My E8400 cpu temperature...

[FilipM]

Right, my E8400, yeah, um... I'm on the stock HSF, and the idle temps are: 34 on core 0 and 42 on core 1. Load temps are like 48 on core 0 with 54 on core 1 (what realtemp measured while I was in a game).

Why is there such a difference between the core temperatures? Also, no OC done.

 

[lohoutlaw]

Could be a bad seat.

Although my E8400 has a stuck core 0 of 46c.

 

[warhammer]

My E8400 @3.6 core 0 35C and core 1 39C CPU temp 33C does your system crash or hang ?..

This is from INTEL

There is always going to be a 5-to-10-degree difference between cores because there is a main core, which is going to have the constant load of the system (even when this is at idle conditions) and a secondary core that the motherboard and the operating system would determine when to function.

Furthermore, this type of situation is usually related to the incorrect recognition of the microcode of the processor. The microcode of the processor is an electronic string that works as an identifier that the system BIOS and the motherboard itself use for communicating to the processor when it comes to data transference. If the microcode string is broken (this can happen because of static or grounding) then the system starts reporting wrong information like overheating or wrong specifications on the processor.

I would recommend updating the system BIOS to the latest revision available.

 

[Jeno]

Right, my E8400, yeah, um... I'm on the stock HSF, and the idle temps are: 34 on core 0 and 42 on core 1. Load temps are like 48 on core 0 with 54 on core 1 (what realtemp measured while I was in a game).

Why is there such a difference between the core temperatures? Also, no OC done.

my e8400 temps right now:

core#1: 42C
core#2: 35C

overall cpu temp: 17

the temps aren't very accurate in core 1 and 2, don't worry about it, just monitor your overall temp

 

[rge]

E8xxx DTS are not accurate until you get to 30C from tjmax or roughly 65C. Idle temps are uncalibrated, nonlinear, and one of yours is more nonlinear at idle than the other.

The fact that your load temps have less variance between the two is good, if you ran temps up to 90C or so, where intel calibrates them for throttling they might even be within just 2-3C.

Bottom line it is either noncalibration at idle (if temps get within a couple C at very high temps), and if not then one or both of your DTS are inaccurate, like many others.

Intels statement of 5-10C between cores from one core being loaded, is a flat out lie. When you call them on their BS and keep escalating the emails to higher tech support, they quickly will back away from that statement. Most 65nm chips did not show any discrepancy, and most of E8xxx series do not as well. That alone disproves intels ludicrous statement. But you can set affinity to one core, load only one core, and measure temps in both, and can only produce 1C gradient between two cores, because the thermal conductance is so high across die.

Intels second statement regarding bios calibration is not a lie, but misleading. "cpu" temps (diode between cores) read in bios, and by speedfan, etc is indeed dependent on bios calibration and support. That is where you will see 190C, 5C temps reported by cpu from lack of support/calibration.

However "core" temps as reported by realtemp, coretemp are NOT dependent on bios calibration, and bios is irrelevant.

Most idle temps on E8xxx are way off, by 5-15C, and they become accurate after temps reach in 65-70C range. You simply have one that is ~5 off and one that is ~15 off, instead of having matched inaccurate ones at idle.