PSA: Use Benchmark.com have updated their CPU ranking algorithm and it majorly disadvantages AMD Ryzen CPUs

[djw191]

 

What are they trying to do?  Quad-core is the past, the future and present is Multi-core.  It even says that an i5 haswell beats and i7 haswell, they've straight up broken their scoring system.

 

[SolarNova]

I've always preferred https://www.cpubenchmark.net/ for quick and easy comparisons.

 

[Blademaster91]

Well its not like userbenchmark was anything to base an actual purchasing decision on anyway, its not that difficult to read or watch some actual reviews and decide on a build.

[Intelfreak]

Use benchmark has never been a precision tool for cpu or other hardware.

 

For cpu comparison i prefer a more dedicated benchmark like cinebench r15/20.

[melete]

lol they're weighting performance of anything past 4 cores as being worth 2% on their index

[ch3w2oy]

1 minute ago, melete said:

lol they're weighting performance of anything past 4 cores as being worth 2% on their index

@awpshots  Guess who benefits from this? Lol. 

[awpshots]

Just now, ch3w2oy said:

@awpshots  Guess who benefits from this? Lol. 

still has nothing to do with a corporation that isn't affiliated with them..

[Blademaster91]

Just now, ch3w2oy said:

@awpshots  Guess who benefits from this? Lol. 

No one? Userbench was pretty meaningless even before they changed it, its why people always point those new to building to real word benchmarks.

[melete]

Yeah, the search ranking (being at the top of Google results) is what I think of too. Luckily no one compares CPUs like these:

 

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-8350K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-TR-2990WX/3935vsm560423

 

But more nebulous stuff like comparing a 9400F or 8350k and 3600 will absolutely come up. 

[airdeano]

enough of the attacks.. if you can't explain your position without labeling community members, maybe you need another outlet to go?

cleaned.. next will be warnings.

[ch3w2oy]

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

No one? Userbench was pretty meaningless even before they changed it, its why people always point those new to building to real word benchmarks.

Since my original reply was deleted let me show you how Google works.. Type 3700X vs 9900K in the search bar and then please evaluate your argument. Just because knowledgeable people don't use it as their primary source for benchmarks, doesn't make it irrelevant for newcomers and those less informed..

 

I guess there's a chance I'm the only person in the world that uses it but the thousands of new benches on there everyday tell another story.. 

 

1 hour ago, awpshots said:

still has nothing to do with a corporation that isn't affiliated with them..

It's Interesting that you think that.. 

[Mister Woof]

Only benchmarks that I care about are from Tech Jesus

[awpshots]

9 minutes ago, ch3w2oy said:

It's Interesting that you think that.. 

it's interesting how the timeline ends in 2009 as i've already stated.

[ch3w2oy]

9 minutes ago, awpshots said:

it's interesting how the timeline ends in 2009 as i've already stated.

I don't think anything.. I just don't draw empty conclusions..

[sgloux3470]

59 minutes ago, melete said:

lol they're weighting performance of anything past 4 cores as being worth 2% on their index

 

If they bumped the 4 core to an 8 core count that would make sense to do.  Past 8 cores is largely irrelevant for gaming.  4 cores has faltered in certain multithreaded titles and should no longer be the definitive factor for gaming performance.  This would solve i3/i5 hitting above their weight without unduly rewarding Ryzen extra points for high core counts that bring little benefit as far as gaming is concerned.

 

 

 

 

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, ch3w2oy said:

Since my original reply was deleted let me show you how Google works.. Type 3700X vs 9900K in the search bar and then please evaluate your argument. Just because knowledgeable people don't use it as their primary source for benchmarks, doesn't make it irrelevant for newcomers and those less informed..

 

I guess there's a chance I'm the only person in the world that uses it but the thousands of new benches on there everyday tell another story.. 

If you believe someone is going to build a whole gaming PC based on the first search result, without doing any further research on what motherboard,ram,GPU or storage to buy and without coming across a CPU review, it doesn't seem that likely, although if a person would either the 3700X or 9900K aren't a bad choice it's just down to system cost.

44 minutes ago, ch3w2oy said:

I don't think anything.. I just don't draw empty conclusions..

The r/amd thread seems to be jumping to the conclusion of Userbench of somehow being "intel shills", but funny enough Userbench is so bad it lists the i3-9350KF as being "faster" than the i9-9980XE.

[melete]

41 minutes ago, sgloux3470 said:

 

If they bumped the 4 core to an 8 core count that would make sense to do.  Past 8 cores is largely irrelevant for gaming.  4 cores has faltered in certain multithreaded titles and should no longer be the definitive factor for gaming performance.  This would solve i3/i5 hitting above their weight without unduly rewarding Ryzen extra points for high core counts that bring little benefit as far as gaming is concerned.

 

Preach brother. I just replaced my i5-2500k because 4 cores weren’t cutting it anymore in the games I was playing. An 8 core benchmark, or even a 6 core one, would go a long way towards demonstrating more realistic workloads for the most CPU intensive modern games. 

[ch3w2oy]

7 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

If you believe someone is going to build a whole gaming PC based on the first search result, without doing any further research on what motherboard,ram,GPU or storage to buy and without coming across a CPU review, it doesn't seem that likely, although if a person would either the 3700X or 9900K aren't a bad choice it's just down to system cost.

What does that have to do with no one using it? Building an entire PC around that would be quite stupid, I don't disagree with that.. Doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose..

 

8 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

The r/amd thread seems to be jumping to the conclusion of Userbench of somehow being "intel shills", but funny enough Userbench is so bad it lists the i3-9350KF as being "faster" than the i9-9980XE.

So their bias created internal conflicts? They can't fix that without giving AMD more credit..

[bignaz]

Looks like I'm trading in my 3900x for a Core 2 quad q9650. 

[lexidobe]

Doesn't surprise me. Benchmarks have been known to be deceptive in the past, and probably will continue to in the future. There was one (Cinebench maybe?) that intentionally ran slower on AMD CPU's than Intel CPU's. I don't remember what the situation was whether someone from Intel payed them off or what. 

 

EDIT: Yep, it was Cinebench 

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/091216intelcmpt.pdf

Edited July 25, 2019 by lexidobe
Added link