An AMD Ryzen 5 4600HS APU sample has been spotted on UserBenchmark as part of an Asus ROG Zephyrus G14 laptop. The new Ryzen 4000 chip racked up some excellent scores on the benchmark that offered a higher overall score than the average overall score of all the Intel Core i7-10750H samples that had been tested...but the Renoir APU received a lower bench result.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Ryzen-5-4600HS-in-Asus-ROG-Zephyrus-G14-scores-higher-than-the-average-Intel-Core-i7-10750H-on-UserBenchmark-but-still-gets-a-lower-bench-result.463601.0.html
UserBenchmark are infamous for Intel-fanboyism. I wouldn't recommend anyone to make comparisons using this "benchmark".
Typical bribing from Intel.
Userbenchmark are there to just create drama. Just note that they were banned from /r/Intel and /r/Hardware on reddit ;)
Quotethe AMD Ryzen 5 4600HS manages a 1-core score of 129 points compared to the i7-10750H's 133 points (average). That's a small difference, especially when you compare the huge gap in the 64-core test results: 1,031 points (AMD) vs. 956 points (Intel).
blah blah blah..what is so difficult in reading what does their score mean?
"bench score" :
"The UBM effective speed measures performance for typical consumers. For example, we de-emphasize deep queue depth data transfer and heavily multi-threaded CPU workloads as these metrics are not generally consumer orientated"
so basically they measure browsing speed.
but the problem is not that, but hidden formula(or there is no formula?), because there could be a situation when single core score is better but bench score is worse. how? nobody knows.
Quote from: Grinnie Jax on May 03, 2020, 11:34:46
I wouldn't recommend anyone to make comparisons using this "benchmark".
userbenchmark is the only place in the internet with such functionality.
cpu "bench" score is 10% of cpu information provided and 2% of all information.
"i wouldnt recoomend" mean "i hate you and wish you the worse" lol
Quote from: william blake on May 03, 2020, 14:41:42
Quote from: Grinnie Jax on May 03, 2020, 11:34:46
I wouldn't recommend anyone to make comparisons using this "benchmark".
userbenchmark is the only place in the internet with such functionality.
cpu "bench" score is 10% of cpu information provided and 2% of all information.
"i wouldnt recoomend" mean "i hate you and wish you the worse" lol
I can't speak for the user you quoted, but I would also say I wouldn't recommend them, and by that I don't whatsoever mean "I hate you and wish you the worse [sic]" (why would I hate a web site? that doesn't make sense), but that their service is fundamentally flawed and fails to do what it sets out to do in ways so fundamental to its purpose that the data presented is
at best misleading. It doesn't matter that they attempt to provide a service that nobody else does when they utterly and completely fail in doing so in a fair and balanced way, and when the methodologies behind their scoring are secret and opaque in such a manner as to make checking their veracity impossible. You are arguing that we should trust and use a flawed benchmark with skewed result because they provide you with tons of data; I'm arguing that since
we know parts of that data is fundamentally flawed and biased, we have no reason to trust the rest of the data presented.
UselessBenchmark.
Well, the multicore gap is 7%, and the single core gap is 3%, it's honestly not that big a difference if single core is weighted, for example over twice the multicore, since they're assuming that a couple cores will get the most usage and the last core will almost never be pushed to 100%.
Quote from: Valantar on May 03, 2020, 15:48:19
but I would also say I wouldn't recommend them, and by that I don't whatsoever mean "I hate you and wish you the worse [sic]" (why would I hate a web site? that doesn't make sense)
you hate someone you give a false recommendation to.
Quote from: Valantar on May 03, 2020, 15:48:19
but that their service is fundamentally flawed
wrong.
data, the test results, is one thing, hidden rating made by the guy is another.
userbenchmark even without it is times and times more useful for compare hardware things than any other place in the internet.
i wouldn't recommend=i recommend you nothing.
Quote from: S.Yu on May 03, 2020, 19:28:09
Well, the multicore gap is 7%, and the single core gap is 3%, it's honestly not that big a difference if single core is weighted, for example over twice the multicore, since they're assuming that a couple cores will get the most usage and the last core will almost never be pushed to 100%.
yes, the article is not very smart, but rating could be bigger for the cpu with the lower scores everywhere. this is the mystery and bs.
Quote from: william blake on May 03, 2020, 19:31:57
Quote from: Valantar on May 03, 2020, 15:48:19
but I would also say I wouldn't recommend them, and by that I don't whatsoever mean "I hate you and wish you the worse [sic]" (why would I hate a web site? that doesn't make sense)
you hate someone you give a false recommendation to.
Quote from: Valantar on May 03, 2020, 15:48:19
but that their service is fundamentally flawed
wrong.
data, the test results, is one thing, hidden rating made by the guy is another.
userbenchmark even without it is times and times more useful for compare hardware things than any other place in the internet.
i wouldn't recommend=i recommend you nothing.
Care to explain what a "false recommendation" is? The only way a recommendation can be "false" is if the person giving the recommendation is flat-out lying (i.e. recommending something they themselves dislike or think is a poor fit); after all to recommend just means to endorse something or say that it's worthy of acceptance.
As for the service being useful: no. The "hidden" rating you're talking about is the
first damn thing you are presented with on any product page. It is thus what 99% of users will use for comparisons. As for the rest of what they do (we've been through this before, but apparently you need it repeated):
- Due to crowd-sourced data there is zero filtering for testing environment or other factors affecting results - two identical laptops where one is tested in 35C ambient and one in 20C ambient will thus give entirely different results with no way for readers to tell why. The same goes for background processes etc., the system or drivers being up to date, cooling being properly configured ... the list goes on. As this data isn't collected there's no way for readers to look it up either - in other words there's no way of knowing whether what you are looking at can be compared properly or not. Which by default makes it uncomparable. As I said last time: garbage in, garbage out. Collecting massive amounts of unfiltered and uncontrolled data, using it to generate some opaque rankings, and displaying all of this without context makes the service entirely useless.
- Due to the benchmark selection the tests in question give a poor overview of both CPU and GPU performance. The lack of transparency in testing methodologies further invalidates the conclusions of testing.
- The site's owners obviously know that it's basing its results on poor data, as the interface of the site places a
massive focus on various percentages, sums, averages and abstract phrases supposed to give a description of overall performance yet with
zero explanation of what these terms mean or what they are based on and how they are calculated.
So, as I told you last time around: look at the 3DMark database for easily read overall component comparisons for gaming if that's what you're after, the TechPowerUp GPU database gives you a quick performance comparison of all GPUs they've tested (or just check any recent review for a comprehensive look at ~20 games in three resolutions), check out AnandTech Bench for anything they've tested, or look at component reviews done by professional reviewers if you want a proper understanding based on reliable data and analysis done by highly knowledgeable people. AnandTech is great, TechPowerUp is good, TechSpot is great, GamersNexus is great - and there are
heaps of others. If you're looking for a full PC, sites like Hexus or PC World regularly do reviews of prebuilt systems. There are
plenty of better alternatives to UB - and most of them have the advantage that you'll actually learn something while comparing hardware.
Admittedly, this is based on a "peak" performance from the Renoir APU compared to the average of the Comet Lake samples (177 units tested at the time of writing)
[/quote]
Comparing apples to oranges and spewing fake outrage. Looks like UserBenchmark is fine. It's just that notebookchat.com is heavily biased against Intel.
Quote from: Robin12 on May 03, 2020, 22:50:10
Quote from: Redaktion on May 03, 2020, 10:59:26
Admittedly, this is based on a "peak" performance from the Renoir APU compared to the average of the Comet Lake samples (177 units tested at the time of writing)
Comparing apples to oranges and spewing fake outrage. Looks like UserBenchmark is fine. It's just that notebookchat.com is heavily biased against Intel.
Yap. Very irresponsible from notebookchat.com. Trying to cater to the fanboys to get more views. In the end that's what pays the bill not authentic journalism.
Quote from: Robin12 on May 03, 2020, 22:50:10
Admittedly, this is based on a "peak" performance from the Renoir APU compared to the average of the Comet Lake samples (177 units tested at the time of writing)
Comparing apples to oranges and spewing fake outrage. Looks like UserBenchmark is fine. It's just that notebookchat.com is heavily biased against Intel.
[/quote]
"Peak" is slightly misleading phrasing - it's not the fastest of a collection of results, it's (seemingly) the only result. In other words, it is entirely possible that it is indeed above average for that configuration, but it might also be average or below average. We won't know that until more results come in.
Quote from: Robin12 on May 03, 2020, 22:50:10
Admittedly, this is based on a "peak" performance from the Renoir APU compared to the average of the Comet Lake samples (177 units tested at the time of writing)
Comparing apples to oranges and spewing fake outrage. Looks like UserBenchmark is fine. It's just that notebookchat.com is heavily biased against Intel.
[/quote]
Total bunk from you. I have been following this website for a good part of a decade and consistently, this website had good things to say for Intel chips. Recently, AMD has been the obviously better choice, and it is most websites that are praising AMD, certainly not just this site. The fact you think Intel reviewed badly is due to this website, but not due to Intel's performance reveals your bias. Also, it is notebookcheck.com.
Here we go again to-ing and fro-ing about ubm and their 98% combined 1- and 4-thread cpu weighting.
It's silly because the users who use their computers for more than Web browsing know to ignore ubm and their ridiculously skewed % ratings and can plainly see how closely it mirrors Intel's strident "Performance Marketing" efforts to de-emphasise what their products suck at, long term multi core performance and efficiency and products which use cpus like that, e.g. cinebench.
Seriously these scores do little to evaluate the overall performance of the CPU. If this was the case there would be heavier loading for sustained power consumption, heat and throttled performance. This is what affects laptop users more than artificial single core scores.
Quote from: Ariliquin on May 04, 2020, 09:13:56
Seriously these scores do little to evaluate the overall performance of the CPU. If this was the case there would be heavier loading for sustained power consumption, heat and throttled performance. This is what affects laptop users more than artificial single core scores.
The problem with this (for UB and their mode of operations) is that this would require knowledge of the system in question, its cooling capabilities etc. - a lot of stuff that can't be automatically gathered by a simple application and accumulated in a database used for calculating oversimplified averages. In other words, it would require both expert knowledge and the ability to do nuanced data analysis. UB isn't interested in any of this, they want to bulk-gather simple data and present it through even simpler overall "scores". Hence the repeated examples of poor quality. Garbage in, garbage out, as the saying goes.
Quote from: Valantar on May 03, 2020, 21:20:55
Care to explain what a "false recommendation" is? The only way a recommendation can be "false" is if the person giving the recommendation is flat-out lying
lying is one of the options. you can give a false recommendation because you have no idea about the subject. or you can repeat something what was wrong already.
saying do not use userbenchmark for hardware comparisons-in most cases is a shot in the foot.
Quote from: Valantar on May 03, 2020, 21:20:55
look at the 3DMark database for easily read overall component comparisons for gaming if that's what you're after, the TechPowerUp GPU database gives you a quick performance comparison of all GPUs they've tested (or just check any recent review for a comprehensive look at ~20 games in three resolutions), check out AnandTech Bench for anything they've tested, or look at component reviews done by professional reviewers if you want a proper understanding based on reliable data and analysis done by highly knowledgeable people. AnandTech is great, TechPowerUp is good, TechSpot is great, GamersNexus is great - and there are heaps of others. If you're looking for a full PC, sites like Hexus or PC World regularly do reviews of prebuilt systems. There are plenty of better alternatives to UB - and most of them have the advantage that you'll actually learn something while comparing hardware.
i am a userbenchmark user. AND an amd supporter since 90ths. sure i dont like made up ratings which contradicts to their own data, but i can live without this 2% of numbers i need.
i am using userbenchmark for my hobby-searching/comparing/choosing laptops for my friends/colleagues/random people.
and i tell you one thing for sure.
you either liar or a complete noob.
any places you mentioned, is ten times less useful. TEN TIMES.
userbenchmark is THE database, all-in one. "reviews" is a joke, right?
(still not sure, maybe you are a troll, quality troll)
Quote from: william blake on May 04, 2020, 15:42:18
i am a userbenchmark user. AND an amd supporter since 90ths. sure i dont like made up ratings which contradicts to their own data, but i can live without this 2% of numbers i need.
i am using userbenchmark for my hobby-searching/comparing/choosing laptops for my friends/colleagues/random people.
and i tell you one thing for sure.
you either liar or a complete noob.
any places you mentioned, is ten times less useful. TEN TIMES.
userbenchmark is THE database, all-in one. "reviews" is a joke, right?
(still not sure, maybe you are a troll, quality troll)
The day trolls and shills learned they could escape scrutiny simply by being the first accuse the other poster of being a troll or a shill was the day that internet comment sections became an interminable morass of confirmation bias.
I have yet to see "william blake" post information of value. Using that old canard of "I'm an AMD fan, honest, I'm just FORCED to defend things that are obviously biased towards Intel" should be automatically disqualifying. Nobody asked! 🙄
Quote from: PnSHR on May 03, 2020, 22:57:33
Quote from: Robin12 on May 03, 2020, 22:50:10
Quote from: Redaktion on May 03, 2020, 10:59:26
Admittedly, this is based on a "peak" performance from the Renoir APU compared to the average of the Comet Lake samples (177 units tested at the time of writing)
Comparing apples to oranges and spewing fake outrage. Looks like UserBenchmark is fine. It's just that notebookchat.com is heavily biased against Intel.
Yap. Very irresponsible from notebookchat.com. Trying to cater to the fanboys to get more views. In the end that's what pays the bill not authentic journalism.
If you think that dismissing poor methodology and skewed results is "catering to the fanboys" then you miiiight be a fanboy.
Quote from: william blake on May 03, 2020, 14:41:42
Quote from: Grinnie Jax on May 03, 2020, 11:34:46
I wouldn't recommend anyone to make comparisons using this "benchmark".
userbenchmark is the only place in the internet with such functionality.
cpu "bench" score is 10% of cpu information provided and 2% of all information.
"i wouldnt recoomend" mean "i hate you and wish you the worse" lol
What sense does it make? So recommending some bu*it screwed "database" = loving and caring? You are such a hypocrite then. Reading and comparing via tech forums and resources like GamersNexus / Techspot (HardwareUnboxed) / Bit-Tech etc. may require some efforts, but at least you have a chance of getting full picture. User"Benchmark" just pleases some stupid fanboys, nothing more.
Quote from: william blake on May 04, 2020, 15:42:18
Quote from: Valantar on May 03, 2020, 21:20:55
Care to explain what a "false recommendation" is? The only way a recommendation can be "false" is if the person giving the recommendation is flat-out lying
lying is one of the options. you can give a false recommendation because you have no idea about the subject. or you can repeat something what was wrong already.
saying do not use userbenchmark for hardware comparisons-in most cases is a shot in the foot.
Quote from: Valantar on May 03, 2020, 21:20:55
look at the 3DMark database for easily read overall component comparisons for gaming if that's what you're after, the TechPowerUp GPU database gives you a quick performance comparison of all GPUs they've tested (or just check any recent review for a comprehensive look at ~20 games in three resolutions), check out AnandTech Bench for anything they've tested, or look at component reviews done by professional reviewers if you want a proper understanding based on reliable data and analysis done by highly knowledgeable people. AnandTech is great, TechPowerUp is good, TechSpot is great, GamersNexus is great - and there are heaps of others. If you're looking for a full PC, sites like Hexus or PC World regularly do reviews of prebuilt systems. There are plenty of better alternatives to UB - and most of them have the advantage that you'll actually learn something while comparing hardware.
i am a userbenchmark user. AND an amd supporter since 90ths. sure i dont like made up ratings which contradicts to their own data, but i can live without this 2% of numbers i need.
i am using userbenchmark for my hobby-searching/comparing/choosing laptops for my friends/colleagues/random people.
and i tell you one thing for sure.
you either liar or a complete noob.
any places you mentioned, is ten times less useful. TEN TIMES.
userbenchmark is THE database, all-in one. "reviews" is a joke, right?
(still not sure, maybe you are a troll, quality troll)
Wow, I've come to expect a load of drivel from you, but you just hit a new low. Congratulations, I guess? Calling someone arguing against you both a liar, a noob and a troll in one post? Pure class, dude. Well done. Though for next time, might I suggest counting to ten and then trying to present an actual argument rather than lashing out? Because so far I haven't seen one from you. Saying "Userbenchmark is the best!" is not an argument, it is a statement of opinion that you should present arguments to support. Of course you are very welcome to present arguments as to why I am a liar (that would be incredibly interesting, frankly), troll or noob. The ball is in your court.
Also,
pretty please, present an on-topic and relevant argument as to why
reading reviews is a bad idea. I would love to see that. Truly. Oh, by the way, what are you doing on NotebookCheck if you don't like reading product reviews?
I also sincerely hope you never have to do any type of data gathering or analysis in a professional setting given your repeatedly professed lack of caring about reliability and overall data quality. That is a truly frightening attitude for anyone even borderline curious about anything, let alone someone who seeks to do research on the basis of which advice will be given to others whether privately or professionally.
As for your hobby - going by what you are saying, I'm happy I have never been in a position to receive a recommendation from you. Userbenchmark is
terrible for comparing laptops. I mean, they don't even compare laptops, nor do they have any tools suited to the task! They
only do per-component data presentation. And they don't even differentiate between mobile and non-mobile products - when looking at a mobile CPU most of the suggested comparisons are irrelevant desktop chips! Which means that no matter the amount of research you use UB for, you aren't even close to getting a holistic picture of the products you are trying to compare. A laptop is
so much more than the sum of its CPU, GPU and storage performance. What is the display quality like? What are the keyboard and trackpad like? What is battery life like? What is the cooling like? No idea, 'cause UserBenchmark doesn't look into
any of that! From someone who has worked near a decade in retail selling computer products, that is
entirely the wrong way of approaching the problem of "which laptop to pick". First you identify the user's budget, use case (which of course sets requirements for performance) and other preferences (such as ergonomics, design, build quality, screen quality, inputs, etc.). Then you narrow down your selection based on those requirements, and when you arrive at a handful of alternatives (2-3 is best, though even 5 is manageable) you need
in-depth knowledge of the specifics of how the PC is to use - which of course includes performance in the relevant tasks, but also crucially includes build quality, ergonomics and other things that a) most users appreciate far more than they are able to put into words on their own accord (as these things are generally taken for granted until something different is presented; a large part of why Apple fans are so loyal - Apple does these things brilliantly (with the notable exception of the butterfly keyboards, obviously)) and b) at this point determining what will give the overall better user experience is
far more important than which PC scores the highest in whatever benchmark you are looking at. And, I mean, even if looking at pure performance data, even NotebookCheck's product information pages for CPUs and GPUs are far more informative and trustworthy than UserBenchmark! At the very least when reading those you can trust that the data is gathered in a proper manner, eliminating possible errors and variables that might otherwise skew the data and thus misrepresent reality.
Oh, sorry, had to edit this to bring up one last thing: that "false recommendation" nonsense of yours. First you make the rather extreme statement that
Quote from: william blake on May 03, 2020, 19:31:57
you hate someone you give a false recommendation to.
Which is an absolutely absurd statement positing a direct (and exclusive) causal link between giving a "false recommendation" and actual hatred of the person in question. It becomes even more absurd given your further explanation that
Quote from: william blake on May 04, 2020, 15:42:18
lying is one of the options. you can give a false recommendation because you have no idea about the subject. or you can repeat something what was wrong already.
Let's parse this together. So a "false recommendation" can either be an outright lie or be based on ignorance (willful or not). Of course one of the possible reasons for lying to someone is indeed that you hate them, though hate is an extreme feeling and thus highly unlikely - simple dislike (which is not hate by any means) is far more likely, as are other explanations like wanting to mess with someone, misunderstanding their wants or needs, or any other source of misunderstanding (such as language or other communication issues). Yet by your own words - after all, you interjected this as a response to me - you seem to see ignorance as
more likely an explanation than lying. Which then means that, by your own statements, giving wrongful advice based on a lack of knowledge (ignorance) to someone is
done because of hatred of that person. Seriously? This is the most nonsensical babble I have seen in
ages. How can hatred of another person cause ignorance of an unrelated subject? Again: I would
love to see you argue for this.
Oh, and that "I wouldn't recommend (UB) = I recommend you nothing" line is pure nonsense - I have after all presented a list to you of alternative sources of information, of which recommendations could indeed be based.
Quote from: Spunjji on May 04, 2020, 17:18:40
Quote from: PnSHR on May 03, 2020, 22:57:33
Quote from: Robin12 on May 03, 2020, 22:50:10
Quote from: Redaktion on May 03, 2020, 10:59:26
Admittedly, this is based on a "peak" performance from the Renoir APU compared to the average of the Comet Lake samples (177 units tested at the time of writing)
Comparing apples to oranges and spewing fake outrage. Looks like UserBenchmark is fine. It's just that notebookchat.com is heavily biased against Intel.
Yap. Very irresponsible from notebookchat.com. Trying to cater to the fanboys to get more views. In the end that's what pays the bill not authentic journalism.
If you think that dismissing poor methodology and skewed results is "catering to the fanboys" then you miiiight be a fanboy.
I wish these forums had a "like" button. I'll have to settle for an emoji 👍
Quote from: Spunjji on May 04, 2020, 17:13:46
Quote from: william blake on May 04, 2020, 15:42:18
i am a userbenchmark user. AND an amd supporter since 90ths. sure i dont like made up ratings which contradicts to their own data, but i can live without this 2% of numbers i need.
i am using userbenchmark for my hobby-searching/comparing/choosing laptops for my friends/colleagues/random people.
and i tell you one thing for sure.
you either liar or a complete noob.
any places you mentioned, is ten times less useful. TEN TIMES.
userbenchmark is THE database, all-in one. "reviews" is a joke, right?
(still not sure, maybe you are a troll, quality troll)
The day trolls and shills learned they could escape scrutiny simply by being the first accuse the other poster of being a troll or a shill was the day that internet comment sections became an interminable morass of confirmation bias.
I have yet to see "william blake" post information of value. Using that old canard of "I'm an AMD fan, honest, I'm just FORCED to defend things that are obviously biased towards Intel" should be automatically disqualifying. Nobody asked! 🙄
See above. 👍
UserBenchmark's benchmarks as-is are pretty useless. the scores it returns are horribly inconsistent as-is and depend on like 2k samples to even produce any sort of meaningful results. Plus, yeah, UserBenchmark weighs singlecore higher than multicore even though there's not a single new title that's come out in the last like 5 years that doesn't leverage it. A bunch of fools is what they are.
What a useless benchmark! Its weighting scheme has so much variance with respect to one test that the interpreted result is almost entirely dominated by just that one input. You can basically approximate their methodology by using just that one test, which means the other scores should not even be presented, because they are not of equal informational value. In other words, their performance evaluation model outputs an unreasonably large result range based on very small changes in one subtest. Uselessly unsensitive benchmark that is reducible to one test. Might as well be testing gigaflops using Prime 95.
Nobody commenting on how the AMD chip is also using close to half the watts as the Intel chip in this comparison?