# The official E8400/E8500 temperature thread



## EastCoasthandle (Feb 1, 2008)

If you have concerns about your E8400 or E8500 temperature post them here.  
Other threads can be found (but not limited to) here.
Inquire report here


----------



## erocker (Feb 1, 2008)

I've been hearing now that the temp. reading *- *tjunctionMax = actual reading. Yes, these cores run hot, that's the way it is.  The CPU socket temp, found on Speedfan, is the temp we really need to be concerned about, as it takes quite a lot to get the cores up to 105c.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Feb 1, 2008)

I believe that coretemps and speedfan need to be updated.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 1, 2008)

they certainly dont give out any meaningful readings.. my bios dosnt even pick up the temps of my 8400 untill i bung oodles of volts thru it.. then it starts to read temps..

and looking at the none existent cooler intel ship with these chip they dont seem to think they run hot..

how hot mine runs iin real terms i dont know but i recon it runs at least 20 C cooler than my 6750 did even at higher volts..

trog


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Feb 1, 2008)

E6850

This shows that coretemps had the opposite problem with the E6850.  It was fixed in a later release. 







E8400

Again, the temps are different.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 1, 2008)

coretemps reads the sensors in the chips core which is why its called coretemp..

the coretemp guy says the chips sensors might be erratic..  intel say so what.. if the chip works and dosnt throttle down things are okay.. we dont sell thermometers.. not exactly those words but the meaning is there..

what other things read i dont know it might simply be the bios.. my bios reads about 30 C less than coretemp.. and about 20 C lees with the 8400 than it did with the 6750..

i never used coretemp with the 6750 it just crashed my machine.. so i dont know what that would have said for my 6750 chip..

i do know what the bios and abit guru say and said thow..

trog


----------



## hat (Feb 1, 2008)

hey trog.. this is off topic but I wondered why you type like this..


----------



## trog100 (Feb 1, 2008)

like what.. double line spacing or little short bursts with two full stops.. no caps.. he he he

i recon its just more "at glance" readable.. but its now habit.. over the last few years i have posted more ..eerrrr..  posts in variouse forums on various subjects than i dare think about..

in the winter when its wet rainy and cold outside i become a sad bastid.. in the summer i do other things.. he he

when i have to type for real.. i do have problems stopping the forum style.. 

trog


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Feb 1, 2008)

trog100 said:


> coretemps reads the sensors in the chips core which is why its called coretemp..
> 
> the coretemp guy says the chips sensors might be erratic..  intel say so what.. if the chip works and dosnt throttle down things are okay.. we dont sell thermometers.. not exactly those words but the meaning is there..
> 
> ...


I know how core temps operate.  I wanted to point out that when the E6850 was released the current version of core temps at that time wasn't reading temps correctly even though they were reading "something".


----------



## trog100 (Feb 1, 2008)

i know u do dude.. i tend to write with all the other thread readers in mind.. just pass on what information i have.. i am taking part in a group discussion thread.. not talking directly to u.. its a habit i have.. i get picked up on it quite often..

someone starts a thread many read it and participate.. it aint personal.. why assume it is..

trog


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Feb 2, 2008)

trog100 said:


> i know u do dude.. i tend to write with all the other thread readers in mind.. just pass on what information i have.. i am taking part in a group discussion thread.. not talking directly to u.. its a habit i have.. i get picked up on it quite often..
> 
> someone starts a thread many read it and participate.. it aint personal.. why assume it is..
> 
> trog



Gotcha, NP


----------



## mcanubus (Feb 2, 2008)

*E, 8400 Degrees Celcius....*

Hello, I am also having problems with my E8400. I "upgraded" from an e6550 (2.33GHZ) running around 33C idle and up to 44C under load... but my e8400 is reading between 53-60C idle!!! I've tried adjusting the multiplier and turning it down (to 6x, ~2.00 GHZ), and it operates at the same temp. I've reseated the cpu quite a few times. Not so funny thing is: even under 100% load it only jumps up about 3-4 degrees to about 63-64, even after 6 hrs running a full load stress test. :/ I would expect it to get quite a bit hotter if it was already running at such a high temperature, essentially doing nothing. I don't know what to make of it, should i return it? or assume all the readings are just inaccurate?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Feb 2, 2008)

mcanubus said:


> Hello, I am also having problems with my E8400. I "upgraded" from an e6550 (2.33GHZ) running around 33C idle and up to 44C under load... but my e8400 is reading between 53-60C idle!!! I've tried adjusting the multiplier and turning it down (to 6x, ~2.00 GHZ), and it operates at the same temp. I've reseated the cpu quite a few times. Not so funny thing is: even under 100% load it only jumps up about 3-4 degrees to about 63-64, even after 6 hrs running a full load stress test. :/ I would expect it to get quite a bit hotter if it was already running at such a high temperature, essentially doing nothing. I don't know what to make of it, should i return it? or assume all the readings are just inaccurate?



This proves to me that the sensors are not read correctly.  I on the other hand tried to go from a 8-pin 12V to 4-pin 12V and only noticed roughly 2C difference (it fluctuates a lot and hard to get a good screen shot of it).  If anything I noticed that Everest and Coretemps didn't always show the exact same temp readings as it did when I had the 8-pin 12V connection.  









Both of these pics are stock using a 4-pin 12V connection.  As you can see the idle temps are 40C-42C








This pic shows the E8400 stock using the 8-pin 12V connection as you can see the idle temps are roughly 4C-8C higher.


I always knew that using an 8-pin 12V connection may raise temps.  However, it doesn't explain why the temps are higher then my E6850 which hovers in the early-mid 30C range.


----------



## hat (Feb 2, 2008)

It's a bad temp sensor. It reads low temps really high for some reason.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Feb 3, 2008)

^^That hasn't been verified as of yet.  The example I provided shows that it's possible to get incorrect temp readings from the program itself.



VID is from 0.85V – 1.3625V for the E8400.  
 The max Core voltage is 1.45V (page 17, someone correct me if I am wrong).  E6000 series CPUs are able to go as high as 1.55V (page 20)


----------



## OnBoard (Feb 3, 2008)

This reminds me of E4300, that got those high temps. Now E8400 is on par with it  Depending on program I get over 40C idles too. At least with E4300 you get 15C too much or too little, nothing in between funny. Still don't know which temps are correct, we are debating it on the other thread in the same time.

People are going from Conroes to Wolfdales and temps go up. I was thinking of jumping to E8x00 some time in the future, but would like to see this resolved before. If E8400 temps turn out to be false, hope that E4300 temps are also false and be it a Conroe, Allendale or a Wolfdale, they all run cool in reality.


----------



## mcanubus (Feb 5, 2008)

Okay... I don't have a physical thermal sensor so i can get a readout outside of what the bios and programs are telling me...but another thing is: the monitor displayed my cpu temp at around 63C and my gpu at 50...so i hit the power button on my PSU and touched the HSF directly after turning it off...i mean under 5 seconds and it was barely warm to the touch :/... where as my GPU felt pretty hot. Has anyone gotten a physical reading on this cpu yet?


----------



## strick94u (Feb 5, 2008)

My core temps say 99-120 on screen but my monsoon vigor says 79-89 and my laser temp meter says the side of the cpu is about 80 at rest I have never trusted the internal temp sensors but even is those temps were right thats not bad at 4 ghz


----------



## VroomBang (Apr 4, 2008)

*temp 24C at stock clock*

Posting temp reading of 24C at stock clock (cpu fan on auto 28%):


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Apr 4, 2008)

I suggest using Real Temp 

Here is the original thread


----------



## VroomBang (Apr 4, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> I suggest using Real Temp



core temps look a lot better under RealTemp indeed..


----------



## PaulieG (Apr 4, 2008)

I'm fairly convinced that Realtemp is more accurate with these chips. It seems to always w/in 10-12c of my bios cpu temp, which would make perfect sense.


----------



## Dr. Spankenstein (Apr 4, 2008)

Just like others have said before, these themal sensors are a total crapshoot as to their accuracy. It will only be a guideline.

Now you can go and use whichever prog you want to report temps, (heck go ahead and delude yourself by picking the one that reports the lowest!) Whatever makes you feel better...

There is no semblance of consistancy or repeatability with on-die AND motherboard sensors. The MFGs admit that fact. Your only decision is to decide how far you want to push based on a guesstimate.


----------



## trog100 (Apr 4, 2008)

Dr. Spankenstein said:


> Just like others have said before, these themal sensors are a total crapshoot as to their accuracy. It will only be a guideline.
> 
> Now you can go and use whichever prog you want to report temps, (heck go ahead and delude yourself by picking the one that reports the lowest!) Whatever makes you feel better...
> 
> There is no semblance of consistancy or repeatability with on-die AND motherboard sensors. The MFGs admit that fact. Your only decision is to decide how far you want to push based on a guesstimate.



yep pretty much well said..

trog


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Apr 4, 2008)

Until there is some scientific explanation that throughly debunks the use of Real Temps and, prove that the thermal sensors on my CPU are defective (via recall for example).  I will continue using the product as some investigation has been conducted explaining the differences between Real Temps and Core temps as well as actual temps of the CPU's IHS, etc.


----------



## Dr. Spankenstein (Apr 4, 2008)

No, no. Noone is claiming anything is defective or that a prog can't accurately translate the integers that are provided to it (by the non-calibrated sensors!).

My statements were not meant as an attack, just a helpful dose of reality: motherboard/BIOS/DTS readings are an approximation. To properly calibrate your CPU to your motherboard to your BIOS would require an extended amount of equipment and effort. Personally, I believe that RealTemps is the best thing going for these chips. But it can only work with what it's given!

Go with what feels good.

No harm, no foul. Eh, fellers?


----------



## VroomBang (Apr 4, 2008)

he he, I'm happy with the core temps either way, as long as the main cpu temp is low


----------



## R_1 (Apr 4, 2008)

So, why don't you use Intel TAT for measuring core temps. It has been made for mobile Core Duo processors, but can still be useful. And you have to blame Intel if it is inaccurate.


----------



## trog100 (Apr 4, 2008)

the fact intel dosnt have an accurate way of measuring the things proves all that needs proving to me.. 

i can however accept the principle that an overclocker needs to feel happy thow.. even if it is mostly based on self delusion..

trog


----------

