top | item 22871966

(no title)

If you go to /r/amd you will see that basically everybody over there hates userbenchmark.com because it's intel-biased garbage.

Just one of many threads from the last few weeks:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/fyhl1g/tim_from_hardwa...

discuss

kllrnohj|5 years ago

The specific issue is how userbenchmark weights CPUs seems to be very coupled to Intel's specific ideas on how many CPU cores there should be, or at least very firmly stuck in the 5 years ago. So last year the weights were 40% for single-core performance, 58% for quad-core, and 2% for "multi-core".

The idea was this was supposed to be what games care about, but it isn't. Modern games have issues with even 6c/6t CPUs, such as the horrible 1% lows on the 9600K in Far Cry 5: https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3407-intel-i5-9600k-cp...

It looks like Userbench has since adjusted to weight up to 8 threads of performance? Which is maaaaybe less trash if all you care about is gaming. But the Core i5 series still tops charts on userbench despite reviewers no longer recommending the i5's due to performance inconsistency.

They even make ludicrous claims like that the 9100F is perfectly fine for gaming, and is even 10% better than a 2700X. They seem to be basing this decision entirely on older games or games specifically built for as broad a userbase as possible (eg, CSGO, Fortnite & Overwatch). Meanwhile actual reviews say things like "The quad-core Core i3-9100F was hopeless in Battlefield V, pretty bad in Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey, fairly useless in The Division 2, and weak in Shadow of the Tomb Raider." https://www.techspot.com/review/1983-intel-vs-amd-budget-cpu...

So even if you're an Intel fan, userbench is still a terrible way to pick a CPU.

paulmd|5 years ago

HWUB is not known for being particularly even-handed in their editorial positions. They tend to 'beg the question' by picking game suites that produce the outcome they want to discuss, and tend to over-reach on the conclusions.

"fairly useless" here is over 60 fps average in the heavy titles and 90-110 fps in the multiplayer titles, with a similar ratio of minimums as the 1600 AF (so no more or less prone to stutter). And that's with them loading the dice by picking the absolute most thread-heavy games they could find, most games the 9100F does comparatively much better than that.

And the reality is that Zen1 and Zen+ actually are pretty weak in gaming. Zen2 made a ~30% improvement over Zen1 in gaming performance (much better than the "average" gains for other workloads), and it's still 10-15% behind the fastest Intel processors. Zen1 especially was hot garbage in gaming, those thread-heavy titles aren't representative of its average performance. About all you can say is that it aged better than the 4Cs that Intel had on the consumer platform at the time (or the 8100/9100F/etc that followed), an OC'd 8700K lays a smackdown on it and an OC'd 5820K remains extremely viable even today.

I'm not going to defend userbenchmark's composite scores, but gaming performance does heavily depend on per-core performance even today. Having 8 faster cores is still more desirable for gaming than 16 slower cores. And single-core performance is a good analogue of "per-core performance" so this number remains very relevant.

Dylan16807|5 years ago

> So last year the weights were 40% for single-core performance, 58% for quad-core, and 2% for "multi-core".

And for reference, they used to have it at 30% single core, 60% quad core, 10% multi core. But that didn't advantage Intel enough, or something.

ambicapter|5 years ago

> Modern games have issues with even 6c/6t CPUs

Any idea why?

paulmd|5 years ago

The actual scores themselves are useful though. When it says "quad core: x% faster" or "multi core FP: y% faster" that is actually fairly accurate (as accurate as a synthetic can be). People just don't like the way userbenchmark weights these numbers in the composite score ("effective speed").

It's still a very useful site for comparing niche hardware that will never get a true review - how does a J5005 compare to a i5 750? How does a Xeon E5-1650 compare to a Ryzen 1600? Probably not going to ever be directly tested. The only alternatives are things like Passmark that are much less accurate. UserBenchmark lets you compare against all kinds of niche or rare hardware at will, that's an incredibly valuable resource. Some people are just so butthurt about the "effective speed" composite scores that they can't bring themselves to scroll past a single line, which is a little ridiculous.

Generally r/AMD constantly gets their panties in a bunch about something or other, it's constant conspiracies about how this or that is a NVIDIA or Intel backed conspiracy. Don't take them too seriously.

At times they have sent death threats because they didn't like the conclusion of a review. After the initial Ryzen launch they decided that Steve from GamersNexus (among others) was an Intel shill and started threatening his family. iirc there have been other "incidents" as well.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5xkw1b/gamersnexus_rec...

(most of those "removed" posts are people justifying it because Steve is an Intel shill who put out a "biased review")

They really take the whole fanboy thing to a whole new level. It is practically a uniquely toxic subreddit, even among other "brand" subreddits, more like a sports team sub or something.

jstanley|5 years ago

Interesting, I was not aware of this.

As it happens I am awaiting delivery of a Ryzen 5 3600, good to know it's likely to be even better than userbenchmark suggested!