fliegenpilz, KWSN - A Shrubbery:
Thanks for each of your response. Currently, my submitted-WUs' BOINC_Granted-to-Claimed_ratio (BGCr) stands at about 62% with the worstCase value at 16.8% (See here ); the BGCr that my submitted WUs are getting is both inaccurate and imprecise.

If only 62% at most of the raw performance (associated with the applied benchmarks) is realized into the actual work done in crunching a WU (associated with the granted credit), then any or all of the following must be true of my machine:
• hyperthreads (which current AMD processors don't do);
• bulldozes (coming up from AMD but not in the current AMD processors);
• mis-declares its performance before WCG (if such a thing is possible);

Or, any or all of the following must be true of things outside of my machine:
• The setOfCapabilities that the applied benchmark seeks to characterize and next quantify from the targetPlatform -- is not close enough to the actual setOfCapabilities that WUs actually make use of -- but from which said benchmark a targetPlatform is evaluated against;
• The WUs use generic (else, un-optimized) code that -- does not make good use of the setOfCapabilities that WUs actually make use of -- but from which said setOfCapabilities a submitted-WU is evaluated against;
• The WUs are inaccurately-, else insufficiently-, characterized to facilitate as close as possible a matching of WUs to the platform used by crunchers before the WUs are sent out to the crunchers.

How much of an extent that the AMD Phenom II Black Edition (or any processor for that matter) could be of competitive value to their cruncher-owner rests in no small way to the extent that the full capabilities of the processor is correctly characterized in their particular OS environment vis-a-vis the optimized WU code for that environment. A generic and one-size-fit-all approach will give results that are, well, one-size-that-is-hoped-to-be-acceptable-to-all-crunchers kind of results.
; Edit1 (2011.04.16Sa.0336UTC): corrected typo errors vis-a-vis the affected content.
; Edit2 (2011.04.16Sa.0346UTC): improved on presentation aspects.

Try RealTemp or CoreTemp but I believe these programs will only give you a reading of the core with the highest temp and not all 4 at the same time.

I have been using CPUID Hardware monitor and this is what it gives me

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff197/freddosensei/CPUID.png

Cloud OC/Core temp are no better and Real Temp doesn't support my CPU.
We are entering summer here and I have had to drop to 4 processors from 6 otherwise my system cuts out.
I would love to know the coretemps but frustratingly I can't get them.

I'm pretty sure that these chips only have 1 temp sensor.

Just want to confirm that, as suggested, the Phenom II X6 only has one sensor. Stupid, as you can individually clock these cores, but can't see their individual temps!