User Benchmark = Fake Benchmark

[Hagar]

Thats a good idea although it will only affect "effective speed" the rest of the data is still as it was.

It could provide a quantifiable comparison to the User comparing the effects that more cores would produce for him/her against a lesser number.

It also does not reflect, in my opinion, the relative efficiencies of HT and SMT but that is another argument.

 

[chrcoluk]

I have never ran the benchmark so I dont know how the app itself is affected I am talking about the website, so I am guessing the benchmark itself gives some kind of rating when its done and this rating is affected?

 

[humbug]

I have never ran the benchmark so I dont know how the app itself is affected I am talking about the website, so I am guessing the benchmark itself gives some kind of rating when its done and this rating is affected?

Its in the OP.

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.

So CPU's with more than 4 cores, those extra cores only account for 2% of the overall score.

 

[chrcoluk]

Yes that statement to me wasnt obvious its about the app, as they use that metric to calculate the "effective speed" on their website and cpu ranking.

I agree that is just weird, there should be no quad core scoring, and all cores count equally on multi core testing.

In my experience with software you tend to get a ton of software that is single threaded, some software that is dual threaded, and then after that if more are supported its usually at least 8 but often more. I dont know of much software that is limited to specifically 4 threads.

The heaviest non gaming software on my devices is web browsers. Chrome the leader in the market will thread heavily if enough tabs are running. On the flip side nearly all my other desktop software is single threaded. Which for most of them is fine as multi threading is inefficient, and should only be used when a single thread would bottleneck as is clearly the case in a multimedia web browser.

So I think quad core shouldnt even be a metric, in terms of single vs multi threaded, I think that should be user customisable for the weighting. On my main rig I would probably weight it at 20-30% multi and rest single if I had the choice. On my ryzen it would be 100% multi.

 

[Brazo]

This is a completely meaningless and empty statement given that most software will use how many cores the CPU has to offer.



Well the point is more cores = higher performance = faster work.



Not anymore, Ryzen 3000 also does very well in those applications.

No most consumer based software is single threaded or can only accommodate around four cores. There’s a valid reason for that and you k ow why.

More cores are faster when they can be accommodated. No point having 12 cores when eight are sat in the bench!

Yes Ryzen 300 does better than the 2000 series but if software has been designed for intel specifically it can’t do anything about that.

 

[humbug]

Yes that statement to me wasnt obvious its about the app, as they use that metric to calculate the "effective speed" on their website and cpu ranking.

I agree that is just weird, there should be no quad core scoring, and all cores count equally on multi core testing.

In my experience with software you tend to get a ton of software that is single threaded, some software that is dual threaded, and then after that if more are supported its usually at least 8 but often more. I dont know of much software that is limited to specifically 4 threads.

The heaviest non gaming software on my devices is web browsers. Chrome the leader in the market will thread heavily if enough tabs are running. On the flip side nearly all my other desktop software is single threaded. Which for most of them is fine as multi threading is inefficient, and should only be used when a single thread would bottleneck as is clearly the case in a multimedia web browser.

So I think quad core shouldnt even be a metric, in terms of single vs multi threaded, I think that should be user customisable for the weighting. On my main rig I would probably weight it at 20-30% multi and rest single if I had the choice. On my ryzen it would be 100% multi.

I would question what your software experience is if its not beyond Dual core, with respect my computer is stuffed with software designed to use as many threads that are available, i have a hobby in game development which involves multiple disciplines in 2D / 3D rendering, Ray traced shading / light baking, various forms of compiling, just Game development i have 10's of applications at my disposal all of which would push HEDT CPU's for all they are worth.

Even User Bench with their old method of awarding CPU's with more than 4 cores just 10% of the overall score was outdated and "very strange" 'updating it to awarding above 4 core performance just 2% of the overall score is not just strange its extremely suspect.

Why have it fractionalise its ranking in this strange way in the first place?, if you look at real world applications that have a performance benchmarking tools built in, Like Blender, 7Zip, Maxcom Cinema 4D, Handbreak.... they don't distinguish their rankings to however many cores the CPU tested has, it just ranks them based on the performance they have, because that's the reality.

User Bench have been influenced by "four cores are all you need" Intel for a long time.

 

[chrcoluk]

As I said pretend you a typical user not a content creator, exclude all your apps related to content creation, so typically apps that encode or decode. Then look at how many threads get used.

So e.g.

MS paint single threaded
VLC player single threaded (the app itself supports multi threaded but it isnt default operating mode, and most decoders for it are single threaded)
Microsoft office single threaded
Notepad single threaded
Windows media player single threaded.
Most a/v single threaded. This can be very frustrating doing a virus scan and seeing its clearly bottlenecked by one core.
Most small apps like ftp clients, ssh clients, hwinfo, afterburner etc. single threaded.

The exceptions tend to be content creation and archive software.

Now there is nothing wrong with needing all those threads, in your case you clearly do. However you seem to be assuming that your use case is relevant the PC userbase as a whole.

Humbug you do seem emotionally attached to AMD given your posts on them, its good they released these cpus that are good for your workload, just be happy with that

 

[humbug]

As I said pretend you a typical user not a content creator, exclude all your apps related to content creation, so typically apps that encode or decode. Then look at how many threads get used.

So e.g.

MS paint single threaded
VLC player single threaded (the app itself supports multi threaded but it isnt default operating mode, and most decoders for it are single threaded)
Microsoft office single threaded
Notepad single threaded
Windows media player single threaded.
Most a/v single threaded. This can be very frustrating doing a virus scan and seeing its clearly bottlenecked by one core.
Most small apps like ftp clients, ssh clients, hwinfo, afterburner etc. single threaded.

The exceptions tend to be content creation and archive software.

Now there is nothing wrong with needing all those threads, in your case you clearly do. However you seem to be assuming that your use case is relevant the PC userbase as a whole.

Humbug you do seem emotionally attached to AMD given your posts on them, its good they released these cpus that are good for your workload, just be happy with that

All your listed applications can be run equally well on Windows Tablet, or any Tablet given most of that stuff is available for Android and Apple.

Intel also want reviewers to stop reviewing CPU's by benchmarking them in high stress real world applications and instead benchmark web browsers and media players, would VLC and FireFox run any better on an i9 9980XE vs a Celeron G4900?

No!

So what is the Bloody point? Intel have lost the performance crown, so now it wants to change the performance testing landscape, you know what i read in that? Intel think they can't compete with AMD going forward.

 

[jigger]

The irony is AMD are ahead of Intel in IPC.

 

[humbug]

All your listed applications can be run equally well on Windows Tablet, or any Tablet given most of that stuff is available for Android and Apple.

Intel also want reviewers to stop reviewing CPU's by benchmarking them in high stress real world applications and instead benchmark web browsers and media players, would VLC and FireFox run any better on an i9 9980XE vs a Celeron G4900?

No!

So what is the Bloody point? Intel have lost the performance crown, so now it wants to change the performance testing landscape, you know what i read in that? Intel think they can't compete with AMD going forward.

This is the real world.

 

[chrcoluk]

I think I will end my part in here now, humbug you do seem obsessed with intel man, all the best

 

[humbug]

I think I will end my part in here now, humbug you do seem obsessed with intel man, all the best

I've had multiple Intel CPU's, Pentium 2, 3 and 4 HT, i7 930, 4690K, multiple AMD CPU's, Athlon 3800+, Athlon 64 X2 5800+, Phenom II X6 1090T, FX 8350, FX 9590, Ryzen 1600, Ryzen 3600.

I don't care any more for Intel than i do AMD, i just care what i get for my money, and sometimes curiosity.

The irony is AMD are ahead of Intel in IPC.

Indeed.

 

[jigger]

I’m averaging 7.2 cores per system.

 

[4K8KW10]

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

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

I wouldn't blame intel individually for this status quo. This is an industry-wide issue and it's above intel - it's probably coming from the world government.
AMD is in the game, too. At the very least, because they have agreedments with intel.
AMD is the underdog which behaves very strangely - when their market share approaches 50%, they behave as if they have 80 or 90%.
Intel, on the other hand, when have 50% market share, behave like crazy and start releasing very major performance upgrades ala Core 2 Duo for desktop.

What about the industry-wide lack of adoption of Ultra HD monitors?

The world government wants from you to have office computers with dual-core processors and Full HD monitors.
And stay online using your smartphone, which can reach 800 pixels per inch pixel density, which is insane overkill and not needed.

 

[humbug]

I wouldn't blame intel individually for this status quo. This is an industry-wide issue and it's above intel - it's probably coming from the world government.
AMD is in the game, too. At the very least, because they have agreedments with intel.
AMD is the underdog which behaves very strangely - when their market share approaches 50%, they behave as if they have 80 or 90%.
Intel, on the other hand, when have 50% market share, behave like crazy and start releasing very major performance upgrades ala Core 2 Duo for desktop.

What about the industry-wide lack of adoption of Ultra HD monitors?

The world government wants from you to have office computers with dual-core processors and Full HD monitors.
And stay online using your smartphone, which can reach 800 pixels per inch pixel density, which is insane overkill and not needed.

I know my post essentially amounts to an accusation of conspiracy, but its far from without merit, Intel has been found guilty of exactly this type of anti trust conspiracy all over the world, many times, including in the US.

IMO your conspiracies have no reconcilable history to validate, they are just tin foil, a fist full of conspiracy too far.

 

[jigger]

Plenty of tasks will either bring a quad core to its knees or require a significant increase in CPU time. Games are placing ever increasing demands on CPUs.

It’s very strange this firm has decided to ignore workload trends.

 

[Lolik]

I’m averaging 7.2 cores per system.

Cheeky

 

[4K8KW10]

Plenty of tasks will either bring a quad core to its knees or require a significant increase in CPU time. Games are placing ever increasing demands on CPUs.

It’s very strange this firm has decided to ignore workload trends.

In this case, we will simply ignore the presence of this benchmark. I already destroyed all my saved results in the database

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.

It must be Multi-core performance 70%, Quad-core performance 15%, Single-core performance 15%.

 

[HangTime]

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?

It might not be that it matters more before, just that their view on it has changed (i.e. they recognised that they were previously underestimating the importance of single-core performance). So maybe they thought **** we should have previously put 50% on single core instead of 30%, but now due to changing software demands and increasing importance of multi-core, 40% is more appropriate.

 

[humbug]

It might not be that it matters more before, just that their view on it has changed (i.e. they recognised that they were previously underestimating the importance of single-core performance). So maybe they thought **** we should have previously put 50% on single core instead of 30%, but now due to changing software demands and increasing importance of multi-core, 40% is more appropriate.

Why have 4 core and 4 core+ separate at all?

You would only do that if in your results table you wanted to put more enfaces on 4 core or lower CPU's by giving them an artificial boost up the rankings, this seems like a very strange thing to do and what would be the reason for it?

Why wouldn't you, as everyone else does, just say your per core performance is X, you CPU has multiple cores and your performance is Y.

As it currently stands what its saying is 4 core CPU's are better than CPU's with more than that. "you only need 4 cores" -Intel