安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
In addition, it's a weak synthetic benchmark that isn't particularly demanding enough to push stock CPUs, so overclocking even just to the turbo clock will basically put your CPU percentile to at least 90%.
So they'll always rank higher in their ranks.
But, make sure you're not looking at overall scores - they don't show much info.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-10100-vs-AMD-Ryzen-3-3300X/4075vs4076
Look at the numbers in the comparison vs the conclusion on which CPU is better. They're either tacitly admitting their benchmark scores can't be used to measure whether one thing is better than another, or they're shilling. Probably the prior, because you can't boil "gaming performance" down to a single number the way they do, and as a percentage... of what?
https://www.techspot.com/review/2031-intel-core-i5-10600k/
like that ^
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/AMD-Ryzen-3-3300X/Rating/4076 Read their description of the 3300x just so you an see how biased they are.
And check the history of their about page on the Wayback machine, they edit this page often and on it they attack various online communities and people.
Many tech forums and communities have already either banned the linking of this website or warn about how biased it is whenever it is linked.
I recommend instead checking websites or Youtube channels which do benchmarking.
I asked, because whenever I type in "X processor vs X processor" the first website that always comes up with the comparison is User Benchmark.
Thanks for the link. I read that article the other day. I'll probably start looking at this site more.
But they're still a hell of a lot better than UBM.
Hands down though, if you want good testing and info, GamersNexus.
They show and tell you how they test, they control variables, they don't have brand bias, and they say it how it is.
The 9500 and 10400 are slightly better. There are special cases where a 9400f would be preferable though. A 3300x is another option. I wouldn;t buy any of them though.
Regarding benchmarks, use gamers nexus, digital foundry and PCGH. A major reason is that their commentators do know their stuff.
If I want a quick comparison of cpus I use Passmark, which has fairly reliable lists that can be scanned quickly. The lists tend to correspond with real world benchmarks.
The bottom line is to use benchmarks you need to understand how the data is generated, especially for computed synthetic scores, and how to interpret the results.
Along the lines of Passmark...
An often overlooked CPU benchmark worth checking is 3DMark - Sky Diver.
They have technically depreciated it at this point, but it was their light end DX11 benchmark to counter FireStrike.
Reason its usefull for CPU comparisons for gamers specifically is that it runs in DX11-multi threaded, and the CPU test is the only one in the entire 3DMark suite with per-thread scaling scores from 8 to 96 threads.
Allows you to directly compare things like CPU scaling with multi-core chips in ways that few other benchmarks are able to aside from the likes of Cinnebench.
Such as when someone compares two vastly different spec systems with no ram speed mentioned, where one video card isn't even being used.
When it comes to cpu benchmarks, just go with the usual reviewers that actually tell you what theyre using for parts and give realistic examples, not just some benchmarks which typically don't match actual workloads
You can go to YouTube and see those benchmarks. So i don't consider 88% vs 85% is a biased results. It depends on which set of games they tested.