Core temp v Real Temp ?? Which one is correct ??

A True Folder

Fully Optimized
Messages
2,789
Well, having spent the best part of this morning reading up on the differences between the two (more like gathering info on Real Temp) it appears that Core temp may have been using a erroneous TjMax as its reference point which results in higher temperature readings. :eek:

I was doing this because Core Temp had my E3110 idling in the low 40°C range at stock which I couldn't see being correct as the lower volted 45nm cpus are supposed to be more efficient/run cooler than the 65nm models. So off i went in search of information, the result was a morning spent reading a hell of a lot of forum posts and some very interesting test results.

Over at XS forums unclewebb has put a lot of effort and research into Real Temp and I'm leaning toward it being the more accurate of the monitors currently available.

Have a read and d/load it here

Cheers.

EDIT: Supports "some" P4's, all Intel duals and quads afaik
 
Hm, that's actually interesting. I also use Core Temp and it shows high 30s for my temperatures at idle. I'll go ahead and download RealTemp when I go back on the desktop.

That said, I'll say this: At least CoreTemp isn't showing temperatures BELOW what they really are, because that would be potentially dangerous if someone isn't careful. This deserves more attention.

+1 for Folder.
 
I found it quite fascinating especially how he detemines the TjMax running the cpu without a cooler. More adventurous than I am that's for sure.

That said, I'll say this: At least CoreTemp isn't showing temperatures BELOW what they really are, because that would be potentially dangerous if someone isn't careful.
QFT, but given the variance between individual cpus I don't think you'll ever really get a universal "true" reading.


comparisonuw2.jpg
 
That's a solid 10* difference right there. That is a huge difference IMO. I'll download realtemp and try it right now.

Could it be that CoreTemp might not be fully compatible with the new 45m processors? They might say they are, but they could have some flaws.
 
Went ahead and returned everything back to stock, no overclocks. Interesting to see that my temps are still almost equal to the OC temps I normally run.


Anyway, as you can see, I've left the calibration at 0 for Real Temp and did a Sensor test. Got 6,3,6,6 for my values.

As my screenshot shows, I'm getting 5*C more with CoreTemp.

Hm..


Edit: Screenshot:

coretempvsrealtemp.jpg
 
I always thought my quad was warmer than I had expected but believed that Core Temp was correct as quads were fairly new on the scene until I saw how unclewebb found the TjMax, it all makes a lot more sense now

:D
 
So are you saying that RealTemp is potentially the more accurate program to use here?
 
thanks ATF +1
real temp seems to be accurate.
on everest for the cores im getting 40,37,35,38.
with Realtemp im getting 35,32,29,31

quick question what does TJ max mean , or TJ junction

lol my quad cores lonely life
2elw3ec.jpg
 
So are you saying that RealTemp is potentially the more accurate program to use here?
I believe it to be, I intend to use it from now on.

thanks ATF +1
real temp seems to be accurate.
on everest for the cores im getting 40,37,35,38.
with Realtemp im getting 35,32,29,31

quick question what does TJ max mean , or TJ junction
TjMax is when the processor starts throttling due to heat.

If you haven't already you really should read the thread I linked to in the first post, it's 23 pages but even I learned a thing or two by reading it so well worth a look imo.
 
Back
Top Bottom