Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariWhen comparing Glances vs CoreFreq, the Slant community recommends Glances for most people. In the question“What are the best system monitors for UNIX-like systems?” Glances is ranked 2nd while CoreFreq is ranked 6th. The most important reason people chose Glances is:
Unlike the default system monitors found in Ubuntu or Gnome Shell, Glances shows a lot of information all in one place instead of having to click through tab after tab. This makes cursory glances at one's stats a lot easier and less time-consuming.
Question Ranking
Pros
Pro Important information all in one place
Unlike the default system monitors found in Ubuntu or Gnome Shell, Glances shows a lot of information all in one place instead of having to click through tab after tab. This makes cursory glances at one's stats a lot easier and less time-consuming.
Pro Includes network bandwidth
Pro Works in a terminal
Works perfectly well even if you remote access a server via SSH.
Pro A lot of information
Much more information than htop.
Pro Easily installed
Glances is a popular system monitor and in being so is often found in most distros repositories, so it is easily installed.
Pro Web interface and remote monitoring features
A Web interface based on a Restful JSON API is also available and allows remote monitoring.
Pro Shows only necessary details
Most performance monitors overwhelm you with too much detail. Glances almost always shows exactly what you were interested in immediately.
Pro Overclocking
Ryzen P-States and Intel Core ratios.
Pro Like a BIOS under Linux
Can toggle SpeedStep, Clock modulation, Turbo boost, C-States demotion, C1E, and other settings.
Pro Accurate CPU monitoring
CoreFreq is based on its own kernel driver, which collects the performance counters.
Pro Core Temperature and Voltage
Package and Core temps, Hot sensor, Vcore, RAPL power & energy consummed
Pro Lots of details
Processor, Memory controller, Dimm, Chipset informations.
Pro Stress algorithms
Can trigger the Turbo of any CPU.
Pro IPC
Instructions issued.
Pro Tasks and Memory usage
Realtime tasks per CPU.
Cons
Con Lack of colors can make it confusing.
Con High cpu usage (on RPi), broken after a few hours of running
It's based on Python.
Con Not a System Monitor at all
This is a hardware monitor, not a system monitor.
Con Needs to be compiled
CoreFreq is released in source code, you have to run make to compile it.
Con Not all IMC are listed
Xeon Zen Opteron IMC is not available yet.
Con Not made for a virtual machine
Beside the Dom0 of Xen, CoreFreq can't query most of the necessary registers from a virtualized processor
