Trycage, thanks a lot for posting the list of benchmarks, and for updating them as new boards appeared.
To avoid transcription errors on my part, I grabbed the table as-is and parsed it with Python. I've normalized the figures relative to the STM32, then took the mean of the normalized figures for each device and plotted them.
It seems that the way that the MIPS & MFLOPS were calculated from the timings was the same for the STM32, Arduino Nano & Due, Teensy LC/3.2/3.2@120MHz, and ESP8266. The timings for the Arduino Zero seem overlong although its MIPS & MFLOPS look OK. A roughly doubled way of calculating the MIPS and MFLOPS from the timings seems to be the case for the Teensy 3.5/3.6/40 and Dragonfly.
I guess that this comes from getting the timings from different people, and possibly different versions of the benchmark, although it would be nice to figure out where this difference is coming from.
Larger image: https://i.imgur.com/PlJjQ72.png
