UserBenchmark, the most prominent corporate shill platform when it comes to the consumer hardware sector, known for biased reviews favoring Intel Core CPUs and NVIDIA GeForce graphics cards over AMD Ryzen/Radeon counterparts, has gained notoriety for its frequent slandering of AMD processors in their write-ups.
They often manipulate testing procedures and exhibit such strong favoritism towards Intel that it borders on comedic, dismissing dissenting opinions regarding their constantly changing metrics and blunt hatred towards AMD as paid marketers, citing how AMD has an “army of advanced marketing scammers” and their “neanderthal marketing techniques.”
One might expect that consistently biased reviews and conclusions bordering on pathological would deter informed consumers from UserBenchmark’s subversive write-ups, leading them to avoid the platform entirely.
This is largely true, as those with critical thinking skills tend to steer clear of the website altogether.
Despite having their credibility severely damaged on social platforms beyond repair, UserBenchmark continues to maintain popularity due to high web traffic rankings in relevant topics such as GPU/CPU reviews, performance benchmarks, and product comparisons.
They consistently garner tens of millions of views each month, surpassing many tech news outlets for countless years. This popularity enables them to influence an audience, often lacking in technical knowledge, with their biased usury.
Their findings are deceitful and inconclusive, particularly due to their adoption of the “eFPS” metric for evaluating product performance. UserBenchmark claims this metric is calculated using a formula that lacks transparency and raises doubts about its accuracy.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/userbenchmark-benchmark-change-criticism-amd-intel,40032.html
Additionally, their evaluation criteria for CPUs have continuously shifted, with 40% of their scoring focusing on single-core performance, 58% on quad-core performance, and only 2% on multi-core performance.
This shifting focus has consistently favored Intel Core CPUs, which historically had superior single-core performance, while AMD offerings prioritized greater multi-threaded performance at a lower cost.
You know that a website is complete and utter dogshit if Redditors can see through their lies and deception, with UserBenchmark having been banned from various subreddits such as r/hardware and even r/intel.
After years of damaging their reputation, it’s clear that spreading deceptive misinformation is no longer as profitable as it once was. The platform, known for its prolific bias, is now shifting towards a paid business model by partially restricting access to its content behind a paywall.
Users have the option to download a benchmarking tool, execute it on their PC, and subsequently upload the results to UserBenchmark for comparison. This concept closely resembles that of 3DMark, albeit entirely lacking in credibility and value.
The benchmark itself is rather unremarkable, utilizing basic libraries from Windows and open-source software. However, considering the skewed nature of Userbenchmark with their blunt and aggressive summaries for AMD products as highlighted by numerous critics, their testing software is advised to be avoided, much like their website.
Recently it would seem that UserBenchmark appears to be facing financial difficulties, resorting to charging a yearly fee of $10 for users to access their benchmarking utility.
This seems to be a desperate attempt to generate more revenue beyond what Intel provides them. While a free version of their benchmark exists, it’s limited to an unspecified number of users testing at any given time.
If no slots are available, users are prompted to subscribe to the $10-per-year Pro plan to gain access to the app. Ironically, UserBenchmark remains steadfast in claiming that your financial contribution to a yearly subscription helps support “independent benchmarking.”
When free slots are available, users must engage in a 3D captcha minigame, aiming to shoot down 13 ships. While the minigame may not appear particularly challenging at first glance, it becomes quite tedious due to the limited opportunities for users to successfully shoot down ships.
This change is actually beneficial as it highlights how much of a perpetual cancer UserBenchmark is within the industry. By coercing users, who may lack critical thinking skills, into paying to avoid a tedious captcha game, they are unintentionally alienating individuals and speeding up their own demise.
