Ryzen 3000: userbenchmark changed the score weights in favor of intel

[SPBHM]

the real shame is that sites like that always gets the google hits for people looking into CPU/GPU perf when they should be looking (and reading) at sites like Anandtech, it got a lot worse the last 10 years, these sites were designed to get all the google search results without really going for quality of information.

 

[mopardude87]

Nearly no personal computing workloads are embarrassingly parallel and adding more cores past 4 does nothing for the average user but waste electricity on silicon that they will never use. You AMD fanbois may be desperate to recommend the 2990WX to every grandmother whose Pentium M laptop just died, but the fact is their user experience simply isn't going to be any better for the difference between that and a quad.

That seems a bit harsh, you post about what a average user needs or doesn't in a thread where people bench high core count processors that are also usually overclocked. A Ryzen 5 1600 recommendation today makes sense cause while it may seem overkill for grandmothers facebook it adds longevity to the computer too. I had friends calling me a idiot in 2007 replacing my E6750 with a Q6600 but UT3 loved the threads and well even till last year when i last used a Q6600 it was VERY usable for average tasks.I guess this idiot did alright.

I consider myself a average user, outside of forum visits basic browsing and facebook i game occasionally. My i7 8700 non k usually is overkill but i had a good laugh the other day. I was playing some GTA V and spots where i hit over 100 i was hitting closer to 80 and while i was a bit annoyed seeing lower gpu usage the gameplay was fine and smooth so i kept on playing. I found out later W10 was running 69-78% of my cpu running a dang scan in the background. W10 is a bit new to me and i didn't realize that perhaps from what i read W10 does these scans quite often. If i was on my i5 4460 still i would have been perhaps in stutter city. Having all these threads i rarely open up task manager outside of a program crash so i found it funny that perhaps these scans have been happening the entire time and i felt absolutely no slowdown.

 

[Schmide]

I can see a need to rein back Zen2's multi core performance, which if you take as the overall, may seem to be a bit weighted.

However, this adjustment screams at designing the formula to fit the answer. Such principle in your technologies only formulates your bias. There is no defense.

 

[chrisjames61]

Why do you care how some random company rates your favored CPU?

Because truth and integrity count for something.....

 

[chrisjames61]

The amount of estrogen in this thread is overwhelming.

I seem to be the current King of Cores doing actual work on this board (as Markfw looks to be doing nothing with his but destroying the planet trying to pointlessly increment some online counters), and yet even I can't arsed to get off an i7 4790 as my main as 4 cores are all I need for anything except the final crunch. The fact is desktops are losing market share to dual-core laptops and phones as those are apparently all the majority of users need. The idea that the difference between having 99 and 100 cores on a workstation CPU is somehow a life-or-death issue to the general populace's computing needs is quite farcical. Nearly no personal computing workloads are embarrassingly parallel and adding more cores past 4 does nothing for the average user but waste electricity on silicon that they will never use. You AMD fanbois may be desperate to recommend the 2990WX to every grandmother whose Pentium M laptop just died, but the fact is their user experience simply isn't going to be any better for the difference between that and a quad. The performance simply isn't there for their use and so any comparison chart seeks to condense the information for them which sits there and ranks by embarrassingly parallel performance is nothing but BS.
I am using my i7 4790 over my dual X5670 workstations because four fast cores beats 12 slower ones for general use. Userbenchmark has a multicore score which would clearly show the dual X5670's have better multicore performance -- something which anybody who runs these types of tasks can easily scroll down to see. Their overall ranking, however, mirrors my own, and so I take no issue with it whatsoever.
You can pick up four 10-core Xeon E7-4870's for the price of a new quad and get a 4P motherboard for cheaper, too. That doesn't make them a better choice for the majority of people, and a recommendation chart that is aimed at that majority rather than the tiny minority who can fill out those 40 cores should probably reflect this.



Trolling and calling AMD enthusiasts, fanboys, is not allowed.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

Wow, this is one disturbing post.

 

[ondma]

Because truth and integrity count for something.....

Although I never even saw this benchmark mentioned in this thread until Intel supposedly cheated. Now it seems to be the go to benchmark.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

None of the commonly cited benchmarks are fit for purpose. Most folk want to see real world performance, not synthetic crap.

 

[Schmide]

None of the commonly cited benchmarks are fit for purpose. Most folk want to see real world performance, not synthetic crap.

What?

Commonly cited?

Real World Performance?

Folk.

Carp Post.

 

[VirtualLarry]

the real shame is that sites like that always gets the google hits for people looking into CPU/GPU perf when they should be looking (and reading) at sites like Anandtech, it got a lot worse the last 10 years, these sites were designed to get all the google search results without really going for quality of information.

But... like.... that would require that the person(s) in question, actually know how to read. They don't teach that in school any more, didn't you know. All lessons are just in Emoji.

 

[VirtualLarry]

That seems a bit harsh, you post about what a average user needs or doesn't in a thread where people bench high core count processors that are also usually overclocked. A Ryzen 5 1600 recommendation today makes sense cause while it may seem overkill for grandmothers facebook it adds longevity to the computer too. I had friends calling me a idiot in 2007 replacing my E6750 with a Q6600 but UT3 loved the threads and well even till last year when i last used a Q6600 it was VERY usable for average tasks.I guess this idiot did alright.

This! Entirely!

Remember the whole dual-core Core2 versus quad-core Core2Quad? Remember which group of PCs "had the longevity to keep working"? Even today, a Core2Quad can manage, and even traditionally single-threaded web browsers like Firefox are now multi-core optimized and aware. (And default to 8 threads!)

The dual-core PCs? Left in the dust, collecting dust.

Is it so hard to fathom, that today's quad-core PCs, maybe end up like yesteryear's dual-core PCs, in a few more years? We're already seeing it this year, in AAA Gaming, some of the most high-end modern games demand MORE than 4 cores/threads. Those 2500K CPUs, the old dependable "Intel quad-core CPUs"? They don't cut it.

But, today's Ryzen 6C/12T, and Intel's i5-9400 / 9400F, those are today's minimum CPUs for gaming, and in a few years, the bar will be moved upwards (mostly due to consoles moving to at least 8C/16T) to 8C/16T on the desktop at a minimum.

Since 8C/16T is available TODAY, and NOT that expensive (Ryzen R7 3700X is $329, similar to what a top-end Intel quad-core unlocked CPU would have cost in the past), then why not buy a little future-proofed rig TODAY, if you are in the market for a system upgrade.

I consider myself a average user, outside of forum visits basic browsing and facebook i game occasionally. My i7 8700 non k usually is overkill but i had a good laugh the other day. I was playing some GTA V and spots where i hit over 100 i was hitting closer to 80 and while i was a bit annoyed seeing lower gpu usage the gameplay was fine and smooth so i kept on playing. I found out later W10 was running 69-78% of my cpu running a dang scan in the background. W10 is a bit new to me and i didn't realize that perhaps from what i read W10 does these scans quite often. If i was on my i5 4460 still i would have been perhaps in stutter city. Having all these threads i rarely open up task manager outside of a program crash so i found it funny that perhaps these scans have been happening the entire time and i felt absolutely no slowdown.

Yeah, Windows 10 especially can decide to do some CPU- or I/O-heavy things in the background. Updates, Anti-virus/malware scans, content-indexing, you name it. Having a decently multi-core CPU, and a fast primary OS drive (NVMe!), can really help with mitigating those aspects of Windows-based computing platforms.

I myself, found that my web browsing was noticeably improved, moving up to a 3rd-Gen Ryzen 3000-series CPU (a 3600). Although I only bought the "baby" 6C/12T minimum-class Ryzen 3000-series CPU, it has performed magnificently, and as good or better in most things than my 4.0Ghz OCed R7 2700 2nd-Gen Ryzen CPU.

Both of them blow away my i5-7400 in my HP Power Gaming PC. (Why did I ever buy that thing? I guess because I wanted to sample "retail Intel rigs".)


Edit: And if you're upgrading NOW or SOON, there's really no excuse not to go AM4. (Unless AMD ran over your cat or something...?)
A Ryzen 1600 CPU 6C/12T (on fire-sale now for $104.99 @ Newegg, or $79.99 @ MC), or a 2400G 4C/8T (on sale at Newegg during Prime Days for $99.99, probably similar at MC), is really the minimum you should be looking at for a desktop CPU. (Or if you "must" have Intel, an 8700K.)

 

[Furious_Styles]

This! Entirely!

Remember the whole dual-core Core2 versus quad-core Core2Quad? Remember which group of PCs "had the longevity to keep working"? Even today, a Core2Quad can manage, and even traditionally single-threaded web browsers like Firefox are now multi-core optimized and aware. (And default to 8 threads!)

The dual-core PCs? Left in the dust, collecting dust.

Is it so hard to fathom, that today's quad-core PCs, maybe end up like yesteryear's dual-core PCs, in a few more years? We're already seeing it this year, in AAA Gaming, some of the most high-end modern games demand MORE than 4 cores/threads. Those 2500K CPUs, the old dependable "Intel quad-core CPUs"? They don't cut it.

But, today's Ryzen 6C/12T, and Intel's i5-9400 / 9400F, those are today's minimum CPUs for gaming, and in a few years, the bar will be moved upwards (mostly due to consoles moving to at least 8C/16T) to 8C/16T on the desktop at a minimum.

Since 8C/16T is available TODAY, and NOT that expensive (Ryzen R7 3700X is $329, similar to what a top-end Intel quad-core unlocked CPU would have cost in the past), then why not buy a little future-proofed rig TODAY, if you are in the market for a system upgrade.



Yeah, Windows 10 especially can decide to do some CPU- or I/O-heavy things in the background. Updates, Anti-virus/malware scans, content-indexing, you name it. Having a decently multi-core CPU, and a fast primary OS drive (NVMe!), can really help with mitigating those aspects of Windows-based computing platforms.

I myself, found that my web browsing was noticeably improved, moving up to a 3rd-Gen Ryzen 3000-series CPU (a 3600). Although I only bought the "baby" 6C/12T minimum-class Ryzen 3000-series CPU, it has performed magnificently, and as good or better in most things than my 4.0Ghz OCed R7 2700 2nd-Gen Ryzen CPU.

Both of them blow away my i5-7400 in my HP Power Gaming PC. (Why did I ever buy that thing? I guess because I wanted to sample "retail Intel rigs".)


Edit: And if you're upgrading NOW or SOON, there's really no excuse not to go AM4. (Unless AMD ran over your cat or something...?)
A Ryzen 1600 CPU 6C/12T (on fire-sale now for $104.99 @ Newegg, or $79.99 @ MC), or a 2400G 4C/8T (on sale at Newegg during Prime Days for $99.99, probably similar at MC), is really the minimum you should be looking at for a desktop CPU. (Or if you "must" have Intel, an 8700K.)

Yeah but you're forgetting (perhaps) that it was much more economical to buy a lower clocked C2D and OCing it ~1ghz+. Ah, those were the days.... The C2Q was pretty useless for gaming for many years, only when those LGA 775 CPUs were basically being phased out did they really still have some life left if you pushed them. And by useless I mean most games did not utilize 4 cores, let alone dual for quite some time.

 

[Schmide]

Not that I ever gave userbenchmark a thought until now. Their response (toms) shows their true colors. Harking back to bulldozer in an attempt to from some AMD hypocritical statement loop that somehow justifies userbenchmark's biased metric.

Hopefully their taint will follow them and those who ever attempt to use such metrics in public.

 

[mopardude87]

Edit: And if you're upgrading NOW or SOON, there's really no excuse not to go AM4. (Unless AMD ran over your cat or something...?)
A Ryzen 1600 CPU 6C/12T (on fire-sale now for $104.99 @ Newegg, or $79.99 @ MC), or a 2400G 4C/8T (on sale at Newegg during Prime Days for $99.99, probably similar at MC), is really the minimum you should be looking at for a desktop CPU. (Or if you "must" have Intel, an 8700K.)

Yeah a $105 1600 offers so much for the money right now, it makes almost no sense to get anything else if on a budget. Like the Q6600 and 2500k before it, this chip will have some use i believe 10 years down the road. I got tired of seeing the small ipc increases from Intel year after year and until BF1 murdered my i5 4460 i didn't see even a reason to upgrade the 4460. I can't even guess what type of game will eventually break the 8700 like BF1 did to the 4460. Maybe a gigantic 128 player based Conquest map with perhaps a BC3 or 2143?

 

[Kenmitch]

These silly guys pop up a lot if one googles for advice.

Try and see example r5 3600 vs i7 8700

 

[Markfw]

These silly guys pop up a lot if one googles for advice.

Try and see example r5 3600 vs i7 8700

I did. Its amazing, they actually say the Ryzen wins every area, gaming, desktop and workstation, and its 2/3rds the price.

After googling it, and reading 2 other reviews, this result is not far off the pace. But the more cores you add, the worse then benchmark is. For either company.

 

[mopardude87]

I did. Its amazing, they actually say the Ryzen wins every area, gaming, desktop and workstation, and its 2/3rds the price.

After googling it, and reading 2 other reviews, this result is not far off the pace. But the more cores you add, the worse then benchmark is. For either company.

Yeah the Intel chips win still for those max fps but its not honestly that far off i rather save the $100+ and have a 3600 over a i7 8700 non k or even a 8700k i guess if overclocking is your thing. $100 could mean the difference between a 2060 super and a 2070 super. Plus the stock cooler is at least $20 in savings as the 3600 stock cooler is usable at least?

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

Yeah the Intel chips win still for those max fps but its not honestly that far off i rather save the $100+ and have a 3600 over a i7 8700 non k or even a 8700k i guess if overclocking is your thing. $100 could mean the difference between a 2060 super and a 2070 super. Plus the stock cooler is at least $20 in savings as the 3600 stock cooler is usable at least?

Stock cooler on 3600 is supposedly crap.
I'm replacing even though I haven't even unboxed it yet.
(buying Arctic Freezer 34 eSports Duo for £30 instead)

 

[DrMrLordX]

Stock cooler on the 3600 might actually struggle to keep the chip @ 4.2 GHz all core.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Speaking of Boost, now I'm sad that I rebooted (for another issue I was investigating), as HWMonitor had my max clock speeds for all of my cores, listed as like 4271 or something (ABOVE 4.2Ghz!). AFAIK, I don't have PBO on, but then again, maybe I do. I'll have to check my BIOS settings again.

Edit: For my 3600.

Edit:

Stock cooler on the 3600 might actually struggle to keep the chip @ 4.2 GHz all core.

Oh, yeah, that... even 240mm AIO WC won't keep my 3600 at 4.2Ghz all-core boost. It can't even quite handle a manual OC to 4.0Ghz all-core.

 

[Ottonomous]

Back in the days of the AMD FX-8350 our effective speed index was predominantly single core and at that time we were heavily lobbied with cries of "cores are only getting more and more relevant." Any professional software developer that has actually tried to write scaleable multi-threaded code will understand that the challenges are both far from trivial and highly unlikely to be overcome during the lifetime of a typical CPU. We frequently tune our effective speed indices to match the latest developments

Apparently the 'latest developments' happened to coincide with the launch of the Ryzen 3000 series lol

 

[Kenmitch]

I did. Its amazing, they actually say the Ryzen wins every area, gaming, desktop and workstation, and its 2/3rds the price.

What I really meant was the website and not a favorable/unfavorable review of my example. When I googled the example they were the top 3 hits. 1st hit 3600 vs 8700, 2nd 3600 vs 8700k, 3rd 3600x vs 8700. It was more or less to prove a point that the site is somewhat one of the 1st a person would see when googling for advise.

 

[mopardude87]

Stock cooler on 3600 is supposedly crap.
I'm replacing even though I haven't even unboxed it yet.
(buying Arctic Freezer 34 eSports Duo for £30 instead)

Crap like my 8350 stock cooler where it does a fine job of cooling but the fan sounds like a banshee? I keep hearing the AMD stock coolers are fine for stock and slight ocing then others say its trash. Then i hear some chips which had a copper core based cooler now have a all aluminum cooler? I think VirtualLarry had a thread about these coolers.

I would like to think in a budget build for stock operation the stock cooler would be fine. At least fine to deal for a while then maybe swap it out later?

 

[Space Tyrant]

Crap like my 8350 stock cooler where it does a fine job of cooling but the fan sounds like a banshee? I keep hearing the AMD stock coolers are fine for stock and slight ocing then others say its trash. Then i hear some chips which had a copper core based cooler now have a all aluminum cooler? I think VirtualLarry had a thread about these coolers.

I would like to think in a budget build for stock operation the stock cooler would be fine. At least fine to deal for a while then maybe swap it out later?

Yes, the 3600X now comes with the Wraith Spire "2", a solid aluminum version of the original Spire -- which had a copper vapor chamber in the middle. The new spire was made to cool as effectively as the old one by turning up the fan speed by about 50%. So, yeah, banshee levels.

As far as I know, the other AMD coolers (stealth, prism) remain unchanged.

 

[.vodka]

Oh, it gets worse for these guys. Look at this lovely exchange over at this Hardware Unboxed video's YT comments:

Let's go there, shall we?

https://web.archive.org/web/2017011.../Faq/What-is-the-effective-CPU-speed-index/55

Date: January 19, 2017. Right before Ryzen 1xxx launched (March 2017).

Single Core: 30%
Quad Core: 50%
Multi Core: 20%

Looking at the next available snapshot for that site, which is June 6, 2017.... Multicore is down to 10%.

Single Core: 30%
Quad Core: 60%
Multi Core: 10%


So, Ryzen 1xxx prompted them to bring MC to 10%. Ryzen 3xxx, down to 2%.

As you can see their justification for the weights at both times was 3D gaming... when games have been routinely using and benefiting from more than 4C/8T lately (considering the 2% change was done just a few moments ago on this time scale). That argument just falls apart and the timing on both adjustments is more than suspicious.

Yeah. These people are the epitome of integrity. Integrity meaning bribery.

 

[Abwx]

So, Ryzen 1xxx prompted them to bring MC to 10%. Ryzen 3xxx, down to 2%.

Dunno what they will do with Zen 3, bringing MC to -20%..?..