The userbenchmark.com site, pretty popular to compare relative CPU performance, have made a significant change, rendering their overall CPU 'relative index' meaningless to compare CPUs that have more than 4 cores.
Basically, what they done is shifting multi-core performance tests significance in their overall rating from 10% to 2%, basically up to or even below the error margin, given the test results distribution. This means full multi-core performance of the specific CPU is now not reflected in their rating properly (if not to say at all) and only single to quad core performance matters.
As more and more general consumer CPUs are starting to have more than 4 cores during last years, this decision can be considered ridiculous. Even more so with CPUs that have 12+ cores, because their multicore performance is tremendous. Seeing they are not much faster than 4 core CPUs in the general rating is not much helpful. Even worse, people can even think like 6-core or 8-core CPUs could be faster looking at rating assembled that way and make a totally wrong decision on their purchases.
So, if using userbenchmark.com earlier to compare different stuff you have or not or planning to have, it's now better to either look at detailed test results instead of using the 'calculated' rating or to resort to other benchmarking points around there.
It's a pity though. Userbenchmark offered pretty good 'quick' rating that actually reflected the situation in more or less unique way suitable for both browser-gaming users and even power users. Now it's offering solely browser and low end gaming oriented rating that cannot be trusted in terms of general CPU comparison.
Everything written in this blog is solely a personal opinion or experience. You don't have to agree with it, more than that: always take it with a good grain of salt.
1. It is overpriced for its performance - 70% difference in cost, 20% difference in performance. You can find a lot of benchmarks out there, look at most application benchmarks because you will never be using full CPU performance in anything but heavy enough applications.
2. They have a whole bloody lot of critical vulnerabilities specific to them recently discovered, that when avoided ('fixed up') by CPU firmware and OS, drop the performance quite a lot
3. They change motherboard sockets every now and then on a whim, so further upgrade would not be easy
4. The good motherboards and chipsets for these are overpriced as well, everything else is just meek
5. They are technically inferior, manufactured at 14 nm process, while current AMD CPUs are at 12 nm and next generation coming soon would be at 7 nm
6. They drop frequencies of the whole CPU under heavy AVX vector calculational loads - https://blog.cloudflare.com/on-the-dangers-of-intels-frequency-scaling/
7. They have a stable huge userbase of those who overclock, meaning buying such CPU second hand can result in getting a 'nicely grilled' one
8. Recently, there were certain reportings that declared TDP (thermal dissipation, which stands almost equal to how hot the CPU is) for the top class desktop CPUs may actually not be real - https://www.anandtech.com/show/13591/the-intel-core-i9-9900k-at-95w-fixing-the-power-for-sff
9. If you prefer just an integrated videocard in your laptop or even desktop, the performance of integrated GPUs is totally terrible compared to AMD - look at the gaming benchmarks here, because for office productivity (except for some specific case of 3D design, modeling and some other specific jobs) GPU mostly does not matter.
10. They usually have thermal glue under the lid instead of solder (although some AMD CPUs have this flaw as well, and some Intel CPUs don't), leading to bigger operating temperatures (so more noise from your CPU and case fans)
Everything written above is just a personal opinion, you should think on it twice and don't take any things from it at the face value too willingly.