Announcement

**Lsdmeasap** · 09-29-2008, 10:32 AM

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

RealTemp is VERY accurate, here you can see it's programming progress/process and images and testing methods along with Beta Builds often posted as the progress continues >>>
Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors - XtremeSystems Forums

I do not remember what page the Author shows his test setup and how he measured things to verify but it is in there, somewhere in 94 pages.

I have been using this since day one long ago.

**Merman** · 09-29-2008, 10:33 AM

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

Originally posted by VorLonUK View Post

So hopefully this RealTemp program (depending on accuracy) might give some insight as to what peoples CPU's actually run at behind the scenes - so to speak.

You can ask him as he is very accessible but I think the program is just reading the Bios info. My F7 bios had 1.15v and now F8 has 1.225v as the Normal CPU Vcore in MIT and that is what Real Temps has reported for me.

Same with Core Temp. Though it reported 1.0375 and now 1.225.

Only Everest has stayed the same in the Overclock screen with Core Voltage at 1.038 but right now its alternating between 1.038 and 1.113???

CPU-Z is rock steady at the normal offset voltage.

**VorLonUK** · 09-29-2008, 11:03 AM

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

Well RealTemp tells me the range of VID for my cpu (E8200) and accurately reports the actual figure of 1.225volts which is the figure stamped on my Intel Retail box!

However this figure doesn't change (according to RealTemp) in windows, between idle and Prime 95 loading even when the CPU's multiplier is shifting between x6 to x8.

Also you can see the CPU Voltage in CPU-z raise when the loading is greater, yet still be at a much lower voltage than that of the 1.225 max vid.

Edit, he says it is RealTime VID monitoring and should change with Speedstep etc...
I'll try this on my dual Core laptop...

TechPowerUp

http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/docs.php

**Lsdmeasap** · 09-29-2008, 11:29 AM

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

RealTemp and Coretemp both show my VID at 1.175, neither match the Box though of 1.25V

<a href="http://img211.imageshack.us/my.php?image=snap1ab3.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/5637/snap1ab3.th.jpg" border="0" ></a>

So, I am not sure what the box voltage is, maybe a Set Max range set for certain # batches created that day

CPU-z ect will always raise and lower with loads and will always be less then your VID of your Box or VID in RealTemp or CoreTemp unless you have set your Vcore higher then your VID then it will be more. Both RealTemp and Coretemp monitor actual Voltage thru the CPU. The VID in them is fixed though, and should match what your actual VID is. The Box is max voltage not VID, I have not had any lately that matched VID and box values. My last 4 CPU's were far below what the box said

**Merman** · 09-29-2008, 11:30 AM

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

Originally posted by VorLonUK View Post

Intel seem to publish a whole range of figures, yet I gather they provide no information or a program to state what voltage your CPU is designed to run at and when. They may state a range, but not specifics.

That's because it depends on variances and load. The CPU does request the voltage needed.

The first note of the Voltage and Current Specifications does state:

1. Each processor is programmed with a maximum valid voltage identification value (VID), which is set at manufacturing and can not be altered. Individual maximum VID values are calibrated during manufacturing such that two processors at the same frequency may have different settings within the VID range. Note that this differs from the VID employed by the processor during a power management event (Thermal Monitor 2, Enhanced Intel SpeedSteptechnology, or Extended HALT State).

We also know that some processors can run on lower voltage at the same MHz. I suppose you could set your processor to stock speed and find the lowest stable voltage. ???

**Lsdmeasap** · 09-29-2008, 11:35 AM

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

Yeap, and you can also run them at stock or above at FAR lower then the Minimum stated allowances

**Lsdmeasap** · 09-29-2008, 11:44 AM

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

I read this about the box voltage at a few places >>>

The voltage on the box is the maximum VID a chip can have in order for it to be classified as an E8400. Considering that VID is the voltage registered for the processor to run at stock speed, if a chip can't do 3.0ghz at 1.255, then it'll be binned as a lower part (like an E8200.)

Now each chip will do stock at a different voltage, which is why each chip has its own unique individual VID. Note, however, that the VID value of the processor happens to be the voltage tested and binned by Intel. Most chips can be undervolted and remain completely stable.

**VorLonUK** · 09-29-2008, 11:48 AM

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

Well mine has stayed as per the box Max at 1.225volts regardless of load. I'm curious as to why it hasn't changed as per Realtemps documentation, yet CPUz does show the voltage changing.
I need to experiment more with this.

Lsdme,

You said that you had used Realtemp for sometime? This is the first time I've used it and it's reporting my CPU cores some 10C lower than my normal measuring apps - hwmonitor (& pcwizard) from CPUID

have you found this?

**Lsdmeasap** · 09-29-2008, 11:59 AM

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

Realtemp does not monitor actual usage voltages, so that is why it will remain the same

You must calibrate RealTemp, and you must also set the correct tjmax for your CPU in settings, which is why the 10C difference. Tjmax can be changed in Realtemp of course, and everest, I am not sure if you can set it in hwmonitor or PCwizard but they are not correct I can say that for sure since the value has not been released.

Now what the actual tjmax is has yet to be released by intel for 45nm, some say 95c, some say 100c. They are "Supposed" to be releasing this info soon, but who knows >>>
[OCCP] TJMax for All - Overclock.net - Overclocking.net

Here is how you calibrate it (Toward the middle, this MUST be done) >>
Real Temp - Documentation

**Merman** · 09-29-2008, 12:44 PM

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

Originally posted by Lsdmeasap View Post

I read this about the box voltage at a few places >>>

IMO quotes without a reference or link are not useful. The source of information is important.

**VorLonUK** · 09-29-2008, 12:59 PM

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

Originally posted by Lsdmeasap View Post

Realtemp does not monitor actual usage voltages, so that is why it will remain the same

You must calibrate RealTemp, and you must also set the correct tjmax for your CPU in settings, which is why the 10C difference. Tjmax can be changed in Realtemp of course, and everest, I am not sure if you can set it in hwmonitor or PCwizard but they are not correct I can say that for sure since the value has not been released.

Now what the actual tjmax is has yet to be released by intel for 45nm, some say 95c, some say 100c. They are "Supposed" to be releasing this info soon, but who knows >>>
[OCCP] TJMax for All - Overclock.net - Overclocking.net

Here is how you calibrate it (Toward the middle, this MUST be done) >>
Real Temp - Documentation

Ahem LsdMe..... As I said above the author suggests that it Does monitor Real time VID Voltage!

Real Temp - Documentation

Core VID

This is the Minimum and Maximum voltage that your processor will request from your motherboard when the Voltage is set to AUTO or Default in the bios. Depending on your motherboard and how it is set up this voltage request may be ignored. Core VID is a suggested voltage and may not be the same as the actual core voltage that your processor receives. Use a program like CPU-Z to report actual core voltage. The real time VID is displayed on the main RealTemp screen at the upper right and can change depending on whether SpeedStep/C1E are enabled and on the load your processor is at.

**Lsdmeasap** · 09-29-2008, 01:01 PM

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

Well, Maybe when I get time I will hunt them down again. It was no pro I can tell you that. It was quoted comments just like I just made. Hear-say I suppose

But I have read it many places in the past many times with no one shooting it down.

Here is 2 places I see it at now just googling the first line >>>

P7N Diamond Overclocking
E8400 VID check before buy? - [H]ard|Forum

**Lsdmeasap** · 09-29-2008, 01:03 PM

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

RealTime VID is not monitored like you are thinking. The VID is HARD Set, unless like you highlighted you have EIST or C1E enabled.

VID is really nothing you need to worry this much about, you cannot adjust it or use it for anything useful.

**Merman** · 09-29-2008, 01:10 PM

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

Originally posted by Lsdmeasap View Post

I can say that for sure since the value has not been released.

Now what the actual tjmax is has yet to be released by intel for 45nm, some say 95c, some say 100c. They are "Supposed" to be releasing this info soon, but who knows >>>
[OCCP] TJMax for All - Overclock.net - Overclocking.net

This information is a bit dated. The tjmax for the 45nm processors has been released but not for the 65nm processors.

Intel gave out this info at the last Intel's Developer Forum in Sept. There was a PDF file out for a while and was taken down but I saved a copy.

A New Processor Temperature Specification: Using the Digital Temperature Sensor
Benson Inkley

TMTS001

Desktop TJFor Dual and Quad Core CPUs

45nm Desktop Dual-Core ProcessorsTJ

45 nm Desktop Quad-Core Processors

Announcement

Intel VID vs what the box says...

Intel VID vs what the box says...

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment