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

[Gururu]

I am sure that site is meant to be satire.

They hate everything AMD. Whether its CPU or GPU.
They at least semi safe with Nvidia given that Nvidia still do make best GPU.
But its not going to be a sane review of an AMD product

They been suffering the last few years ever since Intel CPU started to not be the best choice for gaming.

They used to be semi sane, untiil Ryzen started to get better... and better.

at one stage last year their benchmark software was also malware, I got infected by it and it redirected my internet connection to India.
Now they charge you to use the benchmark if you use it more than a few times.

I wonder if they change the review to counter the "backlash"

shame they don't appear to have "reviewed" the 9950x3d yet.

That youtube video you posted is the best evidence yet...

 

[JayGau]

From your link

Now explain to the rest of us how having more than 4 cores helps your grandma read her emails better.....
For the general user anything above 4 cores is basically useless, they are gonna need it once a year if they have to decompress something.
Even for a gamer the first 4 cores are the most important.
The 14100 gets you 134FPS avg, you have to be a hardcore user to think that you need more than that.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i3-14100/15.html


Bottom line, userbenchmark isn't for the hardcore fanatic enthusiast, it's for the average joe that needs something to do their basic computing on.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something but are you really defending UserBenchmark because it's for the average joe? So their blatant lies are not a big deal since the hardcore enthusiasts are not using it?

 

[Wimpers]

There has to be a way to ask Google to blacklist them from tech-related search results. Or, at least, add some sort of warning about their very obvious biases.

This site, while a great idea on paper, the clown running the show makes it terrible for anyone looking for decent data and unbiased analysis.

Regards.

Maybe this is not completely what you want, but there is an extension that lets you block entire domains, from the Google search results: https://github.com/iorate/ublacklist
You can use patterns and regular expressions as filters.

 

[Colif]

I wonder if Google AI previews are biting into their profits

 

[TerryLaze]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something but are you really defending UserBenchmark because it's for the average joe? So their blatant lies are not a big deal since the hardcore enthusiasts are not using it?

This particular thing is not a lie, that's the only thing I'm saying.
It doesn't mean that everything else is true or not.

 

[-Fran-]

Maybe this is not completely what you want, but there is an extension that lets you block entire domains, from the Google search results: https://github.com/iorate/ublacklist
You can use patterns and regular expressions as filters.

Unfortunately it is not. It's a good extension/idea, but the problem is not "me", but what they're doing for the people looking for information about something they may not know much and then they get to read the diatrabe from that site, specially on the reasoning why.

It's an all around baffling thing that, in my view, goes beyond "free speech" or "accepting different opinions". That site's bias is harmful for people with little to no knowledge of tech and get terrible advice and lessons.

Regards.

 

[Typhon666]

🤡

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

Go buy the stuff and test it for yourself. Or be like everyone else.

 

[Pierce2623]

>bashes AMD GPUs

Ragebait incoming. Defenders of the AMD Faith, STAND TALL AND DEMAND RETRIBUTION!

Get 'em clicks in now...This must be the improvement THW is talking about.

Yeah of course you think people are defunding AMD when they’re really just defending truth and objectivity.

 

[logainofhades]

>bashes AMD GPUs

Ragebait incoming. Defenders of the AMD Faith, STAND TALL AND DEMAND RETRIBUTION!

Get 'em clicks in now...This must be the improvement THW is talking about.

12700k user here, and even I will tell you UBM has a huge anti AMD bias.

 

[JamesJones44]

That’s not completely true. The CPU matters at 4k mostly for two reasons:

1- The low 1% FPS gets a significant improvement with a better CPU, bigger than the average frame rate, and this has a great impact on the gaming experience.

2- Most people don't play native 4k nowadays, even with a 4090. They play with upscaling, and the CPU matters in that case since the games are rendered at lower a resolution.

And if you have the money for a 4k GPU, you can also afford a high-end CPU.

If someone budgets $1000 for CPU and GPU you can can get with a 9600x and a RTX 5070 TI which has decent frame rates at 4K and is superior FPS to 9800x3d and RTX 5070 for the same price ($1028). This comparison holds if you push the budget up to $1250 where you get a RTX 5080 and 5600x which is better in all respects to a 9800x3d and 5070 Ti or push the budget down to $850, 9600x + 5070 > 9800x3d + 4060 (and probably 5060)

$850-1250 is far from "rich". $850, 4k isn't really achievable, but $1000 and $1250 is.

Again, it's better to skimp on CPU an put the money into a higher end GPU for gaming at higher resolutions (even 1440).

 

[helper800]

This comparison holds if you push the budget up to $1250 where you get a RTX 5080 and 5600x which is better in all respects to a 9800x3d and 5070 Ti or push the budget down to $850, 9600x + 5070 > 9800x3d + 4060 (and probably 5060)

Again, it's better to skimp on CPU an put the money into a higher end GPU for gaming at higher resolutions (even 1440).

This is incorrect. There are plenty of games that will have higher fps on a 9800X3d plus anything modern GPU wise because of the nature of the game. I have listed a few such games above. Some games are so CPU reliant or biased for L3 cache that a lower end GPU will outperform a higher end one. These are usually referred to as CPU bound games. On average your claim is correct at 1080p+ resolutions, but just as anything, it depends.

 

[-Fran-]

If someone budgets $1000 for CPU and GPU you can can get with a 9600x and a RTX 5070 TI which has decent frame rates at 4K and is superior FPS to 9800x3d and RTX 5070 for the same price ($1028). This comparison holds if you push the budget up to $1250 where you get a RTX 5080 and 5600x which is better in all respects to a 9800x3d and 5070 Ti or push the budget down to $850, 9600x + 5070 > 9800x3d + 4060 (and probably 5060)

$850-1250 is far from "rich". $850, 4k isn't really achievable, but $1000 and $1250 is.

Again, it's better to skimp on CPU an put the money into a higher end GPU for gaming at higher resolutions (even 1440).

The other asterisk, adding to what @helper800 said above, is that you're thinking about a "single snapshot in time" for that system.

The whole point of reviews and other tech outlets saying which CPU is faster, is also about which one will last the longest or, at least, through a few GPU cycles.

In your own example: if you bought the 5600X instead of a 5800X3D, then you're missing out on a lot of headroom if you went from, say, a 3070 to a 5070ti now.

Yes, the build would be "imbalanced" for the single snapshot in time, so if you plan to buy and swap the whole PC in the short/mid term, then you're not wrong. Longer term, you're wrong.

Regards.

 

[JamesJones44]

This is incorrect. There are plenty of games that will have higher fps on a 9800X3d plus anything modern GPU wise because of the nature of the game. I have listed a few such games above. Some games are so CPU reliant or biased for L3 cache that a lower end GPU will outperform a higher end one. These are usually referred to as CPU bound games. On average your claim is correct at 1080p+ resolutions, but just as anything, it depends.

I've not seen a chart where a 9080x3d generates a better enhancement at similar pricing for CPU + GPU. Simple charts show these differences. At 1080 a 9800x3d is 12% faster than 9600x. At 1080 a 4070 ti is 18% faster than a 4070. In this scenario the 9800x3d does not win the best performance per price over a higher end GPU.

The stats clearly show this.

In

 

[JamesJones44]

The other asterisk, adding to what @helper800 said above, is that you're thinking about a "single snapshot in time" for that system.

The whole point of reviews and other tech outlets saying which CPU is faster, is also about which one will last the longest or, at least, through a few GPU cycles.

In your own example: if you bought the 5600X instead of a 5800X3D, then you're missing out on a lot of headroom if you went from, say, a 3070 to a 5070ti now.

Yes, the build would be "imbalanced" for the single snapshot in time, so if you plan to buy and swap the whole PC in the short/mid term, then you're not wrong. Longer term, you're wrong.

Regards.

Even for longevity. If you bought a system 5 years ago, would you want a 3070 + 5800x3d or 3080 + 5600x? The 3080 is 16% faster than 3070, the 5800x3d is 11% faster than a 5600x. Even today the 3080 is a decent GPU and it would be way cheaper to swap out the 5600x with a 9600x for $279 + $199 MB + $199 for memory ($677) than it would be to swap a 3080 with a 5080 for $999

Purely looking at the numbers, I'm not sure how one could claim going big on CPU is better than going big on GPU, unless other reasons beyond numbers enter thinking.

 

[logainofhades]

Even for longevity. If you bought a system 5 years ago, would you want a 3070 + 5800x3d or 3080 + 5600x? The 3080 is 16% faster than 3070, the 5800x3d is 11% faster than a 5600x. Even today the 3080 is a decent GPU and it would be way cheaper to swap out the 5600x with a 9600x for $279 + $199 MB + $199 for memory ($677) than it would be to swap a 3080 with a 5080 for $999

I would take the 3070 and 5800x3d combo myself, for a system I would intend to keep long term, platform wise. That theoretical 9600x combo may be cheaper vs buying a 5080, but it wouldn't net you as much of a performance uplift vs dropping in a $677 ish GPU, like say an RX 9070xt. GPU swaps are also easier.

Now if this was a system that never would be upgraded, then yea I would probably consider the 5600x/3080 combo.

 

[helper800]

I've not seen a chart where a 9080x3d generates a better enhancement at similar pricing for CPU + GPU. Simple charts show these differences. At 1080 a 9800x3d is 12% faster than 9600x. At 1080 a 4070 ti is 18% faster than a 4070. In this scenario the 9800x3d does not win the best performance per price over a higher end GPU.

The stats clearly show this.

In

Do me a favor and go look at performance differences with online games like WoW, or simulation games like X4 foundations, or RTS games like Beyond All Reason. In all of these examples the 9800 X3D would get more performance with a 5070 ti at 1440p than with a 5090 and a 9600x. Most CPU intensive games are not benchmarked in a GPU review and in CPU reviews these lesser known titles are skipped entirely. The last time I saw a CPU intensive game in these genres was Ashes of Singularity among 1 or 2 others. Another great example of a more known title that is uniquely CPU intensive is Escape from Tarkov. X3D CPUs dominate that game in terms of min FPS and Average fps to the extent that I get better average FPS with my 5800X3D than a buddy with a 12900k and a 5080. at the same settings and 1440p resolution.

 

[logainofhades]

Microsoft Flight Sim heavily favors the x3d chips too. Even at 1440p ultra a 5800x3d beats an overclocked 13900k.

 

[helper800]

Microsoft Flight Sim heavily favors the x3d chips too. Even at 1440p ultra a 5800x3d beats an overclocked 13900k.

I completely forgot about MSFS lol...

 

[JamesJones44]

Do me a favor and go look at performance differences with online games like WoW, or simulation games like X4 foundations, or RTS games like Beyond All Reason. In all of these examples the 9800 X3D would get more performance with a 5070 ti at 1440p than with a 5090 and a 9600x. Most CPU intensive games are not benchmarked in a GPU review and in CPU reviews these lesser known titles are skipped entirely. The last time I saw a CPU intensive game in these genres was Ashes of Singularity among 1 or 2 others. Another great example of a more known title that is uniquely CPU intensive is Escape from Tarkov. X3D CPUs dominate that game in terms of min FPS and Average fps to the extent that I get better average FPS with my 5800X3D than a buddy with a 12900k and a 5080. at the same settings and 1440p resolution.

I've provided charts that support my side of the argument. At this point the burden of proof is firmly in your court. If you have some charts that show this I'm happy to evaluate them.

 

[helper800]

I've provided charts that support my side of the argument. At this point the burden of proof is firmly in your court. If you have some charts that show this I'm happy to evaluate them.

Check @logainofhades MSFS charts. I forgot that this is one of the few sims that was widely benchmarked. I cannot show you any titles that benefit from such scenarios because almost no review outlet tests hardware in this way. CPU benchmarks do not test with multiple GPUs to give context to the value of better CPUs at certain price points. They use the best graphics card possible and mainstream games to give a result that an be used as a general rule, but general rule's have exceptions. If you want to throw away what I am telling you that I know for a fact because I cannot give you a chart, thats on you.

 

[Gururu]

I've provided charts that support my side of the argument. At this point the burden of proof is firmly in your court. If you have some charts that show this I'm happy to evaluate them.

I have seen anecdotal accounts of X3D chips performing better (>10%) than non X3D chips in World of Warcraft, and same video card. The consensus however is that the game is in general horribly optimized for performance so not a great example. I agree with your statement that going big on CPU should only ever be a consideration for a gamer if you have already gone big on GPU!

 

[Gururu]

Check @logainofhades MSFS charts. I forgot that this is one of the few sims that was widely benchmarked. I cannot show you any titles that benefit from such scenarios because almost no review outlet tests hardware in this way. CPU benchmarks do not test with multiple GPUs to give context to the value of better CPUs at certain price points. They use the best graphics card possible and mainstream games to give a result that an be used as a general rule, but general rule's have exceptions. If you want to throw away what I am telling you that I know for a fact because I cannot give you a chart, thats on you.

Well, a 4090 doubles the performance of a 4060 Ti in that game while a 7950X3D doesnt even double performance of a 13600k.

 

[logainofhades]

Well, a 4090 doubles the performance of a 4060 Ti in that game while a 7950X3D doesnt even double performance of a 13600k.

You are missing the point of how much CPU very much matters, in CPU heavy titles. In normal scenarios, a 13600k and a 9800x3d are not that far apart.


Still 1440 with a 4090 as in the flight sim benchmark, about 9% difference, same for the 5800x3d.

In flight sim the 5800x3d is 71% faster than a 13600k.

 

[JamesJones44]

Microsoft Flight Sim heavily favors the x3d chips too. Even at 1440p ultra a 5800x3d beats an overclocked 13900k.

Check @logainofhades MSFS charts. I forgot that this is one of the few sims that was widely benchmarked. I cannot show you any titles that benefit from such scenarios because almost no review outlet tests hardware in this way. CPU benchmarks do not test with multiple GPUs to give context to the value of better CPUs at certain price points. They use the best graphics card possible and mainstream games to give a result that an be used as a general rule, but general rule's have exceptions. If you want to throw away what I am telling you that I know for a fact because I cannot give you a chart, thats on you.

I don't know where that chart came from, would love a direct link. However, lets fast forward to FS 2024 and here you can see you get an extra 12 FPS from a 4080 super vs a 4070 Ti super. You get less than 1 frame from a 13900k vs 9800x3d.

Again we are talking about which thing you should push money into, CPU or GPU. Not Intel vs AMD.

for reference here is a link to the charts below.

 

[helper800]

Well, a 4090 doubles the performance of a 4060 Ti in that game while a 7950X3D doesnt even double performance of a 13600k.

Fine, allow me to find CPU bound games with a 4090 using a 9800X3D. I cannot show that the same CPU with a lesser GPU would have similar performance because nobody tests that way. Here are some charts that show a 9800X3D pulling massively ahead compared to a 9600x which logically means a lesser GPU than a 4090 can be paired with the 9800X3D to get the same or better FPS as a 9600X and a 4090.

Theoretically you could get a GPU that is X percent slower than the 4090 + 9600x where X is the amount the 9800X3D is the percentage faster than the 9600x and pair it with the 9800X3D. Sources for the below images here. There are tons of games that are not commonly benchmarked that would also support my argument. MSFS was not benchmarked hear, nor any of the games from the genres I mentioned above in the entire 9800X3D review from TPU. Below are stock for stock comparisons.

Baldurs gate 3 The 9800X3D performs 51.9% faster than the 9600x at 1080p
Cyberpunk 2077 The 9800X3D performs 21.5% faster than the 9600x at 1080p
Elden ring The 9800X3D performs 28.0% faster than the 9600x at 1080p
Remnant 2 The 9800X3D performs 21.2% faster than the 9600x at 1080p
Spider-Man Remastered The 9800X3D performs 25.5% faster than the 9600x at 1080p