Hacker News Reader

Comment by bamey | Hacker News Reader

>If your son has requested a new "processor" from a company called "AMD", this is genuine cause for alarm. AMD is a third-world based company who make inferior, "knock-off" copies of American processor chips. They use child labor extensively in their third world sweatshops, and they deliberately disable the security features that American processor makers, such as Intel, use to prevent hacking. AMD chips are never sold in stores, and you will most likely be told that you have to order them from internet sites. Do not buy this chip! This is one request that you must refuse your son, if you are to have any hope of raising him well.

Hahaha. 2001 was pretty good.

View on HN

So this is what the CPUBenchmark authors wrote before making CPUBenchmark

Did you mean the Intel shill site userbenchmark.com?

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/AMD-Ryzen-9-5900X/Rating/4087

Yup! Misspelled the name

That was a wild ride.

I was not gonna comment, but wow, they really are not backing down. From their Intel vs AMD value page:

> We don't

> Put lipstick on pigs for sponsorship fees, our users are our only sponsors.

> Care for brands: red, green or blue. PC hardware isn’t a fashion show, performance comes first.

> Test at 1440p or 4K: high resolutions are rarely optimal for gaming (refresh rate > size > resolution).

> Get fooled by the corporate army of anonymous forum and reddit influencers that prey on first time buyers.

Righto. So they don’t shill. And they know how to benchmark and measure the right things; except for the period of time when they accidentally showed AMD topping the charts and then had to adjust their expert benchmark scores. 4K gaming isn’t real; it’s a conspiracy invented by Big GPU and no gamers want it because clearly all gaming graphics is chasing higher FPS. And not only are they not shills, YOU are!

What a convincing argument. Others more reputable in the benchmarking scene considered userbenchmarks to be poorly executed to begin with, but wow, they really do not know how to take an L, at all. Of course it is convenient that the cases where AMD processors would succeed at are irrelevant.

Now I’m not playing games most of the time so a high framerate in games is hardly important to me. But who would I rather get advice from: Sour grapes userbenchmarks, or literally any other reputable benchmarking site? They inch closer and closer to blatant SEO SPAM every year.

I know Intel is not good at PR, but they really ought to pay these people... to stop making them look bad.

> Test at 1440p or 4K: high resolutions are rarely optimal for gaming (refresh rate > size > resolution).

This point especially is such nonsense. If you're only gaming at 1080p you don't even need to be looking at benchmarks, just go buy literally any current midrange GPU and enjoy your capped 144fps in esports and like 80+ in AAA games.

Their obsession with "benchmarking with the most popular games" is silly for the same reason - there's no point in comparing a top end GPU or CPU on Fortnite or CS:GO performance, because stuff that costs half as much already caps out the max framerate on a 144hz monitor on those games. (Of course there are CS:GO pros who are trying to get absurd FPS for competitive reasons, but that's a tiny fraction of players, most people aren't going to care about the difference between 300fps and 400fps on a 144hz monitor).

I really hate the whole "I need to run super high FPS to lower my input latency even though my monitor can only display 1/3 of that; vsync is bad" people.

They're not wrong in that you need that level of GPU to get a particular level of input latency, but the "reason" that you need to run at such a higher framerate than your display's refresh rate is because those games have absolutely garbage frame pacing.

Take a chapter out of the desktop compositor world - if you (the application) knows you're rending at 3x the monitor's refresh rate, wait to sample the inputs and render until 2/3 of the frame interval has passed. Save your GPU the effort (and power consumption).

Userbenchmark is so bizarre. I really want to know who's running it and what their motives are for being so blatantly disingenuous.

The best theory I've got is that the owners were shorting AMD stock before it became obvious that they were serious competition again, and now they're using their reach to spread as much FUD as possible to claw some of their money back. But they come off as such idiotic hacks, I'm not sure that theory really makes any sense.

What's even stranger is that they were actually favourable to 1st gen Ryzen processors when they came out. On their 1800x review[0] they call it: "A very welcome shake-up of the CPU market"

Then they did a complete 180 when AMD actually shook up the CPU market. Perhaps the site's owner changed?

There's a great video about the site here for those who are curious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQSBj2LKkWg

0: https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/Rating/3916

Wealthy investor secretly buying out userbenchmark to spread FUD is an even juicier conspiracy theory...

Hah my first computer that I built myself as a teenager was an AMD Duron, right around 2001. Which to be fair, I guess I am a hacker as far as my mother is concerned, so they were right!

I got a Duron 650 together with a Geforce 1 back in 2000. That Geforce was really expensive butw a dud, it was slower than the cheaper/older TNT 2`s all my friends had...

This does bring some memories. Also Matrox looked like something out of this world at the time with their multiscreen support.

Check out the link "raising him well" -- If this really is from 2001, then I'm quite surprised that link is still valid...

One of those reviews is dated 2005(!!)

the oldest snapshot of this story i can find in archive.org is from november 2003 (https://web.archive.org/web/20031114161830/http://www.adequa...) , but it seems that yes, it is from 2001

It definitely is, I vividly recall this from my university days.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com