Controversial benchmarking website goes behind paywall — Userbenchmark now requires a $10 monthly subscription

issue0315@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.world – 547 points –
Controversial benchmarking website goes behind paywall — Userbenchmark now requires a $10 monthly subscription
tomshardware.com
84

You are viewing a single comment

I'm sure there are niche users for who paying the price of admission is acceptable, but for myself and I assume a vast number of other users, when I'm comparing performance of hardware I'm already checking reviews on multiple other sites, so this will only mean I don't bother to check their site.

I haven't visited their site in a long time though, so I'm not sure what value-adds they offered that might make the price more palatable.

None.

The actual "single core", "multi-core" were basically fine last I was aware, but they went so far into apeshit meltdown about the fact that AMD was offering better value than Intel with Ryzen (which is kind of back and forth since, but AMD is the reason I could get a 16 (real, capable of demanding single core loads too) core for $500 a couple years ago, not too long after Intel was selling 6 cores for more than that.) that it undermined everything else.

Anyways, UB's owner didn't like that AMD had good shit so he kept changing the "gaming/desktop/whatever" grade formulas to tilt the comparisons to Intel using more and more hilarious mechanisms. It started with a reasonable "you don't really benefit from games past 4/6/8 cores" and de-emphasizing super high core counts that hadn't really been an issue before, but it quickly degraded into obviously cheating hard by whatever means necessary to punish AMD, with even worse diatribes in the descriptions to match.

The value-add is the comedy of a man pretending an Intel Q6600 is better than a Ryzen 3600X.