Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariWhen comparing atop vs CoreFreq, the Slant community recommends CoreFreq for most people. In the question“What are the best system monitors for UNIX-like systems?” CoreFreq is ranked 6th while atop is ranked 7th. The most important reason people chose CoreFreq is:
Ryzen P-States and Intel Core ratios.
Question Ranking
Pros
Pro All in one
Better than top, htop and iotop
Pro Better than htop, top, and iotop
Highlights bottlenecks, so you know what's creating wait states.
Pro Complete and flexibe
Has a ton of possible profiles to show exactly what you need to monitor.
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 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
