AMD has claimed for a long time to have the “Fastest” processor, and so has Intel (maybe with less hype?) … I went for the AMD hype/marketing in 2006 for my first real ‘Big’ build, and it never really seemed much faster than any of my other computers. Didn’t seem as ‘Snappy’ as my old 1992 Dell’s 486 DX2 (something like that?!), but I don’t think Marketers or Benchmarkers talk about or test how ‘Snappy’ a computer’s processor is. Wasn’t a gamer, but wanted to see if I could build a Gamers’ type of computer, so added lots of fans – this was before the light craze, so it only had normal computer lights (small and unnoticed). A few years later I removed most of those fans, after realizing what they added to my electric bill, and upgraded to a 4-core AMD Phenom, I believe. That made my 2nd computer seem slower (it had a Celeron) so I upgraded it to something like a Dual-Core Pentium (?), and it now seemed faster than the AMD 4-core. Not sure the ‘Naked eye’ could actually tell which was faster, so maybe the Intel was ‘Snappier’ – yes, the Intel generally seem ‘Snappier’ to me, when the two processors are fairly close. However, I will add that my new Ryzen 5 3400G has a ‘Snappiness’ to it that none of my other AMD processors ever had. Let’s looked at an effective speed chart:

UserBenchmark gets 10,000,000 visitors a month…they have 111,436,107 Benchmarks, which grows by the second, so here are the new results 5-10 minutes later @ 111,447,210 Benchmarks. Can any other benchmark tester do that many that quick? I doubt it. UserBenchmark is a favorite of Gamers, and Gaming pushes the computers & computer components industry faster forward daily…BTW, UserBenchmark covers 939,162 Components. That chart shows the “Fastest Average Effective Speed” which I have highlighted in a ‘Red-Rectangle’ at the top.

What is the effective CPU speed index?

A single number
The effective CPU speed index approximates performance by distilling hundreds of data points into a single number. It is weighted towards typical consumer tasks.

The first few threads
Desktop tasks such as surfing the web with multiple tabs, watching videos and listening to music rarely use more than four threads. Very few of today’s popular games benefit from more than four threads. There is not much difference in fps between a stock 4 core i3-9100F and an overclocked 16 thread Ryzen 2700X in fact the 9100F is around 8% faster. Gaming fps is primarily influenced by the GPU rather than the CPU.

More threads
Higher thread counts are critical for workstation tasks such as cryptography and film production where doubling the number of threads can sometimes half the time spent waiting.

Huh, so most of “today’s popular games” don’t generally use “more than four threads.”

I also use Intel Processor Diagnostic Tool for checking & testing my i9 9900, CINEBENCH for benchmarking, CPU-Z for benchmarking + testing + checking, and a couple other utilities I don’t use much anymore. Mainly use a benchmark app from UserBenchmark site.

Linux doesn’t seem to offer so many tools and utilities. I tried the Phoronix Test Suite for Ubuntu Linux (not sure if it works on other Distros, but found it in Ubuntu software list); however, it was just too big and terminal/command prompt oriented for me.

Would you buy a used car from the dude in the following video?

Definitely a Marketer, huh. I don’t do much YouTube, but that looked like some kind of an AMD TV Commercial that uses YouTube to push their products instead. Guess AMD needs to use such tactics in order to keep up with a huge corporation like Intel.

Note: UserBenchmark is now @ 111,457,691 Benchmarks…