Which Program is Correct?

[KBTuning]

right now im running Seti@home and both coretemp and real temp are running... here are the results...


coretemp 0.97 is showing
61 59 55 55


Real Temp x64 2.1 is showing
56 54 50 50



which one is correct?

 

[Glavinsolo]

http://www.fotosearch.com/thumb/LIF/LIF139/NU107003.jpg

 

[Cogman]

I tend to believe core temp as it takes its reading straight form the CPU diode. Now if the CPU Diode is off, thats a different story.

These programs have to get their temperature from somewhere, and the higher one is usually the closest to reality (better lower then you really are then higher then you think you are.)

 

[Tempered81]

higher or lower etc etc....

There is no difference between the two because Realtemp is assuming a higher Thermal junction temperature by 5 degrees. If you switched Coretemp .97's temperature reading to "delta to TJmax" you would see the same numbers as the delta view in Realtemp 2.1


Based on both of these readings:



coretemp 0.97 is showing
61 59 55 55


Real Temp x64 2.1 is showing
56 54 50 50

-You still have the same threshold until you cross your thermal junction into the danger zone. Both progs will tell you that you have 50C til overheat & prochot.

is the 56C or the 61C correct?

No one will know that until you get a whitepaper or specsheet from intel telling you what the published thermal junction max on your q6600 is. Unclewebb (realtemp author) made the program to match 45nm penryn chips with their actual temperature read through an infrared thermalgun or thermocoupler measuring the Tcase temperature.

Your delta to thermal junction max (how much further in degrees you can push it before it shuts itself off, throttles, or initiates prochot) will still be the same.

 

[KBTuning]

intel needs to man up and actually post a number... this is getting old...

 

[graysky]

Originally posted by: jaredpaceUnclewebb (realtemp author) made the program to match 45nm penryn chips with their actual temperature read through an infrared thermalgun or thermocoupler measuring the Tcase temperature.

True, but there should be a temp difference since he used an IR thermometer to read the temp of the surface of the IHS. The actual cores [and the DTS] are buried under the IHS and are likely warmer. As you said, until something official is published, it's anyone's guess.

 

[rge]

intel needs to man up and actually post a number... this is getting old...

Thats for sure.

I have been bugging them to on their forum...but so far I am being ignored there...but once a week I am going to post there...see what happens.
http://softwarecommunity.intel...owThread.aspx#30250058

Edit...btw I have found a partial answer to the gradient, I posted it in my posts at the above link, with links to intel articles. Resistance is additive, so its
Resistance through core at steady state windows idle, published by intel as near zero..0.1C (dual core here)
resistance across IHS at steady state windows idle, partial thickness is ~ 0.1C, total cant be more than 0.2
trying to track down resistance across tim1....but it is not 5 or 10C.
So temp at IHS, underclocked, undervolted I believe is accurate approximation of temp core. But would like to track down TIM1 for number.

Also a reviewer measured with drilled hole to core, temp difference of case vs core and only 0.4C, at again steady idle.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: graysky

Originally posted by: jaredpaceUnclewebb (realtemp author) made the program to match 45nm penryn chips with their actual temperature read through an infrared thermalgun or thermocoupler measuring the Tcase temperature.

True, but there should be a temp difference since he used an IR thermometer to read the temp of the surface of the IHS. The actual cores [and the DTS] are buried under the IHS and are likely warmer. As you said, until something official is published, it's anyone's guess.

this is what they call the "gradient" and supposedly it is very small, and almost non-existent during load. allowing accurate temp readings.