• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

"Core Temp" - Official Developer Thread.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Version 1.0 RC2 - 7th September, 2011

- Fix: Temperature spikes to TjMax on Sandy Bridge CPUs.
- Fix: Settings not saved properly bug.

- Change: Changed frequency detection back to the original for Intel processors.
- Change: Removed power consumption feature on older CPUs (only supported by Sandy Bridge now).

- Known issues: Occasionally wrong FSB detection (Workaround: Press F5 in Core Temp).
- Known issues: Recognition of Atom E600 series.
 
I checked it under load, Prime 95 large FFts and IBT max ram, against the latest versions of Real Temp, HWMonitor, and Asrock's Extreme Tuning Utility.

Average max temps were the same as Real Temp, and 2-4C higher than HWMonitor. AETU's temp was 2C higher than CT's and RT's average max temp. HWMonitor's package temp was the same as AETU's temp.

What exactly is package temp?

So which one is right????
 
MadScientist said:
I checked it under load, Prime 95 large FFts and IBT max ram, against the latest versions of Real Temp, HWMonitor, and Asrock's Extreme Tuning Utility.

Average max temps were the same as Real Temp, and 2-4C higher than HWMonitor. AETU's temp was 2C higher than CT's and RT's average max temp. HWMonitor's package temp was the same as AETU's temp.

What exactly is package temp?

So which one is right????
Click to expand...

Some mobo's have a socket sensor, which might get reported as package temp (or Tcase, erroneously of course).

My mobo has a socket sensor, so it reports both the socket temp as well as the CPU temp.

It also reports the CPU temp to be about 10C lower than CoreTemp does.

I would tend to believe coretemp though as coretemp has nothing to gain by under-reporting my CPU's temps whereas my mobo maker is not interested in me rma'ing my mobo for having crazy CPU temps. Just applying Occam's razor to the business decisions that are made.
 
OMG... WHO NECRO'd this thread?

:\

Couldnt you have made a new one instead of necroing an old one editting it and then bumping it?

Old 10-21-2006, 07:05 PM <--- start...

IT was edited to release the new CoreTemp.. :T
Last edited by The Coolest; 08-18-2011 at 01:43 PM.

But i think it should of been as a new thread.... because people like me walking in thinks Big time Necro... and half the time i know we wont read when the first post was edited.
 
aigomorla said:
OMG... WHO NECRO'd this thread?

:\

Couldnt you have made a new one instead of necroing an old one editting it and then bumping it?

Old 10-21-2006, 07:05 PM <--- start...

IT was edited to release the new CoreTemp.. :T
Last edited by The Coolest; 08-18-2011 at 01:43 PM.

But i think it should of been as a new thread.... because people like me walking in thinks Big time Necro... and half the time i know we wont read when the first post was edited.
Click to expand...

Uhm...the author of CoreTemp himself did.

He updated the OP as well as posted in the thread to highlight the fact that CoreTemp has been updated to address a bug with SB chips.
 
Idontcare said:
Uhm...the author of CoreTemp himself did.

He updated the OP as well as posted in the thread to highlight the fact that CoreTemp has been updated to address a bug with SB chips.
Click to expand...

yeah i can see that... :\

he should of made a new post... instead of deleting his first entry, and then editting the entire post. 😛
 
Sorry.
I just usually update the existing thread, assuming that most people would just click on "Latest post", or they can see the 'announcement' in the first post.

Next time I'll start a new thread 😛
 
The Coolest said:
Sorry.
I just usually update the existing thread, assuming that most people would just click on "Latest post", or they can see the 'announcement' in the first post.

Next time I'll start a new thread 😛
Click to expand...

its mainly for the archives...

Unless u want your old completely out removed.. having the old posts usually lets us reference.

Changing the original posts would make the following comments invalid also.. :\
 
I'm a bit leerly of this installer. Great program though!

Visual Studio incorporates Windows Installer very well.
 
The installer is different, I agree, but it is fine.
It looks that way because it is web-based, it will only install the Yahoo add-on if you click "Accept" on it's offer page, clicking "Decline" will only install Core Temp.
The company which makes the installer is called W3i and they are a Yahoo partner, actually Yahoo were the ones who referred them to me.
The installer also has the TRUSTe seal.
 
Don't like tricky installers and having to uncheck stuff. Why don't they just have it unchecked by default? Sorry, pet peeve of mine.
 
Hey guys. I know I haven't updated RC3 in a very long time, and since we got Ivy Bridge, BD and now Trinity, and soon we'll have PD CPUs that the current version doesn't properly support.
Well at last I've had the chance to finish up RC4. It adds support for all of the CPUs I just mentioned and fixes some minor bugs and problems we still had with RC3.
It's now available in both the installer version, and as always a standalone version is there too, so if you're still with me feel free to check it out.
 
The Coolest said:
Hey guys. I know I haven't updated RC3 in a very long time, and since we got Ivy Bridge, BD and now Trinity, and soon we'll have PD CPUs that the current version doesn't properly support.
Well at last I've had the chance to finish up RC4. It adds support for all of the CPUs I just mentioned and fixes some minor bugs and problems we still had with RC3.
It's now available in both the installer version, and as always a standalone version is there too, so if you're still with me feel free to check it out.
Click to expand...

Fantastic news. Will be grabbing this as soon as I get home for all of my machines.
 
The Coolest said:
Hey guys. I know I haven't updated RC3 in a very long time, and since we got Ivy Bridge, BD and now Trinity, and soon we'll have PD CPUs that the current version doesn't properly support.
Well at last I've had the chance to finish up RC4. It adds support for all of the CPUs I just mentioned and fixes some minor bugs and problems we still had with RC3.
It's now available in both the installer version, and as always a standalone version is there too, so if you're still with me feel free to check it out.
Click to expand...

Awesome :thumbsup:

I love CoreTemp over RealTemp because coretemp will tell me the requested VID value from my 3770k as a function of load and clockspeed but realtemp won't.

And I love the fact that when I enable data logging in Coretemp it creates a unique file (with the timestamp in the filename) for each instance of data logging enable/disable.

Realtemp just dumps all logged data into a single linear log file, appending it with each successive request by the user to log temperature data. It makes it very painful to keep track of which set of logged data corresponds to a specific test that was being conducted and so forth. Coretemp's datalogging method is vastly superior.

Thanks for keeping with it and updating it :thumbsup:
 
geokilla said:
I never had any crapware..
Click to expand...

I have a hard stance on it. An installer that wants to install a browser toolbar, to me, puts it in the crapware pushing bin. Being able to get around it, to me, isn't the issue. It's a philosophical disagreement with the creators of the product itself at that point that makes me choose to abstain.

I don't even have java installed on any of my home systems due to this.
 
Ferzerp said:
I have a hard stance on it. An installer that wants to install a browser toolbar, to me, puts it in the crapware pushing bin. Being able to get around it, to me, isn't the issue. It's a philosophical disagreement with the creators of the product itself at that point that makes me choose to abstain.

I don't even have java installed on any of my home systems due to this.
Click to expand...

I use to have that kind of a gut revolt to the situation as well but have since just come to accept it.

Java, flash, coretemp - the bottom line is that these companies don't charge us for the software but it does add value to our lives otherwise we wouldn't be using it in the first place.

So it makes sense that they try and pay their bills, and it makes sense that we bear some of that burden as their otherwise freeloading customers.

Same reason I don't adblock the Anandtech forums. I have a philosophical disagreement with people that expect Anand to pay for the bandwidth of these forums out of his pocket but they can't be bothered to let a few ads (that they'll never click anyways) show up in their browser.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top