• 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.

Temp diff: TAT vs MBM5/Speedfan?

V

Viscouse

n00b
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
20
I'm having difficulty picking which reading to use.
I'm running a Core 2 Duo 6400 on a GA-965P-DS3 v3.3 mobo.

TAT Coretemp v2.05.2006.0427 reports 45 & 43 on idle (°C) for C State of C0/C1
Coretemp v0.95 reports 43 & 40 on idle (°C) for C State of C0
MBM5 (w/CoreTemp plugin) = 28 & 25
Speedfan v4.32 = 28 & 25
Mobo BIOS vF10 reports 33°C and a system temp of 59° (huh?)
EasyTune5 (Gigabyte's recommended & included software) reports 34°C & and a system temp of 59°, so I'm guessing this is just reading the BIOS.

I've verified they're reporting the same device by jacking up CPU usage on each core independently. I'd be okay if they were a little off, but 20 degrees?

Who do I believe?
 
TAT is accurate, MBM and speedfan are notoriously buggy. they sometimes work but more often dont. TAT is just about always accurate.
 
Thanks!

I've been doing a bit of reading, and I think they may both be accurate, but it depends on where they are reading from. So perhaps it might be better to ask these 2 questions:

1. Where is TAT reading from vs MBM5/Speedfan?
2. What are appropriate limits for each?
 
TAT reads from within the CPU, it is the most accurate temp you can get. MBM/speedfan may read from the same sensor with the latest update, or they could be reading somewhere near the socket, or from somewhere else on the motherboard that has nothing to do with the CPU. i would just not use those programs, theres been many many posts about speedfan, especialy, reading all sorts of weird numbers. another program that is as accurate as TAT, is coreTemp, google it.
 
TAT isn't always the most accurate temp or at least that seems to be the case from I've read on some other boards as well as hear.

I know people are screaming but TAT doesnt work well with all chipsets and in theory Coretemp, TAT, and Speedfan(newest update) are all reading the same sensor.


Beside it you are running stock and and getting 45C idle I'd be a little worried.
 
That's why I'm confused. If it's 28 degrees, I'm okay. Back to my original question, which do I believe? Who's the best outfit to contact? Gigabyte?

I have a big ol Zalman 9500 on there with an open case (haven't closed it all up yet), so I can't think it's that hot.
 
IMO

I would download the newest versions of Coretemp and Speedfan, if they both agree with each other then I would trust them.

BTW

What kind of results are you getting with Full load temps.
 
The .95 version of Coretemp matches what TAT is reporting. I am going to go with that now since evidence seems to support that they are both right. Speedfan 4.32 is reading 12c-15c lower temps than anything else, and my cpu will get unstable when I approach 80c with TAT. To do that I have to overvolt it a bit or knock down the airflow, so I am good to go. Right now with the TAT cpu loading on, which is the worst case scenario, I am seeing ~72-75c and it is rock solid, ORTHOS will go on for hours, I can loop 3DM06 all night, and run Folding@home on both cores. Games never even approach those kind of temps....CoD2 never makes the cpu get over 63c as reported by coretemp and TAT.

I was thinking I might watercool this rig, I ran into another $150 "extra" spending money.
 
TheRapture said:
The .95 version of Coretemp matches what TAT is reporting. I am going to go with that now since evidence seems to support that they are both right. Speedfan 4.32 is reading 12c-15c lower temps than anything else, and my cpu will get unstable when I approach 80c with TAT. To do that I have to overvolt it a bit or knock down the airflow, so I am good to go. Right now with the TAT cpu loading on, which is the worst case scenario, I am seeing ~72-75c and it is rock solid, ORTHOS will go on for hours, I can loop 3DM06 all night, and run Folding@home on both cores. Games never even approach those kind of temps....CoD2 never makes the cpu get over 63c as reported by coretemp and TAT.

I was thinking I might watercool this rig, I ran into another $150 "extra" spending money.
Click to expand...


what ever you do, dont get the R120. Just sayin! ;)
 
TheRapture said:
The .95 version of Coretemp matches what TAT is reporting. I am going to go with that now since evidence seems to support that they are both right. Speedfan 4.32 is reading 12c-15c lower temps than anything else.
Click to expand...

I really really think chipsets are having more effect than we think. If you are getting a TAT and Coretemp .95 to match, only because on my system SpeedFan 4.32 and CoreTemp .95 match. TAT is amazingly 5c LOWER than both of them.

Full load 373FSB ............Core0..............Core 1
SpeedFan 4.32 ................... 62................. 58
CoreTemo.95 .......................62.................58
TAT.....................................58................. 58

I know nearly everyone is getting higher temps with TAT but for some reason I'm not.

Granted it's not like these are huge variations but for three programs that are supposed to all be reading the same diode, this just gives me a headach.
 
msg1285 said:
Granted it's not like these are huge variations but for three programs that are supposed to all be reading the same diode, this just gives me a headach.
Click to expand...
Granted, that's why I was trying to limit the question with those who have the same mobo family as me (sorry I never said that). I think it's a BIOS function. I just want to know which to correct for.
 
Well, I updated the first post with every temp monitor I though was worth it. There is a consistent difference. I have 2 new schools of thought now.
  1. Use the lower, since that is what was recommended by the mobo manufacturer (through email communication), or
  2. Use the highest reasonable temp
I think at this point I will use Option 1.
 
Viscouse said:
Well, I updated the first post with every temp monitor I though was worth it. There is a consistent difference. I have 2 new schools of thought now.
  1. Use the lower, since that is what was recommended by the mobo manufacturer (through email communication), or
  2. Use the highest reasonable temp
I think at this point I will use Option 1.
Click to expand...


BAD idea, as most mobo software is known to read WAY low.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top