Yeah that’s a different goalpost, but it’s still nuts.

Exactly what I wanted to say. On paper my pixel 1 was significantly faster then my pc at the time, an ancient core2quad q8400. In a lot of ways the phone did feel faster, then I tried to decompress a large 7z file on both of them and,despite using a mechanical hard drive, my pc took just over half as long.

Now overall, there were a lot of things that chip could manage better than my desktop but the point is that using a single benchmark or benchmark suite that leans into the strengths of the hardware is pointless.

Toms Hardware is a corporate propaganda op anyway.

Yep, synthetic benchmarks aren't worth much outside of theoretical performance. Test a complete system as you can actually buy it and with an actual real-life workload - i'm sure the performance will still be good, but nowhere this outstanding.

Edit: that doesn't even take into account the amount of times companies have been caught cheating on those tests, which is only possible because they are not a real life scenario

having a high peak performance means you can underclock it, giving it less energy to get the same performance as before with less heat, meaning at the thermal throttle point it is that much faster than before

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills every time Apple releases a CPU. Their designs are good but most of it is the new TSMC node they use. When others get access to the node the difference is not that large but then the cycle starts again.

Geekbench is basically known for favoring Apple. It's the consumer pc equivalent of "my dad can beat up your dad" because it is all made up and not real.