Userbenchmark does more shady stuff

[xAcid9]

 

Spoiler

[mr moose]

42 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

the video doesnt seem to say what you say it does in your post what so ever...it says AT LAUNCH the best GPU available in those ryzen 4000 LAPTOPS is the RTX 2060'' which is by all means a MID RANGE GPU...which makes those lap top...mid range at gaming...i dont see his point.

 

is there something i'm not getting right?!

I've gotta be honest, apart form a few suspect comments here that insinuate a condition but which  don't seem to be a definitive, I am having trouble seeing a major issue.  

[GDRRiley]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

I've gotta be honest, apart form a few suspect comments here that insinuate a condition but which  don't seem to be a definitive, I am having trouble seeing a major issue.  

it just they are continuing to hard push intel chips when there are little to no advantage and downplaning AMD doing well

[xAcid9]

Just now, GDRRiley said:

it just they are continuing to hard push intel chips when there are little to no advantage and downplaning AMD doing well

Maybe Zmeul is the site owner. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

15 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

its faster than intels top end mobile chip at a low wattage. therefore if ryzen shouldn't run above a 2060 nether should intel.

yeah...there you go...find me and intel LAP TOP that has more graphics power than say...a 1080ti overclocked...and i'll show you it does still limit high end graphics solutions in a multitude of ways...

 

unless you have a desktop ryzen 4000...and you can clock it easily in the 4.5 to 4.6ghz range...you dont have nothing much.

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, GDRRiley said:

it just they are continuing to hard push intel chips when there are little to no advantage and downplaning AMD doing well

WHERE...the F*CK...did you read that?!

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

it just they are continuing to hard push intel chips when there are little to no advantage and downplaning AMD doing well

 

Yeah,  I still don't really see that.  Unfortunately the problem here is that they rely on user reported performance metrics to compile there data,  if Intel pip AMD at the post because of that then what are they going to say:  "yes our data says Intel is better but you should buy AMD anyway",  Then people would be calling them AMD shills.

 

 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Again, I was just making an example of how pairing a cheaper CPU's  with bigger GPU's would effect userbenchmarks results.   Remember when the Pentium was heavily reccomended in budget builds so people could get better GPU's? 

I know I was just saying how stupid that combo is. Makes about as much sense as a 2000HP Supra on 185 eco tyres.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

I know I was just saying how stupid that combo is. Makes about as much sense as a 2000HP Supra on 185 eco tyres.

Until you see the burnout and sparks 'n shit and rim failure from suddenly loosing all rubber etc. 

[GDRRiley]

2 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

WHERE...the F*CK...did you read that?!

according to them the 9600K and 9400F are faster than a 3600X and are the best CPUs along with them being better values

9100F  4/4 chip is aparrently a better value at 75$ than a 1600AF for 85$.

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Yeah,  I still don't really see that.  Unfortunately the problem here is that they rely on user reported performance metrics to compile there data,  if Intel pip AMD at the post because of that then what are they going to say:  "yes our data says Intel is better but you should buy AMD anyway",  Then people would be calling them AMD shills.

it is still all based on their skewed testing based on certain games and making single and quad core scores the majority.

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

6 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

it is still all based on their skewed testing based on certain games and making single and quad core scores the majority.

well...there you go...it's ALL that...ALL over youtube and all...it ALL depends on WHAT GAME you pick, WHAT GRAPHICS SETTINGS you use, what RESOLUTION.

 

IN ALL CASES...what you want to deliver MAX PERFORMANCE in most of the more demanding games...as much as possible, is at least 6 cores with hyper-threading...and HIGH CORE CLOCKS...which is typically not found in LAPTOPS.

 

i DO NOT think amd has the ultimate end all be all CPU for gaming in a laptop JUST YET...might be wrong...we'll see what a ryzen 3 desktop overclocked part can deliver before you go to the gates.

[GDRRiley]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

well...there you go...it's ALL that...ALL over youtube and all...it ALL depends on WHAT GAME you pick, WHAT GRAPHICS SETTINGS you use, what RESOLUTION.

 

IN ALL CASES...what you want to deliver MAX PERFORMANCE in most of the more demanding games...as much as possible, is at least 6 cores with hyper-threading...and HIGH CORE CLOCKS...which is typically not found in LAPTOPS.

 

i DO NOT think amd has the ultimate end all be all CPU for gaming JUST YET...might be wrong...we'll see what a ryzen 3 desktop overclocked part can deliver before you go to the gates.

were talking max performance for laptops in the case of a 4800H/HS

it is for mobile right now at the same power draw.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

well...there you go...it's ALL that...ALL over youtube and all...it ALL depends on WHAT GAME you pick, WHAT GRAPHICS SETTINGS you use, what RESOLUTION.

 

IN ALL CASES...what you want to deliver MAX PERFORMANCE in most of the more demanding games...as much as possible, is at least 6 cores with hyper-threading...and HIGH CORE CLOCKS...which is typically not found in LAPTOPS.

 

i DO NOT think amd has the ultimate end all be all CPU for gaming JUST YET...might be wrong...we'll see what a ryzen 3 desktop overclocked part can deliver before you go to the gates.

 

7nm+ maybe some 10% gains IPC. Gotta see what they do with the memory controller. They really need to standardize a much higher memory frequency in my opinion. 

I'll be sitting on my hands to late this year myself.

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

it is still all based on their skewed testing based on certain games and making single and quad core scores the majority.

Well as it pertains to mobile CPUs the Ryzen 4000 series is higher than anything from Intel currently, apart from cTDP pushed to 90W and even then not always, so what ever tests they are doing or selectively looking at single core and low multi core the 4900HS is outright faster in those situations so you have to intentionally lie or mislead to make these kinds of statements.

 

And that's the 35W HS not the 45W H which is faster again.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, GDRRiley said:

according to them the 9600K and 9400F are faster than a 3600X and are the best CPUs along with them being better values

9100F  4/4 chip is aparrently a better value at 75$ than a 1600AF for 85$.

it is still all based on their skewed testing based on certain games and making single and quad core scores the majority.

 

 

Pretty generic statements still.  Which test is skewed? 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Well as it pertains to mobile CPUs the Ryzen 4000 series is higher than anything from Intel currently, apart from cTDP pushed to 90W and even then not always, so what ever tests they are doing or selectively looking at single core and low multi core the 4900HS is outright faster in those situations so you have to intentionally lie or mislead to make these kinds of statements.

But he's not talking solely about the 4900HS though, he just mentioned the 3600X in comparison to 9600K and 9400F but didn't say which test or how it was skewed.  There was also the mention of the 3700X being a bottleneck for the 2070s, which I'd like some clarification on because that's the first I've heard of it.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

But he's not talking solely about the 4900HS though, he just mentioned the 3600X in comparison to 9600K and 9400F but didn't say which test or how it was skewed.  There was also the mention of the 3700X being a bottleneck for the 2070s, which I'd like some clarification on because that's the first I've heard of it.

No these idiots were talking about the Ryzen 4000 mobile CPUs as well, those other things are past claims. The current topical in the moment issue is the statements made about Ryzen 4000 mobile.

[GDRRiley]

Just now, mr moose said:

 

Pretty generic statements still.  Which test is skewed? 

their CPU tests

they moved everything farther back in time. making quad and single core almost the entire score. They use to have a higher level of  multicore but threadripper was at the top

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well as it pertains to mobile CPUs the Ryzen 4000 series is higher than anything from Intel currently, apart from cTDP pushed to 90W and even then not always, so what ever tests they are doing or selectively looking at single core and low multi core the 4900HS is outright faster in those situations so you have to intentionally lie or mislead to make these kinds of statements.

 

And that's the 35W HS not the 45W H which is faster again.

that is mostly on desktop. for those chips on laptop they claiming that the latency will hurt any faster of A GPU

[Salv8 (sam)]

4 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

Userbenchmarks as done more ridicules stuff by calming a 3700X gets beaten by a 9350KF in 5 modern popular games.

a four core four thread non-hyperthreaded CPU beating out a 8 core 16 thread hyperthreaded CPU?

not only does the 3700X support ECC memory (something you can only get on xeons on blue team), but it's used in budget workstation systems that tackle jobs such as 3d rendering, compiling big coding projects and physics calulations.

they have gone off their rocker so much that they have caved in their skull to the point where their brain fell out.

it's like comparing a child to a demon!

sure they are both organic creatures but one can fucking curb stomp the other without much hassle.

 

at times i wish our sun would just turn into a red giant right now and fucking end our miserable existence on this wet rock hurtling though space.

[leadeater]

Just now, GDRRiley said:

that is mostly on desktop. for those chips on laptop they claiming that the latency will hurt any faster of A GPU

I was talking about mobile on that, I'm actually only going to talk about mobile at all because that past stuff is stupid and need not be discussed because we have a mountain of existing evidence to show how stupid it is.

[GDRRiley]

Just now, leadeater said:

I was talking about mobile on that, I'm actually only going to talk about mobile at all because that past stuff is stupid and need not be discussed because we have a mountain of existing evidence to show how stupid it is.

fair. want to just nuke the thread of all none mobile talk?

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I was talking about mobile on that, I'm actually only going to talk about mobile at all because that past stuff is stupid and need not be discussed because we have a mountain of existing evidence to show how stupid it is.

Like I pointed out at the very beginning:

 

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

Also I think this topic is getting confusing as there are several different issues being discussed and the page for the 3700X doesn't actually compare to the 9350KF.  Maybe it's just because there is not a single point of reference and we are all looking up the userbenchmark site for different things relating to the issue.

 

 

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

fair. want to just nuke the thread of all none mobile talk?

I dunno, people can blather on as much they like about those other things, they are part of the topic but I just myself don't feel the need to discuss it myself. For me I'll keep it grounded in real world, for desktops the actual likely resolutions people will run will result in almost no CPU bottlenecking a GPU outside of rare edge cases and those are often user choices around graphics settings, resolutions, target frame rates, what ever. It's such a non issue who the hell cares, I don't.

[GDRRiley]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

I dunno, people can blather on as much they like about those other things, they are part of the topic but I just myself don't feel the need to discuss it myself. For me I'll keep it grounded in real world, for desktops the actual likely resolutions people will run will result in almost no CPU bottlenecking a GPU outside of rare edge cases and those are often user choices around graphics settings, resolutions, target frame rates, what ever. It's such a non issue who the hell cares, I don't.

I'm just giving you the option if you feel the need to. I'm not going to sit here crying that a mod cleaned a thread I made.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

I'm just giving you the option if you feel the need to. I'm not going to sit here crying that a mod cleaned a thread I made.

You know damn well you'd cry running a 1.8ghz mobile cpu and wonder why your frame rates sucked just as much if he cleaned this thread. (kidding)