This is a fairly easy, though hypothetical, numeric analysis. In your hypothetical scenario, the Moto X is faster at that task. A numerical analysis would indicate that in those 100,000 trials, for the times the 5 is faster, it gains a 44,000 second edge (55000 x 0.8 secs), and for the time that the X is faster, it gains a 48,000 sec. edge (40,000 x 1.2 secs). The weighted average comes out in favor of the X.
If on another task the numbers were exactly reversed, you have the Nexus 5 being faster for THAT task. But unless those are the only two tasks the devices perform, you cannot make a judgment on which one is an objectively faster device. If those were the only two tasks the devices performed, you would still need the absolute times for both, and not just the deltas. A 0.8 second delta for a 1 second task will have a MUCH bigger impact on the final analysis than a 0.8 second delta for a 20 second task.
THIS, by the way, is why we have benchmark tests. There seems to be a rush to defend Jerry despite his own video showing the Nexus 4 faster at a given task, and discounting it as just one thing. But the video doesn't exist in vacuum; rather it confirms the results of the benchmark tests. There's a contention that those shouldn't count either. I generally agree that benchmark tests in today's world are virtually meaningless to the end user. But, we are not debating user experience here. We're debating a technicality - namely, which device is technically faster. Every piece of objective testing out there shows that to be the Nexus 5, and I have seen exactly no objective testing showing that to be the case for the Moto X. That doesn't mean Moto X isn't a great performer. It just means it's not technically faster.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram