When comparing CoreFreq vs Stacer, the Slant community recommends Stacer for most people. In the question“What are the best system monitors for Linux?” Stacer is ranked 4th while CoreFreq is ranked 10th. The most important reason people chose Stacer is:
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pro Core Temperature and Voltage
Package and Core temps, Hot sensor, Vcore, RAPL power & energy consummed
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 Stress algorithms
Can trigger the Turbo of any CPU.
Ryzen P-States and Intel Core ratios.
Pro Tasks and Memory usage
Realtime tasks per CPU.
Pro Lots of details
Processor, Memory controller, Dimm, Chipset informations.
Pro Good GUI
Pro Fast and lightweight
While older versions of Stacer were built with Electron, it's now been ported to C++ and Qt, which makes it fast and light on resources.
Pro Feature rich
Stacer also lets you clean junk from your system, enable/disable startup of background services at boot time, etc.
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