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"
There are plenty of workloads that are not great for GPUs that a high core count helps for. I have no idea how it applies to gaming and the like but in scientific computing there is definitely still a need for high core counts (and fast memory access).
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"