3 ms·

Userbenchmark.com is worse than useless. It’s straight up lies.

paulmd 4y ago
And like I said, I knew I was gonna get my head bitten off for that. This is where you distinguish the bandwagon hangers-on from the people actually interested in technical discussion. The commentary UserBenchmark provides is terrible and the “effective speed” composite rating is terrible. The actual int/fp benchmarks are perfectly fine and actually tend to be more reflective of actual benchmarks like spec than Passmark has been, in my experience. Passmark does sometimes have oddities, UserBenchmark hasn’t. But bandwagoners can’t accept that, they just see “UserBenchmark” and their vision goes red and they shake as they struggle to type out “nobody should EVER use UserBenchmark”. I do apologize for being colorful but that’s how it is. Like I said, there’s a reason I didn’t link it, no matter what you say, there’s a significant number of people who just can’t act mature enough to handle separating the data from the editorial positions. It would be nice if we had good Spec2017 benchmarks for everything. I would prefer that. If you want broad comparisons of completely obscure hardware “what does this ultra-budget Xeon Bronze look like against this atom vs a desktop processor from 2007” the options are limited. You have Passmark, you have UserBenchmark, and you have Geekbench. And people still lose their shit over Geekbench too. Even Passmark has only seen that xeon a total of 14 times. The situation is even worse for GPUs where UserBenchmark is the only reasonably broad benchmark database available for truly ancient stuff that 3Dmark won’t run on. What if you want to compare a GTX 9800 to a Vega 7 and a Intel HD 605? It’s UserBenchmark or nothing. It sucks but it is what it is, and people need to just grow up. Including the owner of UserBenchmark. But the effective speed is just a composite benchmark and he’s never actually tampered the underlying int/fp benchmarks. Phoronix is also not particularly good and has some serious methodological problems too. But nobody else does linux benchmarks apart from STH and Phoronix, and Phoronix pumps them out like crazy and just survives on volume even if his testing is kinda shit. Look at his “Linux games” test and he’s mixing multiple resolutions into a single result set, including the same game multiple times, etc, and then pulling out averages, everything is framerates and not frametimes (meaning, averages and not minimums), etc. From what I’ve heard his application testing isn’t any better but I don’t remember specifics. Just goes to show: you can be scum and put out good data, and you can be a pillar of the community and put out bad data. Reddit tone police don’t change that. There is a awful lot of incredibly useful data in the world that came from people who are extremely disagreeable on a personal level - or much, much worse.
- jamiek88 4y ago
  Yeah life’s too short to see what part of lies are true.

And like I said, I knew I was gonna get my head bitten off for that. This is where you distinguish the bandwagon hangers-on from the people actually interested in technical discussion. The commentary UserBenchmark provides is terrible and the “effective speed” composite rating is terrible. The actual int/fp benchmarks are perfectly fine and actually tend to be more reflective of actual benchmarks like spec than Passmark has been, in my experience. Passmark does sometimes have oddities, UserBenchmark hasn’t. But bandwagoners can’t accept that, they just see “UserBenchmark” and their vision goes red and they shake as they struggle to type out “nobody should EVER use UserBenchmark”. I do apologize for being colorful but that’s how it is. Like I said, there’s a reason I didn’t link it, no matter what you say, there’s a significant number of people who just can’t act mature enough to handle separating the data from the editorial positions. It would be nice if we had good Spec2017 benchmarks for everything. I would prefer that. If you want broad comparisons of completely obscure hardware “what does this ultra-budget Xeon Bronze look like against this atom vs a desktop processor from 2007” the options are limited. You have Passmark, you have UserBenchmark, and you have Geekbench. And people still lose their shit over Geekbench too. Even Passmark has only seen that xeon a total of 14 times. The situation is even worse for GPUs where UserBenchmark is the only reasonably broad benchmark database available for truly ancient stuff that 3Dmark won’t run on. What if you want to compare a GTX 9800 to a Vega 7 and a Intel HD 605? It’s UserBenchmark or nothing. It sucks but it is what it is, and people need to just grow up. Including the owner of UserBenchmark. But the effective speed is just a composite benchmark and he’s never actually tampered the underlying int/fp benchmarks. Phoronix is also not particularly good and has some serious methodological problems too. But nobody else does linux benchmarks apart from STH and Phoronix, and Phoronix pumps them out like crazy and just survives on volume even if his testing is kinda shit. Look at his “Linux games” test and he’s mixing multiple resolutions into a single result set, including the same game multiple times, etc, and then pulling out averages, everything is framerates and not frametimes (meaning, averages and not minimums), etc. From what I’ve heard his application testing isn’t any better but I don’t remember specifics. Just goes to show: you can be scum and put out good data, and you can be a pillar of the community and put out bad data. Reddit tone police don’t change that. There is a awful lot of incredibly useful data in the world that came from people who are extremely disagreeable on a personal level - or much, much worse.

jamiek88 4y ago
Yeah life’s too short to see what part of lies are true.