Question UserBenchmark

thetechissue

Reputable
Feb 24, 2018
26
1
4,545
What do you think about Userbenchmark.com and the criticism it has received?
I think it is useful if you don't only consider the 'effective speed' tab.
Sorry for my english!
 

kanewolf

Titan
Moderator
What do you think about Userbenchmark.com and the criticism it has received?
I think it is useful if you don't only consider the 'effective speed' tab.
Sorry for my english!
It is generally a misleading site. It causes inexperienced users to doubt their builds. The PC might run every game or app as desired, but an "underperforming" headline causes users to ask why and to attempt to "fix" it. That causes more problems.
 
It is generally a misleading site. It causes inexperienced users to doubt their builds. The PC might run every game or app as desired, but an "underperforming" headline causes users to ask why and to attempt to "fix" it. That causes more problems.
So your argument here is that noobs are stoopid and should remain so...
Attempting to find out what's wrong is what will make a noob find out about how bloatware or different power profiles affect performance,people trying to find out how to "fix" things even if they don't really need fixing is a good thing.

Userbenchmark is fine, for noobs it easily shows them what to expect from a CPU doing the stuff that noobs would be doing with a PC,and for enthusiasts or pros or whatever they do have the workstation number that shows them what they can expect from the CPU doing what they would be doing with a PC.

Anybody that thinks that a noob has to know and seriously consider cinebench numbers for his web browser email build are the ones that are a bit out of it.
People that need the performance of more than 4 cores now that they need it and will search for the info.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thetechissue

thetechissue

Reputable
Feb 24, 2018
26
1
4,545
Right, it can be misleading for new users, but the results are pretty accurate I think. I mean, if we compare an I5 9400f with a r5 2600, the i5 will do slightly better in games because they don't use more than 6 cores, but I still won't buy the i5 because I want those 6 more threads and the lower price. Also I'll need a pretty good gpu to get those frames. So I think that if you know what you want to do with the cpu, that site is pretty useful.
It can also be misleading for new users because they only show results from games that use only 4 cores, like Fortnite, cs:go, etc, so in those games even the i3 9100f is on par with Ryzen 5 3600.
 
I think it is a useless tool.

A component or system can be both "Outstanding" and "Way Under Expectations" at the same time.
Not a case of stoopid users, but when presented with bold red text that says "Way below..."...a user will latch on to that.
When in reality, nothing is actually wrong.
Outstanding in regards to other hardware Way Under Expectations for the same hardware how is that not a valid thing?!
You can counter argue that who cares but that's something different,for someone that dished out a thousand bucks for a GPU I imagine that it would be a pretty darn big concern to have 10% or even just 5% less performance than other people with the same hardware.

It can also be misleading for new users because they only show results from games that use only 4 cores, like Fortnite, cs:go, etc, so in those games even the i3 9100f is on par with Ryzen 5 3600.
They don't do that, they use artificial synthetic GPU benchmarks just like everybody else.
https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Faq/What-is-the-effective-GPU-speed-index/82
For the games they just show the numbers they collected from users, that part is not a benchmark but a database of results people got.
 
D

Deleted member 14196

Guest
I think it is a useless tool.

A component or system can be both "Outstanding" and "Way Under Expectations" at the same time.
Not a case of stoopid users, but when presented with bold red text that says "Way below..."...a user will latch on to that.
When in reality, nothing is actually wrong.
Fully agree with the statement
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
10% or even just 5% less performance than other people with the same hardware.
The same hardware, but theirs is overclocked, or running different/fewer things in the background, or any of a number of other considerations.

We've seen people here getting 200 frames/sec on whatever game they play, and userbenchmark reports as "Way Below"...
They freak out.

Might it have its uses? Yeah, maybe.
But far too many only see that bold red text, and assume their PC is about to die.

Opinions differ.
I, personally, don't like that tool. At all.
 
The same hardware, but theirs is overclocked, or running different/fewer things in the background, or any of a number of other considerations.

We've seen people here getting 200 frames/sec on whatever game they play, and userbenchmark reports as "Way Below"...
They freak out.
You might see it as freaking out but for a noob it's just the normal learning experience,when I loaded up my first cassette tape on my cpc464 I freaked out from the horrible noise it made although that was the normal thing,a noob doesn't know that running different/fewer things in the background can affect the performance,why shouldn't they make a post and ask more experienced people about it?
 

kanewolf

Titan
Moderator
o your argument here is that noobs are stoopid and should remain so...
Attempting to find out what's wrong is what will make a noob find out about how bloatware or different power profiles affect performance,people trying to find out how to "fix" things even if they don't really need fixing is a good thing.
Yes, my statement is "if it ain't broke don't fix it". Part of wisdom is knowing when enough is enough. You make the assumption that something is "wrong" That is where you and I differ. Many times there is nothing "wrong". Not overclocking your GPU isn't wrong. But it will show your graphics card is "underperforming". Or, one I saw recently, was the user had G-sync enabled. That caused the benchmark to report "severely under performing" But there was nothing "wrong", and having G-sync enabled is usually a good thing.
 
Yes, but why don't they collect results for more than the same 5 games? I mean, they're only showing those same 5 games at every gpu/cpu. They're doing that in the youtube videos too.
They have about 300 games listed.
https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Search?searchTerm=FPS
Yes, my statement is "if it ain't broke don't fix it". Part of wisdom is knowing when enough is enough. You make the assumption that something is "wrong" That is where you and I differ. Many times there is nothing "wrong". Not overclocking your GPU isn't wrong. But it will show your graphics card is "underperforming". Or, one I saw recently, was the user had G-sync enabled. That caused the benchmark to report "severely under performing" But there was nothing "wrong", and having G-sync enabled is usually a good thing.
For a noob realising that any form of *sync reduces performance is a big deal.
It is something "wrong" that the user can choose to leave as is or choose to change IF HE KNOWS ABOUT IT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thetechissue