> It's the same numerical distance. ... What people are going to care about is the difference as a percentage. :) > Look how small the bars are at the anandt

> It's the same numerical distance. ... What people are going to care about is the difference as a percentage. :) > Look how small the bars are at the anandtech page, https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2247 https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2247 also does not show you the one is 66% faster - same problem, just inverted. Actually the bar for the 2700X on the Anandtech page is 66% longer than the bar for the 3900X, though it's admittedly harder to eyeball when they're both that short because of the much slower processors at the bottom of the page. You can imagine how much easier that page would be to see if they didn't include those two Celerons at the bottom. (You can also imagine how that would affect the results using the math you were using; if adding or removing a CPU changes not just the length of the bar but the actual numbers for an entirely different CPU, something's fishy.) Doing 1/X for timed benchmarks helps that for the modern processors though, because it makes it so the bars that are short and hard to eyeball are the slowest processors rather than the fastest ones.