Is there a correlation between the machine specific ratings and published Benchmarks

[CharlieSmall]

Pardon the rookie question but I couldn't find a FAQ through searching. I have run 3 existing machines that run the gamut of equipment and am trying to evaluate purchasing a new machine. The specific machine performance test scores show up as 515, 1514 and 1803 while the published CPU Benchmarks are 1752, 8271 and 2173 respectively. None of the machines are particularly configured for gaming or graphics intensive applications. None of them have any high-end graphics cards. The processors are mostly differentiated by age and cores and were purchased for internet surfing and spreadsheet/word processor applications. Hard drives are typical 250GB to 500GB SATA and are less than 40% full. Ram ranges from 4GB to 8GB.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[David (PassMark)]

The numbers seem vastly different (1514 vs 8271).

So I suspect you are not comparing the right numbers.

Maybe you are comparing the overall PassMark rating (for the whole machine) to the CPUMark figure (which is just for the CPU)?

[CharlieSmall]

That is exactly what I am doing. I guess I am just amazed at the degradation of potential (CPU Benchmark 8271) to actual machine (Passmark = 1514) when the performance shortfall is not observable...the only parameter noted as deficient is the graphics performance.

The evaluation software is apparently doing exactly what it should. The results were so unexpected that I was concerned that something else was going on. I really needed to hear your answer before I proceeded.

Thank you for that.