UserBenchmark.com apparently removed 64 thread comparison from their CPU benchmark, maximum is now 8. I guess nobody needs more than 4 cores, right???
No they didn't,click bait sites interpreted it like that...because of course they would.UserBenchmark.com apparently removed 64 thread comparison from their CPU benchmark, maximum is now 8. I guess nobody needs more than 4 cores, right???
They still show you the workstation scores for every CPU and 64t is still the number one criterium and anybody that cares about multi can look at that super easily with minimal scrolling.July 2019
We reduced the impact from thread counts higher than eight. The Ryzen 3000 gaming rank changes were net positive: 3900X -2, 3800X +7, 3600X +14, 3600 +13. The 2000 series 32-core Threadripper 2990WX moved from first position to 48th and the 8-core Intel 9900K took the top position in the gaming index up from its previous rank of 7.
Without knowing anything about their scoring system, it is apparent that they moved 64 thread score from "average user bench" down to "nice to haves". Sorry, but I believe that an average user today can find use for more than 4C/8T processor.
AMD will start shipping (if they will be able to make them in any meaningful quantity remains to be seen) 32 thread processors for the mainstream platform soon, and the gap between 8 and 32 threads is glaring.
Wait a minute, I thought they do not exist yet! Where can I buy one?... the 10nm CPUs at 35w max are actually a way better buy ...
They have 4K HDR porn now. And if you're going to have Youtube running in another tab, solitaire in the background, iTunes transferring pirated music, Norton Antivirus, man, you're gonna need at least, but no more than, 8 threads of CPU processing power.Normal people have phones for Facebook which means the pc only needs to deal with porn and solitaire. I think they should reduce the benchmarks to a solitaire run (1 thread) for the average user and a 480p porn hub run for the advanced user( normal users don't need 720p). Once they do that people will finally realise that the 10nm CPUs at 35w max are actually a way better buy than the 3950x.
I agree that they should have left the 64 thread score in place, even if they removed it from the overall formula.Without knowing anything about their scoring system, it is apparent that they moved 64 thread score from "average user bench" down to "nice to haves". Sorry, but I believe that an average user today can find use for more than 4C/8T processor.
AMD will start shipping (if they will be able to make them in any meaningful quantity remains to be seen) 32 thread processors for the mainstream platform soon, and the lack of anything above 8 threads in the benchmark is glaring.
They changed the multi core weight (by lowering it) when zen1 came out.IMO the moves aren't necessarily malicious. As they noted, AMD mainstream processors actually saw an uptick in positioning.
We will have to see what UB do when/if Intel ever release a truly new uarch. It could be just that they're re-aligning the metrics for a shifting marketplace upon each release. And perhaps while they initially weighted MC heavily, they downgraded it because it truly WAS weighted too highly for most tasks.They changed the multi core weight (by lowering it) when zen1 came out.
They changed it again (by lowering it) when zen2 came out.
Now they do this.
Is it just coincidence?
Maybe but their reasoning for the changes isn't great.
With 6c/12t and even 8c/16t being sub $200 one can only expect software to target higher thread counts and at a higher pace than before in the near future.
Sure some of the AMD CPUs moved up but we all know the significance of halo products and being in the #1 spot.
The only market shift which is happening now is towards better use of multiple threads. So what they are doing is completely contradictory to the current trend. It is very... conspicuous. Suspiciously conspicuous?It could be just that they're re-aligning the metrics for a shifting marketplace upon each release.
There is definitely no use in having more than 4 cores / 8 threads. We know this is true because Intel have traditionally capped almost all of their mainstream processors at 8 threads.