Why display temperature per THREAD, why not per CORE?

[Heavygrass]

Hi,
On AMD CPU (at least) auto-cpufreq GUI shows separate temperature for each (hyper)THREAD, i.e. DOUBLE the number of cores.
I doubt the temperatures between 2 hyperthreads of the same core may be different, so why not display one same temperature per core?
Or even add an option to show average temperature only? (not the main topic here).
There's already quite a lot of info in the GUI, and number of cores is quickly growing recently.
Also requesting temperature twice per each core clearly doesn't improve the auto-cpufreq performance.
Thank you.

[AdnanHodzic]

auto-cpufreq GUI is not really maintained for some time now and has been out of sync with quite some CLI changes that were made in meantime.

As always, if you want to improve some of it please give it a try and contribute to the project and you will be credited for your work as part of future release.

[Heavygrass]

After thinking about it and looking at other people's issues it doesn't seem to be about the GUI.
It incorrectly determines # of cores on Ryzen (doubles it usually).
I believe it displays (hyper)threads instead of cores.
If the # of cores on Ryzen were determined correctly, GUI would likely be fixed automatically.

[PurpleWazard]

Hyper threads are treated as cores in software

[Heavygrass]

@PurpleWazard Which software are you talking about?
I believe most software (except some low-level) simply creates processes/threads and it doesn't matter for it which core it runs on.

Anyway whats the benefit for a user to try to follow the double number of cores?