Sure, the top ten may be using highly advanced cooling.

And the fact that's possible should've already proven that Apple's decided on trade-offs that did not enable bleeding Edge performance, hence not going to top benchmarks.

But aside from that amount of transfer ability you should've been able to manage, you're ignoring that apple silicone is still being beat on all performance benchmarks even with stock settings.

Apple chose a performance profile for their chips, and it's not "highest performance while sacrificing cooling and energy usage". Others did. And apple did well not chasing benchmarks, as that'd be the epitome of idiocity for their target market. They're not targeting high performance servers with massive cooling setups. They're targeting mobile workstation and entertainment devices.

They do not have any need for bleeding Edge performance trade-offs. They need power efficiency and enough performance to feel snappy on all workloads people will run on these devices - which isn't benchmarks. because none of their users _need_ highly sustained processing power. its just not something they'd ever target.

and im not even adressing the fact that geekbench is notorius for being absolutely shit at showing actual processing power.