> Specifically, I don’t like them because they show really vague percentages or “scores” where it’s very unclear what specific benchmarks are being used. It th

> Specifically, I don’t like them because they show really vague percentages or “scores” where it’s very unclear what specific benchmarks are being used. It think it's a good overview over various technical data and benchmark results. Benchmarks are linked. > that shouldn’t guide purchase decisions like ... More modern manufacturing process – 3 versus 6 nanometers Actually that's influencing buying decisions and gives an idea what kind of efficiency a CPU might be able to deliver. I have various M processor machines from Apple and a CPU on the recent 3 nanometer TSMC process has advantages over a 6 nm process. For example the newer M CPUs are more power efficient & smaller and some of that enables the M4 series of chips to be ahead of the rest in terms of efficiency. Over time other CPUs will move to such 3nm processes. I've seen that with the M4 in the iPad Pro and now with the M4 Pro in the new Macs. > I much prefer the more in-depth tests That serves a very different purpose. I like both in-depth tests and tabular comparisons between CPUs.