News UserBenchmark suggests you buy the i5-13600K over the Ryzen 7 9800X3D — says AMD drives sales with 'aggressive marketing' rather than 'real-world p...

[Admin]

UserBenchmark has put forth a very interesting take on AMD's Ryzen 7 9800X3D and suggests users snag the i5-13600K instead since "spending more on a gaming CPU is pointless."

UserBenchmark suggests you buy the i5-13600K over the Ryzen 7 9800X3D — says AMD drives sales with 'aggressive marketing' rather than 'real-world p... : Read more

 

[emike09]

I see where they are coming from, but it's a weak argument. I buy more than I need when I upgrade for futureproofing, expecting to get 6-7 years from a platform before upgrading again. I also work with professional apps on the same system I game on, so give me all the performance I can get.

AMD has always been overly aggressive in marketing. It's one of the reasons I never liked AMD. I remember some of their ads in the PC Gamer magazine back in the late 90s that were so cringe, you had to laugh and shake your head. Until Zen 3 came around, AMD had to rely on aggressive marketing to survive. Now with Zen 4 and 5, they can sit back and let performance do the talking.

 

[Viking2121]

Why would I trust anything Userbenchmarks says when their own sit is pretty much a laughing stalk, especially at how biased they are lol

 

[Tax Payer]

They also aggressively "modify" dissenting comments on their site, thankfully most level-headed individuals can see through their nonsense. At best, the site seems to provide a decent relative ranking of GPUs.

 

[Mattzun]

The anti AMD spin is crazy, but the fundamental argument is sound.

Most people gaming at 1440p will never notice the difference between a 13600k and a 9800x3d. A 14900k or 285k makes even less sense for most gamers when there are cheap, new 12th and 13th gen and zen 4 available.

If you have a limited budget and you are choosing between a 9800x3d+4060 and a 13600k+4070 super, get the better gpu and the cheaper CPU.

I’d get a 7600x instead of the 13600k, but most modern CPUs are fine for anything up to a 4080 at 1440p.

 

[TechieTwo]

There are a lot of people/entities that enjoy "benefits" associated with promoting Intel products that are often inferior to the competition.

 

[scottslayer]

Is it a slow news week or what?

 

[Makaveli]

Someone needs to nuke that site from orbit its the only way to be sure.

 

[Scraph]

I also work with professional apps on the same system I game on, so give me all the performance I can get.

Of course, there are different aspects to performance and as many benchmarks to measure them.

Take the 285K, for example. It's deemed a "failure" because it falls short of competition in gaming benchmarks. But in professional usage, it's on top; compiling software, Cinebench rendering, etc.

The thing is... in gaming performance, there is such a thing as fast enough. If the CPU can support a frame rate above the monitor refresh rate, it's fast enough. More than that gives you a better benchmark but not a better experience.

On the other hand, compiling software can never be too fast. There is always a benefit from more performance.

So, yeah, when I look at the 9800X3D, I see massive performance in an area where I don't need it. But it beats gaming benchmarks, so it's great for marketing.

 

[USAFRet]

Of course, there are different aspects to performance and as many benchmarks to measure them.

Take the 285K, for example. It's deemed a "failure" because it falls short of competition in gaming benchmarks. But in professional usage, it's on top; compiling software, Cinebench rendering, etc.

Bingo!

 

[DingusDog]

User benchmark is a joke. I haven't seen any aggressive AMD marketing, only glowing reviews with actual benchmarks showing that the 9800X3D crushes everything Intel has to offer.

 

[MergleBergle]

This guy's such a fricken clown, the website is not worth paying attention to, AT ALL. I used to use it for comparisons of stats, but it's worthless for that too now.

Whether it's as "CPUPro" or "GPUPro". The only thing they're a "Pro" at is trolling AMD very very hard, and that's about it. Most of the "reviews" of AMD hardware are just copy-paste from other "reviews". There's a template for AMD GPUs, and for their CPUs. The "review" gets updated every generation or two, I guess depending on how lazy they're feeling that year.

Total joke, better off reading proper reviews from actual review sites. Like.. THIS ONE.

 

[Gururu]

their bias aside, I am sure my 14700 with the new nvidia cards will conquer anything.

 

[King_V]

It's kind of weird how desperate and pathetic they sound when they try to attack AMD. Oddly surreal. It almost feels like they're making a parody of themselves.

They don't even make remotely consistent or convincing arguments. Do they think sounding desperate in their claims will, uh, somehow convince the rest of us?

Hell, I didn't even ever read any reviews on Userbrenchmark until relatively recently, and when I finally stumbled across one, I had to read it twice because it didn't even seem real.

It's just pathetic.

 

[hotaru251]

Until Zen 3 came around, AMD had to rely on aggressive marketing to survive

i mean Zen2 was about when they matched intel. Zen3 was generally amd beating intel overall and zen 4/5 it was no brainer.

userbenchmark is one of worst sites to trust given their biased history & relying on massively variable datasets.

can only imagine how bad it will get when they start using llm to sort stuff.

 

[oofdragon]

There are a lot of people/entities that enjoy "benefits" associated with promoting Intel products that are often inferior to the competition.

Yep.. just like Toms goes about Nvidia

 

[awake283]

We all know they're biased. But what I want to know is - WHY?

 

[awake283]

User benchmark is a joke. I haven't seen any aggressive AMD marketing, only glowing reviews with actual benchmarks showing that the 9800X3D crushes everything Intel has to offer.

I've never seen an AMD commercial in my life. I hardly even see any ads online tbh.

 

[Azuki_5]

It's to mislead as many uninformed and casual customers as possible, they tend to be people who have lots of money, but know little to nothing about technology and since Userbenchmark appear on the top of the list on Google search for benchmarks and the web layout look professional they will think this is a reputable website and base their purchase decision on those "professional evaluations." I've seen people willingly pay 4k for a PC that could have been built or purchased for less than half the price.

 

[Scraph]

their bias aside, I am sure my 14700 with the new nvidia cards will conquer anything.

And it will.

AMD X3D is king of "1080p low" benchmarks. But, no one actually plays games at "1080p low".

No one (actually) plays games at a faster framerate than their monitor, either.

If your CPU can give you 60fps solid (or w/e your monitor is), you're good. Your monitor won't show you anything different with any faster CPU.

 

[Pierce2623]

I see where they are coming from, but it's a weak argument. I buy more than I need when I upgrade for futureproofing, expecting to get 6-7 years from a platform before upgrading again. I also work with professional apps on the same system I game on, so give me all the performance I can get.

AMD has always been overly aggressive in marketing. It's one of the reasons I never liked AMD. I remember some of their ads in the PC Gamer magazine back in the late 90s that were so cringe, you had to laugh and shake your head. Until Zen 3 came around, AMD had to rely on aggressive marketing to survive. Now with Zen 4 and 5, they can sit back and let performance do the talking.

AMD literally spends a fraction of what Intel does on “gamer” marketing. You not liking a specific line of ads has nothing to do with the fact that AMD has never been anywhere close to Intel on marketing spend.

 

[Pierce2623]

And it will.

AMD X3D is king of "1080p low" benchmarks. But, no one actually plays games at "1080p low".

No one (actually) plays games at a faster framerate than their monitor, either.

If your CPU can give you 60fps solid (or w/e your monitor is), you're good. Your monitor won't show you anything different with any faster CPU.

Actually, tons of people that are into competitive shooters or sim racing play as fast as the game can run on their machine for reduced latency.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

user benchmark…. Waste of bandwidth.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

Actually, tons of people that are into competitive shooters or sim racing play as fast as the game can run on their machine for reduced latency.

Or they are playing at a solid 144.. 165Hz or higher with really good minimum frame rates.

 

[MergleBergle]

And it will.

AMD X3D is king of "1080p low" benchmarks. But, no one actually plays games at "1080p low".

No one (actually) plays games at a faster framerate than their monitor, either.

If your CPU can give you 60fps solid (or w/e your monitor is), you're good. Your monitor won't show you anything different with any faster CPU.

The entire point of using those as a benchmark is that after that games can become GPU limited, obviously. But it's pretty simple to assume that a cpu isn't "optimized" just for the 1080p low benchmark, but that the CPU performance will scale up at higher resolutions with better GPUs.

Put simply, the best "1080p low" CPU is probably the best CPU for 2k/4k so that it's not dragging performance down on the system overall. Feel free to test this theory by putting a 4090 in a system with a core i3 2120, and compare 1440p benchmarks in any modern game of your choosing at high settings.