The CPU hierarchy definitely needed some form of redesign, as all quad-core or higher Intel or AMD Ryzen CPUs from the last five years were getting dumped into the first tier. And you can't just split the tier arbitrarily, since where does one draw the line? Even as it was, a 3550 is in the first tier, while a 2550k is in the second, but in practice their performance should be practically indistinguishable, and the 2550K might even be slightly faster. Aside from AMD getting back in the game with Ryzen, processors haven't really seen a big jump in terms of per-core performance from any one generation to the next in many years, and since most of today's games run fine on a quad-core processor, there isn't a lot to distinguish them. Arguably, all of the first-tier CPUs in the legacy list should do a decent job handling most modern games on a 60Hz screen.
Of course, that should highlight what is arguably an issue with the new format. It may rank the processors by performance in current games in a somewhat more detailed way, but that detail might not even be particularly relevant to most people. If someone has a mid-range to lower-end graphics card, or a 60Hz screen, they will probably not notice any significant difference between the gaming performance of most of the processors in the new list, aside from perhaps the very bottom ones like the dual-core G4560 or a stock-clocked Ryzen 1200 in certain demanding titles.
And that points us to another problem. The new list doesn't account for the fact that all of the Ryzen processors, and some of the higher-end Intel ones, can be overclocked, which can significantly disrupt the standings at certain price levels. While a Ryzen 1200 was in the first tier in the legacy list, and a Pentium G4560 all the way down in the third tier, now suddenly the Pentium is coming out on top, due to its faster (but locked) stock clocks, despite its core deficiency. The main draw of the Ryzen 1200 for gaming would be its ability to be easily overclocked to provide much more competitive performance, even on its stock cooler and a relatively inexpensive motherboard. This new list doesn't reflect that at all, and so a less-capable CPU like the G4560 ends up scoring slightly better. With CPUs getting more cores and threads recently, it's only a matter of time before more games make better use of those additional cores, meaning some CPUs with fewer cores may fall further behind in the years to come. That is of course something that can't be accurately measured though.
Then, we're back to the question of what exactly these abstract numbers mean. On average, a Pentium G4560 might provide somewhere around 61% of the stock gaming performance of an 8700K (at least when paired with a high-end graphics card in this particular test suite on a clean test platform with no notable background processes), but what does that say for frame rates? If someone has a 60Hz screen, and both CPUs were to stay over 60fps in most titles, they might not see much of a difference between them. And in a game like Civilization, even maintaining 60fps might not matter much. The chart might show that one processor can perform better than another in these games, but it doesn't do a very good job of representing how relevant those differences might be. Someone might assume that moving from one CPU to another might give them a substantial boost in performance, but unless they have a high-end graphics card and a high-refresh rate screen at a moderate resolution, they might not actually see much of that performance difference.
The old processor hierarchy chart was a bit of a mess, but I'm not convinced that this new one is that much better in its current form. It might be hard to portray CPU performance in games accurately within a single chart though. Maybe if overclocked performance numbers were included, it could be better, but things would probably be more readable if overclocking was represented in a separate chart. And while showing actual average frame rates might give someone a rough idea if any differences are even relevant to them, those could still be prone to misinterpretation, and just because an average ends up at a particular position, doesn't indicate whether there might be outliers landing well above and below the average, as could be the case with something like a dual-core processor, which could choke on certain games while performing great in others. I can't say that I have a good solution for making such a chart work better, but just thought I'd point these things out.
. However, we are still proving out and working with this new design, so we didn't include it this round. Our initial concerns with data from our OC results are much the same as yours: we want to present the information in the densest and least confusing format possible. 
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram