News Ryzen 5 5600G Falls to the Core i5-11400 In New Benchmarks

spunxhoe

Reputable
Apr 30, 2018
2
4
4,515
0
This is pathetic reporting! The 5600g outperforms the intel chip by more than 10% in the CPUZ benchmarks and yet the headline is that Ryzen falls to Intel just because it lost to intel by 5% in user benchmark (we all know how biased that is). No consideration is given about the power usage or to the graphics part (especially in these GPU shortage times). Hats of to AMD in gaining market share inspite of obvious bias by the media outlets.
 

FakeMike

Honorable
Jan 18, 2016
18
9
10,515
0
This is pathetic reporting! The 5600g outperforms the intel chip by more than 10% in the CPUZ benchmarks and yet the headline is that Ryzen falls to Intel just because it lost to intel by 5% in user benchmark (we all know how biased that is). No consideration is given about the power usage or to the graphics part (especially in these GPU shortage times). Hats of to AMD in gaining market share inspite of obvious bias by the media outlets.
Relax. This is not full on review, just some benchmarks gathered from various places and it clearly says that both CPUs are 65 W TDP parts. Nevertheless it's quite impressive to see Intel CPU with 1,5 GHz lower base clock go neck in neck with AMDs 7nm CPU at the same TDP. So Cypress Cove looks like far superior architecture.
 

Jim90

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2013
497
101
19,140
54
Oh dear Tom's, using that trash Userbenchamark site? Intel must be paying you well.

For the extreme minority not in the know, a simple Google will reveal just how much of a scam site Userbenchmark is - it's ties to Intel are...deafening. Stay away unless you either want to be seriously misled or are looking for a laugh. Any site that choses to use its 'data' is one hell-bent on destroying it's own reputation. Guru3D describes Userbenchmark recently by saying...

"There are also some tests based on userbenchmark, but we decided to skip them as they're not that reliable. "
(https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/ryzen-7-5700g-and-ryzen-5-5600g-zen-3-cezanne-desktop-processor-benchmarks.html)

-->and that's putting it mildly!
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Krotow

roblittler77

Commendable
Aug 19, 2018
5
5
1,515
0
Oh dear Toms Hardwear, your credibility is lost.

No credible tech site should use Userbenchmark, it is a laughing stock. They have the i9-11900K as the absolute best berforming CPU on the market, the whole site is set up to make Intel look better than AMD.

Also how about some power consumption figures, you called both parts 65W chips, but to perform at this level we can safely assume that the i5-11400 has no power limits on the motherboard and will therefore be using around 125 watts.
 

watzupken

Notable
Mar 16, 2020
378
148
870
1
Whatever benchmarks aside, there are very significant differences between the 2 chips that should be called out when comparing.
1. The Ryzen APU comes with a CPU + a good iGPU, as compared to the 11400 which comes with an iGPU that is technically not fit for gaming. iGPU don't run on air, they need power which I am sure limited the amount of power being fed to the CPU

2. While both are 65W chips, Intel's i5 11400 is mostly pulling between 50 to 100% more power to ramp up clock speed in order to compete favourably

3. Ryzen APUs are not overclock locked like the i5 11400, so there's potential to push it further

Ultimately, I think it all boils down to overall system cost that will determine the success of either chips. So far, RKL 11400 looks like a good value chip, but getting a decent ITX motherboard proved to drive it bumps cost of the system up quite a fair bit. On the other hand, it was easier and cheaper to get a A520i board for a Ryzen chip when I was considering whether to use the 11400 to setup an ITX rig for work.
 
Geekbench Single and Multicore...?

That's of little consequence to most buyers theses days...

If one can't buy a discrete GPU, the 5600G's graphicss might give it quite an edge as being a worthy temporary placeholder...
 

TheJoker2020

Proper
Oct 13, 2020
190
43
120
1
The accurate headline:

Core i5-114005 Falls to Ryzen 5600G In New Benchmarks

Why do I say that this is the "accurate" headline.? Because 4 benchmarks were done, Intel won two, AMD won two, but the AMD wins were bigger than the Intel wins, AND the Intel system was tested by Toms Hardware, and we don't even know the system specifications of the AMD system.! I also totally discounted "User Benchmark" because it is 💩 and Toms Hardware does not recognise this as a valid benchmark, because it is not.
 
Reactions: Jim90

Integr8d

Distinguished
May 28, 2011
95
11
18,635
0
Relax. This is not full on review, just some benchmarks gathered from various places and it clearly says that both CPUs are 65 W TDP parts. Nevertheless it's quite impressive to see Intel CPU with 1,5 GHz lower base clock go neck in neck with AMDs 7nm CPU at the same TDP. So Cypress Cove looks like far superior architecture.
Lol. Neck in neck...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Relax. This is not full on review, just some benchmarks gathered from various places and it clearly says that both CPUs are 65 W TDP parts. Nevertheless it's quite impressive to see Intel CPU with 1,5 GHz lower base clock go neck in neck with AMDs 7nm CPU at the same TDP. So Cypress Cove looks like far superior architecture.
Intel only reports their TDPs at base clocks, while their CPUs often boost to significantly higher power draw levels while actually in use. Advertised TDPs are typically only rough estimates anyway, even when they are not grossly inaccurate, but generally AMD's Ryzen processors have matched their advertised TDPs a lot closer than Intel's in recent years. Keep in mind, Intel's Rocket Lake desktop processors are still stuck on the same 14nm process node that they've been using for the last six years, so they are practically guaranteed to be at an efficiency disadvantage, even with a new architecture.

The advertised base clocks are also largely meaningless, since again, modern processors won't be operating at those clocks under load, as they automatically boost to higher clocks as needed. While running these tests, the 11400 would have been running at 4.4 GHz for the single-threaded tests and 4.2 GHz for the multithreaded tests, so it's absolutely not more efficient. Cypress Cove might be an improvement over the ancient Skylake architecture Intel had been using for the last half-decade, but it was backported to the same 14nm node, which is undoubtedly holding it back, and AMD's 7nm Ryzen processors still offer higher IPC.

And as has been pointed out, Userbenchmark is a synthetic test that does not provide a particularly accurate representation of real-world performance, and the company seems fixated on making Intel's processors look better than AMD's, to the point that the descriptions of processors on their pages are often bizarrely written as if they were a fanboy rant. And their benchmark results often bear little resemblance to what's seen in actual reviews, at least when comparing one architecture to another. For example, if the Userbenchmark results were to be believed, then the 11400 doesn't just outperform the 5600G, but also the existing 5600X, and we already know from professional reviews that the 5600X holds a decent lead over that processor. So comparisons with the 5600G are guaranteed to be similarly inaccurate.

We can, however, compare their 5600G results to their 5600X results, which might be somewhat more meaningful. In their synthetic benchmark, the 5600X was shown to be roughly around 5% faster than the 5600G, which would align with its 4.5% higher advertised boost clocks (though there's also a difference in L3 cache to consider, that may affect some workloads). But since the 5600X is often shown to be over 10% faster than the 11400 at many tasks, we can predict that the 5600G will likely be faster than the 11400 based on those results, even before getting into integrated graphics performance.

Of course, pricing is another important factor to consider, and that's one area where the value-priced 11400/11400F currently fares quite well, and may continue to offer better value than the 5600G when it eventually comes to retail. Even if the 5600G ends up over 5% faster in most workloads, if it costs over $50 more, that might not be considered worth paying a premium for, at least to anyone not utilizing the integrated graphics.
 

dalauder

Splendid
Multiple benchmarks show Intel's Core i5-11400 Rocket Lake chip beating AMD's Ryzen 5 5600G Zen 3 APU.

Ryzen 5 5600G Falls to the Core i5-11400 In New Benchmarks : Read more
So...not above clickbait? You're undermining a fair and competitive landscape just for that too. Intel doesn't need the free ads spreading staged benchmarks, they have plenty of cash in hand to buy their own ads. Or did they pay for this one?

If you weren't paid by Intel, correct your errors in the previous version of this article.
 

PCWarrior

Distinguished
May 20, 2013
122
34
18,620
3
AMD fbs are always cracking me up with their double standard. I am pretty sure that if this were the other way around (as it has happened numerous times in the past), they would have said nothing about it, they would be making a case of how much superior their beloved AMD is and if anyone pointed out the same thing that they are now pointing out they would be defending the headline. Anyway the reality is that the 11400 is winning two benchmarks (Geekbench and Userbenchmark) and losing one (CPUz). So overall across 3 benchmarks the 11400 wins the 5600G (thus the 5600G falls to it) in the same way one can say that a certain Ryzen cpu beats a certain Intel cpu – it doesn’t do it in all benchmarks, just more of them.

Regarding Userbenchmark. Userbenchmark scores per se do not favour Intel. What might be favouring Intel (and that is an entirely different debate on its own) is the percentage weighting of these scores in how Userbenchmark determines the overall CPU ranking. Currently this weighting is set to 40% single-core, 58% quad-core and 2% multicore. That is where the debate is – that the multicore score gets too little weighting. But that weighting is totally irrelevant here. What is reported here is not the overall ranking (which results from the weighting) but the single-core and multi-core scores themselves. These scores have always been pretty solid.

And just to stop this non-sense about Userbenchmark's individual scores being biased here is a fact you probably didn’t know. When AMD unveiled the 5900X they compared it against the 3900XT and the 10900K across 10 games. If you take the individual percentage differences in these ten titles and average them, you get that the 5900X wins against the 3900XT by 25.7% while against the 10900K it only wins by 6.8%. That means that by AMD’s own admission the 10900K is around 18% faster in 1080p gaming than the 3900XT. And the average difference across the several tech media was that the 10900K is 14% faster than the 3900XT. On the other hand Userbenchmark’s gaming scores indicated that the 10900K is only 11% faster than the 3900XT. So User benchmark actually overestimated Ryzen 3000 gaming performance compared to AMD’s own presented results as well as to what the various tech media reported. So much for Userbenchmark scores being biased in favour of Intel…

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-zen-3-ryzen-5000-announcement-19-percent-ipc-1080p-gaming-lead
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-3900XT/4071vsm1202614
AMD vs Intel: Gaming performance 2012-2021 - Answers - UserBenchmark
 
Reactions: Why_Me

TheJoker2020

Proper
Oct 13, 2020
190
43
120
1
Anyway the reality is that the 11400 is winning two benchmarks (Geekbench and Userbenchmark) and losing one (CPUz).
That is rather disingenuous. Userbenchmark is not a benchmark, and Toms Hardware alluded to this in the very article that you are commenting on.

I ran Userbenchmark myself, the results were literally laughable on multiple points, CPU was vaguely accurate, at least compared to the rest, RAM was wildly inaccurate, GPU was miles off, one of my 3 drives was roughly accurate, one was far off, and one was in a different galaxy. Userbenchmark is Equine excrement.
 

Jim90

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2013
497
101
19,140
54
AMD fbs are always cracking me up with their double standard. I am pretty sure that if this were the other way around (as it has happened numerous times in the past), they would have said nothing about it, they would be making a case of how much superior their beloved AMD is and if anyone pointed out the same thing that they are now pointing out they would be defending the headline. Anyway the reality is that the 11400 is winning two benchmarks (Geekbench and Userbenchmark) and losing one (CPUz). So overall across 3 benchmarks the 11400 wins the 5600G (thus the 5600G falls to it) in the same way one can say that a certain Ryzen cpu beats a certain Intel cpu – it doesn’t do it in all benchmarks, just more of them.

Regarding Userbenchmark. Userbenchmark scores per se do not favour Intel. What might be favouring Intel (and that is an entirely different debate on its own) is the percentage weighting of these scores in how Userbenchmark determines the overall CPU ranking. Currently this weighting is set to 40% single-core, 58% quad-core and 2% multicore. That is where the debate is – that the multicore score gets too little weighting. But that weighting is totally irrelevant here. What is reported here is not the overall ranking (which results from the weighting) but the single-core and multi-core scores themselves. These scores have always been pretty solid.

And just to stop this non-sense about Userbenchmark's individual scores being biased here is a fact you probably didn’t know. When AMD unveiled the 5900X they compared it against the 3900XT and the 10900K across 10 games. If you take the individual percentage differences in these ten titles and average them, you get that the 5900X wins against the 3900XT by 25.7% while against the 10900K it only wins by 6.8%. That means that by AMD’s own admission the 10900K is around 18% faster in 1080p gaming than the 3900XT. And the average difference across the several tech media was that the 10900K is 14% faster than the 3900XT. On the other hand Userbenchmark’s gaming scores indicated that the 10900K is only 11% faster than the 3900XT. So User benchmark actually overestimated Ryzen 3000 gaming performance compared to AMD’s own presented results as well as to what the various tech media reported. So much for Userbenchmark scores being biased in favour of Intel…

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-zen-3-ryzen-5000-announcement-19-percent-ipc-1080p-gaming-lead
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-3900XT/4071vsm1202614
AMD vs Intel: Gaming performance 2012-2021 - Answers - UserBenchmark
Ridiculous effort in firefighting.
Intel paid for this piece of trash (just as Nvidia have done so recently!). Userbenchmark - IS - the laughing stock of ALL reputable tech sites.
With that, let's look forward to the rest of the script... :)
 

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
Userbenchmark does indeed favor Intel, and has been that way for quite some time. At the same time, they fail comparing Intel CPU's to each other too. This isn't old news. Userbenchmark is trash, period. Even the Intel subreddit has banned them.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/UserBenchmark-gets-banned-from-major-subreddit-due-to-drama-generation.461875.0.html

In no sane world is a 4c/4t i3 better than an 18c/36t i9, yet they gave the win to the i3.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/userbenchmark-benchmark-change-criticism-amd-intel,40032.html
 
Reactions: lyrx

lyrx

Honorable
Aug 2, 2015
5
0
10,510
0
Am I the only one tired of the yearly benchmarks that nullify the previous CPUs that we've all bought? I'm thinking that these geniuses could have put out these spectacular CPUs years ago, but they trickled them in each year and have us chasing the "best and fastest." I'm not buying into their yearly hype this time. I don't have a "kick me" sign on my back.
 
Regarding Userbenchmark. Userbenchmark scores per se do not favour Intel. What might be favouring Intel (and that is an entirely different debate on its own) is the percentage weighting of these scores in how Userbenchmark determines the overall CPU ranking. Currently this weighting is set to 40% single-core, 58% quad-core and 2% multicore. That is where the debate is – that the multicore score gets too little weighting. But that weighting is totally irrelevant here. What is reported here is not the overall ranking (which results from the weighting) but the single-core and multi-core scores themselves. These scores have always been pretty solid.

And just to stop this non-sense about Userbenchmark's individual scores being biased here is a fact you probably didn’t know. When AMD unveiled the 5900X they compared it against the 3900XT and the 10900K across 10 games. If you take the individual percentage differences in these ten titles and average them, you get that the 5900X wins against the 3900XT by 25.7% while against the 10900K it only wins by 6.8%. That means that by AMD’s own admission the 10900K is around 18% faster in 1080p gaming than the 3900XT. And the average difference across the several tech media was that the 10900K is 14% faster than the 3900XT. On the other hand Userbenchmark’s gaming scores indicated that the 10900K is only 11% faster than the 3900XT. So User benchmark actually overestimated Ryzen 3000 gaming performance compared to AMD’s own presented results as well as to what the various tech media reported. So much for Userbenchmark scores being biased in favour of Intel…
Nope. Professional reviews tend to show the Ryzen 5600X outperforming the 11400 by a good 10% or so at both heavily-threaded and lightly-threaded real-world workloads, and yet according to their questionable synthetic tests targeting 1-8 threads, the 11400 is supposedly a few percent faster all around, despite being a much cheaper processor. And they similarly show the 11600K outperforming the 5600X by around 15% even before overclocking, despite professional reviews showing the 5600X as being the slightly faster processor in most real-world workloads. Their benchmark just doesn't reflect reality, and this seems to have only gotten worse since AMD's processors caught up with Intel's.

Being just a synthetic benchmark not based on actual applications, one could argue that it's simply down to the things they test not applying directly to typical modern workloads, but the way they keep going out of their way to adjust results and how they are presented to favor Intel, in addition to the bizarre things they have been writing on their site in recent years leads me to think that there's purposeful bias going on. Take for example the hilarious writeup they have as their description for the 11900K on it's product page at their site, which starts reasonable enough for the first couple sentences, but then quickly devolves into a strange nonsensical rant against AMD and professional reviews rather than saying anything more about the processor they are supposed to be describing, and the same ramblings have been copied and pasted to their pages for other 11th-gen processors as well...

The i9-11900K is the fastest CPU in Intel’s 11th Gen Rocket Lake-S lineup which brings higher IPC (early samples indicate +19%) and 50% stronger integrated graphics. There are also 500 series chipset improvements including: 20 PCIe4 CPU lanes (up from 16) and USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 (20 Gbps up from 10 Gbps). Rocket Lake’s IPC uplift translates to around a 10% faster Effective Speed than both Intel's 10th Gen and AMD’s 5000 series. Despite Intel’s performance lead, AMD continues to outsell Intel. Given the scale of Intel's operation, it’s inexplicable that their marketing remains so neglected. Little effort is made to counter widespread disinformation such as: “it uses too much electricity” or the classic: “it needs more cores”. Intel’s marketing samples are routinely distributed to reviewers that appear better incentivized to bury Intel's products rather than review them. Not enabling XMP or only testing with BIOS power limits enabled is akin to leaving the handbrake on during a race. Mind-numbing “scientific” and rendering benchmarks are presented as gospel. Different games, mostly unplayed by real users, are cherry picked for each “review”. When it's convenient, canned game benchmarks are chosen such as Ulletical’s CSGO which runs at nearly double the in-game fps. Credible benchmark data, which necessarily includes replicable video footage from popular games, is the exception rather than the rule. At every release, AMD’s marketers coordinate narratives to ensure another feast of blue blubber. Nonetheless, towards the end of 2021, Intel’s Golden Cove is due to offer an additional 20-30% performance increase. At that time, with a net 30-40% performance lead, Intel will probably regain significant market share despite AMD's class-leading marketing. In the meantime, most PC gamers need look no further than the 11400F.
 

PCWarrior

Distinguished
May 20, 2013
122
34
18,620
3
Nope. Professional reviews tend to show the Ryzen 5600X outperforming the 11400 by a good 10% or so at both heavily-threaded and lightly-threaded real-world workloads, and yet according to their questionable synthetic tests targeting 1-8 threads, the 11400 is supposedly a few percent faster all around, despite being a much cheaper processor. And they similarly show the 11600K outperforming the 5600X by around 15% even before overclocking, despite professional reviews showing the 5600X as being the slightly faster processor in most real-world workloads. Their benchmark just doesn't reflect reality, and this seems to have only gotten worse since AMD's processors caught up with Intel's.
The same argument can be applied against several other synthetic benchmarks including Geekbench, 3DMark Timespy, etc. Take Geekbench for example. It also has the 11400 winning against the 5600X in both single core (~1680 Vs 1640) and multicore (8450 Vs 8250) by roughly the same margin as Userbenchmark does. So I don't know how Userbenchmark is singled out and attacked if it is not because of fanboyism due to the controversial weighting in the overall rankings.

Also Userbenchmark being a benchmark that users run on their PCs and submit their scores they don’t tend to run with power limits like some mainstream reviewers do (e.g Linus, Anandtech, GamersNexus) artificially handicapping performance. Stock results in UserBenchmark also include results without power limits since frequencies adhere to the stock turbo tables.
Being just a synthetic benchmark not based on actual applications, one could argue that it's simply down to the things they test not applying directly to typical modern workloads, but the way they keep going out of their way to adjust results and how they are presented to favor Intel, in addition to the bizarre things they have been writing on their site in recent years leads me to think that there's purposeful bias going on. Take for example the hilarious writeup they have as their description for the 11900K on it's product page at their site, which starts reasonable enough for the first couple sentences, but then quickly devolves into a strange nonsensical rant against AMD and professional reviews rather than saying anything more about the processor they are supposed to be describing, and the same ramblings have been copied and pasted to their pages for other 11th-gen processors as well...
And I could argue that what happens is exactly opposite. I could argue that Userbenchmark (as well as other synthetic benchmarks like Geekbench) test things in a way that makes better use of modern cpu architectures than most benchmarks used by several reviewers do. Many benchmarks reviewers use are either legacy benchmarks or unoptimised benchmarks using open-source libraries and artificially level the plane field as they don’t make the most out of modern cpus.

For example Intel MKL is used in several professional software giving more the edge towards Intel as they make better use of Intel cpus . Intel MKL and software compiled with Intel compilers also lifts AMD performance past the limits of open source ones. But nope reviewers have to appease f**boys and test software with open source tools that end up removing all the real-world software optimisations that Intel has against AMD. And not just that. For example many “professional” reviewers are still reviewing with Cinebench R20 instead of R23. The latest version of Cinema 4D makes better use of AVX and as a result, since AVX is better implemented in Intel cpus, Intel cpus go from marginally losing to AMD cpus to marginally winning (when comparing cpus with the same core count). But that doesn't fit their anti-Intel, AMD fb appeasing narrative I guess.
 
The same argument can be applied against several other synthetic benchmarks including Geekbench, 3DMark Timespy, etc. Take Geekbench for example. It also has the 11400 winning against the 5600X in both single core (~1680 Vs 1640) and multicore (8450 Vs 8250) by roughly the same margin as Userbenchmark does. So I don't know how Userbenchmark is singled out and attacked if it is not because of fanboyism due to the controversial weighting in the overall rankings.
Not many consider Geekbench to be a particularly reliable benchmark either, and as a result, you don't tend to see it used in many professional reviews of PC hardware. And when reviews include synthetic benchmarks, they are typically only included as a small part of the total testing suite. You don't see entire reviews based solely around a single synthetic benchmark, but rather a collection of software from a number of fields. The synthetic tests are mainly just there to show potential performance gains in the context of what they are specifically testing.

Userbenchmark, on the other hand, is constantly trying to sell the idea that their synthetic benchmark provides a one-size-fits-all accurate representation of a computer's performance, while repeatedly claiming that everyone else testing real-world software that disagrees with them is wrong. And they clearly show bias toward certain brands of hardware, not just in the way they adjust the weighting of their results, but also in the unprofessional pro-Intel, anti-AMD nonsense they are constantly writing on their site, while repeatedly making claims implying they are the only unbiased source of performance comparisons. And their only response to feedback that their site might have flaws is to move further in the opposite direction while ranting about marketing departments and professional reviewers being out to get them. And that's why people often single them out as being a bad benchmark site, at least as far as unbiased hardware comparisons are concerned.

And I could argue that what happens is exactly opposite. I could argue that Userbenchmark (as well as other synthetic benchmarks like Geekbench) test things in a way that makes better use of modern cpu architectures than most benchmarks used by several reviewers do. Many benchmarks reviewers use are either legacy benchmarks or unoptimised benchmarks using open-source libraries and artificially level the plane field as they don’t make the most out of modern cpus.
They have apparently been around for 10 years. Have they even updated their test algorithm significantly since then? Considering they still include the results of tests performed many years ago in their data set, I doubt they have improved the underlying code much. Doing so would likely require them to get rid of all of the old results. And they are not even very clear about what exact kinds of synthetic workloads their CPU benchmark is testing. All they claim is that they are testing the performance of floating point, integer and memory operations, and don't specify anything more. So it sounds like it's just a very rudimentary test, grinding away at basic CPU operations, probably in a way that's not all that representative of what actual software does in the real world.

Then, while not included in their "effective speed" score, you have their new "eFPS" gaming tests, based solely around a handful of relatively older, mostly e-sports titles that all happen to be ones that have traditionally favored Intel hardware. I would hardly say games like 2011's CS:GO are making better use of modern CPUs than the titles most reviewers are testing with, but according to them, those modern games are "mostly unplayed by real users". The five games they test with might be popular, but they only cover a small segment of the types of games people will be interested in upgrading their processor for, and are not at all representative of today's newer, more multithreaded AAA titles. Something like an i3-9100 might fare rather well in their "eFPS" ranking, with an i9-11900K scoring only 15% higher, but its 4-threads are going to be ill-suited for running many modern games smoothly, let alone those coming out in the near future.

As for why they are like this, it could be that they have a monetary interest in promoting Intel hardware, whether that's direct support that they claim to not receive, or something less direct like holding lots of Intel stock. Or maybe their benchmark is simply based on outdated and simple methods of measuring performance that don't hold up particularly well at providing accurate comparisons between modern architectures, and rather than admit to it and find ways to improve, they simply double down on the claim that their benchmark is perfect while any professional reviews indicating otherwise are flawed and biased. Or perhaps they worked for or otherwise dealt with one of the companies in the past and that is influencing them. Or they just don't handle criticism well.

Whatever the reason, they certainly don't even try hard to hide their bias, so it's kind of hard to take their benchmark seriously for hardware comparisons. Which is unfortunate, since their site actually does a decent job as a diagnostic tool when comparing against others with the same hardware, assuming one can sift through all the redundant information on their results page to find the meaningful results. I also like the idea of being able to compare the relative performance of hardware released many generations apart. Their increasingly questionable practices have made me hesitant to recommend using them though.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS