Benchmark Tool Discrepancy

[Steinburger]

Anyone know why these two tools would report such a different result?

 

[mahyar]

simple

USERBENCHMARK IS AN ABSOULTE BULLSHIT

dont use userbenchmark

[MSMSMSM]

34 minutes ago, Steinburger said:

Anyone know why these two tools would report such a different result?

UserBenchmark has lost its repute after a scandal involving misweighing performance between AMD and Intel chips. That, on top of very little information about the people behind UserBenchmark, most people no longer rely on it for any performance metrics (similar problems exist for PassMark too afaik)

[Moonzy]

I would reckon it's a different benchmark

Benchmarking storage isn't as easy as just dragging one big file across

[Eigenvektor]

1 hour ago, Steinburger said:

Anyone know why these two tools would report such a different result?

As you can see on your CrystalDiskMark (CDM) screenshot, testing with different file sizes gives different speeds. Unless Userbenchmark (UBM) uses the exact same methodology for theirs tests, you can't really compare performance results between them.

 

For example the first test in CDM uses a sequential read of 1 megabyte, with a queue depth of 8 on one thread. I can't even tell you what UBM does, because they don't show more info other than "4K read".

[Steinburger]

Hey everyone. Thank you for the replies. The information is appreciated.