think TJMax of these two is probably about 6C different with the rest of the difference being more slope error related.

Once your paste has had time to set up and you start to do some overclocking, let me know and then we can come up with a few more tests at different settings to do a calibration for you.  It will be interesting to compare my suggestion to the calibration you're presently using.


----------



## Tau (Jan 22, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> Tau: I think your Q9450 might have a couple of stuck sensors.  Your cores are numbered 0, 1, 2, 3.
> 
> Core 2 doesn't change at all when the CPU load goes from 31.2% to Idle.  It's likely that sensor is not capable of reading any value higher than a Distance to TJMax of 63.  Core 1 moves 4.4 degrees over that same range.  Core 0 only moves 0.6 degrees which is also a sign that core 0 might be getting stuck at a Distance to TJMax of 64.  Before doing any calibration I would try to run your CPU at a cooler temperature so you can determine exactly what the sticking points are.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the insight, i decided to seal up the case overnight and let it run at load, came down this morning and it was loading at ~55*C  Thats much to hot for my liking, looks like I will be adjusting the cooler/fans here sooner than i anticipated.


----------



## burebista (Jan 22, 2009)

Tau said:


> [...] it was loading at ~55*C  Thats much to hot for my liking[...]


55°C too much in load? 
Peoples care too much about temperatures.


----------



## Tau (Jan 22, 2009)

burebista said:


> 55°C too much in load?
> Peoples care too much about temperatures.



Yeah, Im a performance nazi though, i probobly wont stop untill I have this thing running at 3.8Ghz+....  Meh ill see what i end up at, if all else fails ill water+pelt this sucker.  Should be a cake walk for a 400Watt pelt and some water


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 22, 2009)

55C isn't bad at all but what I learned about Core chips is that the cooler you run them, the more MHz you can reliably overclock them too.  Less heat = more MHz.  That's a nice simple formula to remember.

Personally, I usually sacrifice some performance and let my chips run a little hot.  Burebista and I prefer computers that are nice and quiet.


----------



## Tau (Jan 22, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> 55C isn't bad at all but what I learned about Core chips is that the cooler you run them, the more MHz you can reliably overclock them too.  Less heat = more MHz.  That's a nice simple formula to remember.
> 
> Personally, I usually sacrifice some performance and let my chips run a little hot.  Burebista and I prefer computers that are nice and quiet.



Yeah, I think that i am a little over concerned, once i fix up the airflow situation i should probobly see a decrease, will just have to see were they end up wile overclocking


----------



## maf (Jan 29, 2009)

Hi unclewebb, first I'd like to say thanks for Realtemp, I've been using the various versions for some time now. 

(I've read most of the 126 page thread at xtremesystems, and was going to join there to ask you a question, but my email address didn't seem to work and I couldn't get the confirmation email. Long story etc, but I decided to give up on that idea and ask you a question here.)

I have an M0 revision E2140 and was glad when you changed the default tjmax for that chip from 85C to 90C, as it tallied well with my own findings; previously I had been using programs where I could define my own nominal value for tjmax. Version 2.88 is the one I have with 90C tjmax, and 2.6 I think with 85C. However when I downloaded the latest version, 2.9 RC12, the tjmax has gone up to 100C. 

I believe you conducted a test with IR thermometer on an E2160 and heated the lid to 85C when running without a heatsink. I also believe you had concluded that the gradient from core to IHS was about 5C with no heatsink (obviously it is more when a heatsink is installed). I couldn't see any comments in your thread about the change to 100C for E2xxx chips and wondered if you could explain it? I also wondered if it may just be an oversight because you have been concentrating on support for i7 and wolfdale recently?


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 29, 2009)

Sounds like I screwed up.  Sometimes you make a minor change and don't realize that it causes more changes than what you thought.  I'll have a look at the code to see what's changed.


----------



## Flash (Feb 2, 2009)

Hi unclewebb.

I just tried to check Task Bar or Tray Info, but even tho they are checked if you press the X button the program just closes and doesn't go to Tray bar. Is this how it's suppose to be? If yes, then what is the purpose of Tray and Task bar?

Also, do you think there will be an option to startup with windows?


----------



## burebista (Feb 2, 2009)

Put an entry in RealTemp.ini
MinimizeOnClose=1

And about startup with Windows in XP you should drag exe on Startup folder and in Vista made a Task Scheduler entry.


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 2, 2009)

The next version of RealTemp has a Minimize on Close option in the Settings window but until I release that, burebista's way works fine.

Microsoft designed the Task Scheduler in Vista and is using it in Windows 7 because it is the best and most secure way to manage programs that start up with Windows.  

The Startup folder is also available in all operating systems.  I'm old school and don't like adding or removing any items from a person's registry so I make users do things manually.  It's not too hard to drag a link to RealTemp into your startup folder.

In Vista, click on the blue Windows logo at the bottom left and type in Start Menu and open up the folder that appears.  Open up Programs -> Startup and drag a shortcut to RealTemp in there.  In XP it's even easier to find this folder by clicking on the Start button and having a look in your programs menu item.

This way, no one can ever accuse me of screwing up their registry.

Edit: It's finally done.







http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/


----------



## troll334 (Feb 6, 2009)

*R.T. v3.0 and Q8200*

Greetings All,
Just received a Dell Inspiron 530 quad core. New system.
Out of curiosity, I downloaded and ran "Real Temp v3.0".
Interestingly enough, the temps for the first
three cores show activity. The fourth core, however, displays
a constant temp even though I see work performed on it. In fact,
McAfee was almost exclusively using the fourth core during
a system scan so I thought perhaps Real Temp just couldn't
get in there for a reading. When McAfee completed and went
back to sleep, other apps started using the fourth core and
the temp was still static.
Any possibility the sensor for that core is bad?
I've left a post on one of Dell's User forums and thought I'd see
if you folks have any insight.
Thanks!
mike


----------



## burebista (Feb 6, 2009)

It looks like a stuck sensor. Do a CPU Cool Down Test and post a screenshot here.


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 6, 2009)

Some sensors on 45nm Core chips don't work at all below 60C but work fine above that.  They were only designed and calibrated by Intel to trigger thermal throttling and thermal shutdown.

You could try running a high stress application like Prime 95 Small FFTs on all 4 cores.  The way these sensors work is that when the temperature increases higher than the sticking point, the sensor should start moving.  Depending on where your sticking point is, you might be able to see this sensor move at full load.  It's just a limitation of the sensors that Intel uses.  Not all sensors are suitable to also be used to report core temperatures.


----------



## troll334 (Feb 6, 2009)

*Most Appreciated*

Gents,
Thanks for your input and teachings. I appreciate it.
Went home during lunch and kicked off Prime95 then
ran to cool-down operation. I did not, however, run
seperate instances so the load was spread across all
four cores. The temp never did move. I'll rerun using
four instances and see what happens. In any event,
it does not appear that I need to worry or have Dell
ship out a new proc. Not that they'd do it anyway 
I was really just concerned that the fourth core could
get into thermal runaway w/o being detected. Time
will tell eh?
Thanks again and I won't bug you further.
have a great weekend.
mike


----------



## Rift (Feb 10, 2009)

Hey all I'm fairly new here iv just got a pretty simple question in regards to real temp.


I noticed that Intel released the TJ Max values for most of there procs. I also saw that in the release notes for Real Temp 3.0 it sais these values were updated but when I launch real temp it still shows the TJ Max for my q6600 to be 100 degrees.

According to Intel's release data http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-dts-specs,news-29460.html

It's supposed to be 90 degrees if I'm not mistaken. Is this still something we have to set on our own or by updating the values was the software supposed to change it on its own? It's no biggy to change it on my own just want to make sure my numbers are right.

Rift


----------



## Hayder_Master (Feb 10, 2009)

this version is great and best temp read imprassive work thanx


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 10, 2009)

Good question Rift and I'm glad you brought this up.

In my opinion, Intel played a bit of a public relations game last year.  The user community has been hounding them since Core processors first came out to release some information about TJMax so they finally decided to cave in, sort of.  

If you look closely at their releases last year at IDF you will see that they have changed the wording.  Instead of TJMax they used the term TJ Target.  TJ Target is their goal and actual TJMax might be higher.  They didn't document how much higher actual TJMax might be so basically their partial release of information has turned out to be mostly useless.

The other problem is that TJMax is not a fixed number like everyone has always thought that it was.  Not only is it not consistent from one Q6600 G0 to another Q6600 G0, it's not even consistent from one core to the next on the same CPU.  The 45nm Quads make this very obvious where the difference from core to core can approach 10C.  That's just the nature of the sensors that Intel is using.  Intel says it is due to production line tolerances but the problem is simply that these sensors were never designed or calibrated to be used for accurate core temperature reporting.  The purpose of these sensors is to control thermal throttling and thermal shutdown and for that purpose, they work excellent.  Any usability beyond that is at the users discretion.

Some people will come to the conclusion that with all of these issues, core temperature monitoring software is pointless.  What I found during testing is that if you take the time to calibrate RealTemp to your CPU then, if your sensors are not sticking, you can end up with some reasonably accurate core temperatures.  The sensors are not capable of 100% accurate temperature readings from idle to TJMax no matter what software you're using.  All you can do is try and calibrate them to minimize the amount of error.

The calibration procedure involves running your CPU at idle at a fixed MHz and core voltage and then comparing your reported temperatures to your room temperature near your computer with the case open.  The Calibration section of the documentation has more info on this:

http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/docs.php

This calibrates the low end and even if your actual TJMax is out by a few degrees, your reported temperatures from idle to full load are going to be fairly accurate.

I tried setting RealTemp up to use TJMax = 90C like Intel recommends and then I pointed an IR thermometer at the IHS that covers the four cores.  When RealTemp reported 80C, the IHS was showing 85C as measured with the IR thermometer.  It's impossible for the heat spreader covering the cores to be hotter than the source of the heat.  If I use TJMax = 95C then these two values are equal but even that doesn't seem right.  In order for the cores to maintain an IHS temperature of 85C, they are going to have to be hotter than the IHS surface temperature.

rge at XtremeSystems mounted a calibrated thermocouple into his IHS and did some testing and came to the conclusion that the cores would likely need to be about 5C hotter than the measured IHS temperature.  That sounds reasonable to me which is why for the Q6600 G0, I have set TJMax = 100C.  The authors of Core Temp and Everest have also decided to mostly ignore Intel's TJ Target numbers.  There are too many 65nm processors where Intel's TJ Target spec has very little to do with the actual TJMax.

Now if someone calls Intel and says, "What is TJMax", they can tell them that information has been released and if software developers like myself have chosen not to follow those guidelines, then it's obvious that we don't know what we're doing.  

If you can, run a CPU Cool Down Test and post your results.  It might show another theory that I have.  For many Q6600 Quads, TJMax for core2 and core3 seems to be set 5C higher than core0 and core1.  The Cool Down Test will help show if your CPU follows this trend.


----------



## Rift (Feb 11, 2009)

Unclewebb so I had some time to do the cooldown test that you linked to and I have some various results to post.

Here are the results with no modifications in RealTemp






This one is with TJmax set at 90 instead of the default 100C,






Mind you at this point I have not messed with any of the offsets because I'm still not totally sure by how much I would need to offset it and if I even need to make offset adjustments.

Then I ran the test with my OC settings at RealTemps default settings.






Like before I also ran the test with TJmax at 90C instead of 100C.






The current temperature around my case is 24C and when place about 2 feet away the temperature is 24.4C. When placed on the other side of the room the temperature hits 25C.

So these are my results. As stated above I'm still not sure about the offsets should I be adding the stated temperature offsets for High end air (true push/pull) ........6-7C. I believe my system fall under this, as I have 2 120mm Intake fans at the front of the case with 2 120mm exhaust fans at the back of the case. The CPU is being cooled by a Coolermaster V8 which has a 120mm Fan sandwiched in the middle of it.

Rift


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 12, 2009)

If your air temperature is 24C and there is typically a 7C gradient between your air temperature near your cooler and your core temperature then I would guess that your actual core temperature is about 31C in your first screen shot.  If your case is closed then even with good air flow that number might be a degree or two higher.  With a GPU temp of 60C, it's easy to create a degree or two of extra heat beside your CPU heatsink.  You'll have to be the judge of what you think is reasonable.

I wouldn't use TJMax = 90C.  It just doesn't seem likely from what you've shown me.  In my opinion, that is just a number off the top of someone's head at Intel and doesn't have anything to do with the actual TJMax for all of the Q6600 - G0 processors that I've seen so far.  Other programmers seem to agree with me on that one.  I don't think any software is using TJMax = 90C for a Q6600 G0, not even Intel TAT.

When you are overclocking and you take your CPU up to 80C you will notice a 2C difference in your maximum temperature between your two sets of cores.  There are two theories here.  Either the actual TJMax for core 2 and core 3 is 2C higher than core 0 and core 1 or perhaps those two cores are getting slightly less voltage at full load so they naturally run a couple of degrees cooler.  Typically from 80C to 100C, that 2C difference will remain very consistent.

If you believe in my theory that TJMax might be a couple of degrees higher on those two cores then try running TJMax = 100, 100, 102, 102  or  TJMax = 98, 98, 100, 100

The reason I recommend the second option is because that will lower your idle temperature on core0 and core1 down to 32, 32 which is probably very close to the actual temperature.  These sensors are far from perfect so I'd do this and call it a day for those 2 cores.

You would then only need to adjust the idle calibration factors for core 2 and core 3.  I start by trying to equalize the reported core temperatures at low MHz and low voltage across all 4 cores.  After you go back to your overclocked settings, you might find you need to make some very small adjustments to these calibration factors so your reported core temperatures remain balanced at idle.

Plan B would be to say to yourself that your temperatures are close enough to reality and decide not to bother with any calibration.  A lot of users choose that option.  Your Quad is better than most 65nm Quads and is worlds better than any 45nm Quad I've seen.

If you decide to calibrate, I usually run Prime95 Small FFTs from idle to full load and keep an eye on how the 4 cores track each other.  There might be a slight amount of lag but generally they track each other very closely on the way up and when returning back to your idle temperature.  I set the logging feature to a 1 second interval and then I do a few starts and stops of Small FFTs and go back and see how it looks.  Let me know if you agree / disagree and what you discover when testing.


----------



## Nitro-Max (Feb 14, 2009)

Laurijan said:


> Is this program more accurate then core temp i ask because i get differnt readings with this program?



Both coretemp and real temp report the exact same temps for each core on my Q6600 theres no differnce to me.


----------



## Israar (Feb 18, 2009)

Here's mine, any thoughts on it guys?

--Lee


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 18, 2009)

Your screen shot is an excellent example of why Intel does not recommend using these sensors to report accurate temperatures.  In this case I agree.

Core 0 and core 1 are stuck and useless and core 3 looks like it reads way too low.  Maybe core 2 might be usable if you calibrate it.  Read the documentation here on TechPowerUp and check out this post by rge at XtremeSystems for more details:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3384504&postcount=2429

http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/docs.php


----------



## Israar (Feb 18, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> Your screen shot is an excellent example of why Intel does not recommend using these sensors to report accurate temperatures.  In this case I agree.
> 
> Core 0 and core 1 are stuck and useless and core 3 looks like it reads way too low.  Maybe core 2 might be usable if you calibrate it.  Read the documentation here on TechPowerUp and check out this post by rge at XtremeSystems for more details:
> 
> ...



Thanks fella much appreciated 

Will read them both tonight when I get home from work, so for now I'll put them in my favourites =)

--Lee


----------



## JBravo (Mar 1, 2009)

Unclewebb

Thanks very much for a great app, its the only one I use to monitor temps!

I've read the calibration part of the documention, but I just want to run this by you.

I've got a E7200 45nm.  I'm going to calibrate realtemp as you said by getting the ambient down to 20C thanks to an aircon,drop the speeds as low as possible with 1.1V and add 11 or 12C to get the value that I should be seeing? I'm on stock intel cooling.

Would that be fairly accurate? Coz this would be the "minimum" it would ever go right?  

I would appreciate your help.

Again, thanks very much


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 1, 2009)

*JBravo*: A lot of the 45nm sensors have problems reading correctly at low temperatures like 20C or 30C.  Many of them get stuck.

If your room temp is 20C then try running a cool down test at default MHz and core voltage with Speedstep or C1E enabled so at idle the CPU drops down to a multiplier of 6.0.  Post or send me your results so we can start by having a look to see if either of your sensors are getting stuck.


----------



## JBravo (Mar 2, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> *JBravo*: A lot of the 45nm sensors have problems reading correctly at low temperatures like 20C or 30C.  Many of them get stuck.
> 
> If your room temp is 20C then try running a cool down test at default MHz and core voltage with Speedstep or C1E enabled so at idle the CPU drops down to a multiplier of 6.0.  Post or send me your results so we can start by having a look to see if either of your sensors are getting stuck.



Thanks for the reply

I've went ahead and did the calibration that stated earlier but its not working properly I think.

I took the speed and multi down to 266x6 @ 1.1V,booted to windows.  Then I set the minimum temp in realtemp down to the ambient which was 17C and added 12C to be safe giving me 29.

Now, I thought this was supposed to give me the "lowest" possible readings I would ever see, BUT when I set it back to 3.3ghz @ 1.225V, guess what, still got 29 idle...And yes, the one sensor is sticking badly,barely moves ( core 0 ),but core 1 moves instantly.

The core 0 sensor does however move when temps go up to about 45-50 and normally lags behind by 5C or so.

Any help would be appreciated very much Unclewebb!


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 2, 2009)

Rule #1 is you can't calibrate a stuck sensor using my method.  Stuck is stuck.

You still need to do a full CPU Cool Down Test and show me your results.  Both core 0 and core 1 get stuck on my E8400 at slightly different levels so we need to check to see if core 1 is getting stuck also on your CPU.  Your room temperature is cooler than most so there's a good chance that it's going to be stuck too but at a lower temperature.  Not many of these sensors are capable of getting down to 25C or lower.

Head to www.imageshack.us and upload a screen shot of your test there and then post a link to it here.


----------



## JBravo (Mar 5, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> Rule #1 is you can't calibrate a stuck sensor using my method.  Stuck is stuck.
> 
> You still need to do a full CPU Cool Down Test and show me your results.  Both core 0 and core 1 get stuck on my E8400 at slightly different levels so we need to check to see if core 1 is getting stuck also on your CPU.  Your room temperature is cooler than most so there's a good chance that it's going to be stuck too but at a lower temperature.  Not many of these sensors are capable of getting down to 25C or lower.
> 
> Head to www.imageshack.us and upload a screen shot of your test there and then post a link to it here.



Here is the sensor test as requested Unclewebb. Sorry for taking so long to respond.  I'm not registered at imageshack so I'll  just post the here?

The sensor on core 1 seems to be responding to each change in temp, so I'm hoping thats the one I'm going to use.  On the screenshot the minimum shows as 29, but I set the calibration back to 0 and didn't reset the temps afterward.  The minimum should be 41 with no calibration, as shown again in the idle state.  Hope this is what you wanted,and thanks for all the help thus far.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 5, 2009)

You don't need to be a member at Imageshack.  You just upload images and they give you a link to them.  I'm not sure how long they will keep images on their site if you're not a member but it seems to be for 6 months or a year or even longer.

See why I like the CPU Cool Down Test.  It makes it very easy to spot a stuck sensor and your core 0 sensor is definitely stuck.

Looking at your numbers, I think somewhere around 70C or 75C, core 0 will catch up to core 1 and they will likely remain fairly equal from that point to TJMax.  That's usually what happens.

No matter what you do, the idle temperature of core 0 is going to be a meaningless number.  It's stuck at idle and there's nothing you can do about that except ignore it.

rge's testing was with an open case.  If you also tested with an open case and your room temperature near your case is 17C then 29C or 30C sounds like a reasonable temperature number for your CPU.  Most users don't use the OEM cooler for very long so I haven't done much testing but rge's numbers / guidelines seem OK to me.  

It's typical for these sensors to read either too low or too high at idle but most of them are a lot more accurate at higher temperatures.  A 10C degree error at idle is not unusual.  Using a calibration factor somewhere around -8.0 for core 1 seems about right.  Leave TJMax set to 100C for both cores.  If your case was closed when you tested then you might need a little less calibration factor than that.  The closer you duplicate rge's testing environment, the better your results will be.

After that I'd run Prime95 Small FFTs at your normal or overclocked speed and adjust the calibration factor on Core 0 to get the cores to line up reasonably well.  It will probably need a positive calibration factor.  Either that or just leave core 0 as is knowing that it's not a sensor you want to trust too much.


----------



## JBravo (Mar 6, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> You don't need to be a member at Imageshack.  You just upload images and they give you a link to them.  I'm not sure how long they will keep images on their site if you're not a member but it seems to be for 6 months or a year or even longer.
> 
> See why I like the CPU Cool Down Test.  It makes it very easy to spot a stuck sensor and your core 0 sensor is definitely stuck.
> 
> ...




Thanks for having a look UncleWebb

That is exactly what I was doing, and my calibration was set to -8.0
And yes, I'll just forget about core 0 and work with core 1.

Thanks again


----------



## Randallizer (Mar 9, 2009)

*It is probaly me but*

I have the Intel i7 920 and when I run version 3.0 it only shows two cores. On the other hand if I run version 2.70 it shows the 4 cores. Is there something I'm not doing right?

Thanks in advance for your answer

Randallizer


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 9, 2009)

RealTemp 2.70 does not read the Core i7 correctly but 3.00 generally does.  Can you post a screen shot of RealTemp and CPU-Z?

The latest beta of RealTemp is located here:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip

Use that version to see if this bug has been fixed already.

One user has an issue where it is his operating system that limits the number of cores RealTemp can see.  With some more info, I'll help you get RealTemp working properly.  Let me know your OS and whether it is 32 or 64 bit.


----------



## Randallizer (Mar 9, 2009)

Thanks for taking a look, following your comment about the motherboard I had taken a second look to see if there was something limiting the processors. I did not see anything.

I'm use Vista SP1 Home Premium 64 bit
Motherboard is the EVGA S58 SLI

I've attached images of the CPUz and Realtemp 3.0, had tried the beta version but showed only 2 cores also.

Regards


----------



## FilipM (Mar 9, 2009)

Are my sensors bad? I know Core one reads higher than core 0, so on which one do i fall back? I have calibrated them once and I came up with 0 on Core 0 and -4.0 on Core 1. But Core 1 still reads hotter under load even though they are reading the same under idle.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 9, 2009)

*Randallizer*: If you look at CPU-Z it shows that you have only 2 cores and 4 threads.  That's the reason why RealTemp is only showing temperature information for two of your cores.  With a Core i7 it should show either 4 cores and 4 threads or if you have hyper threading enabled in the bios then it should show 4 cores and 8 threads.

You have a problem with your bios or how you have Windows set up.  If your bios is set up correctly then try running msconfig and have a look in the Advanced Boot options.






Usually you don't have to mess with that but you could try forcing it to the largest number of cores available.
The 0123 for APIC ID in the RealTemp Settings window shows it is only seeing 4 threads.  Did you do a fresh install of Vista when you built this computer?

*File_1993*: All 45nm Core 2 sensors are not great at reporting accurate temperatures.  They weren't designed for this purpose and it shows.  

What I've found in my testing is that TJMax is not a fixed number.  It's not the same from one E8400 to another and the shocking part is that it isn't even consistent from one core to the next on the same CPU.  Most of the 65nm Dual Core CPUs were pretty close from core to core but there are some 45nm sensors where the difference is 10C from core to core.

Try setting your idle calibration both back to 0.0 and 0.0.

Use TJMax = 100 / 107 for your two cores.

Now from idle to full load your cores should track each other very closely.

100 / 107 is my best guess on the data you've shown me.  I took my Q6600 up into the 70C to 90+C range and there was a constant difference of 5C.  I replaced the heat sink and the paste and etc. and finally concluded that TJMax is not consistent.  For my Quad I use TJMax = 100 / 100 / 105 / 105.

Once you've set TJMax like this, try and run your CPU at low MHz and low core voltage and compare your results to your room temperature as outlined in the docs.  The slopes of your two temperature curves are very similar.  It's mostly just a difference in how TJMax is calibrated.  Using the calibrated word on these sensors is kind of stretching it.


----------



## Randallizer (Mar 9, 2009)

It is kind of embarrassing. I had checked what you had indicated and sure enough under advanced boot options it had shown 2 cores. Now I did not touch anthing there but my brother told me he had tweaked the system so that Vista will load faster. He had read that Vista used only 1 core to load and by changing this Vista will load faster so he had put to use 2 cores.
After putting it back to default all is now fine. I see now the 4 cores.

Thanks again as I would have probably RMA the cpu without your intervention.

Regards


----------



## FilipM (Mar 9, 2009)

So that is 107degrees on Core 1 right. OK, I will report back when im done calibration for it


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 10, 2009)

*Randallizer*: I'm glad I could help.  That's an old tale on the internet about "how to speed up your boot times."  I'm glad you've got a whole CPU now instead of just half of a Core i7. Now go give your brother a punch. 

*File_1993*: What I like to do is run Prime95 Small FFTs for a couple of minutes, stop it, let it cool down for 30 seconds and then start it again a few times like this and watch how the two cores track each other.  Having the logging feature on at a 1 second interval helps when you go back and look at the data.

When I do this with my E8400 the two cores are almost mirror images of each other and rarely vary by 1C.  I think adjusting TJMax is going to get you a lot closer to accurate temperatures.

Here's is some of the calibration rge did over on XtremeSystems:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3384504&postcount=2429

Gathering data by drilling a hole in the top of your CPU to mount a thermocouple is not really recommended but I'm sure glad he did it. 

Intel has admitted that there is some differences in TJMax but have not been willing to come out and say exactly how big this error can be.  Most users would be shocked and the RMA line, or unhappy customer line would become way too long.

For the CPUs I've tested, it's usually about 65C or 70C when the two cores will start to move equally with each other.  If there is a 5C or 7C difference here, there will almost always be the exact same difference all the way up to TJMax when one core will cause the CPU to start throttling.  At this point, the difference in temperatures might change but from 70C to 97C, two cores side by side running Prime Small FFTs will show a consistent difference.  The actual temperature is exactly the same for both cores.  Any reported difference is sensor error.

If you're good with Excel you can graph your data and you should see two very similar temperature curves but they will be offset by about 7C.


----------



## FilipM (Mar 10, 2009)

Ok, Ive done the Prime 95 testing 5 times, and the difference at default (no calibration, TJmax default) was from 6 to 8 degrees, mainly 7. So with the post above and the calibration that RGE suggested, here's what i came up with:






This is at 16.7C ambient temprature


----------



## HTC (Mar 10, 2009)

*It seems i have my E8400 core 0 sensor ill calibrated*

This is my previous CPU: a lapped E6850, using a Noctua NH-C12P heatsink.







And this is my E8400: non-lapped, and using the same heatsink as above. The RAM has changed and increased too.







As you can see, core 1 sensor is stuck but what i'm intrigued about is the higher temp of core 0, when compared to the E6850: this has been so since day one and with the same version of Real Temp too (i just don't have a pic of it with version 2.84 of Real Temp).

@ first i thought it was because of one CPU being lapped and the other not but, though the ambient temp has increased, the minimum temp of the E8400, @ idle, has not, even though it doesn't seem to be stuck: the lowest i have seen it was @ 30º but it fluctuates between 30 and 32, on idle (C1E enabled).

Here's a pic of Real Temp taken a couple of minutes ago, with my settings:








Maybe you can help sort this out.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 10, 2009)

*File_1993*: I apologize.  I screwed up.  I reversed the 7 degree difference.  What I meant to say was

Core0 TJMax = 107
Core1 TJMax = 100

Can you try doing a Cool Down Test at 1600 MHz?  I just want to make sure that both your sensors are still moving at this point.  Rge's testing was with his case open so try to do the same when comparing to his numbers.  A closed case can add a few degrees to your results so it's best to open it up to be consistent

With the 107/100 TJMax numbers, these two cores are going to track each other very closely from idle to TJMax.  Then you might need similar negative idle calibration factors if your sensors are not sticking during your low MHz test.  Let your CPU sit idle at 1600 MHz for a couple of minutes before recording the temperature.

*HTC*: None of the sensors on any Core processor are 100% accurate from idle to TJMax.  None of them.  Not the original 65nm CPUs like your E6850 and definitely not any of the 45nm Core 2 based chips.  With a 15C/17C Minimum temperature being reported, it looks like the E6850 sensors read too low and likely your E8400 reads too high.  These sensors are not designed for accuracy at very low temperatures and a 10C error isn't unusual.  If one CPU has 10 degrees of error one way and the other CPU has error going the other way then the combined error when comparing two different CPUs can be significant.

The best way to figure out what's going on is to test both CPUs under identical conditions, same room temperature, core voltage and MHz and then compare your reported temperatures to what rge found during his testing:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3384504&postcount=2429

I wish the sensors were more accurate than this but they're not.


----------



## HTC (Mar 10, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> *HTC*: None of the sensors on any Core processor are 100% accurate from idle to TJMax.  None of them.  Not the original 65nm CPUs like your E6850 and definitely not any of the 45nm Core 2 based chips.  With a 15C/17C Minimum temperature being reported, it looks like the E6850 sensors read too low and likely your E8400 reads too high.  These sensors are not designed for accuracy at very low temperatures and a 10C error isn't unusual.  If one CPU has 10 degrees of error one way and the other CPU has error going the other way then the combined error when comparing two different CPUs can be significant.
> 
> The best way to figure out what's going on is to test both CPUs under identical conditions, same room temperature, core voltage and MHz and then compare your reported temperatures to what rge found during his testing:
> 
> ...



I thought it was possible for those temps on the E6850 since my house doesn't have AC and it was quite cold then, with ambient temp @ about 10º (i have this case).

What surprised me was that, when i placed the E8400, the temps were 15-20º higher, using the same CPU voltage and, @ the time, the same RAM.

The lowest temp ever on the E6850 (that i saw) was 15º on both cores with core 0 reaching that temp and staying there but with core 1, usually, with 4-6º more and spikes down to 15º.

Both CPUs have identical readings while running Linpack (i mean 1 core VS the other: not 1 CPU VS the other).

I'll try to use the same settings as the E6850 CPU for this but i won't be able to do it until this weekend. Hopefully, this might help to calibrate both CPU sensor readings.


----------



## FilipM (Mar 10, 2009)

Ok Webb, I will try that tomorow, including the cooldown at 1600Mhz. I did the calibration in my previous post at 1600Mhz, 1.1V and an opened case.


----------



## shaft103 (Mar 11, 2009)

Hello.  I was hoping to get some assistance in calibrating real temp before I start overclocking this system.  I have attached an image of the Cool Down Test for your review.  Your help is greatly appreciated!


----------



## Kursah (Mar 11, 2009)

Shaft are you on stock cooling? I would say those temps reveal a stock cooler imo, with a cheap AC Freezer 7 Pro you'd be quite a bit less then that under load or should be. The cores could be reading higher though. I OC'd an e6400 in a friends rig to 3.2GHz @ 400FSB (8x400), it took 1.28v (CPU v under load as read from Everest, CPU-z, DFI's Smartguardian) to be orthos stable and peaked around 48C. It'll hit around 54C when it gets warmer out, but case airflow and cooling are vital before overclocking. That chip has some room to give on temps, but just wanted to say those look a bit warm for stock to be doing much for overclocking...just keep an eye on them, i'd say keep them below 65C per core.


----------



## FilipM (Mar 11, 2009)

Did all of the wanted, here's how it looks now:






 cooldwon test at 1600Mhz, 1.1V, open case, 19C





Calibrated, 1,1V, open case, 19C


----------



## shaft103 (Mar 11, 2009)

Kursah said:


> Shaft are you on stock cooling? I would say those temps reveal a stock cooler imo, with a cheap AC Freezer 7 Pro you'd be quite a bit less then that under load or should be. The cores could be reading higher though. I OC'd an e6400 in a friends rig to 3.2GHz @ 400FSB (8x400), it took 1.28v (CPU v under load as read from Everest, CPU-z, DFI's Smartguardian) to be orthos stable and peaked around 48C. It'll hit around 54C when it gets warmer out, but case airflow and cooling are vital before overclocking. That chip has some room to give on temps, but just wanted to say those look a bit warm for stock to be doing much for overclocking...just keep an eye on them, i'd say keep them below 65C per core.



I'm actually not on stock cooling.  I'm using the Xigmatek HDT-S1283.  I wonder if maybe I need to re-seat it because I also was expecting better temperature performance.  When I was on stock cooling with my old mobo and this chip, I had it up to 3.2ghz with temps right around 60C.


----------



## FilipM (Mar 11, 2009)

May I ask, cos I am seeing in loads of forums, to keep these processors (e8 series) under 60 deg at max load, where as on the intel site, it says thermal specification 72.4C deg. So 72.4 is the max safe and 10x is the thermal junction?


----------



## FilipM (Mar 13, 2009)

Webb, instead of putting Core 1 with 107TJmax, would it be better if i put Core 0 on 100deg, and Core 1 on 93?

Something like this:







15C room temp, opened case, 1600mhz, 1.1V


----------



## MaxDrDiablo (Mar 15, 2009)

*Core i7 920 Question*

Hi everyone, first time posting but have been tracking this forum for a while now...i have read all there is to read from Unlceweb's genorous information..very helpful. i recently setup my i7 920 and have soley been using Realtemp 3.0 to monitor it..i also use core temp, HWMonitor but after reading your insight o Realtemp and how to calibrate it i found the others not as reliable....so i went ahead and performed your cpu cool down test with low voltage settings low heat setting at 12x and speed step activated @1.6ghz....after that i had to calibrate my individual cores to about +6-7 'C to my ambient temp in my room next to my case open...it was about 25'C and setup temps to +6,7 of that at idle of course...then went back reset bios to 3.8ghz, and ran another cool down test @3.8ghx and here are the results and cpuz pics...





My question is, are these temps and settings normal, i did not touch teh TjMax yet cause seems at idle temps are almost identical even though from cool down test only cores 1 and 3 seems identical at lower end but off at higher loads esp core 0...all info i read are on older 45nm chips, not much info on core i7....any insight would be great.

FYI i am running an coolermaster HAF 932 case with zalman 9900 fan, undreloads max temps reach high 70's..i know for this chip that is safe but i would like to know how to more accurately calibrate my temp sensors for better accuracy long term.

Thanks Guys


----------



## HTC (Mar 17, 2009)

HTC said:


> I thought it was possible for those temps on the E6850 since my house doesn't have AC and it was quite cold then, with ambient temp @ about 10º (i have this case).
> 
> What surprised me was that, when i placed the E8400, the temps were 15-20º higher, using the same CPU voltage and, @ the time, the same RAM.
> 
> ...



A little later then expected but have been ill lately, so i didn't have the opportunity until now.

Here are 2 pics of the E6850:






And






As i said, in previous post, core 0 systematically stays @ a low temp while core 1 stays @ 4-6º higher but with spikes that lower it to the temp of core 0.


Here are 2 pics of the E8400:






And







All of the BIOS settings were the same: the only difference was the CPU itself. The case was open in both tests.

I know the idle temp can be wrong in many CPUs but notice that the full load temp also shows difference between CPUs, which suggests it's indeed a calibration problem.

Unfortunately, i don't have an thermometer to know what the ambient temp currently is but i can tell you that it feels a heck of a lot warmer then it was when i got that 15º screenie with the E6850.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 17, 2009)

*MaxDrDiablo*: I haven't pointed the laser thermometer at a Core i7 yet, partly because of the extreme amount of heat they put out without a heatsink on but your i7 920 follows a very typical pattern.

From the 101 Core i7 screen shots I've seen, my best guess is that TJMax is only calibrated on the assembly line for core 0.  By the time you get down to core 3, most of these are off by about 5C at the TJMax point.  I would tend to use TJMax = 100, 1xx, 1xx, 105 for these where the middle two are somewhere between the end two.  They're not all like this but lots of them are.  I've also frequently seen a high low / high low pattern.  

In your case though, your 920 is probably something like TJMax = 100, 103, 103, 106.

For Core i7, run Prime95 Small FFTs for 5 minutes or so until your 4 cores have stabilized at their maximum temperature.  Have your calibration factors set to 0.0 and TJMax = 100 for core 0 and then adjust core1, core2 and core3 TJMax until the 4 are balanced.  Once that is done, go back to idle at your normal MHz and core voltage that you plan to run at and then adjust the calibration factors to balance your temperatures again.  Leave core 0 at 0.0 and adjust the rest of them.

Core i7 seem to have a little bit of slope error but not nearly as much as previous generations.

I've been working lately on updating RealTemp.  I switched over to Visual Studio 2008 and added the ability to color the headings which looks better in some situations especially when using a very dark background.  I haven't heard any complaints lately so I think the latest beta is working good and is available here if you want to check it out:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip






File_1993:  100 / 93 might be better for you than 107 / 100 and fits my theory that Intel likely only calibrates TJMax for core 0.  Intel hinted at different TJMax values in their presentations last year but didn't get into the specifics so all I can do is guess based on my limited testing and from what other users show me.  My original interpretation of what they said and what they showed about TJMax is that it is typically 100C but it could go slightly higher.  Upon reading some more I think that it could go slightly lower is also a possibility.  All Intel did during their presentation was label this difference as *X* and left everyone, including myself, guessing about how big *X* really can be and whether *X* might go up or down.

I wish I had more answers for you but this game has been going on for years now and Intel has only released the bare minimum of information about these sensors to keep users generally quiet.  Their official position continues to be that none of these sensors should be used to try and report accurate core temperatures.  I think I've been able to get reasonably accurate temperatures out of the processors I have tested but there's no way to prove this, one way or the other.


----------



## MaxDrDiablo (Mar 18, 2009)

*Thanx Guys*

Hey thank you Unclwebb for your input...and yes i did as you said, left core 0 at 0's and went on from there and once calibrated them all even now, and thanx for the new updated color scheme for realtemp..looks nice....


----------



## HTC (Mar 18, 2009)

HTC said:


> I thought it was possible for those temps on the E6850 since my house doesn't have AC and it was quite cold then, *with ambient temp @ about 10º* (i have this case).



When i said this, i was guessing because i don't have a thermometer with which to monitor room temp with.

Still, judging by the amount of clothes needed to not be shivering, i would guess it was pretty cold ...


----------



## chooky (Mar 23, 2009)

Hope this is the right place but I am having trouble with RealTemp 3.00. I have been using it since the day it was released with no problems but now it has this error

The processor detected is not supported.

GenuineIntel


I am running an E8400 on XP x64 SP2
Version 2.70 works fine. 
I have tried reinstalling it with no change. 
Thanks for any help.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 23, 2009)

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip

Can you try the latest beta to see if it makes any difference?

I know RealTemp 3.00 runs fine on an E8400 when using Vista x64 or Windows 7 x64.  I made a switch to simplify processor detection a while ago so if that is causing a problem in XP x64 then I'll have to come up with a fix for you.


----------



## chooky (Mar 23, 2009)

Thanks for the quick reply! I tried the beta but it still gives the error. I really like the cool down test so a fix would be great. Do you need any other info/


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 23, 2009)

> I tried the beta but it still gives the error.



I kind of thought it would. 

That's what I get for trying to fix something that wasn't broken.  I'll try to use my old code that used to work for you.  I'll send you a PM message or post a link to it here when it's ready.  Hopefully within 12 hours.  Thanks for bringing this to my attention.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 24, 2009)

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip

Give RealTemp 3.20 RC1 a try and let me know if it works for you chooky.  Post a screen shot of the error message if there are any problems.

Version 3.00 asks the CPU if there are any thermal sensors that it can read temperature data from.  
Your E8400 should say "Yes" so I'm not sure why it seems to be saying, "No".


----------



## chooky (Mar 24, 2009)

RealTemp 3.20 RC1 works great! Thankyou!

Just a little suggestion. Could we have somewhere in settings to put the path to Prime95 so we don't have to find it every time.

Another thought. CPU load% is not a good indication of the amount of work a CPU is doing as illustrated by the chart of an Everest log, done while running a RealTemp CPU cool down test, below. So is there a better way of measuring load? It makes it really hard to compare apples with apples when people quote a CPU temp at 100% load when their CPU may not be working hard at all.


----------



## burebista (Mar 24, 2009)

chooky said:


> So is there a better way of measuring load?


AFAIK uncle's approach to measure load is the most accurate method. Try RivaTuner plugin to see all cores in load. I love those graphs.


----------



## chooky (Mar 24, 2009)

burebista said:


> AFAIK uncle's approach to measure load is the most accurate method.



Well obviously! So please uncle can you write a letter too Microsoft and let them know how you measure load so they can fix it before Win 7 comes out because the load % found in task manager isn't worth the electons its written with.

Found a new problem uncle. I was going to redo my chart with data collected from the RealTemp.csv file but it does not work while the cool down test is running, any ideas?

Another feature suggestion would be to display your REAL CPU load % in the system tray.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 24, 2009)

*chooky*: Now that I know RealTemp works on your XP x64 E8400, I can redo the RivaTuner plugin as well to make sure that it works on your system.  I ran out of time last night to get it all done.  I'm in the process of reinstalling / testing an OS or two and have files, operating systems and C++ compilers everywhere.



> So is there a better way of measuring load?



For Intel core based processors, the RealTemp way is the most accurate way in my opinion.  The method used to calculate this value does not apply to AMD processors so there's no way that Microsoft will ever use this method in Windows 7 or any other operating system.

I'll look into some of your suggestions and see what I can do.

Edit: RealTemp doesn't seem to have a problem gathering data while running a CPU Cool Down Test.  It missed 4 or 5 seconds of data during the initial Sensor Movement Test but the rest of the data looks pretty good.  Exit RealTemp after this test to give it a chance to write the data to the hard disk.  You might want to try using the HDWrite=1 INI file option.  It's explained in the documentation.


```
DATE     TIME   C0 C1 C2 C3 NV LOAD%
03/24/09 08:10:36 32 32 32 32 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:10:37 32 32 32 33 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:10:38 32 32 32 33 42 1.0
03/24/09 08:10:39 32 32 32 32 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:10:40 32 32 32 32 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:10:41 32 32 32 32 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:10:46 46 45 45 46 42 85.5
03/24/09 08:10:46 46 45 47 46 42 99.0
03/24/09 08:10:47 46 45 47 46 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:10:48 40 40 40 40 42 89.7
03/24/09 08:10:49 35 35 35 35 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:10:50 34 34 33 34 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:10:51 33 33 33 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:10:52 33 33 33 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:10:53 33 33 33 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:10:54 33 33 33 34 42 2.4
03/24/09 08:10:55 33 33 32 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:10:56 33 33 32 33 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:10:57 32 32 32 33 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:10:58 33 33 33 33 42 1.2
03/24/09 08:10:59 32 32 32 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:11:00 32 32 32 33 42 0.3
03/24/09 08:11:02 49 49 48 48 42 85.0
03/24/09 08:11:03 51 51 50 49 42 99.3
03/24/09 08:11:04 52 52 51 49 42 99.4
03/24/09 08:11:05 52 52 51 50 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:11:06 52 52 51 50 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:11:07 54 54 52 51 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:11:08 54 54 52 51 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:11:09 54 54 52 51 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:11:10 54 54 52 51 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:11:11 55 55 52 51 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:11:12 55 55 53 52 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:11:13 55 55 53 52 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:11:14 55 55 53 52 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:11:15 55 55 53 52 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:11:16 56 56 53 52 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:11:17 56 56 53 53 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:11:18 56 56 54 53 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:11:19 56 56 54 53 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:11:20 56 56 53 52 42 96.1
03/24/09 08:11:21 56 55 52 53 42 96.6
03/24/09 08:11:22 56 56 54 53 42 98.3
03/24/09 08:11:23 56 56 54 53 42 96.2
03/24/09 08:11:24 56 56 54 53 42 95.8
03/24/09 08:11:25 56 56 54 53 42 95.4
03/24/09 08:11:26 57 57 55 54 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:11:27 57 57 55 54 42 99.5
03/24/09 08:11:28 57 57 55 54 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:11:29 57 57 55 54 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:11:30 57 57 55 54 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:11:31 57 57 55 54 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:11:32 57 57 55 54 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:11:33 58 58 55 54 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:11:34 58 58 55 54 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:11:35 58 58 56 54 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:11:36 58 58 56 57 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:11:37 58 58 56 57 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:11:38 58 58 56 57 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:11:39 58 58 56 57 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:11:40 58 58 56 57 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:11:41 58 58 56 57 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:11:42 58 58 56 57 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:11:43 59 59 56 57 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:11:44 58 58 56 57 42 99.5
03/24/09 08:11:45 59 59 56 57 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:11:46 59 59 56 57 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:11:47 59 59 56 57 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:11:48 59 59 56 57 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:11:49 59 59 57 58 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:11:50 59 59 57 58 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:11:51 59 59 57 58 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:11:52 59 59 57 58 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:11:53 59 59 57 58 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:11:54 59 59 57 58 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:11:55 59 59 57 58 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:11:56 60 60 57 58 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:11:57 60 59 57 58 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:11:58 60 60 57 58 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:11:59 60 60 59 58 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:12:00 60 60 57 58 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:12:01 60 60 59 58 42 99.5
03/24/09 08:12:02 60 60 59 59 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:03 60 60 59 59 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:04 60 60 59 59 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:05 60 60 59 59 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:12:06 60 60 59 59 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:12:07 60 60 59 59 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:12:08 60 60 59 59 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:12:09 60 60 59 59 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:10 60 60 59 59 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:12:11 60 60 59 59 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:13 60 60 59 59 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:14 60 60 59 59 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:12:15 61 60 60 59 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:16 61 60 59 59 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:12:17 61 61 60 59 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:18 61 61 60 59 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:19 61 61 60 60 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:20 61 61 60 60 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:21 61 61 60 60 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:12:22 61 61 60 60 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:23 61 61 60 60 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:12:24 61 61 60 60 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:12:25 61 61 60 60 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:26 61 61 60 60 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:27 61 61 60 60 42 96.6
03/24/09 08:12:28 61 61 60 60 42 96.0
03/24/09 08:12:29 61 61 60 60 42 95.9
03/24/09 08:12:30 61 61 60 60 42 95.7
03/24/09 08:12:31 61 60 59 60 42 95.6
03/24/09 08:12:32 61 61 60 60 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:12:33 61 61 60 60 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:34 61 61 60 60 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:12:35 61 61 60 60 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:36 61 61 60 60 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:12:37 61 61 61 60 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:12:38 62 61 61 60 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:39 62 61 61 60 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:40 62 61 61 60 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:41 62 61 61 60 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:12:42 62 62 61 61 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:43 62 62 61 61 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:12:44 62 62 61 61 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:12:45 62 62 61 61 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:12:46 62 62 61 61 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:47 62 62 61 61 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:48 62 62 61 61 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:12:49 62 62 61 61 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:12:50 62 62 61 61 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:12:51 62 62 61 61 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:12:52 62 62 61 61 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:12:53 62 62 61 61 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:54 62 62 61 61 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:55 62 62 61 61 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:56 62 62 61 61 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:12:57 62 62 61 61 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:12:58 62 62 61 61 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:12:59 62 62 61 61 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:13:00 62 62 61 61 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:13:01 62 62 61 61 42 99.5
03/24/09 08:13:02 62 62 61 61 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:03 63 62 62 61 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:04 63 62 62 61 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:05 63 62 62 61 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:06 63 62 62 62 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:13:07 63 62 62 62 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:08 63 62 62 62 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:09 63 63 62 62 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:13:10 63 63 62 62 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:11 63 63 62 62 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:13:12 63 63 62 62 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:13:13 63 63 62 62 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:14 63 63 62 62 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:15 63 63 62 62 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:16 63 63 62 62 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:13:17 63 63 62 62 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:13:18 63 63 62 62 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:13:19 63 63 62 62 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:13:20 63 63 62 62 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:13:21 63 63 62 62 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:22 63 63 62 62 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:24 63 63 62 62 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:25 63 63 62 62 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:25 63 63 62 62 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:13:27 63 63 62 62 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:13:28 63 63 62 62 42 99.5
03/24/09 08:13:29 63 63 62 62 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:30 63 63 62 62 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:13:31 63 63 63 62 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:32 63 63 63 62 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:33 63 63 62 62 42 96.3
03/24/09 08:13:34 63 63 62 62 42 95.7
03/24/09 08:13:35 63 62 60 62 42 95.8
03/24/09 08:13:36 63 63 62 62 42 99.4
03/24/09 08:13:37 63 63 62 62 42 96.2
03/24/09 08:13:38 63 63 62 62 42 95.8
03/24/09 08:13:39 63 63 63 62 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:13:40 65 63 63 62 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:13:41 65 65 63 62 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:13:42 65 65 63 62 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:13:43 65 65 63 63 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:44 65 65 63 63 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:45 65 65 63 63 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:46 65 65 63 63 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:13:47 63 63 63 63 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:48 65 63 62 62 42 97.1
03/24/09 08:13:49 65 65 63 63 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:13:50 65 65 63 63 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:51 65 65 63 63 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:13:52 65 65 63 63 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:53 65 65 63 63 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:13:54 65 65 63 63 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:13:55 65 65 63 63 42 99.5
03/24/09 08:13:56 65 65 63 63 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:13:57 65 65 63 63 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:13:58 65 65 63 63 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:13:59 65 65 63 63 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:14:00 65 65 63 63 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:14:01 65 65 63 63 42 99.3
03/24/09 08:14:02 65 65 63 63 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:14:03 65 65 63 63 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:14:04 65 65 63 63 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:14:05 65 65 63 63 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:14:06 65 65 63 63 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:14:07 65 65 63 63 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:14:08 65 65 63 63 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:14:09 65 65 63 63 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:14:10 65 65 63 63 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:14:11 65 65 63 63 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:14:12 65 65 63 63 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:14:13 65 65 63 63 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:14:14 65 65 63 63 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:14:15 65 65 63 63 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:14:16 65 65 64 63 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:14:17 65 65 64 63 42 99.8
03/24/09 08:14:18 65 65 64 63 42 99.6
03/24/09 08:14:19 65 65 64 63 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:14:20 66 65 64 63 42 99.7
03/24/09 08:14:21 65 65 63 63 42 98.0
03/24/09 08:14:22 63 63 62 63 42 88.1
03/24/09 08:14:23 63 62 62 62 42 88.1
03/24/09 08:14:24 63 62 62 62 42 88.1
03/24/09 08:14:25 63 62 62 62 42 88.1
03/24/09 08:14:26 63 62 62 62 42 88.1
03/24/09 08:14:27 63 62 62 62 42 88.0
03/24/09 08:14:28 63 62 62 62 42 88.1
03/24/09 08:14:29 63 62 62 62 42 88.2
03/24/09 08:14:30 63 62 62 62 42 88.1
03/24/09 08:14:31 63 62 62 62 42 88.2
03/24/09 08:14:32 63 62 62 62 42 88.0
03/24/09 08:14:33 63 62 62 62 42 88.0
03/24/09 08:14:35 63 62 62 62 42 88.1
03/24/09 08:14:35 63 62 62 62 42 88.1
03/24/09 08:14:37 63 62 62 62 42 88.2
03/24/09 08:14:37 63 62 62 62 42 88.2
03/24/09 08:14:38 63 62 61 62 42 87.1
03/24/09 08:14:40 63 62 62 62 42 86.7
03/24/09 08:14:41 62 62 62 62 42 85.8
03/24/09 08:14:42 62 62 62 62 42 85.5
03/24/09 08:14:43 63 62 62 62 42 85.5
03/24/09 08:14:44 62 62 62 62 42 85.7
03/24/09 08:14:45 62 62 62 62 42 87.9
03/24/09 08:14:46 63 62 62 62 42 88.1
03/24/09 08:14:47 63 62 62 62 42 88.2
03/24/09 08:14:48 63 62 62 62 42 88.1
03/24/09 08:14:49 63 62 62 62 42 88.2
03/24/09 08:14:50 63 62 62 62 42 88.2
03/24/09 08:14:51 63 62 62 62 42 88.2
03/24/09 08:14:52 63 62 62 62 42 88.2
03/24/09 08:14:53 63 62 62 62 42 88.0
03/24/09 08:14:54 63 62 62 62 42 88.0
03/24/09 08:14:55 63 62 62 62 42 88.1
03/24/09 08:14:56 63 62 62 62 42 88.1
03/24/09 08:14:57 63 62 62 62 42 88.0
03/24/09 08:14:58 63 62 62 62 42 88.2
03/24/09 08:14:59 63 62 62 62 42 88.2
03/24/09 08:15:00 63 62 62 62 42 88.0
03/24/09 08:15:01 63 62 62 62 42 88.0
03/24/09 08:15:02 63 63 62 62 42 88.1
03/24/09 08:15:03 63 63 62 62 42 88.1
03/24/09 08:15:04 63 62 62 62 42 88.2
03/24/09 08:15:05 63 62 62 62 42 88.1
03/24/09 08:15:06 63 62 62 62 42 88.2
03/24/09 08:15:07 63 62 62 62 42 88.0
03/24/09 08:15:08 62 62 62 62 42 87.0
03/24/09 08:15:09 61 61 61 61 42 76.9
03/24/09 08:15:10 61 60 61 61 42 76.9
03/24/09 08:15:11 61 60 61 61 42 77.0
03/24/09 08:15:12 61 60 61 61 42 77.0
03/24/09 08:15:13 61 60 61 60 42 77.0
03/24/09 08:15:14 61 60 61 60 42 76.8
03/24/09 08:15:15 61 60 60 60 42 76.7
03/24/09 08:15:16 61 60 60 60 42 77.0
03/24/09 08:15:17 61 60 60 60 42 77.0
03/24/09 08:15:18 61 60 60 60 42 77.0
03/24/09 08:15:19 60 60 60 60 42 77.0
03/24/09 08:15:20 60 60 60 60 42 77.0
03/24/09 08:15:21 60 60 60 60 42 76.7
03/24/09 08:15:22 60 60 60 60 42 76.9
03/24/09 08:15:23 60 60 60 60 42 76.9
03/24/09 08:15:24 60 60 60 60 42 76.9
03/24/09 08:15:25 60 60 60 60 42 76.9
03/24/09 08:15:26 60 60 60 60 42 77.0
03/24/09 08:15:27 60 60 60 60 42 76.7
03/24/09 08:15:28 60 60 60 60 42 76.8
03/24/09 08:15:29 60 60 60 60 42 77.0
03/24/09 08:15:30 60 60 60 60 42 76.9
03/24/09 08:15:31 60 60 60 60 42 76.9
03/24/09 08:15:32 60 60 60 60 42 77.0
03/24/09 08:15:33 60 60 60 60 42 77.0
03/24/09 08:15:34 60 60 60 60 42 76.8
03/24/09 08:15:35 60 60 60 60 42 76.8
03/24/09 08:15:36 60 60 60 60 42 77.0
03/24/09 08:15:37 60 60 60 60 42 76.9
03/24/09 08:15:38 60 60 60 60 42 77.0
03/24/09 08:15:39 60 60 60 60 42 77.0
03/24/09 08:15:40 60 60 60 60 42 77.0
03/24/09 08:15:41 60 60 60 60 42 76.8
03/24/09 08:15:42 60 60 60 60 42 76.9
03/24/09 08:15:43 60 60 60 60 42 76.9
03/24/09 08:15:44 60 60 60 60 42 76.8
03/24/09 08:15:45 60 59 60 60 42 74.2
03/24/09 08:15:47 60 60 60 60 42 73.8
03/24/09 08:15:48 60 59 59 60 42 74.1
03/24/09 08:15:48 60 59 59 59 42 73.7
03/24/09 08:15:49 60 59 59 60 42 76.2
03/24/09 08:15:51 60 59 60 60 42 75.1
03/24/09 08:15:52 60 59 60 60 42 76.8
03/24/09 08:15:53 60 59 60 60 42 76.8
03/24/09 08:15:54 60 60 60 60 42 77.0
03/24/09 08:15:55 59 59 59 59 42 75.1
03/24/09 08:15:56 58 57 57 59 42 65.3
03/24/09 08:15:57 57 57 57 58 42 65.3
03/24/09 08:15:58 57 57 57 58 42 65.2
03/24/09 08:15:59 57 57 57 58 42 65.4
03/24/09 08:16:00 57 57 57 58 42 65.2
03/24/09 08:16:01 57 57 57 58 42 65.1
03/24/09 08:16:02 57 57 57 58 42 65.3
03/24/09 08:16:03 57 57 57 58 42 65.3
03/24/09 08:16:04 57 57 56 58 42 65.3
03/24/09 08:16:05 57 57 56 58 42 65.2
03/24/09 08:16:06 57 57 56 58 42 65.3
03/24/09 08:16:07 57 57 56 58 42 65.2
03/24/09 08:16:08 57 57 56 58 42 65.4
03/24/09 08:16:09 57 57 56 58 42 65.2
03/24/09 08:16:10 57 56 56 58 42 65.3
03/24/09 08:16:11 57 56 56 58 42 65.3
03/24/09 08:16:12 57 56 56 58 42 65.3
03/24/09 08:16:13 57 56 56 58 42 65.4
03/24/09 08:16:14 56 56 56 58 42 65.2
03/24/09 08:16:15 56 56 56 57 42 65.1
03/24/09 08:16:16 56 56 56 57 42 65.3
03/24/09 08:16:17 57 56 56 57 42 65.3
03/24/09 08:16:18 57 57 56 58 42 65.3
03/24/09 08:16:19 56 56 56 57 42 65.3
03/24/09 08:16:20 56 56 56 57 42 65.3
03/24/09 08:16:21 56 56 56 57 42 65.2
03/24/09 08:16:22 56 56 56 57 42 65.2
03/24/09 08:16:23 56 56 56 57 42 65.3
03/24/09 08:16:24 56 56 56 57 42 65.3
03/24/09 08:16:25 56 56 56 57 42 65.3
03/24/09 08:16:26 56 56 56 57 42 65.4
03/24/09 08:16:27 56 56 56 57 42 65.2
03/24/09 08:16:28 56 56 56 57 42 65.4
03/24/09 08:16:29 56 56 56 57 42 65.4
03/24/09 08:16:30 56 56 56 57 42 65.3
03/24/09 08:16:31 56 56 56 57 42 65.2
03/24/09 08:16:32 56 56 56 57 42 65.2
03/24/09 08:16:33 56 56 56 57 42 65.3
03/24/09 08:16:34 56 56 56 57 42 65.3
03/24/09 08:16:35 56 56 56 57 42 65.2
03/24/09 08:16:36 56 56 56 57 42 65.3
03/24/09 08:16:37 56 56 56 57 42 65.3
03/24/09 08:16:38 56 56 56 57 42 65.2
03/24/09 08:16:39 56 56 56 57 42 65.4
03/24/09 08:16:40 56 56 56 57 42 65.3
03/24/09 08:16:41 55 55 55 54 42 64.2
03/24/09 08:16:42 54 54 54 54 42 55.6
03/24/09 08:16:43 54 54 54 53 42 55.7
03/24/09 08:16:44 54 54 54 53 42 55.5
03/24/09 08:16:45 54 54 54 53 42 55.5
03/24/09 08:16:46 54 54 54 53 42 55.7
03/24/09 08:16:47 54 54 54 53 42 55.7
03/24/09 08:16:48 54 54 54 53 42 55.7
03/24/09 08:16:49 54 54 54 53 42 55.7
03/24/09 08:16:50 54 54 54 53 42 55.7
03/24/09 08:16:51 54 52 53 52 42 53.7
03/24/09 08:16:52 54 52 53 53 42 53.9
03/24/09 08:16:53 54 52 54 53 42 55.0
03/24/09 08:16:54 54 52 53 53 42 53.4
03/24/09 08:16:55 54 52 53 53 42 53.2
03/24/09 08:16:56 54 52 53 53 42 53.5
03/24/09 08:16:57 54 52 53 53 42 55.6
03/24/09 08:16:58 54 52 53 53 42 55.6
03/24/09 08:16:59 54 52 53 53 42 55.6
03/24/09 08:17:00 52 52 53 53 42 55.6
03/24/09 08:17:02 54 52 53 53 42 55.5
03/24/09 08:17:03 52 52 53 53 42 55.6
03/24/09 08:17:04 52 52 53 53 42 55.7
03/24/09 08:17:05 52 52 53 52 42 55.6
03/24/09 08:17:06 52 52 53 52 42 55.5
03/24/09 08:17:07 52 52 53 52 42 55.6
03/24/09 08:17:08 52 52 53 52 42 55.7
03/24/09 08:17:09 52 52 53 52 42 55.7
03/24/09 08:17:10 52 52 53 52 42 55.7
03/24/09 08:17:11 52 52 53 52 42 55.7
03/24/09 08:17:12 52 52 53 52 42 55.7
03/24/09 08:17:13 52 52 53 52 42 55.6
03/24/09 08:17:14 52 52 53 52 42 55.6
03/24/09 08:17:15 52 52 53 52 42 55.6
03/24/09 08:17:16 52 52 53 52 42 55.7
03/24/09 08:17:17 52 52 53 52 42 55.7
03/24/09 08:17:18 52 52 53 52 42 55.7
03/24/09 08:17:19 52 52 53 52 42 55.7
03/24/09 08:17:20 52 52 53 52 42 55.7
03/24/09 08:17:21 52 52 53 52 42 55.5
03/24/09 08:17:22 52 52 53 52 42 55.6
03/24/09 08:17:23 52 52 53 52 42 55.7
03/24/09 08:17:24 52 52 53 52 42 55.6
03/24/09 08:17:25 52 52 53 52 42 55.6
03/24/09 08:17:26 52 52 53 52 42 55.7
03/24/09 08:17:27 52 52 53 52 42 55.6
03/24/09 08:17:28 51 51 52 51 42 54.7
03/24/09 08:17:29 50 50 51 51 42 45.4
03/24/09 08:17:30 50 50 51 50 42 45.5
03/24/09 08:17:31 50 50 51 50 42 45.6
03/24/09 08:17:32 50 50 51 50 42 45.5
03/24/09 08:17:33 50 50 50 50 42 45.4
03/24/09 08:17:34 50 50 50 50 42 45.4
03/24/09 08:17:35 50 50 50 50 42 45.5
03/24/09 08:17:36 50 50 50 50 42 45.6
03/24/09 08:17:37 50 50 50 50 42 45.6
03/24/09 08:17:38 50 50 50 50 42 45.6
03/24/09 08:17:39 50 50 50 49 42 45.2
03/24/09 08:17:40 49 49 50 50 42 45.4
03/24/09 08:17:41 49 49 50 50 42 45.4
03/24/09 08:17:42 49 49 50 50 42 45.5
03/24/09 08:17:43 49 49 50 49 42 45.4
03/24/09 08:17:44 49 49 50 49 42 45.6
03/24/09 08:17:45 49 49 50 49 42 44.6
03/24/09 08:17:46 49 49 50 49 42 45.6
03/24/09 08:17:47 49 49 50 49 42 45.2
03/24/09 08:17:48 49 49 50 49 42 44.3
03/24/09 08:17:49 49 49 50 49 42 44.8
03/24/09 08:17:50 49 49 50 49 42 44.7
03/24/09 08:17:51 49 49 50 49 42 44.5
03/24/09 08:17:52 49 49 50 49 42 44.6
03/24/09 08:17:53 49 49 50 49 42 44.0
03/24/09 08:17:54 49 48 49 49 42 44.8
03/24/09 08:17:55 49 49 50 49 42 44.6
03/24/09 08:17:56 49 49 50 49 42 44.5
03/24/09 08:17:57 49 49 50 49 42 44.4
03/24/09 08:17:58 49 49 49 49 42 43.0
03/24/09 08:17:59 49 49 49 49 42 43.0
03/24/09 08:18:00 49 49 49 49 42 43.0
03/24/09 08:18:01 49 49 49 49 42 42.0
03/24/09 08:18:02 49 49 49 49 42 42.8
03/24/09 08:18:03 49 49 49 49 42 44.4
03/24/09 08:18:04 48 48 49 49 42 44.5
03/24/09 08:18:05 49 49 49 49 42 44.5
03/24/09 08:18:06 49 49 49 49 42 44.9
03/24/09 08:18:07 49 49 49 49 42 44.3
03/24/09 08:18:08 49 49 49 49 42 44.5
03/24/09 08:18:09 48 48 49 49 42 45.4
03/24/09 08:18:10 48 48 49 49 42 45.6
03/24/09 08:18:11 48 48 49 49 42 45.4
03/24/09 08:18:13 48 48 49 49 42 45.4
03/24/09 08:18:13 48 48 49 49 42 45.6
03/24/09 08:18:14 48 48 49 48 42 44.8
03/24/09 08:18:16 47 47 48 48 42 38.6
03/24/09 08:18:17 47 47 48 48 42 38.6
03/24/09 08:18:18 47 47 48 48 42 38.6
03/24/09 08:18:19 47 47 48 48 42 38.4
03/24/09 08:18:20 47 47 48 48 42 38.4
03/24/09 08:18:21 47 47 48 47 42 38.6
03/24/09 08:18:22 47 47 48 47 42 38.4
03/24/09 08:18:23 46 46 48 47 42 38.6
03/24/09 08:18:24 46 46 47 47 42 38.5
03/24/09 08:18:25 46 46 47 47 42 38.4
03/24/09 08:18:26 46 46 47 47 42 38.4
03/24/09 08:18:27 46 46 47 47 42 38.2
03/24/09 08:18:28 46 46 47 47 42 38.5
03/24/09 08:18:29 46 46 47 47 42 38.6
03/24/09 08:18:30 46 46 47 47 42 38.5
03/24/09 08:18:31 46 46 47 47 42 38.6
03/24/09 08:18:32 46 46 47 47 42 38.5
03/24/09 08:18:33 46 46 47 47 42 38.4
03/24/09 08:18:34 46 46 47 47 42 38.4
03/24/09 08:18:35 46 46 47 47 42 38.4
03/24/09 08:18:36 46 46 47 47 42 38.5
03/24/09 08:18:37 46 46 47 47 42 38.6
03/24/09 08:18:38 46 46 47 47 42 38.6
03/24/09 08:18:39 46 46 47 47 42 38.6
03/24/09 08:18:40 46 46 47 47 42 38.4
03/24/09 08:18:41 46 46 47 47 42 38.4
03/24/09 08:18:42 46 46 47 47 42 38.5
03/24/09 08:18:43 46 46 47 47 42 38.5
03/24/09 08:18:44 46 46 47 47 42 38.5
03/24/09 08:18:45 46 46 47 47 42 38.5
03/24/09 08:18:46 46 46 47 47 42 38.6
03/24/09 08:18:47 46 46 47 47 42 38.4
03/24/09 08:18:48 46 46 45 46 42 38.1
03/24/09 08:18:49 46 45 45 46 42 37.2
03/24/09 08:18:50 45 45 45 46 42 38.5
03/24/09 08:18:51 45 45 45 46 42 38.5
03/24/09 08:18:52 45 45 45 46 42 38.5
03/24/09 08:18:53 45 45 45 46 42 38.6
03/24/09 08:18:54 45 45 45 46 42 38.3
03/24/09 08:18:55 45 45 45 46 42 38.2
03/24/09 08:18:56 45 45 45 46 42 38.3
03/24/09 08:18:57 45 45 45 46 42 38.0
03/24/09 08:18:58 45 45 45 46 42 38.1
03/24/09 08:18:59 45 45 45 46 42 38.6
03/24/09 08:19:00 45 45 45 46 42 38.5
03/24/09 08:19:01 45 45 44 46 42 37.6
03/24/09 08:19:02 44 44 44 45 42 29.0
03/24/09 08:19:03 44 44 43 45 42 29.2
03/24/09 08:19:04 44 44 43 44 42 28.2
03/24/09 08:19:05 44 43 43 44 42 28.2
03/24/09 08:19:06 43 43 43 44 42 28.1
03/24/09 08:19:07 43 43 43 44 42 28.2
03/24/09 08:19:08 43 43 43 44 42 28.2
03/24/09 08:19:09 43 43 43 44 42 29.2
03/24/09 08:19:10 43 43 43 44 42 29.1
03/24/09 08:19:11 43 43 43 44 42 29.4
03/24/09 08:19:12 43 43 43 44 42 29.2
03/24/09 08:19:13 43 43 43 44 42 29.1
03/24/09 08:19:14 43 43 43 44 42 29.4
03/24/09 08:19:15 43 43 43 44 42 29.2
03/24/09 08:19:16 43 43 43 44 42 28.7
03/24/09 08:19:17 43 43 43 44 42 29.2
03/24/09 08:19:18 43 43 43 44 42 29.2
03/24/09 08:19:19 43 43 43 44 42 29.3
03/24/09 08:19:20 43 43 42 44 42 29.3
03/24/09 08:19:22 43 43 42 44 42 29.4
03/24/09 08:19:22 43 43 42 42 42 29.2
03/24/09 08:19:24 43 43 42 42 42 29.1
03/24/09 08:19:24 43 43 42 42 42 29.2
03/24/09 08:19:26 43 43 42 42 42 29.2
03/24/09 08:19:27 43 43 42 42 42 29.3
03/24/09 08:19:28 42 42 42 42 42 29.1
03/24/09 08:19:29 42 42 42 42 42 29.4
03/24/09 08:19:29 42 42 42 42 42 29.4
03/24/09 08:19:31 42 42 42 42 42 29.4
03/24/09 08:19:32 42 42 42 42 42 29.4
03/24/09 08:19:33 42 42 42 42 42 29.3
03/24/09 08:19:34 42 42 42 42 42 29.4
03/24/09 08:19:35 42 42 42 42 42 29.4
03/24/09 08:19:36 42 42 42 42 42 29.3
03/24/09 08:19:37 42 42 42 42 42 29.0
03/24/09 08:19:38 42 42 42 42 42 29.2
03/24/09 08:19:39 42 42 42 42 42 29.4
03/24/09 08:19:40 42 42 42 42 42 29.3
03/24/09 08:19:41 42 42 42 42 42 29.4
03/24/09 08:19:42 42 42 42 42 42 29.3
03/24/09 08:19:43 42 42 42 42 42 29.4
03/24/09 08:19:44 42 42 42 42 42 29.4
03/24/09 08:19:45 42 42 42 42 42 29.4
03/24/09 08:19:46 42 42 42 42 42 29.2
03/24/09 08:19:47 42 42 42 42 42 29.4
03/24/09 08:19:48 40 40 41 41 42 27.1
03/24/09 08:19:49 38 38 39 39 42 0.3
03/24/09 08:19:50 38 38 39 39 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:19:51 38 38 38 39 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:19:52 38 38 38 39 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:19:53 37 37 38 39 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:19:54 37 37 38 37 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:19:55 37 37 38 37 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:19:56 37 37 38 37 42 0.4
03/24/09 08:19:57 37 37 38 39 42 0.5
03/24/09 08:19:58 37 37 38 37 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:19:59 37 37 38 37 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:20:00 37 37 38 37 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:20:01 37 37 38 37 42 1.4
03/24/09 08:20:02 37 37 38 37 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:20:03 37 37 38 37 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:04 37 37 38 37 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:05 37 37 38 37 42 0.5
03/24/09 08:20:06 37 37 37 37 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:20:07 37 37 37 37 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:08 36 36 38 37 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:20:09 36 36 37 36 42 0.3
03/24/09 08:20:10 37 37 38 37 42 1.4
03/24/09 08:20:11 36 36 37 37 42 1.3
03/24/09 08:20:12 36 36 37 37 42 1.4
03/24/09 08:20:13 36 36 37 36 42 1.3
03/24/09 08:20:14 36 36 37 37 42 1.4
03/24/09 08:20:15 36 36 37 36 42 0.5
03/24/09 08:20:16 36 36 37 36 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:20:17 36 36 37 36 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:20:18 36 36 37 36 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:19 36 36 37 36 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:20 36 36 37 36 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:20:21 36 36 37 36 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:20:22 36 36 37 36 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:23 36 36 37 36 42 0.4
03/24/09 08:20:24 36 36 37 36 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:20:25 36 36 37 36 42 0.3
03/24/09 08:20:26 36 36 37 36 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:27 36 36 37 36 42 0.4
03/24/09 08:20:28 36 36 37 36 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:29 36 36 36 36 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:30 36 36 36 36 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:20:31 36 36 36 36 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:32 36 36 36 36 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:33 36 36 36 36 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:34 35 35 36 35 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:35 35 35 35 35 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:20:36 34 34 35 34 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:37 34 34 35 34 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:38 34 34 35 34 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:39 34 34 35 34 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:40 34 34 35 34 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:41 34 34 35 34 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:42 34 34 35 34 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:43 34 34 35 34 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:44 34 34 33 34 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:45 34 34 35 34 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:20:46 34 34 35 34 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:47 34 34 33 34 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:48 34 34 35 34 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:50 33 33 33 34 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:51 33 33 33 34 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:52 33 33 33 34 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:53 33 33 33 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:54 33 33 33 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:55 33 33 33 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:56 33 33 33 33 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:20:57 33 33 33 33 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:20:58 33 33 33 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:20:59 33 33 33 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:00 33 33 33 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:01 33 33 33 33 42 0.7
03/24/09 08:21:02 33 33 33 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:03 33 33 33 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:04 33 33 33 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:05 33 33 33 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:06 33 33 33 33 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:21:07 33 33 33 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:08 33 33 33 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:09 33 33 33 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:10 33 33 33 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:11 33 33 32 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:12 33 33 32 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:13 33 33 32 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:14 32 32 32 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:15 32 32 32 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:16 33 33 32 33 42 3.9
03/24/09 08:21:17 33 33 33 33 42 4.1
03/24/09 08:21:18 34 34 33 34 42 4.1
03/24/09 08:21:19 35 35 35 35 42 4.1
03/24/09 08:21:20 34 34 36 35 42 1.2
03/24/09 08:21:21 33 33 32 33 42 3.0
03/24/09 08:21:22 33 33 32 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:23 32 33 32 33 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:21:24 32 32 32 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:25 32 32 32 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:26 32 32 32 33 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:27 32 32 32 33 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:21:28 32 32 33 32 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:29 32 32 32 32 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:30 32 32 32 32 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:31 32 32 32 32 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:21:32 32 32 32 33 42 0.2
03/24/09 08:21:33 32 32 32 32 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:34 32 32 32 32 42 0.1
03/24/09 08:21:35 32 32 32 32 42 0.2
```


----------



## chooky (Mar 24, 2009)

Well couldn't the OS identify the CPU and calculate it your way for Intel and some other way for other brands? 

OK posted this half way through your post. Will try that and get back to you.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 24, 2009)

chooky said:


> Well couldn't the OS identify the CPU and calculate it your way for Intel and some other way for other brands?



That's easy enough to program but the majority of users could care a less about whether the load meter in Windows is 100% accurate or not.  As long as you are not using Clock Modulation, the Windows Task Manager load graph is good enough for most users.

The RealTemp method is based on me reading between the lines of some Intel documentation.  When burebista and I were testing, it seemed to be a lot more responsive during rapid load transitions than the code used in the traditional load meters.  If you like it too then I guess you'll have to use RealTemp.  The method I came up with is a little too complicated for Microsoft.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 24, 2009)

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip

This download includes the same version of RealTemp as above but I've included an updated RTCore.dll file which should work on your computer chooky.  You will need to open up the Settings window in RealTemp and click on the RivaTuner button to install this version over top of any older versions of RTCore.dll in RivaTuner.  As long as you're not graphing in RivaTuner, you can install this new version even if RivaTuner is already running.  This will allow you to draw some nice load graphs when you are running a Cool Down Test.

The RTCore.dll will have a version number of 3.2.0.0 which you can check by doing a Properties on it.

Here's how a Cool Down Test looks using RivaTuner and the RTCore.dll plugin:






Here's how LinX looks during a test.  Pretty obvious that only core 0 gets fully loaded while the other 3 oscillate from full load to zero with each test:






LinX is great for creating heat but it's not the best tool for comparing core temperatures from one core to the next.


----------



## F7P (Mar 26, 2009)

*Calibrating Q9300.*

Hello,
yesterday armed with a  LCD Digital thermometer with probe i decided to calibrate my system as my temps were really high in RealTemp but not in the BIOS. RealTemp was giving me 44 , 39 , 43 , 43 . ! And thats odd coz i have an Arctic Freezer 7 Pro and its just been done with MX-2 and the BIOS reports idle at 23 degrees. Mobo 30 degrees. Anyway.... the clock speed wasnt overclocked and set to 333mhz.  Voltage at 1.10 and multiplier to 6.0. 
I checked the ambient temp with the probe and it was reading between 22 and  23 degrees. Same as BIOS. 
So i rebooted to windows. RealTemp was still showing temps of 42 , 37 , 41 , 41.  So i worked out .... ambient temp between 22/23.  Plus the 7 degress for my high end air (fan) and that would of been  29/30 degrees.  So RealTemp was wayyyy out. !!  
Then i opened RealTemp and Settings and Idle Calibration and put the values as   -13   - 7  - 11   - 11  . ( Working out the difference)  and RealTemp now told me  ..   Temps .   29 , 29 ,29 ,29 .   I reset the BIOS and they idled at around 29 to 30 respectively .  Under load with Prime95 they only went up to a max  42 degrees during the heat up/cool down. 

Did i do this all correctly and does it sound more like it should for my system ?

Thank you so much. 


Running ....
Windows XP Pro SP3
Antec 900 Gamer Case Ultimate
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 1333FSB 6MB Cache Quad Core Core 64 Bit Processor 
ASUS P5N-T Deluxe Motherboard
4GB DDR2 800MHz Dual Channel Ram 
640GB (2 x 320GB) Serial ATA II Hard drive with 16MB Buffer 
Dual Nvidia 8800GTX 1024MB PCI-E Graphics Running In SLI Mode


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 26, 2009)

*F7P*:  The first thing you need to do is a CPU Cool Down Test.  A lot of the Core 2 Dual and Quad 45nm sensors start getting stuck at about 35C to 40C so they might not be giving you an accurate idle temperature.  If that's the problem then you shouldn't be trying to calibrate them with this method.  If none of them are sticking then you've gotten lucky with your CPU.

If the BIOS reports a CPU temperature of 23C when your room temperature is 23C then obviously it's reporting too low.  The CPU BIOS temperature can vary a lot depending on how each manufacturer calibrates that sensor.  This sensor is separate from the on chip core sensors.  The CPU BIOS temperature is supposed to represent the TCase temperature but is not always correct.  BIOS writers apply a correction factor to this data and what you end up with is anyone's guess and can change from one bios version to the next.  On my board, at full load, this sensor reports a higher temperature than my core temperature which is impossible and not accurate.

TCase temperature at full load when running a stress program like Prime95 Small FFTs can be 20C less than your actual core temperature.  The difference is even greater when stressing your CPU with Linpack / LinX / IBT.  That's how quickly CPUs cool down under load when you move less than 1 cm from the hottest point on the core to the geometric center of the IHS where Intel specifies that TCase should be measured.

What load percent was RealTemp reporting when testing at idle?



> So RealTemp was wayyyy out. !!



RealTemp is never out.  
It's Intel's crappy 45nm sensors that are way out.  

It's typical for 45nm sensors to be out by 5C or 10C at idle.  Some of the error is because TJMax is not exactly equal to 100C on all 4 cores and the rest of the error is slope error.  Trying to figure out what's causing most of the error is a bit of a guessing game.  Doing a calibration check definitely helps out but 100% accurate temperatures from these sensors from idle to TJMax isn't possible using RealTemp or any program because these sensors weren't designed for that purpose and also because Intel does not fully document these sensors.

Do a Cool Down Test and upload a screen shot to www.imageshack.us and post a link to it here.


----------



## F7P (Mar 26, 2009)

Hi unclewebb
sorry about saying RealTemp was wayyy out ! I meant it just  seemed to report my temps a little high . ( esp compared to RealTemp 2.70)  If my ambient ( room)  temp is 23, then my chip at idle shouldnt be 44 degrees should it ! ?  Also what should i set RT at to balance the cores if its out ?

Anyway.. i did the cooldown test for you and i also reset RealTemp to defaults for it. 

All the cores at idle are now  45  , 39  ,  43 ,  43 ,  

Oh and the load at idle was 0.2 

Thank you and many thanks for an excellent program to. 


Heres the test. 


```
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/3807/cooldowntest.jpg
```

Or


----------



## chooky (Mar 26, 2009)

Back again! Thought I would see what your thoughts are on this. I tried OCCT ("OverClock Checking Tool") 3.0.2 Beta 2 from here and their Linpack test is able to get my E8400 to 75 degrees at 97.3% CPU Load as measured by RealTemp while the cool down test only gets the CPU to 63 at 99.3% CPU Load as measured by RealTemp. So what are those sneaky russians doing to my CPU. I thought Prime95 was the ultimate test to really load up your CPU but OCCT seems to be able to load it up by another 12 degrees, which is quite a lot.














I am water cooling my PC in  big way. See it here http://www.techpowerup.com/gallery/2067.html


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 26, 2009)

> sorry about saying RealTemp was wayyy out !



No problem.  I was just joking with you. 

RealTemp 2.70 used TJMax=95C and the later versions use TJMax=100C because that's what Intel said is correct.  Changing TJMax by 5C, bumps your reported temperatures up by 5C.

Unfortunately, Intel didn't mention how big the error is in that number so their news release turned out to be somewhat meaningless.  Now when anyone asks them about TJMax or complains they now say with a straight face, "We've already released that information."

Based on my observations, I think there can be 10C of error in TJMax from one CPU to the next and even from one core to the next on the same CPU.  TJMax=100C might actually be plus or minus 5C or +10C / -0C or maybe +0C / -10C.  We'll never know and I can't test enough processors to come to any meaningful conclusion.

My E8400 also reads significantly too high like yours which is why I went with TJMax=95C.  I thought it was a good compromise at the time.  It probably is somewhere close to 100C on both cores but that means there is an extra 5C of error at idle that needs to be corrected for.

One interesting thing is that you don't need to have an exact number for TJMax.  You can be out be a few degrees and using the calibration factors, you can end up with pretty much the same thing in the normal temperature range if you calibrate both of them.  You can also run two instances of RealTemp with different calibration settings to see how they compare at idle and at full load.

Do you plan to overclock your Quad?  If so then run another cool down test at higher MHz and higher core voltage to create some more heat.  If you get your CPU about 10C or 15C hotter then the 4 cores should balance out.  When they don't balance out, that's typically a sign that TJMax is not consistent for all 4 of your cores.  I use TJMax = 100/100/105/105 on my Q6600.

When you compare the 0.5% level to the 87.9% level for cores 1, 2 and 3; you get a temperature change of 6.4, 6.5 and 6.5.  This is a sign that the temperature slopes of these 3 are almost exactly the same.  They may all have slope error but the calibration factors you use for these 3 should all be exactly the same or very close to exactly the same.  The difference is TJMax error.

You're right that an idle temperature of 44 is probably too high.  Make sure you have your case open for best results.  Now you just need to try and find out what the main cause of the error is; slope error or error at TJMax.  Use Idle Calibration to correct for slope error and Set TJMax to balance out the TJMax error.

Core 0 moved 6.9 from 0.5% to 87.9% so its calibration factor will need to be slightly different than the other three.  You'll never get perfect temperatures out of these things but you can get a lot closer to the truth by following the calibration guide lines.  Post some more data and I'll have a look.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 26, 2009)

For creating maximum heat, Linpack blows Prime95 Small FFTs away.  Linpack creates far more heat.

These sensors report the hottest point of the core so Linpack is likely working the floating point unit much harder than other testing software does.  Prime95 is designed to find Prime numbers.  It's not designed to create maximum heat.  Linpack is designed to create maximum heat.  I think it's impossible for any software to heat a CPU up more.  That's why Intel designed Linpack like that.  Perfect for testing the most extreme situation but a little over kill compared to what the majority of users will ever run on their computer.


----------



## F7P (Mar 26, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> No problem.  I was just joking with you.
> 
> RealTemp 2.70 used TJMax=95C and the later versions use TJMax=100C because that's what Intel said is correct.  Changing TJMax by 5C, bumps your reported temperatures up by 5C.
> 
> ...



Hi unclewebb,
i'm afraid i still havent a clue what to do to get my temps about right, i do know that even using RealTemp at defaults and idling at 44 i never go above 58 degrees when pushed hard with prime95. Havent tried Linpack... is it safe ? 
I dont want to overclock, i really didnt see much difference when i did and for a frame here or there, no point really. 
Anyway heres my temps. What should i do ? 
Thank you.



```
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/1677/realtemp3.jpg
```

Or


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 27, 2009)

Linpack was written by Intel so it must be safe. 

I learned one thing during this project.  When not overclocked, Core 2 Dual and Quad core processors can reliably run at pretty much any temperature you throw at them.  Intel might have cheaped out on the temperature sensors that they're using but the CPUs themselves are close to bullet proof.

I once ran Prime95 Small FFTs on my E8400 for 3 hours.  I deliberately disconnected the CPU fan to try and create some excitement.  The core temperature went up to 98C but my computer continued to run flawlessly at this temperature until I got bored and finally stopped this test after 3 hours.  I was more afraid I was going to warp my board than hurt my CPU.

The sensors are far from accurate and as long as your computer is 100% stable then there's no reason to give your core temperature a second look.  I hate to tell people not to run my program but in your case, there's no need to run it.  The software you use is never going to get the core temperature up to a dangerous level even if the CPU fan fails.

For calibration I'd use TJMax = 97, 104, 100, 100 and use calibration factors of about -8.0 for cores 1, 2 and 3.  For core 0, use whatever calibration factor is necessary so that the 4 cores are pretty much equal at idle.

If your thermal paste is fresh and your case was closed during testing then I think the above numbers might be pretty close.  Give it a try and see how your temps look at idle and when running Prime95 Small FFTs.  All 4 core temperatures should be fairly close at idle or at full load.


----------



## burebista (Mar 27, 2009)

Guys just my 2 cents thrown here.
Try to rely on distance to TJMax. Why? Because your CPU thermal behavior is dictated by distance to TJMax. This is what your CPU show to OS.
This is my example which I put on every forum I visit.
E8400, Ninja rev.B with Bolt-Thru kit (now cooled by a 400 RPM fan) at 22°C room temperature in a P182 case.







No way I could have 42°C in idle with CPU frequency 1600 MHz and 0.944V Vcore so I calibrate it. Temperatures looks OK after calibration but keep an eye on distance to TJMax. It's the same. So why bother to seek perfect temperature when I have same distance to TJMax whatever I'm doing trying to calibrate my temps?
For me all is simple now: I'm looking at that distance to TJMax and I'm trying to keep it >20-30 and that's it. No brain hurt about TJMax value, no stress about high/low temperatures, I'm a happy camper now. 

This is how it looks calibrated with a standard OC. Ninja was fanless when I take that screenshot.


----------



## chooky (Mar 27, 2009)

I could be wrong, I often am. But isn't Distance to TJMax just whatever you have your TJMax set to in settings minus the temperature. So in your second image your TJMax setting is 94 which is a bit  low for an E8400. Should be 100 shouldn't it?

What is wrong with Intel anyway it can make 400+ million transistors in an E8400 work together pretty well most of the time but it can't get a couple of diodes right!!! Its not as if this is bleeding edge technology we are talking about. Have they got it right in the i7?


----------



## burebista (Mar 27, 2009)

chooky said:


> But isn't Distance to TJMax just whatever you have your TJMax set to in settings minus the temperature.


Yep, but keep in mind that the only *real* value is _distance to TJMax_, both TJMax and temperature are arbitrary values. TJMax is a number pulled from hat by Intel and temperature is a result of that number minus what DTS reports (distance to TJMax).
So, you can impress your friends with low temperatures putting TJMax to 50 or you can scare them putting your TJMax to 150. 



chooky said:


> Have they got it right in the i7?


As far as I see all reports on different forums i7 sensors are better. Beside that TJMax is written in MSR now.


----------



## F7P (Mar 27, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> Linpack was written by Intel so it must be safe.
> 
> I learned one thing during this project.  When not overclocked, Core 2 Dual and Quad core processors can reliably run at pretty much any temperature you throw at them.  Intel might have cheaped out on the temperature sensors that they're using but the CPUs themselves are close to bullet proof.
> 
> ...



Thank you. That balanced them all out around 29/30 degrees. 
Can i make a small suggestion though, and if its silly forgive me ! In RealTemps main window could we have Core 0 Core 1 Core 2 etc  above the temps. Because i wasnt sure if they went 0,1,2,3  !! When i configured it.
I will test it later with Prime95 and see how they balance under load.  
One other thing.....   stuck sensors..... how do you determine if they are stuck or ok. ?  ( yes i am a noob to temp testing but have 18 years computing experience)


----------



## F7P (Mar 27, 2009)

F7P said:


> Thank you. That balanced them all out around 29/30 degrees.
> Can i make a small suggestion though, and if its silly forgive me ! In RealTemps main window could we have Core 0 Core 1 Core 2 etc  above the temps. Because i wasnt sure if they went 0,1,2,3  !! When i configured it.
> I will test it later with Prime95 and see how they balance under load.
> One other thing.....   stuck sensors..... how do you determine if they are stuck or ok. ?  ( yes i am a noob to temp testing but have 18 years computing experience)



OK ran Prime95 on Large FFT for an hour. Temps hit 42  degrees and went no higher. all cores stable at around 41/42/41/41/ etc...


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 27, 2009)

*F7P*: It looks like your reported core temperatures are closer to the truth now and the 4 cores should move at a similar rate when going from idle to full load.

The Distance to TJMax number displayed by RealTemp is the raw data coming from the on chip sensors.  This is the only data that the processor uses to determine when it should thermal throttle itself or do a thermal shut down if the core temperature gets really out of control.  A thermal shut down doesn't happen until about 125C which is difficult to get up to unless your heatsink falls off.

burebista is right.  Accurate core temperatures is a guessing game full of maybes and possible errors.  The only important number is Distance to TJMax.  Your CPU will start to thermal throttle and slow down when your processor heats up and this number counts down to about 3.  

If you are not overclocking, always leave yourself a few degrees of head room away from this number and you'll never have a problem.  You won't have to concern yourself about how accurate TJMax is or how much slope error your CPU sensors have or whether your sensors are stuck at low temperatures or anything else.  As long as you have some head room your CPU will run at full speed.

I can run Prime95 Small FFTs on my E8400 at 95C at the default speed of 3000 MHz or even when mildly overclocked to 3600 MHz.  This processor will also run Prime stable at 4000 MHz but it can't do that at 95C.  In order to run Prime stable at 4000 MHz, I need to lower the maximum temperature to about 65C or 70C or leave about 30 to 35 degrees of head room instead of 5.  If you are overclocking, maximize the amount of head room you have from the thermal throttling point and you will be able to reliably overclock your processor to its maximum.  

All of these sensors will become stuck at some point as they cool down.  Theoretically, these sensors can read down to -27C but some of them will stop moving at 40C or 50C.  Your actual CPU core temperature might drop from 40C to 30C but the sensor will get stuck and keep reporting a constant number like 40C.  If you're lucky, the sticking point will be low enough that in normal use you will never notice this problem.  About the only time I notice my E8400 sensors getting stuck is when I drag my computer out to the backyard during the winter to do some overclocking. 

The CPU Cool Down Test is a good way to find a stuck sensor.  At each step of the test, you should see a higher Distance to TJMax number or a cooler temperature.  When a sensor is stuck, the last 4 or 5 steps of this test will show the exact same number.  Some 45nm sensors are truly horrible and every step of this test will show the exact same number from top to bottom but that's not very common.

If you go into the Settings Window, you'll see the buttons for color selection labeled Core 0, Core 1, Core 2, Core 3.  I like keeping the main interface clean so you'll have to do some thinking to understand the Intel method for numbering cores.


----------



## F7P (Mar 27, 2009)

Thank you unclewebb,
your help on here and every other contributors help is great, especially as the program is free and you spend so much time explaining it as well !  It is appreciated. 

Finally my cool down test. Noting the last 5 steps, was i one of the very few lucky Q9300 owners who doesnt seem to have a stuck sensor ?


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 27, 2009)

You're a lucky 45nm Quad owner.  Your sensors are far better than most.  I think I posted somewhere in this thread what a Cool Down Test looks like when you have sticking sensors.  If I can find the pic I'll repost it here.  My usual XS Forum is down for maintenance for the last day where most of my good pics are located.

Here's a good pic from page 3 of this thread:






It's pretty obvious to see core 0 getting stuck at a Distance to TJMax of 55 while core 1 continues to move as the CPU gets cooler.  You definitely don't have any problems like that in your normal temperature range.  Above the sticking point, these two sensors look like they're very well balanced which is normal when two cores are running the exact same code and sitting a couple of millimeters away from each other under the same heatsink and fan.

You'll probably need to bring your computer to a meat locker before your sensors will start sticking.


----------



## boucay (Mar 31, 2009)

Hello unclewebb,

I was wondering if you can help me out?

I'm haveing problems with the temp. readings for my E8400 ver. E0; it seems the sensors are stuck at 41C.  I used your beta 3.20 RC1 (with the case open) I ran the sensor test/CPU cooldown test, and the temperature max. reached was 44C.

Screenshot (sorry, it's not too clear, but it should be clear enough, I hope):





The only time the temperature actually moved was when I ran LinPack using OCCT, it went as high as 49C.

Screenshot (again, not to clear, sorry):





The ambient temperature was about 20C; it's spring right now, so it's not too hot at the moment.  Also, my CPU temperature in BIOS fluctuates between 28C-30C, and the system temperature fluctuates between 37C-38C.  There is no way the cores could be at 41C, at least I don't think it's correct.

Can you help me out please?

Thanks
boucay


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 31, 2009)

*boucay*: There's not much I can do with your sensors.  They're stuck at a Distance to TJMax of 59 or at a temperature of 41C.  It's not possible for either sensor to report a temperature lower than 41C.

Above this temperature point, these sensors will be reasonably accurate.

Intel designed these sensors to control thermal throttling and thermal shut down and doesn't recommend using them to report accurate core temperatures.  Some users get lucky and can use these sensors to report reasonably accurate idle temperatures and other users like yourself can only depend on them for reasonably accurate, full load temperatures as long as you get up over 41C.


----------



## boucay (Mar 31, 2009)

Man, that sucks   Anyway, thanks for your help.  

Do you think it would be ok if I use the CPU case temp. (this is the reading I see in BIOS, right?) as a guage instead since the core sensors stuck at 41C?

I also meant to ask, based on the info. I provided, and the readings in BIOS, can you take an educated guess as to what the temps. of the cores are at idle?


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 31, 2009)

Idle temperatures are completely unimportant.  It doesn't matter whether you're idling at 30C or 40C.  Even users with working sensors rarely take the time to test how well their sensors are calibrated.  An error of +/- 10C at idle is typical so most of the temperature numbers you see on the internet are just meaningless random numbers.

You CPU bios TCase temperatue might be very accurate or it might be out to lunch like it is on my board.  I think when my board came out Asus used inaccurate information from the core sensors of these chips to calibrate TCase which would be wrong.  At full load running a stress test like Prime you should see TCase temperatures about 20C to 25C less than the core temperature but on my board, the TCase reading is almost 10C higher than the core temperature.

Above 41C, your core sensors work fine.  They might be off by a few degrees but they're usually pretty close.  The Distance to TJMax number is the only important data to keep an eye on.  These CPUs typically start to thermal throttle and slow down when this number counts down to 3.  As long as you leave yourself a little bit of headroom from this number and your computer is stable then you don't have to worry about your CPU temperature.  These chips run great.


----------



## boucay (Apr 1, 2009)

Alright, thanks.  I will keep my eye on those TJMax numbers instead.


----------



## lulwut^ (Apr 5, 2009)

Hi. Can i please have so assistance in calibrating real temp before I start overclocking this system. I hope the picture below of the Cool Down will help you trying it help me in workings this out, Any help would be great.

I have no idea what i am looking at


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 5, 2009)

Don't let the random temperature numbers keep you from overclocking your Quad.  My best guess is that TJMax is not consistent across your 4 cores.  That's pretty common with these.

For core 0 and core 1 there is a 5C offset so setting TJMax to 95C / 100C might be OK for those two.  I would need to know more about your room temperature near your computer, type of cooling you're using, whether your case is open, graphic card or cards being used, etc. to come up with some more accurate calibration suggestions.  Try reading the RealTemp docs here on TechPowerUp about calibration for some more information.  When you start overclocking and get some more heat into your cores, the sensors will get up into a temperature range where they are more accurate and it will be easier to try and calibrate them then.

With 45nm Core processors you don't have to worry too much about core temperatures.  It doesn't matter what temperature number it says.  If you are Prime stable then you're good and if you're not stable then you need to reduce your overclock until you are.  These CPUs let you know when you are pushing them too hard by becoming unstable at full load so as long as you're stable, no worries.  Maximize your Distance to TJMax and you will also maximize your ability to overclock your CPU reliably.


----------



## F7P (Apr 10, 2009)

Hello hows everyone doing ?   

Ok.. quick question. I have my core voltage set to auto but wondered if setting it to 1.256 volts would be enough to run my system stably . I want to set it lower than auto but i am not sure how low i can go without upsetting anything. Lower means cooler i think. 

Thank you. 

SYS:
Running ....
Windows XP Pro SP3
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 1333FSB 6MB Cache Quad Core Core 64 Bit Processor 
ASUS P5N-T Deluxe Motherboard
4GB DDR2 800MHz Dual Channel Ram 
640GB (2 x 320GB) Serial ATA II Hard drive with 16MB Buffer 
Dual Nvidia 8800GTX 1024MB PCI-E Graphics Running In SLI Mode


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 10, 2009)

Prime95 Small FFTs is a good enough stability test for me.  When overclocking I set my MHz to a number I'd like to run at and then add enough core voltage so that it's stable for a few hours while running Prime.  No other day to day software I use creates that much heat so that test is good enough for my purposes.  Others like using IBT / LinX / Linpack for testing but I don't run any software that creates anywhere near as much heat as this so I find it's a little overkill. 

My board on the AUTO setting really adds a lot of extra core voltage when overclocking so I avoid using AUTO and always set the core voltage manually.  Run as much voltage as you need to maintain stability.  You don't need to use more than that.  You won't be able to maximize your overclock with only 1.256 volts but you will create less heat with that setting.

The only time I'd use AUTO is if I wasn't overclocking at all.  If you have Speedstep / C1E enabled, on most boards at default MHz, the AUTO setting will allow your core voltage to drop down to about 1.10 to 1.15 volts at idle.  Check it out with CPU-Z.  Vista users might have to wait a few minutes for their computer to settle down before it drops down to the lower voltage setting.


----------



## danielkza (Apr 10, 2009)

What I specially like about using Linpack is that it usually fails much faster than Prime95 would: Just tested with a previously-checked failed overclock, 3.8 GHz @ 1.24v on my E7300. Takes only 2 iterations of Linpack using 1800MB of memory, aproximately 5 minutes, while Prime95 takes more than 20min to start showing errors. This can be a real time saver when guessing and tweaking settings for the first time, with no good references for working options, and when messing with memory and CPU at the same time, for instance.


----------



## F7P (Apr 10, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> Prime95 Small FFTs is a good enough stability test for me.  When overclocking I set my MHz to a number I'd like to run at and then add enough core voltage so that it's stable for a few hours while running Prime.  No other day to day software I use creates that much heat so that test is good enough for my purposes.  Others like using IBT / LinX / Linpack for testing but I don't run any software that creates anywhere near as much heat as this so I find it's a little overkill.
> 
> My board on the AUTO setting really adds a lot of extra core voltage when overclocking so I avoid using AUTO and always set the core voltage manually.  Run as much voltage as you need to maintain stability.  You don't need to use more than that.  You won't be able to maximize your overclock with only 1.256 volts but you will create less heat with that setting.
> 
> The only time I'd use AUTO is if I wasn't overclocking at all.  If you have Speedstep / C1E enabled, on most boards at default MHz, the AUTO setting will allow your core voltage to drop down to about 1.10 to 1.15 volts at idle.  Check it out with CPU-Z.  Vista users might have to wait a few minutes for their computer to settle down before it drops down to the lower voltage setting.




I enabled Speedstep and C1E  and now in RealTemp it tells me ..

333.34 x 6.0     occassionally jumping to 7.0 and 7.55  .... is this normal safe behaviour ?

Thanks again.


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 10, 2009)

*danielkza*: You're definitely right that when trying to find some stable settings, Linpack will fail sooner than Prime95 or anything else I can think of.  I use Linpack too when testing.  I just don't use any software that fully works my 4 cores for an extended period of time like Linpack does.  I like a quiet computer so I lock my CPU fan speed to a minimum and it's perfectly stable, even if it's not Linpack stable at that fan speed.

For me, Linpack is like dropping a brick on the gas pedal of your car and then waiting to see if your engine blows up.  My car might not be brick stable but it's good enough to get me to the store to buy some groceries. 

*F7P*: Speedstep is designed to drop your CPU core voltage and CPU multiplier down to 6.0 when your CPU is idle.  It sounds like your computer is working the way Intel intended it to.  In theory, this saves some energy.  As soon as you apply a load to your computer, it is designed to instantly jump up to the maximum multiplier and it also raises the core voltage back up a millisecond or two before that so your computer will be perfectly stable when you are using Speedstep.  It works good.  Some users like this and some don't.  Now you know what to turn on or off in the bios to enable this feature.  A CPU can transition like this hundreds of times a second so RealTemp reports the average multiplier during every 1 second sample interval.


----------



## stasio (Apr 11, 2009)

Notice that beta version 3.20 RC3 is out!
Btw,XS forum on line again


----------



## lulwut^ (Apr 13, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> Try reading the RealTemp docs here on TechPowerUp about calibration for some more information.



I had a look at the write up and i did every thing he said to do and the temp with my case open was 26.5c and room temp was 26c. I have got a TRUE 120 with 1 fan, So my real idle is around 33/34 on the cores?

Also in Everest it is showing my CPU idle temp is 24c and the cores are 41/45/39/36


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 13, 2009)

If your room temp is 26C then it's obvious that your CPU temp as reported by Everest can't be 24C or less than your air temperature.  All temperature sensors have some error in them.

It also looks like your core temperatures are reported a little too high.  That's pretty common with 45nm CPUs.  My E8400 reports about the same amount too high as well.

In your previous screen shot you were still a good 15C degrees away from where these sensors start to become more accurate.  If you start overclocking with additional core voltage then your peak numbers while running Prime95 Small FFTs will give us some more information about how much TJMax differs from core to core.

You could also forget about all this calibration nonsense and just overclock and be happy.  With a True 120, you don't have to worry too much about core temperatures.


----------



## lulwut^ (Apr 15, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> In your previous screen shot you were still a good 15C degrees away from where these sensors start to become more accurate.  If you start overclocking with additional core voltage then your peak numbers while running Prime95 Small FFTs will give us some more information about how much TJMax differs from core to core.
> 
> You could also forget about all this calibration nonsense and just overclock and be happy.  With a True 120, you don't have to worry too much about core temperatures.



Is this what you after? I really want to fined my true tamps of the CPU.


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 15, 2009)

lulwut^: In your second CPU Cool Down Test your full load is at 90.2% while during your first test it was at 97.1%.  Either you didn't run Prime Small FFTs or something else was going on.  Just before the Idle stage you are at 9.2% in your second test while during your first test your CPU was at 2.8%.  That's usually a sign that you've got too much junk running in the background or you're working on something else while you're testing. 

You've got 4 sensors that work and you've given me enough data so I'll come up with a calibration attempt for you later today and then you can do some more testing after that to see how it looks.  Your sensors don't have a lot of difference in slope from one to the other so it will ber easy to make some improvements in the accuracy of your reported temperatures.  The majority of the error looks like differences in TJMax from one core to the next.


----------



## mlee49 (Apr 15, 2009)

Unclewebb,  any thoughts to adding more temperature monitoring extensions?  Like NB, SB, and so on?


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 15, 2009)

mlee49 said:


> any thoughts to adding more temperature monitoring extensions?  Like NB, SB, and so on?



I only plan to do minor bug fixes and updates for new Intel CPUs to RealTemp from now on.  
Unfortunately, writing free software doesn't pay very well so now I have to go find a real job.


----------



## mlee49 (Apr 15, 2009)

Thanks for the reply.  True writing free software doesn't pay BUT writing _*recognized*_ free software that has a large following does pay off when you get that real job. 

Thanks for sticking in here and answering questions about your awesome program.


----------



## lulwut^ (Apr 16, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> lulwut^: In your second CPU Cool Down Test your full load is at 90.2% while during your first test it was at 97.1%.  Either you didn't run Prime Small FFTs or something else was going on.  Just before the Idle stage you are at 9.2% in your second test while during your first test your CPU was at 2.8%.  That's usually a sign that you've got too much junk running in the background or you're working on something else while you're testing.
> 
> You've got 4 sensors that work and you've given me enough data so I'll come up with a calibration attempt for you later today and then you can do some more testing after that to see how it looks.  Your sensors don't have a lot of difference in slope from one to the other so it will ber easy to make some improvements in the accuracy of your reported temperatures.  The majority of the error looks like differences in TJMax from one core to the next.



ahah, Yes i was doing other things at the same time in the back ground. If you would like me to do the test again i wouldn't mind to help you.


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 16, 2009)

I mostly like catching people when they're cheating during a Cool Down Test.  

For best results, it's a good idea to let Windows fully settle down and have as little background stuff going on as possible.  Go for a coffee for 10 minutes.

You've given me enough information to get me started.  Now I just have to get started.  After I come up with a suggested calibration we can fine tune it later if we need to.


----------



## lulwut^ (Apr 16, 2009)

Looking forward to it


----------



## Arctucas (Apr 16, 2009)

@unclewebb,

I just purchased an E8400 (E0).

I ran the RealTemp 3.00 sensor test, and all the distance to TjMax were the same (63°). Sensor movement was 3.

Is this indicative of stuck sensors? 

I am wondering if I should return the CPU to exchange it for another?

I have seen (using Everest) the Core temperatures move up to 42°, but they seem to both stay on 37° almost all the time.

If more information is needed, please ask.


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 16, 2009)

If you can, post a copy of a CPU Cool Down Test.  It's one of the best ways to spot sticking sensors.

All of these sensors have a lower limit where they simply stop moving and won't report a lower temperature even if your CPU gets colder.  Intel says that these sensors become "saturated" and that's why they don't recommend using them to report core temperatures.  When the CPU core temperature gets hotter than the sticking point, then they work OK.  That's probably what you're seeing.

Generally speaking, it's not worth wasting your time trying to exchange it.  These sensors were only designed for thermal throttle control and your E8400 seems to work OK for that purpose.  Intel or whoever you bought it from is not obligated to exchange it since the sensors are doing what they're designed to do.  Some users get lucky and get a CPU that can also report reasonably accurate idle temperatures while other users don't get that bonus feature.  

If it overclocks well, I'd keep it.  
If you exchange it, you might end up with one that's worse.


----------



## Arctucas (Apr 16, 2009)

@unclewebb,

Thank you for the prompt reply.

I do not know what went wrong the first time I ran the test, but Here  is a screenshot of the test I just ran. I looks like the sensors are good, right?


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 16, 2009)

Your sensors look like they are good in the normal temperature range you operate your processor.

They don't get stuck until the core temperature gets down to 37C.  Above 37C, like during your CPU Cool Down Test, they work fine.  

Overclocking with additional core voltage is a good thing because it creates more heat for your CPU at idle and gets your sensors up into a temperature range where they are capable of operating.  If you were at default MHz and at default core voltage or less, then your sensors would probably both get stuck at the 37C level.  It's very rare for the sticking point to ever change.

Both my sensors on my E8400 get stuck as well but at a lower temperature than your CPU.  I only notice a problem when I drag my computer out to the backyard for some testing during the middle of the winter.  When I'm inside at 4GHz, they're fine.

The sensors on your two cores are very well balanced.  It's a keeper.

Now you have to see if you can run that MHz with less core voltage.  My E8400 C0 needs about 1.40 volts to be Prime stable at 4 GHz but most of the newer E0 CPUs that I've seen can run Prime stable at 4 GHz with a lot less voltage than that.


----------



## Arctucas (Apr 16, 2009)

@unclewebb,

Thanks, I am going to start trying to overclock this CPU now that I know the sensors are OK.

By the way, I noticed that the TjMax is set to 100°, I thought the E8400 was lower. Although, I suppose it does not matter, since it is the distance to TjMax that is the thing to watch?


----------



## alffjeld (Apr 16, 2009)

*calibrating*

hi, im new here, but have been using real temp for a while.
im trying to calibrate the software, but need advice.
i have set the settings as adviced in bios, and my roomtemp. is 30 degrees celsius.
here are a screenshot of the test in the soft.


----------



## lulwut^ (Apr 21, 2009)

Any updates yet unclewebb?


----------



## crtecha (Apr 21, 2009)

Unclewebb do you have a version thats supports the 9950be.  I have 3.2 and it throws a error saying "this processor is not supported"


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 21, 2009)

RealTemp is only for Intel CPUs.

lulwut^: Sorry, it's NHL hockey playoff time.  I don't get anything done during the playoffs. 
It's supposed to snow here tomorrow so I should be more motivated to come back and look at some numbers.


----------



## crtecha (Apr 21, 2009)

My apologies thank you for the update


----------



## masquevale (Apr 24, 2009)

does it have support for amd cpu?


----------



## danielkza (Apr 25, 2009)

masquevale said:


> does it have support for amd cpu?


---


unclewebb said:


> RealTemp is only for Intel CPUs.


----------



## Jadawin (May 9, 2009)

In Windows 7 the sys tray temperatures are not in order any more, and even if you try to sort them by drag and drop, they jump around and unsort themselves. It was Core 0,1,2,3 and now it's 1,2,3,0 per default...


----------



## unclewebb (May 9, 2009)

> In Windows 7 the sys tray temperatures are not in order any more



That's a Windows 7 issue including RC1.  In XP and Vista, when software inserts an icon into the system tray, it always gets inserted at the end of the line to the left of the previous icon.  It's easy enough for RealTemp to insert icons in the reverse order so that they show up in the correct numerical order.  

With Windows 7 they changed that.  Now when you insert an icon it can randomly end up on the right side or on the left side of the previous icon so there's no easy way to predict or control the final order.  Kind of a pain with Quads.  

I reported this to Microsoft during beta testing but I wasn't expecting it to be a high priority item for them.  Maybe they'll come up with a fix for that in Win 7 SP1 but I doubt it. By then we'll all be using 8 core CPUs and then we'll have a real mess of unorganized icons to look at.


----------



## Jadawin (May 9, 2009)

This is the first thing in Windows 7 I don't like. For now, I only use one temp, core 0, which is usally the hottest. Hm, maybe someone at some point will write a little gadget to show the Real Temp data, so it's possible to turn off the systray icons.

Thanks for your fast answer and for your program, too


----------



## Mussels (May 9, 2009)

considering how the tray icons are, why dont you look into vista/7 gadgets to do the same job?


----------



## unclewebb (May 9, 2009)

Core 0 tends to be the most accurate so only looking at that one isn't such a bad idea.



> This is the first thing in Windows 7 I don't like.



That's funny because I feel the same way.  Something so minor but it just kind of pisses me off because they changed something in their code which has broken my code.  RealTemp organizes those icons nicely in every version of XP and Vista that I've tried but not in Win7.

I was thinking of adding a new feature.  If you can drag the system tray icons into the correct numerical order you win a prize.  Trying to get those icons organized is more frustrating than a Rubic's cube. 

I don't use Windows widgets but I might have to look into that for Windows 7 to give users a different option.  I'm still hoping they fix this issue someday so I don't have to do anything.


----------



## Mussels (May 9, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> Core 0 tends to be the most accurate so only looking at that one isn't such a bad idea.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It shouldnt be too hard. just have one of the gadgets tap into realtemp and read out the numbers in the order you want. Make it as minimal as possible, so we can just throw it down there near the clock


----------



## unclewebb (May 9, 2009)

Since I'm not a gadget fan I decided to create MiniMode instead.  Just double left click on RealTemp and you get this:






It's easy to drag it to any part of the screen you like, easy to minimize back to the System Tray and with a double right mouse click you can make it jump to where ever on the screen you like.  Just hold down the Shift key when you double right click the mouse to set a new Anchor position.

More useful than a gadget.  Even Core Temp has introduced a MiniMode in his latest beta.
You can also drag the edge of MiniMode if you need to have a look in there to see what's going on with the Min/Max etc.

Here's RealTemp3.20 RC4 if anyone needs it:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip


----------



## Jadawin (May 9, 2009)

Thanks, good idea, but a bit too big for my liking. But funnily enough, with this version I managed to get the systray temps in the right order, never could do that with the older (official) one.


----------



## unclewebb (May 9, 2009)

Jadawin said:


> I managed to get the systray temps in the right order...



Don't reboot or change anything!  Sometimes you get lucky so best to leave them alone.  
I haven't changed anything recently, at least not that I can remember.


----------



## Jadawin (May 9, 2009)

I rarely reboot


----------



## Mussels (May 10, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> Since I'm not a gadget fan I decided to create MiniMode instead.  Just double left click on RealTemp and you get this:
> 
> http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/3586/minimode.png
> 
> ...



make an ultra mini mode, which only shows that bottom row of numbers!


----------



## a_ump (May 10, 2009)

what's wrong with just having the numbers in your tray when it's minimized or exited?


----------



## Mussels (May 10, 2009)

a_ump said:


> what's wrong with just having the numbers in your tray when it's minimized or exited?



they're no longer in order in win 7.


----------



## unclewebb (May 10, 2009)

I checked out Everest and Core Temp today and same thing.  Their system tray icons are not in any particular order in Windows 7 either.  At least I don't feel so bad now.  I think someone assumed at Microsoft that software would only put one icon per program in the system tray so there was no need to keep it ordered.  It's broken and I've got a feeling that it will be a long time before MS gets around to fixing this, if ever.


----------



## a_ump (May 10, 2009)

dam, well tomorro i'm going to get to work on backing up all my data and whatnot to install windows 7 RC as it will last till june 1st 2010, and then won't act strange until march 1st 2010 . a yr for the release candidate is quite a while i thk. Well i guess i'll be enjoying the lil mini view instead of 4 tray icons. 

Now you've done an awesome job with realtemp but could you fix the tray issue for realtemp? or is it all on microsoft? and i haven't tried this mini mode but did you make it so it stays visible at all time when at the desktop, such as when a browser, ms paint, or other desktop app is open?


----------



## Jadawin (May 10, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> I checked out Everest and Core Temp today and same thing.  Their system tray icons are not in any particular order in Windows 7 either.  At least I don't feel so bad now.  I think someone assumed at Microsoft that software would only put one icon per program in the system tray so there was no need to keep it ordered.  It's broken and I've got a feeling that it will be a long time before MS gets around to fixing this, if ever.



I have rebooted 4 times now, just to test it, and every single time I was able to arrange the Real Temp temps without any problems, using your 3.20 Beta. Can't be coincidence. I use a different color for each core for easy sorting, though


----------



## unclewebb (May 10, 2009)

I think it's just a coincidence but I found after coloring the icons that it seemed easier to keep them in order.

I'm going to wait until Windows 7 is finalized before worrying too much about the icon issue.  Given that other programs have the same issues, I don't think there's anything that can be done about this unless Microsoft does something about it.  Remember to click on the Send Feedback button and ask MS why RealTemp works fine in Vista and XP but not in Windows 7.  Also mention Everest and Core Temp and any other program that needs to put multiple icons in the System Tray.

a_ump: RealTemp has always had an option to stay on top of other Windows if you need that.  MiniMode is the same.


----------



## Mussels (May 11, 2009)

Vista RC1 doesnt have the feedback button... they removed it, relying on automated reports now.


----------



## Hawkwind (May 21, 2009)

*Help: Stuck sensor(s) and very hi idle temps for i7 920*

Calibration test 16min's after boot up with Calibration settings (CPU Multiplyier =12 VCore=1.1 in BIOS (CPU-Z reports as 1.08 which should show even lower temps)  Also see Sensor tests screen shots at stock settings (some flux could be from Air Conditioning)

See screen shots.  Amb temp as measured using Fluke 179 True w/ 80BK probe 3" from front of chassis (location of chassis intake fans) was 21.7-22.0C about the 3min mark into test then 23.2C after 16min.  AC to room off for entire 16min test (was causing flux in temps, cause vent is close to front of chassis) after 16min inside chassis temp close to CPU HSF on the side of the northbridge and GPU card was 25.7C.  So, why is idle temps of the cores 53-54c ?  Could the stock HSF not be seated properly?  (no additional thermal compound used, just what was already on HSF)

- Asus P6T Delux V2 Board ver: 1.02G  BIOS upgraded from 0302 to 0502 (no OC, all auto settings except for required calibration test settings)
- Intel Core i7 920 Retail S-Spec SLBCH (C0 not D0) stock HSF
- Corsair Domminator 6GB 3x2GB DDR3 kit  TR3X6G1600C8D G (still default 1066, not using XMP yet)
- Qty 4 WD Caviar Black 500GB WD5001AALS SATA 32MB RAID10
- BFG GeForce GTX 275 BFGEGTX275896OCE (still at its factory settings) 
- SAMSUNG DVD SH-S222A/BEBE & 3.5" diskette drives
- PC Power & Cooling Turbo-Cool 860
- Chassis large PCPC "Steel Tower" 10-bay server type tower 24"H w/o casters 22"D 7.5"W with 164mm clearance from top of CPU without HSF to inside of chassis
- New front bottom intake fans: qty 2 CoolMaster 80mm SAF-B83-E1 Ball Bearing w/ 3-pin flow control (Not using Q-Fan or other fan ctrl yet)
- Qty 2 PCPC TurboCool 80mm fans for top rear exhaust

 I assumed better cooling from the i7's stock HSF but I could buy a CoolMaster V8 or Noctua NH-U12P SE1366 but they are expensive.


----------



## burebista (May 21, 2009)

Holy s**t man! Check your push-pins something is awful wrong there.


----------



## Hawkwind (May 21, 2009)

burebista said:


> Holy s**t man! Check your push-pins something is awful wrong there.



I assume you're talking about the HSF's mounting pins and if yes, they are fully down.  I'm still thinking its the HSF not making proper contact with proc.  The HSF's bracket/mount does rock a little but just enough to barely notice movement, so I thought it was just it's spring pins.  Maybe that slight rocking movement (when I tested to see if it was in all the way) spread the Intel compound too thin and left a space.  Intel's docs state that even with 38c amb its stock HSF is designed to keep 920 under its 100c threshold.  So what's up?

Should I start over with new compound?  If yes, what is the best way to remove Intel's compound and use Arctic Silver or something instead?

OR, could I have a faulty processor?


----------



## unclewebb (May 22, 2009)

It sure looks like the HSF is not making proper contact.  At only 25.8% load, core1 and core3 are already starting to thermal throttle which will slow down all 4 cores of your CPU.

The Intel OEM cooler is not adequate if you intend to overclock but at your settings, it should be performing a lot better than that.  

I'd think about pulling the motherboard and having a look on the backside to make sure those 4 push pins are all seated.  The heatsink needs to be snug for proper heat transfer.  If it's not then you're going to have to do something to snug it up.

The Intel thermal paste that comes on their coolers may not be the best stuff in the world but it's not that bad either.  If you pull the cooler off then you will have to clean it off and replace it with some after market paste.  I just use rubbing alcohol to clean the CPU and the HSF.

It's possible the heat spreader (IHS) on top of the CPU is not square or not making proper contact with the cores but that doesn't happen very often.  Check the HSF first.


----------



## Linky (May 30, 2009)

I don't know if this already has been reported, and atm i havn't installed my gfx drivers so i cba scrolling around on the pages 

well, i found a bug at the logging section.

If you open the log file with notepad or something while it's active, the logging disables and it stops logging until i disable/enable logging in settings and clicks apply again.
I don't know how you coded it, but speedfan and such programs doesn't screw up, when you open it's log files, while they are logging.

I don't know if it's because you don't close the ostream, but i guess you quickly will repair this little issue 

EDIT: or what... It doesn't seem to happen now lol. Maybe it was just buggy at the start. Wierd.


----------



## unclewebb (May 30, 2009)

If you open up the log file in a separate application while logging is enabled in RealTemp, there's no way for it to continue to write to the log file.  It should cache any new data while you have the log file open so it shouldn't be a problem for you to have a quick look in the log file.

As soon as you close Notepad, it should have a chance to get caught up.  I think by default, RealTemp only writes log data to the hard drive once per minute so it's not constantly thrashing your hard drive.  This can also be changed with an INI file option if you need to.  One man's bug is another man's feature.


----------



## Linky (May 30, 2009)

yea allright 

By default it logs every fifth second


----------



## unclewebb (May 30, 2009)

In the INI file there is also another option that controls logging:

HDWrite=60

This controls how often data is written to your hard drive.  The default is once every 60 seconds.  If you want your data to be written every second that it is generated then just change this value to 1.  I don't like programs constantly writing to my hard drive so I included this option for users.


----------



## Linky (May 30, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> In the INI file there is also another option that controls logging:
> 
> HDWrite=60
> 
> This controls how often data is written to your hard drive.  The default is once every 60 seconds.  If you want your data to be written every second that it is generated then just change this value to 1.  I don't like programs constantly writing to my hard drive so I included this option for users.




Oh nice, thanks! That was why i didn't see the new temps i guess


----------



## Mussels (May 31, 2009)

thats rather handy, i gave you a thanks for that feature. you're so considerate - i'm sure SSD owners love you.


----------



## alex_z0ne (Jun 6, 2009)

hello guys !


I need some readings :


Normal (2.5) : (with q fan Optimal)





And 3.0 Ghz : (no Q-fan )







my pc spec:


Asus p5kc 
Intel q9300
Artic Freezer 7 pro
Artic Silver 5


Its normal its ok to keep it up at 3.0 ghz?



One more thing when the CPU cool down test begins i hear some strange noises from the cpu  dont know how to explain them like a power shortage.


----------



## unclewebb (Jun 6, 2009)

*alex_z0ne*:  There's nothing wrong with 3 GHz or your core temperatures.  Of course if it was my CPU, I'd be pushing it a lot harder than that.  

Some motherboards have capacitors and other goodies that snap, crackle and pop at full load.  That's probably what you're hearing.  Nothing to worry about.


----------



## alex_z0ne (Jun 6, 2009)

so its a safe OC? 

WEll i will try to keep it at 3.0 ghz for a while 


About the  Q-fan. Its safe to set it at Optimal Level? When it reaches 60-62 C it starts to spin fast so in my opinion i guess its safe.


----------



## unclewebb (Jun 6, 2009)

By design, most Intel CPUs start to thermal throttle or slow down when they hit about 97C.  If a CPU was going to blow up at this temperature then obviously Intel would lower the thermal throttling point to well below 97C to prevent this.

The thermal shut down point isn't until approximately 125C.  Intel obviously has a lot of confidence in the durability of their products.  You should too.


----------



## sneekypeet (Jun 6, 2009)

hey unclewebb, you should just link members to the information you contained in a PM you sent me ages ago. That sure changed my tune and take on the 45nm architecture in one sweet PM 

Re: Thermal throttling 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think most people don't realize how durable these chips are. 95C is not the thermal shut down point for these chips. That doesn't seem to happen until 125C! The words "holy sh!t" probably comes to mind. 

125C is fully documented by Intel for the mobile chips but they don't list anything for the desktop processors so one user did his own testing and sent it to me. He got pretty damn close to that number but his computer would always shut down. Here's his maximum screen shot:







RealTemp was still going strong at a core temperature of 123C while CoreTemp and Everest were badly confused.

Another user has been testing his E8400 lately and found that even when it was so hot that it was thermal throttling, it still continued to run Prime stable even at 99C.







I think these CPUs can take a lot of thrashing without any long term problems. Even crazy overclockers are going to have to work hard to kill one of these chips. As long as you're running stable there is no need to even be concerned about core temperatures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That PM alone took everything I ever thought about Intel CPU's and threw it out the door. Mussels OCCT Linpack test often takes my proc to near 80* and I don't even flinch anymore. Thanks a ton for the insight to a whole new realm of overclocking.


----------



## Studabaker (Jun 6, 2009)

What did they do to get those temps, turn off their CPU fans?  First one looks like he took off the heatsink altogether (although, it is mighty underclocked).

And if they were to have been pushing 1.4-1.45 volts? How would that work out @ 90+C? What would the life expectancy be?

Too many unanswered questions for me to be pushing more and more volts and more and more heat through my CPU. I'd really like to get 3.8 stable but hitting 80C load core temps in Linpack with 1.36V (1.4 set in BIOS) and still unstable, dunno bout all that!


----------



## sneekypeet (Jun 6, 2009)

I believe the first image is a Q with no heatsink, and that is actually the point of thermal throttling, hence why the multi and speed are down.

The second image was by another user and I'm thinking it was without as well. But both show the limits of both 65 and 45nm procs, and the fact that even if you do get to the throttle point, the CPU is still stable. SO it is BIOS settings and OCCT limits that shut the PC down, not the CPU!!!
Of course unstable is still unstable, but it isnt due to temps...lol

Directly about voltage. I have run 1.6ish ( I dont reccomend this to everyone, Every CPU is different) volts through these for benching, no real ill effects, but I do swap parts often. So its all relative to your plans. I can respect keeping a lower OC for longevity, but I really have no such plans for my procs, they are usually 6 months to a year old when I replace them.


----------



## burebista (Jun 6, 2009)

sneekypeet said:


> I think most people don't realize how durable these chips are. 95C is not the thermal shut down point for these chips. That doesn't seem to happen until 125C! The words "holy sh!t" probably comes to mind.


I beat you with another screenshot.


----------



## alex_z0ne (Jun 6, 2009)

thank you unclewebb! i`m more calm now.


----------



## unclewebb (Jun 7, 2009)

I had to go back a few pages but here's my favorite test of what an Intel CPU can take.

I wanted to find out what would happen if while I was running a high stress program like Prime 95 Small FFTs that suddenly the fan died.  The easiest way to simulate that is to pull the plug out of the motherboard and then go and watch TV.

What happened?  Click on the following link to find out.  

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1093655&postcount=97


----------



## sneekypeet (Jun 7, 2009)

Images like that are what keeps me trying

Loved the thermal status...HOT...ummm yeah I'd say.


----------



## unclewebb (Jun 7, 2009)

The good news is that for 3 hours it just flat lined at 98C.  When it got a tiny bit hotter, the CPU would automatically drop the multiplier down to 6.0 to start thermal throttling and to reduce the heat.  When it cooled off half a degree, it would send the multiplier back up to 9.0 to resume running at full speed.  This is happening hundreds of times a second.  The Intel Core CPUs do an incredible job of looking after themselves.  Just make sure TM2 is enabled in the bios and you'll never have to worry about a CPU fan failing.  Many users might not even notice other than their computer might be a little quieter.  I could probably game all day without a CPU fan and never hit the thermal throttle.


----------



## ganicholson (Jun 12, 2009)

*Does this look OK??*

I just finished the calabration testing of my CPU, a q6600 G0.  I have posted my results and am wondering about the LARGE difference between the TJMax and my acutal temps.  Also, I have had issues with my MCP temp going above 78C, now from what I have read here, this is no issue, or is it?  
Is that temp even taken into consideration for any of the alarms stepping etc?  Should I even worry about it?  Can you please take alook and see if there are any issues with my sensors.  I could not get the image to show via the insert pic, so I have attached it

Thanks Much

Glenn


----------



## Studabaker (Jun 12, 2009)

ganicholson said:


> I just finished the calabration testing of my CPU, a q6600 G0.  I have posted my results and am wondering about the LARGE difference between the TJMax and my acutal temps.  Also, I have had issues with my MCP temp going above 78C, now from what I have read here, this is no issue, or is it?
> Is that temp even taken into consideration for any of the alarms stepping etc?  Should I even worry about it?  Can you please take alook and see if there are any issues with my sensors.  I could not get the image to show via the insert pic, so I have attached it
> 
> Thanks Much
> ...



Load your cores with Orthos/Prime95 CPU stress/Small FFT or Linpack (Apps: LinX, IntelBurnTest, OCCT) and tell us the temps then.  IMO the idle temps look too high, unless the ambient temp is like 82F.

Also, fill out your system specs; you can get there through the User CP.  Look at the Control Panel on the right hand side.


----------



## ganicholson (Jun 12, 2009)

The tests showen were with prima95, If you look at the top of the far right panel you will see the 98.7 percent load temps, all the way down to the idle.  My main question is this, my room temp is 70F, these numbers are with the side panel of the computer open.  Which app are you talking about?  None of the apps have any CP on the right hand side.  I built this system 5 months ago, at that time the CPU temps were being monitored by speedfan, in Vista Ult.  I am now running Windows 7 Ult, the temps went up about 10C 2 weeks ago.  I sent an email to the manufacture and they came back telling me this:
Dear Sir,

I'm afraid, that Alpine 7 won't be able to bring better temperatures, since the Q6600 has a TDP of 105 Watts, whilst Alpine 7 only brings 90 Watts of cooling performance.

Freezer 7 Pro or Freezer Xtreme should bring a much better performance for your applicatoin.

Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen

After looking my cpu up, I found that the Max rated was 105, but according to INTEL with the stepping enabled the chip only needs 95 watts, since these butthead's did not include this information with thier spec sheet on the cooler, I am turning them in for fraud, and they can sink to the bottom of the earth before I will EVER use any of thier products again.


EVGA 132-CK-NF78-A1
Intel Quad Q6600 2.4
4 gig Adata PC 800
AC Pro 7 Air cooled
120mm intake fan
1- 80mm exhaust
Asus 9800GT w/512mg DDR3
WD SATA 320GB 
Seagate 250 GB PATA 100
ASUS DRW1814-BLT SATA DVD-ROM
Mid Tower
850 Watt Cooler master PS

Glenn

P.S.
1.6 percent load 36, 36, 34, 35.  the system has been sitting at these temps for over an hour


----------



## Studabaker (Jun 12, 2009)

OK I just noticed that.  Your temps are great then.


----------



## ganicholson (Jun 13, 2009)

Thanks, at least now I can use this system without wondering if I am going to fry it.  I am still a bit confused on how the calabration is supposed to work.  I will read the post again and see if I can get the temps to read correctly.

Thanks again
Glenn


----------



## Linky (Jun 15, 2009)

Hey unclewebb.

Does RealTemp write any registry intries? Like what folder it got installed to?
If it does, could you tell the reg path for it?


----------



## unclewebb (Jun 15, 2009)

I hate programs that write anything to the registry.  In my opinion, the registry is a weak link in Windows so I avoid it.

You can drag the RealTemp folder wherever you like.  As long as RealTemp and the WinRing0.dll are in the same directory and you have the necessary permissions to execute files in that directory, RealTemp should run fine.

To get RealTemp to start up with Windows, you either have to drag a link to RealTemp into your Starup folder, add an item to your registry start up area or if you use Vista or Windows 7, you can use the Task Scheduler which gives you full control of items that start up on your computer.  I like being in control of the endless junk on my computer.


----------



## Studabaker (Jun 15, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> I hate programs that write anything to the registry.  In my opinion, the registry is a weak link in Windows so I avoid it.
> 
> You can drag the RealTemp folder wherever you like.  As long as RealTemp and the WinRing0.dll are in the same directory and you have the necessary permissions to execute files in that directory, RealTemp should run fine.
> 
> To get RealTemp to start up with Windows, you either have to drag a link to RealTemp into your Starup folder, add an item to your registry start up area or if you use Vista or Windows 7, you can use the Task Scheduler which gives you full control of items that start up on your computer.  I like being in control of the endless junk on my computer.



Dude, Registry has been the main point of Windows user data storage for YEARS.  You still wish they wrote everything to INI files Linux style?  IMO with the RAM and processing power in systems these days, the Registry has usurped and surpassed single-file based user data storage.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 15, 2009)

the advantage to keeping the settings in the folder with the exe, is that they transfer when you move the folder.

You can format, and still keep your settings/calibration etc.


----------



## Studabaker (Jun 15, 2009)

Mussels said:


> the advantage to keeping the settings in the folder with the exe, is that they transfer when you move the folder.
> 
> You can format, and still keep your settings/calibration etc.



that's all gone down the shitter these days.  you want your system backed up, either the app has an internal way to do it, you backup your entire system/registry, or you start fresh, and take pride and joy in knowing exactly how to set everything the way it was before you nuked it, like a real pro


----------



## burebista (Jun 15, 2009)

I don't like programs with registry entries either. At least for a tiny app like RealTemp is perfect fine as it is now.


----------



## unclewebb (Jun 15, 2009)

Studabaker said:


> Dude, Registry has been the main point of Windows user data storage for YEARS.



Don't worry, I'm not that dumb.  I realize that the registry is the center of windows data storage.  That doesn't mean it's any good or doesn't have some serious issues.  For a simple monitoring utility like RealTemp, it just doesn't make any sense to be storing information in the registry.  A single INI file works fine.  That way the entire program and all of its data is in one simple file that a user can drag to any location he likes and if he changes his mind a day or a week from now, he doesn't have to worry about uninstalling the program and reinstalling the program and wondering how much junk got left behind in the registry.

Any user can open an INI file and quickly edit an entry without having to worry about screwing up Windows in the process.  I guess I learned programming with the Amiga OS that didn't have a registry so I never got in the habit of using a registry.  Given that an old 16 MHz Amiga can do a full boot up in less than half the time that a 5 GHz Windows 7 machine can boot up, I'm just not that impressed by the bloated Windows OS and its registry.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 15, 2009)

i prefer the registry to be used as little as possible. its the main reason you need to format an old OS, is cause the registry gets bogged down and corurpted by bad programmers making bad programs with worse uninstallers.


----------



## MopeyMartian (Jun 16, 2009)

I just came across this TomsHW article about TJ Maxes and I'm just wondering what you guys think of it.  

According to this list, my RealTemp temps should be reading 14/12 idle.  If it's correct I'd be insanely happy with my Thermaltake V1.


----------



## unclewebb (Jun 16, 2009)

That is one misleading document.  Intel got a few of them right but when they started releasing data for the old 65nm chips, there was some major confusion.  They came out with an updated version after myself and others complained about how absurd their numbers were but even the updated version wasn't much better.  

What CPU model do you have?


----------



## MopeyMartian (Jun 16, 2009)

E6750 G0

I've read that the TJ Max is 95 elsewhere


----------



## unclewebb (Jun 16, 2009)

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLA9V

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLACR

Regardless of what Intel claims, core 0 and core 1 on my Q6600 are TJMax = 100C.  Your E6750 and my Q6600 are both G0 Stepping, they have the same CPUID (06FBh) and the Thermal Specification is actually 1C higher for your CPU (72C vs 71C)

I'm pretty sure that TJMax for your CPU is 100C as well.

The best way to test if your choice for TJMax makes sense is to lower your core voltage in your bios as low as it can go and lock it to (6x333) ~ 2000 MHz.  You can also enable EIST and C1E in the bios and it should drop down to these settings at idle.  Check your voltage core with CPU-Z.

If you're not too far from 1.10 volts, your reported core temperature should be about 6C above your room temperature at idle near your open computer case depending on what heatsink and fan you're using.  It usually becomes pretty obvious that 95C is too low.

The fact of life is that TJMax is not a fixed number.  Intel says there is some variation from one part to the next but has never told users how much variation there is.  Doing my test will help get you in the ball park.  Post some screens if you do some testing.

I just updated my *RealTemp / RivaTuner plugin* tonight for anyone interested in that.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RTCore.zip


----------



## pipels (Jun 25, 2009)

Hi unclewebb, I have some troubles with my Q9550 C1.

Recently purchased Q9550 C1 SLAWQ, install the proccessor and the BIOS detect without problems.

My main doubt is about DTS sensors of this quad.

SPECS:
- Q9550 C1 @2,83 Ghz w/ Xygmatek 1283 cooler
- ASUS P5Q-E BIOS 2101
- 2*2 GSKill DDR2 1100
- Seagate 500 S-ATA II
- GTX260 896 mb
- SL-8600-EPS

Actual temps, tº ambient ~ 15º/18º, all values stock in BIOS. BIOS report CPU Temperature 26º.

I get as results high IDLE temperatures...suppose...
What is the error? Are normal temps?
Touch the heatsink and feels quite cold....I don´t understand...

http://omploader.org/vMXZxcA/temps-stock.jpg


If I ocing at 3,6 ghz show this RealTemp:

http://omploader.org/vMXZxeg/cpu-cool.jpg


----------



## burebista (Jun 25, 2009)

DTS sensors don't lie. At least not in full-load when approaching to TJMax.
In idle they are off (at least for 45nm CPU's) but in full-load they became more accurate.
Unfortunately HDT heatsinks are not very good with quads and serios OC (i.e. higher frequencies and Vcore). How do you apply your thermal paste? For HDT's is a little bit tricky.
Also I strongly recommend a bolt-thru mounting kit because I really hate push-pins. Xigmatek Crossbow for example.


----------



## pipels (Jun 25, 2009)

Thanxs for reply.

*I called Intel support and they told me the temperature are normals because the CPU is 25º/26º* jaja!! I don´t believed, for them doesn´t matter the temperature of each every core.

About the Xygmatek, I don´t use the push-pin system, I made a backplate and use MX-2.

Regards.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 25, 2009)

25C is well within the normal operating temperature of the CPU. why would intel care? it could idle at 60C and it would be stable, so no big deal.


----------



## unclewebb (Jun 25, 2009)

As Mussels says, as long as your computer is stable then there is no need to be concerned about your temperature readings.  These sensors are designed to control thermal throttling and nothing else.  Intel doesn't care if they are not accurate enough to report idle temperatures or load temperatures.  As long as they are good enough to tell your CPU to start thermal throttling somewhere around 100C and are good enough to tell your CPU to do a thermal shutdown when your core temperature is somewhere around 125C then they are doing what they were designed to do.

Any functionality beyond this is optional and not guaranteed by Intel.


----------



## kellman (Jun 26, 2009)

*Having some problems.*

I just installed this program on my computer, because I am getting some serious slow down issues in games and opening applications.  I really don't know how to read it, so here is a picture of my stuff.  Also, what the hell does LOG mean for thermal status.


----------



## unclewebb (Jun 26, 2009)

When I don't understand something, I start by reading the documentation:

*Thermal Status

This feature reads information directly from the processor which tells you whether the processor has reached its maximum safe temperature. Intel refers to this as PROCHOT# or processor hot. If your processor has reached its maximum temperature on any core it will display LOG to indicate that a thermal throttling episode has been logged. If it displays HOT in red then that indicates that a thermal throttling is presently occuring. The LOG will return to OK the next time you reboot your computer. *

Your CPU cooler is likely not properly attached.  That's what the hell is probably going on. 

Your computer is thermal throttling which means the multiplier is dropping down to 6.0 so your computer is slowing down when loaded and running like a slug.

There's an About... box in RealTemp that will take you to the main RealTemp web page here on TechPowerUp and from there you can scroll down and find the directions.


----------



## kellman (Jun 26, 2009)

That is what I was thinking, thank you very much.  I was searching for a detail listed of the problems that might occur, but I couldn't find any .   Google,  Thermal status LOG just was not happening.  Anyways, thank you again,  I bought some coolant, working like a charm.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 26, 2009)

yeah its definately overheating, idling at 81C. your cooler is either not attached properly, the fan is not spinning, or the thermal grease has been removed.


----------



## jmairs (Jul 5, 2009)

*Calibrating I think*

Hi All, (first time post)

I've read the calibration docs page and back to about page 12 of these boards.  I don't feel like I did this properly.  

1) Carried machine to basement and removed side panel.
2) Verified EIST and C1E in BIOS, set bios vcore to 1.10; however CPU-Z always shows 1.072
3) Used Fluke 62 IR "gun" to shoot various spots in case.  This is where I felt lost.  The temps were all over the map.  I seem to recall shooting upwind of the heatsink.  I found a power cable sitting close by and shot that as well as the lower tins (closest to cpu).  With little confidence I announce my tins/case temp to be ~30C.  The rug in front of case was 24 or 26.
4) Ran the sensor test and low and behold it looks like I have a stuck sensor.

I'm not sure what my next step is?  .INI mods?


----------



## burebista (Jul 5, 2009)

Bad luck. Core0 sensor is stuck. Nothing to do.
Try LinX (with All memory option) to heat-up your cores and see if it moves past 40C.


----------



## jmairs (Jul 5, 2009)

burebista said:


> Bad luck. Core0 sensor is stuck. Nothing to do.
> Try LinX (with All memory option) to heat-up your cores and see if it moves past 40C.



Why LinX?  Does it cause heat differently then Ortheos, Prime95, etc?  I'm running Prime95 right now and Core 0 is reading current temp of 51 at 96% load.


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 5, 2009)

burebista is right, there's nothing you can do with a stuck sensor except ignore it in the range that it is stuck which is any temperature below 40C.  When the core temperature goes over 40C, it should start working OK.

Core 1 probably reads a little too high.  If you want to try and correct for that you could use a calibration factor of -2.5 or you could just leave it as is and not worry too much about temperatures.  As long as your computer is stable, core temperatures aren't too important.

LinX tends to create higher temperature numbers than Prime95.  Core 0 is moving now so no need to run LinX.


----------



## Homeless (Jul 5, 2009)

jmairs said:


> Why LinX?  Does it cause heat differently then Ortheos, Prime95, etc?  I'm running Prime95 right now and Core 0 is reading current temp of 51 at 96% load.



Linpack will increase the temp of your processor significantly compared to prime


----------



## jmairs (Jul 5, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> Core 1 probably reads a little too high.  If you want to try and correct for that you could use a calibration factor of -2.5



Under Settings->Idle Calibration -2.5 in the 2nd block right?


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 6, 2009)

That's right.  It goes Core 0, Core 1 from left to right so to adjust Core 1 you would use the 2nd block.

At higher temperatures running Prime95 Small FFTs, how do the two core temperatures line up?  That is my favorite test for creating an equal load on each core.  At full load, in theory, the temperatures should be identical on a Dual Core.  My E8400 is one of the lucky ones where this is actually true.


----------



## jmairs (Jul 6, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> At higher temperatures running Prime95 Small FFTs, how do the two core temperatures line up?



Core 2 is still running about 2 degrees warmer.  Occasionally flickers to 1 degree difference.  Been running prime for 12 minutes now.


----------



## Dreadnought33 (Jul 24, 2009)

Hi uncleweb. Does Real Temp need to be calibrated to read properly Core i7 internal diodes?? If so what should be the delta between the cores and the CPU heatsink?? I have an infrared thermometer and was planning to calibrate reading the CPU's heatsink base temperature. Do I make any sense??


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 24, 2009)

*Dreadnought33*: The Core i7 sensors are much more accurate with a lot less issues than the previous Core 2 Dual and Quad sensors.  Most users don't bother doing any calibrating of their Core i7 CPUs.  I sent you a PM with some of the minor issues that these newer sensors have.


----------



## d1289 (Jul 25, 2009)

*Test interpretation*

Hi All!

I have just bought an intel quad 8200 cpu, and installed it.
However I seem to be getting quite hight temperatures, but I don't seem to know why.
I think I installed the heatsink ok. Even changed to another thermal paste from the factory original, but still the same
I ran the cooldown test, and got the following.
Could someone help me interpret it?


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 26, 2009)

The Intel OEM cooler is a barely adequate cooling solution.  It's small and light which allowed Intel to reduce costs by being able to ship it in a smaller box.  Beyond that, if you intend to do any overclocking then I would recommend a good after market air cooler.

Did you have any problems getting all 4 push pins to go through the board?  With the OEM cooler I prefer mounting them outside the case so I can flip the motheboard over and be 100% sure that it has been fully seated.

If that is OK, the only other thing that you need to check is core voltage.  Run a program like CPU-Z.  What does it report at full load for core voltage as well as core voltage at idle?  Too much voltage can lead to higher than normal temperatures.  Is your CPU case open or closed?  It's summer time where I live which can also create a lot of extra heat.


----------



## d1289 (Jul 26, 2009)

Thanks.
I think I will take your advice, and buy a new cooler.
I thought about the Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 PRO (I'm no hardcore overclocker, so I thought it would suffice). Is it any good?
CPU-Z reports 1.216V core voltage for for idle and 1.2V (although it did went down to 1.192V for a few seconds) for 100% load.
The computer case is closed. 
It's summer time here too, but 87 C is still too high for my taste.
Could it be that the TJMax isn't 100C for all my cores?
Thanks in advance.


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 26, 2009)

d1289 said:


> Could it be that the TJMax isn't 100C for all my cores?



It certainly could.  TJMax is poorly documented by Intel including the amount of error.  In 45 Core 2 Quads it is at least +/- 5C and could be as high as +/- 10C.  Intel is not willing to say probably because it doesn't look too good when a high tech company uses low tech temperature monitoring sensors.  These sensors were only designed to control thermal throttling and for that purpose they work 100% but when we try to use them to provide us with accurate core temperatures, they're not so good.

Pretty much any after market cooler will get your temps lower.  The Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 PRO is a good choice for your application.  It's not too expensive and it works.


----------



## d1289 (Jul 26, 2009)

Thanks, than I will proceed with buying that cooler.
One last thing:
Base on my previous posts, could you tell me whether I should change the TJMax for any of the cores (or change the idle calibration) to get accurate results?
Thanks in advance.


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 26, 2009)

Post another cool down test when you get your new cooler installed.  Hopefully I will have some time then to have a good look at your calibration settings.  We might also need to do a few more tests at idle.


----------



## akesavar (Aug 10, 2009)

Hey unclewebb/other very knowledgeable people,

Just got a new core i7-920 rig setup w/ 6GB DDR3, EVGA GTX280, and Asetek LCLC, and I'm using Realtemp + Prime95 to keep an eye on things. 

My question is regarding the Sensor Movement Test feature - my Base Clock is set at 172, with everything else at Auto in the BIOS, so I have a 3.6 OC. Now, the sensor movement values seem very high = 25   25   24   24

With no OC, they drop, but still are around the 18 - 20 range.

I've manually inspected the heatsink/water cooling system, and everything seems quite sturdy and well seated. Temps are a bit high, but usually around 50 - 55 C, which seems standard for the i7 OC'd.

What's going on with the sensor movement?!


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 10, 2009)

The Core i7 is a heat producing monster, especially when overclocking or using additional core voltage.  It will increase in temperature much more than a similar Core 2 Quad during this test.

Run CPU-Z and see what it reports for your core voltage.  Use as little core voltage as necessary while still maintaining Prime stability.  Your results seem normal for Core i7.


----------



## akesavar (Aug 10, 2009)

With cpu-z - running Prime95 small FFT's with no OC: Temps are from 67 - 73 C. Core voltage is about 1.176 V - 1.192 V. It's 0.944 V with no load. Movement values are still 18  17   17   18

I used CoreTemp as well, and it's reporting the same temps (little lower (40 - 44 under no load)). The temps seem okay. it's more the Movement values that I'm worried about. Should they be that high?


----------



## akesavar (Aug 11, 2009)

Okay, new values - I set my BCLK at 175 (to get 3.5 at 20x and 3.67 at 21x). 
With realtemp - sensor movements 25   26   24   25
Temps: 56 - 60 C. 
Core Voltage: 1.296

When I run the Prime95 tests, my temps skyrocket to 84-88 C. For some reason, I get the feeling that my Asetek LCLC system isn't doing too much...


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 11, 2009)

It's hard finding reviews for the Asetek LCLC but there seem to be a few people running them on their Core i7 CPUs.

Here's a comment from Xtremesystems:

"I only used the system for a few days and I was not impressed with the performance."

That comment is two years old.  It wasn't really designed for the heat output of a Core i7 let alone an overclocked Core i7.  It doesn't seem to be in the same league as a modern top notch air cooler like a Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme.

Make sure it is mounted snugly to the CPU.  Try installing it again and if you can't get better temps than that, you might have to look at another solution if you're planning to overclock.


----------



## d1289 (Aug 11, 2009)

Hi!
Sorry about the delay, got buried with work.
So I installed the new CPU cooler, and reran the cooldown test and got the attached results.
Is it normal to have about 5 C difference between cores?
Do you think I should change the TJMax(if yes, then which cores and to what value)?
Why does Asus PcProbe detect significantly lower CPU temp?
By the way do you know how much the q8200 can be overclocked (within safety limits) and how?
Thanks in advance!


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 11, 2009)

The CPU reading from Asus Probe may or may not be accurate.  That reading is typically an approximation of what the TCase reading is but I don't have enough experience with your board to know how accurate that is.  On my older Asus P5B board, this reading seems to be close at idle but it reports at least 25C too high at full load so I don't trust it too much.

Your results are hard to interpret.  Usually when you switch coolers, the temperatures decrease but they decrease similar amounts on each core.  Your first screen shot looks a lot different from the one above for core to core consistency.  Maybe you're getting better at installing a heatsink. 

How much heat paste do you use and what method do you use to apply it?

At the moment, TJMax looks 5C higher on core 2 but the other 3 look like they are all the same.  I've seen CPUs where two cores have one TJMax and the other two cores have a different TJMax but never 3 with one TJMax and 1 with another.

If you set TJMax to 100, 100, 105, 100, you should have consistent temperatures across all 4 cores from idle to full load.  Intel doesn't provide enough documentation about these sensors so that is just my best guess.

Your core temps do seem higher than normal.  Some of these sensors read higher than normal by 5C or 10C at idle so that's not unusual.  The test I use to try to figure this out is I open my case, turn the CPU fan to high if it's adjustable and then I go into the bios and boot up at 333 x 6.0 and manually set the core voltage as low as it can go.  My board will boot up at 1.08 volts.  This creates a minimum amount of heat.  After that I let my computer sit there after booting up at idle and see how low the temps go.

If you don't want to change those bios settings then just enable EIST / SpeedStep and C1E.  When you get to Windows, run CPU-Z and see how low your core voltage goes and if your multiplier goes down to 6.0 like it should.

With 45nm Quads, this test might not give us any new information because of the problem with sensors getting stuck at lower temperatures.  If you're curious, try that and post your results and we can go from there.

You might be better off using TJMax = 95, 95, 100, 95
It might not be accurate at full load but might be more accurate at the temperatures you typically operate at.

As for overclocking, the 7.0 maximum multiplier is going to limit you.  I would try to run it at 7 x 500 MHz but very few motherboards can run a Quad stable with a FSB of 500 MHz.  Start by trying 400 MHz first and go from there.  You have enough core voltage that you can probably get up to 450 MHz without having to adjust that.  You might have to adjust northbridge voltage and a few other voltages as well.  It would be best to find a forum with users that specialize in overclocking 45nm Quads on your motherboard for some pointers.

With your new cooler and a 7.0 multiplier, temperatures will be fine so worry less about how accurate they are, because they're not, and concentrate on doing some overclocking.


----------



## d1289 (Aug 11, 2009)

I think I will try to OC then.
Thanks for the help!


----------



## mudy (Aug 16, 2009)

I have TJMax set 100, 100, 105 and 100. is that accurate for core i7 920 D0 @ stock speed. also there's something called "idle calibration" if you go to settings, just above "Set TJMax". all the values in this field are '0.0'. I have attached few screen shots after performing the Sensor Test. are my values correct. also in speedfan i see blazing flame in these categories: Remote Temp, Temp 1, Temp 2 and then again Temp 2. what are these values as well....? sorry for being noob. I read this thread twice and also other forums. maybe am missing something to understand the concept....and also sorry for opening a separately new thread i hope someone deletes that thread.
My config is 
Core i7 920 D0 @ stock with Thor's Hammer attached with Antec 120mm tricool
MSI Eclipse (with IOH Volt 0.94 @ 55C temp)
640GB x2 WD Caviar Black
CM Haf 922
Antec SG850 PSU
1 DVD RW
1 x antec spot cool for IOH
Running with windows vista x64 SP2


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 16, 2009)

Welcome to TechPowerUp mudy.  

The Core i7 sensors are generally very good and very consistent.  For your i7 I'd leave TJMax at its default setting.  Just click on the Defaults button.  Most i7 CPUs are 100C but some are slightly less.  The Default button will read this info from the CPU.

Same with the idle calibration factors.  Leave them all at zero.  These hacks were designed more for the 45nm Core 2 Duo and Quad sensors which were horrible.

Your core 2 readings look a little odd.  How much thermal paste did you apply and how did you apply it?  If you ever get bored, pull your heatsink and your CPU and put a straight edge on top of the heat spreader on the CPU and have a look at how flat it is.  There might be an issue there.  Try reapplying the thermal paste and see if there is any difference in temperatures between cores at idle and at full load.

These CPUs run reliably at full load up to 90C and a little beyond so there's no need to be concerned about your exact core temperature until then.  As long as RealTemp continues to report OK in the Thermal Status area and your computer is stable then your temps are OK.

SpeedFan converts anything it sees into a temperature or into a voltage.  A lot of the reported data is meaningless.  A new version of SpeedFan was recently released but I haven't had a chance to test it.  Previous versions weren't that great with the Core i7 CPUs.  If you want a second opinion about your core temperatures I'd recommend Core Temp.

http://www.alcpu.com/CoreTemp/


----------



## mudy (Aug 16, 2009)

hi uncle thanks for the reply and some insight. so i have left everything to default in real temp downloaded the coretemp as well. also i did notice that core 2 temp was slightly higher than other cores and especially made me feel weird as the temps were higher than the core 0!!! so i removed the heat sink and found that i had actually over applied the thermal paste. I use Arctic Silver thermal paste http://www.arcticsilver.com/ceramique.htm. not too much but a little bit were extra. so i cleaned using ArctiClean by Arctic Silver http://www.arcticsilver.com/arcticlean.htm and reapplied the TIM and thinned the layer using ATM Card plastic. now i am back online doing Sensor Test from real temp and attached the screenshots. I still notice core 2 temp tends to go bit higher at times. also you'll notice that i have slightly overclocked the MHz to 166 MHz from motherboards switch.


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 16, 2009)

The Cool Down Test was originally designed when I was using XP.  I find that Vista has a lot more baggage at idle and all those nice gadgets on the right of your screen are also constantly accessing the CPU and increasing your core temperatures.  At idle, core i7 CPUs are designed to run more load on a single core so the other cores can go into C3/C6 mode and go to sleep to save power.  A couple of degrees difference at idle is nothing to be concerned about.

At full load, I like letting Prime 95 Small FFTs run for about 10 or 15 minutes.  When a Core i7 CPU is installed correctly, I frequently see core 0 reporting the hottest temperature, core 3 is usually 5C less and the two center cores are somewhere in the middle.  I think that's exactly what you'll see if you do this.

If you notice RealTemp reporting your CPU multiplier floating around at idle then go into your Control Panel -> Power Options and if there is a Minimum processor state setting play around with that.  Set it to 100% if you don't like your multi dropping at idle and set it to 5% and enable EIST / C1E and your multi should drop down closer to 12 which is the minimum for these CPUs.

You can download the latest version of RealTemp I've been working on here:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip

It includes a separate program called i7 Turbo which is the most accurate way to monitor your multiplier.


----------



## mudy (Aug 16, 2009)

hey uncle! thanks for the tips. made changes in power option now it's set to 5%. I have enabled EIST and C1E by default. But still the core 2 temp is hovering 2-3 C higher than core 0...!! screenshots attached using the new realtemp beta!

P.S.: also; is this something really serious...i mean i have no stability issues so far...despite being a new system (built around 2 weeks ago) i switch on almost everyday for 3-4 hours and during those time i do stress test almost 2 hours everyday and during weekends i do it like half of the day....small ffts test!!!! thx again...you the LEGEND!!


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 16, 2009)

> P.S.: also; is this something really serious...



Actually, this is something completely normal.  Micro electronic temperature sensors are far from 100% accurate.  The Core i7 sensors are worlds better than the sensors Intel used on the 45 nm Core 2 CPUs but they're not perfect.  Intel calibrates these sensors so they can trigger thermal throttling at 100C and thermal shut down at about 125C.  That's all these sensors are designed to do and all of the sensors Intel has used are more than capable of this.

Intel has not documented these sensors or designed them for accurate core temperatures, especially at idle.  For Core i7, my best guess is that at idle most of them are accurate to +/- 3C.  Your sensors fall into that category.  Maybe your neighbor got lucky and his sensors are a little better than that but there is nothing too unusual about your sensors.  Core 0 tends to be the most accurate.  It shows 29C so 29C +/- 3C is 26C to 32C.  All your sensors are reporting that.

Your computer has a lot going on at idle.  I can get down to under 1% Load as reported by RealTemp 3.30 while using Vista because I turn off a lot of background junk and Vista's excessive caching of files and I don't use Norton or CPU-Z when temperature testing. 

Try my Prime95 Small FFT test.  Run it for 10 or 15 minutes and lets see if your reported temps look like 99% of the Core i7 CPUs I've seen.


----------



## Super Sarge (Aug 16, 2009)

My temps run from high forties and low fifties under normal use, I have run Intel Burn version 2 for 20 passes at and my temps reached high 80 low nineties at 100 percent load I am running a 3.8 20*18 turn of HT it will lower your temps it does not effect games and most programs, If you do video editing or cad leave it enabled. I also have turbo off this locks in my 3.8 ASUS P6Tdeluxe V2 CPU I7 920 6 gigs of 12800 memory


----------



## mudy (Aug 16, 2009)

I have run prime95 for whole day like from 6:30 am to 7:30 pm but the temps have never gone more than 69 C. I haven't tested after I reseated the hsf. Will do tonight and let u know!!! Thanks

p.s. And btw, I 'had' EIST and C1E enabled and I got this better temps on core 2 after I enabled C-State from Bios!!! I have turbo and ht enabled as well and right now runnin at stock speed!!!


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 17, 2009)

At idle, Core i7 is designed to that it tries to put more load on one core so the other ones can go into sleep mode.  How this works depends on how your motherboard is set up and what C-States you have enabled.  I'm not sure if the core that gets to do the work changes every time you boot up or changes as your computer is running.  Check out that i7 Turbo program that I was talking about.  It shows the load for each thread so you can compare that to the individual core temperatures.  

If RealTemp reports APIC ID as 01234567 then the threads are lined up like this in i7 Turbo.

core 0 | core 0 | core 1 | core 1
core 2 | core 2 | core 3 | core 3


----------



## mudy (Aug 17, 2009)

i have enable C-State to auto. it was disabled by default but looking at the description i thought to enable and see how each core works against load and idle. also as per your suggestion, i see through i7 Turbo Program that most of the load is taken by Core 2 | Core 2 and then the load remains at Core 3 | Core 3, well most of the times. is that normal?? well i will see when i disable C-State and will post both the screen shot!!


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 17, 2009)

> ...well most of the times. is that normal??



I don't know.  When you have a CPU load of over 7% at idle, that's not normal.

As for your CPU, it seems just like every other Core i7 CPU so I guess it's normal.

Here's how my E8400 looks in Vista when running RealTemp, RivaTuner Avast antivirus, Office 2003 and some other junk.
1% at idle is OK.  7% is software bloat.


----------



## mudy (Aug 19, 2009)

hey uncle, sorry for the delay. was busy with work and stuffs. i think the cores getting used up once in a while in my system is due to lotza background activities!! i am thinking of referring to tweakguides.com for enabling disabling and fine tuning my vista. i will uninstall the whole operating system and reinstall it during this weekend and then fine tune it and see how it goes...i will keep you posted. as per my whole system running...everything seems to be normal. i am playing games like far cry 2, gta iv, nfs undercover, with everything set to ultra high and 8xaa and 8xq af!!! so i don't i should worry much about...huh?? thanks for your immense help ''....!!!


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 19, 2009)

If your system is working great for you then there's no need to re-install your operating system.  It's not critical to have a lean and mean system when you have an overclocked Core i7 with 8 threads of processing power available.

I'm old school and running on a Dual Core at the moment so the less background junk on my computer, the happier I am.  Too many programmers don't give a crap about how bloated and inefficient their software is.  Get it out the door is the only goal.

I'm very careful with every feature that gets added to RealTemp and even on a slow system, it shouldn't create any significant CPU load.

If you're gaming smoothly at 8x AA / 8x Q AF then enjoy your computer.  Windows 7 is almost here.  The programmers were given more time to get it right and it shows.  It's going to be a lot smoother launch this fall compared to the launch of Vista.


----------



## mudy (Aug 23, 2009)

Hi uncle,

Sorry for the late reply....as i just finished installing a fresh new Original Copy of Windows Vista 64 Bit (OEM). I have recorded the real temp data at full load (P95 Small FFT for 15 minutes) and at idle load. this time i disabled the sidebars (that thing really keeps the CPU busy, eh?? But I like it, else whats the use of all these glossy vista and core i7 and 6GB ram....). here are the screen-shots!! the min at idle is 29C and load for 15 min with P95 the temp is not going beyond 60C....i am liking the temps now...i have seen other sites as well and seems pretty normal...or can i say that i am lucky to have these temps coz there are many people who seems to have preeetty high temps even with after market cooler...!! also this is the first time i have installed a after market cooler!!


----------



## unclewebb (Sep 11, 2009)

Sorry for the even later reply. 

Your temps look good. No problems.  The Core i7 isn't too bad until users start overclocking them by 50% and cranking up the core voltage.  Then they get kind of hot. Looks like your cooler is working well too.


----------



## Krout (Sep 12, 2009)

*Want to understand Real Temp*

I hope I'm posting in the right forum. 
 I need to understand Real temp.  I am running Win 7 RC 64 on Q6600 OC 10% (to 2.63 - not a big deal) 
The thing I cannot understand, and I am probably doing something wrong here, is that where the core temperature is shown?  On my screen shot (just for experiment) I set TJ Max to 70 degrees on cores 1 and 3 and set it to 120 on cores 0 and 2.  Now according to the screen my temps are core 0 - 62,  core1 - 12, core2 - 63 and core3 14 deg. C.  How can that be? I mean - what am doing wrong?  It is very cool program and I'd like to understand how to use it.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 12, 2009)

Krout said:


> I hope I'm posting in the right forum.
> I need to understand Real temp.  I am running Win 7 RC 64 on Q6600 OC 10% (to 2.63 - not a big deal)
> The thing I cannot understand, and I am probably doing something wrong here, is that where the core temperature is shown?  On my screen shot (just for experiment) I set TJ Max to 70 degrees on cores 1 and 3 and set it to 120 on cores 0 and 2.  Now according to the screen my temps are core 0 - 62,  core1 - 12, core2 - 63 and core3 14 deg. C.  How can that be? I mean - what am doing wrong?  It is very cool program and I'd like to understand how to use it.



set the TJmax values back to 95C, and you'll get your real values - why did you set them to 70C in the first place?


----------



## Krout (Sep 12, 2009)

I am lost here.  I thought that the real value (temp of a core) shouldn't depend on what you set TJMax to.  The temperature is read from the CPU internal sensor, right? So, how can I manipulate it?
I guess I don't understand what the TJMax is.  What is it?  More important: what is TJ Max value for Q6600?
Thank you


----------



## burebista (Sep 12, 2009)

Krout said:


> I thought that the real value (temp of a core) shouldn't depend on what you set TJMax to.  The temperature is read from the CPU internal sensor, right?


Of course it depends of TJMax value. What is read from CPU internal sensor is _distance to TJMax_ and that's the only one which matters for you CPU thermal behavior (throttle/thermal shutdown). Look in your screenshot, despite your TJMax settings distance to TJMax remains ~same across all your cores. Here I made an example myself.
Did you read uncle's documentation?


----------



## unclewebb (Sep 13, 2009)

Intel did not include a thermometer within their CPUs so software can not read the core temperature directly.

TJMax is the maximum temperature that your CPU can get up to before it reaches the thermal throttling point.  This will cause it to slow down if it gets that hot.  For a Q6600, the thermal throttling point is typically 90C for the Q6600 - B2 stepping CPUs and 100C for the Q6600 - G0 processors.  In the RealTemp settings window just click on the Defaults button and it will read your CPU and set this correctly.  The Set TJ Max button is for advanced calibration purposes and most users don't need to adjust this.

The temperature sensors in these CPUs work backwards compared to a normal thermometer.  As your CPU gets hotter this sensor counts down towards zero.  When it reaches zero, your CPU has reached its maximum safe temperature and it is designed to automatically slow down to protect itself from damage.  The direct reading from this sensor is displayed by RealTemp in the Distance to TJMax box.  RealTemp then uses a simple formula to convert this number into a temperature reading.

CPU Temperature = TJMax - Distance to TJMax

If you have a Q6600 - G0 (check CPU-Z to find out) then the formula would be:

CPU Temperature = 100 - Distance to TJMax

The first core, Core 0, tends to be the most accurate.  In your screen shot it shows that this number is 58.  If you put that number in the above formula then your CPU Temperature should be reported as 100 - 58 which equals 42C.  That sounds normal at idle.

Set TJMax back to Defaults and this program will report your temperatures just fine.

You can download the latest version here:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip


----------



## Krout (Sep 13, 2009)

Thanks everybody.
It is getting clear now.  So far I understand that the most important value is TJMax.   I believe Intel refers to it as TCC activation point. Unfortunately they (Intel) don't disclose this value for any specific processor.  So, this value is a guess...maybe educated, but still a guess.
I also understand that the core temp (in RealTemp or any other software of this kind) is as accurate as the TJMax value for the processor, and the most important value is the distance to TJMax. As long as I don't get too close to 0 for the distance to TJMax - I am fine, right?
  I am doing this for my Q6600 but ultimately I am getting ready to OC i7,  which I am getting very soon.

Another questions: does RealTemp interface with PECI?
What is Prime95?
Thanks.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 13, 2009)

Krout said:


> As long as I don't get too close to 0 for the distance to TJMax - I am fine, right?


Yes.

Although i prefer to leave ~20C til TJmax at load, to cover for hot days/extra heat from somewhere unanticipated.



Krout said:


> Another questions: does RealTemp interface with PECI?
> What is Prime95?
> Thanks.



Dont know about PECI.

Prime95 is one of many CPU stress test programs - current favourite is OCCT on the linpack test


----------



## Krout (Sep 13, 2009)

Thank you.
I guess the question about PECI is to the developer of the RealTemp..
I just downloded a Beta RealTemp and ran Load Tester.  It shows 100% load but my Windows built-in CPU load meter displays only 26% load even after 10 minutes (sreenshot shows 3 minutes, but I am looking at it as I type this).  How should I read this? Is it because it's Beta?
Thank you


----------



## Mussels (Sep 13, 2009)

Krout said:


> Thank you.
> I guess the question about PECI is to the developer of the RealTemp..
> I just downloded a Beta RealTemp and ran Load Tester.  It shows 100% load but my Windows built-in CPU load meter displays only 26% load even after 10 minutes (sreenshot shows 3 minutes, but I am looking at it as I type this).  How should I read this? Is it because it's Beta?
> Thank you



well, it IS beta  try OCCT as i mentioned above


----------



## Krout (Sep 13, 2009)

I am running OCCT right now.  Looks like a good program.  However too much red (former Soviet - Perestroika) and fine print.  Thanks for recommending it.


----------



## unclewebb (Sep 13, 2009)

The Load Tester provides 100% load to 1 core.  You have 4 cores so fully loading one core is equivalent to 25% load on your CPU.  Add in some background tasks and an overall load reading of 27% sounds right to me.  RealTemp agrees with that gadget on your Desktop so it must be OK.  You can run multiple copies of Load Tester if you want to create more load.

RealTemp reads temperature data directly from the CPU registers.  No PECI.


----------



## Krout (Sep 13, 2009)

Thank you unclewebb, it does make sense now - one core.


----------



## unclewebb (Sep 13, 2009)

Prime95
http://www.mersenne.org/freesoft/

This program can load up all 4 cores as it searches for Prime numbers.  It's a very popular stress testing program.

Load Tester is the direct opposite of Prime95.  LoadTester puts a very gentle load on your CPU and is good for testing turbo boost on the new Core i5 / i7 processors as well as EIST testing.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 13, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> Prime95
> http://www.mersenne.org/freesoft/
> 
> This program can load up all 4 cores as it searches for Prime numbers.  It's a very popular stress testing program.



starting to lose popularity now, as other programs (OCCT linpack, intel burn in test) get the same results, but faster.

your system may error 10 hours into prime95, but achieve the same result in OCCT linpack in 10 minutes.

another plus is that OCCT linpack is x64 - it tests all of the CPU, and all of the ram without leaving parts untested like the x86 ones do


----------



## unclewebb (Sep 13, 2009)

Funny thing is I have the opposite problem at the moment.  I'm testing some memory and on my board it can run hours of LinX x64 when testing 3GB of memory but Prime 95 x64 Blend fails in 30 seconds or less.  It's nice when you are stable enough to pass both tests but my motherboard with the old 965 chipset doesn't seem to like these 2x2GB modules.  They fail Prime at any MHz, any memory voltage, any timings, etc., etc.  

I quit.  I think I'll go get a P55-UD4P and start playing with something new.  My P5B Deluxe has had a long life.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 13, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> Funny thing is I have the opposite problem at the moment.  I'm testing some memory and on my board it can run hours of LinX x64 when testing 3GB of memory but Prime 95 x64 Blend fails in 30 seconds or less.  It's nice when you are stable enough to pass both tests but my motherboard with the old 965 chipset doesn't seem to like these 2x2GB modules.  They fail Prime at any MHz, any memory voltage, any timings, etc., etc.
> 
> I quit.  I think I'll go get a P55-UD4P and start playing with something new.  My P5B Deluxe has had a long life.



well there you go, if after a test run you still have issues, try another program!

try higher NB volts, since those boards were designed for 1GB modules at lower clocks, it may be overly stressing it.


----------



## Krout (Sep 13, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> The Load Tester provides 100% load to 1 core.  You have 4 cores so fully loading one core is equivalent to 25% load on your CPU.  Add in some background tasks and an overall load reading of 27% sounds right to me.  RealTemp agrees with that gadget on your Desktop so it must be OK.  You can run multiple copies of Load Tester if you want to create more load.
> .



Here is another shot.  It looks like Load TEster does not load a single core, but distribute the load between all four cores


----------



## unclewebb (Sep 13, 2009)

If you want LoadTester to be locked to a specific core then you can use the Task Manager Set Affinity... option to do that.  
LoadTester can provide 100% load to a single core in nice equal steps of 10%.  How you distribute that load is up to you.


----------



## leeakred (Sep 19, 2009)

*Real Temp Calibration??*

Hi everyone. I have always used real temp in the past, but i have recently installed a q9450 in one of my rigs, and not sure how to accuratley calibrate real temp to show the nearest correct temps.

I have read alot of the posts in these forums on the subject, but wanted to see if i could get some advice from the man him self  

Ive had trouble re attaching my waterblock to the new CPU, as its a tight fit on my mobo ( P5Q Deluxe, using Swiftech H20-220 compact). 
So worried about the fact i hope its seated correctly (re seatted 3 times) i want to try get the most accurate temps, as they seem alittle higher than id like at the moment.

I have overclocked the q9450 to 3.0ghz, with out any voltage increase. and attached the CPU cooldown test etc below;






How should i calibrate real temp? And do you think my temps are to high?

Sorry if this question has been asked many times before, but by reading other posts, every CPU is slightly differant? Thought i would try get the best answer from the experts.

Thanks for any help / advice!


----------



## leeakred (Sep 20, 2009)

sorry, had trouble with image


----------



## leeakred (Sep 21, 2009)

So what does anyone think. How much do i need to calibrate the TJmax by? 
And do you think the temps are to high?

Thanks again for any advice.


----------



## pothead0666 (Sep 23, 2009)

can real temp be compatible with amd 64 athlon


----------



## unclewebb (Sep 23, 2009)

leeakred: Your sensors look OK for slope error but my opinion is that Intel does not accurately set TJMax.  My best guess would be to use TJMax = 100, 105, 100, 108.  I find that Core 0 tends to be the most accurate which is why I leave that one at 100 and adjust from there.  Perfect temperatures from idle to TJMax don't exist for 45nm Core 2 Quad processors but I think that calibration will be an improvement.

pothead0666: Unfortunately I haven't become rich writing free software and dealing with the infinite number of CPUs that Intel cranks out is enough work to keep me busy.  I wish I had more time and some AMD systems to test on but I don't have either.


----------



## leeakred (Sep 23, 2009)

Thank you! I will calibrate and see how it looks then.

I ran folding@home on all 4 cores (using vm ware) and GPU, to try stress whole system and see what the temps were like. Core 0 was hitting 60-61 max. Do you think that is fine? Its just with the water cooling (all be it lower end water cooling), i didnt know whether to expect it to be a bit lower temps. So still not sure wether to re-seat the block and re-applie TIM?

Thanks again!


----------



## unclewebb (Sep 23, 2009)

leeakred: With Intel Core CPUs, people tend to be way too concerned about temperatures when they really don't need to be.  What I learned from project RealTemp is that as long as your computer is stable and it's not thermal throttling, you can ignore your core temperature.  It's just a number and there are so many places for possible error that it might not even be that accurate of a number, especially on 45nm Core 2 Quads.  These CPUs are designed to run reliably with core temperatures over 90C so running them at 60C is fine and well within spec.

The inconsistency of these sensors from one to the next on the same CPU has caused a lot of remounting of heatsinks and water blocks but the vast majority of the problem is sensor error.  If your computer is running fine then I wouldn't bother remounting anything.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 23, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> leeakred: With Intel Core CPUs, people tend to be way too concerned about temperatures when they really don't need to be.  What I learned from project RealTemp is that as long as your computer is stable and it's not thermal throttling, you can ignore your core temperature.  It's just a number and there are so many places for possible error that it might not even be that accurate of a number, especially on 45nm Core 2 Quads.  These CPUs are designed to run reliably with core temperatures over 90C so running them at 60C is fine and well within spec.
> 
> The inconsistency of these sensors from one to the next on the same CPU has caused a lot of remounting of heatsinks and water blocks but the vast majority of the problem is sensor error.  If your computer is running fine then I wouldn't bother remounting anything.



i can back this up too.

hot intel CPU's throttle before they take any damage - the only reason for concern is that the high temps tend to do bad things to nearby components like northbridges, VRM's and capacitors, causing THEM to overheat.


----------



## leeakred (Sep 23, 2009)

Thanks for the advice!

Think i will see how it goes then, becasue at the moment everything is stable (touch wood), and il try not to put to much worry in the current temps.

Thanks again!


----------



## Mussels (Sep 23, 2009)

assuming you arent the clumsy type, do a finger-walk of the nearby components. if you cant hold your finger on it for 30 seconds, its too hot - cool it


----------



## somebody (Sep 28, 2009)

Not sure if it's been mentioned before but RealTemp doesn't seem to pick up the SLFM on mobile Core 2 Duo's (bit 15 [EAX] of MSR 0x198) This doesn't seem just related to RealTemp as you can see below, error in red, good in green. CPU-Z will display the correct frequency using the calculated method with F9 as shown but not using the multiplier.

i7Turbo is great although it wont show any calculated multi less than 6 but above that it seems fine. Only wish I had an i7 to play with 

The screenshot shows RT ver 3.00 but I also got the same result with 3.30

*Using 10x multi with SLFM (5x multi effective = 1.67GHz)*





​


----------



## unclewebb (Sep 28, 2009)

somebody: I really appreciate users that step forward and clearly show when there is a problem.

I wish I had one of every CPU for testing purposes but unfortunately Intel doesn't send me anything.

i7 Turbo has a lower filter of 6 for Core 2 Duo CPUs.  Obviously on a P8400, that's wrong.

RealTemp 3.30 has an INI option to use the same multiplier calculation method that i7 Turbo uses.  If you go into the INI file and add this:

*AverageMulti=1*

that should calculate the multiplier the same as i7 Turbo does but it likely has the same problem with the minimum being reported as 6 instead of the correct 5.  I'm just in the process of giving RealTemp a work over so hopefully later this week it will be all fixed up.  Thanks for your help.

Edit: I'm not sure if that INI file option is working in RealTemp 3.30. 
It used to work.  I will be transferring the i7 Turbo code back into RealTemp in the near future.


----------



## unclewebb (Sep 28, 2009)

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/Turbo.zip

I updated i7 Turbo to version 6.9 which shouldn't have the low multi filter anymore.  Hopefully you can give that a try somebody and post your results.  If it works I'll get RealTemp updated later this week.  The RealTemp code is presently in a big mess. 

Edit: Can you post a link or a screen shot of any documentation you have about MSR 0x198 bit[15]?  It's not explained very well in the Intel documentation I have.

You could also post a screen shot or two of this MSR with and without SLFM enabled.

Here's a link to my MSR tool.  Just enter 0x198 and click on Read MSR.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/MSR.zip


----------



## SuperJoker (Sep 28, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/Turbo.zip
> 
> I updated i7 Turbo to version 6.9 which shouldn't have the low multi filter anymore.  Hopefully you can give that a try somebody and post your results.  If it works I'll get RealTemp updated later this week.  The RealTemp code is presently in a big mess.



It looks the same as 6.8 and in the other thread I tried adding a few posts, 4 at last count and I'm getting moderated, I'd like to know Why please?


----------



## unclewebb (Sep 28, 2009)

Version 6.9 is to fix the problem that somebody showed above.  If you are having trouble posting on TechPowerUp then send me an email to 

real_temp@yahoo.ca

You can send pictures directly there.  If i7 Turbo 6.9 shows only two cores on your ES CPU then it will be easier for me to switch that program back to non UNICODE to see if that makes a difference.  The problem you are having might not be UNICODE related as I've changed 1001 things since RealTemp 2.70.  So far I've learned that doing things by the book (the Intel books) usually causes more problems than what it's worth.  Things worked better before when I didn't read any manuals and just winged it.


----------



## SuperJoker (Sep 29, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> Version 6.9 is to fix the problem that somebody showed above.  If you are having trouble posting on TechPowerUp then send me an email to
> 
> real_temp@yahoo.ca
> 
> You can send pictures directly there.  If i7 Turbo 6.9 shows only two cores on your ES CPU then it will be easier for me to switch that program back to non UNICODE to see if that makes a difference.  The problem you are having might not be UNICODE related as I've changed 1001 things since RealTemp 2.70.  So far I've learned that doing things by the book (the Intel books) usually causes more problems than what it's worth.  Things worked better before when I didn't read any manuals and just winged it.



Ok.


----------



## somebody (Sep 29, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> I wish I had one of every CPU for testing purposes but unfortunately Intel doesn't send me anything.


I certainly can understand that, I only have the Core 2 Duo and can not justify the expense of buying new systems just to see how the other CPU's work as much as I'd like too.

i7Turbo 6.9 now recognises calculated multipliers below 6.0, nice job BTW. RealTemp 3.30 when using option AverageMulti=1 does not calculate below 6.0 as you suspected but otherwise okay 

As far as the Intel MSRs go it's pretty much empirical data and as the name suggests probably very 'model specific' except for perhaps the architectural ones. Not sure if this helps you as you probably know most if not all here already but maybe it will be of use to others.

From P8400
Multipliers 6.0x to 8.5x
IDA 9.0x
SLFM



FID = Multiplier
VID = CPU Voltage

From the above data we can see in MSR 0x199 we have requested a 9.0x multiplier at 1.2000V (0927) but from MSR 0x198 we are currently using 8.5x multiplier at 1.1375V (4822).

Speculative Notes

SLFM has to be enabled by bit 28 in MSR 0xEE to work.
IDA is enabled by setting bit 38 of MSR 0x1A0 to 0.
The ? bit 32 in MSR 199 seems to disable IDA ???
Half multipliers can not be used at the same time as SLFM
The 6.5x multiplier cannot be selected 
Don't seem to be able to use SLFM above the 16x multiplier.
The 'Current Minimum VID' in MSR 0x198 may not be valid when SLFM is enabled.
Once LOCK bit 20 of MSR 0x1A0 has been set, bit 20 and EIST bit 16 can not be changed.

When I first read about the Intel DTS Core sensors I imagined them being super accurate but was disappointed. When preparing to replace the TIM on the CPU for overclocking purposes I decided after booting up to put the CPU into it's lowest FID:VID and without to many programs running carefully pulled off the heatsink. Using an infrared thermo-scope the CPU case measured almost 10C higher than the cores up to 60C. I did want to test higher as I beleive they're supposed to be most accurate around 90C but I got a bit too enthusiastic and increased the CPU work load too quickly resulting in the ACPI shutting down the system before I could take anymore measurements.  As I was more interested in getting the overclock to work at that time I didn't try again. The strange thing is although the DTS accuracy was off, the ACPI CPU temperature agreed degree for degree for what should have been the correct core temperature up to the 60C that was measured. 

You can see the difference in the cores and ACPI CPU temperature in this overclocking post
http://forums.overclockzone.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10357153#post10357153
and may find it interesting for other reasons than temperature


----------



## Doctor Lo (Sep 29, 2009)

*Temps on Q6600*

First of all this is my first post so I´d like to say Hi to everyone.  I´m new to overclocking but I´ve been reading about it for a while.. I just haven´t had the time to get to do it until now.  I´ve been also reading about core temperature apps... and since I didnt really get a conclusion on which one is best, I chose what I liked the most, (which is obviously RealTemp). I´m going through the documentation an I´ve already have a question about one of the first steps:

I have a Q6600 stepping G0. Temp in front of my antec nine hundred is 25,2C (im getting a second thermometer this afternoon though). The OS is Windows 7 Professional 64 bits.


When doing the Sensor test I get the following temperatures:







Then from what I read in the documentation 





> "If core 0 and core 1 is TJMax = 100C then core 2 and core 3 are likely TJMax = 105C. Once you correct for this in the RealTemp Settings window, you will have to go back and correct for the slope error that both of these sensors are showing compared to core 0 and core 1. Once this"


 Which matches to what happened to me...    does it mean I should change TJMax ??? Cos I´m quite sure I´ve also read on this thread that it shouldnt be changed!!!! And thats actually what confuses me. If so.. its 105 and 105 for cores 2 and 3, right ?

Thanks for reading !!


----------



## unclewebb (Sep 29, 2009)

Doctor Lo: I was reading through some documentation for the new i7-920XM mobile processors and for the first time I finally read a hard number about the amount of error their sensors have at TJMax.






Finally a number that confirms my theory that TJMax is not written in stone.  Based on my testing, I think the original Core 2 CPUs like your Q6600, have a similar amount of error.  The 45nm Quads seem to use up this entire range and TJMax can vary from 100C to 110C.  Maybe a year or two from now Intel will come clean and also admit that they do this deliberately to better control thermal throttling so all 4 cores don't reach the throttling point at the exact same time.  Just a theory I have.

Looking at your numbers I would do a nice, simple calibration fix by setting TJMax = 100, 100, 105, 105.  The slope of the 4 temperature curves are very similar so I wouldn't bother changing anything else or using any of the other RealTemp calibration factors.  You should now have 4 cores that will report very similar temperatures when equally loaded with a program like Prime95 Small FFTs from idle to TJMax.

Thanks somebody for that chart.  I have no idea why Intel makes programmers do infinite trial and error testing or jump through other hoops like signing NDA agreements just to get basic information like you've provided.  It drives me crazy but it is fun when you discover something new. 

I found out where the half multi flag was hiding in MSR 0x198 and 0x199 but I didn't know about the SLFM flag.  Too bad Intel removed VID information from 0xCE in the Core i7 CPUs.

i7 Turbo determines the multiplier based on two high performance timers for each thread or core which is the Intel recommended method but it's nice to know about the SLFM bit too.

If you have time, can you post what i7 Turbo shows when running a single thread of Super PI and also when running two threads of Super PI.  Hyper PI is a nice front end for running 1 or multiple threads of Super PI mod 1.5.

I don't think it will report the full 9.0X multi on your chip.  On other CPUs that support Intel Dynamic Acceleration, it usually reports something like 23.8 on a Core i5-750.  On this CPU, any background activity that kicks in drops it to the lower multiplier when more than 2 cores are active and i7 Turbo shows this pretty clearly.  One user with a T9500 tested this and got similar results where it's impossible to get the full maximum IDA multi continuously unless you disable one core in the bios which usually isn't possible on most laptops.

Your findings that below 60C, the core sensors can move at a significant slope compared to a change in actual core temperature is the same thing I found when I pointed my IR thermometer at the IHS.  This problem seems worse with the 45nm Core 2 based temperature sensors.

Nice modded laptop.  I wish I could do the same on my wife's laptop but I think she'd frown when the soldering gun came out.  






The T9500 has a default multi of 13 and when running a single threaded app and IDA kicks in, it can cycle up to 14.  This cycling between 13 and 14 happens continuously hundreds of times a second so i7 Turbo reports the average multiplier during each 1 second interval.  You can see that the core that is doing the majority of the work is able to use the 14X multiplier the majority of the time (~72.8%) but it will never be able to use the 14X multiplier the entire time because there will always be some background process that needs to be serviced by the second core which immediately drops the multiplier back to 13X.  Maybe your modded P8400 will be able to get around this Intel limitation.


----------



## somebody (Sep 30, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> Too bad Intel removed VID information from 0xCE in the Core i7 CPUs.


I think 0xCE is _very_ model specific as I seen reference to FSB for it as well.




unclewebb said:


> If you have time, can you post what i7 Turbo shows when running a single thread of Super PI and also when running two threads of Super PI.


Would you like it run as a _normal_ system or with the IDA bug or both? 




unclewebb said:


> The T9500 has a default multi of 13 and when running a single threaded app and IDA kicks in, it can cycle up to 14.


That's nice, I only get an extra 0.5x multi on the P8400 but maybe the BUS clock is higher than the T9500 


I found some more problems.


Green=Right, Red=Wrong. Ran with IST off and fixed 6.0x multi.
I should have put the red RT under the red i7Turbo, sorry if it's confusing.

When I run RealTemp 3.00 or 3.30 or i7Turbo 6.9 with IDA (Turbo Mode) enabled and no load it seems to calculate/measure the BUS frequency incorrectly 314MHz as apposed to 333MHz. The incorrect calculated multi in i7Turbo then seems to be (333.3/314.78 * 6.0). Strangely enough 333.33/314.78 seems pretty close to 9.0/8.5, the IDA multi and top full load multi. If I put a load on the CPU (only tried 100%) and then run the programs they give the correct BUS and multipliers. If I disable IDA then run the programs with or without load they work correctly. It also seems once the initial BUS frequency is calculated/measured then while the programs are running correctly IDA can be enabled and the programs still show the correct readings. I guess the initial calculation is a one time thing and doesn't change unless the programs are restarted. While running RT 3.30 with the incorrect 314MHz BUS, a 7.0x multi and 'AverageMulti=1' it rounds up to show 7.5x. Hope this all makes sense in some way.

Something I forgot to mention in the last post was that the 'Turbo Mode Disable' check box does not update if the setting is changed externally by another program unlike the 'EIST' check box. The 'EIST' check box remains grayed out regardless of the lock bit, you probably meant for it to be that way but thought I'd better mention it just in case.


----------



## Doctor Lo (Sep 30, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> Doctor Lo: I was reading through some documentation for the new i7-920XM mobile processors and for the first time I finally read a hard number about the amount of error their sensors have at TJMax.
> 
> http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/6416/i7920xmmobile.png
> 
> ...



Thank you very much unclewebb !!! That will actually save me lots of time (time working.. and time wondering).

I´ve set it TJMax 100, 100, 105, 105 and temperatures are within 1 degree in all the 4 cores all the time (for example, when heating up and running the cool down test). So I guess its good news 
I just feel now that it gets a bit too hot for an stock cpu with an aftermarket cooler... but thats another topic !


----------



## unclewebb (Sep 30, 2009)

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/Turbo691.zip

This is starting to make more sense.  I think my assumption that IDA mode on the Core 2 mobile CPUs is just like Turbo mode on Core i7 CPUs is not quite right.  The default maximum multiplier never changes on a Core 2 Duo Desktop chip or Core i7 so my code only calculates this once.  I think that this value must change when IDA mode is toggled on and off so I need to recalculate this value while the program is running.  Seeing that the errors are perfect ratios of either 9.0/8.5 or 8.5/9.0 makes it easy to see what is likely going on.

I left the EIST box grayed out for two reasons.  On my E8400, the lock bit is set and it is a R/WO bit (read / write once) so I've never been able to unlock this to try and toggle EIST.  When tested on a Core i7, it was possible to toggle the EIST flag but the actual SpeedStep status of the processor didn't seem to change.  I decided to just report the status of the EIST flag in bit[16] in this box and not allow users to try and change it because of the above.  

What software do you use to toggle EIST?  Maybe if I tested the Lock bit first and saw that it was unlocked, then I could open this feature up and give a user the option to toggle EIST.  Do you know if the Lock bit is set to zero on your CPU when you first boot up?

I fixed i7 Turbo so the Disable Turbo Mode flag gets updated on a regular basis in case a second program changes this so it should work similar to the C1E flag now.  Thanks for noticing that.  Trying to develop this program on my E8400 has led to an over sight or two like that.  Help from users with a variety of CPUs is most appreciated and saves me lots of this $$$$$.

I usually try to stick to MSR registers that are fully documented for the Core 2 Duo to try and support as many CPUs as possible.  There's a lot of model specific info hiding in different places in these CPUs but as you know, it doesn't always apply across the board.  That's why I try to avoid MSR 0xCE.

The updated version of i7 Turbo is a wild stab in the dark.  If it works correctly now, it's more luck than by design.  

If it doesn't work correctly could you use my MSR Tool and show me what's hiding in:

MSR 0x2A
MSR 0x198

with IDA enabled and disabled.  Those two MSRs are well documented for Core 2 Duo so I'm hoping I can find the necessary info in there.  The Calculated Multiplier method I'm using was originally documented for Core i7 CPUs and seems to work 100% correctly for them and the new Core i5.  With a few tweaks I've been able to get it working for most Core 2 Duo CPUs that I've tested but it still needs one more tweak to handle IDA mode correctly.

I appreciate any help you can send my way.  No need to include RealTemp in the screen shots.  That's a work in progress.  Once I get the multipliers sorted out then I can go back and add this new code directly into RealTemp.

Edit: I read about Dynamic FSB Frequency Switching technology in the Core 2 Mobile Datasheet:






I'm not yet sure if software will be able to correctly display the FSB when this happens or what the real FSB is when this happens.  Some software might continue to report the external FSB when internally the CPU could be running at half that speed.  I'm also not sure how this relates to the multiplier dropping in half during SLFM.  Maybe SLFM can cause a drop in FSB or a drop in the multi depending on the CPU but not both on the same CPU.  Always lots to learn.


----------



## somebody (Oct 1, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> What software do you use to toggle EIST?


Whatever is at hand and easy to use, including at times my own erm, programs. "RW Everything" offers some useful access to hardware but I'm a bit reluctant to use it for writing MSRs as it occasionally gives BSODs on my system.




unclewebb said:


> Do you know if the Lock bit is set to zero on your CPU when you first boot up?


This depends on the BIOS, for me a normal boot will result in EIST enabled and locked. Disabling P-States in the BIOS naturally leaves EIST off and unlocked. I guess it's possible for a BIOS to lock EIST off but that would really suck IMHO.




unclewebb said:


> There's a lot of model specific info hiding in different places in these CPUs but as you know, it doesn't always apply across the board.  That's why I try to avoid MSR 0xCE.


Can't argue with that. I wonder though if in my specific case I should call absolute max and min as shown in the previous MSR chart I posted, IDA and SLFM FID:VIDs as I notice with Intel data a lot of the SLFM frequencies are 800MHz and AFAIK for the T7100 for example this would mean having to use an 8.0x multi with the half BUS clock (4.0x effective) wheras a 6.0x multi is available for the full BUS clock.




unclewebb said:


> The updated version of i7 Turbo is a wild stab in the dark.  If it works correctly now, it's more luck than by design.


While on load it appears to work fine but during low loads it occasionally gives the incorrect reading. See attached log files.

MSR 0x2A 00000000:49880800 This typically reflects multiplier by bits 26:22 and halves by bit 18 with or without IDA.

MSR 0x198 06170927:06000617 with IDA, 06174822:0600617 without IDA. Note however with IDA enabled the MSR will only show 0927 in bits 47:32 when one core is doing the work. If both cores are working then this will drop to 4822 (8.5x).

AFAIK SLFM will halve the CPU frequency and the FSB. By running a RAM benchmark at 6.0x multi and then running again with a 12.0x multi but using SLFM to give an effective CPU 6.0x the RAM bandwidth is dramatically reduced. Everest seems to show this fairly well as per attachment.

Had a bit of trouble with the log option, the buffer sometimes doesn't get written as expected i.e. the log check box doesn't seem to be linked to CreateFile / CloseHandle resulting in missed data.


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 1, 2009)

My MSR Tool works well.  You can crash a computer if you randomly write values into the wrong MSR but if you have the Intel manuals handy and only write to where you should be writing to, then things are OK.  A lot of MSRs seem protected and are read only so you can't write junk to them.  I tried.  

My bios has a supposed option to disable EIST but when you boot up and actually look at MSR 0x1A0, you can see that the bios did not disable it and it is in a locked state so there's no way to change it.  I think there are quite a few motherboards and bios versions out there that do this.  Users assume that when they turn something off in the bios that it actually gets turned off but that's not always true.

If 800 MHz is the correct SLFM frequency for a T7100 then I guess it must be dropping to 200 MHz X 4.0 which is different than your P8400 which can drop to a 3.0X multiplier.  It's possible that the manuals aren't accurate and a T7100 also drops to 3.0X.



> While on load it appears to work fine but during low loads it occasionally gives the incorrect reading. See attached log files.



I had a look at the log files and I think i7 Turbo is mostly working correctly.  There are a couple of instances where it showed a brief overshoot and reported a multiplier like 9.2X which of course is impossible but other than that, I think what it is telling you at idle is actually very accurate.

When i7 Turbo is not reporting a steady multiplier at idle and it is jumping up and down like a yo-yo, it's usually doing this for a reason.  Internally your multiplier can be constantly jumping up and down and most software misses this.

Software like CPU-Z simply samples MSR 0x198 once per second and reports that multiplier.  The load CPU-Z puts on a CPU while sampling can force a CPU to the higher multiplier so it will report a nice steady multiplier number while internally the multiplier is jumping up and down hundreds of times a second.  I believe that is what i7 Turbo is showing you.

If you are using Vista or Windows 7, go into the control panel -> Power Options and play around with the Minimum processor state.  For XP you may need to set it to mobile CPU, even for Desktop CPUs to get this working properly.  If you drop this setting to a low number like 5%, this will typically get your actual multiplier to settle down to a steady 6.0.  You might also have to adjust C1E and EIST.  There seems to be times where the hardware and the software can't agree on what the multiplier should be set to when the CPU is idle so it will rapidly cycle back and forth between say 9.0X and 6.0X.  i7 Turbo reports the average of this somewhere around 7.5X but it will be constantly jumping around this number based on background load and how much time it is spending at each multiplier.  It also spends time at the intermediate multipliers between the Min and Max multis.

When your log files show the calculated multiplier dropping down towards 3.00, that's a good sign that SLFM is working.  As before, multipliers aren't always constant numbers like CPU-Z has led us to believe.  The multiplier can be constantly transitioning as it heads towards idle or towards full power.  The i7 Turbo average gives you a more accurate picture compared to a single snapshot of an MSR once per second.

To me, the PI-1 IDA log looks OK except for one or two overshoots during transition that I mentioned before.  It should be easy for me to get that fixed up.

The PI-1 Norm looks interesting.  i7 Turbo is reporting an average multiplier somewhere around 8.75.  It shows the first core close to the IDA multi of 9.0 and the other core that is not running SuperPI is at 8.5 so the overall average makes sense.  CPU-Z is reporting 9.0 which is correct for core 0.  If you run two instances of CPU-Z and you right click on the first instance of CPU-Z and tell it to monitor Core #0 and then you right click on the second instance of CPU-Z and tell it to monitor Core #1, you will likely find CPU-Z is reporting 9.0X for one side of your CPU and 8.5X for the other core.

I've seen this happen with a Q6600 desktop CPU where there was a problem with the bios.  The first two cores would run with a 9.0X multi at full load but the other two cores were being limited to only 6.0X.  CPU-Z was reporting the full 9.0X which was true for the core that it was reading.  One user was scratching his head why i7 Turbo was only reporting an average of 7.5 and I too did some head scratching that day.  It wasn't until I used that CPU-Z trick to monitor cores individually that it all started to make sense.

The MSR column in the log file reads the multiplier from the MSR for each core and then averages them.  It is reporting 8.75 at full load which confirms one core at 9.0 and the other at 8.5.

Reading the multiplier by reading a single MSR is always a compromise.  There are two things you can do to try and improve things but both methods have issues.  If you write some code and you simply read the MSR multiplier, the act of reading this value usually causes the multiplier to jump up to its higher state just as you read it.  The multi might be idle 99.999% of the time at 6.0 but every time you wake it up and read it, the multi jumps up and reports it's at 9.0X.  One trick that is often times used is just before you read the multiplier you do a Sleep(1) and let the CPU settle down a bit.  The goal is to try and read it by sneaking up on it and not disturbing it too much.  The problem with this method at idle is that it tends to underestimate the multiplier and will report a steady 6.0X even though the multiplier can be jumping around.  All software uses one of the two methods or some slight variation of the above but no matter what you do, there is no 100% accurate way to determine the multiplier by reading this MSR.  It just gives you a snapshot of the multiplier at that one particular instance in time.

Back to the logs.  PI-2 IDA shows both cores fully loaded and that you are getting the full 9.0X multiplier on both cores.  CPU-Z says 9.0, i7 Turbo shows 9.000 on both cores and the MSR multiplier in the log file also shows that both cores are reporting the full 9.0X multi.  Given that IDA or turbo boost on this CPU is only an extra multiplier of 0.5, it looks like it is capable of running this full time.  Core i7 CPUs can drop the turbo boost on some motherboards if they start running too hot and your CPU is likely the same.  You might be able to see this since your CPU has been tweaked a little.  The other two factors on a Core i7 that effect this are current flow and power consumption of your CPU.  Any of these 3 factors can disable turbo boost until the CPU gets within spec again.  I'm not sure how advanced the Core 2 mobile CPUs are when turbo throttling.

A T9500 that has the possibility of a full +1.0 multiplier turbo boost doesn't give you the full boost when both cores are fully loaded.  Interesting.  The idle multiplier jumping up and down is accurately telling you what's going on.  The MSR multiplier in the log is being reported as 6.0 because I'm obviously doing a Sleep(1) just before reading it so it has a chance to settle down.  CPU-Z will typically report a solid 8.5 or 9.0 when this is going on but I believe that's about as accurate as reporting 6.0.  Neither value is truly accurate if the multiplier is constantly changing back and forth between 6.0 and 9.0.

PI-2 Norm with no IDA shows the correct 8.5X at full load.  The log file shows at full load both it and the MSR reporting the same.

I apologize about the log file.  I'm a bit anal about writing things to the hard drive all the time when testing so I think I cache data and only write it out once per minute or when you exit the program.  I'll have a look at that.  When sampling, I try to create as small a foot print as possible so the act of sampling is changing the results as little as possible.  Use a program like Process Explorer and you'll be able to see how big an elephant CPU-Z is when sampling.  The load it creates sometimes hides the truth. 

Thanks for your help with this.  Try playing around with EIST / C1E and the Minimum processor state and see how they effect the calculated multiplier at idle.  I'm hoping you will be able to see the Calculated Multiplier settle down to 6.0 or close to it at idle and 3.0 when SLFM kicks in.  When all power saving features are in agreement, it usually lets the CPU settle down and do its thing.

I tried to access your website but Avast flagged it as having a Trojan.  Likely BS but I didn't look into it too much.  I have to keep my computer clean because I haven't properly backed it up in the last year or so.  Typical.

Edit: I was just wondering, can you set the SLFM bit in MSR 0x199 and force your computer to use use this mode even when fully loaded?  On my E8400 I can use this MSR to set the half multi but SLFM isn't supported.


----------



## somebody (Oct 1, 2009)

Unclewebb, all tests were done with IDA enabled and the files named as follows,

PI for SuperPi 
1 or 2 for the number of threads run
Norm for a normal configuration of EIST enabled, SLFM enabled and IDA enabled.
IDA for running with the hardware bug that enables IDA to be run full time at 100% load on both cores. This is of course contrary to Intels specification for IDA.
As you can see with the normal (Norm) configuration with IDA enabled, when both cores are loaded the multiplier drops down to 8.5 on both cores as per Intels specification of IDA. As also shown on the overclocking link posted earlier the full time IDA worked with IntelBurnTest up to 94C still giving 19.5Gflops and no sign of dropping the 9.0x multi. With 8.5x on both cores I only get 18.4Gflops. Hopefully I will get to test if something like the IDA bug also exists with some of the later chips but knowing Intel and the fact that they have some very smart people working there I would imagine it's been silently fixed. Could be useful for overclocking and benchmarking if not.

For someone who is spending their time and effort to produce some great free software there really is no need to apologize, now your making me feel bad for bringing up problems.

Read this next bit very carefully, *I do NOT have a website*, what ever is trying to direct you to one is quite likely malware, please take care.

Yes, I can set and use SLFM with full load using 6x to 16x multipliers (no halves) which is 3x to 8x effective.


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 1, 2009)

Can realtemp be made easier to boot on OS load up?

I've tried several different ways but it won't load consistently.


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 2, 2009)

pantherx12:  Here's one method that works with Windows 7 and it should work with Vista too.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3970161&postcount=3657

I'm using Vista x86 at the moment and I have Administrator privileges on my account so I just dragged a link to RealTemp into my Startup folder and it starts up for me every time.

C:\Users\user name\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Startup

The RealTemp folder needs to be located in a directory that you have read/write access to and all of the WinRing0 files, etc., have to be left inside that folder.  After that just right click on RealTemp.exe and drag a link into the Startup folder.  This method also works when using XP but the Startup folder is in a slightly different location.

Give this a try and if you are still having problems let me know a few more details.  Some systems get overloaded at boot up time and I think the WinRing0 driver might not get properly loaded which can prevent RealTemp from starting up correctly.  If that's the problem, I probably won't be able to fix it since I didn't write that driver.  You might be able to use a slight time delay in the Task Scheduler to work around this issue which gives the OS time to settle down.  

This is going to sound crazy *somebody* but I love hearing about problems.  It's the only way I can find out when something needs to be fixed and the problem you brought up definitely needed to be fixed.  I used to buy lots of CPUs but users helping out saves me a lot of cash.

In your post you mentioned RW Everything 1.4.  I followed the link and ended up on a page that Avast didn't like.  Avast was complaining the other day about WinRing0.sys so I don't take it too seriously or worry too much.  Avast is usually so quiet that most of the time I'm not sure if it's actually working.  I wasn't trying to blame you or anything like that.  Sometimes when you're joking in a forum it doesn't always come across that way.  If it was your site, I just wanted to do you a favor and let you know.

IDA seems to work correctly on the T9500.  Have you tried any other P8400 CPUs?  My friend has a laptop with this CPU so now I'm curious to see how IDA works on his computer.

Did you have a chance to play with the Minimum processor state yet?  Most users are surprised when a few adjustments can settle the i7 Turbo readings down at idle.  I know I was surprised when I first saw this in action.  Your help has made i7 Turbo better for laptop owners.  I plan to add a couple of more things I learned about the EIST lock and SLFM back into i7 Turbo.

Edit: i7 Turbo 6.92 is reading the SLFM bit so it's able to correctly report a multiplier of 3.0 at idle for both the Calculated Multiplier as well as the multiplier coming from MSR 0x198.

The LOAD% column is actually the percentage of time that the CPU spends in the C0 state.  It works the opposite of a traditional load meter.  The more a CPU slows down and goes into the idle states, the higher percentage of time the awake core will have to work in the C0 state to process the background tasks because it is operating at a much lower frequency as the CPU idles down.  A high number in this column on a mobile CPU is a good thing.


```
DATE     TIME  CMULTI STDEV  MSR  LOAD%  NOTES
10/02/09 20:25:18 3.000 0.000 3.000 69.12
10/02/09 20:25:19 3.000 0.000 3.000 69.42
10/02/09 20:25:20 3.000 0.000 3.000 69.28
10/02/09 20:25:21 3.003 0.001 6.000 67.35
10/02/09 20:25:22 3.160 0.004 3.000 63.89
10/02/09 20:25:23 3.240 0.010 3.000 67.43
10/02/09 20:25:24 3.000 0.000 3.000 71.39
10/02/09 20:25:25 3.000 0.000 3.000 71.63
10/02/09 20:25:26 3.000 0.000 3.000 70.57
10/02/09 20:25:27 3.000 0.000 3.000 72.69
10/02/09 20:25:28 3.000 0.000 3.000 72.51
10/02/09 20:25:29 3.000 0.000 3.000 70.94
10/02/09 20:25:30 3.000 0.000 3.000 70.20
10/02/09 20:25:31 3.000 0.000 3.000 69.35
10/02/09 20:25:32 3.000 0.000 3.000 69.88
10/02/09 20:25:33 3.000 0.000 3.000 70.71
```

My simple load tester might come in handy when testing this stuff out.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/LoadTester.zip

You can run multiple instances of this and if you need to, you can use Task Manager to lock it to an individual core.  It creates load without creating a lot of heat.  Perfect for laptop testing.

Here's what SLFM mode looks like and what CPU-Z shows.  Thanks Stefan for the pic.






The high C0% is a sign that this CPU has really idled down so the percentage of time the active core must work in the C0 state goes up at idle.  As the MHz goes down both externally and internally, the CPU must work harder and harder to keep up with the background tasks.  A hard working CPU at a slow speed improves efficiency and reduces heat and power consumption.


----------



## somebody (Oct 3, 2009)

Unclewebb, here's some logs from 6.92, let me know if you need something more specific.


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 3, 2009)

I've tried that method with a zero percent success rate, I can only assume because the program needs admin rights. But even doing it via the windows scheduler with admin rights only works say half of the time.

Happens on several of my rigs, Xeon x4 3220 and Phenom x2 be.


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 3, 2009)

Thanks somebody for the log files.  They show me that the Calculated Multiplier method that was designed for the Core i7, has a few issues on Core 2 mobile chips that support IDA.  

Basically you compare two internal timers and see what ratio they are operating at and then multiply that ratio by the default multiplier for that CPU.  On my E8400, at full load, these timers will be running at the exact same speed so the ratio is 1:1.  You multiply that by the default 9.0X multiplier for this chip and you get 9.0.  At idle the timers will operate at a ratio of 0.666:1 so you multiply that by 9.0 and you get the correct 6.0.

This method works on an IDA chip but the default multiplier on these chips can change so it looks like sometimes my program gets lucky and uses the right default multiplier in its calculation and sometimes not.  During your testing you can see where it is using 9.0 as the default when it should be using 8.5.  The ratio (9.0/8.5) keeps showing up in your log file.

I'll try to change my code slightly and put a tiny delay in just before I read the default multiplier.  At idle this might help me get the correct results.  I'll come up with a fresh version to test later tonight.

On most Core 2 CPUs and on Core i7/i5 CPUs, the default multiplier is a fixed value and never changes so I don't have to worry about this issue.

pantherx12: Trying to get RealTemp to start properly when you are using a limited account can be problematic.  Needing Admin rights to read the temperature sensors does cause some issues.  RealTemp doesn't support AMD CPUs so you don't have to test on that one.  What operating system are you running so I can try to do some testing?


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 4, 2009)

I have full admin rights, OS is windows seven build 7600.


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 4, 2009)

*i7 Turbo 6.93*

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/Turbo.zip

somebody: What your log file seems to show is that the value in MSR 0x198 bits[46..40] is not a constant value when IDA is enabled.  The Current Maximum FID / Multiplier value seems to constantly cycle back and forth between 8.5 and 9.0 on your P8400 based on load.  If you are using something like my MSR Tool, it might not be able to show this as each time you try to read it, the maximum multi will jump up to 9.0 and report that.

With i7 Turbo 6.93, I added a 1ms delay just before that value gets read which should help it report and use the lower 8.5 value from that MSR when the CPU is idle.  When your log file was showing a row of 3.177 for the Calculated Multiplier, that's a pretty good sign that it was probably using 9.0 in its calculation instead of the correct 8.5.  (9.0/8.5) x 3.0 = 3.176

Can you post another log file at idle to see if this is improved any?  The bottom line is that this method of calculating the multiplier was not designed for Core 2 CPUs that support IDA.  I have a feeling that version 6.93 is about as good as it's going to get.  I need to have a closer look at the last log files you sent me to see if I notice anything else.

pantherx12: Did you follow this tutorial exactly?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3970161&postcount=3657

In Windows 7 x64 that method works 100% for me.  What type of error message do you get or what happens when you use this method?

I haven't used Windows 7 recently but I'm going to go give it a try again and see if anything has changed recently.

Edit: After you boot up, open up the Task Manager and see if RealTemp is running.  I know there is a RealTemp bug where the program can get located on the screen at a co-ordinate where you can't possibly see it.  That's on the things to fix list.


----------



## somebody (Oct 4, 2009)

I'll try 6.93 out tomorrow but first I tried using MSR 0x30A/0x30B*HFM and it seems to work flawlessly. HFM on the P8400 is 8.5x. What if you went back to how you originally did the calculation by reading 0x198 just once at the start but make sure IDA is set to off in 0x1A0 so that there isn't a possibility to read the IDA multi instead. If IDA is already off then nothing to do but if it isn't you would only need to toggle it once for a few nanoseconds at the start of the program while you read the HFM. Just a thought.

pantherx12 if you enter taskschd.msc in the 'Start' search box and select your task in the Task Scheduler, there will be a heading called 'Last Run Result' which should give a clue as to why it didn't run.


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 4, 2009)

I'll wait to see your testing with 6.93 tomorrow.  Can you also try a brief test at full load with and without IDA enabled to make sure it is still getting the full multi correct.

From your testing so far, it seems that the ratio of the two timers never exceeds 1.0 on your IDA supported CPU.  The way a Core i7-920 works is that this ratio when turbo is enabled works out to 1.05:1 so you multiply that by the default multiplier of 20.0 and you get the turbo ratio of 21.0 or if you only have one core enabled in the bios this ratio will go up to 1.10:1 so the final multiplier is 22.0 (20.0 x 1.10)

If this ratio does not exceed 1.0 on your P8400 then I need to multiply that by 9.0 when IDA is enabled and by 8.5 when IDA is not enabled.

Your results from 6.93 should make this clearer.  I might have to write a small utility that shows just this ratio so we can see what's really going on with IDA enabled or disabled.

If this ratio can go above 1.00 like I was originally assuming then your idea to momentarily turn off IDA so I can read the default 8.5 multiplier should work perfectly.

pantherx12:  On Win7 x64 I just tried both methods of starting RealTemp and they both seem to work.  The Startup folder or the Task Scheduler works for me when using an account with Admin privileges.  There was a bug when I tried to use both methods at the same time but either method individually seemed to work.  Once I get the above sorted out then I'll be moving that code back into RealTemp and I'll be working on a few minor RealTemp bugs this week.  Maybe I'll find a solution for your problem but I usually have a hard time fixing a problem that I can't recreate.

Edit: Here's a simple utility that shows you the ratio of the two internal high performance timers, ( MSR 0x30A / MSR 0x30B )

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RatioCalculator.zip

On my E8400 at idle it shows 0.667 which makes sense, ( 6.0 / 9.0 )






At full load this is very steady at 1.000 or ( 9.0 / 9.0 )






I guess the big question now is what does this test show on your P8400 with IDA enabled and disabled at full load?  I should have written this originally when you first showed me this issue.  It would have saved us both some time if I did.  With IDA enabled, this ratio is either going to be 1.000 or 1.059 (9.0/8.5) when running a single thread of Super PI.


----------



## somebody (Oct 5, 2009)

6.92 & 6.93 do not display the IDA multiplier, they only go up to 8.500. 
With IDA off and full load 6.91-6.93 display 8.500.

Your Ratio.zip file downloads as a zero length file so could not try it. Not to worry, I made up my own crude one using 0x30A and 0x30B, see attachment. Also I used the architectural performance MSRs 0xC1 and 0xC2 set to read a range of unhalted core and unhalted bus cycles which enables us read the effective CPU multiplier just by simply dividing one by the other, however with low loads and fixed high multiplier (EIST disabled) the results don't look that flash. I don't know what causes this, maybe it gets messed up with transitioning in and out of sleep states many times, any ideas?


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 5, 2009)

I renamed the archive RatioCalculator and now it seems to download fine.  Not sure what happened before with the 0 byte archive.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RatioCalculator.zip

Time to look at your results.

Edit: OK, finally, it all makes sense.  It looks like the default multiplier for the P8400 is locked at 8.5 and when Turbo is engaged, the ratio does go beyond 1.0 just like how a Core i7-920 goes up to 1.05 when turbo is enabled.  Now I just need to find an MSR which always returns 8.5 regardless if IDA is enabled or not.  The value in the high bits of MSR 0x198 flops back and forth between 8.5 and 9.0.  If I can't find an MSR that has 8.5 then I guess I'll need to use the trick you suggested by momentarily disabling IDA, reading the maximum multiplier in 0x198 and then if IDA was previously engaged, re-engage it.  Time for version 6.94.  

At full load you get a very steady multiplier using this method.  At idle you don't.  I think this is partially do to the fact that these counters are not moving nearly as quickly at idle so the amount of error is greater.  Once 6.94 is done you can send me a log file so we can see how things look.  At times when there is a slight load on the processor it can be rapidly cycling between two very different multipliers.  With a processor that supports SLFM, this probably makes things at idle even worse.  The reported multiplier may not be 100% accurate at idle but it's the most accurate multiplier possible from this CPU.  The method where you read a single MSR once per second may look nice, but it usually covers up what's really going on inside the CPU.

Edit#2:

Here's version 6.94 that should use 8.5 for the default base multiplier for your P8400.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/Turbo.zip

I've been having some problems with the FileDen site not letting users download.  It gives the 0 byte empty file error.  I'm using FireFox and the error might be because of it.  Clearing out your cache and clearing out all previous versions of Turbo.zip might work and if that doesn't work, I also uploaded it to SendSpace.com

http://www.sendspace.com/file/ipndt0

Send me a log file or two if you see anything that doesn't look right.  With the base multiplier being a fixed value, this method should work just as well on a P8400 as it does on any other Core 2 or Core i7/i5 CPU.  A little bit of random fluctuation at idle is normal but if there is more than this then it is likely C1E or the minimum processor state needs adjusting or the amount of background activity is causing the multiplier to be constantly cycling.  My E8400 typically only shows a multiplier variation of +/- 0.002 at idle when everything is set up correctly.

If the EIST lock bit in your CPU is not set, then you should be able to toggle the EIST bit if your CPU/motherboard allows this.  My motherboard doesn't support this feature so hopefully you can test that out too.  If the lock bit is set then the EIST flag will continue to be grayed out.  I'm not 100% sure yet that toggling the EIST bit[16] actually toggles the EIST state of the CPU or not.  Testing on a Core i7-920 was not conclusive.  It didn't seem to change the SpeedStep status so this feature still needs some testing.


----------



## somebody (Oct 6, 2009)

Congrats, seems like you've cracked it with 6.94. EIST checkbox works also but users may need to adjust the multiplier manually since deselecting it could possibly leave the multiplier set at anywhere from the lowest to highest. Hope it doesn't cause any problems.

I wonder what sort of max ratio the new mobile i7's will have, 1.6-1.77?


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 6, 2009)

Finally.  

I appreciate the help.  I had another user check version 6.94 on a T9400 and it also seems to work correctly.  When running a single thread of Super PI, rge on XtremeSystems was getting the multiplier to cycle between 9.5 and 10.0.  The average on the hardest working core would get up to about 9.9 while the other core was at the default of 9.5.  With 2 threads of Super PI running, there was no dynamic acceleration going on so it was locked at a maximum of 9.5 like the Intel docs say it should be.  I'm interested in checking this on a P8400 to see if yours works differently than other P8400 mobile chips.  

I haven't decided yet whether to allow users to toggle EIST or not.  On Core i7 Desktop chips, it doesn't seem to change anything.  I hope to play around with this on a friend's P8400 before deciding whether to keep this option or disable it and leave the EIST bit as display only.

Little off topic but the Dell Studio XPS 16 now has an option for the i7-720QM or the i7-820QM.  Both are Quad core mobile processors and both support hyper threading.

http://processorfinder.intel.com/List.aspx?ParentRadio=All&ProcFam=3168&SearchKey=

i7-720QM 1600 MHz ~ 12.0X multiplier
Turbo Boost Max = 2800 MHz ~ 21.0X multiplier

i7-820QM 1733 MHz ~ 13.0X multiplier
Turbo Boost Max = 3066 MHz ~ 23.0X multiplier

It's looking like one speedy laptop when running single threaded apps.  The way of the future seems to be moderate default MHz to increase battery life and lots and lots of turbo boost available when you are working on something important.  Maybe my wife will buy me a new toy so I can make sure that i7 Turbo works with these new CPUs too.  I'm pretty sure it does but I'd still like a new toy.  

Edit: If anyone has access to one of these you can let me know how i7 Turbo works on it.

http://download.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/320767.pdf


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 11, 2009)

*RealTemp 3.35*

I transferred the i7 Turbo code I've been working on back into RealTemp.  If you have a new Core i7/i5 CPU that supports multiple bins of turbo boost when C3/C6 is enabled or Intel Dynamic Acceleration then post your results while running a single threaded task like Super PI 1M.  This new version should also support those new Core i7 mobile CPUs I mentioned above. 

I'm hoping to see RealTemp report the multiplier on the hardest working core which more accurately reflects what your CPU is doing.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip

There have been a lot of changes over the last few months so I need some feedback before uploading this to TPU as the next official version.  If you have any problems, let me know.  Thanks.  

Include your CPU model and OS version as well as 32 or 64 bit.  No problems so far on XP and Vista x86 as well as Windows 7 x64.  Show some screen shots so I can explain what this new multiplier means.


----------



## LocutusX (Oct 12, 2009)

Greetings,

I tried out your new RealTemp 3.35 - but really, I was using 3.30 before that, and 3.0 before that although I didn't post in this forum or Xtremesystems. Now I decided to post my result, mainly because I did a Sensor Movement Test and thought I would share the result because I still don't understand what it really means.

My CPU: Core i7-920 D0 stepping
Stock Intel cooler
Mobo: EX58-UD4P
RAM: G.Skill 6GB DDR3 (2GB x 3)
Vista x64 SP2

Generally speaking, stock speed with some minor tweaks:
it runs at 2798mhz (133 x 21)
Vcore is auto
QPI is 4.8GHz (x36)
Uncore is 3.2GHz (x24)
Ram multiplier is x12 (1.6GHz)
BIOS: Turbo mode enabled, EIST disabled, C1E state disabled
All Vista power management features disabled (so CPU is set to 100%-100%)


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 12, 2009)

LocutusX, welcome to TPU.  

Your cool down test looks normal to me.  I find that Core 0 on the Core i7 CPUs is always the most accurate from idle to TJMax.

I believe that Intel sets TJMax slightly differently on the other 3 cores to better control thermal throttling but I don't have any Intel documentation to back that up.  Intel has publicly admitted that there is a +/- 5C variation at TJMax on some of their processors but they haven't said if this is deliberate or just the nature of these sensors that there is some variation in them.

Core 1, core 2 and core 3 are very similar on your CPU.  If you want to do a simple calibration I would set all of them to TJMax = 103C and leave core 0 at TJMax = 100C.  This will line things up better so your 4 cores report similar temperatures when equally loaded with Prime 95 Small FFTs.  I think your reported temperatures will be more accurate if you do this but we're only talking about a couple of degrees so it's a really difficult thing to prove.

If you are using default MHz then why not enable C3/C6 in your bios so your CPU can access the 22X multiplier when you are running a single threaded app.

Hopefully you can send me a screen shot of the new version of RealTemp along with CPU-Z while running a benchmark like Super PI 1M.

http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/366/Super_PI_Mod_v1.5.html

I adjusted RealTemp 3.35 so it should more accurately show your peak multiplier on the core that is working the hardest.  With C3/C6 enabled in the bios, your CPU should show a multiplier beyond 21X.  It will cycle continuously between 21X and 22X as SuperPI is running so RealTemp will report the highest average multiplier on the hardest working core.  Background activity that activates a second core will drop it down to 21X but when 3 of your 4 cores are in the inactive C3/C6 state, the core running SuperPI will be able to use the 22X multiplier.  CPU-Z doesn't always report this very accurately so I'm hoping to see some screen shots of this and how the new version of RealTemp reports it.  Thanks.


----------



## LocutusX (Oct 12, 2009)

Sure, I will happily try that out if there's a possibility I can get 22x multiplier without overclocking! ... but just to clarify:

Currently I have only TURBO MODE enabled in the BIOS.
I have *all 3* of the following settings *disabled*: EIST, Enhanced Halt (C1), C3/C6/C7 State Support.

Which should I enable for your test?


BTW, if I let Prime95 small FFT 8-thread go for 35 minutes... I tend to get 78-80/74-75/74-75/74-75. Sound normal to you? Also, OCCT (linpack) seems to generate temperatures about 3-4 degrees higher.


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 12, 2009)

Your temperatures all seem normal.  The OEM heatsink is adequate but not much more than that.

To get access to the 22X multiplier, you need to enable C3/C6/C7 in the bios.  The inactive cores need to be able to enter these sleep states so the one remaining core can access the 22X multiplier when running a single threaded task.

I'd enable EIST.  Some motherboards don't turn this off correctly anyhow.  If you don't want your multiplier dropping down at idle then after you enable EIST in the bios, go into your Control Panel -> Power Options and set your Minimum processor state to 100%.  Enabling EIST lets turbo mode work the way Intel intended and setting the Minimum processor state will allow you to get the idle multiplier that you would like.  You can play around with C1 in RealTemp to see whether you want that enabled or not.






Most users get better idle temps when they enable C3/C6 because when 3 cores have virtually no current flowing through them, they can run a lot cooler.

I think most of your difference in core temperature when running Prime95 is simply a difference in TJMax for each core that Intel set at the factory.  Your results are showing me that.  Go into the Settings window or RealTemp and try setting TJMax to 100, 103, 103, 103.  This doesn't change the temperature of your CPU, it just changes how your temperatures are reported.  Hopefully more accurate.


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 13, 2009)

Here's an example from rge at XtremeSystems.






An i7-950 has a default multiplier of 23.  When 2, 3 or 4 cores are in the active state, it can use a +1 turbo boost so the maximum multiplier will be 24.  When a single core is active, it can use a +2 turbo boost so then it will be able to use the 25 times multiplier.

What actually happens is that the multiplier will cycle back and forth between 24 and 25 hundreds of times a second.  With one core active it will be at 25.  As soon as a second core wakes up out of the C3/C6 sleep state to process some background activity, it will become an active core and the maximum multiplier will be limited to 24.  When that background task is finished, the second core can go back to sleep (C3/C6) which allows the multiplier to once again jump back up to 25.  The less background activity you have running on your computer, the bigger percentage of time you will be able to run while using the highest possible multiplier.  This feature is only available when C3/C6 is enabled in the bios.  

RealTemp 3.36 now reports the highest multiplier on the hardest working core when this is happening which is what Intel recommends software should report.

I guess you could also disable 3 cores in the bios so only a single core was ever active but that kind of defeats the purpose of owning a multi-core processor.  That might be handy though if you're just trying to run a single threaded benchmark at the highest possible multiplier.  A Core i7-920 should be locked on a 22X multiplier when 3 cores are disabled in the bios and turbo mode is enabled.  Hope that helps you understand how these things work.

For those that like to overclock the BCLK, most Core i7 X58 motherboards disable this feature as soon as you overclock by 1 MHz.  The Intel X58 board is one of the few that correctly supports multiple bins of turbo boost, even when overclocking.  Most of the new P55 boards support this Intel technology correctly, even when overclocking.

I think RealTemp or i7 Turbo will give you a much clearer look at your multiplier and CPU speed compared to CPU-Z which rounds things off and doesn't tell the whole story when a CPU is lightly loaded.


----------



## LocutusX (Oct 14, 2009)

Hi unclewebb,

OK, so I first enabled all 3 of the BIOS features I mentioned before: EIST, C1E, C3/C6/C7.

Strange Behaviour #1: Upon booting, I checked cpu speeds in RealTemp and my multipliers were really bouncing up and down, even while idling! It would hit 12.0 briefly and then bounce up and then down again for a second and then up again! Yes, I *was* truly idling (I waited 10 minutes after Vista boot; killed un-essential processes like AV; HDD light was off so no superfetch thrashing).

Then I went into Control Panel | Power and set my minimum processor speed to *5%*. Now, my multiplier wouldn't bounce so much while idling - it would just sit at 12.0. That sounds to me like more reasonable behaviour then going up and down. Thoughts?

Now, on to the test I did.
I got your new version of RealTemp and let that run alongside Super Pi Mod which did a long pi crunching routine. As a sidenote I tried to disable many extraneous processes as mentioned above, including AV scanner, Sidebar, etc.
Unfortunately the 21.5 mult you see in the screenshot below is the highest it ever went up to. The *average* was more like 21.3 or 21.4.






Further thoughts:

I likely won't keep all 3 of my power-saving BIOS features enabled. 2 main reasons at this point:

(1) Reduced performance. I ran Super Pi's 1M test a number of times and it was always 5-7% slower than with those same BIOS features turned off. Which is interesting because my multiplier only goes to 21.0 with them off! So even with access to 22.0 multiplier it can't match my old times.
I swear that my computer also feels a bit slower in terms of general usage, but that's a bit hard to prove.

(2) a strange high-pitched tweaking noise coming from somewhere in my case - no idea where, not sure i have time to troubleshoot!


Do you think that if I maybe selectively enable those bios features, I can eliminate #2 and get an improvement in #1?


----------



## LocutusX (Oct 14, 2009)

off topic but isn't it annoying how much thrashing vista does after every reboot? obviously with all the tweaking/testing i'm doing I have to reboot a lot and it's annoying seeing all the load on my system for almost 10 minutes after boot!

it seems like SuperFetch wants to fill all of my 6GB with random crap from my HD whenever i boot!


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 14, 2009)

All I can say for number (2) is, it wasn't me!

Makes you wonder about Intel Turbo Boost Technology.  Being able to go beyond 21X looks more like marketing hype.  The amount of extra performance you get with the occasional 22X multiplier is being counter acted by the amount of multiplier switching going on within the CPU. 

The multiplier bouncing up and down that RealTemp reports is actually going on inside your CPU when your software and hardware power settings are not in agreement.  As you found out, when they are in agreement, then Speedstep can work correctly and lower your multiplier down to 12.0.

What you might want to try is to enable EIST and C3/C6/C7 and disable C1 and then set the Minimum processor state to 100%.  This might help you get a steady multiplier at idle that doesn't drop down to 12.0.  You might get better Super PI times when doing things this way.

For consistent testing, turn off CPU-Z and go into the Task Manager and right click on the Super PI task and select Set Priority and set this to Realtime.  That usually helps with consistency when testing.

Edit: That's why I neutered SuperFetch and some other wonderful Microsoft ideas.  Without doing this, it can be very difficult to get repeatable results when testing with Vista.  Try a couple of XS Bench tests as well.  It's usually pretty consistent.


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 15, 2009)

I had my friend rge do some Super PI testing.  He has a Core i7-950 which has a default 23 multiplier and a 24 multiplier when turbo mode is enabled.  When C3/C6 is also enabled, he gets the multiplier cycling between 24 and 25 as shown in his screen shot above.  Here are his results:

Stock FSB with EIST/C1E on... C3,5,6 off
1M
12.724, 12.656, 12.674, 12.724, 12.677, 12.795

Stock FSB with EIST/C1E on and C3,5,6 on
1M
12.367, 12.468, 12.511, 12.370, 12.380, 12.439, 12.464

Not a huge boost in performance but definitely an improvement during his testing.

That tiny increase in performance explains why Intel has +4 bins of Turbo Boost available on their new i5-750 and their i7-860 and i7-870 both have 5 additional bins of Turbo Boost available when C3/C6 is enabled.  A user is more likely to notice a performance increase with that.

Multiplier .. Default --- Maximum
Core i7 920 .... 20 --- 22
Core i5 750 .... 20 --- 24
Core i7 860 .... 21 --- 26
Core i7 870 .... 22 --- 27


----------



## LocutusX (Oct 18, 2009)

Mussels said:


> another plus is that OCCT linpack is x64 - it tests all of the CPU, and all of the ram without leaving parts untested like the x86 ones do



but Prime95 has an x64 version too... thats what I use.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 19, 2009)

LocutusX said:


> but Prime95 has an x64 version too... thats what I use.



it does NOW, it never used to.


----------



## wakko709 (Oct 22, 2009)

*do you know if theres*

an amd version


----------



## Mussels (Oct 22, 2009)

wakko709 said:


> an amd version



there is not, and never will be.


----------



## andrewsmc (Oct 22, 2009)

My i7 920 is only showing 2 cores.... :\ Halp?


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 23, 2009)

Have you tried the latest version of RealTemp?

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip

Does the Task Manager show all of your cores?

Post some screen shots so I can have a look.


----------



## andrewsmc (Oct 23, 2009)

i will just a bit later today.


----------



## andrewsmc (Oct 23, 2009)

*Here.*

How on earth do i see my temp on the new realtemp? Am i just crazy and missing it?


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 23, 2009)

This isn't a RealTemp issue as CPU-Z is also only detecting 2 cores.  It shows 4 threads because you have hyper threading enabled but only 2 cores.  CPU-Z should be showing 4 cores and 8 threads.

Either your bios needs adjustment so that you can use all of your cores or you need to make an adjustment in Windows.  I think in Vista / Windows 7 you have to run something like msconfig and uncheck a box so it will find all of your cores.  If you have this set to a specific number it might not be able to use them all.  I'm on XP at the moment but time to go fire up my Vista machine.  I'll post a screen shot shortly of what I'm talking about.

Download the RealTemp version that I posted and use that.  It has a few extra features for the Core i7 CPUs.


----------



## andrewsmc (Oct 23, 2009)

I think i know the problem... Give me 5 brb.   Also.. I did d/l look at my previous post.. I added the pic.


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 23, 2009)

Here's an urban myth that screws up people's computers.  Someone said setting this will speed up your computer but all it does is limit the number of cores Windows can use.  Un-check the box and hopefully all your cores and threads will be available after a re-boot.


----------



## andrewsmc (Oct 23, 2009)

Wala... Fixed. I guess im an urban myth noob!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AH!


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 23, 2009)

You can send me all that money you saved because you didn't have to RMA your processor in search of your missing cores. 

Does RealTemp work now?  I hope so.


----------



## andrewsmc (Oct 23, 2009)

Yessir it does  ty sir.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 24, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/8532/urbanmyth.png
> 
> Here's an urban myth that screws up people's computers.  Someone said setting this will speed up your computer but all it does is limit the number of cores Windows can use.  Un-check the box and hopefully all your cores and threads will be available after a re-boot.



and its utterly ridiculous how many people STILL use that tweak, when the last time it did anything was like... XP SP0


----------



## andrewsmc (Oct 24, 2009)

sry m8... ima noob i guess.


----------



## LocutusX (Nov 1, 2009)

*BSOD on Win7 *

I regret to inform you that RealTemp 3.36 *may be* causing BSOD's on my system now, after doing an in-place upgrade from Vista x64 to Win7 x64.

Here's a summary of my issue:

- RealTemp is run on logon through Task Scheduler. As per the instructions posted either here or on Xtremesystems, a Task is set up in Task Scheduler to run the app with "highest privileges".

- After one logs in to Win7 (using an administrative account, etc.), does his usual stuff, blahblahblah, he suspends the computer through the Start Menu. The suspension goes through just fine.

- Whether it's 30 seconds later or 30 minutes later the computer is Resumed - either by moving mouse, pressing spacebar or hitting the power button, and the computer resumes normally.

- At the Win7 "enter your password" screen, either WAIT 20 seconds, or quickly log in and wait 20 seconds.

- STOP  0x000000f4 (0x0000000000000003, 0xfffffa8008b0ab30, 0xfffffa8008b0ae10, 0xfffff80002fd3240)!

- I spent some time debugging the minidump file in WinDbg but could not get it to point to the actual driver causing the issue.

- If I stop/close/kill RealTemp before the suspend/resume - the suspend/resume will work fine.
If I leave RealTemp running at time of suspend (actually Sleep) then I will always get a BSOD about 15-20 seconds after Resuming.

Any ideas?

NOTE: Before determining it was RealTemp causing the issue, I had looked at other devices on my system and tried disabling/removing them before going into Sleep. Like my USB WLAN NIC, etc. They had no effect.

Please don't say it's because I did an in-place upgrade.  This is the only thing that's not working.

*EDIT: Problem Solved. BSOD was due to Microsoft's crappy default AHCI driver which apparently doesn't play nice with Intel ICH10R south bridge in AHCI mode. After installing Intel Matrix Storage Manager drivers, the problem went away.* RealTemp was not the cause, although it's interesting that the problem only showed itself while RealTemp was running.


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 1, 2009)

I think it's because you did an in-place upgrade. 

People have been using the betas and RC candidates of Windows 7 for months now and I've been using Windows 7 x64 and not once have I had a BSOD.  Stand by or hibernate mode work fine on my computer.

There haven't been any significant changes but here's RealTemp 3.39
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip 

RealTemp uses the WinRing0 driver which was not developed by me.  If there is a problem with this driver then it's out of my hands.

Is your computer 100% stable without any issues while running Prime 95 or LinX?  I'll definitely look into this some more but if the WinRing0 driver has been working for months just fine on Vista x64 systems, I don't think it's the cause of your BSODs.  Even if it was a bad driver, it shouldn't take down your whole system unless something else is wrong.

Disable C3/C6 to make sure the extra multiplier boost isn't contributing to your problems.

Edit: Here's how my Windows 7 x64 looks after going into and coming out of Stand By mode:







Windows 7 finally releases some of the libraries that RealTemp initially opens up so RealTemp takes up less memory space after going into and coming out of Stand By mode but other than that, it seems to work fine.  If anyone else is having a BSOD issue then let me know.


----------



## LocutusX (Nov 1, 2009)

Maybe the WinRing0 driver has been updated since the version which you put into the package?

Is it open source?


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 1, 2009)

WinRing0 is open source.  

http://openlibsys.org/

The last update was May 27th and that's the version that RealTemp is using.

There have been 500,000+ downloads of RealTemp during the last 9 months and 1 complaint about a BSOD.  It's certainly possible that RealTemp or the WinRing0 driver is the problem but the odds aren't really on your side.

There are some very demanding computer enthusiasts on XtremeSystems.  If there was a problem, I would have heard about it months ago.  Have you tried doing any stability testing on your computer?  Turn off RealTemp and you can monitor your temperatures with Core Temp so you can isolate the problem.


----------



## LocutusX (Nov 2, 2009)

I agree with your assessment that it's unlikely that the combination of RealTemp + Windows 7 = BSOD. Logically, that's difficult to justify.

There are 2 possibilities IMO:

- another driver is interacting poorly with RealTemp, thus causing a BSOD if RealTemp is running during the Sleep/Resume

- it's all because of the "in-place upgrade". _and here we thought MS had finally perfected the OS upgrade process_ 


Edit: Is "Hybrid Sleep" working fine on your i7-920 machine? While poking around, that's something else I noticed. Hybrid Sleep being enabled prevents me from Sleeping at all; regardless of whether RealTemp is running or not. This is turning more into a general S3/Hibernate issue...


----------



## SuperJoker (Nov 2, 2009)

I don't have Win7(yet), But except for an AMD powered Media Center PC(XP Pro), I don't use sleep for the other two PCs I have here at all(XP x64), So I don't have a problem, Maybe just turning the PC off would be better as It saves more power than just putting a PC to sleep. Good Luck.


----------



## Krout (Nov 2, 2009)

I have Win 7 Ultimate final build and I did in-place update over Vista first.  Regarding RT it worked fine.  Going to sleep and coming out.  It even showed the GPU temp, which it did not in RC.  Than I wiped everything off and did a clean install.  Real temp still works fine - no BSOD, no anything else.  It's just my two cents.
I am using RT3.38

On the other note...SuperJoker. 
If you use Media Center and share the media, the chances are that this is what prevents your PC from going to sleep


----------



## SuperJoker (Nov 2, 2009)

Krout said:


> I have Win 7 Ultimate final build and I did in-place update over Vista first.  Regarding RT it worked fine.  Going to sleep and coming out.  It even showed the GPU temp, which it did not in RC.  Than I wiped everything off and did a clean install.  Real temp still works fine - no BSOD, no anything else.  It's just my two cents.
> I am using RT3.38
> 
> On the other note...SuperJoker.
> If you use Media Center and share the media, the chances are that this is what prevents your PC from going to sleep



From going to sleep? Maybe I wasn't clear, The PC goes to sleep just fine, The PC is an *AMD HP Pavilion media center m7470n PC* and It has a crappy/flaky 300w psu, I've had the PC lock/freeze on Me while watching TV, Just to wake the PC the HP should respond to the remote control, It doesn't most of the time lately(last two weeks or so), So to get the PC to work again I have to pull the plug from the power strip and then plug the power cable back into the strip, So I'm replacing the HP 300w psu with a Corsair 850w psu(It'll fit, plenty of room in there), Oh and I don't share any media. It uses a usb wireless connection to the router(54G, 108G capable) and It's fully encrypted(WPA2-PSK-AES) that replaced a pci 56k modem card(Dialup type), But then this PC was donated to Me, Windows 7 is in Its future, Just not yet. Plus anything not being used is disabled in the Bios so as to not use any power.


----------



## LocutusX (Nov 2, 2009)

*Good news!*

I was able to solve the problem.

First of all... I'm a bit silly. Since this issue did not happen to me during my Vista x64 SP2 install (on the exact same machine) I should have looked at what changed between the two installs (since Vista and Win7 are 95% the same under-the-hood). 
Because in fact, I DID change something... Vista was running in legacy IDE mode... for my Win7 install I decided to "upgrade" to AHCI. Yeah, some _upgrade_!

Anyways I installed the Intel Matrix Storage manager - the "official" driver for AHCI on Intel Chipset mobos... and now I can resume from sleep/suspend *while RealTemp is running* without any problems. Hooray for Intel drivers, down with Microsoft drivers! 

Can you tell I'm really happy? Because I had half-a-mind to redo a CLEAN install of Win7 just so I could try getting RealTemp to work... yeah, I love your app THAT much!
Now I can carry on with my life and not waste a week re-installing Windows


----------



## HTC (Nov 13, 2009)

*Hi there!*

I had a lapped E6850 (don't have it anymore) with a Noctua NH-C12P cooler and @ 8*375, i had this temp:






And here is pic i have of my current lapped E8400 with a *lapped* Noctua NH-C12P cooler, with which i have these temps:







As you can see, the 1st pic was taken mid March while the other was taken today and there are ambient temp differences to take into consideration (was much colder back in March, as can be seen by the HDD temp). I've since changed motherboard and RAM and added an HDD but i tried to put the same BIOS settings as much as i recall them.

In this pic, the E6850 is @ 17º min but i saw it with as little as 15º and, @ that time, the cooler wasn't lapped.

With this E8400, even with an underclock (@ 9 * 225) it only get's 36º min temp (min temp on core 1 is 39: sensor is stuck).

In the E8400 pic, if you look @ the HDDs temp and @ the core's temp, there's quite a bit of difference: doesn't this suggest this CPU's TJ Max is set too high?


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 13, 2009)

With 45nm Core 2 CPUs, it's likely that both of your sensors are stuck.  Intel says you shouldn't trust them when they go below 50C.

At your default MHz and core voltage settings, run the CPU Cool Down Test and post your results.  It is the best way to so see the point where your sensors stick.  The 65nm temperature sensors were much more accurate at lower temperatures than these newer sensors are.

RealTemp and any monitoring software is only as good as the sensors that it's reading.

Here's my E8400 at a similar MHz.  Not a lot of difference.






CPU-Z shows my core voltage at 1.384, room temperature is about 19C and my computer case is open.

I also have a Samsung HD753LJ and HD Tune shows it at 23C.






I don't know how accurate the sensors on your E6850 were.  It's difficult to make a fair comparison between two different CPUs at two different times at two different room temperatures.  If you still had both CPUs you could swap back and forth and do a better comparison.  My E8400 probably reads a couple of degrees too hot at idle but at full load, it seems to be very accurate.  None of these sensors are 100% accurate at idle but at full load your E8400 is likely very accurate just like my E8400 is.  TJMax may not be exactly 100C but I bet it's pretty close.  At idle you have slope error where the sensors tend to change at a different rate than the actual temperature does.  Intel says this is about +/- 10% which can become significant when you are 70C from the calibration point.


----------



## HTC (Nov 13, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> With 45nm Core 2 CPUs, it's likely that both of your sensors are stuck.  Intel says you shouldn't trust them when they go below 50C.
> 
> At your default MHz and core voltage settings, run the CPU Cool Down Test and post your results.  It is the best way to so see the point where your sensors stick.  The 65nm temperature sensors were much more accurate at lower temperatures than these newer sensors are.
> 
> ...



Here's a pic:






Case is also open but i can't tell about ambient temp because i don't have a thermometer in the house ...

Please note that, using Intel Burntest @ 8 * 375, i get higher temp in core 0 then you do with it @ 8 * 500.

With it @ 4 GHz and a tad bit more Vcore (when compared to your 8 * 500), i get to 73º on both cores:


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 14, 2009)

73C sounds familiar.  

Here's my E8400 running LinX and that's only second round action.
http://www.youwatched.com/datajay/linx(0.64).7z






Lots of core voltage equals lots of heat.  I have no doubt that the temperature RealTemp is reporting is very accurate at that level.  I'd probably need to turn up my CPU fan to continue to be stable.  This temperature or less is usually the tipping point for long term stability.  Full load core voltage is 1.400 in CPU-Z.






With the help of some pencil lead, this board has reverse voltage droop at full load.  Instead of the voltage going down, it goes up a little bit. 
That's just the way I like it.


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 14, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> 73C sounds familiar.
> 
> Here's my E8400 running LinX and that's only second round action.
> http://www.youwatched.com/datajay/linx(0.64).7z
> ...



jesus man your baking that chip haha..now i have a question doing sensor tests etc have you noticed if high heat and voltage (breaking in) really help ocing at all? or is breaking in more a thing of the past?


----------



## HTC (Nov 14, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> 73C sounds familiar.
> 
> Here's my E8400 running LinX and that's only second round action.
> http://www.youwatched.com/datajay/linx(0.64).7z
> ...



Ouch: that temp is even worse ...

In this case and if i understand you correctly, you don't have your CPU fan @ 100%, right? In my case, for a fan that's supposed to be @ 1300 RPM, mine's a very small tad bit over 100%.

If the case is closed, the 25cm side fan causes the CPU fan to be @ over 1400 RPM, though the temps stay the same, as far as i can tell.

I have 1.41875 in BIOS Vcore: Vdroop is very small, atm.


----------



## burebista (Nov 14, 2009)

*HTC* don't bother with idle temps for 45nm CPU's. They're off. This is my example.
I've tried Ninja fanless, Ninja with fan and now I have Noctua NH-U12P (tried fanless and with fan). Whatever heatsink with/without fan I use and doesn't matter if I have my E8400 underclocked at 1.6GHz and 0.9xx Vcore or 3GHz and 1.1xxV Vcore at 22-23°C room temperature I have same 38-40°C on cores so long time ago I give up, I don't bother with idle temps, I don't bother with TJMax value, all I watch is that _distance to TJMax_ to be greater than 20 for daily use. That's it, no more headaches from temps.


----------



## HTC (Nov 14, 2009)

burebista said:


> *HTC* don't bother with idle temps for 45nm CPU's. They're off. This is my example.
> I've tried Ninja fanless, Ninja with fan and now I have Noctua NH-U12P (tried fanless and with fan). Whatever heatsink with/without fan I use and doesn't matter if I have my E8400 underclocked at 1.6GHz and 0.9xx Vcore or 3GHz and 1.1xxV Vcore at 22-23°C room temperature I have same 38-40°C on cores so long time ago I give up, I don't bother with idle temps, I don't bother with TJMax value, all I watch is that _distance to TJMax_ to be greater than 20 for daily use. That's it, no more headaches from temps.



You have it even worse then me: mine actually lowers to 36º, but i do have it @ 6 * 225 (1350 MHz) in idle and 9 * 225 (2025 MHz) under load.

The problem is not the idle temps: it's the load temps.

You do have a point though and i have tried it myself (put TJ Max @ 85, for testing).

If you assume temps are correct, 73º under Intel Burntest @ 4 GHz does seem like a lot but if TJ Max, for this particular CPU, is indeed off by ... say ... 15º, then the actual temp would be 58º which is much more reasonable.


----------



## burebista (Nov 14, 2009)

HTC said:


> [...] 73º under Intel Burntest @ 4 GHz does seem like a lot[...]


May I be honest with you? 73°C at 4GHz and 1.4xxV Vcore under Linpack looks perfect fine to me. You still have 27 remaining distance to TJMax which is perfect safe for daily use but also keep in mind that Linpack is a useless test for daily use because you'll never-ever see something that it will heat-upyour CPU as Linpack does.

If you want to simulate daily use (gaming/encoding/rendering/whatever) try prime95 Small FFTs.
For me that prime95 test matches my gaming/DVD-ripping CPU temperatures (in fact even prime95 is a little bit high compared with what I see during gaming/ripping).

Peoples care too much about Intel CPU temps. Don't worry for them, they'll protect themselves when it will be necessary. Remember, throttle is initiated by distance to TJMax <2 or thermal shutdown when distance to TJMax is -25. 
At least for mobile chips because I see a quad which happily passed LinX at 136°C.


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 14, 2009)

Burebista is 100% correct.  Intel processors are very well designed and there's no need to worry about the core temperature as long as your computer is running stable.

HTC: TJMax is definitely not off on my chip.  My reported core temperatures on this CPU are accurate to +/- 1C when these sensors are in the range of 70C to 100C and I'd be very surprised if your sensors weren't just as accurate.  Most of the problems with the sensors are at idle but when the temperature gets up into this range, they are very accurate.

I have a Tuniq Tower which isn't a top rated heatsink anymore.  I also have the fan on the lowest setting because I hate noise so that's why it was easy to get the cores up to 76C in a hurry.

The bottom line is that if you run a 45nm Core 2 Duo at 4GHz and you need 1.40 volts to be stable, you're going to need a top rated cooler and some good airflow through that cooler to keep the core temperature at a reasonable level so you will be able to maintain stability.

If you go for a more modest overclock like 3600 MHz, I found that my CPU is stable enough that it can run at full load for hours even with the heatsink fan turned off.  Does the core temperature get hot?  Of course it does.  During my test it was bouncing off the thermal throttle for 3 hours straight while continuing to run Prime95 Small FFTs just fine.






This exact same CPU is capable of running reliably at 4GHz but it's not capable of running at full speed and at full temperature.  The only way to run at that speed reliably is if I keep the core temperature at a more reasonable level like 70C.

The exact temperature number is completely unimportant.  The only thing that is important is that whatever overclock you choose, you're able to run at full load for an extended period of time without losing stability.  If your core temperature is too hot, Prime95 will either return an error or my motherboard / CPU would typically reboot when pushed too hard.  Ignore the temperature number because it's just a number and concentrate on stability.  As long as your computer is stable, the exact temperature your CPU is running at is not important.  The cooler you can run your CPU the better because it will give you more overclocking headroom but other than that, no need to be overly concerned about your core temperature.


----------



## HTC (Nov 14, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> Burebista is 100% correct.  Intel processors are very well designed and there's no need to worry about the core temperature as long as your computer is running stable.
> 
> HTC: TJMax is definitely not off on my chip.  My reported core temperatures on this CPU are accurate to +/- 1C when these sensors are in the range of 70C to 100C and I'd be very surprised if your sensors weren't just as accurate.  Most of the problems with the sensors are at idle but when the temperature gets up into this range, they are very accurate.
> 
> ...



My purpose is to have the big OC when i have loads of encoding to do and to have a big underclock when not. For that, i have to make sure it's rock stable which it isn't, yet, because Burntest fails: Memtest passes so i think 's the CPU but i haven't figured out exactly what the prob is.

If i can't figure out the prob @ 4 GHz, i'll have to settle for a lower OC, but i sure would like it @ 4 GHz: i'm still trying to troubleshoot.

Many thanks to both you and Burebista


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 14, 2009)

If your CPU needs 1.40 volts to be stable at 4GHz then you are going to need better cooling to run IBT or LinX at that speed and voltage.  You are reaching the thermal limit of your CPU.

I find Prime95 Small FFTs is a little more practical test.  If IBT is causing core temperatures 10C or 15C hotter than what you normally see during encoding then you might be 100% stable when encoding at 4 GHz.  It's mostly the excessive temperature that is causing the problem.  Even Prime Small FFTs is excessive compared to most loads.  When encoding at 4GHz, what core temperature are you hitting?

If you really, really need to be IBT stable then you might have to settle for 3.9GHz or 3.8GHz.  At 3.8 GHz it is only going to take you an extra 3 minutes maximum per hour when encoding.  That's not a huge difference.


----------



## burebista (Nov 14, 2009)

And as a supplement at Kevin's advices I can say that I'm not comfortable running an E8400 at 1.4xxV for extended periods of time. Over time you'll probably see a CPU degradation because electro-migration and I guess for 100-200MHz is not worth it.
But I admit that I'm a conservative person.


----------



## HTC (Nov 15, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> *If your CPU needs 1.40 volts to be stable at 4GHz then you are going to need better cooling to run IBT or LinX at that speed and voltage.  You are reaching the thermal limit of your CPU.*
> 
> I find Prime95 Small FFTs is a little more practical test.  If IBT is causing core temperatures 10C or 15C hotter than what you normally see during encoding then you might be 100% stable when encoding at 4 GHz.  It's mostly the excessive temperature that is causing the problem.  Even Prime Small FFTs is excessive compared to most loads.  *When encoding at 4GHz, what core temperature are you hitting?*
> 
> If you really, really need to be IBT stable then you might have to settle for 3.9GHz or 3.8GHz.  At 3.8 GHz it is only going to take you an extra 3 minutes maximum per hour when encoding.  That's not a huge difference.



Not sure the voltage is the prob. Since about 1.39 Vcore in BIOS, it doesn't crash but fails Burntest. I think it might be CPU PLL voltage which is @ 1.52 in BIOS but is @ about 1.62 real (board overvolts this): as i said, i'm still trying to figure out the prob.

Haven't even started encoding @ 4 GHz ... want to have it rock stable first.


----------



## somebody (Nov 15, 2009)

burebista said:


> Peoples care too much about Intel CPU temps. Don't worry for them, they'll protect themselves when it will be necessary. Remember, throttle is initiated by distance to TJMax <2 or thermal shutdown when distance to TJMax is -25.
> At least for mobile chips because I see a quad which happily passed LinX at 136°C.



An amazing feat to hit 136C. 

As far as throttling, IIRC it is possible to disable thermal monitoring via a single bit in a MSR so that no throttling will occur at TCC (Tjmax). The BIOS is supposed to enable it but I wonder if some of them actually don't.

I also vaguely remember something about where the cpu tries to turn itself off at the thermal trip temperature (125C+) but due to thermal runaway the transitors stay on so it relies on the thermtrip signal telling the voltage regulator to shut down. Never had the luxury of testing any of this though  

I think the thermal status in RT is a really good idea but most people probably don't really understand what it's telling them.


----------



## ikjadoon (Nov 17, 2009)

Hi! 

I have a Dell Studio XPS 1645 with the i7-720QM. Thanks for such an awesome program: Core Temp was causing my system to explode for some reason: me thinks it isn't fully compatible with the Calpella platform.

SO. Big question:

What is the C0 State Percent? Is this like load? And it should match up with Task Manager?

Your "Turo Mode Disable" button works perfectly. Up to 60% performance increase in single-core mode and 50%ish with dual-core if it is UNCHECKED. 

Is there like a Readme for the i7 Turbo 6.95 application? I don't understand the alpha table under Calculated Mutliplier nor what the load filter is. The one on the XS website only deals with the Real Temp application, not the Turbo one. 

Thanks,

~Ibrahim~

P.S. I'm willing to run tests or whatever if you need me to.


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 17, 2009)

ikjadoon said:


> I have a Dell Studio XPS 1645 with the i7-720QM.



I've been dreaming about one of them.  

I'm glad to hear RealTemp seems to be working on your new laptop.

Here's where the latest beta is:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip

Hopefully within a day or two, RealTemp will be able to also monitor most modern ATI GPUs so if you have an ATI HD 4670 in your laptop, RealTemp should be able to monitor that too.

The C0 state is when your CPU is doing some work.  This can get a little screwy looking on a Core 2 mobile CPU with cores going to sleep at idle but on the Core i7 Desktops, it's very accurate.  I'm not sure what it will show on your Core i7 mobile.  As cores go to sleep I think the percentage of time that a CPU will spend in the C0 state will start to go up at idle.  As the CPU slows down, a core has to spend more time in the active state and work harder to get all the background processes taken care of.  Keep that in mind when comparing this number to the Task Manager load meter.

For laptop users, I included an option called TM Load which will use a Task Manager based load meter instead of the C0% based load meter.  Use whatever one tells you what you want to know.  You could even run two instances of RealTemp side by side and enable that option on one version and compare the two.

i7 Turbo allows you to look at the multiplier on each thread of your CPU.  When cores start going to sleep at idle, their average multiplier might start to drop down.  When running a single threaded activity, you should see the multiplier on the hardest working core at the highest value.

The multiplier on these new CPUs can be cycling hundreds of times a second depending on load so i7 Turbo and RealTemp give you a more accurate look at what's really going on inside your CPU.  For your new laptop, I think the information provided will be second to none.  

Under the Calculated Multiplier is the standard deviation of the individual multipliers.  If all multipliers are reporting the same then the standard deviation will be close to zero.

Data only gets recorded in the Min/Max boxes when the Load or C0% is greater than the value you set in the Load Filter.  This allows you to do some testing at different percentages of load.  You could set the filter to 75%, click on Reset Min/Max and then the only time data will enter the Min/Max boxes is when the average C0% is greater than or equal to 75%.  The greater the load, the more cores that will need to be in the active state and on these new CPUs, the less the average multiplier will be. 

Post some screen shots, ask a few questions and I will explain what I see.

Here's the i7 Turbo thread on XS
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=225450

and here's a thread on TPU
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=95282

There hasn't been a lot of interest in this tool but I like it.

If you compare the two tables in i7 Turbo, you can see what core or thread is working the hardest and what multiplier it is using.  It's interesting when you run something like a single instance of SuperPI.  

Try that for a test and take a screen shot about half way through a bench mark and post your results.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 17, 2009)

sweet, ATI GPU support? i like


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 17, 2009)

Ray Adams of ATI Tray Tools pointed me in the right direction to where AMD / ATI hides their docs and this is the result.







It shouldn't be too hard to integrate the code I wrote tonight when testing back into RealTemp.

This code should handle the 4000 and 5000 series and who knows, maybe the 3000 series too.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 17, 2009)

sweet 

now just make it work as a windows 7 gadget


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 17, 2009)

Bad news.  The ATI function that I am using seems to be so inefficient that reading the GPU temperature on a regular basis using this method interferes with 3D performance.  During 3D Mark you instantly notice how jerky the screen movement is due to reading the temperatures.  This doesn't happen on Nvidia hardware.  Very disappointing.


----------



## ikjadoon (Nov 17, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> I've been dreaming about one of them.
> 
> I'm glad to hear RealTemp seems to be working on your new laptop.
> 
> ...



Sweetness. Thank you the highly detailed reply. I won't be able to sift through and get a post back here until the weekend, but, darn, am I anxious! 

~Ibrahim~


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 17, 2009)

These new CPUs look like a lot of fun.  I think they should have a default multiplier of 12, a minimum multiplier of 7 and when running a single threaded app like Super PI, it should be able to cycle up as high as 21 on the core / thread doing the work.  

RealTemp won't likely ever report the full 21 because during any 1 second sampling interval, other cores get woken up out of the C3/C6 state and become active which instantly drops your maximum multiplier.  That's why Intel recommends that software should report the average multiplier because it can be changing so rapidly that sampling it once per second the way most software continues to do it, is often times misleading.

I'm looking forward to learning more about these CPUs as well.

I wrote a small testing program that will show you the maximum multiplier based on how many cores are active.  The number shown by this program is in hexadecimal and you should see 4 numbers in groups of 2 each.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/MSR1AD.zip

The number on one end should be 15 hex which when converted to decimal is a maximum multiplier of 21 when a single core is active.  This tool will show you what maximums you're allowed when 2, 3 or 4 cores are active.

Edit: I finally found the Intel documentation.  The maximum multiplier when 4, 3, 2 or 1 core is active on a Core i7-720QM is 13, 13, 18 and 21

My tool that displays this info in hexadecimal should show something like 0D 0D 12 15


----------



## burebista (Nov 21, 2009)

OK, here is RealTemp for ATI guys. Please test it and report back any issues found.
Some words from Kevin


			
				Kevin said:
			
		

> I added ATI GPU temperatures to RealTemp but I think it will only work on the 4000 and 5000 series. The 3000 series is a maybe.
> 
> To try to get around the very slow ATI SDK temperature reading subroutine, I included a few options for the ATI guys.
> 
> ...


He has a strange stuttering problem when polling temperature sensors so that's why he need some feedback. On his 5750 thing doesn't look good. 


			
				Kevin said:
			
		

> Lots of options for users to choose from. Maybe on some ATI GPUs, reading temperatures won't be such a heavy work load like it was on my 5750. I doubt ATI will ever fix this issue. When it takes ATI 4000 times longer to read a sensor than it takes Intel to read a sensor, you know that's a pretty serious problem with little chance of a proper fix.
> 
> If a person is doing some benching and accurate temperatures are more important than smooth frame rates then you can go crazy and try using a 1 second Read Sensor Interval.


----------



## burebista (Nov 23, 2009)

WOW! Plenty of feedback. :shadedshu
New version.


----------



## ikjadoon (Nov 26, 2009)

All righty.  





So I ran SuperPi 1.5 (XS Mod). In the beginning, it's affinity was set to all processors. As you can see from Task Manager, I set it to Core 0 about half-way in. But, look at the C0 percent. Even though the core is being taxed 100%, the C0 state is about 100% as well. RT on the left is using TM Load, RT on the right is using the standard C0-calculated load. 

I still don't understand what exactly the difference is between the C0 % and load %. Sometimes they are the same (like in that screen shot above). Core 0 (in Task Manager) is 100% and C0 state percent for Core 0 in i7 Turbo.exe is 98.77%. Of course, the loads in both RealTemp.exe's are averages of all the cores, so I can see those being different.

Oh, quick question that some of us XPS 1645 users are wondering about. Have you ever heard of a laptop being *faster* when it's on battery? I get about 5K in 3DMark '06 with it plugged in and 7.2K with the battery with battery/plugged-in profiles identical. 

Does this explanation sound plausible? All that follows is one big guess:

 When it's plugged in, it only draws power from the adapter. The adapter is 90W. The i7-720QM has a TDP of 45W and the 4670 has a TDP of 35W, so when they are both fully stressed, they consume about 80W of power, leaving 10W for everything else: screen, hard drive, motherboard, memory, etc. When it's on battery, the CPU can take up all the power it wants, fully draining the battery. But when it's plugged in, it doesn't get enough power from the adapter and underclocks itself. Can CPUs do that? Can they underclock when they don't have enough power? I was under the impression that they can only underclock when they reach a certain temperature. 

We're working with Dell now to get it fixed, but nothing has come up yet.

Thanks again! 

~Ibrahim~

P.S. That program works perfectly!


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 26, 2009)

The MSR program shows that your maximum multipliers are 13, 13, 18 and 21 when 4, 3, 2 and 1 core are active.

By the looks of your screen shot while bench testing, the 21X multiplier is more theoretical than what you're actually averaging.  It is spending very little time at 21 and most of the time at 18.0 +/- 0.2.  If you can reduce the number of open items and background tasks you might be able to get that up a little higher.

During a SuperPI run, does the multiplier reported by RealTemp stay fairly close to 18?  If it is fairly consistent can you take a screen shot of RealTemp and CPU-Z with Super PI about half way through a calculation.  Some users get better results by letting the CPU manage what core to run SuperPI on.  You could compare your SuperPI times with and without using Task Manager to limit it to a single core.  A little longer test like 4M might give you more repeatable results.

Here's an updated version of RealTemp that should read your ATI graphics card now, maybe.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip

I haven't tried it yet on a mobile video card but they should still have temperature sensors that are readable.

Explaining C0% is complicated since I haven't run my programs on a mobile Core i7 to see how it responds.  Send me a screen shot at idle of i7 Turbo and Task Manager and 2 versions of RealTemp with the two different load meters and I'll see if I can make sense of it all.  At full load, CO% should be the same as a traditional load meter but at idle when cores go to sleep, it's a little different.

What RealTemp reports for your multiplier is the multiplier on your hardest working core or thread.  In my opinion, this best represents how hard your computer is working.  I found that reporting the average multiplier like i7 Turbo does at the top doesn't always provide a meaningful look at things.  Showing an average when 7 of the 8 threads are spending a large percentage of time asleep didn't look very useful to me.  I thought that I might as well show the main thread that your program is running on because your computer's performance is going to be based on what that active core or thread is up to.

The two versions of RealTemp are showing 17.9 and 18.2 and the hardest working thread (highest C0%) in i7 Turbo is showing 17.786.  There are always going to be slight differences since the multiplier is changing so rapidly.  Each 1 second sampling interval overlaps the other so they'll rarely be exact but they also shouldn't be all over the place either.  Your results look fairly close.

Graphic processors, GPUs, have their own power saving features.  With such a huge difference in performance I'm thinking that it is your GPU that is having problems.  I think many ATI GPUs have 3 or 4 different levels of performance.  It looks like yours might be getting stuck and not getting up to the highest level when plugged in.  It seems to be working the opposite of how it should.  A free program like RivaTuner can graph the speed of your GPU while 3DMark is running so you can go back and see if it is using its highest rated speed.  The program GPU-Z is simpler and should also be adequate to monitor for this.  It has logging features as well.

I'd also run 3DMark06 on batteries and plugged in and run an i7 Turbo log file of each while testing.  This should show you if the CPU is powering up or being held back.  It will be easy to go through the log file with Excel and see exactly what multiplier and MHz your CPU was running at during each benchmark.  I'm betting on an ATI GPU problem and not the Intel CPU.

When you have the time, post some more pics and I'll tell you some more stuff.


----------



## somebody (Nov 26, 2009)

ikjadoon said:


> Can they underclock when they don't have enough power?


More likely to crash / shutdown. 

Sounds like the BIOS is working back to front. It's not unusual to have teething problems with new products, in this case the mobile i7. Manufacturers are probably trying to get their new products on the line as quick as possible to get good sales, especially if there are groups that have been waiting for the release of the new CPU. 

The adapter power sounds a bit on the low side but as far as maxing the CPU & GPU, both at the same time, I would think it's unlikely. You might run into trouble OC'ing though. 

Hopefully there will be a BIOS update soon to solve your problems.


----------



## ikjadoon (Nov 26, 2009)

I think I hit 21x once, but not for very long, lol.  I shut down most programs, but it only peaked to 21x a few times, but more than usual.

I have a quick question. I disabled C1E, EIST, and Turbo Mode in i7Turbo.exe and also turned off SpeedStep in the BIOS. I have set my minimum and maximum processor speed to 100%, as well. But, for some reason, my CPU is now stuck at the 7x multiplier when the default is 12x. 12 x 133MHz = 1600MHz, which is the stock speed. But now it's continuously running at 7x (933MHz). And it won't budge from there, no matter what I do (Prime95, browsing, etc.)

Is this normal and if so, what can I do to force it to stay at 12x all the time?

I think I finally get C0 and load. Load is how much "work" the OS is asking the CPU to do; C0 is how much of the core is active. C0 changes to work with the load, right?


----------



## ste2425 (Nov 26, 2009)

is there any way option to make this like a gadjet in vista? sorry if its already been asked


----------



## burebista (Nov 26, 2009)

If you're a RivaTuner user you can do it with this.
 You can end up with something like this:


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 26, 2009)

To force 12X I think you would need to enable EIST / Speedstep, disable C1E and disable Turbo mode either in the bios or using RealTemp.  EIST usually needs to be enabled for some of the other things to work correctly.  Once you disable EIST using i7 Turbo if it lets you, I'm not sure what the results will be when you try enable it again.  You might have to re-boot first.  My motherboard has this option locked so it doesn't give me the ability to toggle it from within Windows.


----------



## ikjadoon (Nov 27, 2009)

Hmm...I still could not get it to lock at 12x, but I made an amazing discovery, thanks to you. Turning EIST *off* let me finally get the 13x multiplier on 4C full load. Previously, this would only go to 12x, but the Intel documentation says I should get 13x. 

Turning EIST off in Real Temp let me do this, but turning EIST off in the BIOS really messed things up: sometimes it would max out at 11x, sometimes it would be stuck at 7x. I just left it on.

All right guys, riddle me this:

If I turn my brightness up to 100% (with EIST off and plugged into the adapter), I can reach 13x:





But, if I turn my brightness down (with EIST off and plugged into the adapter), I drop back down to 12x:





Confused? So am I. We did some research and this is the only i7 laptop that does not come with a 120W+ adapter. Oh, Dell.

Sorry to hijack the thread: I was wondering, why does my CPU reach 100% C0 state at the 12x multi but only 54% C0 state at the 13x multi? Anything you can read from that into solving the mystery?


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 27, 2009)

ikjadoon: Interesting findings.  You should try to confirm your findings and include CPU-Z and Task Manager in the screen shot to see what happens to the actual load.  Throw RealTemp in there as well then no one can complain that you're off topic.

I developed i7 Turbo so I could better understand how the multipliers work in these CPUs and then that information was transferred back into RealTemp so the two are related.  What I learn from one goes into the other.  Reading the Intel documentation only tells part of the story and relying on other tools like CPU-Z also only tells part of the story.  Following the method discussed in the Intel Turbo White Paper seems to show a little more of the story.

It almost seems like the bios has a feature built into it that your turbo boost feature gets automatically disabled when you turn the brightness down.  It must think you're trying to save power so it helps you out a little more.

I'm not sure if your bios has direct access to turning C3/C6 on and off but that also controls your turbo multiplier.

There is a program called Hyper PI which is basically a fancy front end for Super PI.  What it does is it allows you to run multiple instances of Super PI at the same time.  If you run 8 threads of Super PI using that, your times should indicate the actual performance level your computer is working at.  I'd use the 4M or 8M test for a little less variability.

Edit: There is the ability to throttle these CPUs back internally which will show up as a reduced C0% but the Task Manager load meter will continue to show a 100% load.  The C0% at full load is more like what's really going on inside the CPU.  If you are running a benchmark like 8 threads of Super PI, it should be easy to see the difference in performance when your C0% is only in the low 50% range.

To understand this better you can use the Clock Modulation feature of RealTemp.  With Prime95 running and your C0% state reporting 100%, go into the Settings window of RealTemp and set the Clock Modulation feature to 50% and click on Apply.  The Task Manager will continue to report 100% while Prime95 is running on all 8 threads but the C0% will drop down to approximately 55% showing that internally, the CPU is not working nearly as hard as the Task Manager would make you believe.  You should also see an immediate drop in core temperature which confirms that the CPU is taking it easy.  Have fun testing and post some more results.  

Edit #2: As far as I remember, RealTemp only lets you observe the EIST bit but it is grayed out so you can not toggle it on and off.  i7 Turbo has to be used to toggle it.  Should I include this option in RealTemp since you have obviously found a use for this feature?  My motherboard doesn't support toggling this bit so I wasn't sure if I should include this feature or not and it can be dangerous as you found out that suddenly your CPU won't be allowed to use its higher multipliers and it can get stuck at a low value.


----------



## ikjadoon (Nov 27, 2009)

Well, I found out it's not as repeatable as I wished. Sometimes, I could never get it to reach 13x, even if I did the exact same things I did. And sometimes, for no reason, the 8th core would get scared and wouldn't actually be put under any load even though SuperPI was running on it:





Here is a picture of the clock modulation which worked perfectly (and look at the difference between CPU-Z's 7x multi and i7 Turbos' 13x)





And you were right about it not actually running at 13x. I had a great screenshot where i7 Turbo was reading 13x multipliers constant, but CPU-Z was bouncing from 5x to 12x. I want to say that's a bug in i7 Turbo, seeing as the C0 state was around 50s like my screen shot above. But I stupidly overwrote that screenshot. I could never get it back to 13x, so I just took another one where i7 Turbo and CPU-Z disagreed. And it wasn't a split-second thing: i7 read 12x constant, CPU-Z read 11x constant. 





Sometimes the 8th core's C0 percent (and TM load for that matter) would never go up, as in the first screen shot. But for about 1/3 of all the tests, Cores 0 and 1 showed 100% TM load, but about 90% C0.

Well, I'm toggling EIST in i7 Turbo. I'm not sure if it s a good idea to put it in because, as of now, it seems to be a bad thing as it forces the CPUs to downclock (in CPU-Z; though they read 13x in Turbo, but C0 state is pretty low).

~Ibrahim~


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 27, 2009)

A 5X multiplier is not physically possible on a Core i7-720QM.  The Intel Clock Modulation feature has been known to badly confuse CPU-Z.  

When it sees that the CPU has slowed down internally, it wrongly assumes that the multiplier must have changed.  Set Clock Modulation to 12.5% and see how low you can get that multiplier.  Then ask Intel if that's possible.  It's not.

I'm not sure what method CPU-Z uses to determine the multiplier on your CPU.  i7 Turbo and RealTemp read the high performance system timers and use the method recommended by Intel.  You'll have to decide which one you believe more.

In your second screen shot it is definitely using the 13X multiplier.  The Clock Modulation has CPU-Z thinking that you are only using a 7X multiplier.

The third screen shot doesn't make much sense either.  This CPU is rated at 1.60 GHz which means its default multiplier at full load without any turbo boost on is 12.  RealTemp and i7 Turbo correctly reports that.  CPU-Z reports 11 which is wrong.

I'm not sure why your last thread sags down sometimes and wasn't pulling its own weight.  You might have to try another benchmarking program like wPrime that can utilize all 8 threads or perhaps Cinebench.

http://www.maxon.net/downloads.html

Edit: Here's the Intel documentation for Clock Modulation and what it does.  It definitely doesn't change the multiplier of the CPU.  I wouldn't trust any software that reports that.

Volume 3A - 13.8
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/manuals/


----------



## ikjadoon (Nov 27, 2009)

Huh...well, that makes sense. Useless CPU-Z application: I mean, with the wealth of information you can know about a CPU's clock, FSB/QPI, and multiplier, why only settle for the three boxes they have there? 

So, I tried wPrime. It stressed out all the cores (woohoo!) but no matter what I do, I cannot get the 13x multiplier again. Maybe it's a software thing: too many running? I don't know.

We had a guy finally get a 130W adapter and it seems to be working all right. 

~Ibrahim~


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 27, 2009)

Reboot, make sure EIST is enabled in the bios and then after it boots up don't toggle EIST.  Run some quick SuperPI benchmarks.  Try running 4 of them and see what your multiplier is at then run 5, 6, 7 and finally 8.  Does it ever get above 12?

There is also another program in the RealTemp download called Load Tester.  You can run as many of these as you want and you can lock it to an individual thread or core if you want when testing.  It lets you precisely control the load to watch what happens to your multiplier.  For an i7 you would need to run 8 instances of this program to fully load it.  It's just a testing tool that might come in handy.  Make sure your Minimum and Maximum processor state is set to 100% in the Control Panel in case that got changed while playing.

On the Core i7 Desktop chips you get a minimum of a +1 turbo boost even when fully loaded but maybe the mobile chips are not the same or maybe your bios needs to be updated.  With CPU-Z being so widely trusted, some companies might not even be aware of this problem.

Edit: A RealTemp reported multiplier of 12.3 means that the multiplier is cycling continuously between 12 and 13.  The 0.3 part means that it is only spending 30% of the time using the 13 multiplier and 70% using the 12 multiplier.  When fully loaded I think it is designed to use the 13X multiplier 100% of the time but it can be limited by temperature or power consumption.  This might be the wall you're hitting.  This can happen on a lot of Asus P6T motherboards when the core temperature gets up to about 80C.  That might be part of the problem you're having as well.

Edit #2:  I've got to ask one question.  Why don't you have C3/C6 enabled so you have access to the highest possible multiplier?  It seems like free performance to me.  Are you trying to come up with some good settings for when you're on battery power?


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 28, 2009)

I had a chance to think over your results and have come to the conclusion that you are likely seeing turbo throttling when trying to load all 8 threads.  As soon as you use the Clock Modulation feature which internally reduces the load, it seems to allow your computer to run the 13X multiplier continuously.

The amount of turbo boost is determined by temperature, current and load.  It looks like the i7-720QM is not designed to be able to run a high stress program on all 8 threads and to keep the turbo fully engaged.  Most of the desktop motherboards decided to disable this feature which keeps your CPU safe.  They tend to have much better CPU cooling compared to laptops.

With a mobile computer, it's unlikely that Dell will ever modify their bios so you can run your CPU beyond it's Intel designed safe limit.

Personally, I'd turn full turbo on and then when you're on battery power, you can use the Clock Modulation feature to slow down your computer internally which saves power if you need that at the cost of reduced performance.  Clock Modulation gives you the ability to easily make a huge difference in power consumption and performance at full load.



> Thanks for including ATI GPU temperatures in RealTemp for my new laptop.



You're welcome.


----------



## lvdata (Nov 29, 2009)

*I7 720qm Stable or Not?*

I just purchased a HP Envy15, 6gb ram, Core I7 720QM laptop. Attached are screen shots of before and after running the intel burn test with 8 threads, on normal(high also works ok).  Also attached is a failure to run at a "Very High" stress level with 8 threads. If I lower the threads to 2 or less I CAN run at a very high stress level, but I don't get the throughput.  All tests were done with the 120w AC adapter attached.  The max temp is a warm 92c, with a clock speed of 1.6 Ghz. With less threads I can see the CPU go up to its 2.8ghz speed. Just for fun, I tested it on batteries, and it will keep the CPU below 1ghz with 8 thread task.  My main use for the computer is a mobile VMware system. The HP is the only 4slot, 16gig max laptop on the market, and is just what I am looking, but I am wondering about the stability. It runs MUCH hotter then my desktop I7's when fully loaded, but outside of burn in testing, I want the I7's 8 threads for smooth vm running, not a gaming rig or a GFLOPS monster. In normal use my gut feeling is that the computer will be fine for what I want it for, and the instability while running the 8 thread, very high stress test will not be a problem. Does anyone here have experiance with a hot system that will/won't work ok long term? Thanks, Paul. 

FYI the aluminum keyboard gets to 145F when the CPU's are at 91c.


----------



## ikjadoon (Nov 29, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> I had a chance to think over your results and have come to the conclusion that you are likely seeing turbo throttling when trying to load all 8 threads.  As soon as you use the Clock Modulation feature which internally reduces the load, it seems to allow your computer to run the 13X multiplier continuously.
> 
> The amount of turbo boost is determined by temperature, current and load.  It looks like the i7-720QM is not designed to be able to run a high stress program on all 8 threads and to keep the turbo fully engaged.  Most of the desktop motherboards decided to disable this feature which keeps your CPU safe.  They tend to have much better CPU cooling compared to laptops.
> 
> ...



That's it! Someone tried it with a 130W adapter and they hit 13x! Good call. 

Thanks a butt ton for the help. Ha, yeah. Either they need to do some BIOS revising or send out new adapters. 

~Ibrahim~

PS. Quick question I've been wanting to ask. How does the core lineup go?

Core 0: Real 
Core 1: 0's HT
Core 2: Real
Core 3: 2's HT
Core 4: Real
Core 5: 4's HT

Or 

Core 0: Real
Core 1: Real
Core 2: Real
Core 3: Real
Core 4: 0's HT
Core 5: 1's HT


----------



## ikjadoon (Nov 29, 2009)

lvdata said:


> I just purchased a HP Envy15, 6gb ram, Core I7 720QM laptop. Attached are screen shots of before and after running the intel burn test with 8 threads, on normal(high also works ok).  Also attached is a failure to run at a "Very High" stress level with 8 threads. If I lower the threads to 2 or less I CAN run at a very high stress level, but I don't get the throughput.  All tests were done with the 120w AC adapter attached.  The max temp is a warm 92c, with a clock speed of 1.6 Ghz. With less threads I can see the CPU go up to its 2.8ghz speed. Just for fun, I tested it on batteries, and it will keep the CPU below 1ghz with 8 thread task.  My main use for the computer is a mobile VMware system. The HP is the only 4slot, 16gig max laptop on the market, and is just what I am looking, but I am wondering about the stability. It runs MUCH hotter then my desktop I7's when fully loaded, but outside of burn in testing, I want the I7's 8 threads for smooth vm running, not a gaming rig or a GFLOPS monster. In normal use my gut feeling is that the computer will be fine for what I want it for, and the instability while running the 8 thread, very high stress test will not be a problem. Does anyone here have experiance with a hot system that will/won't work ok long term? Thanks, Paul.
> 
> FYI the aluminum keyboard gets to 145F when the CPU's are at 91c.



I think for IntelBurnTest to work correctly with the i7, it actually has to run 16 threads. I don't know why, but that's what the developer says on his topic at XtremeSystems.


----------



## Hawkwind (Nov 30, 2009)

*New OS, RealTemp, need to do cal*

11/29/2009 Core i7 920 D0 Asus P6T Deluxe V2.  After BIOS 0610 upgrade using Win7 Home Prem 64-bit retail want to do RealTemp calibration (ran all utils using rt-click Run as Administrator)

- RealTemp ver: 3.40 just installed (was using prev vers on WinXP but old calibration not correct so want to do it right)
- CPU-Z ver: 1.52.2
- HSF: Thermatake Ultra eXtreme-120 1366 RT (bundled with one fan)

As per: http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/docs.php
MjMAX test at standard (my Profile 2 settings ie: basically all stock except voltage which is lower at 0.95 in BIOS or 0.936 as read by CPU-Z, and I turn off the following power mgmt, turbo, and speedstep)

   - With Case open about 1ft from desk the room temp near front bottom is 21.8 C stable. Core temps C0=34 (12.2, 45), C1=30 (8.2, 42), C2=34 (12.2, 44), C3=29 (7.1, 41)  (delta from room, high under load at end of cooldown's heatup phase)  Note before start, all temps stable for >10 min's after boot to Win7, doc'ed the room and idle temps, then ran test

Questions:

1. I ran the Cool Down test in order to do a TjMAX adj but what number to start adjustment at?  Been reading on your forums that Core i7 should be 95 for TjMAX not 100, so do I set for that 1st and which core gets that setting as a starting point?  It's not clear on the doc site link above what the standard setting should be that the other cores get adjusted up or down.  Don't know if it's a linear thing and starting point does not matter much or effects the slope curve more than just the curve's start or end points.

2.  See screen shots below for the above:  What recommendation do you have for TjMAX settings?  (also included a shot of the end of the heatup phase.  I re-ran it since I wanted to record the max temp (w/o having to do the math) during the test and missed it the 1st time)

I'll make the changes you suggest, then do the calibration test as per the doc using 12 multiplier, 133 BCLK, with 1.1v as read by CPU-Z and get back if needed.


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 30, 2009)

CPU-Z might be telling you that you have a stable 12X multiplier at idle but RealTemp doesn't show that for a reason.  You need to go into the Control Panel -> Power Options and set your Minimum processor state to a low number like 5%.  That should settle your idle multiplier down.  You can also use the i7 Turbo program that is included in the download for a finer look at your real multiplier.  CPU-Z kind of wings it a little at idle and isn't very accurate. 

RealTemp 3.49
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip

The calibration procedure was originally developed for Core 2 CPUs.  Core i7 works differently and can do things like shut down cores at idle so I don't think this procedure can be directly applied to Core i7.  That's not a big problem though because the Core i7-900 series sensors are excellent without needing much calibration at all.

99.9% of the screen shots I've seen while running Prime95 will show core 3 running exactly 5C less than core 0.  My best guess is that TJMax is not the same on all 4 cores and this one is deliberately set 5C higher to control thermal throttling.  That's the only reasonable explanation I've been able to come up with which explains the data I've seen.

For a quick calibration I'd use TJMax = 100, 103, 100, 105

The slope error in these sensors is next to nothing so there's no reason to use any Idle Calibration factors.  Leave all those set to zero.

With this calibration, when running Prime95 Small FFTs, you should see the reported core temperatures being pretty much equal give or take a degree from idle to full load.

ikjadoon: APIC ID shows the thread order and threads 0, 1 belong to Core 0.


----------



## Hawkwind (Nov 30, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> The calibration procedure was originally developed for Core 2 CPUs.  Core i7 works differently and can do things like shut down cores at idle so I don't think this procedure can be directly applied to Core i7.  That's not a big problem though because the Core i7-900 series sensors are excellent without needing much calibration at all.
> 
> 99.9% of the screen shots I've seen while running Prime95 will show core 3 running exactly 5C less than core 0.  My best guess is that TJMax is not the same on all 4 cores and this one is deliberately set 5C higher to control thermal throttling.  That's the only reasonable explanation I've been able to come up with which explains the data I've seen.
> 
> ...



I assume that the above portion was for the reply to me.  That said, I believe that except for an overtemp condition my CPU does not throttle because I've turned off power mgmt (C-STATE), turbo, and speedstep in case this factors in with the calibration doc vs Core 2.  (correct me if wrong)

I made the changes to TjMax as above, didn't chg the Idle Cal, but have a question about idle vs room delta.  So, on your doc page it talks about a properly calibrated RealTemp and a given CPU cooling solution, should be X C above room temp with the case off, etc.  (let me know if this also does not apply to Core i7 920's)

1. In my case can I assume that my Thermatake Ultra eXtreme-120 1366 RT (bundled with one fan) is a highend, so about 7C above room?  (or correct my assumption here as well)

2. Since RealTemp is seeing avg of 34C at idle vs 22C room ie: avg 12C delta, either my HSF is not doing a good enough job, is not installed properly, or I just need to calibrate RealTemp further.

3.  If I assume (I could be wrong, please let me know) that A: just need to calibrate further, and B: just lower all four of the TjMax settings the same about to be 7C above room  ie: lower each by 5.  Would that be correct?


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 30, 2009)

That's the problem.  I don't have any similar data for Core i7 CPUs.  At full load, I know a hyper threaded and overclocked Core i7 will put out significantly more heat than a Core 2 Quad but I don't know how they compare at idle.  In the documentation I originally thought that a Core i7 would be more efficient and put out less heat at idle but I don't believe that now.  They are impossible to control without a heatsink on them so that makes it difficult to do the same sort of infrared thermometer testing that I did on many Core 2 based CPUs.  It also leads me to believe that they are consuming more watts at idle which would create more heat, not less.

7C is for a Dual Core E8400.  A Q6600 Quad should be about 8C difference with your cooler but I can't say for sure how that applies to Core i7.

Instead of TJMax = 100, 103, 100, 105 maybe you might want to split the difference and try TJMax = 98, 101, 98, 103 instead.  That would get you an average of 100C which is the Intel spec.  I have no way to confirm whether this would be better or worse.  My testing of Core 2 based CPUs and testing by other users seemed to show that Core 0 tends to be the most accurate at full load without needing to adjust TJMax so that's why I usually set that one to 100 and then work around it.

My testing at idle was done with the case open and the computer laying on its side so the heat could dissipate upward.

As long as your CPU is not thermal throttling then I don't see the need to get too technical about what your absolute core temperature is.  If you're off by a couple of degrees it's not that big of a deal because most everyone else is off by a similar amount.  These sensors are just not fully documented by Intel.  I have lots of theories but trying to get accurate to within a degree or two is not an exact science.

Edit: Here's a good quote from Tom's Hardware about the Core i7 mobile CPUs.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mobile-core-i7,2443-12.html



> For all the talk of extensive power gating throughout the Clarksfield die, it’s hard to get past the bottom line: Clarksfield is a more power-hungry processor, regardless of whether you’re at idle or under load. Just follow the peaks and valleys here—at every point, mobile Core i7 is sucking down more juice than its predecessor.



Your 12C over room temperature might be more accurate than you think.


----------



## kwik76 (Dec 7, 2009)

Hello all! 
I'm new on the forum and i'm interested about the MSR.
I have a ASUS W90VP laptop with a QX9300 with unlocked multiplier but the laptoP BIOS is very restricted, i can't change anything.
Can you explain me how to change the multiplier, voltage and FSB by the MSR method?
Thank you very much.


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 7, 2009)

You can play around with my MSR Tool to read and write model specific registers.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/MSR.zip

You can adjust MSR 0x199 when trying to play around with multipliers.  I'll give you a few more details tomorrow when I'm awake.

If your bios doesn't let you set multipliers higher than the default multiplier for that chip then having a CPU with an unlocked multiplier might not be of any benefit.  I haven't played with one of these so I'm not sure.  The third digit from the far right in MSR 0x199 is the one that controls the multiplier.  You might have to play around with the Control Panel -> Power Options -> Minimum processor state and C1E when playing with this MSR.  This MSR lets you request a specific multiplier but your request isn't always granted if it is something silly.


----------



## kwik76 (Dec 7, 2009)

Thank you, i'll try this this evening. I'm at work now. 
What is the digit for the Cpu voltage? What is the MSR 0x198? I have tested to change values but it does not change at all.
I can't change the multiplier because the BIOS haven't this option, not because the option is greyed out.
Why "If it is something silly?"
The original multiplier is 9.5, FSB is 266Mhz => 2.530Ghz
Overclocked, i have 9.5 x 320 => 3.040Ghz
10.5 or 11 will be good to lower the FSB.
How can i open the MSR tool? It's a DOS program?


----------



## somebody (Dec 7, 2009)

This should help explain things for you on page 17.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1572128&postcount=410

If P-states are enabled you may find you'll have a fight on your hands to change MSR 0x199.

When you say FSB I think you really mean BCLK in which case you cannot change this by MSR. It's normally done by the external PLL using the SMBUS. It seems a lot of people refer to the Bus Clock (BCLK) as the Front Side Bus (FSB) for some strange reason. 

What OS are you using?


----------



## kwik76 (Dec 7, 2009)

I don't want to change the FSB with MSR. I already have SetFSB to change it.
I don't understand what is explain on page 17. I need to use IA32_PERF_CTL, right?
What is the P-states?
And to modify the Requested FID, is it based on binary numbers? What is the number 9 on top?
1001 => 2^4+0^3+0^2+2^1 = 9 but my multiplier is 9,5... and i have a "9" for this digit.

I'm using Win7 ultimate X64.


----------



## somebody (Dec 7, 2009)

P-states are the performance states your OS computer may use while switching with EIST. If it is running while your trying to set your own multipliers then the OS will be changing them back and making it difficult for you.

The 9 on top is just there as an example. If you notice a little further to the left is a bit labeled "half" so if you want to set 9.5 then that bit needs to be set as well. Be aware though that you will probably have to increase the core voltage with VID if you increase the multiplier. 

To use 9x set    09??
To use 9.5x set 49??
To use 10x set  0A??
To use 10.5x set 4A?? 
etc

?? is your VID or core voltage setting, for instance if it were set at 1C for your 9x multiplier then you would see 091C in MSR 0x199, if you wanted to increase to the 9.5x multiplier normally the VID needs increasing to so for example if it needed to be increased to 20 then you would use 4920 in MSR 0x199.

There is some software around for changing P-states (where your FID and VID values are stored) which would probably be the easiest way to achieve what you want but I only know of older 32-bit software which wouldn't be suitable. May be some of the other forum members can help.

Can you post a CPU-Z or HWMonitor dump?


----------



## kwik76 (Dec 7, 2009)

MSR 0x199 is by default at 0x00000000 edx   0x00004923 eax
       0x198                      0x061B4923 edx   0x86004923 eax

When i put in 0x199 =   0x00004A23 eax, the value change but nothing happen.
I see on MSR 0x198 that the Maximum FID is already at "49" = 9,5 but i can't higher the value, when i click on WRITE MSR it stay at default value!

CPU-Z :




HWMonitor:
http://rapidshare.com/files/317506054/HWMonitor_dump.txt.html


----------



## somebody (Dec 7, 2009)

When you have set 0x199 and then "read" it again has the value changed back?

What are the values for MSR 0xCE and 0x1A0 ?

Might be better to use PM than messing up Unclewebb's thread 

PM is under your UcerCP located on the bar right at the top of this page. You can also left click the user name in the window on the left to send.


----------



## kwik76 (Dec 7, 2009)

I have put 0x00004A23 eax   instead of 0x00004923. When i read again the value stay at 0x00004A23 but nothing change.
OxCE = 0x801B4A2D edx    0x4343061B  eax
0x1A0 = 0x00000043 edx    0x68972489  eax

I don't see where i should go to PM you. Where it is?


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 7, 2009)

As I originally said, if your bios doesn't give you an option to go beyond the maximum default multiplier then changing MSR 0x199 might not work and allow you to go higher.  I'd try lowering the value in MSR 0x199 first to see if it gives you any control over your multiplier.


----------



## Traviswpb (Dec 7, 2009)

First time user of Real Temp ( ex MBM5 user ).

I'm stumped as to how to retain the temps in the systems tray.

When I first setup this program, I went into SETTINGS, and at the bottom put check marks infront of START MINIMIZED, and TRAY INFO.  I applied and did the OK, and the numbers are in my systems tray.

But after I reboot, the numbers no longer are there.  Yet if I run the RealTemp.exe they then appear in the tray.  

What am I doing wrong?


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 7, 2009)

Traviswpb: What operating system are you using?  Windows 7 has a feature that lets you hide icons in your system tray.  You might have to adjust that setting.

In the middle of the RealTemp Settings window is a section called System Tray Settings.  In the Show Icon row, you need check marks in those boxes for each core or GPU you want to see in the System Tray.

Try that and tell me what OS you're using so I can try to figure out what's going on.


----------



## burebista (Dec 7, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> Windows 7 has a feature that lets you hide icons in your system tray.


Yeah, and another "feature" is messing up tray icons order or from time to time forgetting that I said _Show icons and notifications_ and Seven hide it with _Only show notifications_.


----------



## kwik76 (Dec 7, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> As I originally said, if your bios doesn't give you an option to go beyond the maximum default multiplier then changing MSR 0x199 might not work and allow you to go higher.  I'd try lowering the value in MSR 0x199 first to see if it gives you any control over your multiplier.



I can change the multiplier from 6.0x to 9.5x and the voltage from 1.05 to 1.15. When i want to put more than these values it don't do anything. The 0x198 is 0x061B4923 : 0x86004923
B49 is the maximum current FID. I can't overwrite it.


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 7, 2009)

I think you would need your bios to support higher multipliers than 9.5.  Your CPU might support multipliers higher than this but if your bios doesn't support it then you can't change it higher from within Windows.  You can only go lower like every other Core 2 Quad.

VID has a minimum and maximum limit as well.  When you request a value outside these limits, that request is ignored.  It looks like the only valid VID values for your CPU are in the range between 0x1B and 0x23.


----------



## Traviswpb (Dec 7, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> Traviswpb: What operating system are you using?  Windows 7 has a feature that lets you hide icons in your system tray.  You might have to adjust that setting.
> 
> In the middle of the RealTemp Settings window is a section called System Tray Settings.  In the Show Icon row, you need check marks in those boxes for each core or GPU you want to see in the System Tray.
> 
> Try that and tell me what OS you're using so I can try to figure out what's going on.



Thanks for the reply UncleWebb.

Finally got it figured out.  I had to drag a LNK to the program into the STARTUP in my Documents and Settings.  By the way I'm using XP Pro.

Thanks again for the quick reply!


----------



## kwik76 (Dec 7, 2009)

Why in the QX9300 datasheet, the VID can go up to 1,5v? 
So there is no hope to have a 10x multiplier!?


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 7, 2009)

Some QX9300 CPUs might have a VID set by Intel of 1.50 volts but yours does not.  The limits for VID are written into each CPU individually and the Minimum and Maximum can be found in the upper part of MSR 0x198.

If your bios doesn't give you a 10X multi option then I think you're screwed.


----------



## kwik76 (Dec 7, 2009)

The bios doesn't have any option for multiplier. It's a veryyyy light BIOS! 
I go tell this to ASUS to see what they'll answer.


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 7, 2009)

http://www.sendspace.com/file/z6rxvq

kwik76: I had a look at the specs for your QX9300 and found out that it supports the Intel Dynamic Acceleration feature.  This means that when a single core is in the active state and the other cores are in the C3/C6 sleep state, the single core can use a maximum multiplier of 10.5.  IDA is similar to turbo boost on Intel's newer Core i7/i5 CPUs.

The value in MSR 0xCE confirms that your CPU supports this feature.  It lists the absolute maximum multiplier as 4A.  The 4 stands for the half multi and the A in hex is 10 in decimal so 10.5 is your maximum multi.

I don't know how accurately CPU-Z reports this feature.  In the above download is a program called i7 Turbo.  Give that a try and run a single threaded program like a single SuperPI test and see what i7 Turbo reports for your multiplier about half way through the test.

If C3/C6 is enabled in your bios, inactive cores can enter the sleep mode so the remaining active core can run at full speed.  You will never see the full average multiplier of 10.5.  Any background tasks will constantly drop this.  You might be able to average about 10.0.  Post a screen shot of the above test about half way through.  Dynamic acceleration means that the CPU multiplier will be constantly cycling back and forth hundreds of times a second from 9.5 to 10.0 to 10.5.  CPU-Z sampling once per second can completely miss this.

Your bios might not support IDA but it should.

These specs are a little more detailed than Intel's specs for your CPU.
http://www.cpu-world.com/sspec/SL/SLB5J.html

I think your absolute maximum core voltage VID when IDA is enabled should be 1.275 volts.


----------



## kwik76 (Dec 7, 2009)

IDA is not enabled in RMCLOCK. it is greyed out. How can i open a bios? When i try to open it it says "No Bcps found".?


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 7, 2009)

If you have an updated bios file you might need a separate DOS utility to install it.  I don't know what options your bios has to update the bios.

Give that i7 Turbo program a try to prove whether IDA is enabled or not.


----------



## kwik76 (Dec 7, 2009)

I have tested with Superpi, IDA is disabled. I don't want to install a new BIOS, i just want to open it and to try to mod it. Not flashing


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 7, 2009)

Sorry, I can't help you with that.  Maybe try finding a forum that is specific to your laptop.

I think any modded bios would need to be flashed back on to your laptop to install it.  If IDA is not enabled in the bios then I don't think there's any way to turn it on once you get into Windows.  You can disable it in Windows but not enable it if it wasn't originally on.


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 8, 2009)

kwik76: Have you tried using i7 Turbo yet?  When you start i7 Turbo, is there a check mark beside the Turbo Mode Disable option?  Can you click on that box and clear that check mark?

If you can clear that check mark then turbo mode should work after that but if you can't clear that check mark then no IDA / turbo boost is possible without a bios mod.


----------



## kwik76 (Dec 8, 2009)

The turbo mode disable is check and i can't uncheck it.
I have already try i7turbo but i don't know i should do with it.
It says 9.500 on the top and some percent in the back. I can check C1E and at the top it goes to about 8.5.


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 8, 2009)

If i7 Turbo doesn't let you toggle the Turbo Mode Disable feature then IDA is locked by the bios and there is nothing you can do.  The Core i7 turbo boost feature and the Core 2 IDA feature both use the same MSR 0x1A0 to enable or disable turbo mode.

i7 Turbo can correctly report the multipliers on a Core 2.  When you check C1E and your multiplier starts floating around, that's what is really happening inside your CPU.  If you are using Windows 7 or Vista and if you have Speedstep / EIST enabled then there will be an option in the Control Panel -> Power Options called Minimum processor state.  This is what actually controls the multiplier at idle.  Drop that to a low number and then you should see your multiplier stop hunting around and it will settle down at 6.0.  If you want your multiplier at its maximum at idle then set the Minimum to 100% and disable C1E.  In XP the setting is different.  You have to choose Mobile CPU in the Power Schemes to get the real multi to settle down to 6.0 at idle.

CPU-Z isn't 100% accurate at idle so it has brain washed a lot of people into believing that their multiplier is a lot more steady than what it actually is internally.  Depending on your other settings, the multiplier can be quite dynamic.  i7 Turbo reports the average multiplier during each 1 second interval for each core.  There is a slight amount of random variation in this method when a CPU is lightly loaded but usually only about +/-0.005.  The rest of the variation you are seeing is actually happening with your multi jumping back and forth between 6.0 and 9.5.  At full load, this method is extremely accurate and you probably won't see any variation at all.

You should contact Asus and tell them to write a decent bios for your laptop.  Some not so well informed engineer might have left out IDA to try and keep heat under control.  IDA only kicks in when running a single core so extra heat is not an issue.  There's no reason to leave this out.  That extra boost in core voltage up to 1.275 when IDA kicks in would give you great stability.


----------



## kwik76 (Dec 9, 2009)

I have sent a message to ASUS to make a new BIOS with more options. 
I'm waiting the answer.


----------



## LocutusX (Dec 20, 2009)

After downloading and running the latest version of GPU-Z (0.3.8), RealTemp (any recent version, such as 3.49 or 3.50) fails to start up. The process simply hangs.

The only remedy is to add "NoGPU=1" to the INI file for RealTemp.
After that, it runs normally.

Clearly, something the GPU-Z folks have added to their latest app is interfering with RealTemp. And unfortunately, since GPU-Z does *not* have an uninstaller, there is no way to restore my system configuration to pre-0.3.8 GPU-Z, short of using System Restore.

Obviously, I do have an Nvidia video card...


----------



## Mussels (Dec 20, 2009)

LocutusX said:


> After downloading and running the latest version of GPU-Z (0.3.8), RealTemp (any recent version, such as 3.49 or 3.50) fails to start up. The process simply hangs.
> 
> The only remedy is to add "NoGPU=1" to the INI file for RealTemp.
> After that, it runs normally.
> ...



GPU-Z doesnt have an uninstaller, because it doesnt install anything. you close GPU-Z, and it all goes away.

If you want an old version, just run the old .exe


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 20, 2009)

This RealTemp issue came about when I was in the process of adding ATI GPU temperature monitoring to it.  I got kind of side tracked when I found out about the Dell laptop throttling issues.  Do a Google search for ThrottleGate and you can learn more about that.  My new tool for that mess is called ThrottleStop.

Don't blame GPU-Z.  I need to make a change or two to RealTemp.  If you have an Nvidia card you can also try using this INI option:

*NoATIGPU=1
*
That should cause RealTemp to avoid the buggy ATI code and let it read your Nvidia card correctly.  I apologize for the issues.  Hopefully I will have some time in the near future to get this mess and a few other ones fixed up.


----------



## LocutusX (Dec 20, 2009)

Eh? I didn't actually change my RealTemp version - it's been at 3.49 for a few weeks (?) now. I only tried 3.50 after the hanging issue started.

Also, I haven't touched my Nvidia Forceware drivers in a few weeks too.

The only "change" I made was to download and run the new version of GPU-Z. If I'm not mistaken, that tool uses a "dynamic driver" similar to CPU-Z which explains the lack of need of an uninstaller - BUT - is everyone sure that there wasn't something changed in GPU-Z which could have contributed to this?

I mean GPU-Z did add a lot of really nice GPU temperature/load monitoring graphs to this version - I thought that might be conflicting with RealTemp's GPU temperature monitoring code.

Anyways I'm not trying to "point the finger" at GPU-Z per se, as it's another tool I use regularly and love, but since the only change on my system was GPU-Z, that's what I thought of first.

I have learned my lesson (from a few weeks back) of blaming issues on things without really doing a full investigation so I don't want to say that I accuse GPU-Z of causing this hanging issue. Let me be clear


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 20, 2009)

I know my code needs a work over at the moment.  I'm using a very old compiler so working around issues is common.  Sometimes other software it to blame and sometimes my own methods and software is to blame. 

Can you try the NoATIGPU=1 INI switch?  That will help me track this down.  Don't use the NoGPU=1 switch when you are using this other one.


----------



## LocutusX (Dec 20, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> I know my code needs a work over at the moment.  I'm using a very old compiler so working around issues is common.  Sometimes other software it to blame and sometimes my own methods and software is to blame.
> 
> Can you try the NoATIGPU=1 INI switch?  That will help me track this down.  Don't use the NoGPU=1 switch when you are using this other one.



*NoATIGPU=1* works fine, thanks. GPU temp monitoring is restored and everything works fine, even with GPU-Z 0.3.8 running simultaneously.

BTW any chance of a 64-bit compile of RealTemp coming? No particular reason, I just love seeing processes listed in TaskMgr as "*blahblah.exe*" rather than "*blahblah.exe * 32*".


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 20, 2009)

I knew I could blame this on that damn ATI code I'm using.  That's what I get for reading their manuals and trying to follow directions.  ATI has written some nice functions that I'm trying to use but instead of returning a Yes or No answer, sometimes they simply explode and take everyone and everything with them.  I love programming. 

I probably won't do a 64 bit version.  Too many hassles with very little to gain other than Task Manager looking nicer.  Thanks for testing this out for me.


----------



## LocutusX (Dec 20, 2009)

Yes, programming is fun isn't it. I'm getting into it now, for work purposes, mostly C# and .NET.
It's probably considerably easier than C or C++ for Win32 apps


----------



## Mussels (Dec 21, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> I knew I could blame this on that damn ATI code I'm using.  That's what I get for reading their manuals and trying to follow directions.  ATI has written some nice functions that I'm trying to use but instead of returning a Yes or No answer, sometimes they simply explode and take everyone and everything with them.  I love programming.
> 
> I probably won't do a 64 bit version.  Too many hassles with very little to gain other than Task Manager looking nicer.  Thanks for testing this out for me.



i agree, there is no need to run a 64 bit version whatsoever at this time.



As for GPU-Z, it uninstalls the driver again when you close it. thats why you can swap between old and new versions without any problems.


----------



## NetSurfer (Dec 25, 2009)

I downloaded RealTemp a few days ago, today I noticed that my cpu core temp was 9 degrees celcius when I start up my netbook, this would be impossible since the room temperature is about 21 degrees celcius. 

About my Netbook:
Acer Aspire one 250 HD with Atom N280 processor.

If I run the FPU system stability test from everest the maximum cpu temperature in everest stays on 26 degrees celcius and the max core temp on RealTemp is 43 degrees C.

Also RealTemp does not read the clock speed, it stays @ 0.00MHz.
Using my netbook for a while the idle core temperature is about 25-28, that would be possible with a room temperature of 21 degrees C.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 25, 2009)

its likely because the TJmax setting is wrong for your CPU. You'll need to find out what its real TJmax is, and change it accordingly.


If all you care about is whether its overheating or not, the distance to TJmax setting is really all you need - if its great than 20C, you're all clear.


----------



## NetSurfer (Dec 25, 2009)

Mussels said:


> its likely because the TJmax setting is wrong for your CPU. You'll need to find out what its real TJmax is, and change it accordingly.
> 
> 
> If all you care about is whether its overheating or not, the distance to TJmax setting is really all you need - if its great than 20C, you're all clear.



I found a Tjmax temperature in Everest Ultimate under CPUID according to Everest the Tjmax is 125 degrees celcius.

RealTemp does not accept a Tjmax 125, the maximum is 120 what I can set in RealTemp.
With a Tjmax of 120 in Realtemp the core would be 62 when idle I don't think so


----------



## LocutusX (Dec 25, 2009)

NetSurfer said:


> I downloaded RealTemp a few days ago, today I noticed that my cpu core temp was 9 degrees celcius when I start up my netbook, this would be impossible since the room temperature is about 21 degrees celcius.
> 
> About my Netbook:
> Acer Aspire one 250 HD with Atom N280 processor.
> ...



i don't think Atom processor is supported at this time but I suppose the program author will confirm this shortly.


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 25, 2009)

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLGL9

The Thermal Specification ( TJMax ) according to Intel is 90C for your Atom N280.  That's likely what RealTemp is using.  The thermal shut down temperature of most Intel CPUs is 125C but that is not the actual TJMax.

Most of the 45nm Core 2 mobile CPUs have a TJMax = 105C.  I would tend to believe that one for your Atom.  I think Intel low balls some of their Thermal Specifications so users don't complain about their core temperature.  The actual core temperature tends to scare people.

I wish the sensors were well documented in these CPUs but they are not.  I don't have access to an Atom laptop and even if I did, there's no easy way to test one with the tools I have.

As for MHz, try adding this to the RealTemp.ini file:

*MSRMulti=1*

RealTemp tries to use internal timers within your CPU but I recently found out that the Atom chips do not have functional timers.  I'll be going back to the old way of doing things in the near future for RealTemp.


----------



## NetSurfer (Dec 25, 2009)




----------



## W1zzard (Dec 25, 2009)

i have an atom dual core board here .. let me know if you need some testing


----------



## NetSurfer (Dec 25, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLGL9
> 
> The Thermal Specification ( TJMax ) according to Intel is 90C for your Atom N280.  That's likely what RealTemp is using.  The thermal shut down temperature of most Intel CPUs is 125C but that is not the actual TJMax.
> 
> ...



With adding MSRMulti=1 made no difference.
When i set the TJmax to 105 the idle core temp is 45 degrees C
With the FPU stress test from Everest the max temp is now 57


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 25, 2009)

First of all, it's a well known fact that the sensors Intel uses are not accurate at idle.  Plus or minus 10C of error at idle is not unusual at all, even when you're using the correct TJMax.  These sensors suffer from what's called slope error.  The further you get from the calibration point which is at or near TJMax, the more error these sensors can have.  Some will read too high and some will read too low.

When you don't have a big fan and huge air cooler on one of these CPUs, they get hot at idle.  With a big air cooler, an idle temperature about 8C above your room temperature is normal when your case is open.  In a closed laptop with a small heatsink and fan, more heat gets trapped and the actual idle temperature is going to be higher than a desktop computer.



> I noticed that my cpu core temp was 9 degrees celcius when I start up my netbook, this would be impossible since the room temperature is about 21 degrees celcius.



Cores heat up almost instantaneously.  Even when coming out of stand by mode.  That tells me that your temperatures are being reported at least 10C too low at idle when you use the 90C Intel Thermal Specification number as TJMax.  It might be closer to 100C or 105C.  

Intel also admits that there is a significant amount of error in how they set TJMax so the actual TJMax of your CPU is anyone's guess.  There is no number written in stone and no documentation that is 100% accurate.  Based on your results, my best guess is 100C or 105C.  Many 45nm Core 2 desktop CPUs use 100C and the Core 2 mobile CPUs are documented as 105C.  Flip a coin.  

Send me your RealTemp.ini file.  That fix I mentioned usually works.

I'll post a new version in a day or two that better supports your CPU so you won't have to add this option.


----------



## NetSurfer (Dec 26, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> First of all, it's a well known fact that the sensors Intel uses are not accurate at idle.  Plus or minus 10C of error at idle is not unusual at all, even when you're using the correct TJMax.  These sensors suffer from what's called slope error.  The further you get from the calibration point which is at or near TJMax, the more error these sensors can have.  Some will read too high and some will read too low.
> 
> When you don't have a big fan and huge air cooler on one of these CPUs, they get hot at idle.  With a big air cooler, an idle temperature about 8C above your room temperature is normal when your case is open.  In a closed laptop with a small heatsink and fan, more heat gets trapped and the actual idle temperature is going to be higher than a desktop computer.
> 
> ...



See the RealTemp ini attached.
Thank you.


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 26, 2009)

NetSurfer said:


> See the RealTemp ini attached.
> Thank you.



The *MSRMulti=1* option has a semi colon in front of it in your RealTemp INI file.  That means that option is disabled and not being used.

Delete the semi-colon in front of MSRMulti, save the RealTemp.ini file and try running RealTemp again.  This should let RealTemp read the multiplier from your CPU the old fashioned way and it should work.  The next version of RealTemp will default to this method when it's unable to find functioning timers.  I'm not sure why Intel left these high performance timers out of their Atom series.  I guess to save a nickle or something.

The temperature formula that RealTemp and all software for that matter uses is this:

Reported Temperature = TJMax - Digital Sensor Reading

All software is capable of reading the digital sensor correctly.  The problem comes about trying to convert that into an absolute temperature.  Intel does not accurately document TJMax.  Last time the user community pressed them for more information they came up with a new term and called it TJ Target.  The TJ Target for your CPU may be 90C but they said that the actual TJMax may be 90 or may be higher than this number.  That kind of information from Intel is pretty much useless but the user community didn't complain so Intel was never forced to elaborate or discuss how much error is in their process of setting TJMax.  According to them, it's a company secret and buying their products doesn't give users any rights like the right to know what temperature their CPU is running at.  As long as it runs, we're supposed to be happy and shut up.

There's no way to prove what TJMax your CPU has.  It might be 100 or 102 or 103 or 105 or any number from 90 to 110.  A good test is to let your computer sit for a while and then quickly come out of stand by mode and see what it reports.  You can turn on the RealTemp logging feature.  On a desktop CPU, the instant you push the power button, there is current flowing through your CPU and it will heat up instantaneously so readings below the ambient room temperature are impossible.

What type of cooling does your CPU use?  Do you know if there is a fan on it and does this fan operate continuously or only when the CPU gets hot?  If you don't have a fan at idle or if it works at a very low rpm then an idle temperature of 45C after your computer has been sitting for a while at idle would not be unusual at all.  Most laptops heat up after they are sitting idle.

That 9C number you first reported leads me to believe that TJMax = 100C is too low and a number close to 105C is much more likely.  The actual number is not written in stone.  It can and does vary from one CPU to the next.  Do some more testing and see what you can find out.


----------



## NetSurfer (Jan 2, 2010)

unclewebb said:


> The *MSRMulti=1* option has a semi colon in front of it in your RealTemp INI file.  That means that option is disabled and not being used.
> 
> Delete the semi-colon in front of MSRMulti, save the RealTemp.ini file and try running RealTemp again.  This should let RealTemp read the multiplier from your CPU the old fashioned way and it should work.  The next version of RealTemp will default to this method when it's unable to find functioning timers.  I'm not sure why Intel left these high performance timers out of their Atom series.  I guess to save a nickle or something.
> 
> ...



With MSRMulti=1 RealTemp shows the CPU speed (with MSRMulti=0 the CPU speed was 0.00 MHz.).
I can modify/set the TJmax but RealTemp does not save it.(not a big problem, I just set it when I use it)


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 3, 2010)

When you modify anything in the Settings window, you need to push the OK button for your settings to be saved.  If you exit the Settings window by clicking on the X gadget at the top left, your settings won't be saved.  That's how Windows programs are designed to operate so I followed that scheme.  I just gave RealTemp a try and seems to save the TJMax values.

Glad to hear the MHz are working for you.  Using the internal timers is the most accurate way at idle but if your CPU doesn't have those timers then the MSRMulti=1 method is better than nothing.


----------



## LocutusX (Jan 18, 2010)

Any update? Has there been any newer versions released?

I'm currently at 3.50.


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 19, 2010)

If 3.50 is working good for you then there's no need to upgrade.  There's a bug or two that need to be fixed up but there haven't been any significant changes recently.  

I've been working on a project called ThrottleStop lately to help quite a few Dell laptops to run at full speed when fully loaded.  

If you're interested in checking it out, here you go.  It should work on most desktops as well.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/ThrottleStop.zip

Some Dell laptops including the Alienware M15x gaming laptop are using an Intel CPU feature called clock modulation which can slow a CPU down to a crawl.  ThrottleStop helps reverse that when it happens or you can use it just to monitor for this condition.  It's surprising how many different laptops have throttling issues and they are not all Dell laptops.


----------



## dark2099 (Feb 16, 2010)

hey, unclewebb, what is the TjMax for a i5 650, was told 100c, but both 3.5 and 3.56 do 105c.  Thanks.


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 16, 2010)

TJMax is read directly from a register in all of the Core i7/i5/i3 CPUs.  One less thing to argue about.

If RealTemp says 105C then that register within your CPU must contain 105.  In theory Intel can set this differently for each CPU if they want but most CPUs with the same model number are usually consistent.


----------



## toohot (Mar 9, 2010)

I need help in calibrating set tj max .Room temp=24 c & Case temp=27 c. Turbo on Bios. Also do I have to adjust idle callibration.Please find attached image with all details. Thanks.

Case details are coolmaster cm690. front 120mm fan 1200rpm/rear fan 120 mm 1200rpm/left fan 140mm 1200rpm. cpu fan Noctua Nh-u12p se1366 performance cooler / ati radion hd 5770 graphic card/gigabyte ga-x58a-ud5 mb/ram G.Skill Trident f3-12800clt6t-6gbtd/win 7 64 pro/hdd x3
wd 1TB(wd10ears07200rpm 64mb satta 11 green power/cpu intel i7 920/thermaltake toughpower Qfan 850 watt

What are the best setttings.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 9, 2010)

There is not much slope error in these sensors so the calibration procedure developed for Core 2 based processors doesn't apply.

With Core i7-920 CPUs, I believe that TJMax varies slightly from core to core for the first 3 cores and the last core is almost exactly 5C different than the first core.

I would adjust this by setting TJMax = 100, 102, 100, 105

Beyond that, I wouldn't get too concerned about trying to get 100% accurate core temperatures out of any of Intel's sensors.  The Intel documentation about these sensors is mostly non-existent.  Without knowing exactly what Intel does during calibration, all users can do is guess and the above represents my best guess based on 101 screen shots I've seen.

RealTemp 3.58
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip

The latest version has a new option for ATI GPU owners.  Just use this in the RealTemp.ini file:

*GPU=2*


----------



## toohot (Mar 9, 2010)

Thanks Uncle.But I also would like to know If the ambiant temp is 24 c and case temp is 27 c
Shoud I set numbers around 6-7 c above ambiant temp using what push & pull/fan air flow I have.
According to documentation.Computer specs listed above.oh yeh, gpu greyed out in seetings
Also,how do I use option GPU=2(ini file)


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 10, 2010)

The i7-920 sensors are excellent as is.  TJMax might be off by a couple of degrees so enter the numbers that I posted above into the RealTemp Settings window.  That's all you need to do.



> ...the calibration procedure developed for Core 2 based processors doesn't apply.



Core i7 CPUs run hot as hell so it's impossible to get any useful data with an IR thermometer on one of them.  They heat up way too fast without a heatsink on.  The amount of slope error is very minimal with these sensors so you don't have to do a fancy calibration.  They'll be fairly close with the adjustments I recommended.

In the RealTemp folder there is a file called RealTemp.ini which is where all the configuration settings for RealTemp are stored.  You need to edit that file with a text editor like Notepad or Wordpad.  Add this line:

*GPU=2*

and then save the file and then start up RealTemp and see if it is able to read data for your GPU.  It works great on my Sapphire 5770 card.


----------



## toohot (Mar 10, 2010)

Thank you uncle. I also have another problem.Realtemp 3.85 icons will not load on start up.followed the procedure using task scheduler to the T.It is a running process in task manager
so the realtemp.exe program loads ok,but the icons dont.Realtemp icon set to show icon and are ticked.
I understand this has been a issue on forum.Further help needed.Its becoming a pain because I
Have to click on show icon notification all the time in win 7 customize section for every reboot.It does this if uac is on or off.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 10, 2010)

If making an adjustment in Windows 7 by checking "Show Icon Notification" makes the RealTemp icons appear then that sounds like a Windows 7 issue.  I'll go check this out but once the Show Icon stuff in Windows 7 is taken care of, I never have a problem with this.  My RealTemp icons always show up after I boot up.


----------



## toohot (Mar 11, 2010)

Uncle.Any luck.
I Noticed when I turn off uac, icons show up/load at startup.I allowed highest priv in task scheduler with no luck.


----------



## DocMAX (Mar 16, 2010)

*T9500 defect?*

Hi,
this is what i get on my HP 8510W Notebook with T9500 processor:

Is my CPU broken?


----------



## Mussels (Mar 16, 2010)

DocMAX said:


> Hi,
> this is what i get on my HP 8510W Notebook with T9500 processor:
> 
> Is my CPU broken?



... unless you're using it in a freezer, something definitely is broken


i also see 50% load there, which means one core is maxed out... you should check in task manager whats doing that


----------



## DocMAX (Mar 16, 2010)

hmm, other sources say sensors are just disabled by the bios. nothing broken.
i dont know what causes this cpu load.
windows task manager is at 3-5% cpu usage...

whats going on here?


----------



## Mussels (Mar 16, 2010)

DocMAX said:


> hmm, other sources say sensors are just disabled by the bios. nothing broken.
> i dont know what causes this cpu load.
> windows task manager is at 3-5% cpu usage...
> 
> whats going on here?



hmmm...


I dont think its possible to turn off temp sensors internal to the CPU, its certainly not safe to do so. odd CPU usage could be a virus or something - perhaps thats part of hte problem, have you tried a format/fresh OS install?


----------



## DocMAX (Mar 16, 2010)

even viruses do not hide their cpu usage. there is definetly no cpu usage. realtemp is wrong.

the sensors are not disabled by themselves, but the measurement of the bios perhaps...


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 16, 2010)

DocMAX: It looks like the temperature sensors on your CPU might be damaged.  Is this a retail processor or an ES engineering sample processor?  Post a screen shot of CPU-Z and maybe try Core Temp too.

toohot: I noticed an issue or two with the notification area in Windows 7.  I don't believe there is anything I can do to fix that.  In W7 I have it set up to show everything, all the time and it shows the RealTemp icons fine.  When I don't do that, W7 doesn't always correctly save what icons I want to display.

Edit: On Core 2 mobile CPUs, the standard RealTemp load meter is not a traditional load meter.  It measures a thing called C0% which can be misleading on Core 2 CPUs that enter deeper sleep states like the mobile CPUs do.  Select the TM Load option in RealTemp if you want to see a number similar to the task manager load meter.  On the newer Core i CPUs, the C0% is a very accurate way to measure CPU load.

If RealTemp is being blocked by your bios from reading the sensors then it will display the -27C garbage that you are seeing.  I've never seen this happen before.  It is usually sensors that have a problem or two.


----------



## DocMAX (Mar 16, 2010)

as you can see, cpu temp works. seems that the bios doesn't use the build in sensors of my cpu.


----------



## Techtu (Mar 16, 2010)

Apparently Realtemp don't support my processor...?


----------



## Techtu (Mar 16, 2010)

DocMAX said:


> hmm, other sources say sensors are just disabled by the bios. nothing broken.
> i dont know what causes this cpu load.
> windows task manager is at 3-5% cpu usage...
> 
> whats going on here?





Mussels said:


> hmmm...
> 
> 
> I dont think its possible to turn off temp sensors internal to the CPU, its certainly not safe to do so. odd CPU usage could be a virus or something - perhaps thats part of hte problem, have you tried a format/fresh OS install?





DocMAX said:


> even viruses do not hide their cpu usage. there is definetly no cpu usage. realtemp is wrong...



I would also take into account that it will also depend on your CPU type/speed & OS, for example if your running Windows Vista on lets say a 1.6ghz Athlon XP it will certainly be using more of the CPU power at ALL times.

Opps i was suppose to edit the upper post not make a new one.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 17, 2010)

DocMAX: Thanks for posting that and confirming what I suspected.  Look at the CPU-Z Specification line.  Normally just before the @2.60 GHz part it should show the model number, T9500, but it doesn't.  At the end of that line it shows (ES).  That means that this CPU is an engineering sample.  ES processors often times have defects and on chip temperature sensors that do not work isn't a big surprise.  Everest reports a CPU temperature reading but that is coming from a totally different sensor.   Everest should be able to read your core sensors as well but it's not reporting anything for core temperature since those sensors are toast.

I hope someone gave you that CPU to test out and you didn't spend too much on it.  ES CPUs can have more issues than just bad sensors.  Anything could be wrong with that CPU and it might tell you someday that 2 + 2 = 5.

It is illegal to sell an ES processor, especially on EBay or similar.


----------



## DocMAX (Mar 17, 2010)

damn. i bought this cpu from ebay. so its kind of a beta-stage cpu?
but so far the processors seems to work well...

thanks for the info.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 17, 2010)

DocMAX said:


> damn. i bought this cpu from ebay. so its kind of a beta-stage cpu?
> but so far the processors seems to work well...
> 
> thanks for the info.



you have a pre-release CPU that is not finished. There is no guarantee it will work well, or reliably


----------



## SuperJoker (Mar 17, 2010)

Mussels said:


> you have a pre-release CPU that is not finished. There is no guarantee it will work well, or reliably



I've had my QX6700 B1(ES) cpu since October of 2006, It works fine and It still works reliably too. It may be a warm chip, But Not finished? Bah Humbug.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 17, 2010)

SuperJoker said:


> I've had my QX6700 B1(ES) cpu since October of 2006, It works fine and It still works reliably too. It may be a warm chip, But Not finished? Bah Humbug.



for example, it could crash on SSE 4.1 applications, but nothing lower.

The entire point of engineering samples is that they're NOT the finished product - they're a test to see if the design works. Obviously, his temp sensor is useless - there may be more wrong with it too.


----------



## SuperJoker (Mar 17, 2010)

Mussels said:


> for example, it could crash on SSE 4.1 applications, but nothing lower.
> 
> The entire point of engineering samples is that they're NOT the finished product - they're a test to see if the design works. Obviously, his temp sensor is useless - there may be more wrong with it too.



I also had a retail QX6700 cpu, It also could not do 4.1, The reason they crash with 4.1 apps which I don't run, Is that they weren't designed with 4.1 in mind, As 4.1 did not exist back then, The highest that existed was SSSE3 and that's what I use, I also have a Q9300 M1 cpu and It's one of the 1st Intel cpus to use 4.1, But even there I found 4.1 wasn't as fast as SSSE3(or all that popular) and others have said so too(Through out the many Boinc Projects where I've crunched), So who cares about 4.1? I sure don't.  And like the saying goes, You and whose Army?


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 17, 2010)

That's the whole problem and risk with (ES) processors.  There is no way to know what works and what doesn't.  There are also early ES processors and late ES processors in the development cycle.  SuperJoker's QX6700 might be a late one and there might be no significant difference between his ES and the final retail CPU.  Not all ES processors are junk.  What you end up with is a gamble.

Your CPU has an ID String of 0x10674.  The retail T9500 will show up in CPU-Z as 0x10676 which means there was likely another ES sample released as 0x10675 after your CPU came out.

The sensors that don't work on your CPU are designed to control thermal throttling and thermal shutdown.  Neither of these events happen very often so if that is the only problem then you might be able to use this CPU for many happy years.

The retail CPU supports Intel Dynamic Acceleration which means it can jump up from 2600 MHz to 2800 MHz when only one core is in the active state and the other core is asleep in C3/C6.  This bonus feature might be disabled on your ES CPU.  To test this run a single thread of SuperPI or similar benchmark and see if the MHz go higher than 2600 MHz.  Use RealTemp to check for this since CPU-Z isn't very accurate at reporting IDA mode.

The agreement that is originally signed when Intel releases an ES processor includes a clause that says the CPU is the property of Intel and can not be re-sold.  Selling this on EBay is no different than selling any other stolen item.  If you're not happy with this CPU then contact EBay and report the person that sold it to you.


----------



## SuperJoker (Mar 17, 2010)

unclewebb said:


> That's the whole problem and risk with (ES) processors.  There is no way to know what works and what doesn't.  There are also early ES processors and late ES processors in the development cycle.  SuperJoker's QX6700 might be a late one and there might be no significant difference between his ES and the final retail CPU.  Not all ES processors are junk.  What you end up with is a gamble.
> 
> Your CPU has an ID String of 0x10674.  The retail T9500 will show up in CPU-Z as 0x10676 which means there was likely another ES sample released as 0x10675 after your CPU came out.
> 
> ...



If He's unhappy He should, But ebay may not care too much as It was a successful transaction and ebay got paid, I know this as I've been there a good long time(No I don't work for either ebay or Intel), My cpu came from somewhere in Taiwan and It was a week after I received It that the retail versions went on sale(also the records from back then are long gone). So I have no complaints and at this late date, I don't think Intel cares one bit, Heck they didn't halt the sale back then and they still don't today, ebay is about the money, They'll only halt a sale if a DMCA rights owner asks them to do so or if the auction is suspected of being only a picture where a few have been burned(Me included).


----------



## Techtu (Mar 17, 2010)

@ the few post's above about Ebay: IF the item (in this case a CPU) is not described as it is, (again in this case weather the CPU was described as a retail CPU rather than a ES model, or even not listing that it is only a ES model) then Ebay can refund you the cash you paid for the item, including P&P. I know this as I very recently had a few problem's what I've brought, and also sold... (I guess we all get a unhappy customer at some point!).

Anyways why doesn't RealTemp support my CPU?


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 17, 2010)

Intel didn't include any functional core temperature sensors in your ES CPU.  RealTemp can't read a sensor that doesn't exist or is defective. You'll have to use Everest or SpeedFan that can report data from the CPU sensor instead.  

RealTemp doesn't report data from that sensor because what it reports can be manipulated depending on the bios version and it doesn't represent any Intel specification.  Some users think this number is equivalent to the Tcase temperature reading that Intel has a specification for but it is not.  Tcase can only be correctly read from a CPU if you cut a groove in the top of the CPU with a Dremel and run a calibrated thermocouple to the geometric center like Intel instructs in their documentation.  The CPU temp is not the same as Tcase temperature and the CPU temp doesn't represent the hottest spot on the core (aka. core temperature).  

This CPU temp is all your CPU can report so you'll have to rely on that and use software that can report that sensor.


----------



## toohot (Mar 18, 2010)

Hi uncle.got eveything wokring with 3.58 then had to do a windows repair,and know I get driver not found.version 3.46 works fine.help


----------



## champaned_out (Mar 18, 2010)

i just ran the sensor test and got these results... i was wondering if theres anything to worry about because im not sure what the results exactly mean... are my sensors okay? or are they stuck? i was thinking of possibly removing and reapplying a fresh coat of thermal paste if that'll help at all


----------



## Techtu (Mar 18, 2010)

Look's fine, are you running stock cooling? I'm sure you could OC yor chip somewhat!!


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 18, 2010)

toohot said:


> Hi uncle.got everything working with 3.58 then had to do a windows repair,and now I get driver not found.version 3.46 works fine.help



What antivirus or anti-spyware program are you using?  I've seen it get blocked by programs like that before.

You could try to copy the RealTemp.exe from version 358 over to the folder that contains 346 and see if that works.  I haven't kept track of what version of WinRing0 was included with each version of RealTemp so maybe 346 uses an older version that isn't being blocked.

Odd ball problems with that driver appear once in a while that are impossible for me to trace since I didn't write WinRing0.  A bigger problem is that WinRing0 has recently ended development which my tools and other useful tools like SetFSB depend on.

http://openlibsys.org/

I think the developer couldn't afford the ridiculous annual cost of driver signing.  At some point, it's possible that Windows 7 x64 could simply block any program that tries to use the WinRing0 driver which wouldn't be good. 

At the moment, RealTemp 3.58 works fine in XP, Vista x86 or Windows 7 x64 on my test computers.  If you get it working again then let me know if you find out why you were having problems.

champaned_out: Your sensors look excellent and are very well balanced.  It looks like the core on the right (Core 1) reads a couple of degrees too low at idle.  These sensors are far from perfect so I wouldn't worry about that.  You can change your thermal paste 101 times but it's more likely sensor error.  As soon as there is any load at all on the CPU, the temperatures are almost perfectly balanced between the two cores as they should be since during that test, both cores are running the exact same program.  It's more likely that core 0 is stuck at 39C and can't report any number lower than that, ever.  There's nothing that can be done about that since these sensors were never designed by Intel to be used for accurate temperature reporting.


----------



## champaned_out (Mar 18, 2010)

thats good to hear thanks!
as of right now i am running on stock cooling and a 400w corsair PSU.. but i am waiting for this to come in the mail tommorow..http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835150083
hopefully this will keep my load temps a bit cooler

i would love to OC this CPU however my bios option has almost next to nothing in terms of overclocking.... the only function i can use in bios is in the performance boosting section and it only allows me to change the FSB... theres no option to change my voltage core or the multiplier...

i was able to change the FSB from the stock 200mhz to 216mhz x13 and i was able to hit 2.8ghz but i wasnt comfortable with the temps hitting 85C under 100% load so i brought it back down to stock...
im hoping to hit at least 3ghz stable 24/7 once i install the fan... hopefully without needing to change the v core


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 18, 2010)

These cheap Pentium chips have lots of overclocking headroom built into them without needing to significantly raise the voltage.






Nice little chip for $80 bucks.  This one has hit 4000 MHz but it needs too much voltage to run reliably at that speed so I settled on 3500 MHz.  It runs very cool so hopefully your new cooler helps you out.  At full load some motherboards will start using way too much extra core voltage as soon as you start overclocking.  That can create a lot of extra heat.  Run Prime95 and see what your voltage is reported as in CPU-Z when you start raising the FSB.  My chip is junk and you can see how much voltage it needs to be 100% LinX stable at 3500 MHz.


----------



## champaned_out (Mar 18, 2010)

ahh okay thanks for the info  im really looking forward to overclocking my cpu for the first time... hopefully all will go well

edit: i had a quick question, when raising the FSB should i raise it by small increments and run Prime95? or can i input the desired amount from the start and start testing?


----------



## toohot (Mar 21, 2010)

sorry to be a pain uncle,But I tried to copy 3.58 file over with no luck,it still came up with driver not found.So I installed version 3.56 and it installed without any problem.But Gpu is greyed out 
I added ini file GPU=2 using notepad  because I have ATI 5770.Without any luck.what do you think the problem is,any ideas


----------



## Techtu (Mar 21, 2010)

champaned_out said:


> ahh okay thanks for the info  im really looking forward to overclocking my cpu for the first time... hopefully all will go well
> 
> edit: i had a quick question, when raising the FSB should i raise it by small increments and run Prime95? or can i input the desired amount from the start and start testing?



Most would suggest you increase the FSB in small increments, however if you feel your chip will push... let's say 3.5Ghz at the settings you've got in mind, then by all means go try it  but this way will probably take longer unless the settings you've got in mind are pretty accurate!



toohot said:


> sorry to be a pain uncle,But I tried to copy 3.58 file over with no luck,it still came up with driver not found.So I installed version 3.56 and it installed without any problem.But Gpu is greyed out
> I added ini file GPU=2 using notepad  because I have ATI 5770.Without any luck.what do you think the problem is,any ideas



I'm not too sure on this, but i noticed on an earlier post by you that you did a system restore... It might be a wise idea to do a registry clean with a suitable program once you have uninstalled RealTemp (then reinstall after the registry clean), personally i use Ccleaner.

Please note link is a direct download.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 21, 2010)

toohot: I wish I had an answer for you.  After a fresh install of XP, Vista or Windows 7, RealTemp starts up fine for me with no issues.  It's difficult to track a problem down when I can't recreate it.

RealTemp doesn't write anything to the registry so I don't think cleaning the registry will make any difference.


----------



## toohot (Mar 22, 2010)

I have kaspersky internet security 2010 and realtemp is in trusted zone.I just cannot figure it out.
Thanks.Toohot


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 22, 2010)

You're not the first person to have trouble with RealTemp while using Kaspersky.  RealTemp might be in the trusted zone but RealTemp calls the WinRing0 library and I think Kaspersky has blocked that before because it is potentially dangerous.

In reality, it's only dangerous if some software is using WinRing0 in a dangerous manner.  WinRing0 by itself isn't dangerous.

You can try uninstalling Kaspersky to see if that is the problem.  I'm not sure if it's possible to add WinRing0 to your trusted list.  If not then you might have to become a Core Temp user.


----------



## SuperJoker (Mar 22, 2010)

unclewebb said:


> You're not the first person to have trouble with RealTemp while using Kaspersky.  RealTemp might be in the trusted zone but RealTemp calls the WinRing0 library and I think Kaspersky has blocked that before because it is potentially dangerous.
> 
> In reality, it's only dangerous if some software is using WinRing0 in a dangerous manner.  WinRing0 by itself isn't dangerous.
> 
> You can try uninstalling Kaspersky to see if that is the problem.  I'm not sure if it's possible to add WinRing0 to your trusted list.  If not then you might have to become a Core Temp user.



Well I'm glad I use Avast, As Avast doesn't have a problem with either RealTemp or WinRing0, Oh and for Malware neither does Spybot Search and Destroy as It gets along with both RealTemp and WinRing0 also.


----------



## somebody (Mar 22, 2010)

toohot said:


> I just cannot figure it out.
> Thanks.Toohot



toohot, try this. 


Run a "Command Prompt" as administrator
enter "sc delete WinRing0_1_2_0" without the quotes. If it says the deletion is pending you will have to reboot.
Run 3.58


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 22, 2010)

Good idea somebody.

I use Autoruns which lets you access the 1001 things in your start up sequence so you might be able to delete WinRing0 that way as well, reboot and then hopefully RealTemp 3.58 will work.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963902.aspx

WinRing0 shows up in:

HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services


----------



## toohot (Mar 22, 2010)

Thanks for all your advice.No luck,so I will just have to wait for next version.hopefully that will be soon.version 3.56 works great.its version 3.58 thats giving me a hard time since windows 7 repair.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 23, 2010)

i have no trouble here, with kaspersky.

I havent had to do this, but you might.








Make sure its trusted app, NOT exclusion - and make sure all boxes are ticked.


----------



## somebody (Mar 23, 2010)

That's a pity. I would still bet on it being a WinRing0 driver configuration problem. 

Have a look in the registry under "HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services" that Unclewebb posted and see if there are any WinRing0 entries.

One other thing you could try is to backup and remove the files RealTemp.exe and RealTemp.ini in the directory for 3.56 and replace them with the 2 files RealTemp.exe and RealTemp.ini from 3.58. Do not extract or use any of the other files in 3.58.


----------



## toohot (Mar 23, 2010)

Thanks to  Unclewebb all is now ok and working fine with a slight mod to ver 3.58.Thanking you all for your support in finding a solution to problem.Thank you uncle for ver 3.58.1


----------



## somebody (Mar 23, 2010)

Good to hear it's working toohot, now I'm intrigued as to what the real problem was


----------



## Mussels (Mar 23, 2010)

somebody said:


> Good to hear it's working toohot, now I'm intrigued as to what the real problem was



could have just been a broken driver (thought it was installed when it wasnt) and an new/different version number installed fine in its place.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 23, 2010)

Weird problem finally solved.


```
// try to open the WinRing0 dll library
	InitializeOls();
	Sleep(50);

	DWORD dDllStatus = GetDllStatus();
```

In theory, after you initialize the WinRing0 library, you should be able to check its status immediately to see if it opened correctly or not.  On most computers, this would work fine by doing things that way but on some computers, you need to wait for 50 milliseconds after calling the initialize routine to give the library time to finish opening.

I recently deleted the Sleep(50) line trying to make thngs more efficient at startup but that caused an issue for some users like toohot.  It was an easy fix to add that line back in to slow things down.  I think I'll go add a few more milliseconds to that delay to be on the safe side.

Here's RealTemp 3.58.1 if anyone needs it.
http://www.sendspace.com/file/5rxl01


----------



## TrackerFrost (Apr 16, 2010)

*Howdy*

After searching for awhile trying to find into on cpu temps and safe zones I found you guys.  

I'm still not sure on what is safe, and spent quite awhile reading here.  I have a Core i3 Clarkdale (as you'll see in the image).  Running the Sensor test with Prime scared the crap out of me, since Asus's "PC Probe II" that came with all the motherboard stuff kept yelling at me that I was overheating.

I didn't get the screen capture during the 10min stress test, at 100% it was at 22 and 20 Distance.  As you can see I've overclocked a bit.  It seems that where Probe starts complaining (60c) is actually not that hot, and I should be fine to go quite a bit higher.  Am I correct in this?  

Thanks for any help/info!
Edit: Also, would love advice on what temp to set the warning at!


----------



## burebista (Apr 16, 2010)

You're still fine. As long as distance to TJMax is >20 in daily use don't bother.
But indeed for that Vcore and frequency your temps are a lil' bit high. Do you have box cooling? What case and  airflow? Ambient temperature is? 

My advice is to buy an aftermarket cooler. Is better for OC and for silence.


----------



## TrackerFrost (Apr 16, 2010)

Its pretty warm in here today...I'd guess its 70f or so in the room.

Just has stock cooling for the cpu heatsink/fan.  Case came with 2 fans...120, and 140mm in a push/pull airflow.  I'd like to get 2 more to put in the top of the case.  The case is: at Newegg.

I do use the chip built in gpu(clarkdale) and that may account for some of the heat.  When I can budget it (and justify it to the mrs.) I'd like to get a cooling system, and up it a little further to 3.5.  It'll do it easily now with ok temps, but I worry about the temp while gaming (mostly wow).


----------



## burebista (Apr 16, 2010)

Case is fine. 21°C is fine too but still a lil' bit high on load temps. Are you sure that all those pesky push-pins are secured in place? God I HATE that push-pin system.
If all it's OK next investment should be an aftermarket heatsink with backplate and bolt-thru mounting system.


----------



## TrackerFrost (Apr 16, 2010)

I think its well secured, but I'll check again tonite.

Any favorites for a heatsink/fan?


----------



## burebista (Apr 16, 2010)

TrackerFrost said:


> Any favorites for a heatsink/fan?


Oh boy that's a tough one. You've opened Pandora's box 

It depends on budget and on your OC goals. Eventually it depends on silence too.
You have to choose between top dogs like king of the hill Noctua NH-D14 or Prolimatech Megahalems, Thermalright TRUE rev.C/VenomousX, Zalman 10X/Flex/Quiet or very good performers like Scythe Mugen2 (pain in the a*s to mount but good performer), Cogage TRUE Spirit or very affordable HDT ones like Xigmatek Thor's Hammer, Titan Fenrir, Tuniq Extreme, CoolerMaster Hyper 212+.

As for fans for example Scythe Slipstream/Gentle Typhoon/S-Flex are good candidates price/performance/CFM/noise.


----------



## NordicDawn (Apr 21, 2010)

Hello everyone,

I've got the following problem: when I startup RealTemp, Load is at 100%. Is there any way to fix that?

Specs:
i7 920 @OC

Greetings,


----------



## burebista (Apr 21, 2010)

RealTemp puts 100% load on your CPU? Never heard of that until now.


----------



## NordicDawn (Apr 21, 2010)

Never seen it myself either. When running the test temperatures drop though, but stay high in the standard window @100% load.


----------



## burebista (Apr 21, 2010)

A screenshot from Task Manager/Process Explorer?


----------



## Mussels (Apr 21, 2010)

we'll likely find something else is loading him, and not realtemp


----------



## NordicDawn (Apr 21, 2010)

Mussels said:


> we'll likely find something else is loading him, and not realtemp








I must be missing something...


----------



## Mussels (Apr 21, 2010)

yeah, thats weird indeed


----------



## NordicDawn (Apr 21, 2010)

It has to be something small and stupid, it always is


----------



## burebista (Apr 21, 2010)

Please post a screenshot from Process Explorer. I want to see DPCs/Hardware Interrupts.
Thanks.

*LE.* Also try latest RealTemp.


----------



## NordicDawn (Apr 21, 2010)

Here it is, with the latest RealTemp version:


----------



## burebista (Apr 21, 2010)

Thanks man. It's obvious something weird and beyond my knowledge. I'll put Kevin to explain this. 
All I can say is that indeed is 100% load on your CPU if you have those temps in idle.

*LE:* I just remembered something similar and do just one more try. Change Windows Power plan to High Performance. 
I dunno if it will work for you but for same problem, my solution and Kevin's explanation.


----------



## Delta6326 (May 3, 2010)

everytime i click reset on 3.40 it crashes and i have to restart Realtemp, anyway to fix this? im currently not home


----------



## unclewebb (May 3, 2010)

RealTemp 3.58.3
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip

RealTemp 3.40 has a big bug when used on systems with ATI GPUs.  Hopefully the above version works OK.  Try adding GPU=2 to the RealTemp.ini file if you have an ATI GPU.  The new code should work on CrossFire systems too.

NordicDawn: The load meter in RealTemp reports the percent of time that your CPU is in the C0 state.  Your core temperatures look high at idle so something is not letting your CPU go into the lower power saving C states.  It might be a setting in the bios that needs adjustment.  You can also try clicking on the C1E setting in the RealTemp Settings window to see if that makes any difference.

I once saw a similar problem in Windows 2000 where the CPU was always forced to use the C0 state so it consumed more power and never had a chance to cool down at idle.


----------



## brandonwh64 (May 3, 2010)

you know what. realtemp worked for about 2 months on my PC (had it startup with windows) then one day i noticed that it wassnt on the task bar so i checked the task manager to see if it was running. it was running so i killed the process and retarted it to see it do the same thing. now the only exe that works is realtempGT? what could make this happen all of a sudden?


----------



## Delta6326 (May 3, 2010)

unclewebb said:


> RealTemp 3.58.3
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip
> 
> RealTemp 3.40 has a big bug when used on systems with ATI GPUs.  Hopefully the above version works OK.  Try adding GPU=2 to the RealTemp.ini file if you have an ATI GPU.  The new code should work on CrossFire systems too.



thanks that fixed the problem keep up the great work!


----------



## unclewebb (May 3, 2010)

There was a problem before where RealTemp could end up with some bad co-ordinates stored in its INI settings.  Changing screen modes might cause RealTemp to get lost and then never show up again.  I think this issue has been fixed in the latest version so download it from the above link and see what happens.


----------



## brandonwh64 (May 3, 2010)

Ok thanks unclewebb! i just tried the beta and it works good!


----------



## unclewebb (May 3, 2010)

I think the disappearing RealTemp is all fixed now but if it ever happens again just delete the INI key

*WindowsXY=*

That stores information about where on screen RealTemp last closed so it can open up again at that location next time you start it.  When that used to get screwed up, RealTemp would open up but about a mile off of your screen so you couldn't actually see it.  Not too useful. 

I wrote some new code to try to make sure that the window pops up on screen.


----------



## brandonwh64 (May 3, 2010)

Ok thanks again!


----------



## sparkyork (May 6, 2010)

hi everyone

just been reading this thread for hours!

ive just done the idle temp test , ambient temp around case is est 24 degrees max, yet when underclocked to 1.1v and 2ghz x6 multi, im gettin the same idle temps as when im clocked to 3ghz
currently readin 50,48,47,47

any thoughts or suggestions?

thanks

richard


----------



## unclewebb (May 6, 2010)

The 45nm Core 2 based CPUs have a big problem with sticking sensors and are not very accurate at reporting low temperatures.

Why not post a screen shot of a Cool Down Test.  You can upload it to www.imageshack.us and post a link here so I can have a look.

At every step of that test the temperature should change on each core.  If it doesn't, that's a good sign of a sticking sensor.


----------



## sparkyork (May 6, 2010)

Hi unclewebb, I did the cool down test and will do it again and post a screen shot for you 

I won't go into to much detail on settings as I'll pop these on the screen shot aswell, but I'm using a q9300

if I remember rightly the sensors all seemed to drop consistantly until they get to idle speed where they seemed to stop at around 49-51, maybe I'm just running hot or the cores don't register these lower temps?


----------



## TheSpectre (May 6, 2010)

*AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Support*

Hello Everyone,

First I would like to say that I Really Like RealTemp it is a great little program and I have been using it for quite a while on a Intel System.

However I have recently upgraded my System to the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T CPU and the ASUS Crosshair IV Formula Motherboard and when I went to run RealTemp v3.58.4 and said that "The processor detected is not supported."  and I was just wondering if and when support will be added for this CPU

Thanks in Advance.


----------



## unclewebb (May 6, 2010)

TheSpectre: Those new AMD X6 CPUs look great for enthusiasts without breaking the bank but unfortunately I don't have enough time to add AMD support to RealTemp. 

sparkyork: Some 45nm Core 2 Duo/Quad sensors are not very accurate anywhere along the temperature curve.  If they get stuck or read 10C or more too high at idle, that's not unusual.


----------



## TheSpectre (May 6, 2010)

unclewebb: That is sad to here, there are other CPU Temperature programs out there but I definitely like RealTemp the most.

So far I am very pleased with the AMD 6 Core CPU's but I have not had the chance to mess with Overclocking it because am unsure what the "RealTemp" of the CPU is.

Either way I will be using my old Intel parts for a test system and I will continue to use RealTemp on it.

Thanks again for a great program.


----------



## unclewebb (May 6, 2010)

Most monitoring software seems to be reporting the new X6 way too cold.  This is either a very cool running CPU or more temperature games by a manufacturer.  With poor documentation and questionable sensor quality, it's too much of a hassle trying to get some meaningful temperature numbers out of any CPU.  

Far better to just overclock them as high as possible.  No need to worry about core temperature.  I've found that overclocking forces you to run a CPU cool to maintain stability so as long as you're stable then your CPU is fine.


----------



## sparkyork (May 7, 2010)

hi unclewebb screen shot as follows


----------



## unclewebb (May 7, 2010)

sparkyork: The Cool Down Test shows that none of your sensors are sticking in your normal temperature range.

I was playing around with a T8100 mobile CPU recently and discovered something interesting.  No matter what VID voltage or multiplier I used or any other setting, idle power consumption and core temperature didn't change one bit.

I ran the Windows Performance Monitor and discovered that regardless of any settings I changed, this CPU spends 99% of its idle time in the C3 sleep state or in a deeper sleep state.  I believe when it is like this, all the settings I used are being 99% ignored so power consumption and therefore CPU core temperature doesn't change any at idle.

That's the only explanation I can think of for what you're seeing.  Start up Performance Monitor and monitor C3% and you might see the same thing.


----------



## sparkyork (May 7, 2010)

hi uncleweb, ive opened up performance monitor, where do i find c3 monitoring?

cheers


----------



## unclewebb (May 7, 2010)

Click on the green *+* sign at the top and then it will  let you choose what you want to monitor.  Go to the Processor section and you should be able to monitor C3%.  I have an older desktop CPU that does not go into C3 so this shows 0% but my mobile CPU averages close to 99% if nothing significant is running in the background.


----------



## sparkyork (May 7, 2010)

hi unclewebb i did the above and get this, this is with throttling enabled etc and it cpuz shows the multiplier been dropped etc but to me no readings here! 






are you meaning that your laptop and perhaps my computer are not resting fully at idle and hence high idle temps? mine is now set to lower mulitipliers etc but the voltage doesnt seem to drop much, im not sure if thats a contributor to my heat, gonna try maybe 1.29 vcore to see if it helps.
wonder if my cpu cooler isnt seated right? still it doesnt thorttle under prime 95 so must be within intels safety limilts, allthough stated at 74.1 degress is think? whats this number refering to ?


----------



## unclewebb (May 7, 2010)

My laptop spends all of its idle time in C3 or deeper so that's why it doesn't consume too much power or run too hot at idle.

In your example above, if you click on the % C3 Time at the bottom of the screen and highlight that then it will show the current C3 results in the Last, Average, Minimum and Maximum boxes.  Try monitoring C1 and C2 as well.  My desktop CPU spends all of its idle time in C1.

The 74.1C number is not a core temperature so you can ignore that.  Thermal throttling and CPU slow down is based on your core temperature and that doesn't happen until 100C so you have no need to worry.  Your CPU is running within spec.

These temperature sensors are highly inaccurate.  Don't jump to too many conclusions based on data from these sensors.  Do what you can to try and get them to go lower but don't waste too much time.  As long as your CPU is stable and not reaching the thermal throttling point then you can ignore its core temperature.


----------



## sparkyork (May 7, 2010)

ty unclewebb, indeed my c1 state looks like this


----------



## unclewebb (May 7, 2010)

I'm not sure if you have a C States bios setting that might let your CPU go into one of the deeper sleep states to conserve a little power and reduce the idle temperature a little.  To be honest, it probably won't make any significant difference even if it can go from C1 to C3 or deeper.

Is your computer case open or closed and how is the air flow.  When testing I often times open up my case for consistency.  What GPU are you using?  Trapped heat can increase the core temperature.


----------



## sparkyork (May 7, 2010)

i think my pc does go into a sleep state when left for a while (you cant even tell its switched on)

im gonna restart now and enable any power saving things and see what happens

my case is open and im running a ati radeon 5770, akasa evo cooler which is supposed to be pretty good

id like to just know what temps other 9300 users are getting or were getting before going newer lol


----------



## unclewebb (May 7, 2010)

I'm using a 5770 too and like how cool it runs.

These sensors have more than +/- 10C of error in them at idle.  If the CPU is actually at 40C then one sensor, like yours, might report that CPU as 50C and another CPU might report that exact same temperature as 30C.  Comparing temperatures to other users using these sensors is pointless.  They are just not that accurate.

They can only be compared to themselves.  If you reboot and change something and the sensor reports a cooler temperature then you've probably done good as long as this change shows a repeatable difference with some A/B/A type testing where you can prove your results.


----------



## bouchigo (May 21, 2010)

Unclewebb, or anyone else who can help, 

I need help interpreting this info.

The ambient temp. around my pc was measured at 20 degrees Celcius, and the temp. inside my computer case was measured at 25 degrees Celcius.

As I am sure you already know, TJmax for the i7-860 is 99 degrees Celcius.

These are the results I got (I didn't make any adjustments for idle calibration):


----------



## unclewebb (May 21, 2010)

The sensors Intel uses are not 100% accurate, especially at idle.  TJ Target is 99C but actual TJMax is unknown.  There is a certain amount of variation in this number and Intel has never documented how much.  The amount of error at TJMax also varies from one CPU line of theirs to the next.

These new Core i7 CPU sensors also have slope error.  That means as you get further and further away from the point where Intel calibrates them, they can either start reading a little too high or a little too low.  This happens to different cores on the same CPU.  No one knows which cores are correct or what cores are closest to correct or what cores are completely wrong.  It varies from one CPU to the next.  

There are too many variables and too much inside information not documented by Intel.


----------



## bouchigo (May 21, 2010)

Do you have any suggested adjustments I can make?  That 37C on core 0 seems a little too high to me based on ambient temp. and temp. inside case.


----------



## unclewebb (May 21, 2010)

It's harder to come up with a meaningful calibration for these because I don't have any data about them.  You also have 3 of the 4 cores being able to go to sleep at idle where the core voltage gets reduced to next to nothing and can run quite cool.

Your screen shot shows all 4 cores reporting the exact same minimum temperature and the minimum looks very reasonable considering your room temperature.  If core 0 is mostly awake and the other 3 are mostly asleep then the difference doesn't look too unusual.  If you use a negative calibration factor to reduce the reported core temperature of core 0 then that is going to drop its Minimum temperature way below the other cores.  That's not right.

I'd just leave it.  If you don't like this one reporting too high then ignore it at idle.  There's not enough known about how these CPUs work internally to decide how accurate the sensors are.  Intel says their sensors are not designed for accurate temperature reporting and I agree.  As long as your CPU is not thermal throttling or running unstable then you don't have to worry about the core temperature anyhow.  It's just a number.


----------



## bouchigo (May 21, 2010)

Well, when you put it that way, I guess it does make sense since core 0 is the most active.  I will just ignore it for now as you've advised and hopefully in time (hopefully not too much time) more info. will come about for these processors to get more accurate readings.

Thanks


----------



## unclewebb (May 21, 2010)

You can also try using ThrottleStop.  It gives you an accurate look at what each thread is up to in terms of load and the average multiplier.

ThrottleStop 2.00
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/ThrottleStop.zip


----------



## bouchigo (May 21, 2010)

Thanks, I will give that a try.


----------



## Sergey Lepilov (XBT) (May 22, 2010)

*unclewebb*
Hi!

1) Thanks for you programm! 

2) The plugin for the RivaTuner does not work with the last RivaTuner and RealTemp 3.59 on the Gulftown. Have you a new version of this plugin?

3) Why the temperatures of the RealTemp and the CPU-Tweaker monitoring are not equal?





Who it is right?

Thanks!


----------



## burebista (May 22, 2010)

1. Me too. 
2. Plugin is only for non-Gulftown Intel CPU's
3. First of all TJMax (TJTarget in fact) is 101 not 100 and second I'm sure that CPU-Tweaker shuffle cores between reboots.

Who is right? There are no questions, for Intel CPUs RealTemp is the best monitoring software.


----------



## unclewebb (May 22, 2010)

You are welcome.  The RealTemp - RivaTuner plugin has not been updated in a long, long time so it does not correctly support the new Gulftown 6 core CPUs.  I will think about updating this in the near future.

When lightly loaded, the core temperature can change very rapidly a few degrees up and down, especially on these newer CPUs that are able to put cores into a low power sleep state.  The best program to test with is Prime95 with the Small FFTs option.  That puts a very consistent load on each thread so if you run that then it will be a lot easier to compare two different monitoring programs.  Can you post a screen shot of that at full load after the CPU temperature has stabilized?

RealTemp also uses thread ordering so it associates each thread with the correct core.  Most software doesn't bother doing this so what RealTemp reports for Core 2, another program might report that data as Core 4.  In the RealTemp Settings window at the bottom is a number called APIC ID.  Can you see what that shows when you are doing your testing.  That can change each time your computer boots up but is usually consistent from one day to the next.  It can also change when you flash the bios.  Knowing this information will make it easier for me to compare both programs when they are at full load.

As burebista mentioned, TJMax is written into each core of the CPU now.  I know RealTemp reads that correctly but I'm not sure about other software.


----------



## unclewebb (May 25, 2010)

Sergey Lepilov (XBT): I've updated the RealTemp - RivaTuner plugin for better Gulftown support but the problem is that I don't have a Gulftown to test this on.  

Can you explain to me what problem you are having with it?  Do any of the graphs get displayed in RivaTuner?  Are some missing?  Does it not work at all?

If you can show me exactly what the problem is then maybe I can fix it.  Thanks.

This updated version should correctly support the QX Core 2 CPUs now.

RealTemp - RivaTuner PlugIn - 3.5.9.0
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RTCore.zip


----------



## toohot (Jun 3, 2010)

Hi Uncle.Its been some time since I have updated Real temp current version 3.58.1 and working great.Should I update version to 3.58.4 or later


Case details are coolmaster cm690. front 120mm fan 1200rpm/rear fan 120 mm 1200rpm/left fan 140mm 1200rpm. cpu fan Noctua Nh-u12p se1366 performance cooler / ati radion hd 5770 graphic card/gigabyte ga-x58a-ud5 mb/ram G.Skill Trident f3-12800clt6t-6gbtd/win 7 64 pro/hdd x3
wd 1TB(wd10ears07200rpm 64mb satta 11 green power/cpu intel i7 920/thermaltake toughpower Qfan 850 watt


----------



## unclewebb (Jun 3, 2010)

I always like upgrading to new software.  It makes me feel good even if the old stuff is working fine.  It's probably a sickness. 

RealTemp 3.59
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip

I try to fix more things than I break with each new version.  The recent fixes have been mostly for Core 2 Extreme CPUs so you might not notice any big difference besides a new number.


----------



## Vhozard (Jul 9, 2010)

I just wanna say I had the exact same problem with the Reset-button (using ATI here too), but the version you uploaded fixed it.

Thanks!


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 9, 2010)

If you have an ATI GPU you can try adding *GPU=2* to the RealTemp.ini file.


----------



## customize_your_sleep (Jul 18, 2010)

im running a q9550 in a coolermaster HAF full tower runing stock heat sink. ive had it for about 6 months and probly put about 800 hours on it no overclocking but i find it odd that suddenly after i got 3.40 my cpu temps are now at 45 c idle  and 3.00 said 32-34 befor and it also says 45 now aswell as core temp w/room temp at 71. was there a update to cpu temp monitors or did my heat sink just crap out on me.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 18, 2010)

customize_your_sleep said:


> im running a q9550 in a coolermaster HAF full tower runing stock heat sink. ive had it for about 6 months and probly put about 800 hours on it no overclocking but i find it odd that suddenly after i got 3.40 my cpu temps are now at 45 c idle  and 3.00 said 32-34 befor and it also says 45 now aswell as core temp w/room temp at 71. was there a update to cpu temp monitors or did my heat sink just crap out on me.



check your TJmax setting. it may be defaulting wrong.


----------



## customize_your_sleep (Jul 18, 2010)

i dont know  what the tjmax settings  supposed to be at there at 100 i think

here an img of temps and settings

http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss61/Customizeyoursleep/Untitled.jpg


----------



## Mussels (Jul 18, 2010)

customize_your_sleep said:


> i dont know  what the tjmax settings  supposed to be at there at 100 i think
> 
> here an img of temps and settings
> 
> http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss61/Customizeyoursleep/Untitled.jpg



i dont think its supposed to be at 100. please read up on TJmax and try and find the value yourself.


----------



## customize_your_sleep (Jul 18, 2010)

ok thx will do or try to do anyways


----------



## customize_your_sleep (Jul 18, 2010)

im wondering if i chage the tjmax in real temp will it have a physical effect on my cpu?

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-dts-specs,6517.html

i tried looking into it but i can seem to get a understanding of how tj max   exactly works 

so that was the best i could find.and i still have no clue whats going on or how to change tjmax or if it  actualy causes the cpu to reduce power  to drop heat.


----------



## burebista (Jul 18, 2010)

If you change TJMax value you're fooling yourself. 
The only value that matter for your CPU thermal behavior is _distance to TJMax_. Keep it >20 in daily use and be happy.
If you have a 10C jump at idle you can take a look at those pesky push-pins. Maybe one is loose.
What's your core temps after 15 minutes load with prime95 Small FFTs?


----------



## customize_your_sleep (Jul 18, 2010)

ok, ill check.im not sure i should run prime, the comp is at a constant 52-51c under 26-28% load.

edit...btw the room temp is now 63f

and i checked the push pins and they seem fine  all 4  feel tight and there all sticking out the back of the mobo

edit ok i rebooted the system and the bios say 24c then when the os booted the temps where at 36c and i push 60%load and it didnt go over 47c


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 18, 2010)

RealTemp 3.59.3
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip

The temperature sensors that Intel uses in their CPUs work the opposite of a thermometer.  As the CPU heats up, the sensor counts down toward zero.  When it reaches zero, the CPU will start to thermal throttle and slow down.  The number that RealTemp reports as Distance to TJMax is a direct reading of these sensors.

If you know that your CPU core temperature will be at 100C when this sensor counts down to zero then you can approximate from that point.  If the sensor reads 10 that means you are about 10 degrees away from the throttling point so you must be at (100-10) 90C.  If the sensor reads 30 then you must be at a core temperature of (100-30) 70C.

Core Temperature = TJMax - Distance to TJMax

The problem is that Intel never released any documentation about what the correct value is for TJMax.  I think RealTemp 3.00 might have taken a wild guess and used a value of 95C.  Long after Core 2 CPUs were first released, Intel finally released some information at one of Intel's IDF conferences.  They stated that for a Q9000 series CPU, 100C is the correct value.  I believe that number but they later released information for the earlier 65nm CPUs that seem a long ways off from actual TJMax.





In the fine print they call this number TJ Target.  The actual TJMax of a CPU can vary from one Q9550 to another and it can also vary from one core to the next on the same CPU.  Intel did not release any further information like how much actual TJMax might vary or any other details about their calibration procedures.  They did say that trying to get accurate core temperatures out of these sensors based on the above formula is not a good idea.  These sensors were designed to control thermal throttling and thermal shutdown and that's it.  They're not documented for any other purpose than that.

100% accurate core temperatures from idle to full load are not possible when that is based on data coming from these sensors.  If no one knows what TJMax really is, then you can't compare your sensor readings to your friend's sensor readings.  There is so much error in the 45nm sensors that this is pointless.

About all these sensors are good for is to compare your CPU from one day to the next.  They seem fairly consistent and repeatable that way.  If you change the air flow in your computer or if you change a heatsink and your full load temperatures are 5C better than before then you've done good.

The CPU temperature sensor that the bios reports is coming from a different sensor than the core sensors.  There's no guarantee that sensor is 100% accurate either so comparing one inaccurate sensor to another one also isn't worth worrying about.  The core sensors are located on the hottest spot on the CPU and the bios based temperature sensor is located in the middle of the CPU.  At full Prime95 load, there can be a significant difference (20C) between these two sensors even if both are properly calibrated but neither sensor is.


----------



## Octopuss (Jul 19, 2010)

The last stable version on the web is still 3.40. Are you planning to update that? Considering the beta is already 3.50+...


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 19, 2010)

The most stable version is the one I posted just above your post.  Donations to project RealTemp have been averaging $0.00 the last few months so I've come to the conclusion that this program is not very important to the hundreds of thousands of people that use and download it so I don't put too much effort into keeping the main site updated.  If I have some free time later this summer I will try to update it but I have another project that I've been working on for the last 6 months so I haven't gotten around to it.

You can check out ThrottleStop if you're interested.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/ThrottleStop.zip

Beyond zero money, the next biggest problem is zero feedback from users.  RealTemp 3.40 has a major bug as soon as you click on the Reset button if you have an ATI GPU but less than 1 person per 100,000 downloads takes 30 seconds out of their day to notify me of this.  I have to assume that no one gives a crap about this project anymore or is interested in seeing it improve so I've decided to put my free time into other projects.  Sorry about that.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 19, 2010)

unclewebb said:


> The most stable version is the one I posted just above your post.  Donations to project RealTemp have been averaging $0.00 the last few months so I've come to the conclusion that this program is not very important to the hundreds of thousands of people that use and download it so I don't put too much effort into keeping the main site updated.  If I have some free time later this summer I will try to update it but I have another project that I've been working on for the last 6 months so I haven't gotten around to it.
> 
> You can check out ThrottleStop if you're interested.
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/ThrottleStop.zip
> ...



i'd donate if you worked in AMD support


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 19, 2010)

I really liked the last AMD x2-555BE I used for a friend's build that magically and easily turned into a Quad.  Unfortunately I don't have enough time for all my Intel projects so I won't be starting any AMD projects.  I don't mind working for free but my projects turn into negative numbers when I need to start buying hardware.  Translation: My wife found all the Intel CPU boxes hiding in the closet downstairs. 

Lucky the recent QX9650 didn't come in a box.


----------



## Sergey Lepilov (XBT) (Jul 23, 2010)

Dear *unclewebb*.
Please, try to comment this screenshot:






From this: http://www.fcenter.ru/cgi-bin/sitemanager/redirecturl.cgi?urlid=6433

The ambient temps = 30.2-30.6 C! How is the RealTemp GT can show minimum temps lower then ambients?

Thanks!


----------



## Octopuss (Jul 23, 2010)

As a reaction on last posts, do you need any help with testing?
I have E8400 CPU and P45 board, which is well covered though, I assume (there is Core i3 on my gf's desk too)
Anyway I do have some time I could help with.


----------



## burebista (Jul 23, 2010)

Sergey Lepilov (XBT) said:


> The ambient temps = 30.2-30.6 C! How is the RealTemp GT can show minimum temps lower then ambients?


Don't ask Kevin, ask Intel why they come back at crappy sensors from Wolfdale/Yorkfiled era. 
Any monitoring program will show you same temps as RealTemp because now TJMax (TJTarget in fact) is written in MSR and core temp formula is simple: TJMax-DTS= reported temperature.


----------



## Cheezeman (Jul 24, 2010)

Mussels said:


> i'd donate if you worked in AMD support



Hello all -

First of all, Mussels your avatar cracked me the hell up!! 

I have some questions about my recent build regarding CPU temps and could use some help. The build is:

Intel Core i5 750 2.66GHz @ 3.6GHz 1.1875v
CoolerMaster Hyper 212 Plus CPU cooler
ASUS P7P55D Deluxe motherboard
4GB (2x2) OCZ Gold memory
2x nVidia 460 GTX 1GB in SLI w/ 3D vision
Win7 64-bit



I believe I've captured all the info needed in these screenshots but please let me know if I need something else. The first screenshot is at stock settings. The second screenshot is overclocked to 3.6GHz @ 1.8v.


*STOCK*








*3.6GHz @ 1.1875v.*









(all of the following refers to the STOCK settings screenshot, the OC was taken on a different day)

OK so reading the RealTemp website calibration portion, it says to leave the CPU settings at default (for the new i5/i7s because of the auto-throttling) and that the temps I should be seeing should be about 8* C above what my room temperature is for my cpu cooler type (decent single fan air cooler). However as you can see in the screencap, the minimum temperatures is 21* C - which is 70* F. Now unfortunately I don't have a way to take my room temp, and it was pretty cool in the room the day, but let's say _at coldest_ it was maybe 68* F (20* C) room temperature. So do I need to go enter a +8/+9 calibration into RealTemp or are the new CPUs really putting off that little heat at idle when throttled down? BIOS reporting somewhere around 22*-24* I believe.

The second part of the calibration involves the sensor cool down test, but I honestly have no idea what I'm supposed to do there...   I take it the test is supposed to tell you how to further calibrate the sensors so they are normalized against each other, but I don't really understand how to interpret these results.. Could someone help me?

After I know I have accurate temp readings, my final question is what is the real max temp for the i5 as displayed in RealTemp? I know Intel lists T*case* as 74* C, but RealTemp shows T*junction* (at 100* C!!), and I don't really know which I'm supposed to be adhering too. What is the difference between Tcase and Tjunction, and what is the max for Tjunction for an i5 750? I can't seem to find a straight answer to this.

As you can see in the overclock screenshot, the max temps 'only' get to ~65* C (without possible calibration yet) but the minimum temps are drastically higher, even with the throttling enabled and it has self-throttled to just 1.6GHZ. But I'm not sure if I should be alarmed of 74* (intel spec) or 100* (realtemp) and that I might be harming my CPU already if my calibration is off.

I appreciate any help!


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 24, 2010)

Sergey Lepilov: Nothing I can do about the poor quality sensors that Intel is using on their new Gulftown CPUs.  The sensors on the Core i7-900 series were excellent.  The new sensors are not.

Intel only designs and calibrates their sensors for accurate thermal throttling and thermal shutdown control.  They were never intended to be used for accurate temperature monitoring, especially at idle.  These sensors have what is called slope error.  That means the further you get away from the calibration point, the more these sensors will wander and start reading either temperatures that are too high or in your case, temperatures that are too low.

If I had some new hardware and a little bit of help from Intel it would be easy to calibrate these sensors to get reasonably accurate core temperatures out of them.  At least these sensors don't have the severe sticking problems like many 45nm Core 2 sensors have.

Octopuss: Thanks for your offer to help.  I don't have anything that needs testing at the moment but I do appreciate the offer.

Cheezeman: All of the testing I've done has been with Core 2 CPUs.  I can't afford to start an extensive testing program for the Core i CPUs so I won't be bothering.  The information in the documentation about calibrating Core 2 based CPUs is probably not 100% relevant to calibrating Core i CPUs.  The Core i CPUs also have a feature where cores are being mostly turned off at idle and can spend time with virtually no voltage going through them.  This behavior might be partly responsible for some of the differences you see from core to core in your idle temperatures but most of the difference is likely the slope error that I mentioned before where sensors move at different rates compared to how the actual core temperature is changing.

The maximum Tjunction temperature for your CPU is 99C.  If your CPU ever reaches that temperature it will start to thermal throttle and slow down so it probably won't go beyond that temperature as long as your heatsink doesn't fall off.  Even if your fan fails, the CPU is designed to automatically slow down to prevent a melt down. 

It is impossible for software to accurately measure your Tcase temperature so the Intel rating is meaningless for most users.  The only way to accurately measure Tcase is by taking a Dremel and cutting a groove into the top of your CPU and running a calibrated thermocouple to the geometric center.  That's fine if you're in the lab but not practical for the end user to do to their own CPU.  As long as you are operating your CPU so you are not thermal throttling, then you are operating your CPU within the Intel design spec.  RealTemp shows the word OK if you have not triggered any thermal throttling.  Your CPU says OK, OK, OK, OK so everything is OK.  No worries about your core temperatures.

It would be a good idea to scroll up to post #682 and download the latest version of RealTemp that I posted.



> The second screenshot is overclocked to 3.6GHz @ 1.8v.



I sure hope that 1.8v number is a misprint or else you'll have far bigger things to worry about than your core temperature.  

It's not worth trying to calibrate these sensors.  You can use RealTemp to make the numbers line up and look nicer but there are too many unknowns.  Your calibration might not be any more accurate than what you've got now.


----------



## Cheezeman (Jul 24, 2010)

Thank you! 

Yes that was a typo, I meant 1.*1*8.


----------



## Sergey Lepilov (XBT) (Jul 25, 2010)

*unclewebb*
Thanks!

So you mean, that tests coolers on the Core i7-920 more exact and it is possible to trust then the tests coolers on the Core i7-980X?

And what do you think about the necessity of alignment IHS of the Core i7? This is the ansew of Intel:

_Datasheet should describe the material used for the Integrated Heat Spreader (IHS), if not, it is nickel plated copper.The actual construction (IHS thickness) does vary from processor family to processor family. This is done to ensure a uniform height for the top of the IHS in the socket to facilitate the reuse of common thermal solutions from generation to generation. I would have to ask package designers the exact thickness, but Xbit could probably figure it out by taking a device apart and measuring it. The IHS’s are not perfectly flat, the flatness spec should be documented in the Mechanical section of the Datasheet.Note that once the processor is mounted in the socket, the compression will slightly change the flatness.Polishing (or lapping, as it is called) the IHS is a common practice among extreme over-clockers. The purpose of lapping is to improve the flatness and make the surface smoother, it is important to also lap the heatsink being used. Again, this should be done with the device mounted in a socket. A flatter, smoother surface will increase the contact surface area between the IHS and the heatsink, resulting in better thermal performance.The improvement in heat dissipation will be fairly small under normal conditions, but for extreme over-clockers it is worth the effort._


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 25, 2010)

For your heatsink testing, I would stick with the Core i7-920.  The 45nm sensors that Intel used in those CPUs were excellent.  I can't remember seeing a single screen shot of an i7-920 with bad sensors but all of the i7-980X have sensors that do not track the change in core temperature 100% accurately.  The amount of error increases as the CPU cools.  Core 0 on the i7-920 seems to be the most accurately calibrated by Intel.  They have never said what their calibration procedure is but the data from that core always looks very accurate and most importantly, repeatable so your results should not change very much from one test to the next.

Some users have lapped their CPUs but unless there is something very wrong with the IHS, they usually don't see much of an improvement in reduced core temperature.  I think the difference in core temperature between core 0 and core 3 in the i7-920 is mostly sensor error and the way Intel calibrates their CPUs.  Lapping the CPU usually won't change the difference between those two cores.


----------



## dnd (Aug 1, 2010)

stupid question...occasionally realtemp gt will sound the alarm (just for a moment) and then be quiet again.  if i look at the temperatures they all seem to be fine (like 50 below tjmax), so is this a bug?  interaction with some other software (eg everest)?  this is with 3.40 btw.


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 1, 2010)

What temperature do you have the alarm set to?  What CPU do you have?  Are you using both a CPU and a GPU alarm?  Does CPU-Z show your CPU as a retail processor or an ES processor?  What GPU do you have?

Generally speaking, I haven't heard of any complaints about the alarm feature but it's a feature that I never use so maybe there is some obscure bug that I don't know about.  Other software should be OK and they shouldn't be causing RealTemp to signal a false alarm.  The GPU sensors seem more prone to reporting blips of false data.

Let me know a few more details.  If it is bad data coming from your sensors then it might not be anything that I can fix.  Run a RealTemp log file so when an alarm goes off, you can look in the log file and see if a sensor is reporting some bad data.  

Ultimately, if the alarm is not reliable for you then I guess you'll have to turn this feature off and not use it.


----------



## dnd (Aug 1, 2010)

it's a gulftown, temp is set to 80 deg so it is nowhere near the alarm temp at 55 deg max.  it's a retail proc, having said that it is oc'd and errored out on a run today, so it could just be a manifestation of instability.  GPU is a 480 gtx so that is probably buggy as well lol.


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 1, 2010)

I'll have a look at the code when I have a chance and see if I can figure out anything that I might have done wrong.  I don't own a Gulftown and haven't had any feedback good or bad so I'm not sure what works and what doesn't.


----------



## dnd (Aug 3, 2010)

one other thing i've noticed with i7 turbo is that it looks like turbo mode is throttling the first core, but only momentarily...normally all 6 sit at a 31x multi, but occasionally i'll see the first core drop to 25 but only for an instant, and then it jumps back up again.  this is on a rampage 3 extreme.


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 3, 2010)

What other monitoring software are you using?  There are some other programs out there that don't use the system timers in a friendly manner which can screw up the results that i7 Turbo displays.  At one time, Everest used to cause problems for the timers that i7 Turbo uses but I haven't kept up recently with what third party software does what.  When i7 Turbo is run by itself, it usually gives very consistent results.

i7 Turbo GT 
Version 1.1
http://www.mediafire.com/?w5lpqqpy6wwq8wi

The Asus P6T series had some problems with turbo throttling but I haven't heard of any problems with the rampage 3 extreme.  When you have actual turbo throttling at full load, it looks more like this.

http://img17.imageshack.us/i/asusp6tddlxw3520throttl.jpg/

When the CPU is fully loaded, the average multiplier on each thread will drop down fairly equally.

ThrottleStop and i7 Turbo use the same timers and same method to determine the multiplier on each thread.


----------



## dnd (Aug 3, 2010)

i have got everest running so perhaps it is making a mess.

EDIT: is it normal to have a bit of variation between the cores?  right now under prime95 i have 50, 52, 45, 47, 54, 49.


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 4, 2010)

The sensors in the Gulftown CPUs are very poor at reporting accurate core temperatures.  Intel might also do something like offset TJMax slightly from one core to the next but they've never documented that or anything else about the calibration procedure they use.

Your Gulftown temps look typical.  They're usually all over the place and I have no idea which one is right.


----------



## Octopuss (Sep 22, 2010)

http://forums.tweaktown.com/gigabyt...nchmarking-stability-tools-54.html#post371788
The guy announced RealTemp 3.59.6 there, but I can't find anything about it here on the forums or on Techpowerup at all. What's the deal?


----------



## burebista (Sep 22, 2010)

Here you go.
Usually Kevin posts only final versions on TPU.


----------



## unclewebb (Sep 22, 2010)

I've been working hard to finalize 3.60 and to get it uploaded here at TPU but I don't have access to any new hardware so it takes me forever to test new features and get any meaningful feedback from users.  It's been like this for the last year.  When I have the time and am motivated to do some programming, it takes too long to find out what new features work and which ones don't.  The result is that I am endlessly waiting and end up working on other projects and lose interest in project RealTemp.

If you are a dedicated tester like my friend burebista is and if you have access to some new Core i hardware, desktop or mobile, then send me a PM and let me know that you would like to help.


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 1, 2010)

*RealTemp 3.60*
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/1872/Real_Temp_3.60.html

It took a long time to finish it but it's finally official.

The most recent addition is the ability to control the turbo multiplier and turbo TDP/TDC values in the newer Core i Extreme and K series CPUs.  Intel plans for more K series CPUs in the near future so hopefully this will work with them.


----------



## mtosev (Oct 1, 2010)

Looks like i've found a bug:







RealTemp and CPU-z don't report the same frequencies. btw Intel's power saving is disabled


----------



## Super Sarge (Oct 1, 2010)

I am happy with 3.40, works fine on my I7 920 machine, I tried the beta version of 3.6 and it cause BSODs had to go back to 3.40. Like the man said if it ain't broke do not fix it.


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 1, 2010)

mtosev said:


> Looks like i've found a bug:



You're right, you have found a bug but the bug is with CPU-Z.  At idle CPU-Z may not report the correct multiplier.  I guess it does this so users can do a validation at a high MHz.

If you have C1E enabled, try turning that off and see what the two programs report.  With your core voltage down at 0.968, it looks like you have some power saving going on regardless of what you might have selected in the bios.

RealTemp follows the method recommended by Intel in their November 2008 Turbo White Paper.  CPU-Z does not.  Core Temp also follows the correct method to determine the multiplier so you might want to try comparing to that.

Super Sarge: Thanks for the bug report but can you tell me a few more details like what operating system you are using, what CPU, etc. and what happens when you try to run the program.  Does it start up and then crash or does it not start up at all?  I can't fix a problem if I don't have any idea what the problem is.


----------



## Super Sarge (Oct 1, 2010)

I really do not know it was quite awhile ago, I think it had something to do with C1E and or Turbo both of which I use at times, I use Turbo all the time My OS is W7 64 bit Pro, Intel 920 CPU D0. 12 Gig Mushkin Triple Channel 1600 MHZ Red Lines. Program ran but sometime during the day or night I would get a crash, I re-installed 3.40 and problem never happened again

I just loaded 3.60, I will try it again. I unchecked EIST as I do not nor can I find any sush setting in MY BIOS version 1003 for an ASUS P6t Deluxe V2 which is the latest BIOS


----------



## mtosev (Oct 1, 2010)

unclewebb said:


> You're right, you have found a bug but the bug is with CPU-Z.  At idle CPU-Z may not report the correct multiplier.  I guess it does this so users can do a validation at a high MHz.
> 
> If you have C1E enabled, try turning that off and see what the two programs report.  With your core voltage down at 0.968, it looks like you have some power saving going on regardless of what you might have selected in the bios.
> 
> ...



frequncies are now the same after i disabled C1E in the bios.looks like CoreTemp uses the same principal as it reported the same as RealTemp did


----------



## mlee49 (Oct 1, 2010)

unclewebb said:


> *RealTemp 3.60*
> http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/1872/Real_Temp_3.60.html
> 
> It took a long time to finish it but it's finally official.
> ...



Thanks for your dedication, I appreciate it


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 1, 2010)

Thank you mlee49 for your support of RealTemp where it counts the most.  $$$$$

It doesn't take a lot of money to motivate me but even a handful of donations can make the difference between carrying on with this project or walking away from it.

I was able to add some very useful features lately and I also got the 6 core version of RealTemp GT updated too.  Being able to adjust the multipliers in the Core i Extreme and K series CPUs is a great new feature for RealTemp and is going to be even more useful in the new year when Intel decides to start releasing more K series CPUs for enthusiasts.

Now for the big announcement.  Finally I won't have to constantly defend myself from people that are always asking, "How come RealTemp is not the same as CPU-Z?"  On the XS RealTemp forum today, the programmer of CPU-Z, in his own words, finally decided to come clean.



> Originally Posted by cpuz
> Of course I admit that CPU-Z is not accurate anymore at idle on latest Intel generations, that is why TMonitor was developed.



I also showed him why I don't believe that TMonitor is any more accurate than CPU-Z is at idle but that's still a discussion in progress.

Here's an example of what TMonitor tells me for my T8100.






This CPU presently has EIST disabled.  When you disable EIST in a Core 2 based CPU, the CPU gets locked at a fixed frequency.  The multiplier reported in MSR 0x198 never changes from idle to full load.

Using Intel's recommended method to determine the multiplier, RealTemp and ThrottleStop correctly show that the CPU is locked at the 11.5 multiplier.

TMonitor is telling me that at idle the multiplier is at 6.0 and when I apply a load to the CPU, the multiplier goes up and down.  That's wrong.  The multiplier does not change when EIST is disabled.  It can't.  If you want to argue, that's great but you need to argue with Intel.  TMonitor is just as inaccurate when run on Core i CPUs.  It draws a nice graph but the information it is graphing is fundamentally wrong and inaccurate so it's pointless.  TMonitor would be a very useful tool if it followed Intel's methods but there's no point in telling users that their CPU is doing something that it isn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Super Sarge for giving RealTemp 3.60 a fresh try.


----------



## MoonPig (Oct 1, 2010)

Used to love Realtemp on my Q9550. Was the ONLY temp monitor i used.

Pity my 1055T isn't supported 

Keep up the good work matey


----------



## mlee49 (Oct 1, 2010)

unclewebb said:


> Thank you mlee49 for your support of RealTemp where it counts the most.  $$$$$
> 
> It doesn't take a lot of money to motivate me but even a handful of donations can make the difference between carrying on with this project or walking away from it.
> 
> ...



Ha, seems like your the only one who is right these days.


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 26, 2010)

Maybe.  I don't have access to any Sandy Bridge hardware and everyone I've approached is afraid to share any information with me for fear that it will break their NDA agreement with Intel and then they might get in trouble.

I've made a few minor adjustments so it can extract the new 4 digit model numbers for a version 3.62.  If anyone has some SB hardware and wants to do some testing, send me a PM.  I can keep a secret.


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Nov 26, 2010)

Is there any way to get RealTemp to report correctly for an Atom?

I would be happy to donate if I knew where to go...Lord knows I have used it enough.


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Nov 27, 2010)

Now it's working! You did something didnt you?   Now where is that donate button...

This is going to be running 24/7 for my MagicJack and I just wanted to know how the temps would be. Thanks!


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 27, 2010)

I'm as surprised as you are to see it working on your Atom CPU.  

According to Intel, RealTemp is using the correct TJMax value for your CPU too.

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=43098&code=Intel®+Atom™+Processor+D510+(1M+Cache,+1.66+GHz)

The sensors that Intel uses have never been very accurate at reporting low temperatures.  It looks like even with the right TJMax value, your sensors are out to lunch unless you live on the North Pole.  That's not unusual.

If the load meter is not working correctly, try clicking on the TM Load box in the Settings window.  Most of the Atom CPUs are missing some internal timers that RealTemp depends on so the TM Load option should give you a Load value similar to what the Task Manager will show you.

Turn on a system tray temperature icon, right click on it and then select the About... option.  Hiding in there should be a Donate button.  Thanks for supporting free software.


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Nov 28, 2010)

I tried those workarounds but no go. Bios reports it at 27c...that sounds about right. Guess we will just see how long it holds up.


----------



## id0l (Dec 27, 2010)

I like the new version (fixed the reset button crash bug for me) and am glad to see ATI GPU monitoring support but...it seems there is an issue with it causing the video card to cycle 2d/3d modes constantly. See attached screenshots from GPU-Z.

I had to switch back to 3.40 to avoid this happening. If I hadn't have flashed my 4890s BIOS to maintain 1125mhz memory speed regardless of 'power mode' my screen probably would have been a flicker-fest. 

This side effect is present regardless of turning off GPU monitoring, increasing/decreasing the poll rate, or disabling ATI support.

Also, it makes my video card generally idle hotter.

I really like RealTemp and have used it for a long time, but I registered here because this bug really annoys the hell out of me. 

Really liking the custom font support.


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 27, 2010)

The problem you are having doesn't make much sense.  If you disable ATI GPU monitoring in RealTemp, it can't be causing your GPU to cycle between 2D and 3D.  The ATI code in RealTemp will be completely bypassed and not used at all if you disable ATI monitoring in the Settings window.  If RealTemp is not accessing your GPU then I don't understand how RealTemp can be causing the problem you are having.

Did you change your 2D and 3D settings with a bios editor?  If you used something like RBE then maybe upload your bios somewhere so I can have a look at what settings you are using.

How about when you are not running GPU-Z or RealTemp and just monitoring with the Catalyst Control Center.  Is it steady in Windows in 2D?  Try to think of a few more tests to try and isolate this problem.  I have a 5770 card for testing and in Windows with RealTemp running, the GPU is steady in 2D mode.  It might occasionally go into 3D mode when needed to if I start a desktop game but when not needed, it drops back to 2D and stays there.  Let me know if you can figure this out


----------



## id0l (Dec 27, 2010)

Here's the link for my 4890 .ROM file.

I use RBE v1.25 to make clock speed adjustments in the BIOS - all voltages are stock. All I have changed is the [overclocked] memory speed to remain constant at 1125mhz across all power states (raising/lowering on the fly makes the screen flicker, common on these cards) and increased the 3D GPU clock speed to 975mhz.

Using CCC shows the GPU clock sitting at 240mhz. But...I don't really trust any readings from CCC  and thus I don't use it. Even still, my GPU temperature idles 3-4c higher using RealTemp v3.6 - shouldn't that be an indicator that something is wrong? I have verified that I have GPU monitoring disabling by unchecking the box next to 'ATI' in the RealTemp settings page. My card idles at a higher temperature under RealTemp v3.6 regardless of whether GPU-Z is open or not.

I can open v3.4 and watch the GPU clock speed in GPU-Z stay at 240mhz all day (and temps are lower at idle)...but when I open v3.6 it all starts going crazy.


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 27, 2010)

If something is causing your GPU to rapidly cycle between 2D and 3D then that would explain why it is idling 3C or 4C higher.  What I can't understand is if you disable GPU monitoring in RealTemp, the ATI code that RealTemp uses is completely bypassed and does not run at all.  After ATI is unchecked, RealTemp does not interact with your GPU in any way.

I'm not trying to disagree with you or make RealTemp out to be innocent.  I'm just trying the best I can to trouble shoot this problem you are having.  

Are your GPU overclock settings stable while running Furmark?

It's bedtime here.  I'll have a look at your rom file settings tomorrow in RBE.  This is the first report of a problem like this so I'm very interested in trying to figure it out.


----------



## id0l (Dec 27, 2010)

Hey, don't get me wrong Unc, I'm just as confused as you are.  I wasn't trying to point fingers. I would assume that RealTemp wouldn't touch my GPU if I disabled monitoring, but from _what I can tell_ it's still doing something odd with it. I mentioned that it happened regardless of GPU-Z being open because I thought it may have been some kind of 'conflict' between the 2 programs causing the issue but I don't think that's the case.

FurMark is 100% stable after a 2 hour run with max GPU temp coming in at 64c (I have aftermarket VGA cooling).

Take a look at my BIOS file when you get the chance and let me know if you see anything weird. The whole reason I had to use RBE was to lock in the memory at a constant frequency. Adobe Flash Player, when it was updated a while back, enabled video hardware acceleration and every time a flash movie would play (i.e. YouTube) my screen would flicker at the beginning. I tracked this down to the memory speed jumping from low power settings to high power settings. Apparently that causes screen flickering with the 4890s (GPU clock increasing/decreasing does not cause screen flickering; only memory). Locking the memory speed to 1125mhz across the different power states solved this issue (and I don't have to use CCC anymore for overclocking, HOORAY!). 

Seriously though, I have been using RealTemp since I got my E6600 (perhaps before). That was probably 4-5 years ago. If I didn't love this little app I wouldn't use it religiously.  Heck, I think I finally figured out a decent way to 'read' my CPU cores and tune their TJmax and Idle Calibration points to where the reported temps are somewhat accurate (at least, they seem that way - they all read very close under full load).


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 27, 2010)

I found the Radeon bios that your bios is based off of and I didn't see anything too unusual.  The only thing I noticed was the T min hysteresis is 4 in the original bios and you have set that to 0.  You also checked the PWM ramp on while this is unchecked in the original.  Switching to the look up table to get your fan to run constantly at 100% looks like it should work.  All of your bumped up clock settings seem fine so nothing is jumping out at me.

When testing, try opening up the Task Manager and see if there is anything Adobe related that is running in the background.  Adobe has a habit of sliding things into your start up sequence that run in the background without most users knowing about it.  I use Autoruns to pick through all the places that start up itmes can be hidden in a Windows PC.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963902

Try using CCC to monitor.  Does it show the GPU switching back and forth from 2D to 3D with the clocks jumping up and down?  Does running or exiting RealTemp change what CCC reports?  Can you kill any tasks in the Task Manager that are Adobe related and see if that changes anything.

After a good sleep I will have a thorough look at my code to see if I can see anything unusual and try to think of anything else that you can test to find out what's going on.


----------



## id0l (Dec 27, 2010)

I did put the look up table to all 100% across the board but that pretty much a moot point because my vid card fans run at 100% anyways (the TRad2 heatsink has 2x 92mm fans attached to it; both connected to motherboard fan headers). I probably did edit Tmin hysteresis, as it seems vaguely familiar, but I believe all of those settings have to do with fan speed if I'm not mistaken.

Do you have a stock RV790 BIOS I can look at? Really though, I'd just like to have one as a backup as mine "somehow" got deleted. I know, I'm terrible.  I deleted it by accident.

There is nothing Adobe running in the background on my system as I make sure to disable any extraneous programs though either msconfig or services.msc...I also have Autoruns. 

Like I said CCC reports the 2D clock just sitting at 240mhz (idle) like it should. But considering the higher idle temps and what GPU-Z is reporting (which I trust more), I still think something is off.

Definitely let me know what you find!


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 27, 2010)

TechPowerUp is a God send when you forget to save a bios before tearing into it with RBE.  

http://www.techpowerup.com/vgabios/

RealTemp gets its GPU temperature data and clock data directly from CCC so if CCC is screwed up then RealTemp would be screwed up too.  The default sensor reading interval for CCC is usually 5 seconds.  If you turn off GPU-Z and turn off CCC and just use RealTemp for GPU monitoring and set the interval to 1 second, does it show this fluctuating GPU core speed?

I tend to trust GPU-Z more than CCC as well.  Are you using the 10.12 driver?

The other test would be if RealTemp and GPU-Z are both running and GPU-Z is reporting this varying GPU speed, does GPU-Z immediately flat line in 2D mode at 240 MHz after exiting RealTemp?  I see another sleepless night tonight.


----------



## id0l (Dec 27, 2010)

unclewebb said:


> RealTemp gets its GPU temperature data and clock data directly from CCC so if CCC is screwed up then RealTemp would be screwed up too.  The default sensor reading interval for CCC is usually 5 seconds.  If you turn off GPU-Z and turn off CCC and just use RealTemp for GPU monitoring and set the interval to 1 second, does it show this fluctuating GPU core speed?



No! It doesn't...it seems to be solid at 240mhz! However as soon as I start up GPU-Z the funkiness returns. So I closed RealTemp and tried opening just CCC and GPU-Z, thinking that from what you said, it may have had something to do with CCC itself, and guess what I find. Running CCC + GPU-Z without RealTemp going shows the same sporadic 'jumping' in the GPU clock (see attached pic).  Now I'm starting to think that this issue lies more within GPU-Z or perhaps CCC itself, or the way GPU-Z is polling CCC/the video card (yeah, I don't really know how it works ).



			
				unclewebb said:
			
		

> I tend to trust GPU-Z more than CCC as well.  Are you using the 10.12 driver?



I am using 10.7 currently. Hmmm...perhaps I will update tomorrow...I didn't know there was a new driver out. Though I am curious, now there are several different versions of CCC:

1. AMD Catalyst 10.12 Preview for Windows 7– Featuring the new Catalyst Control Center (110mb)
2. Catalyst Software Suite (64 bit) English Only (72.6MB)
3. AMD Catalyst™ Accelerated Parallel Processing (APP) Technology Edition (88.9MB)

No clue as to what #1 and #3 contain or if I should get one of those versions. I usually grab #2.



			
				unclewebb said:
			
		

> The other test would be if RealTemp and GPU-Z are both running and GPU-Z is reporting this varying GPU speed, does GPU-Z immediately flat line in 2D mode at 240 MHz after exiting RealTemp?  I see another sleepless night tonight.


Yes! And therein lies the rub. 

So, in summary, I now realize:
RealTemp v3.60 running by itself = no problem. GPU-Z running by itself = no problem. Running CCC by itself = why would I do that (lol)? Running GPU-Z with either RealTemp or CCC = GPU clock goes crazy. 

Thanks for the link to the BIOS files. I see two for the ATI Radeon 4890 1GB but don't know which one is correct (perhaps they are the same?).


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 27, 2010)

For testing, I downloaded a bios file with the same date and time as the modified file that you are using.

I forgot to mention last night that there is an ATI Catalyst Control  Profiles.xml file hidden many layers deep that controls the 2D and 3D clocks you end up with.  I edited this file to eliminate the silly 157 MHz / 300 MHz (core/memory) 2D limitation my card has.  Great for saving power I guess but these super low speeds can lead to other problems.  Here's an example of how I edited this file and where it is hiding.





You can see that I boosted the 2D memory speed up from 300 MHz to 1200 MHz and bumped the intermediate and 3D memory clocks up to 1300 MHz and bumped up the core speeds as well.

I'm thinking that the problem you are having might be because the bios clock settings that you have created are fighting against what CCC is trying to set the clocks too.  Based on your back and forth screen shot, it's like two different pieces of software are both taking turns at trying to control your GPU clocks so they are bouncing back and forth.  I know this can happen with Intel CPUs when two different power saving features are not in agreement but I don't have any experience with this problem possibly being in GPUs too.

You should consider flashing back to the original bios and then try editing the CCC Profiles.xml file and see if you can equalize your memory speeds for 2D and 3D that way.

I found a problem with the ATI CCC polling scheme earlier this year where it was taking huge amounts of time to read the sensor and would oscillate in a continuous pattern from normal, to high, to very high to a crazy high amount of time to read a simple sensor.  That bug is gone now in the latest CCC release but I can't remember which version it was solved in.  This wasn't a problem for everyone but I was able to notice in 3DMark06 that it directly corresponded with a jerk / micro stutter in the frame rates whenever the temperature sensor was sampled.  That's why I created the Polling Interval option in RealTemp so I could try and figure out what was going on.  I originally thought that maybe I was doing something wrong but I didn't change my code and with one of the Catalyst releases, this problem went away.  Then I knew who was to blame. 

Here's the little testing program I wrote for this issue.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/ATITemps.zip

It shows the amount of time that it takes for code to get temperature data from the ATI driver.  This is a lot more consistent in 10.12 than it was when I first installed my 5770 card last year.

ATI just redesigned the CCC so that's what's in the super sized download now.  I heard it works OK and starts up quickly but I haven't tried it yet.  I'm still using the previous CCC.  I'm always afraid to try any new ATI code before they have 6 months to get the bugs out.


----------



## id0l (Dec 28, 2010)

Well, I don't run CCC in the background (though it is installed, I disabled all the services/background apps from running) at all since I have flashed the BIOS. This way CCC doesn't boot or run and I let the BIOS set my 2D/3D settings.

When I tested it with RealTemp/GPU-Z, I manually started CCC.

Is it possible CCC files are still being accessed (as this issue occurs before I ever launch CCC)?

I have yet to try the new driver but will try to do so tonight.

I have been running RealTemp without GPU-Z also going and my 2D clocks are stable at 240mhz. The only thing I rely on GPU-Z for is VRM temperatures, but I don't really need that running very often.


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 28, 2010)

Just to correct what I said earlier, RealTemp gets its GPU temperature data from the ATI driver.  This driver might be part of the CCC package so you might need CCC installed for RealTemp ATI GPU monitoring to work.  If I get bored tomorrow I will try to do some musical drivers and uninstall CCC and just install the new 10.12 driver to see if RealTemp GPU monitoring still works.  I think GPU-Z reads temperature data directly from the GPU or directly from a monitoring chip on the card.

I don't know enough about where all the ATI and CCC files are located and which ones start up with Windows and are needed and which ones are not needed.  It will be interesting to see if updating to the newer driver fixes your problem.


----------



## jason43 (Dec 30, 2010)

Hi all, I hope it's ok to ask here, it didn't feel like it deserved it's own thread. How do I uninstall RealTemp? I have some trouble shooting to do and I cant find the exe, and it's not in add/remove. Do I just delete the folder? 

Thanks.


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 30, 2010)

RealTemp is in whatever folder you put it in.  There's no installer so no need to uninstall either.  Just delete the RealTemp folder and everything should be gone without anything left over, hiding in the registry.


----------



## jason43 (Dec 30, 2010)

Thankyou.


----------



## gbohn (Jan 12, 2011)

*RealTemp 3.60 i7 Turbo GT and i980X*

Hi;

  I recently found your RealTemp 3.60 tool package, and was trying it out on my i7 980X/Asus X58 System. When I run the i7 Turbo GT tool, I only see information on 3 out of 6 cores listed (I have Hyper-threading off, if that makes a difference).

  I have attached an image of the program. Is this what I'm supposed to see, or am I doing something wrong? I was expecting to see 6 entries, but maybe I'm missing something.

  Running RealTempGT shows six different core temps, for what it's worth.

  This is under Windows 7 64-Bit.

  Thanks;

      -Greg


----------



## burebista (Jan 12, 2011)

Kevin needs a little help for those with Sandy Bridge. 
Here is latest RealTemp with multi fixed (I hope) and a brand new option of showing Vcore (at last!)


			
				Kevin said:
			
		

> I added Sandy Bridge volt monitoring to RealTemp.  Yea!!!!!!!!
> There should be a new option in the Settings window for this.



Some feedback/screenshots it would be nice for Kevin.

Thanks in advance guys.


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 12, 2011)

*RealTemp 3.65*
http://www.mediafire.com/?f4cybi6zf06d1cb

Thanks for posting that burebista.  This new version reads the new Sandy Bridge CPUs correctly and displays voltage VID information from them correctly.  Unfortunately, I think this information coming from the CPU is VID request voltage and does not represent actual core voltage for Sandy Bridge CPUs. 

gbohn: i7 Turbo is working correctly on your i7-980X.  It shows 6 different values in the average Multiplier - Thread section and it shows 6 different values in the C0 Percent load section too which means it is reading data from each of your 6 cores.  This information is displayed as two separate rows with data for 3 cores in each row.  Internally, Core i7-980X CPUs are two separate 3 cores CPUs joined together to make a 6 core CPU so that's why the data looks like that.

If you had hyper threading enabled, then it would show data from each of your 12 threads and it would be organized as two rows of 6 values for Multiplier and C0%.


----------



## gbohn (Jan 12, 2011)

> gbohn: i7 Turbo is working correctly on your i7-980X.

  Sure, it makes sense to me now...  

  I guess I was too intent on thinking that each column was data from one core.

  Thanks again.

     -Greg


----------



## SuperJoker (Jan 19, 2011)

unclewebb said:


> *RealTemp 3.65*
> http://www.mediafire.com/?f4cybi6zf06d1cb
> 
> Thanks for posting that burebista.  This new version reads the new Sandy Bridge CPUs correctly and displays voltage VID information from them correctly.  Unfortunately, I think this information coming from the CPU is VID request voltage and does not represent actual core voltage for Sandy Bridge CPUs.
> ...



Hi UncleWebb, I tried contacting You over at Xtremesystems.com, But It seems gmail has been banned there and I have no permission to post anymore, I didn't do anything and I'm the biggest cruncher for them on Seti@Home...  I'm zoom314 over there... long story.

Anyway I just installed Vista x64(Business) and everytime I restart the PC after installing an update for this or for that, RealTemp gets blocked and so I unblock It over and over adinfinitum... 

Oh and to start RealTemp I put a shortcut in the Startup folder(Minimized).


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 19, 2011)

You might want to try the Task Scheduler method.  

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3970161&postcount=3657

I'm not sure what is blocking RealTemp or the WinRing0 driver that it depends on.

What exactly happens?  What sort of error message pops up and how do you finally get it to start?

I'm using RealTemp on W7 x64 and Vista x86 32 bit without any startup issues.  It might be antivirus software related.


----------



## SuperJoker (Jan 19, 2011)

unclewebb said:


> You might want to try the Task Scheduler method.
> 
> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3970161&postcount=3657
> 
> ...



Windows blocks It, Saying simply that It needs Administrator permission and to suggest I find a version that can be installed with user permission, To be more exact I think Vista x64 doesn't like the program. UAC views the program as unidentified, UAC asks If It can be trusted or not, as It's not installed I think.


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 19, 2011)

RealTemp won't start from the Startup folder if you are using UAC.  It should start OK if you use the Task Scheduler.


----------



## SuperJoker (Jan 19, 2011)

unclewebb said:


> RealTemp won't start from the Startup folder if you are using UAC.  It should start OK if you use the Task Scheduler.



That sounds awfully stupid of MicroBrain, I mean M$...

Ok I did that, Hopefully that will work, I'll find out when I need another patch installed.

Can't be helped, As I'm tired from a lack of sleep, As I only got 4 hours last night, But then I've been washing the sheets for a few days(really hard water), plus I have a cat as an alarm clock and I have a problem with concentration, It makes doing anything really hard and yep slow. It's hard to do stuff like make a queen sized bed when one is disabled and tired to boot, Later UW.


----------



## Feizy (Jan 20, 2011)

Hey, just wondering if anyone has found the tj max for the new sandy bridge CPUs.  I want to make sure I dont cook my new toy! ha.  Thanks!


----------



## burebista (Jan 20, 2011)

98


----------



## Feizy (Jan 20, 2011)

Awesome, thanks.


----------



## SuperJoker (Jan 20, 2011)

unclewebb said:


> RealTemp won't start from the Startup folder if you are using UAC.  It should start OK if you use the Task Scheduler.



Ok I tried that and when windows rebooted from updating Windows 7 Pro(I had an upgrade DVD here), RealTempGT wasn't started, It wasn't even in memory, Why am I using GT? I can't get RealTemp to start, It shows up in Memory, But that's It. Since the GT version works I'm not going to worry about It.


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 20, 2011)

What anti-virus software are you running?  I've heard of this problem before but I haven't been able to recreate it yet so I can figure out what's going on.  In Windows 7, sometimes program icons are created but they can become hidden.  I use show all icons for the system tray / notification area to prevent this from happening.  That might be part of the problem you are having.


----------



## SuperJoker (Jan 20, 2011)

unclewebb said:


> What anti-virus software are you running?  I've heard of this problem before but I haven't been able to recreate it yet so I can figure out what's going on.  In Windows 7, sometimes program icons are created but they can become hidden.  I use show all icons for the system tray / notification area to prevent this from happening.  That might be part of the problem you are having.



I use Avast on Win7 Pro. I made an exclusion for the folder where RealTempGT is at, Next time I have an OS update that requires a reboot, I'll see what happens.


----------



## Code (Jan 20, 2011)

Thank you for 3.65! 3.60 was not giving me any info (Multi, Load%, MHz, Proc-just read i5)
for a 2500k system. Much appreciated, thanks again


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 20, 2011)

It seems that many of the new Sandy Bridge motherboards are not setting up the CPU the way the previous generation used to so RealTemp 3.60 works on some Sandy Bridge boards but not on others.  I found a work around for that bug so RT 3.65 should work correctly on all boards.

I don't own any new hardware so check back in a few days for another updated version.  The adjustable Turbo Power Limit options that used to work don't work any more so that is going to need updating too.  I think I have everything figured out.  Hopefully this weekend I will have time to do some updating and add a new feature or two.

Thanks SuperJoker.  I use Avast too and haven't had any problems so I guess I can't blame that.


----------



## Erelyes (Feb 21, 2011)

Hey there, I have a request for the next version.
For the system tray monitor - can you have an option which displays just 1 value for the average of all 4/6/however-many cores.


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 21, 2011)

That option already exists in the latest beta version for 4 core CPUs.

*RealTemp 3.67*
http://www.mediafire.com/?n99nq4kn95u6i6a

That option is also mostly done for the 6 core RealTemp GT version but I haven't got around to releasing that yet.  I was working on a few things but kind of lost track so I need to go back and have a good look at that before releasing it.  Sandy Bridge kept me busy.


----------



## Sergey Lepilov (XBT) (Mar 12, 2011)

*unclewebb*
Please update the RealTemp GT to the 3.67 version for the six cores Intel CPU.
Now I necessary to use the GT 3.59


----------



## intel525 (Mar 18, 2011)

*Intel D525 Atom*

Bug? Intel D525MW Atom Mainbord (with PCI Geforce 9300GS Card)
... show wrong Temp's
Intel D525 Atom (need 125 TJ Max for right Temp's) but can only 120 max.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 18, 2011)

Intel says TJMax for a D525 is 100°C and that is what RealTemp is using.

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=49490

The problem is that the sensors that Intel uses are completely inaccurate at reporting lower temperatures.  They were never designed for that purpose and it shows.  Intel only designed and calibrated these sensors to control thermal throttling and thermal shutdown.  Some of Intel's sensors are also useful for temperature monitoring purposes while other ones are not.  Many of the 45nm Core 2 based sensors have significant issues like sticking and huge amounts of slope error so the further you get away from the calibration point, the more inaccurate they become.

If you want you can look into calibrating your sensors by adjusting the idle calibration values.  Obviously they are reading too low so you will need to use some positive calibration factors to get your temps a little closer to reality when your CPU is idle.  It's not a perfect solution but some users find it more appealing than looking at completely bogus temperature data.


----------



## intel525 (Mar 18, 2011)

i think you wrong, please look here, with 125 all 100% ok?
this is on all Prog's the same with this Intel D525MW


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 18, 2011)

The problem is the slope of the temperature curve.  The RealTemp documentation explains the problem that all of these sensors have.

http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/docs.php






By increasing the TJMax value to way beyond the Intel specification, all you've done is moved the sensor error from idle to full load.  Now when your CPU gets near 100C actual, the fix you just did will have it reporting 125C which is wrong.

If you only adjust TJMax, there is no possible way for your reported temperatures to be accurate from idle to TJMax.  All you're doing is moving the error around.  On your CPU, the best way to get reasonably accurate temperatures is to calibrate your sensors and adjust the RealTemp calibration factors.


----------



## intel525 (Mar 18, 2011)

Thanks for the clarification!


----------



## intel525 (Mar 18, 2011)

9.9 Calibration is not enough for this CPU
first real temp core is 39 and not 30


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 18, 2011)

You usually need a combination of Calibration Factor and TJMax correction.  

It's not unusual for TJMax to be different between cores.  For the 45nm Core 2 CPUs, differences up to 10C between cores is typical.  The Intel TJMax specification for your CPU is 100C but the actual TJMax might range between 100C and 110C.  This range is my best guess based on the testing I've done.  Intel has never publicly documented their calibration procedure so all I can do is guess.

To try and find out how much TJMax offset your two cores have, you need to try and get the cores hot enough to the point where slope error is insignificant which isn't until about 70C.  I like to run Prime95 with the Small FFTs option for a consistent load but with an Atom CPU, it might not be possible to get the core temperature hot enough with this test.  Try running that test for about 5 or 10 minutes until your core temperature stabilizes.  Don't use any calibration factors during this part of the calibration procedure.

The 9C difference you are seeing at idle will likely decrease a little at full load depending on how hot you can get your peak core temperature.  If this happens, this is a sign that the temperature curve for each core are at a slightly different slope.


----------



## trnddwn33 (Mar 23, 2011)

*c1e disabling*

Hello!  

I've been using Realtemp for the past couple of years (love it!), and frequently use the c1e disable check box to disable the c1e state on my machines.  I am just curious how the actual disabling is accomplished?  Reason I ask is occasionally I come across a bios that for whatever reason just doesn't actually disable the cstates (even if there is an option for it), and its quite handy to do it within the OS.  However sometimes it would be nice to do this without launching Realtemp, say on startup.  Can you elaborate on how you get this done?  

Thanks! 

-Matt


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 23, 2011)

RealTemp adjusts a bit or two in a register within the CPU.  It's slightly different for Core 2 than for Core i.  I don't have any Intel documentation for Core 2 but I think Intel publicly documents the C1E bit for the Core i CPUs.  I've written a couple of small apps to do this separately from RealTemp so let me know what CPU you have and I'll see if I have a solution for you.






ThrottleStop 2.99.9 might be useful for this too.

http://www.mediafire.com/?d2jo9khxlz3i0tj


----------



## trnddwn33 (Mar 23, 2011)

Most of the procs in question are in the i-7 or i-5 lineup.  Thanks again for your time!


----------



## mlee49 (Mar 26, 2011)

Hey UncleWebb, any thoughts on building an LCD applet?  Would be stellar!


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 26, 2011)

I'm taking a break from any new development but I wouldn't mind seeing some data on my G15 so maybe someday I will add this feature to RealTemp.


----------



## mlee49 (Mar 26, 2011)

I'll bug you about it again in 30 days. 

I'll probably have to dig up some preliminary work for ya as well and get some details goin. This app would be sick.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 26, 2011)

I downloaded some code from Logitech a long time ago and I put it on the things to do list but I don't have as much time to work on my projects these days so it could be a while before or if it ever gets done.


----------



## kzinti1 (Mar 28, 2011)

CPU speed not showing on Real Temp 3.6 with my sig. rig I built yesterday.
Then again, I scored 1808 on XS Bench in 8.092 seconds at 0.00MHz. That's gotta be some kind of record! So fast it really is standing still.
Have I missed something? Again?


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 28, 2011)

*RealTemp 3.67*
http://www.mediafire.com/?n99nq4kn95u6i6a

The latest version should work correctly with your new Sandy Bridge CPU and includes VID and power consumption reporting.


----------



## kzinti1 (Mar 28, 2011)

unclewebb said:


> *RealTemp 3.67*
> http://www.mediafire.com/?n99nq4kn95u6i6a
> 
> The latest version should work correctly with your new Sandy Bridge CPU and includes VID and power consumption reporting.



Thanks! I had to d/l at Major Geeks though. I haven't a clue what to do with mediafire even after signing up. It just wanted me to upload my files to them for some reason. I didn't like the sound of that.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 28, 2011)

click button, receive bacon realtemp?


----------



## kzinti1 (Mar 28, 2011)

I don't see that anywhere. You must have a paid account. All I wanted was to d/l RealTemp 3.67, which I found at MajorGeeks. Like I said, I have no idea what mediafire is, so I didn't pay for it. This is the 1st time I ever heard the name. Now I'm trying to delete my account there.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 28, 2011)

kzinti1 said:


> I don't see that anywhere. You must have a paid account. All I wanted was to d/l RealTemp 3.67, which I found at MajorGeeks. Like I said, I have no idea what mediafire is, so I didn't pay for it. This is the 1st time I ever heard the name. Now I'm trying to delete my account there.



i dont have an account at all, that was directly from the link. its just another upload site like rapidshare or megaupload, only even slower.


----------



## kzinti1 (Mar 28, 2011)

Weird. I did the same and just rechecked it. It doesn't look like what you posted. Just a link to Bloomberg News. Doesn't matter though. I have the program running and configured. Thanks.


----------



## toohot (Mar 28, 2011)

*temps ok or too high*

My computer chasis i coolmaster cm690,front 120mm,rear 120mm ,left side 120 mm fans.
cpu cooler Noctua NH-U12P SE2 performance(push/pull) with original noctua nt-h1 thermal compound.i7 920 oc to 2.94ghz.romm temp 22 case temp 18.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 29, 2011)

45nm Core i7 CPUs put out a lot of heat.  Maximum core temperatures between 70C and 75C during a full load test are well within the Intel design specification for these CPUs so everything looks OK.  Intel doesn't start to thermal throttle these CPUs until they hit a core temperature of 100C.  Any temperature less than that is within specifications.  Thermal shutdown typically isn't until 125C so you can see that your temperatures are very reasonable.  There's plenty of room to overclock some more if you wish to.  With a top rated air cooler it's possible to run these reliably at 190 MHz x 21.0 and with water cooling, some manage to go a little beyond that.


----------



## toohot (Mar 29, 2011)

unclewebb said:


> With a top rated air cooler it's possible to run these reliably at 190 MHz x 21.0



Thanking you again for your expert help very much appreciated.With the cpu cooler I have installed, people on other threads have stated temps are too High for 2.94 ghz oc .Is this correct? your judgement and experience is A1 because you have helped me setting up real temp to my Pc specs. rm temp is 22 c cace temp is 18c But the cpu is idle 43c-44c.
Also it would be a great help if the memory & pcie setting can be improved.I am using gigabyte easytune(ET6),I Know i should not use it but I feel more at ease with it.also sis sandra is stating  Warning 2523: Memory bus speed exceeds memory rated speed. Reduce memory bus speed.Please find attached jpgs for more info.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 29, 2011)

Your memory is running at 560 MHz according to AIDA64 but it if you look at the Extreme Memory Profile, it should be capable of running reliably at 800 MHz with much tighter memory timings.

Different users have different goals when overclocking.  Some are happy at the level you are at while others aren't happy until they are on the edge of self destruction.  If you are happy at the present level then you could probably lower your core voltage which should help reduce your full load temperatures.  If you intend to overclock further then increase the bus speed some more.

If you need some more information about overclocking then try posting in that forum.  There are a lot of TechPowerUp users with a lot more experience than I have when it comes to overclocking the Core i7-920.


----------



## Arctucas (Mar 29, 2011)

@unclewebb,

I believe I have found a bug in the 3.67 version.

I ran the XS Bench, and the result reports my CPU speed incorrectly.







Anyway, thank you for continuing to provide an excellent application.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 29, 2011)

The MHz number in the XS Bench section is based on the 25 multiplier which is the maximum turbo multiplier for a Core i7-950.  Does it always report this Speed or was that a one off freak occurrence?

Are you using any other monitoring software on your computer?  Intel provides some extremely accurate timers in their CPUs for monitoring purposes but unfortunately they are not protected so other software can manipulate these timers which prevents other monitoring programs from getting reliable data out of them.  Everest/AIDA64 randomly starts and stops the system monitoring timers that I used to use so I've been forced to switch to a secondary set of timers.  Unfortunately I don't yet know of any other software that is using these timers so that could also be the source of this problem.  

I'll have a look at my code and see if I can see any obvious problems.  Thanks.


----------



## Arctucas (Mar 30, 2011)

unclewebb said:


> The MHz number in the XS Bench section is based on the 25 multiplier which is the maximum turbo multiplier for a Core i7-950.  Does it always report this Speed or was that a one off freak occurrence?



I downloaded and ran the 3.67 version. I re-ran it three times when I noticed the frequency discrepancy and got the same result each time.

I shut the PC off for a couple hours, restarted and ran it again and it reported the correct frequency, but the score is different (better actually).









unclewebb said:


> Are you using any other monitoring software on your computer? Intel provides some extremely accurate timers in their CPUs for monitoring purposes but unfortunately they are not protected so other software can manipulate these timers which prevents other monitoring programs from getting reliable data out of them.  Everest/AIDA64 randomly starts and stops the system monitoring timers that I used to use so I've been forced to switch to a secondary set of timers.  Unfortunately I don't yet know of any other software that is using these timers so that could also be the source of this problem.



I have AIDA64 v1.60.1339Beta installed. That causes a conflict, then?



unclewebb said:


> I'll have a look at my code and see if I can see any obvious problems.  Thanks.



I appreciate your help, thanks.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 30, 2011)

Your screen shot above shows the 25.0 multiplier which is usually a good sign that some other monitoring software is not using the shared CPU timers in a friendly manner.

If you're bored and want to do some testing, you can disable the AIDA64 side gadget and also make sure that AIDA64 isn't running in the background.  You can run RealTemp with the log file option on for 5 or 10 minutes without AIDA64 running and then do the same thing again with AIDA64 running and you might be able to isolate the problem.

If RealTemp randomly reports the full 25.0 multiplier only when AIDA64 is running then you won't be able to run these 2 programs at the same time.


----------



## Arctucas (Mar 31, 2011)

unclewebb said:


> Your screen shot above shows the 25.0 multiplier which is usually a good sign that some other monitoring software is not using the shared CPU timers in a friendly manner.
> 
> If you're bored and want to do some testing, you can disable the AIDA64 side gadget and also make sure that AIDA64 isn't running in the background.  You can run RealTemp with the log file option on for 5 or 10 minutes without AIDA64 running and then do the same thing again with AIDA64 running and you might be able to isolate the problem.
> 
> If RealTemp randomly reports the full 25.0 multiplier only when AIDA64 is running then you won't be able to run these 2 programs at the same time.



Hmm... I have not used RealTemp and AIDA64 at the same time, and have never used the sidebar gadget. In fact, I have disabled the Widows Gadget Platform altogether.


----------



## Arctucas (Apr 2, 2011)

I tried running AIDA64 and the RealTemp XS bench simultaneously:






I appears that for whatever reason, the multiplier issue resolved itself.


----------



## peterwise (Apr 13, 2011)

*Q8200 processor core differences*

I last posted a month on so ago under the thread 'Real Temp Feature Requests'. 

I decided that I should finish my RealTemp 'SensorTest' calibration before trying ThrottleStop 2.99.6 as recommended. This was only after discovering a number of strange things about the processors on my Intel Q8200 chip which it may well be worth exploring.

Most of my problems happen when running Trainz 2004 (a railway simulator) or, at least, that is the program that shows up the problem most clearly. Other applications like Firefox and ArcGIS are clearly impacted (Firefox starts using 25% total processor, especially when left on the Gmail page for some time, until it is restarted), but Trainz 2004 actually hangs the system such that even ctrl-alt-DEL or Alt-Tab will take 5 minutes to respond (one piece at a time). The program admittedly was probably not written for multiple processors and noticeably runs entirely on one processor at, say, 90-100% of that processor's time (or up to 25% of the Quad's total time) with an associated process running maybe just 0-2% of the Quad's total time. 

Because I seemed to be having problems with CPU0 and/or CPU1 (it appeared that the temperature sensors for one or both may be stuck at low temperatures they always seemed to show 62C even when busy), so I tried moving all my users processes off CPU0 and CPU1. To my surprise they both show temperature BELOW 62C (e.g. 56C). Trainz 2004 did seem more stable on those processors as long as I had the RealTemp alarm set for a RealTemp displayed temperature of 69C and paused and waited when that sounded. If the room temperature was 19C, the alarm never sounded and the sim kept going forever. At a room temperature of 21C the alarm usually sounded (and the sim sometime failed within an hour, but NOT EVERY TIME) if I had the Intel stock heatsink's at fan 90-100% and an external fan pushing air directly onto the processor through the (closed) case. It's this random element that gets me, plus the fact that the temperatures of CPU0 and CPU1 will go down but (show) rarely up. I am using EasyTune 6 to control the CPU fan. I wonder would it be taking an average of the temperatures, the maximum or simply monitoring one or two? If fan speed is being controlled from the measured temperature of CPU0 and CPU1 only then this could explain the strange stability to those temperatures and also may help to explain the randomness of the shutdowns (they were even more random when any of the four processors could be used by the sim.

I have a general question about RealTemp: what is the meaning of the (in my case) four 'Movement' readings on the sensor test page (which for me never show numbers greater than 0 for CPU0 or CPU1)? Also, I note my "thermal status" is "OK" (for all four), but given the difficulty of getting the Intel stock heatsink and fan locked down to the motherboard in four places at the same time (with about the same pressure) and so getting an evenly thin spread of gel across the surface, I am wondering how the four processors are actually placed on the Q8200 chip. Are they in four quadrants from the centre, as one might expect? If so, it would be really easy to see how some processors could be behaving quite differently especially as, in my case, when re-fitting the Intel stock heatsink/fan, one particular clip always seems to stick and click in later and only after more pressure has been applied to it than the other three. This would seem to almost guarantee some differences between quadrants in thermal conductivity to the heat sink.

Having said all that I have run the Sensor Test several times making adjustments after each and am not sure I'm actually getting anywhere, would someone look through my results on the attached Excel spreadsheet and let me know? As you will see CPU2 and CPU3 are virtually indistinguishable, CPU0 seems to want to stay non-linear, but CPU1 is doubly so. I have only managed to bring the difference between the distance to TJmax of CPU1 (when compared to CPU2/3) down from 4C to 3C by the most stringent of modifications to Idle1 and TJmax1 (as per my spreadsheet).

At the end of my tests I also measured the temperature inside the case (and the measured temperatures and CPU2/3 haven't gone back down to the "normal" 61-62C since I closed the case an hour ago), and also I wanted someone to give me some idea of what the Nvidia System Monitor (that I used to use to measure temperatures) might be trying to say. It numbers the processors CPU1-4 not CPU0-3 and one would probably assume that their CPU1 equals our CPU0, but somehow the way the temperatures change seems so different - as if they are referring to different processors (not just "distance to TJmax" differences)! Can anyone explain? 

Should I be assuming that my "real" processor temperatures (at 0-1% total CPU usage) should be nearer the 56C than the 62C mark (at c. 20C external and 22C in-case) ?

Any help will be most welcome.

Peter.


----------



## peterwise (Apr 13, 2011)

*Q8200 processor core differences*

The attachment - sorry!


----------



## peterwise (Apr 13, 2011)

*Q8200 processor core differences*

Oh yes! I also noticed another strange thing about my shutdowns, by the way. I get far LESS when MORE processes are running! I presume this means it's not (generally) the absolute temperature of any of the cores that is the problem, but rather the differences between cores. I should also point out that if whether it is CPU2 or CPU3 that is doing the lion's share of the processing, the temperature of BOTH always goes up together, whereas CPU0 and CPU1 register the same old "cool" 61-62C.

I know someone will ask me: I believe have (some time ago now) tried running the sim on CPU0 or on CPU1 and I have a feeling (at least one of them worked OK), but I'd have to record my results more carefully. I definitely remember doing something like that expecting it to fail immediately and being surprised - but it was probably really late when it happened and I was too tired to think clearly about it, much less to note it all down carefully!

Peter.


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 13, 2011)

This article over at Tech Gage has a nice picture of how a Core 2 Quad is laid out.

http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_2_quad_q9450_266ghz/

A Core 2 Quad internally consists of two separate Core 2 Duos placed side by side with a little bit of space between the pair in the middle.  The two individual cores in each Core 2 Duo are so close together that when you fully load one core, the core right beside it will heat up to almost the same temperature over time even if it is doing absolutely nothing.  The other Core 2 Duo under the heat spreader will also heat up too.

Most users have never bothered using RealTemp to calibrate the temperature sensors.  Intel never designed these sensors to be used for 100% accurate core temperature reporting.  They are only designed for thermal throttling and thermal shutdown control and all of the ones that I've seen are adequate for that purpose.  When you have sensors that stick at lower temperatures like all of these sensors do, it's pointless trying to come up with some sort of perfect calibration so I don't bother with calibrating these sensors.  Your testing shows that your first 2 cores, Core 0 and Core 1, are both getting stuck at 57C and are not capable of reporting any temperatures lower than that.  You can't calibrate sensors that are stuck.

Depending on Windows, most single threaded applcations that are run on a Quad Core processor have the task randomly scheduled on a variety of different cores.  This can be happening hundreds of times a second so the Task Manager is usually too slow to accurately show this.  You can use the Task Manager Set Affinity... function to lock a task to a single core but you often times get lower performance when you do this.

I have no idea where your problems lie.  Trainz 2004 may not be a 100% stable program or your computer might not be 100% stable.  I usually run testing programs like Prime95 or LinX to try and get an idea how stable my computer is.  If my computer is stable and I have trouble with one program; it's usually the program that is the problem.

If you are a fan of Trainz then why not consider upgrading to a newer version to see if they have got the bugs worked out.

http://www.auran.com/TRS2004/default.htm

When you install a heatsink with the Intel style push pins, you should try to push two pins in at a time.  Push the two that are diagonally opposite to each other.  If you push in one pin at a time, the last pin can be a pain in the butt trying to get to seat.  I installed one of these on a friend's Gigabyte board and it took all of my 200 pounds to get pin #4 to finally go in.  When using a heat sink that has push pins, I try to install the heatsink with the motherboard outside of the case so I can look on the back side of the motherboard to make sure all 4 push pins are fully seated.  

If you ever decide to reinstall your heatsink, remember to completely clean your CPU and heatsink and use some new thermal paste.  That might improve your temperatures.  Your core temperatures seem a little high but they are well within the Intel specifications for this CPU.  Do some testing to see what is causing your problems.  Lots of memory fails over time or is not set to the correct voltage or the correct timings in the first place and might need to be adjusted.  CPUs are very reliable compared to memory and power supplies and video card drivers and old software from 2004.


----------



## peterwise (Apr 13, 2011)

The "two pairs" type architecture that the picture shows and you describe does explain what I'm seeing. I presume 0 & 1 are on one side and 2 & 3 are on the other. 

Is there no way of just switching out or turning off CPU0 and CPU1 for ALL processes - I already do it for individual ones. (I've asked before here I think). Actually I know of at least one process than will not take anything but CPU0. If I change the affinity for GUI.EXE (presumably a GUI for Gigabyte's GSvr.exe) it just quietly slips back to CPU0, Situations like this, as well as no doubt parts of the XP Pro system software, would mean that anything interfering in this way (if it is even possible) would have to effectively map or renumber the cores and the maximum number of cores e.g. 2 & 3 of four cores would become 0 & 1 of two cores.

Actually, I just ran the sim for several hours with all my own processes ignoring CPU1 (only) and all worked OK. CPUs 2 & 3 warmed up only about 4 degrees C (CPU0 pretended it was cool with the whole affair) and, for the first time I noticed that one CPU wasn't taking a full load almost alone - the load was more or less evenly dispersed among the three. Is CPU0 still problematic you think? It seems like my main problem is CPU1.

Why did you say that 0 and 1 are getting stuck at 57C? Where did that number come from? Is that (TJmax0 - Dist0) or (100 - 43.0) towards the end of my spreadsheet, but then what about the Idle0 of 4.0?

Some time ago now, I did change carefully clean off and replace the gel with fresh gel after I read an excellent review/tutorial on the subject by Olin Coles at

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=170&Itemid=38

I really liked his experimental and investigative approach and it gave me confidence to give it a try and err rather on the side of too little than too much gel. In the case of my processor and stock heat sink, one small drop dead centre seemed appropriate.

You said that "all of these sensors" stick at low temperatures. Do you mean that all the Intel Core2 processors sensors tend to (presumably) stick. Which affordable processors do not and take a balanced approach in their architecture. My grandson might be buying me a motherboard for my birthday, because the one I'm using is his hand-me-down and he felt it might have been damaged (anyway it's v1.0 of a Gigabyte board that they never made a later version of)! Also it has just 2GB of 2x333 (667) Mhz memory which may be a bottleneck for a 2.33GHz Quad processor. However, you seem to be suggesting that I should throw away my processor and get another anyway. It all sounds expensive!

I have tested the memory with free DOS type utilities, but would welcome advise of what type of (ideally free and Windows) utilities I could use. Wouldn't Prime95 or LinX just test the processor's stability? I think I know about the processor now - it passes Intel's "Processor Diagnostic Tool" tests, but they do not seem that stringent anyway.

Actually, the reason I am now BACK on Trainz 2004 is that it DOES work (most of the time) and, no doubt, because of my PC's problems, my Trainz 2010 has stopped working and would not reinstall (I tried five times). It is very database intensive and my PC keeps messing up the installation and patching procedure (which runs overnight!).

I've thought about getting Trainz 12, just coming out now, but want to ensure my PC is working right first.

Thanks anyway.

Peter.


----------



## dlongnecker (Apr 14, 2011)

Sergey Lepilov (XBT) said:


> *unclewebb*
> Please update the RealTemp GT to the 3.67 version for the six cores Intel CPU.
> Now I necessary to use the GT 3.59


What do you mean by this comment?  I am running RealTemp 3.60 with a 6 core processor and get a message that says the processor detected is not supported.  I don't see a 3.67 version anywhere..


----------



## stasio (Apr 14, 2011)

dlongnecker said:


> What do you mean by this comment?  I am running RealTemp 3.60 with a 6 core processor and get a message that says the processor detected is not supported.  I don't see a 3.67 version anywhere..



*RealTemp 3.67*
http://www.mediafire.com/?n99nq4kn95u6i6a

*RealTemp GT 3.61*
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTemp_361.zip


----------



## dlongnecker (Apr 14, 2011)

stasio said:


> *RealTemp 3.67*
> http://www.mediafire.com/?n99nq4kn95u6i6a
> 
> *RealTemp GT 3.61*
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTemp_361.zip



Thanks.....none of those versions worked with my processor.  Guess I am missing something.


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 14, 2011)

If RealTemp does not work with your processor why not post a CPU-Z screen shot so I can see what processor you have?    Does RealTemp start up and display an error message?  Does it immediately crash?  Are you using some overly aggressive anti-virus software that is blocking the open source WinRing0 driver that RealTemp uses?  Do you have Administrator privileges?  When you say, "none of those versions worked", that could mean just about anything.

It seems to work OK on Cryptik's Core i7-990X


----------



## dlongnecker (Apr 14, 2011)

Sorry if I wasn't specific enough.  Attached is the screen shot from the CPU-Z and the error message I get when I run the RealTemp program.


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 15, 2011)

Sorry for the confusion.  RealTemp has always been for Intel Core processors only.  AMD CPUs are not supported because I haven't owned any AMD hardware in years.  Don't get me wrong.  The Phenom II X6 is a great CPU at a great price but I've never had the time or money to start a new development program to support them.  Maybe give Core Temp a try.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 15, 2011)

yeah, realtemp has never worked on AMD. you need coretemp for AMD support.


----------



## Eric_On_Web (Apr 15, 2011)

Not working on my skt 478 also.


----------



## burebista (Apr 15, 2011)

From here:


> Main Features
> 
> Reads temperature information from all Intel Core based processors. Pentium 4 processors are not supported.


----------



## Eric_On_Web (Apr 15, 2011)

Thanx and thats sucks


----------



## halninekay (May 12, 2011)

It's a great tool! Thanks for that. I tested it on my first and brand new Intel rig.


----------



## lyna (May 14, 2011)

*CPU Cool Down Test*

Hi, My notebook tries to make scandisk each time when windows starts, but it can't, it always stay the same black screen which is seen just before login page. And nowadays, it shut down randomly, I think cause of temp. I made CPU Cool Down test and took the result seen below.  Can any one help me to understand that result ? is my CPU under threat ? can be any relationship making scandisk with that result ?


----------



## unclewebb (May 14, 2011)

Your laptop has a serious overheating problem.  The LOG word means that it is thermal throttling at full load which slows it down to a crawl.  The Cool Down Test shows that it is throttling so bad that it is only running at half of its intended speed.

Pull your laptop apart and fix this cooling problem.  It would be a good idea to reinstall the heatsink with some fresh thermal paste and clean out the dust bunnies.


----------



## lyna (May 15, 2011)

*CPU Temp. Problem*

Thx. unclewebb,

I have just cleaned dust, and made test again with no external laptop cooler, and with laptop cooler, I took the result below.

W/O laptop cooler.






with laptop cooler.





What about that result, is it serious to send machine to tech. serv. ?


----------



## unclewebb (May 15, 2011)

Looks like you fixed the problem.  Now your laptop can get up to 100% load without triggering any thermal throttling.  The Thermal Status area shows OK which confirms it no longer throttles.

If you want to improve those temps some more then remove the heatsink and redo the thermal paste.  It's not critical to do this now that your laptop is not overheating but if you're bored, go for it.  There's always room for improvement.

*RealTemp 3.67*
http://www.mediafire.com/?n99nq4kn95u6i6a

I wrote another free program that is more designed for laptop owners that you can download if you're interested.

*ThrottleStop 3.00*
http://www.techinferno.com/downloads/?did=1

It lets you play around with your core voltage and some other settings so you might be able to improve your core temperature further by using it.  Don't be scared off by the warning message when you first start it.  That was more for owners with Extreme CPUs with adjustable multipliers.  When you provide an overclocking option, some enthusiasts get a little too enthusiastic.


----------



## nono2005 (May 19, 2011)

*Config Realtemp*

Hi
I've just finish the Realtemp Sensor test.
Can you explain how to set The TJmax  ?


----------



## unclewebb (May 20, 2011)

*RealTemp GT 3.64*
http://www.mediafire.com/?jibd769x6z7n0c8


nono2005: I'd need a super magnifying glass to see the image you posted.  
At ImageShack you need to copy the entire link when posting a thumb nail so I can click on it and see the original picture.

If you only have 4 cores then you don't need to run RealTemp GT.  The regular RealTemp.exe is designed for the 4 core CPUs.  Post another pic and I'll have a look at it.


----------



## nono2005 (May 21, 2011)

*re:Config Realtemp*

hi
Thank you for these tips has uncleweb.
re  I've just finish the Realtemp Sensor test.
Can you explain how to set The TJmax ?


----------



## unclewebb (May 21, 2011)

Intel's newer Core i mobile sensors are rated to be accurate to +/- 5C.  The sensors on a 45nm Core 2 Quad like you have are not even close to that accurate so I gave up long ago trying to come up with some sort of perfect calibration.

You can add 2 to Core 3 and set TJMax for that one to 102C but beyond that I wouldn't bother trying to get fancy with adjustments to Idle Calibration factors.  You're far better off realizing that these sensors were never designed for 100% accurate core temperature reporting from idle to TJMax and Intel never released enough information or a method to try and calibrate them so I gave up.

The good news is that the sensors on your particular CPU are excellent for a 45nm Core 2 Quad.  Many of these had issues at lower temperatures where the sensor would become stuck but none of your sensors in the normal temperature range have this problem.  The next problem was that TJMax could vary significantly by 10C from core to core but your numbers show that TJMax is consistent within +/- 2C and it might even be better than that.

Enjoy your Quad and don't get hung up on the core temperatures because it's very difficult to try and prove what core is accurate.  There is error in all of these sensors and your CPU has a lot less error than most so be happy.  As long as your CPU is stable and not reaching the thermal throttling point at 100C, there's no reason to give your core temperatures a second thought.  

RealTemp 3.67 is inside the above download if you would like to upgrade.


----------



## Remaha (May 26, 2011)

I have been getting a lot of crashes on my PC recently. They mostly happen when I'm not actually doing anything. Naturally, I blamed Norton 360 at first as that tends to kick in at idle (or when I'm idle). 

Anyway, the problem still persisted, so I started looking at the possibility of overheating memory and processors.

The first time I tried the RealTemp sensor test I got some pretty strange results (See first screenshot). I am assuming that this is because my processor went over the T max of 90C.






I had a look at my BIOS and noticed that Speedstep and CIE were both disabled. After enabling them, it looks like my processor is just managing to stay below the Tmax of 90C. However, it continues to heat up until the CPU load gets down to about 30%.






I'm guessing that with figures like this (with no overclocking) I need to consider buying a new cooling system.


----------



## unclewebb (May 26, 2011)

Your CPU is overheating and thermal throttling.  That's why you are getting some strange numbers during the sensor test.  These sensors wrap around when your core temperatures go beyond TJMax.

Idle temperatures of 76C are a good sign that your CPU heatsink is not making firm contact with your CPU.  If you are using the original Intel OEM cooler that came with your CPU then there is a very good chance that 1 of the 4 push pins that secures it to the motherboard is not fully seated.  I'm not a big fan of these push pins because it can be difficult to tell sometimes if they are fully seated.  When installing a heatsink with push pins, I like installing the heatsink with the motherboard outside of the case so I can flip the motherboard over and be 100% sure that the push pin went through and is seated.

The best thing to do would be to buy some new thermal paste, remove your old heatsink, make sure the fan still works, clean it up and reinstall it with some new thermal paste.  Push the push pins in diagonally, two at a time.  If you push them in one at a time you can end up with 3 of them in and you will have a difficult time getting the fourth pin to seat.  I had a Gigabyte motherboard once that put up quite the fight.

Some of the early E6600 CPUs put out a lot of heat.  Once you have fixed the heatsink problem, if there are any options in your bios, you can try lowering the core voltage which can also help lower the amount of heat these CPUs create.


----------



## Remaha (May 26, 2011)

unclewebb said:


> Your CPU is overheating and thermal throttling.  That's why you are getting some strange numbers during the sensor test.  These sensors wrap around when your core temperatures go beyond TJMax.
> 
> Idle temperatures of 76C are a good sign that your CPU heatsink is not making firm contact with your CPU.  If you are using the original Intel OEM cooler that came with your CPU then there is a very good chance that 1 of the 4 push pins that secures it to the motherboard is not fully seated.  I'm not a big fan of these push pins because it can be difficult to tell sometimes if they are fully seated.  When installing a heatsink with push pins, I like installing the heatsink with the motherboard outside of the case so I can flip the motherboard over and be 100% sure that the push pin went through and is seated.
> 
> ...



Many thanks for your help.

At least I know what the problem is now. 

I've never had much joy fixing heatsinks and fans on to previous PCs.


----------



## Remaha (May 26, 2011)

Remembering that my CPU was running at up to 98C earlier today, this is what's happening now:






Happy (but slightly embarrassed) to say that all it needed was very good clean. There was acres of dust between the fins of the heatsink. I couldn't see it until I took my PC downstairs to a room with natural light.

Hopefully that will put an end to any more crashes. 

Thanks once again for your help.


----------



## unclewebb (May 26, 2011)

That's a night and day difference and is running a lot cooler than the E6600 I tested.  If you have a bios that lets you, it would be easy to overclock that CPU by 25% to 30% now without breaking a sweat.  You've proven that it doesn't mind running at high temperatures.  

These early Core 2 processors were bullet proof.


----------



## ISOpain (May 26, 2011)

*RealTemp Not Updating Temperatures*

I've got a dual core 64-bit Intel T4400 machine running Win7 64-bit.
(I think that's synonymous with Core 2 Duo.)

I was looking around for a CPU temperature monitor and RealTemp looks ideal.
But.
It never seems to update the temperature of either core after the first time it's run.
Sometimes it appears to report a correct temperature for at least one core the first time it runs after a cold boot.

I'm including a screenshot of the Cool Down Test, showing constant temperature.
(In the background you can see the CPU usage drop from 100% to 0%, as indicated by the Win7 Task Manager.  There is no stepping down as indicated by the left column of the Cool Down Test dialog, there's just a cliff-dive in processor usage.  The "noise" in CPU load was due to me, switching tasks and moving windows around to get the screenshot.)

Just for fun, I booted a Linux LiveCD and ran a little bash script calling Debian's acpi utility to generate temperature reports.  Similar to the RealTemp cooldown test, I ran a processor-intensive application for several minutes, then killed it, and let "acpi -t" report the temperature as the CPU cooled down.

What you can see is successful updating of the CPU temperature as it cools down.
(There's a pause of 2 seconds between each pair of output lines.)

So: CPU temperature reporting works.
Why doesn't it update appropriately in RealTemp?

(You'll notice the two cores always report the _same_ temperature.  I'll leave the question of "Do I have two functional, independent temperature sensors?" until next time...)

Any advice on getting RealTemp to update in real time?

Thanks,
ISO


----------



## unclewebb (May 26, 2011)

The 45nm core temperature sensors that Intel uses were never designed to be accurate temperature monitoring devices.  Some of these sensors get stuck like you are seeing but I have to admit that your sensors are far worse than average.  These sensors were only designed for thermal throttling and thermal shut down purposes at 100C and approximately 125C.  If your CPU ever gets hot enough then it is very likely that your core temperature sensors will start functioning more or less correctly.  They still are far from 100% accurate even when they are not stuck.

There is a separate temperature sensor located in the center of your CPU.  RealTemp is only designed to read the core temperature sensors and ignores this other sensor.  You can use a program like Speed Fan or AIDA64.  These can read that other sensor.  I've never bothered with it because thermal throttling is only based on what the core sensors are reporting.  When your core sensors are defective like yours are, data from this other sensor is better than nothing but still fairly meaningless.

Not too important but here's what my E6600 could run on stock voltage.





It put out too much heat when pressed beyond 3200 MHz.


----------



## Remaha (May 26, 2011)

> That's a night and day difference and is running a lot cooler than the E6600 I tested. If you have a bios that lets you, it would be easy to overclock that CPU by 25% to 30% now without breaking a sweat. You've proven that it doesn't mind running at high temperatures.
> 
> These early Core 2 processors were bullet proof.



Well, I'm guessing it kept giving up the ghost somewhere over 100C.



unclewebb said:


> Not too important but here's what my E6600 could run on stock voltage.
> 
> It put out too much heat when pressed beyond 3200 MHz.



I might give it a try just to see what it can do.


----------



## unclewebb (May 26, 2011)

Just adjust the memory divider so your memory continues to run within spec and it should be easy to crank your CPU up a notch or two.


----------



## Zal (May 29, 2011)

Hi there,

I've been using RealTemp for a long time now and much prefer it to similar apps such as hardwareinfo32, however version 3.6 and 3.67 do not seem to support my new hardware 

I was wondering if you have any plans to update it to allow it to monitor temperatures for newer GPU's such as a the 580 GTX, 485M GTX and ATI HD 6970M

Thanks againf or the great app 

-Zal


----------



## unclewebb (May 29, 2011)

When you go into the RealTemp Settings window and click on the Nvidia or ATI box, does anything happen?  RealTemp gets its GPU temperature info directly from the driver.  If something has changed in the driver then there's probably not much I'll be able to do about that.

Nvidia support has been very consistent for quite a few GPU generations as far as I know.  ATI on the desktop side isn't too bad but they seemed to have blocked simple temperature monitoring on some of their mobile GPUs.  Let me know what you find out when you click on those boxes.


----------



## Zal (May 30, 2011)

Hi Unclewebb,

edited, removed previous msg, sorry i have been completely blind, i didn't see those boxes  

It works perfectly now, thank you very much


----------



## unclewebb (May 30, 2011)

No problems.  I'm just happy to hear RealTemp GPU monitoring still works.


----------



## BilBg (Jun 2, 2011)

*TJ Max value wrong?:*

One "Young and Naive" (No, Not Queen Amidala  ) participant of a Bulgarian forum
posted info that let me believe the TJ Max value wrongly determined for his CPU:

Intel Core 2 Duo T5800 (Merom) 2.00GHz [M0]
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T5800 @ 2.00GHz
Technology 65nm x64 Family 6 Model 15 (0F) Stepping 13 Revision A3








Picture shows that *Real Temp* thinks that TJ Max = 100°C (66+34=100) 


*Intel site* shows:
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=35581

TJUNCTION	85°C


The (17 years old) owner posted info:
*Core Temp* shows: Tj.Max = 85°C (and Temperature 51°C)


*SIV* (System Information Viewer) (shows the same Core Temperature as Core Temp)
http://www.rh-software.com/


SIV32X - System Information Viewer V4.20 ADMIN-PC::Admin

 Windows 7 x32 Ultimate (Single User) V6.01 Build 7601 Service Pack 1 ASUS M51Vr ADMIN-PC::Admin English (0409) United States (1)
 Workgroup WORKGROUP 00 15:41:34 2011-05-27 08:33:13 [798MHz Single DDR2 RAM] PCI-Express x16 (x16) FSBRAM 1:2 MCH 0°C

 Resource Usage 50% [1] Current Maximum DDR2 RAM CAS Latency 6
 System Physical Memory 1.01GB 301.65MB 2.00GB RAS to CAS Delay (tRCD) 6
 System Paging File 1.51GB 2.49GB 4.00GB RAS Precharge (tRP) 6
 System File Cache 729.88MB 1.28GB 890.26MB Cycle Time (tRAS) 18
 Row Cycle Time (tRC) 24
 Cores 2 Chips 1 HDDs |Y| 31°C |U| DIMMs |Y| 2GB

 Sensor ACPI Thermal Zone |Y| ACPI 48°C

 |G| Processor FSB 61% CPU Utilisation Volts Temp Power APIC Socket P BGA-479 Intel Core 2 Duo T5800 (Merom) 2.00GHz [M0]
 CPU-0 1.60GHz x8 200MHz U 49% K 12% I 1% 1.00 *50°C* 25.00 0.0.0 Technology 65nm x64 Family 6 Model 15 (0F) Stepping 13 Revision A3
 CPU-1 1.60GHz x8 200MHz U 54% K 8% 1.00 *50°C* 25.00 0.1.0 CPUs 2 Cores 2 Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T5800 @ 2.00GHz
 Memory GPU 1.0% GPU Utilisation L1 Code Cache 8-way 64-byte 32KB 
 GPU-0 400MHz P0 110MHz Activity 1% 0.95 L1 Data Cache 8-way 64-byte 32KB [3/3] 
 L2 Unified Cache (2) 8-way 64-byte 2MB [14] 
 [Cache-0 Latency] [MMX SSSE3 XD]


(this CPU is in ASUS laptop)


P.S.

According to:
http://www.alcpu.com/CoreTemp/howitworks.html
"Intel defines a certain Tjunction temperature for the processor. This value is usually in the range between 85°C and 105°C. 
*In the later generation of processors*, starting with Nehalem, the exact *Tjunction Max* value is available for software to read *in an MSR* (short for Model Specific Register).
A different MSR contains the temperature data. The data is represented as a Delta in °C between current temperature and Tjunction."

Do you (Real Temp) read (if possible) *Tjunction Max value from an MSR* ?


(The author of *TThrottle*:
http://www.efmer.eu/boinc/download.html

implemented this recently so I know it is possible:
"3.50 April 2011 
New: Read the TJunction (Max) temperature directly from the CPU when possible.

4.10 May 2011 
Fixed: (Intel) A read to the CPU to determine the TJunction (Max) temperature, caused the driver to crash on older cpu's.
Now only Family 0x6, Model: 0x1A, 0x1E, 0x1F, 0x25, 0x2C, 0x2E, 0x2A, 0x2D perform a read.
If you know any others that are missing, please let me know.
"

The (long) discussion with me:
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=63650&nowrap=true#1094579

And: "A new version of TThrottle now reads the TJunction from the CPU":
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=63650&nowrap=true#1095346
)


----------



## unclewebb (Jun 2, 2011)

Intel has never publicly released any information about the method they use to set TJMax or how much error is in that number.  Some information they have released is not correct, inconsistent or misleading.  At one of their Intel Developer Forums they released a new term called TJ Target and told users that actual TJMax may be equal to this target but might also be higher.  They weren't quite sure.  

TJ Target can only be read from the Core i CPUs.  That information can not be read from the earlier Core 2 CPUs because it doesn't exist.

The 85C spec, if it is accurate, is the minimum temperature that the PROCHOT signal can go active.  Intel admits that actual TJMax may be higher and it is anyone's guess what that really means or how much higher.  Actual TJMax can vary from core to core on the same CPU.  Without seeing some test data of actual CPUs, Intel's specs are meaningless.  I gave up trying to get the truth out of Intel.  That's why RealTemp is adjustable.  

If you believe the published TJunction spec is exactly equal to TJMax then you can easily adjust RealTemp and set TJMax to 85C.  Without seeing some actual test data or having a T5800 to test, I have no idea what the truth is.


----------



## BilBg (Jun 2, 2011)

unclewebb said:


> Without seeing some actual test data or having a T5800 to test, I have no idea what the truth is.



This boy isn't experienced to do the test.

But what info do you need to confirm (approximately) the TJMax value?
Motherboard sensor to measure the CPUcase temperature?

Open Hardware Monitor don't show any Motherboard sensor on this laptop.

Can the ACPI info shown by SIV be used:
Sensor ACPI Thermal Zone |Y| ACPI 48°C
And Core temps:
CPU-0 1.60GHz x8 200MHz U 49% K 12% I 1% 1.00 50°C
CPU-1 1.60GHz x8 200MHz U 54% K 8% 1.00 50°C


----------



## burebista (Jun 2, 2011)

Man I've always said that you should try to forget temps reading and rely only on _distance to TJMax_ (whatever TJMax value is) because this is the only parameter which triggers thermal throttle/shutdown.
It will be a little confusing in the start because instead lower temps you should aim for higher distance to TJmax but you'll get used to.


----------



## unclewebb (Jun 2, 2011)

There's no 100% accurate way to try and calibrate a mobile CPU.  Some laptops have very poor cooling solutions or the heatsink is full of dust so they can run very hot.

HWiNFO32 might show a temperature for the main CPU sensor.  At idle, that is usually close to the core temperature so you can compare to that.

Another thing you can do is let the laptop sit overnight in Stand By mode.  When you resume the next morning, the actual core temperature is usually 0C to 5C higher than the room temperature.  You can have RealTemp running with the Logging option checked before you go into Stand By so when you resume you will have some immediate data before the CPU has a chance to warm up very much.

I like burebista's solution best.  Just watch Distance to TJMax.  That is the only thing truly known about these CPUs.  When that number counts down to zero, the CPU will start to thermal throttle and slow down.  Avoid that and these CPUs will run at full speed just fine.  There's no need to be too concerned about the core temperature of a mobile CPU unless it is so hot that it is throttling.  Most older laptops can benefit from a thorough cleaning as well as redoing the thermal paste between the CPU and the heatsink.


----------



## BilBg (Jun 3, 2011)

unclewebb said:


> I like burebista's solution best.  Just watch *Distance to TJMax*.  That is the only thing truly known about these CPUs.  When that number counts down to zero, the CPU will start to thermal throttle and slow down.



I already explained that to the owner a few days ago (to watch for "Distance to TJMax" and what it means - it's good that RealTemp shows this raw value which other utilities hide).
And how manually change the TJMax to 85 (which he did) to not be confused by the difference of the shown temperature in different programs.



> HWiNFO32 might show a temperature for the main CPU sensor


By "main CPU sensor" do you mean some other (not known to me) sensor inside the CPU
or you simply mean the motherboard sensor under the CPU (read by sensor chip on motherboard)?


----------



## unclewebb (Jun 3, 2011)

A knowledgeable person on Tom's Hardware told me a long time ago that the Core 2 based CPUs contain a separate temperature sensor embedded in the center of the CPU.  I used to always think the CPU temperature data that software reports was coming from a sensor in the socket. 

Wherever that sensor is, some motherboard manufacturers may have calibrated it based on inaccurate data coming from the core sensors.  In situations where this is true, that temperature data might not be accurate so trying to compare to it could be pointless.

I've got a board where this sensor can show over 105C when the core sensors are still just under 100C.  If the core sensors are located on the hottest spots on the core then that's impossible.  If this data was accurate, this other sensor should be reporting ~20C less than the peak core temperature when the CPU is fully loaded.  Heat dissipates very rapidly over a short distance at full load.

I find the resume from stand by temperature over night and comparing that to the room temperature works best.


----------



## Luciddream (Jun 16, 2011)

hi there. i want to say thanks for such a great software  and ask something... i've been searching all around to find the actual TjMax for a Q6600... just for knowledge purposes  and i haven't found an accurate answer anywhere... i've read here: http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/docs.php that rge has done some testings but i cant find the post/topic... 
also on the changelog i can only find: on version 3.00 TJMax updated based on new Intel documentation and further testing. 

id love to see that testing if its available, thanks 

also, can u help me calibrate sensors?? (thats on 3.6 on air on a Greek summer...)


----------



## unclewebb (Jun 16, 2011)

My best guess at TJMax for the Q6600 is 100C for the G0 stepping and 90C for the original B3 stepping.  TJMax is not a fixed number.  There is some variation from core to core and from CPU to CPU of the exact same model and exact same stepping.  Intel has never released what TJMax is for these early CPUs or how much variation there is in these sensors.

On the 65nm Quads like you have, I believe TJMax might be on average 5C higher on core 2 and core 3 compared to core 0 and core 1.  On the 45nm Core 2 Quads, this difference can approach 10C.

There is so much unknown and so much variation in these sensors from one CPU to the next that I gave up on calibrating them.  If you want your core temps to line up a little better you could try adjusting TJMax so it looks like this.

100, 103, 105, 105

100% accurate temperatures from idle to TJMax are not possible since these sensors were never designed for that purpose.  As long as your CPU is stable and it is not thermal throttling then everything is OK.


----------



## Luciddream (Jun 16, 2011)

unclewebb said:


> My best guess at TJMax for the Q6600 is 100C for the G0 stepping and 90C for the original B3 stepping.  TJMax is not a fixed number.  There is some variation from core to core and from CPU to CPU of the exact same model and exact same stepping.  Intel has never released what TJMax is for these early CPUs or how much variation there is in these sensors.
> 
> On the 65nm Quads like you have, I believe TJMax might be on average 5C higher on core 2 and core 3 compared to core 0 and core 1.  On the 45nm Core 2 Quads, this difference can approach 10C.
> 
> ...


ok thanks for quick reply


----------



## dapetcard (Jun 28, 2011)

hi unclewebb

i just found your software and it looks great 

here is my screenshot, what can u tell me with this screenshoot, can you help me to calibrate it? or what i have to do with my laptop?

thanks


----------



## unclewebb (Jun 28, 2011)

The LOG word in the Thermal Status area for your first two cores shows that your CPU overheats and has reached the thermal throttling point during the full load sensor test.  That's not good.  The calibration is close enough that I wouldn't worry about that.

I'm not sure what laptop you are using or if the Q9000 was originally installed.  Some users add Quad core CPUs from EBay to their laptops but their original heatsink was only designed for a Core 2 Duo.  The orientation of the cores is different so this can cause cooling problems.  Many laptops have barely adequate cooling solutions from the factory while others are overdue for a thorough cleaning.  Removing the CPU heatsink and fan and redoing the thermal paste is also a good idea on any laptop that is running hot.

Another option is to use my other program called ThrottleStop which is more designed for laptops.  With a Q9000, you can use ThrottleStop to decrease the CPU core voltage which can improve your full load CPU temperatures.  That can also increase your battery run time too.

*ThrottleStop 3.00*
http://www.techinferno.com/downloads/?did=1

When decreasing voltage, make sure you don't go too far or you can lose stability.  Some Q9000 CPUs can run 100% reliably with 1.05 volts.  Your best bet is to start with a good cleaning.


----------



## dapetcard (Jun 29, 2011)

thanks unclewebb

i'll try removing the dust first and clean the laptop

My laptop is Sager NP8600 and Q9000 was originally installed. Lately my laptop seems hot so i guess there's lots of dust

btw, you said 1,05 volts and i try throttlestop it is already 1,05 volts?

can u suggest me what thermal paste is good for laptop?

thanks again unclewebb


----------



## unclewebb (Jun 29, 2011)

ICD7 seems to be the top rated thermal paste these days.  

http://www.innovationcooling.com/

Arctic Silver 5 is OK and more readily available.

A voltage VID setting of 1.05 is usually the lowest value most mobile Core 2 Quads have available.  What is the highest value that ThrottleStop lets you set?  When not using ThrottleStop, when one core is loaded, it will use the highest Intel Dynamic Acceleration IDA voltage so setting it to 1.05 volts will help.


----------



## burebista (Jun 29, 2011)

You can take a look at Arctic Cooling MX-4, Antec Formula 7, Prolimatech PK-1 beside good ol' trusty AS5.


----------



## dapetcard (Jun 30, 2011)

i only get artic silver 5 and thermaltake tg-1

which is better?

thanks ^_^v


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 2, 2011)

unclewebb, is there any chance you could add a trey diosplay of temperature the same way CoreTemp does?

I'm thinking of a single temperature icon that displays the highest temperature of all present cores.
At the moment if you don't want loads of icons in the treybar, you have to pick just 1 core which doesn't necessarely is the hottest one. However CoreTemp can also render 1 icon in the treybar, but if the core 4 is the hottest, temperature of that one will be displayed. If at next moment, Core 2 is the hottest out of 4 cores, temperature of that one will be displayed.
So this way you have a clean treybar, but you always know the actual highest temperature of the CPU (or shall we say the hottest of the cores). I like the CoreTemp way a bit more, because in RealTemp i now just have Core 1 enabled to be displayed in the treybar. But that's not always the actual highest temp. that  see.


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 2, 2011)

Hi RejZoR.  I added that feature to RealTemp for you about 5 months ago.  The link to the latest version with this feature is in the first post of this thread.  It also includes VID and power consumption reporting for the Sandy Bridge CPUs.

*RealTemp 3.67*
http://www.mediafire.com/?n99nq4kn95u6i6a


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 3, 2011)

Oh, i've downloaded the latest version from the TPU webpage which is 3.60... I'll try this one then.


----------



## CryoGene (Jul 8, 2011)

Just a quick post to thank U for this soft. Work perfectly


----------



## Systemlord (Jul 16, 2011)

*Newbie needs a little help.*

Hello fellow members,

I have been running my water cooling system for about a year now without incident and until now never had any fail-safes put in place to prevent the unthinkable! I have Real Temp.exe in my Startup Folder and it seems to be working except I do not know if I have it setup correctly. I have Start Minimized and Nvidia GPU checked, except when I check Fahrenheit / Celsius my computer shutdown almost immediately, does Real Temp default to Celsius or Fahrenheit? I do not understand what TJ Max is even after reading about it, CPU and GPU fail-safe setting are 60 but do not know if its Celsius or Fahrenheit...? I don't understand why Celsius or Fahrenheit are on the same check box as you can't have it both ways??

Thanks in advance, Systemlord. 


Computer System:
CPU = Intel C2D E6600 @ 3.2GHz
MOBO = Asus P5E X38
GPU = EVGA GeForce GTX 480 @ 880MHz|1760MHz|4200MHz @ 1.125v 
RAM = 2GB Crucial Ballistix Tracers
HDD = Raptor 150GB WD1500ADFD 
PSU = Enermax Infinity 720W PSU 
SC = X-Fi Fatality Pro
CASE = Silverstone TJ09
LCD = NEC MultiSync 1970GX 19" 
OS = Windows XP SP3

Watercooling System:
CPU = EK Supreme HF Plexi/Nickel
GPU = EK FC-480 GTX Plexi/Nickel
RES = EK MultiOption X2 250 Advanced
PUMP = Laing DDC 3.25 18W w/EK X-Top V2
RAD = HWLabs GTX480 w/Gentle Typhoon 1850rpm Fans
LIQUID = Distilled Water w/Petra's Pure Silver Killcoil


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 16, 2011)

RealTemp is in Celsius by default.  When you put a check mark in that box it will change to Fahrenheit.


----------



## Systemlord (Jul 16, 2011)

unclewebb said:


> RealTemp is in Celsius by default.  When you put a check mark in that box it will change to Fahrenheit.



Do I need to set the TJ Max and if so how do I go about doing that? The idle temps for both CPU and GPU are quite accurate when compared to all the other programs.

Thanks


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 16, 2011)

TJMax is the maximum temperature your CPU can reach before it starts thermal throttlilng.  This is set by Intel at the factory.  As long as software uses the same value as what Intel has set then that program will report reasonably accurate core temperatures for you.

RealTemp is the only program I know of that decided to use TJMax = 90C for the early Core 2 processors like your E6600.  I ignored the competition which usually uses 85C for these processors.  I did this based on my original testing of an E6400 as well as some hands on testing of an E6600.  There is no reason to change this.  You can change this in the Settings window if you want to but your reported temperatures will be less accurate.


----------



## Systemlord (Jul 17, 2011)

unclewebb said:


> TJMax is the maximum temperature your CPU can reach before it starts thermal throttlilng.  This is set by Intel at the factory.  As long as software uses the same value as what Intel has set then that program will report reasonably accurate core temperatures for you.
> 
> RealTemp is the only program I know of that decided to use TJMax = 90C for the early Core 2 processors like your E6600.  I ignored the competition which usually uses 85C for these processors.  I did this based on my original testing of an E6400 as well as some hands on testing of an E6600.  There is no reason to change this.  You can change this in the Settings window if you want to but your reported temperatures will be less accurate.



I think I'll leave it where it is for now (Alarm set @ 60C) since the temps are pretty darn accurate and that I could never stress my E6600 anywhere near 60C on my water cooling system, I would rather have Real Temp shutdown my computer earlier rather than later. Later tonight I'm going to lower the Alarm temps on the low side just for a test run, I have to be 100% sure everything is set right. I will report back after test run. 

Thank you unclewebb for everything, Systemlord


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 17, 2011)

It's pretty hard to hurt an Intel E6600 CPU.  They are designed to run reliably right up to the TJMax temperature and will automatically throttle so they don't overheat.  If that doesn't work, they automatically shut down.  All of this technology is built into the processor itself.

I put my E8400 through the ringer to test out this technology and I was impressed.  I cranked up the voltage and overclocked it 20% and then ran Prime95 to create some heat.  Just to make things interesting, I disconnected my CPU fan to simulate a worst case failure.

How long do you think it lasted before it went Ka-Boom?

Quite a while actually.  After 3 hours of torture, I got bored and stopped the insanity.  It bounced off the thermal throttle the entire time and the CPU temperature flat lined.  Prime95 kept on running with zero errors the entire time.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/276/hote8400fw5.png

The older 65nm CPUs like your E6600 are even more bullet proof.  

I haven't played with the Alarm or Shutdown feature for quite a while.  Hope it still works.


----------



## Systemlord (Jul 17, 2011)

unclewebb said:


> It's pretty hard to hurt an Intel E6600 CPU.  They are designed to run reliably right up to the TJMax temperature and will automatically throttle so they don't overheat.  If that doesn't work, they automatically shut down.  All of this technology is built into the processor itself.
> 
> I put my E8400 through the ringer to test out this technology and I was impressed.  I cranked up the voltage and overclocked it 20% and then ran Prime95 to create some heat.  Just to make things interesting, I disconnected my CPU fan to simulate a worst case failure.
> 
> ...



Wow indeed bullet proof, I'm more concerned about my Tygon tubings maximum operating temperatures, at 74C (165F) the tubing starts to fail taking the entire computer with it! My graphics card starts throttling at 110-115C which would be disastrous, my GPU would melt the tubing long before it reached its throttling point. It seems as Intel shrinks their die size the CPUs become much more sensitive to temperatures and Vcore settings. I wish graphics card manufacturers would allow for adjustable throttling settings, in just a year operating temps have more than doubled from a healthy 60-80C (80C being considered on the high side) well past 100C which was at one time considered crazy!


----------



## Mussels (Jul 17, 2011)

even if your GPU is 110C, its not like the coolant in your water loop is also 110C. the further from the GPU, the cooler it gets - so your tubing wont get as hot as you fear.


----------



## Systemlord (Jul 17, 2011)

Excellent, I performed a test on my GTX 480 graphics card a few minutes ago while lowering the alarm temp to 47C so I wouldn't have to wait long and like clockwork Real Temp shutdown my computer quite a bit faster than I thought it would!  ~  Real Temp didn't shutdown at 46.5 but at exactly 47C, I'm real impressed with how quickly it shutdown everything! Simply amazing software that will save your bacon one day! Wow!


----------



## Systemlord (Jul 17, 2011)

Mussels said:


> even if your GPU is 110C, its not like the coolant in your water loop is also 110C. the further from the GPU, the cooler it gets - so your tubing wont get as hot as you fear.



The only thing that concerns me is the distilled water temperature, its the norm to keep GPU's below 70C using a water cooling system even though the actual water temp is much lower, gives you a bit more headroom for those super hot summer days and the possibility of a pump failure. I imagine the water temperature on a given day is about 25-35C on a fully loaded computer and/or at best 10C cooler than ambient temperatures. My Hardware Labs (480GTX 4x 120mm) radiator is a heat dissipating monster, the heat this thing is capable of is more than your room can bare except in Winter!


----------



## Arctucas (Jul 17, 2011)

Systemlord said:


> <SNIP> I imagine the water temperature on a given day is about 25-35C on a fully loaded computer and/or at best *10C cooler than ambient temperatures*. My Hardware Labs (480GTX 4x 120mm) radiator is a heat dissipating monster, the heat this thing is capable of is more than your room can bare except in Winter!



Umm... not unless you are using a chiller in your loop.


----------



## Systemlord (Jul 19, 2011)

Arctucas said:


> Umm... not unless you are using a chiller in your loop.



Does an AC count towards having a chiller?


----------



## Mussels (Jul 19, 2011)

Systemlord said:


> Does an AC count towards having a chiller?



no because that lowers your ambients, not your water temp.


----------



## Arctucas (Jul 19, 2011)

Systemlord said:


> Does an AC count towards having a chiller?



No, as Mussels said, while you may achieve lower temperatures in an air-conditioned environment, it is because the A/C has lowered your ambient air temperature.

I am curious as to how you determined you are getting 10° less than ambient from your loop?

What hardware and/or software are you using to measure both ambient air temperature and water temperature?

Some empirical data, along with the above and your specific testing methodology would be appreciated.


----------



## Systemlord (Jul 20, 2011)

Arctucas said:


> No, as Mussels said, while you may achieve lower temperatures in an air-conditioned environment, it is because the A/C has lowered your ambient air temperature.
> 
> I am curious as to how you determined you are getting 10° less than ambient from your loop?
> 
> ...



My data is all wrong as is my math.


----------



## donkrx (Jul 30, 2011)

So I have a new i5 2500k ....

I usually get at idle: 33/30/33/41 ... with ambient at 27 (that would be avg for stock settings). The temps are good but the 41 is bugging me. I've reseated the stock cooler once and just installed the Hyper 212+, but I was really careful and did right. When I had stock cooling the temps were 36/34/36/45 on average (both times I reseated).... so basically all temps dropped a proportional amount across the board, and the 4th core remains arbitrarily higher than the rest by a fixed amount.

My realtemp sensor test produces a different pattern and while I havent yet analyzed it myself (was gonna plot it on an excel graph), I thought I'd post here. The attached picture is a snapshot of my sensor test at 4.7ghz, not stock settings. You can read the minimum values though for idle temps - they're pretty close to stock settings but a tad higher (prob 1.5C).

Can I somewhat reliably conclude that the 4th temp is inaccurate?

I read the documentation for RealTemp which was a nice explanation but the bottom line is, *can I calibrate my temps?* Is there any way I can at least _improve_ the accuracy of the temps? since I am overclocking this is obviously something I want to watch.

thanks guys.


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 30, 2011)

The sensors that Intel continues to use are not 100% accurate temperature monitoring devices.  The amount of error varies from one core to the next and these sensors have many other undocumented issues.  Intel only designed these sensors to control thermal throttling and thermal shutdown and for that purpose, they work great.  

I have no idea whether you have 1 sensor that is accurate and 3 that are wrong or maybe 3 are close to right and only 1 is wrong.  With individual threads and cores rapidly entering and exiting various sleep states, there's little point in trying to calibrate them to make the numbers all line up and look pretty.  Overclock like everyone else does and do your best to keep the numbers that RealTemp reports as low as possible.  That's all those sensors are good for and that's all you can do.  It's very difficult to hurt an Intel CPU so you'll be fine.

*RealTemp 3.67*
http://www.mediafire.com/?n99nq4kn95u6i6a

The latest version has been updated to support the new Sandy Bridge CPUs.


----------



## donkrx (Jul 30, 2011)

Thank you for the reply. I just downloaded RealTemp a couple weeks ago after I built my PC, and I thought I had the version that supports SB, I guess I overlooked that. Thanks for letting me know. I got it running now.

If the thermal sensors well for thermal throttling (which depends on how hot they are, and the chips/cores limitations) why can't we derive a temperature for them? I ask this because you say they work great for throttling but at the same time are terrible for measuring temperature. Is it simply because thermal throttling doesn't require a high resolution, so we cannot conclude anything even if we know the temps that the chip throttles at?

Additionally, if it is meaningless to calibrate and adjust things, then why does RealTemp (and others) have these implementations for the user to adjust, along with a guide? Under what circumstances should that tool be used?

I read, somewhere, a suggestion to grab CPU temps from a monitoring tool such as RealTemp immediately after your computer comes out of sleep... that way you can compare the ambient temp by the computer case and the temp reported by Windows to get an idea of how incorrect the offset is (because the chip should basically be at room temperature if given a long time to cool).

Is this feasible - could I use HDWRITE=1 in RealTemp.ini, with a low log frequency to grab the temps the instant they are available? Or does the CPU heat up too much while the computer wakes up?


----------



## donkrx (Jul 30, 2011)

I just had a clever idea.... could I go into BIOS, and disable the core, and then go into Windows and note the difference from it and ambient temp? That way there would be no switching from C states and all (some of which I have disabled, btw).


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 30, 2011)

Intel's temperature sensors count down to zero as they heat up.  If you knew that the sensor reached zero at exactly 100C then you could work backwards and if that sensor reported 10 then you would know that your CPU was 10 degrees away from the thermal throttling point so it must be at 90C.  That's a great theory but now here are some of the problems.

TJ Max is not a fixed value.  With Core i processors, Intel writes a value to each core which software like RealTemp can read but they call it TJ Target.  100C might be written to that register for each core but that does not guarantee that thermal throttling will begin right at 100C for each core.  Intel does not document their calibration procedure or how much error is in this number but I don't think 10C of error is unreasonable to assume.  Your full load delta between cores is 7C which I'm betting is mostly error in how TJMax or TJ Target is set.  With the previous Core 2 generation, my theory is that Intel deliberately offsets TJMax from one core to the next so on a quad core processor, all 4 cores wouldn't reach the thermal throttling temperature at the exact same time.  This would give a more gradual decrease in performance during a throttling episode.  Throttling one core is often times enough to keep the CPU in check so maybe Intel did this for a reason.  Maybe they are still doing this deliberately with the Core i CPUs.  None of this is documented though so that's just my opinion.

The next problem is slope error.  What this means is the sensor changes values at a slightly different rate than the actual temperature is changing.  These sensors might be reasonably accurate when you are +/- 10C from the calibration point but the further you get away from this point, the more these sensors can wander.  At idle there might be +/- 10C of slope error.  Intel also doesn't say what temperature they calibrate at.

When you combine this error with not really knowing how accurate TJMax really is, you're left with a number that is not that useful for 100% accurate core temperatures from idle to TJMax.

The previous 45nm Core 2 sensors also had another problem where they would get stuck as the CPU cooled off.  As the CPU went from 70C to 60C to 50C, etc., the sensor might be fine at 70C and 60C but a sensor could simply stop moving if the CPU got cool enough.  Many sensors stopped moving at 50C so a CPU at 50C or 40C or 30C would report the same thing.  You can't calibrate a stuck sensor.

The calibration features I added to RealTemp were a good idea at the time but it was based on a very tiny sample of processors that I owned.  Without some hard engineering data from Intel and some decent quality sensors, trying to design a calibration formula is impossible.  Without more information from Intel, you end up having to make so many assumptions that the final number might look nice but it might not be any more accurate than the original random numbers that some of these sensors put out.

Intel could have spent some more money and used some high quality temperature sensors that are accurate over a wide range but for most of their customers, that would be wasted money.  Most users don't care about the exact core temperature of their CPU.  As long as their computer runs and doesn't crash too often, that's good enough for the average Joe.

If you were able to perfectly calibrate your CPU temperature, what would you do with that data?  No one else in the world has 100% accurate temperatures so you still wouldn't be able to compare your results to other users.  

After a long time I finally had to agree with Intel.  It's just not that important.  As long as your CPU is running below the throttling temperature then it is running within the Intel spec.  It is designed to run a long time at that temperature and most enthusiasts lose interest in a CPU long before it ever craps out.  

As an extreme overclocker, it is important to run your CPU as cool as possible but whether it is actually running at 60C or 70C doesn't make any difference as long as your computer is stable.  If it is not stable, you need to overclock less or improve your cooling.  The sensors are good enough to determine that but they are not good enough to provide 100% accurate temperatures.  There is so much error from core to core that you can't compare one core to the next in the same CPU and trying to compare your temps to another user becomes pointless.


----------



## donkrx (Jul 31, 2011)

EDIT: Deleted a bunch of stuff because I was being brain dead and not using my own head to answer my questions.

In RealTemp, why is it that I enter calibration settings and on exit everything gets reverted to default? Nothing else in the program settings window does this. I have to play around with it a bit more, but I see other people have this problem too. Let me know if you know of any potential fixes.

Why does HW Monitor consistently report slightly lower temps than RealTemp and CoreTemp do for me? I have the very latest version, and 2 versions ago they added support for Nuvoton NCT6776 (Sandy Bridge sensor, which I have verified I do have)... so why might they be reporting different values? Core Temp and Real Temp agree with each other.

I think I may just push my CPU to the limit of throttling, note the temperature or distance from TJ max, and make sure I stay a certain distance from it. That sounds like the only reliable precaution I can take.


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 31, 2011)

I haven't been able to duplicate the bug that some people have reported about the settings not being saved.  Do you push OK when you exit the Settings window?

I put the RealTemp folder in C:\Program Files (x86) and the calibration settings are saved for me and they get restored when I restart RealTemp.  I sent a test version of RealTemp to the last people that complained about this but neither of them got back to me.  All I can think of is make sure that you have Read and Write access to the RealTemp.INI file where all of the configuration settings are stored.  Sometimes when that file gets dragged to different drives or directories, Windows changes the R/W access to the files within that folder.  I'll have one more look at this tomorrow in case there is something that I've overlooked but it's difficult to fix a program if I can't duplicate the problem.

As long as your CPU is not thermal throttling then it is running within the Intel spec.  That's all you can depend on.  When Intel's sensors count down to zero, your CPU will throttle regardless of what the real core temperature is so you need to avoid that.  When significantly overclocking 45nm Core 2 processors, you often times needed to leave 30C of headroom to ensure that they would remain stable.  When overclocking Core i processors, they seem to be able to operate reliably at much higher temperatures.  Don't let them throttle and just let stability be your guide.  If those two are good then no worries.

You'll have to ask the programmer of HWMonitor what his program is doing.  I know RealTemp runs at a slightly higher priority to ensure that it has access to the temperature sensors even when the CPU is 100% loaded such as when running LinX.  HWMonitor might be reading the sensors less frequently or doing some averaging or something like that.


----------



## donkrx (Jul 31, 2011)

Thanks so much for the help. I understand this better now.

EDIT: I tried a bunch of things trying to get the RealTemp calibration to hold, unfortunately it wont. I did however test other options like the alarm temperature and colors and those are all persistent changes in the ini file. Only the calibration wont save... btw I also tried version 3.60. If you want me to do anything specific to figure out why its happening let me know.

Thanks for creating and maintaining this program!


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 31, 2011)

donkrx: I just sent you a PM with the updated version.  If it fixes the problem or not, just let me know.  Thanks.

Edit: I just noticed that the last two people that mentioned this problem didn't even bother to download the updated version I did for them.


----------



## donkrx (Aug 1, 2011)

unclewebb, I decided I'd just post here instead of sending PM.

The new version 3.68 is working and will save my idle calibration & TjMax corrections.

Thanks for the fix!


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 1, 2011)

Thanks for getting back to me.  With that bug finally solved, now I can get the main version of RealTemp updated at TechPowerUp in the near future.


----------



## donkrx (Aug 3, 2011)

One other thing I just noticed...

OldFormula=0 and OldFormula=1 seem to have no detectable difference among them, and they both still seem to be affecting temperatures pretty significantly above 70 degrees.

Basically what I was trying to do was not change my temps above 70 while calibrating the idle temps (because I assume that the sensors are reasonably accurate at the upper end, and the idle ones are garbage). When I plotted my temperatures on a graph, I got results VERY similar to what you found originally - in particular all of my cores looked like the green line in the Documentation. Ideally I would be able to straighten out the "V" shape in the graph so there was a linear relationship with respect to load.

(In the end I got it right, so I'm pretty pleased with the results.)

Process:

What I did first was I ran Prime for 10 minutes until I reached my max temp of 75 ... then I ran Intel Burn Test and reached a max temp of 90-91. I noted along with my max temps, that 3 of my cores were consistent with each other at any temp above 70. Additionally, the first core (Core 0) was consistently 6 degrees lower at any temp above 70.

I then let the system cool for a period of 10 minutes and used the idle calibration to adjust one temp. After, I ran Prime again, but found that now my original max temp of 75 was 70-71. I cycled back and repeated the process several times until I got it right for each core, then I used Intel Burn Test with the same process to make sure the temps that were originally around 90C, were still 90C. Finally I checked with Prime once more. Took a lot of trial and error but I finally got it right which is great.

===========

So am I misunderstanding how the program works, or is there possibly something wrong? I tried both settings 0 and 1 and they don't seem to be any different.


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 3, 2011)

My testing found that these sensors work like the graph in the documentation shows.  Intel came along and released some information at one of their IDF forums that showed the error as a totally linear relationship from idle to TJMax.  As a small individual programmer, I decided to go along with their version of the truth but in hindsight, I should have ignored this "new information" and never changed my original formula.  Most of the information that was released at the first IDF conference turned out to be a farce and Intel released an updated version of the truth a month later.  I was naive thinking that Intel was going to finally come clean and release some engineering data about these sensors at IDF to help out developers but it never happened.

After that, I gave up on doing calibrations and I haven't looked at this INI option for a long time.  I'll check if it still exists or if I got rid of this option from lack of feedback.

I found Prime95 Small FFTs was the best application for testing purposes.  LinX / Linpack testing was able to create more heat but Small FFTs puts a very equal load on each core.


----------



## slipstream (Aug 3, 2011)

I am wondering whether realtemp supports GPU temp logging, it logs my CPU temps but shows nothing under GPU in excel log file, thing is i like to log CPU, GPU temps so i can calculate a rough average when i'm gaming so i don't fry my processor.


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 3, 2011)

*RealTemp 3.69*
http://www.mediafire.com/?5ymas9doahivdju

-fixes calibration factors not being saved correctly for some users.


slipstream: Does RealTemp report your GPU temperatures?  RealTemp reports most Nvidia GPUs and most ATi desktop GPUs but doesn't report all ATi mobile GPUs.  If you have enabled GPU temperature reporting in the RealTemp Settings window and RealTemp is showing your GPU temperature then the data should be showing up in the log file.  Give me some more details and upload a log file to www.mediafire.com and send me a link so I can have a look.


----------



## slipstream (Aug 3, 2011)

Yes both realtemp 3.60GT and 3.64GT recognize my GPU
http://www.techpowerup.org/uploaded.php?file=110803/Capturenew.png  (3.60GT)
http://www.techpowerup.org/uploaded.php?file=110803/Capturenew2.png (3.64GT)

I've also uploaded a pic of realtempGT 3.64 settings (just in case)
http://www.techpowerup.org/uploaded.php?file=110803/settings.png


Here is the log files
For 3.60:
http://www.mediafire.com/?yg3wapofq321c3b
For 3.64:
http://www.mediafire.com/?f2d5al0bszg6ln6

My specs:
core i5 480m
nvidia GT 540M


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 3, 2011)

Why are you using RealTemp GT?  It is designed for the 6 core CPUs.  Why not try using the regular version, RealTemp.exe

Thanks for the bug report.  I'll have a look at the GT version and get that fixed up but for your CPU, I think the other version should work OK.

Edit: I just checked RealTemp GT on an older laptop with an Nvidia GPU.  The GPU temperature data is showing up fine in the log file.

Edit #2: I just had a better look at the log files.  The data is showing up correctly but the column headings are screwed up.  Remove the headings CPU_2 and CPU_3 and move the headings GPU and LOAD% to replace those other 2 headings.  A Core i5-480M is only a 2 core processor so the CPU_2 and CPU_3 shouldn't be showing up.  I should be able to fix that.  Thanks for taking the time to let me know about this.  Those hyper threaded dual cores is causing my programs to think that you have a quad core so it is adding a couple of extra columns to the table even though there is no data.


----------



## slipstream (Aug 3, 2011)

6 cores! what do people need 6 cores for? to calculate the answer to life universe and everything  don't know much but i assumed Intel would not release a 6 core CPU until next year, guess Moore's law still holds. Pardon my ignorance for using the GT.exe

I fixed the headings as you said, but if i delete the log file, the next one generated has headings screwed up again.


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 3, 2011)

I'll get the heading issue fixed up, probably by tomorrow.  At least it looks like it is reporting your GPU temperature correctly.  I originally thought it might be an Optimus issue.  When on battery power, it might be a good idea not to monitor your GPU temperatures.  I haven't done any testing but it is possible that this could constantly wake up the Nvidia GPU and defeat the power savings that you would get be leaving the Nvidia GPU asleep.  RealTemp gets GPU information directly from the driver so the driver should be smart enough not to wake up a sleeping GPU but you never know.  You might want to run Battery Bar or something like that to keep an eye on power consumption with and without the RealTemp GPU feature active to see if there is any difference.


----------



## slipstream (Aug 4, 2011)

Hey i don't know what went wrong, yesterday the 3.69 version was working just fine, but this morning the log file looked like this
http://www.mediafire.com/?q82pzs0rhfl1nt2
Also now the 3.69.exe won't start but 3.64GT works fine apart from the erroneous log file.


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 4, 2011)

The log file looks like Nvidia Optimus has turned off your GPU.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/optimus_technology.html

If the Nvidia GPU goes to sleep, I hope RealTemp doesn't wake it up to check its temperature because that would defeat the purpose of Optimus trying to shut the GPU down to save energy.  In the log file, I'll try to move the GPU temperature to the far right hand side so this might be easier to see.

If you were 3D gaming during that log file you posted and the Nvidia GPU was asleep, that would be a problem but if you weren't doing anything 3D related and the GPU was asleep then the log file looks as it should.

In the RealTemp log you could try setting the Log File interval to 1 second instead of 20 seconds.  That might give you a better idea of what's going on.  

3.69 still starts fine for me.  What sort of error message are you seeing if any?


----------



## slipstream (Aug 4, 2011)

I wasn't gaming at the time, i think my GPU averages ~48(idle) with optimus turned on then why the log show the temps at 15, 49...? though the 3.60 logs their correct value even when GPU is idle

I'm not getting any error message, the 3.69 launches in the background, is not visible in the taskbar
but shows up in the task manager and still logs the temps in the log file

Played Bioshock for around 40 mins, 20:39 to 21:19 , the 3.60 reports correct values of the GPU along with CPU temps and Load%:
http://www.mediafire.com/?wxe14tul5111byb

But 3.69 had some aces up its sleeve:
http://www.mediafire.com/?ticonyr1p5xvv69

PS: I use throttle-stop to disable turbo boost when gaming cause the cooling on my notebook sucks
at the time i had set CPU multiplier to x18


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 4, 2011)

When I had a look at your log file on the previous page, when the GPU wasn't disabled, it reported temperatures between 47C and 53C.  When it was disabled it didn't report anything so the Load % is shifted over and showing up in the GPU column.  That's why I'm going to move the GPU temperatures to the far right side of the log file so it will be easier to see when there is GPU data to report and when there isn't any data being reported because the GPU is asleep.

In the second log file it looks like you have two different instances of RealTemp running and you have them outputting data to the same log file.  GPU monitoring does not seem to be turned on.  Kill all the RealTemp versions in the Task Manager, delete the INI file in case there are any problems and try running a single instance of RealTemp 3.69 again and see what happens.

In Windows 7 try turning on show all icons in the system tray.  Depending on the colors chosen, the RealTemp temperature numbers can get hidden because Windows generally uses a dark background for the System Tray but then uses a white background color when icons are hidden.  This can make the icons impossible to see or find.  If you show all icons then at least you should be able to find the RealTemp temperature icons.  

If you are running ThrottleStop then why not use it for logging purposes?  No need to run RealTemp too.


----------



## slipstream (Aug 4, 2011)

What i meant was that 3.60 version logs GPU temps even on idle, you say that when it is disabled there was nothing to report (in the 3.69 log file) hence the shifting of LOAD% but shouldn't it report temps when GPU is active like when i played bioshock still it reports the temps inconsistently.

I have customized the taskbar to show the GPU temp only and hide the rest still i was not seeing any icons hidden or visible, deleting the INI file did the trick now i am able to run 3.69 version

How can different versions output to same file? aren't the .exe contained in different folders
Also i prefer realtemp as throttle stop logs data at an interval of 1 second, realtemp logs can be customized and i can easily calculate CPU, GPU temp averages using average function in excel.


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 4, 2011)

What probably happened in your case is that you started up RealTemp 3.69 and then you couldn't see that it was already running so you started a second instance of RealTemp 3.69.  The same version was running twice and both instances were writing to the exact same log file in the same directory.  The time data in that log file that is going backwards and forward is usually a good indication of this problem.

I haven't done any Optimus testing.  RealTemp gets its GPU information from the Nvidia driver.  When the Nvidia GPU is not active, I don't know if querying the temperature from it will cause it to wake up or not.  By your results, it looks like the driver doesn't wake up the GPU so it ignores temperature requests.  It's also possible that sampling interval that you set in RealTemp can affect this.  A shorter sampling interval like 1 second might keep the GPU awake while a longer sampling interval like 20 seconds might result in no regular data being reported.  I'm just guessing at what might be going on here.  You'll have to do some testing to find out more.  Try running a single instance of RealTemp 3.60 in one folder and run a single instance of RealTemp 3.69 in a different folder.  Use the same logging interval for both of them and see what happens in the log file.

If you right click on an empty area of RealTemp, there is an option called Set Log File Location that lets you select where you want to write your log file data to.

I'll look into adding an adjustable time interval to the ThrottleStop logging option in the future.

When I set Windows 7 to show all icons, I never have a problem.  RealTemp seems to have problems with icons disappearing or being hard to find as soon as you use the Windows 7 hide some icons feature.  The only way to maybe fix this is to write the temperature number onto a solid background color.  I kind of like the temperature numbers on a transparent background the way they are now so I don't plan to change this.

Edit: I might have to change RealTemp so it checks for an Nvidia GPU more often but doing that could also defeat Optimus saving energy so that might not be a good idea.


----------



## slipstream (Aug 4, 2011)

Yes i did had multiple instances of 3.69 running, guess that explains the GPU temp log screw up during normal load as well as when i was gaming.

As of now 3.69 is correctly logging both CPU and GPU temps, CPU ~44, and GPU ~47(on normal load), going by these numbers i think Realtemp does wakes up the driver which in turn returns the correct temp at that moment
http://www.mediafire.com/?z6f3pq6if5wdakh
One last question
Is the calculation of averages by me using the logged temps in the excel file valid? i've observed that sometimes CPU, GPU temps peak at ~86 but their temp averages at ~78, i ask this as i've had different readings of the GPU average using the average function in excel log and using GPU-Z, GPU-Z always reports average GPU temp at least 4-5 ° C less as compared when i calculate average in excel.

Almost forgot to add that one could gain respectable amount of knowledge reading this thread and the Realtemp documentation.


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 4, 2011)

I think GPU-Z reads the GPU temperature information directly from a monitoring chip while RealTemp is reading it from the driver so that could cause some slight differences.

CPU and GPU temperatures can change instantaneously.  If you are collecting data using RealTemp with a sampling interval of 20 seconds then that is also going to lead to differences in the average compared to sampling at a different interval.  

You could try running a GPU-Z and RealTemp log at the exact same time and sampling at the exact same interval.  In theory, the data should be very similar and comparable so working out an average over the same interval should not be showing a 4C or 5C difference.  I'm sure the GPU-Z temperature averaging works fine and would produce comparable results as long as the interval was the same.  I didn't write the driver or GPU-Z but if GPU-Z is sampling the sensor directly then I'd be inclined to trust that data.

Another test you could do is use Battery Bar or ThrottleStop with GPU monitoring turned off and have a look at Battery Power Consumption with RealTemp logging the GPU compared to RealTemp running but not logging the GPU.  If power consumption goes up significantly then that would likely be a sign that RealTemp is constantly waking up the GPU which wouldn't be a good idea on battery power.  ThrottleStop will log battery power consumption in mW.  It gets this data directly from Windows but Windows only updates it about every 10 seconds.  It takes a while to get some repeatable data when testing so you need some patience.


----------



## slipstream (Aug 5, 2011)

I'll try and run those tests, thank you for your time, you've been a real help.


----------



## donkrx (Aug 5, 2011)

slipstream said:


> 6 cores! what do people need 6 cores for? to calculate the answer to life universe and everything  don't know much but i assumed Intel would not release a 6 core CPU until next year, guess Moore's law still holds.



My brother said he needs 2 hex cores (not sure if he meant 1 with hyperthreading, or actually 2 with hyperthreading).... he's a 'computer scientist'. Not sure exactly what he does, but I think the use is mostly for compiling code, and for that, you always need faster. It's not a greed thing.

Also, FEA analysis. Typically things get really complicated with multiphysics analysis, and for that, you again need the CPU ultra fast. Solutions can take days, months, a year if you wanted. We always need more accurate answers and less simplifications being made, so there's always a real world demand.

For gaming... that's different. Please don't buy hex cores for gaming, if anyone's reading this lol.



unclewebb said:


> My testing found that these sensors work like the graph in the documentation shows.  Intel came along and released some information at one of their IDF forums that showed the error as a totally linear relationship from idle to TJMax.  As a small individual programmer, I decided to go along with their version of the truth but in hindsight, I should have ignored this "new information" and never changed my original formula.  Most of the information that was released at the first IDF conference turned out to be a farce and Intel released an updated version of the truth a month later.  I was naive thinking that Intel was going to finally come clean and release some engineering data about these sensors at IDF to help out developers but it never happened.
> 
> After that, I gave up on doing calibrations and I haven't looked at this INI option for a long time.  I'll check if it still exists or if I got rid of this option from lack of feedback.
> 
> I found Prime95 Small FFTs was the best application for testing purposes.  LinX / Linpack testing was able to create more heat but Small FFTs puts a very equal load on each core.



Interesting, thanks. My gut says that the original findings are still true despite what intel said there. If you ever test any more chips put some info on the site, that would be good to know if anything's really changed over time. 

And yeah Prime small FFT is definitely my favorite. High temps, equal loading, but not crazy insane temps that are unrealistic for most people.


----------



## slipstream (Aug 5, 2011)

@donkrx 
my point was that normal users or even hardcore gamers don't need six cores

people who employ six cores have state of the art cooling and aren't gonna rely on realtemp alone to log/regulate the temps(not a derogatory remark, in fact it's the best i've used so far)

the university from where i'm pursuing my masters(in computer application) has a state of art simulation lab for weather forecasting, protein analysis etc, among other things their server room is insane most sensors there are taken right out of a sci-fi movie.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 5, 2011)

slipstream said:


> @donkrx
> my point was that normal users or even hardcore gamers don't need six cores
> 
> people who employ six cores have state of the art cooling and aren't gonna rely on realtemp alone to log/regulate the temps(not a derogatory remark, in fact it's the best i've used so far)
> ...



i'm not a hardcore gamer, and need 6 cores.

you have it completely backwards: its non gamers who need the more cores.

games are the slowest things to update for more CPU threads, whereas non gaming apps like encoding video and audio can use all that we have today, and still need more.

you do realise that both intel and AMD have 6 core CPU's out that work on their stock coolers? slabs of metal with a fan? they dont need any state of the art or fancy cooling.


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 7, 2011)

*RealTemp 3.69.1*
http://www.mediafire.com/?4uixpjtezznuzkd

-fixed number of log file headings when using Core i Dual Core CPUs.
-moved GPU column to far right end of the log file.
-improved formatting and added more white space to the ThrottleStopLog.txt file.








slipstream: Can you give this version a try and let me know how it works on your CPU?


----------



## slipstream (Aug 8, 2011)

Thanks for the updated version, I'll report back


----------



## slipstream (Aug 11, 2011)

@ Unclewebb
new version works perfectly, thank you again.

@Mussels
From my experience i've seen that you can run any current game on a core i5 and a high end graphics card i'd be more than happy to retract my statement if you could provide me with some literature on this
also if you ever come to my part of the world i'd be more than happy again to show you around the simulation lab in my college.


----------



## TonyB (Aug 23, 2011)

i went to this program today from core temp as core temp had a new stupid installer. i installed this it works good but what it mean to calibrate all temps look just like they did with core temp. i'm not a  technical inclined do i need to calibrate it?


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 23, 2011)

Don't waste your time calibrating.  Intel's temperature sensors are designed for thermal throttling and thermal shut down control only.  They are not 100% accurate temperature monitoring devices so what software reports is not 100% accurate either.  Use RealTemp or Core Temp as a general guide line but don't compare your temperatures to your friend's temperatures because neither is 100% accurate.  It's just a number.


----------



## TonyB (Aug 24, 2011)

ok thanks i like this program better then core temp thanks for making it . makes it much simpler that i don't have to install anything. i have one more question i set it in task scheduler to open up on windows 7 upon boot. but it ask always for user permission even though i went into property's and set it to always run as admin. any whey around that?.


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 24, 2011)

If you are using UAC then you need to use the Task Scheduler to get around the permission problems.  Try starting again with Task Scheduler and follow this guide exactly.  It worked for me last time I tried it but I don't use UAC so maybe something has changed with a Windows update.

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6278799&postcount=3


----------



## TonyB (Aug 24, 2011)

oh thank you it worked


----------



## pipsie (Aug 26, 2011)

I used realtemp today because i didn’t trust coretemp anymore. (and it was indeed wrong).
And i did the stress test. And i doesn’t look good 




http://www.uploadarchief.net/files/download/pctemp.png
I'm wondering how close you may get to the Tjmax? (i think the 100°C that intel gives as Tjmax is still in the save zone because most electronics can go to 110-120°C?) 
But nevertheless 95°C is probably still too hot.

Ow and it’s a laptop no desktop


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 26, 2011)

*RealTemp 3.69.1*
http://www.mediafire.com/?4uixpjtezznuzkd

You should be using the 4 core version of RealTemp which is called RealTemp.exe
The GT version is for the 6 core CPUs.  The above download has more features for the newer CPUs like you have.  Core Temp also released a new version recently which should correctly support your CPU but I haven't fully tested it yet.

The RealTemp sensor test was designed more for the desktop CPUs.  They tend to have a lot better cooling than laptops do.  Your CPU did not reach the thermal throttling point during that test so that's a good thing.  When it reaches TJMax, Intel CPUs are designed to slow down and reduce the core voltage to help reduce heat.  Some laptop manufacturers set a very conservative shutdown temperature at 100C.  The Intel thermal shutdown temperature isn't until 130C but you will never see that temperature if your laptop manufacturer decides to shut your laptop off if it reaches 100C.  The well designed Intel thermal throttling method gave users some time to still use their laptop when it was getting hot and you also had time to save anything important if there was a problem like your heatsink was loose.  Most laptop manufacturers have killed that feature.

Enjoy your laptop.  Sandy Bridge laptops run hot because many manufacturers are using inadequate cooling solutions.  I have seen a lot worse than yours.  One user running WIndows 7 (BootCamp) on his Apple laptop was only able to run his CPU at 50% of its rated load because of overheating issues.  Other laptops like the Acer 3830TG have severe throttling problems when trying to use the CPU and GPU at the same time.  Every major manufacturer has one throttling problem or another and severe throttling when running on battery power is common.  Some laptops are running at less than one third of their rated speed when on battery power which is false advertising in my opinion.  For laptops the other program I wrote is called ThrottleStop.  That program is very useful at monitoring for and correcting a variety of throttling issues.

*ThrottleStop 3.30*
http://www.techinferno.com/downloads/


----------



## TonyB (Aug 26, 2011)

hi just d-loaded prime and did the sensor test my cpu has always run hot i thought  but i figured i would post this here to see if it is ok.  also how would you remove prime if you don't want it just delete it? 





Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## pipsie (Aug 26, 2011)

unclewebb said:


> Your CPU did not reach the thermal throttling point during that test so that's a good thing.
> http://www.techinferno.com/downloads/


Yea i thought that too but you can’t imagine how hot the air is coming out of the side.
It’s not normal in fact I’m going to measure it once. 
When it’s just running the OS and google chrome (CPU 6%) the air coming out 49.5°C
I'm searching for a temperature sensor that goes to 100°C so i can measure the heat at 70% load



unclewebb said:


> Some laptop manufacturers set a very conservative shutdown temperature at 100C.
> http://www.techinferno.com/downloads/


Yea already so a few blue screen alike with text temperature on it



unclewebb said:


> Sandy Bridge laptops run hot because many manufacturers are using inadequate cooling solutions.
> http://www.techinferno.com/downloads/


To be clear i have the earliest i7 processor so no sandy bridge if i'm correct



unclewebb said:


> Other laptops like the Acer 3830TG have severe throttling problems when trying to use the CPU and GPU at the same time.
> http://www.techinferno.com/downloads/


Yea that’s also one of my fears the GPU is around 60°C (normal because it's a chipset so the heat sink is the same of the CPU/CPU)



unclewebb said:


> For laptops the other program I wrote is called ThrottleStop.  That program is very useful at monitoring for and correcting a variety of throttling issues.
> http://www.techinferno.com/downloads/


If i read the info on the site correct this programming is for overclocking? 
And measuring the temperature and boost of the CPU?
I think i wouldn’t be wise to do this because the PC is already reaching its Tjmax at 100% load.

[edit]
forgot the test result with the correct software


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 26, 2011)

TonyB: Nothing wrong with peak core temperatures in the low 60C range.  That's normal.  Most users are overclocking their CPUs and running them much hotter than this.  If Prime95 came with an installer then go into the Control Panel - Add Remove Programs or Programs & Features and uninstall it.  If Prime95 didn't come with an installer then delete the folder it is in and it will be gone from your system. 

pipsie: I didn't enlarge your original picture this morning so I thought you had a 2720QM.  The new Sandy Bridge CPUs seem to report higher core temperatures during normal use.  Manufacturers are letting them run hot.  The 720QM is built on the older 45nm technology and seems to put out more overall heat.  Makes for a nice lap warmer during the winter.

ThrottleStop can be used to significantly overclock the Extreme CPUs like the 920XM and 940XM.  For your CPU, it's more of a tool to test for throttling and to correct for this problem if you have it.  When the Dell XPS-1645 first came out with an inadequate 90W adapter, it had lots of throttling problems where the CPU would be left running at less than one quarter of its rated speed.  Dell did an adapter recall program which helped but it didn't 100% correct the problem.  When combined with an ATI 4670 GPU, it was just way too much heat to dissipate in a laptop.

The latest trick that Dell is using on their top of the line Alienware M18x gaming laptop is to use clock modulation throttling on 7 of the 8 threads.  






Clock modulation throttling slows down a CPU internally. ThrottleStop lets you see how all 8 threads are performing so it gives you the most accurate look at how your Intel CPU is really performing.


----------



## TonyB (Aug 26, 2011)

awesome thanks


----------



## n3tmaster (Aug 26, 2011)

Hi uncleweb, congratulation for RealTemp..I think it is great but I haven't understood few its settings.

How does "Power Limits" work? (on my Sand Bridge with Z68 and 2500k I  check Lock Power Limit and Lock Current Limit in order to prevent changes on CPU multiplier..isn't it?)

Moreover I haven't understood the Advenced Calibration Settings...

Thank u in advance for answer and I apologize for my poor english

Best regards


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 27, 2011)

The RealTemp Power Limits stuff was for Core i CPUs before Sandy Bridge.  I never received any feedback about this feature so I forgot about it.  I'll try to remember to block this for Sandy Bridge CPUs in the next release since Sandy Bridge CPUs use a different register to control the Power Limit settings.

I have been working more on ThrottleStop recently.  If you click on the ThrottleStop - TPL button, it might give you some ability to control these settings but many manufacturers have decided to lock the new Power Limits register so changing this from within Windows might not be possible.

If you want some control over the CPU multiplier then that's a good reason to try ThrottleStop too.  With Sandy Bridge CPUs, I haven't discovered a way to increase the multiplier higher than what you boot up at.  I am not sure if this is possible anymore.  

Don't waste your time trying to calibrate your temperature sensors.  I haven't done any in-depth testing of Core i processors so I have quit making calibration recommendations.  Just keep in mind that Intel's temperature sensors were never designed for 100% accurate temperature reporting.  Intel has used a variety of sensors with a variety of issues over the years.  The only thing that is consistent is how vague Intel has always been about the sensors they use as well as what their sensor calibration procedure is.


----------



## pipsie (Aug 27, 2011)

looks like thy didn’t set me up 





the multiplier didn’t work for me (guessing the i7-720QM doesn’t allow this or the bios), but the disable boost did (It went from 1.7 to 1.5GHz then and the temp decreased 10°C).
The funny thing about that i7 is that it can’t go higher than 1.7Ghz (with I find low) but it does the trick gaming, video editing, …. 
My adapter is 90W (19V,4.74A). My laptop is from xxodd an unknown (and now broke) custom made company. So you select a base model and you can upgrade it.
Its almost 2 years since I bought it. It works good (for a laptop) the only bad thing is the temperature and the GPU (mobility radeon hd 5650) isn’t very strong so modern games doesn’t always play well.
But basically it’s an clevo because xxodd bought them from them.
But if i see this right there is no big problem. The temperature stays 5°C under Tjmax at 100% load and the cpu isn’t hold back or anything like that.

Just the extreme heat coming out it is the big problem 
When I’m gaming (yes its capable of doing that ) the thing is like an hairdryer and I’m not kidding. I don’t have a temperature sensor that goes over 50°C but it looks like the heat coming out is very close to the temperature of the CPU (with isn’t that odd if you think about it).
That explains why i couldn’t put my hand next to the laptop sometimes. (70°C is hot)

I'm going to try to lift it up (put it a bit higher of the desk) and see if that helps
I thank you for the great software and all the help.


----------



## n3tmaster (Aug 27, 2011)

@uncleweb: thank u for answer me so fast! 
Just another question: i should use ThrottleStop instead? or can I use it with RealTemp? can these software run togheter?


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 27, 2011)

When using ThrottleStop, you have to click on the Turn On button and you also have to enable the Set Multiplier box in order for this program to control your multiplier.  When all 4 cores are active, the maximum turbo multiplier is 13.  When a single core is active and the other 3 are asleep in C3 or C6, the maximum multiplier is 21.  ThrottleStop reports an accurate average of this for each thread using high performance timers within the CPU.  Try running the built in TS Bench benchmark and set that to 1 thread and you should see a much higher multiplier than 13.

For the 720QM, both the Turbo Ratio Limits and the Turbo Power Limits are locked by Intel.  ThrottleStop can show you what your limits are but Intel has prevented these limits from being adjusted.  The Core i7-920XM Extreme CPUs have both of these limits unlocked so with ThrottleStop you can do amazing things with these CPUs as long as you can find a way to keep them cool.  

ThrottleStop can make a fully loaded 920XM run over 100% faster than a 720QM.  Here's an example of a 940XM.

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/8104/fullspeed.jpg

Run ThrottleStop with the Log File option checked and then go play a game.  Make sure the log file shows that the two types of clock modulation throttling are at 100.0% all the time.  I don't know if Clevo uses either of these throttling methods like Dell does.  

The default multiplier for a 720QM is 12 so when the CPU is loaded, the log file should not be showing it going below this value.

Some games are not very CPU demanding so using ThrottleStop to Disable Turbo Boost can help lower overall system temperatures without negatively effecting the frame rates.  You can also use ThrottleStop to use two different profiles.  The first profile could use turbo boost and then once the core temperature goes over some preset value like 85C, turbo boost could be turned off until the temperature gets back under 85C.  The ThrottleStop Alarm feature is used for this purpose.

n3tmaster: ThrottleStop was designed as a solution for the laptop throttling issues that are industry wide.  You could use both tools at the same time but I can't think of a reason why you would need to do that.  Use whatever tool is best for you.


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 28, 2011)

> The RealTemp Power Limits stuff was for Core i CPUs before Sandy Bridge.



n3tmaster: I screwed up.  That statement I posted earlier is not true.  I spend most of my time working on ThrottleStop these days so I completely forgot that I added the ThrottleStop Power Limits feature to RealTemp for the Sandy Bridge CPUs.  If you are using RealTemp 3.69.1 that I posted above, this feature should work correctly.  It's the same code that is in ThrottleStop so this code has been well tested on Sandy Bridge.

There is a register in Sandy Bridge CPUs that controls when your CPU is allowed to use Turbo Boost.  There is both a short term power limit as well as a long term power limit.  Sandy Bridge CPUs can operate beyond their designed TDP limit for a short period of time (approx. 30 seconds) and then the amount of turbo boost will be reduced if it needs to so that the CPU power consumption decreases.

Most desktop motherboards allow you to set the turbo power limits high enough in the bios so they don't interfere with the amount of turbo boost you get.  If these values are set too low, Intel Turbo Boost will be reduced to keep the CPU TDP under the power limit.  If you have any specific questions, post a screen shot of this window so I can see how your CPU is setup.


----------



## n3tmaster (Aug 29, 2011)

Ah ok, I see this setting.. 
So, for my purposes, I'm going to use RealTemp (I need an alarm system for Core temperature, in ThrottleStop I couldn't see anything about Core temperature alarm). I found TDP settings on RealTemp but I don't known how it works. There ara a lot of settings as "Campling Limit", "Lock Power Limit" and so on.. so Can you explain me how it works?
Thank u so much


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 29, 2011)

Post a screen shot of the power window so I can explain it to you and help you out.

www.imageshack.us


----------



## n3tmaster (Aug 29, 2011)

This is the Power Limits Window:
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Thank u again for helping me


----------



## n3tmaster (Aug 29, 2011)

the correct link: 



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 30, 2011)

Your bios has set your turbo power limits so high that you will be guaranteed to get maximum turbo boost performance.  There is no need to adjust any of these values unless you are interested in getting less than your maximum performance.

If you want less performance the easiest thing to do is use the Disable Turbo function.  If you want more control of your CPU, use ThrottleStop.  If you have any specific questions about the above screen shot, just ask.


----------



## deep-packet (Sep 18, 2011)

*unclewebb* thanks for all your work with RealTemp. I'm a new RealTemp user and I was hoping you could clear up some confusion on my part. I have built a mini-ITX HTPC using the Core i3 2100-T CPU and an ultra-small case (Habey EMC-600B). Currently I'm running the system with the cover off because of my thermal concerns.

At idle, RealTemp (3.69.1) shows a temp of about 40C and distance to TJMax of 45C. In looking at the Intel spec's, I understand that TJMax is an unpublished value (according to your documentation), however, I do see a TCase value of 65C. When I have examined the CPU temperature reported in the BIOS setup screens, I get around 50-53C with the cover off, and over 60 with the cover on. Based upon the RealTemp values, it seems like I have plenty of headroom. (Even the worst case on the RealTemp calibration test reported 25C from TJMax.) However, the BIOS readings in relationship to the TCase value seem to indicate that I might be close to the thermal design limit.

Do the readings from my BIOS indicate a potential problem for the i3 2100-T, or am I misinterpreting this data? Thanks!!


----------



## unclewebb (Sep 19, 2011)

TJMax was never published for Core 2 processors but it is written directly into each core of the newer Core i CPUs.  Most CPUs tend to be 100C but some of the newer Core i3 CPUs are set to 85C by Intel so they don't have as much headroom before they start to throttle and slow down.  RealTemp can now read TJMax directly from a register within the CPU so there is no more guessing with Core i CPUs.

I don't know how accurate the bios temperature is.  When you are in the bios, the CPU usually isn't able to use any of its power saving sleep states so if it runs hot in the bios, that shouldn't be a surprise.  

The only temperature number that is important is the Distance to TJMax number that RealTemp shows.  When that number counts down to zero, your CPU will start to throttle and slow down so it can cool itself off.  85C is very conservative for an Intel CPU.  If your Distance to TJMax tops out at 25 when running Prime95 then you have absolutely nothing to be worried about.  Your CPU will live a long and healthy life. Many laptop users are gaming for hours at over 90C so no worries.


----------



## deep-packet (Sep 21, 2011)

Thanks for the info. BTW i found a few minor bugs in the 3.69.1 beta version that you may be interested in knowing about:

1. The temp does not always display in the notification area. Not sure what the patter is here.
2. When you click on the "Show hidden icons" arrow, RT shows up as a blank icon, i.e., a white square. The fly-over pop-up and the right-click menu work fine.
3. For the times that the temp does display in the notification area, it seems to always disappear on its own after 45 sec. Not sure if this is intentional, if it is, I don't see any settings that might control this behavior.

Thanks again for a very useful utility!!


----------



## unclewebb (Sep 21, 2011)

I know there is a problem when you allow Windows to hide your Notification Area Icons.

By default, the RealTemp temperature number is in white and shows up nicely on the typical black or dark system tray bar.  When Microsoft hides icons, it can change the background color from black to white so the same white text becomes invisible and then you can't see what temperature it is anymore.  I don't know any way to correct this issue so I just set Windows to always show all icons.  

When set like that, RealTemp's icons show up OK without any disappearing issues.


----------



## dr4g0n (Oct 5, 2011)

Hey gents,

I just put together a new computer and ran a Real Temp sensor test to make sure the temperatures are running at a good range.  The numbers look fine to me, but I don't really understand how to tell if the CPU is getting throttled or not.  Maybe there's something here that I'm not seeing, and I just want to make sure.

Thanks!


----------



## Mussels (Oct 5, 2011)

thermal status "OK" means no throttling has taken place.


----------



## clockazilla (Oct 12, 2011)

Hi (appoligies in advance for my spelling - not my strong point),

Yes, its yet another person new to the world of overclocking looking for advice.  I though I had better try and calibrate Real Temp before I start poking around those Vcore settings in BIOS!  I have tried to do as much reading as possible but now feel I have hit a wall (maybe I just need some hand holding).  

I think I understand how Real Temp measures temperaturs:  I have a Q6700 - it has 4 temperature diodes - one in each core.  the primary function (only intended function?) of these diodes is to report on one temp (Tj Max) when this temp is reached throttling takes place.  I have no idea how an actual diode does this but I presume it works on some sort of frequency principle - as the temps go up the frequency signal increases until it hits a frequency which indicates Tj Max has been reached?  

From what I understand Real Temp knows the frequency at which throttling takes place but estimates what this means in reality (this is beacuse intel could not release this information) - so Real Temp will set Tj Max at a certain degree c (in my case it has set Tj max at 100) againts which it measures the slower "frequencies" to estimate tempretures.

there are esentially two things that can be altered in Real Temp - Tj Max which is the base line Real Temp uses and you can also elongate or compress the "frequency" scale to address idle temp correction.

I hope I have the above correct?

my rather long winded question is how do you know if you have reasonably approximate TjMax values - the only reason I ask this is because core 2 on my Q6700 reports a temperature difference of around 9 degrees C which does not narrow when approaching higher temps (its a contant 9 degrees cooler than core 0 and 1) - this means that Tj Max is set incorrectly in Real Temp  - am I correct? (oh and at idle Real Temp reports this core at 3 degrees below ambient)

If so how do I go about assessing the most likley Tjmax for this core:

PS I'm new to forum posting and have no idea how to upload images - it asks for URL address - I presume I have to upload my immages to an external website and then link here to them?)

If anyone does have the time to read over the above - thanks in advance


----------



## clockazilla (Oct 12, 2011)

figured out how to post images


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 13, 2011)

I have seen a lot of Core 2 Quad CPUs that are very similar to yours where Core 2 is reported significantly cooler than core 0 and core 1.  My theory is that Intel does not set TJMax consistently across all 4 cores and they do this deliberately to better control thermal throttling.  If Intel set the first two cores to throttle at 100C then I think on these early quads, they deliberately set the throttling point of the other two cores at approximately 105C.  On your CPU, it might be closer to 100, 100, 108, 105.  Doing this would be a great way to prevent all 4 cores from throttling at the exact same time so a user might not ever notice if only 2 cores were throttling.  These early Quads consisted of two separate Dual Cores under the heatspreader so it is possible to run each Dual Core at a different multiplier and a different speed from each other.

No one knows for sure and Intel has never documented how accurately they set TJMax so it is anyone's guess what they really did and why.  I gave up on doing calibrations because there is too much information that is not known so it becomes more like a guessing game than science.

Enjoy your CPU.  As long as it isn't throttling and as long as it is running reliably then there isn't any reason to be concerned about what core temperature it is running at.  If you are overclocking then running a CPU cooler is a good thing but other than that, it really doesn't matter too much.  My best guess is that your first two cores are probably reasonably accurate.


----------



## clockazilla (Oct 13, 2011)

Hi Unclewebb,

thanks for your reply (and Real temp) - I have read through some of your previous posts - you must get a bit peaved off with people asking the same questions again and again - so sorry about that - you seem to have quite a lot of patience!  thanks for your reply though - it is helpful - all I need is a rough idea of whats going on with temps _ I don't intend to go to extreme levels - not intentionally anyway - just give my middle aged chip a bit of boost!


----------



## rjflory (Oct 19, 2011)

*RT Not recognizing all present cores on Xeon W3680*

RT up to version 3.69.1 seems to only recognize 3 of the 6 present cores on a 6-core hyper-threading intel chip.

 Info attached, hopefully helpful.  Notice the APIC cpu/thread IDs are non-consecutive on these chips- maybe a consideration.

 Thanks-

ron


----------



## 95Viper (Oct 20, 2011)

rjflory said:


> RT up to version 3.69.1 seems to only recognize 3 of the 6 present cores on a 6-core hyper-threading intel chip.




Try using Realtemp GT 3.64


----------



## rjflory (Oct 20, 2011)

95Viper said:


> Try using Realtemp GT 3.64
> 
> http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/7897/realtempgt.jpg



 While the image shows version 3.60, I have since updated to 3.69.1, which I imagine is even newer than 3.64 .

 Also, your chip is a "Gulftown" series:
http://ark.intel.com/products/58664...cessor-(12M-Cache-3_33-GHz-4_8-GTs-Intel-QPI)

 which is a difference family than my "Westmere" chip:
http://ark.intel.com/products/47917...W3680-(12M-Cache-3_33-GHz-6_40-GTs-Intel-QPI)

 I suspect there may be some differences in how the cores are mapped and presented to the OS.  If you look at my original post, you may notice the internal cores are grouped in two separate sets of three (0..2) then (8..10).  This *may* or may not be be different than your chip.  If it is, it could very well explain why RT only displays info for 3 cores.

ron


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 20, 2011)

I think the latest GT version I released is RealTemp GT 3.64 as posted above.  I wish I had more time to get everything updated but with no time and no new hardware, updates are hard to release.  Intel's 6 core CPUs are organized internally like 2 separate 3 core CPUs.  

RealTemp GT is designed to correctly read all 6 cores and organizes the data in the correct physical order.  When you run the regular version of RealTemp on one of these CPUs, it will only read data from the first 3 cores because it considers the other 3 cores to be from a separate and second CPU.  

If RealTemp GT doesn't read all 6 of your cores then that's a problem.  The APIC ID in these 6 core CPUs is usually

0 1 2 3 4 5 

for the first set of cores and then

10 11 12 13 14 15    (Edit: these numbers are in hexadecimal, 0x10 to 0x15)

for the second set of cores.

If this is not the case then RealTemp GT might have a bug and might not be able to handle reading these correctly.  What CPU-Z is showing might just be its way of displaying APIC ID information.  Post a screen shot of RealTemp GT 3.64 so I can have a look.

Edit: Now I understand the CPUID data.  The numbers I posted above are in hexadecimal.  So 0x10 is equivalent to 16 and what I call 0x15 is equivalent to 21 decimal so RealTemp GT should work correctly on your CPU.

Edit #2: The regular version of RealTemp used to have an INI option called CPU=1 or CPU=2 which would let you read the first or second CPU in a dual CPU system.  This might let you read both halfs of your 6 core CPU with RealTemp 3.69.1 but there is not much point in doing that when RealTemp GT 3.64 is available.


----------



## rjflory (Oct 20, 2011)

Attached is a screen-shot of RT 3.60, 3.64, 3.67, and 3.691, they all display 3 cores.

 Also note that 3.64 displays version 3.67 instead of 3.64.  Also, I am confused that 3.67 and 3.691 could be older that 3.64...

 I included display directory listings of the downloaded zipfiles so you may check them against your release files, perhaps the public webpage has a bogus link that mixed up 3.64 with 3.67, or may you just forgot to update the version string before recompilation  

ron


----------



## 95Viper (Oct 20, 2011)

rjflory said:


> Attached is a screen-shot of RT 3.60, 3.64, 3.67, and 3.691, they all display 3 cores.



v  Read, please.  v



unclewebb said:


> *RealTemp GT* is designed to correctly read all 6 cores and organizes the data in the correct physical order.  When you run the regular version of RealTemp on one of these CPUs, it will only read data from the first 3 cores because it considers the other 3 cores to be from a separate and second CPU.



This^

@rjflory > Use *Realtemp GT*, not the standard Realtemp.

That is why I linked it in my post above.

Please read GT!   Realtemp GT 3.64


----------



## rjflory (Oct 20, 2011)

Yes, I gathered there must be a difference when I first saw the "GT" version.

 Please take a quick look at the last file attachment I sent, especially the directory listings of the .zipfiles...

 You will notice the only *364* there is in fact the "GT" version.  I did not rename the files.

*302,840  RealTemp_GT_364.zip*

 Also, the second problem I tried to convey in the last message was that the "RealTemp_GT_364.zip" file actually contains "RealTemp 3.67" .    Could there have been a packaging oops here???

ron


----------



## rjflory (Oct 20, 2011)

oh "darn"-

 I just realized what is going on.

 Your archive contains *BOTH *RT3.67  and  RT*GT*3.64 .

 I was launching these from a shell and using tab-completion, and the non-GT version alwars matched first.  I didn't even notice the "GT" executable there.  Did you intend to package both the GT and non-GT version in the archive?

 Well, the GT version works fine on this system...  

ron


----------



## rogerlira (Oct 30, 2011)

*Sources Real Temp*

Dear,
Where down the C source of real time?
thank you


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 30, 2011)

rjflory said:


> Well, the GT version works fine on this system...



I thought it would work!  Sorry for making life so complicated.  When the 6 core CPUs first came out, I had no access to one for development purposes so the easiest and quickest way to get RealTemp working correctly with them was to create a completely separate version of RealTemp just for them.  I called it RealTemp GT since it is designed specifically for the Gulftown CPUs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulftown

In hindsight I should have added 6 core support directly to the regular version of RealTemp.  Going the quick to release route has created an infinite amount of work for me trying to maintain two separate programs and confusion to users.  I probably won't bother now combining them.

rogerlira: The C source code for RealTemp has never been released and I probably won't ever release it.  RealTemp is free to use but it is not open source.


----------



## rogerlira (Oct 30, 2011)

unclewebb said:


> I thought it would work!  Sorry for making life so complicated.  When the 6 core CPUs first came out, I had no access to one for development purposes so the easiest and quickest way to get RealTemp working correctly with them was to create a completely separate version of RealTemp just for them.  I called it RealTemp GT since it is designed specifically for the Gulftown CPUs.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulftown
> 
> ...



Dear rjflory how can I use it?
There is a library or dll?
I am a Delphi developer, but I installed Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0
to work with Real Temp, I'm on the right track?
Sorry the questions, which to you are the day to day.
Thank you.


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 30, 2011)

RealTemp was written using Visual C++ 6.0 so it will not compile with VS 9.0 without some modifications and the source code is not publicly available anyhow.

RealTemp does not have a separate dll available for developers.  The Core Temp program has a dll available which you might be able to use with Delphi.  

http://www.alcpu.com/CoreTemp/developers.html


----------



## rogerlira (Oct 30, 2011)

unclewebb said:


> RealTemp was written using Visual C++ 6.0 so it will not compile with VS 9.0 without some modifications and the source code is not publicly available anyhow.
> 
> RealTemp does not have a separate dll available for developers.  The Core Temp program has a dll available which you might be able to use with Delphi.
> 
> http://www.alcpu.com/CoreTemp/developers.html



It worked perfectly in Delphi, just have to keep the program on Real Temp.
It is possible to obtain information from fans?
Thank you all


----------



## zsolt_93 (Nov 1, 2011)

I don't think there is a thread about throttlestop or i just might not have found it. My problem is that my laptop cpu 2630QM is running really hot and i ran ThrottleStop 3.4 just fine and some older versions too. Today I downloaded 4.00 an my laptop as i was already using it on my pc Q9400 and noticed that the disable turbo cannot be ticked on the Sandy Bridge cpu. That feature was what i was using this program for, and i don't know what happened is just a bug on my pc or there is something that needs to be done before i can use that function.


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 2, 2011)

I changed how this feature works in ThrottleStop recently but it should still work.

If the multiplier is set to the highest value, it will say Turbo, then you should be able to toggle the Disable Turbo option on and off.  For Sandy Bridge CPUs like your 2630QM, ThrottleStop 4.00 lets you access a wider variety of Turbo multipliers so you are best off just selecting whatever Turbo multiplier works best to control your hot Sandy laptop CPU.  The Disable Turbo option isn't necessary when you control your CPU this way.  

Let me know if this works.  Go in the About box and send me an email if you need any help or want to send me some screen shots.

ThrottleStop 4.00
http://www.techinferno.com/downloads/


----------



## Jegergrim (Nov 2, 2011)

Is  Throttlestop the new Realtemp? Sorry, havent researched it much. 

Is there a reason why Realtemp doesn't recognize integrated GPU's?

Thanks in advance,
Jegergrim


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 2, 2011)

ThrottleStop was just a little side project, originally intended to fix and document Dell's throttling laptops.  Dell finally came to their senses when users became more aware of what speed their laptop was really running at internally.  No matter what laptop you buy, old or new or from what manufacturer, it's a good idea to do some thorough testing for throttling issues.  ThrottleStop is a great program to document exactly what your Intel CPU is doing.

My software doesn't recognize Intel integrated GPUs because I don't have any hardware or time to add this feature.  Free software is great but it did not allow me to buy any new hardware so I had to end further development.  

Working for a living sucks compared to working on RealTemp.


----------



## burebista (Nov 2, 2011)

unclewebb said:


> ThrottleStop was just a *little* side project[...]


Hehehe, good ol' times Kevin.


----------



## Jegergrim (Nov 2, 2011)

unclewebb said:


> ThrottleStop was just a little side project, originally intended to fix and document Dell's throttling laptops.  Dell finally came to their senses when users became more aware of what speed their laptop was really running at internally.  No matter what laptop you buy, old or new or from what manufacturer, it's a good idea to do some thorough testing for throttling issues.  ThrottleStop is a great program to document exactly what your Intel CPU is doing.
> 
> My software doesn't recognize Intel integrated GPUs because I don't have any hardware or time to add this feature.  Free software is great but it did not allow me to buy any new hardware so I had to end further development.
> 
> Working for a living sucks compared to working on RealTemp.



Much appreciated that you took the time to create this awesome software in the first place, and thanks for a detailed reply


----------



## rjflory (Nov 3, 2011)

*RealTemp application seems to disappear from screen and tray?*

Hi-

 I tend to leave RealTempGT (3.64) running continuously and have noticed two related odd behaviors that might occur if the the app is covered for some period of time.

 RealTempGT disappears from the main screen(s), and I can't find any way to re-display it.

 The RealTemp program tab disappears from the program tray even though the Task Manager indicates it is still running- its NOT present in running "Applications" but IS present in "Processes".  The "Hidden Icons" sub-window on the bottom right on Win7 contains an invisible white icon that shows the current cpu temp if I hover the mouse over it. 

 Apparently I had been restarting new instances of RealTempGT to replace the ones that evaporated, so I had 5 or 6 of the invisible hidden icons, all would display the CPU temp if I hovered over them.

 If I kill RealTempGT (Task manager "kill process tree") the hidden icon disappears as it should.

ron


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 5, 2011)

That's a RealTemp / Windows 7 incompatibility (aka. bug).  The only fix for this issue is to use the Windows 7 "Show All Icons" option.  When using a C++ compiler from the Windows 98 era, I am surprised that RealTemp works at all on Windows 7.


----------



## rjflory (Nov 7, 2011)

OK-  its not causing me any trouble- I just though I'd provide some feedback.

 Thanks.


----------



## tr888 (Nov 8, 2011)

*newb here, basic questions*

I am a total newb and have two questions I'm almost embarrassed to ask. Is this program intended for really hard-core overclockers and require a Fluke thermometer in order to function? I'm not sure what to make of this statement from the program's description:



> Program is based on temperature data gathered using a Fluke 62 IR Thermometer.



Also, is the user supposed to know the TJMax value for the particular CPU and enter it, or is this datum already in the program's built-in knowledge-base?

I would like to monitor the temperature of a 95W i5-2500 in a small MiniITX case with limited airflow, to make sure the stock fans and CPU cooler are sufficient or whether a better CPU cooler is required.  I'm not overclocking.

Thanks


----------



## burebista (Nov 8, 2011)

> Is this program intended for really hard-core overclockers and require a Fluke thermometer in order to function?


Nope. In early days of Intel CPU's when TJmax value was just a wild guess Kevin and *rge* did a lot of testing with IR thermometers and naked CPU's (kinky ) and from trial and error they build a database with (close to real) TJmax values for CPU's.


> Also, is the user supposed to know the TJMax value for the particular CPU and enter it, or is this datum already in the program's built-in knowledge-base?


Latest Intel CPu's have TJmax value written into an CPU register so RealTemp is reading that value. No need for user to remember/change anything.


> I would like to monitor the temperature of a 95W i5-2500


Just run latest RealTemp and let it doing his job.


----------



## tr888 (Nov 8, 2011)

Thanks for the clarifications!


----------



## ejme (Nov 23, 2011)

I have quad core cpu and RealTemp only displays individual core temp readings, where is the cpu temp reading?


----------



## burebista (Nov 23, 2011)

Well, RealTemp displays only core temperatures (the one that really matters). 
Why would you need to know a meaningless value like CPU temp?


----------



## ejme (Nov 23, 2011)

Where is the CPU temperature reading?


----------



## burebista (Nov 23, 2011)

There isn't a generic CPU temperature reading in RealTemp. Only core temperatures.


----------



## ejme (Nov 23, 2011)

Why not? Isn't it just as important as the GPU readout displayed on RealTemp. Then how do I calculate the CPU temp? Is there a mathematical equation to calculate the CPU temp base on the core temps displayed? Thank you for your time.


----------



## burebista (Nov 23, 2011)

ejme said:


> Why not?


Because is useless. It's an arbitrary value calibrated in BIOS by every MB manufacturer.
All that matter for your CPU thermal behavior (throttle/shutdown) are core temperatures. In fact all you need to know is _distance to TJMax_ because when your CPU reach TJMax value it will be automatically throttle itself and when it will go beyond that TJMax value (with ~30 units) it will be shutdown itself.
That's all. No need for a generic CPU temperature.


----------



## ejme (Nov 23, 2011)

Thank you for the input. Next time please refrain from using the word "meaningless" when posting replys. It is rude, insulting and degrading implying that one is less of a person because of a simple inquiry deserving an informative reply which you think is "meaningless" contrary to the 
fact that it is what people refer to as simply 'knowledge' . Again, thank you for the input.


----------



## burebista (Nov 23, 2011)

Sorry man, English is not my native language as you can see from my location.
I didn't want to be/sound rude. Here in this part of world we are more relaxed when we speak in forums.

And maybe next time I won't post a reply, I'll let the guy figure himself.


----------



## pook (Nov 24, 2011)

Realtemp GT doesn't seem to work well with my LGA2011 (Sandy Bridge E) chip.  Is there an update planned?  It only shows 4 cores.


----------



## 95Viper (Nov 24, 2011)

This a little off topic, however, I had to post this rebuttal in defense of a great poster and forum member - burebista.



burebista said:


> Well, RealTemp displays only core temperatures (the one that really matters).
> Why would you need to know a meaningless value like CPU temp?





burebista said:


> Because is useless. It's an arbitrary value calibrated in BIOS by every MB manufacturer.
> All that matter for your CPU thermal behavior (throttle/shutdown) are core temperatures. In fact all you need to know is _distance to TJMax_ because when your CPU reach TJMax value it will be automatically throttle itself and when it will go beyond that TJMax value (with ~30 units) it will be shutdown itself.
> That's all. No need for a generic CPU temperature.





ejme said:


> Thank you for the input. Next time please refrain from using the word "meaningless" when posting replys. It is rude, insulting and degrading implying that one is less of a person because of a simple inquiry deserving an informative reply which you think is "meaningless" contrary to the
> fact that it is what people refer to as simply 'knowledge' . Again, thank you for the input.



Burebista was using the adjective in a question, expecting an answer.  He, also, clarified his statement and question in an additional post.
IMO, you took the statement/question the wrong way and, also, believed it was directed at you personally, by your post.
I am not berating or castigating you, ejme... I am just letting burebista know his use of the English language was correct and proper; so as, he will continue to post and help the ones in need.



burebista said:


> meaningless value like CPU temp.



He was stating the the value was meaningless, not the person posting and made no allusion to such.
An adjective is a 'describing' word; the main syntactic role of which is to qualify a noun or noun phrase, giving more information about the object signified.



burebista said:


> Sorry man, English is not my native language as you can see from my location.
> I didn't want to be/sound rude. Here in this part of world we are more relaxed when we speak in forums.
> 
> And maybe next time I won't post a reply, I'll let the guy figure himself.



Don't let it put off, burebista; you used the adjective correctly...

Definition of MEANINGLESS

1: having no meaning; especially: lacking any significance


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 24, 2011)

I am just in the process of updating RealTemp GT for the new Sandy Bridge E CPUs.  The new Sandy Bridge E CPUs are organized a little differently internally compared to the previous 6 core CPUs.  It should be ready for testing in the next day or two.


----------



## pook (Nov 24, 2011)

Cool.  Thanks.


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 24, 2011)

*RealTemp GT 3.66*
http://www.mediafire.com/?ns1g4y2hinoa977

This version should work in theory for the new Sandy Bridge E series.  I don't have a 3960X to play with so let me know if you find any problems.  
I also fixed the log file formatting so it should be a little easier to read.

If you don't have a 6 core CPU then run  RealTemp.exe  instead.


----------



## pook (Nov 25, 2011)

Yep..  that did the trick.

Thanks


----------



## burebista (Nov 25, 2011)

Viper thanks, that's exactly what I want to say in my posts. 

Kevin thanks again too for updating your tools.


----------



## LocutusX (Nov 26, 2011)

I've got a 2 year old i7-920 here. RealTemp 3.67 is working fine. Any reason to upgrade to the latest version (appears to be 3.691)?


----------



## stasio (Nov 28, 2011)

LocutusX said:


> I've got a 2 year old i7-920 here. RealTemp 3.67 is working fine. Any reason to upgrade to the latest version (appears to be 3.691)?



Sandy Brigde.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 29, 2011)

Works great for me UW... thanks so much for continuing to support this product!


----------



## iopq (Dec 1, 2011)

I'm not quite sure how to interpret the results
what's the movement test and why are the results different?

does my CPU seem like it's running too hot? the ambient is 20C, the idle temp went only to 36C
I'm using a coolermaster heatsink that's like more than 1 pound, I would have expected much better temps

I am using SpeedFan to control the fans, though so it's set between 30% and 85% (don't want it to be too loud)
what's weird is that in normal usage at 100% CPU usage core 0 is 4-5 degrees hotter than core 1, but in the test they are equal

anyway, I would like to know what temps I should run my processor at if I'm going to be running it at 100% load 24/7 (for example)
why I'm doing the tests anyway is to set good fan-temperature curves in speedfan


----------



## burebista (Dec 1, 2011)

CPU lod 101%. I'd keep this screenshot. 
Your temps looks fine but for stock speed a little bit on the high side though.


----------



## iopq (Dec 1, 2011)

burebista said:


> CPU lod 101%. I'd keep this screenshot.
> Your temps looks fine but for stock speed a little bit on the high side though.



what temps are safe to run my CPU on 24/7? I could set it at 100% CPU use or 50% CPU use (1 thread)


----------



## LocutusX (Dec 2, 2011)

stasio said:


> Sandy Brigde.



OK, so I guess since I don't have a Sandy Bridge processor, no need to upgrade? 

BTW just out of curiousity, would this app work with a Netbook which uses the ATOM processor? Got a netbook for dirt cheap recently, would be neat to check out temps on that too.


----------



## Dauntless (Jan 4, 2012)

*Incorrect TJMax value*

Hi,

I'm using RealTemp to monitor the temperature of my Atom D425

The program works great and does everything I need it to, but it seems to be reading the TJMax value incorrectly at 90°C

The TJMax value of my Atom D425 is 100°C as you can see here:
http://ark.intel.com/products/49489/Intel-Atom-processor-D425-(512K-Cache-1_80-GHz)

I can of course set the TJMax in the settings which is great, but after restarting the program it loses the value I have set and goes back to 90°C

This is what I have in the RealTemp.ini:

TjMax0=100
TjMax1=
TjMax2=
TjMax3=

Is there a way to force the TJMax value to be set and saved even after program restarts? Or should it be doing that already?

Many thanks for any help you can provide.


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 4, 2012)

*RealTemp 3.69.1*
http://www.mediafire.com/?4uixpjtezznuzkd

It should be saving the TJMax value correctly.  Where do you have the RealTemp folder located?  If you drag that folder to a location that you don't have read / write access to, Windows might be blocking RealTemp from writing to the RealTemp.ini file where it stores all of the settings.  Try right clicking on that file, select Properties, click on the Security tab and make sure you have full read / write access to fix this problem.  Let me know if this works.


----------



## Dauntless (Jan 4, 2012)

Thanks for the quick response!

I put the RealTemp folder in: C:\Program Files\RealTemp

I just checked and the Administrators group has full control to the directory and files (I'm logged on as an administrator)

Also, it does save the other options I have turned on such as Start Minimized and Enable Logging

The same thing seems to be happening with the link you just gave


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 4, 2012)

I have a laptop with a Core 2 Duo and TJMax is saved and restored correctly.  I'll have a look at my code when I get a chance to see if I can figure out what's going on.  It seems like TJMax is being saved correctly for you but is not being read from the INI file correctly.  If I can't figure this out, I guess I will have to at least use the correct 100C TJMax value for your CPU.  Can you post a CPU-Z screen shot of your CPU?  The CPU name string will help me figure out what's going on.  Thanks for the feedback.

You can upload image files to www.imageshack.us and then just post a link here.


----------



## Dauntless (Jan 4, 2012)

I've just realised I stupidly copied the wrong version when trying out your new fix... (I extracted 3.69 instead of 3.69.1) Sorry about that, my desktop is cluttered

The 3.69.1 reads the correct TJMax straight away. Brilliant! Thank you very much!

I've double and tripple checked with version 3.69 and it's definitely reading the wrong value and not keeping the new value after a restart.

Incase you still need it I've attached the screenshot as requested






Here is what I had in the 3.60 ini file


```
WindowXY=557458180
IconTextColor0=0xFFFFFF
IconTextColor1=
IconTextColor2=
IconTextColor3=
TjMax0=70
TjMax1=100
TjMax2=100
TjMax3=100
Idle0=0.0
Idle1=
Idle2=
Idle3=
IconShow=1
LogFile=1
LogInterval=60
StartMinimized=1
TaskBar=0
FontNumber=
OnTop=0
TrayInfo=1
InfoWindow=
MiniMode=0
MinimizeOnClose=1
Spec=         Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU D425   @ 1.80GHz
RivaFile=
Alarm=0
Alarm1=100
Alarm2=100
CSV=0
AlarmFile=
VIDInfo=0
ClockMod=8
GUIColor=0xF4F3EE
GUIMiniColor=0xF4F3EE
GUIText=0x000000
GUIMiniText=0x000000
GUINormHead=0x000000
GUIMiniHead=0x000000
NormHeading=0
MiniHeading=0
TMLoad=0
CustomGUI=0
CustomGUIMini=0
CPUID=0x106CA
Quality=0
ThreeDigit=1
GPU=0
Fahrenheit=0
```


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 4, 2012)

Thanks for letting me know that RealTemp 3.69.1 is reading TJMax from the INI file correctly.  I thought I remembered fixing that! 

Posting screen shots and INI files makes my job a lot easier.  

I'll go have a look at RealTemp and I'll make sure the next version is using the correct 100C TJMax for your Atom D425 by default.


----------



## ndepriest (Jan 7, 2012)

Anyone know what is wrong with my computer.  I have a cooler master V8 and applied Arctic Silver, temps should not be that high.


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 7, 2012)

The i7-960 puts out a huge amount of heat but you're right, the temperatures shouldn't be that high.  All you can do is pull the heatsink and try again.  Have a good look at it and make sure it is perfectly flat.  I would also pull the CPU and take a straight edge to it to make sure it is perfectly flat.  Check it from side to side as well as from corner to corner.  Doing this by a window can make it a little easier to see if there is daylight getting under the straight edge.

If so, your problem might be with the heat spreader over top of the CPU.  When this is not flat then the heatsink doesn't make good contact with the CPU and you will get poor thermal transfer and high temperatures.  Also make sure your case has good air flow.  If that is OK then what type of thermal paste did you use and did you apply it according to the manufacturers directions?

The large difference between core temperatures of the center two cores is usually a good sign that something isn't quite right.


----------



## ndepriest (Jan 8, 2012)

after further review of the V8, i noticed it was damaged slightly so it wasn't making good contact with the heat spreader on my processor.  I'm sending it back for a replacement.  Thanks for the comment.  My stock intel heatsink has my idle temp at about 38C and the load temp hits about 68C.


----------



## Lucio Valentini (Jan 13, 2012)

*Pentium 4 support*

hello, can anyone tell me where can I get something like this for a Pentium 4 running windows Xp? I have a Packard Bell laptop with a combo drive, which had thermal problems when watching videos, it would be good to monitor temperatures of CPU and video cards.

thanks


----------



## burebista (Jan 13, 2012)

Try SpeedFan or HWInfo32.


----------



## garyinhere (Jan 25, 2012)

it's saying my 1100t is not supported? is this something i am doing wrong? or is it really not supported?


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Jan 25, 2012)

realtemp doesnt support any AMD cpu's  use coretemp


----------



## garyinhere (Jan 25, 2012)

that suks


----------



## burebista (Jan 26, 2012)

Yeah it sucks but anyway AMD temps are guessed and Kevin doesn't have necessary hardware for testing.


----------



## Decoman (Jan 26, 2012)

It seems to me that using Real Temp with my Windows 7 is overly difficult, which madeit impossible for me to get Real Temp to start automatically with Windows 7.

• I am using Windows 7
• I have UAC enabled
• On boot, my machine automatically log into my secondary and non admin "user account"

The trick with the task scheduler just does not work for me even after ticking the elevated privileges option.

Edit: Btw, the executable file is on my computer located on a different harddrive other than the OS. Probably not that important but who knows.


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 27, 2012)

Decoman: I thought this used to work when using UAC but it doesn't seem to work anymore.  Maybe there was a Windows security update that plugged up a security vulnerability or maybe I was just delusional when I originally played with this.

If you go into your non admin "user account" and right click on the Task Scheduler icon and run it with Admin privileges, you can use the following method to auto start RealTemp.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...es/531329-throttlestop-guide.html#post6865107

After you get that done you have to go back and edit this task to make sure RealTemp tries to start only when you are logging into your non admin account.  On the General Tab in the Task Scheduler you also have to make sure that it is using your non admin account.

Even with all this, you still have to enter an Admin user account and password each and every time RealTemp starts.  That's ridiculous but I can't find any way around this.

I am on a computer that is running Vista x86 at the moment but this weekend I will try again when using Windows 7.  I am not very hopeful at the moment.


----------



## Decoman (Jan 27, 2012)

unclewebb said:


> Even with all this, you still have to enter an Admin user account and password each and every time RealTemp starts.  That's ridiculous but I can't find any way around this.



I can confirm this, so the issue for me seem to be just this password prompt.

Thanks for the feedback! I will go take a look at some windows forum I registered with some time ago and see if anyone there knows


----------



## squelchy451 (Feb 27, 2012)

How can I get a graph of the temp over time, like the one that's on MSi Afterburner?


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 27, 2012)

There was a RealTemp plugin that used to sort of work with RivaTuner but MSI Afterburner doesn't support any of the previous RivaTuner plugins so development on that project ended.  

RealTemp does not have any built in graphing abilities.  The only thing you could do with RealTemp is run it with the Log File option checked.  You could then take that data and import it into Excel to graph it but that is not very practical.

I think the Core Temp program has a graphing option.

http://www.alcpu.com/CoreTemp/

Core Temp Grapher Beta
http://www.alcpu.com/CoreTemp/addons.html


----------



## mesk (Mar 30, 2012)

Quick question-which do  I use? what is the difference between real temp and real temp GT?


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 30, 2012)

RealTemp is for CPUs with 4 cores or less and RealTemp GT is for CPUs with 6 cores.  
If you don't know how many cores your CPU has then tell me the model number or look it up here.

http://ark.intel.com/


----------



## mesk (Mar 30, 2012)

O thank you for the quick response.Yes I do know how many cores I have.Does this include hyperthreaded cores or just physical cores?


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 30, 2012)

Just physical cores.  The regular version of RealTemp is designed for Quad Core processors like the old Core 2 Quad Q6600 or the newer Core i5-2500K or Core i7-2600K.  RealTemp GT is designed for the 6 core processors like the Core i7-980X or the recent Core i7-3930K.


----------



## MetalRacer (Apr 13, 2012)

Is the current version of RealTemp reading Ivy Bridge temps correctly?


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 13, 2012)

RealTemp 3.70 should be reading Ivy Bridge CPUs correctly but I don't have an Ivy CPU to confirm this and *most* of the people that do have Ivy CPUs are not talking.  

From what I understand, the temperature data is still in the same register as previous Core 2 and Core i generations and the TJ Target or TJ Max register is also still in the same location as before so RealTemp and other monitoring applications should work as is.

There is a rumor that Ivy ES processors have TJ Target set to 91.  Here is the formula that all software uses.

Reported Temperature = TJ Target - Digital Sensor Reading

All software assumes that the TJ Target value written to each CPU core is the same as actual TJ Max but the two values might not be the same.  Intel has previously stated that actual TJ Max might be higher.  Actual TJ Max might be 91, 98 or 100, 105 or some number in between.  It might be consistent for all cores or it might be completely different from core to core.  No one knows and the few people inside Intel that do know are not talking.

If there is a pile of unknown error in the TJ Target / TJ Max value and the sensors are far from 100% accurate from idle to full load then reported temperatures are more like random numbers.  

I have read some forums where all sorts of conclusions are being drawn on how hot Ivy Bridge runs.  That's nonsense.  These conclusions are based on temperature data that can not be relied on for any of Intel's recent CPUs.  Temperature data from Intel CPUs should not be compared to other CPUs in the same CPU family let alone comparisons to CPUs from different families.

RealTemp is a good program and the sensors are useful enough so that if you swap a heatsink you can see if things are better or worse but beyond that, Intel's core temperature sensors are not accurate enough or documented well enough to provide users with 100% accurate core temperatures.


----------



## Izhrunner (May 2, 2012)

RealTemp 3.70 plus Ivy Bridge - is there no more option to see CPU VID or Watt ?



Any chance to bring it back?


----------



## unclewebb (May 2, 2012)

I will see if I can add these features for Ivy Bridge CPUs the next time I am working on RealTemp.  It might be a month or two until I get around to doing this.


----------



## Widjaja (May 26, 2012)

CPU-Z and Real temp clock speeds report differently with my 2500K

CPU-Z will report 1.6Ghz idle while Realtemp reports 2.2Ghz idle.


----------



## unclewebb (May 26, 2012)

Go into the Control Panel and open up the Power Options.  Under Processor power management what do you have the Minimum processor state set to?  Try setting that to a low number like 5%.  Your CPU won't actually go down to 5% but it will allow your CPU to go as low as possible.

How much background stuff do you have running on your computer?  What sort of Load Percent does RealTemp show at idle?  There might be something preventing your CPU from truely idling down.  CPU-Z is designed for MHz validation purposes so to keep things simple, it hides some of what your CPU is really doing internally.  RealTemp tries to tell it like it is.

You might want to play around with my ThrottleStop tool as well.

http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/2090/ThrottleStop_4.00.html

This should allow you to adjust the multiplier from within Windows.  You can also watch to see what percentage of time your CPU is spending in the deeper sleep states like C3 and C6 as well as over all power consumption.  The initial warning message is for owners with Extreme mobile CPUs.  Some users like to overclock them to the moon with the help of ThrottleStop.


----------



## Seltox (Jun 9, 2012)

I ran into a bizarre problem with RealTemp yesterday and figured I should let you know about it.

tl;dr - Opening RealTemp at any point was causing my 2500K to downclock to stock 3.3GHz, and wouldn't go back up to the overclock until the system was restarted.  RealTempGT did not cause this.


The long:
You can find a thread I started at overclockers.com that goes through the process (including screenshots and stuff) here.

Useful system info:
OS:  Windows 7 Ultimate x64 (Don't have SP1 installed yet, fresh install)
Mobo:  Asus Sabertooth Z77
CPU Cooler:  Corsair H100
CPU:  Intel i5 2500K
PSU:  Silverstone Strider Plus 850W

What was happening:
Let's assume I had a 4.6GHz overclock.  100% of the time when I would open RealTemp (And I tested this multiple times), the instant it opened, my overclock would drop to 3.3GHz instantly - and would not go back up until the system was restarted.  Also, if I did NOT touch RealTemp at all, 100% of the time it would stay at 4.6GHz with no problems at all.

Of note is that I had all the C states, and SpeedStep disabled while diagnosing this problem.  I have no idea how RealTemp is written, and i'm a fairly n00b programmer too.. but the only thing I can think of off the top of my head is it's causing some sort of problem when accessing the data (I dunno, making something throw an exception?) which is causing my system to revert to stock speeds as a safety issue?  I'm pretty stumped, honestly.


----------



## unclewebb (Jun 10, 2012)

> Looks fine.. But after a little more time has passed, the system starts to idle, and it down clocks to 1.6GHz
> I'm not even completely sure why it's doing this with all of the power saving features turned off.. Maybe I missed one?
> Anyway, after it has 'downclocked' like this, it never goes back up past the stock 3.3GHz, even under 100% load.



When a Core i5-2500K gets locked to 3.3 GHz, that means the Intel Turbo Boost feature has been disabled.  The above quote comes from your very first post about this problem on Overclockers.com and this was *before* you started using RealTemp. 

I am not trying to say that RealTemp is innocent but if this problem can occur without running RealTemp then the real problem could be how your bios is setting up your CPU.  It also doesn't make sense that with all of the various power saving features disabled in the bios that your CPU is still able to idle down to 1.6 GHz after booting up.  Are you using the most recent bios version?

When running RealTemp, have you looked in the RealTemp Settings window to see if the Disable Turbo option is checked?  Make sure that box is not checked and then put a load on your CPU and see if Turbo Boost starts working correctly for you again.  That box might have accidentally got checked.


----------



## tobse (Jun 13, 2012)

Maybe a bit off-topic:

I ran RealTemp successfully on a PC with Core2 Duo CPU (E5300) to get more information on throttling effects (C1E, EIST). Luckily, RealTemp can also alter these attributes - in my case that means deactivate C1E especially.

Does anybody know how RealTemp manages to activate/deactivate C1E? In case of a Sandy Bridge CPU, this would be the special CPU register (MSR_POWER_CTL). But for Core2 CPUs, this MSR is undefined, and no other clue can be found in the recent Intel IA-32 manuals...

Thanks for your help!


----------



## Verliux (Jul 8, 2012)

*i7 Turbo GT 1.30*

Can anyone help me understand how to read this. Not understanding it what so ever and have tried looking for documents or something on forum explaining it but cant find anything.


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 8, 2012)

i7 Turbo GT shows you the load and average multiplier for each thread of your CPU.  It hasn't been updated for a long time so may or may not support the new Ivy Bridge CPUs.  It was mostly just a testing program that I decided to share.

If you are the guy that also sent me an email then read that first and be specific with your questions.  Post a screen shot or two and then you can ask me what does that number mean if you don't understand what it is telling you.  Put a load on your CPU and your multipliers should stabilize.

ThrottleStop 5.00 has replaced i7 Turbo GT.  
You can find a time limited beta version here with initial Ivy Bridge support:

http://www.techinferno.com/downloads/


----------



## kesawi (Jul 13, 2012)

I haven't had any success in getting RealTemp to run at all. I've downloaded v3.70, unzipped it and have run it as administrator by right clicking and selecting _run as administrator_. I keep getting a window labelled _Driver Error_ stating that _Driver Not Found On Network_. The WinRing0 libraries extracted to the same directory as RealTemp and I haven't touched anything. I haven't been able to find an answer through Google. I'm running Windows 7 64-Bit on an I7-3770K. Help greatly appreciated.


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 13, 2012)

kesawi: What anti virus program and/or anti spyware programs are you running?

WinRing0 is a powerful library and some of these programs don't like it.  I think Windows itself can flag a driver that fails to start and then any software like RealTemp that depends on WinRing0 will fail to run.

I am using Windows 7 x64 and I can download RealTemp from TechPowerUp, unzip it to my desktop and it starts up fine.  I can also unzip it to Program Files (x86) and it works OK there too.  The difference is that I am using an account with full Administrator privileges.  

Unfortunately there isn't anything I can do to troubleshoot this issue for you.  I didn't write WinRing0 and it is no longer available or being maintained, likely do to lack of financial support from the user community.  Free software is free to use but it costs developers a lot of money to get a driver signed by Microsoft.  

I wrote another program called ThrottleStop that also uses the WinRing0 driver.  You could try downloading version 5.00 which supports Ivy Bridge and unzip that and then see if that starts up for you or if that gets blocked too.

ThrottleStop 5.00
http://www.techinferno.com/downloads/

If it starts, try dragging just RealTemp.exe into the ThrottleStop folder.  Maybe you can trick your computer into letting this run.


----------



## kesawi (Jul 13, 2012)

Unfortunately ThrottleStop doesn't run either. Brings up an error _Could not open WinRing0.dll_ when I try to run it. I'm using Microsoft Security Essentials as my anti-virus and have tried to run both programs with it disabled.


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 13, 2012)

I know on a fresh install of Windows 7, if you have administrator privileges, RealTemp or ThrottleStop will start up fine.  I use Avast antivirus.

I guess you will have to try running Core Temp.
http://www.alcpu.com/CoreTemp/

It reads the same sensors as RealTemp does.  I obviously prefer RealTemp but if all you want to know is the core temperature of your CPU, either program will do.  You shouldn't have any WinRing issues with Core Temp.


----------



## drakdoc (Jul 14, 2012)

*GPU T° not detected after driver upgrade*

Hi,
I'm using your nice soft for several months. This morning DiabloIII told me I'd not the latest Nvidia drivers for my video card. I upgraded from 295.73-notebook-win7-winvista-64bit-international-whql to 301.42-notebook-win7-winvista-64bit-international-whql and now gpu T° is always 0°C. Is there anything I need to do ?
Thanks in advance.
Drak
PS : i was using RT 3.6 ; i upgraded to 3.7 but nothing changed.


----------



## drakdoc (Jul 14, 2012)

drakdoc said:


> Hi,
> I'm using your nice soft for several months. This morning DiabloIII told me I'd not the latest Nvidia drivers for my video card. I upgraded from 295.73-notebook-win7-winvista-64bit-international-whql to 301.42-notebook-win7-winvista-64bit-international-whql and now gpu T° is always 0°C. Is there anything I need to do ?
> Thanks in advance.
> Drak
> PS : i was using RT 3.6 ; i upgraded to 3.7 but nothing changed.



Hi again, sorry for the false problem. In fact something probably went wrong during the nvidai ugrade (i wasn't able to play diablo anymore for instance: invisible). I reinstalled nvidia over the fresh upgrade and now RT is doing the job .

Drak


----------



## plagasx (Jul 19, 2012)

Hello, I have downloaded Real Temp 3.70 and I have noticed that even when I have all my power saving features disabled Real Temp always lowers my CPU frequency back to stock whenever I overclock... No other temp monitoring program does this.

I have an ivy bridge i5 3570k processor. What do I need to do to stop this?

Thanks.


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 19, 2012)

plagasx: Is Disable Turbo selected in the Settings window?  Make sure that box is cleared and then push OK to exit the Settings window.


----------



## ney2x (Jul 20, 2012)

Any plan to make a sidebar gadget? I ask because Core Temp 1.0 RC3 together with Core Temp gadget is not accurate... I installed Intel Power Gadget 2.0 and only RealTemp 3.70 is giving me accurate Processor Power and Frequency, they have the same output. Thanks in advance.


----------



## gopal (Jul 21, 2012)

Intel P4 631 not supported!
Can you add the support for it!


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 21, 2012)

ney2x: I never use the sidebar gadget so I don't intend to add one to RealTemp.

gopal: RealTemp does not support the Intel P4 CPUs because they do not have individual core temperature sensors like the newer Core, Core 2 Duo and Core i processors have.  I think HWiNFO can read the single CPU temperature sensor in the P4.


----------



## gopal (Jul 21, 2012)

Is there any way to read P4 temps by using RealTemp?


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 21, 2012)

gopal said:


> Is there any way to read P4 temps by using RealTemp?



No.


----------



## bim27142 (Jul 23, 2012)

Is there a way to make RealTemp not trigger the UAC prompts without disabling UAC or lowering its notification settings? Not sure how to explain it but I think you know what I mean... since, I was thinking of putting them on my startup but it annoys me that I have to click "yes" in UAC everytime.

I've tried reading Installation & Calibration Page but I can't seem to find direct answers though I saw something about Task Scheduler but I wasn't able to follow that anymore...


----------



## puma99dk| (Jul 23, 2012)

bim27142 if u r running Windows 7 Ultimate why do u still use UAC?

i have disabled UAC and my own PC and on my dad's PC both with Windows 7 Ultimate, bcs i got tired of the "fadeout popup" after just a few hours of pre-testing of Windows Vista which wasn't good anyway.


----------



## bim27142 (Jul 23, 2012)

puma99dk| said:


> bim27142 if u r running Windows 7 Ultimate why do u still use UAC?



Ahhmm sorry, but is there a good reason "not to" when you are already running Win7 Ultimate? I mean, besides the annoyance it brings to users prompting and fading out the desktop....


----------



## puma99dk| (Jul 23, 2012)

bim27142 said:


> Ahhmm sorry, but is there a good reason "not to" when you are already running Win7 Ultimate? I mean, besides the annoyance it brings to users prompting and fading out the desktop....



still i got rid of it bcs i got sick of it popping up all the times, plus if uno what u r doing why u need promission to start anything?


----------



## bim27142 (Jul 23, 2012)

^^ Good point...  But my wife sometimes use my desktop as well, so I better leave it on as she might do "click and click" while browsing...


----------



## puma99dk| (Jul 23, 2012)

bim27142 said:


> ^^ Good point...  But my wife sometimes use my desktop as well, so I better leave it on as she might do "click and click" while browsing...



ino the types sounds like my sis and mum, even my sis is kinda getting the point of not doing it, and i teased my dad that long time ago bcs i was tired of being the one who needed to be there asap to fix it


----------



## burebista (Jul 23, 2012)

[offtopic]

She can do whatever she wants with your PC if you have something like this installed and active
Toolwiz Time freeze
Sandboxie

[/offtopic]


----------



## dioskey (Aug 9, 2012)

*autoflag C1E*

Hi,
i have an acer aspire 7738g notebook with modded bios and an intel QX9300 cpu inside.

I've found usefull the C1E switch but i need to reset it at every restart.

How can i tell to realtemp to auto activate it at each startup?

Before you ask, there is no option about it in bios, even if it has all the menu unlocked.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 9, 2012)

If you have a QX9300, check out:

ThrottleStop 5.00
http://www.techinferno.com/downloads/

With ThrottleStop you can unlock the CPU multiplier and get your QX9300 running significantly faster as well as play with C1E.

This post will show you how to add ThrottleStop or RealTemp to your start up sequence using the Task Scheduler.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...es/531329-throttlestop-guide.html#post6865107

You can also copy a link to either of these programs into your Startup folder.  Click on the Windows Start logo and then click on All Programs and you should be able to find your Startup folder.


----------



## dioskey (Aug 9, 2012)

*thanks!*



unclewebb said:


> If you have a QX9300, check out:
> 
> ThrottleStop 5.00
> http://www.techinferno.com/downloads/
> ...



@unclewebb: great! i'll try!  thanks


----------



## wmw (Aug 24, 2012)

*help*

Hello everyone.
Need some help interpreting my results.
Here's the screenshot:






Some more information:
CPU: i5-3570k @4.5GHz
MB: ASRock Z77 Pro3
Case temp: 28ºC

What settings should I change to calibrate the temps?

Thanks in advance,
WmW


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 25, 2012)

The problem with Ivy Bridge is that Intel cheaped out when they mounted the IHS to the cores.  Here's some background info.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...IHS-Removals-CPU-temp-dropped-from-79C-to-71C

Don't waste your time trying to calibrate the sensors on these CPUs.  The sensors are not 100% accurate but there is no way to figure out if you have sensor error, a poor IHS issues or maybe heatsink mounting problems.  

Enjoy your CPU and if you want to run it faster or cooler then you need to start cutting with the razor blade and hope that you don't go too far or you might end up with an expensive paper weight.


----------



## wmw (Aug 25, 2012)

Thanks for the answer uncle.


----------



## id0l (Aug 30, 2012)

Just wanted to say thanks for RT, I have been using it since the Core 2 launched and still prefer it over any other monitoring tool for CPU and GPU core temp. If I could ask for any improvement for the next version I would ask for improved system tray support for Windows 7, because you just can't get the CPU core order to save properly in the tray...you can manually move them around but it their position always resets on reboot. Then again I may be stretching here because I may have read a long time ago that was in issue with Win 7 and not RT.  Still hella annoying! Haha.


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 30, 2012)

I agree that the random placement of tray icons is annoying but this was a new "feature" added by Microsoft for Windows 7 and there is nothing I can do about it.  RealTemp used to keep the tray icons properly organized in Vista but there is no way to do this in Windows 7.


----------



## GeneO (Sep 29, 2012)

*Realtemp modulating CPU*

Hi,

This has probably been asked before but I haven;t been able to find a way to search this thread.

I use realtemp to monitor temperatures when stressing my CPU.  I was finding lots of throttling messages in the Windows 7 kernel-power thermal operation event log every time I did  a stress test:

Processor 2 was throttled by an entity other than the kernel power manager. 
IA32_CLOCK_MODULATION MSR = 0x2. 
Elapsed time since last event logged = 0s. 
Log interval = 1000 events.

After ruling everything else out, I suspected an application and specifically realtemp. 
Sure enough if I stress tested without realtemp, I saw no thermal modulation events. 

Now I am just running realtemp to monitor temperatures, and not running the Sensor test. 

My question is why is realtemp modulating my CPU clock?

TIA,
Gene


----------



## unclewebb (Sep 30, 2012)

How do you have RealTemp setup?  Post a screen shot of the Settings window.

In that window is a Clock Modulation option.  Did you check that?  What is it set to?

What type of computer do you have?  Many laptops use Clock Modulation throttling when they are being stress tested with Prime95 or Linx / Linpack.


----------



## GeneO (Sep 30, 2012)

unclewebb said:


> How do you have RealTemp setup?  Post a screen shot of the Settings window.
> In that window is a Clock Modulation option.  Did you check that?  What is it set to?
> 
> What type of computer do you have?  Many laptops use Clock Modulation throttling when they are being stress tested with Prime95 or Linx / Linpack.


Thanks for the quick response. 

It is an Asus P8Z68-V PRO/Gen3 with a 2500k. It does not throttle when I run IBT without Realtemp running, and does when I have realtemp running. It is definitely realtemp related. 

I have attached the settings.


----------



## unclewebb (Sep 30, 2012)

There have been over 700,000 downloads of RealTemp 3.70 from TechPowerUp alone.  If this was truly an issue with RealTemp, there would be more reports of this problem.

The guys over on the XtremeSystems forum push their CPUs as hard if not harder than any other forum.  They do crazy stuff like remove the IHS off of their Ivy Bridge CPUs to get the last ounce of performance.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...IHS-Removals-CPU-temp-dropped-from-79C-to-71C

Check that thread and see how many people there are using RealTemp.  If RealTemp was responsible for throttling everyone's CPUs, I think these guys would notice and if they noticed, I know I would definitely be hearing about it.

How high is your core temperature during stress testing?  Can you post a RealTemp screen shot of that?  Also check off the Log File option in RealTemp and set the logging interval to 1 second.  When you are finished stress testing, exit RealTemp and copy and paste the log file data to www.pastebin.com and then post a link here.

If your core temperature is OK then it might be something like the voltage regulator on your motherboard that is overheating and telling your CPU to throttle.  Have you also tried testing with Prime95 using the Small FFTs option?

If you are convinced that RealTemp is the cause of your CPU using clock modulation throttlling then don't use RealTemp.  I think that if you do some more testing, you are going to discover that there is something else going on here.

Edit: RealTemp reports the percentage of clock modulation throttling in the Status Area at the bottom.






When clock modulation throttling is in progress, the Load meter at the top will no longer be able to reach 100%.  It is one of the very few load meters available that takes into account any internal CPU throttling.  The Task Manager completely ignores this type of throttling and will continue to show your CPU at 100% even when it is being internally throttled to a fraction of its rated speed.


----------



## GeneO (Sep 30, 2012)

In fact it the throttling events are not occurring under load (I think). All I have to do is start up real-temp and I get the system events. So is it something in the start up sequence?


----------



## GeneO (Sep 30, 2012)

btw, don't get m,e wrong. I think realtemp is a great product and this doesn't seem to interfere with anything, I am just trying to understand what is causing these kernel events.


----------



## unclewebb (Sep 30, 2012)

You just reminded me of something.  Have you been running the RealTemp - Sensor Test?  It uses Clock Modulation throttling to vary the load on your CPU during that test.  It's been so long since I wrote that code that I completely forgot about it.

Hopefully that is the only time that RealTemp is doing this.  If you don't run that test, your CPU should be running at full speed.  After you exit that test or exit RealTemp, your CPU should also be returned to full speed.

Let me know if this fixes the problem you were having.


----------



## GeneO (Sep 30, 2012)

No I haven't run it. 

It is no big deal. It doesn't seem to affect performance. I will post if I can get better info for you or if I find it is some kind of odd coincidence or interaction. 

Thanks


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 1, 2012)

I had a look at the RealTemp code to try to figure out what's going on.

Clock modulation can be set to different values for each thread of each core of the CPU.  The first time you start RealTemp, it disables clock modulation throttling across all threads and this choice gets saved to the INI file for future use.  

After that, each time you start RealTemp, it restores the previously saved clock modulation values.   If you don't use clock modulation throttling, RealTemp will ensure that this is turned off.  If you do decide to set a clock modulation value of say 75% in the Settings window, RealTemp will restore this value to all threads.

The original problem was that the Dell XPS 1645 was setting clock modulation throttling for all of the threads except for the first thread.  It might have been just a coincidence but to me it appeared to be done deliberately to avoid being detected.  Most monitoring software at the time was assuming that all threads were being set equally so software was only checking the first thread.  Based on this, I decided to equalize clock modulation for all threads and to turn them either all on or all off when RealTemp starts or exits just so the CPU is in a consistent state.  Intel recommends that clock modulation be set equally across the entire CPU so I decided to follow that advice.

I wrote this code almost 3 years ago which is why I forgot about what RealTemp really does when it comes to clock modulation.  Sorry about that.

These clock modulation adjustments happen when you start RealTemp as well as when you exit RealTemp so that explains why they are showing up in the event viewer.  It's not being done to throttle or slow your computer down.  It's only being done to make sure that your CPU is running at its full rated speed on each thread as Intel intended.  



> It does not throttle when I run IBT without Realtemp running, and does when I have realtemp running.



Can you check this again.  If any one of your threads is using clock modulation throttling, RealTemp will report that in the Thermal Status area as shown in the picture above.  RealTemp monitors each thread to make sure that it will be able to detect any problems if a manufacturer decides to secretly throttle only part of the CPU.  

When you are running IBT, does RealTemp display Clock Modulation XX.X%

If not, your CPU is running as intended and is not being slowed down with clock modulation throttling.


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 1, 2012)

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/6/monitortest.png

Here's a good example of how various monitoring applications report clock modulation throttling.

In the top left corner, the Task Manager shows all 4 cores are fully loaded and the CPU is running at 100%.  Prime95 is running on all 4 cores so that makes sense but have a closer look at the Prime95 results.  

Worker #1 that is running on the first core is already on test 12 while the other 3 cores are only on test 2.  There is a significant problem with this CPU that the Task Manager is completely ignoring.

Let's see what CPU-Z shows.  It reports that all 4 cores are running at 4000.0 MHz.  That's true but it doesn't say anything about 3 of the 4 cores being significantly throttled.  HWiNFO64 tells the same story with 4 cores running at 4000 MHz.  Core Temp confirms this too and also shows that the Load is 100% across all 4 cores.

Core Temp has the capability of reporting clock modulation but it only seems to check the first core.  The first core of this CPU is OK so the Modulation box it shows is grayed out which would lead you to believe that the CPU is running at full speed.

RealTemp does 2 things right.  It reports that at least one core is running significantly slower because Clock Modulation throttling is at 12.5%.  The RealTemp Load meter shows 35%.  The Task Manager load meter might claim that this CPU is running at full speed but internally, RealTemp shows that it is being throttled to a fraction of its Intel rated speed.  The Prime95 results so far confirm that.

ThrottleStop goes one step further and shows exactly what the problem is.  The first core is spending 100.0% of the time in the C0 state which means it is working as intended.  CMod which stands for Clock Modulation is reporting 100.0 for that core which also confirms that the first core is running as it should be and it is not being throttled.  The other 3 cores tell a different story.  All 3 of them show serious throttling with Clock Modulation set at 12.5% and the C0% for each thread also confirms that there is some severe throttling going on within this CPU.

Kind of a long story about why RealTemp checks for Clock Modulation throttling.  This was a serious issue for laptops before users had access to tools that could tell them exactly what their CPU was really doing internally.  At the time, many of the popular monitoring tools could not detect this type of throttling and it looks like not much has changed in the last few years.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 2, 2012)

so in summary - realtemp shows when individual cores throttle, due to temperature variations between the cores?


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 2, 2012)

Clock modulation throttling has mostly been a laptop problem.  There are two main types of throttling; one controlled by the CPU and one controlled by the chipset.

Laptops can use either type of CPU throttling and it is usually triggered by the GPU core temperature or overall power consumption.  The CPU temperature rarely triggers this.  It can also be triggered almost randomly where a CPU can be throttled to a fraction of its rated speed for extended periods of time without any real reason at all.

ThrottleStop was designed mostly for laptops and detects both types of clock modulation and shows exactly what threads or cores this is happening to.  RealTemp will show a reduced C0% Load number if either type of clock modulation throttling is being used but in the Thermal Status area, it only reports the CPU clock modulation.


----------



## ArsenicAcid (Oct 28, 2012)

So, I've had the same system for quite a while.  Had no reason to upgrade anything.  Cleaned it out and re-applied arctic silver on things as it was due for a clean-up refresh.  Valid specs are -
evga 780i
Q6600 G0
Tuniq Tower 120 Extreme
Antec 902
Air temp entering front of case when test was done 10 minutes ago - 24c/76f, room temp averages 75-78 depending on time of day.

I've normally kept the processor overclocked @ 3.0-3.2 depending on the average room temps of whatever room I happen to have my desktop setup in (I rent apartments/houses).  And this week have decided to see what all I can push the limits on.  Normally I've used core temp, cpuid, cpuz hwmonitor and that's it.  But today I got to reading most of the threads/info/reads regarding real temp, and now I've got a couple questions.

First, in hwmonitor, wtf are the temps in red?  What is the deal with the temps in blue?  I watched the whole process... at no point did anything in the value column reach the temps in blue.  I know I'm not stupid, but is hwmonitor just wigging out to wig out?  I even fully removed it from my computer and added fresh installs just to make sure it wasn't me.

Second - It's clearly obvious that cores 3 and 4 (2 & 3) sensors are sticking.  But are my temps even close to where they should be?  According to your guide, based on my specs I should be averaging 31-33 idle temps, not 34-38.  Maybe it's late (4am) and I just missed something but I don't have a clear understanding in regards to how I'm supposed to adjust the tjmax.  I've seen from a lot of places that the tjmax for my model/step should be 90 or 95.  Default in Real Temp is 100.  For shits and giggles I put it to 95 and it shot temps to 28c.  Not sure if that was right or wrong since I've seen that intel doesn't disclose tjmax from some sources, and some sources said they had discussions with intel and intel gave a tjmax.

Anywho, based on the specs I've listed, I ran the sensor test.  What exactly can you tell me other than what I already know, and that is that two of the sensors are reading wrong, and hwmonitor is giving me crazy ass shit that I can't decipher.  Also, test was done on all stock settings for a baseline.


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 28, 2012)

You will have to ask the programmer of HWMonitor what his utility is showing.  Between you and I, I wouldn't worry too much about those numbers in the red or blue boxes.

If you run CPU-Z I think it will tell you that your CPU is a G0 stepping.  I used to own one of these and I did plenty of hands on testing with it.  My best guess is that the default TJ Max for this CPU is 100C.  My next best guess is that the actual TJ Max can vary slightly from core to core with 100C being the baseline and actual TJ Max being slightly higher on some of the cores.

With actual TJ Max being approximately 100C on core 0 and core 1,  actual TJMax on core 2 might be closer to 104C and actual TJ Max on core 3 might be about 103C.  That's just my opinion on doing a pile of testing and looking at a lot of screen shots and data from other users.

If you do some overclocking and increase the core voltage, the amount of these differences will be clearer during the sensor test.

The reason I think Intel offset TJ Max slightly was to avoid all 4 cores reaching the thermal throttling temperature at the exact same time.  Cores can be throttled individually in these processors.  During a high temperature event, if the CPU can throttle the first 1 or 2 cores, this will help control overall heat and allow core 2 and core 3 to continue running at full speed so a user won't notice a sudden change in performance.  If the core temperature continues to increase then a few degrees later, the CPU can throttle the other 2 cores as well.

I might be totally out to lunch here with this theory but it really doesn't matter.  These temperature sensors are not 100% accurate temperature monitoring devices.  They never have been and probably never will be.  The only purpose of these sensors is to control thermal throttling at approximately 100C and thermal shutdown at approximately 125C to 130C.  As long as these sensors are good enough for that, they are good enough.  Intel never, ever intended these sensors to be used for 100% accurate idle temperature reporting so keep that in mind.

I don't see any evidence of your sensors sticking at idle.  If you could eliminate some of the background crap running on your system, you should be able to lower the Load/C0% which will allow your CPU to idle down some more and maybe reduce the reported core temperatures another degree or two.  Your room temperature is significantly hotter than during any testing I did and I always tested with an open case.  

Your core temperatures look fine to me so continue overclocking and continue enjoying your computer and don't worry about the core temperature unless your CPU is unstable because it is running too hot.  That's all that is important.


----------



## ArsenicAcid (Oct 28, 2012)

Yes, it is G0 stepping.  Now here's another question.  Everything I've been reading says that tjcase temps would be the most accurate.  I'm assuming my motherboard doesn't have a sensor for that or I would be getting a tjcase temperature somewhere.


----------



## ArsenicAcid (Oct 28, 2012)

Did some fiddling around, cooler today here in Florida.  Did quite a bit more research and found that indeed the q6600 has a tjmax of 90 per intel from some documentation a few years back.  AIDA64 even says the same thing in auto settings.  Also discovered in HWmonitor that CPU is infact the tjcase and cpu1 is motherboard temp.

Stable in prime95 for 2 hours before I shut it down, max cpu temp was 51, max core temps shown in real temp and screen shot @ 3.6ghz -


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 28, 2012)

The only thing that controls thermal throttling in the Intel CPUs is the data coming from the core temperature sensors.  The data coming from the CPU sensor is useless information whether it is 100% accurate or not.  

The temperatures reported from the CPU sensor has nothing to do with the TCase temperature specification that is in the Intel documentation.  The only way to correctly measure the TCase temperature of a CPU is to cut a groove in the top of the heat spreader covering the CPU and then you need to mount a thermal sensor at the geometric center of the heat spreader.  This temperature spec was only intended for system builders looking to design cases and heatsinks and was never intended for end users unless you are willing to hack up your CPU.

The TJMax data that Intel released for these CPUs was a farce.  When they first released some ridiculous numbers, myself and a few other programmers complained and a month later they released some new and improved numbers that were still not accurate.  If you read the fine print of the TJMax numbers you found, you will see that Intel called these numbers TJ Target and then explained that actual TJMax might be higher.  This basically meant that actual TJMax could be just about anything.  

RealTemp uses 90C for the original B3 stepping Q6600 and it uses 100C for the newer Q6600 G0 stepping like you have.  The recommendations I gave you above will result in the most accurate core temperatures but you can use whatever TJMax you like.  

Edit: Have a look at what AIDA 64 reports for your CPU temperature.  It shows 37C so it makes perfect sense that the core temperature which is measured at the hottest spot on the core is going to be higher than 37C.  If you use TJMax =100C, RealTemp will show 42C.  That makes sense.  A core temperature less than 37C doesn't make any sense.

Edit #2:  If the multiplier reported in RealTemp is not accurate then exit CPU-Z and all your other monitoring programs.  I think CPU-Z has started using some different system timers.  This interferes with RealTemp's results since Intel uses shared monitoring timers in their CPUs that any monitoring software can use however they wish.


----------



## Growltiger (Oct 31, 2012)

*RealTemp has a bug with the Max in the tray*

RealTemp doesn't work quite as it should any more. A bug?

I just installed the latest version, 3.70. I also set it to show the Max instead of Core 0. Just to complicate things further I also upgraded to Windows 8 Pro.

When in a window it is fine. But when it is minimised to the tray, the Max temperature stays there for a bit and then vanishes.

The Core 0 and GPU temperaure work correctly, they always stays there. But if you want the Max it just vanishes. If you right click on one of the others and click Redraw icons, it reappears for a bit and then vanishes again.


----------



## Growltiger (Oct 31, 2012)

*The bug - more info*

The bug is a bit more complicated than I thought. I left it running showing three temps: GPU, Max and Core 0. When I came back there were only two showing, but this time the one that vanished was the GPU. Redraw Icons won't bring it back.

When restored to a window, everything is normal.


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 31, 2012)

In Windows 7 you have to tell the OS to always show all icons for this RealTemp feature to work correctly.  I haven't played with Windows 8 recently to see if anything has changed.


----------



## Growltiger (Oct 31, 2012)

unclewebb said:


> In Windows 7 you have to tell the OS to always show all icons for this RealTemp feature to work correctly.  I haven't played with Windows 8 recently to see if anything has changed.



Windows 8 works exactly the same as Windows 7. But the icon has not gone into the collection you can't see, it has gome altogether. You can prove this by pressing Customise which shows all the icons. There are only two listed at this moment, and those are both visible. There should be 3.

I just pressed Redraw Icons and now there are 3 visible and 6 listed! More and more confusing.

I set them all to Show, and I got 4. I exited them all. There are 2 left in the list, both shown as Show, but they are not visible.

I'll reboot and start again!


----------



## Growltiger (Oct 31, 2012)

It is working normally now.

I think there isn't a bug. It is just that Windows decides to hide some icons. One simply needs to tell it to show them.

Sorry for the false alarm.


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 31, 2012)

Starting with Windows 7, Microsoft assumes that a program will only add 1 system tray icon.  If a single program tries to add multiple tray icons, it seems to cause problems for the Windows "Hide the Icons" feature.  I guess we will have to wait for Windows 9 for them to fix this feature.


----------



## Y3k (Nov 21, 2012)

kesawi said:


> I haven't had any success in getting RealTemp to run at all. I've downloaded v3.70, unzipped it and have run it as administrator by right clicking and selecting _run as administrator_. I keep getting a window labelled _Driver Error_ stating that _Driver Not Found On Network_. The WinRing0 libraries extracted to the same directory as RealTemp and I haven't touched anything. I haven't been able to find an answer through Google. I'm running Windows 7 64-Bit on an I7-3770K. Help greatly appreciated.



Ok, I registered to this forum just to answer your question: I had the same error, and I figured out that I was launching RealTemp from a network location (because I'm in a windows domain and I have roaming profiles/folder redirection). 

*The easy fix is to copy your RealTemp folder in C:\ (or C:\program files(x86) if you prefer of course) and launch the .exe from there. *


----------



## CAT-THE-FIFTH (Nov 21, 2012)

I am having a slight issue here!! I installed a Xeon E3 1220(basically a Core i5 2400 with no IGP and a lower TDP) in my system this week and seem to get conflicting temperature readings.

Real Temp and Core Temp agree with each other whereas HWMonitor reports about 8C higher

I looked at the Tj. Max values and Real Temp uses 94C and HWMonitor uses 102C. 

Which is correct??


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 21, 2012)

Core Temp and RealTemp read the TJ Max value from a register within the CPU.  If you downloaded a fresh copy of RealTemp and it shows TJ Max is 94C and Core Temp also shows the same then I would go with that.

MSR 0x1A2 MSR_TEMPERATURE_TARGET
bits[23:16] The minimum temperature at which PROCHOT# will be asserted.
The value is degree C.

MSR Tool
http://www.mediafire.com/?myjkxzkzzmd

If you don't trust RealTemp and Core Temp then you can read the Temperature Target directly.  Download my MSR Tool and enter 0x1A2 in the MSR Number box at the bottom and then click on the Read MSR button.

In the EAX box there should be 8 digits.  Ignore the last 4 digits to the right.  The 2 digits to the left of the last 4 digits is where the Temperature Target info is hiding.  Can you post a screen shot of that?

I think you will see the digits 5E.  The number 5 and then the letter E.  
5E in hexadecimal is equivalent to 94 decimal.

If this is the correct value then you can go into the HWMonitorW.ini file and use that value instead of 102 so all programs will be in agreement.


----------



## CAT-THE-FIFTH (Nov 22, 2012)

Thank you very much! Someone suggested deleting the hwmonitorw.ini file and restarting it. This seems to have fixed it and now it uses 94C.


----------



## Spider-Vice (Jan 6, 2013)

unclewebb said:


> Core Temp and RealTemp read the TJ Max value from a register within the CPU.  If you downloaded a fresh copy of RealTemp and it shows TJ Max is 94C and Core Temp also shows the same then I would go with that.
> 
> MSR 0x1A2 MSR_TEMPERATURE_TARGET
> bits[23:16] The minimum temperature at which PROCHOT# will be asserted.
> ...



Hello, I'm sorry to bump this thread, my CPU is a Q6600 G0 stepping, I've been trying to calibrate its core temperatures, but with no success, but before I went into further details by doing sensor tests in RT, I used that tool you posted, and it tells me (by converting the hex to decimal) that my core 0 and 1 Target temperatures are 212ºC?! I might be doing something wrong, I'll leave a screen of that it outputs. From some investigation, I seem to have seen that the Target temperatures of Core 0 and 1 are different from the ones of core 2 and 3... In the documentation on the RT site it says that core 0 and 1 are supposed to be balanced on the sensor test... In my case it's 2 and 3. Weird, but moving on, let me post here the MSR tool screen... Or my CPU has gone nuts or the MSR number is wrong, for which I'd like an answer to which is the Q6600's G0  Thanks.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/14596765/cpu.png


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 6, 2013)

The TEMPERATURE_TARGET MSR only applies to the newer Core i CPUs.  There is no known similar MSR in the previous generation Core 2 CPUs.

I think the Q6600-G0 is 100C for the first 2 cores.  The second set of cores seem to have a slightly higher TJ Max, maybe about 105C for the few chips that I have seen.  If you run a consistent load like Prime95 small FFTs and get your CPU nice and hot, you might notice this difference.  You usually need to get the core temperature up over 70C.

Intel doesn't publicly document any of this so this is just my best guess based on some hands on testing of a Q6600 GO.


----------



## Spider-Vice (Jan 6, 2013)

Oops, okay then, thanks. Anyway the sensor tests seem to show a bigger discrepancy between cores 0 and 1 and not 2 and 3 like you say it should be. Cores 2 and 3 seem more balanced in the distance to TjMax, as below (Tested with C1E and EIST off):






This is with stock clocks and stock cooler. Not sure how to interpret those results in order to get more "accurate" core temperatures.


----------



## Merk (Jan 14, 2013)

*Question on i5-3570K temp fluctuation on one core*

Hey Unclewebb, I have this question. I think that I may have a faulty cpu.

At idle - low load, I see temps around 35 30 39 26 on my i5-3570K. It is on a Z77X-UP4 TH motherboard and it is not overclocked. Settings are pretty much at default except that I set the RAM to XMP profile. The ambient temperature in my room is at 24C, so that means the 4th core of this cpu would be 2 degrees warmer than the room, which I find hard to believe.

If that's not enough, the minimum temperature if left to idle will end up like this: 29 25 29 19.

Again, a little hard to swallow. 19C would be a full 5 degrees cooler than my room temp and I am not cooling this thing with liquid nitrogen.

Another bit of info, if you watch the 4th core, it will jump from about 24 to 34 in an instant while the other cores remain stable at 34. This happens at idle. It seems like the 2nd core may exhibit similar behavior, but not to the extent of the 4th.

Under load, I get these maximum temps. I am loading it with Handbrake, encoding a dvd to mp4 for iPhone. After about 5 minutes, these are the max temps: 63 61 62 56.

Should I worry about this at all? I can return the cpu to a local Microcenter for an exchange. I don't want to end up with a chip that runs hotter or something worse though.

Thanks for any advise.


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 14, 2013)

Merk said:


> Should I worry about this at all?



No.



> I can return the cpu to a local Microcenter for an exchange.



There is no need to return your CPU.  The sensors that Intel installs in their CPUs are not 100% accurate temperature monitoring devices.  They never have been and it is unlikely that they ever will be.

The purpose of these sensors is to control thermal throttling and thermal shutdown at approximately 105C and 130C.  This is where these sensors are calibrated to be most accurate but even here they are still only accurate to +/- 5C.  I am 99.99% sure that your sensors are accurate enough to control what Intel designed these sensors to control.   

Many of these sensors tend to read low when the CPU is lightly loaded or idle.  Your peak core temperature when idle is probably very close to the actual core temperature but without some sophisticated test equipment and a controlled lab, we will never know how accurate it is.  This peak value is referred to as the CPU Package temperature and can be read directly from the recent CPUs.  The T|I version of RealTemp displays this value since it tends to be a little more meaningful.

RealTemp T|I Edition
http://www.overclock.net/t/1330144/realtemp-t-i-edition

This is a one off version of RealTemp for my friends at Tech|Inferno.  I was looking to get some feedback from Ivy Bridge owners.  I haven't heard anything too negative so I have to assume that it works OK.

I plan to do a few minor changes for RealTemp 3.80 which will be similar to above and should be ready in the near future.  Hopefully the next version can do another million downloads from TechPowerUp like version 3.70 just completed.


----------



## Merk (Jan 14, 2013)

unclewebb said:


> No.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the quick reply. I'll give the T|I a try and let you know how it goes. After I posted, I started scrolling back through this thread and I read a reply from several weeks ago that explained things pretty well.


----------



## Merk (Jan 15, 2013)

*RealTemp T|I Results*

So here is what I came up with using RealTemp T|I. I ran Prime95 blend mode for just under 4 hours. *Please see the attached image.*

*Anyone care to comment on these temps?* Ambient air in the room is 24 C.

System is:
i5-3570K stock default clocked 3.4 GHz with 3.8 GHz Turbo
Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo with one fan in push configuration
Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UP4 TH Motherboard
Corsair Vengeance 8 GB DDR3 @ 1600 MHz XMP Profile
EVGA GTX 260 Graphics Card

The case is an old Thermaltake Damier Xaser V with 3 intake fans (Front, Top and Side), 1 internal blowing toward RAM from empty 5.25" bays, and 1 rear exhaust fan. The fans are not running anywhere near their max rpms. I have them set where the noise is not too loud.

I had attempted a mild overclock (4.4 GHz) using just the Turbo multiplier and 1.20 V. Last night I made it crash when I ran Handbrake for the first time. I realized then that it was no where near stable. *Can anyone suggest a proper guide, thread, etc. for learning how to overclock my setup.* I had gotten really good with my Q6600 G0 just before I bought this new chip. Now I feel like I have to relearn my whole BIOS.

Thanks again unclewebb for your explanation of the sensors and the purpose of them. I appreciate you taking the time to make me feel more comfortable with Ivy Bridge.


----------



## burebista (Jan 15, 2013)

First your temps are fine for an Ivy.
Second here is an excellent OC guide written by an respectable OC-er. The guide is not for Ivy CPU's but you'll get an idea.
Or here an Ivy OC guide for a Gigabyte MB.


----------



## Merk (Jan 15, 2013)

burebista said:


> First your temps are fine for an Ivy.
> Second here is an excellent OC guide written by an respectable OC-er. The guide is not for Ivy CPU's but you'll get an idea.
> Or here an Ivy OC guide for a Gigabyte MB.



Thanks for the links and the reassurance. After I posted those stock clocked temps with the tech inferno RealTemp, I boosted my turbo multipliers on all cores to 40. I ran Prime95 for 30 minutes and had no errors. I put Memtest on an USB drive and ran that for about 14 hours with absolutely no errors.

I always forget about all the little BS battles that you have to deal with when working with a new motherboard. We get things figured out after a while and then we don't think about all those hours spent trying to figure out a little driver issue or whatever. Then one day you decide, ah hell the i5-3570K is down to $169, seems like a good time to buy and there you are all over again, trying to sort out some BS problem. My Logitech G15 (old blue one) had stopped allowing my to hit delete to enter the BIOS. I just figured out that it is because I plugged in the USB hub on my U2410 monitor to one of the USB 3.0 ports on the motherboard. If I plug it into one of the USB 2.0 ports on a front panel connector, the G15 allows me to use it at post. It's one thing after another. I'll save that for another forum though.


----------



## Merk (Jan 16, 2013)

Just thought I would share the last bit of info with you guys that have been nice enough to help out.

I found this site http://www.overclock.net/t/1291703/ivy-bridge-overclocking-guide-asus-motherboards and basically I used the information I found to adjust the settings on my motherboard.

I started at 43x multiplier and 1.200V. I had to reset my CMOS a couple times, but I ever so slowly made it up to 46x and 1.305V. I had been running Prime95 for about 15 minutes when my CPU alarm went off. Prime95 had passed the first section of tests and when it hit the next section it must have shifted gears because my hottest core had went up from 91 to 102. 

I immediately stopped the test and I also immediately knew that I had found my wall. So now I am back down to 45x and I'm working on a stable Vcore. I had run 10 minutes of Prime95 at 1.235V earlier. Temps topped out at 80C for me then. I tried to run it again and failed, so I am now at 1.240V and testing. I'll keep going up .005 until I can get at least 6 hours out of it.

If anyone has a suggestion on making the 46x multiplier work, I'm open to suggestions. My CPU PLL is at 1.7V, VTT is 1.05, VCCSA is .925, and again Vcore was at 1.305 when I almost touched the sun 

Capture3.jpg is when I was under 100% load, just before the critical event!
Capture4.jpg is right after I had to pull out the fire extinguisher.


----------



## trickeh2k (Jan 22, 2013)

Merk said:


> Just thought I would share the last bit of info with you guys that have been nice enough to help out.
> 
> I found this site http://www.overclock.net/t/1291703/ivy-bridge-overclocking-guide-asus-motherboards and basically I used the information I found to adjust the settings on my motherboard.
> 
> ...



Either, you're unlucky with a very hot i5 or you're not using an aftermarket cooler. I'm in the phase of OC:ing mine and but haven't managed to get it stable at 4,6 yet. This is what my temps where after 7 hours roughly (4th core failed after that :/) http://dl.dropbox.com/u/63927959/stressvärden.PNG

I have another question. I can't make out really what's right and what's not...
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/63927959/volt.PNG

Why does CPU-Z report a vcore at 1.344v while RealTemp says 1.5012 *VID* whatever that is? I was kinda shocked when I saw that since I was experementing with turbo offset rather than vcore offset.


----------



## Merk (Jan 23, 2013)

trickeh2k said:


> Either, you're unlucky with a very hot i5 or you're not using an aftermarket cooler. I'm in the phase of OC:ing mine and but haven't managed to get it stable at 4,6 yet. This is what my temps where after 7 hours roughly (4th core failed after that :/) http://dl.dropbox.com/u/63927959/stressvärden.PNG
> 
> I have another question. I can't make out really what's right and what's not...
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/63927959/volt.PNG
> ...



I am using a Hyper 212 Evo.

I had set my Prime95 up with "Custom" settings by checking the bottom box when starting the stress test. The minimum fft size is 8kb this way (it may always be, not sure) and the second pass is when it uses the 8kb. I guess the way it works, the smaller the fft size the hotter your chip gets.

I haven't tried much more with my OC. I am sitting at 1.250V and 45x multiplier. All my other voltages are the same as above.


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 23, 2013)

VID is the amount of voltage the CPU is requesting.  When you go into the bios and manually set the core voltage, the motherboard ignores the VID signal and goes with the voltage you selected in the bios.  In theory, low VID CPUs usually overclock better than a high VID CPU.  That's the reason I included VID information in RealTemp.

Merk: I thought I was the only guy that liked punishing my CPU with 100C core temperatures but it looks like you beat me by 1C.   

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/6216/torturetest.png

I have found that Ivy Bridge runs very reliably even at some extreme core temperatures.  In the pic I was abusing both the Intel CPU and Intel GPU but neither one complained.


----------



## mlee49 (Jan 23, 2013)

Hi UW, any thoughts on adding an OSD option?

I came across a thread where someone wanted a monitoring program that also could display the temps while gaming. Sadly I couldn't recommend my favorite temperature monitoring program, but I thought I would at least ask if its possible.

Also, CONGRATS ON A MILLION DOWNLOADS!!!!!


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 23, 2013)

mlee49: I wish I had more time for project RealTemp but unfortunately I don't.  There are lots of features that I would have liked to add to RealTemp but unless I win the lottery, that's not likely to happen.  These days it takes me a year just to do a few minor updates.


----------



## spoidz (Mar 12, 2013)

*RealTemp changing CPU ratio of overclock when activated?*

Hello Uncleweb,

I asked about some calibration temp issues a while back in the main page but never got any replies, so my sensor cal may still be off.

Decided to overclock my I7-960 to start playing Skyrim and I'm getting a weird behavior when trying to use RealTemp to monitor stress testing.

I can get straight into 4Ghz Win7 Ultimate no problems and CPUZ shows good overclock at 160x25. All good.

But as soon as I activate RealTemp at 4GHz, CPUZ shows the ratio drops to 24 and the overclock drops back to 3.8Ghz.

I already ran some Prime 95 on the initial 3.8Ghz and it was OK temperatures wise before I tried to move up to 4Ghz.

Is this a known glitch on either RealTemp or the P6X58D Premium? Or RealTemp in conjunction with CPUZ. It's like RealTemp is hitting the MB to read and corrupting/changing that ratio from BIOS.

First two attach is the Sensor Calibration but I'm not sure if I have the CPU set right according to instructions.  Does stock MHz mean normal 24 ratio for the I7-960 CPU or always lowered to 12 per instructions?  My ambient at the PC intakes is ~24C.  Are we to read ambient inside the case instead?


Third is a good 4GHz overclock into Win7-64 Ultimate with no issues.

Last two is what happens as soon as I turn on RealTemp at 4GHz.

After a couple seconds RealTemp changes that ratio back to 24 every time.

Thanks for any help.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 13, 2013)

You should run the sensor test with your CPU at its normal speed with the 24 or 25 multiplier.  My best guess for your CPU is to use TJ Max settings of 100, 104, 100, 104 for your 4 cores.  This will make the temps line up a lot better from idle to full load.  Without a lab and some expensive test equipment, I have no way to prove if using these offset TJ Max settings will result in temperatures that are more accurate or less accurate.  At least they will look nice!  That's why I quit trying to calibrate sensors.  It was a good idea at the time but there are too many unknowns so on some CPUs, it ends up being too much of a guessing game.  I have done zero hands on testing with the first generation Core i CPUs so take my advice with a grain of salt.

As for your other problem, I might have an answer for that.  Have a look in the RealTemp - Settings window.  There is an option in there called Disable Turbo.  Is that box checked?  If it is, that would explain why running RealTemp is disabling your Turbo Boost and dropping your multiplier to the default which is 24.  

The ability to disable Turbo Boost was a useful feature for laptop owners but sometimes this feature gets accidentally checked.  I am not sure if this is a RealTemp bug or just user error.  The options available in the bios can be a little misleading.  To access the 25 multiplier in a Core i7-960, the Intel Turbo Boost feature has to be turned on.  Some bios versions used to give users an option to run the 25 multiplier and to Disable Turbo Boost at the same time.  After you click on Save in the bios, it analyzes your choices and if it sees that you would like to use the 25 multiplier then it secretly turns Turbo Boost back on regardless of what you selected for this option.  That ends up being very confusing to users.  They believe Turbo Boost has been disabled when the bios enabled it in the background before booting up.

Anyway, long story.  For the next version of RealTemp, I have decided to make it more difficult for Disable Turbo to be accidentally checked.  Let me know if clearing the Disable Turbo box fixes your problem.

Do you know about the 26 multiplier that is hiding in your CPU?  It's only available when a single core is active and is only available when the C3 or C6 low power states are enabled.  As soon as a second core becomes active, it will drop back down to a maximum of 25.


----------



## spoidz (Mar 13, 2013)

Thanks,

Yes the Turbo switch was the problem.

So I set your recommended TJMax.  Do we need to bother then with Idle calibration at all?

My idles at even 3.8Ghz sit at 40's.  My Ambient in the room is almost constant 23-24C and 26-27C inside bottom of case.

That's Delta well above what your notes expect, especially on a Noctua NH-D14.

Anyway thanks again for the help


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 13, 2013)

My original testing was on a Core 2 Duo.  The idle calibration factors were also designed around the Core 2 CPU's sensors so there is no need to use them on your Core i CPU.

The first generation Core i CPUs are ovens, especially when overclocking.  You have also disabled the low power C States like C3 and C6 so that will create extra heat in the cores.

As long as your CPU is stable then there is no need to worry about its core temperature.  Your core temps are fine.  Glad you are back to running at full speed.


----------



## spoidz (Mar 13, 2013)

Okay, Thanks again,

Now to gaming,

Cheers


----------



## Octopuss (Mar 13, 2013)

When can we roughly expect the next stable version? Any estimate? I grew tired of CoreTemp and HWiNFO which report completely different temperatures, and while RT reports completely different numbers as well, I kind of trust it and started using it again 

P.S. I don't want to be nitpicking, but can you keep the first post updated please?


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 13, 2013)

RealTemp T|I Edition
http://www.overclock.net/t/1330144/realtemp-t-i-edition

I released a one off special of RealTemp for my friends over at Tech|Inferno.

RealTemp 3.80 should be ready by the end of the month with a few more minor features and some updates like System Tray - Notification Area compatibility with Windows 7 and Windows 8.  I promise to get the first post updated by then, maybe sooner.


----------



## Octopuss (Mar 13, 2013)

Oh great. Looking forward to it.
Btw, I still don't quite understand the calibration feature. Do I absolutely need to do that? I have i7 3770K.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 13, 2013)

The calibration feature was for Core 2 Duo CPUs.  I gave up on calibrating after that.

As long as you realize that Intel does not use 100% accurate sensors then that is all you need to know.  Most of their recent sensors have about +/- 5C of error at the calibration point.  These sensors are usually good enough for making comparisons within your own system from one day to the next but they should not be used to compare your temperatures to someone else in a forum.  If your sensors read too low and their sensors read too high, it's not going to be a very meaningful comparison.


----------



## Naki (Mar 15, 2013)

Do plan to add foreign (non-English) language support to RealTemp?
I can translate the program into Russian and Bulgarian.
I did this (Bulgarian) for another similar program, Core Temp.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 16, 2013)

Naki: Thank you for the offer.  I don't have any plans yet to translate RealTemp to different languages.  That is definitely a good idea but I don't know if I will ever get around to doing this.  I don't have much free time any more to work on RealTemp so I have only been doing minor updates the last few years.


----------



## Naki (Mar 16, 2013)

unclewebb said:


> Naki: Thank you for the offer.  I don't have any plans yet to translate RealTemp to different languages.  That is definitely a good idea but I don't know if I will ever get around to doing this.  I don't have much free time any more to work on RealTemp so I have only been doing minor updates the last few years.



Making a small translation tool should not take much time - the actual translations can be done by volunteers like me.  
Or maybe even no tool is needed, just a separate text/XML/etc file with the captions/texts of all buttons/labels/controls.
However, I am not sure if you have the captions/text of all controls/labels in a separate location (such as XML/text file or resource file) - if not, it will indeed take more work to do it. 

Anyway, thanks for the comments.


----------



## DayKnight (Mar 18, 2013)

Problem guys.

When I had 2500K and G630, there was a click-able button that showed watts being consumed etc, then back to the time, real temp was opened.

Now, I dont seem to get that with my new processor, i5-3570.

Any idea?.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 18, 2013)

RealTemp T|I Edition
http://www.overclock.net/t/1330144/realtemp-t-i-edition

Give that version a try.  Version 3.80 is still a work in progress.


----------



## DayKnight (Mar 18, 2013)

unclewebb said:


> RealTemp T|I Edition
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1330144/realtemp-t-i-edition
> 
> Give that version a try.  Version 3.80 is still a work in progress.



Excellent.

It's back!. I iz happy.


----------



## marsamanic (Mar 20, 2013)

*Sensor test*

Hi, I'm using RealTemp 3.7, and I'm getting some strange results. 
I have Dell XPS l702x laptop with 2.0 GHz i7-2630QM. I cleaned it and replace thermal paste, but I'm still getting high temps and strange values for sensor movement test. 

Is it possible that temp sensors are not accurate? What means high values in sensor movement test? Should I be worried with this results? I attached screenshot to post.

Thank you.


----------



## Naki (Mar 20, 2013)

What worries you exactly? I don't see a single reading over 60 degrees (or even 50 for that matter), your temps seem fine!


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 20, 2013)

marsamanic said:


> Is it possible that temp sensors are not accurate?



Not only is it possible but it is very likely.

Intel does not use 100% accurate core temperature sensors.  These sensors are designed to control thermal throttling and thermal shutdown so there has never been any need for Intel to use Space Shuttle grade temperature sensors.  An error of +/- 5C at the calibration point is typical for these sensors.

A big number in the Sensor Movement test is normal when you are running this test on a laptop.  Laptops have very small heatsinks and very poor cooling compared to a desktop that uses a huge heatsink and fan.

As long as your CPU is not thermal throttling during normal use then everything is OK.

You might be interested in checking out my other program called ThrottleStop.  It was designed to give users more control of their Intel laptop processors.

ThrottleStop 5.10 - Beta 2
http://www.techinferno.com/downloads/?did=59



> Naki: I don't see a single reading over 60 degrees..



His peak core temperature was 89C.  That's high but still within the Intel spec.


----------



## marsamanic (Mar 20, 2013)

Naki said:


> What worries you exactly? I don't see a single reading over 60 degrees (or even 50 for that matter), your temps seem fine!



But you can see in right window of my screenshot that temperature rise over 80 degrees when I start test with prime95, When I'm not doing anything complex, temp is about 50



unclewebb said:


> You might be interested in checking out my other program called ThrottleStop.  It was designed to give users more control of their Intel laptop processors.



I installed it, but I will take some googleing before I try it. I'm not familiar with some features.
Do you think I should consider changing heatsink and/or fan, summer is coming and that means higher temp, so I'm worried.

Thank you both for answering.


----------



## PCusersarewe (Mar 24, 2013)

*Installing Real Temp On My PC*

*Important note: I'm unfamiliar with zip files.*

I have a Compaq Presario PC SR5710F which runs Windows Vista. How do I install Real Temp 64 kbit on my computer? Using Firefox, I attempted to download the software but it gives the option to open or save. I tried to run the file but it's not working. I checked for installed programs but RealTemp isn't listed. 

Can someone help with the installation?


----------



## Naki (Mar 24, 2013)

Please just install a ZIP file handling program, such as WinZIP (paid trial), WinRAR (also trial) or 7-Zip (free/open source):
http://www.winzip.com/win/en/index.htm
http://www.rarlab.com/
http://www.7-zip.org/
Then de-compress the ZIP file, maybe into C:\Program Files\RealTemp or a separate folder, such as C:\Programs\RealTemp/etc.
Then run the EXE (program) file.


----------



## Akki (Apr 6, 2013)

Hi Guys

Wonder if i can anyhow display CPU and nVIDIA GPU temps via Riva Tuner Stat Server?


----------



## burebista (Apr 7, 2013)

Not with RT. Try HWInfo for that.


----------



## Octopuss (May 17, 2013)

How is the new version progressing?


----------



## stasio (Oct 14, 2013)

RealTemp 4.0.0..?


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 14, 2013)

It's a work in progress.


----------



## stasio (Oct 15, 2013)

unclewebb said:


> It's a work in progress.



Thanks uncle.......what about v.3.80.....?
Spoted also in one of your posts.


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 15, 2013)

Recent updates have been fairly minor so I haven't bothered to release anything officially for quite a while.  RealTemp 3.70 works OK on the Haswell CPUs.  

I still have a couple of minor things left to do but I don't have much time available for this project anymore.  Intel turns out new processors and new features faster than I can keep up.  

RealTemp 4.00 will be the next official version and it will be available here at TechPowerUp when I finally get it finished.


----------



## newconroer (Oct 19, 2013)

Anyone else have a problem getting Real Temp to start with the OS?
I manually added it via registry and the startup program list. 

It refuses to launch at Windows login.

I don't have this problem on my other system.


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 19, 2013)

For starting RealTemp up with Windows 7 or Windows 8, I use the Task Scheduler.  

http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...es/531329-throttlestop-guide.html#post6865107

If the above method does not work, let me know what operating system are you using, if you are using using UAC and what antivirus program you are using.  The WinRing0 driver that RealTemp uses to read the CPU registers can be a little finicky.  I will try the above method on my Windows 8.1 developer's build later today to see if the above method still works OK.

Edit: The above method has been tested in Windows 8.1 Preview version with or without UAC.


----------



## newconroer (Oct 19, 2013)

unclewebb said:


> For starting RealTemp up with Windows 7 or Windows 8, I use the Task Scheduler.
> 
> http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...es/531329-throttlestop-guide.html#post6865107
> 
> If the above method does not work, let me know what operating system are you using, if you are using using UAC and what antivirus program you are using.  The WinRing0 driver that RealTemp uses to read the CPU registers can be a little finicky.  I will try the above method on my Windows 8.1 developer's build later today to see if the above method still works OK.



Task schedule worked fine - ;sigh; I'm shocked I completely over looked it ;/


----------



## Techami (Oct 24, 2013)

Can someone explain me why my cpu (q9650) idles with 2 different multipliers. This is in windows 7 sp1 and matheboard old 'Abit ix38 quad gt' with beta bios with E0 support.
In windows xp x64 everything is fine like should be all cores on 6x multiplier when system is in idle.
One more when i set in power options in win7 max cpu state lower than 100% example 99%
core0,1 stay all time at multiplier 6 and cores 2,3 on 9. and this is sure i tested in prime95 speed of each core, cores 0,1 r slower.







Forgot to add with ThrottleStop i can force system to use 6 multipliers on all 4 cores.


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 24, 2013)

I have seen this before and this usually indicates a bug in how the bios initially sets up your CPU.

These Quad core CPUs contain 2 Core 2 Duos internally so it is possible to run them independently with two different multipliers like you are seeing.  If the register in the CPU that controls this is not set to the same value for each core, you get different multipliers for each side of the CPU.

ThrottleStop actually has a feature called SplitQuad that lets you play around with this.  Edit the ThrottleStop.INI file and add this:

*SplitQuad=1*

Now when you double click on ThrottleStop, you should be able to choose what side of your CPU will use the high multiplier.  You can double click again and again to cycle through the options.  The included docs explains some more about this.


----------



## Techami (Oct 25, 2013)

unclewebb said:


> I have seen this before and this usually indicates a bug in how the bios initially sets up your CPU.
> 
> These Quad core CPUs contain 2 Core 2 Duos internally so it is possible to run them independently with two different multipliers like you are seeing.  If the register in the CPU that controls this is not set to the same value for each core, you get different multipliers for each side of the CPU.
> 
> ...



Thanks for answer. Is posible to fix this in windows?? (w/o use any programs in win xp this work proper).
And with SplitQuad=1 i can control "1 side" of quad with =2 2nd and with =3 both.


----------



## NoelC (Oct 27, 2013)

*Plans To Support Multiprocessor Motherboards?*

Unclewebb, *do you have any plans to support multiple processor systems?*

Unless I'm missing some obvious configuration option, I can only see sensor measurements for the cores on one processor.

Edit:  It's a Dell Precision Workstation T5500.

Thanks.

-Noel


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 27, 2013)

Techami: I always assumed your issue was a bios issue since other users running Windows on their motherboards do not have this problem.  

Noel: There used to be an INI option called Skull,

*Skull=1
Skull=2*

Setting this to 1 would allow RealTemp to read your first CPU and if you had RealTemp in a separate directory, you could add Skull=2 to the second INI file and that would read your second CPU.  You would need to run 2 instances of RealTemp for this to work which isn't very practical.  I have no idea if this still works or how well it works.  I have no access to a multi CPU system so I won't be adding multiple processor support to RealTemp.  I am pretty sure Core Temp supports multiple CPUs so why not give that a try.


----------



## SparklePony (Oct 28, 2013)

*Windows 8.1*

Hello, I updated from Windows 8 to 8.1 last night and am experiencing some odd things with RealTemp this morning. I sent an e-mail to raymond@techpowerup.com, but am unsure what is the best avenue for contacting the team.

Basically, the program still ran at login with my task scheduler, but is no longer opening minimized nor is it displaying the icon in the task tray. I tried tinkering with the settings, but have been unsuccessful so far returning it to the minimal state I prefer it to be unless I open it myself. In addition to this, RealTemp is reflecting my CPU temperatures sitting 10° lower than normal. My ambient temperature surely hasn't changed that much! Other programs still reflect the normal ~30°C temperatures. Any ideas?

Thanks!
-Andrew


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 29, 2013)

RealTemp 3.70 is not compatible with the Windows 7 and Windows 8 hide the icons feature.  Sometimes it might work but most of the time it probably doesn't.  I have some new code that I will be releasing some day that seems to fix this problem.  Send me a message if you are interested in doing some beta testing but it might be a few weeks or a few months before I get around to this project.  I was using the beta version of RealTemp in the Windows 8.1 Preview release without any icon problems.

Large changes in idle temps can be related to what low power C States your CPU is using.  Show me some screen shots if you have any questions.

RealTemp T|I reports C State percentages for the newer Core i CPUs.

http://www.mediafire.com/download/7h6578x6dh7hc8x/RealTemp_TI.zip


----------



## Techami (Jan 12, 2014)

Worrning. Don't use ThrottleSpead on abit mboards with dighital phases. My board burned after i turn on "power save "!!!
1st was noise from pc after smoke and game over....


----------



## shhnedo (May 19, 2014)

Is there any chance for an update? Seems like a very good tool for temperature mesurements.


----------



## unclewebb (May 19, 2014)

RealTemp T/I Edition
http://www.mediafire.com/download/7h6578x6dh7hc8x/RealTemp_TI.zip

That is the last version that I released.  

I don't have much time to work on RealTemp anymore so it has been sitting for a while now.  It still reads the core temperatures correctly on all of the recent 4th Gen Haswell CPUs so I have not been too motivated to work on it further.  Maybe someday.


----------



## stasio (Jul 7, 2014)

Uncle,

why CPU multiplier fluctuate up/down, as is set fix to x49 in BIOS?


----------



## burebista (Jul 7, 2014)

Sounds similar with this.


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 7, 2014)

Do you have any of the C States enabled stasio?  RealTemp will report a fluctuating multiplier when the CPU is idle if any of the C States are enabled; C1E / C3 / C6 / C7. 

Do you have any other monitoring software running on your computer besides CPU-Z?  Intel CPUs use high performance monitoring timers but they are a shared resource so any program on your computer can access these timers and interfere with other monitoring programs on your computer getting accurate data from them.

Here's what an idle 4th Gen mobile CPU looks like when all of the C States are disabled.






All 8 threads are reporting a steady 34.00 multiplier.  When the C States are disabled, this locked CPU does not have access to the maximum 36 multiplier when 1 core is active or the 35 multiplier when 2 cores are active.  Instead, when overclocking with C States disabled, you get the 34 multiplier whether 1, 2, 3 or 4 cores are active.  This might be a good setting in the winter because the extra power consumption and heat keeps ones lap warm and toasty without having to light the fireplace.


----------



## stasio (Jul 10, 2014)

OK,thanks Uncle.
Yea,C3 is enabled.


----------



## stasio (Jul 14, 2014)

Haswell has TjMax...???
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...-Pentium-G3258-air-water-phase-change-amp-LN2

Please comment..


----------



## P4-630 (Jul 14, 2014)

stasio said:


> Haswell has TjMax...???
> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...-Pentium-G3258-air-water-phase-change-amp-LN2
> 
> Please comment..



Intel Pentium G3258 Tcase: 72 degrees Celsius

http://ark.intel.com/products/82723/Intel-Pentium-Processor-G3258-3M-Cache-3_20-GHz


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 15, 2014)

stasio - I answered your question on XtremeSystems.  Pushing the Defaults button in the RealTemp - Settings window will read the correct value of TJ Max from the processor.  It is 100C for all of the 4790K screen shots that I have seen so far.


----------



## stasio (Jul 15, 2014)

Yea,I saw...thanks uncle.


----------



## stasio (Sep 21, 2014)

Eight Core version ?....

Is there an 8 core version of Real Temp planned now that the i7 5960X is out?


----------



## unclewebb (Sep 22, 2014)

I actually wrote an 8 core version of RealTemp a few years ago.  The guy on XtremeSystems that I wrote it for decided that he didn't like it because it was too wide.  No kidding.  

He thought for 8 cores maybe a redesign of RealTemp so it listed the temps in a table so it wasn't so big might be a better idea.  Kind of like how Core Temp or CPUID HWMonitor do it.  I don't have access to an 8 core CPU but in theory, either of those 2 programs should be able to handle the 5960X.    If anyone has an 8 core CPU and wants to help me get RealTemp working, let me know and I will see if I can find my old code.  A couple of minor updates might be enough.


----------



## stasio (Sep 22, 2014)

Yea,I remember this....
Will be nice to activate it back.


----------



## stasio (Sep 23, 2014)

TJ Max for Haswell-E is 105C ?


----------



## Bob_760 (Sep 26, 2014)

unclewebb said:


> I actually wrote an 8 core version of RealTemp a few years ago.  The guy on XtremeSystems that I wrote it for decided that he didn't like it because it was too wide.  No kidding.
> 
> He thought for 8 cores maybe a redesign of RealTemp so it listed the temps in a table so it wasn't so big might be a better idea.  Kind of like how Core Temp or CPUID HWMonitor do it.  I don't have access to an 8 core CPU but in theory, either of those 2 programs should be able to handle the 5960X.    If anyone has an 8 core CPU and wants to help me get RealTemp working, let me know and I will see if I can find my old code.  A couple of minor updates might be enough.



I've been using the Skull=1 Skull=2 options with two instances of realtemp running for years now on my dual quad xeon setup. The only issue I've found is you can't launch the two instances of realtemp at once, most of the time one of them will be messed up, I don't recall the specifics. I use a batch file to launch one, wait, then launch the other.  I'm also planning to pick up an 5960X soon. I'm just waiting a bit (for a change) to let everyone iron out all the kinks first. If there's anything I can do to help let me know.


----------



## Leemarvin (Dec 1, 2014)

Hi Uncle, first I wanna say thanks for this great program and pardon my english since it's not my first language. 
I have recently downloaded your last version de RealTemp_TI one, and since I have a new i7 5820k CPU, it doesn't display my full six cores, is there anywhere a RealTemp_TI GT version displaying six cores? thanxs in advance.


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 1, 2014)

RealTemp GT 3.70 works correctly on the 6 cores CPUs and it can be downloaded from TechPowerUp.  

The T|I Edition only supports the 4 core CPUs.


----------



## ironman72 (Dec 13, 2014)

When octacore version of RealTemp?... my 5960x wants it  !!!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 5, 2016)

unclewebb said:


> I actually wrote an 8 core version of RealTemp a few years ago.  The guy on XtremeSystems that I wrote it for decided that he didn't like it because it was too wide.  No kidding.
> 
> He thought for 8 cores maybe a redesign of RealTemp so it listed the temps in a table so it wasn't so big might be a better idea.  Kind of like how Core Temp or CPUID HWMonitor do it.  I don't have access to an 8 core CPU but in theory, either of those 2 programs should be able to handle the 5960X.    If anyone has an 8 core CPU and wants to help me get RealTemp working, let me know and I will see if I can find my old code.  A couple of minor updates might be enough.


RealTempGT.exe still only shows 6 of 8 cores.  An update would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Absolution (Jan 27, 2016)

Guys my CPU idle temps are about 25C, but the BIOS reads in 40s? Which one is correct? hwinfo also gives 25C as CPU temp


----------



## Jborg (Jan 27, 2016)

Absolution said:


> Guys my CPU idle temps are about 25C, but the BIOS reads in 40s? Which one is correct? hwinfo also gives 25C as CPU temp



One is your package temperature, the other is the core temperature.

They will usually be 10-15~degrees different.

I would use AMD Overdrive to monitor since it tells you when your nearing the max temp limit


----------



## Absolution (Jan 27, 2016)

Jborg said:


> One is your package temperature, the other is the core temperature.
> 
> They will usually be 10-15~degrees different.
> 
> I would use AMD Overdrive to monitor since it tells you when your nearing the max temp limit



Sorry, I changed my system specs. I have a 6700k now.

Also what does a sensor test do and tell me? (specifically the movement part)


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 27, 2016)

When you are sitting in the bios, the CPU is typically not using any of the low power C States so the temperatures tend to be higher in the bios compared to when idle in Windows.  As mentioned, the bios might also be reading data from a totally different CPU temperature sensor.

The CPU Cool Down Test was invented to help uncover the 45nm Core 2 Duo CPUs that had sticking temperature sensors.  As the load on a CPU decreases, the temperature should decrease.  This test worked great for that problem and I am sure it helped encourage Intel to start using more expensive temperature sensors that no longer get stuck in the normal temperature range.  When a load is applied to a CPU, the core temperatures should instantly increase.  That is what the movement part of the test shows.  On 45nm Core 2 Duo CPUs, a movement reading of zero showed that the sensor likely had a sticking problem and was not moving at all when at low temperatures.  Many of these sensors were getting stuck at anything less than 45°C.  Your sensors look fine.

RealTemp has not been updated in 4+ years.  It reports the temperatures correctly on a 6700K but the MHz and Load data needs some work.  I plan to look into this someday when I can afford a new system with a 6600K.  No money in the sock drawer at the moment.  A freeware programmer is kind of like a starving artist.  We produce good work but neither of us are getting rich.


----------



## Absolution (Jan 27, 2016)

I posted on my motherboard manufacturers website and they had the same thing to say. The temp goes up in the BIOS screen.


----------



## P4-630 (Mar 13, 2016)

I built a new skylake system recently, now when I open realtemp it shows the core temps around 20 degrees all day (idle), while my room temp is around 20 as well.


 

Now this seems a little hard to believe.
I did a sensor test and it says this:


 

To get the right temperatures at idle do I have to add 12 degrees?
Then core 0 would run at 32 degrees.

I must say in the UEFI the cpu temp reads around 23.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 13, 2016)

Intel has never used temperature sensors that are 100% accurate.  These sensors are calibrated to trigger thermal throttling at approximately 100°C and to trigger thermal shutdown at about 125°C to 130°C.  Accurate idle temps has never been part of the design.  At the calibration point, these sensors are only accurate to +/- 5°C and when the CPU is idle, they are probably less accurate than that.  They tend to read too low at idle so your reported temps are normal.  

The Sensor test simply shows that all of your sensors are working.  When that test was originally written, many of the 45nm Core 2 sensors were getting completely stuck at temperatures below 40°C.  This test proved that point but this test has no significance when running it on a Core i CPU.

As long as your CPU is stable and it is not thermal throttling, core temperatures are not that important.  Temperature data is an approximation.  If your cores are at 60°C or 70°C or 80°C, it really doesn't make any difference.  Your CPU will perform the same and it is designed to last a long, long time at any of those temperatures.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 14, 2016)

as i tell people, go by distance to TJmax - or distance to throttle. idle readings mean nothing, when various chips can throttle at 60C or 110C - how long til that happens, is what matters.


----------



## P4-630 (Feb 5, 2017)

Is the latest beta RealTemp still in a test phase?
Will it be out soon?


Thanks!


----------



## unclewebb (Feb 5, 2017)

I have not looked at RealTemp in years.  I prefer to work on ThrottleStop.  Same sort of monitoring program and it uses a lot of the exact same code.  It shows CPU and GPU temps in the system tray and gives a user way more control over their CPU compared to RealTemp.  I am running out of new stuff to add to ThrottleStop so maybe I will get back to working on RealTemp someday soon.  Technology changes quickly so it is difficult to leave a program like this sitting for years and then just do a quick update.  Dormant projects take a lot of time to get them working properly again.


----------



## n1ko (Apr 22, 2017)

So, am I the only one who noticed Real Temp doesnt shows the real tmps on Kaby Lake CPUs ??? 
p.s. It shows 8-12 degrees lower.


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 22, 2017)

Intel has not changed anything temperature related in the last 7 generations of CPUs so RealTemp should be able to read the correct temperature on Kaby Lake CPUs.   Either download a fresh copy of RealTemp or delete the RealTemp.INI file and restart RealTemp so it can read the correct value for TJ Max from your new CPU.

If you ever have a problem, post a pic so I can have a look.


----------



## n1ko (Apr 25, 2017)

unclewebb said:


> Intel has not changed anything temperature related in the last 7 generations of CPUs so RealTemp should be able to read the correct temperature on Kaby Lake CPUs.   Either download a fresh copy of RealTemp or delete the RealTemp.INI file and restart RealTemp so it can read the correct value for TJ Max from your new CPU.
> 
> If you ever have a problem, post a pic so I can have a look.


Yes, thank you. You're right.I use this app for a long time now so i guess someting went wrong when switched the gens.


----------



## ajaxx (May 18, 2017)

Dear Developers,

The program is really useful, but i have an issue with it.
The ALARM EXE that I point out is called only once in event of alarm.
I have made a script, sending me email when the temperature goes above a specified amount.
The problem is that ALARM EXE /which triggers my own script/ runs only at the first occurrence of higher temperature, and not every time the event occurs.

Could you, please make the program ALART to be triggered each time a criteria has been met?

Thank you in advance!

PS Sorry if I didn't write my request in the right topic.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 18, 2017)

unclewebb said:


> Intel has not changed anything temperature related in the last 7 generations of CPUs so RealTemp should be able to read the correct temperature on Kaby Lake CPUs.   Either download a fresh copy of RealTemp or delete the RealTemp.INI file and restart RealTemp so it can read the correct value for TJ Max from your new CPU.
> 
> If you ever have a problem, post a pic so I can have a look.






 


intel says on their spec sheet that tjmax for X5670 is 81.3C ...Realtemp says 96 C.  I think realtemp is incorrect in this instance.


----------



## unclewebb (May 18, 2017)

If you look closer at the spec that you posted, 81.3°C is listed as the maximum TCase temperature.  This spec is not the same as TJ Max.

TCase is measured by hacking up the top of the IHS on top of your CPU with a Dremel and then embedding a temperature sensor at the geometric center of your CPU.  This spec is not for individual users because Intel does not expect individuals to hack up their new CPUs.  This spec only applies to large system builders that are trying to determine how big a cooler and how much air flow they are going to need.  If the center of the CPU never reaches the maximum TCase temperature when testing then in theory, the hottest spot on the individual cores should never reach TJ Max.  It is not unusual for there to be a 20°C gradient between the temperature measured at the center of the CPU vs the peak core temperature.  The size of the gradient varies depending on your cooler and the type of stress testing software you are using.  The TCase spec is a guide line so the CPU will be unlikely to need to thermal throttle.  Intel wants the CPU cores to always run at their maximum rated speed when necessary.

When RealTempGT first starts up, it reads the Intel specified TJ Max value directly from the CPU.  If you have RealTemp installed on a USB drive or if you previously had a different CPU, delete the RealTempGT.INI config file and then start up RealTempGT.exe so it can read the correct TJ Max value for your CPU.

A 201 MHz BCLK looks great for a 6 core CPU that is over 7 years old now.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 18, 2017)

unclewebb said:


> A 201 MHz BCLK looks great for a 6 core CPU that is over 7 years old now.








Thanks for clarifying the temps thing, i had to read it twice but it all makes a lot of sense now.


----------



## Rosie Scenario (May 18, 2017)

Just wanted to thank Webb for all he's done in our world. I ran an X9100 and 280M in my giant laptop back in the day and that overclocking and temp management was outstanding.


----------



## unclewebb (May 18, 2017)

Here is a good thermal pic of an old Core 2 Duo.  It shows you the hot spots on the die compared to the center of the CPU where TCase is measured.

http://semiaccurate.com/static/uploads/2010/07_july/Guess_the_chip_thermal_pic.jpg

Nice to see that RealTemp and CPU-Z agree on your BCLK, 201.35 MHz.  You can also trust the RealTemp multiplier.  Your previous picture looks like you might have C1E enabled.

Thanks Rosie.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 18, 2017)

unclewebb said:


> Your previous picture looks like you might have C1E enabled.



i never have any problems so i leave it as it is,

This is the best i ever did with it , the hardest work it does nowadays is GTAV


----------



## DRDNA (Jul 21, 2017)

SORRY if I missed this in the past 46 pages but I was wondering is there a way to get RealTemp to Auto start with Windows 10 start up? WIth out User Control asking if its okay???Thank you in advance!


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jul 21, 2017)

I can't even find a start with windows option in my version. But you can go into user accounts and turn off UAC which is something I've been doing for 10 years or so I can't stand those "are you sure" message boxes


----------



## DRDNA (Jul 21, 2017)

jboydgolfer said:


> I can't even find a start with windows option in my version. But you can go into user accounts and turn off UAC which is something I've been doing for 10 years or so I can't stand those "are you sure" message boxes


Yeah never mind i found the answer on page 40...



unclewebb said:


> Decoman: I thought this used to work when using UAC but it doesn't seem to work anymore.  Maybe there was a Windows security update that plugged up a security vulnerability or maybe I was just delusional when I originally played with this.
> 
> If you go into your non admin "user account" and right click on the Task Scheduler icon and run it with Admin privileges, you can use the following method to auto start RealTemp.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bevier (Oct 19, 2017)

kesawi said:


> I haven't had any success in getting RealTemp to run at all. I've downloaded v3.70, unzipped it and have run it as administrator by right clicking and selecting _run as administrator_. I keep getting a window labelled _Driver Error_ stating that _Driver Not Found On Network_. The WinRing0 libraries extracted to the same directory as RealTemp and I haven't touched anything. I haven't been able to find an answer through Google. I'm running Windows 7 64-Bit on an I7-3770K. Help greatly appreciated.



I had an issue that the driver could not be found. It ended up being that the program didn't like the parent folder I put it in. The parent folder had a greek letter in it and refused to run. If I deleted the greek letter from the name, it would run perfectly.


----------



## nskntk (Nov 9, 2018)

not impossible to do 8 core version? already many users of 8 nuclear processors. thanks


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 9, 2018)

nskntk said:


> not impossible to do 8 core version?


It would not be impossible at all to do an 8 core version of RealTemp.  As soon as a nice person buys me a 9900K, a new motherboard to put it in and some new DDR4 memory, I will start working on this project.  Unfortunately, I cannot afford to spend my own money for new hardware that I do not need.


----------



## John Naylor (Nov 10, 2018)

, As an alternative HWiNFO has an option to "show sensors on startup"


----------



## Arjai (Oct 6, 2019)

I have an AMD A10-6700. I downloaded the latest version from TPU and both RT and RTGT say that my processor is not supported.

Is there another version that supports the A10?


----------



## unclewebb (Oct 6, 2019)

RealTemp does not support any AMD CPUs.  
Try Core Temp instead.









						Core Temp
					

Core Temp is a compact, no fuss, small footprint, yet powerful program to monitor processor temperature and other vital information.



					www.alcpu.com


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 6, 2019)

Arjai said:


> I have an AMD A10-6700. I downloaded the latest version from TPU and both RT and RTGT say that my processor is not supported.
> Is there another version that supports the A10?






unclewebb said:


> RealTemp does not support any AMD CPUs.


That is because NO ONE HAS LOANED/GIVEN unclewebb any AMD Based hardware with which to develop Software.


----------



## Naki (Oct 7, 2019)

Nope. RealTemp monitors only Intel CPUs, because Intel CPUs are the "real deal" for "real people".
Everybody knows current AMD CPUs are just a rehash of 2002 technology, no matter if they call them Zen 2, 3, 4 or 2000.  All AMD CPUs are just cheap fakes, so Real Temp cannot monitor them, them not being really "real" enough CPUs. 

Intel of course is always much better with their rehash of 1998 technology, but with much better - more expensive! - pricing, and conveniently having you re-purchase a new mobo once or twice per year (throw old mobo away), for best results and revenue of Intel.  Everybody knows by paying more you get more.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 7, 2019)

unclewebb said:


> It would not be impossible at all to do an 8 core version of RealTemp.  As soon as a nice person buys me a 9900K, a new motherboard to put it in and some new DDR4 memory, I will start working on this project.  Unfortunately, I cannot afford to spend my own money for new hardware that I do not need.


I'd bet if you ask w1zzard or some other site they could send you something to borrow if you really wanted to make it happen. 

I wish we had the extras (I have a board I can loan out).


----------



## MDashK (Nov 14, 2019)

unclewebb said:


> RealTemp does not support any AMD CPUs.
> Try Core Temp instead.
> 
> 
> ...



First, I would like to thank you for all the hard work done on RealTemp. =)
I was using it to monitor my laptop temps for the last years, and it has been really great!
Specially good as a warn sign to know when it's time to clean in up internally. xD

Was wondering if you still have any plans to release v4.00 to the public, and with some luck fix the "not able to send to tray" issue that has shown up with the latest Windows 10 version.
I really like this software and the only replacement I've found so far, that lets me have both CPU and GPU temps on the tray, was MSI Afterburner that, for some reason, causes performance issues on my PC and makes sound "crackle" esporadicly when listening to music or when on youtube. xD

Thanks for the attention.


----------



## P4-630 (Nov 14, 2019)

MDashK said:


> and with some luck fix the "not able to send to tray" issue that has shown up with the latest Windows 10 version.



Uhmm no issues here on Win10 1909...


----------



## MDashK (Nov 14, 2019)

P4-630 said:


> Uhmm no issues here on Win10 1909...



Are you using RealTemp or RealTempGT?

If I try to use the "minimize on close" and "tray info" options, I'm unable to send it to the tray. It stays permanently "opened". Also no tray info is shown.
However, the GT version does show info on tray, but it doesn't minimize to the tray. Also, GT version doesn't allow me to use GPU Temp monitoring.

I'm on Windows 10 Pro, 1903, 18362.449


----------



## P4-630 (Nov 14, 2019)

MDashK said:


> Are you using RealTemp or RealTempGT?



RealTemp



MDashK said:


> If I try to use the "minimize on close" and "tray info" options, I'm unable to send it to the tray.



Works for me.


----------



## MDashK (Nov 14, 2019)

Just upgraded to 1909.
Not sure if it was that, or some other config on the program that I changed after messing with it a while, but It's working great again!
Thanks. =)


----------



## newls196 (Dec 3, 2019)

can we get an updated version to support ryzen cpu's like my r9 3950x PLEASE! miss this program


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 3, 2019)

newls196 said:


> can we get an updated version to support ryzen cpu's like my r9 3950x PLEASE! miss this program


I dont recall this program reading amd cpus... coretemp does though. 

He mentioned previously about updating it (needs the hardware, etc)...


----------



## newls196 (Dec 3, 2019)

core temp doesnt read "BOTH" ccd's in the 3900/3950x's


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 3, 2019)

Ahh, well, perhaps try here and ask the author what's up... https://www.overclockers.com/forums...-tool-for-the-K8-series?p=8125079#post8125079

Realtemp doesnt work with amd. He said it a few posts up, in fact.


----------

