Core Temp or Real Temp

[Amy Adams]

Before starting to overclock my new Intel E8400 on a Asus P5K-E, I had downloaded a bunch of tools that everyone knows. Like CPU-Z, GPU-Z and HW Monitor. Along with them I also got ClockGen, OCCT, Super PI, TAT, etc.. All these apps seem to work better except TAT which starts saying Invalid Processor. Terminating Tool. I have no choice but to click OK then the program closes. I remove this tool and I will no rely on OCCT. But here I am getting confused between Real Temp or Core Temp. Which one is better.

[Deepest BLUE]

Why don't you try HW Monitor. Some overclocking tools are buggy. HW Monitor released the same figures as Core Temp. In my system I went to 75 degrees according to Core Temp and that was also showing right in OCCT. While Real Temp indicates That the temperature of the CPU is 10 degrees cooler but on the same the processor is heating up. I run OCCT test and found that Real Temp temperatures is very fast but returning within 30-35 degrees and Core Temp has dropped but continues to show a 10 degree higher temperature.

[desilva]

I think Real Temp is fine. I found that in a analysis on overclocking. Here in OCCT the temperature of my system is 80 degree I remember correctly my cpu should go off the throttle so better I never switched to throttle. I had seen a loss of PERF, and I found that my cpu perf rose exactly in proportion to my frequency so here the throttle was not triggered. All options for energy saving features are active at time of testing.

[Common]

There are many temperature monitoring tool. I will go with Core Temp. It is is a monitoring software for people who want to monitor temperatures and information on their PC. With a simple interface, Core Temp includes many components, and uses sensors (already present on the motherboard in general) to inform you of the temperature inside the box, which is perfect for monitoring CPU temperature, but also the Junction.

[Abbie]

I had found some issue on the system and has a similar doubt. I have a Intel E8500 cpu which is overclocked and it is running quiet nicely without any fault. I had installed to two tools to measure a further test, they are prime95 real and CoreTemp. Curiously, both measure different results. CoreTemp in normal 44 ° C per core and up to 60 ° C under load, while RealTemp measures 37 ° C in normal and 48 ° C under load. This is strange.

[Brooks]

This is not strange because RealTemp takes a Tj.Max of 95 ° C and 105 ° C CoreTemp. Therefore, the 10 ° C difference. Take note RealTemp and the Distance to TJ Max. Seach on google for this you will get many information on the same. I will recommend you to use CoreTemp. Core Temp can also find various information about the CPU used, including CPUIB the APICID, the processor model, but also the frequency, the socket and the Vcore.

[Viceman]

Both tools are fine but there are based on different values. There is some 10 degree difference among them. I will recommend you to use both. But the difference to TJmax in both is the same. RealTemp, Everest and CoreTemp an display the correct temperatures. With realtemp I have not made any good experiences, thus leaving you more on Coretemp. Many times the CoreTemp is much better in displaying the temperature.