• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***

I find it utterly weird with the next generation consoles moving to 8 cores,and Intel pushing more cores too,they did the change.

It also affects Intel CPUs too:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-9600KF-vs-Intel-Core-i3-9350KF/m772658vsm775825
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-9700KF-vs-Intel-Core-i3-9350KF/m710154vsm775825

A Core i3 9350F is ranked higher than a Core i5 9600K and Core i7 9700K. A Core i7 7700K is massively under the Core i3 9350K:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-Intel-Core-i3-9350KF/3647vsm775825

They are being utterly misleading with their rankings.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I find it utterly weird with the next generation consoles moving to 8 cores,and Intel pushing more cores too,they did the change.

It also affects Intel CPUs too:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-9400F-vs-Intel-Core-i3-9350KF/m699058vsm775825
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-9700KF-vs-Intel-Core-i3-9350KF/m710154vsm775825

A Core i3 9350F is ranked higher than a Core i5 9600K and Core i7 9700K. A Core i7 7700K is massively under the Core i3 9350K:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-Intel-Core-i3-9350KF/3647vsm775825

They are being utterly misleading with their rankings.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Words can't fathom how stupid this change is.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I find it utterly weird with the next generation consoles moving to 8 cores,and Intel pushing more cores too,they did the change.

It also affects Intel CPUs too:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-9400F-vs-Intel-Core-i3-9350KF/m699058vsm775825
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-9700KF-vs-Intel-Core-i3-9350KF/m710154vsm775825

A Core i3 9350F is ranked higher than a Core i5 9600K and Core i7 9700K. They are being utterly misleading with their rankings.
Click to expand...

This is done only with the single purpose to keep the sales of the cheaper i3 models, even if the sales of the more expensive models are sacrificed.

Jokester said:
Indeed, by saying more than 4 cores is a waste of time not only are they short changing gamers already, it will rapidly get worse as more games in future will be bottlenecked by 4 cores.
Click to expand...

I noticed in-game stuttering with a Core 2 Quad as early as 2012-2013.
Today, this 4-core processor will be completely unusable in games.
 
It would but a c2q also has crappy ram i/o performance, and much lower IPC, so you cant blame that on core count :)

My i5 750 is a newer variant of a c2q and is destroyed by my 2600X.

But my 2600X doesnt beat my 8600k. If it did I would have swapped the rigs round, I did test many of my games on both systems with same gpu.

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q6600-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-3600X/1980vs4041

3600X +268% effective speed. c2q ranked 768 3600x ranked 14.

I thought userbench were cheating to put crappy old intel chips ahead of new amd chips?
 
Last edited:
I was thinking about the whole 3200MHz C14 vs 3600MHz C16 debate on Ryzen 3000.

Isn't it the case that although technically they are more or less the same from a ns perspective, the 3600MHz frequency on the ram will clock the IF higher on the CPU thus yielding a better overall performance gain?
 
So you saying that game you seen stuttering on you have tested on a modern quad core such as a 6600k and it still stutters? You then tested after also on a high core cpu and confirmed no stuttering, so to prove what you saying you need to have tested on at least 3 cpus.

Just to confirm you not speculating.

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q6600-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-3600X/1980vs4041

userbench do agree with you by the way that a 3600x romps home vs a c2q
 
chrcoluk said:
So you saying that game you seen stuttering on you have tested on a modern quad core such as a 6600k and it still stutters?
Click to expand...

Nah, even the 8-thread i7-7700K stutters in a game like Forza Horizon 3:

The CPU is probably at it's limits with FH3. And as soon as the CPU can't keep up you get ugly stutters. I myself have an i7 7700k running at 4.6 Ghz and i experience stutters with my GTX 1080 OCd. I get aroun 110-130 fps (1440p) but have constant small drops that seem to be in sync with my CPU hitting 100% load from time to time. Weirdly enough this didn't happen a few weeks ago when I still had a RX480/580 absolutely smooth with the AMD cards. Also before the AMD cards i had a GTX 1060 6gb as well and i got 70 fps at medium settings (1440p) and again I experienced stutters.
Click to expand...
https://www.reddit.com/r/forza/comments/6kan51/is_fh3_cpu_intensive/
 
Interesting I just loaded up userbench's home page for the first time in my life LOL, as never used its ranking system "ever"

It "defaults" to "user based ranking"

Top 3 cpu's are all AMD.

If intel are paying userbench they not doing a good job LOL

4K8KW10 said:
Nah, even the 8-thread i7-7700K stutters in a game like Forza Horizon 3:


https://www.reddit.com/r/forza/comments/6kan51/is_fh3_cpu_intensive/
Click to expand...

Right so its just a problematic game then, sort of like lightning returns, that stutters on everything thrown at it.
 
DylRicho said:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/userbenchmark-benchmark-change-criticism-amd-intel,40032.html

So UserBenchmark decided to change the way it scores the CPUs because third-generation Ryzen was "scoring too high."



Fortunately, I captured a few screenshots before it was changed, so we can see the difference:
Click to expand...
The Old shows the R5 and the i5 as 25th and 26th, respectively.
The New shows the R5 and the i5 as 20th and 9th, respectively.

I think they were told to change it. lol. The R5 went up!
 
ivy bridge poor IPC by today standards and to boot only 2.6-3ghz clock? a low rank for gaming is expected. The lowest ranked ryzen 3000 has almost double the per core performance.
 
Orange Nexus said:
The Old shows the R5 and the i5 as 25th and 26th, respectively.
The New shows the R5 and the i5 as 20th and 9th, respectively.

I think they were told to change it. lol. The R5 went up!
Click to expand...

You know this question I am about to ask.

If it was the other way round, would you be accusing AMD of telling userbench to do it?
 
chrcoluk said:
If it was the other way round, would you be accusing AMD of telling userbench to do it?
Click to expand...

I find it just plain odd that they felt the need to change it at all, how come they didn't change it when AMD pushed out the Ryzen lineup in 2017, or when Intel started doing 18c/36t HEDT CPU's to counter Threadripper, why now?

2% - do you really think that in a line up of modern many core processors that 2% of the total weighting is correct?

Look at Intel's current line-up of CPU's in the 9th Gen listing's only 13 are 4-cores, and 30+ are 6-cores or more, that is over 230% more CPU's with higher core counts. It makes no sense for the 'user' who is using the data, completely ignoring the manufacturer.
 
chrcoluk said:
It would but a c2q also has crappy ram i/o performance, and much lower IPC, so you cant blame that on core count :)

My i5 750 is a newer variant of a c2q and is destroyed by my 2600X.

But my 2600X doesnt beat my 8600k. If it did I would have swapped the rigs round, I did test many of my games on both systems with same gpu.

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q6600-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-3600X/1980vs4041

3600X +268% effective speed. c2q ranked 768 3600x ranked 14.

I thought userbench were cheating to put crappy old intel chips ahead of new amd chips?
Click to expand...
TBH, it mostly affects 1st and 2nd gen Ryzen CPUs, plus anything above 8 cores.
Ryzen 3rd gen is shown to be pretty much on a par with everything Intel that isn't heavily overclocked. However, it gets punished for design choices that make it a relevant CPU in a number of years time. That, for me, is the disconnect; performance now based upon utility right now, and not upon actual potential.
I'd be interested to know how it scores the CPUs inside current consoles, because if their basis is gaming then their metric should reflect well on products designed solely for gaming. Clearly, they are garbage CPUs by modern standards...much like every dual and quad currently in existence.
 
Potatowithearsontheside said:
TBH, it mostly affects 1st and 2nd gen Ryzen CPUs, plus anything above 8 cores.
Ryzen 3rd gen is shown to be pretty much on a par with everything Intel that isn't heavily overclocked. However, it gets punished for design choices that make it a relevant CPU in a number of years time. That, for me, is the disconnect; performance now based upon utility right now, and not upon actual potential.
I'd be interested to know how it scores the CPUs inside current consoles, because if their basis is gaming then their metric should reflect well on products designed solely for gaming. Clearly, they are garbage CPUs by modern standards...much like every dual and quad currently in existence.
Click to expand...
It'd be like recommending someone bet on Red Rum to win a 4th Grand National, carrying 2 stone more weight than the next highest handicapped horse, on heavy ground, and only getting even money on it.
You'd be mad to make that bet regardless of how great Red Rum had been previously.
 
chrcoluk said:
Right so its just a problematic game then, sort of like lightning returns, that stutters on everything thrown at it.
Click to expand...

i7-7700K is an old, outdated 4-core technology. Modern games require as bare minimum 6-core with 12 threads, it's recommended 8-core or 12-core for the best experience and longevity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom