Bias in Benchmark Reviews

There are multiple problems with lots of popular Benchmark reviews and people who are doing or posting them.

• They get paid or directly their products from the corpo they review. Sponsoring, advertisement, marketing, ...
• There is an NDA that needs to be signed.
• There is a code of conduct which disallows saying X.
• There is a code of conduct disallowing them to post things on platform X.

Results can be misinterpreted

Does it apply in the real-world or is it only a synthetic Benchmark. Most people do not give much about theoretical scores.

What should a Benchmark review minimum include

I make it quick and list specific categories that needs to be included to get the whole picture.

• Objective title
• Introduction
• Architecture analysis, are there new changes compared to the old one
• Core analysis
• Performance
• Efficiency
• Performance per Watt analysts
• OS power profiles and the influence
• Synthetic benchmarks
• Real-world in-game benchmarks
• Application performance with real-world apps
• Compression and decompression
• Turbo, boost and maximum clock
• RAM configuration as well as impact of RAM
• OS tests across different platforms, Windows and Linux
• Bottleneck benchmarks
• Security changes and the impact on performance
• Comparison to previous generation
• Conclusion if it is worth to update when you posses generation x on hardware already
• Overclocking aspect
• Usability like drivers Drivers
• Maintenance cost as well as platform switching in consideration
• Price
• Conclusion

Draft

This is currently a draft I am working on and not the final version, please do not link it.