Where do you go to compare specs of CPU's?

[Internet Swag]

Hi there, I realize that userbenchmark is actually not good, because I compared their stats to video benchmarks on youtube channels and their info seems wrong. But they are really convenient to just like get a base idea. 

 

But I am trying to actually compare CPU's, like for example comparing an i7 7700 vs an i3 10100 in video games and other benchmarks. 

 

Is there a good site to actually get detailed info like this? 

 

Thanks, 

[IkeaGnome]

Good reviewers on Youtube are how I usually do it. Here's two.

 

While Hardware Unboxed isn't directly comparing to the 7700k, it still shows up on their graphs. 

[manikyath]

userbenchmark is okay enough if you ignore all of ther editorial content, and just take the base stats for what they are: a quick and dirty benchmark that gains most of it's accuracy from doing LOTS of passes on LOTS of hardware. their biggest (only?) advantage is that they can give at least a crude idea when doing really odd comparisons that arent really covered by reviews. but.. it's still only a crude idea, dont take any of it for hard fact down to the percent.

 

past that.. there's plenty of places who do cpu comparisons, but they all have their pro's and con's.. the best way to compare processors, is just to collect data from multiple sources, and see where they align.

[YoungBlade]

Gathering data from multiple hardware reviews is the best thing you can do. As shown, Gamers Nexus and Hardware Unboxed are good choices, and it's valuable to see both, as they go in depth, but also use different methods.

 

Gamers Nexus tests CPUs using the Intel official guidance (56 second boost limit, TDP enforced, etc) whereas Hardware Unboxed tests CPUs without changing motherboard settings, which almost always results in unrestrained power consumption for Intel. Both testing methods are valuable, as the former shows you how the processor will perform if you reign it in to be more efficient whereas the latter lets you see the unleashed, maximum "stock" performance.

 

I will use Userbenchmark for preliminary information only, or if there is literally no other information available, like for old or rare processors. I know some people hate any mention of that site at all, but honestly, I don't see what the alternative would be in those cases. If no one credible ever reviewed a particular part, I'd go with Userbenchmark over specs alone, because as the recent LTT video about whether GHz matters points out, a lot of specs are meaningless between different generations and architectures.