I'm using 2 different programs to monitor core temps, both give me completely different readings.

Real Temp 2.60
max temps
core 0 60
core 1 49
core 2 55
core 3 53


hardware monitor
max temps
core 0 70
core 1 59
core 2 64
core 3 63

I think core 1 has the 42nm temp bug. but what program do I believe? And these temps were taken at about 75% cpu usage, for some reason prime96 wouldn't open 4 instances so i could work each core up.

Well, for starters, put two and two together. You said you can only run 3 of 4 instances of Prime95, thus causing one core to idle. Doesn't suffer from the bug obviously. Anyway, if it were me, I would trust RealTemp. To be safe, I wouldn't OC anymore than what you currently are at until someone releases an updated version of the applications.

On a side note, I didn't know the Q8xxx series was already out; It was kind of a quiet introduction, eh?

yeah the Q8xxx is the CPU design to take on the Tri core Phenom X3.

use prime 25.6 it will load all core and see what temp you get.

whoops sry, I typo'd. That's what I get for 8 hours of sleep in 3 days.

I have the q9450. Also Prime96 for some reason will only run 1 instance not 4 like I need. I'll try prime 25.6, thanks.

And I havn't oc'ed yet, I just built this today and havn't even gotten vista 64 yet, so I was testing everything in xp for now.

trust me the xp is better.vista got too much background service will eat up resources specially HDD will be pretty much constantly reading and write because of windows prefetch. and 64bit will just have loads of incompatibility depend on what software you use. for instance Rivatuner dont work with Vista 64bit so no OC for your graphics card.

hum, no oc for my gf card doesn't work. Though I keep hearing to use vista instead from my friend

Anyway back to the programs.

Now that I have prime running at full power
real Temp
Max
core 0 69
core 1 61
core 2 63
core 3 61

Hardware Monitor
max
Core 0 79
Core 1 71
Core 2 73
Core 3 71

maybe core 1 isnt having temp sensor issues, strange. Anyway what do I trust? and arnt those temp high for a cpu?

The reason why you are getting different temps....

is the Tjunction max. So the programers use what they think the Tjmax value is.

Intel will not publish the Tjmax. Sooooo:

RealTemp is set to 95 by default.

Hardware Monitor is using a 105C Tjmax.

That is the main reason why you have different readings. Depending on the software, it maybe programed for different Tjmax defaults for certain CPU's on the Intel side, for example the different steppings (G0/B3).

aw, that would explain the 10c difference. So which is right though? It seems to me like realtemp is right, but i just want to make sure it is realtemp, if not I have some major problems

Heh... either could actually be wrong, since the tjmax is only based on an assumption, by the guys who wrote the program, aka CoreTemp/RealTemp/Speedfan/HWMonitor. The program itself cannot detect what it is. So that is why there is a calibration section from where you got RealTemp:

Real Temp - Documentation

its not that simple to calibrate it i think. but given error to 10%+/- i would stick with coretemp.

What a load of bulls**t about Vista X64. I have it running since beta versions. And almost all software works on it. There was a driver issues with 64 bit when Vista first came out. But now You can pretty much get drivers for everything if it is not ancient. As for background services- You can turn off what You don't need. And it is not accesing HDD all the time if You have enough memory. And Rivatuner certainly works. Go for Vista X64 and get 4GB RAM or more.

....how does above post relate to op's question?

View Single Post

This was the guy who wrote RealTemp, when he was doing his testing, and how he basically thought how he did a calibration, or estimate of what the tjmax was for his E8400.

Heh.. it doesn't really matter to me, you can even change the tjmax to 95C for CoreTemp, if you think 105C is too high.

The only program that doesn't have an offset or ability to change the tjmax is that Hardware Monitor, I think.

i think he is obsess with 64bit Vista and prolly angry about when i said stay away from Vista 64bit.

Windows prefetch is what accessing the HDD most of the time btw if you dont know. and do you really expect people spend whole day figure out what does what and what they dont need?ainarssems i think you should know what people go for a 64bit windows because they want to use enough ram to disable the virtual memory. not because 64bit have massive improvement above 32bit. for now at least.

well I'm getting vista because I'v got 4gb ram and xp doesn't see it. Though any tweeks you know of to beat down vista's gremlins would be appreciated.

Also I guess I will never know exactly what my cpu temp is, o well thanks for help on that regard. Also I think Intel needs to be slapped out the back of their collective heads.