new core temp 0.95.4 beta

[RPGWiZaRD]

Oh well I guess the 28C room temp and that I've pushed it a bit hard as temps went up a lot from 3.6GHz to 3.75GHz and a big vcore increase was required and I mainly run Tuniq 1600~1700rpm, so that probably explains it.

EDIT: I Like that new avatar Vapor.

[LexDiamonds]

Can anyone report on the vista friendliness of this version?

[largon]

Can anyone report on the vista friendliness of this version?

No problems with Ultimate 32bit.
But then again, v0.95 had no problems either...

[X.T.R.E.M.E_ICE]

Can anyone report on the vista friendliness of this version?

Doenst work with Vista

[Flinch]

Doenst work with Vista

Works fine, you just have to hit *F8* on boot up, then disable driver signatures...that's it.

With my Q6600 G0, I notice between 1-2c difference than with 0.95. For me, the difference isn't worth mentioning.

[The Coolest]

Can anyone report on the vista friendliness of this version?

Driver is still not signed, so no. Vista 32bit works fine, in Vista x64, you need to press F8 on startup and turn off driver signature check.

So wait a minute, which one is more accurate??? Does this mean im going to have to redo all my readings for the heatsink roundup with the new core temp version?

Both versions read the same sensor. The reference point to calculating the temperature is Tjunction. From what I understand on G0s Tjunction of 100C gives temperatures which make sense. As in idle, people were getting temps below ambient, which is not possible.
For your heatsink round up use one CPU for all the heatsinks and one version of Core Temp. If you're comparing heatsinks, what matters is the delta between the resutls of each heatsink, not the actaul temperature you had with each heatsink.
Tjunction is not set in stone, and CAN NOT be read reliably from a DESKTOP CPU! The only CPU this has worked for reliably is the B2 revision, where all the CPUs had a Tjunction of 85C.
With newer CPUs it is more of a guesswork.

Does this version fix the random reboots with A64 machines?

It should, all the random hard shutdowns some A64 machines had expirienced is now supposed to be solved (from a limited number of tests).
The bug which 0.95 had, rebooting the PC (actually BSODing and then rebooting ) on start up has now been solved. You can say "Thanks, Vista!" For this bug, although the compiler probably had a hand in it as well.

The only way to get the correct temp.... is the "hard" way....

QFT.

I miss Core Temp in x64 Vista, I wish he would sign his driver

Still looking into it. $400/year is no small change.

works fine with vista. i tested it.

Again, it works fine in 32bit Vista. Vista 32bit does not require a driver to be digitally signed to load and use it, it's the same as XP in this regard. Vista x64, on the other hand, requieres the driver to be digitally signed or else it will not let it load, period. It can be turned it off by pressing F8 and choosing "Disable Driver Signature Enforcement".

[Flinch]

Still looking into it. $400/year is no small change.

I think we need to take up a collection, hell, I'll pony up a few bucks just so I don't have to worry about it.

[RPGWiZaRD]

What? I didn't know. MS charges you $400/year to get a driver signed. That's lame. I can understand that for corporations and such it's no big deal but why o why does private persons have to do the same. Freeware software distribution among private users should be encouraged not discouraged cuz of a fee like that.