- AMD GPU bias - That one site vs. TechPowerUp
I dont get their rating.
By their own benchmarks the RX 6800 even beats the 3070Ti by 7.4% in DX10, yet for the RX 6800 the DX10 result says 125%, whereas for the 3070Ti it says 140%ID: hlnytbb
IF:VendorIDCheck=AMD, setresults="-5%","-15%" -variable=random
I'm surprised that we're still discussing this issue given how long it has been since the community were made aware of their anti-AMD logic.ID: hlnnwy2
true, but this case is regarding their gpus, while all outrage previously was only focused on cpus. thus, it's adding another piece to the puzzle of being anti-amd in general, not specifically pro-intel.ID: hlnqw6u
This is something I had wondered about for a long time as it seemed like Nvidia GPUs were being given disproportionately higher scores on UB than AMD ones, yet I hadn't heard of them having a reputation for pro-Nvidia or anti-AMD bias, just pro-Intel.
Guess it shouldn't be a surprise though.ID: hlo0qbn
Can't deny the possibility that it's induced bias from the fallout of their Intel bias.ID: hloyfla
Indeed, before it read like Pro-intel bias, now it reads like someone who has shorted AMD stock.
Did userbenchmark suddenly change their weighting for RDNA2 like they did for Ryzen? You know, when they suddenly started weighing single-core performance significantly higher than multi-core performance when it became clear Intel just couldn't even compete with Zen 2 and 3?ID: hlnf7r6
Ray tracing is now suddenly the be all end all of their performance figures?ID: hlnmoom
It's the opposite, really. They use super old benchmarks for their figures, based on DX9 and DX10. The best part is their reasoning why they don't include DX11 benchmarks:
This suite of tests stress a GPU with various functions from the Windows DirectX 11 API. These benchmarks are disabled because they don't materially improve our ability (over the DirectX 10 tests) to measure GPU processing power.
At least they say that they will change to DX12 tests "in due course", whatever that means.ID: hlnfbef
Haha, I think we posted this at the same time. See my comment up one level. 🙂ID: hlp5cg7
No, look at the 1080ti ranked higher than the RX 6800 and laugh.
No gamer would want a 1080ti over a 6800. Even for streaming, the 1080ti doesn't have the improved NVENC that the 2000 and 3000 series have.
And in games, the 6800 is a solid 50% to 100% faster, has more RAM, and will be supported by new drivers for many years longer than a 1080ti.ID: hlnirrm
Ofcourse, in the 5 games that use it.ID: hlne1cn
I'm not sure. What prompted me to look at this was a thread from the other day in /. Someone had suggested something to a builder and mentioned the 6800 and 3060ti being equivalent in performance. So I checked UB. Lo and behold, that's what they were saying.ID: hlnqzw1
That's just embarrassing for the dude.ID: hlnf6oi
Unless they're accounting for ray tracing? The divergence conveniently starts happening around the RTX 2000s series, when hardware ray tracing was introduced. If so, this is flawed, as the 6900xt competes quietly nicely with the 3080/3090, even surpassing the 3090 with aggressive overclocking.ID: hlp5p5e
What is more insane than having a 3060ti at 6800 levels is having a 1080ti ABOVE a 6800. I mean, WTF? That doesn't even support ray tracing, DLSS, or have the newer NVENC encoder. And it is far slower. the 6800 should be 50% to 100% faster in games while rendering limited, and also faster at low resolutions while CPU limited...ID: hlnti6z
I don't know... I think a reasonable person would say that a 10300 is faster than a 10980XE
Seems like a legit benchmarking site to me
I have detected a link to UserBenchmark — UserBenchmark is a terrible source for benchmarks and comparing hardware, as the weighting system they use is not indicative of real world performance. For more information, see here - This comment has not been removed, this is just a notice.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.ID: hlnvf6h
CPU-Z has also rewritten their benchmark several times (because the wrong CPU's were winning) and deliberately broken CPPC Preferred Cores to hurt Zen scores.ID: hlnwt77
Yep, the CPU-Z single core benchmark doesn't even use the best core on my 5950x - it just uses core 0.ID: hlp50lu
I don't have that issue with CPU-Z.
CPU-Z was actually a case of their benchmark unfairly increasing Zen performance, which was fixed.
This wasn't done in a distorted, perverted, or malicious way like PooperBenchmark. They legimitately weighed tasks incorrectly and gave Ryzen 1000 CPUs nearly identical single core performance to Kaby Lake, which was fixed. Here is How it rated Ryzen 1st gen for sake of argumentID: hlnw9ou
What really? DamnID: hlnqdl7
Okay Intel was doing just fine against 3xxx unless if you mean 5xxxID: hlnr5g8
They made the change to scoring about 2 years ago, during Zen 2 times.
In short, userbenchmark being userbenchmark
Userbench can only be viewed as valid to compare apples and apples. 6900xt vs 6900xt.
Also userbenchmark is garbage and nobody credible will claim it's data to be viable in any A vs B scenarioID: hlnhnu4
If it's even banned onand it speaks for itselfID: hlnofds
Yep. We know it but there are plenty of non Reddit pleebs out there falling for their BS.
They need to change their name to Intel Cheer leading Squad or something.ID: hlo5emu
This is all i ever used it for. I never cross compare products unless i just wanna see how much "faster" my card/cpu is vs some super old cp.ID: hlpn1op
Even that doesn't work, userbenchmark claimed a dual core i3 is faster than the 18 core i9ID: hlntsg2
It's not even that good for A vs A comparison, would be better off with 3DMark or any other real benchmark.
The line represents where the dot should land, dots above that line are over rated, below are under rated.ID: hlno5lf
Thanks, I was having lot of problems seeing this poorly labelled graph.ID: hlnya78
Actually, the line is wrong if this was the goal - it doesn't go through (1,1), it's just a trend line. For example the RTX 3090 that is exactly on (1,1) is above the line, so it looks like it got better relative score from UB than TPU, even though it's used as the reference for both sites.
I normalized the relative performance rankings that are listed on TechPowerUp and on that one site. This assumes TechPowerUp performance numbers are reasonable. Given their CPU bias, I'm surprised that the other site is not as biased against AMD cards until RDNA2. They list an RX 6800 being slightly ahead of a 3060ti, which is pretty laughable. The 6800XT, 6900XT and 6700XT are all lower than TechPowerUps numbers by quite a bit. However, the 5700XT seems to be on the mark.
Anything below the trendline is where the other site shows lower performance than TechPowerUp.ID: hlogh65
You should have drawn the line as x=y to show that, right now it’s below that.
Why does anyone pay attention to LoserBenchmark?
Its one of the issues with todays media world, clicks gets ads, gives money without them needing to do anything else than skew the results to the bias people already have.
Then it leads many into the rabbit hole and assuming it is true.
Money is the key issue here with ads etc...
Who still uses userbenchmark?ID: hlomh51
Anyone who types "hardware X VS hardware Y" in Google.
Normies, non-geeks, non-nerds, the uninformed.
Iows... A crapton of people.
UserBench seeing this post be like:
"Here, see the mob of marketers on Reddit I spoke to you about? Redditors should be wary of AMD's army of social media accounts, they aim to dupe shoppers any way they can."
Nurse speaking softly to UB while redirecting it to its room: "Go back in the padded room, it'll be ok, doctors will come and take care of you, everything's gonna be alright."
UB: "But I'm seeing numbers! And they're my numbers, and their numbers! The numbers are speaking to me. ME! LISTEN TO THE NUMBERS!"
Nurse: "Yes, yes, the numbers, the doctor will come and listen to you talk about the numbers ok?"
There's 15 Intel processors before they list a single AMD processor.
Every other professional bench marker out there has them them interchanging positions depending on workload with 11700K* and 11900k* being slightly in the lead for gaming over most of the AMD processors which were released a year earlier while using a considerable amount more power and producing more heat. Like, a typical 360 AIO cooler isn't enough to allow to fully boost a 11900k.
They have a 11600 (non K) is listed as being same or faster than 59*0x with half the cores and higher power consumption. More than 6 cores may still not matter for the majority of games released in the last 2 years but it certainly matters in every other workload and considering consoles are all coming with 8 cores will definitely be important in the years to come.ID: hlnpw4m
The trouble is that you AMD fanbois just can't deal with hard numerical data. 11600 is nearly TWICE as big a number as 5950. The results speak for themselves!
Sorry sheeple, but facts don't care about your feelings. Clean your rooms and buy intel.
Reminder about this other site
That website is to be fair absolutely and utterly pure garbage. They're more corrupt than the CCP.
You should have probably used logarithmic scale instead of linear, so that values would be more evenly distributed along the trend line.
Interesting find nonetheless.
I don't understand the point of the trend line here. A line that goes through (0,0) and (1,1) would make sense, it would show you where the dots should land if the two benchmarking sites got the same relative results. Just look at the 3090, which is clearly used as a baseline (it lies on (1,1) ), but looks like it got better relative score from UB than from TPU.ID: hlo0guo
It shows the overall relationship between TechPowerUp and the other site, which has historically had a pretty strong relationship until RDNA2. Good point though. It's close enough that just a normal diagonal line would have worked.
LoserBenchmark. So happy it’s getting banned on some subs. It’s such a blatant bias.