UserBenchmark gets banned from major subreddit due to drama generation

[Redaktion]

UserBenchmark has received a significant blow today with the news that it has been banned from a major subreddit. The moderators of r/hardware, which has over 1.1 million members, have made the decision that threads regarding the oft-maligned benchmark have no value and simply generate drama. Posts or links in regard to UserBenchmark will no longer be allowed.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/UserBenchmark-gets-banned-from-major-subreddit-due-to-drama-generation.461875.0.html

[william blake]

not sure is it sad or funny
anyway, redditor's avg iq is pretty low and userbenchmark owner is an idiot.

[william blake]

immediately found some drama.
userbenchmark 4800h page says

Weaknesses
Avg. Multi Core Mixed Speed 1,320Pts

:)
"being the fastest is the worst", something like that

[Solun]

This is BS. They should be never banned from a forum unless they explicitely violate rules. But hey, forum moderators are usually idiots. That website shouldn't have participated in it in the first place.

[Thinkpad Fan]

I can't wait until userbenchmark just goes away. It's a terrible indicator of performance anyway (prefers arbitrary "datapoints" to actual performance scores). I don't think anyone will have trouble sleeping when they run out of money and shut down. Long live actual benchmarks.

[william blake]

I can't wait until userbenchmark just goes away. It's a terrible indicator of performance anyway (prefers arbitrary "datapoints" to actual performance scores). I don't think anyone will have trouble sleeping when they run out of money and shut down. Long live actual benchmarks.

userbenchmark is the one and only. no competitors around.

[Wanderland]

R/intel also banned them, which says a lot.

[Richard]

Sounds like a bunch of AMDtards are butt hurt as usual  8)

[Valantar]

Sounds like a bunch of AMDtards are butt hurt as usual  8)

...so a benchmark company explicitly taking sides is somehow down to fans of the other team being "butthurt"? Remember, Intel has had 8-core laptop CPUs longer than AMD, so for UB to criticize the 4800H(S) for not prioritizing performance where it matters and going for "moar cores" is an incredibly weird stance - particularly when that chip matches or beats anything Intel has to offer in the same segment, barring extreme short-term boost scenarios.

userbenchmark is the one and only. no competitors around.

That's true, there are very few competitors trying to offer a service of entirely uncomparable benchmarks. Remember, UB aggregates scores while entirely disregarding the configuration of the PCs in question (cooling, chassis, RAM, etc.), so comparisons are at best vague to the point of being useless, but mostly they are just plain misleading. Pretty much any benchmark database is better than UB.

This is BS. They should be never banned from a forum unless they explicitely violate rules. But hey, forum moderators are usually idiots. That website shouldn't have participated in it in the first place.

Banning discussions of a service that claims to present a neutral comparison but which demonstrably and consistently shows bias towards one of two major players seems like a completely reasonable decision to me. There are plenty of other benchmark services out there.

[william blake]

That's true, there are very few competitors trying to offer a service of entirely uncomparable benchmarks.

there are no other places on the web that offer such a service and interface. not even close. this is the best place for comprehensive testing and comparison of components. the only one.

Remember, UB aggregates scores while entirely disregarding the configuration of the PCs in question (cooling, chassis, RAM, etc.),

what the heck is that? name one who are not "disregarding". i'll wait..
p.s
just a reminder for you
single core/all core userbenchmark cpu numbers are very similar to cinebench r15. and its a tiny fraction of userbenchmark can do.
..
you have no reasons against userbenchmark test numbers, only emotions. yes, userbenchmark owner is an intel fan and their "bench" score is made up bs, but thats it. how much is that, 2% of total info provided? i can live with it, i have no choice. till the birth of similar place to compare pc and components.
or you want me watch a fanatic battle between you and userbenchmark? ok then.

[a94]

Sounds like a bunch of AMDtards are butt hurt as usual  8)

r/intel also banned it

[SethNW]

Well, considering that it basically is lead by bunch of Intel fanboys and just how ludicrous some of their statements are in descriptions, like clearly Intel fanboys ludicrous, I would say good riddance. I mean with statements like how Intel CPU was designed for nrkak users and not to win benchmarks like AMD, for CPU that is objectively worse, they literally are laughing stock. But of course, when Intel can't win, they will just change their benchmark to make Intel win. If you want dome nice shiny examples, Hardware Unboxed put some of them in video titled "News Corner | Zen 3 Release Date? Intel 10th-gen Leaks, Nvidia GTX 1650 ..." at 10:48. Just if someone needs a good laugh at them. Like I have nothing against Intel, when they make good CPUs, but right now, they just aren't doing good job, at least not yet, they will once they can move from 14nm to anything smaller.

[Putin]

Pointless benchmark anyway. Sounds like they wanted attention.

[sprem]

What happened to notebookcheck? It used to be nice...

[Valantar]

That's true, there are very few competitors trying to offer a service of entirely uncomparable benchmarks.

there are no other places on the web that offer such a service and interface. not even close. this is the best place for comprehensive testing and comparison of components. the only one.

And? The service is useless as the data is too low quality to have any real value, and the interface only serves as an attempt at hiding this due to its focus on averaged scores and undefined and meaningless metrics like "effective speed" presented as some sort of performance summary with zero explanation. Do you actually think the average user is able to glean more meaningful information from that site than reading the ranking and average bench numbers? 'Cause they won't.

As for the issue with averaged scores, it's the same problem that all crowd-sourced data has: you get access to lots of potentially useful data, but there is zero quality control in the creation/gathering of said data, which leads to GIGO. Sure, you can look up aberrant scores and they tend to have annotations about high background loads or other issues, but they still count towards the average which dramatically degrades the quality of the test data and the conclusions/summaries/averages, making them fundamentally unreliable.

If you want any kind of comparable benchmark it needs to be done in a controlled manner in a controlled setting; otherwise the data gathered will vary due to outside variables which invalidates any comparison.

Beyond that, you have fundamental issues such as not publishing the testing methodology for their own performance reviews (at least for game benchmarks, generally just seeming to publish "CPU name" + "GPU name" with memory speed added on and no further explanations), which again means that there is massive potential for variance due to other factors. There might of course not be, but by not publishing testing methodologies the data becomes automatically suspect. Publishing your methodologies in detail so that they can be scrutinized is another fundamental requirement of proper benchmarking which UB fails to do.

This is also why there are no other sites providing the same type of data: because doing so in a reliable manner is impossible due to the sheer scale of such an undertaking. Which is why reviews of pre-built units or individual components is far better a measure of performance. Sure, you don't get easily parsed "average bench" numbers, but you get numbers that are actually comparable in a reliable manner.

Remember, UB aggregates scores while entirely disregarding the configuration of the PCs in question (cooling, chassis, RAM, etc.),

what the heck is that? name one who are not "disregarding". i'll wait..
p.s

Sure. UL/3DMark. Anyone doing testing of individual components. Anyone doing system testing with SPEC, SysMark or other broad test suites while publishing detailed system specs and methodologies. The TechPowerUp GPU Database. AnandTech Bench. Do you need more?

To clarify:
- 3DMark shows a ton of data, but doesn't aggregate or average scores for individual components, thus bypassing the issue of needing to factor in the rest of the system in calculating this. The only aggregate score it shows is how your specific system (or the test result you are viewing) stacks up against all other systems benchmarked and a selection of fictitious "systems" representing generalized performance levels/categories without representing any one component or system configuration.
- Individual component testing or system testing with a complex suite gives detailed and multifaceted representations of performance either of that specific component (which is thus comparable to all other reviews on the same site using the same test system) or of the system in question (which is then comparable to all other systems tested by the same tester in the same manner). Most importantly, none of this testing claims to present universally comparable numbers across different systems with uncontrolled variables.
- The TPU GPU database has a ranking of GPU performance, but rather than being based on an unfiltered and uncontrolled heap of data from random users this consists of reliably produced test data in a single test system (as far back as is applicable, including re-testing of old GPUs every time the test system is updated) done by professional testers in a test suite of 20+ games. Numbers in the graphs are also always based on reference or reference-spec GPUs at the same settings, and external variables like CPU performance etc. are controlled for.
-AnandTech Bench is comparable to the TPU GPUDB, just covering more product categories and presented in a more granular fashion rather than presentations of singular GPUs (and of course it doesn't also serve as a specification database). Again, comparable products are tested on the same system and using the same test methodologies, ensuring comparable results. Test methodologies are also published in (almost too much) detail, with high-level yet still understandable explanations.

While neither of these present the broad and sweeping overviews of UB, that is precisely why they are infinitely more reliable - UB's crowdsourcing of data is precisely the reason why their numbers are unreliable.

just a reminder for you
single core/all core userbenchmark cpu numbers are very similar to cinebench r15. and its a tiny fraction of userbenchmark can do.

Yes, and? Have I presented Cinebench as some sort of alternative? That's one single CPU performance metric. It's somewhat useful for quick off-the-cuff CPU comparisons (at least within heavily threaded and/or rendering-like workloads) but other than that it's not the best benchmark. Nor does it have any sort of performance comparison function beyond the few "canned" results included in the install.

..
you have no reasons against userbenchmark test numbers, only emotions.

Wow, good one! Please see above. I'd also love to see an example of where my previous arguments have been based on emotions. Please?

yes, userbenchmark owner is an intel fan and their "bench" score is made up bs, but thats it.

Oh, that's it? The owner of a benchmarking service - a type of service which has one purpose: providing reliable comparisons - is biased against one of the vendors tested by their product (and towards the other), and they present an overall performance metric (which is what >99% of people refer to on their site) that even you admit is BS. Yeah, no, you're right, that's nothing at all, of course. How silly of me.

Of course how much is that, 2% of total info provided? i can live with it, i have no choice. till the birth of similar place to compare pc and components.

You really ought to find some hardware review sites you like and start reading reviews done by professional reviewers (an initial recommendation: stay away from YouTube (though GamersNexus is an exception there), and look to sites like AnandTech, TPU, TechSpot, Hexus, etc.). Databases provide too little detail to represent performance in a sufficient way for proper comparisons.

or you want me watch a fanatic battle between you and userbenchmark? ok then.

I have absolutely no idea what you're rambling about at this point. Feel free to clarify.