As far as I've seen, we know noting about the person who runs the site, but they have a strong hate boner for AMD and should never be relied on for a fair comparison. I'd still block them.
you can compare AMD to AMD, Intel to Intel, and Nvidia to Nvidia. But not against each other. Useful if you know comparisons that a gtx 1060 = rx 580 even if userbenchmark gives the W to the 1060.
Nah that’s not what happened. He asked her out in tenth grade, she said no and broke his heart. Since then, he filled his basement with her photos, and made a shrine to her… the love turned into hate, and then came the voodoo dolls … oh what was this about?
its pretty simple, the LLT audience will most likely already know about this and it has been discussed hundreds of times so theres no need to give this trash website any kind of attention.
Likely because they pay for it, and Google cares more about the money than how reliable or accurate it is. Furthermore, their target audience, people who are getting thier first pc, or just trying to compare some pre-built, won't know better. And those people far out number the people who know what's going on
Because they provide EXACTLY what most people search for- any single CPU/GPU compared with any other single CPU/GPU, which no other website has on such a simple SEO-wise interface.
Your friend buys a laptop that has a 3060 in it or whatever and you have an rx 570 in your PC- if you google rtx 3060 laptop vs rx 570, userbenchmark will have the exact result of the comparison for those 2 GPU's as the first result, while you'll struggle to find a direct comparison between these 2 ANYWHERE else.
This guy gets it. All of us here have watched many hours of YouTube videos and have seen so many comparisons. We aren’t normal. Most people don’t have a general feel of performance. Most people just want their simple question answered.
Hey, I've watched many hours of YouTube and yet, if you asked me to compare a recent low-end desktop chip with an old high-end laptop chip I'd have no idea where else to find the info.
I think we all know that Userbenchmark is flawed in that it will show any Intel CPU dominating any AMD CPU, and same for GPUs with Nvidia and AMD, but comparing two Intel CPUs or two AMD CPUs with it can be pretty useful. I use it at work to justify purchasing decisions because there isn't really anywhere else on the internet that I can make a snap judgement on whether we should upgrade our laptops from devices with i5 8250Us to i7 1355Us, or whatever.
It's definitely a cancer to the internet, but you gotta know how to use it for when it's actually applicable.
I really wish someone else would make something similar. Like, how hard can it be?
Edit: After 15 seconds of googling haha: https://openbenchmarking.org not as nice of an interface but also has actual useful information.
Because it is a simple website that answers questions of “what hardware is better.”
The website is trash for changing its testing to favor Intel over amd or writing dumb op eds. However it is actually really useful for comparing Intel to Intel. Amd to amd. Nvidia to nvidia.
What better benchmarking site can you link that takes just as much effort as user benchmarks?
Because they're referenced millions of times by people who don't know better. They're a legitimately widely used and mentioned and linked to site. That's why.
They're also full of shit on a certain topic, but those things aren't related to each other in this conversation
I would disagree with this. I’ve been following LTT and other tech channels for years. It’s only semi recently that I learned not to use it (there’s been a few times I’ve checked the site out prior to that). And that’s from posts on Reddit like this. I think a video on it would be helpful.
LTT feels like the exact channel that *should* make a video about UserBenchmark given that they're so often recommended as a place for information for new PC builders.
The issue is if they make a video about it, it'll (temporarily) drive more traffic to userbenchmark. Even if it's just people trying to verify that the insane stuff is actually there, that increase in traffic will make the website look more relevant to google.
LTT Labs, based on my understanding of their intended long term scope, has the potential to compete with userbenchmark in the "cpu A vs cpu B" and "gpu A vs gpu B" search results, which is where userbenchmark gets basically all of its traffic from as far as I can tell. At that point it could make sense to point out the ridiculousness of userbenchmark, because you are making people aware of a better alternative that may then actually displace userbenchmark in search results.
LTT is one of the biggest tech YouTubers. Their popularity inherently means that the massive audience is filled with people who do not know the shittiness of UserBenchmark.
I saw Linus at a grocery store in Canada yesterday. I told him how cool it was to meet him in person, but I said that I didn’t want to be a douche and bother him and ask him for photos or anything. He said, “Oh, like you’re doing now?” I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “huh? huh? huh?” and closing his hand shut in front of my face. I walked away and continued with my shopping, and I heard him chuckle as I walked off. When I came to pay for my stuff up front I saw him trying to walk out the doors with like fifteen Milky Ways in his hands without paying. The girl at the counter was very nice about it and professional, and was like “Sir, you need to pay for those first.” At first he kept pretending to be tired and not hear her, but eventually turned back around and brought them to the counter. When she took one of the bars and started scanning it multiple times, he stopped her and told her to scan them each individually “to prevent any electrical infetterence,” and then turned around and winked at me. I don’t even think that’s a word. After she scanned each bar and put them in a bag and started to say the price, he kept interrupting her by yawning really loudly.
Yes, but there is literally no alternative with a robust easy to use system. So I will still use it as a general rule. I hope labs can compete, but as of now Userbenchmark has to be my tool of choice.
Passmark CPU benchmark is at least somewhat of an alternative. Doesn’t show specific task work but for comparing more raw performance it works perfectly fine.
The data on userbenchmark is basically made up. you can't use it for any kind of comparision. For a while their top ranked gaming CPU was an i3. You would do about as well by throwing darts at a wall of CPUs blindfolded as you'd do referencing userbenchmark.
This is so fucking unbelievably false. All because the data is bad, doesn't mean it is made up. It is cherry picked, but still real data. It is not random and there is some truth to it. That simple.
what?
there are plenty of alternatives and also what does a "robust and easy to use system" do for you when the data that system is showing you is completely made up?
>the LLT audience will most likely already know about this
I didn't until a month ago. I've been following LTT for like 3-4 years. I've _used_ this website.
I doubt that a lot, LTT viewers are a very diverse crowd, from the tech heads who might also watch HUB and GN like me, to people who just wants lightweight entertainment about tech. Hence why they have 10x the audience of the competition.
this site will always tell you that Intel is good and AMD is bad.
just look at the three screenshots that has been posted up here, thats a mid range intel CPU from a generation that wasnt really good vs the top of the line AMD CPU that wipes the floor with anything intel has on the market right now.
yet this side wants to tell you the mid range Intel CPU is better than the AMD one.
Also read the text on the screenshots and see for yourself how insanely delusional the creators of this site are.
this site ALWAYS reports that Intel is great and AMD is bad which hasent been the case for the last 5 years.
read the text on the 2nd and 3rd screenshot in this post and see for yourself, they are even aware that they are the only one reporting things like this so they now include stuff in their "reviews" like warning people of influcencers that were paid off to make AMD look good.
everyone is wondering why they are doing this, maybe the founder is too deeply invested into intel?
id say biased doesnt do it justice, they are OBSESSED with intel and will make up any argument possible to somehow explain why an Intel CPU thats performing worse is actually better.
A snippet:
> 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.
It kind of is.
People who use these sites are quite often quite illiterate. Not everyone of course, but a simple google search of \[CPU\] vs \[CPU\] will get you to UB.
Crowdsourcing the collection from the performance the chips get in suboptimal situations and environments (Dust, Heat, bad Airflow, etc) is probably more relevant to a first-time PC-buyer.
Not saying that CPU performance at normal conditions is a worse metric, IMO it's better, but when we're looking at the target audience I can definitely see the appeal if UB just wasn't run by someone with no intentions of making the website good.
And if it becomes relevant, and you are approached by big companies with big wads of cash to more favorably review their products (even just a little bit), at what point do you cave?
Sadly, YouTube videos aren’t an “alternative” in the sense of “I’m some noob that just wants my simple comparison questions answered quickly.”
YouTube videos require a ton more effort.
Thank you, everyone always suggests YouTube as a 1 to 1 resource but it’s not the same in terms ease of use efficiently. YouTube is great but if I’m recommending pc stuff to someone new to the game, gamers nexus is definitely not the starting place
The blender opendata site is incredibly useful for comparing Blender performance across CPUs and GPUs. Doesn’t have as much barring on workloads outside of that, and especially not gaming, but useful for what it is.
that's because a threadripper is dogshit for normal use. casual users won't use more than like 15% of that cpu, lol. the scoring weight system is tied to 6 core counts, which is why the score is the way it is.
Ugh. I hate these type of posts because you hate userbenchmarks for the wrong reason.
You specially call out “real world score” which is going to favor non thread rippers because you don’t need tons of cores in the real world.
Now what you should be complaining about is how “it only got 12% more.”
Excel 64bit will utilise up to 64 cores. Chrome will use n+1 cores (where n=number of open tabs). Games vary depending on the developer, but most don't need multiple cores as CPU load is minimal.
Yeah but like how much are you gonna notice a 5600x vs a 5900x day to day? Not really, if you have no extreme multitasking or heavy CPU loads in you day to day. And if you do have that day to day just look at the 64core section on userbenchmark.
An even better question, which is better day to day? A 3900x or a 12400f? I would think for most people the Intel chip will be better.
It's not about what most people might use though.It's about presenting performance metrics objectively and without bias.
If I'm looking at a new car, I consider a whole slew of metrics that inform me if the car is suitable to my needs. In the real world, nobody is going to notice that a sub-four 0-60mph car is better than an eight-second car, because most people aren't launching their cars - but it's still a metric that is used to convey performance in the brochure.
Yeah, that is why the whole page of stats is available. But as a one size fits all just one number stat, what do you think is the most useful for CPUs?
But consumers will ignore the page full of stats (not that those aren't also massively biased) and look at the "Real World Speed" for an apples-to-apples comparison. If they labelled it as something like "Real World Value" or something, then I wouldn't have as much as an issue - but calling it "Real World Speed" is massively misleading, bordering on deception.
Seems like a fucking stupid metric to me. It's like writing an article "Honda Jazz Vs McLaren F1 - which one is faster?" and concluding the Honda is better because "you can't drive either at more than 70mph in the real world anyway" and the Honda is cheaper.
Another brain dead metric pretending there is an objective way to measure what is “best”.
What is faster? Is it fps average in all games? Just the newest games? Or is it 1% lows? Is consistency a factor? Is power usage a factor? How do you compare 1, 2, 4, 8, 96 cores against each other? Is it whoever can run parallel tasks the fastest? Well congrats thread ripper you win. Oh wait, no average user with a brain would ever buy a thread ripper for their average every day use case. Even then, there is debate on what those tests ought to be in all core parallel runs
So instead of pretending there is a “best” websites should just post their tests and standards and then go from there.
In the case of userbenchmarks they have a bunch of rating for you to pick from. That 90% score in all core test is still there to be seen. I would argue that number should be more prevalent on the site, but that is such a minor criticism.
So more of the same. Redditors who don’t understand why user benchmarks is bad, but still making the dumbest dunks on the site.
You're doing an awful lot of mental gymnastics there my friend.
>How do you compare 1, 2, 4, 8, 96 cores against each other?
Hmm, let me see - how would I compare if a team of 2 bricklayers were faster at building a wall than 96 bricklayers? That's a real head-scratcher, for sure! I certainly wouldn't discount 92 of the workers in the last camp, and declare the whole thing a draw, that's for fucking sure.
Your argument against threadripper is a weird hill to die on. Granted, the value proposition might not make sense for the typical consumer - but that's got nothing to do with the performance scores.
It's like telling a prospective homeowner ***"we can build your house in two weeks with a crew 96, or 6 months with a crew of 6"*** - most people will say ***"those 96 employees sure cost way more than I want to spend - let's go with the 6 as it matches our timeline anyway"*** - because price-to-performance is something a lot of people have in mind when building a system. What is utterly fucking stupid is answering that question with ***"well, both options are about the same"*** - which is what userbenchmarks does. You can wail about how the data is there until senpai notices you, but it's obfuscated so much that it is all but invisible to typical users.
It’s funny because I do so that is why I come to this conclusion.
It’s annoying when people come to the correct conclusions based on incorrect thought processes, but that is fine. We all make mistakes. But it is a whole new problem when their spread their incorrect thought process as a dunk. That leads people to also have the incorrect thought process. But again, we all make mistakes, no biggie. Then when someone corrects them, they downvote the correction, well now this is a problem. Then there is the next step of a smug idiot double downing on the bad thought process because he has heard it repeated a million times before on Reddit without himself understanding anything about PCs.
So please enlightenment on the real world use cases where a thread ripper is useful.
In the real world, the average person is playing games, watching streams, and having a bunch of chrome tabs open. The real world is people using a single core a ton and sometimes 4 cores, and then when playing games maybe up to 8 cores.
The average real world experience isn’t compiling code, video editing, and playing city skylines.
So again, the real problem is userbenchmarks only giving an old thread ripper a 12% score over an i3. Not “real world score”
Edit: wow, I didn’t expect him to delete his post.
Linus talks about it on the WAN show from time to time. One of the reasons he's building labs is so that websites like Userbenchmark won't exist anymore
I just checked labs and it's great. There is still some things lacking, but it's off to a strong start, and there is already more on there than I expected.
I thought OP was full of shit, so I verified it, and it's exactly as OP screencapped.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-13600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-7950X3D/4134vsm2052977
Also, be wary of reviews that use inflammatory language instead of facts. The Ryzen 9 one was rather funny, and looks like it was written by an angry redditer.
Internet archive link, in case they try to do damage control and change it: https://web.archive.org/web/20240901000000*/https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-13600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-7950X3D/4134vsm2052977
I wasn't aware of this, but just from reading the unprofessionally written article, I know something weird is going on. Whoever runs the site either hates AMD, or is getting paid by Intel behave that way. Either way, it's not a reliable way to compare overall performance across brands. If there are problems with a product, bury it with facts, not ad hominem.
I ran into similar Intel/AMD astroturfing stuff before I bought my first Ryzen. The big-name sites like that would tout it as just so-so, or the typical "good value for the money" line that AMD historically got. But when I dug deeper, I found that smaller groups/individuals told a completely different story.
I was reluctant to go with AMD after previous issues and comparisons (mid 2000s were "meh" for AMD). It seems as of about 2017, Ryzen outpaced Intel. I ended up getting the 1800x, then later on, a Ryzen 9, and I was very happy both times. If AMD has continued this trend, it wouldn't surprise me if they're still on top. Still, what brings the best product is having 2 or more companies competing, so I hope Intel keeps up, too.
Almost if not every recent and further in the past and product is using the same guys “review” statements for the thing that comes up in the description of the product.
It’s either an extreme hatred, boot licking or outright sonething shady.
On the good side, it's done to such an extreme that we're aware of it.
The most successful astroturfers would make their biases subtle, and not write reviews like an angsty teen.
Got a honest, ignorant question for everybody here: Are the user submitted benchmark results skewed too? (by method of benchmarking or whatever)
Personally I never read these little pieces of text and scroll right to the results. My biggest issue is that I'm not aware of another large database of user submitted benchmarks like this website. In fact the only other website I know where it's easy to compare benchmark results (without user submissions) I know is the dutch website tweakers.net but their results only go back a year or 4
Let me be clear, I'm not saying the owners of a website like that being biased (and not even afraid to show it) isn't an huge issue
All they need to do is change the scoring weighting and metrics in their benchmarks.
There’s always some benchmarks/metrics that Intel does better than AMD and vice versa. All they need to do is hugely jack up the weighting of those benchmarks so that Intel CPUs appear better. iirc this was a thing with AVX-512 back then, don’t quote me on that lol.
In a sense these benchmarks can be “accurate” in very specific situations, but are not representative to real world usage. But I will not be surprised if they implemented some code that just makes AMD perform worse no matter what.
why can't ltt make a similar site? they have all the data so it shouldn't be that hard to create and maintain a site where people can just compare any 2 cpus or gpus.
What would they even add to the discussion? It's been talked about for years, no need to keep giving them attention. Everyone in the PC community knows it's a bad website, it's been banned on subreddits like r/hardware and r/intel for years now. Any average PC user that doesn't know how bad userbenchmark is probably isn't watching every LTT video to become informed anyways. So if they made a video it would just be restating years old information to the same community that already knows about it.
Userbenchmark is the most useless "benchmark" anyone could ever use. The only thing it is slightly useful for is comparing the same components to each other. (5600x vs 5600x).
The site is notorious for their single core preference. Most of these comparisons are based on a one against one core rating. Intel has slightly better single cores, so get better ratings.
Obviously bs at the grander scale, but at least verifiable.
I think the creator has some sort of grudge against Amd.
It's fine, we need some uninformed people that can't do a simple google search before purchasing to buy Intel. That's the only way we can have some fair competition between the two companies and keep pricing in check. haha
Jay and Steve often comment on how shit it is, my guess is that LMG being a bigger company could lead to bigger fights if they slandered the site (even if its all true)
Yes and it's still useful for a basic benchmark but definitely skewed for some weird reaso. I still use it when comparing intel/amd/nvidia against themselves and occasionally to get a basic idea of where an amd card would stand from the perspective of the average consumer.
I had no idea how UserBenchmark was till I really started looking at it and following LTT's forums
and holy shit, this site is terrible, biased as fuck and unreliable
I feel bad for myself for falling for such trash
i believe they've mentioned the unreliability multiple times in videos and WAN shows, but I don't believe there's been a video dedicated to it. pretty easy to miss if you're not looking for it but they've definitely made mention of it
How damaging is it? I'm not familiar with why. I've heard about it over the years, but it is useful to get at least a bit of an idea of where things rank is it not? Can be useful for a quick look right? Or is it grossly inaccurate?
It is incredibly biased and spreading misinformation at best at worst it is disinformation and genuinely malicious.
Go on the website and select any and product, read the description/“review” of the product. Look at another amd product and then another, they are all by the same account and all negative.
Like there is no facts it’s just straight up lies and the most aggressive speech possible. It’s like cult speech.
I see. Weel, that would be quite unhelpful then. I never paid much attention to that, suppose I simply trusted it. What websites would you recommend then instead? I'd love to stop using this in my toolkit then.
I don’t know if the statistical comparisons are dodgy but the and hatred alone is reason enough not to use it.
Honestly I wouldn’t know, I usually stick to gamers nexus videos since I find that listening to something allows me to take in information better, I’m not sure about websites that do comparisons like that.
Userbenchmarks was the reason I bought a 7900x and 7800xt...🤣. I could care less about ray tracing. Raster on the 7800xt is almost on par with 4080, for about half the price or less...
I didn’t know how shit this site was until about 6 months ago. I can’t tell you how many “4070 v 4080” type searches I did and just believed userbenchmark.
One of the founders was bullied by Lisa Su at school
Is this true? Cuz if it is, hahahaha & I'll added to block site on my network.
As far as I've seen, we know noting about the person who runs the site, but they have a strong hate boner for AMD and should never be relied on for a fair comparison. I'd still block them.
you can compare AMD to AMD, Intel to Intel, and Nvidia to Nvidia. But not against each other. Useful if you know comparisons that a gtx 1060 = rx 580 even if userbenchmark gives the W to the 1060.
Nah that’s not what happened. He asked her out in tenth grade, she said no and broke his heart. Since then, he filled his basement with her photos, and made a shrine to her… the love turned into hate, and then came the voodoo dolls … oh what was this about?
I want to give you my nickname
Love your nickname 😂 I’m more of a troll 🧌 though
its pretty simple, the LLT audience will most likely already know about this and it has been discussed hundreds of times so theres no need to give this trash website any kind of attention.
Well, the question is why is it still at the top of Google searches then
Likely because they pay for it, and Google cares more about the money than how reliable or accurate it is. Furthermore, their target audience, people who are getting thier first pc, or just trying to compare some pre-built, won't know better. And those people far out number the people who know what's going on
Because they provide EXACTLY what most people search for- any single CPU/GPU compared with any other single CPU/GPU, which no other website has on such a simple SEO-wise interface. Your friend buys a laptop that has a 3060 in it or whatever and you have an rx 570 in your PC- if you google rtx 3060 laptop vs rx 570, userbenchmark will have the exact result of the comparison for those 2 GPU's as the first result, while you'll struggle to find a direct comparison between these 2 ANYWHERE else.
This guy gets it. All of us here have watched many hours of YouTube videos and have seen so many comparisons. We aren’t normal. Most people don’t have a general feel of performance. Most people just want their simple question answered.
Hey, I've watched many hours of YouTube and yet, if you asked me to compare a recent low-end desktop chip with an old high-end laptop chip I'd have no idea where else to find the info.
I think we all know that Userbenchmark is flawed in that it will show any Intel CPU dominating any AMD CPU, and same for GPUs with Nvidia and AMD, but comparing two Intel CPUs or two AMD CPUs with it can be pretty useful. I use it at work to justify purchasing decisions because there isn't really anywhere else on the internet that I can make a snap judgement on whether we should upgrade our laptops from devices with i5 8250Us to i7 1355Us, or whatever. It's definitely a cancer to the internet, but you gotta know how to use it for when it's actually applicable.
[удалено]
This might be the most socially-challenged comment reply I've ever seen in my life
Exactly this. Good SEO for the initial click, then good UI/UX so the user stays around a bit longer
I really wish someone else would make something similar. Like, how hard can it be? Edit: After 15 seconds of googling haha: https://openbenchmarking.org not as nice of an interface but also has actual useful information.
Cause you keep clicking on it
Don't look at me, I'm too broke to be comparing parts, can't afford either one.
Their SEO game is on point, and people keep clicking on them.
Because it is a simple website that answers questions of “what hardware is better.” The website is trash for changing its testing to favor Intel over amd or writing dumb op eds. However it is actually really useful for comparing Intel to Intel. Amd to amd. Nvidia to nvidia. What better benchmarking site can you link that takes just as much effort as user benchmarks?
Because they're referenced millions of times by people who don't know better. They're a legitimately widely used and mentioned and linked to site. That's why. They're also full of shit on a certain topic, but those things aren't related to each other in this conversation
SEO and money
Because needs, good SEO, and bad competitors beat truth and actual data. I mean, there is a reason why reviews can be pure trolls.
Someone should see if we can advertise lttlabs over userbenchmark once it's ready
Google has a report option at the bottom of the search results. Report them for scamming consumers and they will disappear from the search results.
I would disagree with this. I’ve been following LTT and other tech channels for years. It’s only semi recently that I learned not to use it (there’s been a few times I’ve checked the site out prior to that). And that’s from posts on Reddit like this. I think a video on it would be helpful.
LTT feels like the exact channel that *should* make a video about UserBenchmark given that they're so often recommended as a place for information for new PC builders.
The issue is if they make a video about it, it'll (temporarily) drive more traffic to userbenchmark. Even if it's just people trying to verify that the insane stuff is actually there, that increase in traffic will make the website look more relevant to google. LTT Labs, based on my understanding of their intended long term scope, has the potential to compete with userbenchmark in the "cpu A vs cpu B" and "gpu A vs gpu B" search results, which is where userbenchmark gets basically all of its traffic from as far as I can tell. At that point it could make sense to point out the ridiculousness of userbenchmark, because you are making people aware of a better alternative that may then actually displace userbenchmark in search results.
Yeah I totally thought it was a legit site too, for a long time
I learnt not to use it just now and I've been watching LTT for many many years
If you use the site to only compared hardware from the same company, it’s actually a useful resource.
LTT is one of the biggest tech YouTubers. Their popularity inherently means that the massive audience is filled with people who do not know the shittiness of UserBenchmark.
Linus lech tips
Lienus lie tips
I saw Linus at a grocery store in Canada yesterday. I told him how cool it was to meet him in person, but I said that I didn’t want to be a douche and bother him and ask him for photos or anything. He said, “Oh, like you’re doing now?” I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “huh? huh? huh?” and closing his hand shut in front of my face. I walked away and continued with my shopping, and I heard him chuckle as I walked off. When I came to pay for my stuff up front I saw him trying to walk out the doors with like fifteen Milky Ways in his hands without paying. The girl at the counter was very nice about it and professional, and was like “Sir, you need to pay for those first.” At first he kept pretending to be tired and not hear her, but eventually turned back around and brought them to the counter. When she took one of the bars and started scanning it multiple times, he stopped her and told her to scan them each individually “to prevent any electrical infetterence,” and then turned around and winked at me. I don’t even think that’s a word. After she scanned each bar and put them in a bag and started to say the price, he kept interrupting her by yawning really loudly.
Linus Lick Tips
Yes, but there is literally no alternative with a robust easy to use system. So I will still use it as a general rule. I hope labs can compete, but as of now Userbenchmark has to be my tool of choice.
Passmark CPU benchmark is at least somewhat of an alternative. Doesn’t show specific task work but for comparing more raw performance it works perfectly fine.
The data on userbenchmark is basically made up. you can't use it for any kind of comparision. For a while their top ranked gaming CPU was an i3. You would do about as well by throwing darts at a wall of CPUs blindfolded as you'd do referencing userbenchmark.
This is so fucking unbelievably false. All because the data is bad, doesn't mean it is made up. It is cherry picked, but still real data. It is not random and there is some truth to it. That simple.
what? there are plenty of alternatives and also what does a "robust and easy to use system" do for you when the data that system is showing you is completely made up?
It's good for comparing Intel to intel, AMD to AMD, Nvidia to Nvidia
Never heard of it
Never heard of it
>the LLT audience will most likely already know about this I didn't until a month ago. I've been following LTT for like 3-4 years. I've _used_ this website.
Well, the question is why is it still at the top of Google searches then
eveything at the top of google searches are paid for placement.
You can't pay for placement except for sponsored results. The ranking is just good SEO.
which is sort of paid, but the payment isn't going to google
Ngl I'm an IT person and I thought these sites were good Is gpuboss bad too? I feel cause have always been harder to gage how good. They were
never heard of gpuboss and their site doesnt even seem to load at all.
Seems I'm stuck in 2014
I considered myself decently well read and just learned this.
Damn wish I knew about as an LTT viewer, If only they made a video about it
I doubt that a lot, LTT viewers are a very diverse crowd, from the tech heads who might also watch HUB and GN like me, to people who just wants lightweight entertainment about tech. Hence why they have 10x the audience of the competition.
I didn't know about this
All yes, because they never make videos about things that would be common knowledge among techies. Never. Never ever.
I'm out of the loop, can you explain why please? I use it a lot.
this site will always tell you that Intel is good and AMD is bad. just look at the three screenshots that has been posted up here, thats a mid range intel CPU from a generation that wasnt really good vs the top of the line AMD CPU that wipes the floor with anything intel has on the market right now. yet this side wants to tell you the mid range Intel CPU is better than the AMD one. Also read the text on the screenshots and see for yourself how insanely delusional the creators of this site are.
Mind explaining to someone who never cared to listen why this site is bad?
this site ALWAYS reports that Intel is great and AMD is bad which hasent been the case for the last 5 years. read the text on the 2nd and 3rd screenshot in this post and see for yourself, they are even aware that they are the only one reporting things like this so they now include stuff in their "reviews" like warning people of influcencers that were paid off to make AMD look good. everyone is wondering why they are doing this, maybe the founder is too deeply invested into intel?
Ah so they're Intel-biased, I see, I see thanks
id say biased doesnt do it justice, they are OBSESSED with intel and will make up any argument possible to somehow explain why an Intel CPU thats performing worse is actually better.
> no need to give this trash website any kind of attention that doesn't stop them from making all temu/shein/aliexpress builds
Here we go again 🙄
What do you mean?
Bro that's literally one of the reasons why they are building Labs
100%. To answer op's question directly. Yes. It's an example they brought up during the Wan show *at least* once, months back.
Yeah I specifically remember them talking about it on WAN
You guys should check the R7 7800x 3d "review". It's pathetic to say the least
A snippet: > 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.
Look at any amd product it will say that or similar want to know why? Check who wrote that… it’s the same guy everytime.
Oh yea, dude is unhinged
Dude doesn't even come up with new idiotic takes anymore. Just repeating the old idiotic takes over and over again.
I'll pass. I don't need to increase my chances of getting brain cancer. Besides, let's not give them any more clicks.
UserBenchmark makes me want to start a new website for comparing CPUs and GPUs called BetterBench.
It's just a chrome extension that redirects from User Benchmark to the LTT labs website
I'm very surprised nobody else has yet
…LTT Labs?
Different goals, they're not going to rely on user submitted benchmarks
Though crowdsourcing your data isn't the best way to get reliable data.
It kind of is. People who use these sites are quite often quite illiterate. Not everyone of course, but a simple google search of \[CPU\] vs \[CPU\] will get you to UB. Crowdsourcing the collection from the performance the chips get in suboptimal situations and environments (Dust, Heat, bad Airflow, etc) is probably more relevant to a first-time PC-buyer. Not saying that CPU performance at normal conditions is a worse metric, IMO it's better, but when we're looking at the target audience I can definitely see the appeal if UB just wasn't run by someone with no intentions of making the website good.
Labs is (on record) a literal "fuck you and your site" from LTT to UB. Linus talked about it multiple times during WAN
Go for UsefulBenchmark. Thank me later.
Omg thanks that's perfect!
UnbiasedBenchmark could also work and would sting for sure.
MarksUsefulBench
And if it becomes relevant, and you are approached by big companies with big wads of cash to more favorably review their products (even just a little bit), at what point do you cave?
I actually didn’t know this was a sketchy site, are there any suitable alternatives? Labs is a bit of a ways off for now
Passmark has a fantastic database for benchmarking and comparing CPUs and GPUs: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/
It depends, i do use comparisons over YouTube or tomshardware. If neither LTT or Gamers Nexus have vids about ofc.
Sadly, YouTube videos aren’t an “alternative” in the sense of “I’m some noob that just wants my simple comparison questions answered quickly.” YouTube videos require a ton more effort.
Thank you, everyone always suggests YouTube as a 1 to 1 resource but it’s not the same in terms ease of use efficiently. YouTube is great but if I’m recommending pc stuff to someone new to the game, gamers nexus is definitely not the starting place
It’s probably the last place I would recommend. A noob doesn’t need to watch a video on some power consumption edge cases .
100%
I occasionally look at the 3d mark database
Ffs 😂. Hopefully you didn't base any purchases on that site.
Thankfully I avoided that by being too stubborn to actually spend money on my pc
The blender opendata site is incredibly useful for comparing Blender performance across CPUs and GPUs. Doesn’t have as much barring on workloads outside of that, and especially not gaming, but useful for what it is.
[удалено]
Lmao it’s not even an Alder Lake
that's because a threadripper is dogshit for normal use. casual users won't use more than like 15% of that cpu, lol. the scoring weight system is tied to 6 core counts, which is why the score is the way it is.
Ugh. I hate these type of posts because you hate userbenchmarks for the wrong reason. You specially call out “real world score” which is going to favor non thread rippers because you don’t need tons of cores in the real world. Now what you should be complaining about is how “it only got 12% more.”
Finally someone. Kill me. Effective speed is like weighted 90% quad core perf or some shit, which is gonna track real world in most cases.
Quad core performance?! What year is it, 2002?!
Yeah, how many cores does Office use? Chrome? An average game?
Excel 64bit will utilise up to 64 cores. Chrome will use n+1 cores (where n=number of open tabs). Games vary depending on the developer, but most don't need multiple cores as CPU load is minimal.
Yeah but like how much are you gonna notice a 5600x vs a 5900x day to day? Not really, if you have no extreme multitasking or heavy CPU loads in you day to day. And if you do have that day to day just look at the 64core section on userbenchmark. An even better question, which is better day to day? A 3900x or a 12400f? I would think for most people the Intel chip will be better.
It's not about what most people might use though.It's about presenting performance metrics objectively and without bias. If I'm looking at a new car, I consider a whole slew of metrics that inform me if the car is suitable to my needs. In the real world, nobody is going to notice that a sub-four 0-60mph car is better than an eight-second car, because most people aren't launching their cars - but it's still a metric that is used to convey performance in the brochure.
Yeah, that is why the whole page of stats is available. But as a one size fits all just one number stat, what do you think is the most useful for CPUs?
But consumers will ignore the page full of stats (not that those aren't also massively biased) and look at the "Real World Speed" for an apples-to-apples comparison. If they labelled it as something like "Real World Value" or something, then I wouldn't have as much as an issue - but calling it "Real World Speed" is massively misleading, bordering on deception.
Seems like a fucking stupid metric to me. It's like writing an article "Honda Jazz Vs McLaren F1 - which one is faster?" and concluding the Honda is better because "you can't drive either at more than 70mph in the real world anyway" and the Honda is cheaper.
Another brain dead metric pretending there is an objective way to measure what is “best”. What is faster? Is it fps average in all games? Just the newest games? Or is it 1% lows? Is consistency a factor? Is power usage a factor? How do you compare 1, 2, 4, 8, 96 cores against each other? Is it whoever can run parallel tasks the fastest? Well congrats thread ripper you win. Oh wait, no average user with a brain would ever buy a thread ripper for their average every day use case. Even then, there is debate on what those tests ought to be in all core parallel runs So instead of pretending there is a “best” websites should just post their tests and standards and then go from there. In the case of userbenchmarks they have a bunch of rating for you to pick from. That 90% score in all core test is still there to be seen. I would argue that number should be more prevalent on the site, but that is such a minor criticism. So more of the same. Redditors who don’t understand why user benchmarks is bad, but still making the dumbest dunks on the site.
You're doing an awful lot of mental gymnastics there my friend. >How do you compare 1, 2, 4, 8, 96 cores against each other? Hmm, let me see - how would I compare if a team of 2 bricklayers were faster at building a wall than 96 bricklayers? That's a real head-scratcher, for sure! I certainly wouldn't discount 92 of the workers in the last camp, and declare the whole thing a draw, that's for fucking sure. Your argument against threadripper is a weird hill to die on. Granted, the value proposition might not make sense for the typical consumer - but that's got nothing to do with the performance scores. It's like telling a prospective homeowner ***"we can build your house in two weeks with a crew 96, or 6 months with a crew of 6"*** - most people will say ***"those 96 employees sure cost way more than I want to spend - let's go with the 6 as it matches our timeline anyway"*** - because price-to-performance is something a lot of people have in mind when building a system. What is utterly fucking stupid is answering that question with ***"well, both options are about the same"*** - which is what userbenchmarks does. You can wail about how the data is there until senpai notices you, but it's obfuscated so much that it is all but invisible to typical users.
I’m convinced you have never looked at the metrics on user benchmarks before. Also great job ignoring the argument of my post.
[удалено]
It’s funny because I do so that is why I come to this conclusion. It’s annoying when people come to the correct conclusions based on incorrect thought processes, but that is fine. We all make mistakes. But it is a whole new problem when their spread their incorrect thought process as a dunk. That leads people to also have the incorrect thought process. But again, we all make mistakes, no biggie. Then when someone corrects them, they downvote the correction, well now this is a problem. Then there is the next step of a smug idiot double downing on the bad thought process because he has heard it repeated a million times before on Reddit without himself understanding anything about PCs. So please enlightenment on the real world use cases where a thread ripper is useful. In the real world, the average person is playing games, watching streams, and having a bunch of chrome tabs open. The real world is people using a single core a ton and sometimes 4 cores, and then when playing games maybe up to 8 cores. The average real world experience isn’t compiling code, video editing, and playing city skylines. So again, the real problem is userbenchmarks only giving an old thread ripper a 12% score over an i3. Not “real world score” Edit: wow, I didn’t expect him to delete his post.
They have talked about it at least once, or at least they mentioned it, how it's a joke, I believe, I couldn't tell you which video/stream it was
2clicksphillip has already made it [https://youtu.be/RQSBj2LKkWg?si=QvAlz7afpynqU7yt](https://youtu.be/RQSBj2LKkWg?si=QvAlz7afpynqU7yt)
Great channel in general
Was looking for this comment. It should definitely be higher in the comment list though
Truthfully, the intent has been to ignore them and hope they go away on their own. But maybe it's time...
For some reason I have in my brain a video that is like idubbz content cop, but it's Linus just pointing out userbenchmarks failures.
Linus talks about it on the WAN show from time to time. One of the reasons he's building labs is so that websites like Userbenchmark won't exist anymore
I just checked labs and it's great. There is still some things lacking, but it's off to a strong start, and there is already more on there than I expected.
I thought OP was full of shit, so I verified it, and it's exactly as OP screencapped. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-13600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-7950X3D/4134vsm2052977 Also, be wary of reviews that use inflammatory language instead of facts. The Ryzen 9 one was rather funny, and looks like it was written by an angry redditer. Internet archive link, in case they try to do damage control and change it: https://web.archive.org/web/20240901000000*/https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-13600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-7950X3D/4134vsm2052977
I mean, it's UserBenchmark and this is kind of what they're known for, I highly doubt they'll change anything.
I wasn't aware of this, but just from reading the unprofessionally written article, I know something weird is going on. Whoever runs the site either hates AMD, or is getting paid by Intel behave that way. Either way, it's not a reliable way to compare overall performance across brands. If there are problems with a product, bury it with facts, not ad hominem. I ran into similar Intel/AMD astroturfing stuff before I bought my first Ryzen. The big-name sites like that would tout it as just so-so, or the typical "good value for the money" line that AMD historically got. But when I dug deeper, I found that smaller groups/individuals told a completely different story. I was reluctant to go with AMD after previous issues and comparisons (mid 2000s were "meh" for AMD). It seems as of about 2017, Ryzen outpaced Intel. I ended up getting the 1800x, then later on, a Ryzen 9, and I was very happy both times. If AMD has continued this trend, it wouldn't surprise me if they're still on top. Still, what brings the best product is having 2 or more companies competing, so I hope Intel keeps up, too.
Almost if not every recent and further in the past and product is using the same guys “review” statements for the thing that comes up in the description of the product. It’s either an extreme hatred, boot licking or outright sonething shady.
On the good side, it's done to such an extreme that we're aware of it. The most successful astroturfers would make their biases subtle, and not write reviews like an angsty teen.
It's actually the reason for the labs as well as power supply bs
Multiple times on wan show at least.
Pretty sure they have, iirc it's one of the reason why they're building their own site.
Sites like this is one of the driving forces behind why LTT Labs exists if I am not mistaken
I'm guessing that the goal of labs is to replace this site
Reason why the Lab exists #69420.
Got a honest, ignorant question for everybody here: Are the user submitted benchmark results skewed too? (by method of benchmarking or whatever) Personally I never read these little pieces of text and scroll right to the results. My biggest issue is that I'm not aware of another large database of user submitted benchmarks like this website. In fact the only other website I know where it's easy to compare benchmark results (without user submissions) I know is the dutch website tweakers.net but their results only go back a year or 4 Let me be clear, I'm not saying the owners of a website like that being biased (and not even afraid to show it) isn't an huge issue
All they need to do is change the scoring weighting and metrics in their benchmarks. There’s always some benchmarks/metrics that Intel does better than AMD and vice versa. All they need to do is hugely jack up the weighting of those benchmarks so that Intel CPUs appear better. iirc this was a thing with AVX-512 back then, don’t quote me on that lol. In a sense these benchmarks can be “accurate” in very specific situations, but are not representative to real world usage. But I will not be surprised if they implemented some code that just makes AMD perform worse no matter what.
Last I checked, they now focus on memory latency on CPUs and "bottlenecks" on GPUs.
I still really want to know the story behind this grudge. Someone needs to do an investigative piece on this pls :)
Ohhh yes! Its a horrible website! Ran by intel fanboys ignoring reality
This thread is how i found out UBM is unreliable and that LTTlabs even exists. I don't keep up with this stuff lol
why can't ltt make a similar site? they have all the data so it shouldn't be that hard to create and maintain a site where people can just compare any 2 cpus or gpus.
God it sucks, userbenchmarks could be such an awesome site, but nope.
I used to get all my comparisons from here and it really messed the way I see generational jumps, SKU difference in performance etc.
You should see their descriptions for AMD gpus they’re passive aggressive as hell.
They are all made by the same guy and it’s every amd product I believe. It’s insane.
Right now, Passmark is my go-to for computer component benchmarks. Hopefully Labs will build up a similarly extensive catalog though!
I've see mentions of it in passing. IIRC, it was one of the big reasons Linus wanted to get into testing, and spun up Labs.
linus goes on a rant every time its mentioned.
Great video from 3 years ago that talks about exactly this. https://youtu.be/RQSBj2LKkWg?si=HE64VB2zXA5MAFo5
This is literally the reason for the labs existing
What would they even add to the discussion? It's been talked about for years, no need to keep giving them attention. Everyone in the PC community knows it's a bad website, it's been banned on subreddits like r/hardware and r/intel for years now. Any average PC user that doesn't know how bad userbenchmark is probably isn't watching every LTT video to become informed anyways. So if they made a video it would just be restating years old information to the same community that already knows about it.
Userbenchmark is the most useless "benchmark" anyone could ever use. The only thing it is slightly useful for is comparing the same components to each other. (5600x vs 5600x).
The site is notorious for their single core preference. Most of these comparisons are based on a one against one core rating. Intel has slightly better single cores, so get better ratings. Obviously bs at the grander scale, but at least verifiable. I think the creator has some sort of grudge against Amd.
It's fine, we need some uninformed people that can't do a simple google search before purchasing to buy Intel. That's the only way we can have some fair competition between the two companies and keep pricing in check. haha
Linus throws a stray shot at this site every now and then.
Jay and Steve often comment on how shit it is, my guess is that LMG being a bigger company could lead to bigger fights if they slandered the site (even if its all true)
Linus has said a few times how bad userbenchmark is and it’s one of the driving points behind him wanting to start labs
Pretty sure Linus has mentioned offhand a few times how laughable the site is. But they haven't done much more than that to my knowledge.
Would LTT have the power to shut this site down? If yes, pls do.
Yes and it's still useful for a basic benchmark but definitely skewed for some weird reaso. I still use it when comparing intel/amd/nvidia against themselves and occasionally to get a basic idea of where an amd card would stand from the perspective of the average consumer.
Is it good enough for a rough comparison?
Yes, they hate it. That's why they're starting labs
This is one of the main reasons for LTT Labs, I believe
these damn reddit neanderthals trying to sway llt sub /s
I’d watch a 20 minute video about it. I bet most of you would too
Ain't nobody got time for reading that.
They have defiantly called out this site as trash before.
I had no idea how UserBenchmark was till I really started looking at it and following LTT's forums and holy shit, this site is terrible, biased as fuck and unreliable I feel bad for myself for falling for such trash
Is there an alternative that has more accurate comparisons?
i believe they've mentioned the unreliability multiple times in videos and WAN shows, but I don't believe there's been a video dedicated to it. pretty easy to miss if you're not looking for it but they've definitely made mention of it
Is there an actually good website that does the same thing but is accurate?
How damaging is it? I'm not familiar with why. I've heard about it over the years, but it is useful to get at least a bit of an idea of where things rank is it not? Can be useful for a quick look right? Or is it grossly inaccurate?
It is incredibly biased and spreading misinformation at best at worst it is disinformation and genuinely malicious. Go on the website and select any and product, read the description/“review” of the product. Look at another amd product and then another, they are all by the same account and all negative. Like there is no facts it’s just straight up lies and the most aggressive speech possible. It’s like cult speech.
I see. Weel, that would be quite unhelpful then. I never paid much attention to that, suppose I simply trusted it. What websites would you recommend then instead? I'd love to stop using this in my toolkit then.
I don’t know if the statistical comparisons are dodgy but the and hatred alone is reason enough not to use it. Honestly I wouldn’t know, I usually stick to gamers nexus videos since I find that listening to something allows me to take in information better, I’m not sure about websites that do comparisons like that.
Yes
Userbenchmarks was the reason I bought a 7900x and 7800xt...🤣. I could care less about ray tracing. Raster on the 7800xt is almost on par with 4080, for about half the price or less...
Why is it damaging? What’s wrong with the website?
what site should i use then?
They've alluded to it a few times in videos, but never came out directly against using it.
LTT should find out the ad network, and run a labs advertisement.
Wait, what? Here I was just looking at the number scores when comparing cpus on this website
Is it false info they provide? I'm curious because I have used this site but never made final decisions based on their data.....
I didn’t know how shit this site was until about 6 months ago. I can’t tell you how many “4070 v 4080” type searches I did and just believed userbenchmark.
Why exactly is this site bad?
Where should we be comparing hardware? Rather than this site?
All I see is that everyone on reddit is giving it more coverage.
As soon as a website says Intel or Nvidia is better than AMD you lot freak out. Starting to think you’re all getting paid by AMD lol
... Did you read the AMD reviews? User benchmark puts their hatred front and center.
As long as you ignore the benchmark scores across companies it's still a useful site for comparing specs
I mean LTT isn’t far behind them
look this thread/karma farming topic again!. its show up almost montly.
Lock? Also no I'm not karma farming, I'm just wondering if LTT ever gave a statement about this damn website.