Core Temp 1.0 RC1

Core Temp 1.0 RC1 Released

Add Your Comments

Our very own The_Coolest just announced the first release candidate for version 1.0 of his Core Temp program. This release has many new features and bug fixes. It also coincides with the release a nifty monitoring app for your Android smartphone.

image courtesy

RC1 Screenshot (Courtesy CoreTemp)

Here is the changelog for this version:

*** Core Temp Monitor is now available, an Android app to monitor your machines from anywhere in the world! More information can be found here

  • New: Multilingual interface. Core Temp now natively supports adding non-English languages.
  • New: Plugin system – 3rd party developers can now create plugins and extensions for Core Temp, both native code and .Net is supported, please see this for more information.
  • New: Added support for Intel Pentium and AMD K5 and newer processors. (detection only, Temperature by Acpi Thermalzones)
  • New: Added support for VIA processors. (C3 – detection only, Temperature by Acpi Thermalzones)
  • New: Intel Sandy Bridge and AMD Fusion (Brazos, Llano) support.
  • New: Max TDP detection on supporting processors.
  • New: Power consumption on Intel’s Nehalem and newer processors.
  • Fix: All of the user reported bugs and many more unreported problems.
  • Update: Optimized the startup code, Core Temp should now launch 2 to 4 times faster.
  • Update: Optimized many other aspects of the code, Core Temp should now consume much less CPU time than before.
  • Update: Restored support for older OS: Windows XP is now fully supported, Windows 2000 requires security updates KB935839, KB835732 and GDI+. In some cases hotfix KB816542 may be needed as well.

Head over to the Core Temp home page to download the program and check out the complete changelog. You can also join the existing discussion threads in the AMD and Intel forums here on Overclockers.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Version 1.0 RC2 - 7th September, 2011

    - Fix: Temperature spikes to TjMax on Sandy Bridge CPUs.

    - Fix: Settings not saved properly bug.

    - Change: Changed frequency detection back to the original for Intel processors.

    - Change: Removed power consumption feature on older CPUs (only supported by Sandy Bridge now).

    - Known issues: Occasionally wrong FSB detection (Workaround: Press F5 in Core Temp).

    - Known issues: Recognition of Atom E600 series.

    Awesome, thanks a lot :)

    This prog is a must have for calming my nerves when benching. And as i am running a lot of tests/benching these days - my workday just got a heck lot better now :)
    That is definitely a bug. From what I remember, it only seems to be on Sandy Bridge based systems that does it as I don't have false temperature spikes on my i7.

    Tried the new version on my laptop with a Core2 Duo, and yes, temps are normal. Most likely a problem related to tempreadings for SB CPUs.

    I am shure this will be fixed in a soon to come update :)
    That is definitely a bug. From what I remember, it only seems to be on Sandy Bridge based systems that does it as I don't have false temperature spikes on my i7.

    I just completed a fresh install on my system:

    Windows 7 Ultimate


    ROG Gene-Z

    Corsair AX 750W

    Corsair H70

    Corsair Vengeance 1600MHz

    Corsair 650D (mid-tow..)

    Crucial Real SSD 120GB Sata3

    ATI Radeon 5770


    When i run Core Temp, with or without the new Core Temp Grapher Beta, my CPU suddenly spike to 98C on individual cores. In the end all cores have run at 98c for just a short sec or two - then it all goes down to normal again. This is without any load on the CPU, and Core Temp even shows that the load on the cpu is low, but it spikes up to 98c no mather what i do.

    ALL other temp programs show a stable CPU. RealTemp, All Suite II, SpeedFan, CPUID HW Monitor. Under stress test with Prime, the CPU goes up to 98c several time according to Core Temp....but my computer and/or Prime95 doesent stop running...they all seem werry fine. There are also others reporting this issue:

    I've been using Core Temp for quite some time, but now i am not shure wether the trust the temp readings the program shows. If this is an error with Core Temp - wich it kinda has to be when not only me is reporting the same issue, the max-temp is 98c no mather what one does, and my comp doesnt shut down wich it should have done on 98c.

    Anyone else having this problem? Is this a RC.1 BUG?

    I have tried both the standalone and with InstallQ-medontlikesoftware ;)

    A screenshot showin the difference in max temps is attached:
    In your screen shot above in post #22, you don't have any load on the CPU either.

    You are correct, not at the time the screen shot was taken but I was watching the monitors for a change during the stressing... I was only mentioning that you could tell that I had stressed the system by the increase in max temps seen.
    I did before that post when I changed the overclock. I ran Prime95 small FTT and then blend for about an hour total for a short check of the OC settings. You can see the load temps are much higher than in the previous picture. Durring the stress test the multiplier did not change on either monitoring programs.

    Not to get off on a tangent but the only issue i have with the Corsair 800D is that they do not balance the air in with the air out so my 3 high performance 120mm radiator fans are just blasting air out of the top and one 120mm fan is pushing even more out the back and the only intake is a single 120mm fan at the bottom of the main compartment.... So at first my temps hit about 73/74C and then i popped the side off and blew some air in and dropped them back to 68/69C... Anyway not to get off on another tanget as well the i7-960 required a significant voltage jump (1.35V to 1.40V) to get from 4Gz to 4.2GHz. So thats where a lot of the extra heat is coming from too.
    Sorry, that application is not supported on Vista 64 prem, Win 7 only.

    I don't want to sound rude but whatever way it is doing it, is wrong and cpuz is correct...

    Well let me rephrase, whatever way it is doing it is producing an incorrect result. Arguing about how its done is a moot point...

    I'll be glad to help test any changes/fixes you may want to use to address this in the future, just let me know.


    Just for SnG's I overclocked my cpu a little further by increasing the multiplier to 25x and bumpingthe vcore to see if Coretemp would pick up on the change. I was suspicious that the value was half of the actual...

    But even with it at 25x it still reports the same values as before....