# AMD Ryzen Master, Aida64 and HWInfo64 temp reading not the same



## puma99dk| (Sep 22, 2019)

After i put my AMD Ryzen 9 3900X system together I can see that temp reading are really different for the 3 programs I tested which is:

AMD Ryzen Master v2.0.21271 (The newest version I could find)
Aida64 Engineer v6.00.5100
HWiNFO64 v6.10-3880

AMD Ryzen Master reads 83.1C as the lowest software report while HWiNFO reads 84.8C and Aida64 is reading the hottest at 87C that's roughly around 4C difference.






I don't know which one to trust a 100% here even I think I need to trust the AMD Ryzen Master because it's developed by AMD and should be the one most accurated and also controls the temp limit.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 22, 2019)

they measure at slightly different times and may well measure different cores (they're meant to show the temp from the hottest core, at time of measuring... which can be as low as every 1ms)


----------



## PerfectWave (Sep 22, 2019)

ryzen master done by amd should be your choice


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 22, 2019)

Mussels said:


> they measure at slightly different times and may well measure different cores


^^^This^^^

It is important to remember the temperature of a processor can jump from cool to over-heated in just a few clock cycles. And in that processor, there are over 4 billion cycles in just one second! 

Measuring temps is NOT anything high-tech. The sensors simply report a number that represents a thermal value. These thermal values are widely published by the sensor maker and available to the monitoring software developers. 

The software just takes that value and converts it to a temperature based on those published specs. If the CPU core is sitting at 50°C, for example, at that specific point in time, then 50°C is 50°C regardless which program reports it. So no magic or proprietary formulas or algorithms are required or used. As long as the monitoring program can correctly identify the sensor (not a difficult task), it will report 50°C.

Also, every monitoring program has different "sample rates". That is, the number of times they sample (or "look at" or "poll") the sensor per second, minute, hour, etc. It could be once per second or once every 5 seconds or something else. Core Temp, for example, by default samples every 1000ms (1 second intervals). A lot can happen in one second.

Last, their sample times will be different too. This is because it is impossible for you to start each of those monitoring programs so their first samples are taken on the exact same CPU clock cycle. 

One more last thing - these sensors are very low-tech too. That is, they are NOT the most precise measuring devices. To include the most accurate available would increase costs. And that level of precision is just not needed. If you "need" that level of precision to prevent crossing thermal safety thresholds, you have other, more critical issues to deal with first - like better case cooling. 

It is kinda like bathroom scales. In terms of your health, it really does not matter it reads 162 when you really weigh 160. What matters is that it reads 162 each and every time a 160 pound weight is put on the scales. Its all about consistency first, accuracy second (as long as the accuracy is in the ball park).  

Okay, I promise, this is the last thing - sadly there are no industry standards for sensor placement within the processor, sensor accuracy, or even sensor use. So one-on-one comparisons between 2 different CPUs (even within the same brand of CPU) is near impossible outside of a professional precision measuring laboratory.

So IMO, your 4°C spread is nothing to worry about. If one monitoring program said 62.3°C, another said 65°C and another said 97.7°C, then I would dismiss the third.


PerfectWave said:


> ryzen master done by amd should be your choice


I don't agree. I am NOT saying Ryzen Master is a bad choice. What I am saying is there is no reason to assume it would be more accurate or consistent, therefore I am saying you should just pick the monitoring program you like, and stick with it.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 22, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> ^^^This^^^
> 
> It is important to remember the temperature of a processor can jump from cool to over-heated in just a few clock cycles. And in that processor, there are over 4 billion cycles in just one second!
> 
> ...


For me they are too far apart for either to make sense , especially ryzen master, which shows very restrained clocks at all times regardless of what I do , manually overclocking is the only way to get boost clocks above 4.2 if ryzen master is right all while hwinfo see's peaks of 4.5?.
There's work to be done with both IMHO.
Temperature sensors can be so so, frequency sensing is not a vague technology, it's easily done.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 22, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> For me they are too far apart for either to make sense , especially ryzen master,


I don't know what you are saying here. A 4° spread is not very far apart - considering the time factors noted by Mussels and myself.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 22, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> I don't know what you are saying here. A 4° spread is not very far apart - considering the time factors noted by Mussels and myself.


I did set hwinfo 64 to poll much much quicker 25ms , no adjustments for ryzen master.


----------



## NoJuan999 (Sep 22, 2019)

AMD suggests that you set HWInfo to 500ms, that is what I have mine set to.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 22, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> I did set hwinfo 64 to poll much much quicker 25ms


If you are not sitting close to the danger zone, I see no reason to do this. Increasing (or rather decreasing) the interval just causes more unnecessary processor interrupts - that is wasted system resources.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 22, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> If you are not sitting close to the danger zone, I see no reason to do this. Increasing (or rather decreasing) the interval just causes more unnecessary processor interrupts - that is wasted system resources.


I agree , i wouldn't run it all the time least of all at that polling rate.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 23, 2019)

Well, my comment really referred to all monitoring programs - especially when run all the time. I keep CoreTemp running in my System Tray for example, for full time monitoring. Once per second (the default) is fine. 40 times per second (25ms) is unnecessary.


----------



## NoJuan999 (Sep 23, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> I agree , i wouldn't run it all the time least of all at that polling rate.


I only run it when I am benchmarking to compare OC and/or BIOS tweak results.
AMD recommended 500 ms to ensure it registers/records the Max clocks.


----------

