Which is accurate, Coretemp or Realtemp?

celliott

celliott

celliott

Soldato
Joined
21 Jun 2004
Posts
2,790
Location
Berkshire
I have always used Coretemp on Core 2 Duos etc, and thought I would give Realtemp a go as lots of people seem to use it.

Coretemp:

Core 0 - 40c
Core 1 - 43c
Core 2 - 34c
Core 3 - 34c

Realtemp:

Core 0 - 35c
Core 1 - 38c
Core 2 - 29c
Core 3 - 29c

Which is right and whats the difference between these programs?
 
Hi,

What processor you got there?

There is a lot of debate. Since Intel have not issued official TJ Max numbers for some of their processors, these programs use a variety of ways to get them.

After reading a forum post by the creator of realtemp, and from the recommendation of this forum post: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/221745-11-core-quad-temperature-guide , I believe realtemp gives more accurate readings. The problem with this notion is that realtemp's load temperatures are sometimes lower than coretemp on some processors by 15C.

This is because of the use of different TJ max values within each program.

For example, on my e4300, for some reason the latest coretemp assigns it a TJ max of 100C, whilst the rest of the 65nm cpus like e6300 etc are apparently TJ max 85C. So in coretemp my full load temps can go up to 78C, but in realtemp they are 15C lower.

Idle temperatures are apparently wrong in all programs because Intel's purpose for these temperatures is to know when to throttle the cpu when it reaches TJ max. So the temperatures become more accurate as they increase.

There is a way to test which program is more accurate and that is to allow the cpu to reach TJ max and see if it throttles, which the creator of realtemp has done, so thats good enough for me!
 
I find cpu-z reads 5c higher than realtemp - yours looks to be doing the same. Am running a 8400.

No idea which is correct though :) - not too concerned as either temp is acceptable!
 
AgedIdiot said:
I find cpu-z reads 5c higher than realtemp - yours looks to be doing the same. Am running a 8400.

No idea which is correct though :) - not too concerned as either temp is acceptable!
Click to expand...

Didn't realise that CPU-z gives out temp readings, going to go and have a lookie.
 
Neither program is 100% accurate, but RealTemp is generally regarded as the better of the two because it attempts to compensate for the fact that the thermal sensors are not linear.
Plus I think Intel have actually released the TJmax values for all their processors now.
 
65nm (Conroe/Kentsfield) - 105c
45nm (Wolfdale/Yorkfield) - 95c

Coretemp - 65nm
Realtemp - 45nm
 
Ive not done a load test yet, not sure which program to use. But 10 degree's difference seems like a lot to me, 19 degree's has always seemed too cool, but i thought it might be down to the antec 900 case + tuniq tower and the fact its only really idling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom