6 ms·

Not saying you're wrong, because intel stagnation was very real, but please don't use userbenchmark as a source of numbers for anything. They're a terrible sour

Not saying you're wrong, because intel stagnation was very real, but please don't use userbenchmark as a source of numbers for anything. They're a terrible source with biased benchmarks and reporting. Just look at the dribble they write for basically any AMD product on their site (https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/1817839/AMD-Ryzen-7-5800X3D-8-Core-Processor https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/1817839/AMD-Ryzen-7-..., or this https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/2081998/AMD-Ryzen-7-7800X3D-8-Core-Processor https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/2081998/AMD-Ryzen-7-... which just find-and-replaces half the 5800X3D comments).

Dylan16807 3y ago
Or when AMD started adding more cores to desktop chips and they changed the "overall score" calculation from 30% single, 60% quad, 10% multi to 40% single, 58% quad, 2% multi. Not only was that the opposite of computing trends, and just there to spite AMD, the new system had results like an i3-9350KF being overall faster than an i9-9980XE.
senttoschool 3y ago
Likewise, please don't use Cinebench. It's a poor general purpose CPU benchmark that first favored Zen architecture (many slow cores) and now favors Intel's Raptor Lake. It's hand optimized for x86 instructions and is highly parallel, which is not how most applications run. Use Geekbench instead of Cinebench or Userbenchmark.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >It's a poor general purpose CPU benchmark that first favored Zen architecture (many slow cores) and now favors Intel's Raptor Lake. Would you advise the same if the colors were reversed? The majority of people here are AMD fanbois, so it's sometimes hard to discern whether something is rooted in objectivity or subjectivity.
  - senttoschool 3y ago
    If you're an AMD fanboy, you'd only care about Cinebench despite the fact that its results do not correlate with gaming or other common applications such as browsing, Excel, video editing, etc. There's a reason why x86 CPU users will only want to compare Apple Silicon using Cinebench. It's because Cinebench uses Intel Embree, which is hand optimized for x86 instructions. It's like testing Ryzen or Core CPUs on software optimized for ARM instructions, and then making a conclusion on how fast they are for x86 applications. Use Geekbench.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      Ideally you would run a suite of various benchmarks and workloads and pass judgment on the overall results, rather than basing it on just one specific test or another. They're all going to be biased one way or another. You also didn't answer my question: Would you likewise advise against Cinebench if the colors were reversed? As it is, you're advising against Cinebench just because it favors Intel.
      - senttoschool 3y ago
        I’m advising against cinebench for any general purpose CPU testing. Far too many people, YouTubers, and hardware websites draw conclusion about the speed of the CPU and perf per watt using only Cinebench.
        Dalewyn 3y ago
        I can drink to that. No singular test is going to give a complete picture.
- skavi 3y ago
  Geekbench generally lines up with SPEC, the industry standard. (at least for consumer stuff)
bhouston 3y ago
What the hell is that write up? I never noticed that before but it makes userbenchmark look really bad.

Dylan16807 3y ago

Or when AMD started adding more cores to desktop chips and they changed the "overall score" calculation from 30% single, 60% quad, 10% multi to 40% single, 58% quad, 2% multi. Not only was that the opposite of computing trends, and just there to spite AMD, the new system had results like an i3-9350KF being overall faster than an i9-9980XE.

senttoschool 3y ago

Likewise, please don't use Cinebench. It's a poor general purpose CPU benchmark that first favored Zen architecture (many slow cores) and now favors Intel's Raptor Lake. It's hand optimized for x86 instructions and is highly parallel, which is not how most applications run. Use Geekbench instead of Cinebench or Userbenchmark.

Dalewyn 3y ago
>It's a poor general purpose CPU benchmark that first favored Zen architecture (many slow cores) and now favors Intel's Raptor Lake. Would you advise the same if the colors were reversed? The majority of people here are AMD fanbois, so it's sometimes hard to discern whether something is rooted in objectivity or subjectivity.
- senttoschool 3y ago
  If you're an AMD fanboy, you'd only care about Cinebench despite the fact that its results do not correlate with gaming or other common applications such as browsing, Excel, video editing, etc. There's a reason why x86 CPU users will only want to compare Apple Silicon using Cinebench. It's because Cinebench uses Intel Embree, which is hand optimized for x86 instructions. It's like testing Ryzen or Core CPUs on software optimized for ARM instructions, and then making a conclusion on how fast they are for x86 applications. Use Geekbench.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    Ideally you would run a suite of various benchmarks and workloads and pass judgment on the overall results, rather than basing it on just one specific test or another. They're all going to be biased one way or another. You also didn't answer my question: Would you likewise advise against Cinebench if the colors were reversed? As it is, you're advising against Cinebench just because it favors Intel.
    - senttoschool 3y ago
      I’m advising against cinebench for any general purpose CPU testing. Far too many people, YouTubers, and hardware websites draw conclusion about the speed of the CPU and perf per watt using only Cinebench.
      - Dalewyn 3y ago
        I can drink to that. No singular test is going to give a complete picture.
skavi 3y ago
Geekbench generally lines up with SPEC, the industry standard. (at least for consumer stuff)

bhouston 3y ago

What the hell is that write up? I never noticed that before but it makes userbenchmark look really bad.