Well, to me and many others I know not into the left brain side of art and photography it comes across as mental masturbation and incredibly dull but hey, I'd never ask for everyone to be just like me so carryon.
For me, it's force of habit. I had a 40D but picked up a Nikon D90 after seeing its much higher DXOMark score. Both shot beautiful images at base ISO, but I soon realized that the Nikon files were indeed more malleable. Plus, back then the Canon crop-sensor cameras really started falling apart as ISO went up. It wasn't so much increased noise as it was a loss of color fidelity. Higher ISO images--as low as 1600 on my D7--looked almost faded. The Nikon, by contrast, retained color integrity at much higher ISO values (e.g., D90 ISO 6400 was quite useable with a good dose of NR). There were things about Canon that I loved too much to switch--like the lenses for example--so I shot both for years.
However, today there is very little difference in DR and noise levels between brands. Hence, I no longer make buying decisions based on those characteristics (however, I guess I am still haunted by MP levels). Nonetheless, I always look forward to seeing Bill's analysis of a major camera release. To me, it's purely entertainment. Now I'm sitting back and waiting to see how the Nikon Z9 fares on these fronts. I have my popcorn ready.