New Coretemp v0.97

Duke · 6 Mar 2008 at 20:41

cheers

hernaldo · 6 Mar 2008 at 20:52

sweet....x64 support

marscay · 6 Mar 2008 at 21:08

Jokester said:
Don't Real Temp and Core Temp both work in the same way? Just that they use different TJmax values?

yep i'm sure it's like that, and you can see in the screenshots the difference between TJMax is the same difference in temps.

coretemp is as accurate as you will get currently.

Iraklis F.C. · 6 Mar 2008 at 21:17

WOW vista x64 supported , been waiting for this for ages !!!

Marky · 6 Mar 2008 at 21:20

Yay x64 bit Vista support

Thanks

tyranus · 6 Mar 2008 at 23:27

How accurate is this? Core Temp is showing idles around mid 30's-40, SpeedFan showing them in the low 20's :confused:

Inazuma · 6 Mar 2008 at 23:43

SpeedFan takes the measurements from somewhere else on the CPU I believe. CoreTemp takes the temp readings from where they matter most.

helmutcheese · 7 Mar 2008 at 01:42

Coretemp and the latest Speedfan Beta read the same (final is due any day), you simply read the Core0 and Core1 readings not CPU (like socket and diode I guess).

Fact is on a Wolfdale you aint gonna get it reading correctly and going by the thread on XS, Realtemp if far better than Coretemp.

spb251272 · 7 Mar 2008 at 15:30

Isn't it the same for all core 2 cpu's, what's already been said, that they look at the difference in temp from core temp to tjunction temp, but intel haven't published what these tjunction values are. It is just an assumption from any temp monitoring software what this tjunction value is. On the original post, Realtemp is assuming 95 whereas coretemp is assuming 105, which is why there is exactly a 10c difference between the two. On the version of coretemp I'm using at the moment, it's assuming a tjunction of 100c for my q6600.

What we really need is for intel to publish these figures, or have them coded onto each cpu, so that they can be identified by the temp monitoring software.

AlanJ · 7 Mar 2008 at 15:48

core temp and realtemp are showing exactly the same temps for me

helmutcheese · 7 Mar 2008 at 18:12

spb251272 said:
Isn't it the same for all core 2 cpu's, what's already been said, that they look at the difference in temp from core temp to tjunction temp, but intel haven't published what these tjunction values are. It is just an assumption from any temp monitoring software what this tjunction value is. On the original post, Realtemp is assuming 95 whereas coretemp is assuming 105, which is why there is exactly a 10c difference between the two. On the version of coretemp I'm using at the moment, it's assuming a tjunction of 100c for my q6600.

What we really need is for intel to publish these figures, or have them coded onto each cpu, so that they can be identified by the temp monitoring software.

No its not the same for all the CPU's esp GO's, you dont auto add 15C to all Intel CPU's

spb251272 · 7 Mar 2008 at 22:26

Not sure what you mean by "you don't auto add 15c to all intel cpus". I was saying that they all depend on the tjunction value being known, which it isn't. So any temp is a guess based on guessing the correct tjunction value. Just going from what was said on the anadtech article.

helmutcheese · 8 Mar 2008 at 01:05

When since you are commenting on something you seem to know a little about, you would know most peeps add 15C to their Temps seen in Windows to get actual Temps. (Intel not AMD), and its only in like 10 threads per week here.

I have quiet simply said thats not exactly a rule of thumb for all current Intel CPU's.

fornowagain · 8 Mar 2008 at 01:27

http://www.alcpu.com/CoreTemp/CoreTemp.zip

Version 0.97.1 - 7th March, 2008

- Fix: Phenom did not display proper temperature.
- Fix: Phenom randomly reports 255C (value ignored).
- Fix: Phenom displays more than a single system tray icon per CPU.
- Fix: Phenom 1/4 multipliers rounded improperly.

- Change: C° and F° now will display °C and °F accordingly.

InkZ · 8 Mar 2008 at 14:34

Running nice on my Vista x64, thanks OP

ThatJoe · 8 Mar 2008 at 14:40

G15 applet eff tee doubleyou!

fulcrumer · 8 Mar 2008 at 17:22

Exibit · 9 Mar 2008 at 13:49

Hey many thanks for posting in regards to Core Temp, I am a user of Vista 64bit and finally I have a version of Core Temp that works.

thanks again

spb251272 · 10 Mar 2008 at 11:17

Helmutcheese said:
When since you are commenting on something you seem to know a little about, you would know most peeps add 15C to their Temps seen in Windows to get actual Temps. (Intel not AMD), and its only in like 10 threads per week here.

I have quiet simply said thats not exactly a rule of thumb for all current Intel CPU's.

God, some people on here are so quick to start telling people how much they don't know. Take a chill pill, and have a look at what Anandtech had to say....

More than a few programs have been released over the last few years, each claiming to accurately report these DTS values in real-time. The truth is that none can be fully trusted as the Tjunction values utilized in these transformations may not always be correct. Moreover, Intel representatives have informed us that these as-of-yet unpublished Tjunction values may actually vary from model to model - sometimes even between different steppings - and that the temperature response curves may not be entirely accurate across the whole reporting range. Since all of today's monitoring programs have come to incorrectly assume that Tjunction values are a function of the processor family/stepping only, we have no choice but to call everything we thought we had come to know into question. Until Intel decides to publish these values on a per-model basis, the best these DTS readings can do for us is give a relative indication of each core's remaining thermal margin, whatever that may be.