As a suggestion, I think there should be two tables: the main one for stock systems and one for overclocked systems. The point is that what is really interesting in such a test is the performance of systems at stock speed, that everyone can buy, and not overclocked ones. The vast majority of Maxwell users will never overclock their computer; it's also not that easy to do well. That is particularly true of Xeon systems since it requires specific boards and BIOS (eVGA comes to mind). I predict the Benchwell table will be quickly polluted by overclocking entries simply because some people build an overclocked system for bragging rights and will enter any public benchmark just to show off - Cinebench, Frybench, 3DMark, PCMark etc. you name it. It's human nature, but not that useful
I believe it would be more useful to have a table where only one entry per processor at stock speed is allowed (or better, an average value of the entries). There is enough CPUs on the market to have a big, meaningful table that people can quickly refer to before buying their hardware without having to browse through dozens of overclocked results which are not that interesting (and you can bet some won't have any 'info' attached so that will confuse things even more). One must also be aware of the fact that many overclocked machines are pushed to the limit just to get a good result on a quick benchmark, but would not run a 24 hours Maxwell Render at 100% CPU usage reliably... I assume people want their render to finish
Now don't think I hate overclocking, I did a fair share of that myself and it's quite interesting, but I believe overclocked results should be in a another table to avoid confusion and improve readability.