new core temp 0.95.4 beta

[Spawne32]

something is going wrong...

E6550 G0 ES @ 3.73Ghz (1.296v VCore) Watercooled

I think the temps with CT 95.4 are wrong

Your using a G0 core, so im told that the #'s on the new version are accurate, the .94 version wasnt reading G0 cores properly, hence the low temps, but im gona get to the bottom of this.

[Frisch]

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

[Viss]

E6700 isnt a G0 tho loc.o

No but the 6650 is.

[Spawne32]

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

whats the "hard" way

[safan80]

No but the 6650 is.

so is the q6700

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

Can anyone report on the vista friendliness of this version?

Doenst work with Vista

[`danny]

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

[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.

[GripS]

Seems like finally rev G0 CPUs are supported. Shows +15C now and that makes my full load 69C oh well it knew it from before anyways. Doesn't 69C full load sound a bit much for a caseless setup with 1.52v idle and 1.5v load though with a Tuniq? Room temp is a mighty ~28C at the moment though.

No difference for me. Not at all.

Why are people running the 94 beta instead of the 95? 95 gave me absolutely no problems.

[Ar3s]

works fine with vista. i tested it.

[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.

[Soulburner]

Reports temps correctly on my E6550 and E6850.

Problem is, as I found in testing yesterday, that Core Temp crashes when I'm running OCCT to load the CPU and test stable clocks.

Anyone else?

[Infa]

Why does no one know what Tjunction the new G0 is? is it some kind of a secret?
does not Intel put that in the specs somewhere?

Regards.

[Hitikiro]

Hi, I'm a new member and I recently just built a computer rig. The current set I have going is:

Intel Core 2 Duo E6750
Antec P182
Abit IP35 Pro
Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500
eVGA 8800GTS Superclocked
Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme w/S-flex fan D-version

The following are the CoreTemp 0.95.4beta readings:
Core 1: 34c
Core 2: 37c

Would you guys say that this is a pretty accurate reading?

[ColonelCain]

So, does it fix the random A64 reboot issue?

@ Hitikiro, first off,
Anyhow, yeah that seems like an accurate reading.

[KiD0M4N]

Actually there is a way to make Coretemp work in Vista X64 without having to disable driver signing requirement.

Download this file: http://downloads.erodov.com/c/o/r/co...4-VistaX64.zip

xtract this to your favorite directory (say C:\CoreTemp)

Just make sure before you start the actuall "CoreTemp.exe", you run "coretemp-startup.bat"

This will load the CoreTemp driver and thus will allow CoreTemp to function normally without having to disable driver signing

Original thread here: http://forums.erodov.com/showthread....5559#post15559

Tell me if this works.

Regards,
Karan

[Soulburner]

Hi, I'm a new member and I recently just built a computer rig. The current set I have going is:

Intel Core 2 Duo E6750
Antec P182
Abit IP35 Pro
Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500
eVGA 8800GTS Superclocked
Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme w/S-flex fan D-version

The following are the CoreTemp 0.95.4beta readings:
Core 1: 34c
Core 2: 37c

Would you guys say that this is a pretty accurate reading?

If thats idle then its pretty accurate, but you didn't say.

[dinos22]

FINALLY a version that doesn't report bogus temps

too bad coretemp can't do negative temps

[Hitikiro]

If thats idle then its pretty accurate, but you didn't say.

Sorry yeah that is idle temp. I'm currently running Orthos ATM and I have 2 Antec Fans running on medium speed. CoreTemp is reporting 36C for Core 1 and 39C for Core 2. Note this is after 8 hours though and no overclocks yet. I just wanted to see if the system would be stable enough to overclock.

On the other hand, SpeedFan is reporting 22c on Core 1 and 24c on Core 2. These temps seem way too low since ambient temp. is ~20c.

[Soulburner]

I would definetely say that is not accurate to idle at 37c and be at 39c after 8 hours of Orthos.

[Hitikiro]

I would definetely say that is not accurate to idle at 37c and be at 39c after 8 hours of Orthos.

Oh I forgot to mention this, the first idle reading was on the "Low Mode" for the Antec Tri-Cools. But the Orthos reading for 36c and 39c respectively, were on medium mode. I'll post idle temps again for medium mode.

[largon]

My CoreTemp v0.95.4 reports 5ºC lower figures at idle than the intake air temp of my Scythe Ninja is. Add another 5ºC of thermal gradient (heatsink inefficiency) and we're at 10ºC off.

Dunno why I bother using the prog...

[MikeB12]

Actually there is a way to make Coretemp work in Vista X64 without having to disable driver signing requirement.

Download this file: http://downloads.erodov.com/c/o/r/co...4-VistaX64.zip

xtract this to your favorite directory (say C:\CoreTemp)

Just make sure before you start the actuall "CoreTemp.exe", you run "coretemp-startup.bat"

This will load the CoreTemp driver and thus will allow CoreTemp to function normally without having to disable driver signing

Original thread here: http://forums.erodov.com/showthread....5559#post15559

Tell me if this works.

Regards,
Karan

THANK YOU! no more f8 crap....