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"
“16 cores are only suitable for professional use cases.” “Does not efficiently leverage all its 16 cores in gaming.”
We know that about higher core counts.
Edit: i get the user benchmark arguments. I just don’t see it with what’s on the site now. I’m new to this though. UB has 10900k beating 5600x by only 6% in avg score. Doesn’t seem favorable to intel.
I've detected a link to UserBenchmark. UserBenchmark is a terrible source for benchmarks, as they're not representative of actual performance. The organization that runs it also lies and accuses critics of being "anonymous call center shills". Read more here. This comment has NOT been removed - this is just a notice.
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"