the obligatory highly controversial userbenchmark competition

[Mr. Fox]

Forgot about running this...

5.5GHz all P, 4.3GHz all E, 4.6GHz cache, GPU 2265Mhz Core, 11,352Mhz mem (+1600),  1000W KPE XOC vBIOS

 

https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/53908389

Edited July 15, 2022 by Mr. Fox

[Mr. Fox]

Here is one from an older beast that I used to punish... CPU and GPU in 100th Percentile

7980XE @ 5.2GHz (100% OC) and 2080 Ti FTW3 with shunt mod and 2000W power limit, 2325MHz Core, 8300MHz mem

(that GPU is now in Banshee)

 

https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/27314580

Edited July 15, 2022 by Mr. Fox

[Storm-Chaser]

Good runs there, excellent SSD performance. Also note that 100% OC on the 7980XE is pretty impressive.

 

Leaderboard updated....

 

[Mr. Fox]

33 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

Good runs there, excellent SSD performance. Also note that 100% OC on the 7980XE is pretty impressive.

 

Leaderboard updated....

 

Thanks for updating the leaderboard. 

 

The thing that is weird about this benchmark, and maybe why so many do not respect it, is that is can be misleading if you do not understand what it represents. The overall percentile only applies to matching hardware and does not mean it is faster or better than different hardware. The idea has merit in the limited framework and can be valueable in the right context. But, for those that engage in overclocking as a sport it is contrary to logic. You could use the individual hardware percentiles rather than the overall system percentile to accomplish what we are used to doing with benchmarking, but it would still only apply to matching hardware.

 

I could see some people that do not know much about computers, and especially not knowing about benching, becoming very confused by this one. They could think that their system with a 10600K and 1060 is faster than a high end CPU and GPU because of it having a better percentile rating.

 

It faced criticism for bias claiming that it falsely makes Intel look better than AMD, but that is baloney because it doesn't compare dissimilar hardware. The error is in the flawed interpretation and misunderstanding of the results.

 

It is also easily manipulated. The overall percentile rating is affected by everything, which makes the overall ranking percentile a lot less meaningful. For example, I can move from 72nd percentile to 93rd percentile by simply using Disk Management to remove drive letters for all of the slow SATA HDDs and SSDs and leaving only the NVMe SSD visible to Windows. It doesn't test the drives it can't see and your percentile score increases dramatically. The performance of the system is the same regardless of the overall score.

 

PCMark benchmarks never got any real traction for similar reasons to the extent that things that don't matter in real life can have a huge effect on the overall score. But, it was useful for comparing dissimlar hardware as long as you didn't have an element that doesn't matter dragging the score down and potentially leading to false conclusions based on the overall score.

 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Mr. Fox

[Storm-Chaser]

10 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

It faced criticism for bias claiming that it falsely makes Intel look better than AMD, but that is baloney because it doesn't compare dissimilar hardware. The error is in the flawed interpretation and misunderstanding of the results

You nailed it Mr. Fox. I just didn't want to come out and say it LOL.

 

And I totally agree, there is no bias against AMD with this benchmark. Moreover, they have been very kind to AMD in the past, which further demonstrates there is no real bias here. 

 

That being said I've had this benchmark competition shot down in flames MANY times because lots of people think it's way bias or a total joke. And I'm talking about a solid majority here. Or, they don't understand that core count isn't the "BE ALL" of CPU performance, so they wonder why an 8 core intel chip ranks higher than some AMD 12 core chip, and they just assume it's total BS because of that.

 

So I've found the only way to run a successful competition with this benchmark, because the hate for it is so strong, is to bash it and confirm their flawed suppositions about it's bias in the very first post. Basically, I have to destroy the credibility of userbenchmark.com before anyone will actually be willing to jump on board and participate. If I don't do that people try to destroy my credibility and bomb the thread with laughing emojis and stuff like that. 

 

And it is a shame, because like you said there is a good bit of value in measuring your system in this way. So, is userbenchmark perfect? Of course not, but what benchmark is? In my opinion it's simply another tool in the toolbox for measuring system performance (in this case against like hardware). 

[Avacado]

I mean, they literally say the exact same thing on the results page, it's just that people don't read anymore:

 

"Overall this PC is performing above expectations (75th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 25 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components."

Edited July 16, 2022 by Avacado

[Mr. Fox]

14 hours ago, Avacado said:

I mean, they literally say the exact same thing on the results page, it's just that people don't read anymore:

 

"Overall this PC is performing above expectations (75th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 25 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components."

That is so true. Some (many) are just too lazy and others don't even know how to read. They just look at pictures.

[Minotaurtoo]

ok, it's old, but here's one of my best overall tunes: https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/43615155

[Minotaurtoo]

On 15/07/2022 at 15:36, Storm-Chaser said:

You nailed it Mr. Fox. I just didn't want to come out and say it LOL.

 

And I totally agree, there is no bias against AMD with this benchmark. Moreover, they have been very kind to AMD in the past, which further demonstrates there is no real bias here. 

 

That being said I've had this benchmark competition shot down in flames MANY times because lots of people think it's way bias or a total joke. And I'm talking about a solid majority here. Or, they don't understand that core count isn't the "BE ALL" of CPU performance, so they wonder why an 8 core intel chip ranks higher than some AMD 12 core chip, and they just assume it's total BS because of that.

 

So I've found the only way to run a successful competition with this benchmark, because the hate for it is so strong, is to bash it and confirm their flawed suppositions about it's bias in the very first post. Basically, I have to destroy the credibility of userbenchmark.com before anyone will actually be willing to jump on board and participate. If I don't do that people try to destroy my credibility and bomb the thread with laughing emojis and stuff like that. 

 

And it is a shame, because like you said there is a good bit of value in measuring your system in this way. So, is userbenchmark perfect? Of course not, but what benchmark is? In my opinion it's simply another tool in the toolbox for measuring system performance (in this case against like hardware). 

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.

Edited July 17, 2022 by Minotaurtoo

[Minotaurtoo]

10 hours ago, Mr. Fox said:

That is so true. Some (many) are just too lazy and others don't even know how to read. They just look at pictures.

yep and even within companies comparisons are only good for exact same hardware... here is a fine example... the 9590 at first glance looks better than the 1700, but looking across at the sub scores shows that's not the case.  The problem as I see it, is that userbenchmark calls it a "gaming score" in the processor area up top... now we know that a 9590 isn't better at gaming, or anything for that matter, than a 1700.   full disclosure, both were overclocked mildly.  This is the only benchmark that I saw the 9590 show a "lead" in.... but as has been stated, it just shows the full story is to the right of that "bench" score percentage.  If I had to guess, I'd say it was due to the severely increased latency that ryzen had with memory.

Links:

1700: https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/6449742

9590: https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/4758334

[Storm-Chaser]

Updations

 

[Storm-Chaser]

On 17/07/2022 at 12:04, Minotaurtoo said:

yep and even within companies comparisons are only good for exact same hardware... here is a fine example... the 9590 at first glance looks better than the 1700, but looking across at the sub scores shows that's not the case.  The problem as I see it, is that userbenchmark calls it a "gaming score" in the processor area up top... now we know that a 9590 isn't better at gaming, or anything for that matter, than a 1700.

It is worth noting that their baseline measurement is a 9900K for reference information.