I agree with everything that you said, but if there are features that favor one architecture over the another, point out how much that architecture gains from said feature. This helps the reader to decide what features he wants to have in the short term vs the long term. That way you can avoid the negative perceptions like 'oh DX12 is useless because it reduces performance with my NVIDIA card'. I hope you get my point.
Agreed, point out the performance improvements each feature gives so consumes know if there is a benefit or a negative hit so they turn on or off.
The way i think of it is this, if you had a shiny new APU and you use blender software for work, you would enable every feature/api extension that gives you the best performance, whether that be AVX2/gpgpu compute/HSA etc.
So when purchasing the APU you are going to buy that product based on the apps you would be using, therefore reviews should show products in that best case scenario that a customer would use, reviewers should enable OR disable settings that give best performance to each competing uarch.
As long as the benchmark is using the same quality settings as what you are measuring is the performance difference at the same quality.
Any fanboi comparisons such as "who does the best async" "best AA" best AVX/HSA etc etc should be done either in a separate article or a subsection of the review that is treated in isolation and is not part of the final conclusion, similar to power consumption.