Talk:UserBenchmark Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:UserBenchmark

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted from this draft on 22 January 2025 by reviewer SafariScribe (talk · contribs). Websites: Computing Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from UserBenchmark appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 February 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that UserBenchmark unlocks free testing only if users can shoot down 13 ships? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2025/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/UserBenchmark.

@Desaccointier: re: "What part of the removed content is irrelevant, non-neutral, or unverified, exactly?" @Adakiko: re: "source for non-reliability? wp:Reliable sources/Perennial sources?"

Hi, I noticed you both reverted my edits. Below are my explanations for making them. Kindly let me know what edits we can make to make the article more informative, balanced and inline with Wiki policies. Thanks!

1. This line was removed: "It is known for its controversies for producing biased computer hardware ranking charts which unfairly favour Intel and Nvidia hardware, and disapproves of AMD hardware", as the language is not written from a neutral POV. The subject is not "known for" controversies more than it is "known for" being a hardware benchmarking site with millions of visitors (as pointed out in reference 1: Toms Hardware). There is no reference for the "unfairly" favouring different manufacturers. I believe this emotive language is better left out here in the summary and explained in the controversy section - see later. Your thoughts?

Tom's Hardware article states: For the uninitiated, UserBenchmark (UB) is infamous in the tech landscape for its radical perspectives versus AMD. That paraphrases to "known for". Adakiko (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semrush (https://www.semrush.com/website/userbenchmark.com/overview), not RS, shows that userbenchmark is a popular top 3000 website with 25m monthly visitors. Userbenchmark themselves claim to have performed 70m benchmarks. To say that they are “known for” the controversy is not very balanced imo if you are not also going to mention that it’s known for being a popular tool that is recommended by the tech media e.g. https://www.techradar.com/best/best-benchmarks-software, https://www.popsci.com/reviews/best-benchmark-software/.

Suggested wording: “Its controversial opinions and perceived biases in its computer hardware rankings, particularly regarding AMD products, have sparked strong criticism in the tech press.” Thoughts? PeteskiPete (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bunnypranav & @Stephendt kindly provide consensus for the suggested, more NPOV rewording:

From:

"It is known for its controversies for producing biased computer hardware ranking charts which unfairly favour Intel and Nvidia hardware, and disapproves of AMD hardware.^[1]"

To:

“Its controversial opinions and perceived biases in its computer hardware rankings, particularly regarding AMD products, have sparked strong criticism in the tech press.^[1]”

References:

PeteskiPete (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

particularly against AMD products? Since all sources state this bias, I think we can include the against AMD bias part. Apart from that, all ok from me. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, noted. Suggested new wording to remove "particularly":

From:

“Its controversial opinions and perceived biases in its computer hardware rankings, particularly regarding AMD products, have sparked strong criticism in the tech press.^[1]”

To:

“Its controversial opinions and perceived biases in its computer hardware rankings against AMD products have sparked strong criticism in the tech press.^[1]”

References:

@Stephendt Is this okay? TIA

PeteskiPete (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2. Removed the reference to 3Dmark as it's not relevant. There is no reason to mention 3Dmark here or any of the dozens of alternative benchmarking solutions. Or should all of them be listed? There is already a link to benchmarks (computing) where many of the alternatives are noted.

Sometimes a comparison is useful. Maybe add another? Adakiko (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PassMark is a more comparable whole system benchmark than 3DMark. Will adjust.PeteskiPete (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I partially reverted this particular change (other edits in the same diff are ignored) since PassMark has no cited source. Feel free to add it back after citing a source mentioning the similarity between Passmark and UserBenchmark. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3. Removed the word "frequent" from the line: "makes it a frequent source of unreleased hardware leaks". None of the references indicate the frequency of leaks, and after a quick search, I couldn't find any articles more recent than 2022 with regard to hardware leaks on user benchmark, so not that frequent then.

Seems OK to me. Adakiko (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, will adjust.PeteskiPete (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4. Changed the word from "imposed" to "offered" to be factually accurate and use neutral language in this sentence: "In 2024, UserBenchmark imposed a $10 per year fee to allow usage of the program during periods of high use."

Why? "Offered" sounds like it's a donation. Imposed, maybe In 2024, UserBenchmark required a $10 per year subscription fee to use the program during periods of high use.? Adakiko (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, will adjust.PeteskiPete (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5. Changed this sentence: "Only a small subset of people can make use of free open testing slots unless they are subscribers." The source refers to "a limited unspecified number of users", but not whether this is a small or large number.

Some people, without subscriptions, may be able to make use of free open testing slots.? Adakiko (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, will adjust.PeteskiPete (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6. Removed the non-neutral language: "facing backlash". Reworded to be more neutral and accurate.

You removed the whole paragraph and sources. Adakiko (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See point 7.PeteskiPete (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

7. Removed the non-neutral language: " in which the high-end CPU was called "pointless for gaming"." - but concede that this is a direct quote and may be permissable?

It's a quote. Mentioned in a number of other articles. Adakiko (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Will add more here to summarise the article more fully to include Userbenchmark’s view (it being significant as per wp:NPOV).PeteskiPete (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

8. Under the controversies section, I had swapped the order of the two paragraphs, one referring to 2025 and the other, 2019, to be in chronological order.

The swap is OK by me. Adakiko (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will swap order.PeteskiPete (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

9. Under the controversies section, I removed the emotive language (e.g. "drastically") and added detail about the controversy using the existing sources from an NPOV: "In July 2019, UserBenchmark updated how it calculates the effective speed index on its website's CPU hardware rankings, which resulted in Intel's i9-9900K CPU taking the top rank from AMD's higher core-count Threadripper processors. UserBenchmark received criticism for this in the media, but responded that the effective speed indices are subject to frequent tuning and “are now accurate to around 8% over the entire spectrum of 8500+ CPUs”. Several technology publications have criticised UserBenchmark's reviews of some AMD hardware." I'm open to discussion on how to bring this wording and in line with Wiki policies, please assist.

https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.userbenchmark.com wp:UGC and not RS, BTW, gives UserBenchmark 1.5 out of 5 stars w/ 750+ reviews. Some find the timing of the adjustments and the results very suspicious. I don't think your change make it clear enough. Adakiko (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. How about: "In July 2019, UserBenchmark updated how it calculates the effective speed index on its website's CPU hardware rankings, which resulted in Intel's i9-9900K CPU taking the top rank from AMD's high core-count Threadripper processors for gaming and desktop use. Some found the timing of the adjustments and the results very suspicious. However, UserBenchmark responded that the effective speed indices are subject to frequent tuning and have been made more accurate by the change.” Your thoughts?PeteskiPete (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bunnypranav & @Stephendt kindly provide consensus for the suggested, more informative rewording which adds detail on how the ranking was changed, why this was suspicious and UserBenchmark’s response (which is the subject of the cited reference).

Proposed change from:

“In July 2019, UserBenchmark updated how it calculates the effective speed index^[1] on its website's CPU hardware rankings, drastically affecting the ranking positions of CPUs, which penalized AMD processors.^[2]”

To:

"In July 2019, UserBenchmark updated how it calculates the effective speed index^[1] on its website's CPU hardware rankings, which resulted in Intel's i9-9900K CPU taking the top rank from AMD's high core-count Threadripper processors for gaming and desktop use. Some found the timing of the adjustments and the results very suspicious. However, UserBenchmark responded that the effective speed indices are subject to frequent tuning and have been made more accurate by the change.^[2]”

References:

PeteskiPete (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10. I originally had changed the wording of "This resulted in backlash on social media, with some hardware enthusiast boards banning links to the userbenchmark website", but I later removed it altogether as the eTeknix source does not appear to be high quality journalism and reads more like a gossip column. Please take a look at the source and let me know your thoughts.

the eteknix article (still live) appears to be posting research, not opinion. Near the end of the article is Well, at the risk of repeating ourselves, again, we don’t care suggesting their articles are under editorial review. There is no discussion on wp:RSP, so nobody has queried or complained. There are at least 50 external links to eteknix Special:Linksearch/*.eteknix .com. eteknix:about does not raise any flags. I don't see a problem. If you wish, inquire at wp:RSN. Adakiko (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah – can’t say that I think this is a high quality article, but get your point. How about the wording below, as the original with the word “resulting, makes it seem like there is a direct link with the ranking controversy, but in reality the ban seem to have occurred nearly a year later: “Some hardware enthusiast boards later banned links to the UserBenchmark website.” Your thoughts?PeteskiPete (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bunnypranav & @Stephendt lastly kindly provide consensus for the suggested rewording to more accurately reflect the timing of the ban and remove the direct attribution of this action to the CPU index update, as per the original citation.

From:

“This resulted in backlash on social media, with some hardware enthusiast boards banning links to the UserBenchmark website.^[1]”

To:

“Some hardware enthusiast boards later banned links to the UserBenchmark website.^[1]”

References:

PeteskiPete (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wordings on this seems fine to me, no comments on the source validity though. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are the bulk of the edits I made. Let's start here and discuss how to move forward. Thx. PeteskiPete (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wp:NPOV is about representing all significant views and then some. Suggested reading. You can request a wp:third opinion, or if more than two editors are involved on this talk page, please make a wp:request for comments. Adakiko (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Add rather than subtract. Will do after this discussion is concluded. Thanks for your help!PeteskiPete (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Desaccointier, Bunnypranav, Coolwriterman12, Multiverse Union, DotJAZ, The internet is made by people like you, Win8x, SafariScribe, and Stephendt: Send annoying ping to recent significant editors - any options on recent changes by PeteskiPete (talk · contribs)? Adakiko (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is not a great comment, but Adakiko clearly articulated my view on each of the ~10 points PeteskiPete mentioned, and I agree with their arguments. TBH, some of the changes proposed above are more POV than the current version. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is substantial evidence that shows that Userbenchmark has heavy bias against AMD hardware in their testing and article pages. I don't believe this is disputed. This article should be reflecting on these facts in a neutral way. I tried to word it that way, I clearly wasn't neutral enough. I'm sure it can be done, however. Stephendt (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephendt: See wp:edit requests. Please use a "Change X to Y" format and include citations. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephendt, UserBenchmark themselves push back on the accusation of bias, and are quoted as such in some of the referenced sources. I think this should be included as a significant point of view and suggested the wording in point 9 above. @Adakiko In the absence of further feedback from other editors, can I go ahead with the suggested wording in point 9, as well as point 1 and 10 above. Thanks in advance! PeteskiPete (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PeteskiPete:: You also need to address Bunnypranav (talk · contribs) and Stephendt (talk · contribs) for wp:consensus. Your suggested change did not include any citations. Add a {{reflist talk}} to display citations. Please use a "change X to Y" format? See wp:edit requests.Adakiko (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Will do.

PeteskiPete (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, be careful with wp:primary sources as they may be self-serving. Adakiko (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all that contributed to this discussion. I'm going to move points 1,9 and 10 (which currently have partial consensus) to a new separate RfC discussion to try to get a full resolution. This marks the close out of the discussion here. PeteskiPete (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why can't we mention CPU Pro on the Userbenchmark page? Coolwriterman12 (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolwriterman12: Unless there are special reasons to list CPU Pro, listing it would open the door to listing all benchmark software. There are quite a few in category:Benchmarks (computing). The article is a wp:red link: CPU Pro does not appear to have an article on Wikipedia. That by itself would suggest that it is not wp:notable. Does it meet wp:GNG? Maybe create an article for CPU Pro? See wp:articles for creation. Cheers 19:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Should the following proposed edits be implemented? PeteskiPete (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from the "Discussion on deleted edits" on this talk page, there are three outstanding wp:NPOV edits (numbered 1, 9 and 10 under "Discussion on deleted edits") I propose, that thus far I've been unable to get enough local editors to okay. The proposed edits rely on the references that are already cited in the article. I'd be grateful for your comments.

1.

From:

It is known for its controversies for producing biased computer hardware ranking charts which unfairly favour Intel and Nvidia hardware, and disapproves of AMD hardware.^[1]

to:

Its controversial opinions and perceived biases in its computer hardware rankings against AMD products have drawn criticism in the tech press, which UserBenchmark have rejected.^[1][2]

Reason for proposed change 1: Remove emotive language and accurately reflect the sources cited.

2.

From:

In July 2019, UserBenchmark updated how it calculates the effective speed index on its website's CPU hardware rankings, drastically affecting the ranking positions of CPUs, which penalized AMD processors.^[2]

to:

In July 2019, UserBenchmark updated how it calculates the effective speed index^[1] on its website's CPU hardware rankings, which resulted in Intel's i9-9900K CPU taking the top rank from AMD's high core-count Threadripper processors for gaming and desktop use. Some found the timing of the adjustments and the results suspicious. However, UserBenchmark responded that the effective speed indices are subject to frequent tuning and have been made more accurate by the change.^[2]

Reason for proposed change 2: Remove emotive language and accurately reflect the sources cited.

3.

From:

This resulted in backlash on social media, with some hardware enthusiast boards banning links to the UserBenchmark website.^[3]

to:

Some hardware enthusiast boards later banned links to the UserBenchmark website.^[3]

Reason for proposed change 3: to more accurately reflect the timing of the ban and remove the direct attribution of this action to the CPU index update, as per the original citation.

Thanks in advance. PeteskiPete (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 1, accept the first line of 2, oppose 3, For one, I agree that the current language is way too emotive and one-sided, for 2, I think the first line is an improvement, but the last two lines give the impression that the folks who opposed were wrong and that UserBenchmark had successfully refuted their issues. 3, misrepresents the facts by implying that the two events were unrelated (when they weren't). Sohom (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1 up to 'tech press' (so excludes which UserBenchmark have rejected), because WP:MANDY, and its perceived bias is well-sourced, with [1][2][3][4] as some examples. Oppose 2 because it is giving undue weight on UserBenchmark's POV (I can't support partially because I'd need a complete rewrite of that part to see how it works out). Oppose 3 per Sohom. dbeef [talk] 05:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dbeef, @Sohom Datta, Thanks both. I take your points on 1 (up to "tech press") and 3. I'll make the edit for 1. For 2, the source article is entitled "UserBenchmark Responds to Criticism..." so I do think there is merit in mentioning this UserBenchmark's POV, but may be with less weight? That said, which might be better for 2?

  • Alt 1 (just the first line of the original proposed edit):

  "In July 2019, UserBenchmark updated how it calculates the effective speed index on its website's CPU hardware rankings, which resulted in Intel's i9-9900K CPU taking the top rank from AMD's high core-count Threadripper processors for gaming and desktop use."

  • Or Alt 2 (a rewrite):

  "In July 2019, UserBenchmark updated its CPU effective speed index by reducing the multi-core performance weighting. As a result, high core-count CPUs, such as AMD's new Threadripper processors, ranked lower relative to those with faster single-core and quad-core performance, such as Intel's i9-9900K. UserBenchmark acknowledged the criticism from AMD fans."

  PeteskiPete (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad RFC See WP:RFCBEFORE. Oppose Alt 1 & 2 for being fancruft, support 1 up to 'tech press', oppose 2 for being irrelevant fancruft, oppose 3 because no one cares. Polygnotus (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed notably facing backlash over its review[11] of the high-end $479 MSRP[12] Ryzen 7 9800X3D,[13][14] in which they claimed spending more on a gaming CPU is "pointless" and suggested cheaper alternatives. which is fancruft. Polygnotus (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]