# Change from Celsius to Fahrenheit?



## acuraice (May 25, 2015)

I love your program besides the fact that it directs me to the wrong gpu when you select the  " look up" feature (i understand the look up feature is new and can be buggy) but what drives me  most crazy is that all the temperatures are only listed in *Celsius *!!
 There are no options or preferences files i can access to change from *Celcius *to *Fahrenheit*. Is this possible with GPU-Z?? Am i just missing something??? Thank you in advance.


----------



## Frick (May 25, 2015)

Right click on the icon in the upper left corner.


----------



## acuraice (May 25, 2015)

OMG!!! i feel so stupid now!! Thank you very much for helping me. I would have never noticed that the options were a hidden menu. Im sure others have made the same mistake also. At least 1 other person voted Yes to my poll, so i know im not alone


----------



## Frick (May 25, 2015)

Yeah it probably takes a bit for everyone to find that meny. I dunno where a good place for it would be otherwise though.


----------



## Tatty_One (May 25, 2015)

I thought manufacturers specced thermal limits were always shown in Celsius?


----------



## Naki (May 27, 2015)

Frick said:


> Yeah it probably takes a bit for everyone to find that meny. I dunno where a good place for it would be otherwise though.


A normal menu (at top of window) or an Options/Settings button? Lots of options exist. 
For Options/Settings button, a 2nd window to set various options would appear when the button is clicked. Most other Windows programs have separate Settings/Options screens, not quite sure why GPU-Z does not??


----------



## qubit (May 27, 2015)

Fahrenheit is an outdated imperial measurement and should be scrapped.


----------



## Folterknecht (May 27, 2015)

qubit said:


> Fahrenheit is an outdated imperial measurement and should be scrapped.



Not only that, but it also creates confusion because the vast majority of people will assume the temperatures displayed are displayed in °C,  in a screenshot related to fixing PC problems. 

Personally I havnt come across pc-forum posts where °F is used, even in predominantly north american forums.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 27, 2015)

qubit said:


> Fahrenheit is an outdated imperial measurement and should be scrapped.


 
Regardless of that for countries that still use some or all Imperial measurements, I do think Fahrenheit should not even be an option for GPU-Z, because computer hardware is predominately specced in metrics.  Celcius is always used in every forum or publication I have ever come accross when discussing computer part temps.


----------



## Loosenut (May 27, 2015)

Metric is more precise easier for me to understand, water freezes at 0ºC (32ºF) and boils at 100ºC (212ºF). Simple.

edit: changed my statement after realising I'm no way as smart as some of you.


----------



## EarthDog (May 27, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Regardless of that for countries that still use some or all Imperial measurements, I do think Fahrenheit should not even be an option for GPU-Z, because computer hardware is predominately specced in metrics.  Celcius is always used in every forum or publication I have ever come accross when discussing computer part temps.


Exactly...........


----------



## silkstone (May 27, 2015)

We should just use the Kelvin scale and be done with it.


----------



## xfia (May 27, 2015)

Loosenut said:


> Metric is more precise, water freezes at 0ºC (32ºF) and boils at 100ºC (212ºF). Simple.



i get your angle but would you not say if your looking for the most accurate or precise fluctuations in temp with a fast polling rate f is the way to go?

i wouldnt say outdated just has its place and most people dont need such a precise measurement.

edit-actually i think science got left outside the circle on this one being that f can actually be over twice as precise as c depending how and what it is used for haha


----------



## Loosenut (May 27, 2015)

xfia said:


> i get your angle but would you not say if your looking for the most accurate or precise fluctuations in temp with a fast polling rate f is the way to go?
> 
> i wouldnt say outdated just has its place and most people dont need such a precise measurement.
> 
> edit-actually i think science got left outside the circle on this one being that f can actually be over twice as precise as c depending how and what it is used for haha



You may be right, ºF may be more precise depending on what it's used for but for these applications, the standard should be in ºC imho as it's probably a more widely accepted measurement.


----------



## REAYTH (May 27, 2015)

qubit said:


> Fahrenheit is an outdated imperial measurement and should be scrapped.


There are two different kinds of countries in this world. Countries that use the metric system and countries that went to the moon.


----------



## Tatty_One (May 27, 2015)

REAYTH said:


> There are two different kinds of countries in this world. Countries that use the metric system and countries that went to the moon.


But unfortunately 2 of the 3 countries that have been to the moon are metric


----------



## EarthDog (May 27, 2015)

People, not probes? LOL!


----------



## Tatty_One (May 27, 2015)

His pic says flags, not people


----------



## thebluebumblebee (May 27, 2015)

Numbers is so confusing.  Let's adopt a scale like NTAS:

*Low Condition (Green)*. 
*Guarded Condition (Blue)*.
*Elevated Condition (Yellow)*.
*High Condition (Orange)*.
*Severe Condition (Red)*.


----------



## R-T-B (May 27, 2015)

Loosenut said:


> Metric is more precise, water freezes at 0ºC (32ºF) and boils at 100ºC (212ºF). Simple.



Technically, that's more convienient, but not more precise.

ºF is actaully a more precise (smaller unit) of measurement...  That's about its only benefit though.


----------



## Tatty_One (May 27, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> Technically, that's more convienient, but not more precise.
> 
> ºF is actaully a more precise (smaller unit) of measurement...  That's about its only benefit though.


Although if I can remember that far back, I am sure I was taught at school that Fahrenheit is only accurate to 2 decimal places whilst Celsius goes to 3 decimal places...... dunno maybe senility is setting in..... ohhh wait...... too late!


----------



## R-T-B (May 27, 2015)

That sounds more like a limitation of whatever tool you were using than an actual limit.

Just look at the difference in units between freezing and boiling point of water.  F crams many more units into the same space.


----------



## erocker (May 27, 2015)

Meh, it's a measurement, nothing more. If whatever scale works to indicate the measurement it's fine. I don't care one way or the other.


----------



## Tatty_One (May 27, 2015)

I understand where you are coming from, and you are right, just not sure of the actual relevance in real world scenarios, what I mean by that is, if you go out this weekend and run a marathon, some might say you have run 42.195km, others may say they have run 26 miles and 385 yards, whichever way you care to call it, you have run the same distance .  Of course if you were getting dirty with something like micro physics where you were talking tiny fractions of a unit then yes most certainly having that added detail will make life easier, but not sure if it makes it more accurate.


----------



## qubit (May 27, 2015)

REAYTH said:


> There are two different kinds of countries in this world. Countries that use the metric system and countries that went to the moon.


Facepalm, lol.


----------



## erocker (May 27, 2015)

Tatty_One said:


> I understand where you are coming from, and you are right, just not sure of the actual relevance in real world scenarios, what I mean by that is, if you go out this weekend and run a marathon, some might say you have run 42.195km, others may say they have run 26 miles and 385 yards, whichever way you care to call it, you have run the same distance .  Of course if you were getting dirty with something like micro physics where you were talking tiny fractions of a unit then yes most certainly having that added detail will make life easier, but not sure if it makes it more accurate.


It really just comes down to what you grew up with. I prefer the metric system in pretty much all ways (as a mechanic, it's just easier to remember what's what)... Except I just can't use Celsius in daily life. If someone here asked me what temperature it was be it outside or.. say an engine, if I gave them the info in Celsius they'd look at me like I have lobsters crawling out of my ears! Fahrenheit (with the exception of PC's) are ingrained in my head. I couldn't tell you the temperature here in C, but I can say it does feel like a very nice 72 degrees. 40 years of this stuff forced into me head.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (May 27, 2015)

Loosenut said:


> Metric is more precise, water freezes at 0ºC (32ºF) and boils at 100ºC (212ºF). Simple.



No.  Stop trying to science.


Precision and accuracy have nothing to do with the software.  The accuracy would measure the deviation between reported temperature and actual temperature, while precision would measure how the reported temperature varied with a consistent real temperature.  What we are asking for is which scale we are going to use.  Is it one that arbitrarily sets 0 at the freezing temperature of water, or one that arbitrarily sets 0 at brine freezing temperature (and 100 at human body temperature). 

If we are trying to make the argument for more gradients within the same measurement, then Fahrenheit wins.  If we are trying to make the argument for which scale conforms to most existing specifications Celsius wins.  If we want to be pedantic engineers (looks both ways, knowing they are guilty of this), we choose Rankine or Kelvin because temperature is a measurement of random kinetic energy and those scales have no motion as 0. 




Science aside, Celsius wins hands down for me.  Fahrenheit may have more gradients, but that's why we have decimal places.  This assertion is coming from a person who has spent long enough in the engineering fields to know that the imperial system was thought up by a drunkard.  No other explanation could possibly cover a numerical base 10 system, with a measurement system based on arbitrary crap (screw you furlong, rod, and yard).


----------



## qubit (May 28, 2015)

erocker said:


> 40 years of this stuff forced into me head.


Oh, so you're another old fart! Me too. You've just gone up in my estimation. 

Ya know, I'm metric in everything but speed. It's got to be mph. I can estimate a conversion of kph to mph in my head fairly easily, but it just feels totally wrong. I guess it's like this for me because that's how things are measured in daily life here in England.


----------



## R-T-B (May 28, 2015)

Tatty_One said:


> I understand where you are coming from, and you are right, just not sure of the actual relevance in real world scenarios, what I mean by that is, if you go out this weekend and run a marathon, some might say you have run 42.195km, others may say they have run 26 miles and 385 yards, whichever way you care to call it, you have run the same distance .  Of course if you were getting dirty with something like micro physics where you were talking tiny fractions of a unit then yes most certainly having that added detail will make life easier, but not sure if it makes it more accurate.



You didn't pay attention much in science class did you?

Precision is exactly what I just described (unit size) in a scientific context...  you want to get as close to the target as possible, so to speak. Either that or my science teacher was full of BS, which is possible.


----------



## Caring1 (May 28, 2015)

REAYTH said:


> There are two different kinds of countries in this world. Countries that use the metric system and countries that went to the moon.


Typical Imperialistic attitude.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (May 28, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> You didn't pay attention much in science class did you?
> 
> Precision is exactly what I just described (unit size) in a scientific context...  you want to get as close to the target as possible, so to speak. Either that or my science teacher was full of BS, which is possible.



Yes and no.

Imagine two targets.  You get to fire two guns at the target.  The first has rifling, and the other is smooth barrel.  After five shots of each gun you compare the targets.  The gun with rifling has a grouping with a diameter of 3", but is centered 4" from the bulls eye.  This group is very precise, but not accurate.  Your smooth barrel has produced a grouping with diameter 5", but the center of the grouping is dead on the bulls eye.  This group is accurate, but not precise.


Now that we've established the basics of precision and accuracy, let's apply it to our example.  Your CPU is actually 45 C.  This is under a constant loading, so the temperature is constant.  An accurate reading would vary between 44-46 C, assuming a variability in the sensor of +/-1 C.  You could get a very precise reading of 43 C consistently, but it would not be accurate.  


In short, neither Fahrenheit or Celsius is more accurate.  They are scales, which by nature have no accuracy (they are based on arbitrary stuff).  Our equipment determines accuracy and precision.


----------



## R-T-B (May 28, 2015)

Sounds about right, thanks.


----------



## Caring1 (May 28, 2015)

*Flies off in Metric Deathstar to battle Imperial forces*


----------



## silkstone (May 28, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> You didn't pay attention much in science class did you?
> 
> Precision is exactly what I just described (unit size) in a scientific context...  you want to get as close to the target as possible, so to speak. Either that or my science teacher was full of BS, which is possible.



Precision actually describes the spread of repeated measurements. Accuracy is how close the measurement are to the actual (true) value.

The system of unit makes no difference to either. The sensitivity of instrument does.

Edit - lilhasslehoffer beat me to it. Dang.


----------



## R-T-B (May 28, 2015)

silkstone said:


> Precision actually describes the spread of repeated measurements. Accuracy is how close the measurement are to the actual (true) value.
> 
> The system of unit makes no difference to either. The sensitivity of instrument does.
> 
> Edit - lilhasslehoffer beat me to it. Dang.



Yeah, I had a sneaking suspicion my high school science teacher was oversimplifying things...  Not surprised to have it confirmed... Lol


----------



## Tatty_One (May 28, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> Yeah, I had a sneaking suspicion my high school science teacher was oversimplifying things...  Not surprised to have it confirmed... Lol


I was self taught so that's my excuse and I am sticking to it!


----------

