UserBenchmark

Key takeaways

UserBenchmark belongs to science; place it in that map before memorising details.
Learn the definition first, then one example that makes the definition concrete.
Connect UserBenchmark to a quantity you can measure, compute or draw — that is where exam questions come from.
Reproduce the core statement of UserBenchmark from memory before moving on to harder problems.

Reference excerpt

UserBenchmark is a computer hardware benchmarking and comparison website. It allows users to test the performance of CPUs, GPUs, SSDs, HDDs, RAM, and USB storage devices and compare their results with those submitted by other users. The service originated in 2011 as whoratesit, a social-rating website covering subjects including movies, books, software, and computer hardware. It was rebranded as UserBenchmark in 2013 and subsequently became primarily focused on computer hardware benchmarking. UserBenchmark became widely used for quick comparisons and diagnosis of individual computers because of its large database of user-submitted benchmark results. It has also become controversial among computer-hardware enthusiasts and reviewers, particularly because of its CPU scoring methodology, editorial commentary concerning AMD, and differences between its aggregate rankings and those produced by independent hardware-review publications.

History

Whoratesit UserBenchmark originated in 2011 as a website called whoratesit. According to Tom's Hardware, the original service functioned as a social platform for rating and comparing a variety of subjects, including movies, books, computer software, and computer hardware. The original service was therefore broader than the later UserBenchmark website, which became primarily concerned with computer hardware performance.

Rebranding In 2013, whoratesit was rebranded as UserBenchmark. The service shifted its focus toward collecting performance measurements from users' computers and comparing those measurements across hardware models. The resulting service used a downloadable benchmarking application that tested components on a user's computer and uploaded the results to the UserBenchmark website.

Early benchmark service By 2014, UserBenchmark was publicly documented as a computer hardware benchmarking service. Contemporary computer-hardware discussions described a downloadable application that tested CPUs, GPUs and storage devices and automatically uploaded results to UserBenchmark's database. A 2014 software archive listed UserBenchMark version 2.6 as a freeware Windows application capable of testing storage, CPU and GPU performance and uploading reports to UserBenchmark.com. The service differed from conventional hardware-review benchmarks by relying on a large number of results submitted by users rather than testing a fixed selection of hardware under controlled laboratory conditions.

Expansion of the database During the mid-to-late 2010s, UserBenchmark expanded its database to cover CPUs, GPUs, SSDs, HDDs, RAM and USB storage devices. The service provided both individual system reports and aggregate product comparisons. Individual reports were intended to help users determine whether their own hardware was performing within the expected range for the same hardware. Because results were submitted from individual computers, measurements could be affected by factors such as cooling, power settings, memory configuration, drivers, background applications and other system conditions.

Hardware leaks The large number of UserBenchmark submissions also made the service a source of information about unreleased hardware. Pre-release results for processors and graphics cards from manufacturers including AMD, Intel and NVIDIA have appeared in the UserBenchmark database before the products' official launches. Technology publications have periodically reported on such results as hardware leaks.

2019 CPU scoring controversy In July 2019, UserBenchmark changed the weighting used to calculate its overall CPU performance index following the introduction of AMD's Zen 2 architecture and Ryzen 3000 processors. Before the change, UserBenchmark's reported weighting assigned approximately 40% of the score to single-core performance, 50% to quad-core performance and 10% to multi-core performance. The revised system used approximately 40% single-core, 58% quad-core and 2% multi-core weighting. UserBenchmark said it had made the change because it believed its previous index was overestimating CPUs with more than eight cores. The company argued that the revised index better represented the workloads it considered relevant to typical desktop users. The change attracted considerable criticism because contemporary AMD Ryzen processors generally had more CPU cores and stronger multi-core performance than many competing Intel processors. Critics argued that sharply reducing the contribution of multi-core performance disproportionately affected AMD's higher-core-count processors. Tom's Hardware highlighted the effect of the weighting system by noting that an Intel Core i3-8100 could rank above the considerably more expensive Intel Core i9-9980XE in UserBenchmark's rankings, despite the latter having 18 cores and 36 threads. UserBenchmark subsequently said it would continue to modify its effective-speed indices and acknowledged the criticism surrounding the July 2019 revision.

Criticism and controversy

Perceived AMD bias UserBenchmark has been accused by hardware enthusiasts of favoring Intel over AMD in its CPU rankings. The accusations became particularly prominent after the 2019 scoring change. Critics argued that the new weighting system placed relatively little importance on multi-core performance and therefore reduced the apparent advantage of many AMD processors. UserBenchmark has rejected accusations that its methodology was designed to favor Intel or that it receives outside influence from hardware manufacturers. The company has stated that its scoring system is intended to represent its interpretation of typical consumer workloads. There is no established evidence that Intel or another hardware manufacturer paid UserBenchmark to manipulate its rankings. Allegations of such payments have largely originated in online discussions rather than documented evidence.

Editorial commentary In addition to numerical benchmark results, UserBenchmark publishes editorial descriptions and commentary about computer hardware. The site's commentary about AMD products has attracted criticism for what critics regard as unusually negative or confrontational language. Tom's Hardware reported that UserBenchmark became increasingly critical of AMD following the 2019 controversy and subsequently published strongly worded commentary about AMD products and the company's supporters. This editorial material has contributed to UserBenchmark's reputation as a controversial source for hardware comparisons.

… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.

Worked examples

Example 1 — a first encounter with UserBenchmark

Start with the simplest possible case. Write down what UserBenchmark claims or describes in one sentence, then invent the smallest concrete situation in which that sentence is true. In science, the smallest case is usually a single object, a single equation or a single measurement. Check that every symbol or term in your sentence has a meaning in that case.

Example 2 — changing one variable

Take the situation from Example 1 and change exactly one quantity: double it, halve it, or set it to zero. Predict what should happen to UserBenchmark before you calculate. Comparing your prediction with the result is the fastest way to find out whether you understand the idea or only the words.

Example 3 — an exam-style question

Typical questions about UserBenchmark ask you to (a) state it precisely, (b) apply it to given data, and (c) explain a limitation. Practise writing all three answers in under five minutes; the third part is what separates a full-mark answer from an average one.

Applications of UserBenchmark

In research: UserBenchmark appears in science research whenever the underlying quantities have to be modelled precisely. Papers usually cite it as a starting assumption and then explore where it breaks down.
In technology and industry: Engineering practice reuses UserBenchmark in design rules, simulations and safety margins. Knowing the idea lets you read a specification sheet and understand why the numbers look the way they do.
In the classroom: UserBenchmark is common in secondary-school and first-year university syllabi. It links to neighbouring topics science, so understanding it makes those chapters shorter.
In everyday life: Look for UserBenchmark outside the textbook — in sport, cooking, traffic, electronics or the sky above you. An example you found yourself is remembered far longer than one you were given.

How to study UserBenchmark in 20 minutes

Read the reference excerpt below once, without taking notes.
Close the page and write down what UserBenchmark means in your own words.
Compare your version with the excerpt and mark what you missed.
Work through the three examples above with pen and paper.
Explain UserBenchmark out loud to somebody else — or to Teacher Smith in the lgStudy chat.

Frequently asked questions

What is UserBenchmark in simple terms?

UserBenchmark is a computer hardware benchmarking and comparison website. It allows users to test the performance of CPUs, GPUs, SSDs, HDDs, RAM, and USB storage devices and compare their results with those submitted by other users.

Why does UserBenchmark matter?

Because it connects several science ideas at once: it gives you a definition you can apply, a quantity you can calculate, and a way to check whether a result is plausible.

How should I study UserBenchmark?

Read the excerpt, restate it from memory, then work through the examples and applications listed on this page. The five-step study plan above takes about twenty minutes.

What does this page cover?

It gives you a compact reference excerpt plus original lgStudy explanations, examples, applications and study material on UserBenchmark.