Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    90
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Experiences using SpeedFan 4.47

    I have only been using this nifty utility for a couple of weeks, and I heartily recommend it to anyone seeking better fan speed control. I found the available online documentation to be a bit skimpy, so my first attempts at fan control were by the school of hit-and-miss!

    Background: My system is an old 2008 Gateway, which I considered replacing with something newer, but then decided to try a few cheap upgrades and tweaks first, just for the heck of it.
    The mobo is a relic Intel DG965OT (locked 1066 FSB), and the original cpu was an LGA 775 Core 2 duo E6300 running at a whopping 1.87 GHz.
    First I upgraded the cpu to a quad core Q6600, 2.4 GHz, which woke things up dramatically (2979 vs 1120 benchmark speed; a 266% increase in speed).
    I then started using RealTemp 3.70, and discovered that my core temps were kind of high (60-90C) with the original cpu fan speed control algorithym in the bios. RealTemp has no provision to control fan speeds, plus I suspect the reported temps are higher than they really are.

    So then I downloaded SpeedFan 4.47, and started tweaking it.
    I was able to get it working fairly well, but when heavily loaded I noticed the cpu fan speed was quite unstable. No matter how I tweaked, the fan speed would not ramp up fast enough to keep the cpu cores cool, before the warning temp kicked it up to 100%.
    A side note: core 0 of my particular Q6600 seems to indicate about 6 to 12 deg C higher than any of the others, so it essentially dominates control of the cpu fan speed. I have no reason to suspect that it actually runs hotter; I think the temp sensor is just not calibrated like the others. I have read elsewhere that multi-core Intels often exhibit this quirk.
    Also the Q6600 core temps increase dramatically and quickly when loaded, from the low 30’s up to high 50’s, in a matter of a mere second or two.

    The standard fan speed response curve ramps up the fan speed in an increasingly steep non-linear rate as the core temp increases. It has a min of 30C, and a max of 60C, with the resulting speeds at about 35% and 100% respectively, as shown below. So you don’t get a significant fan speed increase until you start hitting pretty high temps.

    I discovered that you can modify the response curve using the mouse pointer to kind of “drag” the individual data points up and down. I changed mine to an essentially linear response as the temp increases, with a slightly lower starting point, as shown here:


    As you can see I also increased both the min and max temps for core 0, because it seems to report higher offset temps as mentioned earlier.
    I have set the warning temp for this core at 65C (where the cpu fan is forced to 100%) and this seems to work well. The other 3 cores are set to warning at 60 C.

    Now when the cpu load increases the temp and fan speed ramps up fairly steadily to around 60C (~90 % fan speed), and settles there. Once unloaded it drops almost immediately back down to the 50-60% speed range.
    Since the northbridge MCH heatsink is in close proximity to the cpu fan/heatsink (and therefore the temp is influenced by the cpu fan), I have the cpu fan speed also controlled by the MCH temp. The MCH and ICH on this board seem to run fairly high in the 46-48 deg C range usually.

    Since several inputs control both of the fan speed regimes, I use the “Max of Speeds” control method instead of the “Sum of Speeds” method selector, on the fan control tab.
    There is a total of 11 temp mobo sensors reported by SpeedFan: cpu die, 4 separate cpu cores, ICH, MCH, 2 disk drives, and 2 motherboard temps.
    The cpu fan speed is controlled by each of the 4 cpu cores, and the MCH temp (total 5).
    The HDD & chassis fan speed is controlled by the ICH, MCH, Harddisk 0, Harddisk 1, and each of two motherboard temp sensors (total 6).

    I don’t use the cpu die temp for fan control because for some reason it comes up as a negative number; in the -50 range when idle, changing to about -25 or so when loaded. It seems like it is the difference between the actual die temp and some arbitrary threshold temp, such as +85C perhaps. It responds to load changes more slowly than the core temp readings.
    One mobo temp sensor reports around 36C usually, the other around 42C. I believe the first is in the area of the DIMM sockets, while the latter may be in the voltage regulator area. Who knows?

    There is a small 80mm fan for the disk drives, which is controlled by the chassis fan driver, as is the 92mm case fan. Though not a perfect situation, this does seem to work. The drives normally run around 34-36 deg C from the SMART reporting.

    Another thing I found is even at very low manual speed settings on the SpeedFan main screen such as 0% or 10%, all fans still continue to run, or at least the reported speeds still show a few hundred rpms. They don’t seem to stall at low PWM outputs, so I suspect the bios has an overriding minimum fan speed output value, that is irrespective of the software control.

    SpeedFan changes I’d like to see:
    1. A way to alter the size of the main SpeedFan screen. Currently its size is fixed, and the temperature reporting window is not big enough to accommodate all 11 temperatures on my system.
    2. The ability to drive 3 or more fans separately, instead of just two. This limitation may be imposed by the mobo of course, I am not certain.

    Experimentation and tweaking continue almost daily........


    rstewFan Control 3.pngFan Control 4.png

  2. Subscribe to our Windows Secrets Newsletter - It's Free!

    Get our unique weekly Newsletter with tips and techniques, how to's and critical updates on Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows XP, Firefox, Internet Explorer, Google, etc. Join our 480,000 subscribers!

    Excel 2013: The Missing Manual

    + Get this BONUS — free!

    Get the most of Excel! Learn about new features, basics of creating a new spreadsheet and using the infamous Ribbon in the first chapter of Excel 2013: The Missing Manual - Subscribe and download Chapter 1 for free!

  3. #2
    Silver Lounger Banyarola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Big Indian, New York
    Posts
    1,854
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 63 Times in 52 Posts
    I once tried Speed Fan a long time ago and found it kinda clunky and not of much use...

    I stream which is pretty CPU intensive at times and and I only run a max CPU temp of about 130° F. My CPU max temp is rated about 160° max.

    I find Windows fan controls work just fine..

    If you do a lot of heavy gaming maybe a manual fan speed increase control, like with Speed Fan, may help..

    My PC case has six fans which keep the innards pretty cool and well within specs.
    "If You Are Reading This In English, Thank A VET"

  4. #3
    Super Moderator CLiNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California & Arizona
    Posts
    5,404
    Thanks
    128
    Thanked 488 Times in 449 Posts
    I've tried it previously too and found that;

    It's fan control means will depend upon whether your motherboard is recognized & utilized by the author writing the code.
    If you have multiple case fans that you need to control, a hardware controller will always be superior.
    I don't care for adding another program to the startup routine when it's just not necessary.
    It's best used as a temperature spot checker and nothing else.
    DRIVE IMAGING
    Invest a little time and energy in a well thought out BACKUP regimen and you will have minimal down time, and headache.

    Windows 8.1, 64 bit
    Motherboard: DX58SO2*Chipset: X58 Express/Intel ICH10*BIOS: SOX5820J.86A.0888.2012.0129.2203*Processor: Intel Core i7 CPU X 990
    GPU: Nvidia GTX 580*Memory: Corsair 12 GB, 4x3@1600*PSU: Corsair HX1000*Hard drives: REVO X2 160GB*OCZ VERT X3 120GB*5 mechanical storage drives (12 TB) total.

  5. #4
    Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    90
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    UPDATE:
    I went to change my processor and made a discovery.
    When i swapped in the Q6600 a few weeks back I installed the cooler heat sink 1/4 turn rotated from the way it needs to be.
    The result was one side of the heatsink block was hanging up on a row of capacitors nearby the socket, thus preventing it from fully seating on the processor. One edge of the case was in contact; the rest not at all.
    It appears that was the reason I have been seeing high core 0 temps all this while.
    This time I seated it properly and I took it off after a trial seating just to make sure. Good contact right across the processor!
    Put her all back together and voila; nice low temps right across all 4 cores. Core 0 still runs a tad higher, but way closer and all are cooler now. Live and learn I guess. No harm done in the end.
    What I have learned is always do a trial fit of the heatsink then take it off and examine the heat transfer paste to make sure it is in full contact.
    Talk about feeling like a dummy!

    rstew

  6. #5
    Lounger Anak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Central Pa.
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Unless you made a typo there is a newer version of SpeedFan - 4.49


    This has a free, fully functional 30day trial;
    There's got to be an oxymoron in there somewhere : http://www.argotronic.com/en/

    If you just want to monitor the temps this is pretty good: http://www.cpuid.com/hwmonitor.php

    Here is a list of alternatives: http://alternativeto.net/software/speedfan/

  7. #6
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    275
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 25 Times in 25 Posts
    My GF's PC is also an older Core2Duo Socket 775 from around 2007 that was running too warm. i added a front air intake fan and installed SpeedFan, then set both front and rear fans to run at 50% as the minimum speed. CPU core temps dropped by 8 deg. C. - 10 deg. C. right away. So now it runs cool even when she has a dozen or more webpages open with one page either playing video or maybe playing a game at pogo.com, etc. The cpu still has its original Intel heatsink/fan. If more cooling was needed the next thing i would've tried would be fresh application of good thermal paste (Arctic MX2 or similar) and re-seat the heatsink/fan. Sometimes that can drop temps. by another 3 or 4 deg. C.

  8. #7
    Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    90
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by starvinmarvin View Post
    My GF's PC is also an older Core2Duo Socket 775 from around 2007 that was running too warm. i added a front air intake fan and installed SpeedFan, then set both front and rear fans to run at 50% as the minimum speed. CPU core temps dropped by 8 deg. C. - 10 deg. C. right away. So now it runs cool even when she has a dozen or more webpages open with one page either playing video or maybe playing a game at pogo.com, etc. The cpu still has its original Intel heatsink/fan. If more cooling was needed the next thing i would've tried would be fresh application of good thermal paste (Arctic MX2 or similar) and re-seat the heatsink/fan. Sometimes that can drop temps. by another 3 or 4 deg. C.
    As a suggestion, if the GF's computer is still running a duo core, you could get a huge increase in speed by simply swapping the CPU out in favour of a quad core. Something like a Q6600/6700 if it is a 1066 fsb mobo, or a Q8400/9500 if 1333 fsb would make a very noticeable change in speed. They are readily available on eBay.

    rstew

  9. #8
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    275
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 25 Times in 25 Posts
    Thanks rstew. i considered swapping out her E6750 for a quad-core once but, after spending an afternoon playing around on her system and talking with her we decided against it. She has a 96GB Kingston V100+ SSD running Win 7 Home Premium and 4GB of RAM. The system is quick and responsive. Bottom line - no upgrade needed. Heck, she never even gets a low memory warning when she's doing a bunch of things all at once. My PC has a quad-core with more memory and an SSD that's much faster on all benchmark tests, but in practice both systems feel similar in terms of responsiveness. For everyday basic tasks including MS Office, it seems that when the speed of your PC reaches a certain point it can handle all the usual stuff without strain or delay. Of course, for 3D gaming, video editing and such my Core i7 rig leaves hers in the dust, but she could care less!

  10. #9
    Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    90
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    "The system is quick and responsive. Bottom line - no upgrade needed. Heck, she never even gets a low memory warning when she's doing a bunch of things all at once. My PC has a quad-core with more memory and an SSD that's much faster on all benchmark tests, but in practice both systems feel similar in terms of responsiveness. "

    That pretty much says it all. If it ain't broke; don't fix it!
    The best,

    rstew

  11. #10
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    275
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 25 Times in 25 Posts
    Speaking of broke my old Athlon 64 3000+ PC no longer has any display when powered on. Amidst the tedium of troubleshooting that problem i checked out the cost of replacing it with something more current. Since i have a reliable case, power supply, some spare RAM and a couple of unused hard drives laying around i can get by with just motherboard and cpu. The old rig is mainly a backup system used for testing stuff so a replacement needn't be anything fancy. Discovered a board with an embedded cpu, but it's not the usual impossibly weak-kneed affair like those cheapies with an 800MHz VIA chip, or whatever. I was pleasantly surprised to discover Intel has released a - wait for it - a quad-core Celeron chip running at 2.0GHz! And, it's performance for general tasks is on par with the GF's E6750 core2Duo. Maybe best of all is that the cpu's TDP (max. power consumption) is an incredible 10 watts. No, i was wrong. The best thing about this thing is that it costs $69.99 for the board with cpu built-in. It has Intel basic HD Video with Quick-Sync. Could be a quiet little home theater PC or everyday low-cost rig. I'm almost hoping the old Athlon is toast.....

  12. #11
    Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    90
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    That sounds like a great deal for 70 bucks!
    Let us know how it works out.

    rstew

  13. #12
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    275
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 25 Times in 25 Posts
    After confirming the old Athlon motherboard is dead i've ordered a replacement. The one i mentioned before which costs $69.99 is, upon closer inspection, limited to 2 x SATA II ports. A similar but better option is the model with four ports two of which are SATA III. It costs $5 more and is called ASRock Q1900-ITX Intel Celeron J1900 Motherboard/CPU/VGA Combo. This being an ITX board it's only about 7 inches square and has laptop size memory slots. i'll be robbing some RAM sticks from a laptop at home to get this new board up and running. Since it's only a basic system i can get by with 3GB of RAM for now, rather than spending an extra $42 for 4GB. Hope this quad-core embedded Celeron cpu with only 10 watts max. power consumption is worth having. Time will tell !!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •