5 ms·

Considering that there’s no difference between the 1050ti in the OP and the 5500M that PragmaticPulp posted I’m inclined to say this test sucks. Userbenchmark.c

Considering that there’s no difference between the 1050ti in the OP and the 5500M that PragmaticPulp posted I’m inclined to say this test sucks. Userbenchmark.com shows there should be a substantial (38%) improvement between those two. Take these early results with a HUGE grain of salt because they smell fishy. https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-1050-Ti-vs-AMD-Radeon-Pro-5500M/3649vsm960765 https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-1050-Ti-vs-...

kllrnohj 6y ago
Well, two things there. 1: Userbenchmark.com is terrible and nobody should use it for anything. At least their CPU side of things is hopelessly bought & paid for by Intel (and even within the Intel lineup they give terrible & wrong advice), maybe the GPU side is better but I wouldn't count on it. 2: The real question there isn't "why is the 1050 Ti not faster?" it's "how did you run a 1050 Ti on MacOS in the first place, since Nvidia doesn't make MacOS drivers anymore and hasn't for a long time?"
- aardvarkr 6y ago
  1. Today I learned something new. Still, can’t let great be the enemy of good. It may be imperfect but it’s the source I used. Do you have a better source I can replace it with? 2. That’s a good question and I don’t have an answer for that.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    Sure, great is the enemy good etc , but the allegation here and in other threads is that these benchmarks are bad. Or, worse, inherently and deliberately biased. As for a better source, I don't know with the M1 being so new, but that's no reason to accept bad data, if this benchmark actually is as bad as others here are saying.
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  Re #2, the Nvidia web drivers work great if you're on High Sierra
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > Userbenchmark.com is terrible and nobody should use it for anything. At least their CPU side of things is hopelessly bought & paid for by Intel (and even within the Intel lineup they give terrible & wrong advice), maybe the GPU side is better but I wouldn't count on it. To provide some elaboration on this: Their overall CPU score used to be 30% single, 60% quad, 10% multicore. Last year around the launch of zen 2 they gave it an update. Which makes sense; the increasing ability of programs to actually scale beyond four cores means that multicore should get more importance. And so they changed the influence of multicore numbers from 10% to... 2%. Not only was it a blatant and ridiculous move to hurt the scores of AMD chips, you got results like this, an i3 beating an i9 https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/jDJP8prZywSyLPesLtrak4-970-80.jpg https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/jDJP8prZywSyLPesLtrak4-970... And there was some suspicious dropping of zen 3 scores a week ago, too, it looks like.
  - brokencode 6y ago
    I don’t see that as evidence of blatant bias for Intel. The site is just aimed at helping the average consumer pick out a part, and I think the weighting makes sense. Most applications can only make use of a few CPU-heavy threads at a time, and these systems with with 18 cores will not make any difference for the average user. In fact, the 18 core behemoth might actually feel slower for regular desktop usage since it’s clocked lower. If you are a pro with a CPU-heavy workflow that scales well with more threads, then you probably don’t need some consumer benchmark website to tell you that you need a CPU with more cores.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      But lots of things do use more than 4 cores, with games especially growing in core use over time. Even more so if you want to stream to your friends or have browsers and such open in the background. To suddenly set that to almost zero weight, when it was already a pretty low fraction, right when zen 2 came out, is clear bias. > In fact, the 18 core behemoth might actually feel slower for regular desktop usage since it’s clocked lower. It has a similar turbo, it won't.
    - hackerfromthefu 6y ago
- mastazi 6y ago
  Regarding 2. I think that none of those benchmarks were run on MacOS. Their benchmark tool seems to be Windows-only https://www.userbenchmark.com/ https://www.userbenchmark.com/ (click on "free download" and the MacOS save dialogue will inform you that the file you are about to download is a Windows executable).
  - kllrnohj 6y ago
    The gfxbench link in the OP of the M1 vs. GTX 1050 Ti days that the 1050 was tested on MacOS. That's what I was referring to.
xfalcox 6y ago
Please don't use userbenchmark for anything. Site is so misleading that it's banned from both r/amd and r/intel.

kllrnohj 6y ago

Well, two things there. 1: Userbenchmark.com is terrible and nobody should use it for anything. At least their CPU side of things is hopelessly bought & paid for by Intel (and even within the Intel lineup they give terrible & wrong advice), maybe the GPU side is better but I wouldn't count on it. 2: The real question there isn't "why is the 1050 Ti not faster?" it's "how did you run a 1050 Ti on MacOS in the first place, since Nvidia doesn't make MacOS drivers anymore and hasn't for a long time?"

aardvarkr 6y ago
1. Today I learned something new. Still, can’t let great be the enemy of good. It may be imperfect but it’s the source I used. Do you have a better source I can replace it with? 2. That’s a good question and I don’t have an answer for that.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Sure, great is the enemy good etc , but the allegation here and in other threads is that these benchmarks are bad. Or, worse, inherently and deliberately biased. As for a better source, I don't know with the M1 being so new, but that's no reason to accept bad data, if this benchmark actually is as bad as others here are saying.
Rebelgecko 6y ago
Re #2, the Nvidia web drivers work great if you're on High Sierra
Dylan16807 6y ago
> Userbenchmark.com is terrible and nobody should use it for anything. At least their CPU side of things is hopelessly bought & paid for by Intel (and even within the Intel lineup they give terrible & wrong advice), maybe the GPU side is better but I wouldn't count on it. To provide some elaboration on this: Their overall CPU score used to be 30% single, 60% quad, 10% multicore. Last year around the launch of zen 2 they gave it an update. Which makes sense; the increasing ability of programs to actually scale beyond four cores means that multicore should get more importance. And so they changed the influence of multicore numbers from 10% to... 2%. Not only was it a blatant and ridiculous move to hurt the scores of AMD chips, you got results like this, an i3 beating an i9 https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/jDJP8prZywSyLPesLtrak4-970-80.jpg https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/jDJP8prZywSyLPesLtrak4-970... And there was some suspicious dropping of zen 3 scores a week ago, too, it looks like.
- brokencode 6y ago
  I don’t see that as evidence of blatant bias for Intel. The site is just aimed at helping the average consumer pick out a part, and I think the weighting makes sense. Most applications can only make use of a few CPU-heavy threads at a time, and these systems with with 18 cores will not make any difference for the average user. In fact, the 18 core behemoth might actually feel slower for regular desktop usage since it’s clocked lower. If you are a pro with a CPU-heavy workflow that scales well with more threads, then you probably don’t need some consumer benchmark website to tell you that you need a CPU with more cores.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    But lots of things do use more than 4 cores, with games especially growing in core use over time. Even more so if you want to stream to your friends or have browsers and such open in the background. To suddenly set that to almost zero weight, when it was already a pretty low fraction, right when zen 2 came out, is clear bias. > In fact, the 18 core behemoth might actually feel slower for regular desktop usage since it’s clocked lower. It has a similar turbo, it won't.
  - hackerfromthefu 6y ago
mastazi 6y ago
Regarding 2. I think that none of those benchmarks were run on MacOS. Their benchmark tool seems to be Windows-only https://www.userbenchmark.com/ https://www.userbenchmark.com/ (click on "free download" and the MacOS save dialogue will inform you that the file you are about to download is a Windows executable).
- kllrnohj 6y ago
  The gfxbench link in the OP of the M1 vs. GTX 1050 Ti days that the 1050 was tested on MacOS. That's what I was referring to.

xfalcox 6y ago

Please don't use userbenchmark for anything. Site is so misleading that it's banned from both r/amd and r/intel.