incorrect temp reading with q9540 and ct 0.96.1

graysky · Post by **graysky** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:03 am

I've read about others reporting that ct 0.96.1 (or any other app for that matter) doesn't read the temps correctly. Are the incorrect readings in a q9450 a function of the software, or hardware (the chip)?

Post by **The Coolest** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:51 pm

It's a hardware problem

graysky · Post by **graysky** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:11 pm

Wow that sucks... I am itching to pick up a Q9450 too.

Post by **The Coolest** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 2:49 am

Although this is a rather annoying "feature" of 45nm, but these CPUs truely kick ass. I don't think that you should avoid the chip due to a possible DTS malfunction.

graysky · Post by **graysky** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Have a look at this post wherein "real temp" has been publicly released. They claim that Coretemp is to blame for some temp issues.

graysky · Post by **graysky** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:10 pm

coolest - you'll probably wanna read all 4 pages of this thread:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/sho ... p?t=179044

Post by **The Coolest** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:45 am

Thanks,
I went over the thread and I can't see how he can determine the real TjMax using an external thermal device, that makes little sense as the cores are covered by an IHS, and TjMax is the value for the core's internal temperature.
I'm not saying he's wrong, he might well be right, but you can never be too sure.

Either way it's always good to give the user more choice in regards of software selection and let people chose what fits them best.

I'm going for simplicity and usability. Run it and viola, you're good to go.
I don't like the way you must manually install the driver he supplies prior to first use, not everyone would want to go through that to get a simple program working. On the other hand, I do agree that using a 3rd party driver does cut down on development time. I don't really have to mess with my driver anymore, I probably didn't have to touch the actual source code for well over a year.

Time will tell if he has success with his tool, congrats goes out to him for the effort.

graysky · Post by **graysky** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:01 pm

I just wanted to you be aware of it so if true, you could adjust CT accordingly. I was also hoping you might download his util to compare it to CT and verify that CT is on the money with these newer chips.

Post by **The Coolest** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:23 pm

Well I only have a B2 E6400... Both software report TjMax of 85C for these.
The guy just hardcoded TjMax of 95C for the CPUs in his program.

graysky · Post by **graysky** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:26 am

Cool. I understand your point about using an external thermometer and that there has to be some difference between the actual core temp and the temp of the surface of the IHS. If you read through unclewebb's intro, he points out that intel doesn't publish tjmax for c2d and c2q chips... if that is true, where did you get them for ct?

Post by **The Coolest** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:09 pm

Yes, that's what Intel says.
As there's no better way to determin what TjMax the processor has, I have decided to fallback on the same procedure as used for the mobile processors.