News Userbenchmark Responds to Criticism Over Score Weighing Revisions

[Finstar]

Heh, perhaps this speaks volumes as to how good these new Ryzens really are .. did they call Ryzen performance "unrealistic" because it scored so well? That's funny .... and it took lowering MT to a 2% impact.

I compared i5-9400F with R9 3900x https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-9400F-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-3900X/m699058vs4044

Paid for, I presume.

Who needs an 18 core i9 when a 4 core i3 is faster and cheaper?

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-9350KF-vs-Intel-Core-i9-9980XE/m775825vsm652504

 

[rav_]

USERBENCHMARK: A corrupt and irrelevant entity who is a shill for Intel and they are cooking the books.

How appropriate while Intel has a Bean Counter for a CEO. After all, liars figure when figures don't lie!
Marketing: How to sell a poor quality as a higher quality product by lying!

 

[Phaaze88]

So the Intel shenanigans have begun? Haha.

Cheers!

I see what you did there...
XD

 

[Avro Arrow]

It's not even that they are fudging the numbers in favor of Intel.

It is that they are fudging the numbers at all.

If it had been in the other direction, it would be just as bad.

Oh I agree, it's just that whenever the numbers are being fudged, it's almost always in favour of Intel and if it isn't, they change it.

 

[smartcom5]

So the Intel shenanigans have begun? Haha.

Cheers!

Wait, begun?! So you're telling me it was supposed to end at some point in the past?


Smartcom

 

[shpankey]

The timing is the giveaway. That's a whole lot of talkie talkie to say Intel paid you to screw the results to their favor. No doubt emboldened by the billion dollars Apple gave them.

 

[thegriff]

My question is, if you start with single core benchmark as you go up in cores that would still be relevant for each additional core (depending on frequencies) so it would seem Intel would be ahead until you reach the point where AMD has more cores (again depending on frequencies). So, if you are making a decision it's not that difficult you look at scores, CPU freq., number of cores and price and make determination. Understanding also, that things get tricky with hyperthreading and AMDs equiv.

 

[JamesSneed]

I wonder if we could get Google to adjust there search engine to place Userbenchmark lower due to this bias? Seems fair to me.

 

[jimmysmitty]

It’s because Intel pays their bills

I assume you have proof to support this bold claim?

USERBENCHMARK: A corrupt and irrelevant entity who is a shill for Intel and they are cooking the books.

How appropriate while Intel has a Bean Counter for a CEO. After all, liars figure when figures don't lie!
Marketing: How to sell a poor quality as a higher quality product by lying!

And it took Ford a CEO from an airline company to turn around and not require a bailout when GM and Chrysler did so whats your point? Sometimes the person running the ship doesn't have to be a tech nerd to run it properly.

The timing is the giveaway. That's a whole lot of talkie talkie to say Intel paid you to screw the results to their favor. No doubt emboldened by the billion dollars Apple gave them.

You mean the billion dollars that first has to be approved by the FCC?

And if you really think a billion would embolden a company that spends billions onf process technology a year, well you need to look again.

My question is, if you start with single core benchmark as you go up in cores that would still be relevant for each additional core (depending on frequencies) so it would seem Intel would be ahead until you reach the point where AMD has more cores (again depending on frequencies). So, if you are making a decision it's not that difficult you look at scores, CPU freq., number of cores and price and make determination. Understanding also, that things get tricky with hyperthreading and AMDs equiv.

The site still shows AMD with the top multithreaded chip and on their "About" page (very bottom of the home page) they have a list of "best" for components and the CPUS listed are all Ryzen CPUs.

I wonder if we could get Google to adjust there search engine to place Userbenchmark lower due to this bias? Seems fair to me.

Sure. So long as you can pay Google for that. Top search results are not free and I doubt Google would change it without cash.

Honestly the benchmark has always been meh. No all in one ever is any good for anything but a quick glance. People looking need to dig into the CPUs they are looking at with multiple third party reviews targeting what they plan to use it for, not rely on a all in one benchmark as it has been proven time and time again they never hold up.

If instead they buy based on a single sites benchmark then they are at fault for not thoroughly researching the products before buying them.

 

[bigdragon]

UserBenchmark doesn't seem to verify that users have the Meltdown and MDS mitigations installed and enabled. Every Intel score really should be reduced by 40% as a result. If fairness is important, then one company should not be unfairly favored for cheating on security to give the appearance of better performance.

 

[logainofhades]

I feel sorry, for the uninformed, that actually used that hot garbage, of a website, to make a purchasing decision.

 

[artk2219]

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 bullshit. 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

 

[Rob1C]

Multiple core boost and having multiple cores (even if the boost isn't so good) is important over single core (or boost for a low number of cores) - unless you run vintage games and use a DOS boot CD, then you want a fast single core.

With today's OSes even if the program you want to run is poorly multithreaded there will always be background processes starting and the desire to run more than one program at once (example: live streaming your gameplay).

Having 8-12 cores can benefit the enthusiast, and maybe up to ~20 for some circumstances. But the opposite isn't helpful, having one or two cores running at twice the speed isn't going to provide 12-16 cores worth of performance, unless you are almost always running only one program.

Don't cripple the ratings of > 20 core processors simply because the software of today can't exploit the power of the hardware. Don't blame the hardware, it's like saying that your software doesn't take advantage of running on multiple GPUs so ditch your graphics card for one with fewer cores and higher clocks.

A Lamborghini owner whom can't afford gas is better off than a Toyota owner whom works at a gas station and gets a 1% discount on regular.