1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

UserBenchmark Bias

Discussion in 'CPUs' started by muon, 10 Apr 2020.

  1. muon

    Capodecina

    Joined: 8 Nov 2006

    Posts: 19,201

    Location: London

    For those that tried to defend their approach to changing the benchmark to favouring Intel, when AMD started winning.

    https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/1064059/AMD-Ryzen-7-4800HS-with-Radeon-Graphics

    Wow is all I can say. These chips will finally get AMD ahead of Intel in laptops and the Intel shills have started their campaign already.
     
  2. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: 17 Mar 2012

    Posts: 35,544

    Clearly Intel shills IMO

    I left this coment. Everyone should do the same.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. CuriousTomCat

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 22 Nov 2018

    Posts: 1,323

    I bet they believe the earth is flat as well. You can show them cast iron proof and it won't make a difference. Blinded by their own beliefs.
     
  4. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: 17 Mar 2012

    Posts: 35,544

    Right, at 720P despite the Intel laptop having the faster RTX 2600 vs the 2060 Max-Q on the Ryzen Laptop the latter IS FASTER IN GAMING. even in FC5 the Ryzen system is 10% faster.

    https://youtu.be/sePCp3LwEC0?t=449
     
    Last edited: 10 Apr 2020
  5. NinjaCool

    Hitman

    Joined: 27 Mar 2010

    Posts: 713

    Location: Denmark

    UserBenchmark has some ridiculous statements like their claim that the 3700X severely bottlenecks a 2070S :rolleyes:
    Hardware Unboxed at 10:48 - "UserBenchmark is garbage"
     
  6. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: 17 Mar 2012

    Posts: 35,544


    Aaaaaand...... they deleted this comment.
     
  7. Grim5

    Mobster

    Joined: 6 Feb 2019

    Posts: 4,415

    Argh... userbenchmark is total trash

    Intels marketing department sickens me
     
  8. Troezar

    Mobster

    Joined: 6 Aug 2009

    Posts: 4,468

    Brown envelopes? ;)
     
  9. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: 17 Mar 2012

    Posts: 35,544

    Both Passmark (Also had Intel favouring changes recently) and UserBench are right at the top of Googles sponsored links for "CPU Benchmark" search results, to get to the top of those sponsored search results cost mega money, far more money than these people will be earning from ad revenues.
     
  10. Troezar

    Mobster

    Joined: 6 Aug 2009

    Posts: 4,468

    Sounds like those other "independent" testing people Gamers Nexus visited.
     
  11. NinjaCool

    Hitman

    Joined: 27 Mar 2010

    Posts: 713

    Location: Denmark

    Maybe the Verge and UserBenchmark should do a build together!
    Get that Swiss army knife and anti-static bracelet ready for the ultimate gaming build, complete with a 9350KF Quad Core CPU since it beats the 3700X hands down in all 5 of today's most popular games out here :D
     
  12. EsaT

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 6 Jun 2008

    Posts: 8,628

    Location: Finland

  13. NinjaCool

    Hitman

    Joined: 27 Mar 2010

    Posts: 713

    Location: Denmark

    UserBenchmark just got banned from Reddit /r/hardware, /r/intel and has been restricted at /r/AMD
    https://thinkcomputers.org/userbenc...n=userbenchmark-biased-component-rating-drama

    UserBenchmark adjusted its ranking system when Ryzen 3000 series CPUs was launched. While adjustments are needed from time-to-time, UserBenchmark stopped displaying real-world performance.
    The criticism came from the community and many reviews/ news websites. Some were amused by the scoring system that contradicts itself.

    For example this i5-10600 sample wins on UserBenchmark vs Ryzen 5 3600 despite overall lower test scores... :confused:
    [​IMG]
    https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/26665212
     
    Last edited: 18 Apr 2020
  14. Destination

    Capodecina

    Joined: 31 May 2009

    Posts: 20,038

    That is utterly bizarre how on earth do they justify that in any methodology!
     
  15. Shac

    Gangster

    Joined: 18 Oct 2009

    Posts: 465

    Brown envelopes.
     
  16. Grim5

    Mobster

    Joined: 6 Feb 2019

    Posts: 4,415

    the idiot who runs the website is either a massive fanboy who has too much free time on their hands OR they are receiving payment from Intel's marketing team. Now considering Intel has been caught several times previously putting money into tech website hands to get favourable press Id be more inclined to believe userbenchmark is a Intel sponsored platform, the fact that this conflict of interest is not declared is very dodgy.

    they aren't alone but are by far the worst, the website owner even goes out of their way to personally attack reviewers and people who disagree with userbenchmark
     
    Last edited: 18 Apr 2020
  17. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: 17 Mar 2012

    Posts: 35,544

    So the 3600 scored higher on every individual benchmark and yet still they rank it lower. That's ridiculous. The only conclusion to be drawn here is Intel get the higher ranking despite being slower just because its Intel. UserBenchmark are a joke.
    ---------------------------------

    I like r/AMD's way of dealing with this, let people see this crap but warn them they are full of #### and angry about being called out of their ####.
     
  18. NinjaCool

    Hitman

    Joined: 27 Mar 2010

    Posts: 713

    Location: Denmark

    Before the Ryzen 3000 series came out, Userbenchmarks ranking system was based on a 30% single core, 60% quad core, and 10% multi core performance ratio.
    Shortly after the Ryzen 3000 series came out, they “suddenly” changed their 10% multi core performance impact to just 2%, thus lowering AMD scores vs Intel overnight.

    [​IMG]

    This change got a lot of attention but instead of taking in feedback from the tech community to dial back on this heavy focus on single core performance, they instead basically called everyone who disagreed with them chills.
    They even called out Hardware Unboxed for being "objectively incompetent smearers” likely after they did this video: https://youtu.be/AaWZKPUidUY?t=214
     
    Last edited: 20 Apr 2020
  19. Steedie

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 29 Jun 2004

    Posts: 20,297

    Location: Oxfordshire

    Hardly surprised at this, UserBenchmark are a bit of a joke anyway with similar stuff in the past.
     
  20. Bacon?

    Mobster

    Joined: 21 Apr 2012

    Posts: 4,898

    Location: Bristol

    It's an absolute joke they have become for this, changing the weight they assign makes sense but certainly not in the way they have been doing it. For example I can understand reducing the effective multicore score IF they increased the the quad core to octocore. But leaving the quadcore in there benefits no one but Intel, as modern programs as well as games increasingly uses cores past 4 (and more than 8 threads too). Leaving single core in there makes sense for applications that continue to use single core and allows you to compare the effective single core between different CPU's