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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

RetroZombie

Senior member
Nov 5, 2019
410
297
96
We need some websites regulator or this will all rotten.

How many of you guys have clicked in some random youtube video thinking you were getting some content to get deceived by the title or the thumbs?

The contents have to be classified, they can even use the user base to do it, something like:
-false content
-fake content
-includes lies
-includes politics
-includes ads/promotions
-mislead content
-reported data is incorrect
-content not related to the title or thumbs
-opinions are biased
-....

Again the contents have to be classified by the authors, the public validate, the webhost (ex: youtube) checks if it's legal (properly classified), and the regulator certifies that they are complying.
 

maddie

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2010
3,065
1,685
136
We need some websites regulator or this will all rotten.

How many of you guys have clicked in some random youtube video thinking you were getting some content to get deceived by the title or the thumbs?

The contents have to be classified, they can even use the user base to do it, something like:
-false content
-fake content
-includes lies
-includes politics
-includes ads/promotions
-mislead content
-reported data is incorrect
-content not related to the title or thumbs
-opinions are biased
-....

Again the contents have to be classified by the authors, the public validate, the webhost (ex: youtube) checks if it's legal (properly classified), and the regulator certifies that they are complying.
This sort of solution seems good but is actually very dangerous.

How do we decide on false, lies, etc. In some cases, yes, it's possible, but what about those many that are unknown. Science for example in all fields, have multiple arguments existing as to the nature of things, yet the average person truly trusts what some scientific authority figure might advocate. Empirical data should be easy to verify, but the why something happened is open to debate. Having some 3rd party official act as the god of truth is just another way to create and eventually subvert a new trusted source.

The only solution is for the old adage to be understood fully and for individuals to accept that their fate is truly in their own hands. Caveat emptor indeed.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,451
856
126
It's fallen now into something that is completely useless when trying to compare different architectures 😑

Also, I mean I don't think 4C/8T is a wise buy with 3+GHz 8C/16T consoles launching this year (talking gamers here obviously), I'd rather find a deal on a Ryzen 2600 or better yet a 2700, or just step up to a 3600 budget permitting.


That article ALREADY shows despairing minimums in major open world titles such as AC: Odyssey, and with Cyberpunk 2077 and a bunch of other stuff on the way like AC: Valhalla, I think the 3100/3300 and the Intel i3 10th gen will both really start to look bad, to say nothing of not THAT old stuff like basically all of the Intel pre-Coffee Lake stuff on S115x (RIP 2600k, 3770k, 4790k, 6700k, 7700k, etc). 6C/6T minimum, with 8C/16T at max IPC+Clocks will be more ideal.

For office or esports machines, the 3100 is just a gorgeous option though. Unless the 10100 (terrible model numbers Intel, smh lol) is some kind of miracle, I think I'd rather have the 3100/3300 in most cases if forced to use something like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spursindonesia

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,451
856
126
This sort of solution seems good but is actually very dangerous.

How do we decide on false, lies, etc. In some cases, yes, it's possible, but what about those many that are unknown. Science for example in all fields, have multiple arguments existing as to the nature of things, yet the average person truly trusts what some scientific authority figure might advocate. Empirical data should be easy to verify, but the why something happened is open to debate. Having some 3rd party official act as the god of truth is just another way to create and eventually subvert a new trusted source.

The only solution is for the old adage to be understood fully and for individuals to accept that their fate is truly in their own hands. Caveat emptor indeed.
Agreed! Regulatory capture is endemic in the US government. All this would do is get polluted by insider graft and manipulation, despite the laudable reasoning and sentiment behind the idea.
 

RetroZombie

Senior member
Nov 5, 2019
410
297
96
This sort of solution seems good but is actually very dangerous.
Yes i agree with what you said, but it's also dangerous to get false information and having no one to say that it is.

That's why i said it those 'four validators', the publisher/creator, the users, the host (in youtube case) and the regulator, which won't do anything only see's if everything is in check (no fake news).

Just to give an example of youtube, facebook, ... they have just some simple check up, the like button which is 'very soft' on options to classify the content. Some sites besides the like button also have the don't like button, but with so many 'technology' this days it seams having an so more powerful options is so difficult to implement when it isn't, it would require some work and time for sure but would be much better.

For example if i wasted some time on some stupid youtube video i would make sure if someone bothers to see it that it would know in advance what type of content he would be seeing just for him not waste it's time like i did.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,659
3,315
136
Yes i agree with what you said, but it's also dangerous to get false information and having no one to say that it is.
But that's not the case there, we have lots of major news and reviews outlets praising the price/performance of the 3300X. UserBenchmark being banned and ridiculed on reddit shows this is the end for them in terms of public recognition. Competition will get to them eventually. In fact I would argue they went this path for this reason in the first place, not enough revenue to keep it an honest business.

Here's the Internet antibodies at work - https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=userbenchmark+controversy . In fact it's gotten so bad that even searching "userbenchmark" alone on YT shows 2 bad videos about them before showing the UserBenchmark channel.

Bonus Content - watch Steve from Hardware Unboxed react to more UserBenchmark misbehavior.
 

VirtualLarry

Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
47,656
4,826
126
We need some websites regulator or this will all rotten.

How many of you guys have clicked in some random youtube video thinking you were getting some content to get deceived by the title or the thumbs?

The contents have to be classified, they can even use the user base to do it, something like:
-false content
-fake content
-includes lies
-includes politics
-includes ads/promotions
-mislead content
-reported data is incorrect
-content not related to the title or thumbs
-opinions are biased
-....

Again the contents have to be classified by the authors, the public validate, the webhost (ex: youtube) checks if it's legal (properly classified), and the regulator certifies that they are complying.
This is kind of what YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, are already doing, sort of, except that they are just banning content altogether.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,451
856
126
This is kind of what YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, are already doing, sort of, except that they are just banning content altogether.
Yeah, it's kind of complex, but also prone to groupthink. Only Mark knows who I actually work for, but let's just say I had interesting info ahead of time on this human malware situation as it evolved. Obviously I couldn't just blow my sources and lose clearance, so I kept trying to find publicly posted content to try to educate people on the situation. It's outside of my specialties, but a rapid study of the particulars yielded vast insights relatively quickly.

What I discovered was that the overwhelming amount of info on Google searches, news items, subreddits, etc were horribly blasé and clear regurgitations of the 'official' story from China at any point in time even after the evidence was mounting that it was incorrect.

Not only that, but a lot of links would just disappear entirely that passed key datapoints along in an attempt to wash away some of the nonsense that was holding back proper responses.

I notice this same kind of groupthink abuse with regards to anyone who even dares to go outside of the dusty old academia-approved stories of the development of past human civilizations, when it's clear to any logical thinker that a lot of the story we built from many 19th to early 20th century religiously backed digs and expeditions is either horrendously incomplete or just outright wrong. The entire area of study is rife with what I like to call 'last inhabitant assignment bias', attributing installations and sites to populations whom lacked the technology and resources to create them in the first place. So, anyone who dares to analyze beyond the creaky old textbooks is demonized and demonitized as if they were cranks yelling about lizard people.

Back to the context of Userbenchmark, I do think there's a growing consensus that they've really screwed this up, and I think the more people get that info out the better. Tech channels such as HUB, GN, LTT, J2C, etc all do a pretty solid to outstanding job of fairly analyzing things. The community at large tends to usually lock into groupthink however, leading to some just bizarre behavior.

Maybe some people just don't want subtlety and complexity, or understand tiers of pro/cons. They want simple AMD good, Intel bad, or Intel good, AMD bad. It's mostly the former at the moment, which leads to some strange self-sabotage for a number of people. Logic is so much more powerful when applied in a granular, uninhibited manner.
 

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
6,764
94
91
www.teamjuchems.com
The incentive funnel of the Internet is to reward sources that "engage" - not those that post legitimate content, take time to vet their sources, etc.

Showing up high in the search results is a validation of content, whether or not Google wants to shoulder the responsibility for that.

Along with the search engines and social sites all using algos to send you the most engaging content to keep you interacting with their offering, it's really a downward spiral as most people want confirmation of their biases rather than challenges to their beliefs in any given day.

As for the site in question, I've had friends use it and its exasperating to explain why they are in the bottom 20% of some score buuuuut - look darn it! You are 1 fps back from being in the middle! This is useless information that is stressing you out! Oh well, I won't be sad if it drops out of the search rankings quickly for ways to easily benchmark your computer or to compare parts for new purchases.
 

RetroZombie

Senior member
Nov 5, 2019
410
297
96
Just some examples to try to explain better about the control and certification authority.
I'm i big fan of star wars, so content like this is excelent:
Star Wars SC 38 Reimagined
VADER EPISODE 1: SHARDS OF THE PAST - A STAR WARS THEORY FAN-FILM
Baby Yoda VS Darth Sidious 2
Kylo Ren vs Darth Vader - FORCE OF DARKNESS (A Star Wars Fan-Film)
Kudos for the creators, and a great example of monetizing through youtube, like other guys that create content for pc hardware fans: Jay2Cent, Hardware Unboxed, Gamer Nexus, and any more.
^Authority to certify this is needed to not get stolen or get lost, some 'quality seal'.

And example of someone that monetizes through youtube for something he didn't create or help in anyway, and is getting paid for someone else work:
Pica-pau Campeão de Golf
^Authority to ban this and give the money to the right owners, this is also an example of youtube inoperancy because they are not interested in content loss, and that's because they also monetize from this from ads.
Extra: This was filmed before amd released bulldozzer, nobody already noticed back then it would be a failure ;)


And many other content that should never exist, because it belongs to some else or it's totally misleading.
Besides the categorization, other thing that is missing in videos or even articles is for what 'age' is the content intended, i understand the youtube kids creation but if the original was already aware of this there was no need for it.

Just to say that stuff like userbenchmark needs some supervisor, and if to publish a website we need to have dns resolver, ssl certificate, ...
And in the 'real world' in order to open a real space (some local store) we need many requisites, maybe it time to give the online stuff some requisites too.
 

Shivansps

Platinum Member
Sep 11, 2013
2,826
598
136
We need some websites regulator or this will all rotten.

How many of you guys have clicked in some random youtube video thinking you were getting some content to get deceived by the title or the thumbs?

The contents have to be classified, they can even use the user base to do it, something like:
-false content
-fake content
-includes lies
-includes politics
-includes ads/promotions
-mislead content
-reported data is incorrect
-content not related to the title or thumbs
-opinions are biased
-....

Again the contents have to be classified by the authors, the public validate, the webhost (ex: youtube) checks if it's legal (properly classified), and the regulator certifies that they are complying.
We dont need the internet police, thank you. Anyone with a mind of his own has the ability to sort out the crap.
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,643
999
136
Though if enough people posted around different forums how this 'benchmark' is marketing garbage it would float up into the search results.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,659
3,315
136
Though if enough people posted around different forums how this 'benchmark' is marketing garbage it would float up into the search results.
It's already happening, youtoube search gives warning videos (from Linus Tech Tips and Hardware Unboxed) on top of the UserBenchmark channel link, and a google search contains "Is UserBenchmark accurate? " and "Is UserBenchamrk a bias?" in their People also ask section (one leads to a Quora question discussing reliability, the other leads to reddit). The next search result after the (large & custom) one from Userbenchmark is a piece of news from Notebookcheck which discusses Userbenchamrk getting banned on r/Intel and a restriction on r/AMD.

UserBenchmark likely makes agressive SEO optimizations, yet even this isn't enough to stop warnng about them surfacing among the top search content in Google.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
3,016
302
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.
They are making waves which gives them free publicity,I mean even you are advertising for them right now,and their site will get a few clicks because of this post.

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 ...
Well in every post here on anand if anybody has any performance issues in games the first thing people ask is if they have dual channel memory and how fast it's running.
 

RetroZombie

Senior member
Nov 5, 2019
410
297
96
We dont need the internet police, thank you.
Yes, nor i want that too.
But it seams everyone forget that the internet this days is accessed by all kinds people from 3 years old children and older....

And if they are already putting tags to make search easier, its just reuse those tags to do more, to know what is the type of content we are accessing, and give it ratings that could go from values to quality.

Anyone with a mind of his own has the ability to sort out the crap.
I have some virus catchers in my family and friends.
They are always catching virus even with a powerful anti-virus. I already told them they need to be more careful with what they do, they need to make sure if it's 'true' (emails, online sites, ads, ...).
Normally their answer is: can you teach me?
I will start answering them the bolted above. So thank you. :D
 

Red Hawk

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2011
3,223
141
106
I just...what? AMD hasn't backtracked on anything. They've made quad core Ryzen parts since day 1. They obviously advocated for more cores for high end users, and sold hexacore and octacore CPUs for a higher price. And they still do that. The new Ryzen 3rd gen quad cores are just better than their previous gen quad cores. There are no goalposts being shifted, this guy is either way out of touch or being deliberately misleading.

If you think the new quad cores offer the same real world performance in games as the higher core parts, then great! It should be a good thing that AMD is providing lower cost options. But if real world game performance is your focus... Why are you referencing "memory latency", a synthetic measurement? Why is that more important than simple core count?

That person's blog post is nonsensical and he has no business writing about CPUs.
 

maddie

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2010
3,065
1,685
136
I just...what? AMD hasn't backtracked on anything. They've made quad core Ryzen parts since day 1. They obviously advocated for more cores for high end users, and sold hexacore and octacore CPUs for a higher price. And they still do that. The new Ryzen 3rd gen quad cores are just better than their previous gen quad cores. There are no goalposts being shifted, this guy is either way out of touch or being deliberately misleading.

If you think the new quad cores offer the same real world performance in games as the higher core parts, then great! It should be a good thing that AMD is providing lower cost options. But if real world game performance is your focus... Why are you referencing "memory latency", a synthetic measurement? Why is that more important than simple core count?

That person's blog post is nonsensical and he has no business writing about CPUs.
It's obvious that the benchmark has nothing to do with being objective or even realistic. They have become a (once/still) trusted site being used to advance an agenda. We should see them as that and not foolish or incompetent. They know exactly what they're doing, and the ignorant consumer is the target.
 

amrnuke

Senior member
Apr 24, 2019
797
883
96
I just...what? AMD hasn't backtracked on anything. They've made quad core Ryzen parts since day 1. They obviously advocated for more cores for high end users, and sold hexacore and octacore CPUs for a higher price. And they still do that. The new Ryzen 3rd gen quad cores are just better than their previous gen quad cores. There are no goalposts being shifted, this guy is either way out of touch or being deliberately misleading.

If you think the new quad cores offer the same real world performance in games as the higher core parts, then great! It should be a good thing that AMD is providing lower cost options. But if real world game performance is your focus... Why are you referencing "memory latency", a synthetic measurement? Why is that more important than simple core count?

That person's blog post is nonsensical and he has no business writing about CPUs.
CPUPro is about as much a CPUPro as the 7 year old down the street. I liken him to the Pitchfork music reviewers posting junk reviews that don't even discuss the music, just to get a rise out of people, and they specifically target certain fan-bases. For example, Tool's "Lateralus" getting a 1.9/10 with the review being completely asinine and esoteric. Meanwhile almost every other review site actually wrote a review of the music and gave it good to excellent reviews. Why did Pitchfork do this? Because it's their schtick, and because Tool fans are notoriously easy to rile up.

It's the same with UserBenchmark. They make CPUPro's "blog" post the de facto official review, and they do so because it generates controversy, and they think controversy will generate page views and ad revenue.

But as with Pitchfork, they need to be aware they're playing with fire by encouraging horrific "journalism"; Pitchfork was averaging over 30 million page views a month in 2010, and now sees only about 15 million a month.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY