SpeedFan temps accurate?

glenimp617 · 18 Aug 2010 at 11:17

are speedfan temps accurate? The reason I ask is that I only have the akasa freedom heastsink and have overclocked my i7 870 to 3.8ghz with fairly high volts. I'll be dropping the volts down in due course but my load temps after two days solid 100% encoding were 60c on all four cores.

Seems quite low to me :confused:

Philtor · 18 Aug 2010 at 11:22

Try using Coretemp and see if that gives the same readings.

j.col · 18 Aug 2010 at 21:51

i can vouch for coretemp as well.
you can run it as a widget as well

blitzyuk · 19 Aug 2010 at 02:31

I use CPUID Hardware Monitor and coretemp they seem to give better readings.

shadow_boxer · 20 Aug 2010 at 19:22

I had speedfan running for my rig (in sig), when using real temp, found that SF temps were almost 8C out and on one core 10C.

koooowweeee · 20 Aug 2010 at 20:00

i use core temp or real temp and they both have same temps at same time so there good enough for me

game4it · 20 Aug 2010 at 20:06

I trust there cpu/hard drive/Vreg and mobo temps as they tally up with other software.
But lol at the cores,when system idle there 17c lower then what core and real temp show.

They do get a lot more accurate tho under load (within a c or 2)

koooowweeee · 20 Aug 2010 at 20:08

i have 1 core stuck at 37c when all the rest are at 28c

Brian8bit · 21 Aug 2010 at 07:20

I've run pretty much every temperature monitoring software there is on several machines and come to the conclusion that they're all absolute bull****.

For instance, on my first gen Phenom 7850, CoreTemp, Hardware Monitor, Speedfan, Everest and everything else under the sun report my chip to be at a chilly 16c idle and 22c under load. Which is ****. It's a 65nm chip. So, I pull the plug on the machine and quickly reboot back to BIOS and see that it reports the temps are mid 40s and dropping to settle in the mid 30s at idle, so then we can only assume that it's high 40s to mid 50s under load. Which is a lot more believable than what the desktop software was telling me.

So I tested my Core 2 quad machine as well. And the same thing. Monitoring software was reporting temperatures 10 degrees off what the BIOS is reporting. And it's the same on my older brothers desktop. And several friends desktops who let me test this out.

So I got to looking around the internet and a lot of people and places claim similar with most people of the opinion that temperature monitoring software is not accurate, or a good guide to what your CPU is at. All it's good for is making sure your not tipping on the extreme end of temperatures that might cause serious damage.