It's not even that they are fudging the numbers in favor of Intel.Another benchmark that unfairly favours Intel. No surprise there. When they realised that AMD's CPUs were crushing Intel's, they were like "Oh we can't have THAT now can we?" and
completely screwedchanged their alogrithm.
If they were interested in providing actual results, maybe.I don't see why they couldn't make 2 charts, one for single threaded performance (of interest to gamers) and one for multi-threaded performance (of interest to everybody).
The results actually make sense, but are perhaps not presented in the best way. You can have a Core 2 Duo, for example, that's performing "way above expectations" for that processor, but it's performance will still be "poor" relative to most other processors currently in use. The one stat reflects performance relative to that piece of hardware, while the other reflects performance relative to all hardware in that category. Likewise, as per your example, you could have a 9900K that's performing "way below expectations" for that processor, perhaps due to thermal throttling, but compared to other processors out there, its performance may still be considered "excellent". The one example is indicating a problem with the choice of hardware, while the other is indicating a problem with the configuration of that hardware. They explain what these stats mean at their site, but those explanations are kind of tucked away behind tooltips and on other pages where they are not immediately noticeable, which can lead to some confusion, and that's something they could definitely improve.userbenchmark.com is, and has always been, a very weird, very flawed 'benchmarking' tool.
"Way below expectations" and "Excellent" on the same component in the same system.
Which is it?
It’s because Intel pays their billsThis is absurd. There's barely any difference in single threaded and quad core performance betwixt modern mid to high end desktop CPUs. The lower end models get lower clocks from the factory. For the most part it's going to be a 5% to 10% spread between a Ryzen 3000 and Core i5/i7/i9. Multi-core is the main delineator now.
While it is true that most software won't use many threads. That also means if you don't need multi-core. It doesn't matter too much which CPU you choose. It would be ridiculous to buy a 9900K when a 9600K or 3600x won't be much different.
As it stands the i9-9900K is ranked first. The Ryzen 9 3900x is sixth. The i9 is only7% faster on single and 6% on quad. While the 3900x is 40% faster on multi-core.
Even more absurd is the i7-9700K ranked fourth. Single and quad is 5% and 4% faster than the 3900x respectively. The 3900x beats it by 101% in multi-core.