xentr_theme_editor

  • Please do not post any links until you have 3 posts as they will automatically be rejected to prevent SPAM. Many words are also blocked due to being used in SPAM Messages. Thanks!

is UserBenchmarks still taken seriously?

Marzipan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
16,149
Reaction score
6,779
xentr_thread_starter
I haven't verified the counter claims in this article refuting UB's...but they heavy bias against AMD, this is a known.

 
I wish this was news but they have had a clear and blatant bias in all of their written reviews for a long time. I'll glance at their charts but I basically refuse to read anything their reviewers have written. Not going to deny I have bought far more AMD CPU's over intel for a long time but they suit my needs/budget the best when I have been in the market for CPUs. When it comes to GPUs it has weirdly been bouncing from one to the next literally been Ati Something (Don't recall what it was) => NVidia (88000GTS SLI) => AMD (6690 quadfire) => Nvidia (1080ti) => AMD (7900XTX). And there is no way I can recall what I was buying in the AGP days.

I still like the charts the site produces especially when double checking stats on older hardware to help be place roughly where it should land within my expectations but that's about it. Otherwise as others have mentioned they have been the butt of many jokes for a long time only overshadowed by things like the Verge PC build video.
 
I wonder if the UserBenchmark guys were featured in the NZXT rental scam videos :)

Basically come across as say whatever they are paid to say.
 
I guess I'm an idiot then? I never read their actual reviews myself, but I thought that the user- submitted reviews were sorta trustworthy? At least from a relative performance standpoint. Sometimes I just want to quickly know how two random GPUs from completely different eras or segments stack up against each other. GTX970 vs AMD FirePro? RTX2080Ti vs RTX4060? Stuff like that. 🤷‍♂️ If you guys know of another place to compare stuff that was released years apart, I'm all ears.
 
Aside from the ridiculous hyper biased anti-AMD descriptions attached to hardware, the other issue with relying on their "score" is that the overall number they push is heavily weighted to non-benchmark and arbitrary metrics like market penetration and user thumbs up/down scores.

I'll glance at them quickly for specific head to head benchmark comparisons, but only to get a general idea of relative performance.
 
Back
Top