Accurate CPU temp monitor?

~misfit~

Hi.

Up until today I've always considered CoreTemp to be the most accurate for
reading my E4500's (@3.2GHz currently) temperature. It agrees with Intel's
TAT on temps across the range from idle to 100% load, give or take a degree.

However, while working on a mate's Phenom I downloaded CPUID's HWMonitor to
check his temps. I've just run it on my machine. It's reporting core temps
~15°C *higher* than I previously thought I had. Slightly disconcerting.

CT 43°, TAT 42°, HWM 58° at 100% load. Tt Mini-Typhoon lapped and CPU IHS
lapped. AS5. *Extremely* well ventilated case, ambient 15°C. (Yeah, I'm
cold!) While those temps are fine, when summer comes to these parts the
ambient can rise another 20°C on a hot day reaching mid 30's at times.

So, what's the consensus? Have others noticed this discrepancy? What utility
are you inclined to believe?

Thanks.
--
Shaun.

John Whitworth

I don't think any one of them can be considered truly accurate. I used to
get ridiculously low temps using CoreTemp on my E6600 @3GHz, of about 18 deg
C on each core. That was on MSI 975X board, but with an X48 board, I now see
approx 50 deg C at the same speed.

"~misfit~" <.au> wrote in message
news:481d19b3$.nz...
> Hi.
>
> Up until today I've always considered CoreTemp to be the most accurate for
> reading my E4500's (@3.2GHz currently) temperature. It agrees with Intel's
> TAT on temps across the range from idle to 100% load, give or take a
> degree.
>
> However, while working on a mate's Phenom I downloaded CPUID's HWMonitor
> to check his temps. I've just run it on my machine. It's reporting core
> temps ~15°C *higher* than I previously thought I had. Slightly
> disconcerting.
>
> CT 43°, TAT 42°, HWM 58° at 100% load. Tt Mini-Typhoon lapped and CPU IHS
> lapped. AS5. *Extremely* well ventilated case, ambient 15°C. (Yeah, I'm
> cold!) While those temps are fine, when summer comes to these parts the
> ambient can rise another 20°C on a hot day reaching mid 30's at times.
>
> So, what's the consensus? Have others noticed this discrepancy? What
> utility are you inclined to believe?
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Shaun.
>

~misfit~

Somewhere on teh intarweb "John Whitworth" typed:
> I don't think any one of them can be considered truly accurate. I
> used to get ridiculously low temps using CoreTemp on my E6600 @3GHz,
> of about 18 deg C on each core. That was on MSI 975X board, but with
> an X48 board, I now see approx 50 deg C at the same speed.

Thanks for the reply John, point taken. :-)
--
Shaun.

> "~misfit~" <.au> wrote in message
> news:481d19b3$.nz...
>> Hi.
>>
>> Up until today I've always considered CoreTemp to be the most
>> accurate for reading my E4500's (@3.2GHz currently) temperature. It
>> agrees with Intel's TAT on temps across the range from idle to 100%
>> load, give or take a degree.
>>
>> However, while working on a mate's Phenom I downloaded CPUID's
>> HWMonitor to check his temps. I've just run it on my machine. It's
>> reporting core temps ~15°C *higher* than I previously thought I had.
>> Slightly disconcerting.
>>
>> CT 43°, TAT 42°, HWM 58° at 100% load. Tt Mini-Typhoon lapped and
>> CPU IHS lapped. AS5. *Extremely* well ventilated case, ambient 15°C.
>> (Yeah, I'm cold!) While those temps are fine, when summer comes to
>> these parts the ambient can rise another 20°C on a hot day reaching
>> mid 30's at times. So, what's the consensus? Have others noticed this
>> discrepancy? What
>> utility are you inclined to believe?
>>
>> Thanks.
>> --
>> Shaun.

Ed Medlin

"~misfit~" <.au> wrote in message
news:.nz...
> Somewhere on teh intarweb "John Whitworth" typed:
>> I don't think any one of them can be considered truly accurate. I
>> used to get ridiculously low temps using CoreTemp on my E6600 @3GHz,
>> of about 18 deg C on each core. That was on MSI 975X board, but with
>> an X48 board, I now see approx 50 deg C at the same speed.
>
> Thanks for the reply John, point taken. :-)
> --
> Shaun.
>

I have been using CoreTemp too Shaun and I went from an E6600 to a Q6600 and
using the same water cooling system temps at 3.2ghz on the Q6600 read a good
15+degs higher than the E6600. My bios on this Striker Extreme reads
27-29degs idle and CoreTemp is giving me 40-43degs across the 4 cores. The
bios readings 'should' be about right with my current setup and are about
where my E6600 idled at. I don't know of any temp app that I can trust to be
accurate anymore.


Ed

~misfit~

Somewhere on teh intarweb "Ed Medlin" typed:
> "~misfit~" <.au> wrote in message
> news:.nz...
>> Somewhere on teh intarweb "John Whitworth" typed:
>>> I don't think any one of them can be considered truly accurate. I
>>> used to get ridiculously low temps using CoreTemp on my E6600 @3GHz,
>>> of about 18 deg C on each core. That was on MSI 975X board, but with
>>> an X48 board, I now see approx 50 deg C at the same speed.
>>
>> Thanks for the reply John, point taken. :-)
>
> I have been using CoreTemp too Shaun and I went from an E6600 to a
> Q6600 and using the same water cooling system temps at 3.2ghz on the
> Q6600 read a good 15+degs higher than the E6600. My bios on this
> Striker Extreme reads 27-29degs idle and CoreTemp is giving me
> 40-43degs across the 4 cores. The bios readings 'should' be about
> right with my current setup and are about where my E6600 idled at. I
> don't know of any temp app that I can trust to be accurate anymore.

Thanks for that Ed. I do know that CoreTemp (and TAT) reads higher for quads
as I've built a machine on a similar board to mine with a similar cooler for
a mate, only using a Q6600 and the temps at idle were ~15° higher too. I
just figured it was due to there being twice the number of cores requiring
twice the energy in a similarly sized package and figured CoreTemp was about
right.

I guess I'll just make sure everything is cooled as well as I can and rely
on Intel's thermal safeguards when summer comes back to these parts.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.