Intel TAT / CoreTemp / IDCC all different temperatures....

[Millyons]

core temp showed normal temperatures for me....it was asus probe that showed 1/2 temp

[fgw]

I dont even care about temps, i just try to stay away from the throttling point by about 10c for myself and other than that i dont care if my temps are xx or xx ....... but core temp is the one that is comparable to other mobos and setups, you just cant compare asus probe to gigabytes whatever ... other software like speedfan, everest, mbm actualy only shouw what probe (in this case) would show.... o another note when i put in a quad cpu probe showed 1/2 temps

i agree completely! the point is to keep some sort of safety margin to the throttling point. as i said already, this point is different from cpu to cpu AND can't be read by software. so software like coretemp is using either 85c or 100c as throttling point, which might be correct on some cpu's but is definitely wrong on others.

don't get me wrong, im not blaming the writer of coretemp! this is completely intels fault for not providing documentation of this features to the public. i'm still a great supporter of coretemp!

would be a nice feature if coretemp would also display the dts reading directly just showing the room left to the throttling point. i already requested this at the coretemp forum. lets see if "The Coolest" will implement this in a future release.

In RD600 cpu throtlles @ 85c via smartguardian. Shutdown temp set in bios also reads same temp. this is not the same temp that Coretemp displays(61c).

So, unless it's the bios @ fault on RD600, Coretemp is not reading correctly. I have same issue too, reading 19c idle in 25c ambient, using AIRCOOLING.

this being said, coretemp reports same temp across many different boards for same cpu, when voltages/cooling are the same. Although the temp may not be perfectly accurate, it's the best we got ATM.

this is a good example. i'm pretty sure, coretemp is using the wrong throttling temp on your specific cpu and therefore fails calculating the absolute temperature correctly.

Yes, i too think it's the best ATM, as long as you are using it on a cpu where coretemp gets the throttling point correctly!

[TheMafioso]

Just Got a e4300+p5b, and i'm facing the same issue, TAT, Coretemp, PC Probe all showing different temperatures w/ temp reported by TAT higher than about 15 degrees compared to coretemp...and PC Probe shows an inbetween value...

So any updates on the issue....what to trust..

[impar]

Greetings!

I decided to trust TAT.
CoreTemp was showing sub-ambient temepratures on idle, using a Zalman 9700.

[sparkY1000]

I am running the latest speedfan, coretemp and TAT, speedfan and coretemp agree and at stock under full load with 20C ambient and stock HSF I am reading 35C which I think is very reasonable TAT would have me believe it is nearer 60C which I dont think is right.
TAT was not meant for the E4300 and seems to have problems reading the temps whereas the latest coretemp is supposedly updated for the E4300.
If you have an E6XXX series CPU TAT probably is correct but I think for E4XXX it is not trustworthy.
I have a DMM with temp probe and I will try to get it onto the IHS if I can and see what that gives us, may take a few days though as im a bit busy at the moment

[TheMafioso]

^^Ahh DMm w/ temp probe...u can end this mystery for once and for all..
Would be looking forward for u'r results ...Do take u'r time

Regards,

[SLi_dog]

Use TAT for E4300s


I will be interested to see your results though sparky1000

[fgw]

I am running the latest speedfan, coretemp and TAT, speedfan and coretemp agree and at stock under full load with 20C ambient and stock HSF I am reading 35C which I think is very reasonable TAT would have me believe it is nearer 60C which I dont think is right.
TAT was not meant for the E4300 and seems to have problems reading the temps whereas the latest coretemp is supposedly updated for the E4300.
If you have an E6XXX series CPU TAT probably is correct but I think for E4XXX it is not trustworthy.
I have a DMM with temp probe and I will try to get it onto the IHS if I can and see what that gives us, may take a few days though as im a bit busy at the moment

i doubt this temps are correct. 35c under load seems pretty low to me. well, depends what you understand under full load, but the 4300 i tested runs way hotter. don't remember vcore i used, have to check, but it was somewhere around 1.40v. coretemp readings were in the mid 50ies and i have to add 15c in order to get something near to real temps, as coretemp is using a wrong temperature offset in temperature calculations on certain processors. thus, in your situation i would assume temps near 50c which at least to me is far more realistic than 35c and still are good temps for stock hsf.

waiting for the next release of coretemp as "The Coolest" probably will add the feature of showing real dts values in addition to absolute temps. this will allow us to read relative but accurate temps which are correct for ALL processors supporting dts!

reading relative temps we are loosing the ability to compare temps from one processor to another but analyzing load temps or cooling efficiency on very one processor will do just fine!
don't care about the absolute temp values coretemp shows. focus on temp changes reported by coretemp as this changes are accurate: e.g. if temps go up by 10c than temps changed by exactly 10c. point! if this change was from 50c absolute up to 60c absolute or from 53c absolute up to 63c absolute - you simply can't tell!

[Truckchase!]

New speedfan out... direct C2D support.

[TheMafioso]

^^New Speedfan's reading is same as CoreTemp's....
So it means, coretemp was right all the time..?

[sparkY1000]

I think until we have some definite answers believe the highest temp as you will be alot less likely to kill your chip that way

[unclewebb]

On my P5B Deluxe with an early Conroe E6400 CoreTemp seems to be reporting 100% correctly. At 85C thermal throttling was active on both cores and it couldn't go any higher just as Intel intended. I think TAT was reporting 2C too low.

CoreTemp seems to have a problem with the E4300. If it reports your idle temps lower than ambient then I would suggest adding a correction of 15C (100C-85C) to the reading and it should be right. Not all E4300 chips are being misread but there is definitely a problem on some boards and not others.

[sparkY1000]

I hope it gets sorted soon as my E4300 really wants to fly!

[mezcal]

I'm one with CT reporting idle temps below ambient with 4300. From reading here and elsewhere I'm convinced that CT is performing its calculations based on an incorrect t-junction for this proc. As mentioned previously, this introduces a ~15 degree error. Using TAT 'til fixed-better safe than sorry.

[sparkY1000]

Use the new speedfan and offset your core temps by 15C it is alot nicer to use than TAT and speedfan can sit in your taskbar giving you warnings if your CPU gets hot.
Also is it normal for E4300's to be v hot!? I am running @3.0GHz 1.3375V (in BIOS about 1.29V real) with F@H running and the stock heatsink seeing 60C loaded temps!
I am getting water sometime next month but would love to know what other people are getting with the stock cooler under load.

[mezcal]

Use the new speedfan and offset your core temps by 15C it is alot nicer to use than TAT and speedfan can sit in your taskbar giving you warnings if your CPU gets hot.
Also is it normal for E4300's to be v hot!? I am running @3.0GHz 1.3375V (in BIOS about 1.29V real) with F@H running and the stock heatsink seeing 60C loaded temps!
I am getting water sometime next month but would love to know what other people are getting with the stock cooler under load.

I read in the big BX2 thread that speedfan had been updated and now works with the badaxe2. I'll give it a try when the box is back up. Currently I'm suffering from either a global shortage of female AUX molex pins or some sort of conspiracy to prevent me from acquiring any!
Mine was running pretty warm as well-~55-58C (TAT) Orhos mix priority 9. This as in my sig. Orthos failed in a few minutes @ 333 but I didn't play with voltages. Will mess with it more when I'm back up of course.
BTW-using stock cooler.

[mezcal]

It appears that "The Coolest" has released coretemp 0.95 today which purports to fix the temp reporting problem with the 4300s.

[SLi_dog]

It appears that "The Coolest" has released coretemp 0.95 today which purports to fix the temp reporting problem with the 4300s.

Technically it's not a "fix" just an adjustment of the Tjunction value from 85C to 100c for E4300s which will mean CoreTemp will read 15C hotter now.

Does anyone know what the Tjunction value should be for E4300s?

[sparkY1000]

New Coretemp causes my system to restart! No matter what as soon as I open the new coretemp up it restarts my machine! LOL!

[SLi_dog]

would be a nice feature if coretemp would also display the dts reading directly just showing the room left to the throttling point. i already requested this at the coretemp forum. lets see if "The Coolest" will implement this in a future release.

It gives the Tjunction value and the dts in only a calculation based on that value. You can quiet easily work out what the DTS is actually reading.

New Coretemp causes my system to restart! No matter what as soon as I open the new coretemp up it restarts my machine! LOL!

yeah, that seems to be common.

http://www.alcpu.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=237

[ted3]

On my P5B Deluxe with an early Conroe E6400 CoreTemp seems to be reporting 100% correctly. At 85C thermal throttling was active on both cores and it couldn't go any higher just as Intel intended. I think TAT was reporting 2C too low.

CoreTemp seems to have a problem with the E4300. If it reports your idle temps lower than ambient then I would suggest adding a correction of 15C (100C-85C) to the reading and it should be right. Not all E4300 chips are being misread but there is definitely a problem on some boards and not others.

Sorry man, thats not throttling. When throttling occurs TAT will show you the throttled speed of the CPU.

My experiment with throttling on E6600 on BadAxe revealed that Throttlewatch didnt work. Anyone seen it working with C2D's?

Heres my previous CPU (E6600) without fan on the cooler at 1.6volt, its supposed to be running at 3.6GHz, as you can see in the top right corner. Now thats what i call throttling =)

[fgw]

It gives the Tjunction value and the dts in only a calculation based on that value. You can quiet easily work out what the DTS is actually reading.

i agree! just would be handy to show plain dts value without recalculation! if i understand the new feature list corrcectly, the coolest already implemented this feature.
unfortunately coretemp 0.95 reboots my system as soon as i run it, so i'm not able to verify this.

anyway, i think we all should get rid of this "absolute temperature measuring" thing:

• there is no way to read tjunction, in fact its thermal control circuit (TCC) activation temperature, although everybody calls it tjunction
• this TCC activation temp is calibrated during manufacturing, IS NOT software readable after calibration AND might differ from die to die! the 85c or 100c value is just an approximation of TCC which results in all temps calculated from this value are more or less accurate. monitoring software could not read this 85c or 100c directly, as there is no register to read it from. instead a single bit in a register is read and depending on this bit if set or not 85c or 100c is used during temperature calculations. as of intel, this works for mobile cpu's but not for desktop and server processors. on desktop and server processors, this bit might hold any information and thus on some steppings lead to the assumption of 85c on others to 100c!

using plain dts value instead maintains accuracy provided by dts readings and shows how far the processor actually is away from TCC. intel implemented temperature readings on c2d to use it for fan speed control and here they just need to know how far is the temp away from TCC activation.

i agree, it would be nice to read absolute temperatures directly, but as the way this is implemented currently, this is simply not possible!

[fgw]

Anyone seen it working with C2D's?

yes, rmclock shows the multi and vid dropping as soon as throttling kicks in.
tat is not working on my abit board ...

[psy4fun]

SpeedStep is supposed to be enabled in BIOS to allow TAT throttling, isn't?

Elsewhere, 85C is not an absolute value. Recall what fgw said to best understand:

the temperature at which the PROCHOT# signal goes active is individually calibrated during manufacturing. once configured, the processor temperature at which the PROCHOT# signal is asserted is not re-configurable

So, throttling can occur at 85C or something else.

[TheMafioso]

Well so how many of you are OCing the e4300....I've been waiting for this bug to get sorted out, before starting to OC it, but now from the looks of it...the mystery only deepens with new coretemp readings..

But Somehow i believe the temps reported by earlier coretemp(or new speedfan) are the correct one, b'coz other guys are OCing this chip to around 3.6-4GHz, surely it would run very hot at this speed, if this chip runs this hot(as suggested by new coretemp) and chips would start throttling but SuperPI scores dosen't seems to suggest so...