• 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.

User Benchmark = Fake Benchmark

humbug

humbug

humbug

Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
50,021
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
User Benchmark just updated its CPU ranking structure.

The CPU's ranking was based on 30% Single core performance, 60% Quad core performance and 10% multi core performance.

Now it ranks CPU's based on 40% Single core performance, 58% Quad core performance and 2% multi core performance.

This makes CPU's with more than 4 cores almost completely irrelevant in the rankings while heavily favouring low threaded performance.

User Benchmark are going back to 2003 ladies and gentleman.

Why they did this i'll leave you to decide.

I have my own view, User Benchmark lately has been used a lot to measure CPU performance, Intel very recently have been trying to 'encourage' reviewers away from actually real application performance reviewing, such as Blender and Maxcom Cinema 4D to what Intel call "real benchmarks" things just like User Bench.
And of course they cannot have AMD's very high core count CPU's showing them up in benchmarks like this so they removed that problem by 'working with people like User Benchmark' to 're-balance' how they rank performance.

I find Intel hilarious, no this sort of crap doesn't worry me at all because everyone can see whats going on and it's really not a good look for them.

On that note, Intel you-are-pathetic, you slimy ####-weasel, you are 4 or 5 times the size and the only way you can 'even the score' is not by innovating and engendering your way out of your current predicament but by moving the goal posts, Intel you Suck!

-humbug :D

https://old.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/chal0r/psa_use_benchmarkcom_have_updated_their_cpu/

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Faq/What-is-the-effective-CPU-speed-index/55
 
Perhaps because it reflects the real world?

As a 2700x owner I may be keen on multithreaded performance but truth be told less than 1% of the software functions I use (and I use a lot) can really make use of more than 4 cores, and despite having an eight core processer (and looking to upgrade to a 12!) I know an intel four core would hand me my arse in most software applications.
 
Brazo said:
Perhaps because it reflects the real world?

As a 2700x owner I may be keen on multithreaded performance but truth be told less than 1% of the software functions I use (and I use a lot) can really make use of more than 4 cores, and despite having an eight core processer (and looking to upgrade to a 12!) I know an intel four core would hand me my arse in most software applications.
Click to expand...

So we are saying single threaded performance matters more now than before and performance above 4 cores has gone from being slightly relevant to irrelevant?
 
muon said:
So we are saying single threaded performance matters more now than before and performance above 4 cores has gone from being slightly relevant to irrelevant?
Click to expand...
No that’s your assumptions.

I’m just saying it’s reflecting real world performance.
 
Brazo said:
No that’s your assumptions.

I’m just saying it’s reflecting real world performance.
Click to expand...

It doesn't, everything rendering, encoding, compiling... is multi-threaded, why do you think one of the aspects that defines a HEDT CPU is high core counts?
 
Brazo said:
No that’s your assumptions.

I’m just saying it’s reflecting real world performance.
Click to expand...

Then you are saying what I said.

They moved the single thread weight from 30% to 40% and you just said that reflects real world performance. They moved 4+ core weight from 10% to 2% and you reckon that change reflects how the real world is changing.

I'm not assuming anything. That is what you are saying.
 
Brazo said:
Yes I know but they aren’t everyday consumer applications
Click to expand...

I think i would mirror what muon said.

You think they did this because CPU's with 4 or more cores are less relevant now that they have been in the past.

I don't believe you think that, i think you're trying some seriously bizarre mental gymnastics to defend it.
 
Have the owners also had an Intel tattoo on their balls at the same time?
I'd say no as they appear to not have any and not for a good reason; they aren't women or men that sing Opera in a high key.
 
Brazo said:
Perhaps because it reflects the real world?

As a 2700x owner I may be keen on multithreaded performance but truth be told less than 1% of the software functions I use (and I use a lot) can really make use of more than 4 cores, and despite having an eight core processer (and looking to upgrade to a 12!) I know an intel four core would hand me my arse in most software applications.
Click to expand...

Most of the software that uses 4 or less threads doesn't need a fast processor and anything that's maxing out 4 threads on a 2700x while the rest is idle is so poorly coded that nobody should be using it.
 
Perhaps because they don't know better as the person building for them is steering them down a dated path and many will just buy on price and put up with their lot, even for office and web I won't accept less than 8 threads, content on the web can run the machine hard, prime example below while I was just browsing researching new laptops, my 10 year old 8 thread laptop had no bother with this site compared to my i5.

Sure its not all the time but active content on websites is ever more popular.

Yes you could do everything with a couple of threads but really there is no need to restrict yourself for a couple of quid.


Desktopres.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom