The difference is that when you test something (CPUs in that review) you test it in order to see what you going to get from it. So you evaluate the performance in the tasks you are interested to purchase the CPUs for.
If you test the CPUs in Cinebench you know that in that application you will get 10-20% or higher performance. If you test the CPUs in Excel you know how much faster CPU A will complete the task you are interested for over CPU B.
But, if you test the CPU in games at 640x480 you are testing in a scenario that NOBODY will ever use. That is a worthless test, its like testing a GPU like TITAN XP at the same low resolution of 640x480 (or testing low-end GPUs at 4K), completely worthless because nobody will ever use that resolution to play games with a TITAN XP card. Not to mention that many Gaming Image Quality features are CPU bound as well, so testing the game at low IQ settings and at low resolutions becomes completely irrelevant for a Gamer. And when you review a CPU and testing it in Games, your audience are the Gamers, and your job is to inform them how that CPU will increase their performance in Games at the resolutions and IQ settings they going to play the game. Othewise there is no point in testing a CPU in a scenario that will help nobody.
That is why we test real applications and not just Int/FP throughput tests.
Example,
Take the [H] Review that shows Gaming performance increase by up to 20% over SandyBridge. Then you have a Core i7 2600K @ 4.5GHz user and asks if upgrading to Core i 7 7700K at 4.5GHz will increase its fps performance in games at 1080p. Now tell me which review are you going to use to help him and others understand what they will gain going from 2600K @ 4.5GHz to 7700K @ 4.5GHz ?? The one that benchmarked at 1080p or the one at 480p ??