RFI RE: Core 2 Duo Temperature Monitoring

[jph1589]

I would like to request information so that I can prove or disprove a point to myself. Keep in mind I am keeping an open mind here. I would like nothing better than for someone to prove me wrong.

Over the last few months I have seen many posts as you have all seen about different temperature monitoring programs for the new Core 2 duo cpu. Yet I have never seen any official position change or new recommendation from any Motherboard MFG or from Intel. They all continue to supply the same sensors on their boards and the same programs to monitor those sensors that we have used through the Celeron, Pentium, and now C2D line of products.

We have heard about Core Temp and TAT from unofficial sources only. They have become the standard amongst users of this and other forums with no official endorsement or statement of requirement from Intel, Asus, Gigabyte, or any other company.

Now think about this for a minute. If the Core 2 product line needed temps monitored in a different way, why didn't Intel build that into their own motherboard and supply the monitoring software with the Intel Hardware Monitor Utility that they supply with every board that they sell. It would have been easy enough to do. If it was truly a requirement, they should have done it to protect the consumers investment and reduce warranty claims due to over temperature CPUs.

So, ok.... Intel didn't do it, but why didn't ASUS do it? They would be in some small fashion liable for a users cpu going over temperature because they didnt supply the proper program to monitor and display the correct information.

OK, I am sure some will say I am nutz, but what I am saying will make sense to a lot of you. Since they didn't bother to do what I described above, why not at least officially recognize that the standard method of monitoring temps was no longer applicable to the C2D product line and recommend an alternative?

In the absence of answers to these questions, I have made the assumption that there is something not quite right in C2D temperature land. Especially since the heralded cooler cpu actually runs hotter than the previous pentium D in some situations. That is if you believe TAT and CoreTemp. If you use the same tools we used to do, they are usually much cooler. HMmmmmm.....

So what I would ask, is for someone to logically and with provable information from intel or a major motherboard company, prove me wrong. Don't just flame me and tell me I am a nut, and dont send links to other forums recommending that we use TAT or CoreTemp. I want to see it from the horses mouth and that doesnt mean some PDF file that claims to be an intel document but cant be found on their website.

Show me the proof!

[Capper]

I don't think you are nuts, or paranoid. I just think the whole temperature issue is extremely overrated. First, there's never been a very accurate means of monitoring the CPU temperature....you'll get a lot of arguments for various programs, which are all estimates.

Second, you will never find anything from INTEL or AMD that supports or disputes your theory, as neither company supports overclocking, and if you run your system at default voltages and speeds, temperatures simply do not matter. The only two things you will find, are the Thermal Spec (the maximum case temperature at the maximum Thermal Design Power (TDP) value for that processor), and the Thermal Design Power (The maximum amount of heat which a thermal solution must be able to dissipate from the processor so that the processor will operate under normal operating conditions)

In the end, all monitoring applications are accurate enough to protect the processor, as long as it is run within the warrantied specs, which is all that matters from thier perspective

[jph1589]

Well I really wasn't talking specifically about overclocking. I was talking about the need to monitor cpu temps even on a stock machine. You see, I personally think there are a lot of people running out to buy coolers because of these two programs. Can't imagine who would benefit from that except the cooler companies.

I have seen people who have C2D processors at stock who have run the TAT tool and have in my opinion been misled into thinking they need a different cooler. And if you think about, Intel does supply you with the Desktop Hardware Monitoring utility that monitors fan speeds and temps. If I am not mistaken, they supply that same utility on the $300 975 chipset board that they make.

So to some extent they are acknowledging the need to monitor speeds and temps by providing those utilities with their boards. They also publish the thermal spec for each cpu so that people can at least be aware of the need to not overheat the cpu. By mentioning Intel and ASUS and others in my original post, I was trying to make the point that if these programs were really legitimate, we would have seem some official change in the tools that are provided by those companies.

I am completely convinced that when the C2D came out and people started seeing the lower temps on them, they stopped buying high end air and water cooling. And right about that time those two programs hit every forum on the net from out of the blue. And neither one of them came from what I would consider a legitimate source.

This was just my way of trying to get people to stop and think. Just because someone wrote a program and called it Thermal Analysis Tool and put the Intel logo on it, doesn't mean it came from Intel. As far as I can determine, it is not an Intel program. The google spider has been run on their entire website and no such tool exists anywhere on their site.

So if you are running a core 2 duo and not overclocking it into outerspace, you can probably believe the temperature monitoring tools you have always believed. And for gosh sakes, don't run out and line the pockets of the cooler companies without more concrete evidence. Because I'm pretty sure I know who wrote those two programs

[Tyreal]

I am completely convinced that when the C2D came out and people started seeing the lower temps on them, they stopped buying high end air and water cooling. And right about that time those two programs hit every forum on the net from out of the blue. And neither one of them came from what I would consider a legitimate source.

You're right. Core Temp didn't come from a company but instead from a member of the community. His alias on most forums is "The Coolest" and his website is: Core Temp.

His program is simple. AMD and INTEL published documentation stating that there is a Digital Thermal Sensor in their chips. He wrote a program that would read the data from this sensor and report it. That's all it is. Only the Athlon 64 processors and Core 2 Duo have this sensor.
Core Temp - How it works

This doesn't mean at all that Core Temp is going to report 100% accurate temperatures. According to his website they are supposed to be "more" accurate but should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Quakindude]

Using the tool that comes with the 680i mobo, I get about the same temps as I do in my Bios. TAT indicates the same temps as nVidia's temp tool after nVidia fixed theirs. There are some sites that use Infrared thermometer's when they test coolers. I don't think there's any conspiracy going on to help out the cooler manufacturers. You alluded it yourself. The overclockers are the ones the high-end coolers are geared towards. If I wasn't overclocking my E6600 from 2.4Ghz to 3.4Ghz, I would have stuck with the stock Intel cooler, which does an admirable job in and of itself.

I have a thermocouple that has, in the past 3 months, proven to be reliable to within 2 degrees C of an infrared probe. When fully loaded, TAT, nVidia's software and Speedfan all show my temp within 1-2 degrees of that thermocouple readout.

Finally, at first nVidia and Intel Chipsets were reporting temps that were lower, by up to 10 degrees C, than what I was reading out on my thermocouple. I actually borrowed an IR Thermometer from work to check my temps to see if they were being reported correctly. The temps were a full 8 degrees higher with the thermometer, matching exactly with my thermocouple. Then, TAT came out and nVidia released updates to the bios and mobo software that makes the temps read out higher (Correctly). Now if they were trying to encourage the use of after market coolers, don't you think this theory would have been exposed by many individuals by now? Look at all the people that were screaming BS on how the temps were read at first.

That same group of enthusiasts would have been screaming bloody murder by now if your theory were correct.

[Lead Head]

The only time before where I have seen someone accurately check temperatures for waterblock tests, he had cut a narrow channel out of the IHS and slipped a thermocouple into the channel, and seeled it up with expoxy

[jph1589]

Originally Posted by Quakindude

Using the tool that comes with the 680i mobo, I get about the same temps as I do in my Bios. TAT indicates the same temps as nVidia's temp tool after nVidia fixed theirs. There are some sites that use Infrared thermometer's when they test coolers. I don't think there's any conspiracy going on to help out the cooler manufacturers. You alluded it yourself. The overclockers are the ones the high-end coolers are geared towards. If I wasn't overclocking my E6600 from 2.4Ghz to 3.4Ghz, I would have stuck with the stock Intel cooler, which does an admirable job in and of itself.

I have a thermocouple that has, in the past 3 months, proven to be reliable to within 2 degrees C of an infrared probe. When fully loaded, TAT, nVidia's software and Speedfan all show my temp within 1-2 degrees of that thermocouple readout.

Finally, at first nVidia and Intel Chipsets were reporting temps that were lower, by up to 10 degrees C, than what I was reading out on my thermocouple. I actually borrowed an IR Thermometer from work to check my temps to see if they were being reported correctly. The temps were a full 8 degrees higher with the thermometer, matching exactly with my thermocouple. Then, TAT came out and nVidia released updates to the bios and mobo software that makes the temps read out higher (Correctly). Now if they were trying to encourage the use of after market coolers, don't you think this theory would have been exposed by many individuals by now? Look at all the people that were screaming BS on how the temps were read at first.

That same group of enthusiasts would have been screaming bloody murder by now if your theory were correct.

As I hope you saw in my first post, I want someone to prove me wrong. I've talked to probably 20 people about this and usually I get this glazed over look in their eyes and they ask me why I wouldn't trust TAT since intel made it. I got so tired of that response, I posted this.

You are the first person to put any concrete data together on the topic. Thank you! You should write one of your reviews on the topic.

[Capper]

jph, I think your point is very valid, but in the grand scheme of things doesn't really matter to 99% of computer users....

My point is.....companies don't care.

Processor companies do not support or warranty products that are overclocked, any product run within spec is well within the safe operating parameters.....so why bother putting the time and effort into temperature sensing, in my opinion all thats going to do is encourage people to overclock.

Every other company out there, be it a cooling company, etc....id going to always tell you that you need their product, whether you actually do or not, it is called marketing.

So really, its not even a real argument, or point to be proven or disproven, the only people who are concerned with temperatures are overclockers, as people who run their system at spec are fine. Look at the product page, INTEL lists the thermal performance at 60C, thats not the core temperature, but the temperature at the top center of the IHS, with the processor at its full TDP.

[nila]

Glad I found this thread and hoping maybe you guys can help.

My system (BIOS & Gigabyte's OC'ing tool are reporting my CPU temp to be around 40*C which is fine as its the middle of Australian summer and so I'd expect it to be somewhere around there.

Using TAT or CoreTemp however I'm getting reported temps of around 70*C.

These two values are HUGELY different and if TAT is correct (my system is not at all OC'd at the moment although I wanted to but am not going to until I sort this heat issue) then I am running at the high end of the recommended safe for an E6400!

If the BIOS is more correct however then I have loads of spare that I can fluctuate between.

I'm really not too sure what to do- I've removed the heat sink (Thermaltake Big Typhoon VX) and thermal paste (Artic Silver 5) and re-applied and re-seated the heat sink and still getting these values.

I'm totally confused as a 30*C difference is totally unrealistic and something is really wrong.

Please help :)

[gvblake22]

nila, that's a crazy huge difference. It might be worth your while to invest $10 in an external thermal probe sensor to monitor temperatures a little more reliably.