No, being up front about doing something dumb doesn't make it not dumb. 15 to 20 years ago, it made sense to look at how well CPUs would perform a small number of concurrent tasks. These days, that's a non-issue. That's why I and most others probably assumed it's like all the other MT benchmarks and actually tested multithread scalability.So they are upfront about not targeting multi-threaded rendering and the like. If reviewers represent it otherwise that isn’t really GB’s fault.
I can see the logic of having a multi-threaded benchmark that tries to simulate the way games use multiple threads and most of them only seem to scale up to about 8 cores. However, if that's what they were trying to do, then they should've called it the GeekBench Gaming (CPU) test, sort of like what 3DMark does.
GB6 MT is dead to me. I will heap scorn upon it when and wherever I see it mentioned, henceforth.I for one am glad there is an easily accessible benchmark that isn’t all about ultimate multi-threaded performance but more related to what most people’s workload is like.
Last edited: