News UserBenchmark bashes AMD GPUs and claims they lack real-world performance

[aplomBomb]

Because its bad data. Even without the ridiculous write up at the end, the data is flawed and people look at it believing that its legitimate.

yeah I saw that, but "value and sentiment" is a pretty subjective category, of course that's going to be biased.

I keep getting replies to my comment with people saying the data is bad but I've yet to see any proof that the data is indeed bad.

I'm not trying to defend the site or anything I just want to see proof

 

[artk2219]

I can appreciate how that makes sense, however is there any proof to that?

Yes, just about every other review website. I generally use techpowerup or guru3d as a general quick reference, and you can compare and contrast the numbers from userbenchmark with the numbers from most other review sites, you'll find that userbenchmark consistently has numbers that do not reflect reality.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/sapphire-radeon-rx-9070-xt-nitro/34.html

Radeon RX 9070 XT (ASUS TUF OC) review (Page 30)

We review the Radeon RX 9070 XT (ASUS TUF OC). The most striking improvement lies in the number of AI and ray tracing (RT) accelerators, which have seen a noticeable boost compared to previous generations. The RX 9070 XT packs 64 RDNA 4 compute units, 64 RT accelerators, and 128 AI accelerators.

www.guru3d.com

 

[aplomBomb]

Yes, just about every other review website. I generally use techpowerup or guru3d as a general reference, and you can compare and contrast the numbers from userbenchmark with the numbers from most other review sites, you'll find that userbenchmark consistently has numbers that do not reflect reality.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/sapphire-radeon-rx-9070-xt-nitro/34.html

Radeon RX 9070 XT (ASUS TUF OC) review (Page 30)

We review the Radeon RX 9070 XT (ASUS TUF OC). The most striking improvement lies in the number of AI and ray tracing (RT) accelerators, which have seen a noticeable boost compared to previous generations. The RX 9070 XT packs 64 RDNA 4 compute units, 64 RT accelerators, and 128 AI accelerators.

www.guru3d.com

Fair enough, I'll do some comparisons myself thanks for the tip!

 

[DieselDrax]

I can appreciate how that makes sense, however is there any proof to that? I would happily avoid going there if it was proven to me that the data is indeed altered

The proof is in all of the other data available from other sites proving him wrong. I don't understand why you see that he's a pathological liar and yet want proof that he's not lying about everything.

That's messed up logic. Do not trust anything on the UB site. He's even been banned from Intel's forums due to his antics and yet he still lies about AMD vs Intel. He has some sick loyalty to companies that have shunned him.

 

[aplomBomb]

The proof is in all of the other data available from other sites proving him wrong. I don't understand why you see that he's a pathological liar and yet want proof that he's not lying about everything.

That's messed up logic. Do not trust anything on the UB site. He's even been banned from Intel's forums due to his antics and yet he still lies about AMD vs Intel. He has some sick loyalty to companies that have shunned him.

you're contradicting yourself with your own logic.

i shouldn't listen to the guy, but i should listen to you? no offense but you've not shown me anything, I'd be a fool to blindly trust you. i don't trust the UB guy either

 

[DieselDrax]

you're contradicting yourself with your own logic.

i shouldn't listen to the guy, but i should listen to you? no offense but you've not shown me anything, I'd be a fool to blindly trust you. i don't trust the UB guy either

Sorry, what? I'm not providing any data. I'm telling you to look at all the other data out there as proof. It is not my job to spoon-feed you random data for various products from different sites. UB can't be trusted, I'm not the only one saying this and yet you're suggesting you give him the benefit of the doubt because you won't do your own research?

I'm not the problem here.

 

[aplomBomb]

Sorry, what? I'm not providing any data. I'm telling you to look at all the other data out there as proof. It is not my job to spoon-feed you random data for various products from different sites. UB can't be trusted, I'm not the only one saying this and yet you're suggesting you give him the benefit of the doubt because you won't do your own research?

I'm not the problem here.

you're the one being rude buddy, not me. that makes you the problem.

besides, an awesome member of this forum already gave me some advice on how to verify this claim of bad data so you can save your emotional ranting for someone else, have a nice day!

 

[tracker1]

Looks like Nvidia paid advertisement.

More that the site owner has a personal hatred of AMD that goes beyond any technical reasoning. He'll also bluster things that sound reasonable as reasons but never ever any evidence backing the assertions.

In this case "real world" means synthetic benchmarks and not real world game bench years.

 

[tracker1]

AMD cards, until 7000-gen, were only viable on rasterization, and even then because of a better price/performance, and even then are not selling well. When AMD had competitive cards in performance, they almost matched Nvidia's market share. And now AMD seems to be back in the big game ...

It's always about prove to performance. Even then AMD has mostly been priced well. They've launched too much but usually adjust quickly.

Even then, they've had to do about 20-30% better in terms of performance and cost combined to get the sale over AMD. And even then doesn't overcome brand recognition for Nvidia.

I don't think either of them deserve any adoration right now. Their communication and sales channels suck. Their partners are out of control on pricing and the whole market sucks up and down.

At least fsr4 finally lands between dlss3-4 for most use cases. Better depending on some preferences.

The RX 9000 line doesn't really have any AI support and may not see it return for a few years.

On the Nvidia side, their lower end cards and entire mid range pricing has been screwed since the RTX 2000 launch. Not to mention low availability and high scalping.

 

[SyCoREAPER]

https://www.techspot.com/news/107110-undervolted-radeon-rx-9070-xt-beats-rtx-5080.html

Yet TechSpot says the opposite whom I trust infinitely more than biased trash site UserBenchmark, why anyone take a grain of what they say with any credibility is beyond me.

I'm not vested in this generation but have a massive bucket of popcorn watching Nvidia get destroyed one blow after another. ***

And I was all-out Nvidia in recent years. They have truly tarnished their reputation and my trust in them is gone.

AMD, great job in playing things right, even if prices go up $50 dollars in coming months. Still cheaper than a house fire and missing ROPs.

 

[kpluck]

It feels like a huge mistake to give UserBenchmark any press. Please ignore them in the future.

-kp

 

[funguseater]

LOL The internet is not a source of reliable information

 

[ravewulf]

I can appreciate how that makes sense, however is there any proof to that? I would happily avoid going there if it was proven to me that the data is indeed altered

They cherry-pick their benchmarks and have been caught changing their weighted scores to benefit Intel because they thought AMD's benchmark results were "unrealistic." Someone who is that rabidly against AMD (or any other company) can't be trusted to give accurate data without fudging the numbers. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

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

 

[logainofhades]

I don't think a faster processor will help much for dips in WoW cities. I know that its generally thought of as a CPU reliant game. In Valdrakken and Dornogal I get 99% GPU utilization and 50-60% CPU with FPS lows in the 40s. In raids, delves and dungeons I am 100+ FPS. This is all at 1440 Ultrawide max settings. Having read through lots of threads on the matter, consensus seems to be poor optimization of the game by Blizzard. Has been going on for years.

The 3d cache helps make up for the poor threaded performance, as WoW only uses 4 cores. My RX 6800 never sees full utlization, at 1440p

 

[ravewulf]

It feels like a huge mistake to give UserBenchmark any press. Please ignore them in the future.

-kp

That might make sense if UserBenchmark was smaller but Google's search rankings place them up near the top, which has a far larger impact than Tom's calling them out. Although it could be considered a double-edged sword, spreading the word that UserBenchmark is biased and untrustworthy is necessary because of how high-profile they are.

 

[USAFRet]

UBM hating on AMD is years old.

https://community.amd.com/t5/genera...benchmark-blatant-lies-against-amd/m-p/540235

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/w3xwas/why_does_userbenchmark_hate_amd/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UserBenchmark

 

[HardwiredWireless]

They were know for high end GPU's, its been a while though. They held the performance crown multiple times with the Radeon 9000, x800, hd 5000, hd 6000, hd 7000, and x290 series. Nvidia generally quickly released a card that either matched, or slightly beat those cards. But to say they've never had the crown is disingenuous, its definitely been a while though. They got close with the RX 6950 XT if you didn't care about ray tracing, but the RTX 3090 TI sorted that out.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-6950-xt-reference-design/30.html

No it's accurate. NVIDIA had better stat cards already made and just were not releasing them yet until they saw what AMD was going to do and then they released their better cards. AMD doesn't even come close to the software side of it and they are completely lacking in all of the other products that Nvidia brings to the table. They do make cheap cards though with cheap components that underperform what Nvidia makes.

 

[usertests]

For anyone that missed it on the UB comparison page between the 5070Ti and 9070XT, look at the "Value & Sentiment" comparison where the zealot claims the Nvidia GPU literally has "infinity better" value.

https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-RTX-5070-Ti-vs-AMD-RX-9070-XT/4181vsm2395341

That's automated and coming from an estimated market share of 0.53% for 5070 Ti divided by a 0% for the 9070 XT, calculated at February 25 when the 9070 XT was not out yet. Although only 1 result is in the database for 9070 XT vs. 360 for the 5070 Ti. Maybe AMD buyers don't like to use the site for some reason. 😛

Ignoring the useless "Value and Sentiment" category and biased descriptions, the "effective speed" showing 5070 Ti as 23% faster is definitely bogus and easily debunked by looking at other reviews. There is no reason for anyone to use UserBenchmark other than ignorance, even if they have the "best comparison UI anywhere".

LOL The internet is not a source of reliable information

Your statement is unreliable!

 

[blppt]

I'm more and more convinced that the guy behind this site used to work for AMD and they fired him or something like that. All this irrational hate for a company has to have been triggered by something, cannot be just an Intel/Nvidia fanboy.

I can't honestly see how anybody could prefer intel's current generation to AMDs in terms of CPUs. I *guess* the platform could be overall more solid? I know AMD contracted out the design of their current chipset to ASMedia, which seems somewhat iffy to me, but in terms of CPUs themselves, AMD seems to rule the roost.

 

[USAFRet]

I can't honestly see how anybody could prefer intel's current generation to AMDs in terms of CPUs. I *guess* the platform could be overall more solid? I know AMD contracted out the design of their current chipset to ASMedia, which seems somewhat iffy to me, but in terms of CPUs themselves, AMD seems to rule the roost.

Its not a question of preference.
Rather, it is a question of non-objectivity.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

Why is Userbenchmark still a thing after their whole "We're changing our scores so AMD Ryzen scores lower than Intel because it reflects the real-world usage" fiasco? Some people may be dumb enough to only trust them, because that search term in the article does bring them up first, but hopefully most people are smart enough to look at multiple sites before spending hundreds of dollars, or at least search for "RX 5070 Ti review" or "RX 9070 XT review" instead.

 

[Gururu]

The 3d cache helps make up for the poor threaded performance, as WoW only uses 4 cores. My RX 6800 never sees full utlization, at 1440p

I don't know what I am seeing then, as I never see CPU get much usage. Wow usage

 

[doughillman]

I would trust those conclusions wholeheartedly

Why would you do so, when the site blatantly manipulates results? You're like, "Well, they're only lying over there. They're certainly not lying over here."?

🙄

but I do believe their is some brand vs brand bias inherent at userbenchmark.

"some"?

🙄 even harder.

 

[doughillman]

But it does suck when it's compared to it's own previous gen cards. If it can't beat it's own 7900XTX in rasterization performance, then, yea, it lacks real world performance.
And your own quote, quoting them, "For context, it once recommended readers purchase a Core i5-13600K over the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, asserting, and I quote, "Spending more on a gaming CPU is often pointless."" I've often said your benchmarking and reviews of CPUs in gaming is greatly flawed. You take a top of the line graphics card, then run it at 1080p to benchmark the CPU. No one is buying an RTX 4090 or RTX 5090 and gaming at 1080p. If you have those cards, you're gaming at 4K. What kind of difference in fps do you have then between the 13600K (which is highly overclockable) and the Ryzen 7 9800X3D?
You never do real world benchmarks like that. How much of a difference would it be from the core i7 to the core i9 in those situations when the core i7 can overclock much more, and have a lot less thermal throttling?

Hey, look, it's the guy who STILL doesn't understand why you benchmark a CPU at 1080p. Despite Hardware Unboxed, GN, Tom's, etc. all explaining it many many times for the slow and dense.

Also, what sucks compared to previous gen cards? The 9070XT? A midrange card sucks compared to the previous gen's apex card? Huh. Imagine. The 5070ti isn't as fast as a 4090 (despite Jensen's claims.) Is it lacking real world performance for its price and placement in the stack? (Well, maybe that wasn't the best example.)

 

[doughillman]

You can tell by the responses that people don’t like the truth. Truth is the i7 and i9 are the most powerful. I have 3 gaming systems and I build them for a living. X3D still has micro stuttering issues. So at that price I feel you kinda get ripped off cause on my weak 12700k with just 8 cores enabled its beats my 7800x3d…

🤡

You've got some verified 3D Mark scores or something to back up that claim, right?