SkyBill40
Distinguished
Reasonable people having ordinary conversations don't instantly bark about YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE blah blah blah when they doubt something, especially if it's not an outlandish idea. They just politely ask for more info, and only get your level of rude if the person in my position is evasive and refuses to provide any support. You went nuclear from the word go. It's almost as if you're really angry about something. I wonder what that could be?
I simply stated you should provide your citation to refute the claim. That's it. A reasonable person would do so, yet here we are. Why? Moving on, I didn't "go nuclear" whatsoever. That's your perception of it and nothing more. I'm not even remotely agitated let alone angry and while I suppose a hot take on it might seem as such, you're reading way too far into it. Believe me there.
Good lord you actually wrote "Apple mad", and now you mad it got turned back on you, eh?
It was a light and jovial jab, nothing else. Not mad. Amused, perhaps... but not mad.
One can make a distinction between the Geekbench results database, which is not great, and Geekbench the benchmarking tool, which is decent.
It wasn't always that way. Someone in this thread linked to the thing where Linus Torvalds was bashing it. Without even clicking through the link I'm guessing it was one of his rants about its scores treating AES cryptography as a CPU test. He didn't like this because most CPU tests in GB are genuinely testing the CPU core itself, but the AES test will use an accelerator on most platforms.
Modern GB still does AES the same way, but weights it so low in the composite scores that it doesn't influence them much. Not perfect, but that objection was mostly dealt with.
Fair enough. Thank you for that take.
I think you're a little confused here. The Tom's article was about an anonymous Geekbench score showing up in the database. Nobody knows who put it there. It probably wasn't Apple.
One possibility is that a journalist got their review unit and ran the free version of GB5, which auto-uploads an anonymized report after every run. (One feature you unlock by paying for Geekbench is the ability to control these uploads, including not doing them at all.) Another possibility is that some troll decided to have some fun.
The benchmarks Apple uses to promote the Mac Studio are mostly professional creative apps - Final Cut Pro, Affinity Photo, Photoshop, and so on. They don't use Geekbench.
Again, fair enough.
My point was that this isn't any different. If you were as familiar with the merits and demerits of Geekbench as you pretended to be, you wouldn't find it a controversial idea that its database has a lot of fake and low quality scores.
I made no claim or assertion to my knowledge or lack thereof with regard to Geekbench; to be honest, I'm not as familiar with it as I am with several of the more well known and used benchmarking tools which this site runs to test gear. If there's a lot of bogus stuff in GB and it's seen as largely unreliable, well, it shouldn't be taken seriously or referenced but that would somewhat deflate the article to degree. Would you not agree with that? As you seem to have more insight on the merits or demerits of GB and its use, I'll defer to you on it.