You could use a synthetic benchmark. Create your own Geekbench like thing and use those numbers.
Intel-$singlecore-$multicore
So an Intel-6-12 had twice the single core performance of the Intel-3-48 but is much worse in multicore.
Yeah, things are WAY more complicated. But at least it gives you a chance without memorizing spec sheets first. Higher numbers are always better. No redefining. This year’s 5 can’t be better than last year’s 20 in performance.
I don’t follow Intel/AMD chips anymore. If I wanted to buy a computer I’d have to learn it all from scratch. This would give me a nice leg up.
Gpu can be a third number. Power doesn't need to be in the model number. Neither does ecc, also all cpus should have such an easy to implement feature.
You can’t preserve ordering mapping permutations of a high-dimensional space (specs: clock rate, power, cores, cache, pipelining/vectorization, etc) with another high dimensional space (benchmarks, workloads, and scenarios) to a single number. It’s possible even for a chip with superior numerical specs across the board from another chip to perform worse due to lack of support for specialized instructions or differences in thermals.
For some workloads, it's one; for others, it's the other.
A one-dimensional performance axis is hard in practice.