# Sensor Test Crash



## w1ldm4n (Nov 11, 2009)

I am running Windows 7 Professional (64 bit) and my computer crashes when I try to run the sensor test.
Details:
E8400 (not overclocked)
My Idle temps are supposedly around 45-50c

When I click sensor test it opens the box, I select Prime95 and let the test run.  Everything seems to be going fine until the idle test when it says 'stopping Prime95'.  At this point, my entire computer freezes, nothing on the display changes at all. Numbers stop changing, even the second hand on the windows clock gadget on the desktop stop, no a single pixel on my display will change. I have to use the hardware reset button on my computer and then everything boots normally.

Why is this happening, and what can I do to fix it.
I tried the 32 and 64 bit versions of Prime95, is there a 64 bit realtemp?

P.S. I've heard around the internet that Tjmax for an E8400 is 100c, is this correct?


----------



## mlee49 (Nov 11, 2009)

The TJMax is 100 for almost all Intel chips, so your temps should be fine.

Something is overloading and halting, does it BSOD?  What voltages are you running on the chip, even though its not overclocked?

Realtemp doesn't have a 64bit version btw.


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 11, 2009)

I just ran the Cool Down Test on my E8400 using Windows 7 x64 and there weren't any problems.







That leads me to believe that the test itself is OK.

What this test does to vary the load level of your CPU is it adjusts the Clock Modulation feature of your processor at each step.  This feature has been built into all Intel CPUs since the Pentium 4 era and provides a user with a way to manually lower the performance of their CPU to control heat.  That can be handy when you have a laptop burning through your lap.

This feature can be accessed in the RealTemp settings window.  A stable CPU should be able to run at any Clock Modulation setting from 12.5% to 87.5% and should have no trouble going from one Modulation level to another on the fly.  Those are Intel's theoretical numbers and aren't 100% accurate but as these percent settings decrease, the performance and heat output of your CPU should also decrease.

Is your computer 100% stable?

I recently bought 2 x 2GB memory modules and installed them in an older motherboard.  I tried for a day or two and tried every possible bios setting, etc., and I found absolutely no way to get my computer 100% stable.  I tested at different CPU speeds from 1600 MHz to 4000 MHz, I tried loose memory timings like CL 6-6-6 and tight memory timings like CL 4-4-4, I tried fast memory speeds, slow memory speeds, lots of northbridge voltage and hardly any.  I played infinitely but could not get the Blend test in Prime 95 stable for more than about 30 seconds.  This exact same computer and same memory in Windows Vista x86 is 100% stable for hours when testing with Prime95.

When I try Windows 7 x64, the x86 version of Prime 95 is 100% stable but my computer is not stable when running the x64 version of Prime 95.  It has nothing to do with Prime 95.  Lots of users can pass the x64 test.  As soon as I switch back to 2 x 1GB memory modules, my computer can pass the x64 test too, even when overclocked to 4 GHz.

Try adjusting some settings on your computer.  There's no reason why RealTemp should be locking up.  Rather than run the Cool Down Test, just run Prime 95 separately and play around with the Clock Modulation settings when trying to recreate the problem.

TJMax for the average E8400 is 100C but Intel admits that this can vary a little bit from one CPU to the next, even with the same part number.


----------



## w1ldm4n (Nov 11, 2009)

Here's a screenshot of my computer after running Prime95 small FFTs for about 10 minutes

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/4459/tempsz.png
(that's SpeedFan at the bottom btw)
Edit: OK, I just noticed that the picture says 2.9994, but it goes around 2.9994-2.9998

What do you mean by 100% stable?
I have a Gigabyte EP45-UD3P mobo (P45 chipset) with 2x2GB DDR2 1066
For whatever reason, the core speed is like 2.9997, and my Core Voltage (Vcore) is 1.814.

Yesterday, in accordance with http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/221745-29-sticky-core-core-temperature-guide I lowered my clock speed and Vcore way down, and accidentally crashed my computer - I had to open it up and pop out the CMOS battery to reset everything in the BIOS and get it to boot.  Then I uninstalled all EasyTune 6 (Gigabyte's overclocking program) and the computer seems  to run fine, I just did a Prime95 x32 blend test while typing most of this post and everything ran perfectly, except that occasionally in CPU-Z the Core Voltage would jump to 1.200v and then go back to 1.814.

But I'm worried about 2.9997gHz and 1.814V (isn't 1.25 normal?).  Could I still be experiencing residual side affects of lowering Vcore too much, (I took it down to like 1 or 1.1 volts)?  And if so is there a way to get rid of them?


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 12, 2009)

100% stable means your computer can run a variety of stress testing programs like Prime95, 32 and 64 bit with the Small FFT and Blend options, LinX, SuperPI 32M as well as a 3D based benchmark program like 3D Mark06.

You can buy a brand new computer from a store and even if you don't overclock it, there's no guarantee that it is 100% stable and can pass a variety of the above tests.

It's very easy to end up with parts that are not compatible or need to be adjusted with changes in the bios to voltage, memory timings, etc.  Defective memory is probably the number one cause of system instability and even brand new memory needs to be tested with programs like MemTest 86+ to make sure your memory is working correctly.  Whether your computer is brand new or a few years old, you can never take its stability for granted without running a battery of tests on it.

A 3 GHz CPU may not run at exactly 3 GHz.  RealTemp is pretty accurate and it is showing 2999.69 MHz so that's pretty damn close.

Core voltage of 1.184 while your computer is fully loaded is also normal.  It is the Intel design spec for voltage to drop slightly when fully loaded.  Some motherboards have options to prevent this but if your computer can run stable at 1.184 volts then there's no need to worry about this.

SpeedFan is using the wrong TJMax for your CPU.  You can adjust this to the correct 100C in SpeedFan if you want to.  That's why RealTemp and SpeedFan report 5C different.

There shouldn't be any residual side effects.  Every time you go into the bios and change something, you should have a fresh start.

The UD3P is a great board but there are also hundreds of things that can be adjusted in the bios and need to be set correctly.  It might be a good idea to learn more about your motherboard and what settings are important for stability.

Edit: Here's a more recent version of RealTemp with a few more features for Nvidia graphic cards.
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/1691/Real_Temp_3.40.html


----------



## w1ldm4n (Nov 14, 2009)

Well, even with the new version of RealTemp my computer still freezes about 5 seconds int test 9 (right after it kills Prime95), but I wrote down and graphed the numbers and they make a perfect line all the way down so I don't think the sensors are stuck.  Although Core 1 reports between 1 and 2 degrees C higher than core 0, but that's not much.  So if I know that me sensors aren't stuck is there any other reason that I would run the test?

My computer is stable when I manually run a Prime95 test (32 or 64), and I passed Memtest86 so I think I'm OK.


----------



## w1ldm4n (Nov 14, 2009)

In other news, I decided to use EasyTune6 to overclock my E8400 to 3.6 gHz (400x9).  It seems to run fine, but my cores (Tjunction) idle at around 50 and Tcase runs at just under 40.
When I started a Prime95 small FFT, I decided to stop it when Tcase hit 70C after less than a minute (Tj was around 75).  Is this safe, or should I go back to normal speed?

I have a Dynatron Genius Cooler with a hefty amount of Arctic Silver 5 (which may still be breaking in) in an Antec nine hundred 2 case that has plenty of airflow (200mm exhaust right above cooler, 120mm exhaust in the back next to the cpu, and an intake fan between my graphics card and my cpu).  Do these temps make sense? because I built a system for a friend and his i7 hits 40C under a heavy load and idles at room temp with a very similar cooler


----------



## sneekypeet (Nov 14, 2009)

the "hefty amount" can be counterproductive....try reseating the cooler with as little AS-5 as needed to spread an thin, almost "see-through" layer on the CPU IHS. Reseat the cooler and retest. Too much TIM on a cooler actually screws with the transfer of heat just as much as seating it improperly.

Googling your cooler, I would expect way better temperatures at stock clocks with your CPU as well. AS-5 is by no means the best paste, but for your purposes it will sufice. I do suggest pulling the cooler off and cleaning it all really well, then reapply and reseat.


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 14, 2009)

What does CPU-Z show for core voltage when you are overclocking?  A core temperature of 75C as reported by RealTemp won't hurt anything but with that cooler at 3.6GHz, that sounds a little high.  As long as your computer is running reliably, that temperature is OK.  I'm not a big fan of Easytune or other Windows based overclocking programs.  I prefer to adjust the settings in the bios so I have better control and so the memory isn't running out of spec.

I have no idea why the sensor test freezes your computer.  It works correctly and completes on all the computers I've run it on.  You might have some other protection software on your computer that thinks RealTemp is doing something bad when it kills the Prime95 task.

Your sensors sound OK and it is normal for core 0 to report a couple of degrees higher than core 1.  These sensors are far from perfect and your sensors sound like they are better than most.


----------



## w1ldm4n (Nov 14, 2009)

@sneekypeet:
First of all, the temperatures that I listed were when I OCed to 3.6gHz, they were 5-10C cooler at factory clocks.
And I feel kind of dumb because the first time I put the heat sink on I just used a little line in accordance with the instructions on the AS5 site, but when I thought my cores were idling at 50C, I cleaned everything off and put that line on, plus filled in the cracks between the heatpipes and the base of the cooler.  (Although in retrospect that was a bad reading because SeppdFan was using 105Tjmax instead of 100, so I guess it was 45)  According to the AS5 instructions, the chip that actually makes the heat is like a rectangle and thats where to put the AS5, and I also have my cooler oriented so that the 4 heatpipes are perpendicular to that chip (so that the heat goes to all of them and not just one or two), is this right?

If I were to go back and redo the AS5, do I have to clean everything off and reapply, or can I just take off some of the excess and leave a little on the chip and not have to use any more?

Also, from almost everything I've heard, Arctic Silver 5 is the best thermal paste out there, what do you know of that's better?


----------



## burebista (Nov 14, 2009)

w1ldm4n said:


> Also, from almost everything I've heard, Arctic Silver 5 is the best thermal paste out there, what do you know of that's better?


It was at his time and it's still OK. Now choose one for one-two-three degrees less.


----------



## w1ldm4n (Nov 14, 2009)

CPU-Z shows a core voltage of 1.280V while running a large FFT test in prime95 (and my temps after 10 minutes are Tcase:68-69 and cores are both 72)

I'll get rid of ET6 and just change stuff in the BIOS and see if that works better.


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 14, 2009)

At a core voltage of only 1.28 volts, a core temp of 72C is higher than normal.  Your room temperature and case air flow play a big part in this.  When you're bored you can try re-mounting your heatsink but it might not make a big difference.  AS5 is more than adequate.  There will always be something better but a couple of degrees isn't worth driving to the store and spending money for.


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 15, 2009)

w1ldm4n: I'm curious about why your computer crashes during the sensor test and would like to try and get this to happen on my computer.  Do you use UAC and does your account have administrator privileges?  Also, what antivirus program or anti spyware programs do you have running in the background or anything else you can think of.

In Windows 7 x64, even a bad program shouldn't be able to lock up the entire operating system.  Do you let RealTemp shutdown Prime95 (that's what you should do) or do you shut down Prime95 manually?  If I can duplicate the problem you're having and if it's anything I'm causing then maybe I can find a fix for this issue.


----------



## w1ldm4n (Nov 16, 2009)

I have the final version of Windows 7 Professional x64
My account has admin privileges and I click 'allow' to a UAC prompt when starting RealTemp
I have a BFG Geforce GTS 250 OC out of the box, and then manually OCed all the way I can without artifacts (I did this a while ago and everything runs fine, and when I reset the clocks RealTemp still crashed)
I have BitDefender internet security 2010
I run a copy of Apache in the background, but that shouldn't do anything.

If there's anything that could be screwing stuff up it could be this:
About a month ago when I was overclocking my GPU, I tried to install NVIDIA nTune, but for whatever reason it failed to install right, but I have some nTune services running so it looks like it halfway installed or something...

And I let RealTemp kill Prime95 doing small FFTs


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 16, 2009)

w1ldm4n: I tried the CPU Cool Down Test with UAC enabled to the highest setting, "Always notify", but I still couldn't find any problems.






Maybe BitDefender is making your computer extra secure.  RealTemp starts the Prime95 task so it should be allowed to end this task without any security software complaining.  Even if something was trying to protect your computer, no software should lock up your whole computer.

I think I'll go download the trial version of BitDefender and install that to see if I can isolate this problem further.

Edit: BitDefender 2010 with UAC at Always notify doesn't seem to be causing a problem either.
You've got me stumped.  I'm not sure why the RealTemp Cool Down Test locks up your computer.


----------



## w1ldm4n (Nov 17, 2009)

Well for whatever reason, without changing anything except overclocking my processor to 3.6gHz (it crashed at that speed before) I started some music and ran the test to see if it was my entire computer that was locking up or just the display, and low and behold, the test completed perfectly all the way through.
I don't think I did anything differently than before besides the music (windows media player), but RealTemp 3.39.5 wasn't the problem.

In other news my sensors aren't broken and my cores idle between 45 and 50 and maxed out at 71-72 at 100%. Is this safe to run? (My computer was stable through PCMark Vantage and 3DMark Vantage)

In other other news, in the next version of RealTemp, could you add a reading for Tcase (and a tray option), I keep getting annoyed at having to open SpeedFan to get a Tcase temperature.


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 17, 2009)

Tcase temperatures are often times not very accurate.  Intel CPUs are controlled by what core temperature they are running at.  That's the important number to watch.


----------



## w1ldm4n (Nov 18, 2009)

This is straight from Intel (http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLAPL)



> The thermal specification shown is the maximum case temperature at the maximum Thermal Design Power (TDP) value for that processor. It is measured at the geometric center on the topside of the processor integrated heat spreader.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sound like Tcase to me.  I read some more into the Core 2 Duo datasheets it seems that for the E7 and E8 series CPUs, it is Tcase that is important. (see http://download.intel.com/design/processor/datashts/318732.pdf section 5)


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 18, 2009)

TCase is important if you are a system builder and choosing heatsinks and fan speeds and stuff like that but for the average user, it's completely unimportant.

The correct way to measure the TCase temperature that Intel is talking about is to cut a groove into the heatspreader on top of your CPU so that you can run a calibrated thermocouple to the geometric center of your heatspreader.  Then you have to solder that into place.  How many end users do this to correctly measure TCase.  I'll give you a hint.  Nobody.

The TCase temperature as reported by most motherboards is an approximation at best.

The whole point of the TCase spec is that if manufacturers keep the measured TCase temperature within this limit then a CPU should very rarely if ever reach the thermal throttling point even on a hot day in a small case full of dust bunnies while running a high stress program like Prime 95 on all cores.  That's the ultimate point of all this.  To keep the CPU from reaching the thermal throttling point so the end user is able to get the full performance from his Intel CPU that he paid for.

The one and only thing that controls thermal throttling is the core temperature.  For the end user, it's the only important number to keep an eye on.  RealTemp goes one better than that and also keeps track of the thermal throttling bit within the processor.  That information is reported in the Thermal Status area of RealTemp.  If RealTemp shows OK at the bottom then that means that there have been no thermal throttling episodes since you powered up.

That is ultimately the only thing that Intel cares about.  That your CPU does not thermal throttle during normal usage.  On most CPUs if you keep your core temperature at a maximum of 97C as reported by RealTemp, you won't have to worry about reaching the throttling point and your CPU will be running at full speed and within its design spec so Intel will be happy too.


----------



## w1ldm4n (Nov 18, 2009)

It seems like you got my post that I made yesterday but for whatever reason it isn't showing up here.

In any case, that makes enough sense and I guess I won't worry about it.

Thanks for all of your help on this thread.


----------



## OceanBreeze (Nov 24, 2009)

I'm having the same problem as w1ldm4n's original post (Crash when trying to run a sensor test).

I am running Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit and my the computer crashes (hard) when the sensor test gets to the point where is says "Stopping Prime95".  The last "CPU Load" reported was 32.6%.

Symptoms of the crash is that the Prime95 window closes then everything is frozen - mouse cursor won't move, keyboard keystrokes not recognized, clock gadget quits ticking.  The only thing that works is the reset button.

System details:
Q9550 (not overclocked)
Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3P Motherboard
4 Gb Corsair PC2-6400 memory
RealTemp Ver 3.40
Prime95 Ver 25.8 Build 4
No virus software installed
Nvidia 9500GT graphics card - no overclocking

FWIW, I can run the Prime95 torture test for hours without incident.


----------



## burebista (Nov 24, 2009)

Seven x64 and everything is fine here.


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 24, 2009)

Here's the latest version of RealTemp:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip

OceanBreeze: I wish I had an answer and a solution for you but I don't.  I've never once had a problem running the Cool Down Test on XP x86, Vista x86 or Windows 7 x64.  There is nothing this test does that is wild or crazy.  Built into Core CPUs is the ability for a user to throttle them to control power output and temperatures.  This feature is called Clock Modulation and if you do a Google search and include that and Intel you can probably learn more about it.

For some reason, this test is causing some CPUs to lock up solid.  w1ldm4n had this same problem but then it magically fixed itself so I have no idea what changed on his system to fix it.

I wish I could fix this for you but I can't fix a problem that I can't recreate.  All I can suggest is to avoid running the Cool Down Test.

Maybe instead of running Prime95, try running Orthos instead and only load one core.  You can also go in the Settings window and play around with the Clock Modulation feature.  That should not cause your CPU to lock up and killing a process that RealTemp started (Prime95) shouldn't cause your computer to lock up either.


----------



## OceanBreeze (Nov 26, 2009)

I tried the beta version and even updated my MB with the latest BIOS.  Still the same result.  Maybe I'll try what w1ldm4n did with the music and overclocking and see if that changes anything.  I'll let you know.


----------



## OceanBreeze (Nov 28, 2009)

FWIW, I tried the sensor test with my system overclocked to 3.2 GHz.  The results were the same.  I also tried playing a CD while running the sensor test and when the system locked up (as before), the music stopped.  Just thought you would like to know.


----------



## OceanBreeze (Nov 28, 2009)

Another piece of information for you ...

I went to the settings tab and played around with the clock modulation.  All settings worked OK except for 12.5%.  As soon as I clicked Apply with the 12.5% setting, the computer locked up as before.


----------



## unclewebb (Nov 28, 2009)

All I can say is that if you are having problems with the sensor test locking up then you shouldn't use it.  I've been unable to recreate this problem on any of the computers I've tried it on so at the moment, I'm not able to come up with a solution.

Your testing and w1ldm4n's testing has helped me understand exactly what's causing the problem but I haven't been able to figure out why this is a problem on some computers but not others and why this problem magically disappeared for w1ldm4n.

Sometime in the future I will look into this issue further and try to find a different way of doing things that might be more compatible.

Edit: Thanks for that last test.  The Intel documentation says that you should be able to set a Clock Modulation value of 12.5%.  I can set that value on all of my computers without any lock ups.  I might have to add an option to that test to prevent it using that setting if a user is having problems.  This seems more like a problem with your CPU.  What stepping is your E8400?  I have an E8400 C0 that works fine.


----------



## OceanBreeze (Nov 29, 2009)

My CPU is a Q9550, Rev E0, stepping A.


----------



## ERLOESER (Dec 19, 2009)

Hello,

I have the same problem with the sensor test of real temp 3.4. BSOD or prime95 was closed by winDgb
I test realtemp 3.4 with prime95v259 and v2511.  BSOD or winDgb closed

***************************************************************
Microsoft (R) Windows Debugger Version 6.10.0003.233 X86
Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


Loading Dump File [D:\WINDOWS\Minidump\Mini120609-02.dmp]
Mini Kernel Dump File: Only registers and stack trace are available

Symbol search path is: SRV*DownstreamStore*http://msdl.microsoft.com/download/symbols
Executable search path is: 
Windows XP Kernel Version 2600 (Service Pack 3) MP (2 procs) Free x86 compatible
Product: WinNt, suite: TerminalServer SingleUserTS Personal
Built by: 2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.090804-1435
Machine Name:
Kernel base = 0x804d7000 PsLoadedModuleList = 0x8055d720
Debug session time: Sun Dec  6 13:19:45.062 2009 (GMT+1)
System Uptime: 0 days 0:07:33.750
Loading Kernel Symbols
...............................................................
................................................................
....
Loading User Symbols
Loading unloaded module list
.............
*******************************************************************************
*                                                                             *
*                        Bugcheck Analysis                                    *
*                                                                             *
*******************************************************************************

Use !analyze -v to get detailed debugging information.

BugCheck 1000008E, {c0000005, f783f68c, aa11875c, 0}

Probably caused by : watchdog.sys ( watchdog!WdExitMonitoredSection+10 )

Followup: MachineOwner
---------

1: kd> !analyze -v
*******************************************************************************
*                                                                             *
*                        Bugcheck Analysis                                    *
*                                                                             *
*******************************************************************************

KERNEL_MODE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED_M (1000008e)
This is a very common bugcheck.  Usually the exception address pinpoints
the driver/function that caused the problem.  Always note this address
as well as the link date of the driver/image that contains this address.
Some common problems are exception code 0x80000003.  This means a hard
coded breakpoint or assertion was hit, but this system was booted
/NODEBUG.  This is not supposed to happen as developers should never have
hardcoded breakpoints in retail code, but ...
If this happens, make sure a debugger gets connected, and the
system is booted /DEBUG.  This will let us see why this breakpoint is
happening.
Arguments:
Arg1: c0000005, The exception code that was not handled
Arg2: f783f68c, The address that the exception occurred at
Arg3: aa11875c, Trap Frame
Arg4: 00000000

Debugging Details:
------------------


EXCEPTION_CODE: (NTSTATUS) 0xc0000005 - Die Anweisung in "0x%08lx" verweist auf Speicher in "0x%08lx". Der Vorgang  "%s" konnte nicht auf dem Speicher durchgef hrt werden.

FAULTING_IP: 
watchdog!WdExitMonitoredSection+10
f783f68c 80be9c00000000  cmp     byte ptr [esi+9Ch],0

TRAP_FRAME:  aa11875c -- (.trap 0xffffffffaa11875c)
ErrCode = 00000000
eax=000b8659 ebx=7ffdf284 ecx=89ff6cf8 edx=bbc00000 esi=31383139 edi=89ff6d24
eip=f783f68c esp=aa1187d0 ebp=aa118924 iopl=0         nv up ei pl nz na pe nc
cs=0008  ss=0010  ds=0023  es=0023  fs=0030  gs=0000             efl=00010206
watchdog!WdExitMonitoredSection+0x10:
f783f68c 80be9c00000000  cmp     byte ptr [esi+9Ch],0       ds:0023:313831d5=??
Resetting default scope

CUSTOMER_CRASH_COUNT:  2

DEFAULT_BUCKET_ID:  DRIVER_FAULT

BUGCHECK_STR:  0x8E

PROCESS_NAME:  RealTemp.exe

LAST_CONTROL_TRANSFER:  from bf80440e to f783f68c

STACK_TEXT:  
aa1187d4 bf80440e 7ffdf000 bf80c3f7 8055c6d0 watchdog!WdExitMonitoredSection+0x10
aa1187dc bf80c3f7 8055c6d0 89da8828 00000003 win32k!DEVLOCKOBJ::vDestructor+0x2e
aa118924 805415fd 0000000d 0012f26c 0012f2a8 win32k!NtGdiFlushUserBatch+0x89a
aa118950 bf836a2d 00000000 aa118c38 00000000 nt!KiFastCallEntry+0xcd
aa118c48 bf813d96 00000002 aa118c8c 00000018 win32k!EngCopyBits+0x555
aa118ccc bf8035a3 bbebb7d0 0000000f 00000000 win32k!SfnDWORD+0xa8
aa118d0c bf80ec5b 773c3dcf aa118d64 0012f510 win32k!xxxDispatchMessage+0x1dc
aa118d58 8054162c 00419534 0012f548 7c91e514 win32k!NtUserDispatchMessage+0x39
aa118d58 7c91e514 00419534 0012f548 7c91e514 nt!KiFastCallEntry+0xfc
WARNING: Frame IP not in any known module. Following frames may be wrong.
0012f548 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 0x7c91e514


STACK_COMMAND:  kb

FOLLOWUP_IP: 
watchdog!WdExitMonitoredSection+10
f783f68c 80be9c00000000  cmp     byte ptr [esi+9Ch],0

SYMBOL_STACK_INDEX:  0

SYMBOL_NAME:  watchdog!WdExitMonitoredSection+10

FOLLOWUP_NAME:  MachineOwner

MODULE_NAME: watchdog

IMAGE_NAME:  watchdog.sys

DEBUG_FLR_IMAGE_TIMESTAMP:  480254ab

FAILURE_BUCKET_ID:  0x8E_watchdog!WdExitMonitoredSection+10

BUCKET_ID:  0x8E_watchdog!WdExitMonitoredSection+10

Followup: MachineOwner
******************************************************************

Microsoft (R) Windows Debugger Version 6.10.0003.233 X86
Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


Loading Dump File [D:\WINDOWS\Minidump\Mini120609-03.dmp]
Mini Kernel Dump File: Only registers and stack trace are available


***************************************************************
or prime95 was closed by winDgb.

*****************************

But strange is, with realtemp v 3.00 and prime95v259 i passed the sensor test. 
Maybe this helpful.
CU


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 20, 2009)

ERLOESER: Thanks for posting that.  This is a very strange bug that I don't have a solution for.  OceanBreeze made it seem like a bug within the CPU.  You could try your CPU too by going into the RealTemp Settings window and try to force different Clock Modulation values.  It's the last 12.5% setting that was causing him troubles.  Can you enable and disable that one without your computer crashing?

I haven't made any changes to how this test operates for a long time which is why I can't understand why old versions of RealTemp work for you but the newer one chokes on this test.  If I could repeat this bug it would be easy to fix but the test and all of the Clock Modulation settings work fine on my computer.  

Here is the latest version of RealTemp.
http://www.sendspace.com/file/u79b5p

I haven't changed anything since 3.40 so it's very likely the bug is still there.


----------



## ERLOESER (Dec 21, 2009)

Well
with realtemp 3.4 and prime95 v259 and setting in realtemp Clock Modulation 12.5 % i passed the sensor test in xp sp 3 32 bit Movement sensor core #0=1 core#1=3
CPU load. 100%, 88,4%,77,2%,65,7%,54,7%,46%, 39,1%, 30,2%,11,8%, 11,6%
Setting in realtemp 3 and prime95 v259 are with no Clock Modulation 
also passed the sensor test. in xp sp3 32 bit

To realtemp 3.4 with prime 95 v259 with disable Clock Modulation 
prime95 v259 was closed by winDgb in Test 6 xp sp3 bit 32.

Vista 64 bit not testet.

To my system

E7200 (Revision M0 Stepping6) @ 370 a Multi 9,5 3515 MHZ. RAM G.Skill F2- 8000 CL5 @ 493 MHZ (2x2GB). ratio 3:4. CPL 10.
BIOS settings MB bios version. 1501 Asus p5q-pro vCore 1,23125. CPU PLL 1,5, DRAMv 2,02. vNB 1,18. VTT 1,22. rest standart settings in bios. 
CPU Margin Enhancement optimize (was default)

VID CPU-Z load 1,1625 also realtemp. LLC disable. CPU-Z idle vCore 1,2. CPU-Z load intelburntest 1,174V. prime95 load 1,184V

Other problem in xs benchmark i get only 170 point in xp sp3 realtemp v3.4 in vista ultimate 64bit.169 points. In realtemp v3 i have in xp sp3 over 1000 points???
System is prime95 inplace custom stable, Linx, intelburn on Vita 64 bit. Goldmemory no errors.

Im testing  CPU Margin Enhancement compatible at the moment, 
I think the temps looks better (CPU and MB in idle, Core temps are the same) i will run a full custom test prime95 in place.

BTW anyone knows what vin1 and vin3 means on a MB P5Q-PRO in the CPUID HWmonitor
Vin1 is 1,66. Vin has a min. of 1,11V and a max. of 1,15V Value on prime95 1,14 V
Maybe CPU Margin Enhancement is the problem.
But i cant find a good explain of ASUS CPU Margin Enhancement!


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 21, 2009)

If you manually enable Clock Modulation, this will slow your computer to a crawl and will reduce your benchmark scores.  I just downloaded 3.40 from the TPU site and in Vista 32 bit it is working OK.







I will try this test in a few more OS versions when I get the chance.

The Cool Down Test does not crash on any of the CPUs I've tested it on.  For some reason, on some CPUs, it crashes when the Clock Modulation gets turned off.  I've followed the Intel documentation but I'll see if I can change anything in my code to get this working properly on your computer.

Did you try RealTemp 3.50 from the link I posted above?


----------



## ERLOESER (Dec 21, 2009)

Thanks unclewebb

I will test realtemp 3.5 tomorrow first with xp and modulation off, i hope i get no BSOD and windgb will not closed. When i passed it (no BSOD), i will test it in vista 64bit. I hate BSOD . At the moment i cant test realtemp 3.5 prime95 is running im testing CPU Margin enhancement at compatible. with optimize system is stable. 4 hours to go

BTW do you know something about CPU Margin enhancement from ASUS?
I know only optimize is for dual cores. performence for quad cores and compatible for some 45nm to raise the FSB. But i dont know what is the best setting for my E7200 compatible or optimize. At the moment i see no difference. only that i have a better idle temp MB only max 32°C in compatible in optimize i ve 34 °C. and in load all the time 31 or 32 °C.


----------



## Sasqui (Dec 21, 2009)

w1ldm4n said:


> I am running Windows 7 Professional (64 bit) and my computer crashes when I try to run the sensor test.
> Details:
> E8400 (not overclocked)
> My Idle temps are supposedly around 45-50c
> ...



Latest version here and I get a windows must close application error every time I push that button...

X38 Maximus Formula, E8700, running at stock.


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 21, 2009)

Sasqui said:


> Latest version here and I get a windows must close application error every time I push that button...



Can you be a little more specific.  What button?  The Sensor Test button?  Does it happen near the end of the test or immediately?  Give me a few more details so I can track this down.

Here's the latest version:
http://www.sendspace.com/file/u79b5p


----------



## ERLOESER (Dec 21, 2009)

I testet realtemp 3.5 with prime95v2511 on Vista 64bit. prime95 Application was closed at test 5 same result in xp 32bit.
XS bench score realtemp 3.5 1174


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 21, 2009)

To me it doesn't sound like your computer is 100% stable.  Have you tried running a LinX test?  It's a little more severe than running Prime95 and might show you how stable your CPU really is.  Set it so it tests as much of your memory as possible.

You can download it and read about it here:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=201670

If that passes try running Prime95 in blend mode and see how that goes.


----------



## ERLOESER (Dec 22, 2009)

@unclewebb, if u mean me with linx.
 I told u that my system is linx 0.6.4.Problem size 20325, MIB 3168, run 100 and intelburntest (20 runs)stable with full memory (Physical Usage 90,6 % Process Explorer) at vista 64bit. 
But why to test prime95 blend (it is more or less only a ram test btw i passed prime blend 24h) i passed goldmemory 2 passes  no errors and memtest 86 4 passes no errors. 
PLZ look again in realtemp 3 and realtemp 3.4. because realtemp works for me with no clock modulation. It must be a different inside the script.

THX
Intel(R) LINPACK 64-bit data - LinX 0.6.4

Current date/time: Tue Dec 22 09:40:39 2009

CPU frequency:    3.515 GHz
Number of CPUs: 2
Number of threads: 2

Parameters are set to:

Number of tests                             : 1
Number of equations to solve (problem size) : 20325
Leading dimension of array                  : 20328
Number of trials to run                     : 100  
Data alignment value (in Kbytes)            : 4    

Maximum memory requested that can be used = 3305743456, at the size = 20325

============= Timing linear equation system solver =================

Size   LDA    Align. Time(s)    GFlops   Residual     Residual(norm)
20325  20328  4      247.181    22.6490  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.205    22.7388  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      245.729    22.7829  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      245.567    22.7979  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.679    22.6952  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      245.776    22.7785  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      245.671    22.7882  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      245.363    22.8168  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      245.988    22.7588  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      248.219    22.5543  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      245.515    22.8027  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.143    22.7445  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      245.715    22.7841  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.474    22.7140  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.157    22.7432  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      245.568    22.7978  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      245.360    22.8171  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.030    22.7549  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      252.555    22.1671  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      249.199    22.4656  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.192    22.7400  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.192    22.7400  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      245.736    22.7822  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      248.279    22.5489  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      251.589    22.2522  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      245.770    22.7790  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.274    22.7324  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.192    22.7400  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      245.847    22.7719  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.257    22.7340  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.566    22.7055  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.217    22.7377  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.349    22.7256  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.619    22.7007  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.360    22.7245  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.332    22.7271  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.224    22.6451  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.004    22.6653  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      248.041    22.5705  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      248.260    22.5506  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.102    22.6562  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.111    22.6554  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.207    22.6466  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      248.280    22.5487  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      253.530    22.0818  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.945    22.6707  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.608    22.7017  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.522    22.6179  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.493    22.6205  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.654    22.6974  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.061    22.6600  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.087    22.6577  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.547    22.7072  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.537    22.6165  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.122    22.6545  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.839    22.6804  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.479    22.6217  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.997    22.6659  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.518    22.7100  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.815    22.6826  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.792    22.6847  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.953    22.6700  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.000    22.6656  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.123    22.6544  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.645    22.6982  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.366    22.6321  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.405    22.6285  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.183    22.6489  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.402    22.6288  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.977    22.6677  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.382    22.7224  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.927    22.6724  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.733    22.6901  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.352    22.7252  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.627    22.6999  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.012    22.6645  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.567    22.7054  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.392    22.6297  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.085    22.6578  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.626    22.7000  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.929    22.6721  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.618    22.7007  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.399    22.7209  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.728    22.6906  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.307    22.6375  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.681    22.6950  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.044    22.6616  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.733    22.6902  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.573    22.7049  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.657    22.6971  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.008    22.6649  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.349    22.7255  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.589    22.7034  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.617    22.7009  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.427    22.7183  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.040    22.6620  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.084    22.6579  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      246.638    22.6988  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.252    22.6425  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002
20325  20328  4      247.216    22.6458  3.746651e-010 3.216981e-002

Performance Summary (GFlops)

Size   LDA    Align.  Average  Maximal
20325  20328  4       22.6741  22.8171 

End of tests


----------



## ERLOESER (Dec 22, 2009)

ERLOESER said:


> I testet realtemp 3.5 with prime95v2511 on Vista 64bit. prime95 Application was closed at test 5 .


Problemsignatur
Problemereignisame:	APPCRASH
Anwendungsname:	prime95.exe
Anwendungsversion:	25.11.1.0
Anwendungszeitstempel:	4a5af88b
Fehlermodulname:	prime95.exe
Fehlermodulversion:	25.11.1.0
Fehlermodulzeitstempel:	4a5af88b
Ausnahmecode:	c0000005
Ausnahmeoffset:	00000000001809ff
Betriebsystemversion:	6.0.6002.2.2.0.256.1
Gebietsschema-ID:	1031
Zusatzinformation 1:	2926
Zusatzinformation 2:	47c4a882266fd209c30ce38155194792
Zusatzinformation 3:	4181
Zusatzinformation 4:	f1b4b2a622c4dc463af4d774f81de98c


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 22, 2009)

The RealTemp cool down test automatically adjusts clock modulation during the test from 100% to 12.5% in steps of 12.5%.  When it doesn't need the Prime95 load any more, it shuts that process down.  RealTemp was used to start Prime95 so I've never had a problem with letting RealTemp close down Prime95.  Test 5 should correspond to a clock modulation setting of 50%.

It looks like Prime95 is not stable on your CPU when the Clock Modulation feature of the CPU is being used.  At test 5, RealTemp is not doing anything out of the ordinary.  It's monitoring temperatures as Prime is allowed to run.  It's no different than tests 2, 3, 4 or tests 6 or 7.  It's just using different modulation settings for each test.

I can't remember off hand any significant changes I've made to this section of code.  I will definitely have a closer look at it.  I'm as interested as you as finding out what's going on but I can' think of anything off hand and not once have I had this problem on my E8400 in any operating system.

I wrote a new tool called ThrottleStop that lets you play with or monitor the clock modulation setting.  While running Prime95 Small FFTs like RealTemp does, you can use this tool to easily change the Clock Modulation setting.  RealTemp 3.50 should be able to monitor for any clock modulation changes and will display that info in the Thermal Status area.  You could also run two instances of ThrottleStop; one to adjust clock modulation and the other to monitor clock modulation.  You can leave its other features since they are mostly designed to prevent Dell laptops from throttling and slowing down.

Can you start up Prime95 Small FFTs like RealTemp does and then try to run your computer at various clock modulation settings?  You can also use RM Clock to adjust clock modulation on the fly.  It is called ODCM which stands for on demand clock modulation.  I appreciate your help with this.


----------



## ERLOESER (Dec 23, 2009)

Thx unclewebb,

i tested again realtemp 3 with prime95 2511 in xp sp3 32bit with default settings in realtemp.
prime95 was closed normal by realtemp after Test 8. I passed the test
movement sensor Core0 9, Core1 14
CPU load 
98,9 %, 87,3%, 75,7 %, 63,5%, 54,7%, 44,5%, 36,9% 27,5%, 2,1% idle
but realtemp 3,4 works only with clock modulation 12,5 % for me ( I tested only 12,5).

You say there is no difference inside script of realtemp 3 and 3.4. I say a difference must be inside maybe a space more. When realtemp 3 works for me also realtemp 3,4 must work for me.
The difference what i saw in realtemp 3 to realtemp 3,4. realtemp 3 show 5 °C lower temps. but this temps are wrong. realtemp 3,4 show me the correct temps.


PLZ give me some more info's about clock modulation maybe  i will find a solution.


----------



## gaximodo (Dec 23, 2009)

Haven't read through all the posts in this thread but the sensor tests do crash while changing CPU clock's even with a 100% stable CPU, i run my i5 with 1.35v@ 4gig and it was stable with every single stress tests I can find, but running it with the same voltage @ just 3.2g, sensor test will still sometimes crash while changing the clocks, yes, it only crash while setting a lower multiplier.


----------



## ERLOESER (Dec 23, 2009)

Problem solved 

the problem was the vcore.

Okay how i found a solution.
With vCore 1,23125 i passed the sensor test in realtemp 3 xp sp2 32bit.
system was prime95 custom inplace,super pi and linx 100 runs full memory in Vista 64 bit stable.

Okay i tested realtemp 3 again in Vista 64 bit again. Core1 hardware failture in Test 5 oh thats means Vcore.
Good that i have 2 OS. Vista 64bit is top for overclocking needs so much Vcore.

I changed the Vcore in my Bios to 1,24372 (new idle CPU-Z 1,216 load prime95 CPU-Z 1,92 or 1,84V) LLC disable
to xp sp3 32 bit passed Cool and down in Version 3 and 3,4
I also passed Realtemp 3 and 3,4 with prime95 2511 64 bit in Vista 64 bit. prime95 was closed normal after Test 8.
!!!Vcore was the problem!!!! realtemp setting in xp vista default

Thx alot unclewebb u have create the ultimate final stable test.  LoL Cool and Down is harder as linx and prime95 custom inplace

last questions. Sensor Movement Core0 9 Core1 13 normal ??? idle Vocre 1,216 too high?

Merry Xmas to all


----------



## ERLOESER (Dec 23, 2009)

gaximodo said:


> Haven't read through all the posts in this thread but the sensor tests do crash while changing CPU clock's even with a 100% stable CPU, i run my i5 with 1.35v@ 4gig and it was stable with every single stress tests I can find, but running it with the same voltage @ just 3.2g, sensor test will still sometimes crash while changing the clocks, yes, it only crash while setting a lower multiplier.


Forget Linx and prime95 -->Cool and Down ist the new Vcore killer
BTW 448k inplace is vcore killer in prime95. You need more Vcore


----------



## unclewebb (Dec 23, 2009)

ERLOESER said:


> Problem solved



You had me worried.  That would be funny if the RealTemp Cool Down Test became the ultimate stability test.  

All RealTemp does is it changes the Clock Modulation settings to all of the supported values from 100% down to 12.5% which any Pentium 4 or later CPU should be able to handle without crashing.

I used to think that maybe a 10 minute test was too long but it's better than 24 hours of Prime or 100 rounds of LinX testing and a lot less stressful too.

Thanks you ERLOESER for finally figuring this out.  You're not the first user that thought this test had bugs.  Most of them just gave up without ever trying to find out why.  Next time I hear about a user with this problem I will point him to all of the testing you have done.  Your hard work will be useful for other users with the same problem. 

I've been running my E8400 for the last year or two at 1.40 volts so 1.216 volts is definitely not too high.  I'd probably give it some more voltage and see what it can really do.

These temperature sensors have a lot of issues.  Sensor movement of 9 and 13 is normal.  9 and 9 or 13 and 13 would be nice but that rarely happens.  Enjoy your computer and don't worry too much about the sensors or what temperature your CPU is running at.  As long as you're stable then it's good.  Now you are 101% stable.


----------



## ERLOESER (Dec 23, 2009)

Thx unclewebb merry xmas to you
My coretemps in prime95 max. 58°C in intelburn 68°C.
I know it is top
Sorry. i need low temps because im a Silent overclocker noisy part in my system is my Samsung HD. I love Silent fans


----------



## burebista (Dec 23, 2009)

ERLOESER said:


> I love Silent fans







I'm a silent fan.


----------



## xenogear74 (Mar 12, 2010)

Unclewebb - 

First, thanks for making such a great program! Second, sorry for resurrecting a dead thread  

I am experiencing the same issues, but was able to pass (AKA windows not freeze) after disabling any power-saving/throttling tools in the bios (C1E state, CPU EIST, etc...)my ram is stable, i've run prime into the ground but if I have those bios options enabled it hangs immediately upon shutting down the prime95 test. 

I have a gigabyte ep45-ud3p, 8 gigs of G.Skill 1066 Ram & Intel Q9650 running Windows 7 X64.

I just wanted to bring these findings up since I didn't see them mentioned in the threads before or when I search on google.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 12, 2010)

ERLOESER found out that he needed a slight boost in vcore to pass the RealTemp sensor test even though he was Prime stable for 101 hours with less voltage.

The sensor test is using a feature in your CPU called clock modulation.  Adjusting clock modulation provides 8 different performance levels to the CPU.  A 100% stable CPU should be able to run at no load or full load or anywhere in between while adjusting clock modulation up and down whether C1E or EIST are enabled or not.

Are you overclocked?  Have you tried adjusting vcore or tried running the test with a single stick of memory at a time.  There has to be a reason why it is failing.  When this test fails, it always fails at the same spot but I've never had this test lock up when I've used it.  Not once.

ERLOESER was going crazy too trying to pass this stupid test but after he got everything adjusted, no more lock ups.  Keep trying different settings.  

I don't think it will make any difference to your problem since I haven't made any changes to the cool down test in a long time but you can try downloading the latest version here.

RealTemp 3.58
http://www.sendspace.com/file/1nscjd

I added a new option for recent ATI cards.  Just add *GPU=2* to the RealTemp.ini file to give it a try.


----------



## xenogear74 (Mar 12, 2010)

Thanks for the quick reply!

I'm not overclocked and am running at stock voltage. I'm going to try doing 1 stick of ram at a time next and go from there. 

I was just surprised last night when i turned off EIST, etc... and then ran the test and had it work! Leads me to believe it may be something with the board? I think it's the same one the others had as well. 

I'll let you know from there!


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 12, 2010)

I think I found your problem.



> I'm not overclocked and am running at stock voltage.



Don't let anyone else find out that you are not overclocking or they might kick you off of TechPowerUp.  

Usually when people contact me they are running their systems on the verge of self destruction.  That test should work for you.  If you are using mostly AUTO or default voltage settings in the bios then the CPU or some other component might need a slight tweak in voltage.  Try watching the CPU voltage with CPU-Z during idle and during that test.  One of the power saving features might be causing too big of a drop in voltage.


----------



## xenogear74 (Mar 12, 2010)

Didn't even think of that! Great idea. 

And I'll try to at least overclock it a little just to make sure i'm still part of the club


----------



## xenogear74 (Mar 12, 2010)

I tried upping the voltage and no go. I did however leave C1E on but turned of EISE (speedstep) and low and behold it worked fine. 

CPUZ did see a dip in voltage, but only by .10 and I don't know if that's enough to really consider a problem.

I'm tempted to try this on a dual core i have lying around to see if this is something the mobo doesn't like or may show a defective processor?


----------



## xenogear74 (Mar 14, 2010)

Well, I wanted to check back in with findings. 

Even increasing my voltage I couldn't get the test to work, but I was able to find 2 things that did. (just note I am running Windows 7 x64)

1) turning of EIST in the bios. for some reason when this was off the processor was fine and the test went through swimmingly. 

2) Leave EIST on, and change the windows 7 power management features to not throttle down the CPU (turn it on High Performance). At this point the program still throttled the multi like it should, and the test passed fine even with EIST on. I guess it might have been something to do with the windows power management and the EIST not playing nice. 

Either way, I thought I'd share. 

Thanks for all your help!


----------



## guitarfreaknation (Mar 28, 2010)

w1ldm4n said:


> I am running Windows 7 Professional (64 bit) and my computer crashes when I try to run the sensor test.
> Details:
> E8400 (not overclocked)
> My Idle temps are supposedly around 45-50c
> ...



I have the exact same problem BUT on Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 28, 2010)

guitarfreaknation: Post some screen shots and some details so I can have a look.  There is nothing evil about the test.  It just uses features of your CPU that most other software doesn't.  A stable CPU should be able to pass the RealTemp sensor test.  I've never tested a single CPU that failed this test and locked up and froze the computer towards the end of the test.

RealTemp 3.58.1
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip


----------



## burebista (Mar 28, 2010)

Kevin, *guitarfreaknation* is that guy with Q9550 unrecognized. 
Here is his problem.


----------



## guitarfreaknation (Mar 28, 2010)

unclewebb said:


> guitarfreaknation: Post some screen shots and some details so I can have a look.  There is nothing evil about the test.  It just uses features of your CPU that most other software doesn't.  A stable CPU should be able to pass the RealTemp sensor test.  I've never tested a single CPU that failed this test and locked up and froze the computer towards the end of the test.
> 
> RealTemp 3.58.1
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip




I am aware that this test isnt "evil"  
I just wanted to get some input on how to resolve this issue.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 29, 2010)

It's possible that the voltage drops too low during the transition from load to idle.  What does CPU-Z show for your voltage when at full load and when at idle?

Is your computer otherwise rock solid stable?  Can it run Prime95 and LinX and anything else you throw at it?

Is your CPU voltage set manually in the bios or is it set to AUTO?  The last person that had troubles was able to fix it with a little more voltage so maybe that will help you too.

If you are tired of having to sit through the whole Sensor Test again and again only to see it crash then try running Prime95 and go into the RealTemp Settings window and while P95 is running, adjust the Clock modulation up and down from 100% to 12.5% and see how that goes.  With it down at 12.5% if it hasn't locked up yet then try stopping Prime95 and see what happens.  This might allow you to test your setup a little quicker.


----------



## guitarfreaknation (Mar 29, 2010)

unclewebb said:


> It's possible that the voltage drops too low during the transition from load to idle.  What does CPU-Z show for your voltage when at full load and when at idle?
> 
> Is your computer otherwise rock solid stable?  Can it run Prime95 and LinX and anything else you throw at it?
> 
> ...



Yes, the system is solid. It gets a bit hot in my cheap case and stock CPU fan but other than that runs great. I did run p95 when took these screenshots. First is the idle CPU-Z and load. Second one is on load only.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 29, 2010)

If your computer is 100% stable except for the RealTemp sensor test then I would suggest not running that test. 

1.152 volts at full load is very low.  Did you set that manually or is your bios set to AUTO?  Did you try raising the voltage manually in the bios to see if you can pass the RealTemp sensor test?  Maybe it will pass at 1.175 or 1.200 volts.


----------



## 95Viper (Mar 29, 2010)

unclewebb said:


> If your computer is 100% stable except for the RealTemp sensor test then I would suggest not running that test.
> 
> 1.152 volts at full load is very low.  Did you set that manually or is your bios set to AUTO?  Did you try raising the voltage manually in the bios to see if you can pass the RealTemp sensor test?  Maybe it will pass at 1.175 or 1.200 volts.



Just wondering about the comment?  As, my Q9550 is quite happy at these voltages on my GA-x48-DS4 for over a year.  

Just my two cents;I do believe(disclaimer:been known to be wrong once or twice), if, he(guitarfreaknation) is not overclocking, he needs to lower the CPU voltage a tad to help lower the CPU temps, and maybe bump his NB a little and check his memory voltages.  Gigabyte boards are finicky about memory.
Idle: Load:


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 29, 2010)

95Viper: You're right and I'm wrong.  

I'm used to overclocking everything and anything so I tend to use more voltage than that.  If you can run reliably at those speeds with that much voltage then that's great.

Have you ever completed the full 10 minute RealTemp Sensor Test with those voltages?  Some users have trouble completing this test even though they are 101% stable in Prime95, LinX, etc.

When you have 10 minutes to kill can you run that test and post the results so other users can see that it is possible.  It could be something like NB voltage that is the problem for guitarfreaknation or perhaps his CPU simply needs a little more voltage compared to yours.

His CPU is an E0 compared to your C1 so that usually means it should be happy with less voltage compared to yours.  I'm not sure why Intel didn't include the model number in his CPU.  The CPU-Z specification box shows the information that Intel writes into the chip and your CPU clearly shows Q9550 while his does not.


----------



## 95Viper (Mar 29, 2010)

I know something is screwy with his, some suggested it might be a ES.  You can get some weird results off of them.

Yep, completed that test a few times and run prime 95 always after replacing tim or maintenance, to make sure I ain't fubared something.  Am replacing tim this week if Dow Corning can get me some of their TC-5688, if not I will be using(testing) Zalman Stg2 (am using Stg1 now).


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 29, 2010)

ES CPUs will always have (ES) in the CPU-Z Specification box.  guitarfreaknation's CPU doesn't have that and it has the correct CPUID 0x1067A which all of the E0 processors have.  I've seen a few CPUs where Intel forgot to write in the correct model number.  CPU-Z uses a look up table and compares the CPUID value with the GHz amount and the amount of cache, etc. and determines that it really is a Q9550.  It might be an early model or some other unknown reason why Intel did this.  I've seen some where Intel writes the correct model number into only 1 of the 2 cores.  I've learned that anything is possible.  I'll probably add this unique CPU to the RealTemp look up table in the near future.


----------



## 95Viper (Mar 29, 2010)

Is this what you requested?


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 29, 2010)

That's what I like to see.  It drives me nuts because I know the Sensor Test doesn't do anything too wild and crazy but some extremely stable computers choke on this test.  I'll never know why.  Thanks for showing that it's possible to complete this test on a Q9550.


----------



## guitarfreaknation (Mar 29, 2010)

unclewebb said:


> If your computer is 100% stable except for the RealTemp sensor test then I would suggest not running that test.
> 
> 1.152 volts at full load is very low.  Did you set that manually or is your bios set to AUTO?  Did you try raising the voltage manually in the bios to see if you can pass the RealTemp sensor test?  Maybe it will pass at 1.175 or 1.200 volts.



Thanks. I like the simplicity.


----------



## baldrick1001 (Jun 15, 2010)

I'm suffering with the same freeze problem when prime is being stopped..  I believe that this issue may have something to do with the Gigabyte p45 chipset motherboards - as everyone on this thread that  has experienced this issue has one....

Spec

Q9650 (At stock)
EP45-UD3R
4gig Corsair RAM
80 gig Intel SSD
2 X Samsung 1t HDD
Corsair HX620 PSU


----------



## guitarfreaknation (Jun 15, 2010)

baldrick1001 said:


> I'm suffering with the same freeze problem when prime is being stopped..  I believe that this issue may have something to do with the Gigabyte p45 chipset motherboards - as everyone on this thread that  has experienced this issue has one....
> 
> Spec
> 
> ...






My problem fixed itself or maybe because I oc'ed from 2.8 to 3.0Ghz... Dont know how or why but I do the sensor test just fine now..


----------



## unclewebb (Jun 15, 2010)

baldrick1001: Maybe it has something to do with the default chipset voltage being used on the Gigabyte boards.  I like hearing any explanation that points the finger at something besides RealTemp. 



> My problem fixed itself or maybe because I oc'ed from 2.8 to 3.0Ghz..



Did you change the core voltage when you increased your overclock?  On my old Asus board when things are set to AUTO and I start overclocking, various voltages start going up and up.


----------



## baldrick1001 (Jun 15, 2010)

No overclock applied (don't tell anyone, but I'm a bit of a coward with O/C really!!).  Everything is at stock and I've never really felt the need to overclock as its pretty fast as it is (that's the party line statement) - the SSD makes a huge difference to general usability.

So in answer to your question, everything is set to auto - someone early in this thread stated that turning off “eist” remedied their system hang – I’ll give that a go later and feed- back.  Just seems really strange that turning off Prime 95 would cause the hang .


Many thanks

Baldrick1001


----------



## guitarfreaknation (Jun 15, 2010)

baldrick1001 said:


> No overclock applied (don't tell anyone, but I'm a bit of a coward with O/C really!!).  Everything is at stock and I've never really felt the need to overclock as its pretty fast as it is (that's the party line statement) - the SSD makes a huge difference to general usability.
> 
> So in answer to your question, everything is set to auto - someone early in this thread stated that turning off “eist” remedied their system hang – I’ll give that a go later and feed- back.  Just seems really strange that turning off Prime 95 would cause the hang .
> 
> ...




Well perhaps if you just set in to manual and bump the FSB just by 10 or so points it would fix this issue. You should try it, its really simple and take a few minutes..

Good luck anyway


----------



## MaZz (Jul 9, 2014)

Sorry for the 4 year bump!

Not sure if this is at all relevant anymore. 

I tried this test on my old Gigabyte EP45T-UD3LR motherboard and E8400 cpu and I got the system lock up and had to hard reset three times. 

I read the entire thread and the one thing everyone had in common is the Gigabyte EP45 series motherboard, so it must just have something to do with this particular motherboard.


----------



## LaytonJnr (Jul 9, 2014)

MaZz said:


> Sorry for the 4 year bump!
> 
> Not sure if this is at all relevant anymore.
> 
> ...



Hello,

Welcome to the forums.  

This would be classed as major necroing of this thread, which people tend to get rather annoyed about on the forums. 

I'm sure the advice you were giving would be very useful, but for future reference its not a good idea to "necro" old threads, or basically post in a very old thread so that it becomes the top of a list again. Many people have a different perception of what a poster is trying to do when necroing an old thread. 

I hope this helps in case you start receiving abuse 

Layton


----------



## FX-GMC (Jul 9, 2014)

LaytonJnr said:


> Hello,
> 
> Welcome to the forums.
> 
> ...



Never understood why people have hissy fits about that.  If the thread is relevant to an issue then why not keep all relevant info in the same thread?

I completely understand why people have an issue with BS topics being brought back tho.


----------

