![]() Intel's statement is a worst case but it doesn't apply to all sensors. ![]() There are many 45nm sensors that work very well below 50☌ and don't get stuck at normal operating temperatures. ![]() Most of the Core 2 65nm sensors are excellent when you are using the correct TJMax and not Intel's TJ Target numbers that they also released at the IDF conference. Some of what they have publicly stated about their sensors is misleading. Temperatures below 50☌ should be ignoredĭon't believe everything Intel says. Now I have to go fix a few bugs in RealTemp to try and get caught up. I tried 101 tricks to fool it but everything looks good. That's why RealTemp (and now CoreTemp too, kudos to The Coolest for taking Kevin's advice :up:) are two almost perfect tools for showing real data for Intel CPU's not only fancy colors or graphs. That's why RealTemp has a calibration option for those who want to approximate "real" values for core temps in idle. Two years ago unclewebb, rge and others did a wonderful job debunking those cheap Intel sensors readings and guesstimate various TJMax values. I know there was a large effort to achieve that, but I don't think it's possible - it will never be accurate for certain models. Then you can guesstimate what you want.ĮDIT: Trying to make sense of nonsense data (high entropy) seem more fancy to me than something else. Once it gets saturated at certain threshold, the values returned below might be totally irrelevant and not corresponding to real situation. I don't think that anything can solve a problem of hardware inaccuracy of a sensor. Determining a correct Tj,max for a particular CPU is something different.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |