If you actually read that article, what it's saying is that the UserBenchMarks data is dubious. (And this has been my experience with other data there as well).
(Even the title says "...but this is on UserBenchmark" - as in, "Take it with a huge grain of salt")
Here are a few quotes:
"Obviously any article about UserBenchmark brings out a wave of criticism from those who value the services other synthetic benchmarks provide, but sometimes results deserve to be reported simply because of their outlandish nature." (Read: "We know these figures are absurd, and are reporting it here to illustrate exactly how absurd the data is")
"If the i7-11700K can blow away rivals such as the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and the Ryzen 9 5950X, by quite a margin, then it makes one wonder what miraculous results the Intel Core i9-11900K will eventually produce on the same site" (This is clearly sarcasm)
"It’s well-documented that UserBenchmark has a points-weighting system that heavily favors fewer-core workloads, which in turn will generally favor Intel parts that often outpace their AMD rivals in single-core benchmarks." (If you tilt the table far enough toward Intel, then eventually they'll come out on top in a benchmark.) BTW, The Intel single-core performance figures at PassMark are only marginally better than Zen 3: A 11700k is only about 1% better than a 5800X, and less than 5% ahead of a 5600X. Hardly what I'd call "blowing away" the Ryzen CPUs.
Don't know that I'd put a lot of confidence in the data from UserBenchmarks, given the above.
Most other sites - reliable sites - have shown the Zen 3 / 5000 CPUs roundly outperforming Intel's offerings.
Last edited by kksnowbear; 03/05/21 05:47 PM.