• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

CPU Temp Reading Difference between various programs?

A

alexrud

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
112
I have an Asus P5E-VM HDMI, E6550 running at 433x7 (3.0GHz, up from the stock 2.33), Vcore 1.17V, and the stock Intel cooler.

I've been monitoring the stock CPU temperature from 3 different programs, and they are all different! All temps below were recorded just now at idle <2% load, with SpeedStep running the CPU at 2600MHz (433x6).

Rivatuner (with the Core2Duo plugin) says my temps are 17/21 degrees for core1/core2;
Core Temp 0.96 says my temps are 33/37 deg;
PCProbe (Asus Utility) gives one reading, 23 deg.

My question is, which program is the most reliable?

I have yet to check the temp reading in the BIOS to see if any of these temps correlate....I'll do that now. Anyone have any thoughts?
 
I believe Coretemp is more reliable, although ironically I have trouble believing the readings it's giving me.
 
CoreTemp is the more reliable. I have found that CoreTemp and SpeedFan are the two programs that come closest to each other in temp numbers. Usually they are within a centigrade or two of one another. I use them for my temp monitoring. I hear Everest is another good program but its not free. I havent tried it yet.
 
Skott said:
CoreTemp is the more reliable. I have found that CoreTemp and SpeedFan are the two programs that come closest to each other in temp numbers. Usually they are within a centigrade or two of one another. I use them for my temp monitoring. I hear Everest is another good program but its not free. I havent tried it yet.
Click to expand...


I did a bit of digging and judging from other people's findings as well as my own analysis of my system's temps all the other monitoring programs i've used are reading 15C LOWER than CoreTemp. It would seem that something is definitely hinky with how all these programs are reading temps. For now i'm playing it safe and using CoreTemp.
 
I’m also puzzled by the difference between these programs and also the bios.

In the bios my e6850 is reported to be between 16°C-18°C (depending on room temp)

Now while in windows at idle core temp reports it at between 37°C-39°C (depending on room temp)

So this is about a 20°C difference which I think may be affecting my load temps

(This part is kind of a hijack)
I recently switched the fan profile in the bios from “optimal” to “performance” to try and decrease my load temps (as high as 63°C in cod4)

Now I have noticed a slight difference(in cod4 it goes keeps going from 59°C to 60°C and back down again) with the fan profile change in the bios however after looking at a review for the P5E-VM HDMI I came across what temps the fan speed will go up with what fan profiles.


Scroll down a bit:
(http://www.silentpcreview.com/article785-page4.html)

Now I’m assuming that what’s happening regarding my pc is that where before my CPU would get to 63°C in cod4 this is because at the optimal fan setting it wouldn’t speed up until the bios saw the CPU at over 45°C and with the 20°C difference between the bios and the core temp readings this would mean the fan would only speed up at 65°C (core temp reading).

Now while I have changed to the performance profile in the bios its getting to 60°C then dropping down to 59°C again, what I think is happening Is that the bios is seeing the temp as 40°C and then upping the fan speed a bit which lowers the temp back to 59°C where the fan slows down allowing it to heat up to 60°C again.

If any of this is correct then I’m guessing this is a serious issue though I would love to hear some input on this or if updating the bios gives the correct temps?

P.S sorry for the hijack
 
morris, what CPU cooler are you using?

16°C-18°C sounds too low. It's not possible for your temps to be that low unless your room is cooler than that. And if it is, you must be in a really cold room :eek:

Also, what are you using to measure your temps in Windows? Try measuring your temps with Coretemp, Speedfan, and the Intel Thermal Analysis Tool and see what you get. Also instead of CoD4, try loading your CPU with the Intel TAT, Orthos, or Prime95 for at least 10 minutes.
 
Yes 16°C is too low considering thats under room temp by quite a bit which is why i'm saying the the bios is giving a incorrect reading. I'm using a zalman 8700-NT which fan speed should be controlled by the bios and again this wouldnt be giving me a idle bios temp under room temp as that goes against the laws of physics.

As for measuring temps in windows i have been using the latest version of Core Temp which is giving me a 20°C difference to the bios.

I will get around to proper load temps with prime/orthos soon.
 
morris_man said:
Yes 16°C is too low considering thats under room temp by quite a bit which is why i'm saying the the bios is giving a incorrect reading. I'm using a zalman 8700-NT which fan speed should be controlled by the bios and again this wouldnt be giving me a idle bios temp under room temp as that goes against the laws of physics.

As for measuring temps in windows i have been using the latest version of Core Temp which is giving me a 20°C difference to the bios.

I will get around to prime load temps with prime/orthos
Click to expand...

morris_man, where did you get your Zalman CNPS8700-NT?
 
Does the NT (i'm guessing it's nickel?) version cooler better than the regular copper version?
 
TWO515TY said:
Does the NT (i'm guessing it's nickel?) version cooler better than the regular copper version?
Click to expand...

I believe it is 100% copper, just nickel coated. It also has a 4-wire fan connector to allow the motherboard to control the speed. I'd guess it performs just the same as the other 8700.
 
A long time ago back in the intel BX and later the socket A days, motherboard sensors were never remotely accurate for cpu temps. My guess is the same holds true today, well at least for some motherboards anyway. A good way of getting semi-accurate cpu temps is by getting a digital thermometer that has a thin thin temp probe, and place the probe underneath the heatsink bumped up against the cpu core.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top