Which is more accurate?

[chazdraves]

I'm working on OC'in my C2D E4300, and I'd like to know which is a better program because there's a huge disparity between the tems they list. SpeedFan says I'm hitting 55C while running SuperPi 8M and a Prime 95 Torture Test, but HW Mon says I'm hitting 70C! If HW Mon is right, I'm going to turn this thing back down, but if SF is right, I'll keep it here and get a Tuniq...

Thanks!
_ Chaz

 

[reviewhunter]

I trust core temp... or which ever that gives you a "worst case scenario"

 

[Idontcare]

If you read the sticky in the forum you will find your questions were already answered.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2057083&enterthread=y

 

[Cogman]

Repost, this topic was posted and answered 1 or 2 days ago. Please search. (the title was almost exactly the same as well)

 

[KBTuning]

and im the noob who asked the question...

your pretty much hosed... speedfan reads 15degrees low supposedly so 70 sounds "more correct" since no one has any idea as to what the real temps are...

 

[LOUISSSSS]

use coretemp & realtemp.

recently, i've only been using Real Temp 2.0.

Speedfan core temp readings aren't accurate AT ALL.

 

[chazdraves]

Sorry for the re-post, folks. I did a Google search, but I didn't search the forums first.

Yes, it would seem SpeedFans is not the way to go. I'm actually really taken by Hardware Monitor, however. It does a good job and it logs the highest temp since it was started (which is handy when running a game and coming back to see how hot things got). Is HW Mon any less accurate than TAT or Core Temp? I've never used either, and I'd rather not download either if HW Mon works just as well.

Thanks, all!
- Chaz