What's up with Matisse core numbering?

[buddywh]

Nice update in latest BETA... very informative to see the Core Performance order. It's certainly helped explain the boosting behaviours I see with my system.

But what's up with the core numbering scheme? Some things number "0,1,2,3....n", some "1,2,3,4....n". Even HWinfo isn't consistent between Sensor numbering and the numbering in Core Performance Order. It's always a confusion factor when comparing what RyzenMaster and and Task Manager reports, for instance.

Is there any reason for this? or just tradition?

 

[Martin]

In the main window I decided to match the core order with Ryzen Master and Windows, so it starts from 1.
But in sensors core numbers were always indexed from 0, hence the difference.
I agree that this is an inconsistency, but I'm not sure if changing core numbering in sensors to start from 1 too wouldn't confuse users.

 

[adev]

reading core numbers in hwinfo feels like two clicks instead of one

I think a tickbox for "core numbering starts from 1" would be good for semi-advanced users like me.
(..I just learned that SVID support affects cpu package power readings, and the reason why enabling ASUS EC is logically impossible to fix etc.)

still, it's a great piece of software. big time

In the main window I decided to match the core order with Ryzen Master and Windows, so it starts from 1.
But in sensors core numbers were always indexed from 0, hence the difference.
I agree that this is an inconsistency, but I'm not sure if changing core numbering in sensors to start from 1 too wouldn't confuse users.