amanusk
commented
4 years ago First of all, thanks for your interest.
Although I agree that 0 is an arbitrary choice, I find it quite useful. Most CPUs operate between ~20 to ~100 degrees (depending on ambient temperature), which is comfortably similar to what you would find your water to be in everyday life. I think for the majority of users, a scale to 0->100 degrees Celsius is rather intuitive.
Choosing say 20 over 0 might make more sense, but would not be any less arbitrary, and would look weird if you actually use water cooling of some other fancy cooling solution.
Perhaps down the line this could be added to the configuration file.
jonascarpay
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. The temperature graph has a lower bound of 0 degrees Celsius
Describe the solution you'd like The lower bound is one of
Additional context The lower bound of 0 for the temperature graph makes little sense. In practical terms, most users are never going to go near 0 degrees, so about half of the resolution of the graph is wasted. In more 'physical' terms, the freezing point of water is completely arbitrary wrt. your computer's temperature, and technically it could even go below it. Contrast this with utilization, which is necessarily a value between 0 and 100. I think a more sensible lower value would be to just use the lowest value seen so far. The 0 Kelvin lower bound is a joke of course, but at least less arbitrary than 0 degrees Celsius.