However, Geekbench is not that great (imo) so it does not necessarily indicate what you can expect overall performance to be or improve by between CPUs.
The team at Nuvia, before they were acquired by Qualcomm, did the analysis: https://medium.com/silicon-reimagined/performance-delivered-...
Also might be worth it to check out the top comment to see an example of how a choice can bias syncthetics but not real-world.
> Geekbench 6 uses a “shared task” model for multi-threading, rather than the “separate task” model used in earlier versions of Geekbench. The “shared task” approach better models how most applications use multiple cores.
> The "separate task" approach used in Geekbench 5 parallelizes workloads by treating each thread as separate. Each thread processes a separate independent task. This approach scales well as there is very little thread-to-thread communication, and the available work scales with the number of threads. For example, a four-core system will have four copies, while a 64-core system will have 64 copies.
> The "shared task" approach parallelizes workloads by having each thread processes part of a larger shared task. Given the increased inter-thread communication required to coordinate the work between threads, this approach may not scale as well as the "separate task" approach.
Nothing about this is biased towards Apple. GB6 simply scales worse with more cores due to increased inter-core communication requirements.
https://www.geekbench.com/doc/geekbench6-benchmark-internals...
Most applications can't utilize many cores. Thus, usually, consumer applications perform better with fewer but faster cores than many slow cores. Geekbench is a consumer CPU benchmark.
Thanks for the thoughtful and informative response though.