User Benchmark = Fake Benchmark

[humbug]

I wouldnt buy a 4 core chip today true assuming not budget costrained.

But if you notice they not de ranking amd 3000 chips below old 4 core chips. There is no i5's not even the 7600k above the 3800X or 3900X

The 9600k is above the 3700X but isnt a 4 core chip, interestingly that in turn is above the 8700K, so basically the 8700K's single core advantage has not outweighed the 2 extra cores on the 3700X on their rating's.

The way the OP was written you would think a 10 year old i5 750 was rated above a 3900X.

Also you have to respect not everyone plays modern shooters, the media reviewers concentrate on an "extremely" narrow set of games. I checked steam's top 10 games, only 1 of then gets regularly benched by reviewers. Out of the top 5 jrpg's none get benched, none of the top 5 rts get benched, same with none of the top 5 strategy. Only one out of the top 5 driving games has ever been benched. The media reviewers are not been very representative of gaming in their bench's.

The 9600k is above the 3700X but isnt a 4 core chip, interestingly that in turn is above the 8700K, so basically the 8700K's single core advantage has not outweighed the 2 extra cores on the 3700X on their rating's.

That's because the 9600K (4 core boost) is 4.7Ghz, the 8700K its 4.3Ghz and the 3700X i'm assuming is a little higher than mine: <4.2Ghz? My 3600 in games runs at between 4.05Ghz and 4.15Ghz and the thing is all reviewers reviewed Ryzen 3000 on box coolers which does throttle them <150Mhz (under 4Ghz) vs running on half decent coolers, i've locked mine to 4.2Ghz, i think there's more in it, i'm still playing with it. 4.3Ghz perhaps, which is a 6% overclock from what it does at stock, the idea that they don't overclock is also BS, they do.

The 3700X has, even in games, slightly higher IPC than Coffeelake, so it beats out the 8700K but it can't make up the clock speed of the 9600K, now look at what that's saying, the best gaming CPU out of those three is the 8700K, the 3700X is better than the 9600K, and yet it's the 9600K that it places above even the 8700K, that's ridiculous.

Also you have to respect not everyone plays modern shooters

Granted yes.

the media reviewers concentrate on an "extremely" narrow set of games

Not all of them, HUB used more than 35 games.

I checked steam's top 10 games, only 1 of then gets regularly benched by reviewers

There maybe something in that. However a lot of popular games are not on Steam and again HUB do benchmark a lot of them, BFV, Farcry 5, Overwhatch...

 

[humbug]

hardware unboxed do you have a list of those 35 games, dont really want to have to watch a video to get it, cannot find a text list. I want to see how well the spread is, or if its mostly modern shooters.

TechSpot use their results, Steve is their review editor.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1877-core-i9-9900k-vs-ryzen-9-3900x/

 

[humbug]

There is a contradiction in what User Bench are saying.

They are saying that applications and games above 4 cores are irrelevant because those applications don't really exist, or that they are a tiny fraction of applications / games, and yet they had to adjust the more than 4 core weighting from 10% to 2% because 'as they put it' there were getting a lot of highly threaded performance results skewing their results in favour of the highly threaded Ryzen CPU's.

Well if those application don't use all those threads on Ryzen then why are they skewing the results to such an extent that you feel you need to reduce how much that makes up the overall result by such massive margins?

Are these guys stupid or do they just think we are?

 

[humbug]

Don't forget also. Until Ryzen 1000 came out, multi core weight was 20%. The moment the 1800X came out, Userbenchmarks dropped the multicore weight to 10%
https://web.archive.org/web/2017011.../Faq/What-is-the-effective-CPU-speed-index/55

Now the 12 & 16 cores are mainstream, they dropped multi core to 2%. The plot thickens.

So with the current weights, I won't be surprised if the 9980XE is beater by a 6600K

oh wow.... what are they going to do when soon 16 cores is mainstream and they get a lot of them bubbling to the top of the charts? Change it to 0.5%?

 

[humbug]

No, they must change the Multi-core weight to at least 50%, better 70%, giving the rest 30-50% equally divided between Single-core weight and 4-core weight.

Why is there 4-core weight, at all?

A legacy from Intel's CPU's being only 4 cores mainstream, i swear this is just a shill site for Intel, they are always at the top of Googles search results when you search CPU benchmarks or comparisons, it costs huge amounts of money to stay at the top of Googles search results.

 

[humbug]

If you ever looked into the history behind intel's dodgy business practices then you could relate to all the negativity and suspicion surrounding intel's latest shenanigan. For them, it's far cheaper to pay off websites and big corporations (paid Dell billions to not sell amd cpus as an example) as well as anti trust fines around the world.. Than it is to innovate and compete fairly. Which is why I completely side with humbug's sentiments towards Intel.

IMO this is the fundamental difference between AMD and Intel, AMD are a company of passionate engineers, Intel are a company of marketing experts and accountants.

 

[humbug]

Just thought I'd revive this thread because my 3600X now equals a 9900K in this benchmark. Yup, I achieved a 100% effective speed score on my £218 CPU.
(It won't show in the rankings due to the fact that only your first score counts).
I'll post a link to it tomorrow.
Incidentally, it means that my 3600X score is higher than any that have been obtained with SMT enabled. With a slightly different configuration I was also able to set the highest score for the Extreme bench too.
Its amazing what you can achieve by pressing one button in the BIOS, then another in Ryzen Master.

Don't tell them that they will put some sort of penalty on high IPC, because Mhz is more important...

 

[humbug]

Most of Intel's decade of i# series CPU's pre 8000 were a series of small incremental upgrades on endless quads.

860 Quad
2600K Quad +15%
3770K Quad +5%
4770K Quad +5%
4790K Quad +2%
6770K Quad +20%
7700K Quad +5%

Along comes AMD
1800X Octa Core = 2X 4790K.
2700X Octa Core = 2X 4790K<>6700K

Now...

3600/3600X = 8700K/9700K
3700X/3800X = 9900K
3900X Faster than 9920X
3950X Faster than 9960X

I can't wait to see what Ryzen 4000 brings.