This UserBenchmark comparison appears to be logical.
This UserBenchmark comparison appears to be logical.
The comparison highlights a small margin of around 2%. The calculation considers performance metrics from reputable tests like PassMark, which evaluates real-world usage rather than just raw scores. The Ryzen 5 3600 generally outperforms the Intel i3-10100F in practical benchmarks, making the difference more noticeable.
They estimate based on the findings... Why does "only" 2% sound so odd, what were your expectations? The other comparisons show 50% and that feels more logical. It’s true that UB has a noticeable bias (personally I think the owner is just being petty for some reason... but it doesn’t matter why), but ultimately it doesn’t change the outcome. (If they adjust for actual data, I demand evidence.) And UB does offer some value, though measurement isn’t its main strength. The bigger issue is which benchmarks you believe in—they all carry strong biases (usually tied to cost).
It seems like you're questioning the origin of the website. Could you clarify what you mean? Are you wondering about its ownership or content?
When examining the score details, it becomes clear that the Ryzen consistently outperforms in every test. The memory response time isn't a meaningful metric here because these results come from various users using different RAM configurations. Passmark benchmarks for multi-core performance show a 3600 rating being quicker overall; while the single-core score is higher (4c/8t), it's paired with lower multi-core scores (6c/12t) compared to the i3. This simple comparison confirms the findings.
If only people would scroll down the results list in user benchmark. There is much more to it than just a bench speed comparison. The 10400f is a better comparison.