You'll understand that there are some things I can't obviously say due to
NDA.
That being said, I'm fully aware of Geekbench shortcomings as they are
pretty obvious:
- too many compression/decompression benchmarks
- too many benchmarks using dedicated instructions
- too small datasets.
I still find it useful as long as you examine individual scores (Lua and
Dijkstra are interesting IMHO) and keep in mind that drawing a conclusion
on a chip performance based on a single benchmark (no matter what that
benchmark is) is utterly dumb. I think John Poole is really trying to
improve his benchmark and accusing him of having an agenda isn't fair.
My understanding is that he's taking inputs from various companies for
GB4 and I guess our preferred one is being listened to.
As far as SPEC 2006 goes memory requirements did not allow Apple phones
to run it (64-bit requires 2GB as you know). Also one has to be careful
with SPEC, given that many companies have dedicated huge efforts to tune
their compilers (icc on libquantum is the obvious example), so to use it
to compare different CPU's it would be fair to use gcc. Perhaps we'll
see someone qualified do that at last (not a random Anandtech guy
unable to properly compile SPEC as was the case in the Exynos 7
review...).
So you won't read me saying how great Geekbench is, but you won't read me
saying it's a PoS. It provides some useful information. Just one data
point, far from enough to draw any conclusion about an alleged catch up
of Intel by Apple.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
