Having data bars like in excel[1] solves this issue. The ability to easily visualize any difference is a nice bonus as well. For instance 2.16 MB/s vs 2.55 MB/s is statistically significant, but it's probably not something that you'll notice in regular use unless you have a stopwatch. However 2.65 MB/s vs 4.49 MB/s is easily noticeable.

[1] https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/use-data-bars-col...

Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure if just leaving them as is and letting the reader decide how they want to interpret/read the results would be better? I'm doing these mainly out of my own curiosity in my endless free time at the moment and I'm new to creating content like this so I'm open to feedback!

My thought too. Appreciate the authors effort; but given how tight all the numbers are along with the 5 tests, if I were the experimenter I'd feel like this was a big waste of my time and inconclusive.

No need to worry, I often feel like what I'm doing is a waste of time. I do agree with what someone else said though as I feel like whilst the sequential reads and writes on most boards are largely the same, the random reads/writes are a little more varied and this may be what people are looking for. In either case, if a £5 card performs largely the same as a £15 card, I'd say it was worth doing for the money savings. Whether that £5 card will last as long as the £15 one is a different matter but hopefully with some of the other tests I'm doing, we'll find out!

Haha I know what you mean! It was just a nitpicky thing, I found this interesting nevertheless.

Not at all IMO. Concluding that they all perform about the same is informative in and of itself.

As a reader, I found this more interesting as an IO benchmark of various SBCs. While it may not have been the first benchmark of its kind, I don't really seek out that information, so this was interesting to me at least.