UserBenchmark suggests you buy the i5-13600K over the Ryzen 7 9800X3D — says AMD drives sales with 'aggressive marketing' rather than 'real-world performance'

News
By
published

'Spending more on a gaming CPU is often pointless, as games are generally limited by the GPU'

Ryzen 9000 CPU
(Image credit: AMD)

UserBenchmark - the gift that keeps on giving! The website's latest review of the Ryzen 7 9800X3D has left many in shock as it now deems spending extra on a gaming CPU pointless. Continuing its never-ending saga of denouncing AMD, which it often refers to as "Advanced Marketing Devices," UserBenchmark doubles down and names the i5-13600K and i5-14600K as worthy competitors, even though AMD's Ryzen 7 9800X3D has dethroned Intel's fastest gaming CPU, the i9-14900K, by almost 33% per our testing.

This is not the first time we've encountered such an 'intriguing' take from UserBenchmark. The website has been in hot water for ranking the i3-8100 higher than the i9-9980XE merely based on clock speeds -- make that make sense. A quick look at its CPU ranking chart based on performance from highest to lowest puts the Ryzen 7 9800X3D at the 12th spot, trailed by the "3D joker" Ryzen 9 7950X3D at the 25th place. The Ryzen 9 9950X follows suit, landing in the 28th position. No matter how you look at it - whether it be gaming, productivity, or efficiency - enthusiasts overwhelmingly think these numbers simply don't add up. 

UserBenchmark CPU Ranking

(Image credit: UserBenchmark)

Moving over to their actual review, it doesn't take an expert to discern fact from fiction. UserBenchmark asserts that the X3D design results in a 6% deduction in clock speeds but fails to address AMD's redesign of the stacking hierarchy, which helps reduce the impact of this clock speed deficit, even in single-core scenarios. Better yet, the 9800X3D can keep up with the non-X3D 9700X in many production workloads.

The site further states that "AMD is looking to drive demand through aggressive marketing rather than delivering real-world performance," even though the 9800X3D currently unanimously stands as the world's fastest gaming CPU - beating Intel's Core Ultra 9 285K by almost 40%. UserBenchmark then suggests users choose the i5-13600K/14600K since spending more than $200 on gaming CPUs is "pointless," but that is a purely subjective statement. In addition, the actual performance, efficiency, and platform differences between the i5-14600K and the 9800X3D are factors UserBenchmark didn't consider. 

UserBenchmark's take on the 9800X3D

(Image credit: UserBenchmark)

UserBenchmark's entire argument pivots around the proposition that faster CPUs are "pointless" for gaming. It is the same as saying that you shouldn't get anything faster than an RTX 3050 since the human eye obviously can't see past 60 FPS - sarcasm intended. Needless to say, enthusiasts are having a field day with this review.

See more CPUs News
TOPICS
Hassam Nasir
Hassam Nasir
Contributing Writer

Hassam Nasir is a die-hard hardware enthusiast with years of experience as a tech editor and writer, focusing on detailed CPU comparisons and general hardware news. When he’s not working, you’ll find him bending tubes for his ever-evolving custom water-loop gaming rig or benchmarking the latest CPUs and GPUs just for fun.

269 Comments Comment from the forums
  • emike09
    I see where they are coming from, but it's a weak argument. I buy more than I need when I upgrade for futureproofing, expecting to get 6-7 years from a platform before upgrading again. I also work with professional apps on the same system I game on, so give me all the performance I can get.

    AMD has always been overly aggressive in marketing. It's one of the reasons I never liked AMD. I remember some of their ads in the PC Gamer magazine back in the late 90s that were so cringe, you had to laugh and shake your head. Until Zen 3 came around, AMD had to rely on aggressive marketing to survive. Now with Zen 4 and 5, they can sit back and let performance do the talking.
    Reply
  • Viking2121
    Why would I trust anything Userbenchmarks says when their own sit is pretty much a laughing stalk, especially at how biased they are lol
    Reply
  • Tax Payer
    They also aggressively "modify" dissenting comments on their site, thankfully most level-headed individuals can see through their nonsense. At best, the site seems to provide a decent relative ranking of GPUs.
    Reply
  • Mattzun
    The anti AMD spin is crazy, but the fundamental argument is sound.

    Most people gaming at 1440p will never notice the difference between a 13600k and a 9800x3d. A 14900k or 285k makes even less sense for most gamers when there are cheap, new 12th and 13th gen and zen 4 available.

    If you have a limited budget and you are choosing between a 9800x3d+4060 and a 13600k+4070 super, get the better gpu and the cheaper CPU.

    I’d get a 7600x instead of the 13600k, but most modern CPUs are fine for anything up to a 4080 at 1440p.
    Reply
  • TechieTwo
    There are a lot of people/entities that enjoy "benefits" associated with promoting Intel products that are often inferior to the competition.
    Reply
  • scottslayer
    Is it a slow news week or what?
    Reply
  • Makaveli
    Someone needs to nuke that site from orbit its the only way to be sure.
    Reply
  • Scraph
    emike09 said:
    I also work with professional apps on the same system I game on, so give me all the performance I can get.
    Of course, there are different aspects to performance and as many benchmarks to measure them.

    Take the 285K, for example. It's deemed a "failure" because it falls short of competition in gaming benchmarks. But in professional usage, it's on top; compiling software, Cinebench rendering, etc.

    The thing is... in gaming performance, there is such a thing as fast enough. If the CPU can support a frame rate above the monitor refresh rate, it's fast enough. More than that gives you a better benchmark but not a better experience.

    On the other hand, compiling software can never be too fast. There is always a benefit from more performance.

    So, yeah, when I look at the 9800X3D, I see massive performance in an area where I don't need it. But it beats gaming benchmarks, so it's great for marketing.
    Reply
  • USAFRet
    Scraph said:
    Of course, there are different aspects to performance and as many benchmarks to measure them.

    Take the 285K, for example. It's deemed a "failure" because it falls short of competition in gaming benchmarks. But in professional usage, it's on top; compiling software, Cinebench rendering, etc.
    Bingo!
    Reply
  • DingusDog
    User benchmark is a joke. I haven't seen any aggressive AMD marketing, only glowing reviews with actual benchmarks showing that the 9800X3D crushes everything Intel has to offer.
    Reply