On the Programs Tab there is twice runnning with 3 n ;>0

??? a copy of the programs Tab please.

Has anyone been able to run Tthrottle under Win7 RC1 with anything other than the F8 method of driver signing?

If so, please let me know what you did.

Thanks

---

--
benDan

Has anyone been able to run Tthrottle under Win7 RC1 with anything other than the F8 method of driver signing?
If so, please let me know what you did.
Thanks

I ordered a CodeSigning For Microsoft Authenticode for the driver signing, so hopefully before the end of May. Signed drivers should work.
Will have a testing machine for Windows 7 64 soon, that way I can do some thorough testing.

Win7 RC1 64 bit
Tthrottle V1.57
Using F8 ... driver loaded
Running 2 copies of minirosetta_1.67_windows_x86_64.exe.

No BOINC detection!

Number of matching Programs (Processes): 0

Added minirosetta_1.67_windows_x86_64.exe to the program list.

TThrottle shows 1 of them (pid 2520) but not the other (pid 2286)

Number of matching Programs (Processes): 1
Cpu: minirosetta_1.67_windows_x86_64.exe, PID: 2520, Threads: 4

However ... both seem to be controlled. Process Lasso shows both CPU %s are changed.

---

--
benDan

Win7 RC1 64 bit

Strange..no BOINC detection, but as it seems to work... When I'm able to test it on Win7 I will look into it.
At the moment I'm looking in the registry: localmachine Software\Wow6432Node\Space Sciences Laboratory, U.C. Berkeley\BOINC Setup\DATADIR for the directory.
But in Win7 they probably changed that.

My bad!
TThrottle works fine.

I just copied the BOINC folder from my Vista partition to my Win7 part.

I went back and installed it and now TThrottle works.

Your comment about the registry clued me.

Install sets up the reg entry.
but boinc/seti ran OK without the reg.

strange

---

--
benDan

There is now a signed driver for Vista / Win 7 X64.
Look here for: signed drivers
Makes installation on Windows 64 a lot easier.

Wow... I'm impressed. Currently running 1.57 on a Dual AMD Opteron 275 system (ie four cores in total) with Vista 32 as the OS and all seems well. This will definitely come in handy during summer here in Australia. :) (It's currently late autumn now.)

I just downloaded version 1.60 a week or so ago and wanted to put a couple of comments here. First off, great program, it really does seem to do its job quite well (with a couple exceptions noted below):

On the Programs tab, setting the "Min Cpu %" to less than 5% has no effect. Even when the temperatures are still above your threshold amount, TThrottle will not throttle back any lower than 5%. Perhaps this is as intended, but I wasn't able to find any such indication that it was intended in the documentation.

The temperature that is being reported from my CPU cores seem to be off by a considerable amount (15°C to 20°C). I actually noticed this by accident. I installed TThrottle and immediately noticed that when BOINC was running at 100% I had temperatures being reported in TThrottle at about 77°C to 78°C. Much too warm!

After opening up my case and doing a thorough cleanout of the fan and all of the cooling elements, I was able to drop those temperatures about 10°C. Better, but still not what I wanted to see.

The next step was to see if I could get the CPU fan in my Dell OptiPlex 745 to speed up a little bit, rather than stay at its lowest speed which is all it has ever done regardless of the temperature inside the case.

So I installed Speed Fan. I was hoping this little program would allow me to increase the fan speed on the CPU and give me some add additional cooling. Unfortunately, it is unable to control the fan on my motherboard. All was not lost, however, because another thing that Speed Fan does is report the core temperatures of the CPU. The odd thing was that the temperatures that Speed Fan was reporting were 15°C or more LOWER than what TThrottle was reporting!

I didn't really think too much of this, because I figured that two different applications could simply process the temperature sensor signals differently and simply not agree on what temperatures were being reported. Furthermore, the instructions with Speed Fan indicate that you could adjust any of the settings being reported by Speed Fan if needed, so this indicated that there was probably some room for inaccuracy with respect to Speed fan at the least.

Nonetheless, I decided to see if there was another application I could install which would report the CPU core temperatures, to kind of break the tie so to speak. So I went out and downloaded CoreTemp. The temperatures being reported by CoreTemp completely agree with the temperatures being reported by Speed Fan. The documentation that comes along with CoreTemp also seems to indicate that it is taking the temperatures directly off the digital sensor on the core themselves, not the computer case, so it should be pretty darn accurate.

Am I the only one experiencing this?

I just downloaded version 1.60 a week or so ago and wanted to put a couple of comments here. First off, great program, it really does seem to do its job quite well (with a couple exceptions noted below):

TThrottle is limited to 5%, otherwise programs may freeze and even crash.
The 1.60 does have a small bug, that will be corrected in 1.62 that will come out this week. It doesn't throttle back far enough.

Some processors are off. That's why there is a correction option in the expert tab. Normal Junction temperatures are 100C or 85C.
But I need more log reports from users, so if you can send me yours with the temperature you thing it should be. There is very little documentation about this from Intel or AMD. So seeing is knowing.... thats the only way.

TThrottle does it exactly the same way as CoreTemp so try setting the Tjunction to 85C and send me the log.
And I wouldn't go as far as darn accurate, it mostly seems to be accurate. But on some processors it may be off be a lot.

TThrottle is limited to 5%, otherwise programs may freeze and even crash.
The 1.60 does have a small bug, that will be corrected in 1.62 that will come out this week. It doesn't throttle back far enough.

That makes sense. Even when my core temperatures were above my set temperature, TThrottle could not back the number crunching off enough to allow the processor to cool. I had to manually suspend BOINC to allow the processors to cool.

Some processors are off. That's why there is a correction option in the expert tab. Normal Junction temperatures are 100C or 85C.
But I need more log reports from users, so if you can send me yours with the temperature you thing it should be. There is very little documentation about this from Intel or AMD. So seeing is knowing.... thats the only way.

I just set my "normal junction temperature" to 85°C and the temperatures now being reported are exactly in alignment with those of Core Temp. Since I have no idea what a "normal junction temperature" is, my opinion on what I think it should be probably would not be terribly useful. :-)

TThrottle does it exactly the same way as CoreTemp so try setting the Tjunction to 85C and send me the log.
And I wouldn't go as far as darn accurate, it mostly seems to be accurate. But on some processors it may be off be a lot.

After resetting my normal junction temperature to 85°C I immediately sent you my log in a personal message on this forum. Please let me know if you would like me to send it to you some other way. Also, please let me know if I misunderstood your log request and you wanted me to actually let the program run for a while at the new setting before sending you the log. I am happy to send it to you again at some other point in the future. Actually, I can send it to you regularly if that would help as well.

I'm happy to do what small part I can in helping to improve this fabulous piece of software!

After resetting my normal junction temperature to 85°C I immediately sent you my log in a personal message on this forum. Please let me know if you would like me to send it to you some other way. Also, please let me know if I misunderstood your log request and you wanted me to actually let the program run for a while at the new setting before sending you the log. I am happy to send it to you again at some other point in the future. Actually, I can send it to you regularly if that would help as well.

I'm happy to do what small part I can in helping to improve this fabulous piece of software!

Thanks I will add this one to the 85C list, so others don't have the same problem.
The new version will have an emergency throttle that start throttling all running programs when the normal throttling doesn't help enough.

Thanks I will add this one to the 85C list, so others don't have the same problem.
The new version will have an emergency throttle that start throttling all running programs when the normal throttling doesn't help enough.

That sounds like it should do the job!

The new version 1.62 is out, with the help of a lot of testers and translators.

A general throttle, that at a set temperature, not only throttles BOINC but everything else on the computer.
If everything fails the computer can be shutdown automatically and send an E-Mail that it did.
A small window that holds all temperatures can be placed anywhere on the desktop.
And some bug fixes as well, so an update to this version is recommended.
TThrottle

I doubt my CPU temperature is 0 Celsius... according to motherboard monitor it's approaching 72C, so I may assume that your program doesn't detect temperatures on older systems? (Pentium 4 on an Asus mobo).

---

I doubt my CPU temperature is 0 Celsius... according to motherboard monitor it's approaching 72C, so I may assume that your program doesn't detect temperatures on older systems? (Pentium 4 on an Asus mobo).

Your assumption is correct, only processors with a build in temperature sensor AND build in converter are supported. For the temperature part that is.
If you don't see something like this in the log: Core Temperature: 57 °C, Raw Data: 882B0000 it won't work.

Do you intend to add such support in some future?

---

Do you intend to add such support in some future?

No it is simple too much work. And you are a dying breed, no disrespect intended of course. All processors are equipped with this feature for a couple of years now. So the number that doesn't work will dwindle quite fast. So it doesn't make much sense to spend months of work on this.

One for Fred:

In 1.6 and up there is the little temp mini window which one can conveniently park on an edge and then get rid of e.g. CoreTemp in the systray, one less utility less. Could it be eating substantial graphics resources? Started to have problems switching between various drawing and image editing apps and getting beeps and loss of image when pasting, just blank frames when pasting. When switching tasks it actually says TThrottle Chart Window in the selection screen, but is just the little temp line. When the little temp frame is disabled, the phenomena does not show and all works as what I'm used to.

PS, noticed in the English localisation the 'Running' is now with 2 N's not 3 :D

Strange.. the little window is actually a dialog. And it is always there, when you uncheck it, all it does is hide itself. So it should not make any difference whatsoever. I have a number of computers 24/7, but I take another look at it.
You use the English version?
And the temperature window is still visible when you switch task where it should not be, have to change that.

runnning, finally someone mentioned it to me...

1) Well it has remained for days and multiple boots and only today the penny fell when doing the Alt-Tab rather than switching front app via the start bar and seeing 3 windows instead of the 2 I had open. Definitely says Throttle Graphics Window in the english interface. This is XP btw. The window is gone for the alt-tab sequence when the temps are hidden. Explicitly I unticked also the enable graphic making sure it was not eating resource.

2) By design or not, when that enable box is blank and hitting the scalable graphics, then closing it, ticks the box again. Should that be? I'd Prefer not.

runnning, http://boinc.berkeley.edu/dev/forum_thread.php?id=3517&nowrap=true#24850 ;>)

edit: made link active

1)I think I found something that may cause a very small buildup of resources over a long time.
I will correct this possible problem in the next release. Thanks for reporting.

2) Is by design, because why would you want the graph if it is disabled?
And disabled it doesn't draw anything.