Last edited:
-
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
- Thread starter humbug
- Start date
I'm a few pages late here, and I suspect I'm not he first to make this point, but for all the "4 threads is enough for most people" thing, while that's perfectly fair enough it also completely voids the point of having a bench mark. Sure a 3rd gen i3 may be the correct choice for a lot of people, better CPUs are still better than it, and if the point of your website is to rank things, they should be ranking them.
It's the same as why MTV doesn't broadcast normal music on its main channel instead of shows, and why F1 pursues entertainment rather than real competition and racing for the sport and the best to win.
Only the money talk.
The biggest actual problem with it is how highly ranked it is in google. The people who are likely to run into it are novices looking for a simple answer, who are probably not going to dig too far into the break downs and could very well end up hitching themselves to something like a 8100 over a 1600, and will find themselves struggling in a few years. Already the most demanding games will favor the 1600 and its only going to get worse.
Not true. Windows's own Virus scan.
It definitely loads more than one core:
that is one core. What you seeing is the scheduler moving it between different cores rapidly and task manager with its snapshots reports the data how you seeing it. Notice how your 5th core spikes roughly when the 4th core dips.
An even easier way to tell would be in the processes tab so e.g. if you quad core the a/v exe would show 24-25% exe utilisation.
These a/v vendors do need to modernise to multi core, their software clearly would gain hugely from it.
It's really not one core, one core load would be 12.5%. It is 25% load, which is two cores, but I suspect the application feels good only with 3.5 and higher cores.
Yeah my example assumed no HTT. With HTT it would be 12.5%.
The window scheduler is weird, it often spreads one core loads over multiple cores, but that is waste ful as it adds context switch overheads, microsoft must see a benefit from it since they keep doing it.
You may remember the ryzen scheduler fixed issues on cinebench single core, that problem was caused by the microsoft scheduler spreading the load across multiple cores, preventing the single core boost overclock. Thats one of the big downsides of what the microsoft scheduler does as it keeps multiple cores active for single core workloads.
The window scheduler is weird, it often spreads one core loads over multiple cores, but that is waste ful as it adds context switch overheads, microsoft must see a benefit from it since they keep doing it.
You may remember the ryzen scheduler fixed issues on cinebench single core, that problem was caused by the microsoft scheduler spreading the load across multiple cores, preventing the single core boost overclock. Thats one of the big downsides of what the microsoft scheduler does as it keeps multiple cores active for single core workloads.
intel's business model is rotten.
Imagine they prefer to offer 4-cores for the next 10 years and more.
What exactly will they offer to me to upgrade over my 4-core Ryzen 5 2500U?
They must offer performance uplifts in order to drive the purchases/demand. Today, they don't do anything. Only rely on the extremely conservative and passive OEMs/ big loyal corps that never innovate.
Imagine they prefer to offer 4-cores for the next 10 years and more.
What exactly will they offer to me to upgrade over my 4-core Ryzen 5 2500U?
They must offer performance uplifts in order to drive the purchases/demand. Today, they don't do anything. Only rely on the extremely conservative and passive OEMs/ big loyal corps that never innovate.
I dont benchmark either as I only refer to them when I'm looking to upgrade or when new hardware is released but unfortunately it can take a lot of time and effort as some benchmarks cant be trusted and a lot of sites and users are bias/shills/fanboys/whatever.
Nothing wrong with favoring one company over another its the rampant cult like behaviour where all objectivity goes out the window.
Take this thread as an example theres loads of accusations although some of the posts are mocking Intel being behind this and from what I can see there's zero proof.
i can assure you that bitdefender and kaspersky are both multithreaded.
also sophos as I have that at work
the point is that the softwares are either multi-threaded already or will be bar some obscure basic programmes. it is the future to be multi-threaded
when i refer to streaming I refer to netflix, amazon, spotify etc etc which they have desktop app (amazon uses silverlight through IE or Edge i think, not used amazon on desktop for years) so these apps are also multi-threaded. it's not about browsers. as you have agreed, chrome is a heavy threader itself and happens to be the most popular browser out there. so it is ultimately WRONG to have something that weighs toward something that is either already obsolete (which is what I believe) and becoming obsolete (I hope you agree) as far as single core and multi core argument goes.
Last edited:
never bothered with CPU benchmarks when i buy my components. it is usually always budget constrain that guides me towards a particular part. but there are plenty people pay a lot of attention out there especially in the world of CPU score nutters.
but the motive behind the move is quite sinister and it is blatantly clear the reasons behind it as stated by the OP
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.
Reading through I knew it would end up in an Intel vs AMD debate
Where's the popcorn?
Wrong. It's intel vs the consumers. When the consumers are treated as not intelligent sheeple and milk-giving cows
:SWrong. It's intel vs the consumers. When the consumers are treated as not intelligent sheeple and milk-giving cows
True, I think it's abysmal with Intel and the costs of their products over the years with no significant innovation per generation and now competition strikes back
Sucks to be them!
Deleted member 209350
Deleted member 209350
Never liked that site anyway, now I actively have a reason to avoid it!
100% agree................................simply because no one could remotely think that AMD has ANY marketing EXPERTS.