Overall, benchmarks with synthetic scores as comparison between CPUs are well...deceptive. The quest for bigger numbers does not consider the actual workloads people are going to use.
The average user doesn't even need more than 4 cores. That assumes they have an OS that will use 1 or 2 for itself. Games may support more than 6, but reality is that most of the cores are doing very little since most the work is pushed to GPUs. Why people are buying CPUs with more than 8 cores to play games and browse the internet is beyond my understanding. Well, other than enthusiasts wanting bragging rights at least. I have a 3900x, but I bought it because I program multithread applications and sometimes need a lot of cores (i had a 16 core system in 2010...) I have no plans to get the 3950x because its just too much processing for a consumer desktop. Shaking my head has become an involuntary reaction to people wasting money on the biggest number, then never use it.
I am a little torn on the userbenchmark thing. Single thread performance is waaaaaay to important in their scoring. Almost zero products today are single threaded. That score is irrelevant. In most cases, even IPC is becoming irrelevant and is more a holdover from the past when applications/games were single threaded. Quad is valid as its really where most workloads need. There should be a 8 core evaluation though like stated above, and then a full chip score. Then let people sort them by what their workload is. Games (old: favor 4 core, new: favor 8), Production (favor based on type), etc.
As a programmer, I just can't see the value of modern benchmarks as they are used to compare cpu performance with a blanket value with hidden values. At least userbenchmark lets people know how they score things...its biased, but at least its noted bias. I just haven't seen other's stating how they come up with their score value. I wrote my own so I can tailor it to my needs, so I know what I am getting. I'm. not sure other benchmarks are worth the importance they are given. They are interesting and can be helpful, but revolving purchases based on one seems a poor choice.