@@introvertplays6162 AMD marketing is so bad, its a joke. Even them they are on top of wish lists for gamers, because they really care about performance and they notice better products. It would be even more funny if all of this was Intel paying them to write, so desperate, Intel is so incompetent
@@introvertplays6162 I was thinking the same thing like AMDs marketing is kinda ass. I literally fell asleep during their CES announcement. Plus the regular consumer (non-gamer, just needs a desktop) has never even heard of AMD.
@John Jenkins bud, this comment section is specifically talking about an open intel fanboy who froths at the mouth when AMD do anything. whether or not AMD fans do the same thing isn't relevant, because they're not the subject of discussion. talking about one person doing dumb shit on a certain side of the debate doesn't mean that they excuse people doing dumb shit on the other side of the debate; it just means that only one of those is what's currently relevant.
3 роки тому+272
@John Jenkins you understand that you're the snowflake in this situation? Also I use Intel.
I wouldn't say they evolved to writing "bad" fanfics, I would offer they have always been bad as it is easy to write good fanfic for a Mary Sue which is what Intel effectively were prior to Ryzen.
5:01 - userbenchmark 8:15 - userbarkmench 8:44 - muserbenchark 10:29- busermenchark 11:18 - distorted pronunciation of userbenchmark 12:12 - heavily distorted pronunciation of userbenchmark gotta love the effect abuser bismarck has on people that review or criticize it
I always wondered why my head tingled when I visited the site. It seems it was my brain cells killing themselves to avoid giving me cancer. Noble little ones.
Wow I had no idea. I assumed a site called UserBenchmark was using user data to sort PC parts. I was really confused why AMD's CPUs were so far down the list when looking at their rankings, and now I know why. Thanks 1 year ago Philip!
I was also confused why the 3950x was praised everywhere but had poor result on UserBenchmark. They seem to be doing the same with GPUs anything that is not nvidia is hot garbage (the 40 series gets a 9x score while everything else is at around the 50 mark) granted the 40 series is a beast of a gpu but it's overkill for most people.
I wanna thank you for this, im quite frankly ashamed that I was unaware about Userbenchmarks biasness towards Intel over AMD. To think that I have been using it to influence my buying decisions, AND have told other people to also use it for theirs, ashames me. If you hadnt made this i wouldve keept doing this. Thank you.
Yeah, I feel like a proper idiot for not questioning their garbage sooner. Real shame they're typically the top result for people looking to compare CPUs before buying. I think they really skewed my perception of AMD's stuff.
I trusted them too, until they claimed that my 3600x is much worse than some old i5. It was that moment I started feeling something is not right, but I didn't know it's THAT bad
yup, same. i personally stopped using that site when i saw that they rated the i5-2500k as "BETTER" than a 3600. that, was when i realized something was very wrong
They aren't reviewing CPUs, they are substituting as Intels unpaid marketing department. Like complaining that the Ryzen comes with a cooler, when you'd want one for oc'ing, without mentioning that the same goes for Intel. And cherry picked benchmarks away from reality and from games that nobody plays? I didn't know that GTA V, Flight Sim 2020, Red Dead 2, Far Cry 5, Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Watch Dogs Legion are obscure niche titles that only a very few reviewers ever run. And those were only the games tested in the first reviews I could find by simply googling for ryzen review.
Right? All I got out of that "review" was that the 11900k is the fastest of the 11th gen series. Everything else was "AMD is paying people to lie about Intel. They’re doing their reviews wrong *on purpose*”
But what you've missed is that AMD has 1331 pins, Intel only has 1200. That means that per pin, Intel CPUs are actually faster and more efficient. So you would actually have to either take 9.8% off of any AMD performance benchmark or add 9.8% to any intel cpu compared to AMD. - UserBenchmarks
I wanted to compare my 3600x with friends old i5 and it somehow showed that his old i5 is 2x time better. I was so confused by this and thought that it might be an error. It appears it's not an error but they are deliberately manipulating the scores. Nice haha
I love the way in the first half of the 11900k review they start off with a bunch of numbers that are basically techno-jargon to make it seem good and then complain about exactly that in the second half
I feel like a fool now... I've used it many times just to make a "quick check" on CPUs and GPUs and since I only read the big percentage at the top I never noticed the hatred and discrepancies at the core of the website. I always thought that since it's called "user benchmarks" and since users can download their application and insert their performance data in the charts it was quite good at making an average of the results, giving a short summary to condense all the information they had, but of course that couldn't be farther from reality... Of course I would have never only used this website to make a pc build since I follow many component reviewers on UA-cam who I know I can trust, but an "easy and quick" website to directly compare parts was too appealing not to use! Well, now I know how it actually works thanks to you (and thanks to my UA-cam recomendations), now I will be a better member of the pc building community!
Yep, almost chose them the first time I wanted to make a quick check. Ended up getting 3DMark... which might've been overkill, but at least it's reliable. :)
Don’t worry, I’ve been there too. Used this site a fair few times without ever reading the hate at the bottom. Clearly it didn’t work since my machine is actually full AMD but it has definitely caused me to delay my choices in the past and wonder if I was getting the best bang for my buck. However, learning this (and having the machine in hand) makes me feel even more confident in my choices! What’s best is that we recognize what a crap site it is and dissuade others from it for these scummy practices
Same this is exactly what I used to do. Grant it I also looked up reviews before picking my hardware but I would always glance at this site's percentage scores sometimes. I feel so dumb lol I'm really glad my hardware choice wasn't swayed by them, if only by a very small bit.
I made this same mistake too, but I luckily haven't been able to afford a PC, so haven't wasted money in Intel. Besides, I use Linux and looked at AMD because their Linux drivers usually work better.
@Qimodis Yeah, in this case it's more a question of difamation. Gaslighting is more personal and involves consistently undermining one's self-esteem and self-reliance.
I admit I'm one of those. I've used the once holy nvidia and intel combo since 2005 and i will probably still use it in the foreseeable future, my past experiences with AMD has scarred me when the company didn't know what they were doing, now however AMD seems to be undefeated.
@@oz2362 definitely. There only really is one thing intel still does good and it's server cpu stability, that is the one reasoning for many companies to still use intel on their servers. But aside from that, AMD is king.
@@Keaza. similar experiences, friend convinced me to get a Ryzen because my mobo died last year and I NEEDED a new mobo/cpu, it was cheaper to get an AMD, but it's worked fantastically so far. I will totally admit I got over past bad experiences entirely because I was desperate and terrified of losing my stream average waiting on new PC parts though lul.
Yep, I was an early Ryzen adopter cause I wanted better multitasking but still good gaming performance without breaking the bank - and I got it. Next time I upgrade I'll go with whatever offers the best performance/$ whether that happens to be Intel at the time or AMD. In the current market it's actually Intel, but that's only due to the hyper inflated pricing on almost every component out there. I'd easily grab a 10600k for $220 + B460 Tomahawk for $200 compared to the overinflated nearly $400 R5 5600X if I were building a system right now. Sure hope that changes in a year or two when DDR5 gets to 3,200Mhz and I'm ready to upgrade. Availability and supply is soooo crap right now for 7nm silicon lol ;/
@IKSDE XD I agree that the overclocks are pretty low, but I believe it's because of true stability, they try to keep the rippling to a minimum while normally people overclock a bit higher than what is technically stable. I'm not 100% though. I flat out disagree on the Nvidia thing, they critique Nvidia a lot judging by all the videos I have seen. I don't know enough the RA Tech thing but it's weird that he removed his tweet without responding and his attitude works well when he is right and companies listen to him because of it, but his attitude can be a bit problematic when he is wrong because sarcasm doesn't work well when you're wrong
@IKSDE XD Wait what? I mean high voltage isn't a big concern nowadays with cpus but if true it's not very good to show as an example I will try to pay attention to the critique and compare, but most of his criticism is fair against both companies. He also really likes AMD CPUs and has since first gen ryzen so he probably doesn't have any problems with the company itself True, he doesn't seem alot about CPU architecture, even though I know much less
regular dr: your heart rate is too high userbenchmark: your effective heart rate is fine. when looking at more important factors, like blood oxygen concetration, you are doing fine. the hospital must be sending their "marketing doctors" to tell you that you are dying from "tachycardia"
Even WebMD doesn't lie to you, it's just overly cautious and tries to cover as many possibilities as possible (hence the joke how it's always cancer). Usermenchbark on the other hand is just straight up taking the piss.
regular mechanics: your brakes are not working, better change them UserBenchmark: your "effective braking power" is fine. when looking at more important factors, like wheel lockups, (of course, brakes don't even work), your car is perfectly fine. the mechanics are sending their marketing team to tryna fool you into thinking that your car is horribly unsafe.
I love how by the end UserBenchmark isn’t even reviewing the Intel CPU’s anymore they’re just writing articles about how everyone else is lying about AMD
Honestly, me not understanding perfectly what more cores actually do or where how many cores could be enough, I would be quite conflicted as to who now tells the truth. I say would be, because its so blatantly obvious since they dont even write sincere reviews anymore and simply hate on amd for marketing, instead of giving an unbiased review of a product. Whoever writes these "reviews" must be certifiably insane. Its just funny how they miss the most important thing in their reviews: an actual review
@@gorgit Yeah, it would be totally reasonable for UB to explain how core count is only useful for programs that utilize all the cores, and maybe give some examples of what programs use more cores so certain people know which CPU would be better (for example, creative software often benefits from more cores, but gaming generally uses a fixed amount) but instead they just started writing a review about how bad AMD is lmao
I unironically used Under Benchmark a lot. I never read the descriptions as I never had need to. I had assumed all their information was crowdsourced, and compared real numbers between two processors. Never had I used their leaderboards, or I would have noticed the blue focus. I feel rather dumb that I'd never picked up on how c*** they are. Thanks Philip.
@@jensen1646 It's also okay for basic troubleshooting. Whomever made the benchmark is talented, its just how that information is used and manipulated that is the problem.
I *actually* had to go check that 11900k review for myself to make sure it wasn't a joke.... it's real. My god.... I think we're witnessing someone having a mental break from reality documented in these reviews.
The guy behind that site is becoming more and more deranged with every new product that comes out, he's literally losing his mind with every AMD processor.
It reads like a North Korean state news article praising the Glorious Leader after he shit his pants during a televised interview. "Glorious Leader can do no wrong; the world is just biased against him! The 'brown streak' on his pants was just Western propaganda! "
@@nibs7252 How dare you! spread those villainous lies, everyone knows that our Glorious Leader does not poop, that's for mere mortals like you and me, after all.. I learned that in the state-sponsored educational system! so it must be true! I think you have been corrupted by the western "fake media" and you need to be re-educated for your own good, I have reported you to the pertinent authorities so expect them soon at your home. Long Live Inte... I mean The Great Leader!
It’s a shame because when it first started it was actually pretty decent. The original premise was that individual users could run a canned benchmark, and this would provide a wide spectrum of real-world benchmark results for different components. Back prior to them getting anti-AMD brainworms it was a decent comparison site.
Then they must have broken up about when the 2000-series came out, as said ex couldn't stand seeing her company find its footing again, much less seeing AMD start to run with the 3- and 5000-series chips.
I know this is most likely fictitious, but damn it reminds me of the story of Sonny and Cher. Apparently he just could not accept that she was more successful WITHOUT him.
@@anasevi9456 no, not just the politics (but for that matter, have no seen any of their non-tech stuff, so I don't know if what you say is even true about the politics, but I have my assumptions)
I dont think the verge knows enough about tech to even know a brand to be a fanboy about. Like if you asked them "amd or intel?" they'd say "are they the ones making the brain of the computer?"
You're joking but both AMD and Nvidia make chipsets actually used in russian ballistic and cruise missiles. So plenty of people literally killed by their products.
Same, used to check that site when comparing specific components (i've never read a review from them actually, just a quick look at the numbers) but now i guess i'll ignore them
@@JuliTV123 Comparisons between different nvidia gpus and different amd gpus is half decent, but don't try and do between and amd and nvidia gpu, as they have an nvidia bias, althoug hnot as bad as the intel bias.
@@gamagama69 What in the F are you talking about, this AMD fanboyism is insane. Most people going on there don't give a shit about the reviews, those are subjective, what's wrong with the User-Submitted Benchmarks for people not to use those?
@@Resanctify Watch the video. The issue is Userbenchmark numbers don't even match up to real world performance. They've fudged the numbers too much. The 11900k, for example, is in no way 16% faster than the 10900k in most real world workloads. That website also claims the i5-9400 is 3% faster than the i9-9980xe, in what world is that true? Userbenchmark is so awful the website has been banned from the r/Intel and r/Nvidia subreddits. Their descriptions of AMD CPUs and GPUs are pathetic. Things like the 5700xt being good for benchmarks but running too hot for extended workloads
Their 5800X3D review is absolutely hilarious. The pure performance of that CPU left them so confused they didn't know how to write an Intel fanfic around that anymore.
As soon as I saw this video I just KNEW the 5800x3d review in particular would be a masterpiece. I was absolutely not disappointed. If mental gymnastics were an Olympic sport they'd be disqualified for juicing. It reads like a marketer reworded a 7 year old raging about someone else in class getting a better homework score 😭🤣
The regular 5800x already blew Intel out of the water. It's a stupidly good CPU for the price point (at least in my experience) but the improved X3D must have caused immense levels of clownery. They're still somewhat cheap (though a bit more than the X) and they blow Intel out of the water even harder. Meanwhile UB is straight up blowing Intel. Not out of the water, either.
I mean this sincerely. Could the person writing the reviews on UserBenchmark have something like paranoid schizophrenia? They genuinely seem to think that EVERYONE is conspiring against them and Intel, and that AMD is behind all of it pulling the strings. It must be pretty scary to feel that way, it could explain the hatred. The "blue blubber" line doesn't come across as something written by a person grounded in reality. I remember the site having good info back in the day, so seing the deterioration has been sad. It remindes me of the deterioration of a few very mentally ill people I've known.
Over a year later, and it has only gotten worse. Their blurb on AMD’s most recent processors is literally just a delusional rant about how AMD controls all media coverage
Not only that, but they also do it in such an aggresive and unjournalistic, unproffesional tone, to the point where they use words like "Neanderthal" in a fricking product review.
It's not even AMD specific hardware Although Ryzen 7000 has weaker multi-core, weaker single-core, higher platform costs and higher unit prices AMD have a 3D joker up their sleeve (7800X3D est. 2023). Via “Advanced Marketing” on youtube, forums, reddit, and twitter AMD will demonstrate that their upcoming CPU is the “best in the world” and offer “proof” by way of a small handful of obscure workloads. Games that few people play e.g. (Factorio, SotTR) will be cherry picked, video footage of the gameplay/settings won’t be provided and frame drops will be conveniently ignored. This playbook has easily outsold Intel in recent years but with every overhyped release, consumers lose trust in AMD. Based on social media/press coverage, you would never guess that the combined market share for all of AMD’s Radeon 5000 and 6000 GPUs amongst PC gamers is just 2.12% (Steam stats). Meanwhile Nvidia's RTX 2060 alone accounts for a whopping 5.03%. Largely thanks to marketing incompetence, Intel is existentially motivated to deliver material annual performance improvements. - Intel i9-13900K Since Intel don’t care for long term relationships with PC hardware influencers, for product launches, they often end up sponsoring influencers that are mostly funded by AMD. As a result, Intel rarely get positive marketing coverage beyond launch, and their products remain relatively under priced compared to AMD. - Intel i3-13100F the 12600K is both cheaper and faster than the competition in both single and, notably, multi-core performance. As a result, even AMD's prolific marketing infrastructure (youtube, reddit, forums etc.) will struggle to drive sales, at least until Zen 4 launches (est. late 2022). In the meantime, Intel's i5-12600K is the obvious choice for consumers that do not wish to pay over the odds for almost unparalleled performance in the majority of workloads including gaming. - Intel i5-12600K Consumers that demand value for money, should wait a few more months for the 4060 / 4070 models by which time AMD's 7900 series will also probably be heavily discounted. - NVIDIA RTX 4090 Since PC gamers rarely buy AMD GPUs, Nvidia only have themselves to compete with. AMD continue to burn their credibility with PC gamers. Following a series of over-hyped releases which were heavily promoted on youtube, forums, reddit and twitter, consumers have little interest in the Radeon brand. As time goes on, AMD’s “Advanced Marketing” has a decreasing impact on consumers. Meanwhile, Nvidia remains focused on novel goals such as better graphics (RT/DLSS), frame consistency, game compatibility and driver stability. - NVIDIA RTX 4080 In terms of real world performance, Nvidia’s 3000 series has more or less put AMD’s Radeon group in checkmate. Nonetheless, AMD’s marketers are capable of delivering elaborate BS albeit whilst struggling to keep a straight face. Their marketing infrastructure outsold Intel in the CPU market despite a 15% performance deficit. Without an appropriate social media marketing strategy, Nvidia will probably lose - NVIDIA RTX 3090 and it goes on
@@lazerpie101 yes I read the whole thing. Honestly I feel like whoever is even running the site is just stuck on the ONE sponsorship they had with Intel, and will actively do anything to try and win them back, despite Intel being _very firm_ on the idea of not doing just that for many reasons. That or they're a rambling lunatic- who knows?
@@kylewidrig5993 I'm not knowledgeable enough to really see how accurate the measurements are, but as mentioned in this video they've basically made up eFPS, so there could be a lot of things that are shady in their measurements. If it could be determined what is actually benchmarks obtained from users and what is userbenchmark specific then maybe some things could be used.
I never understood that particular part of the site. Like, why would I care about the age of a card or how many other people use it? I care about performance. And that's misrepresented to hell and back.
@@Dreams_Of_Lavender Market share is actually important, it's a way to judge how well supported future game development will be for your hardware. You know the whole "Wah wah our performance is bad because developers all develop for Intel and Nvidia!!!" excuse that AMD and its fanboys have been using for years to excuse their terrible performance? I mean you can argue that it doesn't matter if you'd like, but then you'd also have to acknowledge AMD (and its fanboys) historically misrepresents its products performance
@@jimmehjiimmeehh9748 lololol I saw your reply on another comment and thought "this guys gonna be aaallll through the comments whining like a little baby." The very next comment thread I open, and what do I find hahaha
@@VeeTHis that they use another site as a source doesn't mean its a citation and can't be reworded. I don't know cpupro, but it could definitely still be userbenchmark changing the wording to make it in line with their own opinion.
I am pro CPU competition, and this is just one of the results of competition. Hardware gains have gotten us pretty far, and there's certainly more to go, but the x86_x64 extension instruction set is the real bottleneck here (which has also had some great mileage). As consumers in the PC market, we are thankful to even be able to compare red vs blue workloads because of the mostly shared cross-license x86_x64 instruction set. Should either diverge and embrace a new instruction set, the whole software ecosystem would be gravely disrupted. It would be far worse than the impact to all 13 Mac users who have to switch from Intel to Apple ARM. This interdependency of a shared instruction set and shared software ecosystem has kept them in a gridlock where the only innovations they can pursue are hardware-based iterations. Of course, the OS and Kernel of choice are the secondly most important piece of unlocking greater performance.
@@VeeTHis I'm going to assume that account is their own. There's even a GPUPro account for GPU's. Looking at the site more, a lot of the text has CPUPro, GPUPro, RAMPro, and what not at the end, so definitely the site owners
The sad fact is the UserBenchmark UI is really amazing. I wish we had something accurate yet with a great interface to compare and contrast parts in the PC community.
The reason it's so simple is because it isn't designed to actually work. You cannot directly compare processors or video cards. It isn't in any way accurate. If it was a list of pros and cons, then it would be accurate. (providing the pros and cons are stated accurately, of course)
@@DannyB1111 Yes, but that's only 1 part of the pros and cons of a processor or video card. What about API support? What about other tasks than gaming, like heavy simulation, or video editing? That's only a few of the myriad of other metrics you need to accurately guage whether a processor or video card is fit for your purposes.
@@TheExileFox hwcompare used to be really good, I still use it for picking out graphics cards whenever I want to quickly get an overview of the memory bus and bandwidth compared to other cards. Admittedly I have been team green since 2011 with the GPU mostly because I dont trust AMD to support their GPUs with drivers for more than 4 years, so many of my friends have been bured, oh and shadowplay is pretty neat of course
Well there's a saying where i live. "If you have nothing nice to say then don't say anything." And there is absolutely nothing nice to say about that series of CPUs... so they don't say anything about them.
They've only gotten worse btw. Here's what they said about the 7800x3D (widely considered the best CPU in years): "PC gamers considering a 7000X3D CPU need to work on their critical thinking skills"
That 11900K review barely talks about the 11900K at all, in fact it reminds me about that one Intel presentation where they talked way more about AMD than they did about their own product.
Those aren't really reviews, more like random thoughts inspired by the processor in question. I don't think that amount of text is enough to review anything.
in fairness you make the 11900k look better by talking less about it, because the more you talk about it the worse it looks as theres nothing good to say.
More like as they are slowly getting paid more and more by Intel. Or their hate boner is getting bigger due to AMD getting better and better for half the price of Intel's CPU's
This site is exactly the reason why I went for an all AMD build. They are actively trying to skew the marketplace towards Intel/Nvidia products when everyone knows they are just too damn expensive nowadays for the same equipment. I just got a AMD RX 6700XT that rivals the RTX 3070 in performance, with NVidias being a little bit better (we are talking like 5fps better) in big AAA titles, but with the AMD card at $350 while Nvidia's card is at $700
@@purplegoopguy The 3060ti is still a good card even if Nvidia and shills are scummy. Enjoy it while you have it and you can always go red later down the line.
@@NiSE_Rafter Oh yeah, it still works. Just a massive fucking pain dealing with their proprietary drivers on linux. Only thing I want them for is the gpu frame buffer recording
@@rabbischlomobengoldbergstein I didn't think about OS till I realized I hated the idea of installing windows on my PC. I YOLO'd the absolute fuck out of this build ngl. I kinda just slapped shit together after skipping through 2 minutes of like a 2 hour LTT video on building pcs. It wasn't that complex lol. And I only got the 3060ti because A) cheap B) It is a fire card C) Very cheap, like under 500$ (Brand fucking new) Also didn't have a ton of experience with AMD cards. Ima be real I don't have any more problems from it. Oh yeah, AM5 does this funny thing where you can literally stop seeing your wifi adapter until you turn off the psu and spam the power button to discharge the capacitors. I shit you not. Hilarious. (Also some mediatek driver thing and powersaving setting I forgot)
you can use to compare between the same generation if you just go by numbers and know what you are doing, basically just numbers and don't even bother with their opinions. Although at this point I wouldn't give them clicks even for that
@@supershad9855 I always thought the ranking is very single-core-heavy because it's more for showing the in-game performance but now with the newest generations of CPUs from Intel and AMD it's not making any sense anymore.
I'll never understand people who go full tribalist for a company, when the end goal for that company is almost always to take as much of your money as they can.
I agree. Like literally the more harsh and critical you are towards a company, the more likely they are going to put actual effort into their products because they have to in order to get people buying. Blindly defending or fanboying a product will always lead to a situation where the manufacturer will just get comfy and let the fanboys do their marketing and sales all the while degrading their product and hiking up the price
I guess it's the need of feeling to be part of something. Ignorance+no self-confidence, masked with a trolling attitude that lead to blindling workship, who/what-ever let them feel " special " in theyr twisted mind, at least.
I went to their site and they litterally have a FAQ on why they get shit on so much lol. "Marketers operate thousands of reddit accounts. Our benchmarks expose their spiel so they attack our reputation." Hence I found your video, thank you for exposing their bias and gaslighting behavior.
It now has four disclaimers on why manufacturers, reviewers, Reddit and Trustpilot all shit on them. You’d think they’d eventually go "Are we the baddies?", but no, they don’t.
@@hammerth1421 Exactly, it saddens me because their entire existence is based on preying on people with no technical knowledge. They see a percentage and fully trust their measurements. I was and am considering myself one of those people. However, this video shed some light to some major issues and with all the puzzle pieces in place you just cannot support UmserBenchark anymore.
I was literally about to buy a new PC and couldn't understand why anyone would buy an AMD CPU because I'm dumb and completely believed what I saw on UB... You've actually helped me out a lot, ty philip.
@@StevenMussels the main thing that got me about UB was that I could directly compare products with a single score. I get pretty easily overwhelmed with spec sheets.
Go read tpus 11900k review and just skip to say 1440p gaming result - you'll see how little or actually matters. 5600x from AMD shines so hard with power vs performance
checking in after the intel CPU oxidation issue that's going to kill every 13th and 14th gen cpu eventually. userbenchmark has been silent for a week about this. all the reviews they've done about the last two gens of cpus have remained unchanged in light of this situation and have aged terribly mainly because of what has just been discovered. I'm guessing they're on suicide watch.
You're complaining about Bias on a video where a minute in Phillip lies about how Intel only sold 4 core 8 thread processors. (they've been selling higher core count desktop/gaming chips since 2010). Worse than lying he tries to add a qualifier to his lie "if you wanted extra you'd have to pay a lot more!" so that when his lie is pointed out he can weasel out of it. Phillip is an AMD fanboy and biased that way. Unfortunately with the way the world is now, no one even tries to account for their biases and outright pretends their bias is objectivity.
@@jimmehjiimmeehh9748 You're serious aren't you? Alright then, I'll get serious too. "They've been selling higher core count desktop/gaming chips since 2010" - alright then let's see Ivy Bridge for example. i3 - 2 cores 4 threads, i5 - 4 cores 4 threads, i7 - 4 cores 8 threads, i7 extreme - 6 cores 12 threads. So it would seem that you're correct right? Wrong. The key word here is desktop/gaming. i7 extreme processors are workstation/enthusiast grade of hardware and require a enthusiast/server motherboard. Usually i7 extreme processors are double the price of the flagship i7 processor and the motherboard is usually also double or even triple the price of a normal motherboard (LGA2011, LGA 2066). Meanwhile quad core flagship processors were the standard for Intel from 2007 with Kentsfield (eg. Core 2 Quad Q6600) up until Kaby Lake in 2017 (eg. i7-7700K). The first real affordable consumer Intel 6 core processor released with Coffee Lake in late 2017 / early 2018 (eg. i7-8700K) as a direct response to AMD's Zen architecture (February 2017) and upcoming Zen+ architecture (April 2018). Intel kept the core counts frozen for consumers for literally 10 years and it would keep them frozen longer if AMD hasn't appeared with competetive products.
SO THIS IS WHY, I remember using their site when i was building my first pc in 2016 with 6700K and GTX1080 and I used that website a lot to compare different combinations of hardware, but now that I'm looking to update, i came back to their website only to find really weird results when I'm comparing different components. Now I finally get why
Luckily while I was creating my brother build I had already decided on the processor, but whenever I did stray into that neck of the UBM woods it became a very confusing time. I need to check how they treated AMD’s Radeon gpus, but from what I remember they seem to have copy and pasted something about “overhyped marketing” backfiring on them. Shit didn’t stop me from choosing a 5600x and a 6600xt tho
Yep it’s just as nuts, in the i5-13600k review which is on their front page, their review pulls the exact same insanity and even talks about Radeon steam market share numbers??? They also seem to like copy pasting stuff across different reviews for different products. I’ve found the line “ AMD's Neanderthal marketing tactics seem to have come back to haunt them” multiple times on both gpu and cpu reviews. They don’t seem to be fangirling as hard for Nvidia but they definitely still hate the fuck outta AMD
It's not that they are technically "lying" but they try to manipulate people with tests & stuffs to make AMD worst then Intel procs for no reasons and create fic tests to seem more worthy of doing it. And no one, even Intel themself want to find credits from them anymore even when they glorify their products gorgeously XD and that is the thing that makes no sense at all!
Tbf, that's not necessarily true. Across energy consumption, heat vulnerability, multi-versus-single core performance, etc, there are many things a CPU can be competitively ahead on, without really making it a better choice to many groups of consumers. So there absolutely are justifications for a CPU review to disagree with the CEO's assessment on the direction of their product line. Perhaps not to the extent on that website, but even the things they evaluate in their flavour texts (which I never expected anyone to take seriously - clearly the website just exists to offer stats, and the review texts are fluff to make a little ad revenue with) aren't all inaccurate.
@@mareksicinski3726 AMD is legitimately less stable. It's cheaper for more power but a lot more hardware error-prone. It's not a new way of doing hardware. You always have a pricey stable company and a unstable cheaper company. You exchange price for risk. Literally every industry had that paradigm.
It's funny because now it has literally devolved to POSTING THE WRONG SPECS. The Ryzen 7 5700X3D that released this year, is listed as a 6 core cpu in Booserlenchfart, when its actually a 8 core cpu that is just a slightly lower clocked 5800X3D
gamers acting like politics is some weird foreign thing that isn't intertwined with almost everything and has no effect on their lives lmao the dude said 3 letters and got 3 replies complaining about politics, white boys are hilarious
I forgot that I saw this video a couple of years ago, and today, I was looking for some information on a gpu, and Userbenchmark was the first search result. When I read the report, I immediately remembered this video. Here are some excerpts, if anyone's wondering if they improved: "PC gamers looking to join AMD’s “2%” GPU club (Steam stats: 5000/6000/7000 series combined mkt share) need to work on their critical thinking skills: Influencers (posing as reviewers) are paid handsomely to scam users into buying inferior products." "AMD’s 6000 series GPU’s will have to see substantial price cuts and a huge marketing effort in order to gain any traction." "Nonetheless, AMD’s marketers are capable of delivering elaborate BS albeit whilst struggling to keep a straight face. Their marketing infrastructure outsold Intel in the CPU market despite a 15% performance deficit. Without an appropriate social media marketing strategy, Nvidia will probably lose considerable market share, for all the wrong reasons."
Its a shame that userbenchmark has so much bias, the idea is really great in my opinion and is one of the quickest and most convenient ways to compare performance without having to memorize hundreds of benchmarks.
@@VeeTHis they did make efps a thing which no one knows how to measure except themselves. And they changed the algorithm to give lower scores to higher treads which is really biased.
What about GPU reviews? Are they biased as well? (since intel is not a player there) I'm wondering if I should ditch userbenchmark completely or just the CPU side
I used that website to compare some GPUs and CPUs to decide, until I started seeing UA-cam benchmarks (which are almost imposible to fake) and I started to notice some weird things, the compare where soooooooo unaccurate, then I just stopped using that website, I never looked deeper about that unaccurate comparisons, and now I see this video, everything makes sense now
Yeah, if someone on UA-cam tried to fake this stuff and they got any sort of major attention it would almost instantly be shot down by a barrage of tech youtubers
youtube benchmarks aren't 'impossible to fake' and we don't know the methodology that they use so it's a good idea to only use benchmarks from reputed channels such as gamers nexus and hardware unboxed
It's only gotten worse in 2023-2024. It's gone from disagreeing with the results to downright slander, nonsensical smear campaigns run wild and it's extraordinarily hard to take seriously
When I was looking at this site to decide whether I was gonna trust in Infinity Cache and go with the cheaper 6900xt over a 3090 or possibly the 6800xt vs 3080, I saw their review of both cards at the bottom and literally spit out my drink. It was so fucking wild man, like vitriolic hate for a product that performed only slightly worse at 4k than a card that cost 500 dollars more, and just a nauseatingly positive glowing review for the Nvidia card. IT was fucking bizarre!
No idea why they so deeply hate AMD. I don’t even think they are paid off like so many others think. If they had a deal with Intel, they could just quietly let their processors do better and that’s it. They would also have no reason to take this battle into the GPU section where there is no Intel to praise. The increasingly verbose "reviews" derailing into nothing more than complaining about AMDs marketing that is apparently a worldwide shadow organization don’t make sense to me if the explanation is that they’ve simply been bought by Intel. I think whoever writes the reviews believes that they’re personally attacked by the relative performance between Intel and AMD shifting. And they’ve not only been banned from AMDs but INTELs official subreddit as well. Idk, it’s so weird considering how big the site is
Well the 3090 still does have more cores and far more VRAM compared to its 3080 counterpart and those AMD cards soooo….. While AMDs cards rely more on high clock speeds for higher performance…. Plus people see the 3090 as a bridge between the GeForce and quadro line. Good for gaming and professional work, without a 4K+ price tag.
@@Thewaterspirit57 also depending on what you want to do, some stuff just dosnt work on AMD GPUs, sadly. You can do almost nothing that involves some fancy AI, even if you just want to mess around with those AI that up-frames your videos it makes you sad.
That's the most bizare thing here, I'm 100% convinced they don't give these clowns a dime, they are just that much Intel fanboys that they do it for free.
@@enlightendbel I mean when Intel reddit literally banned them because they didnt make any sense and they didnt wanna be associated with them - you KNOW you shell too hard.
"it uses too much electricity" I mean, the peak turbo draw was about 279W on linuss testing, when you boost you are guaranteed to blackout the city, and it's hot like a laptop chip
@@midknight1339 It's a joke running around in Poland about how German newspaper headlines read at the end of WWII, just replace AMD and Intel with Russian and German :)
@@gloowacz Ahhhh makes sense. I figured it was probably originally satirizing some war, but I couldn't find any sources (which makes sense, since I was googling in English).
Why not just ignore reviews and "eFPS" and use the site for what it's name means? Is it because user submitted results don't show AMD as some champion?
I went to one of the linked videos in those descriptions about it's "Better EFPS in games" Despite both CPUs being 4.5ghz out of the box, the Intel CPU was overclocked to 5ghz, running at 100% with no stat for it's tempeture shown. AMD in that test was running at 40% usage at most and a cool 50c the whole "benchmark"
I stopped using Userbenchmark when I read the blurb at the bottom of the page that says "why doesn't reddit like us" and they say its a bunch of alts made by companies they reviwed badly trying to get back at them.
What other options are there for a large scale user aggregated benchmark. If I just want to see how many fps a GPU or CPU gets in a game UserBenchmark is the only site that comes to mind.
What's cool about the AMD subreddit is they haven't actually banned the website. On every post that mentions it or links to it, there's a pinned auto-moderator description of the issue.
"We reduced the contribution of thread counts higher than eight. The 32-core AMD 2990WX moved from first position to 48th. Meanwhile the 8-core Intel 9900K moved from 7th to first position." Well, yeah. And if "We reduce the contribution of cylinder counts higher than 4" then a ferrari is slower than an accord.
Considering that when you floor the pedal ALL cylinders are working, yes, making that analogy would seem stupid not to compare both CPUs at full core usage. However with CPUs, it doesn't work like that. You have to pick the correct CPU for the type of workload you intend to use it for. For gaming, it's only in the recent few years that I have actually seen games that can use up more than 4 cores, which was common for most "gamer" CPUs. It doesn't matter how many cores your CPU has, if your application doesn't have enough threads to put all those cores to work. It would be more like a construction company having 20 workers. When you're in the foundation phase of building a house, you probably won't be able to distribute the work to 20 people to be able to work on finishing the foundation faster. Instead you'll use however many workers you have enough workload for, and just send the rest to a different building site so you don't end up with idle workers. It's the same case with CPUs. If you have a 12 core CPU with 24 threads, but you're playing a game that uses at most 5 to 8 threads, then most of the other CPU threads are sitting around idle (if you don't do other stuff in parallel while gaming). So I understand the reason behind UB changing their benchmarking scenarios, as CPUs started going bonkers with core and thread count. If I were to buy a CPU with video encoding being the main reason I'm buying it, then yes, for that use case UB would not give people a good idea of how it would really perform next to an intel CPU. However I think those cases are in the minority of people buying CPUs, where most of your average Joes that need a site like userbenchmark (which is made to help the vast majority of the user base, reason why they also added effective FPS performance on various games as one of the test cases) are people that want to build a gaming PC. I used to build computers for a living, and people fail to understand that WHAT workload you will put on that computer matters a lot more than just how much "raw total power" a CPU is capable of. The first question I'd ask clients when they came to us for a PC, was what do they intend to use it for and to give me a list of software (or games) that they want to run on that machine. Then we'd discuss budget and see if any sacrifices had to be made to keep the price down, where can those sacrifices be made in order to impact their intended workload as less as possible. If you're building a VM server intended to run a lot of VMs in parallel, core count will matter way more than individual core performance. However for a gaming PC, 8 cores with a better single core performance will usually be better than a 16 core with lower single core performance, at least for the majority of games. I am not aware if there are any games released in the past 2 years that would make use of any additional cores (without having other workloads running on your PC when you're gaming), as I haven't played that many recent titles that came out in the past 2 years, so I can't say I have a big enough data pool. I am also an overclocker that monitors his PC vitals in all my games (since both my CPU, my GPU as well as my RAM are overclocked). I've been with both team blue, as well as team red, and what UB states in regards to EFPS is true. Especially if you have a high FPS monitor, those random high frametimes (which is what those "dips" that you see shown in the screenshot when UB mentioned microstutters with AMD CPUs) become even more noticeable. But the thing is, when it occured, on intel I only encountered them when my CPU was 7 generations old and I had games that capped my CPU at 100%. However, with AMD it happened on some games even on current gen CPUs, while the CPU was nowhere near 100% (however I did notice some individual cores getting capped to 100%, even though the total CPU load was around 50%). For this reason, for gaming (which the vast majority of people that come on UB are visiting for), I stand by UserBenchmark in how the make their tests. Because for gaming purposes (wich is the vast majority of your average Joe coming on UB), their benchmarks are good (I don't really read the word reviews they post, but at least the numbers they post are accurate for their intended purpose). And the thing that UB mentioned about reviewer benchmarks that had XMP disabled is absolutely true. You're basically using your RAM at below their advertised frequency, which will drastically impact your benchmark results. The way 2kliksphilip presents this topic seems a bit biased. Either the extent of his knowledge isn't as vast as he thinks it is, or he is biased towards team red. I don't know about the former, but looking through his video upload history, it does seem like he favors team red in his videos (it might just be my perception, but at least it does seem like that to me).
@@ScorpyonMike tldr, markworshcnerbcnh fanboy. Efps is the dumbest thing ever. Avg fps is what you’ll usually be at in game. Making a whole new fps formula simply to validate your tribalist bias towards a company is completely stupid and so is defending it. Its completely idiotic to include the extreme low percentages in your average.
@@ScorpyonMike I think you're biasing it (or are a troll). I agree with the main message, that user benchmark is a bunch of bollocks. What you can do though, is compare intel processors with each other. That works. Or check which configurations people use with said processors, or have a quick check what the market shares are or check the most used nvmes and so on. Btw, a simple way to negate your question about the nr. of cores. Usually you do not only have your one game active, but possibly, one drive, chrome with a bunch of tabs, Spotify etc. etc. Those chug cpu as well and if left with only 4 cores or even less, this would lead to instabilities. (not crashing, but the same as if, the cpu was working at 100 %). Nowadays some games even are able to use 8 or more threads actively. And what about other workloads? There are so many tasks where you really benefit from more cores. You are completely ignoring those. "I stand by UserBenchmark how they make their tests"... what the hell, are you on drugs? 2 % for multi-core performance... that's just ridiculous. You are definitely just a troll or were paid. I thought they standardized their tests with efps, but they have not even standardized it with the resolution. This is not benchmarking in the slightest. This is illegal marketing. If it were where I am living.
@@caschque7242 I would suggest giving my comment another read, but this time in it's entirety. You either only partially read it, skimmed through it, or chose to ignore parts of it and only focus on the parts you wanted to pick on. "And what about other workloads? There are so many tasks where you really benefit from more cores. You are completely ignoring those." No, I'm not ignoring those. In fact I even said "If I were to buy a CPU with video encoding being the main reason I'm buying it, then yes, for that use case UB would not give people a good idea of how it would really perform ". I also talked about other scenarios where a high number of cores would be more beneficial vs the single core performance of the CPU. I will say again once more... The vast majority of the website traffic on UB is from your average Joe trying to build themselves a gaming rig and they want to see what would get them the most bang for their buck. In that aspect, I think UB is great. If you're building a PC intended for business workloads, that can generate enough threads to use up a high core count (anything over 8 cores), then yes, I would not use UB. But then again, if you need a business oriented PC, it's probably not going to be built by your average Joe. Even I myself have never used UB to compare CPUs for anything other than when building a gaming CPU. And again, I think for that purpose it's a good tool. While the worded review section might be biased, I never use that. I think the best representation is the 1 core, 2 core, 4 core and 8 core score comparison. A quick example to check if the numbers are biased is to check something like an i5-10600 and a ryzen 5 5600x. Both released in the same year, and both at the same price (at least where I live). You'll see the AMD one comes on top when it comes to those number. And yes, the 5600x is a good example where the worded review seems biased, reason why I prefer to use the site for the various 1 to 8 core scores, and also to check on average how well the cpu overclocks. Also for business PCs, there are other factors to keep in mind besides just the "total raw power", even for workloads that can make use of a high core count. Like CPU instruction set (I work in software development, and for the tools we use, this is WAY more important than just running an artificial benchmark between 2 CPUs and picking whichever scored the highest). Also, if you work in an enterprise business (I do), there's also things which might be of importance such as a TPM chip. For business oriented workloads, I don't think you should be building your PC using generic benchmarking websites. If you want to compare two CPUs, you have to have some very specific criteria in mind, and I don't think you'll ever find a generic benchmarking website fitting those criterias. "2 % for multi-core performance... that's just ridiculous" No idea where that number was pulled from, but I searched their website and could not find that information anywhere, so unless provided some proof, I will tend to think that that number was pulled from someone's backside. "Usually you do not only have your one game active, but possibly, one drive, chrome with a bunch of tabs, Spotify etc." On an 8 core CPU: - Spotify's CPU usage is insignificant. - Chrome uses up a lot of RAM (especially if you abuse the number of tabs you use, which I personally do) however it doesn't really use up that much CPU unless you have video decoding running, like watching youtube on a secondary screen, if you have it. And even then... an 8 core CPU can more than handle that (on a 4 core the impact would be more significant, however UB supports up to 8, so I'm using that test case if I want to go on the higher end of the core spectrum, at least in the core range that UB offers) - OneDrive can be scheduled to sync at specific times / days. And even if you leave it always on, you can just lower the task priority so it can't hog up your CPU if you're worried about your CPU usage going up when you're syncing a LOT of files at the same time Of course there's other apps that can run in the background besides those enumerated above, however they more or less fit in the same categories. Either the load is insignificant, or if it's a background task that is not a priority task, you can just lower the task priority in task manager, or if it's something that might have a somewhat detectable load on your CPU, that's usually visual decoding (youtube, netflix, or any other form of video watching) and you will only watch one instance of that since if you're already gaming, at most you can listen to a youtube video on the other monitor and look at it from time to time. Again, for the use cases of the vast majority of the people going on UserBenchmark, the available benchmarking criteria are sufficient. I would HEAVILY advise against allowing the overall score comparison of two CPUs to allow benchmarks that can fill up a CPU with 24 cores or more, in the case of AMD. Since your average Joe might end up in the scenario where he buys a CPU with a ton of cores to use it for gaming, because it had a higher overall score, and end up with a poorer performance than if he had used the same money to buy a CPU with fewer cores but a higher performance per core. Especially since you're average Joe won't know how to interpret those scores and just check overall score vs overall score. TLDR: - gaming PC oriented benchmarks = UserbenchMark good - business PC oriented benchmarks = UserbenchMark bad
You need to follow up on this, shortly after this video they made a response to all the criticsism and started linking to it on all their comparisons quietly. It's shockingly terrible. They're claiming that exclusively testing old Intel-optimized games without taking into consideration multitasking is how they fight all those evil paid AMD shills.
I'll genuinely answer the question: "For those of you who used userbenchmark, can I just ask... why?" because it seems to give an accurate rating of my computer by the numbers when I download its analyzer. I had a crappy computer and it basically said it was low end. I have a mid range now, it says I'm pretty mid range. I looked up stats for a new computer's GPU and CPU that are better than mine and it showed through performance numbers that the better computer was, in fact, better. I've also used versus to compare, but I like the convenience of downloading a file that can analyze my computer and tell me what is great and what is lacking
Damn Patches, you really are unbreakable. Surviving the end of time in Lothric, getting turned into a man-spider in the obviously connected universe of Bloodborne, and now are making really well done tech analysis. Miyazaki can really craft a muhfuckin universe
When I was looking for a school laptop I used this website to check what games the Microsoft Surface Laptop Go 2 could run, and the list was completely wrong. It claimed the laptop could barely run Minecraft, yet here I am running it with 12 chunk rendering distance and a beautiful shader pack at 60 fps. While I don’t play the game myself I decided to test genshin impact because it was free and the website claimed the laptop’s chip was completely unable to run the game, yet it played flawlessly. Not even a frame drop or stutter while loading. Not sure how exactly they do their testing but it’s clearly not very thorough.
I know exactly why this is happening; someone high up at Userbenchmark invented a novel and banger take on the classic AMD Space Heater joke 3 hours before the reveal of Ryzen, and has been sitting on it ever since, desperately waiting for (and using their influence to attempt to return to) a world where it can be funny again.
Yeah same! Some were so bad or not informative at all that I thought they just picked the latest userreview and that’s because they are so bad. Turns out they’ve been officially writing them to represent themselves all the time, what a joke
@@bbbbbbb51 Same, but I try to stay away from that nowadays too. The amd slandering only continues there, for example when comparing the 30 series and 6000 series
Wait a minute, so you say my i7 4720HQ is a top tier CPU in 2022? Freakin' sick! PS: It's still an ok CPU and i absolutely love it. But, if i have the money, i would immediately buy a 3600X or a 5600X. Maybe i should keep saving until second gen DDR5 platforms land?
Darn, I wish I saw this video when I was building my first PC about a year ago, as I thought it could be trusted due to them using "real" user benchmarks, and thus I ended up using them when it came to picking the CPU and GPU in my current PC, not realizing that I could've gotten chosen better hardware for my price point if I had looked a bit further than just their website.
That's impressive because I built my first one two years ago and even with looking at this site VERY quickly realised there was no good reason to go for Intel over AMD. Don't rely on just one source.
@@rker i5-12600KF @ShaCaro Well, i wasn't looking at the articles on the site, i was simply using them to compare specs, had i looked through their articles, i probably would've realized that.
@@notyouravgsteve8899 all theatrical joke or not, it is a possibility as they already bought a company to make a benchmark software to disguise their scores in the past
i love how that last review isn't even a review. they spent more than half of it insulting other reviewers lol
It is right on one thing, Intel's marketing is very lame.
And it is that way because their products are lame.
@@youtuberobbedmeofmyname But the funny thing is...AMDs marketing is not good either XD Calling it world class made me burst out a laugh! XD
They literally say that Rocket Lake is 10% faster because their own benchmark says so. These guys are jerk-offs.
@@introvertplays6162 AMD marketing is so bad, its a joke. Even them they are on top of wish lists for gamers, because they really care about performance and they notice better products.
It would be even more funny if all of this was Intel paying them to write, so desperate, Intel is so incompetent
@@introvertplays6162 I was thinking the same thing like AMDs marketing is kinda ass. I literally fell asleep during their CES announcement. Plus the regular consumer (non-gamer, just needs a desktop) has never even heard of AMD.
You know you’ve hit peak when 75% of your review about an Intel processor is complaining about AMD.
Sounds exactly as that few months old intel presentation, doesnt it?
@John Jenkins bud, this comment section is specifically talking about an open intel fanboy who froths at the mouth when AMD do anything. whether or not AMD fans do the same thing isn't relevant, because they're not the subject of discussion.
talking about one person doing dumb shit on a certain side of the debate doesn't mean that they excuse people doing dumb shit on the other side of the debate; it just means that only one of those is what's currently relevant.
@John Jenkins you understand that you're the snowflake in this situation? Also I use Intel.
Not even...they are complaining about the people who review both.
@John Jenkins Yeah but they have the numbers to back that up.
I like how they've just devolved from reviewing it to just writing bad fanfics for Intel.
Look at the wording they use, seems familiar doesn't it. Sounds almost... political.
I wouldn't say they evolved to writing "bad" fanfics, I would offer they have always been bad as it is easy to write good fanfic for a Mary Sue which is what Intel effectively were prior to Ryzen.
I think you meant "evolved"
@@Ruvaakdein Get you point but tbh it kind of works both ways too
The 11900k review is like their Twilight.
Whoops hadn’t finished the video before commenting, turns out I’m not saying anything new :/
5:01 - userbenchmark
8:15 - userbarkmench
8:44 - muserbenchark
10:29- busermenchark
11:18 - distorted pronunciation of userbenchmark
12:12 - heavily distorted pronunciation of userbenchmark
gotta love the effect abuser bismarck has on people that review or criticize it
thank you. I wasn't sure if I was going nuts or not lol
Lol I was listening on 2 times speed and had to double check!!
I'm laughing way too hard at this. Fucksake. Hahahahahahhaha
I wonder what their reviews of NVIDIA GPUs are like now even when Intel ARC is currently being curbstomped by both.
Next: Benedict Cumberbatch
MemeBenchmark is a great source of tech humour.
Great video by the way, it was a lot of fun and covered their shenanigans really well :)
Not surprised to see Harbor Unboxed in the comments (or in the video for that matter) after watching your video(s) on the matter. I ship it.
@@TheRadElk oh shut up
We all know it's hammer unboxed
@@sannidhyabalkote9536 No way, it's hammer on box!
They literally compare you to Eskimos selling ice which is just......🤦♂️
should I read this comment in Steve's voice? or Tim's?
The more you say "UserBenchmark" the larger the stroke you'll get.
I always wondered why my head tingled when I visited the site.
It seems it was my brain cells killing themselves to avoid giving me cancer.
Noble little ones.
@@XxNightmare128xX idk if brain damage is preferable
11:17 and 12:11
@@jvccr7533 the only way to win, is to not play.
Userbenchmark
Usermenchbark
Userbarkmench
Usebrenchsark
Pghaliasark
Userairgaiprjzpa
"The biggest joke that I can think of"
SAVAGE, but true
Papi Santiago :)
Oh hey Santi my man
Hey!
Wow I had no idea. I assumed a site called UserBenchmark was using user data to sort PC parts. I was really confused why AMD's CPUs were so far down the list when looking at their rankings, and now I know why. Thanks 1 year ago Philip!
until this video i thought all their scores were some sort of compiled average of test scores from users benchmarking with those components
@@lilspeth_ same, i feel dumb now
...Dude, before I clicked on the video I saw the title and thought it was going to be a site about IT people rating users.
I was also confused why the 3950x was praised everywhere but had poor result on UserBenchmark. They seem to be doing the same with GPUs anything that is not nvidia is hot garbage (the 40 series gets a 9x score while everything else is at around the 50 mark) granted the 40 series is a beast of a gpu but it's overkill for most people.
I legit used the website to upgrade my pc like a year and a half ago i wish i had this video then lmao
I wanna thank you for this, im quite frankly ashamed that I was unaware about Userbenchmarks biasness towards Intel over AMD. To think that I have been using it to influence my buying decisions, AND have told other people to also use it for theirs, ashames me. If you hadnt made this i wouldve keept doing this. Thank you.
Yeah, I feel like a proper idiot for not questioning their garbage sooner. Real shame they're typically the top result for people looking to compare CPUs before buying. I think they really skewed my perception of AMD's stuff.
bruh for the longest time I thought userbenchmark is just a benchmarking website
@@greenbin3028 same, I never looked at the reviews. Just the numbers
I trusted them too, until they claimed that my 3600x is much worse than some old i5. It was that moment I started feeling something is not right, but I didn't know it's THAT bad
yup, same. i personally stopped using that site when i saw that they rated the i5-2500k as "BETTER" than a 3600. that, was when i realized something was very wrong
AMD user: *breathes*
UserBenchmark: THE ATTEMPT ON MY LIFE HAS LEFT ME SCARRED AND DEFORMED, BUT I ASSURE YOU, MY RESOLVE HAS NEVER BEEN STRONGER
_Proceeds to create the first Intel-Galactic Empire_ 😂
Dew it
LOL
@@forzaelite1248 that is one of the best puns I've read in a while
@@forzaelite1248 Fantastic pun!
I like how that "review" at the end only has 1 line about the actual CPU being reviewed lol.
You have a lot of likes, and UA-cam doesn't notify you so I thought I would. You're welcome homeskillet
Holy shit, you're right, 90% of the review is just making up preposterous bullshit to discredit other reviewers LOL
They aren't reviewing CPUs, they are substituting as Intels unpaid marketing department.
Like complaining that the Ryzen comes with a cooler, when you'd want one for oc'ing, without mentioning that the same goes for Intel.
And cherry picked benchmarks away from reality and from games that nobody plays? I didn't know that GTA V, Flight Sim 2020, Red Dead 2, Far Cry 5, Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Watch Dogs Legion are obscure niche titles that only a very few reviewers ever run. And those were only the games tested in the first reviews I could find by simply googling for ryzen review.
That was a review? Oof
Right? All I got out of that "review" was that the 11900k is the fastest of the 11th gen series. Everything else was "AMD is paying people to lie about Intel. They’re doing their reviews wrong *on purpose*”
But what you've missed is that AMD has 1331 pins, Intel only has 1200.
That means that per pin, Intel CPUs are actually faster and more efficient.
So you would actually have to either take 9.8% off of any AMD performance benchmark or add 9.8% to any intel cpu compared to AMD.
- UserBenchmarks
😂
you know nothing about pc. go away
@@ImotekhtheStormlord-tx2itLook at the bottom of that comment
...
Scott Steiner maths right here
I always knew that the site is a joke, but I never knew that it was this much of a joke.
A joke is funny. So yeah, the first couple of times this site was a joke. Now, it's just pathetic and harmful to new users.
I wanted to compare my 3600x with friends old i5 and it somehow showed that his old i5 is 2x time better. I was so confused by this and thought that it might be an error. It appears it's not an error but they are deliberately manipulating the scores. Nice haha
What about their GPU Reviews?
@@momi193 I don’t think that they manipulate the scores in anyway but they definitely don’t like AMD’s GPU and trying to make a bad name for them
I thought the last one was a fake until i looked it up
00:05 - Userbenchmark
02:01 - Userbenchmark
02:26 - Userbenchmark
02:40 - Userbenchmark
02:58 - Userbenchmark's
03:21 - Userbenchmark
04:00 - Userbenchmark
04:32 - Userbenchmark
05:01 - Userbenchmark
05:10 - Userbenchmark
05:34 - Userbenchmark's
05:41 - Userbenchmark
06:00 - Userbenchmark
06:39 - Userbenchmark's
07:04 - Userbenchmark
(07:21 - Userbenchmark, only in subtitles tho)
07:45 - Userbenchmark
08:15 - Userbarkmench
08:44 - Muserbenchark's
10:29 - Busermenchark's
(10:54 - Userbenchmark, only in subtitles tho)
11:17 - Bliasmbahsmbark
11:58 - Userbenchmark
12:12 - Userpnchshtlgh
12:21 - Userbenchmark's
jesus christ what a video, good job philip LULW
I see whatcha doing
Thank you I was looking for this
@@lucid-ity you're welcome :D
Bruh momento.
I like how Philip gave up on correctly pronouncing the website's name mid-way through, they really don't deserve more than that lol
I believe it was cause he didn't want the name to be remembered rather forgot and shund
no, it's the exact opposite
he went out of his way to pronounce it wrong (Busermenchark, Usermenchbark, Ushfmhfmgfk, etc.)
look at his lenuoveovo vr review
Poserbenchmark?
Loserbenchmark
That final review on the 11900k is reads like a manifesto
It feels like some weird paranoid manifesto. The detachment from reality can only be described by insanity.
This whole marketing argument is made funnier by the fact that in Q3 of 2020 intel spent about three times as much as AMD did on marketing
@Ruxis256 I think they have a couple guys working that just send their products to reviewers then take a nap.
@@LisyaMyata dream job right there
as an AMD user, I am well aware of the "Intel Inside" marketing slogan - I couldn't tell you AMD's marketing slogan to save my life.
@@caramelldansen2204 Does AMD even have a slogan?
@@konstagold Gamers Ryzen Up
I love the way in the first half of the 11900k review they start off with a bunch of numbers that are basically techno-jargon to make it seem good and then complain about exactly that in the second half
Plot twist: UserBenchmark is owned by The Onion.
No, it's far worse. It's owned by Breitbart
@@mrmaniac3 owned by CNN 😂😂
At least it would have been funny.
Owned by Intel... wouldn't surprise me at all if it was lmao
The onion would at least make it sound more true.
I feel like a fool now... I've used it many times just to make a "quick check" on CPUs and GPUs and since I only read the big percentage at the top I never noticed the hatred and discrepancies at the core of the website. I always thought that since it's called "user benchmarks" and since users can download their application and insert their performance data in the charts it was quite good at making an average of the results, giving a short summary to condense all the information they had, but of course that couldn't be farther from reality... Of course I would have never only used this website to make a pc build since I follow many component reviewers on UA-cam who I know I can trust, but an "easy and quick" website to directly compare parts was too appealing not to use! Well, now I know how it actually works thanks to you (and thanks to my UA-cam recomendations), now I will be a better member of the pc building community!
Yeah well you’re probably not the only one since they pop up as the first few search results on google
Yep, almost chose them the first time I wanted to make a quick check. Ended up getting 3DMark... which might've been overkill, but at least it's reliable. :)
Don’t worry, I’ve been there too. Used this site a fair few times without ever reading the hate at the bottom. Clearly it didn’t work since my machine is actually full AMD but it has definitely caused me to delay my choices in the past and wonder if I was getting the best bang for my buck. However, learning this (and having the machine in hand) makes me feel even more confident in my choices! What’s best is that we recognize what a crap site it is and dissuade others from it for these scummy practices
Same this is exactly what I used to do. Grant it I also looked up reviews before picking my hardware but I would always glance at this site's percentage scores sometimes.
I feel so dumb lol
I'm really glad my hardware choice wasn't swayed by them, if only by a very small bit.
I made this same mistake too, but I luckily haven't been able to afford a PC, so haven't wasted money in Intel. Besides, I use Linux and looked at AMD because their Linux drivers usually work better.
When Usermerkbanch said "paid marketing" and "smear campaigns" they were projecting & gaslighting harder than a toxic ex.
@@MrViki60 stereotypically its usually the males projecting and gaslighting so this comment makes no sense
I think you misspelled, it is UberFakemarks
@Taikun Igarashi stfu incel
@@MrViki60 cringe
@Qimodis Yeah, in this case it's more a question of difamation. Gaslighting is more personal and involves consistently undermining one's self-esteem and self-reliance.
brand loyalty is a hell of a drug
I admit I'm one of those. I've used the once holy nvidia and intel combo since 2005 and i will probably still use it in the foreseeable future, my past experiences with AMD has scarred me when the company didn't know what they were doing, now however AMD seems to be undefeated.
@@Keaza. and wayyyy better value
@@oz2362 definitely. There only really is one thing intel still does good and it's server cpu stability, that is the one reasoning for many companies to still use intel on their servers. But aside from that, AMD is king.
@@Keaza. similar experiences, friend convinced me to get a Ryzen because my mobo died last year and I NEEDED a new mobo/cpu, it was cheaper to get an AMD, but it's worked fantastically so far. I will totally admit I got over past bad experiences entirely because I was desperate and terrified of losing my stream average waiting on new PC parts though lul.
Yep, I was an early Ryzen adopter cause I wanted better multitasking but still good gaming performance without breaking the bank - and I got it.
Next time I upgrade I'll go with whatever offers the best performance/$ whether that happens to be Intel at the time or AMD. In the current market it's actually Intel, but that's only due to the hyper inflated pricing on almost every component out there.
I'd easily grab a 10600k for $220 + B460 Tomahawk for $200 compared to the overinflated nearly $400 R5 5600X if I were building a system right now. Sure hope that changes in a year or two when DDR5 gets to 3,200Mhz and I'm ready to upgrade. Availability and supply is soooo crap right now for 7nm silicon lol ;/
Tech Jesus: "It's a waste of Sand."
UserBenchmark: "IT'S BEAUTIFUL... THEY SHOULD HAVE SENT A POET!"
@IKSDE XD AMDs only short coming is they don't have enough chips.
@IKSDE XD also... When does Steve have ego?
Everything he does he backs up with extensive testing.
@IKSDE XD Can you please elaborate your criticism? It is hard to take someone seriously who only answers LMFAO
@IKSDE XD I agree that the overclocks are pretty low, but I believe it's because of true stability, they try to keep the rippling to a minimum while normally people overclock a bit higher than what is technically stable. I'm not 100% though.
I flat out disagree on the Nvidia thing, they critique Nvidia a lot judging by all the videos I have seen.
I don't know enough the RA Tech thing but it's weird that he removed his tweet without responding and his attitude works well when he is right and companies listen to him because of it, but his attitude can be a bit problematic when he is wrong because sarcasm doesn't work well when you're wrong
@IKSDE XD Wait what? I mean high voltage isn't a big concern nowadays with cpus but if true it's not very good to show as an example
I will try to pay attention to the critique and compare, but most of his criticism is fair against both companies. He also really likes AMD CPUs and has since first gen ryzen so he probably doesn't have any problems with the company itself
True, he doesn't seem alot about CPU architecture, even though I know much less
regular dr: your heart rate is too high
userbenchmark: your effective heart rate is fine. when looking at more important factors, like blood oxygen concetration, you are doing fine. the hospital must be sending their "marketing doctors" to tell you that you are dying from "tachycardia"
Even WebMD doesn't lie to you, it's just overly cautious and tries to cover as many possibilities as possible (hence the joke how it's always cancer). Usermenchbark on the other hand is just straight up taking the piss.
Dont forget about the hospitals neanderthal marketing tactics of doing “bloodwork” and checking your family history
You forgot to add the word "neanderthal" at some random point
regular mechanics: your brakes are not working, better change them
UserBenchmark: your "effective braking power" is fine. when looking at more important factors, like wheel lockups, (of course, brakes don't even work), your car is perfectly fine. the mechanics are sending their marketing team to tryna fool you into thinking that your car is horribly unsafe.
This was one of the best examples of how bad userbenchmark is, and thank you the laugh. 🙂
I love how by the end UserBenchmark isn’t even reviewing the Intel CPU’s anymore they’re just writing articles about how everyone else is lying about AMD
At this point AMD could very well have a viable defamation suit against that site.
@@chdreturns Streisand effect. If they sue them, they will only draw more attention to the site.
That review is only 25 % about the cpu itself 😂
Honestly, me not understanding perfectly what more cores actually do or where how many cores could be enough, I would be quite conflicted as to who now tells the truth. I say would be, because its so blatantly obvious since they dont even write sincere reviews anymore and simply hate on amd for marketing, instead of giving an unbiased review of a product. Whoever writes these "reviews" must be certifiably insane.
Its just funny how they miss the most important thing in their reviews: an actual review
@@gorgit Yeah, it would be totally reasonable for UB to explain how core count is only useful for programs that utilize all the cores, and maybe give some examples of what programs use more cores so certain people know which CPU would be better (for example, creative software often benefits from more cores, but gaming generally uses a fixed amount) but instead they just started writing a review about how bad AMD is lmao
I unironically used Under Benchmark a lot. I never read the descriptions as I never had need to. I had assumed all their information was crowdsourced, and compared real numbers between two processors. Never had I used their leaderboards, or I would have noticed the blue focus. I feel rather dumb that I'd never picked up on how c*** they are. Thanks Philip.
Do you know any actually crowdsourced comparison sites?
@@professionalsocialoutcast5926 eventhubs
I only use UserBenchmark to compare my PC to itself after making a change (GPU overclock, etc.)
Same here. Just got sent this video and feel absolutely betrayed after thinking their CPU comparison was correct.
@@jensen1646 It's also okay for basic troubleshooting. Whomever made the benchmark is talented, its just how that information is used and manipulated that is the problem.
I *actually* had to go check that 11900k review for myself to make sure it wasn't a joke.... it's real.
My god.... I think we're witnessing someone having a mental break from reality documented in these reviews.
Also "Trump is still the president and is controlling the military."
I had to do the same. That... ugh. well i'm not using that site again.
The guy behind that site is becoming more and more deranged with every new product that comes out, he's literally losing his mind with every AMD processor.
It reads like a North Korean state news article praising the Glorious Leader after he shit his pants during a televised interview. "Glorious Leader can do no wrong; the world is just biased against him! The 'brown streak' on his pants was just Western propaganda! "
@@nibs7252 How dare you! spread those villainous lies, everyone knows that our Glorious Leader does not poop, that's for mere mortals like you and me, after all.. I learned that in the state-sponsored educational system! so it must be true!
I think you have been corrupted by the western "fake media" and you need to be re-educated for your own good, I have reported you to the pertinent authorities so expect them soon at your home. Long Live Inte... I mean The Great Leader!
It’s a shame because when it first started it was actually pretty decent. The original premise was that individual users could run a canned benchmark, and this would provide a wide spectrum of real-world benchmark results for different components. Back prior to them getting anti-AMD brainworms it was a decent comparison site.
Plot twist' UB's owner is Lisa Su's toxic ex
Then they must have broken up about when the 2000-series came out, as said ex couldn't stand seeing her company find its footing again, much less seeing AMD start to run with the 3- and 5000-series chips.
I know this is most likely fictitious, but damn it reminds me of the story of Sonny and Cher. Apparently he just could not accept that she was more successful WITHOUT him.
Almost liked but saw the likes were 666 and unliked #HailSatan
@@vortraz2054 bruh what
@@utterkid2 #HailSatan. The hashtag is a shit post, and the satan hailing is genuinely funny to me. I apologize for my metalhead memes
You know it's funny when the r/intel and the r/Nvidia subreddits banned userbenchmark, and almost got the r/AMD one to ban them as well
Yeah, that's the incredulous thing too; of all the hardware subs, r/amd is the only one to not ban them outright
@@sodapone
If usershitmark is mentioned a bot will reply with information about them.
@@sodapone i'm guessing they think it would look bad on their part to ban a site that criticizes them
@@adog3129 It does make a lot of sense
r/hardware has userbenchmark banned aswell I believe
This is some Verge level professional fanboyism
well Verge on any political matter, but yeah UB's propaganda could made a north Korean PR agent blush.
At least Verge has the decency to delete the article when they get called out.
@@anasevi9456 no, not just the politics (but for that matter, have no seen any of their non-tech stuff, so I don't know if what you say is even true about the politics, but I have my assumptions)
I dont think the verge knows enough about tech to even know a brand to be a fanboy about. Like if you asked them "amd or intel?" they'd say "are they the ones making the brain of the computer?"
The Verge would smugly mock you for forgetting your tweezers when building your computer. Yeah, they got them.
This reviewer's father was killed in an AMD related incident and they've been out for revenge ever since.
You're joking but both AMD and Nvidia make chipsets actually used in russian ballistic and cruise missiles. So plenty of people literally killed by their products.
I never realized the extend of their bias, thanks for making me realize this.
Quality content
Same, used to check that site when comparing specific components (i've never read a review from them actually, just a quick look at the numbers) but now i guess i'll ignore them
@@JuliTV123 Comparisons between different nvidia gpus and different amd gpus is half decent, but don't try and do between and amd and nvidia gpu, as they have an nvidia bias, althoug hnot as bad as the intel bias.
@@gamagama69 What in the F are you talking about, this AMD fanboyism is insane.
Most people going on there don't give a shit about the reviews, those are subjective, what's wrong with the User-Submitted Benchmarks for people not to use those?
@@Resanctify Watch the video. The issue is Userbenchmark numbers don't even match up to real world performance. They've fudged the numbers too much. The 11900k, for example, is in no way 16% faster than the 10900k in most real world workloads. That website also claims the i5-9400 is 3% faster than the i9-9980xe, in what world is that true? Userbenchmark is so awful the website has been banned from the r/Intel and r/Nvidia subreddits.
Their descriptions of AMD CPUs and GPUs are pathetic. Things like the 5700xt being good for benchmarks but running too hot for extended workloads
THANK YOU, i was literally JUST reading the i9 11900k review; pardon my French but it's more like userBitchmark
That's not french 🥖 mate that's Bitch''ish
thats fing insane omg hahaha
Uselessbenchmark
UserShitmark
UserAssmark
UserBirthmark
UserOnyourmarksGetsetGo
I can go on and on.
They may not be good insults, but they're insults!
Their 5800X3D review is absolutely hilarious. The pure performance of that CPU left them so confused they didn't know how to write an Intel fanfic around that anymore.
As soon as I saw this video I just KNEW the 5800x3d review in particular would be a masterpiece. I was absolutely not disappointed. If mental gymnastics were an Olympic sport they'd be disqualified for juicing. It reads like a marketer reworded a 7 year old raging about someone else in class getting a better homework score 😭🤣
THE AMD MARKETING TEAM OF RAMPAGING UA-camR REDDITORS WILL STRIKE FEAR UPON PLANET EARTH UNLESS YOU DON'T BUY THEIR MOTHAFUGGIN PROCESSOR
OH. I didn't even think about reading that, they're SO MAD ahahah. They couldn't even say Intel's faster, just that it's solid.
the fake comments are funny af too
The regular 5800x already blew Intel out of the water. It's a stupidly good CPU for the price point (at least in my experience) but the improved X3D must have caused immense levels of clownery. They're still somewhat cheap (though a bit more than the X) and they blow Intel out of the water even harder. Meanwhile UB is straight up blowing Intel. Not out of the water, either.
I mean this sincerely. Could the person writing the reviews on UserBenchmark have something like paranoid schizophrenia? They genuinely seem to think that EVERYONE is conspiring against them and Intel, and that AMD is behind all of it pulling the strings. It must be pretty scary to feel that way, it could explain the hatred. The "blue blubber" line doesn't come across as something written by a person grounded in reality.
I remember the site having good info back in the day, so seing the deterioration has been sad. It remindes me of the deterioration of a few very mentally ill people I've known.
this is a very good point. Honestly, it does seem very fitting to what I know about schizophrenia as well. Sadly, I don't think we will ever know
It's like a Qanon conspiracy nut but in tech instead
Spoken like an AMD plant ;)
@@LTPottenger I wish I had money from AMD, maybe I wouldn't be under the poverty line right now. 🙃
Over a year later, and it has only gotten worse. Their blurb on AMD’s most recent processors is literally just a delusional rant about how AMD controls all media coverage
Not only that, but they also do it in such an aggresive and unjournalistic, unproffesional tone, to the point where they use words like "Neanderthal" in a fricking product review.
"AMD CONTROLS THE MEDIA!!!"
Didn't Intel sponsor you at one point? Quite unfortunate.
It's not even AMD specific hardware
Although Ryzen 7000 has weaker multi-core, weaker single-core, higher platform costs and higher unit prices AMD have a 3D joker up their sleeve (7800X3D est. 2023). Via “Advanced Marketing” on youtube, forums, reddit, and twitter AMD will demonstrate that their upcoming CPU is the “best in the world” and offer “proof” by way of a small handful of obscure workloads. Games that few people play e.g. (Factorio, SotTR) will be cherry picked, video footage of the gameplay/settings won’t be provided and frame drops will be conveniently ignored. This playbook has easily outsold Intel in recent years but with every overhyped release, consumers lose trust in AMD. Based on social media/press coverage, you would never guess that the combined market share for all of AMD’s Radeon 5000 and 6000 GPUs amongst PC gamers is just 2.12% (Steam stats). Meanwhile Nvidia's RTX 2060 alone accounts for a whopping 5.03%. Largely thanks to marketing incompetence, Intel is existentially motivated to deliver material annual performance improvements.
- Intel i9-13900K
Since Intel don’t care for long term relationships with PC hardware influencers, for product launches, they often end up sponsoring influencers that are mostly funded by AMD. As a result, Intel rarely get positive marketing coverage beyond launch, and their products remain relatively under priced compared to AMD.
- Intel i3-13100F
the 12600K is both cheaper and faster than the competition in both single and, notably, multi-core performance. As a result, even AMD's prolific marketing infrastructure (youtube, reddit, forums etc.) will struggle to drive sales, at least until Zen 4 launches (est. late 2022). In the meantime, Intel's i5-12600K is the obvious choice for consumers that do not wish to pay over the odds for almost unparalleled performance in the majority of workloads including gaming.
- Intel i5-12600K
Consumers that demand value for money, should wait a few more months for the 4060 / 4070 models by which time AMD's 7900 series will also probably be heavily discounted.
- NVIDIA RTX 4090
Since PC gamers rarely buy AMD GPUs, Nvidia only have themselves to compete with. AMD continue to burn their credibility with PC gamers. Following a series of over-hyped releases which were heavily promoted on youtube, forums, reddit and twitter, consumers have little interest in the Radeon brand. As time goes on, AMD’s “Advanced Marketing” has a decreasing impact on consumers. Meanwhile, Nvidia remains focused on novel goals such as better graphics (RT/DLSS), frame consistency, game compatibility and driver stability.
- NVIDIA RTX 4080
In terms of real world performance, Nvidia’s 3000 series has more or less put AMD’s Radeon group in checkmate. Nonetheless, AMD’s marketers are capable of delivering elaborate BS albeit whilst struggling to keep a straight face. Their marketing infrastructure outsold Intel in the CPU market despite a 15% performance deficit. Without an appropriate social media marketing strategy, Nvidia will probably lose
- NVIDIA RTX 3090
and it goes on
@@lazerpie101 yes I read the whole thing.
Honestly I feel like whoever is even running the site is just stuck on the ONE sponsorship they had with Intel, and will actively do anything to try and win them back, despite Intel being _very firm_ on the idea of not doing just that for many reasons.
That or they're a rambling lunatic- who knows?
@@omega_6777 I need to see this, do you have a link to that specific review?
The worst part is that they're usually within the top 3 results when looking for reviews so people who don't know better might be led astray
I'm new to pc so I had no idea that they were bad
Same does anyone have a different site with more honest comparisons
I used to use it, only really looked at the stats and not the big chunks of text.
@@rhubarbeque that’s what I use it for is it fine for that
@@kylewidrig5993 I'm not knowledgeable enough to really see how accurate the measurements are, but as mentioned in this video they've basically made up eFPS, so there could be a lot of things that are shady in their measurements. If it could be determined what is actually benchmarks obtained from users and what is userbenchmark specific then maybe some things could be used.
don’t forget userbenchmarks fixation on “market share” and actively considers it when ranking products
I never understood that particular part of the site. Like, why would I care about the age of a card or how many other people use it? I care about performance. And that's misrepresented to hell and back.
@@Dreams_Of_Lavender Not really, read the numbers in the actual performance section, don't be stupid, that's all.
@@Dreams_Of_Lavender Market share is actually important, it's a way to judge how well supported future game development will be for your hardware. You know the whole "Wah wah our performance is bad because developers all develop for Intel and Nvidia!!!" excuse that AMD and its fanboys have been using for years to excuse their terrible performance?
I mean you can argue that it doesn't matter if you'd like, but then you'd also have to acknowledge AMD (and its fanboys) historically misrepresents its products performance
@@jimmehjiimmeehh9748 lemme guess: you didn't watch the video and just came to the comments for drama
@@jimmehjiimmeehh9748 lololol I saw your reply on another comment and thought "this guys gonna be aaallll through the comments whining like a little baby." The very next comment thread I open, and what do I find hahaha
And now Userbenchmark is behind a $10 paywall, lol
Intel users can now buy copium for as low as $9.99!!! Get it now, while supplies last!
that'll stop AMD's Advanced Marketing Drones!
Damn i noticed this shit too... since forever! What a shame, site could be #1 but what a shame mannnn!
Yeah...
Userbenchmark doesn't right these reviews. If you look closely, in most of these it said "[ CPUPro]". Open your eyes.
@@VeeTHis that they use another site as a source doesn't mean its a citation and can't be reworded. I don't know cpupro, but it could definitely still be userbenchmark changing the wording to make it in line with their own opinion.
I am pro CPU competition, and this is just one of the results of competition. Hardware gains have gotten us pretty far, and there's certainly more to go, but the x86_x64 extension instruction set is the real bottleneck here (which has also had some great mileage). As consumers in the PC market, we are thankful to even be able to compare red vs blue workloads because of the mostly shared cross-license x86_x64 instruction set. Should either diverge and embrace a new instruction set, the whole software ecosystem would be gravely disrupted. It would be far worse than the impact to all 13 Mac users who have to switch from Intel to Apple ARM. This interdependency of a shared instruction set and shared software ecosystem has kept them in a gridlock where the only innovations they can pursue are hardware-based iterations. Of course, the OS and Kernel of choice are the secondly most important piece of unlocking greater performance.
@@VeeTHis I'm going to assume that account is their own.
There's even a GPUPro account for GPU's.
Looking at the site more, a lot of the text has CPUPro, GPUPro, RAMPro, and what not at the end, so definitely the site owners
The sad fact is the UserBenchmark UI is really amazing. I wish we had something accurate yet with a great interface to compare and contrast parts in the PC community.
The reason it's so simple is because it isn't designed to actually work. You cannot directly compare processors or video cards. It isn't in any way accurate.
If it was a list of pros and cons, then it would be accurate. (providing the pros and cons are stated accurately, of course)
@@nikkiofthevalley how can you not directly compare them? Comparing their performance in a variety of games is a valid direct comparison imo
@@DannyB1111 Yes, but that's only 1 part of the pros and cons of a processor or video card. What about API support? What about other tasks than gaming, like heavy simulation, or video editing?
That's only a few of the myriad of other metrics you need to accurately guage whether a processor or video card is fit for your purposes.
I like notebookcheck - it's not biased much as far as i can tell. obviously it's targeting laptop parts though.
@@TheExileFox hwcompare used to be really good, I still use it for picking out graphics cards whenever I want to quickly get an overview of the memory bus and bandwidth compared to other cards.
Admittedly I have been team green since 2011 with the GPU mostly because I dont trust AMD to support their GPUs with drivers for more than 4 years, so many of my friends have been bured, oh and shadowplay is pretty neat of course
I like how the Intel 11900k review is basically a review of Intel 11900k reviews
Well there's a saying where i live. "If you have nothing nice to say then don't say anything."
And there is absolutely nothing nice to say about that series of CPUs... so they don't say anything about them.
@@Sonlirain the 11400 and 11600k aren't terrible but I wouldn't pay more money than the previous gen equivalent or AMD competition.
I also love how they accuse AMD and their fans of the same things Intel has been doing for at least 25 years.
@@wayward03 the 11600k isn’t terrible, but are only slightly cheaper than the 5600x, performs worse overall, and use about 64w more power.
@@EvilTurkeySlices projection is a thing ...
They've only gotten worse btw. Here's what they said about the 7800x3D (widely considered the best CPU in years):
"PC gamers considering a 7000X3D CPU need to work on their critical thinking skills"
To be fair, they’re not wrong.
😶maybe you should think on your critical thinking skills@@demaciasolos
@@zeenxdownz The AMD fangirl is coping on their $500 cpu purchase hahahaha that’s actually mint
the 14900k processor that competes with this processor is $600 so I don't know what your talking about@@demaciasolos
@@demaciasolosfound the user benchmark editor
That 11900K review barely talks about the 11900K at all, in fact it reminds me about that one Intel presentation where they talked way more about AMD than they did about their own product.
Those aren't really reviews, more like random thoughts inspired by the processor in question. I don't think that amount of text is enough to review anything.
Hey do you have a link of this presentation?
@@InfiniteDarkMass Then they should atleast be about the cpu itself, not some random bullshit that they're making up.
Now back to you, Steve.
in fairness you make the 11900k look better by talking less about it, because the more you talk about it the worse it looks as theres nothing good to say.
We are witnesses on how the person behind Usercringemark slowly descends into madness.
More like as they are slowly getting paid more and more by Intel. Or their hate boner is getting bigger due to AMD getting better and better for half the price of Intel's CPU's
@@PolskiYoshi well to be fair intel is becoming AMD now with the 11400f
@@bananya6020 Well, not quite becoming AMD, but true, the locked Intel hexa-cores generally offer great value, and AMD vacated the $200 for now.
bruh the 5800x being comparable to the 200 dollar i5 killed me
Didn't know my processor was worse than an I5.. WELL...
SELLING 5800X LIGHTLY USED 300USD SHIPPING INCL.
And worst of all, it's a 6c/6t i5 NOT a 6c/12t
And yet I can't find any 5000 SERIES HERE IN MY COUNTRY FOR SOME FREAKING REASON
@@ireallyreallyreallylikethisimg damnnn
@@hunde2430 let alone the whole world!
This site is exactly the reason why I went for an all AMD build. They are actively trying to skew the marketplace towards Intel/Nvidia products when everyone knows they are just too damn expensive nowadays for the same equipment. I just got a AMD RX 6700XT that rivals the RTX 3070 in performance, with NVidias being a little bit better (we are talking like 5fps better) in big AAA titles, but with the AMD card at $350 while Nvidia's card is at $700
Honestly regretting not getting an amd card, got a 3060ti fit my first build.
@@purplegoopguy The 3060ti is still a good card even if Nvidia and shills are scummy. Enjoy it while you have it and you can always go red later down the line.
@@NiSE_Rafter Oh yeah, it still works. Just a massive fucking pain dealing with their proprietary drivers on linux. Only thing I want them for is the gpu frame buffer recording
@purplegoopguy how can u be based enough to use Linux but dumb enough to go for the closed source nvidia garbage
@@rabbischlomobengoldbergstein I didn't think about OS till I realized I hated the idea of installing windows on my PC. I YOLO'd the absolute fuck out of this build ngl. I kinda just slapped shit together after skipping through 2 minutes of like a 2 hour LTT video on building pcs. It wasn't that complex lol. And I only got the 3060ti because A) cheap B) It is a fire card C) Very cheap, like under 500$ (Brand fucking new)
Also didn't have a ton of experience with AMD cards. Ima be real I don't have any more problems from it.
Oh yeah, AM5 does this funny thing where you can literally stop seeing your wifi adapter until you turn off the psu and spam the power button to discharge the capacitors. I shit you not. Hilarious. (Also some mediatek driver thing and powersaving setting I forgot)
Legit never knew this. I've used this site A LOT to compare all kinds of cpus. Appreciate this.
I did so too, and I did notice their scoring made little sense the last couple years
Yeah me too. I'm glad, that I didn't use it to decide which processor I should buy.
you can use to compare between the same generation if you just go by numbers and know what you are doing, basically just numbers and don't even bother with their opinions. Although at this point I wouldn't give them clicks even for that
@@supershad9855 I always thought the ranking is very single-core-heavy because it's more for showing the in-game performance but now with the newest generations of CPUs from Intel and AMD it's not making any sense anymore.
Last time I used that site was like 2016 or something, when I was trying to replace my gtx460
8:13
User *_what_*
10:26
User *_w h a t_*
11:17
*_i m s o r r y ?_*
12:10
*Ok something is going on here*
LMAO LITERALLY ME THE ENTIRE TIME
Dudes having a stroke.
LMFAO I KNOW RIGHT
I watched the entire video and never realized until i read this comment
I was looking for this comment, I'm diying 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I'll never understand people who go full tribalist for a company, when the end goal for that company is almost always to take as much of your money as they can.
I agree. Like literally the more harsh and critical you are towards a company, the more likely they are going to put actual effort into their products because they have to in order to get people buying. Blindly defending or fanboying a product will always lead to a situation where the manufacturer will just get comfy and let the fanboys do their marketing and sales all the while degrading their product and hiking up the price
capitalism not only colonises the land and its resources, but the people's minds.
@@caramelldansen2204 Calm down there.
@@trainsandstuff1021and thats what happened to intel
I guess it's the need of feeling to be part of something. Ignorance+no self-confidence, masked with a trolling attitude that lead to blindling workship, who/what-ever let them feel " special " in theyr twisted mind, at least.
I went to their site and they litterally have a FAQ on why they get shit on so much lol.
"Marketers operate thousands of reddit accounts. Our benchmarks expose their spiel so they attack our reputation."
Hence I found your video, thank you for exposing their bias and gaslighting behavior.
It now has four disclaimers on why manufacturers, reviewers, Reddit and Trustpilot all shit on them. You’d think they’d eventually go "Are we the baddies?", but no, they don’t.
@@hammerth1421 Exactly, it saddens me because their entire existence is based on preying on people with no technical knowledge. They see a percentage and fully trust their measurements. I was and am considering myself one of those people.
However, this video shed some light to some major issues and with all the puzzle pieces in place you just cannot support UmserBenchark anymore.
I was literally about to buy a new PC and couldn't understand why anyone would buy an AMD CPU because I'm dumb and completely believed what I saw on UB... You've actually helped me out a lot, ty philip.
Go read techpowerups CPU reviews, they go into a LOT more detail than most websites
@@StevenMussels the main thing that got me about UB was that I could directly compare products with a single score. I get pretty easily overwhelmed with spec sheets.
Go read tpus 11900k review and just skip to say 1440p gaming result - you'll see how little or actually matters. 5600x from AMD shines so hard with power vs performance
@@StevenMussels I'm mainly using this CPU for Blender stuff, not Gaming per se. Even harder to get good benches.
@@FairweatherBaah in multi-core
Don't think of Intel
I love how you just end the video after reading their last Intel review. It really does speak for itself...
You just saved me 6000 words on Reddit. Userbenchmark is awful.
It is a literal roadblock in a lot of my work
reddit moment
@@CWorm UA-cam moment
Same. I'm always helping people at r/buildapc and there are so many people who use this as a full on benchmark it hurts me.
@@ExySmexy What other benchmark/comparing site would you recommend?
Epic poggers chungus XD
checking in after the intel CPU oxidation issue that's going to kill every 13th and 14th gen cpu eventually.
userbenchmark has been silent for a week about this. all the reviews they've done about the last two gens of cpus have remained unchanged in light of this situation and have aged terribly mainly because of what has just been discovered.
I'm guessing they're on suicide watch.
I feel like this guy can narate a story... or even a parable for stanley...
Fun fact : He already making a video about LADDER
Wait did he????
plot twist: Userbenchmark had a 4 year long build up for 2021 april fool's joke.
They nailed it, that 11900k "review" is hilarious.
I mean i knew they were biased, but i didn't know they were THAT biased. Wow
You're complaining about Bias on a video where a minute in Phillip lies about how Intel only sold 4 core 8 thread processors. (they've been selling higher core count desktop/gaming chips since 2010). Worse than lying he tries to add a qualifier to his lie "if you wanted extra you'd have to pay a lot more!" so that when his lie is pointed out he can weasel out of it.
Phillip is an AMD fanboy and biased that way. Unfortunately with the way the world is now, no one even tries to account for their biases and outright pretends their bias is objectivity.
@@jimmehjiimmeehh9748 k
@@jimmehjiimmeehh9748 And now you sound biased. Ironic.
@@jimmehjiimmeehh9748 You're serious aren't you? Alright then, I'll get serious too.
"They've been selling higher core count desktop/gaming chips since 2010" - alright then let's see Ivy Bridge for example.
i3 - 2 cores 4 threads, i5 - 4 cores 4 threads, i7 - 4 cores 8 threads, i7 extreme - 6 cores 12 threads. So it would seem that you're correct right? Wrong.
The key word here is desktop/gaming. i7 extreme processors are workstation/enthusiast grade of hardware and require a enthusiast/server motherboard. Usually i7 extreme processors are double the price of the flagship i7 processor and the motherboard is usually also double or even triple the price of a normal motherboard (LGA2011, LGA 2066).
Meanwhile quad core flagship processors were the standard for Intel from 2007 with Kentsfield (eg. Core 2 Quad Q6600) up until Kaby Lake in 2017 (eg. i7-7700K).
The first real affordable consumer Intel 6 core processor released with Coffee Lake in late 2017 / early 2018 (eg. i7-8700K) as a direct response to AMD's Zen architecture (February 2017) and upcoming Zen+ architecture (April 2018).
Intel kept the core counts frozen for consumers for literally 10 years and it would keep them frozen longer if AMD hasn't appeared with competetive products.
@@Tomoyo86 I point out three objective facts and you call me biased. Do you not understand the problem there?
I like how the site always uses an old picture for the AMD GPUs. They are actively trying to make the image as generic as possible.
That was intentional??? I thought it was some server cache error or my VPN not letting the images upload. What is wrong with these people.
SO THIS IS WHY, I remember using their site when i was building my first pc in 2016 with 6700K and GTX1080 and I used that website a lot to compare different combinations of hardware, but now that I'm looking to update, i came back to their website only to find really weird results when I'm comparing different components. Now I finally get why
Luckily while I was creating my brother build I had already decided on the processor, but whenever I did stray into that neck of the UBM woods it became a very confusing time. I need to check how they treated AMD’s Radeon gpus, but from what I remember they seem to have copy and pasted something about “overhyped marketing” backfiring on them. Shit didn’t stop me from choosing a 5600x and a 6600xt tho
Yep it’s just as nuts, in the i5-13600k review which is on their front page, their review pulls the exact same insanity and even talks about Radeon steam market share numbers??? They also seem to like copy pasting stuff across different reviews for different products. I’ve found the line “ AMD's Neanderthal marketing tactics seem to have come back to haunt them” multiple times on both gpu and cpu reviews. They don’t seem to be fangirling as hard for Nvidia but they definitely still hate the fuck outta AMD
@@IAmDonut_ The current 5800x3d review talks of Neanderthals- you can tell it's the same shill writing all this garbage.
8:14 *U S E R B A R K M E N C H*
Glad to see that I'm not going insane by myself
There's a other one at 8:43
Try the one @ 11:17
Yeah why is he never pronouncing their name lmao
12:12
when you have the CEO of Intel comes out and say, they have a lot of work to do to catch up to AMD. you know UserBenchmark is lying.
It's not that they are technically "lying" but they try to manipulate people with tests & stuffs to make AMD worst then Intel procs for no reasons and create fic tests to seem more worthy of doing it. And no one, even Intel themself want to find credits from them anymore even when they glorify their products gorgeously XD and that is the thing that makes no sense at all!
Tbf, that's not necessarily true. Across energy consumption, heat vulnerability, multi-versus-single core performance, etc, there are many things a CPU can be competitively ahead on, without really making it a better choice to many groups of consumers. So there absolutely are justifications for a CPU review to disagree with the CEO's assessment on the direction of their product line. Perhaps not to the extent on that website, but even the things they evaluate in their flavour texts (which I never expected anyone to take seriously - clearly the website just exists to offer stats, and the review texts are fluff to make a little ad revenue with) aren't all inaccurate.
@@TheHadMatters eh realistically not so much in effect
@@mareksicinski3726 AMD is legitimately less stable. It's cheaper for more power but a lot more hardware error-prone.
It's not a new way of doing hardware. You always have a pricey stable company and a unstable cheaper company. You exchange price for risk.
Literally every industry had that paradigm.
@@AnimatedStoriesWorldwidewell this didn’t age well now that 13th gen and 14th gen chips are degrading lol
It's funny because now it has literally devolved to POSTING THE WRONG SPECS. The Ryzen 7 5700X3D that released this year, is listed as a 6 core cpu in Booserlenchfart, when its actually a 8 core cpu that is just a slightly lower clocked 5800X3D
I love how the video ends with that bomb, you didn't even have to say anything about it, the "review" just speaks for itself.
:0
Look at my profile picture XD
@@Royy1290 NICE
@@Royy1290 cool :O
(pretend that's a surprised pikachu face)
@Nirosue what
"Despite Intel's performance lead" - UserBenchark 2021.
Gave me a big laugh.
The mental gymnastics UserBenchmark does are nothing short of baffling.
Reminds me of CNN.
@@EvilTurkeySlices Quick, do a double backwards somersault and make it political!
@@EvilTurkeySlices Why drag politics into it? It's a fucking benchmark site
@@EvilTurkeySlices Really, you have the nerve to bring politics into this?
gamers acting like politics is some weird foreign thing that isn't intertwined with almost everything and has no effect on their lives lmao
the dude said 3 letters and got 3 replies complaining about politics, white boys are hilarious
I forgot that I saw this video a couple of years ago, and today, I was looking for some information on a gpu, and Userbenchmark was the first search result. When I read the report, I immediately remembered this video. Here are some excerpts, if anyone's wondering if they improved:
"PC gamers looking to join AMD’s “2%” GPU club (Steam stats: 5000/6000/7000 series combined mkt share) need to work on their critical thinking skills: Influencers (posing as reviewers) are paid handsomely to scam users into buying inferior products."
"AMD’s 6000 series GPU’s will have to see substantial price cuts and a huge marketing effort in order to gain any traction."
"Nonetheless, AMD’s marketers are capable of delivering elaborate BS albeit whilst struggling to keep a straight face. Their marketing infrastructure outsold Intel in the CPU market despite a 15% performance deficit. Without an appropriate social media marketing strategy, Nvidia will probably lose considerable market share, for all the wrong reasons."
Userbenchmark is truly the greatest aprils fools joke ever.
Every year, full time.
@@pantzman At least they don't do it for free (probably)
Userbarkmench in 8:15 lol
Its a shame that userbenchmark has so much bias, the idea is really great in my opinion and is one of the quickest and most convenient ways to compare performance without having to memorize hundreds of benchmarks.
They don't write the damn reviews...
@@VeeTHis Yet they publish them on their site. You think they just accidentally publish these reviews?
@@VeeTHis they did make efps a thing which no one knows how to measure except themselves. And they changed the algorithm to give lower scores to higher treads which is really biased.
@@VeeTHis Yes they do. CPUPro and GPUPro are likely the owners or affiliates of the site. Pretty much all the featured reviews are from them.
What about GPU reviews? Are they biased as well? (since intel is not a player there) I'm wondering if I should ditch userbenchmark completely or just the CPU side
I used that website to compare some GPUs and CPUs to decide, until I started seeing UA-cam benchmarks (which are almost imposible to fake) and I started to notice some weird things, the compare where soooooooo unaccurate, then I just stopped using that website, I never looked deeper about that unaccurate comparisons, and now I see this video, everything makes sense now
Yeah, if someone on UA-cam tried to fake this stuff and they got any sort of major attention it would almost instantly be shot down by a barrage of tech youtubers
This. I just decided to view youtube benchmarks instead. More to trust
There actually is aloooot of fake YT benchmarks. They use different cards than they say they are using
youtube benchmarks aren't 'impossible to fake' and we don't know the methodology that they use so it's a good idea to only use benchmarks from reputed channels such as gamers nexus and hardware unboxed
@@theodiscusgaming3909 gamer nexus is my go-to for that matter actually
It's only gotten worse in 2023-2024. It's gone from disagreeing with the results to downright slander, nonsensical smear campaigns run wild and it's extraordinarily hard to take seriously
When I was looking at this site to decide whether I was gonna trust in Infinity Cache and go with the cheaper 6900xt over a 3090 or possibly the 6800xt vs 3080, I saw their review of both cards at the bottom and literally spit out my drink. It was so fucking wild man, like vitriolic hate for a product that performed only slightly worse at 4k than a card that cost 500 dollars more, and just a nauseatingly positive glowing review for the Nvidia card. IT was fucking bizarre!
No idea why they so deeply hate AMD. I don’t even think they are paid off like so many others think. If they had a deal with Intel, they could just quietly let their processors do better and that’s it.
They would also have no reason to take this battle into the GPU section where there is no Intel to praise.
The increasingly verbose "reviews" derailing into nothing more than complaining about AMDs marketing that is apparently a worldwide shadow organization don’t make sense to me if the explanation is that they’ve simply been bought by Intel. I think whoever writes the reviews believes that they’re personally attacked by the relative performance between Intel and AMD shifting.
And they’ve not only been banned from AMDs but INTELs official subreddit as well.
Idk, it’s so weird considering how big the site is
@@Icetea-2000 just like some random comment i found said; "its like UB really wanna strangle the shit out of lisa su. "
@@Ahfeku Yeah I think that might’ve even been my comment lol
Well the 3090 still does have more cores and far more VRAM compared to its 3080 counterpart and those AMD cards soooo….. While AMDs cards rely more on high clock speeds for higher performance….
Plus people see the 3090 as a bridge between the GeForce and quadro line. Good for gaming and professional work, without a 4K+ price tag.
@@Thewaterspirit57 also depending on what you want to do, some stuff just dosnt work on AMD GPUs, sadly.
You can do almost nothing that involves some fancy AI, even if you just want to mess around with those AI that up-frames your videos it makes you sad.
Now you know where Intel spends its marketing budget.
LOL
That's the most bizare thing here, I'm 100% convinced they don't give these clowns a dime, they are just that much Intel fanboys that they do it for free.
@@enlightendbel I mean when Intel reddit literally banned them because they didnt make any sense and they didnt wanna be associated with them - you KNOW you shell too hard.
@@Dark_Voice You'd think they'd take the hint rather than double down lmao
Nvidia too
"it uses too much electricity" I mean, the peak turbo draw was about 279W on linuss testing, when you boost you are guaranteed to blackout the city, and it's hot like a laptop chip
See its multipurpose! It can also cook an egg, how convenient!!1
It was way higher without any limitations, nearly 400W. :D
I'm no longer convinced that FX 9590 is the most power inefficient CPU.
Fecking hell, you'd nearly need a separate psu just for the cpu...
@@machoman655 Not really, EVGA still makes Supernova PSUs. Should be enough for i9 and RTX 3090.
You can tell, the site admin has a lot of intel stock lol
"Our Intel glorious armies are victoriously retreating. AMD scum chases them in disarray"
🤣🤣🤣
I think you meant "advancing in the opposite direction"
Is this a reference to something? If not, holy crap, this is incredibly well-written for a UA-cam comment.
@@midknight1339 It's a joke running around in Poland about how German newspaper headlines read at the end of WWII, just replace AMD and Intel with Russian and German :)
@@gloowacz Ahhhh makes sense. I figured it was probably originally satirizing some war, but I couldn't find any sources (which makes sense, since I was googling in English).
"The 11900k is 20% faster than the 10900k in our eFPS tests, please ignore every other benchmark which says the opposite"
- UBM
Why not just ignore reviews and "eFPS" and use the site for what it's name means? Is it because user submitted results don't show AMD as some champion?
@@Resanctify you think intel is doing better than amd?
I went to one of the linked videos in those descriptions about it's "Better EFPS in games"
Despite both CPUs being 4.5ghz out of the box, the Intel CPU was overclocked to 5ghz, running at 100% with no stat for it's tempeture shown.
AMD in that test was running at 40% usage at most and a cool 50c the whole "benchmark"
I stopped using Userbenchmark when I read the blurb at the bottom of the page that says "why doesn't reddit like us" and they say its a bunch of alts made by companies they reviwed badly trying to get back at them.
When you think it can't get worse after the first 12 minutes, he reads that 11900k description. Sackable indeed.
It's mind blowing that every time you search : gpu A vs gpu B and/or cpu A vs cpu B , the first result would be userbenchmark
What other options are there for a large scale user aggregated benchmark. If I just want to see how many fps a GPU or CPU gets in a game UserBenchmark is the only site that comes to mind.
@@pohuing3037 yeah that's what I've been using in past . But when I know their data is incorrect why should I rely on it?
@@50H3i1 I don't think their data is incorrect, just their final conclusion text.
@@zazethe6553 it is incorrect. By devaluing more cores and using "EFPS" instead of pure average fps
@@henryklee680 yeah, you are right.
What's cool about the AMD subreddit is they haven't actually banned the website. On every post that mentions it or links to it, there's a pinned auto-moderator description of the issue.
Indeed, much better to spread information than to ban it
the best thing is the person who writes these GPU and CPU reviews are named GPUPro and CPUPro
"We reduced the contribution of thread counts higher than eight. The 32-core AMD 2990WX moved from first position to 48th. Meanwhile the 8-core Intel 9900K moved from 7th to first position."
Well, yeah. And if "We reduce the contribution of cylinder counts higher than 4" then a ferrari is slower than an accord.
Considering that when you floor the pedal ALL cylinders are working, yes, making that analogy would seem stupid not to compare both CPUs at full core usage.
However with CPUs, it doesn't work like that. You have to pick the correct CPU for the type of workload you intend to use it for.
For gaming, it's only in the recent few years that I have actually seen games that can use up more than 4 cores, which was common for most "gamer" CPUs.
It doesn't matter how many cores your CPU has, if your application doesn't have enough threads to put all those cores to work.
It would be more like a construction company having 20 workers. When you're in the foundation phase of building a house, you probably won't be able to distribute the work to 20 people to be able to work on finishing the foundation faster. Instead you'll use however many workers you have enough workload for, and just send the rest to a different building site so you don't end up with idle workers.
It's the same case with CPUs. If you have a 12 core CPU with 24 threads, but you're playing a game that uses at most 5 to 8 threads, then most of the other CPU threads are sitting around idle (if you don't do other stuff in parallel while gaming). So I understand the reason behind UB changing their benchmarking scenarios, as CPUs started going bonkers with core and thread count.
If I were to buy a CPU with video encoding being the main reason I'm buying it, then yes, for that use case UB would not give people a good idea of how it would really perform next to an intel CPU. However I think those cases are in the minority of people buying CPUs, where most of your average Joes that need a site like userbenchmark (which is made to help the vast majority of the user base, reason why they also added effective FPS performance on various games as one of the test cases) are people that want to build a gaming PC.
I used to build computers for a living, and people fail to understand that WHAT workload you will put on that computer matters a lot more than just how much "raw total power" a CPU is capable of. The first question I'd ask clients when they came to us for a PC, was what do they intend to use it for and to give me a list of software (or games) that they want to run on that machine. Then we'd discuss budget and see if any sacrifices had to be made to keep the price down, where can those sacrifices be made in order to impact their intended workload as less as possible.
If you're building a VM server intended to run a lot of VMs in parallel, core count will matter way more than individual core performance.
However for a gaming PC, 8 cores with a better single core performance will usually be better than a 16 core with lower single core performance, at least for the majority of games. I am not aware if there are any games released in the past 2 years that would make use of any additional cores (without having other workloads running on your PC when you're gaming), as I haven't played that many recent titles that came out in the past 2 years, so I can't say I have a big enough data pool.
I am also an overclocker that monitors his PC vitals in all my games (since both my CPU, my GPU as well as my RAM are overclocked). I've been with both team blue, as well as team red, and what UB states in regards to EFPS is true.
Especially if you have a high FPS monitor, those random high frametimes (which is what those "dips" that you see shown in the screenshot when UB mentioned microstutters with AMD CPUs) become even more noticeable.
But the thing is, when it occured, on intel I only encountered them when my CPU was 7 generations old and I had games that capped my CPU at 100%.
However, with AMD it happened on some games even on current gen CPUs, while the CPU was nowhere near 100% (however I did notice some individual cores getting capped to 100%, even though the total CPU load was around 50%).
For this reason, for gaming (which the vast majority of people that come on UB are visiting for), I stand by UserBenchmark in how the make their tests. Because for gaming purposes (wich is the vast majority of your average Joe coming on UB), their benchmarks are good (I don't really read the word reviews they post, but at least the numbers they post are accurate for their intended purpose).
And the thing that UB mentioned about reviewer benchmarks that had XMP disabled is absolutely true. You're basically using your RAM at below their advertised frequency, which will drastically impact your benchmark results.
The way 2kliksphilip presents this topic seems a bit biased. Either the extent of his knowledge isn't as vast as he thinks it is, or he is biased towards team red. I don't know about the former, but looking through his video upload history, it does seem like he favors team red in his videos (it might just be my perception, but at least it does seem like that to me).
@@ScorpyonMike tldr, markworshcnerbcnh fanboy. Efps is the dumbest thing ever. Avg fps is what you’ll usually be at in game. Making a whole new fps formula simply to validate your tribalist bias towards a company is completely stupid and so is defending it. Its completely idiotic to include the extreme low percentages in your average.
I can only think of a Ferrari V12 sound now, thanks
@@ScorpyonMike I think you're biasing it (or are a troll). I agree with the main message, that user benchmark is a bunch of bollocks. What you can do though, is compare intel processors with each other. That works. Or check which configurations people use with said processors, or have a quick check what the market shares are or check the most used nvmes and so on.
Btw, a simple way to negate your question about the nr. of cores. Usually you do not only have your one game active, but possibly, one drive, chrome with a bunch of tabs, Spotify etc. etc. Those chug cpu as well and if left with only 4 cores or even less, this would lead to instabilities. (not crashing, but the same as if, the cpu was working at 100 %). Nowadays some games even are able to use 8 or more threads actively. And what about other workloads? There are so many tasks where you really benefit from more cores. You are completely ignoring those.
"I stand by UserBenchmark how they make their tests"... what the hell, are you on drugs? 2 % for multi-core performance... that's just ridiculous. You are definitely just a troll or were paid. I thought they standardized their tests with efps, but they have not even standardized it with the resolution. This is not benchmarking in the slightest. This is illegal marketing. If it were where I am living.
@@caschque7242 I would suggest giving my comment another read, but this time in it's entirety. You either only partially read it, skimmed through it, or chose to ignore parts of it and only focus on the parts you wanted to pick on.
"And what about other workloads? There are so many tasks where you really benefit from more cores. You are completely ignoring those."
No, I'm not ignoring those. In fact I even said "If I were to buy a CPU with video encoding being the main reason I'm buying it, then yes, for that use case UB would not give people a good idea of how it would really perform ". I also talked about other scenarios where a high number of cores would be more beneficial vs the single core performance of the CPU.
I will say again once more... The vast majority of the website traffic on UB is from your average Joe trying to build themselves a gaming rig and they want to see what would get them the most bang for their buck. In that aspect, I think UB is great.
If you're building a PC intended for business workloads, that can generate enough threads to use up a high core count (anything over 8 cores), then yes, I would not use UB. But then again, if you need a business oriented PC, it's probably not going to be built by your average Joe.
Even I myself have never used UB to compare CPUs for anything other than when building a gaming CPU. And again, I think for that purpose it's a good tool.
While the worded review section might be biased, I never use that. I think the best representation is the 1 core, 2 core, 4 core and 8 core score comparison.
A quick example to check if the numbers are biased is to check something like an i5-10600 and a ryzen 5 5600x. Both released in the same year, and both at the same price (at least where I live). You'll see the AMD one comes on top when it comes to those number. And yes, the 5600x is a good example where the worded review seems biased, reason why I prefer to use the site for the various 1 to 8 core scores, and also to check on average how well the cpu overclocks.
Also for business PCs, there are other factors to keep in mind besides just the "total raw power", even for workloads that can make use of a high core count. Like CPU instruction set (I work in software development, and for the tools we use, this is WAY more important than just running an artificial benchmark between 2 CPUs and picking whichever scored the highest). Also, if you work in an enterprise business (I do), there's also things which might be of importance such as a TPM chip.
For business oriented workloads, I don't think you should be building your PC using generic benchmarking websites. If you want to compare two CPUs, you have to have some very specific criteria in mind, and I don't think you'll ever find a generic benchmarking website fitting those criterias.
"2 % for multi-core performance... that's just ridiculous" No idea where that number was pulled from, but I searched their website and could not find that information anywhere, so unless provided some proof, I will tend to think that that number was pulled from someone's backside.
"Usually you do not only have your one game active, but possibly, one drive, chrome with a bunch of tabs, Spotify etc." On an 8 core CPU:
- Spotify's CPU usage is insignificant.
- Chrome uses up a lot of RAM (especially if you abuse the number of tabs you use, which I personally do) however it doesn't really use up that much CPU unless you have video decoding running, like watching youtube on a secondary screen, if you have it. And even then... an 8 core CPU can more than handle that (on a 4 core the impact would be more significant, however UB supports up to 8, so I'm using that test case if I want to go on the higher end of the core spectrum, at least in the core range that UB offers)
- OneDrive can be scheduled to sync at specific times / days. And even if you leave it always on, you can just lower the task priority so it can't hog up your CPU if you're worried about your CPU usage going up when you're syncing a LOT of files at the same time
Of course there's other apps that can run in the background besides those enumerated above, however they more or less fit in the same categories. Either the load is insignificant, or if it's a background task that is not a priority task, you can just lower the task priority in task manager, or if it's something that might have a somewhat detectable load on your CPU, that's usually visual decoding (youtube, netflix, or any other form of video watching) and you will only watch one instance of that since if you're already gaming, at most you can listen to a youtube video on the other monitor and look at it from time to time.
Again, for the use cases of the vast majority of the people going on UserBenchmark, the available benchmarking criteria are sufficient. I would HEAVILY advise against allowing the overall score comparison of two CPUs to allow benchmarks that can fill up a CPU with 24 cores or more, in the case of AMD. Since your average Joe might end up in the scenario where he buys a CPU with a ton of cores to use it for gaming, because it had a higher overall score, and end up with a poorer performance than if he had used the same money to buy a CPU with fewer cores but a higher performance per core. Especially since you're average Joe won't know how to interpret those scores and just check overall score vs overall score.
TLDR:
- gaming PC oriented benchmarks = UserbenchMark good
- business PC oriented benchmarks = UserbenchMark bad
That 11900K was really the cherry on top of this whole video. Amazing work
its like a tradition to watch this video around april fools every year
its like when someone on a date spends 75% of the time talking about how much they hate their ex
Every time he changes the pronunciation I laugh harder
You need to follow up on this, shortly after this video they made a response to all the criticsism and started linking to it on all their comparisons quietly. It's shockingly terrible. They're claiming that exclusively testing old Intel-optimized games without taking into consideration multitasking is how they fight all those evil paid AMD shills.
ua-cam.com/video/QIvezozYUPY/v-deo.html&ab_channel=UserBenchmark
I'll genuinely answer the question: "For those of you who used userbenchmark, can I just ask... why?" because it seems to give an accurate rating of my computer by the numbers when I download its analyzer. I had a crappy computer and it basically said it was low end. I have a mid range now, it says I'm pretty mid range. I looked up stats for a new computer's GPU and CPU that are better than mine and it showed through performance numbers that the better computer was, in fact, better. I've also used versus to compare, but I like the convenience of downloading a file that can analyze my computer and tell me what is great and what is lacking
Commenting for the algorithm. This needs to be seen by more people.
Your comment gets seen.
Commenting to help this comment help the algorithm.
yes
Algorithm
Damn Patches, you really are unbreakable. Surviving the end of time in Lothric, getting turned into a man-spider in the obviously connected universe of Bloodborne, and now are making really well done tech analysis. Miyazaki can really craft a muhfuckin universe
Shame on you, you rotten AMD user!
"Thought you can outwit and onion?"
when Philip says "I have nothing against it" I know he is gonna wreck something
When I was looking for a school laptop I used this website to check what games the Microsoft Surface Laptop Go 2 could run, and the list was completely wrong. It claimed the laptop could barely run Minecraft, yet here I am running it with 12 chunk rendering distance and a beautiful shader pack at 60 fps. While I don’t play the game myself I decided to test genshin impact because it was free and the website claimed the laptop’s chip was completely unable to run the game, yet it played flawlessly. Not even a frame drop or stutter while loading. Not sure how exactly they do their testing but it’s clearly not very thorough.
Its funny that my old low end wont start genshin but starting star rail.
I know exactly why this is happening; someone high up at Userbenchmark invented a novel and banger take on the classic AMD Space Heater joke 3 hours before the reveal of Ryzen, and has been sitting on it ever since, desperately waiting for (and using their influence to attempt to return to) a world where it can be funny again.
Meanwhile if they really wanted it be funny at any time soon, they’d just have to make it about intel
@@randombrit13 the 11th series was practically a room heater.
Language is weird. Space is colder than most rooms and larger than any, yet a room heater heats harder than a space heater.
I thought those review texts were algorithmically plucked somewhere from the web so i ignored them lel
While I have no doubt that there is a human, or humans, behind the CPUpro account it certainly reads like generated text.
Yeah same! Some were so bad or not informative at all that I thought they just picked the latest userreview and that’s because they are so bad.
Turns out they’ve been officially writing them to represent themselves all the time, what a joke
Yeah I've just used the site to compare gpu performances. That's it. Never read the walls of text lol
@@bbbbbbb51 Same, but I try to stay away from that nowadays too. The amd slandering only continues there, for example when comparing the 30 series and 6000 series
If I only needed two cores my 2010 computer that I'm desperately trying to upgrade would be a beast
What issues are you having?
@@recklesssquirel5962 Money?
@@ravencg7709 exactly.
@@recklesssquirel5962 it's just a very old PV, not much to say about it to be fair. Low specs, barely runs anything.
Wait a minute, so you say my i7 4720HQ is a top tier CPU in 2022? Freakin' sick!
PS: It's still an ok CPU and i absolutely love it. But, if i have the money, i would immediately buy a 3600X or a 5600X. Maybe i should keep saving until second gen DDR5 platforms land?
Darn, I wish I saw this video when I was building my first PC about a year ago, as I thought it could be trusted due to them using "real" user benchmarks, and thus I ended up using them when it came to picking the CPU and GPU in my current PC, not realizing that I could've gotten chosen better hardware for my price point if I had looked a bit further than just their website.
what'd you get
That's impressive because I built my first one two years ago and even with looking at this site VERY quickly realised there was no good reason to go for Intel over AMD. Don't rely on just one source.
@@rker i5-12600KF
@ShaCaro Well, i wasn't looking at the articles on the site, i was simply using them to compare specs, had i looked through their articles, i probably would've realized that.
Plot twist: UserBenchmark is actually secretly owned by Intels Marketing team
as we've seen before with spectre, clearly intel is not particularly good at keeping secrets
Minus the fact that intel banned it from their subreddit...
@@notyouravgsteve8899 perfect disguise if you ask me
@@legrangedylandlg smart... They banned it to look like they were going against it while they own it..
@@notyouravgsteve8899 all theatrical
joke or not, it is a possibility as they already bought a company to make a benchmark software to disguise their scores in the past