So like, how CPUs are actually used in the real world?
Taking up a variable amount of the component you are testing will lead to worthless results. If you are using 20% of your CPU while running the benchmark it completely defeats the purpose of running it in the first place. You aren't gauging your PC's performance accurately, you are getting a false sense of your PC's performance. If you wanted to benchmark real world performance, you'd have to do so in a manner that is consistent. Running random background tasks, changing clock speeds, ram speed, and many other variables is not "real world" performance, it's ignorance.
So, like, umm... Cinebench, another industry standard?
No, nothing like Cinebench. The only trait they share is giving points as an output, everything else is different. Cinebench does not run for 5 seconds. Cinebench does not pretend to give you an overall reflection of performance (which it doesn't). Cinebench has been vetted over and over again and the testing method is clear. Not to mention, Cinebench does not take everyone's results and submit them online as if they are accurate scores of a person's PC parts. There is a reason we have reviewers, a majority of PC gamers haven't a clue how to properly test their parts.
The goal for any benchmark is to establish relative performance for consistent workloads. As long as the system is consistent in its scoring procedure, it's a good benchmark. In terms of relevance, a multitude of benchmarks should be used when comparing hardware, everyone knows this.
The methodology must also be consistent and the tests need to be of length. If people are running userbenchmark while windows is take 20% of the CPU syncing files on dropbox, that is not an accurate score of that CPU yet userbenchmark will register it anyways. Have you not heard of the scientific method and how to isolate a variable to give accurate results?
Yes, many benchmarks should be used but it's worthless to include ones like Userbenchmark for the many points I have already stated. It's less then pointless to include bad data.
Show me an actual evidence of that actually impacted the aggregated results. All I hear is lots of hating and not one lick of actual demonstration of where it has gotten things completely wrong.
The whole point is getting the signal out of the noise. The law of averages works in the favor of correct/accurate/repeatable/consistent results. 81 million data sets from benches will yield fairly reliable aggregate results. This kind of statistical sampling is both accurate and correct, plus it is quick and easy for everyone, less tan 5 minutes for any one person.
There is no way any single site however thorough can spend even 1/2 million minutes to test things much less do 81 million (btw 81 million minutes comes to 154 years). This is the power of distributed compute and massive number of cores spread across the world, the is how you use moar cores.
Are you suggesting that I submit evidence to defend against your claim which was submitted without evidence?
Waste of my time but I'll humor you.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-9900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X/4028vs3958
https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/intel-core-i9-9900k-processor-review,7.html
Single threaded performance in the Guru3D article on cinebench is only 7% ahead on the 9900K vs the 2700X, a far cry from the 22% advantage userbenchmark claims. Userbenchmark is the only one I know of that gives it such a large advantage in single thread, contrary to every other review on the internet. When the average is 12%, Userbenchmarks's results would be removed as an outlier by most reviewers as it clearly isn't accurate.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1730-intel-core-i9-9900k-core-i7-9700k/
Comparing the multi-threaded performance that userbench got vs the multi-thread performance that techspot achieved.
Userbenchmark has the 9900K 16% above the 2700X at stock. Techspot has the 9900K only 12% ahead, a difference of 4% and outside the margin or error (3%)
Guru3D has that same 12% as TechSpot
https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/intel-core-i9-9900k-processor-review,7.html
What I also don't get is how the 9900K has a faster "Quad Core" speed then multi-core. The 9900K doesn't boost all four cores, it boosts 1 to max speed and then steps down the more cores engaged. The 2700X does the same, only it's more aggressive and is able to maintain higher all core clocks. Both CPUs should retain relativity the same performance difference between quad core and all core performance yet user benchmark has a whopping 8% difference between them.
From what I'm seeing the results on Userbenchmark can be very inaccurate and are commonly outside margin or error of what most reviewers obtained. To be expected given that lack of restrictions on results. Garbage in, garbage out.