HR AI Index

Index › Products › 3DMark · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

3DMark

3Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

3 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.3, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

3 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. 3DMark was named 3 times in Compensation benchmarkin, where Payscale led with 24%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market55 of 141

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In compensation benchmarkin · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named 3DMark for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Compensation benchmarking data	Compensation and total rewards	0%	55 of 141	33%	3	under 10 labels · led by Payscale at 24%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for 3DMark yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated 3DMark across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	Alternative	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	1	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	0	1
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative3 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative3 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“consider alternatives like Geekbench, Cinebench, 3DMark, or technical.city” Mistral Small · Compensation benchmarkin · negative prompt · alternative

“GPUs: 3DMark (Futuremark) and TechPowerUp.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Compensation benchmarkin · negative prompt · alternative

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

“These are legit professional tools, but caution is needed” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Compensation benchmarkin · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as 3DMark, over the 3 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and 3DMark was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Cinebench3 of 31Not among the top eight

Geekbench3 of 30Not among the top eight

UserBenchmark3 of 30Not among the top eight

technical.city3 of 30Not among the top eight

AnandTech1 of 30Not among the top eight

Anthropic1 of 30Not among the top eight

CrystalDiskMark1 of 30Not among the top eight

Gamers Nexus1 of 30Not among the top eight

HELM1 of 30Not among the top eight

MMLU1 of 30Not among the top eight

A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named 3DMark. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 3 of the 3 answers that named 3DMark and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

9bench.com3

gizmosphere.org3

reddit.com2

rtech.support2

thinkcomputers.org2

trustpilot.com2

aclanthology.org1

aice-lab.org1

androplus.jp1

arxiv.org1

Eighteen of the eighteen domain citations in answers naming 3DMark came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

9bench.com/articles/userbenchmark-banned-honest-alternatives-20263

gizmosphere.org/stop-using-userbenchmark3

rtech.support/learning/userbenchmark2

thinkcomputers.org/userbenchmark-biased-component-rating-drama2

trustpilot.com/review/www.userbenchmark.com2

9bench.com/1

9bench.com/articles/userbenchmark-alternatives-20261

aclanthology.org/2026.gem-main.50.pdf1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Follow 3DMark

An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.

Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when 3DMark's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as 3DMark, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

With a new claim: the vendor brief

A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for 3DMark by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where 3DMark is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
who was chosen in the answers that did not name 3DMark, and every reason the record gives;
a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at 3dmark.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.