RealTemp General Discussion

[ndepriest]

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]

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]

Try SpeedFan or HWInfo32.

[garyinhere]

it's saying my 1100t is not supported? is this something i am doing wrong? or is it really not supported?

[AthlonX2]

realtemp doesnt support any AMD cpu's use coretemp

[garyinhere]

that suks

[burebista]

Yeah it sucks but anyway AMD temps are guessed and Kevin doesn't have necessary hardware for testing.

[Decoman]

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]

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/hard...ml#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]

Originally Posted by unclewebb

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]

How can I get a graph of the temp over time, like the one that's on MSi Afterburner?

[unclewebb]

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]

Quick question-which do I use? what is the difference between real temp and real temp GT?

[unclewebb]

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]

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]

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]

Is the current version of RealTemp reading Ivy Bridge temps correctly?

[unclewebb]

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]

RealTemp 3.70 plus Ivy Bridge - is there no more option to see CPU VID or Watt ?

Any chance to bring it back?

[unclewebb]

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]

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]

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...Stop_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]

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]

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]

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!