The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X has been impressing many with its various appearances on synthetic benchmarks. However, it is the Intel Core i9-10900K that tops the average bench charts over at UserBenchmark, while the powerful Zen 3 Vermeer CPU has to languish behind in fifth position, regardless of higher core scores across the board. Is this the final nail in the coffin for the controversial benchmark?
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Final-nail-in-the-coffin-Bar-raising-AMD-Ryzen-9-5950X-somehow-lags-behind-four-Intel-parts-including-the-Core-i9-10900K-in-average-bench-on-UserBenchmark-despite-higher-1-core-and-4-core-scores.503581.0.html
UserBenchmark is a joke of a site for quite awhile and is usually heavily criticized both by fans and tech Youtubers for its Intel bias. I have seen core i3 cpus scoring higher than Ryzen 7 on that site as well. Wouldn't be surprised if Intel actually owns Userbenchmark.
That is why no serious computing enthusiast takes UserBenchmark seriously. It was, is and will be a joke. Basically Intel>AMD if you follow their UselessBenchmark scheme.
Fall of UserBenchmark.com? Four Intel i9 CPUs outperform AMD Ryzen 9 5950X!
kkkkkkk
Quote from: Rinnn on November 10, 2020, 18:46:32
UserBenchmark is a joke of a site for quite awhile and is usually heavily criticized both by fans and tech Youtubers for its Intel bias. I have seen core i3 cpus scoring higher than Ryzen 7 on that site as well. Wouldn't be surprised if Intel actually owns Userbenchmark.
I doubt that would be the case. It's banned from the r/intel subreddit as well. I dont think something that heavily promotes intel, would be banned from the r/intel subreddit. it doesn't make sense.
@rmt.pussy
Do not be so stupid :D
Nobody cares about their benchmarks anymore. Perhaps a few fanboys might still like them but they have lost all credibility. The truth is that AMD now is way ahead of Intel in terms of IPC, the single parameter that matters the most. In the past latency was an issue with the MCM design of Zen but with Zen 3 that has been improved so much that the gap has become negligible.
QuoteNobody cares about their benchmarks anymore.
People who are shopping for CPU's will still look at this travesty of a website sadly, as it still pops up at the top of Google results.
One way to make sense of this is to wonder if their rankings are based on clock speeds as the principal measure of single thread performance? So pathetic...
Pseudo-benchmark, which always screwed the result in favour of their favourite brands. Confusing people, even today, doing more harm than anything else. They could somehow explain their weird results by not properly weighting the multicore, but when AMD's singlecore is stronger and still "looses" to Intel.. Well, they just prove their reputation. I just use Cinebench 15/20 to compare the cpus I have/had.
I would commend the author and the readers of the article to look at the the article I contributed to the AMD Red Team Forum:
Unfortunately I am not allowed to post the link to the article, but you can find it if you go to the AMD Red Team forum and search for:
QuoteUpdating my definitive guide to configuring the Ryzen 3900X/3950X and all other 3000 Series CPUs
The article is a detailed guide on how to
configure and not overclock a 3rd Gen Ryzen CPUs (aka 3000 Series) and by extension the new 4th Gen Ryzen CPUs
Over the past almost one and a half years, the Tech Media and nearly all of the Tech YouTube sites (with some notable exceptions such as Gamers Nexus, Level 1 Tech, Buildzoid, Der8auer etc. who conduct extreme overclocking with LN2) have been either too stupid, too lazy or too corrupt to learn how to properly configure Ryzen 3rd/4th Gen CPUs.
For example I have seen a CineBench R20 Benchmark score for the 5950X of 10,150. The reviewer seemed impressed by this score.
Configuring the 3950X correctly I manage to achieve (staying within spec and not overclocking - whereby running Ryzen 3rd/4th Gen Ryzen at "Stock" is running outside of spec) a CineBench R20 score of 10,250.
So it is not really impressive when the "Experts" manage to get a score which is 100 less than that of the previous generation.
I've seen 100+ benchmarks. Time and time again the new AMD chip kills the the 10th gen Intel chips. Show me real world numbers, benchmarks or the like and ill believe the rhetoric, until then quit crying!
Such a misleading article ...
Thank you Notebookcheck for sharing this, and by only publishing the results of one heavily biased benchmark.
This helps me to take this platform less serious.
I seriously losing respect for this site, trash quality article without any review on the content
But does the Ryzen CPUs have the bonus "Genuine_Intel" tag?
Quote from: VEGGIM on November 10, 2020, 20:03:44
Quote from: Rinnn on November 10, 2020, 18:46:32
UserBenchmark is a joke of a site for quite awhile and is usually heavily criticized both by fans and tech Youtubers for its Intel bias. I have seen core i3 cpus scoring higher than Ryzen 7 on that site as well. Wouldn't be surprised if Intel actually owns Userbenchmark.
I doubt that would be the case. It's banned from the r/intel subreddit as well. I dont think something that heavily promotes intel, would be banned from the r/intel subreddit. it doesn't make sense.
That is exactly the case even if you doubt it.
i thought "intel inside" sticker gives additional 270 points. No?
Does UserBenchmark take into consideration the clock speeds? Most people running a 10900K (or any K CPU) are overclocking the CPU, which if not accounted for, could skew the avg performance numbers of Intel processors. Therefore showing the avg Intel score higher than what a stock CPU would perform at.
Does intel pay by the word or letter?
why are you using user benchmark data for making this article? that website has been proven inaccurate for many years now. I find it disturbing that you would make such claims when every reviewer who has had hands-on and made direct comparisons find that the AMD parts outperform Intel in every way. Even the 5600X outperforms the 10900K in some instances. the 5950X destroys Intel.
Quote from: Will G on November 11, 2020, 16:39:18
why are you using user benchmark data for making this article? that website has been proven inaccurate for many years now. I find it disturbing that you would make such claims when every reviewer who has had hands-on and made direct comparisons find that the AMD parts outperform Intel in every way. Even the 5600X outperforms the 10900K in some instances. the 5950X destroys Intel.
Did you even read the Article? It's about how UB is shady and none should look at their scores, and their data is essential to show it.
Quote from: Will G on November 11, 2020, 16:39:18
why are you using user benchmark data for making this article? that website has been proven inaccurate for many years now. I find it disturbing that you would make such claims when every reviewer who has had hands-on and made direct comparisons find that the AMD parts outperform Intel in every way. Even the 5600X outperforms the 10900K in some instances. the 5950X destroys Intel.
If you READ. The whole article is talking about Userbenchmark is cheating again. The picture is shown as proof. L2R.
The concern I have is that lay-people who know little to nothing about hardware specs may still find UserBenchmark and think the site is unbiased/accurate. While their technical analysis and score weighting could be better managed by a hamster, they've done well with SEO, and the GUI has always seemed at or near the top for data (mis)representation. These two things may lead the uninformed to think they can rely on UserBenchmark's information. Not sure there's much fix to this, aside from consumers doing enough digging to learn UserBenchmark has serious misrepresentation issues at the core of their benchmark model and data portrayal.
They add that extra ""2%"" from bigger frequency numbers and the slightly lower memory latency on intel chips. This is still fucking pathetic to prioritize that over all the other categories that AMD beats them in.
Quote from: rar on November 11, 2020, 12:22:49
I seriously losing respect for this site, trash quality article without any review on the content
I'm seriously losing respect for people like you without any ability to actually read the content of the article. >:(
Well, just from the headline it sounds as if they are trying to bash AMD, but reading the article it becomes obvious they're actually trying to bash UserBenchmark which published BS scores.
The same thing happened to nvidia 30 series. Where the 3090 averaged a 190 iirc (2080 ti was about 170).
I guess we should wait till they fix the scoring problem.
I would probably re-evaluate the title of the article. The title doesn't clearly convey what the article's subject actually is.
Wtf?! Literally false. Fake news...
Dumbass writer must have had a stroke and couldn't research a single thing...
Quote from: VEGGIM on November 10, 2020, 20:03:44
Quote from: Rinnn on November 10, 2020, 18:46:32
UserBenchmark is a joke of a site for quite awhile and is usually heavily criticized both by fans and tech Youtubers for its Intel bias. I have seen core i3 cpus scoring higher than Ryzen 7 on that site as well. Wouldn't be surprised if Intel actually owns Userbenchmark.
I doubt that would be the case. It's banned from the r/intel subreddit as well. I dont think something that heavily promotes intel, would be banned from the r/intel subreddit. it doesn't make sense.
They don't need it on there. It adds credibility to Intel that they are banned, and makes people think like you just did.
Userbenchmark has high Google results, and caters to people that don't know anything about computers. So it doesn't matter if it's on cpu reddits, the people there wouldnt fall for their obvious BS anyway. Userbenchmark just needs to mislead more "gullible" people.
Sounds like to me that the user benchmark people are in cahoots with Intel or that the person who wrote this article is an Intel fanboy who's trying to bash AMD and can't just accept the fact that AMD is kicking Intel's a** just the same as the president can't admit that he lost to Joe Biden
All these hate comments show is that people don't know how to fucking read and will spew hate towards anything lmao
Do you have nothing better to do?
UserBenchmark captured my interest some time ago. But their fight against Ryzen is more and more apparent. At first, they started reducing the impact of core count on the result, and back then the weighting algorithm was still public. Then they reduced it further, later they made it private. They are more and more obscure, and not trustworthy at all, anymore.
Furthermore, feel free to read their "reviews" of the CPUs. In case of Ryzen 5 5600X, I haven't read a worse pile of bullcrap for quite some time, when I consider things that are published as "reviews". They're even recommending i5-9600K as a substitute for the far better Ryzen SKU.
$#@###2026
If you want an impartial alternative, try Hardlimit Benchmark.
The difference being that Intel will be charging 4 times the price for a few percent performance gain. Amazing the kind of money people will spend to satisfy their own ego.
Quote from: Ryan Waldron on November 12, 2020, 14:55:27
The difference being that Intel will be charging 4 times the price for a few percent performance gain. Amazing the kind of money people will spend to satisfy their own ego.
Who charges 4 times the price for the Intel? Are you high?
So, if AMD can fix a scheduling issue facing windows then AMD will gain 2%-4% above Intel here. As it is most of the samples on these benchmark sites are not properly showing 5950x's that are running at 5.12ghz and 4.97ghz.
Does anyone know about any alternatives to this site?
And how do you compare hardware today?(besides from youtube reviews)
thanks
userbenchmark sucks!!!!