Discussion Another insane remark from UserBenchmark

I don't know where to start, but just read this. There're thousands of things wrong in this:

"The 3300X is a 4-core Ryzen CPU. Priced at just $120 USD, it offers far better value to gamers than all the Ryzen CPUs before it. This is great news for potential buyers, and bad luck for gamers that recently spent nearly three times more on the comparable 8-core 3700X. The reduction from eight to four cores results in more efficient caching and higher boost clocks. AMD’s marketing has abruptly broken from the firmly established “moar cores” mantra to a conveniently realistic: four cores are okay. Maybe they had an epiphany: “less coars”! Shifting goalposts this quickly reveals both an unhealthy focus on first time buyers and a brazen disregard for existing customers. Marketing aside, the 3300X remains constrained by high architectural latency and the associated gaming bottleneck. Comparing the 3300X to the Intel Core i3-10100 shows that, for similar money, the i3-10100 delivers around 10% better gaming performance. Aside from the mob of marketers that steamroll social media with anonymous accounts (reddit, forums, comments etc.), gamers will be hard pressed to find arguments in favor of the 3300X over the i3-10100. In order to remain viable, the higher end Ryzen CPUs will need to see substantial price cuts over the coming days."

Yeah, that 10% better performance is arguable and will at least need an aftermarket cooler.
 

vov4ik_il

Notable
Mar 23, 2020
1,131
147
940
35
Not to defend userbenchmark (never used it to have an opinion on the software) but the gaming part of pc community knows well that many games heavily rely on the core clock speeds while having a struggle to fully utilize (and benefit from) high # of threads. To me, it makes overall sense. I mean, check out the server CPU gaming performance charts :giggle:

Edit:
Had neither 3300x nor 3700x but briefly looked up their specs, it makes even more sense if the app can only (efficiently) utilize 4 cores:
AMD Ryzen 3 3300XAMD Ryzen 7 3700X
3.80 GHzFrequency3.60 GHz
4.30 GHzTurbo (1 Core)4.40 GHz
4.30 GHzTurbo (All Cores)4.00 GHz
4Cores8
 
Last edited:
I feel that UBM has it's usefulness. It isn't the holy bible of all PC, but it has it's potential for passing information within the free benchmark offered.
The raw data does help, somewhat, in very limited situations. However, their analyses and their "effective speed" agreggate performance is misleading at best, or extremely dumb.
Not to defend userbenchmark (never used it to have an opinion on the software) but the gaming part of pc community knows well that many games heavily rely on the core clock speeds while having a struggle to fully utilize (and benefit from) high # of threads. To me, it makes overall sense. I mean, check out the server CPU gaming performance charts :giggle:
The problem is UB tries to generalize gamers as "one that tries to play games on high refresh rate monitors, on at least an RTX 2080 S, and does not do anything else". If at least UB acknowledges either that gaming performance won't matter with RX 5700 XT or below, on 1440p or above, and some gamers do video editing, streaming and rendering, they won't get any close to saying those remarks.
 
One thing that puzzles me is that UserBenchmark made that statement before the 10100 came out, so how did they know the performance. That's right, they either guessed or used data from leaks that is irrelevant and usually inaccurate.

Honestly. the language "moar cores" and "Aside from the mob of marketers that steamroll social media with anonymous accounts." These things sound like what a 11-year-old would post online. They have NO way of proving the last bit at all, so they shouldn't make that point. Anyone with half of a brain cell would know this.
 
Reactions: refillable

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
Mar 16, 2013
131,362
5,697
165,040
20,210
What gets me about ubm is that a single device can be both "98% Outstanding", and "Way below expectations, 24th percentile"
At the same time.

Of course, what people glom onto is the "below expectations", and assume there is a problem that can be clicky clicky fixed.

"below...what"? There is no context.
 
Reactions: refillable
One thing that puzzles me is that UserBenchmark made that statement before the 10100 came out, so how did they know the performance. That's right, they either guessed or used data from leaks that is irrelevant and usually inaccurate.
Reviewers had access to the 10th gen since the beginning of april...
What gets me about ubm is that a single device can be both "98% Outstanding", and "Way below expectations, 24th percentile"
At the same time.
Yes you can compare a CPU to different CPUs AND to CPUs of the same model...At the same time.
It's incredible what technology is capable of doing nowadays.
 
Not to defend userbenchmark (never used it to have an opinion on the software) but the gaming part of pc community knows well that many games heavily rely on the core clock speeds while having a struggle to fully utilize (and benefit from) high # of threads. To me, it makes overall sense. I mean, check out the server CPU gaming performance charts :giggle:

Edit:
Had neither 3300x nor 3700x but briefly looked up their specs, it makes even more sense if the app can only (efficiently) utilize 4 cores:
AMD Ryzen 3 3300XAMD Ryzen 7 3700X
3.80 GHzFrequency3.60 GHz
4.30 GHzTurbo (1 Core)4.40 GHz
4.30 GHzTurbo (All Cores)4.00 GHz
4Cores8
Build two identical PCs. In one put a 3300x and the other a 3700x. Play any one of these games and see which is better. Battlefield 5, Division 2, Breakpoint, COD:MW....... pretty much any AAA game released in the last 2 years.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS