Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why is there 10 degree C difference between Real Temp & Nvidia Monitor

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Monitors
  • Nvidia
Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 13, 2008 2:18:08 PM

I'm running an intel Q9300 Quad, and when I first booted my system up for the first time, I was disappointed to see the core temps were in the mid 50s. So I added more thermal paste and dropped them down to the low 50s. This is all in the Nvidia System monitor (I have a 790i board). However, when I installed Real Temp 2.5, it showed my cores running 10 degrees lower across the board. Any idea why this is?

Edit: Ok, I did some more reading, and now i understand that this is normal. But now I'm worried about my CPUs temperature again? I can't get the cores below 50 degrees. Except for one of them which idles at 33 degrees. Seems like a big difference. Is it normal for the cores in a quad to be at such different temps?

More about : degree difference real temp nvidia monitor

a b à CPUs
May 13, 2008 2:42:09 PM

RealTemp is correct. Most other temp programs see the TjMax at 105 when it is 95.

I have a X3350(Q9450) and most programs are 10 degrees off.

1Haplo
Related resources
May 13, 2008 2:50:16 PM

CoreTemp is giving me the same numbers as Nvidia: 49, 49, 51, 33.
May 13, 2008 2:51:12 PM

1haplo said:
RealTemp is correct. Most other temp programs see the TjMax at 105 when it is 95.

I have a X3350(Q9450) and most programs are 10 degrees off.

1Haplo


+1

The difference is in the program's value for the processor's TjMax. While this is not stated by Intel many believe it to be 95C. Some of the older revisions of programs have it as high as 105C, which many believe is too high to be correct.
May 13, 2008 3:02:02 PM

Core temp likely has the same incorrect TjMax value.
a b à CPUs
May 13, 2008 3:17:48 PM

My suggestion is that it doesnt really matter which is correct - as no app has shown they are completely correct. That temperature information is used to drop the clock (and voltage?) when it senses an overload. And due to process variation that temperature trigger will vary from lot to lot and CPU to CPU from the same lot and it is not precise to the degree. The last I read Intel doesnt even provide much of the information on the various temps and measurements.

What I would do is search and read what others are reporting for the same tool and CPU and cooler and see how yours compares. The stock cooler does run a little hotter than aftermarket products.

With a stock system you will see temps in the 50's, its no big deal. With an overclocked system, you can see whatever your pain level is. I would say go enjoy your system and dont chase every degree of temperature.
May 13, 2008 3:27:30 PM

vvhocare5 said:
My suggestion is that it doesnt really matter which is correct - as no app has shown they are completely correct. That temperature information is used to drop the clock (and voltage?) when it senses an overload. And due to process variation that temperature trigger will vary from lot to lot and CPU to CPU from the same lot and it is not precise to the degree. The last I read Intel doesnt even provide much of the information on the various temps and measurements.

What I would do is search and read what others are reporting for the same tool and CPU and cooler and see how yours compares. The stock cooler does run a little hotter than aftermarket products.

With a stock system you will see temps in the 50's, its no big deal. With an overclocked system, you can see whatever your pain level is. I would say go enjoy your system and dont chase every degree of temperature.


Well, that's certainly one perspective. But we're enthusiast. We know that temps affect our overclocking limits...so we want the lowest temps. Its frustrating when you end up with a processor that (45nm Wolfies and Yorkies) that is ellusive about its temps.
a b à CPUs
May 13, 2008 6:03:56 PM

Guys, with the exception of halcyon and 1haplo, the rest of you are either misinformed, or just simply uninformed. Please read the Real Temp documentation: http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/docs.php

For those of you who are interested in understanding the differences between CPU temperature and Core temperatures, and how to properly test, calibrate and monitor your temperatures, please read the following Sticky: Core 2 Quad and Duo Temperature Guide - http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/221745-29-core-quad-t...

Comp :sol: 
a b à CPUs
May 13, 2008 6:35:36 PM

liljone, please read my post above. Core Temp has been proven to indicate 10c too high on 45 nanometer processors, which applies to all 7000, 8000 and 9000 series. Respectfully, I can't recommend Core Temp to anyone. Real Temp is simply the best temperature monitoring utility currently available for monitoring Core temperatures only. Trust me... I wouldn't mislead you. I wrote the Core 2 Quad and Duo Temperature Guide: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/221745-29-core-quad-t...


Comp :sol: 
May 13, 2008 11:13:09 PM

I probably should have mentioned that I'm using a Zalman copper cooling unit and OCZ freeze thermal paste. I think I'm going to take vvhoCare5's advice and just enjoy the computer. I don't plan on OC'ing the rig at all. It's just that when I read reviews of thermal paste online, every article that discusses OCZ freeze was reporting temps in the low 40s at idle. I'm pretty sure my cooling fan is properly seated, and it sounds like temps in the low 50s C is not too bad. I definitely appreciate all the feedback.
a b à CPUs
May 13, 2008 11:21:32 PM

Well that's just perfect. It's a slap in the face to those of us who know what we're talking about, and care enough to spend our time trying to help you. As long as you don't care for our advice, at least take care to use Real Temp to monitor your temperatures, unless you just don't care.
May 13, 2008 11:31:48 PM

CompuTronix said:
Well that's just perfect. It's a slap in the face to those of us who know what we're talking about, and care enough to spend our time trying to help you. As long as you don't care for our advice, at least take care use Real Temp to monitor your temperatures, unless you just don't care.


Wow, why such hostility? You yourself claim in your "Guide to quad core temperatures" that a temp in the 50s is acceptable for a Q9300, so in what way am I not caring about your advice? I think you're a little too jumpy there Computronix. Did you miss the part where I said I appreciated all the feedback?
a b à CPUs
May 13, 2008 11:41:31 PM

Apparently so. Sorry, please accept my most profound and humble appologies. You are of course completely in the right, and I most certainly am completely in the wrong. I stand corrected.
!