cadaveca said:
I noticed myself when testing IVB OC stability that AIDA64, realtemp, and Coretemp all reported different temperatures.
solara2xb said:
Another question is I noticed that real usually records lower temps then core temp. Any reason for that?
All monitoring programs that report core temperatures for Intel Core i CPUs are reading the same temperature data from the same register within the CPU. They also should be reading the exact same TJ Max value from another register in the CPU and they are all using the following formula to determine the core temperature.
Core Temperature = TJ Max Value - Digital Thermal Sensor Reading
Intel standardized where these two registers are located in the CPU and how to get core temperature data from them back in November 2008 when the first Core i CPUs were released. Nothing has changed since then. Ivy Bridge, Sandy Bridge and all the rest of them are identical when it comes to reading core temperature data.
When lightly loaded, core temperatures are constantly changing. It is impossible for 2 different programs to sample the temperature sensors at the exact same moment in time so slight differences should be expected. When the CPU is fully loaded and the core temperature has had a chance to stabilize, the amount of difference between various programs should be minimal.
The advantage RealTemp has is that it works at a higher Windows priority level than the competition does. When a CPU is fully loaded running LinX, RealTemp is at the front of the line when it comes to asking the CPU for some data from the core temperature sensors. This allows it to get temperature data more frequently than some other monitoring programs. That's the reason why you might see it reporting higher core temperatures than the competition.
If you want to use a utility that can sample the CPU more frequently as well as at a higher priority level than any other program, check out ThrottleStop.
ThrottleStop 5.00 beta 1
http://www.mediafire.com/?wqo7qmmimh31w92
According to ASUS, AIDA64 is the one that is right currently
The Asus rep doesn't even understand the difference between core temperatures and CPU temperatures. I wouldn't put too much faith in his choice of monitoring software.
Intel's core temperature sensors are not accurate enough or documented well enough to provide users with 100% accurate core temperatures.
That statement is still 100% true. These sensors are still not fully documented and the amount of error is still unknown. Intel saves money by not using sensors that are 100% accurate from idle to full load. RealTemp is quite capable of reading Ivy Bridge temperature sensors correctly. If the reported core temperatures are not 100% accurate, you need to ask Intel to use some higher quality sensors.