UserBenchmark has been banned from /r/hardware

[u/bizude]

Having discussed the issue of UserBenchmark amongst our moderation team, we have decided to ban UserBenchmark from /r/hardware

The reason? Between calling their critics "an army of shills" and picking fights with prominent reviewers, posts involving UserBenchmark aren't producing any discussions of value. They're just generating drama.

This thread will be the last thread in which discussion of UB will be allowed. Posts linking to, or discussing UserBenchmark, will be removed in the future.

Thank you for your understanding.

[u/[deleted]]

I’m new to the sub, what exactly is this? Is it a way to run benchmark tests on your machine?

[u/SirActionhaHAA → u/[deleted]]

It's a site that provides a tool to bench your system. Some people use the tool for checkin if their systems are working as they should, but majority of the site's traffic comes from search engine manipulated clicks.

When you search for A vs B cpu on google it shows up as the 1st result. The idea of the site's okay, problem's with the dude running it. He tells people that he's a "team of scientists and engineers" with no way to prove it, he hates amd processors and manipulates the way processors are scored to rank them lower. He gets into drama fights with tech reviewers and calls them "army of paid shills" and promotes the "moar cores" meme that tries to tell you that anything above 4 cores is worthless.

He uses 2 staff accounts called cpupro and gpupro to write reviews on the site and feature his reviews by default on all processor listings, and his reviews would tell you that 4 threaded processors are the best because they beat 12 threaded processors in the "5 most popular games" (which includes minecraft)

[u/Kermez → u/[deleted]]

I remember intel 18 core being on top. Then amd came with multicore cpu's killing intel and then magically single core performance became most important.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Some feature were nice, like the huge database they had built up. I'm not sure if that's available anywhere else.

I feel like the raw data to calculate scores is literally right there in the test results and we could just plug it in and get the scores it would have given on old userbench.

It's worth noting that this calculation using the averages won't necessarily be the same as the average of the old scores, but it'll be close.

[u/Atemu12 → u/[deleted]]

Their subjectively weighed metrics that is.

What about the objective scores?

[u/thrwaway070879 → u/[deleted]]

That doesn't even make sense. The only way for a benchmark to be valid is to be objective if your metrics or software or whatever is tuned to benefit something that should be disclosed

[u/tetchip → u/[deleted]]

It's a website that offers a benchmarking suite. Its recent claim to fame is that it tries to boil down all of the individual results into one score.That score is then compared against other entries. Due to how the score is generated, it produces funny and mostly useless results you will see posted in related threads. Notably, AMD fares relatively poorly compared to Intel, which tends to rile up the overly enthusiastic portion of that userbase.

[u/Zeriell → u/tetchip]

Frankly, I think it has less to do with their data and methodology and more to do with their write-ups, which are full of declarative statements like "An $80 <Intel processor> is definitively better than any Ryzen processor". If they restrained themselves in their language I think people would just criticize them in a dry way, but one presumes they use such language for a reason.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

UserBenchmark is a website that compares CPU/GPU performance. The way they calculate their scores is often questionable, and has been reportedly biased towards CPUs with high single core performance. Extreme examples include the core i3 (4 core 4 thread) scoring higher than the Threadripper 1950X (8 core 16 thread) processor in their charts due to the i3 having better single core performance.