Crazy CPU Temp Readings (MSI Z170A Gaming M5)

[Laz322]

Hello everyone,

Check out the picture below.

Obviously it cannot be an accurate reading, correct? A temp of 255*C is hot enough to bake a pizza pie! I also received some other inaccurate alerts, like a system fan that doesn't exist registering at a max rpm of 500 yet the minimum/average is showing 0rpm (which makes sense since there is no auxfan2 on my system), weird huh? AIDA wasn't behaving like this until I downloaded the latest version (5.80.4000).

The CPU temperature alert is unnerving, even if it is obviously an error.

Please help a fella out,

-laz.

[Fiery]

What motherboard do you have?  Do you have any other monitoring software installed? Like Asus AI Suite or such?

BTW, yes, you're absolutely right, 255 Celsius is obviously an incorrect reading that can and should be ignored.

[Laz322]

Hello Fiery,

I edited the post so the .jpeg would show up.

Motherboard: MSI Z170A Gaming M5

Processor: i5 6600K

RAM: Crucial 2x8GB Ballistix Sport LT 16-16-16-39

I have a lot of other monitoring software but I like AIDA because it's very in-depth. The other software (like CoreTemp) never registered a temperature of 255*C, nor did CAM or any of the other monitoring programs I use.

[Fiery]

"Motherboard" and "CPU" temperatures are both read from the sensor chip that's integrated on your motherboard, while the core temperatures (that CoreTemp as well as AIDA64 measures) are read directly from the CPU.  Reading CPU temperature from the motherboard sensor chip however requires sensor chip bank switching which could collide with other monitoring software also doing the same bank switching.  So for example, if you have both CAM and AIDA64 running in the background, when they both try to switch sensor chip bank in the same time, one of the reported values (either the one in CAM or the one in AIDA64) will end up in an unpredictable result.  In your case I suspect CAM collides with AIDA64.  We've already contacted NZXT to convince them to implement the industry standard synchronization mutexes in CAM, in order to avoid such collisions, but we've received no response from them so far.  If you can narrow this issue down, and verify my theory on CAM vs. AIDA64 collision, then you as an end-user (and customer) of a NZXT product may also contact NZXT and ask them to team up with us to resolve this issue. We're 100% open and willing to resolve this, but we need NZXT's assistance too.

BTW, the mentioned synchronization mutexes are already implemented by a wide range of 3rd party monitoring, tweaking and benchmarking software, including AIDA64, AMD OverDrive, CoreTemp, CPU-Z, EVGA E-LEET, GPU-Z, HWiNFO, HWMonitor, MSI Afterburner, RealTemp, Rivatuner, SIV, SpeedFan, etc.