Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › TSK's Crazy Theory on TJmax and the DTS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

TSK's Crazy Theory on TJmax and the DTS - Page 8

post #71 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikemoon07 View Post
dunno if this will help anything but this is what im seeing on my Q6600 B3 at 3006Mhz
Why is that wrong? Based on what? You don't list any details like your ambient conditions.

I had this argument with another Q6600 B3 owner and after he dropped his processor down to low MHz and low volts, it was obvious that TjMax=85C was correct for his B3. A B3 quad is two B2 Core2Duo processors side by side which both have a TjMax=85C. You need to do some testing before you can jump to any conclusions about what program is closer to the truth.
post #72 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb View Post
I'm afraid GigaByte that you are wrong about your M0 and all your posts only prove that to me.

First thing is you can't base any of your arguments on what the TCase temperature is being displayed as. That sensor is not calibrated or proven to be 100% accurate across its entire operating range. Unless you have some way to prove the calibration accuracy of that sensor then you can't use its data in any argument, either for or against. Just because a sensor gives you numbers that look believable does not make those readings proven accurate.

The most important data you have shown is that when you reduce the MHz and core voltage and let your processor idle, the reported core temperature based on TjMax=85C is a couple of degrees below ambient. That is normal behavior for idle temps based on the DTS. The DTS does not follow a linear line from idle to TjMax. They all diverge at low idle temps. Some start reading too high and some start reading too low. I first noticed this with my original E6400 Conroe core. It too can report idle temps below ambient. This is not a new problem with the introduction of the 45nm chips. It has been around since day 1 and it wasn't until about the time my program surfaced that Intel finally admitted to this. Head to Anandtech and read their most recent E8500 45nm story.

If you head over to XS you can also read the posts by rge who has done plenty of research to back up my findings that IR readings at idle on the IHS are almost exactly equal to the true core temperature of the CPU and within the +/- 1C accuracy of my Fluke. This is fact and has been proven in testing by Intel.

I released version 2.2 of RealTemp and I've set TjMax=85C for the M0 processors. You can keep using version 2.11 if you disagree or you can download version 2.2 and in the RealTemp.ini file you can set TjMax=2 which will boost TjMax up by 10C back to 95C. This might make you feel good but it is not accurate. Leaving TjMax=85C and using the (++) Idle Calibration will give you very accurate temps from ambient to beyond TjMax.

Will your temps be perfect at idle? Of course not. The DTS is simply not 100% accurate down low. My Idle Calibration will get you in the ball park though and your reported temps will be more accurate across the entire operating range than what any other core temperature software is providing.

Head to XS and read post#1 and you can also download from there.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=179044
If you go through the guide at TomsHardware you will find out if you Tcase is calibrated or not, a calibrated Tcase should be 0.5 - 1c above ambient which mine is in the pics shown to you. You say using ++ idle calibration will "fix" my idle temps, it does not change my temps, it changes the displayed number and certainly does not change my load temps that have cores 5c below Tcase. So in reality its really forcing the program to say my idles are higher than they really are. While the idle calibration MAY be good for Wolfdales (as there is NO valid proof from Intel) it is not for 65nms.

Iam pretty much out of things to say or show, you have all the info you need. 85c Tj max is only on L2 and B2 steppings, but if every processor is 85c Tj max to you (even QUADS...) then thats your decision.. its your software so do what you want. I just feel people need to know that it is incorrect to have all those other steppings at 85c Tj max so they won't be so alarmed when they see their abnormal low temps with idle AND load. I think selectable Tj max will only fuel the Tj max battle but thats just my opinion on it. Iam done.. for now anyway.. when people ask about their temps I will post my side of it, feel free to post yours as well.
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 6700k @ 4.5 GHz Asus Sabertooth Z170 S ZOTAC GTX 1070 AMP! 8GB G.SKILL Ripjaws V 16GB DDR4 2400 @ 2800 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung SM951 256GB NVMe Samsung 850 EVO 1TB Toshiba 2TB 7.2K RPM Silicon Power S60 120GB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D15S Windows 10 Pro x64 Acer G257HU Logitech G910 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
EVGA SuperNOVA 750W G2 Cooler Master HAF XB EVO Steelseries Rival Some cheap generic crap 
AudioAudio
Asus Xonar DGX Kingston HyperX Cloud Revolver 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 4710MQ Eurocom X3 R2/Clevo P157SM-A GeForce GTX 965M 4GB @ 1178/1353 MHz 16GB DDR3L 1866 @ 2133 11-11-11-31-2T 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
[SSD] Mushkin ECO2 240GB [HDD] HGST 1TB 7.2K RPM SATA III Stock Windows 10 Pro x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
15.6" 1080P LCD Stock Stock 180W Stock 
MouseAudio
Touchpad/Microsoft Optical Mouse Sound Blaster X-Fi MB3 
  hide details  
Reply
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 6700k @ 4.5 GHz Asus Sabertooth Z170 S ZOTAC GTX 1070 AMP! 8GB G.SKILL Ripjaws V 16GB DDR4 2400 @ 2800 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung SM951 256GB NVMe Samsung 850 EVO 1TB Toshiba 2TB 7.2K RPM Silicon Power S60 120GB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D15S Windows 10 Pro x64 Acer G257HU Logitech G910 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
EVGA SuperNOVA 750W G2 Cooler Master HAF XB EVO Steelseries Rival Some cheap generic crap 
AudioAudio
Asus Xonar DGX Kingston HyperX Cloud Revolver 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 4710MQ Eurocom X3 R2/Clevo P157SM-A GeForce GTX 965M 4GB @ 1178/1353 MHz 16GB DDR3L 1866 @ 2133 11-11-11-31-2T 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
[SSD] Mushkin ECO2 240GB [HDD] HGST 1TB 7.2K RPM SATA III Stock Windows 10 Pro x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
15.6" 1080P LCD Stock Stock 180W Stock 
MouseAudio
Touchpad/Microsoft Optical Mouse Sound Blaster X-Fi MB3 
  hide details  
Reply
post #73 of 82
Some of the stuff posted by Computronix is simply not true:

Quote:
If Core temperatures increase further to Tjunction Max, then Shutdown occurs.
Thermal shut down does not occur at TjMax. The Mobile Core2Duo processors that have an Intel documented TjMax=100C also have a documented shut down temperature of 125C. The desktop processors are not documented but they too will continue to run at temperatures well beyond TjMax.

Going through the guide at Tom's Hardware does not guarantee that your reported TCase temperatures exactly track the actual TCase temperatures across the entire operating range from idle to TjMax.

The quoted difference between TCase and core temperature at an idle steady state and at load both go against Intel's own in house testing of this. There are too many discrepancies in Computronix findings.

All programs agree that TjMax=85C for the original Conroe E6x00 series like my E6400. I have measured my E6400 and that seems to be 100% true. Only problem is that at idle, my E6400 will report temperatures below ambient which is exactly what your processor does when you use a TjMax=85C value.

Here's my explanation of what I've measured:



You're saying that with your processor you can set TjMax=95C and you will have accurate temps from idle to TjMax. I have now tried three completely different core processors, 45nm and 65nm, and none of them have DTS data that is changing at the exact same rate that the core temperature is changing at. They all follow that graph above where the farther you move away from TjMax, the more the measured temperature diverges from the reported core temperature.

From Anandtech:
Moreover, Intel representatives have informed us that these as-of-yet unpublished Tjunction values may actually vary from model to model - sometimes even between different steppings - and that the temperature response curves may not be entirely accurate across the whole reporting range.

That is exactly what I have measured and that is exactly what the Idle Calibration feature in RealTemp was designed to correct. By using a perfectly linear model from Idle to TjMax, all the other core temperature monitoring programs like CoreTemp, SpeedFan and Everest are all ignoring the response curve of the DTS.

All I can say is keep an open mind and try to find a friend with an accurate IR thermometer. RealTemp was designed to explain what I have measured. No other software gives me accurate core temps from idle to TjMax. Users that disagree with my interpretation of what the DTS sensor does at idle can still use RealTemp and set TjMax to whatever they believe is true. Adding
TjMax=2

to the RealTemp.ini file will boost TjMax two 5 degree notches from 85C to 95C and if you believe your B3 is TjMax=100C and not TjMax=85C then use
TjMax=3

to boost it by three notches or 15C.

Gigabyte: Why not set TjMax=85C for your processor and then set the Idle Calibration to (++) and show us your idle temps. They should be very close to your actual core temperature and at low MHz and low voltage, should be a few degrees above your ambient temperature. Make sure your ambient temperature is accurate. A home thermostat reading does not always equal the air temperature in a different room, especially at a different height.

Intel Core Temp Info:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0709/0709.1861.pdf

More Additional Info:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=319
post #74 of 82
Thread Starter 
hey, sorry guys for not posting lately in here...school is killer, but now since im on spring break...yay.
I should be posting some more ideas around in here soon!

bump anyways
PURE ACTION!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X4 955 GA-990XA-UD3 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 Corsair  
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
Corsair  2x500GB 7200.11 RAID 0 + 320GB 7200.11 1x DVD Windows 7 x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
22" Acer WS Logitech Ergo 700W OCZ GameXstream Antec 300 
Mouse
MX-600 
  hide details  
Reply
PURE ACTION!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X4 955 GA-990XA-UD3 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 Corsair  
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
Corsair  2x500GB 7200.11 RAID 0 + 320GB 7200.11 1x DVD Windows 7 x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
22" Acer WS Logitech Ergo 700W OCZ GameXstream Antec 300 
Mouse
MX-600 
  hide details  
Reply
post #75 of 82
Don't worry TheSubtleKnife. I've been working hard today gathering data.

Here is my latest guinea pig, an E2160 Revision M0.



Intel has a habit of creating one processor model and then making some slight changes to the basic design so they can create additional models for different price points without having to do a total redesign. The E4x00 series with 2MB of cache gets half of that disabled and then becomes processors like my E2160 with 1MB cache. They then cut the cache in half again and create things like the E1200 M0 which has only 512KB of cache. They all have the same CPUID. Some people believe that this is a way for Intel to sell defective processors. If the cache has a defect, they can disable half or three-quarters of it and still sell it as a lower end model and make some money.

So my theory is that all M0 processors start life as the same basic processor with the same TjMax. As they go down the assembly line, the multiplier and VID and cache are adjusted which creates a variety of models. These different models get stamped and shoved into the appropriate box but beneath the skin they are all quite similar.

GigaByte has brought up some troubling findings that need to be addressed. His M0 processor when using RealTemp's new TjMax=85C is reporting below ambient core temperatures at idle which everyone knows is impossible. When this same situation originally happened with the L2 - E4300 series, the solution CoreTemp came up with was to bump TjMax from 85C to 100C. Changing the TjMax will cure below ambient idle temps but it also screws up your load temps by +15C if the TjMax really isn't 100C. Not good.

The goal of RealTemp was to convert the on chip DTS data to accurate core temperatures. When I first got my E2160 installed and ran RealTemp v2.11, it was immediately obvious that TjMax=95C was wrong for my new processor. I quickly changed that to TjMax=85C for RealTemp v2.2 based on my IR thermometer testing.

With GigaByte strongly objecting to this change in TjMax, I decided I needed to re-do my E2160 testing. I recorded the IR thermometer reading and then immediately after I took a picture of the screen to compare it to what RealTemp was reporting. I'll start with a lot of pictures taken at different temperatures to compare IR gun temps to what RealTemp reports. I have cropped the original pictures down to size to make them easier to upload. I have also kept the original pictures which are all time stamped showing that the video screen shot was generally taken 2 or 3 seconds after the IR picture. It took me a couple of seconds to reposition the camera, refocus and shoot. If anyone is suspicious that my image gathering technique was done to make RealTemp look better then I have the originals that I can e-mail to you so you can check the file creation time stamp on them.

Anyway, here goes. In each group you have the IR measured temp followed by the RealTemp reported temp. Idle Calibration was set to (+) but that feature doesn't effect temperatures in this range.

IR Temp = 50.6C

RealTemp = 50C


IR Temp = 55.4C

RealTemp = 54C / 55C


IR Temp = 65.8C

RealTemp = 67C


IR Temp = 70.6C

RealTemp = 70C / 72C


I think everyone will agree that there is a very strong correlation between IR thermometer measured temperatures and what RealTemp is reporting for core temperatures. The upper range looks good and shows that TjMax=85C for my M0 processor looks like a wise choice.

Now it's time to look at the low end using the same TjMax=85C. With the Idle Calibration set to (+), you'll also see how that effects reported temperatures. I've included pictures of SpeedFan since it uses TjMax=85C for the M0 processors but doesn't have RealTemp's Idle feature so you can compare.

IR Temp = 27.8C

RealTemp = 27C SpeedFan = 25C CPU = 40C


On this processor SpeedFan, without the Idle Calibration feature, is reporting core temperatures that are a little too low. This is common on the original B2 processors, definitely the L2 processors like the E4300 and now also on the M0 processors. The other thing to note is the CPU temperature which is from a diode on the motherboard. On this Asus board, it has nothing to do with the actual TCase temperature of this processor and is completely wrong.

IR Temp = 31.8C

RealTemp = 32C SpeedFan = 29C


IR Temp = 34.0C

RealTemp = 34C SpeedFan = 32C


IR Temp = 41.0C

RealTemp = 40C SpeedFan = 39C


Once again there is a strong correlation between IR temperatures and what RealTemp is reporting. A properly chosen Idle Correction factor is also helping to make these reported temps spot on.

Everything is looking good so far but now it's time to investigate if my idle temperatures are being reported below the ambient temperature like GigaByte has found.

For this test I've reset the Idle Calibration to 0. I turned off my computer in my very cool basement and let it sit. It was left in Stand By mode for a few hours so when I turned it back on I could immediately see the reported core temperature before it had a chance to warm up too much.

I had a notepad sitting beside the computer which I used to record a room temperature of 11.2C.


Here it is. With no Idle correction factor, RealTemp is reporting 8C for the core temperature now.


RealTemp, uncorrected, is reporting this M0 E2160 3 degrees below the ambient temperature. This is exactly the same as what you discovered GigaByte. You were operating your E4500 at 0.90 volts vs 1.08 volts during my testing. Heat output of a processor is proportional to the square of voltage so your CPU was putting out approximately 70% of the heat energy as my processor and one of your cores was reporting that it was at 4C below your ambient temperature.

GigaByte, can you now see how the DTS is not linear. Without an Idle correction factor, these CPUs will report idle temperatures that are too low and impossible. That does not imply that TjMax is wrong. My testing makes it perfectly clear that TjMax=85C is definitely right for my M0 processor and our combined testing shows that our processors are behaving identically by both reporting below ambient idle temperatures.

Your correction to adjust the TjMax upward 10C to 95C will only make all of your load temperatures wrong. For accurate reported temperatures that cover the entire operating range of a processor, you need an Idle Calibration correction factor.

Down at this temperature, RealTemp uses a correction factor of 4 degrees which makes the reported idle temperatures much more accurate.



A 4 degree correction would bring the previous 8C uncorrected reading up to 12C which is above my ambient temperature of 11C. The RealTemp reading may not be 100% correct but it is definitely very close to the actual core temperature of this processor. Closer than any other core tempreature software available. RealTemp, when properly calibrated, is very accurate from idle to TjMax and beyond.
post #76 of 82
IR gun is not getting DTS temp its getting Tcase or even a little cooler than that. Tcase is always lower than Tjunction, now that you are viewing Tjunction with 85c Tj max its getting shown lower than normal. Heat orignates in the cores right where the DTS is, thats why they are ALWAYS hotter. If there was a way for an IR gun to get a temp reading right where the DTS is then it would be more accurate, but we all know we can't do that. The heat from the cores is speading throughout the die, then into the IHS then to your IR gun. Do you really think by the time the heat reaches the IR gun its going to be the same as the cores?

This is where and why the 5c (+/-3c) delta comes in, if I was to measure the temp half a meter above a fire it will sure be cooler than measuring the temp inside the fire assuming if my hand and my measuring device didn't melt.
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 6700k @ 4.5 GHz Asus Sabertooth Z170 S ZOTAC GTX 1070 AMP! 8GB G.SKILL Ripjaws V 16GB DDR4 2400 @ 2800 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung SM951 256GB NVMe Samsung 850 EVO 1TB Toshiba 2TB 7.2K RPM Silicon Power S60 120GB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D15S Windows 10 Pro x64 Acer G257HU Logitech G910 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
EVGA SuperNOVA 750W G2 Cooler Master HAF XB EVO Steelseries Rival Some cheap generic crap 
AudioAudio
Asus Xonar DGX Kingston HyperX Cloud Revolver 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 4710MQ Eurocom X3 R2/Clevo P157SM-A GeForce GTX 965M 4GB @ 1178/1353 MHz 16GB DDR3L 1866 @ 2133 11-11-11-31-2T 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
[SSD] Mushkin ECO2 240GB [HDD] HGST 1TB 7.2K RPM SATA III Stock Windows 10 Pro x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
15.6" 1080P LCD Stock Stock 180W Stock 
MouseAudio
Touchpad/Microsoft Optical Mouse Sound Blaster X-Fi MB3 
  hide details  
Reply
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 6700k @ 4.5 GHz Asus Sabertooth Z170 S ZOTAC GTX 1070 AMP! 8GB G.SKILL Ripjaws V 16GB DDR4 2400 @ 2800 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung SM951 256GB NVMe Samsung 850 EVO 1TB Toshiba 2TB 7.2K RPM Silicon Power S60 120GB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D15S Windows 10 Pro x64 Acer G257HU Logitech G910 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
EVGA SuperNOVA 750W G2 Cooler Master HAF XB EVO Steelseries Rival Some cheap generic crap 
AudioAudio
Asus Xonar DGX Kingston HyperX Cloud Revolver 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 4710MQ Eurocom X3 R2/Clevo P157SM-A GeForce GTX 965M 4GB @ 1178/1353 MHz 16GB DDR3L 1866 @ 2133 11-11-11-31-2T 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
[SSD] Mushkin ECO2 240GB [HDD] HGST 1TB 7.2K RPM SATA III Stock Windows 10 Pro x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
15.6" 1080P LCD Stock Stock 180W Stock 
MouseAudio
Touchpad/Microsoft Optical Mouse Sound Blaster X-Fi MB3 
  hide details  
Reply
post #77 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by GigaByte View Post
IR gun is not getting DTS temp its getting Tcase or even a little cooler than that. Tcase is always lower than Tjunction, now that you are viewing Tjunction with 85c Tj max its getting shown lower than normal. Heat orignates in the cores right where the DTS is, thats why they are ALWAYS hotter. If there was a way for an IR gun to get a temp reading right where the DTS is then it would be more accurate, but we all know we can't do that. The heat from the cores is speading throughout the die, then into the IHS then to your IR gun. Do you really think by the time the heat reaches the IR gun its going to be the same as the cores?

This is where and why the 5c (+/-3c) delta comes in, if I was to measure the temp half a meter above a fire it will sure be cooler than measuring the temp inside the fire assuming if my hand and my measuring device didn't melt.
According to intel documents, at idle, even at temps up to 93% of tjmax, temp of cores = tdiode/tcase, the gradient is less than 0.1C, ie near zero. To deny this assumes you know more than the intel engineers that designed and thoroughly tested the chips under very controlled conditions. See figure 5 or attached pic. In fact nearly 1/3 of programs have gradient less than 1C. Only when running stress programs like TAT does the 5C max gradient occur.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0709/0709.1861.pdf

The temp gradient across the IHS, and die attach adhesive (tim1) is less than 0.2C, even at 68C, at low load steady state.
http://www.flomerics.com/flotherm/te...apers/t324.pdf

I think your issue is that you believe your diode temp to be correct and very accurate (though intel does not, hence they abandoned them), and therefore you are assuming tjmax of 85 is incorrect.

There are two possibilities, 1) your chip has a different tjmax than unclewebbs, or more likely 2) your diode chip is reading incorrectly, despite your calibration. DTS sensors are read directly from the chip, and not prone to error from interpretation. Diodes are not read directly, a mobo chip interprets electrical signals from the diode and the readings are subject to all kinds of error, including incorrect calibration in bios (regardless of your calibration), signal noise, etc. Also like DTS sensors, often the diodes may only be accurate in 60-100C range, and read way high or low in ambient range (nonlinear scaling), and thus calibrating cpu diode at ambient can induce a 5-10C error on top of other error. Intel lists these issues as one of their main reasons for abandoning diode temps in favor of DTS, in addition to the hot spot/5C gradient UNDER TAT LIKE/ENCODING type loads.

The only way you will be 100% sure whether your chip has an inaccurate diode versus different tjmax, is to measure same way unclewebb did, but I would bet on your diode is not reading accurately.

You are assuming calibrating a diode is a science. It is a guessing game, one I play myself, but would quickly reject if conflicted with more accurate core reading based on IHS calibration as above. The only science is measuring Tcase at idle steady state, undervolted and underclocked, and having intel documents back that up as valid for measuring core temps.

Also, if your chip has both a diode and a DTS, then above document tells you your diode to DTS delta should be 5C at full TAT load, and no more. If it were me, I would calibrate CPU based on that, and if it does not look ok at ambients, assume it is nonlinear, but the curiosity would get to me, I would have to measure myself.
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6900K 4.4ghz  MSI X99A Krait Titan XP Gskill 32GB 3200 C14 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 960 Pro 1TB OS Samsung 850 pro 1TB games D5, XT45 280 rad, Nemesis 280 rad,  Windows 10 64bit 
MonitorPowerCase
Acer Predator XB271HU 144hz Seasonic Prime Titanium 850 Fractal Design R5 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6900K 4.4ghz  MSI X99A Krait Titan XP Gskill 32GB 3200 C14 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 960 Pro 1TB OS Samsung 850 pro 1TB games D5, XT45 280 rad, Nemesis 280 rad,  Windows 10 64bit 
MonitorPowerCase
Acer Predator XB271HU 144hz Seasonic Prime Titanium 850 Fractal Design R5 
  hide details  
Reply
post #78 of 82
opt33: Thank-you for saving me a lot of writing. I have no idea why people continue to bring up TCase vs core temperature gradient arguments when that goes completely against the controlled testing done by Intel engineers using the best of equipment. People that don't read, don't understand or choose to ignore the published data by Intel are not basing their arguments on the facts.

Thanks GigaByte for forcing me to fully investigate my E2160. It will be much easier now for other users who see this to come to their own conclusions about TjMax.
post #79 of 82
You had to use an idle offset to get the temps to match, doing that already shows there is a problem here. On a system with a proper Tj max being read there will be no problems with core temp being below ambient, simply forcing a temp monitoring program to show a higher number does not fix it. Its showing like that in the first place because the Tj max its using is incorrect. The only time when the IR gun can be used as 100% accurate proof is when you measure the temp while RealTemp shows 8c while your ambient is 11c.

opt33, I am not arguing against the documents, as they are for mobile processors and as we can see alot of info in there does NOT apply to desktop versions, like the Tj max on mobiles.

This pic that was taken from the 2nd lin perfectly shows what I am trying to say, the yelllow - red spot perfectly represents the heat orignating from the cores, measuring anywhere else will get you a lower temp as a delta will be in effect:

     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 6700k @ 4.5 GHz Asus Sabertooth Z170 S ZOTAC GTX 1070 AMP! 8GB G.SKILL Ripjaws V 16GB DDR4 2400 @ 2800 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung SM951 256GB NVMe Samsung 850 EVO 1TB Toshiba 2TB 7.2K RPM Silicon Power S60 120GB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D15S Windows 10 Pro x64 Acer G257HU Logitech G910 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
EVGA SuperNOVA 750W G2 Cooler Master HAF XB EVO Steelseries Rival Some cheap generic crap 
AudioAudio
Asus Xonar DGX Kingston HyperX Cloud Revolver 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 4710MQ Eurocom X3 R2/Clevo P157SM-A GeForce GTX 965M 4GB @ 1178/1353 MHz 16GB DDR3L 1866 @ 2133 11-11-11-31-2T 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
[SSD] Mushkin ECO2 240GB [HDD] HGST 1TB 7.2K RPM SATA III Stock Windows 10 Pro x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
15.6" 1080P LCD Stock Stock 180W Stock 
MouseAudio
Touchpad/Microsoft Optical Mouse Sound Blaster X-Fi MB3 
  hide details  
Reply
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 6700k @ 4.5 GHz Asus Sabertooth Z170 S ZOTAC GTX 1070 AMP! 8GB G.SKILL Ripjaws V 16GB DDR4 2400 @ 2800 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung SM951 256GB NVMe Samsung 850 EVO 1TB Toshiba 2TB 7.2K RPM Silicon Power S60 120GB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D15S Windows 10 Pro x64 Acer G257HU Logitech G910 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
EVGA SuperNOVA 750W G2 Cooler Master HAF XB EVO Steelseries Rival Some cheap generic crap 
AudioAudio
Asus Xonar DGX Kingston HyperX Cloud Revolver 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 4710MQ Eurocom X3 R2/Clevo P157SM-A GeForce GTX 965M 4GB @ 1178/1353 MHz 16GB DDR3L 1866 @ 2133 11-11-11-31-2T 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
[SSD] Mushkin ECO2 240GB [HDD] HGST 1TB 7.2K RPM SATA III Stock Windows 10 Pro x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
15.6" 1080P LCD Stock Stock 180W Stock 
MouseAudio
Touchpad/Microsoft Optical Mouse Sound Blaster X-Fi MB3 
  hide details  
Reply
post #80 of 82
The problem is that you can not use a single TjMax value and have accurate core temperatures from Idle to TjMax. Why? Because the data coming from the DTS is not changing at the exact same rate that core temperatures are changing at. Intel has confirmed this and the testing I've done certainly confirms this. As soon as you move approximately 35 degrees away from TjMax it becomes very obvious that the calibration Intel did to the DTS at TjMax is no longer in effect.

The Idle Calibration feature is a band-aid, I agree. You can not "fix" a DTS sensor that puts out data that is not linear but you can adjust the readings so they better represent the real core temperature. Trying to fix this problem by adjusting TjMax higher than it actually is will lead to far more errors in reported temperatures across the entire operating range.

Quote:
opt33, I am not arguing against the documents,
But you are. Intel found that Core processors at idle, where I do my testing, do not have the temperature gradients that your picture would lead people to believe and the delta between TCase and core temperature is next to nothing at an idle steady state. It's well within the +/- 1C accuracy of the Fluke IR thermometer I'm using as well as within the accuracy of the DTS itself.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › TSK's Crazy Theory on TJmax and the DTS