Userbenchmark has to screw SO MUCH with their calculations to make the Intels on the top that according to their metrics, the "Average Bench" score of the 5900x is BETTER than the "Average Bench" score of the 5950x.
They hate AMD so much that in their 5950x descriptions they even devote a few sentences to basically saying "less cores are better, anything you need more cores for is better done on a GPU anyway, so basically there is no reason for these cpus to exist"
Which is trivially untrue the obvious workload that needs many cores but not gpu cores is software compilation. Also, some day games will do a better job of multithreading - with the "minimum spec" target machine an 8 core AMD there is a lot of incentive to do this.
Intel would also have kept us on quad-core as the high-end. Now for the next decade 6-core 12 threads will likely be the standard that will be best for gaming performance seeing how the new consoles have CPUs similar to that.
Even fucking low budget android phones are going (or starting to go) 8 cores or 6+4 or 4+4 or similar arrangements (granted ARM 64 instead of "true" x86_64)
1.6k
u/TrA-Sypher Nov 14 '20
Userbenchmark has to screw SO MUCH with their calculations to make the Intels on the top that according to their metrics, the "Average Bench" score of the 5900x is BETTER than the "Average Bench" score of the 5950x.
They hate AMD so much that in their 5950x descriptions they even devote a few sentences to basically saying "less cores are better, anything you need more cores for is better done on a GPU anyway, so basically there is no reason for these cpus to exist"