[pLuhhmm]

This is probably asked a lot, but I'm wondering if it matters which one I use anymore. IIRC, wasn't there something wrong with Realtemp a while ago? I normally just use core temp.

 

[Gunderman456]

Either or both, I also use CPUID Hardware Monitor to compare between all utilities and generally they are off from each other by a few degrees.

 

[pLuhhmm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunderman456

Either or both, I also use CPUID Hardware Monitor to compare between all utilities and generally they are off from each other by a few degrees.

Alright, thanks.

 

[unclewebb]

When a CPU is fully loaded, HWMonitor is not as accurate as RealTemp or Core Temp when it comes to determining the peak core temperature. All these programs are reading the same sensors so I am not sure what the problem is. If you are doing any full load Prime95 or Linx testing, you will be better off with either RealTemp or CoreTemp.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/622/comparisonf.png

All three monitoring programs were started before Prime 95 started.

HWMonitor is reporting 5C to 7C less than the actual peak core temperature.

 

[GeneO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by unclewebb

When a CPU is fully loaded, HWMonitor is not as accurate as RealTemp or Core Temp when it comes to determining the peak core temperature. All these programs are reading the same sensors so I am not sure what the problem is. If you are doing any full load Prime95 or Linx testing, you will be better off with either RealTemp or CoreTemp.
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/622/comparisonf.png
All three monitoring programs were started before Prime 95 started.
HWMonitor is reporting 5C to 7C less than the actual peak core temperature.

I just found out an interesting thing about Realtemp. First, I was always impressed by realtemps ability to update while running IBT where other temperature monitors could not get enough cycles to update their temperature display,

So I was getting lots of these kernel-power events when stressing my system (with prime95 or IBT):

Processor 2 was throttled by an entity other than the kernel power manager.
IA32_CLOCK_MODULATION MSR = 0x2.
Elapsed time since last event logged = 0s.
Log interval = 1000 events.

I turned off any hardware TT1 and TT2 throttling in the BIOS, and tried other things off and on but it was always there.

I finally decided it must be an application doing this and suspected it might be realtemp. Sure enough, I ran the stress test without realtemp and these events disappeared. So apparently throttles the CPU so it can update (or whatever). It doesn't make much difference in the performance, but it is good info to know,

 

[unclewebb]

RealTemp runs at a higher priority than most monitoring software. That's why it can access your temperature sensors better than the competition when IBT or Prime95 or LInX are running.
Quote:

IA32_CLOCK_MODULATION MSR = 0x2

This code means that RealTemp is making sure that Clock Modulation is disabled to ensure that your CPU is running at full speed. Clock modulation throttling is a major problem for laptops but can happen to any computer. RealTemp monitors for clock modulation throttling and reports it in the Thermal Status area. Here was my reply over on TechPowerUp. You can decide if you want to know the true status of your CPU. Most monitoring software completely ignores this major problem.

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/6/monitortest.png

Here's a good example of how various monitoring applications report clock modulation throttling.

In the top left corner, the Task Manager shows all 4 cores are fully loaded and the CPU is running at 100%. Prime95 is running on all 4 cores so that makes sense but have a closer look at the Prime95 results.

Worker #1 that is running on the first core is already on test 12 while the other 3 cores are only on test 2. There is a significant problem with this CPU that the Task Manager is completely ignoring.

Let's see what CPU-Z shows. It reports that all 4 cores are running at 4000.0 MHz. That's true but it doesn't say anything about 3 of the 4 cores being significantly throttled. HWiNFO64 tells the same story with 4 cores running at 4000 MHz. Core Temp confirms this too and also shows that the Load is 100% across all 4 cores.

Core Temp has the capability of reporting clock modulation but it only seems to check the first core. The first core of this CPU is OK so the Modulation box it shows is grayed out which would lead you to believe that the CPU is running at full speed.

RealTemp does 2 things right. It reports that at least one core is running significantly slower because Clock Modulation throttling is at 12.5%. The RealTemp Load meter shows 35%. The Task Manager load meter might claim that this CPU is running at full speed but internally, RealTemp shows that it is being throttled to a fraction of its Intel rated speed. The Prime95 results so far confirm that.

ThrottleStop goes one step further and shows exactly what the problem is. The first core is spending 100.0% of the time in the C0 state which means it is working as intended. CMod which stands for Clock Modulation is reporting 100.0 for that core which also confirms that the first core is running as it should be and it is not being throttled. The other 3 cores tell a different story. All 3 of them show serious throttling with Clock Modulation set at 12.5% and the C0% for each thread also confirms that there is some severe throttling going on within this CPU.

Kind of a long story about why RealTemp checks for Clock Modulation throttling. This was a serious issue for laptops before users had access to tools that could tell them exactly what their CPU was really doing internally. At the time, many of the popular monitoring tools could not detect this type of throttling and it looks like not much has changed in the last few years.

 

[GeneO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by unclewebb

RealTemp runs at a higher priority than most monitoring software. That's why it can access your temperature sensors better than the competition when IBT or Prime95 or LInX are running.
This code means that RealTemp is making sure that Clock Modulation is disabled to ensure that your CPU is running at full speed. Clock modulation throttling is a major problem for laptops but can happen to any computer. RealTemp monitors for clock modulation throttling and reports it in the Thermal Status area. Here was my reply over on TechPowerUp. You can decide if you want to know the true status of your CPU. Most monitoring software completely ignores this major problem.
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/6/monitortest.png
Here's a good example of how various monitoring applications report clock modulation throttling.
In the top left corner, the Task Manager shows all 4 cores are fully loaded and the CPU is running at 100%. Prime95 is running on all 4 cores so that makes sense but have a closer look at the Prime95 results.
Worker #1 that is running on the first core is already on test 12 while the other 3 cores are only on test 2. There is a significant problem with this CPU that the Task Manager is completely ignoring.
Let's see what CPU-Z shows. It reports that all 4 cores are running at 4000.0 MHz. That's true but it doesn't say anything about 3 of the 4 cores being significantly throttled. HWiNFO64 tells the same story with 4 cores running at 4000 MHz. Core Temp confirms this too and also shows that the Load is 100% across all 4 cores.
Core Temp has the capability of reporting clock modulation but it only seems to check the first core. The first core of this CPU is OK so the Modulation box it shows is grayed out which would lead you to believe that the CPU is running at full speed.
RealTemp does 2 things right. It reports that at least one core is running significantly slower because Clock Modulation throttling is at 12.5%. The RealTemp Load meter shows 35%. The Task Manager load meter might claim that this CPU is running at full speed but internally, RealTemp shows that it is being throttled to a fraction of its Intel rated speed. The Prime95 results so far confirm that.
ThrottleStop goes one step further and shows exactly what the problem is. The first core is spending 100.0% of the time in the C0 state which means it is working as intended. CMod which stands for Clock Modulation is reporting 100.0 for that core which also confirms that the first core is running as it should be and it is not being throttled. The other 3 cores tell a different story. All 3 of them show serious throttling with Clock Modulation set at 12.5% and the C0% for each thread also confirms that there is some severe throttling going on within this CPU.
Kind of a long story about why RealTemp checks for Clock Modulation throttling. This was a serious issue for laptops before users had access to tools that could tell them exactly what their CPU was really doing internally. At the time, many of the popular monitoring tools could not detect this type of throttling and it looks like not much has changed in the last few years.

Thanks for the detailed reply, I understand now how all of this is working. Realtemp is a very nice tool indeed

 

[michael-ocn]

This this is really nice to know. I had just recently noticed some Kernel-Power/Thermal-Operaional events with the IA32_CLOCK_MODULATION code in the Event Viewer and wasn't sure what to make of them, so I started another thread help me find out...
http://www.overclock.net/t/1381882/kernel-power-thermal-operaional-events-in-system-event-viewer
... and was graciously pointed over here.

Now I know to check for "Clock Modulation" on the Thermal Status section on RealTemp and to go get ThrottleStop to look closer if i ever do see that there. Thankfully, I've never seen that label when stress testing my system

But I have seen a handful (several hundred since last oct) of IA32_CLOCK_MODULATION events. I'll do some more digging about the IA32_CLOCK_MODULATION and read up on how that works out of curiosity.