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. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: 17 Mar 2012

    Posts: 35,533

    All this shows is how desperate Intel have become, which doesn't bode well for the future as they clearly think they have to play the game like this.
     
  2. kitfit1

    Mobster

    Joined: 24 Feb 2003

    Posts: 3,595

    Location: Stourport-On-Severn

    The thing is though @humbug, Intel as you well know, have always played "the game like this". No amounts of legal action and multi billion $ fines are ever likely to stop them.
    What will stop them though is the buying public just moving to AMD as the cpu of choice. We and Intel know this has already happened in the retail cpu space. They obviously still hold something over OEM's because there is no proper business case for them to still be offering 90% Intel inside when AMD's entire range is cheaper and faster than Intel's.
     
  3. Grim5

    Mobster

    Joined: 6 Feb 2019

    Posts: 4,407

    The operators of that website are so incompetent they screwed Intel as well with the changes - not sure if it's still the case but at one stage UB was saying an i3 9100 is the best gaming cpu Intel has and that it beats everything else intel and amd makes
     
  4. drunkenmaster

    Caporegime

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 33,172

    It's also more recently come to light that they are now doing the same things with Nvidia vs AMD in GPU. A 5700XT is apparently slower than a 1080, despite every single review agreeing very much otherwise.

    Userbenchmark are taking money to give better results to anyone who wants to pay for it. This is nothing new or surprising, neither is the fact that Intel and Nvidia continue to be happy to pay such sites for positive coverage. Ignore then and move on.
     
  5. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: 17 Mar 2012

    Posts: 35,533

    lol... just gone from a 1070 to a 5700XT, its at least half as fast again, damn near as fast as a 1080TI......

    Is it that Intel and Nvidia are sending brown envelops? or is it that they just have some sort of hate for AMD, like some petulant people on the Internet sometimes do just have a brand religion and pathologically hate anything else.

    With the latest drivers i could find...

    https://www.techpowerup.com/review/sapphire-radeon-rx-5600-xt-pulse/27.html

    [​IMG]
     
  6. Tyrim

    Associate

    Joined: 31 May 2020

    Posts: 2

  7. Skyrover

    Associate

    Joined: 17 Feb 2017

    Posts: 18

    Location: UK

  8. Grim5

    Mobster

    Joined: 6 Feb 2019

    Posts: 4,407

  9. Tyrim

    Associate

    Joined: 31 May 2020

    Posts: 2

    Nah, i would certainly benefit from a 10900k compared to a 3900x in my workloads(fea and cad +occasional gaming) it would be faster. Except, if you factor in that where i live it costs $200 more to buy a 10900k, it doesn't worth it anymore. It comes out to around 130 weeks of work to pay for itself... Bad deal.
     
    Last edited: 31 May 2020
  10. MagicBoy

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 16,373

    Location: South Manchester

  11. pc-guy

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 29 May 2005

    Posts: 1,718

    For sure! Intel is paying for their Google fees. AMD could do the same but instead relies on internet reviews and word of mouth. I think not a great deal of self build people use those benchmark sites. I personally have never ever consulted these sites. It is pointless.

    I buy the platform and CPU based on my budget and what’s best at the time. Not some stupid website tells me this is what or not. Benchmarks are fun thing to compare like for like overclocks and see where you tally up with your peers that’s pretty much it. It is only really useful for the same gen of CPU maybe even the same line. Definitely cannot be used for comparing different platform.
     
  12. pc-guy

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 29 May 2005

    Posts: 1,718

    Now AMD has a CPU targeting every scenario of the score weighing. So where do these clowns go from there to help their intel masters? Lol
     
  13. hominid

    Mobster

    Joined: 22 Nov 2002

    Posts: 2,666

    Location: South UK

    Better ask Ryan Shrout! :D
     
  14. NinjaCool

    Hitman

    Joined: 27 Mar 2010

    Posts: 713

    Location: Denmark

    In typical userbenchmark style they bash the 3300X, recommends the i3-10100 instead and calls 3700X owners unlucky :rolleyes:
    This despite the 3300X is generally better in games, beats the 10100 clearly in productivity tasks and offers overclocking, higher frequency memory support and PCIe4 motherboards.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: 31 May 2020
  15. Kirby Wurm

    Hitman

    Joined: 31 Jan 2012

    Posts: 930

    Location: Wychbold

    It's so blatant it's hilarious for anyone with an iota of CPU knowledge, absolutely appalling.
     
  16. r22snapper

    Hitman

    Joined: 15 Feb 2014

    Posts: 630

    Location: Peterboghorror

  17. Hades

    Capodecina

    Joined: 19 Oct 2002

    Posts: 24,721

    Location: Surrey

    I thought most tech savvy people knew that site was a load of rubbish and wouldn't rely on it.

    Unfortunately non tech savvy people could be drawn in by it.
     
  18. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: 17 Mar 2012

    Posts: 35,533

    Do these people just deliberately say the opposite of what's true?

    9600K 6 core 6 thread @ 5.1Ghz: 244 FPS
    7700K 4 core 8 thread @ 5.1Ghz: 244 FPS

    3300X 4 core 8 thread @ 4.4 Ghz: 238 FPS
    3100 4 core 8 thread @ 4.4Ghz: 209 FPS

    The 9600K / 7700K are 116% the clock speed of the 3300X with 102% the performance.
    The 3100 is the same clock speed of the 3300X but with 15% less performance, they are the same CPU, 4 cores 8 threads even the 16MB L3 is the same, the only difference is the 3300X DOES NOT suffer from architectural latency because it only has a single CCX.

    [​IMG]
     
  19. pc-guy

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 29 May 2005

    Posts: 1,718

    I think they are referring to the architecture latency between AMD and Intel. the 3300X does have higher latency than the intel processors. this is inherent in the architecture and how the IO circuits work. if AMD architecture is similar to Intels we wont have these chiplets concept that are scalable etc.

    They are not wrong but they really overemphethised this and completely ignore the benefit of using this type of architecture is that you have a highly scalable design that yields very little loss and cheap to manufacture.

    in short, the hole at the bottom.
     
  20. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: 17 Mar 2012

    Posts: 35,533

    That's not what they said, they said the latency in the 3300X is a problem for gaming, it isn't...