安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
The only reliable source is someone with a relevant university qualification in statistics or mathematical modelling.
And changing the ratings is not what the question from vadim was about. It was why userbenchmark scores shouldn't be used to compare amd and intel cpus.
Of the sites that you gave only Gamers Nexus has credibility for me. Though I'd agree with userbenchmark that forums are full of influencers, paid or unpaid. And many articles and forum posts don't pass the non-biased test. Most of the information is personal opinion presented as fact.
That standard of "realibale source" is both useless and non-applicable.
There are many that are qualified at a unicversitly level in statistics and mathematical modeling (arguably most) that would have little to no working knowledge of Userbench or of PC enthusiast compouting as a whole. Using the standard that they have to be university qulified in an area where there is no direct university qualification for such information is not a great way to argue for a valid source.
Its the same as saying that the only person who is a valid source on statistics about wallstreet is a university maths professor. Just because one knows statistics does not mean they understand the metta of a given field or how it affects an outcome.
Likewise, it does not take a university degree to be sucessfull in the IT field, nor does it take one to be a wallstreet investor. There are *many* highly qualified persons in both fields who can speak as experts in their fields despite not having degrees.
I would nto expect you, or anyone, to accept a single article, or to go off the work of just LTT or just Gamers nexus, or just toms hardware.
But I *do* think that those people and places are qualified to speak on these topics, far more so that you or I. Put simply, their words carry more weight than yours or mine on these topics sans proof otherwise. While I would not think it right for myself or any other to go off the word of one person or group, I think that when you are faced with multiple independant sources with the same concerns it puts the burden of proof on the non-bias argument on those wishing for it to be the truth.
In such a case it is now not if Userbench is bias or not, it seems to have been shown by multiple thjird parties to be bias, the argument is now on UBM to show they are *not* bias, something they have failed to do and isntead chosen to attack critics over.
But I repeat - vadim's question was why can't intel and amd cpus be compared? I know the answer and it's related to the applicability of math formulas nothing else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMvW-_pkX3Q
They can be. They're two products competing for the same consumers at the end of the day. Comparisons are inevitable.
These are the kinds of things R&D types tell themselves so they can sleep at night.
But
If planning on upgrading in the future, getting a decent motherboard may help with that instead of relying on a purely cheap board
especially since with that board that CPU is supported in later BIOS versions not by default
The BIOS needs to be at least F4 for it to be usable with a 9000 series CPU, but not optimized for them until F10.
So a better board may be a good idea to avoid the possibility of not being able to use the CPU off the bat.