Phoronix is terrible in terms of clickbait and deliberate ragebait, and its comment section is a toxic cesspool, but its benchmarks generally seem sound. What issues have you observed with their benchmark suite?
Given the username of the account you're replying to, and the implausibility of a Phoronix reader being unaware of Tom's Hardware, I think you may have been baited by a troll.
> sudo-rs Breaks Historical Norms With Now Enabling Password Feedback By Default
"Let's tell you exactly how to feel about this, commenters"
> Linux 7.0 Officially Concluding The Rust Experiment
"...by declaring it successful, but if we said that in the headline it wouldn't be clickbait"
(In fairness, LWN did this too, but by accident rather than to provoke clicks.)
> GNOME Mutter Now "Completely Drops The Whole X11 Backend"
> systemd 260 Dropping System V Service Script Support
"And has dozens of other features and improvements, but let's cherry-pick the one we want you to yell about in our comments section."
> The Linux Kernel Looks To 'Bite The Bullet' In Enabling Microsoft C Extensions
"Oh no, look at the poor kernel developers reluctantly dealing with Microsoft extensions...that they deliberately sought out and used because they prefer them over standard C, not being forced by any external factor."
They know their comments section, they know what gets them posting, and they optimize for provoking comment.
Where the definition of 'benchmarks' is actually slapping an OS, then proceeding to run the so called Phoronix Test Suite promptly followed by an apples to oranges comparison...
My favourites were the comparisons of FreeBSD and Linux coming to the conclusion that FreeBSD is slower. Until you look under the hood and see that both are tested in a configuration with a desktop environment.
Or the good old ZFS tests that were coming up with nonsensical results because of gross misconfiguration and/or total lack of understanding how the FS works...
But hey, the click/ragebait is on point in both these cases!
