User Benchmark = Fake Benchmark

[4K8KW10]

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

God already punishes them. They can't make anything 10nm, nevermind 7nm and lower
In the end, only bankruptcy awaits them.

But it won't be bad - there are the VIA, ARM, AMD, nvidia to join efforts for our future wellness.

 

[humbug]

God already punishes them. They can't make anything 10nm, nevermind 7nm and lower
In the end, only bankruptcy awaits them.

But it won't be bad - there are the VIA, ARM, AMD, nvidia to join efforts for our future wellness.

I like this idea unfortunately there would have to be a complete shift in software development for that to happen and we all know how lazy and reluctant to change software developers are, everything is X86_64, Intel owns the X86 part of that, AMD the X64 part and they ain't licensing those to nVidia or ARM, VIA who do have access to X86 don't have access to X64, so that's windows out of the question... and Linux is slowly going AMD64 exclusively too.

 

[humbug]

On your Intel system navigate to C:\Windows\WinSxS

 

[Emlyn_Dewar]

I've never visited this site, and it sounds like I'll continue not to do so.
Surely a proper review article (by trusted sites) would **** all over what they offer?

 

[Rainmaker]

I didn't see this posted after a quick re-scan. Apologies if it's a dupe:

User Benchmark responds (indirectly) to AMD user criticism.

 

[jigger]

I didn't see this posted after a quick re-scan. Apologies if it's a dupe:

User Benchmark responds (indirectly) to AMD user criticism.

So they even admitted they have no clue. Nice!

 

[4K8KW10]

So they even admitted they have no clue. Nice!

True.

User Benchmark responds (indirectly) to AMD user criticism.

"The effective CPU speed index approximates typical consumer CPU performance with a single number. Gaming fps and normal desktop tasks such as surfing the web with multiple tabs, software development (including our development machines at userbenchmark), watching videos and listening to music rarely require more than four cores."

Lie.

"The addition of each successive core beyond the first becomes increasingly less relevant to a typical consumer. On a well maintained PC 100% utilization of four cores will only normally occur during heavily threaded workstation operations such as number crunching or audio/video production. Higher core counts allow for slightly looser PC management by masking the effects of malware and other resource draining processes such as spontaneous windows updates and unsolicited virus scans."

Second lie.

Games which may be bottlenecked by 4 cores and would stutter: https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/918735-games-that-use-68-cores/

Battlefield 1;
Forza Horizon 3; https://www.reddit.com/r/forza/comments/6kan51/is_fh3_cpu_intensive/
The Witcher 3;
GTA V;
Assassin's Creed;
Ghost Recon: Wildlands;
Ashes of the Singularity;
Civilization VI;





Edit: Why getting more than 4 cores in a gaming CPU is a good https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterra...getting_more_than_4_cores_in_a_gaming_cpu_is/

So...with Ryzen coming out, I'm seeing a lot of misinformation about CPUs with lots of cores and how they're not worth it for gaming. The common knowledge I'm seeing from some is that a quad is all you need, and games may not use or need more cores within the lifespan of the CPU. I'm going to prove here that this is demonstrably false as benchmarks prove that games do use more cores and that it might be a good idea if you plan to upgrade to Ryzen to go for a model with more cores than just 4. This isn't to say that 4 won't do well for the time being, but given future trends in CPU core usage, we might see CPUs using 8 cores regularly within a few years, just like we saw quads become standard over the last 7 years or so.

So, let's discuss why this idea that quad cores is the gold standard exist. Before Ryzen comes out, quad are standard because of the products on the market. There are CPUs with more cores, but they're either very weak (AMD's FX series) and don't perform as well consistently as a stronger quad like an i5, or they're prohibitively expensive like intel's i7 line. However, with AMD Ryzen coming out and pushing 8 cores for the price of an i7, and 6 cores for the price of an i5, arguably with comparable or slightly inferior IPC to intel's lineup, we might see a scenario where it will finally be worth it to buy a CPU that has more cores.

So, let's look at some benchmarks. I'm going to compare the FX line to each other, and the i5s to the i7s for reference points for how well multithreading works. I'll be focusing on games that primarily use more threads...obviously not all will, and quads will do for many games today still, but I do want to show how you might see a performance boost with more cores.

Battlefield 1

BF1 is probably the best example of a game that uses more cores, and as we know, when EA pushes CPU tech with their battlefield series, that will often become a precedent for future games to follow.

So, we have an FX 4300 CPU doing 57 FPS with 49 average, a FX 6300 doing 78/65, and a FX 8350 doing 92/77.

There are some clock differences, but say performance scales perfectly with clock speed and we put all of these at 3.5 GHz to compare.

That means that the quad core does 52.5, the 6 core does 65, and the 8 core does 80.5.

That's a pretty big boost in performance. The 6 core CPU does 24% better than the quad, and the 8 core does 24% than the 6 core, and 53% better than the quad core. Note that the 8350 still does worse than the i5 2500k in minimum FPS. This is why quads are still the gold standard. AMD's IPC is so weak with the FX CPUs that 8 cores still can't match a quad. But that doesn't mean the game can't properly utilize 8 cores if they exist.

Let's look at intel now.

2500k gets 88 FPS, 2600k gets 115. Hyperthreading has the effect of adding 26% to the performance here controlling for clock speed.

With the 4000 series, we get similar results. The 4770k is 26% faster than the 4670k.

6000 series, same story. i7 is 26% faster than the i5.

And if we look at the i7 5960x, despite being lower clocked, it's on par with the 6700 (although this might be due to a frame cap) and it beats out 4770k. If we clocked the 4770k down to 3 GHz, we'd see a 30% improvement over the 4770k.

So, it seems quite clear both multithreading and more cores do add performance. It might not scale perfectly. Going from 4-6 cores should improve performance by 33%, and 6-8 should yield 25%, but more cores are used, and you do get more performance. Hyperthreading itself seems to yield a good 26% more performance. It doesn't seem as effective as more physical cores is looking at how i3s perform against i5s, but it does seem to add performance.

Overwatch

In Overwatch, controlling for CPU speed and once again assuming perfect scaling per clock, we see the FX 6300 perform 33% better than the 4300. We see the 8350 perform 8% better than the 6300 and 44% better than the 4300. We see a huge jump going from 4 cores to 6 cores. The difference between 8 and 6 though seems to be dominated more by a higher clock speed (if we knock the 8350 down by 12.5% we get 123 FPS to the 6300's 114).

Looking at the effect of hyperthreading is harder in this game because of the 144 cap, so I won't vother doing it. It should be noted only the i7s and the FX 9590 seem to get a consistent 144 FPS though so those extra threads are doing something.

Battlefront

Another EA game based on frostbite.

Here the 6300 controlling for clock speed performs 19% better than the 4300 and the 8350 does 18% better than the 6300 and 40% better than the 4300.

Not as good as BF1, but still significant. EA's clearly been improving the multithreading of its engine.

The difference between the 2500k and 2600k is about 18%. 4670k to 4770k is about 15%. And the i5 5960X, despite being slower, is faster than all of them. if we knocked the 4770k's clock speed down to 3 GHz, the 5960x would be 23% better.

Fallout 4

Controlling for clock speed, FX 6300 is 10% faster than the 4300. 8350 is 9% faster than the 6300, and 20% faster than the 4300.

Hyperthreading on the intel side seems to have a MUCH larger effect.

2500k to 2600k is 17% faster. 4670k to 4770k is 13% faster. And once again, the best CPU seems to be the 5960x with 8c/16t, despite its low clocks.

This isn't to say that in this case that there isn't diminishing returns here. But games are benefitting from increased cores.

Grand Theft Auto V

In GTA V, once again, controlling for clock speed, the 6300 performs 19% better than the 4300. The 8350 performs 6% better than the 6300 and 26% better than the 4300.

The 2600k performs 13% better than the 2500k. The 4770k performs 6% better than the 4670k. The 5960x once again outperforms all of the CPUs listed.

Watch Dogs 2

Yikes. The 6300 performs 41% better than the 4300. The 8350 performs 18% better than the 6300 and 66% better than the 4300. That's pretty massive.

The 2600k performs 13% better than the 2500k. The 4770k performs 13% better than the 4670k. The 6700 performs 16% better than the 6600k. And once again, the 5960x is on top. COmparing it to the 6700, controlling for clock speeds, we see a 36% boost between the 8 core 5960x and the 6700. That's pretty significant.

I'm just gonna list from here on, not gonna do exact calculations, but I will give a little commentary.

The Division

I don't suspect there's much of a difference here on the AMD side, and I think a lot of the difference there can be explained by clock speed differences, although it looks like there is a small single digits, maybe 10% boost there.

On the intel side, with hyperthreading, we see very significant increases in minimum framerates, with once again the i7 5960x taking the cake.

Battlefield Hardline

On the AMD side, there seems to be a major difference between 4 and 6 cores, with much less difference between 6 and 8. On the intel side, hyperthreading seems to be negligible. Perhaps they reached a GPU bottleneck here, who knows. It's weird to see the 6 core i7 3970x perform similarly to the 4770k considering the major difference from 4300 to 6300.

Doom

There isnt much of a difference between the 4300 and 6300 but the 8350 seems to be performing extremely well. Hyper threading seems to add negligible performance.

So what can we conclude from this?

It looks to me that while not true in all games (I did look at other games that had next to no, to no performance with increased cores, some had GPU bottlenecks, others simply seemed to fail to utilize more than 4 cores), there does seem to be a trend toward increased multithreading in games. At the very least, an argument can be made when Ryzen comes out that getting a 6 core model looks like a good investment, since many games do seem to benefit significantly from the increased core count and even more with combined multithreading. Considering how the Ryzen 8 core models seem to be comparable to the 5960x based on early benchmarks, that might be worth it too.

There does seem to be less of a difference on average between 6 and 8 cores than there is between 4 and 6, but the difference still seems to exist in some cases.

Regardless, I'd say an argument can be made for buying CPUs with increased core count assuming the IPC is good. If it's crap like the FX series is compared to the i5s, of course quads are better, but assuming it's within, say, 20% of what intel offers, there's no reason to not go for the extra 2-4 cores. Considering how you'll be able to buy something similar to the i7 5960x (presumably) for the price of a quad core i7 and a 6 core for the price of an i5, I think a strong argument can be made for going for it.

This debate between more or fewer cores isn't new. This debate happened 10 years ago, when people were deciding between the core 2 duo e8400 or the core 2 quad q6600. The same architecture was used in both, but most went with the E8400 because it was cheaper and because it was clocked 25% higher. This might have sounded like a good investment at the time, but then games like Bad company 2, BF3, and others hit and the dual cores were severely lacking compared to the quads. Fast forward around 2-3 years later when the consoles came out 2013 with games like watch dogs and E8400 was basically useless. While it does appear there is a diminishing rate of returns with multithreading where even games that support it don't scale perfectly (we should see a 50% boost going to a 6 core and an additional 33% boost going to an 8 core), there is a boost nevertheless and it is significant.

Even if you have slightly less poerformance per thread and as such slightly less performance in some games, now, you'll likely still get a good 60 FPS in most situations and remember, what we really need to worry about in the future is games that actually do use more threads, and eventually REQUIRE those extra threads to function at all. The 8350 outperforms the 4300, period. The 5960x outperforms the i5s and i7s.

And when CPUs like the 5960x finally being affordable, I do think there is a reason to go for at least a 6 core if not an 8 core. This is especially true if you plan on using your system for a long time. Sure, you might be able to skimp now if you plan on upgrading 3-4 years from now anyway, but if you plan to use your CPU for a long time (more than 4 years) it would be worth getting more cores.

And yeah. I just decided to do this because I still see people pushing the whole "all you need is 4 cores" mentality with ryzen coming out when it seems that yes, games actually do use multithreading more than one would think. Not all games do it, but enough of them do where I think we'll see more multithreading becoming common in the next few years.

 

[chrcoluk]

Their explanation to be fair is reasonable (yes I responded back but not to humbug directly with his anti intel crusade).

So the reasoning is that cpu's which have very bad per core performance but massive core counts were been rated higher than cpu's with good per core performance and much less cores, and they felt this was misleading for people looking for cpu's that are good for gaming, I think that as a motivation is reasonable. (per core performance across the entire PC gaming library is still king, some of us forget that) Also to be fair when discounting the bad heat/power issues, a 9900k is a better gaming cpu than a ryzen 3000 chip.

However they should point out that they are rating cpus for gaming (Which they currently do not). Most of the ryzen 3000 chips seemingly got promoted when they changed the weighting system. The cpu's that suffered from AMD were the threadripper chips. Also intel chips with high core counts and low clock speeds (server chips) got demoted as well.

They also seem to have acknowledged they perhaps went too extreme and seem open to another adjustment later down the line.

The site is excellent as a whole in my view, a database supplied with user ran benchmarks. Providing data for different metrics of performance. I consider the data from here vastly better than the likes of unboxed hardware who massively over emphasise multi core and content creation. They also have a habit of not testing low end hardware enough and is lots of low end hardware on userbench.

But there is always the problem that there is different "types" of users. So I think the next logical step is either the customisable weighting system or add a use type category e.g. "server" "content creator" "gamer" "streamer" "office productivity" "casual user". Then weight based on what is selected. There is also the AMD/intel fanboys which sadly nothing can be done for those people, they will only be happy when their favourite brand is on top.

I suppose you could argue userbench is fighting the corner for people like me who think the importance of per core performance is grossly under stated by most of the media, its clearly an unpopular move as people have been manipulated so heavily by their favourite youtubers and co, but there is nothing wrong with a website not following like a sheep. I also stand by what I said earlier I use my own opinion and concentrate on using these sites for data, I just happen to accept this explanation as rationale.

 

[humbug]

Their explanation to be fair is reasonable (yes I responded back but not to humbug directly with his anti intel crusade).

So the reasoning is that cpu's which have very bad per core performance but massive core counts were been rated higher than cpu's with good per core performance and much less cores, and they felt this was misleading for people looking for cpu's that are good for gaming, I think that as a motivation is reasonable. (per core performance across the entire PC gaming library is still king, some of us forget that) Also to be fair when discounting the bad heat/power issues, a 9900k is a better gaming cpu than a ryzen 3000 chip.

However they should point out that they are rating cpus for gaming (Which they currently do not). Most of the ryzen 3000 chips seemingly got promoted when they changed the weighting system. The cpu's that suffered from AMD were the threadripper chips. Also intel chips with high core counts and low clock speeds (server chips) got demoted as well.

They also seem to have acknowledged they perhaps went too extreme and seem open to another adjustment later down the line.

The site is excellent as a whole in my view, a database supplied with user ran benchmarks. Providing data for different metrics of performance. I consider the data from here vastly better than the likes of unboxed hardware who massively over emphasise multi core and content creation. They also have a habit of not testing low end hardware enough and is lots of low end hardware on userbench.

But there is always the problem that there is different "types" of users. So I think the next logical step is either the customisable weighting system or add a use type category e.g. "server" "content creator" "gamer" "streamer" "office productivity" "casual user". Then weight based on what is selected. There is also the AMD/intel fanboys which sadly nothing can be done for those people, they will only be happy when their favourite brand is on top.

I suppose you could argue userbench is fighting the corner for people like me who think the importance of per core performance is grossly under stated by most of the media, its clearly an unpopular move as people have been manipulated so heavily by their favourite youtubers and co, but there is nothing wrong with a website not following like a sheep. I also stand by what I said earlier I use my own opinion and concentrate on using these sites for data, I just happen to accept this explanation as rationale.

And a 3600 is a better gaming CPU than a 9600K, or an 8600K, it has 12 threads vs 6 to better cope with highly threaded modern games, even if the 6 core Intel gets higher averages in these games the 3600 is smoother because with 12 threads its under far less stress.

The "you only need 4 cores" trope didn't wash when Intel made that excuse when selling low end CPU's for high end prices, it's even worse when you repeat it now and the same goes for User Bench now using Intel's ridiculous marketing excuses.

You don't believe that crap any more than i do @chrcoluk and simply dismissing people who point out the flaw in that reasoning as "AMD fanboys" is typical of Intel shills who know they have lost the argument, you know you're wrong, typically its the thing people like you always reach for, these days everyone is an AMD fanboi, because these days Intel have no responce for the arse kicking they are getting.

 

[muon]

So the reasoning is that cpu's which have very bad per core performance but massive core counts were been rated higher than cpu's with good per core performance and much less cores, and they felt this was misleading for people looking for cpu's that are good for gaming, I think that as a motivation is reasonable. (per core performance across the entire PC gaming library is still king, some of us forget that) Also to be fair when discounting the bad heat/power issues, a 9900k is a better gaming cpu than a ryzen 3000 chip.

Which is BS as it was only a 10% weight to begin with. Also their argument would have held more water if they set the threshold at 8 cores rather than 4 cores.

You would have to be stupid to buy a 4 core chip for gaming today unless you were budget constrained.

I hadn't even heard of this website before anyway which seems to rely on user submissions and is likely a a couple of guys running the website.

It also looks like most of the games they rely on (the ones with enough submissions to reliable have every CPU benchmarked) are just your standard esports titles which will have really high framerates.

https://www.userbenchmark.com/Search?searchTerm=FPS

 

[chrcoluk]

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 9600k 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 7700k, the best quad core intel has made is ranked 27, 7600k with no htt is ranked 40. Well below all of the 3000 series chips.

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 none 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.

 

[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...

 

[chrcoluk]

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.

 

[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/

 

[z10m]

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Here is a comment I made in another thread about this change:

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.

 

[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?

 

[z10m]

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

Probably bith...

 

[Ross Thomson]

user benchmark isn't relevant to anything. Does anyone seriously use it to compare cpu's?

 

[Stephanie Peterson]

Yes lot of uniformed, inexperienced or just downright noobs use it, an awful lot seeing as how it pops up near the top of google searches when looking for cpu comparisons.

Its downright stinking, the smell from this change - really really "odd" and i dont buy there crap response either. Just how big was that brown envelope from intel eh?