UserBenchmark.com apparently removed 64 thread comparison from their CPU benchmark, maximum is now 8. I guess nobody needs more than 4 cores, right???
I have 2 of them, the 2990wx has 64 threads and 32 cores. I just got a dual EPYC systems that has 128 threads.I am not sure if these responses are serious But I’d say that not many people use software that takes advantage of more than 4 cores. they Should tone down the test to 32 or 16 threads since I think that is more realistic. I don’t even knnow if there is such a CPU with 64 threads.
It may seem absurd to somebody wanting to see fair comparison between processors for various use scenarios.... put a hard limit on every result at 8T is absurd.
I was being tongue-in-cheek but generally I don't have a logical problem with them doing what they're doing. I think the sweet spot for most gamers is 8-12 threads, however you want to divvy that up. 8C/8T, 6C/12T, whatever.Yes, Intel usually knows well what to do. The higher core count processors which they make now are a horrible mistake (a one-off), they should stop making them as soon as possible! Not only nobody really needs such large monsters, they also clog Intel production lines badly.
4C/8T are a sweet spot for 99.9% consumers.
Me too, sorry if you wrote your long reply because you believed I was serious.I was being tongue-in-cheek
That guy (Shrout ?) recently from PCperspective, now at Intel, has been agitating for sticking to "real world" usage benchmarks, as defined by him and his team, in comparing CPUs. Here's a win for them.8T max is ridiculous in 2019. I can understand not wanting to go up to 32T or 64T (even though there is now a consumer 32T CPU), but 12 - 16 thread performance is definitely relevant for many people.
If they want to create categories like light office work, gamer, and prosumer rankings and then limit the light office work to 8T (or even 4T), then fine, but to just put a hard limit on every result at 8T is absurd.
Probably not. They aren't a marketing company and lies on the internet are not treated like lies on the TV or in Adds. On top of that as long as their designed benchmarks back it up they can do it.Remember, that their site comes as a first result when you google CPU vs. CPU. They are an "official Google CPU comparing tool".
When comparing products and being in such position, can they actually afford to present results that somebody could interpret as misleading? Would not they face lome legal consequences?
Really? I did not know that.... lies on the internet are not treated like lies on the TV or in Adds.
You just need to look into US politics. Again the big thing is that Userbenchmark in itself isn't a marketing site, doesn't offer their site and their results to sell a product of theirs. They are just a Tech review site (with a tech benchmark) with affiliate links. That means that it pretty much is the wildwest on what they can do and the fact that they have a benchmark even a home grown one that they can slide whatever bias around they want backs up their numbers makes them bulletproof there. Doesn't mean they can't get bad plubicity on tech forums, reddit and maybe more from actual tech journalists and have to deal with the weight of the complaints, or take a hit on traffic (which hurts their bottom line).Really? I did not know that.
We are not sure yet that Intel owns (or subsidies in some way) UserBenchmark. It just seems like it.Intels strategy here...
I can see it now.Colgate back in the days used to sell their products simply by saying people should brush their teeth more.
Intels strategy here seems to be: use your PC for less. I mean then you are really on the defensive and thinking short term goals.
If you compare the 3600 to the 9400 the 3600 comes out on top on UB -- in gaming, workstation, and desktop ratings. Same with 3600 vs 9100. The only reason you might consider a 9100 over a 3600 is cost -- the 9400F under $100 is close enough to the 3600 in gaming and general desktop use to make it compelling. UB is NOT pushing anyone to a 9400 or 9100 in comparison to 3600.It now even to Intel fans becomes a bad site to look at CPU performance unless you were specifically trying to talk a person away from a 3600 to an 9400 or 9100.
Their traffic will depend on a lot of factors, not the least of which would be relevancy. As long as they correctly stratify the chips for the majority of users, they will continue to be used by those types of users.That's the problem its still a tech site and as a tech site most of its viewership is directly pushed by users like us. They are really taking a chance that their traffic doesn't nose dive because of its general irrelevance.
Primarilly on the amount of money they pay Google to be displayed as the first search result?Their traffic will depend on a lot of factors
I know this is a half-joke, but having worked in SEO for small businesses, and still having connections with those who do, I just want to clarify that the idea that you can pay Google for top organic search results is, to an absurdly high degree, untrue.Primarilly on the amount of money they pay Google to be displayed as the first search result?
I am not sure if these responses are serious But I’d say that not many people use software that takes advantage of more than 4 cores. they Should tone down the test to 32 or 16 threads since I think that is more realistic. I don’t even knnow if there is such a CPU with 64 threads.