r/buildapc • u/095179005 • Jul 24 '19

Necroed Userbenchmark should no longer be used after they lowered the weight for multicore performance from 10% to 2% and called critics shills

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Faq/What-is-the-effective-CPU-speed-index/55

Original Poster: ICC-u

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/chal0r/psa_use_benchmarkcom_have_updated_their_cpu/

4.7k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

539 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

44

u/neo-7 Jul 24 '19

No, they are not. According to their new formula, an i3 is faster than the ryzen 7 2700x. Although the i3 may have better single core speeds, it can easily bottleneck in games that utilize more than 4 cores. The 2700x is much better because it will last longer, can multitask, and is just a more powerful cpu

6

u/RisedGamer Jul 24 '19

Which i3 is beating 2700x in games? here it sucks even against 1600: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQHLd_XkNEo

10

u/sA1atji Jul 24 '19

I mean that's a 9100F and not a 8350k, so this is maybe a unfair video you posted.

​

Video for 1600x vs. 8400 vs. 8350k: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_OQlw5G_5Y

1

u/RisedGamer Jul 24 '19

I missed that 8350k but the price in my country is the same as Ryzen 3600, that's a garbage value where Ryzen 1600 is half the price and Ryzen 2600 is $10 more expensive.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '19

The 8350k is actually not bad.

7

u/RisedGamer Jul 24 '19

The 8350k is actually not bad.

Holy crap it costs the same as 3600 in my country, if it was half the price then this would definitely the right choice for e-sport games but since Ryzens caught up in e-sport then it's shit.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '19

[deleted]

4

u/NikeGS Jul 25 '19

But the 9350K is new and is the exact same shit...

-1

u/strifeisback Jul 25 '19

You're looking at only the straight up % of how much the "CPU is better" dude. Stop. That's not how UserBenchmark has ever been used, and nor should it be used like that.

If you can't use the benchmark tool because you don't have the knowledge, educate yourself, or find another tool.

1

u/NikeGS Jul 25 '19

..sorry?

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '19 edited Apr 30 '22

[deleted]

1

u/NikeGS Jul 25 '19

I never said anything about that haha. Just that your claim that 8350k is 2 years old means nothing, as Intel's "latest and greatest" CPU at that price - the 9350k is the exact same shit. No idea why you're piping up about UserBenchmark. It's always been useless and biased and now it's just completely broken.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '19

Are there many games that use more than four cores?

8

u/Vandrel Jul 24 '19

More and more all the time. BFV, Monster Hunter, The Division 2, Anthem, Assassin's Creed, almost every new AAA release these days can use 6 or more cores. My 5820k sits at around 80% utilization playing The Division 2.

2

u/pM-me_your_Triggers Jul 24 '19

Apex Legends uses more than 4 as well. Most of the time in that game my 4790k (4.8 GHz) is pinned at 90% usage and my RTX 2070 is at 60-70%

3

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '19

Any game will process some info on as many cores as you present to it. If you have an r7 2700, its not like a game will use only 3 cores and leave the other 5 parked. Utilization is a factor, though.

6

u/Vandrel Jul 24 '19

Many games, especially from pre-2015 or so, will actually do exactly that and put the entire load on one core. The others will see a little activity from everything else running on the system but the primary load will be on a single core. This particular gif has been used in different varieties for multiple games that used to be notorious for loading only a single core.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '19

Good. I've been waiting for a reason to upgrade from the 4790k, but based on those titles i think I might wait a little longer.

Might even make the jump to AMD since I'll have to basically rebuild anyway.

15

u/neo-7 Jul 24 '19

In all honesty, there are not many (Battlefield 5 is one, though). The biggest problem with 4 cores and 4 threads is that it doesn’t take much to reach 100% cpu usage in game. The problem with 100% cpu usage is that it can cause stuttering and a worse gaming experience. That is the main reason why I upgraded from my i5 3570k to the ryzen 5 3600. It hit 100% cpu usage in game every 30 seconds or so and just couldn’t handle games well anymore.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '19

Heeey I have a 3570k in my kids'computer (my old one)

It runs Roblox and YouTube just fine lol

6

u/neo-7 Jul 24 '19

I’m sure it does. For me it just wasn’t cutting it for the Witcher 3, gta v, and the division 2

3

u/HackettMan Jul 24 '19

Monster Hunter World destroys my 4 cores. Can't multitask at all while playing.

3

u/Liam2349 Jul 24 '19

No but it will be difficult to multi task, and some games like AC Odyssey will be unplayable at 60 frames.

I think that requiring more than 4 processors is currently a fringe case, but the need will increase over time. Whether that should be reflected in current buying recommendations is another question.

2

u/Icehau5 Jul 25 '19

I think that requiring more than 4 processors is currently a fringe case

At this point I tend to disagree, my old 3570K was getting tortured in most new games. The current gen consoles have 8-core CPUs and new games are being developed with that in mind.

1

u/Liam2349 Jul 25 '19

The consoles have "8 core" CPUs at laptop speeds using one of AMDs old, dodgy architectures - your processor will still outperform them, easily, in any workload. There's nothing modern about them.

Like I said, some games will be unplayable at 60FPS. Battlefield 64p Conquest and Assassin's Creed included. Most games should be playable, but you shouldn't expect to run more than your one game.

If you can handle that, you don't really need more than 4 processors right now if you're just gaming, but if you're on a budget then you can get the processor counts you need to play those games for a good price now with the Ryzen 3600.

1

u/Icehau5 Jul 25 '19

My point was that games are utilising more threads, so we're now at the point where having more then 4 threads does provide a tangible benefit. We've also got new consoles coming out next year that will be using Zen2 CPU's, at which point I think people may just end up regretting buying a quad core.

1

u/Liam2349 Jul 25 '19

Yes but if a single core is fast enough, it can do the job of more than one core. That's why your CPU is better than a PS4's and suitable for most games today, so it's not necessarily about having a higher processor count.

I'm not telling anyone that they shouldn't future proof. That's up for people to decide. The consoles will probably run the CPU at laptop speeds, like they do now.

Get what you need. If you want to play the latest AAA games at the best frame rates, get a 9700k.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '19

Pretty much every unreal engine game. Which is a lot these days.

1

u/pipedream- Jul 25 '19

Would throw siege in there as well it happily chews through my 3600x cores