Guru3D.com Forums

Go Back   Guru3D.com Forums > Affiliates > Rivatuner Generic Discussion forum
Rivatuner Generic Discussion forum This forum is intended for generic questions and discussion of the RivaTuner Utility. In this section the users help each other out with answers.



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old
  (#26)
burebista
Maha Guru
 
burebista's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI GTX 1060 GAMING X 6GB
Processor: i5-2500K Ninja 3 fanless
Mainboard: ASRock P67 Extreme4
Memory: Corsair 4GB DDR3 1600MHz
Soundcard: Xonar D1
PSU: Antec Signature 650
Default 01-29-2009, 09:38 | posts: 1,696 | Location: Romania

TAT is outdated IMO. You can use RealTemp ore CoreTemp and my advise is not to rely on TJMax but on distance to TJMax in full-load. Keep it >20 and forget about temps.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#27)
fgw
Member Guru
 
Videocard: MSI N680GTX Lightning
Processor: Intel Core i7 990X
Mainboard: ASUS Rampage III Extreme
Memory: Corsair CMT6GX3M3A2000C8
Soundcard: Realtek (ASUS onboard)
PSU: Antec HCG-520
Default 01-29-2009, 10:57 | posts: 115

every program that claims it is reading temperatures off the digital thermal sensor located within the cores is reading the very same value - assuming they are doing it right! there is just one place to read this dts values from, lets call this value dts.

if you want to display an absoulte temperature, this reading needs to be converted using the formula: temp = TJmax - dts

as you can see the only variable within this formula that could be changed is TJmax as dts is read directly from the sensor. thats the point where various programs differ. as intel so far did not release the exact TJmax values for their various processors AND to make this even worse this values might differ from part to part, every programmer needs to ASSUME the correct TJmax used in the calculation.
so, for example, one program might use 95C while the other might use 90C and thus display temperatures which differ in exactly this 5C!
some programs allow the user to change the TJmax value used in the calculation and thus adjust it to the processor used.

as uncle already mentioned in one of his previous posts, this temps fluctuate rapidly and the variuos programs might read the sensor at slightly different times, thus reading slightly different values. this is also adding to the difference you see in various programs even if they are using the very same TJmax value!

there is another feature incorporated into realtemp which differentiates it from all other programs: realtemp is able to compensate for nonlinearity in dts sensors! this feature is called calibration and can be adjusted seperately for each core. if this is changed from the default to anything else, realtemp is showing different temperatures as other programs. you need this set to 0 in order to compare realtemp readings to other programs.

this all is valid if you are looking at one certain processor. use caution when you compare values from on processor to the other as the two processors most likely will have different TJmax values and also different nonlinearity in the sensors!

additionally the sensors are calibrated to be most accurate at high temperatures (near TJmax) and might not even work at all at lower temps.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#28)
Grendel_66
Master Guru
 
Grendel_66's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4G
Processor: Intel i7-3930K
Mainboard: ASUS Rampage IV Gene
Memory: 4x4GB DDR3-1600
Soundcard: Sound Blaster Zx
PSU: Seasonic X650
Default 01-29-2009, 21:29 | posts: 794 | Location: OR, US

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWoo View Post
So, one can trust sensors like cortemp or speedfan, where TAT, being intel made, is not correct without offset? I have read TAT was not accurate.
The embedded sensors are not acurate at all, they where never ment to be used for temperature measurements, just to trigger the overheat actions. This has been discussed to death and then some over at xtremsystems and finally resulted in RealTemp allowing you to calibrate the sensors to a certain extend. Bottom line is that you can only trust that your CPU isn't burning up, anything else is just a ballpark.

Last edited by Grendel_66; 01-29-2009 at 21:31.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#29)
unclewebb
Member Guru
 
Videocard: VAPOR-X HD5770 1GB
Processor: Intel QX9650
Mainboard: Asus P5B Deluxe
Memory: OCZ DDR2 PC2-9200 Reaper
Soundcard: Audigy 2 ZS
PSU: Seasonic SS-550HT
Default 01-30-2009, 07:07 | posts: 67 | Location: Cochrane, Canada

RealTemp is probably the only program that assumes TJMax = 90C for your E6700 Mr. Woo. That's why it reads 5C hotter than all of those other programs. rge over on XtremeSystems did some extensive testing and came up with these guidelines to go by:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2429

Based on your 17C (63F) room temperature and rge's findings, I think RealTemp is probably closest to the truth. I tested my E6400 B2 stepping with an IR thermometer and found that TJMax = 85C which all of the other programs assume, is usually too low for these processors.

Intel TAT is a laptop testing tool and was never meant to be used for desktop processors.

During the original Intel presentation last year they told us that their TJ Target for your processor was 70C. When some users complained, they bumped that up to 80C and said that TJMax might be a little higher than that number but never said how much higher. My testing and rge's testing leads me to believe that the truth is closer to 90C.

The original 65nm sensors aren't too bad at all once you start using the correct TJMax. The Core i7 sensors are excellent and the 45nm Core 2 sensors seem to have a significant amount of variation in TJMax from one processor or core to another and also have some sticking issues at low temperatures.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#30)
rek981
Newbie
 
Videocard: EVGA 9800GTX+
Processor: Q6600
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: Corsair HX520
Default 02-20-2009, 04:53 | posts: 7

I cannot get this plugin to display my temps in the hardware monitor. What am I going wrong?

1. I downloaded plugin, and I unzipped the contents to the plugins/monitoring directory
2. open rivatuner, hardware monitoring, setup, plugins, and I selected rtcore.dll

Nothing happens. No temps, no options to display core temps.

Please help

Ross

Q6600, 9800gtx+ running vista x64

PS the actual realtemp program works flawlessly
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#31)
unclewebb
Member Guru
 
Videocard: VAPOR-X HD5770 1GB
Processor: Intel QX9650
Mainboard: Asus P5B Deluxe
Memory: OCZ DDR2 PC2-9200 Reaper
Soundcard: Audigy 2 ZS
PSU: Seasonic SS-550HT
Default 02-20-2009, 17:37 | posts: 67 | Location: Cochrane, Canada

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip

Here's the latest version of the RealTemp plug-in. If you check the file it should show version 3.06.

I have the same setup as yours, Q6600, 9800GTX+ but I'm using Vista x86 and this plug-in works fine. Copy this new RTCore.dll to your

C:\Program Files\RivaTuner\PlugIns\Monitoring directory and see if this makes any difference.



Once you do the above, you should have some options available:



If this doesn't work, let me know. Maybe my friend burebista is using Vista 64 bit so I'll ask him.

Last edited by unclewebb; 02-20-2009 at 17:41.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#32)
burebista
Maha Guru
 
burebista's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI GTX 1060 GAMING X 6GB
Processor: i5-2500K Ninja 3 fanless
Mainboard: ASRock P67 Extreme4
Memory: Corsair 4GB DDR3 1600MHz
Soundcard: Xonar D1
PSU: Antec Signature 650
Default 02-20-2009, 18:15 | posts: 1,696 | Location: Romania

Kevin, as you know for me everything is fine with your plugin and now with perfect CPU load I don't have any complains.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#33)
chinobino
Maha Guru
 
chinobino's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI GTX980Ti Lightning
Processor: 6700K @ 4.3 GHz
Mainboard: Gigabyte GA-Z170-HD3 DDR3
Memory: 4x4GB Corsair DDR3-2800
Soundcard: Creative Tactic3D Alpha
PSU: ENERMAX REVO 85+ 1250W
Default 02-21-2009, 04:39 | posts: 945

Thankyou unclewebb & Unwinder!

Nice work unclewebb, I now have all 4 CPU core temps and both GPU core temps on my Logitech G15 LCD display where I want them!

I calibrated my CPU temps with Realtemp over a year ago to set the offset 2C higher than what is being reported, as my CPU cores throttled at 93C and the Tjmax for the QX9650 is 95C.

The only problem with setting the +2C is that is appears in the LCD screen as 'XX.X C (+2.0)', which is taking up too much LCD screen width.

I have not bothered setting the offset because it is a minor issue but I am wondering if there is an option to not show the offset (+2.0) in the LCD/OSD?

Regards, chino
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#34)
unclewebb
Member Guru
 
Videocard: VAPOR-X HD5770 1GB
Processor: Intel QX9650
Mainboard: Asus P5B Deluxe
Memory: OCZ DDR2 PC2-9200 Reaper
Soundcard: Audigy 2 ZS
PSU: Seasonic SS-550HT
Default 02-21-2009, 06:49 | posts: 67 | Location: Cochrane, Canada

All Core processors typically start to throttle at a Distance to TJMax of 2 or 3. They are designed to do this to keep the core temperature from ever reaching TJMax even during some extreme conditions.

I ran Prime95 Small FFTs on my E8400 for 3 hours with the fan disconnected. The processor went up to 98C and throttled off and on for 3 hours until I got bored and stopped it. Both cores hit 99C a few times but after 3 hours, only one core hit 100C and that only happened once.

TJMax is not a fixed value but for a QX9650, I think it is probably closer to 100C. Intel calls these values TJ Targets and actual TJMax is typically higher. There is no single number that covers all QX9650 processors so you can use whatever value you think makes the most sense for your CPU.

If you want to use TJMax = 97C then set that in the RealTemp 3.00 Settings window, click on OK and RealTemp will automatically use these values in the plug-in as well as long as you clicked on the RivaTuner button and told RealTemp where you have RivaTuner located. That way you won't have to look at (+2.0) in your OSD anymore.


Last edited by unclewebb; 02-21-2009 at 06:51.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#35)
rek981
Newbie
 
Videocard: EVGA 9800GTX+
Processor: Q6600
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: Corsair HX520
Default 02-21-2009, 16:41 | posts: 7

Unclewebb,

Thanks for you reply! I figured out my problem. I had to go to power user --> RivaTuner\Monitoring --> Set "EnablePlugins" to 1

Ross

Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb View Post
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip

Here's the latest version of the RealTemp plug-in. If you check the file it should show version 3.06.

I have the same setup as yours, Q6600, 9800GTX+ but I'm using Vista x86 and this plug-in works fine. Copy this new RTCore.dll to your

C:\Program Files\RivaTuner\PlugIns\Monitoring directory and see if this makes any difference.



Once you do the above, you should have some options available:



If this doesn't work, let me know. Maybe my friend burebista is using Vista 64 bit so I'll ask him.

Last edited by rek981; 02-21-2009 at 16:46.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#36)
Shinzok
Newbie
 
Shinzok's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 770 2GB
Processor: Intel Core i7-6700K
Mainboard: Asus Z170-Deluxe
Memory: 32GB=4xCMK16GX4M2B3000C15
Soundcard: Realtek ALC1150
PSU: Corsair HX850i
Default 02-23-2009, 12:50 | posts: 20 | Location: The Netherlands

Ehm.... So what you are saying .. is that I now also need to download realtemp ?????
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#37)
unclewebb
Member Guru
 
Videocard: VAPOR-X HD5770 1GB
Processor: Intel QX9650
Mainboard: Asus P5B Deluxe
Memory: OCZ DDR2 PC2-9200 Reaper
Soundcard: Audigy 2 ZS
PSU: Seasonic SS-550HT
Default 02-27-2009, 07:04 | posts: 67 | Location: Cochrane, Canada

Using RealTemp to install the plug-in and set up your calibration settings is definitely the easiest thing to do. It's a free program and only one click away. Here's where the latest beta is always hiding:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

If you have any problems with beta version 3.06 then use the last stable version 3.00. That version is in the download section here at Guru3D.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#38)
burebista
Maha Guru
 
burebista's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI GTX 1060 GAMING X 6GB
Processor: i5-2500K Ninja 3 fanless
Mainboard: ASRock P67 Extreme4
Memory: Corsair 4GB DDR3 1600MHz
Soundcard: Xonar D1
PSU: Antec Signature 650
Default 03-06-2009, 07:09 | posts: 1,696 | Location: Romania

New version, 3.0.7.0.
Separate load for each core. I don't know more details (maybe uncle come with a thorough explanation ) but his method seems more accurate than "classic" ones.
Give it a try, compare it with load meters from CPU.dll, or Task Manager or Process Explorer or any load meter.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#39)
Grendel_66
Master Guru
 
Grendel_66's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4G
Processor: Intel i7-3930K
Mainboard: ASUS Rampage IV Gene
Memory: 4x4GB DDR3-1600
Soundcard: Sound Blaster Zx
PSU: Seasonic X650
Default 03-06-2009, 08:17 | posts: 794 | Location: OR, US

Thanks for the heads up, much appreciated !
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#40)
stangowner
Master Guru
 
stangowner's Avatar
 
Videocard: 2xMSI N550GTX-Ti Cy II OC
Processor: Intel Core i7-3960X
Mainboard: MSI X79A-GD45
Memory: 16GB Corsair Vengence
Soundcard: X-Fi Plat Fatal1ty Champ
PSU: Antec 850w
Default 05-14-2009, 02:17 | posts: 586 | Location: MA

Quote:
Originally Posted by burebista View Post
New version, 3.0.7.0.
Separate load for each core. I don't know more details (maybe uncle come with a thorough explanation ) but his method seems more accurate than "classic" ones.
Give it a try, compare it with load meters from CPU.dll, or Task Manager or Process Explorer or any load meter.
I'm running a Q9550 at home, and all 4 graphs in the hardware monitor are near identical to the task manager. But I have a E6300 at work, and the values reported by RealTemp in RivaTuner constantly seem low.

This isn't the best pic, but it does show the difference. I cleared the history of both bars, and started them at the same time. If you look in the middle, you can see that Windows is reporting near 100% for both cores, but RealTemp barely breaks 50%.



Any ideas? I've tried 3.0.7.0 and 3.2.0.0 beta. Same results. I could not find anything in the readme or cfg file. And searching returns millions of hits on temp, but not load.

Thanks
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#41)
unclewebb
Member Guru
 
Videocard: VAPOR-X HD5770 1GB
Processor: Intel QX9650
Mainboard: Asus P5B Deluxe
Memory: OCZ DDR2 PC2-9200 Reaper
Soundcard: Audigy 2 ZS
PSU: Seasonic SS-550HT
Default 05-14-2009, 19:59 | posts: 67 | Location: Cochrane, Canada

RealTemp and the plugin use high performance timers within Intel Core based CPUs to calculate the load percentage. During testing, this method seems to respond quicker and more accurately than Task Manager does.

If you run a single threaded task on a Quad core processor, that task gets scheduled and moved around from core to core approximately 300 times per second. I don't think the method that the Task Manager uses is fast enough to accurately monitor that. The only accurate way is to use the Intel high performance timers. They were specifically designed for this type of monitoring.

When testing you need a very constant load on the CPU. I use Prime95 Small FFTs for this. Here's how my chart looks.



On my Q6600 I started out using 1 thread of Prime Small FFTs, then 2, 3, 4, 0, 2 and then back to 1.

The top overall load graph looks exactly what you would expect it to look like. The data for this overall graph comes from reading each individual core and then averaging those 4 values out. With the RivaTuner plugin, you can go to any spot on the graph and the 4 individual loads will always average out and exactly equal the total load. If this plugin was totally wrong, there's no way that the top graph would be so smooth and accurately reflecting the load being created by Prime95 when the individual load of each core is jumping around so rapidly.

My opinion is that during rapid load transitions which is any time a CPU is partially loaded, the Task Manager method of calculating that load tends to over react to what's really going on inside an Intel CPU.

It's impossible for the plugin to be 100% accurate during Prime testing but for this same method based on Intel's high performance timers to be totally wrong during your light load testing. Personally, I'd trust the plug-in before trusting Task Manager. The Task Manager method dates back quite a few years and is too slow to accurately reflect the true load on each core of a CPU.

Here's the latest beta of RealTemp which includes the plugin for anyone that needs it:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip

Edit: Try running 1 and then 2 threads of Prime95 Small FFTs to see how accurate the plugin looks on your computer.

Last edited by unclewebb; 05-14-2009 at 23:13.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#42)
stangowner
Master Guru
 
stangowner's Avatar
 
Videocard: 2xMSI N550GTX-Ti Cy II OC
Processor: Intel Core i7-3960X
Mainboard: MSI X79A-GD45
Memory: 16GB Corsair Vengence
Soundcard: X-Fi Plat Fatal1ty Champ
PSU: Antec 850w
Default 05-15-2009, 00:05 | posts: 586 | Location: MA

Thanks for the prompt and thorough reply unclewebb.

I don't trust the task manager to be 100% accurate. And would not have even mentioned it had the difference not been so drastic. But I've noticed it enough, that I figured I'd at least ask.

I actually ran Prime95 prior to your reply trying to get additional info. I did not have enough time to run multiple tests, but I did run a Small FFT with 2 threads and got the following.



I'll run some more tomorrow (and tonight on my Q9550) and let you know what I find.

- Nick
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#43)
stangowner
Master Guru
 
stangowner's Avatar
 
Videocard: 2xMSI N550GTX-Ti Cy II OC
Processor: Intel Core i7-3960X
Mainboard: MSI X79A-GD45
Memory: 16GB Corsair Vengence
Soundcard: X-Fi Plat Fatal1ty Champ
PSU: Antec 850w
Default 05-15-2009, 00:26 | posts: 586 | Location: MA

Q9550 results seem to be fine



Edit: But the E6300 still shaky when running 2. Any ideas what could be causing that? Could I have a hardware issue? Or something else interfering?


Last edited by stangowner; 05-15-2009 at 02:46.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#44)
unclewebb
Member Guru
 
Videocard: VAPOR-X HD5770 1GB
Processor: Intel QX9650
Mainboard: Asus P5B Deluxe
Memory: OCZ DDR2 PC2-9200 Reaper
Soundcard: Audigy 2 ZS
PSU: Seasonic SS-550HT
Default 05-15-2009, 16:07 | posts: 67 | Location: Cochrane, Canada

Prime95 Small FFTs runs at a low priority. It's possible that there is some background task on your E6300 machine that is using too much CPU time. Start up Task Manager and click on the Processes tab and then click on the CPU heading to organize your tasks by load. I'm a zealot when it comes to getting rid of useless background tasks. With Vista I turned off SuperFetch and some other stuff that might be wonderful in theory but I couldn't stand the constant hard drive thrashing that it does.

Maybe I'll go try limiting my Quad to 2 cores and create some RivaTuner graphs for you to compare to.

Edit: By using msconfig I was able to convert my Q6600 to a Dual Core. I also reduced my overclock back to default settings. It was sitting at idle at 266.67 X 6.0 ~ 1600 MHz for this screen shot. Not a lot of extra background activity going on. It sat mostly at a load of 0.2% on both cores.

Edit: The screen shot shows that RealTemp is a hair quicker to respond to a change in load. Just pressing the Print Screen key on my keyboard got the load up to 0.5% in RealTemp.



And here's how my fake E6300 looks running 2 threads and then 1 thread of Prime.
At the 50% level there's not a lot of variation in the overall load number.


Last edited by unclewebb; 05-15-2009 at 19:56.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#45)
stangowner
Master Guru
 
stangowner's Avatar
 
Videocard: 2xMSI N550GTX-Ti Cy II OC
Processor: Intel Core i7-3960X
Mainboard: MSI X79A-GD45
Memory: 16GB Corsair Vengence
Soundcard: X-Fi Plat Fatal1ty Champ
PSU: Antec 850w
Default 05-16-2009, 01:14 | posts: 586 | Location: MA

Thanks for the dedication trying to resolve this. We found the culprit.

Here is the system at idle. You'll see the task manager still squawking, while RealTemp is quiet.



It appears that the issue is the kernel. Here are some shots from the task manager and Process Explorer.





I suppose I could have saved us both some time had I just been showing the kernel time in the task manager all along. It is hard to see the red - because it is covered by the green (meaning just about 100% of the activity is the kernel).



To make a long story short, the issue is Symantec Endpoint Protection. Removing SEP eliminates the kernel cpu spiking.

However, I suppose this also means that the task manager is displaying the kernel time in its numbers and RealTemp is not? I'm no cpu architect, but I assume the kernel is running in a protected area? These numbers are not included in the high performance timers? Normally the kernel should not be doing much, so no big deal, but if you know off the top of your head I wouldn't mind learning how the puzzle fits together.

Thanks again for all your help.

Last edited by stangowner; 05-16-2009 at 01:34.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#46)
unclewebb
Member Guru
 
Videocard: VAPOR-X HD5770 1GB
Processor: Intel QX9650
Mainboard: Asus P5B Deluxe
Memory: OCZ DDR2 PC2-9200 Reaper
Soundcard: Audigy 2 ZS
PSU: Seasonic SS-550HT
Default 05-16-2009, 17:40 | posts: 67 | Location: Cochrane, Canada

There's spyware out there that doesn't put as heavy a load on your system as Symantec Endpoint Protection does.
Whatever it's protecting you from, there are much more efficient solutions available.

My opinion is that when the load is rapidly cycling, the Task Manager based load calculation and graph has a tendency to over inflate the true load on the CPU.

Based on Prime95 Small FFT testing, it sure looks to me that the plugin is very accurate. When you go back to the original graph you posted, Task Manager is showing a load way beyond what the plugin is showing.

I think if you're reading the internal timers of the CPU that you're bypassing any operating system layers or variables and seeing the load exactly as it really is.

I don't think you can hide anything from the internal high performance timers. It doesn't make any sense to me how these timers appear to be 100% accurate during Prime testing but for this same method to be wrong when the load is variable. If anything, the plugin should become more accurate during a variable load.

These timers are moving at 3 billion cycles per second and were specifically designed to be used for high performance monitoring and measurement of the tiniest of details within Intel's CPUs.

I guess you have to flip a coin to see what version of the truth seems more likely. Thanks for the interesting test. I'm glad you were able to find what's behind your CPU load spiking, however big those spikes really are.

Edit: Some day in the near future I'm going to try to write a small app that loads the CPU randomly with short bursts of activity. That might finally give us a way to see what load measuring method is the most accurate. It's on my things to do list.

Last edited by unclewebb; 05-19-2009 at 23:46.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#47)
pbcopter
Newbie
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 950 FTW 2GB
Processor: INTEL Xeon E5-2670
Mainboard: Gigabyte GA X79 UD5 v1.0
Memory: 32GB (4 X 8GB) G-Skill R
Soundcard: Realtek Onboard ALC898
PSU: Seasonic X-1050
Default 05-29-2009, 15:44 | posts: 22 | Location: Florida, USA

I hope this is the right place to ask this. I just noticed that if I deselect the
combined processor load (E8500 - load), both the E8500(0) - load and
E8500(1) - load stop displaying and appear to freeze at the last value. I am using Rivatuner 2.24 and version 3.0.7.0 of the plug-in. I also tried the beta as well. Is this normal? Thank you.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#48)
unclewebb
Member Guru
 
Videocard: VAPOR-X HD5770 1GB
Processor: Intel QX9650
Mainboard: Asus P5B Deluxe
Memory: OCZ DDR2 PC2-9200 Reaper
Soundcard: Audigy 2 ZS
PSU: Seasonic SS-550HT
Default 05-29-2009, 17:06 | posts: 67 | Location: Cochrane, Canada

Thanks for finding that bug. I'll have a look at that problem and find a solution for it ASAP.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#49)
unclewebb
Member Guru
 
Videocard: VAPOR-X HD5770 1GB
Processor: Intel QX9650
Mainboard: Asus P5B Deluxe
Memory: OCZ DDR2 PC2-9200 Reaper
Soundcard: Audigy 2 ZS
PSU: Seasonic SS-550HT
Default 05-29-2009, 18:14 | posts: 67 | Location: Cochrane, Canada

That was an oversight I guess. The individual load meters depended on the overall load meter to be running or else they'd flat line like a dead man!

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. It doesn't take me too long to fix things once I find out about them. You can download the fixed version here:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...507/RTCore.zip

Copy the RTCore.dll file to the

C:\Program Files\RivaTuner\PlugIns\Monitoring

folder and over write the previous version.

Let me know if you have any problems. If you do a Properties on the new version it should show up as version 3.2.0.1
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#50)
pbcopter
Newbie
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 950 FTW 2GB
Processor: INTEL Xeon E5-2670
Mainboard: Gigabyte GA X79 UD5 v1.0
Memory: 32GB (4 X 8GB) G-Skill R
Soundcard: Realtek Onboard ALC898
PSU: Seasonic X-1050
Default 05-30-2009, 18:46 | posts: 22 | Location: Florida, USA

Thank you, that worked great. Sorry I didn't get to it until today.

Paul
   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright (c) 1995-2014, All Rights Reserved. The Guru of 3D, the Hardware Guru, and 3D Guru are trademarks owned by Hilbert Hagedoorn.