The evidence is that Geekbench isn't biased towards Apple Silicon given that other benchmarks agree.
For example, AnandTech runs a bunch of SPEC CPU benchmarks and found that the Apple A15 was a lot faster than the Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 or Exynos 2100 (all 2021 processors): https://www.anandtech.com/show/16983/the-apple-a15-soc-perfo.... You can check the second page for graphics benchmarks.
Apple has been making their own CPU cores for a while while Qualcomm and Samsung are both using the ARM-designed cores. In the case of the above benchmarks, both the Snapdragon and Exynos are using the Cortex-X1 cores from ARM. Google's Tensor processor also uses ARM's X1 cores. Newer Snapdragon processors like the 8 Gen 1 and 8 Gen 2 have used X2 and X3 cores.
Apple's ability to produce their own CPU designs has been a big win for them, especially for single-core performance (really important for the majority of what people do with their phones including web/javascript) and for power efficiency (really important for the vast majority of time when users might be using their devices, but not in a taxing way).
Apple's custom CPU cores give them a real advantage.
It is biased towards passively cooled CPUs. It's dev once stated in an interview that they tried to recreate the typical bursty usage patterns of mobile phones, and therefore the added little pauses between the tasks.
> Geekbench began as a benchmark for Mac OS X and Windows and was created by John Poole who ran the now-defunct Geek Patrol website, which reviewed hardware and software designed for Macs, and featured editorials and interviews of interest to the Mac community. [0]
Basically, imagine an Nvidia enthusiast writing a system-agnostic GPU benchmark. I'm not as militant about rejecting Geekbench as some others, but you can't pretend the correlation is hard to make.
Regardless though, it's not hard to see Apple being 1-2 years ahead of Samsung's output. If the iPhone is being manufactured on recent TSMC silicon, it will annihilate anything Samsung's fabs are capable of producing.
Samsung has consistently manufactured their Galaxy S series in two different versions -- a Qualcomm one, and an Exynos one (Samsung's in-house CPU division), with different geographic markets getting different options. America has always gotten the Qualcomm version (which has consistently been faster), but other markets have seen shifts over time.
The S23 Ultra went Qualcomm-only for the first time. In the year running up, they've been slowly expanding Qualcomm to more markets instead of Exynos.
It seems like they're gradually phasing out Exynos, at least from the higher-end phones -- since they've always struggled to produce an SoC competitive with even Qualcomm, which is already behind the curve compared to Apple.
For example, AnandTech runs a bunch of SPEC CPU benchmarks and found that the Apple A15 was a lot faster than the Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 or Exynos 2100 (all 2021 processors): https://www.anandtech.com/show/16983/the-apple-a15-soc-perfo.... You can check the second page for graphics benchmarks.
Apple has been making their own CPU cores for a while while Qualcomm and Samsung are both using the ARM-designed cores. In the case of the above benchmarks, both the Snapdragon and Exynos are using the Cortex-X1 cores from ARM. Google's Tensor processor also uses ARM's X1 cores. Newer Snapdragon processors like the 8 Gen 1 and 8 Gen 2 have used X2 and X3 cores.
Apple's ability to produce their own CPU designs has been a big win for them, especially for single-core performance (really important for the majority of what people do with their phones including web/javascript) and for power efficiency (really important for the vast majority of time when users might be using their devices, but not in a taxing way).
Apple's custom CPU cores give them a real advantage.