Which reported CPU idle speed to believe?

[SRRAE]

I have a thing about the CPU powering down when at idle.  I want to generate less heat, prolong the life of the CPU and save on power.  Plus I had a thing a few years ago where my CPU would be at 100% all the time.

 

I am getting reports of 2 different idle speeds. Nearly everything, Windows Task Manager, iCue,  motherboard software, etc. are reporting the same speed, that at idle the CPU is anything between the CPU base clock and boosted clock, even when the CPU usage is 1-3%

 

However Ryzen Master is reporting the CPU speed as low as 1Ghz.

Which one is more likely to be reporting the correct temp? Judging by the temp at idle Im inclined to believe the Ryzen Master is false.

 

[Skiiwee29]

Ryzen Master is the only one that can truly see idle cores and what they're doing. The rest are just generalized and have a 1 second update timer compared to milliseconds with Ryzen Master. 

[RAS_3885]

Ryzen Master or HWinfo64 (core effective clock reading) seem to be correct in my experience. Granted, I still think HWinfo64 is a bit off since it will regularly show cores/threads at 5-50 MHz when idle which isn't right either. It's good enough to show idle vs. not, which when I'm looking is typically all I care about. Specific idle frequency doesn't really matter to me.

[iMxmo]

Using multiple monitoring/readout softwares at once will have them interfere with each other. Just use Ryzen Master or HWiNFO

[SRRAE]

1 minute ago, RAS_3885 said:

Ryzen Master or HWinfo64 (core effective clock reading) seem to be correct in my experience. Granted, I still think HWinfo64 is a bit off since it will regularly show cores/threads at 5-50 MHz when idle which isn't right either. It's good enough to show idle vs. not, which when I'm looking is typically all I care about. Specific idle frequency doesn't really matter to me.

Idle wouldn't usually bother me, its just when I see it idling at 4.6Ghz which is basically its max boost, I start to question whats happening.