[wtallis]

Performance vs power across a CPUs operating range is not a linear relationship. Which is why a naive perf/Watt metric like Notebookcheck does at each chip's top operating point is almost worthless for comparing efficiency. You need to at the very least normalize to either the same power or same performance, but preferably reviewers should be measuring and reporting a full perf/power curve for each chip instead of just one data point. Geekerwan seems to be the only reviewer that understands this, and they mostly focus on phones.

[senttoschool]

  >Which is why a naive perf/Watt metric like Notebookcheck does at each chip's top operating point is almost worthless for comparing efficiency.

It isn't worthless. It clearly gives a good enough picture on efficiency to draw conclusions. It's not like Apple and Qualcomm drastically slow their chips down in order to get better perf/watt. No. They have better raw performance than Intel's chips regardless of perf/watt.

You can't even get perf/watt curves on Apple's A series and M series of chips because it's impossible to manually control the wattage given to the SoC. On PCs, you can do that. But not on iPhones and Macs. Therefore, Geekerwan's curves are not real curves for Apple chips - just projections.

[wtallis]

> It isn't worthless. It clearly gives a good enough picture on efficiency to draw conclusions.

They routinely draw wrong conclusions when comparing parts that are close, such as comparing between generations of Apple's chips when the maximum power has increased.