The key detail I note is:
the same binary run, or the same source run with best avaliable compiler in each cases not 'tendentious' tweaks - something fair - is there something like that?
So comparing an identical executable...
On the one hand you have a 25MHz 386. Released in 1985, common in 1986. No floating point. No sound card. No concurrency. No SIMD. 16kB cache, 2MB total memory was normal.
On the other hand you have a 2.5GHz, 8 CPU cores. New releases every month. Automatic concurrency through an OOO core, automatically vectorizing and parallelizing compilers. 8MB on-die cache.
Any kind of trivial benchmark is going to see a 1000 times improvement just because of the nature of the chips, probably 10,000x because the internal design of the x86 processor has been completely replaced.
But then again, the work we do today is also thousands of times more complex.
The "thumbnail" quality images on this site, including the little 'partners' logo at the bottom of the page, are larger and more detailed than you would find almost anywhere in 1986; perhaps there were corporate logos that companies would embed in their apps, but most customers would have complained because of the size. Today we think nothing of a 1MB advertisement, but back then such an image would require a "large" floppy disk (people often bought the cheaper 720KB disks). We routinely handle files that would not physically fit on a computer from that era. The maximum size of a HDD partition back in 1986 was 32 megabytes; you could send an entire HDD from that era as an email attachment, and perhaps as an afterthought wonder if the other person's ISP might reject it due to size constraints. A single 5-minute high quality audio file that you use for background music today quite likely you could not physically fit on a single PC from 1986.
If you are going to make era-to-era comparisons, do it completely. A high-end expensive monitor had 640x350 resolution with an amazing 16-color ADJUSTABLE palette. You could pick any of 64 colors to fill the 16 color slots. That was a splurge, most people of the era had text mode of 80x25 with 16 color text, or graphics mode of 320x200, four color palette. (To be fair you could choose your palette. Magenta+Cyan+White+Custom, or Green+Red+Yellow/Brown+Custom. LOTS of choices) Disk drives were small, and most install disks were shipped on 320kB floppies or 360kB floppies, depending on which kind of floppies were used. If you had a modem you could get 1200 bps usually, 2400 on nice equipment. Yes, that is about 100 characters per second. That kind of computer cost around $3,000 in 1986, adjusted for inflation Google says that is about $6000 in today's money. Not cheap.
So considering that personal computing has fundamentally changed many times over the years, what possible use would such a benchmark give? I've read old reports where people make broad claims about what we 'should' be seeing because they compare how programs like Windows 386 perform on more current hardware, only to watch them explode in a fireball when people point out the comparison is useless. Would you expose that computers are 10,000x faster today and also that they do 10,000x more work?