Is userbenchmark being payed by intel? WTF

[Dedayog]

13 hours ago, rx590overclocker said:

I know that...

I am trying to figure out why, it is coming out like this.

And this is how drama and sensationalism get started...

 

Try  and work the issue before throwing out titles like that, they don't do any good.  Userbench isn't that great but saying they're paid by Intel is silly.

[Beerzerker]

It's a really F'ed up bench that's beyond skewed.
Can ANYONE explain how an older Velociraptor platter HDD drive can score this high in today's terms?

 

Simple - Realistically, you can't vs what it's up against from all over.

I've also noted at times it acts like it's trying to nudge you towards an upgrade with it's result ratings but still........


 

[rx590overclocker]

35 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Also, OP, just because Intel does decently in some tests doesn't mean there is a conspiracy and something illegal about it. I think you need to cool down a bit with the fanboy attitude. No need to foam at the mouth and throw around accusations as soon as AMD isn't at the top of every chart.

Ok...

What makes me a fanboy?

I have a legitimate point that some of AMD's CPUs deserve to be at the top of the list.  It is so frustrating to see all these major companies undervaluing AMD chips.  

[Dedayog]

15 minutes ago, rx590overclocker said:

Ok...

What makes me a fanboy?

I have a legitimate point that some of AMD's CPUs deserve to be at the top of the list.  It is so frustrating to see all these major companies undervaluing AMD chips.  

You realize that Intel is still the best single core performing chip maker, right?  Most users use just a core or two.  So it makes a very real case for Intel to top charts in a damn lot of cases.

 

Think of it like cars.  Intel is a 2 seat Corvette and AMD is a 4 seat Camaro.  Close in performance in a lot of categories. but most of the time it's just a driver and no passengers, so why should the 4 seat Camaro be ranked higher than the 2 seat Corvette for performance?

[rx590overclocker]

2 minutes ago, jstudrawa said:

You realize that Intel is still the best single core performing chip maker, right?  Most users use just a core or two.  So it makes a very real case for Intel to top charts in a damn lot of cases.

 

Think of it like cars.  Intel is a 2 seat Corvette and AMD is a 4 seat Camaro.  Close in performance in a lot of categories. but most of the time it's just a driver and no passengers, so why should the 4 seat Camaro be ranked higher than the 2 seat Corvette for performance?

I know all of this, but intel is not better at everything.  Intel is better for simple use (browsing, writing papers) and gaming, while AMD is better with processes that use large amounts of cores and threads.  Really they can not be fairly compared without saying what they are being compared at.  It is like comparing a F-150, and a Ford Mustang.  You can't fairly compare them.

[Dedayog]

46 minutes ago, rx590overclocker said:

I know all of this, but intel is not better at everything.  Intel is better for simple use (browsing, writing papers) and gaming, while AMD is better with processes that use large amounts of cores and threads.  Really they can not be fairly compared without saying what they are being compared at.  It is like comparing a F-150, and a Ford Mustang.  You can't fairly compare them.

I don't see them as apples and oranges like that. I think my analogy is more accurate in how the chips perform and how they are compared against each other usually.  People want speed, time is money, etc. 

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, rx590overclocker said:

What makes me a fanboy?

Well, accusing a benchmarking website of being bribed just because AMD isn't at the top of the list.

You say AMD is being undervalued when I don't see any indication of it.

 

 

1 hour ago, rx590overclocker said:

I know all of this, but intel is not better at everything.

Nobody says they are.

 

1 hour ago, rx590overclocker said:

Intel is better for simple use (browsing, writing papers) and gaming, while AMD is better with processes that use large amounts of cores and threads.

Well it's not that simple either. It entirely depends on which processor models you are comparing. You can not do these broad generalizations about "AMD is for X and Intel is for Y". It entirely depends on the processor model. Preferably you shouldn't give two shits about which brand a component comes from.

 

1 hour ago, rx590overclocker said:

Really they can not be fairly compared without saying what they are being compared at.  It is like comparing a F-150, and a Ford Mustang.  You can't fairly compare them.

Well if they can't be fairly compared then why are you saying AMD should be at the top of the chart, and if they aren't you suspect bribery?

 

 

 

Anyway, I think AMD is represented very well on that chart.

Switch to 64-core score and the top 5 are all AMD processors.

Switch to value and it's a healthy mix of AMD and Intel, with very little difference between them (like 1-2 percentile)

Switch to 8 core scores and a bunch of chips from AMD and Intel perform more or less the same, but with the AMD chips getting better scores at the higher core count tests. I mean, look at this:

 

Do you really think this is putting Intel in good light?

Yeah the 9700K is slightly cheaper, and it gets ~3% higher score in the 8-core test, but the AMD chip gets 96% higher score in the 64-core test. Obviously it's a better buy, and Userbench shows that.

 

Userbench isn't a good website, but not because they are being bribed by Intel. It's not a good website because it relies on user submitted scores which means a lot of variables change between each test.

 

 

Here are my rules for looking at benchmarks.

1) Never put all your trust into a single benchmark site/report. Always check multiple sites and ignore outliers. For example if 4 websites all say one thing and a fifth website says the opposite, the 4 websites are probably correct.

2) Always look at benchmarks that suits your needs. If you don't do video editing then video editing benchmarks aren't that useful for you.

3) Never trust first party benchmarks. Is Intel saying that their processors are better than AMD's? Don't believe them until it has been tested by independent third parties. Are AMD saying that their new processors are better than Intel's? Don't believe them for the same reasons. Don't even believe one manufacturing doing comparisons against their own products. They want to sell you stuff, so they will tell a lot of half-truths to persuade you to giving up money.

[Teddy07]

16 hours ago, SpookyCitrus said:

Userbenchmark is highly unreliable, just forget about it.

I quite like the site. It gives a fast performance estimate and it is among the first google results so you don´t have to search

[spartaman64]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Completely disagree.

 

Most programs are still heavily reliant on single threaded scores. Even those who programs who can "use more cores" are often still very reliant on single core scores, or maybe 2-4 in some better cases. By your logic, something like an AMD FX-8150 would probably be fairly competitive with a Ryzen CPU, even though something like quad core Ryzen will run circles around it in 90% of all benchmarks.

 

 

 

I am not sure how the weighted scores work for Userbenchmark but if I were in charge I'd probably put like 60% of the score on 1-4 threaded workloads. 30% on 4-8 threaded workloads and the remaining 10% on 8+ threaded workloads. I think that accurately represent how most applications actually work and scale. But then again, these super high core count CPUs aren't really meant for consumer applications either. So you have to take a stance on who the target audience is. Is it the average consumer? Then I think my weight system is accurate. Is it professionals who use specialized software? Then the weight system should look differently.

 

 

 

 

Also, OP, just because Intel does decently in some tests doesn't mean there is a conspiracy and something illegal about it. I think you need to cool down a bit with the fanboy attitude. No need to foam at the mouth and throw around accusations as soon as AMD isn't at the top of every chart.

programs that only use a single core probably dont require much cpu power anyways so why would you make that important? i would put like 10% single core 60% quad core 30% all cores. to clarify i dont think they are paid off i think they are just bad

[Roswell]

It's not a conspiracy. Intel has better IPC and it's reflected in those ranks because they're charting single core and 8 core performance. 

 

While AMD is definitely a better value proposition, they're still lagging behind in performance on a core vs core basis. 

[jones177]

11 hours ago, Beerzerker said:

It's a really F'ed up bench that's beyond skewed.
Can ANYONE explain how an older Velociraptor platter HDD drive can score this high in today's terms?

 

Simple - Realistically, you can't vs what it's up against from all over.

I've also noted at times it acts like it's trying to nudge you towards an upgrade with it's result ratings but still........


 

Yes.

The 10,000rpm WD Raptors had bust read speeds that in some cases could outperform SATA SSDs(faster cache). They also had faster write speeds.

I used them from 2007 to 2018 at work and on my gaming computers. 

When I moved to SATA SSDs my heavily modded Skyrim had load-in pauses that did not exist with the Raptor and it took a M.2(970 EVO) to get rid of them again.

[mr moose]

If a benchmark explains how it tests and you can repeat the tests accurately then how can it be biased?  I think if you believe this site is biased then you have missed a core part of specific testing where reading the test conditions and qualifiers is a very important part of understanding any results.

[Delicious Cake]

4 hours ago, Vitamanic said:

It's not a conspiracy. Intel has better IPC and it's reflected in those ranks because they're charting single core and 8 core performance. 

 

While AMD is definitely a better value proposition, they're still lagging behind in performance on a core vs core basis. 

wat

wat

wat

 

It's literally the other way round. Zen 2 IPC is significantly better than Coffee Lake, because the whole point is R7/R9 are within touching distance of a 9900K/5ghz in thread-limited workloads, like games, despite the huge frequency deficit. As well as the 16-core 3950X beating the 18-core 10980XE in many h2hs, which just by itself a feat of absolute humiliation.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, Delicious Cake said:

wat

wat

wat

 

It's literally the other way round. Zen 2 IPC is significantly better than Coffee Lake, because the whole point is R7/R9 are within touching distance of a 9900K/5ghz in thread-limited workloads, like games, despite the huge frequency deficit. As well as the 16-core 3950X beating the 18-core 10980XE in many h2hs, which just by itself a feat of absolute humiliation.

Zen 2 closed the gap significantly, but it didn't take the crown.  That is reflected in the scoring.  Not sure what problem is to be honest.

 

 

 

 

[JoostinOnline]

12 hours ago, Teddy07 said:

I quite like the site. It gives a fast performance estimate and it is among the first google results so you don´t have to search

Performance is so subjective that it's not reliable for the general public. Dumbing down performance to a simple algorithm is why we keep seeing people on here showing off their R9 and i9 gaming builds. I'm almost sure there are cases where it is accurate for someone, but as I said, performance is subjective. It really depends on what you're doing. They seemed to have based their algorithm around average games, but it's just not safe. In reality, no experienced person would recommend either of those CPU's for an exclusive gaming machine, unless it was a "look how much money I can set on fire" kind of build. Brand doesn't matter.

 

I'd hoped the whole thing would just die down, but this thread needs to be locked in my humble opinion. It's just sending more people to UBM, which is getting them more money. It's also a flame war waiting to happen.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, JoostinOnline said:

Performance is so subjective that it's not reliable for the general public. Dumbing down performance to a simple algorithm is why we keep seeing people on here showing off their R9 and i9 gaming builds. I'm almost sure there are cases where it is accurate for someone, but as I said, performance is subjective. It really depends on what you're doing. They seemed to have based their algorithm around average games, but it's just not safe. In reality, no experienced person would recommend either of those CPU's for an exclusive gaming machine, unless it was a "look how much money I can set on fire" kind of build. Brand doesn't matter.

 

I'd hoped the whole thing would just die down, but this thread needs to be locked in my humble opinion. It's just sending more people to UBM, which is getting them more money. It's also a flame war waiting to happen.

Like all comparison sites and reviews, the information is useless unless you understand what you are comparing.  Userbenchmark is no different from any other comparison site if people bother to find out what method they use and why.   It is clearly spelt out on their site the benchmarks are design to favor single average workloads that non specific users would encounter the most.  That is why i3's get good results as they are cheap and do what most people want them to do.   No point in spending $300 on a 3600 if are only going to play a few light games and do office work.  

[LAwLz]

13 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

programs that only use a single core probably dont require much cpu power anyways so why would you make that important? i would put like 10% single core 60% quad core 30% all cores. to clarify i dont think they are paid off i think they are just bad

It's not about "only using one core". A lot of program can't distribute the load equally and they might have 20 threads, but 19 of the threads are in some way dependant on the last thread. It happens quite a lot. WoW for example used to spawn like 100 threads which could all be executed on individual cores, but most of the load was only on two of them making a 3 core CPU perform more or less the same as a quad core or 6 core. 

 

 

But then we get back to the question "who is this benchmark aimed at"? 

I agree that in most cases programs who doesn't use a lot of CPU are the ones who can't use lots and lots of cores. But if that's the case, and those are the programs people most commonly used, why shouldn't they make up the majority of the score? 

If the programs most people use doesn't scale (and don't need to scale) beyond 4 cores, why should thst be such a big part of the score? Why should almost a third of the score be based on programs the majority don't use? 

[GDRRiley]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Why should almost a third of the score be based on programs the majority don't use? 

because if you are worried about performance you probably aren't the majority doing something simple.

grandma isn't going to go look if a 4800U is faster than a 10510U, A she doesn't care and B it doesn't matter. grandma should be look at things like battery life

 

they don't need to care but for those who want to or need to benchmarks should be done better than lets pile everything into the stagnate category. single core has barely moved in 6-8 years. most people are now trading in 2-4th gen intel for more cores not the 10% faster single core.

[mr moose]

59 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

because if you are worried about performance you probably aren't the majority doing something simple.

grandma isn't going to go look if a 4800U is faster than a 10510U, A she doesn't care and B it doesn't matter. grandma should be look at things like battery life

 

they don't need to care but for those who want to or need to benchmarks should be done better than lets pile everything into the stagnate category. single core has barely moved in 6-8 years. most people are now trading in 2-4th gen intel for more cores not the 10% faster single core.

the UBM website  is for people who know enough to care about components but don't care enough for minute detail.  Something that many tech enthusiasts get bogged down in way too much anyway.   Grandma's looking for a new laptop will not be using UBM,  they don't even know what the CPU is in a laptop.  For better or worse they will take the advice of the salesman.

 

Having said that, the number of enthusiasts who don't know how to interpret said website results is frankly a bit scary. 

[The Torrent]

I just wanna say I think userbenchmark is a very good benchmark for comparing your components to others all at once to see if any are faulty.

[Beerzerker]

8 hours ago, jones177 said:

Yes.

The 10,000rpm WD Raptors had bust read speeds that in some cases could outperform SATA SSDs(faster cache). They also had faster write speeds.

I used them from 2007 to 2018 at work and on my gaming computers. 

When I moved to SATA SSDs my heavily modded Skyrim had load-in pauses that did not exist with the Raptor and it took a M.2(970 EVO) to get rid of them again.

I figured this drive would be somewhere in the 70 - 80% percentile or so being what they are. I'm saying vs everything that's out there and that includes m.2 drives and so on, I cannot believe vs all that a 98.1% vs all the rest result is accurate, no matter how fast the platters are spinning.

 

m.2 drives have been out for awhile now so by the numbers there are plenty of them in use, certainly more than what this percentage is showing to say the older drive is "That" good.

And if so I scored a steal of a deal since I had bought 4 of them for $27, shipped.

 

That would be 4 drives faster than 98.1% of what all is out there period for only a fraction of what only one of those sells for.

 

[jones177]

3 hours ago, Beerzerker said:

I figured this drive would be somewhere in the 70 - 80% percentile or so being what they are. I'm saying vs everything that's out there and that includes m.2 drives and so on, I cannot believe vs all that a 98.1% vs all the rest result is accurate, no matter how fast the platters are spinning.

 

m.2 drives have been out for awhile now so by the numbers there are plenty of them in use, certainly more than what this percentage is showing to say the older drive is "That" good.

And if so I scored a steal of a deal since I had bought 4 of them for $27, shipped.

 

That would be 4 drives faster than 98.1% of what all is out there period for only a fraction of what only one of those sells for.

 

It depends on the test.

On the sample sheet it says SusWrite. To me that means sequential write speed and that is what ultra high performance HDDs do best.  It is sort of meaningless for what most people do with computers.

 

A WD 5/6tb Black has faster sequential write speeds than a Raptor and would be higher on a Userbenchmarks chart but its burst read speeds are slower.

I found that out the hard way since I replaced a Raptor with one and my modded games had so much stutter that they were unplayable. I had to order a 1tb SSD the next day. 

 

To be clear I would never use Userbenchmarks because it appears to use one variable that works for things like GPUs but not for drives and CPUs. 

If I want to know how strong a CPUs cores are for gaming I use Cinebench single core test.  For rendering I use the Multi core test.  

For GPUs I look at 4k tests because then it is all GPU so it is Times Spy Extreme for my 2080 tis. 

For drives I use storage specialty sites that run many different types of tests.