Caporegime
All this shows is how desperate Intel have become, which doesn't bode well for the future as they clearly think they have to play the game like this.
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.
All this shows is how desperate Intel have become, which doesn't bode well for the future as they clearly think they have to play the game like this.
It's an absolute joke they have become for this, changing the weight they assign makes sense but certainly not in the way they have been doing it. For example I can understand reducing the effective multicore score IF they increased the the quad core to octocore. But leaving the quadcore in there benefits no one but Intel, as modern programs as well as games increasingly uses cores past 4 (and more than 8 threads too). Leaving single core in there makes sense for applications that continue to use single core and allows you to compare the effective single core between different CPU's
It's also more recently come to light that they are now doing the same things with Nvidia vs AMD in GPU. A 5700XT is apparently slower than a 1080, despite every single review agreeing very much otherwise.
Userbenchmark are taking money to give better results to anyone who wants to pay for it. This is nothing new or surprising, neither is the fact that Intel and Nvidia continue to be happy to pay such sites for positive coverage. Ignore then and move on.
This one is interesting.
10900k: Workstation 113%
3900X: Workstation 104%
3950X: Workstation 114%
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-3900X/4071vs4044
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-3950X/4071vs4057
good thing workstation users aren't idiots and wouldn't touch a 10900k with a 10ft pole
This one is interesting.
10900k: Workstation 113%
3900X: Workstation 104%
3950X: Workstation 114%
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-3900X/4071vs4044
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-3950X/4071vs4057
For sure! Intel is paying for their Google fees. AMD could do the same but instead relies on internet reviews and word of mouth. I think not a great deal of self build people use those benchmark sites. I personally have never ever consulted these sites. It is pointless.Both Passmark (Also had Intel favouring changes recently) and UserBench are right at the top of Googles sponsored links for "CPU Benchmark" search results, to get to the top of those sponsored search results cost mega money, far more money than these people will be earning from ad revenues.
Now AMD has a CPU targeting every scenario of the score weighing. So where do these clowns go from there to help their intel masters? LolBefore the Ryzen 3000 series came out, Userbenchmarks ranking system was based on a 30% single core, 60% quad core, and 10% multi core performance ratio.
Shortly after the Ryzen 3000 series came out, they “suddenly” changed their 10% multi core performance impact to just 2%, thus lowering AMD scores vs Intel overnight.
![]()
This change got a lot of attention but instead of taking in feedback from the tech community to dial back on this heavy focus on single core performance, they instead basically called everyone who disagreed with them chills.
They even called out Hardware Unboxed for being "objectively incompetent smearers” likely after they did this video: https://youtu.be/AaWZKPUidUY?t=214
where do these clowns go from there to help their intel masters?
In typical userbenchmark style they bash the 3300X, recommends the i3-10100 instead and calls 3700X owners unluckyNow AMD has a CPU targeting every scenario of the score weighing. So where do these clowns go from there to help their intel masters? Lol
Where on earth are they finding a 10900K for £371?!This one is interesting.
10900k: Workstation 113%
3900X: Workstation 104%
3950X: Workstation 114%
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-3900X/4071vs4044
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-3950X/4071vs4057
In typical userbenchmark style they bash the 3300X, recommends the i3-10100 instead and calls 3700X owners unlucky
This despite the 3300X is generally better in games, beats the 10100 clearly in productivity tasks and offers overclocking, higher frequency memory support and PCIe4 motherboards.
![]()
I think they are referring to the architecture latency between AMD and Intel. the 3300X does have higher latency than the intel processors. this is inherent in the architecture and how the IO circuits work. if AMD architecture is similar to Intels we wont have these chiplets concept that are scalable etc.Do these people just deliberately say the opposite of what's true?
I think they are referring to the architecture latency between AMD and Intel. the 3300X does have higher latency than the intel processors. this is inherent in the architecture and how the IO circuits work. if AMD architecture is similar to Intels we wont have these chiplets concept that are scalable etc.
They are not wrong but they really overemphethised this and completely ignore the benefit of using this type of architecture is that you have a highly scalable design that yields very little loss and cheap to manufacture.
in short, the hole at the bottom.