Question What are these temps in HWMonitor and are they too high?

Feb 24, 2025
7
0
10
Hello, i have been using HWMonitor recently to monitor my prebuilt system as i'm having some performance issues with it, i have noticed 2 temperatures that go higher than anything else and i'm wondering what they are and do they possibly effect my CPU/PCs performance, the 2 temps are PCH from Motherboard and VR from my CPU.

My CPU is i5-12400F which has managed to get a pretty low score of 8,197 in 3DMark Time Spy, i was under the impression that it should be 10-12K.
Motherboard is Lenovo 3741, this is all i can get from HWMonitor.
Prebuilt is IdeaCentre Gaming 5 17IAB7 (RTX 3060)

If need more info let me know.

Here is the Time Spy results i ran few days ago if they show anything useful.
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/53525864




elpIHpY.png

xU698rW.png
 
Don't use HWmonitor. I'll tell you why below, but suffice to say it is often not accurate. HWinfo is a FAR better choice for monitoring sensor readings. I would uninstall HWmonitor, download HWinfo, install it, run it, choose the "Sensors only" option, only, not Summary, then run your tests again BUT this time screencap ALL of the sensors so we can get a better picture. Also, it would be helpful to do it while nothing at all is open and the system has been sitting idle for like five minutes and then again under a full load. You will probably need to expand the HWinfo sensors window height to reach from top to bottom of your screen (Width only needs to be wide enough to see all the values) and take several screenshots for both idle and load.
 
Monitoring software

HWmonitor, Open hardware monitor, Realtemp, Speccy, Speedfan, Windows utilities, CPU-Z, NZXT CAM and most of the bundled motherboard utilities are often not the best choice as they are not always accurate. Some are actually grossly inaccurate, especially with certain chipsets or specific sensors that for whatever reason they tend to not like or work well with. I've found HWinfo or CoreTemp to be the MOST accurate with the broadest range of chipsets and sensors. They are also almost religiously kept up to date.

CoreTemp is great for just CPU thermals including core temps or distance to TJmax on older AMD platforms.

HWinfo is great for pretty much EVERYTHING, including CPU thermals, core loads, core temps, package temps, GPU sensors, HDD and SSD sensors, motherboard chipset and VRM sensor, all of it. When starting HWinfo after installation, always check the box next to "sensors only" and de-select the box next to "summary".


Run HWinfo and look at system voltages and other sensor readings.

Monitoring temperatures, core speeds, voltages, clock ratios and other reported sensor data can often help to pick out an issue right off the bat. HWinfo is a good way to get that data and in my experience tends to be more accurate than some of the other utilities available. CPU-Z, GPU-Z and Core Temp all have their uses but HWinfo tends to have it all laid out in a more convenient fashion so you can usually see what one sensor is reporting while looking at another instead of having to flip through various tabs that have specific groupings, plus, it is extremely rare for HWinfo to not report the correct sensor values under the correct sensor listings, or misreport other information. Utilities like HWmonitor, Openhardware monitor and Speccy, tend to COMMONLY misreport sensor data, or not report it at all.

After installation, run the utility and when asked, choose "sensors only". IF you get a message about system stability you can simply ignore it and continue on WITH the option to monitor the sensor OR you can disable the monitoring for THAT sensor and continue on based on the option it gives you at the time. If you choose to continue on, WITH monitoring of that sensor, which is what I normally do, and there IS instability, that's fine. It's not going to hurt anything. Simply restart the HWinfo program (Or reboot if necessary and THEN restart the HWinfo program) and THEN choose to disable that sensor, and continue on with sensors only monitoring.

The other window options have some use but in most cases everything you need will be located in the sensors window. If you're taking screenshots to post for troubleshooting, it will most likely require taking three screenshots and scrolling down the sensors window between screenshots in order to capture them all.

It is most helpful if you can take a series of HWinfo screenshots at idle, after a cold boot to the desktop. Open HWinfo and wait for all of the Windows startup processes to complete. Usually about four or five minutes should be plenty. Take screenshots of all the HWinfo sensors.

Next, run something demanding like Prime95 (With AVX and AVX2 disabled) or Heaven benchmark. Take another set of screenshots while either of those is running so we can see what the hardware is doing while under a load.


*Download HWinfo




For temperature monitoring only, I feel Core Temp is the most accurate and also offers a quick visual reference for core speed, load and CPU voltage:


*Download Core Temp




Ryzen master for Zen or newer AMD CPUs, or Overdrive for older Pre-Ryzen platforms (AM3/AM3+/FM2/FM2+)

For monitoring on AMD Ryzen and Threadripper platforms including Zen or newer architectures, it is recommended that you use Ryzen master if for no other reason than because any updates or changes to monitoring requirements are more likely to be implemented sooner, and properly, than with other monitoring utilities. Core Temp and HWinfo are still good, with this platform, but when changes to CPU micro code or other BIOS modifications occur, or there are driver or power plan changes, it sometimes takes a while before those get implemented by 3rd party utilities, while Ryzen master, being a direct AMD product, generally gets updated immediately. Since it is also specific to the hardware in question, it can be more accurately and specifically developed without any requirement for inclusion of other architectures which won't be compatible in any case. You wouldn't use a hammer to drive a wood screw in (At least I hope not) and this is very much the same, being the right tool for the job at hand.

As far as the older AMD FX AM3+ platforms including Bulldozer and Piledriver families go, there are only two real options here. You can use Core Temp, but you will need to click on the Options menu, click Settings, click Advanced and put a check mark next to the setting that says "Show Distance to TJmax in temperature fields" and then save settings and exit the options menu system. This may or may not work for every FX platform, so using AMD Overdrive is the specific, again, right tool for the job, and recommended monitoring solution for this architecture. Since these FX platforms use "Thermal margins" rather than an actual "core/package" temp type thermal monitoring implementation, monitoring as you would with older or newer AMD platforms, or any Intel platform, won't work properly.

For more information about this, please visit here for an in depth explanation of AMD thermal margin monitoring.

Understanding AMD thermal margins for Pre-Ryzen processors





*Download Ryzen Master




*Download AMD Overdrive



Also, posting screenshots, when requested, is helpful so WE can see what is going on as well and you can learn how to do that here:

How to post images on Tom's hardware forums

 
Don't use HWmonitor. I'll tell you why below, but suffice to say it is often not accurate. HWinfo is a FAR better choice for monitoring sensor readings. I would uninstall HWmonitor, download HWinfo, install it, run it, choose the "Sensors only" option, only, not Summary, then run your tests again BUT this time screencap ALL of the sensors so we can get a better picture. Also, it would be helpful to do it while nothing at all is open and the system has been sitting idle for like five minutes and then again under a full load. You will probably need to expand the HWinfo sensors window height to reach from top to bottom of your screen (Width only needs to be wide enough to see all the values) and take several screenshots for both idle and load.
Hi, i downloaded HWinfo and got the screenshots idle and after benchmark, a whoppin 10 screenshots so i will put a Link to imgur because 10 screenshots from that will take crazy amounts of space if i upload em here one after another, i should also mention that i recently swapped my 16GB of ram to 32GB, i think the last test i linked had my prebuilt 16gb RAM in it.


Imgur Idle HWinfo

Imgur after benchmark HWinfo
 
ok what ram did you switch 2 i should mention that lenovo motherboards tend to have no heatsinks on the vrms which can cause loss in performance.

also the board is most likely locked to 1.2v

in the bios are you able to enable xmp ?

https://uk.crucial.com/memory/ddr4/CT2K16G4DFRA32A
I swapped the default 16GB @ 3200 MHz DDR4 to Kingston Fury Renegade 2x16GB @ 2400 MHz DDR4, it should run at 3200 but i did not think that i would need XMP to get it to 3200 MHz so its at 2400 now, i play games like Rust where i have some issues with 16GB so i had to upgrade.

BIOS on Lenovo is incredibly limited it seems and has almost nothing but some CPU options like Turbo.... Hyper Threading and LED options... security etc.. but no XMP.

Also this PC when i purchased it ran games extremely well without any problems and high FPS, its just in the past maybe 6 months or so that i have noticed some major performance loss, i have taught myself to swap thermal paste on both CPU and GPU, at one point i thought the GPU was the problem but i don't think so anymore, also clean my PC regularly and i'm very careful while doing so.
 
I swapped the default 16GB @ 3200 MHz DDR4 to Kingston Fury Renegade 2x16GB @ 2400 MHz DDR4, it should run at 3200 but i did not think that i would need XMP to get it to 3200 MHz so its at 2400 now, i play games like Rust where i have some issues with 16GB so i had to upgrade.

BIOS on Lenovo is incredibly limited it seems and has almost nothing but some CPU options like Turbo.... Hyper Threading and LED options... security etc.. but no XMP.

that's what i figured its limited to the 1.2v going with higher

also make sure that the ram is in slots 2 and 4 they are grey slots.

2400mhz is its lowest speed it goes on renegade I have similar kit.
 
that's what i figured its limited to the 1.2v going with higher

also make sure that the ram is in slots 2 and 4 they are grey slots.
This board only has 2 RAM slots at 2 and 4, looks like there are 4 DIMM slots or whatever they are called but the other 2 dont have the slots where you put the RAM into.
 
Also if i was to change my resolution or graphic settings in game those usually tend to not change my FPS at all, might see like 5-10 FPS difference between low and max, mostly i tried this a lot in Counter Strike 2 where i struggle the most with my FPS, in Youtube i see people doing tests with similar components and hit around 270-300 FPS stable, i get between 105-160.
 
Also if i was to change my resolution or graphic settings in game those usually tend to not change my FPS at all, might see like 5-10 FPS difference between low and max, mostly i tried this a lot in Counter Strike 2 where i struggle the most with my FPS, in Youtube i see people doing tests with similar components and hit around 270-300 FPS stable, i get between 105-160.


at what resolution are you playing ?. and whats your monitor ?
and at what settings.

games at 1080p will lean heavier on the cpu.
1440p gpu gets more involved
4k it will sit on side lines and waits for gpu.


also 105-160 is about what i would expect from a 3060. if settings are cranked up. at 1080p or 1440p.
 
at what resolution are you playing ?. and whats your monitor ?
and at what settings.

games at 1080p will lean heavier on the cpu.
1440p gpu gets more involved
4k it will sit on side lines and waits for gpu.


also 105-160 is about what i would expect from a 3060. if settings are cranked up. at 1080p or 1440p.
Main monitor
Samsung Odyssey G7 C27G7 27"
2560x1440 240 hz 1ms G-SYNC on

Second Monitor
Samsung Odyssey G3 S27AG320 27"
1920x1080 165 hz 1ms

I assume you mean in-game settings? in competitive games i play with most stuff on low unless it gives a advantage such as dynamic shadows in Counter Strike 2.

if i swap between the 2 resolutions there is pretty much no difference in the game, i also feel like since i got around 400 FPS the day i bought this PC with FPS locked at 400 in older version (CS:GO) i should have way more than 105-160, i know its a newer version of the game but it should not be this bad, i believe it still is with little updated graphics a CPU heavy game, however the utilization % is usually around like 50-60% while playing not sure if that is normal.