What's new
  • Please do not post any links until you have 3 posts as they will automatically be rejected to prevent SPAM. Many words are also blocked due to being used in SPAM Messages. Thanks!

Real Temp or Core Temp ??

FrankyG

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
166
Location
Shediac,NB
Witch is better/accurate to monitor the temps on my CPU ? I have Core Temp 0.99 & Real Temp 2.70 and they give me different temps...
 

Infiniti

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
1,381
Location
Vancouver, BC
From what I've seen on other forums, Real Temp is best for monitoring 45nm CPUs, while Core Temp is best for monitoring 65nm CPUs.
 

||Console||

Active member
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
37
That was before now they both have the same tjmax so you will get the same reading from both . for me core temp wins no extra crap when installing it
 

FrankyG

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
166
Location
Shediac,NB
I have a 45nm Cpu, Tj max is set to 95 on both programs and Real Temp give me a reading about 10c cooler then Core Temp
 
Last edited:

MpG

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
3,132
Location
Kitchener, ON
You'll likely be fine with either. The latest revision of Coretemp (0.99.3) uses correct TjMax values for the Intel 45nm chips, as taken from some recently found Intel white papers, I'm not sure if Realtemp has issued a corresponding update yet. Realtemp biggest advantage is that it allows you to calibrate your idle temp accuracy, assuming you care about that in the first place.
 

Dashock

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Messages
1,921
Location
Toronto
I too use Tj max of 95 as im pretty sure my sensors are stuck i use Real temp though.

Because even when i downclock to 1.45ghz at 0.992 it still showed me 30 and 34 degrees on the cores. now i got them at 95 showing 28- 32
 

Twitter

Top