• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Full disclosure of Intel's existing 45nm processor (DTS) specs coming (finally)

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Shiggity

Shiggity

Member
​
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Location
Chicago, IL
http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=478

We met with Intel today and have some interesting IDF (Intel Developer Forum) 2008 news. IDF is scheduled this year for August 18 - 21 in San Francisco. It is shaping up to be an exciting event for those tech geeks like us as X58/i7, Larrabee, and System on Chip (SoC) technologies will be discussed in detail among other things. We learned this afternoon that full disclosure of Intel's existing 45nm processor Digital Thermal Sensor (DTS) specification will be presented on Day 3. This 50-minute technical presentation on DTS (course #TMTS001) will start at 1:40 pm. A complete schedule of events can be found by visiting Intel’s official IDF website.


Benson Inkley, a senior power/thermal engineer with Intel, is prepared to address nearly every aspect of DTS functionality for the attendees. However, perhaps the biggest surprise to come out of his presentation will be the first-ever public disclosure of the maximum Tjunction value for all Core 2 Duo/Quad/Extreme desktop processors built on current 45nm-process technology.


Armed with this information, seasoned application developers and amateur coders alike will finally have everything they need to implement the most accurate, real-time core temperature display tool possible. We discussed this topic in our Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 review back in March 2008, except our discussion left quite a few unanswered questions flapping in the breeze. Come next Thursday, anyone walking out of Mr. Inkley's technical session will have all the knowledge needed to lay any longstanding DTS questions to rest.


We applaud Intel for recognizing the enthusiast community’s interest in this subject. Overclockers, performance enthusiasts, and everyday users will finally be able to monitor their CPU’s individual core temperatures without wondering if the reported results are accurate or not. Check back here on Thursday, August 18, for a detailed update on DTS.
Click to expand...

No more being unsure of your true temps on your wolfdale and Penryns, yay ;)
 
Finally, according to Coretemp I should be IDLING at 60 degrees which just isn't possible.
 
That's why I switched to using Real temp on my 45 nm proc. The guy who wrote Real Temp has done extensive testing to back his choices of TjMax.
 
I trust Realtemp, period. The TJ Max figures and the distance to TJmax figures are all relative. if you set TJ max at 150f and your distance is 30c from TJ max is 30c it doesn't mean that because you are 30c from that you're fine. Likewise, if it's set at 80c and you are 20c from TJ max at full load it doesn't mean that it's a bad temp. It seems so ridiculous to me to go from distance to a number you claim to be wrong TJ max. The math adds up, end of story. I never understood all the contradiction, but I figured people know more than me and if they say so, so it is, but the math never added up to me.
 
Neural Net said:
To what?! Shall I just start making up my own temps? :p
Click to expand...

RealTemp's Tjmax is probably the best guess we'll get. The developer of RealTemp ran his CPU without a heatsink and used a handheld thermometer to measure temps while he did things to get the cpu to throttle itself and send out PROCHOT.

So don't make up your own, use existing educated guesses.
 
Well, soon enough the writers of Real Temp, Core Temp and Speedfan will all be able to be just as accurate as each other in temp monitoring. It's about time that Intel coughed up the numbers for us.
 
Neural Net said:
To what?! Shall I just start making up my own temps? :p
Click to expand...
well people complain that CT has a different TJ then RT so, ADJUST IT TO RT!!!! :beer: i have been saying this for ages now... when TJ is adjusted to match RT both give the same readings, the bonus side is that with CT you dont have to calibrate anything but you do with RT. the only things i look at are distance to TJ numbers and both CT/RT give the same reading no matter what the TJ max is.
 
muddocktor said:
Well, soon enough the writers of Real Temp, Core Temp and Speedfan will all be able to be just as accurate as each other in temp monitoring. It's about time that Intel coughed up the numbers for us.
Click to expand...

True that. It is actually RIDICULOUS that Intel let this go this far....it was not handled well....I am wondering if even THEY knew what the temps should be...
 
Stilletto said:
True that. It is actually RIDICULOUS that Intel let this go this far....it was not handled well....I am wondering if even THEY knew what the temps should be...
Click to expand...

*puts finger on cpu ihs* yea thats to hot.... lets just make some numbers up, its good enough.
 
Evilsizer said:
*puts finger on cpu ihs* yea thats to hot.... lets just make some numbers up, its good enough.
Click to expand...

LOL:D Well, I mean really, how hard would it have been to say, "here's a temp that we say DO NOT GO PAST." Instead, they come up with TJmax and distance to TJmax and all of that unnecessary jargon. I know it is enginering in action, but c'mon...at what temps do your CPU's take damage?:bang head
 
Evilsizer said:
well people complain that CT has a different TJ then RT so, ADJUST IT TO RT!!!! :beer: i have been saying this for ages now... when TJ is adjusted to match RT both give the same readings, the bonus side is that with CT you dont have to calibrate anything but you do with RT. the only things i look at are distance to TJ numbers and both CT/RT give the same reading no matter what the TJ max is.
Click to expand...

Yup. Agreed on the first part.

From XS:
Originally Posted by fatguy1992 View Post
I get the same thing as u do, real temps allway being 5C lower. I trust core temp and everest, its safer. Plus 2 programs vs. one.
Click to expand...

Ol'Baditude said:
Set your TJMax in Everest and CoreTemp to 95 Deg to match RealTemp. See what happens.

At 3.6GHz/1.4Vand full load under Air, RealTemp should be reading accurately regardless of whether or not you did the idle calibration. So should everest and CoreTemp for that matter. In this case, if you have changed TJMax to 95 Deg in Everest and CoreTemp, all three programs should be reading within a degree of each other. Idle may be a different story.

allthree2wx9.png

allthree2loadck3.png


Now I'm a fan of Everest, I use it every day. And coretemp has always been a standby. But to date, the soundest theory and best explanation and documentation come out of the RealTemp corner IMO.
Click to expand...

But I wouldn't necessarily say that the bonus side of CT is that you don't need to do a calibration. It's more like no one does a calibration and it doesn't really let you do a calibration. Some CPU's, depending on whether or not they are 45nm or 65nm, quad or dual, are going to possibly need a positive or negative offset to help them read accurately.
I mean, when reading an idle temp with any processor, there is just as much chance of being out of whack at low voltage idle on CT as there is on RT.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mackerel
Relative IPC and efficiency of some Intel CPUs in Cinebench R15
Replies
3
Views
181
mackerel
mackerel
Johan45
FEATURED The 4X4 Summer Showdown!
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
9K
EarthDog
EarthDog
mackerel
Skylake vs Zen vs Zen+, HT/SMT
Replies
1
Views
2K
makaka
makaka
B
Think "Zen" will affect intel's pricing scheme?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
3K
EarthDog
EarthDog
D
Time to finally start piecing together a new build
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
dudleycpa
dudleycpa
Back