What advantage would it bring to manually write such comparison tables?
This link in particular never goes deeper than Geekbench and has a bunch of comparisons to stuff that shouldn’t guide purchase decisions like:
Newer - released 1 year and 4 months later
More modern manufacturing process – 3 versus 6 nanometers
I much prefer the more in-depth tests that outlets like GamersNexus do, where CPUs are tested using multiple workflows and solutions. For example, you can test specific games and applications, test file compression and video encoding, test simulation speed on CPU-dependent simulation games, test clock speed behavior and throttling (does the CPU have jittery boost clocks or does it settle in to a consistent frequency).
It think it's a good overview over various technical data and benchmark results. Benchmarks are linked.
> that shouldn’t guide purchase decisions like ... More modern manufacturing process – 3 versus 6 nanometers
Actually that's influencing buying decisions and gives an idea what kind of efficiency a CPU might be able to deliver. I have various M processor machines from Apple and a CPU on the recent 3 nanometer TSMC process has advantages over a 6 nm process. For example the newer M CPUs are more power efficient & smaller and some of that enables the M4 series of chips to be ahead of the rest in terms of efficiency. Over time other CPUs will move to such 3nm processes. I've seen that with the M4 in the iPad Pro and now with the M4 Pro in the new Macs.
> I much prefer the more in-depth tests
That serves a very different purpose. I like both in-depth tests and tabular comparisons between CPUs.
