Below I have compiled some statistical information which strongly supports the use of Real Temp over the use of Core Temp. This information also corroborates unclewebb's statements regarding the inaccuracy of DTS sensors at lower temperatures (be they read with Core Temp or Real Temp). For more information on this analysis of Core Temp and the methodology involved, see http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=178232.

Let me state at the outset that it is my presumption is that CPU Temp as reported by my motherboard sensor is at least relatively accurate (that is to say, if CPU Temp is reading incorrectly, it does so consistently across its entire range of measurement - always 10C too high, for example). It may or not be absolutely accurate (that is to say, it always reads correctly without the need for a correction factor). However, the following does not require absolute accuracy to be meaningful, only relative accuracy, and thus I believe I am on solid ground.



In the above graph, you see the gross differences between Core Temp and CPU Temp. These differences are especially pronounced at lower temperatures. I have observed similar differences in the past at even higher temperatures.

Now consider the following results using Real Temp. (Note that there are far fewer data points because I had to throw out hundreds of values that were out of synch.)



Here we see a much different picture. We first notice that at load, there is virtually no difference between Real Temp and CPU Temp - this, I think, is a very revealing statistic! We also see that there is a greater difference at idle, which supports unclewebb's premise that the DTS sensor is unreliable at lower temperatures. Regardless, there is far less discrepancy in this graph compared to the one above it.

A brief aside: Some argue that the CPU Temps and DTS values are unavoidably different because the locations of their respective sensors (ie geometric center of die versus, well, versus anything else). This has always bothered me. If the material in question conducts heat well, as a CPU die surely must, it seems obvious that it would only be a matter of microseconds until that heat was transmitted to any other measuring point. Any observed differences in these temperatures strike me more as a way to determine the relative error in CPU Temps than as some condemnation of the sensor itself. In at least this board with this CPU, the relationship appears to be very close. In any event, I encourage you to draw your own conclusions regarding the graphs above.

The tables below tell a similar tale. Here are the average temperatures (I included all data points in these calculations since simultaneity was irrelevant; more on that in a moment):





Here we note the same trends as exhibited by the graphs above. Note the near identical figures for CPU Temp and Real Temp at load. Also note the wider variation in Core Temp readings (as shown by the larger standard deviation); this speaks further of Core Temp's unreliability (though not terribly loudly).

Finally, a look at the differences between CPU Temp and Core Temp/Real Temp, highlighting the observations above:



It should be noted that these differences between CPU Temp and Core Temp are very near to the differences I calculated independently in the other thread; any minor variations are handily explained away by differing ambient temperatures. It should also be noted the differences are not merely "10C lower." Recalibrating the DTS sensor to 95C together with "--" calibration setting has had a more profound impact on temperature readings than just a simplistic subtraction.

Unfortunately, I am unable to calculate the level of correlation between CPU Temp and Real Temp since I am relying on two different instruments to read these values. I could not presume that both readings were exactly simultaneous, and thus any conclusions drawn from such data would be meaningless.

Nonetheless, for the reasons detailed above, I am convinced that Real Temp reflects reality much more accurately than Core Temp. I am one satisfied customer! Thanks again to unclewebb!