GPUs & CPUs & Enthusiast hardware: Questions, Discussion and fanboy slap-fights - Nvidia & AMD & Intel - Separe but Equal. Intel rides in the back of the bus.

big pauper said:
is pat even old enough to have used an amiga? my whole read of him is that he's basically core gen x that desperately postures about being a boomer all the time. he talks mad shit like a boomer but does stuff marketed to gen x'ers
Click to expand...
He used an IIGS so he's ancient from my point of view.
IMG_20260423_110904.jpg
 
Post Reply said:
He used an IIGS so he's ancient from my point of view.
View attachment 8901723
Click to expand...
i mean... i had a windows 3.1 pc with a 486 or some shit when i was growing up but i don't say that "it was my first PC" when my mom put a couple games on the computer and i played them. Considering this nigga is talking about ICQ and 56k modems it's pretty obvious he was not using an apple IIGS or Amigas when they were contemporary
 
I went from a DOS commodore to Windows 95 pentium. Before we upgraded I remember being envious of my friends and their 486s that could use VGA (oooohhhh ahhhh) whereas I was stuck in the slow lane with EGA. Sad!

Well who was laughing when I got to play Myst and the 7th Guest?!
 
Brain Problems said:
I went from a DOS commodore to Windows 95 pentium. Before we upgraded I remember being envious of my friends and their 486s that could use VGA (oooohhhh ahhhh) whereas I was stuck in the slow lane with EGA. Sad!

Well who was laughing when I got to play Myst and the 7th Guest?!
Click to expand...
I only got a PC when I was 14, didn't have a computer of any sort before—friends and neighbors had computers or consoles that I would play on occasionally—but the timing was perfect as it was the time of Internet, multimedia, and 3-D gaming by then.
 
Prehistoric Jazz said:
Would you guys consider replacing a 5950x with a 5800x3d?

I'm not really seeing much in the way of gains on userbenchmark but I know little about the site and its' reliability:


Sorry if this is a stupid question.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to say real quick that you should avoid using userbenchmark for anything serious. It's definitely a lolcow of hardware sites, and it's notorious for trying to make AMD stuff look bad and defend Intel when it screws up. It often chalks AMD's popularity up to "paid influencers and AMD's marketing team". That being said, one of the recent-ish Intel releases (might have been Raptor Lake) was bad enough that even they said they couldn't defend it.
 
Crant said:
I just wanted to say real quick that you should avoid using userbenchmark for anything serious. It's definitely a lolcow of hardware sites, and it's notorious for trying to make AMD stuff look bad and defend Intel when it screws up. It often chalks AMD's popularity up to "paid influencers and AMD's marketing team". That being said, one of the recent-ish Intel releases (might have been Raptor Lake) was bad enough that even they said they couldn't defend it.
Click to expand...
i'd just like to sperg out about this. the benchmarking software is actually useful for comparing the cpu/memory performance of specific builds against each other. So it's actually a good software for benchmarking if you're using it to benchmark your overclocks. The problem is their database is corrupted with bad info so it's completely worthless doing anything but comparing two specific computer builds. And they aren't even benchmarking GPUs so anything regarding a graphics card is bullshit

...but 90% of the time people are looking up benchmarks for a part, it's for a hypothetical, so their bad data collection doesn't shine through. the coercive manipulation they're pulling seems to actually work on some people though because i brought this up to a guy IRL and he called me an intel fanboy - i think he fucks trannies though so he's probably retarded.
 
I think the funniest thing about userbenchmark was when they were putting things on the front page about how there's a conspiracy to silence them

Edit: found it. It's in their about section

Since UserBenchmark declines sponsorship, it has become the target of a smear campaign which intensified following improvements to the CPU effective speed index in July 2019. Billion-dollar brands can try to shut us down but they can’t change who we are, the clue is in our name. UserBenchmark serves users exclusively without corporate sponsorship or "free" samples.
Click to expand...
 
Crant said:
I just wanted to say real quick that you should avoid using userbenchmark for anything serious. It's definitely a lolcow of hardware sites, and it's notorious for trying to make AMD stuff look bad and defend Intel when it screws up. It often chalks AMD's popularity up to "paid influencers and AMD's marketing team". That being said, one of the recent-ish Intel releases (might have been Raptor Lake) was bad enough that even they said they couldn't defend it.
Click to expand...
It's literally just an aggregate of user-run benchmarks.

For context, it once recommended readers purchase a Core i5-13600K over the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, asserting, and I quote, "Spending more on a gaming CPU is often pointless."
Click to expand...

Where's the lie? TH's own benchmarks show that expensive CPUs deliver nothing of value for 99% of gamers.
 
The Ugly One said:
It's literally just an aggregate of user-run benchmarks.
Click to expand...
It actually isn't. There are people who work for the site to make write ups for hardware when you look at specific parts. A lot of these write ups heavily favor Intel even in situations where it doesn't make sense. An example of this is in their 3300X review where they criticize it for its core count by saying cores don't add to performance, but then say people should buy an i3-10100 because it has an integrated GPU because gamers need that over cores
The Ugly One said:
Where's the lie? TH's own benchmarks show that expensive CPUs deliver nothing of value for 99% of gamers.
Click to expand...
Depends on the CPU and the game. Some games are more CPU bound. The X3D CPUs can really shine in some of these instances. IIRC, Cyberpunk might be one of those games, but I can't remember for sure. The real crime there is recommending anyone buy Intel 13th gen when they're well known to suffer from horrible manufacturing issues that cause the CPUs to die over time
 
Last edited:
The Ugly One said:
It's literally just an aggregate of user-run benchmarks.
Click to expand...
It's all presented to you as if the information is being calculated based on the massive database that you're given access to but once you start clicking through the charts they give you it's pretty obvious they're fudging the numbers.

There's only like 90 benchmarks recorded for my specific motherboard. my PC is not on that list and I've benchmarked my computer with their software multiple times over the years. I can pull up my account, and pull up my benchmarks, and their database contains my tests. But you can click through to the motherboard page on those tests and my benchmarks are not in the aggregate that's part of the calculation.

They're playing stupid games with that database and it can't be trusted.
 
Crant said:
Depends on the CPU and the game. Some games are more CPU bound. The X3D CPUs can really shine in some of these instances. IIRC, Cyberpunk might be one of those games,
Click to expand...
It can get you to 144 fps...if you run at 1080p on a 4090 with raytracing off. Who buys a 4090 to run games at 1080p? This is precisely the sort of benchmark that had me saying, "Oh, I guess CPU doesn't matter much." I'm not buying a $1500 GPU to run games at 1080p settings just so I can watch my CPU run as hot as possible. I crank shit up until I'm in the neighborhood of 70-90 fps.

Crant said:
but then say people should buy an i3-10100 because it has an integrated GPU because gamers need that over cores
Click to expand...

They said "users," not "gamers:"
In addition, unlike the 3300X, the 10100 also packs integrated graphics with Quick Sync hardware encoding, which alleviates the need for desktop users to purchase a separate GPU.
Click to expand...

100% accurate statement.

That said, there's a reason I don't read articles by these slapfighting retards who think Fortune 500 companies are their friends. They do the exact same thing TH does, except gargling a different company's nutz:
1776989712237.png

"Jesus H Crispy on a banana! I'm only getting 131 fps in Overwatch?!?!? I bought the wrong low-end budget CPU!!!" said literally zero people, ever.
 
Crant said:
I just wanted to say real quick that you should avoid using userbenchmark for anything serious. It's definitely a lolcow of hardware sites, and it's notorious for trying to make AMD stuff look bad and defend Intel when it screws up. It often chalks AMD's popularity up to "paid influencers and AMD's marketing team". That being said, one of the recent-ish Intel releases (might have been Raptor Lake) was bad enough that even they said they couldn't defend it.
Click to expand...
Even right now its claiming the 9070xt is "23%" worst than the 5070 ti, despite them trading blows, all because one their retarded test has a huge performance boost on the nvidia card. In the real word they trade blows in a majority of actual real world use cases.

The Ugly One said:
Where's the lie? TH's own benchmarks show that expensive CPUs deliver nothing of value for 99% of gamers.
Click to expand...
Of the top ten most popular games on steam right, 6/10 of them are esports titles that heavily rely on the CPU and the players expect higher frame rates than normal. Just because you are not playing them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Anyone defending userbenchmark is retarded. They've been a joke for years.
 
The Ugly One said:
100% accurate statement.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I could have remembered a better example than that. Here's the site downplaying the very real power draw issues the Core i9-11900K had. I think most reviewers at the time mentioned how much power it would draw along with how hot it would get. I think it serves what I was trying to get at a little better.

Intel Core i9-11900K.png

The Ugly One said:
That said, there's a reason I don't read articles by these slapfighting retards who think Fortune 500 companies are their friends. They do the exact same thing TH does, except gargling a different company's nutz:
Click to expand...
I agree. At the end of the day, I just want to point out that sites like this aren't very reliable in case someone asks about it. I hope I've sort of shown that.
 
Crant said:
I agree. At the end of the day, I just want to point out that sites like this aren't very reliable in case someone asks about it. I hope I've sort of shown that.
Click to expand...
I don't see any reason to distrust their benchmarks, I doubt they have time to hand-sort every benchmark and cherry-pick from thousands of runs to add a -3% anti-AMD bias.

Rust Troony said:
Even right now its claiming the 9070xt is "23%" worst than the 5070 ti, despite them trading blows, all because one their retarded test has a huge performance boost on the nvidia card. In the real word they trade blows in a majority of actual real world use cases.
Click to expand...
The 9070 XT has 25% less bandwidth than the 5070 Ti, and a lot of GPU workloads are bandwidth bound, so that tracks. In a compute bound non-inferencing load, they're pretty even. Bandwidth bound, inferencing, or raytracing, Nvidia spanks AMD.
 
big pauper said:
i mean... i had a windows 3.1 pc with a 486 or some shit when i was growing up but i don't say that "it was my first PC" when my mom put a couple games on the computer and i played them. Considering this nigga is talking about ICQ and 56k modems it's pretty obvious he was not using an apple IIGS or Amigas when they were contemporary
Click to expand...
56k is just the earliest point most Americans got online because the release of the first mass-market 56k modems in 1997 almost coincided with AOL's shift to a flat $20/mo fee (as opposed to pay-per-minute) which caused the population of internet users to 10x almost overnight. Even most boomers would have first gotten online right around then just because it was quite expensive prior to 1996/1997.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom