10400f as fast as 10900k

[Psycho Sonny]

So how can you believe anything on that site?

I'll give you a couple of quotes from their editorial.



An RTX 2060S these days is a low end GPU, and this is under the 5600X section.




Translation "Don't look at Independent reviewers, they are all fake, only our benchmarking software is accurate."

Like I posted above I look at the real scores.

22-27% faster not the 4% overall.

If you know how to use the site you can use it to buy the better value for money parts by comparing them directly.

It's likely why I've never had an issue using the site.

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-9600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-3600X/4031vs4041

Using the above as an example they rate this as one of the best value for money CPUs for my budget.

I'm comparing it with my current CPU the 3600x.

It's neck and neck at single core and dual core. At quad core the intel is 7% faster but at octa core the AMD is 9% faster.

So in my book they are pretty much even because intel is 7% faster when using 4 cores and AMD 9% faster when using 8 cores. In my head I see that as even with a slight bias towards AMD for future proofing.

However the site says that the intel is the 23rd fastest CPU and the AMD the 69th.

I ignore that completely. I only look at the relevant scores when comparing.

As for the filters I tend to currently only buy AMD CPU and Nvidia gpu.

I base those decisions on other research. The site therefore still holds good for me. I only look at the relevant information I deem to be worthy I just ignore all the crap on it and focus on the benchmark numbers that matter.

 

[humbug]

Like I posted above I look at the real scores.

22-27% faster not the 4% overall.

If you know how to use the site you can use it to buy the better value for money parts by comparing them directly.

It's likely why I've never had an issue using the site.

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-9600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-3600X/4031vs4041

Using the above as an example they rate this as one of the best value for money CPUs for my budget.

I'm comparing it with my current CPU the 3600x.

It's neck and neck at single core and dual core. At quad core the intel is 7% faster but at octa core the AMD is 9% faster.

So in my book they are pretty much even because intel is 7% faster when using 4 cores and AMD 9% faster when using 8 cores. In my head I see that as even with a slight bias towards AMD for future proofing.

However the site says that the intel is the 23rd fastest CPU and the AMD the 69th.

I ignore that completely. I only look at the relevant scores when comparing.

As for the filters I tend to currently only buy AMD CPU and Nvidia gpu.

I base those decisions on other research. The site therefore still holds good for me. I only look at the relevant information I deem to be worthy I just ignore all the crap on it and focus on the benchmark numbers that matter.

Rinse and repeat..... no answer to that then? Just go back to the script?

The 5950X is faster than the 10900K if its 1 thread, 4 threads or 32 Thread's which the 10900K doesn't have, that is on the entire Internet but this one site, and its the one that speaks truth to you?

Why did you even buy Ryzen?

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Rinse and repeat..... no answer to that then? Just go back to the script?

The 5950X is faster than the 10900K if its 1 thread, 4 threads or 32 Thread's which the 10900K doesn't have, that is on the entire Internet but this one site, and its the one that speaks truth to you?

Why did you even buy Ryzen?

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-5950X/4071vs4086

I'm seeing that AMD is 3-5% faster.

Do you need me to hold your hand?

 

[Psycho Sonny]

1-Core
Avg. Single Core Mixed Speed 151 Pts 159 Pts Slightly faster single-core speed.
+5%
2-Core
Avg. Dual Core Mixed Speed 300 Pts 316 Pts Slightly faster dual-core speed.
+5%
4-Core
Avg. Quad Core Mixed Speed 594 Pts 609 Pts +3%
8-Core
Avg. Octa Core Mixed Speed 1146 Pts 1193 Pts +4%

I'm on my phone otherwise I'd screenshot exactly what I'm looking at

The site is telling me that the AMD is 3-5% faster.

Maybe you should take a look at the numbers like i said

 

[humbug]

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-5950X/4071vs4086

I'm seeing that AMD is 3-5% faster.

Do you need me to hold your hand?

Yes, this is my point, in their own software, and yet on their front page they rank the 5950X 101% with the 10900K 102% and of course it tops the front page on performance, because of course it does. its 1% faster, but no, the 5950X is 4% faster... which is it?

Firstly Explain that discrepancy between the benchmark page and the performance front page.

Then explain the discrepancy between this site and the rest of the internet. Is it their software, do you think?

Yeah sorry, they have it 4% faster in games which is extremely contrived.

What do you make of this? is the 10900K/S/F really faster than the 5950X?

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Yes, this is my point, in their own software, and yet on their front page they rank the 5950X 101% with the 10900K 102% and of course it tops the front page on performance, because of course it does. its 1% faster, but no, the 5950X is 4% faster... which is it?

Firstly Explain that discrepancy between the benchmark page and the performance front page.

Then explain the discrepancy between this site and the rest of the internet. Is it their software, do you think?

It's their scoring system.

Their software is fine because it's reading the AMD as being faster the numbers are there in black and white for you to see.

It's a biased scoring system.

Like I said before you have to know how to use the site.

You don't use average bench when the scoring system is heavily skewed to intel.

You use the actual benchmark numbers.

I don't see why it's so hard to understand. Yeah the site likes intel but it's not hard to see through that. It's pretty easy for me. I know how to use the site properly so I don't fall into their biased views.