Jump to content

N9ZN-Extra

Members
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About N9ZN-Extra

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. My example above was an attempt to explain why I personally might desire to disable a core. As for the logic of it all I will be the first to tell you I do not trust Intels ability to shut down a processor prior to damage as is the case with many other users. Right or wrong this is why I would take an action as described. I understand how one bad core will affect all the others in the package and is exactly why I would want to shut a bad core down manually if it were exhibiting temperature values to high for personal comfort under load. Regardless of my logic and understanding I see why this
  2. Unless I am misreading something it appears that your position and Real Temps position on temperature accuracy are inline with each other. I have no problem accepting that Intel had no reason to produce accurate temps from the sensors they have deployed and fully understand why they are not concerned about the in accuracies. It has become obvious they only need enough information to drive the formulas which control and shutdown the CPU under excess heating conditions. What does trouble me is the fact that my cores are not reported in the correct sequence and in my case why core 1 (actually co
  3. i would not expect much in the form of debate, or maybe I should say I do not expect much of a debate. As far as I am aware the discussion at Real Temp is over with all that could be said having been said (to my knowledge). I still would like to know why I see my temps out of order in AIDA64, meaning why did APIC ID rearange my core positions? There is a question I need to pose to Firey and maybe he can give me some guidance as to who to speak to next.
  4. Hard to believe you have no comments as of yet.

    I would personally like to thank you for an outstanding job of providing users with such a vast amount of critical system information. This is some of the best money spent thus far on my PC in general when I purchased AIDA64.

  5. So you will have input from the other side I am provoding a link to the thread where this was discussed with Real Temp. I myself am simply a user trying to understand what went wrong and why. If this is in error an explination of such would be greatly appreciated and certainly would promote my understanding. From what I have understood thus far the issue seem to lie with an area know as APIC ID and the core assignments within. As I understand things has nothing to do with the calculation method as much as it has everything to do with the core temperature which is being read and reported. The t
  6. Do you know if this will work with the G15 keyboard (first edition) with 18 programable keys?
  7. aida64 temps.bmp Additional information: CE1 and SpeedStep are not enabled No turbo is enabled My processor is Intel QX9650 Extreme 45nm Quad core 3.0GHz Mother Board is EVGA 790I Ultra SLI Screen shots are attached: Unfortunately I could not post the RealTemp Screen Shot as the system would not allow it (sizeing issues). NOTE: THIS IS THE SECOND CPU CORE (core 1) I AM REFERING TO WHEN CORES ARE NUMBERED FROM 0 TO 3, IN THE SCREEN SHOT YOU HAVE THIS CORE LABELED AS CORE 2. AS A SUGGESTION STICKING WITH THE INDUSTRY CONVENTIONS OF LABELING THINGS LIKE CORES AND MEMORY BANKS WOULD BE HE
  8. ON THE COMPUTER / SENSOR SCREEN I searched the forum and found no entries for this issue. While attempting to calibrate RealTemp to my processor temps I noticed that AIDA64 Version 1.20.1150 and RealTemp version 3.60 were in disagreement on the temperature of core 1 of my CPU. Core 1 is the second core of the CPU for clarification purposes. Please note no calibration has been applied to the Real Temp software at the time this was noticed, so you can rule that out. I do not know if this is an AIDA64 bug or not. If it is not an AIDA64 bug then it may be a RealTemp bug. Something I cannot dete
×
×
  • Create New...