Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
infinitytec

UserBenchmark Adjusts Algorthym to Favor Single-Thread Performance, Causing Strange Results

Recommended Posts

It's almost as though benchmark aggregators are a stupid way of comparing cpus and shouldn't be trusted.


...is there a question here? 🤔

sudo chmod -R 000 /*

What is scaling and how does it work? Asus PB287Q unboxing! Console alternatives :D Watch Netflix with Kodi on Arch Linux Sharing folders over the internet using SSH Beginner's Guide To LTT (by iamdarkyoshi)

Sauron'stm Product Scores:

Spoiler

Just a list of my personal scores for some products, in no particular order, with brief comments. I just got the idea to do them so they aren't many for now :)

Don't take these as complete reviews or final truths - they are just my personal impressions on products I may or may not have used, summed up in a couple of sentences and a rough score. All scores take into account the unit's price and time of release, heavily so, therefore don't expect absolute performance to be reflected here.

 

-Lenovo Thinkpad X220 - [8/10]

Spoiler

A durable and reliable machine that is relatively lightweight, has all the hardware it needs to never feel sluggish and has a great IPS matte screen. Downsides are mostly due to its age, most notably the screen resolution of 1366x768 and usb 2.0 ports.

 

-Apple Macbook (2015) - [Garbage -/10]

Spoiler

From my perspective, this product has no redeeming factors given its price and the competition. It is underpowered, overpriced, impractical due to its single port and is made redundant even by Apple's own iPad pro line.

 

-OnePlus X - [7/10]

Spoiler

A good phone for the price. It does everything I (and most people) need without being sluggish and has no particularly bad flaws. The lack of recent software updates and relatively barebones feature kit (most notably the lack of 5GHz wifi, biometric sensors and backlight for the capacitive buttons) prevent it from being exceptional.

 

-Microsoft Surface Book 2 - [Garbage - -/10]

Spoiler

Overpriced and rushed, offers nothing notable compared to the competition, doesn't come with an adequate charger despite the premium price. Worse than the Macbook for not even offering the small plus sides of having macOS. Buy a Razer Blade if you want high performance in a (relatively) light package.

 

-Intel Core i7 2600/k - [9/10]

Spoiler

Quite possibly Intel's best product launch ever. It had all the bleeding edge features of the time, it came with a very significant performance improvement over its predecessor and it had a soldered heatspreader, allowing for efficient cooling and great overclocking. Even the "locked" version could be overclocked through the multiplier within (quite reasonable) limits.

 

-Apple iPad Pro - [5/10]

Spoiler

A pretty good product, sunk by its price (plus the extra cost of the physical keyboard and the pencil). Buy it if you don't mind the Apple tax and are looking for a very light office machine with an excellent digitizer. Particularly good for rich students. Bad for cheap tinkerers like myself.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still useless change for me. When will i have IPC per seconds per core stats directly that i don't have to waste 10 minutes per processor in order to compare them to know which one is actually the fastest for each specific software we make. It's not difficult it's a simple base value which they hide everywhere and you have to rely on wikichips or things like that to figure it out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then, guess user benchmark isn't as useful for ultra quick overviews anymore. Really strange that single core is now somehow more important than before. Are there even relevant games that can't use more than a single core anymore? I don't know of any


I spent $2500 on building my PC and all i do with it is play no games atm & watch anime at 1080p(finally)...

Builds:

The Toaster Project! Northern Bee!

 

The original LAN PC build log! (Old, dead and replaced by The Toaster Project & 5.0)

Spoiler

"Here is some advice that might have gotten lost somewhere along the way in your life. 

 

#1. Treat others as you would like to be treated.

#2. It's best to keep your mouth shut; and appear to be stupid, rather than open it and remove all doubt.

#3. There is nothing "wrong" with being wrong. Learning from a mistake can be more valuable than not making one in the first place.

 

Follow these simple rules in life, and I promise you, things magically get easier. " - MageTank 31-10-2016

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the combined score even a thing? Why not just rank all the CPUs in 3 different categories ''gaming'', ''workstation'' and ''desktop''. Let the end user decide which metric to list the CPUs by.

 

cpu-monkey.com is a better web page all round. No silly combined leader board. You pick the metric you want the CPUs sorted by. You also get much more detail on the CPUs.


Motherboard: Asus X570-E
CPU: 3900x 4.3GHZ

Memory: G.skill Trident GTZR 3200mhz cl14

GPU: AMD RX 570

SSD1: Corsair MP510 1TB

SSD2: Samsung MX500 500GB

PSU: Corsair AX860i Platinum

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It all depends on workload really.  The way I look at it, I can see the merits of putting more weight on single core performance, because in my opinion the larger majority (and not talking about tech people here), will likely not require as many threads (and single core performance is likely to make things feel snappier).

 

An example being people who may utilize excel...it typically is stuck to one core....or when using a web-browser, while it may utilize more threads it is very unlikely to utilize all of the threads (and in some real world cases I found it more pinning a single core with the others doing smaller tasks).  So I am just saying I can see merit in the fact of weighting single core performance heavily.  (That isn't to say I would prefer a faster 2 core over 4 core vs 8 core...but I think with most people here being more tech oriented there is a tendency to forget that the non-techy people I think outnumber us)

Ok, but an i5 4770k is being shown as better than an i7 4770k (https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-4670K/1537vs1538). That's insane. I mean no one in their right mind would recommend an i5 4670k right now, but non-tech people use this to make purchasing decisions, and that's a problem. 

 

Add in the fact that next gen consoles are going to be on Zen 2, and not jaguar, multi core + multi threads are going to be the way of the future. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Arika S said:

Userbench should not be used for any serious comparison, it's good to get a general idea, but you should ALWAYS go and find full reviews on both products and compare them yourself

Honestly I dont even think it's useful for a general idea either. It's so off sometimes that it isn't reliable enough to give a general idea. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah they broke userbenchmark now it's useless for the only thing it was decent at: rough yet simple estimations for newbies.

 

Now it's no better than CPU Boss.


Workstation Rig:
CPU:  Intel Core i9 9900K @5.0ghz  |~| Cooling: beQuiet! Dark Rock 4 |~|  MOBO: Asus Z390M ROG Maximus XI GENE |~| RAM: 32gb 3333mhz CL15 G.Skill Trident Z RGB |~| GPU: nVidia TITAN V  |~| PSU: beQuiet! Dark Power Pro 11 80Plus Platinum  |~| Boot: Intel 660p 2TB NVMe |~| Storage: 2X4TB HDD 7200rpm Seagate Iron Wolf + 2X2TB SSD SanDisk Ultra |~| Case: Cooler Master Case Pro 3 |~| Display: Acer Predator X34 3440x1440p100hz |~| OS: Windows 10 Pro.
 
Personal Use Rig:
CPU: Intel Core i9 9900 @4.75ghz |~| Cooling: beQuiet! Shadow Rock Slim |~| MOBO: Gigabyte Z390M Gaming mATX|~| RAM: 16gb DDR4 3400mhzCL15 Viper Steel |~| GPU: nVidia Founders Edition RTX 2080 Ti |~| PSU: beQuiet! Straight Power 11 80Plus Gold  |~|  Boot:  Intel 660p 2TB NVMe |~| Storage: 2x2TB SanDisk SSD Ultra 3D |~| Case: Cooler Master Case Pro 3 |~| Display: Viotek GN34CB 3440x1440p100hz |~| OS: Windows 10 Pro.


HTPC / "Console of the house":

CPU: Intel Core i7 8700 @4.45ghz |~| Cooling: Cooler Master Hyper 212X |~| MOBO: Gigabyte Z370M D3H mATX|~| RAM: 16gb DDR4 3333mhzCL16 G.Skill Trident Z |~| GPU: nVidia Founders Edition GTX 1080 Ti |~| PSU: Corsair TX650M 80Plus Gold |~| Boot:  SSD WD Green M.2 2280 240GB |~| Storage: 1x3TB HDD 7200rpm Seagate Barracuda + SanDisk Ultra 3D 1TB |~| Case: Fractal Design Meshify C Mini |~| Display: Toshiba UL7A 4K/60hz |~| OS: Windows 10 Pro.
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Except if Intel were involved in Userbench being so skewed towards fewer cores, they wouldn't be showing the as already mentioned result of a i3-9350KF being "better" than a i9-9980XE.

I've never found Userbench very useful though, even before they changed the scoring, it was obviously a site someone shouldn't use to make a decision without looking at real benchmarks first.

the type of person whos looking to buy 9980XE doesnt give a damn about userbenchmark. its for people who type "CPU X vs CPU Y" into google to look up whats better in their budget and click first few links. this affects majority of non tech people


MSI GX660 + i7 920XM @ 2.8GHz + GTX 970M + Samsung SSD 830 256GB

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Arika S said:

Why do you need anything more than a general idea when comparing old stuff?

I want to know how much faster one cpu is over another. I can't do that with reviews since reviews never compare current CPUs with much older ones. A review telling me the ryzen 3700 gets 200 fps in CSGO doesn't tell me anything if idk how much my current cpu gets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

never really liked userbench at all

 

 

but single core is king for me and majority of software out there period atm

 

but times are changing for multicore so this is what they should of had from the get go

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, pas008 said:

but single core is king for me and majority of software out there period atm

Its not so much a problem that extra weight is given to single core speed, since it is more important, the big problem is its given way too much weight. Right now the site says a cpu with ~10% faster single core speed is slightly better than a cpu with 800% faster multi-core speed. No one in their right mind would recommend sacrificing 800% multi-core speed for a small 10% single core speed outside of VERY specific use cases. 50% or 100% multi-core speed? Sure, but not 800%.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2019 at 8:16 PM, emosun said:

I like how slowly over the last decade cpus are adding more and more cores to solve the speed problem..... yet somehow theres this small very vocal few who think a quad core is the cpu of the future.

I think userbench is catering to the mostly gamer user base as opposed to really measuring hardware speed.

Well multithreaded programming is a fair bit harder than just using a single thread so that's probably partly why it's not catching on as quickly and as much as it should be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

Well then, guess user benchmark isn't as useful for ultra quick overviews anymore. Really strange that single core is now somehow more important than before. Are there even relevant games that can't use more than a single core anymore? I don't know of any

Minecraft..?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can Userbenchmark please go and die?

Now it's totally useless and misleading.

 

I bet non techies and children will continue to use it and be mislead to buying a worse product...


“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. 
It matters that you don't just give up.”

-Stephen Hawking

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do we want? More cores

When do we want it? Every year

 

9350 4 core > 9960 16 core
6% faster single core speed

3% faster quad core speed

400% behind on multi-core speed

= 2% faster than 9960

 

3800x 8 core > 3900x 12 core

3% single core speed

2% quad core speed

42% behind on multi core speed

= 1% faster than 3900x

 

So what is going on here. Is that Userbench is not actually comparing individual CPUs against one another. They seem to be testing system against each other. In essence, a system with a 3600 + 2080Ti vs a 3950X + bargin bin GPU for a display output. Will add the scores against each other, and the system will believe the 3600 is a fantastic gaming CPU while the 3950x is practically useless.

 

It seemingly takes all these metrics, and spits out a % as a relation to the ''best CPU'' the 9900k, which is a baseline 100% in gaming, desktop and workstation. All other CPUs are ranked with the 9900K as the base line. So the % you see on the different metrics on other CPUs, is how well it performs in relation to the 9900k. The 9700k is 98% in gaming and desktop, and 76% in workstation, making it the 4th best CPU. While the 3900x is 94% in gaming and desktop, and 131% in workstation. Making the 3900x the 6th best CPU... obviously.

 

The benchmark leaves allot to be desired as well. The 3D demos would have been impressive had they been released in the mid 90s. All in all, Userbench is worse than first suspected.


Motherboard: Asus X570-E
CPU: 3900x 4.3GHZ

Memory: G.skill Trident GTZR 3200mhz cl14

GPU: AMD RX 570

SSD1: Corsair MP510 1TB

SSD2: Samsung MX500 500GB

PSU: Corsair AX860i Platinum

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see a method to this madness, with the increasing number of cores, the multi core score increases nearly linearly , which means in 4/8 CPU the multi core could amount to 50% of total score, and in 12/24 CPU it'd be 75%, they tried to find a compromised and failed miserably, that's all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are confusing single core performance with only having a single core.     Needing a 6 core CPU does not mean single core performance is not important. I am a light  to moderate gamer and until I decided to get in to video editing 4 cores was well enough for me.  Maybe sometime in the future the minimum requirement will be 6 cores or 8 cores to run word and edit a photo for facebook, but for now it is still four cores and for majority of users single threaded performance is more important. 

 

Besides, when was the last time anyone actually got useful information out of those aggregate comparison websites?


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Neftex said:

the type of person whos looking to buy 9980XE doesnt give a damn about userbenchmark. its for people who type "CPU X vs CPU Y" into google to look up whats better in their budget and click first few links. this affects majority of non tech people

But anyone building their own gaming pc isn't going to find userbenchmark as useful info,or would also look for actual reviews. As for it being in one of the first few links, there are reputable benchmarks in the first few links also.  And "non tech" people aren't going to care what CPU is in their prebuilt PC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, poochyena said:

Its not so much a problem that extra weight is given to single core speed, since it is more important, the big problem is its given way too much weight. Right now the site says a cpu with ~10% faster single core speed is slightly better than a cpu with 800% faster multi-core speed. No one in their right mind would recommend sacrificing 800% multi-core speed for a small 10% single core speed outside of VERY specific use cases. 50% or 100% multi-core speed? Sure, but not 800%.

what if you are saving 1 min a task and doing 80 tasks a day you are more productive

 

simple fucking math

 

single core is king for the time being plain and simple majority of software shows this but for the software that more cores matter see below

if i needed multi core and saved the same

same difference hence why x series and tr exists period for those workloads

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, pas008 said:

what if you are saving 1 min a task and doing 80 tasks a day

then multi-core speed is better. What task are you saving a minute in due to a 10% increase in single core speed and 90% less multi-core speed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This made me chuckle.2019-07-26_18-19-53.thumb.png.e493c739128f41135723e26abfdceb8a.png


My Rig "Jenova" Ryzen 7 1700X with EK Supremacy Elite, 2x GTX1080TI with EK Fullcover Acetal + Nickel & EK Backplate, Corsair AX1200i (sleeved), ASUS Crosshair VI Hero, 2x 8gb Trident Z RGB 3200MHz 14CL, 256gb Samsung 960 Evo, Xigmatek Elysium (modded), 140mm, 360mm and 420mm HardwareLabs Nemesis GTX, 5x Noctua NF-A14, 3x Noctua NF-F12

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, poochyena said:

then multi-core speed is better. What task are you saving a minute in due to a 10% increase in single core speed and 90% less multi-core speed?

Many things too many to list

 

But for my needs cad and gaming

Single core performance is king for my needs in both

I'm liking more and more gaming devs are implementing multi core but when you are playing at higher res it's starting to matter less anyways

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Beskamir said:

Well multithreaded programming is a fair bit harder than just using a single thread so that's probably partly why it's not catching on as quickly and as much as it should be.

So we just need every programmer from 2003 to work their way out of the industry before it can move on

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very uh...interesting timing. I mean, there was definitely no launches recently was there...nothing to speak of! I smell a few bribes from a certain blue themed company to ensure those blue themed processors would top the tables.

 

They know the sales are with the 10 year old Fortnite lovers who are only interested in a 2080ti and 9900k because they've been told by their Intel/Nvidia influenced famous streamer friends that AMD heats your house up in the winter. They'll be looking at those userbenchmark tables and thinking the same they've always felt about AMD. Shame on UserBenchmark.

 

But no longer! Whether those battle royale streamers like it or not, the Ryzen 5 3600 WILL overcome those challenges and shut those Intel-kissing youtube and twitch streamers right up. Even the most Intel biased fanboys know that the 3600 is coming for that marketshare.

 

In all seriousness though, it's time people were made more aware that it's okay to buy AMD. The tech youtubers are working hard on it, but it's being cancelled out by rubbish like we've seen with userbenchmark. The bribing must stop.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×