"Core Temp"

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

The Coolest

Senior member
Dec 16, 2004
351
1
91
www.alcpu.com
Does that Power field show up for the i7 875K? I'm not seeing it.
The power consumption interface was added to Sandy Bridge. So the older generation of CPUs won't display this value. There is no way to accurately measure power consumption from data provided by the CPU.

It does but it reads some internal sensor on the chip that reports the power consumption and near as I can figure, after playing around with it, it only reports dynamic power consumption and is totally blind to static power consumption (which in some cases can represent 50% of the total power consumption).

I'm not sure what good the power consumption estimate is since it seems to only capture and report half of the critical stuff.
What do you mean by 'static power consumption'? The power consumption is measured in energy units (joules) and converted to Watts via a formula.
Core Temp displays the power the processor was consuming between the last and current reading. Meaning that if you see 100W displayed it means the CPU was consuming an average of 100W/hour in that period of time. Core Temp's default polling interval is 1 second.
And just to clarify, the power consumption displayed is for the whole 'package' and not just the cores.
 
Last edited:

The Coolest

Senior member
Dec 16, 2004
351
1
91
www.alcpu.com
Version 1.0 RC6 - 9th October, 2013

- New: Digital signature. Core Temp is digitally signed by 'Artur Liberman', it is now easy to tell that you have a genuine copy of Core Temp.
- New: Update Checker. Core Temp can now notify you when a new version is available.
- New: You can now hide the taskbar button and use the system tray icons to pop the window back up.
- New: Added support AMD's new Richland APU.
- New: Added support for Intel Haswell and Ivy Bridge-EP CPUs.
- New: Preliminary support for Bay Trail-T Atoms.

- Fix: BSOD on some Windows 7/8 + UEFI enabled machines.
- Fix: AMD FX system freezes/crashes/BSOD.
- Fix: Driver failure when closing Core Temp on another Windows user account.
- Fix: Corrected detection of certain Xeon processors.

- Update: Ram utilization notification icon added to the Settings --> Notification Area.
- Update: Logitech G15 applet now supports CPUs with up to 10 cores.
- Update: System tray icons' tooltips now display their respective core information.
- Update: Log file will now also contain power consumption.
- Update: Log file will now keep track of each core on AMD CPUs as well.
 
Oct 9, 1999
13,280
61
126
Thank you sir.

This is the first utility I fire up when I undertake CPU overclocking tasks.
 
Sep 4, 2007
190
0
0
Curious. McAfee just intercepted a trojan while installing the new version of CoreTemp.
 
Oct 9, 1999
13,280
61
126
Curious. McAfee just intercepted a trojan while installing the new version of CoreTemp.
I doubt there is a trojan. I'm not a fan of the installer, but as long as I get Core Temp I'm fine with it. You can run the installer and decline all of the dubious software installation prompts. Once installed, copy the Core Temp files off somewhere else and then run the Core Temp uninstall. That way any lingering suspect software will be removed.
 
Oct 9, 1999
13,280
61
126
Using Core Temp now. The voltage it's reporting is VTT and not the actual core voltage.

Edit: Actually, I'm not sure what voltage it's reading.
 
Last edited:
Apr 25, 2013
127
0
0
Curious. McAfee just intercepted a trojan while installing the new version of CoreTemp.
It's a 'PUP' which I think stands for Potentially Unwanted Program and it simply will download some unwanted programs if you click (or don't click as the case may be) on the wrong things. When I installed CoreTemp several months ago I didn't get any such warnings and it was only about three weeks ago when my weekly MalWareBytes scan picked it up. MalwareBytes quarantined the offending file, leaving CoreTemp alone.
 
Oct 14, 2013
36
0
0
How does this compare to RealTemp? Is one better than the other?
 

The Coolest

Senior member
Dec 16, 2004
351
1
91
www.alcpu.com
Curious. McAfee just intercepted a trojan while installing the new version of CoreTemp.
As Alan G pointed out, McAfee incorrectly labels a 'PUP' as a trojan. Installing the offered extras is optional, you can opt out of them. You can also get the standalone version in "More downloads..."

Using Core Temp now. The voltage it's reporting is VTT and not the actual core voltage.

Edit: Actually, I'm not sure what voltage it's reading.
I couldn't get more accurate data on the VID on Haswell, I'm using the old formula which I implemented for Sandy Bridge. I'm not sure it's correct, it might just as well not be.

How does this compare to RealTemp? Is one better than the other?
These are two different programs, although they do the same thing basically. I think it's more down to personal preference and the features the programs provide which should be your consideration.
 

stockwiz

Senior member
Sep 8, 2013
403
0
81
I use realtemp and avoid all software that seems to have taken over the net that installs spyware and hijacks homepages even though you decline all the options. Not saying realtemp does this but I have had numerous programs that have.

Numerous online games do this too, such as 'cut the rope' if you try to install it.
 
Last edited:

Kougar

Senior member
Apr 25, 2002
398
0
76
Sweet, glad to hear you kept the standalone version!

The wattage figure is welcome as it saves me having to fire up alternate programs. Will be switching back from RealTemp to CoreTemp.

Thank you for the updated version!
 

The Coolest

Senior member
Dec 16, 2004
351
1
91
www.alcpu.com
Hi guys,
I thought I'd update this thread, as I just released a new version tonight.
At this time the only changes are bug fixes and support for the newest currently available processors.
The main issue many people have had in Win8/8.1/10 with the system hanging or crashing when you start Core Temp has been fixed.
One note, don't use the 'on the fly FSB detection' option on these OSes with this version, as it can still be problematic after long durations, but in general the problem is fixed.
All 3rd party stuff was removed from the installer and it is now 100% clean.
It was mostly personal reasons for why there was such a huge delay between the last 'official release' and this new one. I simply couldn't find time to work on it properly until now.
Hopefully from now on, I will be able to devote considerably more time to improving, fixing and adding features to Core Temp.
I'm open to feedback and welcome it, so please let me know if you encounter any problems with this version or have requests or suggestions for future releases.

- Arthur

Version 1.0 RC8 - 21st February, 2016
- New: Added support for all current Intel and AMD processors.

- Fix: System lock up/crash in Windows 8/10.
- Fix: BSOD on AMD Trinity and Richland APUs.
- Fix: Temperature on Trinity/Richland APUs.
- Fix: Incorrect bus frequency in Windows 8/10.
- Fix: Corrected VID for newer AMD processors.
- Fix: Corrected detection of certain Xeon processors.
- Fix: Multiple other bugs corrected.
 
Oct 9, 1999
13,280
61
126
Thank You. The installer is much better.
 

The Coolest

Senior member
Dec 16, 2004
351
1
91
www.alcpu.com
Version 1.0 RC9 - 4th June, 2016

- New: Added support for AMD Kabini, Mullins, Carrizo, Kaveri and Godavari APUs.
- New: Added support for Haswell-EP CPUs

- Fix: Update notification popup now identifies it as being Core Temp.
- Fix: Core Temp crash on update check.
- Fix: Core Temp window invisible due to being out of desktop bounds.
- Fix: Haswell Crystal Well frequency and TDP were missing.
- Fix: AMD Kaveri/Godavari CPUs were stuck at 16C/61F.
- Fix: Incorrect VID reported for newer AMD FX processors.
- Fix: AMD Trinity temperature was reported too high.
- Fix: When 'Display distance to TjMax' option is enabled, no indication string appears on AMD CPUs.
- Tip: Enabling the option above will result in the same temperature readings as in AMD Overdrive.
 
Aug 25, 2001
44,095
704
126
VID reading on J1900 Bay Trail Brix unit seems to be wrong. (Win7 64-bit.)

Under both Core Temp 1.0RC8 and RC9, it shows "1.4250 v" at the 1333Mhz Frequency, but "0.925V" at the 2416Mhz Frequency.

IOW, why is VID so much lower, at a higher frequency? Sounds backwards to me.

I did see VID pop up to 1.500V too, which seems really high for a 22nm Atom CPU.

Edit: Btw, does Atom J1900 have a PCU? Is it possible to read out "Package Power" or "Core Power" readings on these CPUs?
 
Oct 9, 1999
13,280
61
126
Thank you. I was using RC8 just recently for monitoring temperatures on my new 6950X. Updating to RC9 now.
 

The Coolest

Senior member
Dec 16, 2004
351
1
91
www.alcpu.com
@VirtualLarry
Interesting. Atoms are sometimes a bit odd. It's possible I have something wrong as I rarely get the chance to test Core Temp on recent Atom chips.
It would help if you could post a Core Temp register dump (Tools menu) and a TXT report from CPU-z.
As far as I'm aware the Atoms don't have a PCU like the Core iX (and derivatives) do, so there's no way of getting package power out of them.
 
Oct 9, 1999
13,280
61
126
Just installed it and loaded it up...

Really, DriverAgent? C'mon...
 
Oct 9, 1999
13,280
61
126
It is reading the voltage correctly. Thanks!
 

Doom2pro

Senior member
Apr 2, 2016
587
0
106
Have this program running on an FX-6300 and it randomly says one of the cores is over threshold but it never is, also sometimes all of my cores seem suspiciously low, 11C? That's like 51.8F on stock air cooling?

Seems fishy to me...
 

The Coolest

Senior member
Dec 16, 2004
351
1
91
www.alcpu.com
@AdamK47
Although I don't have to explain myself or justify the choices I make for an application I'm developing, for free, to anyone, I'll give it a go.
Core Temp takes up a lot of time and effort to maintain. Hosting costs money, domain names cost money, digital signature certificates cost money, hardware for testing costs money. And although I love helping and contributing to the community as much as the next guy, there are many expenses behind the scenes, while Core Temp has always been free for anyone to use.
So now I hope you understand that developers this day and age don't only invest their time, but also their own money to get their projects out there for people to use. And if they can make a buck from their hard work, good for them.

Regarding Driver Agent. Personally, I don't really see a problem with it. While I agree that 3rd party installers or bundle installers had people blindly install things they don't want or need, this won't happen with Driver Agent. You can't accidentally click the link, then click on Purchase, enter your billing information and then confirm your order. Therefore, if you're not interested in their offer, simply ignore that link and carry on.
 
Last edited:

The Coolest

Senior member
Dec 16, 2004
351
1
91
www.alcpu.com
@Doom2pro

That is an issue with the built in thermal sensor. Sometime it will report 'garbage' instead of an actual reading. Core Temp usually tries to ignore these, but apparently it's not always successful at it.
Regarding temperature readings, this has been discussed in length over the years.
In short, AMD processors do not report absolute (aka actual) core temperature, but an arbitrary value which is used by the hardware to determine how far the temperature is away from the overheat threshold value.
More information can be found here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/faq/id-2122665/understanding-temperature-amd-cpus-apus.html
You can turn on 'Display distance to TjMax' in the Advanced tab of the Settings dialog to get similar readings to AMD Overdrive.
 
Oct 9, 1999
13,280
61
126
I have no problem with that simple monitization link. It's just that DriverAgent has always seemed a bit shady.
 

The Coolest

Senior member
Dec 16, 2004
351
1
91
www.alcpu.com
Alright. Perhaps, but this is probably the least of them. Note that CPU-z and AIDA64 use them for monetization as well.
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS