userbenchmark updated their cpu performance index calculation to reflect more on single and quad core results, and a lot less on multi core results if you check the top 10 and top 20 cpus, you'll notice it's mostly intel now, even though in actual WORK-related tasks they're vastly inferior to AMD's offerings
previous weighing: >10% multi core >60% quad core >30% single core new weighing: >2% multi core (KEK) >58% quad core >40% single core the resulting move displays AMD cpus at a major disadvantage, making them look as if they're a lot slower than in reality now a 8350 has a higher CPU performance index than a 2990WX post yfw userbenchmark pulls a >cores don't matter! >multithreading doesn't matter!
lolwut Who actually uses userbenchmark? Gaymers? Anyone with a defined use case already should know what they're going to buy
Isaac Morales
forgot link: cpu.userbenchmark.com/Faq/What-is-the-effective-CPU-speed-index/55 >Gaming CPU performance does not typically scale well with core count. Extra cores work well for server and workstation orientated workloads where there are often several CPU intensive tasks running simultaneously. Beware the army of shills who would happily sell ice to Eskimos.
Zachary Wilson
And why is there a unified score in the first place? Why not split it into single/quad (why quad and not dual?)/multi numbers from the get go?
Adam Moore
classic shenanigans. oh the CPU we expect to win is losing? then let's redefine what's important.
then why is qc 58% of the score?
Jackson Bennett
yeah dude, cores don't matter, that's why the game I've made and released is aware of as many threads as your system can provide and the more cores you throw at it, the higher your fps is going to be
Hudson Taylor
>higher your fps
Ryan Jackson
>semantics you know exactly what I mean
Michael Hernandez
Yeah fuck you Jow Forums. Fucking shilling your ice and shit. Intel is future!
Luis Davis
I think you meant "single core is the future"
Sebastian Rivera
damn, that's some spicy damage-control
Ethan Baker
>video encoding speed doesn't matter whatever helps you sleep at night
Eli Myers
>Why not split it into single/quad (why quad and not dual?)/multi numbers from the get go? What are you talking about? There's always been a split score in there if you scroll down just a little, I always ignored the unified score because it never made any sense and compared by the split partial scores.
on the very bottom of the userbenchmark page, covered by a popup you can close, is a 'feedback' button. spam that with 'Our effective CPU index is now sponsored by Intel:TM:.' or something similar
Tyler Davis
>lowering the multicore weight this hard >when more and more games are starting to actually use those cores Seriously, just ask the retards who fell for the 7700K how it performs on modern games, it's fucking retarded. At least they should have replaced the quad core test with six or eight cores.
Jeremiah Collins
What a crock of shit, GTA V and bf1 ran like shit on my quad thread 4690k @4.5ghz. nothing but CPU bottlenecking.
Henry Gutierrez
4 CORES 4 EVA LOL
Jason White
Quad cores are a fucking joke for gaming these days.
Jason Reyes
Yeah intelbux have been flowing like mad lately, they know they have nothing
CPU-Z is intel biased now? didn't use it for a few years but alwaysed liked the program
Landon Davis
CPU-Z got "patched" after they found out AMD's branch predictor owned the benchmark. Happened like a year ago. The excuse was "it's not a realistic performance indicator" or something
userbenchmark would just ban amd cpus since they will be better and being better than intel cpus is antisemitic so it is hateful therefore it is hatespeech.
It largely doesn't. I just put together a Ryzen 2700 system in the other room, ran a couple encodes on it, yet am happily crunching away on a 50 episode BD series here on my i7 4790. (and I'm thinking of releasing another, smaller encode, which would put it at 100 episodes encoded) That 2700 is going to need a new cooler to quiet it down (the stock isn't loud but it's still too noisy for my main) and the mobo is severely lacking in SATA ports so I'm going to need to find a RAID card before I could even consider it for my main, and I'm really in no hurry to get it finished. Oh yeah, I'd need another 8GB DDR4 too. In all likelihood I will never do the swap since moving 8 drives over is a lot of work and I'm really happy with quietness of my main, so I'll probably just end up remoting into the Ryzen to run the occasional large encode while doing most everything else on my i7.
Having more than twice the encoding performance just isn't that big a deal since proofing subs takes longer than the encode.
Saying that multicore is the be all and end all of CPU performance is hilariously overstating the case. If I'm in no hurry to do the swap with PCs I literally have in my house as an encoder, guess what the value is to the vast majority of PC users?
Luis Walker
>That 2700 is going to need a new cooler to quiet it down >I'd need another 8GB DDR4 too. >the mobo is severely lacking in SATA ports >I'm going to need to find a RAID card so you built a ryzen PC, presumably for its superior video encoding performance, but you refuse to actually put in any of the hardware to make it useful for encoding your 8 jiggabytes of anime >Having more than twice the encoding performance just isn't that big a deal since proofing subs takes longer than the encode. you would still be saving 200% more time on encoding >Saying that multicore is the be all and end all of CPU performance is hilariously overstating the case. >If I'm in no hurry to do the swap with PCs I literally have in my house as an encoder, guess what the value is to the vast majority of PC users i'm not even sure how your encoder PC swap anecdote is even relevant to multicore performance, it sounds to me that you built a ryzen PC to replace your i7 but gave up when you realized you can't plan a build for shit
Ethan Thomas
>he spends $5k on all his builds
My 4790/GTX 1060 build was $280. The Ryzen is at $375, but that will come down after I sell the 1050 Ti and 2200G it came with.
The cheapest AM4 motherboard with 8 SATA ports looks to be $154 on its own. See why I don't have one? I have a spare 212 EVO but it's too old for AM4 compatibility, as is the one attached to my 4790. I'm not keen on spending $30 on a brand new one.
I put together what I find. With the i7 I managed a build with zero compromises. With the Ryzen there are a few.
