I love userbench for quick dirty benchmarks when comparing like hardware... but beyond that, I look elsewhere for intel-amd or amd-Nvidia comparisons... I don't think it's as bad as people say, a benchmark is just a benchmark and I don't think anything nefarious is going on. However, the person in charge of reviews is biased and often on an ati-amd rant...
Just read these reviews to see what I mean:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Intel-Core-i5-11600K/Rating/4113
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/AMD-Ryzen-5-5600X/Rating/4084
Now don't get me wrong, that's totally their prerogative, but it does mean I will take them far less seriously than I otherwise would.
On the core count argument... I find that funny because many of intel's own high core count chips fell way down the list compared to their own 6 core chips in the past... right now on their current generation, the stack up in Intel is pretty much following the core count, but I think that's due to Intel's better binning process on their latest chips.
For those who think that there are no real life examples of amd getting their butts handed to them, just look at FAH... while at gaming I find the 6900xt to be pretty much on par or slightly behind the 3090 in most case with raytracing off, in folding... no... it falls way behind. For me, the 6900xt made sense... just happens that my favorite games do better with it and at the time it was way cheaper....I actually got it cheaper than a 6800xt at the time don't know what was up with that.