Yes, it is quite obvious by now that there is not an honest attempt to build a conclusion from data but rather seeking data to support a preconceived conclusion where any evidence to the contrary will be ignored.First defending GB as a good indicator of overall CPU performance (which imho is fair game), then pushing for lack of reliability of the benchmark when it comes to even multiple "random" server class entries.
So, just to make it clear - GB5 is a good tool for estimating server CPU performance but only as long as the result comes from a reputable source, unless the CPU is unreleased in which case an anonymous forum used called Richie Rich is to be considered reputable source. Scientific criteria on one side, personal preference on the other.
FYI - the OP refused x86 server class GB5 results not based on reliability, but rather based on lower clocks used by most x86 server CPUs combined with the arbitrary rule of having only 1 entry per architecture.
It's not the app's fault, think about what reducing clocks does to a computer with respect to CPU / memory subsystem relation. We're not comparing absolute performance or at least some proper relative indicator such as perf/watt (which would also put Apple cores first, mind you), it's an artificial comparison of PPC that heavily favors doing the work slowly so that the memory subsystem can keep up.
The reason for the PPC ranking is Apple and ARM products have traditionally been mobile oriented, and the main argument brought against them as server/desktop replacements in the forums was scaling (frequency, core count, interconnect). So therefore, perf/watt while being stunning for Apple at least, was not enough to lead imagination to new heights. Instead of waiting for more actual server/desktop silicon from Nuvia/Apple and other entitites, the OP created his own narrative in which revolutionary high performance ARM cores are always imminent, always at the next corner, and to support this scenario he chose to rely on PPC. This is also the reason we started seeing Nuvia and Apple future product estimates, an uncontrollable desire to make predictions happen.
You can witness his cognitive dissonance at work in the Apple A14 thread where even the remote possibility of A14 providing a generational leap in performance based mostly on higher clocks got him instantly tilted: first he rejected the GB results because of the clocks (he had no issue with the score), then quickly moved back to fantasy land with the wider A15 16c beast and the A19 12XALU juggernaut. If the present doesn't fit expectations, move to the future.
FYI, Thala was already presented with this information early this year.