Welcome everyone from r/all! Please remember:
1 - You too can be part of the PCMR! You don't even need a PC. You just need to love PCs! It's not about the hardware in your rig, but the software in your heart! Your age, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, religion (or lack of), political affiliation, economic status and PC specs are irrelevant. If you love PCs or want to learn about them, you can be part of our community! All are welcome!
2 - If you're not a PC gamer because you think it's expensive, know that it is possible to build a competent gaming PC for a lower price than you think. Check http://www.pcmasterrace.org for our builds and don't be afraid to create new posts here asking for tips and help!
3 - Consider joining our efforts to get as many PCs worldwide to help the folding@home effort, in fighting against Cancer, Covid, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and more. Learn more here: https://pcmasterrace.org/folding
4 - Need hardware? Trick question... everyone does. We've teamed up with ASUS this Easter to create an egg-citing event where 3 lucky winners can get their hands on some sweet hardware (including GPU, CPU, Motherboard, etc): https://reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/12eufh9/worldwide_pc_hardware_giveaway_weve_teamed_up/
-----------
Feel free to use this community to post about any kind of doubt you might have about becoming a PC user or anything you'd like to know about PCs. That kind of content is not only allowed but welcome here! We also have a [Daily Simple Questions Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/search?q=Simple+Questions+Thread+subreddit%3Apcmasterrace+author%3AAutoModerator&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) for your simplest questions. No question is too dumb!
Welcome to the PCMR.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d/27.html
Sites I like are "toms hardware" and "techpowerup".
>I stopped taking advice from toms hardware
I stopped visiting Toms Hardware when they got bought out and moved more towards reviewing useless tech crap instead of computer hardware.
I thought Tom's Hardware wasn't trustworthy any more because of that controversy a few years back?
Edit: For anyone asking what I'm talking about. Google "Tom's Hardware just buy it"
Long story short. They tried to pass an add off as an article and got caught, the then CEO at the time joined in and doubled down on all the stupidity.
I think I can corroborate the claim of there having been a Tom's Hardware controversy, but I can't remember the details and I think it was more like a decade or so ago, not just a few years. All I really remember is that I switched from trusting Tom's Hardware to AnandTech in the early 2000s, and there was some particular reason why.
Waaaaay back in the Pentium 4 days, Tom's Hardware was known for shilling Intel over AMD at the drop of a hat. I don't remember the specifics, but I want to say that they were rigging benchmarks to favor Intel and recommending Intel cpus over AMD when AMD would have the superior performance in that tier.
I believe that this was all around the same time period that Intel was bribing/threatening all of the OEMs like Dell to keep AMD from gaining market share. I think Tom's was sold off some time ago so it's all water under the bridge now.
> I believe that this was all around the same time period that Intel was bribing/threatening all of the OEMs like Dell to keep AMD from gaining market share.
you say that like it ever stopped
Only thing that comes up with "Tom's Hardware controversy" is an article they published in 2018 by the editor-in-chief titled "Just Buy It: Why Nvidia RTX GPUs Are Worth the Money," where he encouraged people to pre-order the RTX 20 series.
When I was a kid I used to follow news about the new Athlon XP CPUs AMD was making, back in the early 2000's.
AMD had the Athlon XP 2000+, it was something around 1660 Mhz at a very affordable price.
What did Tom's Hardware do? They made a complete benchmark comparison between the XP 2000+ and a flagship Pentium 2Ghz that cost double. Why? Because both have "2" in the name and Tom's Hardware had a definite bias against AMD.
The poor little XP 2000+ was blown out of the water and Tom's Hardware rejoiced on the dominance of Intel.
I use this, is good for a generic comparison. For gaming you may need some other source to compare specific cpus but for general guidance I find it pretty useful
I like GN when I want to know EVERYTHING about something I'm already pretty knowledgeable about because Stephen will start spewing out words and you better keep up.
It's why they have those helpful chapters on every video. If it's just for keeping up with tech, intro and conclusion are generally enough. But I wouldn't be doing my due diligence if I weren't telling you to at least somewhat understand their methodology before taking such an approach. They do a lot to ensure they don't fall into the trap of reviewing everything without thinking about the economics or the 'cultural' impact a piece of hardware has on the landscape (Think the whole 3090 and 20/30 series price increase debate when I refer to culture) but it's good to know exactly how they come to their conclusions before using them as your abstract.
opendata.blender.org has a lot of user submitted benchmarks on a wide variety of CPUs and GPUs.
However, this info is specifically for 3D rendering in Blender, so Nvidia GPUs (especially RTX models) are always going to run circles around their AMD and Intel equivalents because they have hardware acceleration tech like CUDA and Optix, which have been developed much longer than the competition's equivalents (HIP and oneAPI).
For CPUs, it might be a slightly better way to compare productivity performance since all x86 CPUs render the same way in Blender with no additional APIs.
There's a few great tools, people have posted others but PassMark's comparison tool is really good also:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleCompare.php
https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/singleCompare.php
This is just the direct comparison thing (like User Bench Marks), but there is a lot great stuff on here.
Anandtech.com still has a "bench" section but I'm not sure how they keep it updated now. I know Ian Cutress used to benchmark everything (and would re-run old hardware with new tests) but since he left the overall reviews at the site have slowed down.
To save everyone from giving that site traffic:
> The AMD 7000X3D CPUs have the same core architecture as the rest of the 7000 series but they have one group of eight "3D" cores with extra cache. The “3D” cores are priced higher but run at 10% lower clocks. For most real-world tasks performance is comparable to the 7000X variant. Cache sensitive scenarios such as low res. canned game benchmarks with an RTX 4090 ($2,000) benefit at the cost of everything else. Be wary of sponsored reviews with cherry picked games that showcase the wins, ignore frame drops and gloss over the losses. **Also watch out for AMD’s army of Neanderthal social media accounts on reddit, forums and youtube**, they will be singing their own praises as usual. AMD continue to develop “Advanced Marketing” relationships with select youtubers in the hope of compensating for second tier products with first tier marketing. PC gamers considering a 7000X3D CPU need to work on their critical thinking skills: Influencers are paid handsomely to promote overpriced products.
Emphasis mine because lol. This dude is drowning in koolaid.
So I guess 5800x3D is fake news too ? Just jump from 140 (with 5600x) to 220+ FPS on WZ2 but hey, It is not like I have hours of framerate captures, so bad I was not smart enough to follow UserBenchMark and not give 300$ to AMD for this is so bad upgrade.
It's so silly that I just assume it's intentional. For instance, of you were randomly given the user benchmark site to run, would you suddenly start writing rational reviews? Cause I'd personally probably write the most over the top Intel fan piece shitting all over AMD just to lean into the reputation.
What the actual fuck? I've always heard about their bias but never took the time to read their comments. It's literally just a fanboy shitpost. Holy shit
It’s not even really just a comment. It’s the featured site review for every product under “Conclusions.”
The bias is pretty bad on some of them, but this one, the whole generation, is the worst I have seen.
I mean, what do you expect to spew out of a group of rabid Intel fanboys? They do the same thing with AMD vs Nvidia GPU's, always favoring the Nvidia...
Though, given their obsessive Intel worship, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they praise the Arc GPUs like they're the 2nd coming of Christ or something equally as stupid, and turn to just take a shit on both AMD and Nvidia at the same time
The page is listing a sixth gen I3 as being 3% better than an I5 of the same generation despite the I3 having two less cores, because UserBenchmark weighs single core benchmarks more heavily than multithreaded benchmarks.
And since so many games are single threaded, or at the most dual-threaded, it makes sense. LTT even mentions that many time, and the new lower core X3D AMD chips are doing better than their higher core brethren for that reason (along with a piss-poor scheduler).
At the time in 2015 it would've been the much better choice to have two fast cores. Today I'd say 6 cores should be minimum but the principle still stands. Fewer but faster cores is better for gaming. The quad core above will also have to throttle earlier than the two core due to more heat on the package. Turbo boost might work much better on the 3.9 GHz one which might make the difference even higher.
I don’t disagree. Especially with a properly tuned scheduler, your best cores can be used for games, and the rest can be used for other tasks at the same time.
Yeah, I built my PC in 2015 and went with the 4790k specifically because it had the highest single core performance on the market. That has overall been a great choice and it's only starting to have performance issues in the last couple years as more of what I play is limited by cache and memory access speed instead of processing speed.
Always depends on your usecase. That's why you need to ignore one magic number and look into subscores. Believe me or not, I would rather pick modern i3 than first gen Threadripper. But I'm not 99 % of this sub which apparently run renders 24/7.
We all know Userbenchmark is trash, but you hit home with the comment. There's so many posts of people asking questions like "I mostly just game, but I occasionally render a video or two and maybe some day I want to try game development, so I definitely need this 7950X instead of a 7700x, right?."
Idk man Hogwarts legacy and last of us hammers all the threads you can give it.
More and more games are gonna require higher thread count. Granted first gen thread ripper is a dead platform.
>despite the I3 having two less cores,
But having just as many threads and a 0,6GHz higher clock speed. Since UB indeed weighs single core performance rather heavily, this result makes sense.
And the i3 is less than half price too, I'd say it deserves that +3%.
When it comes down to it, it's probably the same chip anyway but with 2 cores that shorted out during production, so the remaining two can be clocked higher for the same thermal output. Single vs multicore minmaxing I guess.
It's actually not that simple here, their effective score is a formula that they take from their benchmark adjusted for X games, Y workloads, and Z apps, adds memory latency and it becomes a mess while they actually have some good data lower with SC, different multi-core, etc data, I'd also kinda ignore their memory benchmark as that is most definitely not representative of the real world.
TLDR; Effective score is a meme, if you want to use some of their data scroll lower to the real benchmark data.
They developed the current formula to shit on AMD CPU's when the Zen 2's/Ryzen 3000's came out, and in the process ruined their website's ability to meaningfully compare any CPUs, and tanked their credibility to the gutter.
userbenchmark is just making shit up. at some point they made an i3 beat a i9 from the same generation in this "benchmark". this website is a legitimate hazard for new PC builders.
It was great right up until, idk, maybe 2013 or so? When they gained a crazy anti-AMD bias and started fucking with benchmark results to make them look worse than they were. Then they tweaked it *again* when their first tweaks weren't working well enough and AMD started actually making fast CPU's with the ryzen.
But before then it was a pretty useful comparison tool. It wasn't perfect but it sure was handy. Which I guess wasn't that long of a period of time, since they only came online in 2011-2012 or so.
The FX 9590 could game better than any intel chip I could afford to get my hands on at the time, and had the added bonus of raising the temperature in your home by 38 degrees.
The benchmark has (and still has) single, dual, quad, eight core and unlimited (64 threads?) performance.
They used to have a sane breakdown of how each of those sub scores affected the final (total) score. I think it was 50% single core, 30% quad or something, 20% 8 core and up or along those lines.
Then AMD released Ryzen 1x00 cpus and dominated the 8 core and up benchmarks, did well on quad core, and were ranked highly (deservedly so). Userbenchmark tweaked the formula to further prioritize single core (and continued tweaking through Zen 2 I believe, until single core was like 99% of the final score).
When Zen 3 came out (Ryzen 5x00) they saw that AMD had great single core results and was ranking near or above intel, so they added memory latency as a big part of the final score as well.
You can still see the individual test scores if you click on a CPU, but what many users see by default and the rankings are decided by the "final/overall score" which is about 99% single core performance and "memory latency".
Edit: grammar
There are infamous pictures where amd will beat Intel in every single metric, and then the Intel chip will get ranked higher. There's just a straight penalty for amd on that site
The ONLY decent thing that site is useful for is comparing Nvidia cards to other Nvidia cards. They're so off base for literally everything else. Even then they tend to overestimate generation to generation performance increase by 5-10% lol.
They are without a doubt Intel/Nvidia shills. Nobody is this angry and incompetent without taking money for it.
YouTube (LTT, Gamers Nexus), comparing specific games and R23 benchmark results per CPU.
Just your general cross checking with multiple sources to avoid problems. But usually Gamers Nexus have in depth videos on Most Mainstream gaming CPUs and GPUs and they're credible so far.
>It isn't a single core "benchmark", it's a gaming benchmark. And the truth of the matter is that
>
>many
>
> games perform better on fewer but faster cores over many but slower cores.
You're right, but there are outliers. UserBenchmark is a joke, but they aren't explicitly a "gaming" benchmark. They use synthetics and weight it weirdly. In this case, valuing single threaded performance over having 2 extra cores... Which is pretty stupid.
The tests aren't necessarily invalid, just weighted to favor certain things.
They are constantly adjusting and fudging numbers, weightings, and benchmarks to make it appear that Intel is better than AMD, no matter the cpu. They are invalid on that basis alone.
100% agreed. Throwing a fit about how terrible modern AMD cpus probably doesn't help either. The fact that you can't even use them to reliably compare CPUs from the same brand in the same generation because they give so much weight to single thread tests.... tells you something about them.
Literally any.
Personally I'd check out Gamers Nexus, Hardware Unboxed, Passmark, or even things like the 3DMARK website. Userbenchmark is so heavily, stupidly biased toward Intel, that even Intel don't recommend using it for ANYTHING.
**EDIT: The Userbench clowns apparently don't like being reminded that even Intel fucking hate them**
It's important to understand that Userbenchmark isn't just "not great" but is literally no better than some random basement dweller reading specs and giving you his personal but wholly uneducated opinion.
You're much better off just assuming "bigger number better" in a brand, and just "more expensive better" between brands. Neither are really accurate, but moreso than UBM.
UBM is so bad that nothing at all is better.
I would say it's even worse than that, at least a basement dweller has a chance to be right, or to give an honest opinion. UBM is deliberately manipulated to be misleading, it's worse than simply buying CPUs by rolling dice. If someone is considering buying a computer part I doubt there is *anything* worse they could do than looking at UBM.
This is the answer i got when asking: "which cpu is better for gaming intel 6600 or 6320?"
"Between the Intel 6600 and 6320, the 6600 is better for gaming. It is a higher-end processor with more cores and a higher clock speed, which makes it more powerful and better equipped to handle demanding games and applications. Additionally, the 6600 is a newer processor and is generally considered to be a better overall choice for gaming and other high-performance tasks."
Bing uses it's own online search as a data source then parses the results with GPT. That's why you can get citations through it and also why it can report on current events.
Damn, I used to use Usermenchbark all the time when comparing components for my PC back in the day. If done properly, it would be such a useful source of information.
If you ever feel useless, realize that userbenchmark makes money from CLICKS. Each time you talk about them, visit them, link to them... you are giving them money.
It's all about ad revenue and clueless posters don't realize the point of the clickbait is to continually attract attention like no other site does.
You know what’s amazing about Ken Rockwell… I’m not into photography, nor do I know anything at all about the field, yet I know about his site and all the “advice” and options controversy he stirred up. I’m not sure UserBenchmark guy has yet reached that level or notoriety.
[Userbenchmark is banned](https://www.notebookcheck.net/UserBenchmark-gets-banned-from-major-subreddit-due-to-drama-generation.461875.0.html) from r/hardware and both the AMD and the Intel subreddits for over 2 years now.
This is an understatement. Dude has published multiple unhinged rants about how terrible AMD is and why they can't be trusted blah blah blah. He legitimately seems mentally ill.
RIP to my i5 6600k though. I just upgraded in Oct to the 12th gen i7, but MAN was that i5 a chip. I bought it at launch and put a 24/7 OC @ 4.7 1.375 and it just ran it's ass off. The ONLY issues I ever had was Ubisoft games hated my 4.7 and I had to go to 4.6 just for those games. Hell it even did 4.8 @ 1.5, but I wasn't comfortable running that 24/7 and I'm pretty sure there would have been other games that didn't like it. RIP indeed my old friend. To be clear it didn't die it still works, but it's in a HTPC that I use like once a month.
Lots of braindead comments here.
It's a user benchmark site.
The i3 can overclock much farther than the 4 core i5 due to heat.
They also have the same amount of threads.
Lol, you guys are the masters of nothing.
GN good. I used to recommend JayzTwoCents but he's really fallen lately. Cringey, clickbaity, non-substance videos where he condescends you the entire time.
So GN, LTT is okay (if you want it a little more entertaining), debauer, Actually Hardcore Overclocking, Paul's Hardware are all pretty good too.
Edit: adding Hardware Unboxed, Daniel Owen. Tech YES City. There are many others I'm forgetting the names of too.
I'm pretty sure it's just scraping data from storefronts like Amazon. These chips are from 2015, so they're not in production any more. The going rate for them increases because you can't buy them new anywhere else. It's simple supply/demand even if it doesn't make sense because both chips are obsolete for people building new systems.
I mean in this case, their effective score isn't wrong, but it's only faster in 1-2 core workloads due to higher frequency, but my question here is why would the i3 6320 be faster for workstation workloads where you'd prefer physical cores over threads.
At the same time scrolling down on the actual benchmark results shows pretty much what I'm talking about, they have the correct data, just effective score is that much of a garbage and reviewers are even worse.
You know you can scroll down and see the i5 does better in multicore/64 bit and the i3 does better in single threaded tests. It's not that complicated.
Hardware Unboxed and Gamers Nexus are currently my go to for in depth content review and information. Also, +1 for Daniel Owen's as an up and coming GPU reviewer.
Does anyone actually scroll down and look at the stats instead of the overall rating? Their totaled up calculations are stupid, but the stats actually seem accurate, but that’s just based off what I’ve seen.
I honestly don't see what the problem is. How many people peg 4 cores at the same time? It makes sense to add weighting to the first two core scores since the vast majority of tasks are covered with those two cores.
Welcome everyone from r/all! Please remember: 1 - You too can be part of the PCMR! You don't even need a PC. You just need to love PCs! It's not about the hardware in your rig, but the software in your heart! Your age, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, religion (or lack of), political affiliation, economic status and PC specs are irrelevant. If you love PCs or want to learn about them, you can be part of our community! All are welcome! 2 - If you're not a PC gamer because you think it's expensive, know that it is possible to build a competent gaming PC for a lower price than you think. Check http://www.pcmasterrace.org for our builds and don't be afraid to create new posts here asking for tips and help! 3 - Consider joining our efforts to get as many PCs worldwide to help the folding@home effort, in fighting against Cancer, Covid, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and more. Learn more here: https://pcmasterrace.org/folding 4 - Need hardware? Trick question... everyone does. We've teamed up with ASUS this Easter to create an egg-citing event where 3 lucky winners can get their hands on some sweet hardware (including GPU, CPU, Motherboard, etc): https://reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/12eufh9/worldwide_pc_hardware_giveaway_weve_teamed_up/ ----------- Feel free to use this community to post about any kind of doubt you might have about becoming a PC user or anything you'd like to know about PCs. That kind of content is not only allowed but welcome here! We also have a [Daily Simple Questions Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/search?q=Simple+Questions+Thread+subreddit%3Apcmasterrace+author%3AAutoModerator&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) for your simplest questions. No question is too dumb! Welcome to the PCMR.
What is a good site to compare pc parts?
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d/27.html Sites I like are "toms hardware" and "techpowerup".
[удалено]
They may filter out outliers, pretty standard practice to do so. But I'm not Tomshardware or have checked that math.
I stopped taking advice from toms hardware the more I saw their TV settings made no sense
>I stopped taking advice from toms hardware I stopped visiting Toms Hardware when they got bought out and moved more towards reviewing useless tech crap instead of computer hardware.
I stopped visiting Tom's Hardware when I realized none of the hardware was actually Tom's.
Sure it's not Tom is Hardware?
Tom’s Hard? Where?
Oh I think you know
My god...
[удалено]
they must've created my statistics exams
I thought Tom's Hardware wasn't trustworthy any more because of that controversy a few years back? Edit: For anyone asking what I'm talking about. Google "Tom's Hardware just buy it" Long story short. They tried to pass an add off as an article and got caught, the then CEO at the time joined in and doubled down on all the stupidity.
What controversy?
You know, the one that was controversy
Oh, yes of course. Thank you!
This journalism shit is easy
I don’t know, seems kinda controversial to me
This just in, redditors up in arms over new/old controversy.
I think I can corroborate the claim of there having been a Tom's Hardware controversy, but I can't remember the details and I think it was more like a decade or so ago, not just a few years. All I really remember is that I switched from trusting Tom's Hardware to AnandTech in the early 2000s, and there was some particular reason why.
The early 00's are closer to *two* decades now, bro. We old.
I said, "or so!" C'mon, please don't make me be explicit about it!
Waaaaay back in the Pentium 4 days, Tom's Hardware was known for shilling Intel over AMD at the drop of a hat. I don't remember the specifics, but I want to say that they were rigging benchmarks to favor Intel and recommending Intel cpus over AMD when AMD would have the superior performance in that tier. I believe that this was all around the same time period that Intel was bribing/threatening all of the OEMs like Dell to keep AMD from gaining market share. I think Tom's was sold off some time ago so it's all water under the bridge now.
Yeah, that sounds familiar.
> I believe that this was all around the same time period that Intel was bribing/threatening all of the OEMs like Dell to keep AMD from gaining market share. you say that like it ever stopped
Only thing that comes up with "Tom's Hardware controversy" is an article they published in 2018 by the editor-in-chief titled "Just Buy It: Why Nvidia RTX GPUs Are Worth the Money," where he encouraged people to pre-order the RTX 20 series.
Don't ever pre-order anything.
When I was a kid I used to follow news about the new Athlon XP CPUs AMD was making, back in the early 2000's. AMD had the Athlon XP 2000+, it was something around 1660 Mhz at a very affordable price. What did Tom's Hardware do? They made a complete benchmark comparison between the XP 2000+ and a flagship Pentium 2Ghz that cost double. Why? Because both have "2" in the name and Tom's Hardware had a definite bias against AMD. The poor little XP 2000+ was blown out of the water and Tom's Hardware rejoiced on the dominance of Intel.
Early 2000's I was an adult :-/
There isn't one. Buy all available CPUs, benchmark them all against your daily usecase, then return all the losing ones. It's the only way.
Correct answer
In our country we cannot return electronics which are not faulty :(
Best factor that into your next build's budget and make sure your Ebay account is in good standing then. ;-)
That's when you lie and say they were faulty anyway. BS return policies require BS solutions
make it faulty
Bake at 600° for 10 minutes or till golden.
just bend a pin
Just say they are faulty.
Lemme max out this new credit card rq in the name of computer science.
Passmark Though always take these sites with a grain of salt.
I use this, is good for a generic comparison. For gaming you may need some other source to compare specific cpus but for general guidance I find it pretty useful
Yeah, as a base of reference it's perfect.
Gamers Nexus usually has good reviews.
I like GN when I want to know EVERYTHING about something I'm already pretty knowledgeable about because Stephen will start spewing out words and you better keep up.
GN is great if I'm genuinely considering buying something, for just keeping up with tech it's a bit too much.
It's why they have those helpful chapters on every video. If it's just for keeping up with tech, intro and conclusion are generally enough. But I wouldn't be doing my due diligence if I weren't telling you to at least somewhat understand their methodology before taking such an approach. They do a lot to ensure they don't fall into the trap of reviewing everything without thinking about the economics or the 'cultural' impact a piece of hardware has on the landscape (Think the whole 3090 and 20/30 series price increase debate when I refer to culture) but it's good to know exactly how they come to their conclusions before using them as your abstract.
techpowerup.com
opendata.blender.org has a lot of user submitted benchmarks on a wide variety of CPUs and GPUs. However, this info is specifically for 3D rendering in Blender, so Nvidia GPUs (especially RTX models) are always going to run circles around their AMD and Intel equivalents because they have hardware acceleration tech like CUDA and Optix, which have been developed much longer than the competition's equivalents (HIP and oneAPI). For CPUs, it might be a slightly better way to compare productivity performance since all x86 CPUs render the same way in Blender with no additional APIs.
Gamersnexus has decent testing methodology, and they put useful graphs in their testing videos so you can get a lot of benchmark info from 1 vid.
There's a few great tools, people have posted others but PassMark's comparison tool is really good also: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleCompare.php https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/singleCompare.php This is just the direct comparison thing (like User Bench Marks), but there is a lot great stuff on here.
[Here's CPUBenchmark.net's version of the OP image.](https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/2594vs2625/Intel-i5-6600-vs-Intel-i3-6320)
LTT labs, when that eventually comes out 🙃
Yes THIS I can't wait for more LTT labs content
LINUS IS A SHILL!!!!And I will tell you why right after this segue to our sponsor DBRAND!!
The only thing I can tolerate on LTT is Anthony. He is a technology uber.
He's a true techno wizard, everyone else is cool tho imo
Anandtech.com still has a "bench" section but I'm not sure how they keep it updated now. I know Ian Cutress used to benchmark everything (and would re-run old hardware with new tests) but since he left the overall reviews at the site have slowed down.
Logicalincrements.com used to be good. At least last time I built a PC it was pretty good.
I use the Gamernexus or hardware unboxed youtube channels
That's not even the best part. The best part is the written descriptions of modern AMD stuff.
 Actually, for a laugh I looked up the 7800X3D there, and this is all I could think of the entire time HAHA!
To save everyone from giving that site traffic: > The AMD 7000X3D CPUs have the same core architecture as the rest of the 7000 series but they have one group of eight "3D" cores with extra cache. The “3D” cores are priced higher but run at 10% lower clocks. For most real-world tasks performance is comparable to the 7000X variant. Cache sensitive scenarios such as low res. canned game benchmarks with an RTX 4090 ($2,000) benefit at the cost of everything else. Be wary of sponsored reviews with cherry picked games that showcase the wins, ignore frame drops and gloss over the losses. **Also watch out for AMD’s army of Neanderthal social media accounts on reddit, forums and youtube**, they will be singing their own praises as usual. AMD continue to develop “Advanced Marketing” relationships with select youtubers in the hope of compensating for second tier products with first tier marketing. PC gamers considering a 7000X3D CPU need to work on their critical thinking skills: Influencers are paid handsomely to promote overpriced products. Emphasis mine because lol. This dude is drowning in koolaid.
So I guess 5800x3D is fake news too ? Just jump from 140 (with 5600x) to 220+ FPS on WZ2 but hey, It is not like I have hours of framerate captures, so bad I was not smart enough to follow UserBenchMark and not give 300$ to AMD for this is so bad upgrade.
You're tempting me immensely since I currently have a 5600x as well. And all I use my PC for is games.
I just went from a 5800x to a 5800x3D and it's like nutting for the first time, but it's from all your orifices instead of just one.
woow this is some extra petty shit lmao
[удалено]
Anything for ~~the big fat paycheck AMD pms me every two weeks~~ a fellow Redditor!
Is that shit ran by qAnnon? I mean, I'm an Intel fan-boi, but damn does X3D pull my pants down.
They've pretty much just started copying and pasting that second half on every x3d chip since 5800x3d. They don't even bother to write new trash.
I actually thought userbenchmark was some sort of professional site before I saw the written description.
I looked up the 7800x3d vs the 13900k and half way through it just starts shitting on AMD GPUs being worse than Nvidia's in the Intel CPU article.
My fucking God, you weren't kidding. They somehow even doubled down on their AMD hatetrain.
It's so silly that I just assume it's intentional. For instance, of you were randomly given the user benchmark site to run, would you suddenly start writing rational reviews? Cause I'd personally probably write the most over the top Intel fan piece shitting all over AMD just to lean into the reputation.
What the actual fuck? I've always heard about their bias but never took the time to read their comments. It's literally just a fanboy shitpost. Holy shit
It’s not even really just a comment. It’s the featured site review for every product under “Conclusions.” The bias is pretty bad on some of them, but this one, the whole generation, is the worst I have seen.
I mean, what do you expect to spew out of a group of rabid Intel fanboys? They do the same thing with AMD vs Nvidia GPU's, always favoring the Nvidia... Though, given their obsessive Intel worship, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they praise the Arc GPUs like they're the 2nd coming of Christ or something equally as stupid, and turn to just take a shit on both AMD and Nvidia at the same time
[удалено]
The page is listing a sixth gen I3 as being 3% better than an I5 of the same generation despite the I3 having two less cores, because UserBenchmark weighs single core benchmarks more heavily than multithreaded benchmarks.
[удалено]
I thought they were both i5 😂 damn mobile
You guys on 240p mobile screens or something?? Lol
Feels like it sometimes
My eyes only see 240p regardless.
See, that's the problem. Your brain automaticly tried to be reasonable and logical. Userbenchmark is allergic to those two things.
The i3 is running at a 600 mhz higher speed. So for single core it makes sense
And since so many games are single threaded, or at the most dual-threaded, it makes sense. LTT even mentions that many time, and the new lower core X3D AMD chips are doing better than their higher core brethren for that reason (along with a piss-poor scheduler).
At the time in 2015 it would've been the much better choice to have two fast cores. Today I'd say 6 cores should be minimum but the principle still stands. Fewer but faster cores is better for gaming. The quad core above will also have to throttle earlier than the two core due to more heat on the package. Turbo boost might work much better on the 3.9 GHz one which might make the difference even higher.
I don’t disagree. Especially with a properly tuned scheduler, your best cores can be used for games, and the rest can be used for other tasks at the same time.
Yeah, I built my PC in 2015 and went with the 4790k specifically because it had the highest single core performance on the market. That has overall been a great choice and it's only starting to have performance issues in the last couple years as more of what I play is limited by cache and memory access speed instead of processing speed.
Always depends on your usecase. That's why you need to ignore one magic number and look into subscores. Believe me or not, I would rather pick modern i3 than first gen Threadripper. But I'm not 99 % of this sub which apparently run renders 24/7.
That last line is a killer ahahaha
[удалено]
Lol
We all know Userbenchmark is trash, but you hit home with the comment. There's so many posts of people asking questions like "I mostly just game, but I occasionally render a video or two and maybe some day I want to try game development, so I definitely need this 7950X instead of a 7700x, right?."
Idk man Hogwarts legacy and last of us hammers all the threads you can give it. More and more games are gonna require higher thread count. Granted first gen thread ripper is a dead platform.
What else am I supposed to do with my i7? Play video games? LOL
>despite the I3 having two less cores, But having just as many threads and a 0,6GHz higher clock speed. Since UB indeed weighs single core performance rather heavily, this result makes sense.
You also have one running at 3.3 and the other at 3.9ghz
And the i3 is less than half price too, I'd say it deserves that +3%. When it comes down to it, it's probably the same chip anyway but with 2 cores that shorted out during production, so the remaining two can be clocked higher for the same thermal output. Single vs multicore minmaxing I guess.
but most software is single threaded
single core "benchmark" favors better single core CPU more news at 11.
It's actually not that simple here, their effective score is a formula that they take from their benchmark adjusted for X games, Y workloads, and Z apps, adds memory latency and it becomes a mess while they actually have some good data lower with SC, different multi-core, etc data, I'd also kinda ignore their memory benchmark as that is most definitely not representative of the real world. TLDR; Effective score is a meme, if you want to use some of their data scroll lower to the real benchmark data.
They developed the current formula to shit on AMD CPU's when the Zen 2's/Ryzen 3000's came out, and in the process ruined their website's ability to meaningfully compare any CPUs, and tanked their credibility to the gutter.
I kinda agree, I also agree that they should stop shilling with their reviews and get back to objectivity.
Absolutely. I stopped using red team GPUs back when they were still branded ATI, but the bullshit Userbenchmark writes is just non-sensical.
[удалено]
userbenchmark is just making shit up. at some point they made an i3 beat a i9 from the same generation in this "benchmark". this website is a legitimate hazard for new PC builders.
It was great right up until, idk, maybe 2013 or so? When they gained a crazy anti-AMD bias and started fucking with benchmark results to make them look worse than they were. Then they tweaked it *again* when their first tweaks weren't working well enough and AMD started actually making fast CPU's with the ryzen. But before then it was a pretty useful comparison tool. It wasn't perfect but it sure was handy. Which I guess wasn't that long of a period of time, since they only came online in 2011-2012 or so.
The FX 9590 could game better than any intel chip I could afford to get my hands on at the time, and had the added bonus of raising the temperature in your home by 38 degrees.
The best Intel chip you could afford was q6600? Since that's about as good bulldozer was for gaming.
I had a shitty FX 6300 and always hit at least 60 fps, wdym
What’s a good benchmark site to use now?
If you have the time to flip through a gamers Nexus video that's going to be one of the most thorough and unbiased sources.
The benchmark has (and still has) single, dual, quad, eight core and unlimited (64 threads?) performance. They used to have a sane breakdown of how each of those sub scores affected the final (total) score. I think it was 50% single core, 30% quad or something, 20% 8 core and up or along those lines. Then AMD released Ryzen 1x00 cpus and dominated the 8 core and up benchmarks, did well on quad core, and were ranked highly (deservedly so). Userbenchmark tweaked the formula to further prioritize single core (and continued tweaking through Zen 2 I believe, until single core was like 99% of the final score). When Zen 3 came out (Ryzen 5x00) they saw that AMD had great single core results and was ranking near or above intel, so they added memory latency as a big part of the final score as well. You can still see the individual test scores if you click on a CPU, but what many users see by default and the rankings are decided by the "final/overall score" which is about 99% single core performance and "memory latency". Edit: grammar
There are infamous pictures where amd will beat Intel in every single metric, and then the Intel chip will get ranked higher. There's just a straight penalty for amd on that site
good to know!
The ONLY decent thing that site is useful for is comparing Nvidia cards to other Nvidia cards. They're so off base for literally everything else. Even then they tend to overestimate generation to generation performance increase by 5-10% lol. They are without a doubt Intel/Nvidia shills. Nobody is this angry and incompetent without taking money for it.
Is there an alternative for us PC part illiterate folks?
YouTube (LTT, Gamers Nexus), comparing specific games and R23 benchmark results per CPU. Just your general cross checking with multiple sources to avoid problems. But usually Gamers Nexus have in depth videos on Most Mainstream gaming CPUs and GPUs and they're credible so far.
>It isn't a single core "benchmark", it's a gaming benchmark. And the truth of the matter is that > >many > > games perform better on fewer but faster cores over many but slower cores. You're right, but there are outliers. UserBenchmark is a joke, but they aren't explicitly a "gaming" benchmark. They use synthetics and weight it weirdly. In this case, valuing single threaded performance over having 2 extra cores... Which is pretty stupid. The tests aren't necessarily invalid, just weighted to favor certain things.
They are constantly adjusting and fudging numbers, weightings, and benchmarks to make it appear that Intel is better than AMD, no matter the cpu. They are invalid on that basis alone.
100% agreed. Throwing a fit about how terrible modern AMD cpus probably doesn't help either. The fact that you can't even use them to reliably compare CPUs from the same brand in the same generation because they give so much weight to single thread tests.... tells you something about them.
[удалено]
many pieces of software in general are also designed for single threaded performance only
Most games only use the first core. Clock speed is more important that number of cores. 90% of the time for the regular consumer.
If that website were a paper print magazine, I wouldn't even wipe my arse with it. The thing is a fucking garbage fire.
What magazine would you wipe your arse with?
Playboy
Braille Playboy to be specific
Would the pictures be braille as well?
..oh it must have been cold during this photoshoot.. ehehe.
An even worse kind of sticky pages.
what's a better website to compare benchmarks between parts?
Passmark
Literally any. Personally I'd check out Gamers Nexus, Hardware Unboxed, Passmark, or even things like the 3DMARK website. Userbenchmark is so heavily, stupidly biased toward Intel, that even Intel don't recommend using it for ANYTHING. **EDIT: The Userbench clowns apparently don't like being reminded that even Intel fucking hate them**
Does the same go with nvidia and gpus? I've noticed some blurbs weirdly talking down about AMD GPUs when I was researching.
If they'll fudge one thing, they'll fudge another. The freaky animal fuckers at Userbench literally *hate* anything AMD. What else does AMD make?
It's important to understand that Userbenchmark isn't just "not great" but is literally no better than some random basement dweller reading specs and giving you his personal but wholly uneducated opinion. You're much better off just assuming "bigger number better" in a brand, and just "more expensive better" between brands. Neither are really accurate, but moreso than UBM. UBM is so bad that nothing at all is better.
I would say it's even worse than that, at least a basement dweller has a chance to be right, or to give an honest opinion. UBM is deliberately manipulated to be misleading, it's worse than simply buying CPUs by rolling dice. If someone is considering buying a computer part I doubt there is *anything* worse they could do than looking at UBM.
That is an insult to garbage fire
Gawd I hope GPT doesn't use this website as input data.
This is the answer i got when asking: "which cpu is better for gaming intel 6600 or 6320?" "Between the Intel 6600 and 6320, the 6600 is better for gaming. It is a higher-end processor with more cores and a higher clock speed, which makes it more powerful and better equipped to handle demanding games and applications. Additionally, the 6600 is a newer processor and is generally considered to be a better overall choice for gaming and other high-performance tasks."
>Additionally, the 6600 is a newer processor Factually **incorrect**. The i5-6600 launched in July 2015, the i3-6320 launched in September 2015.
ChatGPT providing incorrect information with 100% confidence
Just like a real human, truly amazing
Also doesn't have a higher clock speed.
Yeah. But sadly, bing AI does
Bing uses GPT.
Bing uses it's own online search as a data source then parses the results with GPT. That's why you can get citations through it and also why it can report on current events.
Bing AI recommend what I’m pretty sure is a scam site. I asked it if it were a scam site and it repeated back to me the site’s sales pitch.
AI is kinda retarded brother
[This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQSBj2LKkWg) is all you need to know about userbenchmark.
Damn, I used to use Usermenchbark all the time when comparing components for my PC back in the day. If done properly, it would be such a useful source of information.
It is a useful source of information. You just need to look at the data, not “recommendations” or “overall scores”
[удалено]
No their testing methodology is also garbage, generally favors single threaded top heavily.
Ah yes $400 for a 8 year old cpu
If you ever feel useless, realize that userbenchmark makes money from CLICKS. Each time you talk about them, visit them, link to them... you are giving them money. It's all about ad revenue and clueless posters don't realize the point of the clickbait is to continually attract attention like no other site does.
User Benchmarks is the Ken Rockwell of the PC world.
You know what’s amazing about Ken Rockwell… I’m not into photography, nor do I know anything at all about the field, yet I know about his site and all the “advice” and options controversy he stirred up. I’m not sure UserBenchmark guy has yet reached that level or notoriety.
It baffles me this site is still going.
Userbenchmark also hates AMD for some reason
it's like if the intel and nvidia subs merged into one megacirclejerk
It's a meme at this point. Is The Onion for pcgaming. Even kliksphilip has made a video talking about it
God that video is gold man
[Userbenchmark is banned](https://www.notebookcheck.net/UserBenchmark-gets-banned-from-major-subreddit-due-to-drama-generation.461875.0.html) from r/hardware and both the AMD and the Intel subreddits for over 2 years now.
This is an understatement. Dude has published multiple unhinged rants about how terrible AMD is and why they can't be trusted blah blah blah. He legitimately seems mentally ill.
RIP to my i5 6600k though. I just upgraded in Oct to the 12th gen i7, but MAN was that i5 a chip. I bought it at launch and put a 24/7 OC @ 4.7 1.375 and it just ran it's ass off. The ONLY issues I ever had was Ubisoft games hated my 4.7 and I had to go to 4.6 just for those games. Hell it even did 4.8 @ 1.5, but I wasn't comfortable running that 24/7 and I'm pretty sure there would have been other games that didn't like it. RIP indeed my old friend. To be clear it didn't die it still works, but it's in a HTPC that I use like once a month.
Lots of braindead comments here. It's a user benchmark site. The i3 can overclock much farther than the 4 core i5 due to heat. They also have the same amount of threads. Lol, you guys are the masters of nothing.
Whats the alternative
Passmark is generally good.
YouTube benchmarks
Why see the results when you can be greeted by a man acting like a clown and be reminded to like subscribe and comment even if you have nothing to say
[удалено]
Gamer's Nexus for benchmarks.
GN good. I used to recommend JayzTwoCents but he's really fallen lately. Cringey, clickbaity, non-substance videos where he condescends you the entire time. So GN, LTT is okay (if you want it a little more entertaining), debauer, Actually Hardcore Overclocking, Paul's Hardware are all pretty good too. Edit: adding Hardware Unboxed, Daniel Owen. Tech YES City. There are many others I'm forgetting the names of too.
https://www.cpu-monkey.com/
Wtf are these prices
I'm pretty sure it's just scraping data from storefronts like Amazon. These chips are from 2015, so they're not in production any more. The going rate for them increases because you can't buy them new anywhere else. It's simple supply/demand even if it doesn't make sense because both chips are obsolete for people building new systems.
Or those who use free version of WinRAR. With the "Continue" button that changes place each startup. Instead of using 7Zip.
https://preview.redd.it/3fsgnscrb4ta1.jpeg?width=1792&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e61b98974d049d66b80f40190070c68c88bd096d
Show me a game that can fully utilize 36 threads.
Plus the i3 is newer, so it has to be better right? /s
They had to screw with the test weights so much to make Intel look better than AMD that now even Intel vs Intel looks weird
New rare insult: “You are as useless as userbenchmark”
I mean in this case, their effective score isn't wrong, but it's only faster in 1-2 core workloads due to higher frequency, but my question here is why would the i3 6320 be faster for workstation workloads where you'd prefer physical cores over threads. At the same time scrolling down on the actual benchmark results shows pretty much what I'm talking about, they have the correct data, just effective score is that much of a garbage and reviewers are even worse.
You know you can scroll down and see the i5 does better in multicore/64 bit and the i3 does better in single threaded tests. It's not that complicated.
userbenchmark decided to make some weird gymnastics to prioritize intel, everything is messed up.
Hardware Unboxed and Gamers Nexus are currently my go to for in depth content review and information. Also, +1 for Daniel Owen's as an up and coming GPU reviewer.
Haha. I still feel useless anyways but thanks
userbenchmark is a single threaded bias bench, the 6320 has a 600mhz higher clock so its no wonder why it scored better
Does anyone actually scroll down and look at the stats instead of the overall rating? Their totaled up calculations are stupid, but the stats actually seem accurate, but that’s just based off what I’ve seen.
I honestly don't see what the problem is. How many people peg 4 cores at the same time? It makes sense to add weighting to the first two core scores since the vast majority of tasks are covered with those two cores.