[edit: with further testing, I believe my estimates here are too low]
It looks like you’re 2.5x a moderate DDR4 CPU. On an equipment cost basis, you’re about 2x less costly than used desktops. I think it is fair to say you are 3x CPUs, like Ampy said. [edit: Ampy also said he hope to get higher, last we heard] On an electrical expense basis, you’re probably 2x more costly.
Your big box Xeon will not drop off like that on testnet. In a previous thread z7 feeds we got the info on a 64 core Xeon setup. Despite the DDR4, the 2.3 GHz CPU made him nearly as slow as my 2010 desktops on a per core basis. When he went on testnet, he got exactly the number of blocks expected if the 64x cores scaled linear. I’m not sure how many memory buses it was.
The following rule has not yet been broken:
blocks gained = CPU speed x RAM bandwidth x cores
[edit: with further testing, I believe “x cores” here is too high, in partial agreement with Tim Olson.]
The GPUs will face the same problem. If you go only for RAM, it’s going to cost you in core speeds. It’s not going to be as efficient electricity wise.
Make sure nothing else is running on the laptop. I would not trust the multithread benchmark.
Actually, 0.06 H/s seems a little too fast for that 2.5 GHz Xeon. I do not think it is faster than 0.05 H/s and 0.03 H/s might be correct.