Real Temp Feature Requests

[4natic]

Originally Posted by unclewebb

A Core i5-750 has a default multiplier of 20 and a default BCLK of 133.333 so when you boot up at this speed the above testing program might show 2666.666 MHz. That confirms that Windows is basing the QueryPerformanceFrequency funtion off of the time stamp counter (TSC) when it should be basing it off a fixed speed counter like my computer does so time measurement isn't affected when overclocking the bus speed or BCLK.

it' like that ))

HPET Enabled, default speed

HPET Disabled , 150 BCLK @ BIOS

[unclewebb]

When overclocking, does the WinTimerTester program show both clocks running at the same speed when HPET is enabled or disabled or does it screw up no matter how this is set?

QueryPerformanceFrequency can show different values depending on whether you overclock in the bios or overclock when in Windows. Overclocking in the bios should always be OK and not lead to any of these timing issues.

[4natic]

Originally Posted by unclewebb

When overclocking, does the WinTimerTester program show both clocks running at the same speed when HPET is enabled or disabled or does it screw up no matter how this is set?

QueryPerformanceFrequency can show different values depending on whether you overclock in the bios or overclock when in Windows. Overclocking in the bios should always be OK and not lead to any of these timing issues.

all this time starting from my first post in this thread HPET was enabled, so it is has no effect.

when I change BCLK in the BIOS QueryPerformanceFrequency change it's values, when i over/downclock in windows it don't. For example, i downclocked from 150 to 133, so i have:

[unclewebb]

Thanks for all your testing. It makes it a lot easier for me to understand what's going on when people take the time to show me some numbers. I'll see if there is anything I can do to improve how RealTemp handles this Windows bug.

[Rado D]

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Good idea. The Vista Widget is somewhere on the things to do list. The latest beta has a feature where you can double left click on the GUI and shrink it down so it shows only the important information. It takes up less screen real estate but is easy to read unlike some of the widgets I've seen.

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/162/xpwidgetbg6.png

You can also drag it anywhere you want on the screen. Not as sexy as a widget but more practical and it keeps the XP guys happy.

Just want to say,without a smallest presence of buttkissing that Real Temp is one of the greatest little programs I ever used,hands down..keep it nice and simple

EDIT: Oh,by the way,when I click on show hidden icons on taskabar,Real Temp doesnt have any icon,instead there is just blank white space,just doesnt look very nice.Is that normal?..I know you can click customize hidden icons and select show Icon and notifications for Real Temp,but then it will show the icon all the time on the taskbar,right next to network connection status..but not everybody may want to have it that way.

[burebista]

Originally Posted by unclewebb

burebista: Do you remember the name of that benchmark program you found that clearly had this timing bug when overclocking?

Sure Kevin. I'll never forget this thread over HWC where you nailed down the problem.

[mdmower]

Request: Ability to disable specific C states for Intel processors in notebooks.

I know this is a bit outside the scope of this utility, but it does fall hand-in-hand with the need to monitor temperatures after such a change is made. Also, incorporating this feature into Real Temp could potentially bring hundreds (or possibly even thousands) of users to your tool.

There is an issue which has plagued many Intel based notebook computers since the introduction of the Core2Duo, and which continues today in Core iX based notebooks: a high pitch whine which seems to come from the motherboard when the CPU changes into low power states. This is not manufacturer dependent, as threads exist in support forums for Dell, Asus, Lenovo, Toshiba, etc. Dell is the only one that I know of who has admitted this to be a real problem.

Many users (including myself) previously used RMClock to disable the C4 state, but the application when out of development nearly 3 years ago. It causes freezing in Windows 7 based computers and doesn't support the Core iX series.

For more information on the issue, google "CPU whine", or "(manufacturer) CPU whine", or "disable c4 cpu". Each will pull up hundreds and hundreds of posts by users desperately seeking a solution which MIGHT be remedied by a tool which safely disables only certain C states.

[unclewebb]

Do you have this CPU whine problem and what CPU do you have in your laptop? I know about this problem and how disabling some of the C States can help out.

I'd like to add that feature but Intel does not publicly document what register in the CPU controls individual C States in the Core i CPUs and I don't have any hardware like this to test on. If you can find any documentation about this, send it my way and I'll be happy to implement it.

Can you try using my other tool ThrottleStop? I think it disables more C States than RealTemp does but without proper documentation it is mostly a guessing game.

ThrottleStop 2.90 beta 6
http://www.mediafire.com/?jdal8a26utytlum

[mdmower]

Originally Posted by unclewebb

Do you have this CPU whine problem and what CPU do you have in your laptop? I know about this problem and how disabling some of the C States can help out.

I'd like to add that feature but Intel does not publicly document what register in the CPU controls individual C States in the Core i CPUs and I don't have any hardware like this to test on. If you can find any documentation about this, send it my way and I'll be happy to implement it.

Can you try using my other tool ThrottleStop? I think it disables more C States than RealTemp does but without proper documentation it is mostly a guessing game.

ThrottleStop 2.90 beta 6
http://www.mediafire.com/?jdal8a26utytlum

I do have this problem on my Dell Inspiron 1520 (Core 2 Duo T7500). Monday, I will experiment with ThrottleStop. As for documentation, I don't know exactly what to look for, but will mere datasheets suffice, like for the Core i3?

[unclewebb]

I'm pretty sure that ThrottleStop will enable or disable the necessary C States and help you out with the CPU whine problem. Other users have had success. I thought you might have a Core i CPU which I don't have any C State documentation for. The Intel public documentation does not fully explain how to enable and disable C States. You need to be someone important and willing to sacrifice your first born to get the good documentation from Intel.

If you don't like ThrottleStop, I have another program I wrote somewhere that lets you toggle the C States individually on the Core 2 CPUs. Let me know if you are interested in that and I'll have a look for it tomorrow.

RM Clock seems to work OK on my laptop with a T8100 in Windows 7 x64. It doesn't correctly support the 0.5 multipliers but that's not an issue with your T7500 and with a RMC registry hack, that issue can be worked around. I'm a little biased so I prefer ThrottleStop but I think RMC should still be usable.

On the T7500 in your Dell, ThrottleStop lets you do fun stuff like this to gain a little extra performance.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/wind...ore-2-duo.html

Edit: Here's my old C States program.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...07/CStates.zip

As mentioned, I don't have any Intel documentation so I was kind of winging it. If it works, let me know.

[mdmower]

Thank you, I will try you C states program monday.

Actually, the reason I am re-investigating this issue is because I want to purchase an Asus U35JC-XA1, which has a Core i3. Owners have been complaining about CPU whine with it though, which is the ONLY reason I haven't purchased it yet.

[unclewebb]

The C States program is only for the Core 2 CPUs. I'm not sure what it will do on a Core i CPU.

[mdmower]

Originally Posted by unclewebb

The C States program is only for the Core 2 CPUs. I'm not sure what it will do on a Core i CPU.

Right, I understand. I mean that I will try the program on my Dell. I'm still holding out on the Asus purchase until I'm sure I can squelch the CPU whine.

[unclewebb]

I just wanted to warn other users. I know somebody, somewhere will download that and then complain that it just screwed up their Core i.

I think I wrote that before Core i existed. I tried to make it so it changes the same register that RM Clock does so if RMC works then the C States program might work too and it is Windows 7 x64 compatible.

[peterwise]

I am new to this forum, so I hope you have not discussed this before ). I did have a quick search to see).

Is there any chance of getting a version of Real Temp that displays temperatures INGAME (or in any application, of course)? As you know games, sims etc. tend to need to hog the whole screen and stay on top (even of the taskbar), so that the only way of seeing whether your CPU/GPU is overheating is by leaving, checking and re-entering. Some sims tend to crash under these circumstances. Nvidia System Monitor should be a help (though its display ingame is poorly organised, far too big and can't be configured adequately). However, more importantly, sometimes it's there ingame and sometimes it isn't (with no apparent pattern - uninitialised variables, I suppose!). I know that Nvidia System Monitor isn't displaying real temperatures, but at least one gets used to the temperatures (that it displays) at which the game/system tends to fail. However, I would really like to fine-tune my temperature monitoring AND see them ingame.

Is there any chance of a new version having this feature or even of providing a paid version (at a small price that a poverty-stricken PhD student can afford)? I believe I noticed that a similar feature had been provided before and withdrawn and have some idea of why as I am now becoming painfully aware of the problems of applications that are on-top of dialog boxes and, presumably, messages of any sort. (Also, any ideas on this one, people?*).

Peter.

(Another subject really):
* I believe I may have another reason why sims (that hog the screen on-top) fail. It may be that modal dialog boxes (that require an answer before allowing you to continue) may come up while the sim is on-top and so cannot of course be seen or answered. I have taken pains (now) to reduce any possible sources of these types of dialog boxes and it has had a beneficial effect, but they are ubiquitous these days and, if you have many programs installed, quite necessary. I used to avoid having application "starters" on the system tray, but now prefer this option because it makes it easier for their updaters to be disabled when I need to do so.

[Nailezs]

peter, your temps in game should only be an issue if you have an oc that is too extreme for your cooling. if your cpu is at stock, dont worry about the temps. and if your system is OC'ed, you should already know the max temps from stress testing.

what you can do it pay attention to the max recorded temps that realtemp provides. you can also set realtemp to sound an alarm when your cpu temps reach a certain level.
for example. i have realtemp set to sound an alarm when my cpu reaches 80c, but i know from stress testing my OC that my cpu never goes above 65c.

[unclewebb]

peter, I don't intend to add an in game feature at the present time.

Nailezs advice is excellent. It would also be a good idea to run a RealTemp log file if you suspect your CPU is getting too hot.

You might be interested in another program I wrote called ThrottleStop. It takes the alarm idea one step further and allows you to create a second profile so if your CPU gets too hot, it will automatically slow down. You get to decide what temperature is too hot, and how much you want your CPU to slow down. When the core temperature is back under your limit, it will automatically switch back to full speed without needing any user intervention after you've got this set up. Let me know if you are interested in this and need any help with it. This is going to be a nice addition to the TechPowerUp stable if I ever get it finished.

ThrottleStop 2.99.6
http://www.mediafire.com/?26tu6cjmgu8ze9a

[jaicigy]

Originally Posted by unclewebb

ThrottleStop 2.99.6
http://www.mediafire.com/?26tu6cjmgu8ze9a

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/431/ts300.png

You offer link to download Throttlestop 2.99.6. but in the picture appears version 3.00, do you have that one as well?

Regards

[unclewebb]

ThrottleStop 3.00 is still a work in progress. It won't be significantly different from the version in the above link. It takes a long time getting feedback on the new features that I'm always working on. Check TechPowerUp once a month and sooner or later I'll get version 3.00 finalized. I do good work but I'm too much of a perfectionist.

[jaicigy]

Originally Posted by unclewebb

ThrottleStop 3.00 is still a work in progress. It won't be significantly different from the version in the above link. It takes a long time getting feedback on the new features that I'm always working on. Check TechPowerUp once a month and sooner or later I'll get version 3.00 finalized. I do good work but I'm too much of a perfectionist.

I understand. Well, keep up the great work and do not let me distract you or seem impatient.

Regards

[peterwise]

Thanks for the advice on keeping it cool!

I didn't attempt to download and install ThrottleStop 2.99.6, much as I was tempted because I felt it would not solve my problem and complicate matters (and matters are complicated enough already).

I set up some real-time performance monitoring (a la MS) and ran the sim that often but not always caused the shut-down. I confess it was the "not always" bit that got me and and I think I see what's happening now.

Two of my four CPUs (0 and 1) never change temperature under normal circumstances (not even when the sim crashes out). The other two CPUs (2 and 3) tend to be up at about 69 or 70degC when it crashes (but sometimes they sit up at 70degC for hours). I suppose you could say I am half way through the RealTemp calibration to assess the TJmax. However, the differences between the pairs made the whole process somewhat impossible.

I am now convinced that the sensors for GPU0/1 are "stuck at low temperatures" as I believe the RealTemp documentation put it. When I'm stress testing the temperature (even for 0 & 1 do rise) and (amazingly) the system continues to operate (maybe the prime numbers generated by 0 and 1 are all over the shop, though). So we know the processors sensors are producing (some sort of) data for each CPU

So, here's what I think is happening.

The linearisation is not being performed on the raw data from within the processor (for 0 & 1). [Wouldn't that linearisation be done by a separate sensor (management) chip in the Intel® P43 + ICH10 Chipset? Couldn't I just replace that chip?]

Two things, at least, in my opinion, depend on good temperature data from the processor. One is that some part of the software must be making decisions on which processes to put onto which CPU (core) and, one imagines that a high temperature would be a reason for that software to choose another target. If the temperature appears lower then the CPU is targeted, so in our case, sometimes a hot CPU is loaded with more work (making it even hotter, of course). In fact, worse still, the hotter the other CPUs get the more the apparently cooler CPU will be loaded leading to a thermal shutdown. Another thing happened when I was reading up about this MS Performance Monitoring - I was reminded that in MS Task Manager, you can "set affinity" for processes to certain CPUs, so I set the affinity of the main process to the sim to use CPU2 & 3. The thing ran for hours and hours. However, to my total amazement, the temperature on the busy CPUs was lower than expected. What, when they're busier! Of course, the processor's fan takes an average of the four core temperatures and that average always looks coolish, so it doesn't run up to 100%. That's the second of the two things that, I'm suggesting, depend on good temperature data from the processor. The two together solve my quandary nicely.

So, do I have to keep tampering with each process to keep things going or in there some way I can just shut down two of my four CPUs, so they're not even considered? Does someone know the offending sensor management chip I could replace (from the chipset mentioned above)?

Also, does anyone know where I can get a more user friendly way of displaying the real-time Performance Monitoring data (.blg files) graphically? (Doing it through IE, the MS way, is OK the first time, but you loose your settings for line colour and line type (and the choice is poor) and it would be nice to tick (or check) the ones you want to view in the current session, rather than having to "redo from start" each time.

Sorry this is such a long posting, but it's such a relief because I've been fighting this problem for a year now [with some things like fans, reapplication of thermal gel and a host of temperature measurement and fan control programs (together with their bugs and workarounds) helping, but nothing actually solving the problem].

Anyway, maybe my pain will benefit someone else.

All the best,

Peter.

[rcwagner]

I was wondering if you plan to add support for the 8 cores of the Core i7 860 CPU.

[unclewebb]

Intel says the Core i7-860 has 4 cores.

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=41316

It also has hyper threading which means each core can work on two tasks at the same time but it is only a 4 core processor. RealTemp should be reporting these CPUs correctly. Post a screen shot of RealTemp if it is not.

[rcwagner]

Yes, I just realized that. I was getting confused by a desktop gadget that reports 8 cores but finally remembered this was only a 4 core machine.

Thanks for the quick reply!

Ron

[Valli]

Sorry for bugging you with this simple question:

Is it possible to somehow monitor "AMD Turion 64 x2 Mobile Technology TL-56" CPU with your awesome tool.

Help would be appreciated a lot! Thanks!

Valli