Question More anti-AMD "Stealth Marketing" by UserBenchmark...

VirtualLarry

Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
47,656
4,826
126
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/gk4kzv
Basically, a blog post by "CPUPro", I guess, on UserBenchmark, talking about the new 3300X CPU, and basically dissing it, and saying that AMD is now effectively walking back their "moar coars" marketing, and now saying that "only quad-core is enough", and then claiming that the (as of yet unreleased, nor professionally-benchmarked) Intel 10th-Gen quad-core i3 CPU is going to blow it away.

It's just all kinds of screwed up, with UserBenchmark (apparently) sucking up to Intel and quad-cores, and dissing AMD. What else is new, I guess.
 
Last edited:

Gideon

Senior member
Nov 27, 2007
780
1,108
136
It's not only that. I Checked the site on review day, and there was no mention of 3300x. Before they added it, they redesigned their scoring system again.


Now on top of discarding MT scores, memory latency is a major part of the overall score. Gee I wonder why ...
 

lixlax

Member
Nov 6, 2014
138
78
101
It's not only that. I Checked the site on review day, and there was no mention of 3300x. Before they added it, they redesigned their scoring system again.


Now on top of discarding MT scores, memory latency is a major part of the overall score. Gee I wonder why ...
I wouldn't be suprised if by Zen 3 launch their tests are mostly AVX512 or something like that.
 

Shivansps

Platinum Member
Sep 11, 2013
2,826
598
136
It's not only that. I Checked the site on review day, and there was no mention of 3300x. Before they added it, they redesigned their scoring system again.


Now on top of discarding MT scores, memory latency is a major part of the overall score. Gee I wonder why ...
I cant belive there is even a point in doing that, in a sea of benchmarking software, you change your score system to benefict Intel? thats fanboy level BS right there. It just make your benchmark look bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spursindonesia

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
15,494
4,281
136
Some Reddit subs are banning links to it or link to an explanation of their antics instead. I think we should start doing the same, pure waste of valuable time and internet space.
I dunno, we've had WCCFTech links in here before and we didn't ban those. They're not anywhere near as bad, but some people wanted that.

I think it's important to put stuff like Userbenchmark in context, though. It's a stealth-sponsored review source.
 

moinmoin

Golden Member
Jun 1, 2017
1,568
1,425
106
I dunno, we've had WCCFTech links in here before and we didn't ban those. They're not anywhere near as bad, but some people wanted that.

I think it's important to put stuff like Userbenchmark in context, though. It's a stealth-sponsored review source.
I wouldn't compare them. WCCFTech is a mixed bag with a questionable track record that sometimes appears to do adequate reporting. Userbenchmark is a statistics site that makes recommendations based on its statistics, but which doesn't stand by its algorithms, instead repeatedly intransparently tweaking them to fit its now obvious agenda. To me the latter is completely worthless, and the way it keeps twisting a seemingly scientific approach is dangerous.
 

UsandThem

Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 4, 2000
12,817
3,351
146
It's really a shame.

Their site used to be really handy when someone wanted to quickly compared various CPUs without having to go between various reviews. I used to use it all the time.

However, once they obviously skewed their CPU results/rankings, along with the "aircraft carrier", "battleship", "nuclear submarine", etc. naming bull crap, I now never go to their site for anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spursindonesia

maddie

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2010
3,065
1,685
136
Really pisses me off that as soon as organizations achieves some level of trust, so many are subverted by the dark side. Applies to almost everything in the world today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spursindonesia

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
15,494
4,281
136
I wouldn't compare them. WCCFTech is a mixed bag with a questionable track record that sometimes appears to do adequate reporting. Userbenchmark is a statistics site that makes recommendations based on its statistics, but which doesn't stand by its algorithms, instead repeatedly intransparently tweaking them to fit its now obvious agenda. To me the latter is completely worthless, and the way it keeps twisting a seemingly scientific approach is dangerous.
It used to be that WCCFTech links were the worst thing you could post around here. It's gotten worse, I admit. I will still consider believing something WCCFTech runs as a leak story, some of the time. Userbenchmark is now 100% cringe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spursindonesia

chrisjames61

Senior member
Dec 31, 2013
563
269
136
Really pisses me off that as soon as organizations achieves some level of trust, so many are subverted by the dark side. Applies to almost everything in the world today.
I hear you. It is really, really hard to discern the truth from fiction in our world today. Th internet and social media in particular are rotting away the society in which we live.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rigg

therealmongo

Member
Jul 5, 2019
36
22
41
The biggest issue IMHO is because of how people search the webs (most average users use Google) and how this websites is almost every time in first place on results returned by Google when searching for most types of hardware, hence your average person is going to be getting misleading information with regards to CPU performance.

If there is any way that something is going to change it will only be by users becoming complicit in a class action law suit againt the website (that they bought the 'wrong' CPU based on the rankings from this website) which in turn could force Google to change their algorithms with regards to how high the website appears in search rankings.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY