Most overclocking enthusiasts clearly understand that processor temperatures are critical, but which temps? CPU or Cores or both? What's the difference? How do they relate to one another? How do you know if they're accurate?

Many users may not realize that popular temperature monitoring utilities such as Core Temp, Everest and Hardware Monitor over-estimate Core temperatures (Tjunction), because they all "guess" at the unknown value of "Tjunction Max". Users may also not be aware that Intel does not support or publicly document Maximum Junction Temperature (Tjunction Max) on Core 2 desktop processors.

To deal with this problem more effectively, there's a new Sheriff in town; Real Temp 2.24 http://www.xtremesystems.org/forum [...] p?t=179044

Please read at least the first post, which has the link to download the program. It also explains how Real Temp works, and the temperature monitoring problems it solves. The thread has exploded to 20 pages. It's a bit of a read, but lends fresh perspective and understanding to the perpetual Tjunction Max / Core temperature debate.

Real Temp contends that all the popular temperature utilities such as Core Temp report excessively high values on many processors, so depending upon which variant you're running, Real Temp will typically report Cores at least 5c cooler than other utilities. I strongly agree with Real Temp, however, I think it could be perfected if additional variables were considered.

CPU temperature (Tcase) is the only temperature Intel specifies and supports. Although Everest and Hardware Monitor also report CPU temperature, Core Temp of course does not. SpeedFan reports both CPU and Core temperatures, but SpeedFan http://www.almico.com/speedfan.php is the only popular temperature monitoring utility which can be "calibrated".

This is precisely why I feature SpeedFan in the Core 2 Quad and Duo Temperature Guide http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/ [...] ture-guide as the preferred temperature monitoring utility. The calibration methods are now based upon the use of known values for CPU offsets as well as Core offsets. If you follow the Guide to the letter, you'll have accurate temperatures in SpeedFan, which will report CPU temp slightly higher, and Core temps slightly lower than popular utilities.

Regardless, I see Real Temp as a very significant breakthrough in the ongoing effort to develop a simple temperature monitoring utility which may be more accurate from Idle through Load. I recommend checking out Real Temp.

Comp

comp,

So you saying the Core Temp program I am running generally over estimates the temp. then under estimates? BTW.. you posting is very informational.

Yes, that's correct. It means that Core temperatures are actually a bit cooler than you've all been led to believe. Just download Real Temp and check it out for yourself.

ok so speedfan if calibrated give the best results..
Core Temp is too high..

Where do you think Real Temp falls? I am guessing it is more accurate then Core Temp but doesn't to tend to favor one side.

Like over or under estimate?

Core Temp = higher
SpeedFan = intermediate (only if calibrated)
Real Temp = lower

Interesting your user's configuration was a good read and well done.. ;-) So what were your temps. when running @ 3.8 with 1.536 Vcore. Not sure if that was voltage in windows or in the bios.

Prime95 Small FFT's at 3.7 indicates 68c CPU and 75c average Core, which max's out my rig, so I don't run load tests at 3.8. Vcore is in Windows during Load. My 24/7 settings are in my sig, which are 3.6, 62c CPU, 68 average Core, 1.440 Vcore.

What was the VID for you Q6600 GO?. I happened to get one with VID of 1.325. So in order to get my Q6600 up to 3.6 I had to run the vCore above 1.5 to be stable in windows Vista 64. To keep it cool I went with Xigmatek HDT-S1283 and Kaze fan, that is pretty loud.


http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/ [...] 1_120.html

1.3000

Very interesting. After getting a new pc, I didn't want to set up speedfan so I just grab Coretemp.

Anyways, since Coretemps reads higher temps, it's pretty much safer for your system. I think I rather continue to be fooled by higher temps from Coretemps.

Of course I'm gonna grab this and see how much lower the temps really are.

I can't get the program to work. says the zip file is invalid. Anybody else get it to work?

It worked off the top over here, just dunno how to set it up!

--Lupi

Initially, it doesn't need any setup. If you read the first post in the thread, which will eventually be included in the readme file, you'll see that one of the features is that it allows you to calibrate your Idle temps if they happen to be below ambient, while not disturbing the Load temps. Since some processors are known to have non-linear Idle temps, this can be a very helpful.

I tried and tried, the developer of RealTemp thinks almost every CPU has a 85c Tj max even quad cores. He thinks adding a idle offset magicaly makes your temps not below ambient. Changing the numbers displayed on a program don't change the cores' temp, he also says Tcase is not important and should be "ignored".... while Intel clearly rates thermal spec on Tcase and not core temps.

His findings with the IR gun and the graph about the "proposed" inaccurate DTS is interesting although wrong.. trying to explain it to him is like talking to a wall. He kept insisting the temp he gets from the IR gun reading is fail proof and accurate temps of the DTS, he doesn't understand that hes only getting IHS temp which is... yes Tcase or pretty close to it. Even if the IHS was removed and the IR gun placed on the die it stil won't be accurate as the heat is orignating right within the core, a spot an IR gun cannot get to. The heat has to spread throughout the die and into the IHS, thus the temp hes getting will be lower most likely by about 5c which is where the delta comes in.

Reguarding the DTS graph I also fail to believe any of that especially with the 65nm CPUs, any common sence will tell you Intel will not mass produce millions of processors with defective DTS such as he described (this is directed to 65nm's), obviously they would fix it. Although many 45nm's have a "stuck" DTS the method of idle offsets in RealTemp does NOT help "compensate" for the errorous DTS in anyway. Any processor with a sticking DTS should be RMA'ed anyway, but changing a displayed number to make it higher or lower (usually higher) just to make it "look sensable" is totally wrong.

Thats equal to saying the temp of my oven is 300c, but iam going to use an offset to make it display at 315c. Yea......

Right now I highly reccomend Speedfan so you can correctly set the Tj max for your processor, CoreTemp is also inaccurate but is much much closer to being accurate, I already posted a large post explaining why each stepping is what Tj max and the developer said he "will consider it" so.. I hope he does but if he don't I or we always got Speedfan thats totally customizable.

RealTemp was almost perfectly accurate in its early 1st and 2nd release versions, but now its just all inaccurate. It still has potiential if the Tj max values get fixed up thats all it needs, other than that I like it. I personally use version 2.11 as its the last accurate one for most CPUs. As always some agree to it and some don't.. if you really believe it then so be it, I can't change your mind for you