I’m sure there are niche users for who paying the price of admission is acceptable, but for myself and I assume a vast number of other users, when I’m comparing performance of hardware I’m already checking reviews on multiple other sites, so this will only mean I don’t bother to check their site.
I haven’t visited their site in a long time though, so I’m not sure what value-adds they offered that might make the price more palatable.
The actual "single core", "multi-core" were basically fine last I was aware, but they went so far into apeshit meltdown about the fact that AMD was offering better value than Intel with Ryzen (which is kind of back and forth since, but AMD is the reason I could get a 16 (real, capable of demanding single core loads too) core for $500 a couple years ago, not too long after Intel was selling 6 cores for more than that.) that it undermined everything else.
Anyways, UB's owner didn't like that AMD had good shit so he kept changing the "gaming/desktop/whatever" grade formulas to tilt the comparisons to Intel using more and more hilarious mechanisms. It started with a reasonable "you don't really benefit from games past 4/6/8 cores" and de-emphasizing super high core counts that hadn't really been an issue before, but it quickly degraded into obviously cheating hard by whatever means necessary to punish AMD, with even worse diatribes in the descriptions to match.
This site was grossly misleading at best, and commonly actively hostile to accurate information. Making it so less people can read the bad information has made the world better.
I know the admins have unquestionable integrity (they certainly pretend as much) so surely they are going to retroactively pay every user who contributed their benchmarks for free. Right? When should I expect my first royalty check?
The only reason I can think for a site to do this is that they were about to go under already. This will absolutely tank them as there are free alternatives.
The 5800X3D has the same core architecture as the 5800X but it runs at 11% lower base and 4% lower boost clocks. The lower clocks are in exchange for an extra 64MB of cache (96MB up from 32MB) and around 40% more money. For most real-world tasks performance is comparable to the 5800X. Cache sensitive scenarios such as low res. canned game benchmarks with a 3090-Ti ($2,000 USD) benefit at the cost of everything else. Be wary of sponsored reviews with cherry picked games that showcase the wins, conveniently ignore frame drops and gloss over the losses. Also watch out for AMD’s army of Neanderthal social media accounts on reddit, forums and youtube, they will be singing their own praises as usual. Instead of focusing on real-world performance, AMD’s marketers aim to dupe consumers with bankrolled headlines. The same tactics were used with the Radeon 5000 series GPUs. Zen 4 needs to bring substantial IPC improvements for all workloads, rather than overpriced “3D” marketing gimmicks. New PC builders have little reason to look further than the $260 12600K which, at a fraction of the price, offers better all round performance in gaming, desktop and workstation applications. Users with an existing AM4 build should wait just a few more months for better performance at lower prices with Raptor Lake or even Zen 4. The marketers selling expensive “3D” upgrades today will quickly move onto Zen 4 (3D) leaving unfortunate buyers stuck on an overpriced, 6 year old, dead-end, platform. [Mar '22 CPUPro]
The real Neanderthal social media account is the one writing that review.
Instruction and data caches have a real, tangible benefit. Although there is a point of diminishing returns, more L3 cache is absolutely worth a 10% clock speed trade-off for consumer systems. Fetching memory from the bus is an order of magnitude slower than fetching from cache, and the processor has to perform other work or stall while it’s waiting for that.
But, knowing the bias of the reviewer, they’re probably running DDR4 at 5200 MT/s (2000 over JEDEC specs) on their Intel systems to make up for the lack of cache while thinking, “just buy a more expensive processor and RAM, you brain-dead cretins.”
I mean it’s kinda amazing that there’s someone looking at a 14th gen Intel CPU sucking back 200+ watts, while it gets spanked by a 7800X3D running at 65 watts, and thinking “AMD is hurting consumers”. That’s some next level shit.
Ok so I am about to build a new rig, and looking at the specs the X3D does seem less powerful and more expensive than the regular 7950.
While I completely agree that this guy seems extremely biased and that he comes off like an absolute dickbag, I don’t think the essence of his take is too far off base if you strip off the layers of spite.
Really, it seems like the tangible benefit of the X3D that most people will realize is that it offers similar performance with lower energy consumption, and thus lower cooling requirements. Benchmarks from various sources seem to bear this out as well.
It seems like a chip that in general performs on par with the 7950x but with better efficiency, and if you have a specific workload that can benefit from the extra cache it might show a significant improvement. Higher end processors these days already have a fuckton of cache so it isn’t surprising to me that this doesn’t benchmark much better than the cheaper 7950x.
What's scary is that I think the owner of userbenchmark actually believes that statement. Which might explain how he's so out of touch that he thinks his own crap doesn't stink and deserves to be locked behind a subscription. I'm just sad that there might be a not insignificant number of people that pay for it.
Uhh… Aren’t… Aren’t these two statements kinda contradictory?
No no, you see; it performs reasonably consistency under varying real world conditions but for a CPU to truly shine it needs to handle all workloads, including unrealistic synthetic ones.
This is a net win. Now they won’t be recommended to everyone trying to do hardware comparisons. The bias in their results has pretty much made them worthless as a source since Ryzen released.
Why on earth do they have a monthly subscription on something people maybe use once every 1 or two years?
Who is actually going to pay a netflix sub to see marginally bad data that often?
Like Netflix I understand if you cannot help yourself.
But is there a band of computer nerds out there, that I don't know about, that want play by play updates on how a graphics card is preforming compared to others? On a monthly basis?
Being a number nerd, I can see the appeal for something like this (extremely bad quality of data aside), or at least I do frequently visit OpenBenchmarkin.org (similar concept than UserBenchmark, but open source).
I also know 1 person who is obsseded with constantly buying/selling parts for their PC, and for whatever reason still uses UB after I told them how shit it is.
My guess is that this will also resonate with some Intel fanboys.
All of this is more of an exception to the rule, but they need just a few bunch of people subscribing to generate more profit than before.
YAY FREE ADVERTISEMENT LETS GO LOSERBENCHMARK!!!11111
In all seriousness, these guys are ONLY the top google result because of all the “controversy.” They do it for a reason. Every time i’ve seen a thread talking about them i’ve literally downvoted it because the only way to stop the cycle is to just let them die a slow death which as far as I can tell is never going to happen. Their business model is better than anybody talking about them, posting about them, or generating ad revenue from making articles about them. We’re the clowns.
That was the only reason to use the site lol other paid options are way better. All userbenchmarks was good for was giving you a rough idea that your hardware was performing as it was expected to.
Add comment