Userbenchmark.com benchmarking competition

[Fast_N_Curious]

Considering this online benchmarking software is free, readily available and fast to run, I highly recommend anyone reading this to please give it a chance for the sake of interest-- just download the benchmark (link below) and run it. Takes all of about one minute. After that, post your scores up. Take snip shots if you want to show off a notable result. Or take a screenshot of your entire screen, just make sure it's clearly visible for me when the time comes to port the data into a leaderboard. Your sub will not be counted unless you follow simple protocol in listing the hyperlink to your userbenchmark.com benchmark results. If you have notable or impressive results you can take snips of those results as well and post them right along with your userbenchmark.com hyperlink.

Download Link:

UserBenchmark 

 

User-Benchmark gets a bad rap by some in the tech community! There is no denying that. I think most of that is unwarranted though. At the very least, that criticism will not diminish the competitive nature of this this friendly benchmark competition in the least. If you can cut through all the BS you'll actually see that it has extensive and comprehensive (user driven) stats on even the latest tech hardware, allowing for detailed performance comparisons between rigs and specific hardware choices. More information on exactly how userbenchmark assesses / determines your systems performance can be found later in the thread as we move forward.

Scoring metrics:
Actual scoring of the competition will be determined by looking at your overall percentile rank, as determined by userbenchmark. In example:

You can compete for highest percentile rank overall, plus you can also compete for specific hardware in specific categories, if you wish.

Please follow a general layout like this
-Provide a hyperlink to your benchmark result
-Provide a little background information on your rig or your specific overclock, if you'd like
-Any other relevant info you think we should know about your system

Leaderboard entries, listed below, are color coded to make for easy comparisons:

Blue = Team Intel
Red = Team AMD

Orange = 100th percentile Results (top marks)
Green = Honorable Mentions
Basically, if it's in a different color or bold, it's a notable result...

A couple pointers to de-mystify this experience:
*In listing the effective CPU speed above in the leaderboard, know that it is being measured relative to a 9900K 8 core CPU.
*In other words, the 8 core 9900K is the CPU performance baseline and the standard to which all other CPUs are measured. (9900K = 100%)
*The Nvidia RTX 2060 super is the GPU performance baseline to which all other GPUs are measured. (RTX 2060s = 100%)
*The Samsung 850 Pro is the SSD performance baseline to which all other SSDs are measured. (850 Pro = 100%)
*Dual channel DDR4 RAM running at 3000 MHz on a Skylake chip = 100% (so this configuration is the memory baseline to which all other memory is compared)

So, effective speed is a (global) comparison, contrasting your CPU 's performance to everything else on the market (example: your CPU vs the world), in other words, grading your processors performance relative to all other CPUs on the market.
Percentile score/result refers to how well your particular hardware does within its own class. (example: your CPU vs all other identical CPU benchmarks in the userbenchmark.com database). In other words, grading your processors performance within it's own class. This is done with your GPU, SSD and memory as well, and both of these results are listed in the same category, as seen below.

[SavageNeo]

I would not recommend anybody this BS website which thinks that i3 9100f is better than 16 core threadripper lol.

 

https://linustechtips.com/topic/1218754-psa-about-userbenchmark/?do=findComment&comment=13793132

 

[SavageNeo]

Many youtubes have made videos about this bs site.

 

This site favors Intel over AMD as you could see.

I mean gfor gpus this website is not biased towars Nvidia i think, but for cpus this website is bad.

 

 

Edit: I would not download this and certainly will not run this shitty benchmark.

[Fast_N_Curious]

2 minutes ago, SavageNeo said:

I would not recommend anybody this BS website which thinks that i3 9100f is better than 16 core threadripper lol.

 

https://linustechtips.com/topic/1218754-psa-about-userbenchmark/?do=findComment&comment=13793132

 

What's wrong with userbenchmark? You think comparisons from an 8700K or a 9600KF versus a 5800X are inaccurate?

[SavageNeo]

 

[Fast_N_Curious]

First off, I am giving userbenchmark.com diplomatic immunity here. Why? Because I can. lol sorry guys!

 That's my sole intent, to have a little fun while at the same time make for a productive, healthy covid activity, in an effort to fire up some friendly competition amongst the members here. Point being, If the naysayers read the entire thread carefully, you can see I have already addressed this irrational concern early on. Or to be slightly more specific, and slightly more accurate, I have already addressed this potential paranoid delusion that some people have regarding the efficacy of userbenchmark.com in my VERY FIRST POST. And yet this other guy (and the other one after him) still feels the need to post another negative narrative, If you have all these grand ideas about benchmarks that are SOOOO much better than userbenchmark, by all means, start your own little competition. Then I can follow up in that thread about how flawed your results really are and why you shouldn't use that specific benchmark engine. 

And that brings me to the main point people. Benchmarks are tools of the trade. You can find value here. Some work better in certain circumstances, others are for more specialized metrics. Good or bad, or indifferent, there are plenty of "flawed" benchmarks out there, we live in a fallen world after all. They give us a rough indication of relative system performance, and it is unrealistic to impose more extreme scrutiny on a viable, competent benchmark engine like userbenchmark.com. What this tells me is that you have limited knowledge of the fact that all benchmarks are flawed in some way or another and all can serve a specific purpose very well if you tailor the competition appropriately. Moreover, there has to be a fundamental shift in your perception relative to the true spirit of competition. Don't rule out your own creativity! Now please, lets put this nitpicking to bed right now and just move forward in the spirit of friendly competition. After all, you guys are throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

I guess I can make one more clarifying point. The people knocking userbenchmark.com are also forgetting that if we get enough interest generated, you guys will be able to match up and compete directly against other members here on an individual (and specific) hardware level. (I.e. go pound for pound with another 9900K or something like that and see if it comes down to a better OC). In other words, since we all play by the same rules and all run the same bench engine, your result can confidently be measured against the competition with NO doubts that the benchmark itself is to blame. An accurate and legitimate comparison can then be drawn against your competition. And you can be confident in your result!

In other words, direct competition against other members with similar/identical hardware is in no way going to be "tainted" in any way, no matter how hard you look for another flaw to exploit here, it is simply NOT in this usage case! Which should actually make up a large contingent of the actual competition. Since it's like hardware, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the results to be skewed one way or the other. So this is just one example on how we will use this so called "illegitimate" benchmark and still somehow manage to get "legitimate" and accurate results (boy that's a real head scratcher). According to you and the other naysayers, that should be like trying to get water from a rock. Yet somehow, thats exactly what we are going to do.

Get it? Got it? Good!

I want to make one thing crystal clear. I am not in love with userbenchmark, nor do they sponsor me. I am in no way connected to them. I am not "raving" about userbenchmark.com nor am I being a "sold out fanboy" who can do no wrong -- I'm merely indifferent to the rumors/delusions leveled against userbenchmark.com because I see it much differently than you do. I see intrinsic value in it. I see the benchmark engine as a tool for measuring or estimating system performance under specific circumstances and If you are not ambitious enough to see a potential usage case here then I suppose there is no way to out reason your conclusions. Bottom line? Until you see the value in this benchmark, you will be forever stuck on that perpetual hamster wheel, repeating the same negative lines over and over and over again, sounding like a broken record while at the same time, desperately fighting to change someone else's benchmark competition because it doesnt meet your standards of "purity". Hint: Read that last sentence again.
 

[SavageNeo]

@Storm-ChaserIts userbenchmark. Even if they fix their crap, i would not trust and use it. not after what they did. Did they fix it or what?

[Fast_N_Curious]

2 minutes ago, SavageNeo said:

 

Funny, I see this identical video posted by all the naysayers... it's a shame you didn't see the part about 4 seconds in where his partner told him the single core clocked at .4.0GHz would be faster than 4 cores operating at 1.0GHz. LOL

[D13H4RD]

Let me just grab Core i3 10100 or attempt to find a Ryzen 3 3300X and overclock the crap out of the latter.

 

Due to UBM's utterly flawed scoring algorithms, this should mean I would dominate the charts. :kekw:

[Fast_N_Curious]

If you don't want to participate, please, don't post. 

 

As I said, you are welcome to start your own benchmark comp and then I can tell you how flawed your results are if you really want to go down this road.

 

Mod's I might need a little help keeping this thread clean if they just ignore me and continue bashing userbenchmark.com

 

The reality of the situation is userbenchmark is one of the most comprehensive benchmark engines available and very accurate. 

 

People get nervous about userbenchmark because it accurately depicts hardware performance meaning big tech and their hot air balloons tend to get pinched by userbenchmark which can really destroy a marketing campegin designed to get people coming back year after year and upgrading. Big money on the line doesn't want to lose out to the users! lol

[SavageNeo]

 

1 minute ago, Storm-Chaser said:

4.0GHz would be faster than 4 cores operating at 1.0GHz. LOL

well ofcourse, but it depends on the pcu.

 

You do nto swee the real problem here. Thye real problem is that they cal it general cpu benchmark but yet they only 99% bench the sinlge core and does not account any multicore at all really.

 

 

Lets take ryzen 5 5600x for example. this cpu matches 10900k at gaming.

 

well Userbenchmark says that i5 9600k is 3% better than 5600x. So why is i5 9600k better than 10900k?

[SavageNeo]

Just now, Storm-Chaser said:

he reality of the situation is userbenchmark is one of the most comprehensive benchmark engines available and very accurate. 

Im sorry but i feel like this is a troll post. After wathing all the videos and reading about userbenchmark how can YOU be so ignorant?

 

 

[cm992]

So what I get out of userbenchmark criticism is that people dont like how the main stat is allocated to single core perf and memory latency, well even if we go with that just ignore the main stat and look only at each specific stat of single -core, quad, 8, 64, and compare using those. So you could compare using single core and using 8 core, nuanced. Or am I missing something here?

[SpookyCitrus]

3 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

The reality of the situation is userbenchmark is one of the most comprehensive benchmark engines available and very accurate. 

[SavageNeo]

1 minute ago, cm992 said:

So what I get out of userbenchmark criticism is that people dont like how the main stat is allocated to single core perf

that and their bench score is 99% single and 1% multicore. also as i stated even with lower single core performance Intel cpus pull ahead? Which gamers nexus pointed out.

 

Do not use Userbenchmark to buy cpus. Use reviews instead.

[seon123]

12 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

What's wrong with userbenchmark? You think comparisons from an 8700K or a 9600KF versus a 5800X are inaccurate?

Well, when they have the maturity of a 12 year old when it comes to responsding to criticism, that tells us a lot about them. 

 

Their About page includes childish crap like this

Quote

Why we do it

It's tough to choose hardware. A mob of marketers steamroll social media with anonymous accounts: reddit, forums, youtube etc. Incompetent "moar core" marketers would sell ice to Elsa.

https://www.userbenchmark.com/page/about

 

Their FAQ page about the effective CPU index just speaks for itself...

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Faq/What-is-the-effective-CPU-speed-index/55

 

 

19 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

At the very least, that criticism will not diminish the competitive nature of this this friendly benchmark competition in the least

Not when what is being criticised is the methodology to get the results themselves. Who would want to participate in a competition where lower end, worse performing hardware is given a higher "effective" result?

[Fast_N_Curious]

10 minutes ago, SavageNeo said:

@Storm-ChaserIts userbenchmark. Even if they fix their crap, i would not trust and use it. not after what they did. Did they fix it or what?

Alright guys, I don't mind continuing this discussion in PM form but please let's let the remainder of the comp play out like it should. 

[SavageNeo]

5 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

Alright guys, I don't mind continuing this discussion in PM form but please let's let the remainder of the comp play out like it should. 

you seem like a nice guy but misinformed.

 

Believe or not we are trying to help you undertsand that UB is crap and a bad website. We are not trying to roast you or make fun of you anyway at all.

[Skiiwee29]

6 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

Alright guys, I don't mind continuing this discussion in PM form but please let's let the remainder of the comp play out like it should. 

Its not a fair fight is what people are saying. The 5600x is better, even in single core performance than an i5 9600k, but yet there system says otherwise. So why should I bench my 3700x against say an i3 8100 and lose because there weighting system says so? Its not right, its not proper and does not actually present a fair fight. its a rigged fight for Intel based on the way Userbenchmark has there system coded. 

[Fast_N_Curious]

The bottom line: 

12 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

Let me just grab Core i3 10100 or attempt to find a Ryzen 3 3300X and overclock the crap out of the latter.

 

Due to UBM's utterly flawed scoring algorithms, this should mean I would dominate the charts. :kekw:

Please take to PM I'm interested in discussing this further and will lay out my case for you. But we need a sterile environment here to make for a productive competition. That's the bottom line!

 

I will give you all a chance a mulligan, because there is no doubt it will go foot to mouth in a hurry as the read progresses. You really don't want me to do that, do you?

[D13H4RD]

The problem is that UBM's scoring metric is insanely flawed. That's why I said what I did, in the sense that it can say you're doing better than a Core i9 10900K with an overclocked 9600K when it would actually be worse overall outside of some specific scenarios like some games.

 

We have a lot of other benchmarking suites used to help measure up CPU performance. PassMark, Cinebench and some others come to mind. While I don't doubt that the application itself may be comprehensive, I just can't in good stead use a program supported by people who have an insanely weird complex for low-core count CPUs that clock high with strong IPC.

 

Notice I didn't say "shilling for Intel". Because let's be honest...they are horrible at that.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

18 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

If you don't want to participate, please, don't post. 

 

As I said, you are welcome to start your own benchmark comp and then I can tell you how flawed your results are if you really want to go down this road.

 

Mod's I might need a little help keeping this thread clean if they just ignore me and continue bashing userbenchmark.com

 

The reality of the situation is userbenchmark is one of the most comprehensive benchmark engines available and very accurate. 

 

People get nervous about userbenchmark because it accurately depicts hardware performance meaning big tech and their hot air balloons tend to get pinched by userbenchmark which can really destroy a marketing campegin designed to get people coming back year after year and upgrading. Big money on the line doesn't want to lose out to the users! lol

I mean you literally baited this as a AMD vs. Intel war and that in of itself is against the Community Standards... 

Quote

Leaderboard entries, listed below, are color coded to make for easy comparisons:

Blue = Team Intel
Red = Team AMD

It's quite obvious how this is going to end.

[Fast_N_Curious]

Just now, Storm-Chaser said:

The bottom line: 

Please take to PM I'm interested in discussing this further and will lay out my case for you. But we need a sterile environment here to make for a productive competition. That's the bottom line!

 

I will give you all a chance a mulligan, because there is no doubt it will go foot to mouth in a hurry as the read progresses. You really don't want me to do that, do you?

Wow that was like the floodgates of hell opening up 11 notifications in about the same space of time. Crazy!  at this point I should probably start looking over my shoulder more often. lol 

[cm992]

I don't think Userbenchmark is flawed so long as you have the common sense to not take the main stat is the be all end all and instead take a more nuanced look at the core count breakdown while keeping in mind that games are optimized differently to take advantage of more cores.

 

And Userbenchmark actually makes a good point about single core performance and latency being important for gaming, especially at 1080p which almost all gamers play at.

 

Of course you should look at specific game benchmarks for the most accurate data but for a quick and dirty comparison I don't see the problem with it if you use common sense and keep in mind that the main stat is probably biased too much towards single core and latency performance.

[KWelz]

So let me seed if I understand this thread properly.  

1. OP posts a "challenge" on the forum that reads more like a guerilla marketing attempt by UB than an actual honest post.  
2. Multiple people point out the problems with Usebenchmark and the owners. 
3. OP tries to claim that UB is good.  
4. People call him out on that BS
5. OP then tries to ask people to take it to PMs if they disagree and let people "have a little fun"

Did I miss anything?  
Curious is there is a connection between Userbenchmark and the OP or if he is really just someone who is digging his heels in when shown he is wrong.  I give it 50/50 odds either way