Info This is the reason you should not trust Userbenchmark bias results.

[jojesa]

I think UB website is a parody.
Did Intel wrote the whole paragraph or just paid them?
https://www.userbenchmark.com/CPUPro/User?id=8

 

[hotaru.hino]

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/chco8h/userbenchmark_should_no_longer_be_used_after_they/


Reddit users did notice Userbenchmark screwed with the weighting. The reason for such we'll never know. But in any case, you shouldn't really trust user-submitted benchmark scores anyway because the submitted scores are likely weighted towards overclocked systems anyway. So you can't use them to verify if your hardware is performing as expected.

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

Everyone knows UBM is for flexing... much like 3DMark.

Flex

 

[itsdigger]

I think UB website is a parody.
Did Intel wrote the whole paragraph or just paid them?
https://www.userbenchmark.com/CPUPro/User?id=8

Mah! Did you happen to notice the thread being deleted by the OP and it's also a year old? What makes some user at Reddit some kind of pro anyway. Let's see some real proof of UB being incorrect....

 

[TerryLaze]

I think UB website is a parody.
Did Intel wrote the whole paragraph or just paid them?
https://www.userbenchmark.com/CPUPro/User?id=8

You are linking to a profile of a user that's not UB.
What you wanted is probably this here
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Faq/What-is-the-effective-CPU-speed-index/55

QWhat is the effective CPU speed index?
AA measure of CPU speed geared towards typical users. Intel i9-9900K ≈ 100%.Gaming is by far the most demanding CPU activity most users undertake. CPU Effective Speed (average bench) is calibrated to estimate differences in EFps between PCs. We publish EFps data, with source video footage, for hundreds of PC configurations using replicable gameplay in the world’s most popular games. Using testable, verifiable data allows users to easily compare their own results against ours The first few threads
Desktop tasks such as surfing the web with multiple tabs, watching videos and listening to music rarely use more than four threads. Very few of today's popular games benefit from more than six threads. There is not much difference in fps between a 4 thread i3-9100F and an overclocked 16 thread Ryzen 2700X, in fact, the 9100F is 10% faster. CPU latency has more impact than core count. Gaming performance is primarily influenced by the GPU rather than the CPU.More threads
Higher thread counts are useful for workstation tasks such as cryptography and virtual machine hosting. If dedicated GPU hardware (NVENC/QuickSync) is not an option, streamers and video producers can, suboptimally, use additional CPU cores for encoding. On the 27th of March, 2020 UserBenchmark's six core database server averaged 10,000 queries per second with a CPU load of just under 10%. High data throughput is more sensitive to latency than core count.CPU memory latency
Lower latency results in quicker data retrieval and faster computations. CPU architectures exhibit different latency characteristics. The Zen CPU architecture has significantly higher latency (60 ns) than Skylake (45 ns) which is partly why Skylake delivers superior gaming (fewer frame drops) and higher database throughput despite having comparable processing cores.

 

[Krotow]

Don't care about notes below UB comparisons. People are weird and biased, not benchmarks. Pay attention only to graphs and numbers.

 

[Bassman999]

I watched MANY MANY YouTube videos of real-world CPUs and video cards and came to that same conclusion myself.

 

[logainofhades]

Mah! Did you happen to notice the thread being deleted by the OP and it's also a year old? What makes some user at Reddit some kind of pro anyway. Let's see some real proof of UB being incorrect....

It has been known, for quite some time, that userbench is trash. Their bs weighting of Intel CPU's is quite well known. Like when they had a 4c/4t i3 beating an 18c/36t i9.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/userbenchmark-benchmark-change-criticism-amd-intel,40032.html

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaWZKPUidUY

 

[drea.drechsler]

I think UB website is a parody.
Did Intel wrote the whole paragraph or just paid them?
https://www.userbenchmark.com/CPUPro/User?id=8

When I read that benchmark comment by UBM I couldn't stop laughing. I fully expected a glowing review on a mediocre at best BM result (even though we know they skew results towards Intel's processors) but instead got a humourously uninformed diatribe on AMD's purported marketing excesses.

They spent way more time discussing AMD instead of Intel or, especially, the performance of the processor in review! Should I not be getting the idea UBM might be afraid of something?

I totally agree with this thread's inro: the UBM has turned into a parody review site. Even they don't take themselves seriously anymore!

 

[yeetbucket]

lol

 

[kurdtnz]

I only really use it for whittling down some common issues, more as a diagnostic tool than a comparison benchmark.

 

[jojesa]

.... People are weird and biased, not benchmarks. Pay attention only to graphs and numbers.

Benchmarks are created by people.

 

[itsdigger]

I only really use it for whittling down some common issues, more as a diagnostic tool than a comparison benchmark.

Me too! I don't know if all the benchmark chatter is true or not in 2021 but, I do like using UB for the diagnostic support .

 

[artk2219]

It has been known, for quite some time, that userbench is trash. Their bs weighting of Intel CPU's is quite well known. Like when they had a 4c/4t i3 beating an 18c/36t i9.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/userbenchmark-benchmark-change-criticism-amd-intel,40032.html

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaWZKPUidUY

Yep, they've always been trash, there was a comment that I made to that previous article about two older chips, the i5 750 vs the FX 8320E (not an amazing chip i know, but still better than the 750). At that point the 8320E scored above the i5 750, currently they rank the i5 750 above it, passmark results have not changed however, my previous comment from July 29, 2019 and links to results are below.

"I found many similar issues in the past, its why i never used them, and if i needed a general reference id rather use passmark. Granted Passmark has its own problems, at least i know their numbers aren't complete xxxxxxxx. I remember in the past it said that an i5 750 was better than an fx 8320e, nevermind, it still does. I mean heck, read the write ups comparing the two, for the I5 750 "Considering the age of this processor, its effective speed of 67 is damn impressive" vs the FX 8320 which scored higher in a review from a month later "Overall the 8320E scores a mediocre effective speed of 70". I guess you could make the case that the statement comes from the fact that the i5 750 was already old in 2014 vs the fx 8320e. But then the i5 750 gets this also as part of its review: "Combined with a decent graphics card, the i5-750 should give a reasonable gaming experience even by today’s standards", vs what is said about the FX 8320E, which again, originally scored higher: "Whilst this is sufficient for the majority of desktop applications: web-surfing, word-processing and playing movies, better single-core performance is offered by any number of Intel processors". So yeah, theres a bit of an Intel bias, especially now that the i5 750 does score higher with their new weighting, this site is trash.

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-750-vs-AMD-FX-8320E/2773vs2985

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i5-750-vs-AMD-FX-8320E-Eight-Core/772vs2374 "