I read in a different thread that hwmonitor is the general consensus "best" sensor for cpu temps. I have no idea why that is, but I can say I'd never used it. Up til now I'd used only "coretemp" for monitoring temps. My testing with LinX (longest prior to last night was 2.5hrs) resulted in max temps on coretemp showing 72, 68, 69, 72. Last night I set up hwmonitor, and let LinX run overnight, over 8 hours. As shown on the image attached, hwmonitor displays temps cooler by a few degrees. Not that this is earth shattering, but I like these number better. Does anyone understand why there is a difference, and is there a reason to trust hwmonitor over coretemp?
I use both, but my temp readings are the same for each. I like CoreTemp because it shows the temps in the systray. I like CPUID hardware monitor because it shows temps and fan speeds for almost all my hw.
I read a bunch of threads since posting this, and clearly temperature displayed by any of these tools is a derived result. The precise method of calibrating and the algorithms used may be slightly different resulting in inexact comparison of results between the tools.
I was quite interested in one member here who posted that they trust hwmonitor more than any other tool, but without finding that thread and asking that question directly to that person, it appears that such a viewpoint is not universal, and most folks here are indifferent to which tool is used.
I've had inconsistent results with HWMonitor. Where CoreTemp and RealTemp usually match, or lag by a second or two (I assumed due to refresh/timing), HWMonitor is often 1-2 degrees - or more - lower; but it also swings higher. I'll often watch them all but I've tended to trust RealTemp or even CoreTemp more. 2 out of 3 have to be right, right? Or it could just be misplaced faith on my part.