Core 2 Quad - Defying physics?

What program are you using? Its probably reading the probe wrong.

I don't know...I'm pretty sure those temps are actually fine...maybe just a bit more than what I expect on load...I would say that you have perfectly normal temps if they were more like 50 - 54 on load...but taking into consideration that you are running on a stock cooler and live in Australia, I'm not afraid to say that those temps are pretty normal...even with water cooling you would get over ambient temps on load....it's just that you can't get any lower than ambient on water...that's how it is...

PS: And you don't really sound Australian in text lol...although I kept imagining your Australian accent tho whole time I was reading your post...

But, heres the thing; Ambient = 24 DEG C, My idle temp = 15 DEG C.... Heres some pictures for confirmation: http://img832.imageshack.us/i/low9400.png/

PS: Your first PS sentence had no sentence structure and I couldn't for the life of me understand it.
PPS: Australia and the rest of the world gets a shiver up their spine when they hear American 'redneck' accents so don't get started.  

Realtemp 3.60 ... What probe? its just CPU fan + CPU... http://img832.imageshack.us/i/low9400.png/

PS: Idle temps are not "idle", things like steam, web browser ect are open.

Yeah that is a bit weird...looks like one of your cores is idle at 15...which could mean theres no load on it at all so it doesn't heat up to ambient temps and/or could be the temp sensors (probe) try a different program like core temp to see if it says the same...

PS: I apologize about my ps sentence not making sense...I have no idea why I typed so instead of you...lol...been typing all day so maybe that's why...I fixed it though  

PPS: Haha, yeah I'm definitely not a redneck...I'm actually Russian and moved to US 10-11 years back...and have a standard American accent...and a Russian one when I want/need to...lol...And don't get me wrong I actually love Australian and British accents...they are both, in my opinion, much more beautiful sounding than the standard American...and that's not to mention redneck or Texan... (no offense to any of you rednecks or Texans...it's just an opinion) lol

Speaking of not making sense, you said you are running the stock cooler:

And air.

You want true idle temps? Go into the BIOS in the PC Health section and check your temps there. If those are below ambient, you have faulty temperature sensors. Otherwise, it looks as if your temperature monitoring utility is reading the sensors wrong.

^+1 That's what I thought...except didn't come up with the brilliant idea of going into the bios as my friend here did...lol...

I simply said that because liquid > most high end air

It's impossible to get lower than ambient temps if your cooling with air (or even watercooling). Think about it...How can your CPU be colder than the air around it.
Its most likely the sensors on your CPU are faulty or the temp monitoring program your using isn't reading the temps correctly.

^+1

Best answer selected by intel1502.

^pretty much exactly what we were all saying...
but did you figure out exactly what was going on? was it the programs?

I'd never rule out CPUs violating the laws of physics!
Once upon a time I used to have an old AMD k7 1GHz CPU that died. Those used to run pretty hot (look up on YouTube the old Tom's Hardware video of a K7 going off in flames). I never got anything below 70 degrees (Celsius) on idle.

So, I got a spare CPU, k7 at 900MHz, which had accidentally been dropped and had a bit of the core missing. That CPU still works. I kept it for years and it never went over 45-50 degrees on full load. Never had a problem with it.

If that is not an X file tell me what is!  

But yes, I agree it must be your sensor gone bananas.

Hahaha...yeah that's interesting...would love too see that...what exactly chipped off?

Here's what I don't get,
TJMax for the Q9400 is 100c, from the photo yours is set kind of low, ranging from 75-78c.
Go into RT's settings tab and set TJMax to 100 for all cores, don't be mad at me when you see your actual temps.

I thought there was an offset for the 8xxx and 9xxx series. But I don't know enough about it to mention....

Those chips had some sort of ceramic covering (probably to improve the heat transfer). One of the edges was completely missing, and the adjacent surface was crumbly, but I guess it didn't reach anything critical (or I never executed the one instruction that made everything explode...).

haha well that might have had nothing on the die...in that area...and/or your are right about the heat transfer material...

I feel tempted to start a grandma-style rant on the good olden times when you could drop CPUs off a skyscraper and they would work better than before, and fix your hard drives with a hammer, while now a little extra voltage will kill these pansy new components