I'm not sure we are in agreement. However, my point was that PassMark depends more on things like CPUs so you can't say person X has 900 score with the same HDD i have, so my HDD is not performing like it should. Basically the scores do not mean anything unless you compare them with the exact same setup except one thing changed (such as different HDD). ......
No, I agree, all I'm saying is that tests like HDTach, HDTune, Crystal (and similar) are
not as accurate as the others I mentioned on telling you how a HD will act as your Windows OS drive.
My opinion is that benchmarks are only useful if you can explain exactly what the number you get means.
And PCMark, WinBench & similar do that.
it doesn't answer the question how the HDD would perform for you in your situation.
Of course it does.

If you run them on your own PC.
If you insist on 'real world tests' then do tests with a stopwatch instead, such as extracting a file with many small files inside it.
That's exactly what FCTest does. I also do that myself. (I have unchanged test folders consisting of dozens of files types, and drag and copy them several times, I zip them, double zip them, unzip, also do the same with rar, etc., etc., and time the results). And what I'm saying is that HD's that do better on those types of aforementioned tests
also do better on PCMark & WinBench. Where as HD's that may do better on HDTune, HDTach and similar do not do well on PCMark and WinBench. That's because those two (and similar)
are better at showing you which HD will be faster with your own typical Windows use.
Throughput tests are nice to look at, nice to know, and I do indeed use them,
however they are not and should never be the tell-all for deciding which HD you use as your OS drive. For that,
more credence and precedence is place on the results for those like PCMark & WinBench.
I agree you can't compare results at some website with your own, but it's all one can do, it is at least
a starting point to indicate a general figure that you should see with the same HD tested.
What I do, is get some of the fastest HD's of the day and proceed to test them.
Generally you can conclude that while a testing website's numbers
may not be the same that you will see, their fastest HD's
will also generally be the fastest HD's on your own setup. In other words, if you get one of the HD's at the bottom of their lists,
it's probably also going to be slow on your own PC. If you get one of the HD's at the top of their lists,
it's probably also going to be fast on your own PC.
I've been testing HD's for a long time, and I have seen some oddball (high) results on HDTach, HDTune, and similar, (and older SANDRA versions),
and those particular HD's may do poorly on more realistic tests such as WinBench, PCMark, et al. Yet when it comes to testing those HD's with FCTest, and my own timed tests I described above,
those HD's that do well on the more accurate tests (WinBench, PCMark, et al), also excel at the FCTest and timed tests.
Therefore, if one has X number of HD's at their disposal and cannot make a decision on which to use as their OS drive, they should turn to tests such as PCMark, WinBench, FCTest, etc. On the other hand, if they want a
storage HD onto which to write/read/edit large A/V files for example, in that case then something like HDTune, HDTach may be a more accurate representation (and the timed tests
with large archived single files such as .zip, .rar, .avi, .wmv, .exe, etc.), than those results of PCMark & WinBench.