It's an artificial benchmark running for a short duration. The fact that it boils a complex topic down to a singular number should be your first indication that its nonsense.

I think Geekbench is what Tiobe is to programming language rankings or Fox news is to objective news coverage.

If you can't run the same tasks on the same OS you probably can't objectively compare them in a meaningful way. Lack of good data however doesn't excuse using bad data. After absorbing bad data you actually know less than when you started because you think you have objective analysis.

I've witnessed that myself by running Octane JS benchmark. I think that's pretty good indicator for most smartphone applications.

I agree, storage speed is probably appalling - you still can't sync your iPhone over USB 3.0 - takes half a day to do so after a vacation...

Even after that you can't deny transistor count and numbers we have. If you have better ones - do present them.

Not having good numbers doesn't suggest we ought to accept bad ones. If you have nothing to eat you don't eat right then you don't eat dirt.

We aren't discussing smartphone applications. The topic of discussion was whether current generation iphones are on par with 2018 Macbooks. I think the practical answer is that the cpu on the phone is inherently limited by battery/heat/storage speed in actual usage. If the poster had simply said "felt as snappy as" it would be hard to disagree with a subjective feeling. I don't think their objective analysis is as defensible.

> It's an artificial benchmark running for a short duration.

While I don't disagree with your point, we should realize both iPhone and MBP do throttling.