[olyjohn]

Picking individual use cases is exactly how you should be reviewing benchmarks. You should be picking a laptop based on what you do. If you don't do certain things, why would you care that some other CPU is faster at what you are not doing?

If you're looking for a "general" comparison, there is none. General usage of a laptop computer for who? What do you consider general usage? What exactly are you looking for? For 99% of what people do, they won't even be able to tell apart a Celeron from an M2.

Why do you think we have things like discreet GPUs? You buy certain hardware for certain tasks.

Or do you just want to say that your CPU is better than someone else's? Who gives a shit? That's really all you get from a "general" performance review, a bunch of vague crap.

This review was great. It shows what Linux users can expect under certain workloads on two laptops that cost the same amount of money. You can then decide which one is best for you as a Linux user who may be interested in an M2.

[minimaul]

Drawing general comparisons is exactly what this article tries to do at the end, that's one of my concerns with it.

They don't know what state the M2 was in at the start of each test (because the hw monitoring support isn't there yet), and this is a system that is known to thermally throttle, so the individual results are potentially flawed too.

The laptops don't cost the same amount. This is comparing an $1100 laptop to an $1800 laptop.

FWIW, I don't actually care which is faster (I own both AMD and Apple hardware that I use for different things) - I just think the review is flawed.