Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Ok we'll use your link, the first one.

Here come some lines of text from it.

"In addition to the thermal monitor, all Intel® processors include an on-die thermal diode."

"This thermal diode is separate from the thermal
monitor’s thermal sensor and cannot be used to predict the behavior of the thermal monitor."


Clearly 2 diodes.
the thermal monitor, and the on die thermal diode.

"Because of the speed of
temperature changes in “hot spots” and thermal gradients across the die, it is possible that the TCC may be active while
the thermal diode is measuring a temperature within normal ranges."


Same as I was saying.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Nowhere does it state that the user visible diode is the one that control THERMTRIP. If it was, then the XBitLabs THERMTRIP test would've shutdown at 135C, rather than the indicated 94C.

Which is the same as I always have been saying about the user visible diode: "Numb and Dumb" - it doesn't reflect the actual peak CPU temperature.

A third diode perhaps? Or perhaps, and more likely, a second thermal trip sensor (ie. THERMTRIP) calibrated to 135C and driven by the same thermal diode that drives the PROCHOT trip sensor, which in turn drives the Control Circuit.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

"PROCHOT# and THERMTRIP#
Processors assert PROCHOT# when activating a thermal control
circuit that can automatically throttle processor clock speed.
When the junction temperature exceeds a critical threshold, the
processor asserts THERMTRIP#. Upon a THERMTRIP# trigger,
Intel processors attempt to stop internal clocks and halt program
execution to reduce internal temperature and avoid processor
damage"

I get that THERMTRIP is based on a "junction" temperature and PROCHOT is clearly activated by the sensor reading near the ALU from previous readings.

http://www.compactpci-systems.com/co...fs/11.2002.pdf

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Ok, so a 3rd thermal diode then? Or perhaps not.

Reading this document again, the diagram at the top of Page 7, seems to imply that Tjunction is the true name of the thermal diode that the thermal control circuit actuation (PROCHOT) is coming from. As per your document, Tjunction is also driving THERMTRIP, which brings us back to the original statement:

What I referred to as Tcc (that drives the monitor and control circuity) & Tjunction are the one and the same sensor.

Tjunction is what I called for to be user visible.

What's the problem again? Are you arguing that we should not be interested in the peak die temperature? Sorry, just don't know where you're going with all of this, other than arguing semantics over the naming of various sensors.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Lol, sorry to laugh Cathar but where are you going with this? First you say the THERMTRIP is wildly inaccurate then you want Intel to make it accessible.

PROCHOT is totally independant of THERMTRIP. From my understanding of your earlier argument you wanted Intel to make the reading at the hotspot available. This would be the PROCHOT sensor reading near the ALU. My argument is that it is independently callibrated per cpu and takes readings in milliseconds near a wildly fluctuating heatsource (ALU) making it unsuitable for our purposes.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

I would argue that that is very suitable for our purposes, as long as you knew what you were looking at, integrated sensibly and established a transfer function to reality.

...

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Back handed way to use the TCC for measurement http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=12516

http://download.intel.com/design/Pen...s/30255304.pdf Section 4 discusses both systems.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

goddamn you guys will argue about EVERYTHING. ALL temperatures taken from diodes have to be calibrated lol. What that article is saying doesn't mean what you think it means. It's just a part of the equation for transistor ->diode -> temp comversion.

and since it is just a transistor then yea sampling speed and accuracy are inversely related because the reader has a finite number of bits to work with.


I do the same type of calibration on every diode I solder onto to eliminate any possible issues with solder joints, reader problems, and intrinsic diode nonlinearity factors etc.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

but... but... it's the one thing we're ALL good at!

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

ah procooling
a larynx cooler, beer of course

(2 points Marci)

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Nice link.

Now the picture is crystal clear.
There are only 2 sensors in a P4. (no mysterious 3rd one)
PROCHOT and THERMTRIP are registers which are either active or non active. They are set to active when a set temp is reached.
These two set temps are unique to each processor.
The trigger temp for PROCHOT and THERMTRIP is taken from the same temperature sensor.
THERMTRIP is always set higher than PROCHOT
THERMTRIP and PROCHOT temp triggers are set at factory and cannot ever be changed.
The only other temperature sensor is the on die thermal diode and has nothing to do with PROCHOT or THERMTRIP.


Using logic.....
Intel must take readings from the thermal sensor to determine each individual processors PROCHOT and THERMTRIP set point. Once they are determined and set, the functionality of the thermal sensor is only to indicate these 2 trip points to set the PROCHOT and THERMTRIP registers active. We know it is located near the ALU units so it may be logical to assume these trip points are ALU unit specific instead of P4 processor as a whole specific. After all if the ALU units fail, the processor is junk.

After all of that, I do not see the value of getting readings from this thermal sensor. It is uniquely callibrated per processor and near the hottest and most fluctuating heat source the ALU units. There are factors to consider that makes no 2 ALU's have the same heat output like voltage leakage.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Edit:Oops, not thought out well, at all I believe the Integrated Thermal Sensor (ITS) is one bit. Very fast and accurate, at it's factory calibrated set (trip) point (135C?)
continue edit. We know TCC operates very fast, and we would think it is very accurate since it is supposed to keep the chip from frying while not causing performance issues,

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

There is no magic 135C number. The data sheet specifically says,

"The temperature where the THERMTRIP# signal goes active is individually calibrated during manufacturing."

That means each processor has a unique real trip point temp ie some get hotter than others and still function normally.

It also says,
"The temperature where THERMTRIP# goes active is roughly parallel to the thermal profile"

I do not get "calibrated" to mean the sensor was adjusted to an artifical number like 135C. I get the "calibrated" means the temp determined to be the trip point. It says the temperature is calibrated not the sensor.

You would have to find a tech data sheet on these Thermal sensors themselves to determine how they are calibrated before Intel takes any reading from them.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

gf
is this not the binning process ?
why expect CPUs binned on the basis of heat X performance into groups, to be individually the same ?

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

one bit DAQ plus fast and accurate do not compute?

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

They are obviously not the same. It does not say binned cpus of the same mhz rating have the same THERMTRIP# it says each individual processor gets a unique THERMTRIP#. There are other factors obviously in binning besides the heat tolerance of the ALU's.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

edited, as not thought out, accurate as in over or under whatever the set temp (output) is
Data sheet http://download.intel.com/design/Pen...s/30750602.pdf Section 5
I believe it is set to 1 temp, trying to figure out the "crash temp" of every intel cpu is impossible. 135C is a number that has been floated around here that sounds reasonable, I don't think anyone thinks it is factual. We do know that Thermtrip# is set to appx Tc=90C 3.0 gig and higher cpu's, Table 4-3 and Table 5-2. If 135 C is a reasonable , is 175C reasonable to shut down the cpu?

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Alas it is all for not as the traces are likely disconnected in packaging after the THERMTRIP# and PROCHOT# are set. With their duty firmly set, Intel likely didn't want anyone ****ing with them. If you can tap into it for a reading then you could send a killer voltage to it ruining the thermal protection resulting in possible monetary loss in replacements.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

which leaves as a 'real' temp related to the CPU temp (that may be caled) . . . .

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

It is impossible because every single cpu is set differently.

Tc is not related to PROCHOT# or THERMTRIP#. It is the design specs oems use to design their thermal solutions to be in spec to case temp when operating within thermal design power (TDP).

quote,
"We do know that Thermtrip# is set to appx Tc=90C 3.0 gig and higher cpu's"
end quote

So we get shutdown when the case temp is near 90C. How does that relate to the thermal sensor and what it actually reads near the ALU? It tells us nothing.
Some processors will handle more voltage and higher clock rates before reaching a case temp of 90 under the same heatsink.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

GF, I finally found the quote, design 4.2.1 and I don't think it is as conclusive as you do.
It says that each cpu's is temp is set individually, just because that temp is not stated, doesn't mean that the temp isn't the same, and we know each sensor is unique. How ever it is done, intels interest is keep the chip from burning up, not throttle enough for the customer to notice, and do it quickly for millions of chips. Intel I'm sure knows what temp their silicon is good for. Chips that run hot become 2.8's with lower tdp. Testing and setting individual chip temps is flexible but benchmarking each chip is time consuming. Puting a test input to the ITS and setting a register based on the results is fast.
Yes to the rest, I didn't mean to imply differently, I was asking if those temps sounded reasonable. I am curious about the internal temps,
The fact that intel releases a # at all implies that it is pretty uniform to TDP.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

:ha: :ha: :ha: :hammer: :D

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

The IHS grooved TC.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Where did I ever say this. Go on. Find the quote.

I said I wanted the thermal sensor that feeds THERMTRIP to be visible

Arguing over agreement. What a waste of time.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

You know, if that didn't have swearing in it, that'd make my signature.

I'm trying to get information back from the Intel thermal testing lab so that I can talk to some of their engineers. I have a friend that works there and I have dim hopes of adding fuel to this fire.

By fuel, I mean verifiable DATA and DESIGN information. We'll see.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

that's exactly the arguement though. Tcase vs. Tjunction. The two aren't related I don't think. In fact I don't think Intel considers Tjunction for any of its therm mgmt apps (i haven't been reading any of these linked datasheets from marci and others, though, I read a bunch long ago, doubt they've changed a whole lot). From Intel's perspective the only temperature relevant to thermal management of their processors is Tcase...that's why the on-die diode is located in what cathar calls a misleading position on the die. It isn't misleading, it is in a good location to formulate Tcase.

But cathar's position (and he's said ALL this before i think) is that Tjunction is more relevant from the perspective of the enthusiast/overclocker. The fact is, I think that we should consider the possibility that there is a fork in the road when it comes to thermal management performance. Performance that leads to better overclocking and performance that leads to lower Tcase just may be different things.

On these forums with these many words each day, I think a few things may need rereclarification.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Makes two of us then...

Where's the swearing??

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

Hmmm.. the swearing was in what you were replying to. I think it was dammit or somesuch mild swearing.

I'm getting interesting information back from this guy. I hope he gives me permission to publish it. Nothing groundbreaking so far, though. Just enough information to make me think I've got a really good person to talk to.

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

I have an apogee question ...

I want to use 2 csp-mags with my pa160 and apogee loop. Which config would get the best performace results ...parallel or series?

Re: Apogee from Swiftech...
 

I too quoted the line, but removed the D-it with three ... :)