I've suspected for a while now there was some Intel CPU bias going on at that site. It's fairly obvious by the value they assess to INTEL rigs vs AMD rigs. They always assess a higher value to the Intel rig even when it's clearly inferior in overall PC performance scores. Well my suspicions are really confirmed now. It seems they've now done some very creative math when it comes to ranking CPUs. AMD had been beating the pants off of Intel in benchmarking at that site with the release of Zen 2 up until today. We can't have that now can we? Seems they've cooked the math to where now Intel occupies the top 5 CPU rankings. Everybody knows that's a complete farce. Frankly, I can't justify purchasing any Intel CPU at this point in time that AMD doesn't have a better solution for. So how bad is it? The Ryzen 2990WX rightfully occupied the number one position since it's release. Today it has been bumped all the way down to number 52 in rank. The Intel 9900K is now number one when yesterday it was down to about number 9 well below the other I9s and some of the Ryzens. What they've done in cooking the math is almost completely de-emphasize multi core performance while increasing emphasis on single core performance resulting in giving Intel a huge boost and distorting the overall view of the performance of a CPU for buyers. That's sinister. The folks running that site have absolutely no integrity in my opinion. Is anybody seriously going to buy a I7 9700KF over a Ryzen 3800X? I'd do my benchmarking elsewhere if i were you they cannot be trusted. Intel lost the top spot because of their own arrogance, incompetence and greed. You don't reward that. That just kills innovation.
This is exactly why I asked this question regarding current PassMark scores:
Many Pro app refers to this benchmark in their CPU recommendations, for example Solidworks for best ST performance CPU, and now AMD parts are on top.
Found Time machine of the page- look at "Avg. bench %":
Hard to find a common metric anymore. All marketing and programming variations.
AMD & Intel are nearly opposite designs which are able to accomplish the same goal.
Intel has a sweet spot for performance when it can stay cool, whereas AMD thrives in the red zone, and needs to be pushed near max. Designed to do so.
What's complete madness is the fact that MOST games and applications made today use 6-8 threads, so you'd think with this recent development they would have emphasized quad core more strongly, or perhaps added an 8-core score (unrealistic), either way, the wrong move seems to be exactly what they did.
The i3 9350K beats the i5 9400, R5 3600, and even the i9 9980XE. They had to break their algorithm to put Intel in the top spots..... Shame.
Real-world performance clearly shows that the 9350K is insufficient for most recent games and applications, but yet here it is, in one of the top spots.
Userbenchmark also took a decent metric (30% SC, 60% QC, 10 MC) and turned it into an abominable (40% SC, 58% QC, 2% MC)
If they would have adjusted it to just 40% SC, 55% QC, 5% MC, people probably wouldn't have caught on, but considering this benchmark now puts an i3 ahead of an i9...
Userbenchmark is a complete joke.
Any benchmark you run from your browser isn't something you should be putting too much faith in. It's for little Jimmy who wants to know if his family's PC can play Fortnite.
Alignex tested the solver here: https://blog.alignex.com/solidworks-...vs-intel-video
(video might have been taken down)
Blurry image still on that page
In addition the Solidworks simulation thermal solver is partly serial in nature (due to the nature of it), scaling beyond 6 cores (Amdahl's law goes here) is minimal.
It's not until Zen 2 that AMD had an out of the box IPC advantage that helped them win without clockspeed (Bulldozer architecture doesn't have the IPC even if it had clockspeed).
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.
GPU driver factors into it as well , Nvidia has poor performance with non-TITAN GPUs because they're extremely gimped at the driver level:
Specviewperf 12 = using Windows 7 traces
Specviewperf 13 = designed for Windows 10 OS
Nvidia has optimizations for DX11 that include forcing multithreading via commandlist. Radeon VII did not have Radeon Pro driver optimizations while Vega FE did. That didn't help it.
This means for Windows 10 install with GTX 1080 Ti you end up with the following result for Solidworks (which prefers TITAN or GPUs with pro drivers):
R7 2700X = 93.59
R5 2600X = 91.25
R5 2600 = 89.49
R7 2700 = 87.22
R5 2400G = 51.37 with Vega 11 iGPU
R3 2200G = 47.56 with Vega 8 iGPU
with RTX 2080 TI:
i7-9700K = 119
i9-9900K = 116
R9 3900X = 115
R7 3700X = 113
R7 2700X = 105
R7 1800X = 95
This is notably weaker than a $900 Quadro RTX 4000 , $1000 Radeon Pro WX 8200, $750 Quadro P4000, etc. This also verified Igors Lab result but suggests boost behavior on 3rd gen Ryzen is better on X570 Taichi than STRIX X570-E (as the Ryzen 3rd gen eeks out a few extra FPS).
SPECapc for Solidworks actually benchmarks performance of the system's Solidworks install along with their hardware rather than the hardware only:
Of course if you're not using a parallelized workload the extra cores are "nice to have" rather than necessity.
|All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:12 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.