AMD Ryzen 5 4600HS in Asus ROG Zephyrus G14 scores higher than the average Intel Core i7-10750H on UserBenchmark but still gets a lower bench result

[Redaktion]

An AMD Ryzen 5 4600HS APU sample has been spotted on UserBenchmark as part of an Asus ROG Zephyrus G14 laptop. The new Ryzen 4000 chip racked up some excellent scores on the benchmark that offered a higher overall score than the average overall score of all the Intel Core i7-10750H samples that had been tested...but the Renoir APU received a lower bench result.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Ryzen-5-4600HS-in-Asus-ROG-Zephyrus-G14-scores-higher-than-the-average-Intel-Core-i7-10750H-on-UserBenchmark-but-still-gets-a-lower-bench-result.463601.0.html

[Grinnie Jax]

UserBenchmark are infamous for Intel-fanboyism. I wouldn't recommend anyone to make comparisons using this "benchmark".

[IntelBOoooo]

Typical bribing from Intel.

[riklaunim]

Userbenchmark are there to just create drama. Just note that they were banned from /r/Intel and /r/Hardware on reddit ;)

[william blake]

the AMD Ryzen 5 4600HS manages a 1-core score of 129 points compared to the i7-10750H's 133 points (average). That's a small difference, especially when you compare the huge gap in the 64-core test results: 1,031 points (AMD) vs. 956 points (Intel).

blah blah blah..what is so difficult in reading what does their score mean?
"bench score" :
"The UBM effective speed measures performance for typical consumers. For example, we de-emphasize deep queue depth data transfer and heavily multi-threaded CPU workloads as these metrics are not generally consumer orientated"
so basically they measure browsing speed.
but the problem is not that, but hidden formula(or there is no formula?), because there could be a situation when single core score is better but bench score is worse. how? nobody knows.

[william blake]

I wouldn't recommend anyone to make comparisons using this "benchmark".

userbenchmark is the only place in the internet with such functionality.
cpu "bench" score is 10% of cpu information provided and 2% of all information.
"i wouldnt recoomend" mean "i hate you and wish you the worse" lol

[Valantar]

I wouldn't recommend anyone to make comparisons using this "benchmark".

userbenchmark is the only place in the internet with such functionality.
cpu "bench" score is 10% of cpu information provided and 2% of all information.
"i wouldnt recoomend" mean "i hate you and wish you the worse" lol

I can't speak for the user you quoted, but I would also say I wouldn't recommend them, and by that I don't whatsoever mean "I hate you and wish you the worse [sic]" (why would I hate a web site? that doesn't make sense), but that their service is fundamentally flawed and fails to do what it sets out to do in ways so fundamental to its purpose that the data presented is at best misleading. It doesn't matter that they attempt to provide a service that nobody else does when they utterly and completely fail in doing so in a fair and balanced way, and when the methodologies behind their scoring are secret and opaque in such a manner as to make checking their veracity impossible. You are arguing that we should trust and use a flawed benchmark with skewed result because they provide you with tons of data; I'm arguing that since we know parts of that data is fundamentally flawed and biased, we have no reason to trust the rest of the data presented.

[petior]

UselessBenchmark.

[S.Yu]

Well, the multicore gap is 7%, and the single core gap is 3%, it's honestly not that big a difference if single core is weighted, for example over twice the multicore, since they're assuming that a couple cores will get the most usage and the last core will almost never be pushed to 100%.

[william blake]

but I would also say I wouldn't recommend them, and by that I don't whatsoever mean "I hate you and wish you the worse [sic]" (why would I hate a web site? that doesn't make sense)

you hate someone you give a false recommendation to.

but that their service is fundamentally flawed

wrong.
data, the test results, is one thing, hidden rating made by the guy is another.
userbenchmark even without it is times and times more useful for compare hardware things than any other place in the internet.
i wouldn't recommend=i recommend you nothing.

[william blake]

Well, the multicore gap is 7%, and the single core gap is 3%, it's honestly not that big a difference if single core is weighted, for example over twice the multicore, since they're assuming that a couple cores will get the most usage and the last core will almost never be pushed to 100%.

yes, the article is not very smart, but rating could be bigger for the cpu with the lower scores everywhere. this is the mystery and bs.

[Valantar]

but I would also say I wouldn't recommend them, and by that I don't whatsoever mean "I hate you and wish you the worse [sic]" (why would I hate a web site? that doesn't make sense)

you hate someone you give a false recommendation to.

but that their service is fundamentally flawed

wrong.
data, the test results, is one thing, hidden rating made by the guy is another.
userbenchmark even without it is times and times more useful for compare hardware things than any other place in the internet.
i wouldn't recommend=i recommend you nothing.

Care to explain what a "false recommendation" is? The only way a recommendation can be "false" is if the person giving the recommendation is flat-out lying (i.e. recommending something they themselves dislike or think is a poor fit); after all to recommend just means to endorse something or say that it's worthy of acceptance.

As for the service being useful: no. The "hidden" rating you're talking about is the first damn thing you are presented with on any product page. It is thus what 99% of users will use for comparisons. As for the rest of what they do (we've been through this before, but apparently you need it repeated):
- Due to crowd-sourced data there is zero filtering for testing environment or other factors affecting results - two identical laptops where one is tested in 35C ambient and one in 20C ambient will thus give entirely different results with no way for readers to tell why. The same goes for background processes etc., the system or drivers being up to date, cooling being properly configured ... the list goes on. As this data isn't collected there's no way for readers to look it up either - in other words there's no way of knowing whether what you are looking at can be compared properly or not. Which by default makes it uncomparable. As I said last time: garbage in, garbage out. Collecting massive amounts of unfiltered and uncontrolled data, using it to generate some opaque rankings, and displaying all of this without context makes the service entirely useless.
- Due to the benchmark selection the tests in question give a poor overview of both CPU and GPU performance. The lack of transparency in testing methodologies further invalidates the conclusions of testing.
- The site's owners obviously know that it's basing its results on poor data, as the interface of the site places a massive focus on various percentages, sums, averages and abstract phrases supposed to give a description of overall performance yet with zero explanation of what these terms mean or what they are based on and how they are calculated.

So, as I told you last time around: look at the 3DMark database for easily read overall component comparisons for gaming if that's what you're after, the TechPowerUp GPU database gives you a quick performance comparison of all GPUs they've tested (or just check any recent review for a comprehensive look at ~20 games in three resolutions), check out AnandTech Bench for anything they've tested, or look at component reviews done by professional reviewers if you want a proper understanding based on reliable data and analysis done by highly knowledgeable people. AnandTech is great, TechPowerUp is good, TechSpot is great, GamersNexus is great - and there are heaps of others. If you're looking for a full PC, sites like Hexus or PC World regularly do reviews of prebuilt systems. There are plenty of better alternatives to UB - and most of them have the advantage that you'll actually learn something while comparing hardware.

[Robin12]

Admittedly, this is based on a "peak" performance from the Renoir APU compared to the average of the Comet Lake samples (177 units tested at the time of writing)
[/quote]

Comparing apples to oranges and spewing fake outrage. Looks like UserBenchmark is fine. It's just that notebookchat.com is heavily biased against Intel.

[PnSHR]

Admittedly, this is based on a "peak" performance from the Renoir APU compared to the average of the Comet Lake samples (177 units tested at the time of writing)

Comparing apples to oranges and spewing fake outrage. Looks like UserBenchmark is fine. It's just that notebookchat.com is heavily biased against Intel.

Yap. Very irresponsible from notebookchat.com. Trying to cater to the fanboys to get more views. In the end that's what pays the bill not authentic journalism.

[Valantar]

Admittedly, this is based on a "peak" performance from the Renoir APU compared to the average of the Comet Lake samples (177 units tested at the time of writing)

Comparing apples to oranges and spewing fake outrage. Looks like UserBenchmark is fine. It's just that notebookchat.com is heavily biased against Intel.
[/quote]
"Peak" is slightly misleading phrasing - it's not the fastest of a collection of results, it's (seemingly) the only result. In other words, it is entirely possible that it is indeed above average for that configuration, but it might also be average or below average. We won't know that until more results come in.