FatBoyNL

Thanks, the issue has been solved in beta .7823 👍 EDIT:

To me it seems all fonts are a bit larger btw than the last 'few' betas, just looking at the Computer > Sensor page for example. But that's a good thing imho. The release notes of this beta show "- font scaling" on top. Any chance this could be related?

Thanks, I'm using standard 150% scaling. And I see the same issue with CPUID Panel and GPGU Benchmark.

150% at 2560x1440. I'm not using font scaling (100%).

Latest .7820 beta seems to have some scaling or spacing or DPI issue within the cache & memory benchmark: EDIT: this is on Windows 11 26100.4482 btw.

Thanks, this looks perfect 👍

Thanks, the current firmware revision of my 9100 PRO is 0B2QNXH7.

EDIT: I guess we'll have to wait for Samsung to fix this.

Can't this be solved by using only both Temp Sensor values (and just leave the 'Temperature' value) and use them as T(high) and T(low) for determining the actual output values as shown by AIDA64? But for all Samsung NVMe drives only maybe? I don't know whether all other NVMe drives from all other manufacturers are using the same SMART data for temperature readings like this. Or is that about exactly what you're saying? That would make completely sense and I guess then we'll have to wait for new firmware like you said. EDIT: I think see your point now. Most programs like CrystalDiskInfo would use just 'Temperature' for their one-and-only Temp reading, so that should be the primary reading whatsoever. And then there's 'another' reading, but which one of the two... That's a problem. Still think this can be solved by simple math though 😜 Meanwhile, do you know any higher-tier support contacts over at Samsungs btw? I would like to offer my (nagging) skills to contact them about this, but I have the feeling their AI Support Chatbot just wouldn't understand me in that First Encounter 😇

I hope this can easily be fixed in the next AIDA64 (beta)? Or should I write a letter to Samsung about this? 😉 The downside of my little research is that my 9100 PRO just isn't as cool as I thought before though.. Bummer 🥵

Looking at the SMART table for the Samsung SSD 9100 PRO, there are 2 different Temp Sensors on this SSD - which are showing 2 different values in SMART. AIDA64, Samsung Magician and HWinfo64 all confirm this in their included SMART tools. I guess they are to be used separately, one for the controller and one for the memory - of which the controller probably has the highest temp. NOTE: There is also 1 separate Temperature value in SMART, that shows the readout of only 1 of the 2 Temp Sensors. But in the Computer > Sensor page in AIDA64, both temperatures reported for the 9100 PRO are always shown to be exactly the same - no matter what the usage is. So it seems only 1 of the 2 different temperature sensors is used to show 'both' temperatures for the 9100 PRO in AIDA64. I think this currently incorrect in AIDA64 for the 9100 PRO, as my other Samsung SSD 990 PRO does show two different temperatures in AIDA64 on the Computer > Sensor page, with the temperatures shown from both Temperature Sensors. I attached some screenshots for clarification. Could you please look into this? EDIT: By the way, it seems that Samsung has 'switched' Temperature Sensors 1 and 2 for the 9100 PRO, as opposed to those on the 990 PRO. Maybe that is the root cause of this issue? I mean, AIDA64 could be showing "Temperature" and "Temperature Sensor 2" for both the 990 PRO and the 9100 PRO - which would cause the 9100 PRO to show one and the same value (by mistake).

Both my Samsung NVMe SSDs don't show any "Power Management Features" in the Storage > ATA section. But all of my current Samsung SATA SSDs do show Power Management Features properly as seen in the attached screenshot. Please add Power Management Features (back?) for Samsung NVMe SSDs.

Thanks, it's fixed in AIDA64 v7.65.7400 👍

The SSD Physical Info provided under Storage > ATA seems to be incorrect for my Samsung SSD 990 PRO 4TB. The 4TB version is being manufactured in a newer revision than the first generation of 1-2 TB 990 PRO drives, which were produced using 176-layer TLC NAND flash. But the 4TB version and the newer 1-2 TB revision both seem to be using a 236-layer TLC NAND flash, please see: https://www.techpowerup.com/ssd-specs/samsung-990-pro-4-tb.d863 Could you please update the specs for the 4TB version in the hardware database? Thanks!

Like you said, all has been fixed in the latest v7.60.7321 beta 👍 And thanks for adding the extra info!