Conroe vs Allendale Temp Sensors?

[Big.Wayne]

Hi,

does anyone know why the temp sensors on the newer Allendale chips (e4300 etc) give a different reading than Conroe chips?

I built my system using a Conroe e6300 and had three different apps that gave me the exact same readings, INTEL TAT, MBM5 with Core2 Duo plugin and Core Temp Beta 0.94.

Then when I swapped out the e6300-conroe for a e4300-allendale only Intel TAT gave me the proper reading, the other two apps started reading the CPu temps way too low.

Anyway I have now installed the e6300 and all the apps are working fine again, all giving the exact same temps.

Its just a small thing but it bugs me, does anyone have any technical info of the difference between the temps sensors?. As it stands, someone using an e4300 on an nVidia 650i chipset doesn't appear to be able to get an accurate reading (as TAT doesn't work on that chipset).

I still see some posts from people who are using e4300's and they are saying how wonderful the temps are, I guess they don't realise they are getting an incorrect reading?

There are some new processors from INTEL expected the next few months and I'm wondering if they are gonna have these same hard to read sensors?

apart from that I hope u are all having a fun Saturday night!

 

[Justintime]

Or maybe the software in question need to be updated to properly read the newer core? I wonder sometimes about TAT, has given me differing readings with the same chip on different boards, as much as 15c more, same cooler and boards out of case.

 

[satman]

Intel said there is a bug in TAT when using the E4300 cpu ...

for time been use Core Temp or everest ...

Heres mine @ Idle ...

.

And @ full Load

.
You can see that Core Temp and everest report the correct Temp ...


.

 

[Jokester]

Coretemp and TAT never gave me the same temp readings, TAT was higher at idle, but Coretemp was higher on load. That was with a E6600 and a QX6700.

Jokester

 

[Big.Wayne]

Intel said there is a bug in TAT when using the E4300 cpu ...

for time been use Core Temp or everest ...

Where did they say that?

Heres mine @ Idle ...

And @ full Load

You can see that Core Temp and everest report the correct Temp ...

As I can see Core Temp and Everest do not report the correct temp with an e4300?

I believe what TAT is telling you is the right temp, you got 56°C/57°C load temps there dude!

Like I said I have one system and two cpus, all my programs give the same reading with a Conroe but with an Allendale installed MBM and Core Temp give waaay to low readings . .

Edit btw: if you wanna see 'full load' then turn the TAT test on both cores!

 

[Corasik]

Well I've seen it said that TAT is +15 on E4300's, and if Satman is using Watercooling, then 42/43 sounds like a fairly typical load temp. Otherwise, if thats air cooling then 56/57 does sound more reasonable.

 

[Big.Wayne]

Well I've seen it said that TAT is +15 on E4300's

Where?

People are basing things on hearsay and things they read 'somewhere' whereas I have used both chips and have hands on experience so I believe what I am saying is right. I was hoping that someone could provide some answers. Its not a big deal and just curious really.

The Core2 Duo is the first chip I used that gives a reading from the actual Core, all the past CPU/Mobos I used had a widget/sensor in/under the CPU socket and u could never be sure what the actual temps were! You could update your BIOS and all of a sudden your CPU temps could change quite a bit.

I like this on-chip reading thing, but I just want to know whats different between the Conroe and Allendale, as it stands there are a few e4300 owning folk who are 'assuming' they got great temps and this chips runs cool, and at the very least I want to inform these people that they are mistaken!

I'm sure there is a King geek out there who knows!

 

[Corasik]

Well, cant find the page I saw before, but it 'appeared' to make it look like TAT was wrong.

As for the difference, apparnently Core 2 E6xxx have a max TJunct of 85, while the E4xxx have a max TJunt of 100, and due to the way Coretemp is written that gave the 15degree offset from TAT. Dont ask me though, ask intel Im sure someone can explain better.

Anyway, been looking again, and there is a new version of CoreTemp, (v0.95) which is supposed to increase the temps given for 'Allendale' Core2's by 15 degrees to match TAT's result.

So I guess that the many people accusing TAT of being wrong, were incorrect.

Me, well, I have an E6xxx Core 2, so have never doubted TAT, thats what I use to check my chip

http://www.thecoolest.zerobrains.com/CoreTemp/

Link to updated coretemp, that should match TAT's results.

 

[peetee]

sure it was coretemp that was +15 and not TAT?

 

[Big.Wayne]

Link to updated coretemp

Thanks Corasik,



Core Temp Change Log

Version 0.95 - 17th March, 2007

- Fix: Revision F Turion/Turion X2 detected wrong.
- Fix: Core Temp fully loads one core on a dual core AMD CPU.
- Fix: Core Temp crashes on Dual Core Opteron 200 series systems.
- Fix: Core Temp misdetected certain Dual Core Opteron CPUs.
- Fix: Must set Core Temp to run as Administrator in Vista.
- Fix: Can't see Core Temp GUI if Core Temp was last closed minimized.
- Fix: C2D L2 rev. report very low temperatures. (Tjmax to 100C)
- Fix: Core Temp reported wrong temps after a while. (Driver conflict)
- Fix: Core Temp reported Max VID on Intel CPUs. (Now shows current)

- Add: Show temperature in System tray.
- Add: Manual refresh option by pressing F5 or "File" Menu.
- Add: Show "Delta to Tjunction" temperature for Core 2 CPUs.
- Add: Support for latest Intel and AMD CPUs.
- Add: Minimize/Restore option in system tray icon right click.
- Add: Save last window position.
- Add: Prevent 2 instances of Core Temp from launching.

- Change: Rewritten Intel CPU recognition code.
- Change: Core 2 Duo codename change to Conroe-2M from Allendale.
- Change: Pop up bubble-window with temperatures removed.
- Change: Not Beta status anymore

 

[JeffyB]

Core Temp 0.95 is a few degrees (1-2) lower idle and a few higher under load than tat for me.

 

[Corasik]

Yeah, I've noticed coretemp can be a few degrees off, compared to TAT, not sure why, however, I would suggest that Coretemp 0.95 is 'close enough' so that anyone who has trouble getting TAT to work, but can use coretemp can at least a fairly close estimate of their temps, and thats good enough.