Core temp v Real Temp ?? Which one is correct ??
- Thread starter A True Folder
- Start date
OP
OP
A True Folder
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 2,789
To be honest mate, having seen unclewebbs testing (IR Gun with no cpu cooler) I would tend to the Real Temp readings.
Even if you did use Core Temp you're still 12°C from the thermal spec temp of 71°C
Dropped your oc back too I see, any particular reason?
Even if you did use Core Temp you're still 12°C from the thermal spec temp of 71°C
Dropped your oc back too I see, any particular reason?
worshipme
Golden Master
- Messages
- 5,603
Mainly because of I was using PC Wizard to mesure my temps (which showed the same temps as Realtemp) then recently I've been using Coretemp and saw my temps at 3.6GHz were around 67c in Prime95. But now you've brought Realtemp to my attention, I'm a bit confused.
I'm hoping to get a Tuniq Tower soon anyway so perhaps I'll wait 'till then to go back to 3.6
GhostGT
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 1,019
I'll have my Tuniq Tower comparisons done by the end of this weekend, probably by Saturday night.
OP
OP
A True Folder
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 2,789
@ worshipme - fair enough, I always reduce my overclocks in summer.
@ GhostGT - I'm interested in seeing those results.
@ GhostGT - I'm interested in seeing those results.
GhostGT
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 1,019
I want to bring this thread back because its something I'm deeply interested in finding out.
TrueFolder, any updates or new thoughts on the issue? I spent a few minutes reading through the thread @ xtremesystems and what unclewebb says makes sense, although I think many people are assuming that RealTemp is totally accurate right out of the box without any adjustments.
I'm seeing lots of people switch to RealTemp and leave CoreTemp in the dust, but they're forgetting that there are proper adjustments that have to be made to Real Temp to get accurate readings. I'm gonna try to follow his post and test the sensors and lowest fsb readings tomorrow, but we'll see what happens.
TrueFolder, any updates or new thoughts on the issue? I spent a few minutes reading through the thread @ xtremesystems and what unclewebb says makes sense, although I think many people are assuming that RealTemp is totally accurate right out of the box without any adjustments.
I'm seeing lots of people switch to RealTemp and leave CoreTemp in the dust, but they're forgetting that there are proper adjustments that have to be made to Real Temp to get accurate readings. I'm gonna try to follow his post and test the sensors and lowest fsb readings tomorrow, but we'll see what happens.
OP
OP
A True Folder
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 2,789
I tested my idle temp as per the thread at XS (1.6GHz and minimal voltage, I used the speed step method) and it was within 4°C of the ambient air temp so I was satisfied it was correct for me, idle is not really as important as load and from the graph unclewebb posted showing the divergence it reads spot on at load, although obviously everyone wants to get as low as possible there is nothing to be gained from calibrating the idle temp too low except false bragging rights and the calibration only affects idle temps..
OT: Time to update your sig mate,
OT: Time to update your sig mate,