lennaert You know, i'm not really sure i get your point.
1.) I'm not making anyone download / learn CC, they just have to download the pre-made binaries and run them, then compare the results in the spreadsheet.
2.) Also, it's older, but nowhere near obsolete. Sure, it has bugs, but it is still ahead of C2 because it's built to work specifically in Windows with DirectX 9.0 and as such it has all sorts of useful features (good luck with file manipulation within the mess that is C2 (in this regard, at least) - cross platform compatibility has its drawbacks), and also has much better hardware support (none of that WebGL stuff, just the old pixel shader 2.0 requirement).
3.) It's a benchmark and it's made for a very specific purpose - testing the rendering performance of sprites and the process of transforming them in various ways. It's made using the most basic features in CC/C2, no behaviours or plugins are used to make sure that just the developers' work is being compared. I'm not sure how else you would make a sprite rotate or rescale, mainly because there's only one way for each of those actions, so i don't really have the slightest idea what you are going on about there.
4.) Flawed programming approach? Oh, you mean Java with its terrible performance issues <font size="2">(burn)</font>? I don't see how CC is flawed in any way, apart from the fact that there are unresolved bugs in the editor (C2 has plenty of those too) and that C2 is being updated and CC isn't (not that it couldn't, it's open source) - that doesn't make it flawed in my view, at least.
5.) You didn't read the post, did you? I said rendering test. I'm not porting an entire game, especially if the reception is this bad.
Either way, i guess i'll just let the post die, seeing as there is no interest in it - just the next time someone claims that C2 is faster than CC (unless it's proven by a trusted source, e.g. the developers) or vice versa, just link them here...