The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    Which Temp. Monitor?

    Discussion in 'Windows OS and Software' started by xTank Jones16x, Jul 16, 2011.

  1. xTank Jones16x

    xTank Jones16x PC Elitist

    Reputations:
    848
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Here are the 3 that I am using, and the temperatures they are showing. Which program is correct (for my CPU Cores).

    Keep in mind, they all show the same temperature for the "CPU" just not the "CPU Cores".


    HWMonitor: CPU Core 0, and 1 are around 67°C. Core 2, and 3 are around 63°C.


    Core Temp: CPU Core 0, and 1 are around 52°C. Core 2, and 3 are around 47°C.


    SpeedFan: CPU Core 0, and 1 are around 57°C. Core 2, and 3 are around 52°C.
     
  2. Generic User #2

    Generic User #2 Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    179
    Messages:
    846
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    wow....that is drastically different.

    can someone also do something like this for the core i2s?
     
  3. anseio

    anseio All ways are my ways.

    Reputations:
    1,940
    Messages:
    2,418
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
  4. xTank Jones16x

    xTank Jones16x PC Elitist

    Reputations:
    848
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    56

    The temps are almost identical to HWMonitor.

    If HWMonitor is correct, why are the other temps on the other programs way off?

    I'm more inclined to believe HWMonitor, because I recently overclocked from 2.4 GHz to 3.2 GHz, so naturally the temps are higher.
     
  5. sgogeta4

    sgogeta4 Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    2,389
    Messages:
    10,552
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    456
    RealTemp for me is the most accurate. CoreTemp and SpeedFan usually require an offset. Also, try RMClock.
     
  6. xTank Jones16x

    xTank Jones16x PC Elitist

    Reputations:
    848
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    56
    RealTemp shows temps along the lines of SpeedFan.

    So the sidebar gadget is about the same as HWMonitor, and RealTemp is around SpeedFan.

    So I'm kind of back to square one. I'm not sure which ones is the most accurate.
     
  7. anseio

    anseio All ways are my ways.

    Reputations:
    1,940
    Messages:
    2,418
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
  8. 3Fees

    3Fees Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    541
    Messages:
    970
    Likes Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    56
  9. xTank Jones16x

    xTank Jones16x PC Elitist

    Reputations:
    848
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Temps are the same as Real Temp (which is also the same as SpeedFan).

    That widget gets it's temps from CoreTemp, which I already have the temp readings from.


    So with all this information, SpeedFan might be the most accurate? If so, I still have no clue why most of these programs show drastically different temps.
     
  10. 3Fees

    3Fees Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    541
    Messages:
    970
    Likes Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Each has a different program to read the Digital thermal sensor on each core, thus differnet temperatures. IMO Arthur Liberman work is most accurate. Check out his web site.

    Cheers
    3Fees :)
     
  11. -L1GHTGAM3R-

    -L1GHTGAM3R- Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    434
    Messages:
    1,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55