That's exactly why there is no substitute for SPCR doing it. The results would be reliable... and also comparable to the rest of the test.
To extrapolate slightly, I just tried googling for some reviews of the "i3-2100" to compare the same benchmarks from different reviewers, I hope that you have better luck than me, I found that there is very little in way of comparisons between differet reviewers in what programs they use at what settings, and the system setups. Basically a meaningful comparison cannot be made, the only points of interest that anyone should come away with from comparing reviews is the overall performance, or specific benchmarks that are of interest to them.
I outright skip any numbers that show X beating Y if I never use that program - it is meaningless, and likewise I alsways skip anything like SiSoft SANDRA, as it rarely has any meaningful bearing on who wins what, its just a bunch of numbers.
Here is what I looked at and what I skipped in the Anandtech review of the i3-2100.
Sysmark 2007 - looked at.
Photoshop - skipped.
6x media encoding tests - skipped.
5x 3D Rendering tests - skipped.
PAR2 decompression - skipped.
7-ZIP benchmark - looked at.
7-ZIP compression - looked at.
7-ZIP decompression - WTF is this test, I want to look at it, I decompress 1,000 times as much as I compress.
Visual Studio - skipped.
Sorenson Squeeze - skipped.
Excel - skipped, not because I dont use it, but because no-one cares about a second here or there, I waste more time looking out of the window.
Game tests - all looked at bar WoW.
Power consumption looked at for a reference to how much cooling is needed and therefore how easy a CPU is to keep quiet.
As you can see the vast majority of testing done by Anandtech is worthless to me, and likewise to the average user, most people would be happier to save themselves some cash rather than to say "my system loads web pages 1-ms faster than yours does". The system power draw is more important in many respects, however when you look at how many years of lower electricity bills it will take to be equal to the extra money spent on the less power hungry system you will often find that it is a false economy.
Finally on the point of the gaming tests, what kind of moron would seriously spend that kind of money on that CPU, and then pair it with graphics cards that are that expensive and then run all of the tests at average resolutions. Its simply not realistic at all. I understand whay they do that, but no-one will actually do that with their system at home, people will pick a far more ballanced solution in reality - I hope.
I would finally like to draw your attention to SPCR's final score.http://www.silentpcreview.com/article1179-page6.html
Note that the i3-2100 has only just beaten an old slow CPU that currently costs $66 less than the AMD CPU reviewed, or $77 les than the i3-2100, not to mention the board cost difference.! On that merit, one of the cheap X4's would likely do very well also, and so I suspect would the E-350 if it was added to that graph, even though it would come dead last in many of the performance tests.