User Benchmark Website CPU Comparisons

[knocturnal2435]

I just wanted to ask some of you your thoughts on the website UserBenchmarks. I am confused how they actually compare different CPUs. For example, they have the i5-9400f with a better gaming score (88%) than the Ryzen 3600 (85%). But, whenever I look at benchmarks on YouTube, the Ryzen 3600 consistently out performs it. Then I see the i5-9400f and see that it has the same rating as the 3700x for gaming, but again, when I look at benchmarks on YouTube, the 3700x is noticeably better in frame rate.

How does the website actually compare processors to definitively say something like the i5-9400 is better for gaming than a 3600 or 3700x when there are benchmarks out there that show the contrary?

[I've ran out of profile ideas h]

UserBenchmark is bent af, there are probably much better sites for stuff like this.

[r.linder]

UserBenchmark has been caught being heavily biased in favor of Intel and doing questionable things. UBM is only good for comparing average performance metrics on identical system configurations.

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%.

[Autumn_]

UBM is heavily Intel biased.
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.

[emoticorpse]

If you want a quick answer and have nothing else to go off, go with that. In some places you can ask a question on AMD vs Intel and have a forty page long thread with people derailing and end up arguing with each other and if you actually pay attention you'd waste moments of your life you'll never get back and still end up as confused as when you started the thread.

[Magma Dragoon]

This should show you everything you need to know.

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?

[upcoast]

UBM is crap and will always be crap, there are much more credible comparative sources these days to choose from and UBM isn't one of them.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2031-intel-core-i5-10600k/

like that ^

[Omega]

CPU User Benchark is a biased website owned by ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ who frequenty attack anyone who points out this fact.

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.

[knocturnal2435]

Wow, didn't realize the site was that biased, was just always confused how Intel processors were ranked in front of some of the Ryzen processors (e.g. the i5 9400f vs 3600, 3700x) despite some of the Ryzen processors doing better in certain head to head comparisons.

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.

[knocturnal2435]

Nguyên văn bởi upcoast:

UBM is crap and will always be crap, there are much more credible comparative sources these days to choose from and UBM isn't one of them.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2031-intel-core-i5-10600k/

like that ^

Thanks for the link. I read that article the other day. I'll probably start looking at this site more.

[Autumn_]

Nguyên văn bởi knocturnal2435:

Nguyên văn bởi upcoast:

UBM is crap and will always be crap, there are much more credible comparative sources these days to choose from and UBM isn't one of them.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2031-intel-core-i5-10600k/

like that ^

Thanks for the link. I read that article the other day. I'll probably start looking at this site more.

I personally don't put much fath in the Techspot/HUB guys since their whole input lag/GPU usage thing, where they proved someone right, but said it did nothing.

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.

[hawkeye]

If you want to compare cpus look at real benchmarks for the games that you want to play. They will show you that the 9400f is slightly worse than the 3600 on a selection of games.

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.

[xSOSxHawkens]

Nguyên văn bởi hawkeye:

If you want to compare cpus look at real benchmarks for the games that you want to play. They will show you that the 9400f is slightly worse than the 3600 on a selection of games.

The 9500 and 10400 are slightly better. There are special cases where a 9400f would be preferable though. A 3300x is another option.

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.

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.

[Mad Scientist]

Just be sure if any user gives you benchmarks, that you realize they're usually using cherry picked results that don't line up to their statements.

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

[Snow]

You can use userbenchmark to get a general idea on something, but that's it. If you want actual gaming comparison - YouTube benchmarks.

[🦜Cloud Boy🦜]

Userbenchmarks is not biased. I5 9400F actually wins in many games which favors intel architecture. For example Far cry New dawn, Far cry 5, Hitman 2, Total War 3 Kingdoms, etc.
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.